And yet Eddie, unlike you I find myself able to substantiate my arguments about the US with actual facts.
If you had bothered to read what I had said, instead of preening yourself on how scholarly you think you are, you might have noticed that I concluded:
This defection would have inevitably moved the Democratic Party’s centre of gravity leftward, and the Republicans’ rightward. This in turn led to the marginalisation and eventual evaporation of the liberal wing of the Republican Party, whose voters would have drifted to Democratic candidates. This realignment process would have become self-reinforcing, and likely irreversible, well before the alleged Secular Humanist movement of the Democratic leadership in the 1970s.
Notice that this paragraph does not even mention the South.
I was saying that the Democratic Party was moving leftward (more liberal) and the Republicans (more conservative).
And as should surprise nobody, liberal Christians tend to be politically liberal as well, and conservative Christians politically conservative. So the effect of the realignments of the two parties on liberal and conservative Christians, respectively, irrespective of whether the voters are in the North or South, should be blindingly obvious to anybody – anybody not named Edward Robinson, that is.
But of course, it follows three paragraphs concentrating on the South, civil rights, etc. You can hardly expect the reader not to connect your argument.
But they weren’t always. I strongly suspect that many conservative Christians voted for Carter, a Democratic President. I doubt that as many voted for Hillary Clinton or Al Gore. Ask yourself why. (Hint: It has nothing to do with Strom Thurmond, Nixon’s South strategy, or the reaction to the passing of the civil rights act.)
You don’t seem to have the “feel” of how traditional, Bible-focused Christians think. I gather you have spent very little time personally with such people.
Yes Edward, because it was the South that started the realignment – that does not mean that the effects would only be felt in the South.
But they weren’t always. I strongly suspect that many conservative Christians voted for Carter, a Democratic President. I doubt that as many voted for Hillary Clinton or Al Gore. Ask yourself why. (Hint: It has nothing to do with Strom Thurmond, Nixon’s South strategy, or the reaction to the passing of the civil rights act.)
Yes Edward, because the realignment was gradual. More conservative Christians would have also voted for Nixon in 1968 than in 1960.
You are committing a very blatantpost hoc ergo propter hocfallacy in attempting to blame (your still utterly unsubstantiated) 1970s Democratic secular humanism for an abandonment of the Democratic Party that had begun decades before.
Some-one who is “too liberal a Christian” is still a Christian. So once again, anyone who doesn’t vote for Democrats is not necessarily doing it because they aren’t Christian, but because they aren’t conservative.
Right. They won’t vote for a liberal Christian, they’ll vote for a conservative one. You have completely failed to show that Democrat policies are “secular humanist” rather than liberal (non-conservative) Christian.
Beyond a certain point, a difference in degree becomes a difference in kind. How many core Christian doctrines can one drop before one ceases to be a Christian? If the perception is that many of the leaders are on slippery slope that will eventually take (even if it has not already taken) them outside of Christianity altogether, it makes little difference from the conservative Christian point of view.
Apparently you failed to read my statements to T. aquaticus and Faizal Ali above, where I indicated that I was limiting my claim to how the Democratic leadership is perceived by many conservative Christians, and putting on hold the claim that this perception is correct.
But Timothy, it also does not mean that the Southern resentment regarding integration is the only factor now operating. You’re denying other factors, because you are wedded to your analysis, which you appear to think quite brilliant and in need of no supplement. You will have to forgive us if we do not automatically bow to the political judgments of a non-American and non-Christian (and likely someone with no training in political science or sociology) but instead suggest the relevance of factors that a non-American and non-Christian might miss.
I said "This realignment process would have become self-reinforcing … " – because the rightward shift of Republicans would make liberal Republicans increasingly feel unwelcome, and ditto the leftward shift of the Democratic Party and conservatives.
Oh Look Edward, I already explicitly talked about another factor. One that doesn’t require Eddie’s imaginary Secular Humanism.
And also completely ignores the role of the religious beliefs of millions of the voters who have left the Republicans for the Democrats. As I said, you’re so wedded to your pet analysis that you are unwilling to learn anything from the analysis of anyone else.
And once again, we are confronted with the paradox that, for all @Eddie’s unseemly preening about his academic credentials and those of the people he lionizes, he is at heart an anti-intellectual who thinks anecdotal experience trumps empirical data, and dismisses the peer-reviewed scientific literature as “geeky journals” that almost no one reads.
Given that the only thing you’ve told me about their religious beliefs is that you really really really really really really really don’t like them, I really really really really really really really don’t care.
To the extent that their political leanings can be used as a reasonable (does not need to be perfect) proxy for their religious leanings (and you have provided no substantive evidence to the contrary), I don’t have to account for them separately.
You don’t, but Democratic strategists do. Which is why Biden is trying to sound religion-friendly. He’s aware of the perception I’m talking about, even though you aren’t. And I think he knows more about the perceptions of American voters than you do.
You can be against abortion while also supporting the right of people to choose for themselves. It is also un-Christian to worship idols and worship Satan, but I would assume all Republicans endorse idol worship and Satanism in the same way Democrats are said to endorse abortion. Of course, this distinction is ignored by conservative Christians so it probably wouldn’t be a campaign issue Democrats should spend energy on.
I also suspect that if Republicans are able to ban abortions countrywide they will be the dog that catches the car. Republicans could lose voters to the Democrats if that ever happened. I could be wrong, though.
Because Jesus Christ just blathered on and on about abortion, right? Is anyone forcing them to get abortions, or is this about them forcing society to follow their beliefs?
Who exactly is endorsing abortion, Eddie?
To make it explicit, I don’t see anyone explicitly endorsing abortion. Do you?
The religious beliefs of those voters tend to be very disconnected from the foundations of Christianity: the teachings of Jesus Christ, who never mentioned abortion.
I fail to grasp the cause of the obtuseness here regarding abortion. The question of abortion was settled long ago by the Supreme Court. Is Donald Trump threatening to unconstitutionally overturn a Supreme Court decision and make abortion illegal again? Has there been any policy platform of the Republican Party calling for a Constitutional Amendment to make first-trimester abortions illegal?
We are not talking about questions which have been settled by the courts. We are talking about issues which have not yet been settled by courts. The conservative Christians fear that the state will impose things – whether teaching things in the public schools, or passing certain laws, etc. that will require Christians to go against their consciences, or will prevent Christians from living according to their consciences. And they think it is far less likely that such laws and policies will be passed under Republican than Democratic administrations. That is their perception – and as I’ve said repeatedly, it doesn’t matter whether they perceive things rightly, because they vote based on their perception. I don’t see what is hard about this to understand.
I understand that all the atheists here feel no sympathy whatsoever for the fears and anxieties of conservative Christians. They have made that abundantly clear. Their inability put themselves in the shoes of the other guy and imagine what life looks like to him, and to see that he might have a point, is quite obvious. I am not asking anyone here to stretch his emotions and mind to that point, because I know from years of discussion here that this ain’t gonna happen. So I’m just making a political point: conservative Christians don’t trust a good number of the Democratic leaders and intelligentsia (lawyers, judges, journalists, professors, school administrators, etc.) to be fair to them. And as long as they have that distrust, they will keep voting for the Republicans. You guys can bellyache about this as much as you want, but that’s the reality. And it won’t change until the perception of the Democrats changes.
So really, the ball in in the Democratic court, not the Republican. They need to say and do the right things to reassure the conservative Christian voters that Democrats don’t regard their traditional religion as backwards and savage and as needing updating to resemble Enlightenment philosophy and Marxism and radical feminism. If they don’t do so, the Republicans may hold onto the White House indefinitely. This is not my problem; it’s a problem for those here who want a Democrat in the White House (including several non-Americans here whose desires shouldn’t matter to the Americans here). I’d be quite happy to have Jimmy Carter in the White House again. But I wouldn’t have wanted Hillary Clinton or Al Gore. Whether Biden will seem more moderate, and be able to turn things around, time will tell.
But who never annulled the moral part of the Law, including the commandment against murder. And to many Christians, abortion is murder. You don’t have to agree with them on that; but given that they think abortion is murder, then, in opposing it, they are following what they take to be the teaching of Jesus Christ.
He did…He just didn’t consider slavery in the same way as men do, and gave everyone an option to end their slavery through faith in Him. Which to me seems pretty clear that He did not condone slavery.
John 8:31-36 - Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?”
34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. 35 And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. 36 Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.
[sigh] Yes Edward, and I’m sure that this is only one of a very very long list of things that political strategists have to worry about, that are irrelevant for analysing the causes of the realignment of party political affiliation in the US in the latter half of the 20 century.
But if you really really wanted to, we could discuss the need to stay hydrated during all-night strategy sessions.
