General Question

jazmina88's avatar

Is it more spiritual to be Republican or Democrat?

Asked by jazmina88 (11600 points ) September 5th, 2012

I dont want to be offensive to anyone, but I see Jesus as someone who helps the neighbor and looks out for the welfare of all. The Republicans seem to be the tax collectors and royalty force. Which is a more noble force, to live to give to others, or to make sure your basket is full and not allow basic female rights?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

77 Answers

Coloma's avatar

I think it is more “spiritual” to be apolitical. “Spiritual” people KNOW none of this worldly ego stuff matters. They may have preferences for what changes they wish to see transpire but they are not attached to any particular party in pitting themselves against the “other.” Separation is the antithesis of “spiritual.” Dividing entire groups of humans into good/bad, right/wrong polarities and making harsh judgments about them is about as far from ” spiritual” as it gets.

Sunny2's avatar

Even without the religious reference, I decided that’s the basic difference between the two parties. The point of view from which one views a community varies. Do you see self sufficiency, or communal effort, as being more important? In early communities, I’m sure you found the same types of people. The village idiot and the cripple were cared for by those of one group and ignored by the other. To give some credit, when the self sufficient group had enough for there to be extra, they did help others to be self sufficient too.

majorrich's avatar

Now that the Democrats have removed all references to God from their platform, I guess Republican would be the more spiritual of the two. Moving Democrats closer to a Communist platform.

SavoirFaire's avatar

Is it more passionate to be a pillow or a shirt pocket? Neither. The question does not make sense, and nor—in my opinion—does your own question. Republican versus Democrat is a political decision, not a spiritual one. To ask the question, then, commits a category mistake.

Jesus, as it so happens, agrees with me: “Render therefore to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s” (Matthew 22:21). This is not to say that no political position is more in line with the Christian religion than any other, but parties espouse political philosophies, and philosophies are just as much about reasons as they are about conclusions.

Political parties endorse policies for political reasons, not for spiritual ones. As such, party membership itself is not a spiritual matter—even if support for some policies might be.

josie's avatar

Two separate issues.

Jesus suggested that charity might get you into Heaven, and so would be considered a good choice.

Nobody in government thinks it should be a choice. They all think you should be forced.

And nobody is pointing out that if you are forced to be charitable, it isn’t charity at all. It is a form of slavery.

Anyway, I don’t think either party could be described as Spiritual. Some individual politicians might be, but a political “Party” is not a being, and thus can not be spiritual.

wundayatta's avatar

I think Democrats are more concerned with helping each other out. Republicans believe in helping by forcing people to be on their own, as far as government is concerned. If there is charity, it must be private.

Republicans do give more to charity, but Democrats are more supportive of government programs. I guess there is a legitimate argument about which way is more effective to help others, but I agree with Democrats.

For me, building connections between people and understanding that we are all in the same boat, is a spiritual exercise. I’m not sure Republicans see us as being in the same boat. Or if we are in the same boat, they think that we shouldn’t help others bail, because that will discourage others from learning to do their own bailing.

Republicans don’t like “hand-outs” because they think people will take advantage of them and never do anything to help themselves. Democrats see building programs to help others get on their feet as an important part of government. Republicans say government can’t do anything right, so you have to leave help to the private sector if you want to be effective.

So I agree with Democrats. I think we need public programs and I am fine with being taxed to run these programs. I think these programs are best done in a fair way, and only government can reach out to all people who need help in this country. It simply can’t be done privately. I am happy paying taxes because I want everyone to contribute to helping others. I may not give as much charity because I see private charity as a person and selfish thing. I help the groups I, personally, support.

So helping others, and doing is systematically is about building connections between people and helping them prosper. It is a spiritual activity. Private charity is a selfish activity, and is not so spiritual. So for me, the Democrats are much more spiritual.

syz's avatar

It seems to me as if the Democratic platform is inclusionary (love who you want, everyone should have affordable health care, don’t export young people for the “crime” of being brought to this country as infants and children, women have the freedom to make choices about their own health), whereas the Republican platform is exclusionary (we hate gays, we hate immigrants, we hate poor people, we hate women who don’t believe what we do, and even sometimes ‘we hate educated people’).

That’s a gross oversimplification (with bias), of course, but it should be hard for anyone to argue that the Republican platform espouses anything that is generally recognized as “spiritual”.

bkcunningham's avatar

Even though it is an absolutely ridiculous question, you are correct @majorrich. Where do you people come up with some of these things?

marinelife's avatar

The political parties are not spiritual. There are good and bad people in them just as there are spiritual people in each.

deni's avatar

I like what @Coloma said, and for me spirituality goes hand in hand with science: seeing things on a bigger scale, all these monetary things don’t matter, stop trying to control other people, etc. Republicans don’t seem to understand a lot of science from what I see. (The human body has ways to shut that whole thing down.)

phaedryx's avatar

“Is it more spiritual to be Republican or Democrat?”

I guess it depends on your definition of spiritual, but I don’t think either party is particularly “spiritual”.

“I see Jesus as someone…”

That is something different that spirituality, now you’re talking Christianity. I don’t think either party has cornered the market on Christianity either.

“The Republicans seem to be the tax collectors and royalty force.”

Don’t really see what this has to do with spirituality; not sure what a “royalty force” is.

“Which is a more noble force, to live to give to others, or to make sure your basket is full and not allow basic female rights”

I’m not sure what a “noble force” is exactly. How does it relates to spirituality?

I guess the more noble force is “to live to give to others” instead of “not allowing basic female rights” but that’s a false dichotomy.

jazmina88's avatar

alot to absorb. Thanks Columa and the rest of you jellies.
royalty force – a sense of entitlement and power. being better than, or higher in quality in spirit

noble force – the drive to do the right thing in living your set of moraes…..being of solid integrity

gailcalled's avatar

The GOP official platform uses words like “God,” “church,” ” family values” and “Christianity.”

That has nothing to do with spirituality and everything to do with dogma and doctrine.

Nullo's avatar

My advice is to be a Christian first and let your politics follow. And to distinguish between party and constituents. Adam Sandler is a Republican, but I wouldn’t say that he’s particularly Christian.
@marinelife I’ve likewise noticed that Christianity takes more fire from the Left than from the right.

KNOWITALL's avatar

I’m not sure I agree with most of the posters here today because I definately base my political leanings on my religious and spiritual beliefs. Although I have some conflicts since I have to choose the party that has ‘more in common’ with my way of thinking rather than being a black and white decision. Some of us try to pray about our voting, our politicians decisions, etc…too.

zenvelo's avatar

“God” not mentioned in Democratic platform means they don’t worship God.

“Money” mentioned eleven times in Republican platform. A desperate love of money?

Jeruba's avatar

?!

 

 

 

 

<stunned silence>

LostInParadise's avatar

I know @SavoirFaire is not going to be happy with this approach, but I wonder if Republicans and Democrats have opposing views of spirituality. The Republicans embrace the view of Kant that acts are categorically right or wrong apart from their consequences. The Democrats are more inclined toward the Utilitarian view that the consequences are of greater importance. For example, Republicans would say that abortion is wrong on moral grounds without regard to the welfare of the mother or the likely future misery of the child, whereas Democrats consider both of these factors in their approval of abortion.

Paradox25's avatar

Spirituality is about helping and being in service to others. Spirituality has nothing to do with religious beliefs, or having a relationship with ‘Him’. Just because someone mentions god very often, or claim that they support him, this doesn’t mean that they’re any closer to God than the most sceptical nontheist. Many liberals who are believers prefer to leave religion out of politics, while many conservatives prefer to mix the two, and brag about their faith instead of actually trying to emanate the Way of Jesus.

I agree with conservatives on some points however when it comes to the dangers of sexual promiscuity, teens having sex, teaching abstinence, the importance of family and responsibilty. In fact I’m probably much more conservative on a personal level than my friends who lean much more to the right of me, and they tend to be extremely vocal about their conservatism. I’m not going to actually answer this question but end my post by saying that being vocal about one’s interpretation of God is not a spiritual quality.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Paradox – The definition most suited to this conversation imo is: 1. the state or quality of being dedicated to God, religion, or spiritual things or values, esp as contrasted with material or temporal ones

Your answer intrigues me because you say it has nothing to do with religious beliefs but the definition above would lead me to believe it actually does. Your thoughts?

Also interesting was your multiple points of agreement with us ‘evil’ conservatives, which are actually some of the most controversial.

@LostInParadise – I don’t agree with you on your assessment of Rep/ Dem beliefs. As a child who’s father wanted her aborted, I can ASSURE you that I am much happier alive than I am dead. To me that’s like saying, would you rather be poor or dead, or would you rather be raped every week or dead….not many people are going to say they’d rather be dead, life is beautiful even while not perfect.

ragingloli's avatar

Republican…Democrat…spiritual
Are you testing me, Satan?

cheebdragon's avatar

“Republicans seem to be the tax collectors”…have you even researched this at all? You may want to check into it…

gailcalled's avatar

Everyone in the legislature is entitled to his or her belief systems. However, when it comes time to figure out how to run even the littlest mini-government such as our local town council, I don’t want anyone asking “G*d,” however you choose to define him, for a solution to how to build roads, schools, hospitals, how to tax fairly, how to provide a decent medical support system for every person, or what size gravel to use to fill in the potholes on the dirt roads in my neighborhood. For that I want a civil engineer, at least as a consultant.

(What he does with his free time is his business, including his choice or not of a codified religion.)

Pandora's avatar

I agree with @josie
Parties have no idea what spirituality is, only how to manipulate those who are spiritual and get more funding to champion their cause. Some politicians may be slightly spiritual but I think its difficult to really balance the two and be fair to everyone, So it would be damn if you do and damn if you don’t. So if they are damned than I’m pretty sure they aren’t spiritual.
I would wish they would just try to stick to being empathetic to the people they are suppose to represent. and service us to the best of their ability to make our nation better. Not to simply try to pander to lobbyist.
Politicians are the ultimate actor, so its hard to say if any of them really do understand spirituality.

JLeslie's avatar

I don’t think the political parties have anything to do with spirituality. There are what I would call very spiritual people in both parties. Jesus, since the OP used him in the original Q, only refers to Christians, and certainly there are very spirtiual people in other religions, or some might not even identify with a specific religion. Religious and spiritual are not synonymous in my book.

I believe the different ways the parties and the people in the parties look at helping themselves and helping others are do not have to be mutually exclusive. Taking care of ourselves means we will be less burden on our families and society. Taking care of others helps that person and helps the society around us be better. It is very complex, it is not simple like the parties make it sound.

Republicans have some odd ways of doing some things when I sit back and observe, and a lot of it stems from Chrisianity and belief systems. They seem to want to pay lower wages, and then feel good about themselves by giving the working poor a helping hand through charity. I rather pay people so they are not poor to begin with. Then the worker themselves gets to feel good about their hard days work, rather than the person who gave charity. I do know republicans understand the pride of earning ones own way, but they don’t seem to play it out in their policies.

On my facebook yesterday a woman wrote, “republicans have morals.” Then she went on to say she, “doesn’t want to control anyone and she does not judge, people will be judged by God in the end.” How can someone be so clueless in how they come across? Of course she judges, and of course she votes for politicians who will limit people’s freedoms so they cnform to her belief system.

As far as Jesus and Christianity there are democrats and republicans who don’t follow the rules in the good book. I know plenty of republicans pregnant before married, divorced, have odd ways that they define honesty. Peopleare people. Good and bad in every group, whether a political group, religious group, ethnicity, etc.

gailcalled's avatar

If my local politicians want to demonstrate their spiritually to me, come on down and work on the Habitat for Humanity home building project.

Or become a Big Brother or Sister to a local student in need.

Or pick up the trash on your road.

Or volunteer at our Hospice.

El_Cadejo's avatar

Havent read the thread so this may have been said already.
Its more spiritual to just not align yourself with politics and all that bullshit altogether.

laureth's avatar

Haven’t read the past answers.

I don’t find much to be spiritual about in the current election season. The Republicans and Democrats are two private clubs (as opposed to arms of government, like many think they are) that vie for control of the country. They have some different planks in their platforms, which is what I’m guessing you want us to judge as spiritual or not.

While the Religious Right seems to think that they win at Spirituality because they bang God and the Bible at every opportunity, I don’t find anything spiritual about being told that I no longer have as much control over my reproduction as I’m used to, because they interpret their God as disliking my choices. Similarly, I don’t find religion itself (being a sort of control-over-the-masses system as it usually ends up) very spiritual for that matter.

What I do find spiritual, though, is the idea that we want to continue having life on this planet. It’s spiritual to me, to want to clean up the rivers and drag the trash out of the woods, and turn down the carbon a bit so that we can keep having woods and relatively reliable climate. I think it’s spiritual to treat the planet as if it matters, and that we want it to be livable generations from now. To me, this is more pro-life, more spiritual, than any angry shouting about personhood for fetuses and corporations, but not me or the planet.

So, if I were to vote spiritually (and yes I am, as much as possible), I’ll be voting for the platform that moves ever-so-incrementally in the direction I want to go, even if neither is a fully-realized proponent of what I think we absolutely need. It’s a vote for sustainable energy and better agriculture instead of spewing toxins for money and an angry shouting mob that claims to know the will of God that backs them up. My spirituality, ironically, is not “supernatural” (in the sense of being outside of this world), but way more OF this world than most: because Matter (the stuff from which we gain our sustenance, Mater, Madre, Mother, the dirt below and the sky above) is united with the truly spiritual, in my worldview. And if a political party runs on a platform that protects and cherishes and nurtures these, they speak to my spirituality.

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

I have only skimmed the thread. I’m quite amused that the OP assumes spirituality is concurrent with being Christian. That’s ridiculous. I’m with @Jeruba on this one.

ragingloli's avatar

@josie
It is no choice either way. If you do not pay taxes, you go to jail.
If you are not charitable in christianity, you go to hell.

Ocranium's avatar

I’m going to say both political parties are equally religious which ends up in the factor of bigotry. We all know this to be quite the factor in Demographs.

josie's avatar

@ragingloli Not really. There is no Hell. There is in fact jail.

rooeytoo's avatar

@marinelife answered this question simply, succinctly and in my opinion accurately. Lurve to you.

Paradox25's avatar

@KNOWITALL “Spirituality is about helping and being in service to others” I read about this quote from an alleged spiritual entity known as Silver Birch. This was also the only statement that I wrote without sarcasm (relating to the religious part of my post). I was being sarcastic with the rest, because while I believe in a god myself, I’m not a real Christian, at least according to many conservative Christians since I have many ‘New Age’ beliefs. My sarcasm was also motivated by the fact that Christianity is not the only belief system, religion or path to spirituality for many other people.

I’m not sure what you’re implying though. First off I wasn’t aware that there was a Mendoza Line which determined whether one is a conservative or a liberal. Why can’t I say I think sexual promiscuity is a negative thing which causes more problems for society than almost everything else, or that teens should not only be having sex, but not be encouraged to have it. I’m not too thrilled about supporting abortion rights either, but is it my place to tell a woman what to do with her body? Why can’t I say these things and still not call myself a liberal?

Look, I don’t agree with progressives on everything, and many on here already know this. I consider myself a liberal because I do think that it should be the responsibility of not only government, but society in general to look out for its weak and poor, and even my spiritual teachings say this. I also consider myself a liberal because I don’t feel that the government should intrude on the private business of others. If one wants to grow weed or smoke a joint after a long day of work than let them. There are many conservatives that this liberal is probably more conservative than, so when you say that it sounds like that much of what I’ve been saying seems in agreement with us evil conservatives I’m not sure what you mean. Both conservatives and liberals support government, taxes and authority, so like I’ve asked above what really is the Mendoza Line in determining whether one is a conservative or a liberal?

SavoirFaire's avatar

@LostInParadise It doesn’t seem to me that either party has an official view on spirituality, though individual members might. What you mention concerns particular moral views. Moreover, I think you are incorrect about from where Republicans and Democrats draw their doctrines. In general, any genuine political philosophy you can find in a political platform has been absorbed from papers and books that have been around long enough to stand up to criticism. Virtually all of the dominant political philosophy of the last 50 years—on the left and the right—has been Kantian, whereas the dominant views in economics have been more influenced by utilitarianism.

Rawls’ own Kantian political philosophy is definitively liberal, whereas Nozick uses Kantian notions to arrive at a form of libertarianism. Furthermore, utilitarian economics tends to be libertarian (and thus a bit closer to conservative ideals). As such, one might be tempted to say you have the picture reversed. I don’t think even that would be correct, however, as most individual candidates pick and choose their arguments in virtue of rhetorical force with little concern for theoretical consistency. Both Kantian and utilitarian thinking comes naturally to people (philosophically inclined or not), and so we are likely to see the two cobbled together in non-academic discourse.

Let us consider your own example of the abortion debate. There are plenty of people who argue that abortion must be kept legal on non-utilitarian grounds. Appeals to keeping the government out of private decisions and other arguments based on individual autonomy are examples of this. There are also those who argue that abortion should be illegal on utilitarian grounds. Appeals to the health benefits of carrying a pregnancy to term or to the ability to make some childless couple happy by allowing them to adopt an unwanted child are examples of this. Indeed, it seems to me that these debates are far more complicated than your glossing would suggest.

Nullo's avatar

It sounds like you’ve already made up your mind.

@josie @ragingloli Charity is a symptom of Christianity, not a cause.

gailcalled's avatar

@Nullo; How can charity be a symptom? That makes no sense linguistically.

Charity is a cornerstone of Judaism, also. The Hebrew word Tsedakah has a more complicated meaning.

“The gist of Tsedaka is charity, the giving of a piece of your time to help someone else, without expecting something in return. t is likely that the word came to mean alms, also in the vocabulary of our Sages, to express the voluntary redistribution of wealth, even in a small way. Acts of caring take many forms.” Source

This does not mean, however that I would want a “Tsadeek” (a righteous man) necessarily to be in charge of my property assessment or sinkhole repairs.

Nullo's avatar

@gailcalled I was using a different framework to underscore the cause/effect relationship between the two concepts. One is not a Christian because he is charitable, rather he is charitable because he is a Christian. Fear not, I understand that charity isn’t limited to Christianity, just that charity ought to be one of the signs of a person’s Christianity.

At the core of my statement is Ephesians 2:8–9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not by works, so that no one can boast.”

gailcalled's avatar

How about the uncharitable Christians? They exist, I am sure.

The citation from Ephesians is lovely but, again, is not related to the competence of the Town Supervisor when he balances the budget.

LostInParadise's avatar

@SavoirFaire , you make a good point. I did oversimplify things. In the end we all cobble together our morality from both Kantian and utilitarian perspectives. I do think, though, that the Republicans have a tendency to take a more inflexible absolutist approach to morality, pointing to their Bibles and reciting thou shalts and thou shalt nots. As an example, the ultimate argument in favor of the welfare state comes not from Rawls but from the Keynesian utilitarian view. Simply put, the system works. If you want to be able to sell your products then you better make sure that a sufficient number of people can afford to buy them.

tacres's avatar

I don’t know about Republican spiritualism but after the kerfuffle at the DNC last evening I would say it definately puts the Democrats, or at least the ⅓ %( ? ) who nayed the reinclusiion of putting God & Jerusalem back in the platform, out of the running for being spiritual.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Paradox I’m no expert on where the line is drawn but most conservatives in my area would say that abortion and SSM are pretty much issues that make you one party or the other. They are polarizing issues for the GOP. Thanks for the adult conversation!

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL I agree those are polarizing issues. I have said along those are the issues that count most to most people, especially abortion. I have also said before that liberals keep abortion safe for the right wingers. Pro-life people get abortions more often than one would think. 90% of pregnancies known to have significant genetic problems are aborted. If the country is fairly split on the issue of abortion, that means people who vote prolife abort. I personally know a few people who have done it. They may not be willing to abort a healthy/normal fetus, but when the fetus is not going to survive or will result in a very disabled child prolife people do abort more often than admitted to their friends and community. The fight to get rid of abortions limits access to those who do want to get one in extreme circumstances.

Someone I know, he and his wife had trouble getting pregnant and when they finally did the fetus wound up having basically no brain. She wanted the pregnancy terminated, so she could get pregnant. She wanted a baby. In Memphis you can’t get an abortion after 14 weeks (I don’t know if that is because of a law, or just the doctors here) and she had to travel 2.5 hours to get the two day procedure done in Little Rock, Arkansas. Kind of sucks that in her upset state she had to travel, because it was not available to her where she lives. Her very pro life Catholic family supported her, she was very fearful they would judge her. I’d bet money they would not talk about it with their friends in their religious community. Liberals know more people who have aborted because friends are not afraid to tell us when they did it. There is less secrecy.

Meanwhile, Romney was prochoice for the very reason of keeping abortion safe back in the day. So, I would think Republicans won’t be talking much about abortion and prolife issues to avoid digging up the old videos of him supporting legalized abortion. The GOP would do much better if they walked away from the fight to make abortion and gay marriage illegal. I think it is what hurts them most, and will more and more going forward.

Nullo's avatar

@gailcalled And so we come to the first non-doctrinal split: the Healthy Christians, and the Unhealthy Christians. See, salvation is easy simple, but is only the beginning. After that comes sanctification, a collaborative life-long process that matures a Christian. Not everybody takes to it very well, but there’s no rush. This is where a lot of Sunday Christians and Creasters come from. Check out the parable of the sower and the seeds for an idea of what I mean.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie I completely agree. Women are going to abort when they want because it is legal and has been legal since 1973. People are going to be gay if they are gay. So banging your head on a brick wall and losing voters for something that you really can’t change anyway seems ridiculous.

Honestly, after watching both conventions, they both disgust me in their pandering and lies. If I didn’t love my country and the sacrifices of our military, I wouldn’t even vote. The ticker tape on CNN last night showed that over $12 mill would be spent in the next 10 days for campaign ads…really? How many hungry children would that feed? How many people wouldn’t be foreclosed on? How many elderly people would be able to see a dr?

It’s sickening that America has come to this. As a matter of fact, I’m currently reading another book about the Civil War, a time when Americans took matters to a whole other level because the politicians were so corrupt.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL Do you feel democrats are less willing to listen to the other side and more polarizing than the republicans, or vice a versa, or equal?

I think many pro life people believe they can get the law changed, make abortion illegal, and can keep gay marriage from being the law of the land. I hear a lot of republicans say, “abortion will always be legal, I don’t understand why liberals get so upset,” but I just think they are trying to lull liberals into a stupor or something. The religious right wing chips away at abortion rights over and over again. Parental consent, waiting periods, ultrasounds, partial birth legislation, etc.

tacres's avatar

The problem with government is us. The people. We shirk our duties as members of society and hand the responsibilities over to others. Then we are so shocked & hurt when we are taken advantage of by politicians and their cronies.We blame the government for everything. When did the government become a separate entity from the people? We are the government.
It would be really helpful if we stopped fawning over them & treating them like demi-gods.
They are OUR employees and should be treated as such.
As far as some of the social issues society is the only group that will figure that out. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats have the right to dictate what goes on in peoples private lives. Take care of the country’s business, leave the rest of it alone. What I beleive won’t send you to hell & what you beleive won’t get me into heaven.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie I feel like both sides are very antagonistic towards the other, especially this week. Reps are money-hungry Obama haters. Dems are wanting to give everything to everyone in some fantasy utopia and Mitt is Satan.

As I’ve said before, many Reps, conservatives anyway, feel that abortion is wrong. That is something that most will never give up on, saving the lives of the unborn. To me it’s more of a religious standpoint rather than political, but because emotions run high on it, it now is a very strong movement and politically savvy on diving votes and parties. I’m surprised that no one addresses all the conservatives that think BHO is the Anti-Christ….lol

If I told you that abortion is murder and you agree for whatever reason, you are more likely to vote with me regardless of the other issues because of your passion for your religion and the sactity of life. Does that make sense?

Mariah's avatar

I hope not too many people are voting based on abortion stances alone…

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL Oh, it makes sense. As I said above I think abortion is a big dividing issue among the parties. I was referring to you comment about banging their head against the wall. I don’t think the hard core pro-life group feels they are banging their head against the wall, I think they continue to fight to make abortion illegal and they beieve they can prevent gay marriage from becoming legal, at least in their own state, if not at the federal level. Christians are not going to care if other religions have different beliefs of when life begins or whether being gay is ok, because one of the core things in the religion is they are the only right religion, the only path to God and heaven. I don’t mean all Christians think like this, I just mean in the strictest sense of the religion. Add in they are the majority in many communities in America, they don’t many times have the perspective of a minority religion, or being one of the many in a diverse country, because in their world, their day to day life, they don’t interact much with other people from other religions.

KNOWITALL's avatar

I agree with you on that, and I know plenty of people like that. One is in my own family and although I love him, we don’t talk. He’s one of the most hypocritical, judgemental people I have ever met.
He believes he is a perfect husband, father, Christian and conservative Republican, and he is a respected member of the community, in the paper quite often and is a leader in the Pro-Life movement.
One thing they have going for them is the gang mentality and the fervor of religious belief backing them, it works for them I guess. And yes, I’d agree their main purpose is overturning Roe Vs Wade….I can only imagine their glee if that were to happen.
I value life and personally don’t think I could have an abortion, but I still believe Choice is the only way to maintain our constitutional freedoms.
Even Britain wasn’t able to prevent abortion in the colonies. The desire to control everyone is abhorrent to me from either party.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@LostInParadise I will grant you that the Republicans have a tendency to take a more inflexible absolutist approach to morality. Does this make them Kantian? Kant was certainly more of an absolutist than either Bentham or Mill ever was, but he was also less of an absolutist than the average one-dimensional divine command theorist. Kant is often taught as claiming that there are categorical imperatives against specific actions—which is the sort of thing an absolutist would say—but the tests he proposes are actually for assessing maxims.

I’m also confused as to what you mean by “the ultimate argument for the welfare state.” Do you mean “the argument historically given by Democrats for the welfare state”? There are certainly some Democrats who make the Keynesian argument. Is this necessarily utilitarian, though? The way you put the argument suggests that opposing the welfare state would entail a performative contradiction, meaning that it would fail Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative (the formulation of universal law).

I am not trying to deny that economics is a science built on utility calculations. What I am suggesting, however, is that a Rawlsian need not be troubled by that fact. No Rawlsian—indeed, no Kantian—need say that utility calculations are never relevant to making decisions. If the welfare state is justified by some sort of Kantian procedure, we may still have to look at utility to see how that moral commitment is best executed. Thus the mere fact that an argument comes from economists need not convince us that it is only available to utilitarians.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@tacres I disagree with your conclusion regarding the Democrats’ refusal to include God in their platform. The separation of church and state protects both. I don’t want the state telling the church to repeal Deuteronomy, and I don’t want the church telling the state to repeal the Thirteenth Amendment (these are just examples). What the Democrats did was more pro-Constitution than anything the Republicans have done in recent memory.

tacres's avatar

I know you believe you understand what you thought I meant but I’m not sure you realize that what you read is not what I wrote…......... I thought I was being cynical. About the method used to decide whether the yeas were louder than the nays. Hell I listened to it with the volume turned up full blast & I couldn’t discern the difference. So I don’t know how he was able too. From what I understand the was no audio meter being used He never asked for a show of hands & never looked as though he was counting
. I just thought that whole deal was just funnier than hell.Besides I’m pro believe wtf you want to.

Paradox25's avatar

@KNOWITALL Economic issues seem to be a major dividing line too. It’s like I’ve said above, personally I’m much more conservative than many self-proclaimed conservatives that I know, and yet I consider myself a liberal. Why people play the left/right/lib/con label game I’m not sure.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Paradox25 Agreed. A lot of people want to put themselves in a little box and conform unfortunately. I am much more liberal than most Republicans because I was raised in the 70’s and learned that people are different and it takes all kinds to run this crazy world. Both parties disgust me to a degree, the conventions are an out-dated joke that I consider ‘entertainment’ only.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL So, do you think Romney is a very good fit for you? I think a lot of Republicans see him as moderate in the end. That’s my impression. He seems to be trying hard to lean into the middle on social issues.

KNOWITALL's avatar

For me, no, he and his stepford wife scare the crap out of me, and he doesn’t foo me with his ‘middle’ platform. Does he look like he waffles a lot? This guy is deadly, and he’s playing the role of his life right now and once elected, kablammmm, we’re in the middle of scary stuff. I really wouldn’t be surprised if BHO gets back in with Romney running now, unfortunately- lol, I/ we just don’t trust the Romney-Ryan package.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL So, do you think he is really very right wing? I am a little confused by your answer. By the way only right wingers seem to use BHO, I am suprised to see you use it, except that I know you are probably surrounded by people who do. I have a local radio host here who literally calls him Hussein. Unbelievable.

KNOWITALL's avatar

I do, I think he had to be to get the nomination, and I think it’s all a big, fake, scary show. He’s known to be Pro-Choice in the past, he is obviously Big Business all the way, so what does he know about middle America and our plight?

When it comes to Obama, I didn’t vote for Hope and Change. I’m not a birther and I don’t really care a LOT what religion he is (that’s what America’s about after all), but I never believed in him for whatever reason.

With power comes responsiblity, and it’s our responsiblity to not police, but help protect Freedom & Democracy around the world. I really like Bill Clinton and most of the time Bush lol

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL Interesting. I don’t worry about Romney knowing about middle America. I think he knows enough, I just think he strongly favors big business regardless of what he knows, and I disagree with his ideas for what will bring back jobs and the economy. I think Romney has always been personally pro-life for himself, his family, his beliefs, but understood, and understand abortion needs to be kept safe. I think being a religious minority and having lived in large diverse cities helps him understand the country is diverse with different beliefs, and doesn’t have that crazy talk in his head I mentioned on another Q about Christians being minorities and feeling under attacked. If anything his religion is attacked sometimes by Christians (and others of course).

Funny you mention Obama’s religion and not Romney’s. What religion do you believe Obama to be?

majorrich's avatar

I know there were prayer rugs at the convention although they were carefully not shown on TV.

KNOWITALL's avatar

Yes, being Mormon scares some people here in middle America, but I feel like America was founded on or because of religious persecution, so we’re all allowed to worship any way we’d like.

Obama has said his mother viewed religion from an anthropologists view and he studied a lot of them, much like I did in my late teens and early 20’s.
“The United Church of Christ emphasizes the freedom of the individual conscience over adherence to creeds or hierarchical authority. This is similar to traditional Baptist Christianity and something that is honored more in theory than in practice when it comes to the Southern Baptist Convention.”

Frankly, I’m not sure what to think of Muslims, I don’t know any but what I’ve heard from excerpts from the Quran seem threatening. I’ll have to join a group or research it at some point.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL Wait, why do you bring up Muslims? You seemed to be saying Obama is a Christian. I think Obama is a not very religious Christian. Just my own opinion.

KNOWITALL's avatar

Oh because so many people try to scare Republicans saying he’s a Muslim Devil or the Anti-Christ, because of his name or his religious studies or prayer rugs at the convention.

I don’t think he’s an overly religious Christian either, which I kind of like actually. He’s normal, like a lot of us. Perhaps we don’t attend Church or study every page of the Bible, but that doesn’t mean you don’t believe your own version and raise your family accordingly, etc..

Who are you leaning towards in November and why?

JLeslie's avatar

I will probably vote for Obama. I will listen to the the debates, but I doubt I will be swayed towards Romney. I saw Romney on Meet the Press this past weekend and I agree with some of what he has to say, especially some of his comments on health care. But, my parents have me fairly convinced I can’t vote for a Republican, because the party is so nutso. Giving them more power or affirmation is a big negative in their minds. Oh, and it bothers me Romney would not articulate what loopholes and deductions he would get rid of during the MTP interview. The media really picked up on that and they keep trying to pin down Ryan and Romney on that point, and they have no answer. I think Romney is in a tough spot with the party and catering to the base. Not that it excuses him telling a lie or flipping around just to get votes, but I think all politicans have some trouble with it. I would say Obama was always pro gay marriage for instance. I think he said what he did last campaign to help get out the black vote. Just my opinion again.

KNOWITALL's avatar

I tend to agree with you, but since I’m not a Obama fan I’m not throwing my vote there. I’m thinking of nominating an independent but will probably doing the easy thing and voting straight Rep ticket. The only thing that I’m debating internally still is 1) who can I trust pre-campaign (nobody) 2) who will guide the country in a recovery? (perhaps both parties) 3) could I look my gay friends in the face and tell them I voted for Romney? Or will Romney flip flop on that particular issue once elected?

The more I see Romney, the less I think of him as a flip-flopper…I think he knows his own mind and has very strict views of right and wrong. I’m just not exactly sure what those are except a probably cause that he is a good, strong family Mormon man. A do-gooder.

We’ll see….thanks!!

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL Oh, that is interesting to me too. I would have described Bush as black and white, very right and wrong, but I had not thought of Romney that way. Romney scares me much much less than Bush.

KNOWITALL's avatar

See to me Bush seemed like a good ole boy, like we have around here in Missouri, black and white, right and wrong, good and evil, exactly correct. Love God, country and your family. Romney strikes me as a coldhearted businessman.

Plus I have to admit, the experiences around here with Mormons is weird. Like my husband and I invited some in a few times to talk but they came by once while my husband was doing yardwork with his shirt off and they acted all freaked out and never came back. I just can’t relate I guess…

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL I kind of agree with your description of Bush and Romney. But, I also thought Bush was not very bright. His brother Jeb was my governor and I think he has more of a brain in his head, even though I didn’t always agree with him. He was very good at handeling the hurricanes that blew through, and I agreed with him on some things for sure. Anyway, Bush seems too ruled by religion for me, but I don’t think he is a hateful Christian or anything like that.

My experience with Mormons has been very good, but I have heard stories of when they come door to door and do some odd things. The Mormons I know are some of the nicest people I know and I never ever feel they are trying to convert me or that they question my religion, faith, or lack therof, or my integrity and morals.

I just saw on TV that possibly one of the things I liked about what Romney said about healthcare he is taking back or redifining, and that would mean one less thing I like. He had said he agreed with getting rid of preexisting condition obstacles, similar to what Obama has done but now supposedly is saying something else. Again, I need to see the debates. i would assume that topic will be well discussed.

KNOWITALL's avatar

I think Bush was braver than he was bright, you’re spot on. I really never though Bush seemed ruled by religion, or at least his $hit eating grin contradicted that for me…lol

In order for me to elect a Mormon, I would like to know more about it. Not believing in the Bible is a pretty big deal in my part of the woods, and I have a few more issues that need addressing. I think it could be a big deal in Romney’s campaign and someone will probably slam him about that in debates.

As far as healthcare goes, I want it for everyone, but I don’t want it to be mandatory. I don’t think that cramming something down anyone’s throat makes any sense. This is still America and we’re already getting taxed to death, worked to death (for poor wages) and yet have a few more kids and there’s your big tax breaks, it’s messed up.

Like our natural resources are unlimited forever….give me a President that really cares about our planet & takes that tax break away from everyone and I’ll vote for him regardless of his party!!!!

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL I don’t care what the Mormon book says, I only care how Romney utilizes his religion and beliefs in his life and politics. I almost never get to vote for someone who is my religion or who has my beliefs or lack of. Since I am a nonpracticing Jew it is very easy for me to understand people who identify with a religion, but don’t really practice it. I realize Romney is involved with his church, but he doesn’t seem to try to legislate based on the Mormon church, the same as Kennedy was not governed by the Vatican. I do think being Mormon plays into some of his personal views, but it doesn’t seem to be much different than many religious Christians, actually many religious people in general not just Christianity. He seems much less extreme than many Christians around me. And, I do consider him a Christina, Mormon’s believe Jesus Christ is their savior and the son of God, to me that is Christian, I know some Christians don’t accept Mormons as Christians.

KNOWITALL's avatar

The Mormon bible is very strange to me, and I feel like it’s a pretty major concern to the Reps. Catholicism, Christianity and being Jewish are pretty well known/ accepted, when’s the last time you heard a Mormon joke? I don’t know the man, but I think it will come up during debates.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL I pretty much ignore the religious books. When someone isn’t very religious the details of the bible or whatever book the religion uses doesn’t matter, because the followers basically are just going on general things about the religion. General things like major holidays, feeling part of a group, etc. I think the only people very concerned about the specifics of what the Quran say or the book of Mormon are people who also study their own bible and live by it. Of course, there are people who are not religious who are simply interested in religions and study these books and doctrines, but that is a different group than I am refering to, because they understand that there are people who aren’t religious also. It’s like Christians seem to be sayin one cannot be Muslim or Mormon, or pick one, and still have their own mind and be what I would call fairly Americanized. In American people all over the country identify with a religion, but kind of take it in a cafeteria style, celebrating the holidays they like, and being a part of religious and cultural traditions, and the majority of those people also believe in God, some don’t.

I have heard some of what seems outlandish about Mormon beliefs, but original sin, virgin birth, and several of the bible stories sound pretty crazy also.

KNOWITALL's avatar

A lot of ppl DO try to live by the word of the bible in my area, or at least they try to live up to the parts they want to live up to…lol

I’ve always kind of thought of Mormons and Scientologists as cults myself, but I’m not far enough in my research to guess at this point.

We’ll see, thanks for the chat!

JLeslie's avatar

Yes, I understand they DO, and they seem to assume everyone else does.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther