When was the “religious right” ever a serious force in politics? Which president/politician of note perfectly fit the label “Christian”? Reagan sure didn’t. Treating the religious right like a monolith voting block is silly. Most pastors refuse to preach on candidates or politics. Even inside 1 single church the session can’t agree on what color to paint the sanctuary, let alone who to vote for.
I think the dems held the religious right up as a voting block boogeyman to scare dems to the polls.
Also @Mufasa@H_factor@EyeDentist we hear all the time how the left won the culture war. They did. It is literally untenable for a politician to hold biblical positions publicly now (marriage =1 man &1 woman for example). So what’s the problem?
The Republicans did try to run a religious man with a squeaky clean record in Romney. The worst thing they had on him was a binder and a numerically correct 47% comment. He lost. Remember when Romney was a racist/bigot/homophobe according to the left?
If the religious right ever was a political force it has been neutralized. And you’re complaining about that?
By and large, the culture war has been won by the forces of progressivism. Which is why the situation is the opposite of how you characterize it; ie, the Cultural Left is the boogeyman used by the GOP to scare folks who identify as religiously conservative to go to the polls. For example, until recently, tacking same-sex marriage referendums to a ballot were a standard right-wing tactic for turning out their base:
I beg to differ. Other than in a few districts on the coasts and a couple in big cities scattered across the country, it is all but impossible for an openly, self-professed non-Christian to get elected to significant office.
As he was/is a Mormon, the religious right viewed Romney with deep suspicion; some openly called him an apostate, or even a cult leader.
The “47%” comment was a major unforced error, on a par with “basketful of deplorables.”
I would say that the manner in which GOP candidates kowtow to religious-right organizations belies this claim.
I will give a personal observation from attending 1000s of church services - ranging from 40 to 3000 in a service.
I have never heard a pastor specify either a politician or party in which the ‘true’ Christian should vote to satisfy God. Generally a petition is made to do one’s civic duty by actually voting, and to pray for God’s direction in deciding for whom.
The Religious Right is people who wish to inject themselves into political matters like Focus on the Family or the like. Along with many tv evangelists, they DON’T represent most evangelical Christians. Politics is not our primary mission, even if some choose to involve themselves in it.
If politicians pander to Christians by espousing compatible moral positions, in which they then ignore, it will one day be on their head - at a day of reckoning.
The pastor’s personal ethics aside, this is because the pastor is specifically barred from doing so by IRS rules–endorsing a candidate is a sure-fire way for a religious organization to lose its tax-exempt status.
The current religious right is up there with all those racist and homophobic deplorables. I agree they are made up bogey men used to scare liberal children. Mainstream Republicans and their professional strategists are nothing but that. Trump definitely does not have a history that fits those descriptions, but run against the Democratic Party and those become the standard epithets thrown at you.
I’ve watched the left slowly evolve into a threat to US democracy. They’ve managed to install themselves as the vast majority of professors in US universities, installed judges who can’t be bothered to actually read the law, and are slowly increasing in violence. Studying constitutional law has become an exercise in futility given the tenuous relationship left leaning judges’ decisions have to the actual constitution.
Perhaps one can argue that this is simply the pendulum swinging as it did in the 1960s, but this movement can be distinguished by identifying who is involved and I’ve been watching how methodical they have been in this movement. The people engaging in violent rhetoric and shouting down opposition today are establishment Democrats, and we have already had an assassination attempt.
The worst part is that we are left choosing sides rather than seeing politicians moderate themselves, but Trump is far less of a threat and more moderate than the alternative.
I’m not sure how many here have heard of Rod Dreher–he is a conservative Christian who is very interested in how individuals such as himself should interact with the world. His answer: They should withdraw into communities of like-minded individuals. From a recent New Yorker piece about him:
“Dreher’s answer is that nearly everything about the modern world conspires to eliminate [places where faith, family, and community form an integrated whole.]. He cites the Marxist sociologist Zygmunt Bauman, who coined the term “liquid modernity” to describe a way of life in which “change is so rapid that no social institutions have time to solidify.” The most successful people nowadays are flexible and rootless; they can live anywhere and believe anything. Dreher thinks that liquid modernity is a more or less unstoppable force—in part because capitalism and technology are unstoppable. He urges Christians, therefore, to remove themselves from the currents of modernity. They should turn inward, toward a kind of modern monasticism.” [emphasis mine]
Dreher is the author of a book, The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation, on this subject of retreat from the corrupting modern society. This book has been very well-received, and generated a great deal of discussion in literary and philosophical circles.
Finally, he has an extremely popular and thoughtful blog which is worth checking out no matter how one feels about this subject:
I’ve always wondered why the left has bemoaned the religious right. Ever since the 1960s with the push toward free love and drug use the genie has been out of the bottle. Turns out the values of monogamy and temperance are passe and boring now. You won, spike the football, take a victory lap.
Now we have plenty of children growing up in single parent homes and plenty of drug abuse and addiction. Congrats on winning the culture war, enjoy your winnings.
“During the 1960-2016 period, the percentage of children living with only their mother nearly tripled from 8 to 23 percent and the percentage of children living with only their father increased from 1 to 4 percent. The percentage of children not living with any parent increased slightly from 3 to 4 percent.”
I would doubt that the rates of monogamy and/or temperance have changed much over the years.
We’ve always had plenty of these things. Further, to the extent that the increase in single motherhood reflects, say, women divorcing abusive or otherwise inappropriate fathers, the rise in single motherhood is not necessarily a bad thing. The point being, one has to be really careful not to overinterpret social trends.
How you choose to Live; and the choices you make in this Life…whether it’s your views on morality…or who you choose to Vote for…are yours and yours alone. They don’t have a damn thing to do with SJW’s; Liberal Judges; or whether are not Gay people can legally marry.
Nancy Pelosi or some Liberal Judge doesn’t define the individual choices you make…and they sure as hell weren’t standing over you when you pulled that lever or tapped that touch-screen in the Voting Booth.
For me…Live how you choose to Live; Vote how you choose to Vote; and screw who you choose to screw.
Just be careful about getting on Soap Boxes and judging others.
Except the increase in single motherhood represents mostly folks who had unprotected sex, and were never married. But hey, it helps create a permanent underclass of guaranteed leftist voters who have a low chance of escaping their plight. So no harm done right?
It’s not even about morality or God. Raising humans in intact nuclear families makes for better humans and a more stable society in general.
