I love the news reader saying, 'seems to be advocating the death penalty for homosexuality.' ' Seems to be implies' that this isn't known for certain. Uh, saying that homosexuals should be stoned to death doesn't really him a whole lot of wiggle room. What part of 'stoned to death' doesn't mean dead? Or is this media's continuing quest to be fair and balanced to nutjobs?
" It's like saying that "they say this is Wednesday" or "they say food is good for your health." 20 years ago or so when a black Southern California law enforcement officer went out to find if was true what he had been hearing that in a little sea side town the local cops were singling out dark skinned people for harassment, so he went in plain clothes off duty and strolled around after hours - and he was filmed by his partner being thrown into a plate glass window - filmed mind you - and the newscaster showed the film on TV and then said "was allegedly pushed through a plate glass window" - this is willful semantic perversion of reality." - jim page
And also the freak himself "that goes against SOME parts of libertarianism". Yeah, only "some". There are plenty of libertarian "parts" that are cool with death by stoning and biblical law.
I have said to my family that I could be a republican if only they didn't make it so damn difficult and shameful. I can get behind lower taxes and less government involvement, but why does that have to go hand in hand with anti-gay, anti-women, and overzealous bible-thumping?
To me, "government out of stuff" should also extend to my pants. You know what I mean? Sigh. I don't get it.
The Cousins' War (http://www.amazon.com/The-Cousins-Wars-Religion-Anglo-America/dp/0465013708) is a great read, and it explains that in enormous detail. Not everyone agrees with the thesis elaborated in the book, but I think it's spot on.
They aren't ALWAYS, but the correlation is strong.
Partly it started in the 60's, as the deeply religious south shifted from the Democratic to the Republican party because of the Civil Rights movement. That kind of got the ball going I think.... But the recent history that has had the most to do with this in my opinion, centers around Francis Schaeffer, an evangelical theologian, who consciously decided that American Religious Conservatives were too a-political, and so went looking for a cause which would inspire religious conservatives to get involved in politics, and express their cultural power. He was smart enough to realize that to do so effectively they would have to make major inroads in one of the two political parties, so as to allow for real, long term, political change in a direction acceptable to religious conservatives.
In the late 70's he chose as the cause, Abortion, and as the party, the Republicans.
Mainstream republicans get something out of the bargain, in that they can stump about something besides protecting business... lets face it, protecting business is often an unpalatable position to have to defend to the electorate. Pro-business economic policies were there to convince the elite, and social conservative bible thumping was there to appeal to blue collar voters if and when repeating "jobs!" over and over lost its luster. ( In this, I see a real parallel between the present Republican party and the Wahhabist movements in Saudi Arabia. The latter's inception was about maintaining the power of the house of Saud, to drown out notice of political corruption with calls for religious purity.)
Meanwhile, religious conservatives got access to a party political infrastructure that their previously a-political stance made alien to them.
In a way it seems natural that after such a merging, people would try to strengthen that synthesis with ideas like Prosperity Gospel and the like. But ultimately, there's just something so internally contradictory about a party that embraces both Ayn Rand and Jesus Christ in such a non-self conscious, non-ironic way. Some people feel that social conservatives and economic conservatives are natural fellow travelers, but it always seemed like a devil's deal to me.
What's funny (and by that I mean bad for the GOP) is that the Tea Party still thinks this is some sort of amazing game-changer sent from on high by the Lord Himself, when in reality nothing is going to change by replacing one guy that your opposition hates with another guy they'll probably hate even more.
It's bait and switch. The GOP has been playing the same game with the socially conservative members of their party since Reagan and they still haven't caught on. It's not going to change a damn thing.
The democrats started playing the same bait and switch with fiscal liberals during the Clinton administration. At least some of them are catching on.
no subject
Date: 2014-06-12 08:03 pm (UTC)becoming a truer and truer form of whatever it is
they are.
no subject
Date: 2014-06-12 08:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-12 08:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-12 08:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-12 08:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-12 09:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-12 09:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-12 09:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-12 10:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-12 11:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-12 11:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-13 01:10 am (UTC)/Footloose
no subject
Date: 2014-06-12 10:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-12 11:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-12 11:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-13 01:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-13 01:27 am (UTC)and are leaving it for us to decide.
no subject
Date: 2014-06-12 10:54 pm (UTC)Why is that in US anti-socialists are also such religious conservatives?
no subject
Date: 2014-06-12 10:59 pm (UTC)I have said to my family that I could be a republican if only they didn't make it so damn difficult and shameful. I can get behind lower taxes and less government involvement, but why does that have to go hand in hand with anti-gay, anti-women, and overzealous bible-thumping?
To me, "government out of stuff" should also extend to my pants. You know what I mean? Sigh. I don't get it.
no subject
Date: 2014-06-12 11:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-13 12:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-13 01:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-13 01:26 am (UTC)Partly it started in the 60's, as the deeply religious south shifted from the Democratic to the Republican party because of the Civil Rights movement. That kind of got the ball going I think.... But the recent history that has had the most to do with this in my opinion, centers around Francis Schaeffer, an evangelical theologian, who consciously decided that American Religious Conservatives were too a-political, and so went looking for a cause which would inspire religious conservatives to get involved in politics, and express their cultural power. He was smart enough to realize that to do so effectively they would have to make major inroads in one of the two political parties, so as to allow for real, long term, political change in a direction acceptable to religious conservatives.
In the late 70's he chose as the cause, Abortion, and as the party, the Republicans.
Mainstream republicans get something out of the bargain, in that they can stump about something besides protecting business... lets face it, protecting business is often an unpalatable position to have to defend to the electorate. Pro-business economic policies were there to convince the elite, and social conservative bible thumping was there to appeal to blue collar voters if and when repeating "jobs!" over and over lost its luster. ( In this, I see a real parallel between the present Republican party and the Wahhabist movements in Saudi Arabia. The latter's inception was about maintaining the power of the house of Saud, to drown out notice of political corruption with calls for religious purity.)
Meanwhile, religious conservatives got access to a party political infrastructure that their previously a-political stance made alien to them.
In a way it seems natural that after such a merging, people would try to strengthen that synthesis with ideas like Prosperity Gospel and the like. But ultimately, there's just something so internally contradictory about a party that embraces both Ayn Rand and Jesus Christ in such a non-self conscious, non-ironic way. Some people feel that social conservatives and economic conservatives are natural fellow travelers, but it always seemed like a devil's deal to me.
no subject
Date: 2014-06-13 02:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-13 02:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-13 03:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-14 01:49 pm (UTC)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/11/david-brat-hitler_n_5485103.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/11/david-brat-hitler_n_5485103.html)
no subject
Date: 2014-06-14 02:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-15 04:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-16 01:42 am (UTC)The democrats started playing the same bait and switch with fiscal liberals during the Clinton administration. At least some of them are catching on.
no subject
Date: 2014-06-13 03:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-06-13 02:19 pm (UTC)Edit: Stupid video start. The relevant line starts at 45 seconds.
no subject
Date: 2014-06-13 03:29 pm (UTC)I would say he should get the government he deserves, but I have to deal with it too.
no subject
Date: 2014-06-13 03:47 pm (UTC)