Democrats also support the idea of easier access to birth control and family planning which greatly reduces the number of abortions.
1 Like
Effective (i.e. not âAbstinence onlyâ) Sex Education would also be a large factor â see the chart I addended.
Further addendum: What a Serious Anti-Abortion Movement Would Actually Look Like | AwayPoint
The rejoinder to this argument might be that there is a difference between allowing the consumption of pork or caffeine in a society, and subjecting the children of Muslim or Mormon parents to classes in which the consumption of these foods is advocated.
The rejoinder to that argument is that teaching about homosexuality in health class is not motivated by any animus against particular religious faith, but is rather undertaken with the legitimate goal of promoting the mental and physical health of all students and remedying forms of discrimination historically suffered by many of them.
A conservative Christian who claims such teaching violates his Constitutional rights should then be treated in the same manner as would be a conservative Muslim who objected to classes teaching that women should not be beaten by their husbands or that girls should not undergo genital mutilation.
1 Like
That may not be a motivation shared by some voters. Some Christian voters may want the LBGTQ community to be ridiculed, shamed, and bullied. They see equality as a serious problem.
Letâs not forget that it wasnât much more than a generation ago when people were being arrested for seeking out gay sex. There are people who want to return to that time.
1 Like
Except that I wasnât comparing these hypothetical bans to education, but to abortion, which conservative Christians apparently think that Catholic Democratic legislators should ban for the majority of Americans who donât think that abortion is immoral.
If the alcohol, coffee and pork bans are considered too trivial, how about Jehovahâs Witnesses. Should JW legislators vote to ban blood transfusions for non-JWs? They think those go against the teachings of the bible.
There are people calling for the death penalty for homosexuality and saying that the Orlando nightclub shooting was a good thing.
Precisely. Which is why they try make bogus arguments about âreligious freedom.â They know telling the truth wonât fly.
Similar to how racists often tried to argue against desegregation on the basis of stateâs rights.
OK, my misunderstanding. Still, I think your comment also applies to the point @Eddie was trying to make about promoting equality for sexual minorities being seen as âAnti-Christian.â
Hereâs a real-life scenario: Catholic hospitals refusing to perform abortions when continuing pregnancy is life-threatening for the woman (even if she is not Catholic):
Yeh. I cannot help but thinking that the Catholic Churchâs ever-increasing, and blatantly doctrinaire, stranglehold on the US medical system is a really really bad idea.
1 Like
Is there any evidence that Republicans, generally speaking, are hostile to Islam when it is practiced in a peaceful manner? There is a difference between Islam as such, and mass murder and repression of civil and human rights conducted in the name of Islam, and between Islam as such and military threats to the USA or its allies coming from certain Islamic regimes. Does the average Republican care if there is a mosque in his city, as long as there is no religiously-inspired violence connected with the presence of the believing community that gathers at the mosque?
Yes. Republican hostility towards American Muslim legislators and towards their taking their oath of office on a Koran rather than a Bible are the most obvious examples.
There are also a number of Republicans offering insane conspiracy theories about imposition of Sharia Law in the US.
1 Like
No, the principles of the US Constitution are not âsecular humanistâ principles. They are neutral regarding the truth of secular humanism vs revealed religion. You seem to be confusing the idea of a âsecularâ state (i.e., one that endorses no religion) and âsecular humanismâ as a philosophy â which definitely makes religious claims. The US Founders wanted the first, but did not endorse the second.
Nor do secular humanists. What is taught should be neutral regarding the differences between revealed religion and secular humanism.
Iâm not surprised to see Tim give a âLikeâ to this, but I am surprised to see Neil embrace such a one-sided and unqualified statement. I thought he was a bit more intellectually cautious than that, and also a bit fairer to people with whom he disagrees.
My fault for being unclear. I was referring only to the âsecularâ part. The Democratic party supports secularism. The GOP supports theocracy.
Or maybe youâre just wrong. It might be helpful for you to occasionally consider that possibility.
However, it bears mentioning that the Constitution is not only secular but also humanist. The Bill of Rights would be Exhibit A on that point. So secular, and humanist, but perhaps not âsecular humanistâ if by that is meant a strain of humanism which is exclusively secular.
Can you clarify how many Republicans have displayed this âhostilityâ? Are you saying that this is a policy of the Republican Party? And what is the current law, both federally and in the various states, regarding taking oneâs oath of office using a holy book other than the Bible? I suspect that if the federal government or any state insisted on the use of the Bible, against the conscience of an elected representative, a court would strike down the policy, but I am willing to learn what the current practice is and what court challenges have succeeded or failed.
Iâm all in favor of elected officials being able to use the holy books of their particular traditions for swearing-in purposes.
Being opposed to the imposition of Sharia Law on all Americans is not the same as being opposed to Islam as such. Iâm speaking here about general principles. Whether there is in fact any such conspiracy is a question of fact, not principle, and I have no opinion on the matter.
Please give me a list of Republican policy statements endorsing theocracy.
The mote and the beamâŚ
When youâre finished with the rhetorical excess, some facts might be helpful. In what way does the Catholic Church exercise a âstrangleholdâ on the US medical system?
JWs do not believe that JW doctrines should be made mandatory for others. They want only the right to refuse transfusions for themselves. Indeed, typically Protestant sectarians in the USA do not want theocracy, i.e., the control of the state by any particular religious doctrine; they want the state to be neutral, as this protects their sectarianism. Quakers, Christadelphians, etc. all dread an official state religion as much as atheists do.
Iâm sorry, I must have missed where you provided direct evidence from statements made by Democrats or from their official platform where it has been stated that the party is anti-Christianity. Could you point me to where you did this?
You are confused. The claim being made is that Republicans accuse American Muslims of planning to impose Sharia Law on all Americans.
Wow. So you think there might be a conspiracy to impose Sharia law on America. Wow.
I doubt if anyone knows the precise number, but they certainly exist. For instance, this delicious moment. Recall that this guy was speaking on behalf of the former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who was running for the Senate at the time:
(Of course, Jews shouldnât feel left out of that little exchange. Crockett gets the last word in by wishing a âMerry Christmasâ to Jake Tapper, who is Jewish.)
Your quotations from people who support Republican candidates are on the mark. As I said, many people are more attracted to Democratic than Republican policies, but where policy touches on religious beliefs, they find themselves driven to the Republicans, because they perceive them to be less hostile to faith. This electoral advantage for the Republicans will remain in place for as long as the Democrats are seen to be too closely aligned with a secular humanist philosophy. Whether this is good or bad is a separate question, but I think itâs a political fact.
As for your other comments, I think we agree that all citizens should be treated equally under the law. I am opposed to the bullying of homosexuals in schoolyards and washrooms etc. And Iâm opposed to discrimination in hiring and promotion on any basis (sexual orientation, race, sex, etc.) other than merit. I think that the typical Republican citizen thinks the same, but the media tend to play up extreme views held by only a small number of Republicans. What is forgotten is that many people who vote Republican are secular business types, not attached to any religion, and that even the Christians who vote Republican are not all extreme fundamentalists, but include many mainstream Christians from bland, middle-of-the-road Protestant churches. But such facts donât make for exciting, polarizing reporting, so the media tend to omit them.
One thing is for sure, Republicans will continue to trot out the âsecular humanist philosophyâ boogeyman without ever really defining what it is, or pointing to actual policies that have been proposed.
Would the Republican evangelical conservative be ok with public schools teaching students that sexuality is a personal freedom and people shouldnât be harassed or bullied because of their sexuality?
I can fully understand why rich people vote Republican. They are one of the few groups within the party that will actually benefit from Republican policies.
If such conservatives are consistent supporters of American rights, then yes, they should be. They are quite free to teach their children that homosexuality is sinful and forbidden by God, but they should not be endorsing bullying or the taking away of personal freedoms.
I did not limit my statement to rich people. I said âbusiness typesâ â which means not only wealthy capitalists and high-paid executives, but also millions of small businessmen who run small accounting firms, sell life insurance, run mom and pop retail stores, etc. Many such people vote Republican, whether they are rich or not. They just happen to believe that private enterprise is a better economic and social model than socialism.