Heathen Patriot: Thoughts from a Heathen Republican
Exploring pre-Christian Germanic and contemporary Neopagan beliefs and practices, politics, culture, and from a different point of view. Welcome to the conservative/libertarian end of the Pagan / Heathen pool.
The Pagan Case for Mitt Romney
Over the past few weeks, I've tried to cover some prominent issues facing the country and demonstrate that Paganism is a large and diverse umbrella of faiths that can and does include people of every ideological and political stripe. There are Pagan conservatives, liberals, libertarians, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, etc. Paganism does not inherently require one to take a particular side of a wide host of issues; one can be Pagan and be either a feminist or not, be on various points on the environmentalist scale, be pro-life or pro-choice, support or oppose gay marriage, be in favor of intervention in the Syrian civil war or not, support Israel or not, want higher or lower taxes, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Paganism is a big tent, to coin a phrase. There are almost no issues that one can point to across the board and say, “This is a ‘Pagan issue’”. There is one, however, that I think all Pagans and Heathens, whatever their political or ideological leanings and identification, can agree is something that affects them and all practitioners of minority faiths.
That issue is religious liberty, and I believe that, based on that single issue, Republican Mitt Romney is more deserving of the support of Pagans and Heathens than is Democrat Barack Obama.
Consider the words of their respective party platforms. First, the GOP (which mentions religion 7 times, faith 19 times, and God 9 times):
“In the spirit of the Constitution, we consider discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion, creed, disability, or national origin unacceptable and immoral.”
“We pledge to respect the religious beliefs and rights of conscience of all Americans and to safeguard the independence of their institutions from government.”
“We assert every citizen’s right to apply religious values to public policy and the right of faith-based organizations to participate fully in public programs without renouncing their beliefs, removing religious symbols, or submitting to government-imposed hiring practices. We oppose government discrimination against businesses due to religious views.”
“Prosperity provides the means by which individuals and families can maintain their independence from government, raise their children by their own values, practice their faith, and build communities of self-reliant neighbors.”
“The Republican Party includes Americans from every faith and tradition, and our policies and positions respect the right of every American to follow his or her beliefs and underscore our reverence for the religious freedom envisioned by the Founding Fathers of our nation and of our party.”
And now, the DNC (which mentions religion 2 times, faith 8 times, and God one time):
“At the core of the Democratic Party is the principle that no one should face discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability status.”
“Faith has always been a central part of the American story, and it has been a driving force of progress and justice throughout our history. We know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy it inspires. Faith-based organizations will always be critical allies in meeting the challenges that face our nation and our world – from domestic and global poverty, to climate change and human trafficking. People of faith and religious organizations do amazing work in communities across this country and the world, and we believe in lifting up and valuing that good work, and finding ways to support it where possible. We believe in constitutionally sound, evidence-based partnerships with faith-based and other non-profit organizations to serve those in need and advance our shared interests. There is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution, and a full commitment to both principles is essential for the continued flourishing of both faith and country.”
As a rule, when the Republicans mention faith and God, they speak of the rights of the individual citizens to practice their faith, or that individual rights derive from God (the same source that Thomas Jefferson invoked as “Nature’s God” in the Declaration of Independence, which can be seen as the ultimate source of all inalienable human rights.)
When the Democrats mention faith, however, it’s usually in the context of government sponsorship of faith-based programs, and government involvement in private faith-based organizations. Almost nothing is said of the rights of individuals to worship as they wish, except in a negative sense; people should be “free from discrimination”, whereas the Republicans speak of the freedom of the individual to worship. It’s a subtle, but telling, difference; the Democrats are more interested in ending discrimination, while the Republicans are more interested in maintaining rights.
The party platforms, while instructive, are of course not binding either on the party or its Presidential ticket. One must judge the individual candidates on their past histories (if possible) and their public statements. I’m not going to lay court decisions at the feet of either candidate, since that wouldn't be fair. In our country we have separation of powers of the various branches of government, and it’s simply not valid to blame Obama for decisions that Federal courts make during his tenure in office, just as it’s not fair to do so for Massachusetts court decisions during Romney’s term as governor.
It is very true that the Obama administration has had shining examples of supporting the rights of religious organizations when they are pressed by local or state authorities. Many of these initiatives were simply continuations of policies that the Bush administration had put in place, and he got heat from certain quarters on that basis alone, but some were suits filed by the Justice Department that could just as easily not have been filed, and they are to be commended for them. Indeed, on his campaign website, he has a whole section on People of Faith, again, commendable (although some of the entries there don’t touch on religion at all, and are purely economic in content).
However, the Obama administration has been very forceful in putting government policy above individual and institutional religious beliefs and practices. Try, I beg you, to set aside whatever personal convictions you might have about the particulars of the examples I’m about to give, and look at it purely from the standpoint of religious freedom. You may not agree with the position their faith brings them to, but that is immaterial to the larger point of religious liberty being reduced to accommodate government policy. Personally, I don’t give a rat’s ass about the specific beliefs that are being undermined; I care immensely, though, for the principle that the government is forcing people who hold those beliefs to violate them.
First, there is the question of the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”), which mandates insurance coverage for contraceptives by employers. Churches themselves are exempt, but religiously affiliated non-church groups are not, and private companies whose owners object on grounds of conscience are also being required to pay for coverage of something that their religion—their sincerely held, deepest faith—absolutely forbids.
I know. You don’t think it should. You think there’s nothing wrong with contraception. It’s silly to think that the Gods want us to procreate willy-nilly, that the decision to use a condom or other forms of birth control should be up to the people doing the deed, and that the whole thing is a relatively modern interpretation of Genesis with significant periods in history where it was not regarded as a central tenet of the Catholic faith. I know. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly. But that doesn't make it any less a central, overriding, and vital matter of faith to tens of millions of people, and the fact that you and I may disagree with them doesn't mean that the government should feel that it has the power to simply brush aside those feelings to further a policy that it has decided is in the public interest.
(After all, one might say that the public can decide the public interest through the mechanism of the market, rather than having the definition of the public interest forced upon it as a one-size-fits-all policy from Washington. But I digress.)
Then there is the Defense of Marriage Act. This is, technically, the law of the land, and basically says that each state can decide for itself what constitutes marriage. It doesn't define marriage, it doesn't ban gay marriage; it simply makes the states responsible (perfectly in keeping with the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, I should add). Passed by Congress in 1996, signed into law by President Clinton (a Democrat), and it passed in both houses of Congress by wide margins of both parties (the only openly gay Republican congressman did vote against it—yes, you can win a Congressional election as a gay Republican). And yet the Obama administration has decided that it will simply stop defending the act in court.
Again, please try to set aside your personal views of the specific issues of gay marriage or states’ rights. I’m personally in favor of gay marriage, but I think that it’s something that all fifty states should pass on their own, individually, according to the needs and desires of their citizens. The notion that the President can simply ignore legislation that is designed to allow the individual citizens to express their opinions (derived from their faith or by other means), and fail to defend it in the courts, simply because he personally disagrees with what he perceives will be the outcome, should be offensive to anyone who believes in the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution. Sometimes, being the person responsible for enforcing the laws means having to enforce laws you don’t like.
Mitt Romney has a few things from his term as governor that we can look at:
In 2006, he was in favor of a vote for an amendment of the Massachusetts constitution that would effectively ban gay marriage. The measure ended up not receiving enough support in the legislature to be brought before the voters in Mass. Again, although I’m personally in favor of gay marriage, I am even more in favor of people in the individual states being allowed to decide such things for themselves. Just because I am on one side of an issue is no reason to deny someone else the right to vote on it, even if that vote may go a way I don’t like. The Massachusetts legislature might do well to remember that.
In 2005, Romney vetoed a bill that would have required Catholic hospitals to administer contraceptives. This is the same issue mentioned above, from the other side. You and I don’t have to agree with the particular religious tenet that was being defended, but I come down on the side of the person who was willing to defend that religious tenet in the first place. Being in favor of Catholics being allowed to put their Catholic beliefs into practice in their own businesses and charities (note that that’s a very different thing from imposing them on non-Catholics through legislation or governmental fiat) is not the same as endorsing that practice. One can support freedom of religion without endorsing every religion that people are free to practice.
And, the most obvious elephant in the room is Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith itself. Mitt Romney is himself a practitioner of a minority faith. He’s experienced first-hand a lot of discrimination based on his beliefs; although Mormons consider themselves to be Christians, a third of people in the U.S. don’t think they are, and a 3/4 majority of Christian pastors don’t think they are, either.
Now, this isn't really an exhortation that all Pagans and Heathens must support Romney. Mainly, I don’t believe that Pagans and Heathens are single-issue voters, or if they are, religious freedom isn't the issue they’re looking at. If abortion is the single issue that drives your vote, or lower taxes, or Israel, or whatever it happens to be, then you’re going to vote based on that. If, like many Americans, you vote strictly based on party lines and couldn't envision yourself voting for someone with an (R) next to his name even if his opponent was Pol Pot, then you’re going to vote based on that.
However, if you actually have a history of voting based on the individual rather than the party, balancing various issues based on the specific needs of the nation at the time and your personal beliefs, then you might want to just entertain the possibility that Mitt Romney is at least worth looking at. After all, Paganism is a big tent, and no matter what you might read elsewhere, it’s okay to pull the lever for a Republican once in a while, especially if you think his policies will take the country in a better direction than the Democrat. It’s been known to happen.
(Originally posted at www.GOPagan.com)
Comments
-
Sunday, 28 October 2012Due to the fact that I'm not Christian, I could not possibly in good conscience vote against my religion, so I can not vote republican.
Due to the fact that I belong to the LGBT community, I could not possibly in good conscience vote against my individual rights, so I can not vote republican.
Due to the fact that I am female, I could not possibly in good conscience vote against my individual rights and return to the 1920's.
Due to the fact that I do not believe in big government regulating someone else's moral standards that I find to be below my own, I could not possibly in good conscience vote against my own morals and vote Republican.
I guess when your the one being discriminated against and not the one with the rights, you tend to vote for the party that wants to end discrimination and not the party that wants to defend someone else's rights that happen to be discriminatory against me. That is why for the first time in history I voted a single party strait ticket; And in good conscience I could not bring myself to vote for a single Republican.· Galina Krasskova likes this comment. -
Sunday, 28 October 2012
@ HiC Luttmers: With all due respect, I'm not sure you quite understand how States' Rights works. According to the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So, because the 1st Amendment (applied to the states by the 14th Amendment) prohibits government interference with religious practices, the states are similarly prohibited from doing so.
In the case of slavery, that was eliminated by a Constitutional Amendment, which trumps anything that the individual states might pass by law or incorporate into their own constitutions.
As for marriage, the Federal Constitution is silent on the issue, and thus it rightly devolves to the individual states to regulate and define as they see fit. If a constitutional amendment should be passed that does speak to the issue, then that would trump anything the individual states do.
You might not like the system we have, but it is the law, and cannot be circumvented or outright ignored just because we happen to disagree with a particular outcome. Doing so sets up the incredibly dangerous precedent that someone else could do the same thing on behalf of something that we disagree with. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and we must apply the law and the constitution evenly and equally, and that means swallowing it when something is done legally that we don't like. -
Sunday, 28 October 2012
@Robyn: Due to the fact that I'm not Christian, I could not possibly in good conscience vote against my religion, so I can not vote republican.
Can you be more specific? What, exactly, does your religion require that is at odds with the Republican platform or positions? Bearing in mind that your personal preferences are not necessarily the same as a religious obligation.
As for the rest, we must agree to disagree, because I don't see anything in the actual, real-world Republican platform or policies that remotely resembles the gross caricature you portray. It's cute hyperbole, but let's stick to actual facts. -
Sunday, 28 October 2012
I guess I tend to blame Ryan's, Romney's, Murdock's takes on my rights as based on their religious beliefs and these beliefs violate my religious beliefs.
I am transgender, so when republican's base legal decisions on the Christian bible like this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuK_JIFlhcE, now maybe the news is only reporting Republicans doing things like this, but from the news it seems to mostly come from republicans.
I live in Arizona and was in a heterosexual marriage for 28 years before my spouse passed away. Once I transitioned and was no longer a heterosexual couple, I would lose all my rights as would my spouse. Before my spouse passed away I was Atheist, now I'm more of a seeker leaning to the only thing that makes sense to an ex Atheist and that is the earth centered religions.
When I researched the laws and the reason's Arizona would remove all my rights it was because how the bible defined marriage. Christian bible being cited to remove my rights. Not being a Christian I certainly could not believe my rights would be take away based on the dogma of another's religion. These laws and the backing to pass another law to make it illegal for two women to be married was a republican agenda.
What's more in this state they wanted to pass a law, again a republican to make something that was illegal based only on Christian dogma, illegal a second time.
OK, these really have nothing to do with religion yet. So let's talk something that does. I'm new to Pagan and Wicca beliefs and I am certainly a student with a lot catching up and learning to do. But I have chosen to follow an earth based religion, and it's very clear that the republicans want to, at the very least cripple the agency designed to protect Mother Earth, most have at one time and including Romney stated they wanted to eliminate the EPA. Though his stance has softened somewhat.
I cannot possibly see how that is 100% OK with Pagans, having more experience as an Atheist, I can assure you it is not with the majority of Atheist.
Here is another direct one on religion. Putting the 10 commandments in public buildings while not allowing alternative belief systems to do the same. Now I would not support putting a Wiccan Reed in a government building either. Regardless of my beliefs I do believe the government should be secular and devoid of one's religion, even if that religion is one I happen to follow in faith.
When Murdock says a woman being raped is God's will. He is speaking of the Christian god and saying it's that Christian gods will she get pregnant and must carry the child to term, not based on my Lord and Lady, but on his God's will. If you ask republicans why they are so staunch Pro-Life, it is because of their religion. If you ask Democrats why they are Pro-Choice it is in spite of their religion. Now I know not all republicans are Pro-Life and not all Democrats are Pro-Choice or (Pro-Life) supporting Pro-Choice because it should be a woman's choice to do with her body as she chooses.
When Romney states he is for traditional marriage, more power to him, but when he states he will amend the constitution to ensure States can no longer make their own choice, it is all based on his Christian beliefs.
In summation when Republicans are basing their policies on more and more extreme stances based on and using their faith in Christianity to do so, what makes anyone think that they will stop at mandatory Christian prayers before class or cut funding to anything that is not Christian? Or continue to base laws on Christian laws. When congress is willing to pass laws based on the Christian belief system and judges enforce those laws based on the Christian bible or even make up judgments that are unprecedented based on Christian faith, it is only a matter of time before Christians have everything and people like me have nothing including the right to my own beliefs in public.
Now I know again that Christianity is not just the realm of the Republican Party, but there are far more republicans willing to go to extreme measures to pass laws based solely on their Christian faith. Democrats to are mostly Christian, but seem to have more of an ability to set aside their faith in order to do the more just and humane thing.
This is an emotional issue for me, so it’s difficult to keep the response short and certainly it’s not concise. I’m not trying to say I’m correct, most of the time well at least ½ the time I’m not. But I certainly feel what I feel and fear what I fear and the modern Republican Party scares me. 20 years ago I used to be Republican but my moral code just couldn’t drift to the right fast enough to keep up, so I had to become independent. Now the political party I used to belong to just scares me. I do not think this really answers your question directly, but it’s the best I could do for a quick response.· Galina Krasskova likes this comment. -
Sunday, 28 October 2012
@ Robyn: it's very clear that the republicans want to, at the very least cripple the agency designed to protect Mother Earth, most have at one time and including Romney stated they wanted to eliminate the EPA
Source? A quick Google search didn't come up with anything from Romney stating he wanted to eliminate the EPA. I'd also urge you to read my post on Pagans and environmentalism (http://witchesandpagans.com/Pagan-Culture-Blogs/the-false-dichotomy-of-environmentalism.html); nobody actively wants to have pollution. It's a spectrum, and some people are willing to trade some regulations that protect the environment for jobs that help working people. It doesn't make them evil; they just put the needle a little differently on the scale. I'd also point out not all Pagan faiths are "Earth-based". Many of us consider our faith to be quite people-based.
I'd point out that the Supreme Court has (rightly) ruled that posting the 10 commandments in government buildings is, generally, unconstitutional, and they're being taken down across the country as soon as the local governments realize they're on the wrong side of the law. I don't recall ever hearing Romney saying he was in favor of such displays. So I'm not sure why that's even an issue for you right now.
It sounds like most of your objection is centered around issues relating to gay marriage and other associated issues. Of course, you're more than free to base your vote on those (or any other) constellation of issues; I stated as much explicitly in my post. My post was aimed at folks who aren't single-issue voters. You've got an issue, and that is how you base your vote, and that's your prerogative.
But some of us, even those of us in favor of gay marriage, take other things into consideration, and given that, honestly I don't see anything in your comment that invalidates the validity of Pagans, as a group, voting for Romney. Not everyone, not even all Pagans, share your opinion on the issue, and there doesn't seem to be anything inherent within Paganism as an umbrella of beliefs that compels a stance on one side or the other of it. -
Sunday, 28 October 2012
Sorry, I never meant to say Pagan's should not vote republican. My issues are not so much at individuals as with the broad spectrum of the GOP. And I know this is broad and can not nor should not determine which individuals or party one votes for. The EPA was created by a republican and I do stand corrected that Romney was not with the likes of the early runners like Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry who wanted to completely get rid of the EPA. Again, not trying to change peoples minds. And I apologize I should not have even commented as my comment was why I personally voted the way I did this year, not how anyone who has yet to vote should vote. I should have kept my personal views to myself. Especially since did not contribute directly to your post...... Sorry about that
-
Sunday, 28 October 2012
@ Robyn: Not a bit of it! Comments are encouraged, as long as they're respectful and advance the conversation, which yours absolutely are. I hope you'll continue to comment on my posts, whether or not you agree. It's obvious that you're actually interested in having a conversation; it's not a true conversation if everybody agrees on everything.
· Wendy L. Callahan likes this comment. -
Sunday, 28 October 2012
I'm glad to see both sides represented here and I think you bring up some excellent points. These points talk about religious freedom mainly in the context of institutions, but what about for the individuals who make up and support those institutions? What about our individual civil liberties as spiritual folks? I'm going to give some examples. We don't have to agree or disagree with them, but they are there as examples of the rights of the individual citizen.
Let's consider how the defense of marriage act impinges on the religious freedom of adult men and women who believe according to their faith that they should be able to be married. In my own life I've encountered Christians who are LGBT whose churches performed blessings or unions, but could not legally marry them. I also have several atheist LGBT friends who deserve the same consideration to be legally married without a spiritual foundation. The lack of national, legal, secular gay marriage impacts them. Atheists or secular and agnostic citizens are largely ignored in this debate, in my opinion. I think it's important they be taken into consideration.
What about contraception? Individual believers or adherents of a faith should be able to decide for themselves how they are morally led on this issue. The majority of US Catholics actually find birth control morally acceptable. Furthermore, the insurance that most of us use is insurance that we pay large monthly amounts to use, even from our employers. So again, we are looking at the individual and her rights versus the corporation and its rights.
Finally, let me go back to the institution versus the individual as a broader idea. As Pagans, Heathens, and nature-based folks we often don't have the protection of corporate entities and their vast legal sources that the larger religions have at their disposal. We should be, I think, very concerned for individual religious liberties. -
Monday, 29 October 2012
Atheists or secular and agnostic citizens are largely ignored in this debate, in my opinion. I think it's important they be taken into consideration.
Well, given that this is not an Atheist website or blog, but a Pagan one, I'm not really sure why you'd expect to see Atheists given any particular attention. There are plenty of Atheist websites and blogs that are covering political issues relating to them.
What about contraception?
What about it? Those pro-contraception Catholics you mention can very easily get together and form their own hospitals, or universities, or whatever and then offer contraception through their insurance plans. But just because some individuals don't think something contravenes their religious beliefs is no reason to compel others who do think so. -
Monday, 29 October 2012
Why atheists? Good question. As you pointed out religious liberty is important and part of that freedom includes minority faiths like us Pagans, and part of it includes those who do not have Faith, atheists. In addition, atheists, humanists and agnostics are a part of the Pagan community. I've found that there are a number of Pagans who identify as atheists.
So, my concern remains how do individual voices and freedoms fare against institutional choices? Why do institutional religious decisions, in places that are not churches, trump the rights of the American citizen and his or her freedoms of belief and moral choice? (Here I am not suggesting a church or temple or similar religious body should conform to this.) -
Monday, 29 October 2012
Businesses and other organizations are owned by, and made up of, individuals. Those individuals don't lose their right to express their religious choices merely because they own or operate a business. In the same way that no governmental agency could compel all print shops to include the Lord's Prayer on the back of everything they printed, so too should they not be compelled to pay for things through their state-mandated insurance which conflicts with their religious convictions.
-
Monday, 29 October 2012Joe,
You argue very persuasively for your position, and once upon a time, I voted Republican. Were the Republican Party still in the hands of fiscal conservatives with a pro-small-business agenda, I could see doing so again. But I see neither in today's GOP, despite a lot of that language waved around. (cf Ryan's budget, which is anything but fiscally sound.)
I think it's somewhat -- ahem, cough, cough -- willfully rosey-eyed not to recognize that increasing weight of the Christian dominionist and outright theocratic forces in today's Tea (oops, I mean Republican) Party, and while most of that is pandering (for example, George Bush II did VERY little for the religious right), there's signs that where there's a great deal of smoke, there's at least a little fire.
Nonetheless, when I voted today, I read the positions of every person on the ballet, and judged them on their merits, not their parties. I *never* vote by party, but instead, by what I deem to be the merits of the candidate. For example, I considered voting for McCain last time, but decided against him decisively when he chose Sarah Palin.
If Rubio were to be on the ballet in 2016, I'd give him my serious consideration. (But not Chris Christie, who I just can't stand -- but that's a personal taste thing.)
I do not believe Mitt Romney to be an evil man, just one whose worldview is dominated by a rather outdated philosophy. (No, I don't mean Mormonism -- that religion is no more wacky than most Pagan faiths. I mean the corporate-centrism of 1950s America.) I also don't think he would be a terrible president; I see him mostly in the vein of George Herbert Walker Bush. (I *am* worried about his bellicose attitude towards both Iran and Russia, however, and since the biggest impact a President can actually have is over foreign policy, that's not a trivial point for me.)
It's unfair to judge a party entirely by its outlying "crazy people" and I don't really judge Romney by those in his party who can't stop running their mouths off about idiotic topics like "legitimate rape" and magical vaginas that repel rape sperm. It's also unfair to relieve Mitt of all responsibility for running on the Republican ticket, and for a great deal of pandering to the rabid Right of his party, including the many who would happily see the 1st amendment gutted in favor of a Christian theocracy. One of Mitt's most serious problems is that it's rather difficult to telll just *what* he believes. I, for one, wish that he had been less blandly "we all believe in one God" theist and had actually talked about how his Mormonism affects his politics, but I'm sure he was advised to try and assimilate with the dominant form of Christianity in his party. Too bad.
The real question, IMHO, in this election, isn't about the top of the ticket -- it's about the Senate and House. If Romney wins, and has majorities in both House and Senate, it's likely the results will tilt heavily towards the Right -- not because Romney's a Rightist, but because I don't see him having the cojones to stand up to those forces in "his" Congress. If Romney wins, but Congress is still divided or the Senate tilts Democratic (which seems likely) the result will be a modest Right tilt domestically. If Obama wins, it's likely that the same level of Congress-vs-the-Executive which has characterized the last four years will prevail, again, leading to a high level of government inaction. (That's what the Founders wanted, after all -- a government relatively hamstrung by divisions of power.) So, in the end, all this "Zombie apocalypse" that both the Right and Left are flinging around is mostly smoke.
Your positions seem to be primarily Libertarian at heart, a philosophy which I have a great deal of sympathy with. Intelligently applied, I believe that such a philosophy would be an excellent counterpart to the Imperial Presidency common to most of the presidents in my lifetime, Obama included.
But while today's Republican party contains many facets of such a philosophy, right now the balance is largely tipped in favor of those far to the right of what I perceive to be your principled positions. I'm a lifelong political junkie, and I foresee (if Mitt doesn't win) the GOP having the battle for its soul between the farthest Right forces and the moderates like Rubio (who really *should* have been Mitt's pick for VP) over the future of the party. It will be interesting to see how that turns out. (I am anticipating an Obama win.)
There's one way I definitely DO agree with you: there is a broad range of political philosophies that are compatible with Pagan beliefs; since so much of politics is about methods, not goals, people of similar belief systems (which generally focus on goals, not methods) can differ in good conscience.
Blessed Be to all, whether Red, Blue, Purple or Green. -
Monday, 29 October 2012
Anne,
For me, the election is almost all about the economy. I believe that Obama's policies have been absolutely disastrous, with trillion-dollar deficits, threats of tax increases that demonstrably hurt job growth, an incredible increase in regulation that hurts businesses, and the uncertainty of the still-unpopular Obamacare, which we were told would have to get passed before we knew what was in it. Well, now we know, and not only does it not do anything to lower the cost of health care, it put into place all sorts of regulations and budget-busting gimmicks, not to mention driving doctors out of the business. Four more years of this would be a catastrophe.
Although I would also point out that where you see a battle between GOP moderates and conservatives, I see a similar battle between Democrat moderates and liberals. Even the Democrat party of 20 years ago wouldn't have conceived of such an anti-business suite of policies. Clinton at least was pro-business. That wing of the party seems to be on life support at this stage. -
Monday, 29 October 2012
I meant "counterpoint" or "counterweight" to the Imperial presidency above.
-
Monday, 29 October 2012
Aha. As Saint Bill would say, "It's the economy, stupid!" I'm not going to argue with you on that aspect, because I'm not enough of an economist to hold up my end of the argument. (You may differ.) I don't see either one of the major parties addressing the larger issues -- the demographic title way of we Boomers + the MUCH BIGGER tidal wave of global climate change -- calls for the kind of leadership I don't see in either of the major parties right now. I'm almost thinking that it will be the next generation (those younger than, say, 40 now,) who will have to pick up the pieces. I've hedged and done my best to protect those who will follow me, but honestly, I don't think anyone knows The Answer. I do not concur with you that four more years of Obama will be a disaster, but I don't think four years of Romney would be a disaster, either. Hence, my vote is more on social issues than yours. Interesting times. (Old "Chinese curse" as they say.)
-
Monday, 29 October 2012
That should have been "demographic tidal *wave*" above.
-
Monday, 29 October 2012
as a transgender fey i don't like either major party. so i'm libertarian. just because the democrats offer protection does not mean it does not come without strings. and just because the letter of the republican platform uphold individual rights does not mean the tendency of the laws they produce will enhance them. both are faulty because their theory is not strong. however libertarians, even though strong on theory and clear on vision, are not proven. they seek more of a national stage when they should be seeking state level first and then national.
but i tend to agree that the dems seek a social agenda and the reps have more integrity to rights at least in the platform. however this is the first year i have voted only libertarian. and it feels good. my vision is clear. -
Tuesday, 30 October 2012
I had been a Republican up until GW Bush ran. That doesn't mean I always voted Republican, just that I belonged to the Party. But the Republican Party is not what it used to be. In fact, the Democratic Party at present is more like the Republican Party I originally joined. I think the camel's back broke when GW Bush declared that Witchcraft was not a religion. I believe that all of the religious posturing on the Republican platform is in reference to the Abrahamic faiths alone, and that the only reason they don't come right out and say that is they don't want to open the floodgates over whether Mormonism qualifies as Christian. I appreciate your views and understand we all have differing opinions even if we share similar faiths - we are all the stronger for being able to see all sides of various issues.
-
Tuesday, 30 October 2012
I forgot about that Bush comment! Googling it, brought up a lot of interesting things. It also reminds me of the media blow up in 2010 with Christine O'Donnell on her alleged witchcraft (she's a very conservative evangelical Roman Catholic now). She had to proclaim she was not a witch and distance herself from her old views, saying she had "matured" in her beliefs. Nice. Sigh.
Similar to your story, I was registered as a Republican in the past, but no longer. I tend to vote for candidates across party lines according to what seems best for my community. At the presidential level, I tend to vote Democrat. I think your points about religion in the Republican party are important to this discussion. -
Please login first in order for you to submit comments
« Again, please try to set aside your personal views of the specific issues of gay marriage or states’ rights. I’m personally in favor of gay marriage, but I think that it’s something that all fifty states should pass on their own, individually, according to the needs and desires of their citizens. »
So 150 years ago, should we have simply left it up to the individual states to end slavery based on the needs and desires of their citizens ? I dare say that there might, even to this day, continue to be states that would allow it if that was the case.
Why is it that there is a legal obligation to recognise a heterosexual marriage in one state that was performed in another ? And yet, a same sex marriage performed in one state where it has been legalised does not get the same benefit of legal recognition in another state ? Imagine moving to another state that says they don't recognise your driver's licence nor offer you the opportunity to get a driver's licence in that state...so, hey, if you want to drive, well then go back to where you came from.
Imagine being legally married in one state, with all the rights and benefits that come along with that...and then you're on vacation and your wife or husband falls ill and is admitted to the hospital, and you're not allowed to visit them even as they are dying, because you happen to be vacationing in a state where they've decided not to allow/recognise same sex marriage.
There are issues that either apply to all citizens or do not. And those that do apply to all citizens should be legally mandated by the federal government and not left to the discretion of voters at the state level.
Just because I am on one side of an issue is no reason to deny someone else the right to vote on it, even if that vote may go a way I don’t like.
Oh really ? So you think that you're right to practice whatever religion or spiritual practice you choose should also be put to the vote of the people in the state ? And if they vote for a state that only allows for the practice of Mormonism, then you either convert or get out of the state and live somewhere else.
Or do we pick and choose which rights the majority is allowed to vote on...as long as it is rights that don't personally apply or affect us as an individual ?
I say no person who has been divorced should have the right to vote about whether someone else can get married.
I also think that, as it is in some other countries, it should be illegal to ask a candidate about, or for that candidate to speak about, their personal faith, religion or spiritual practice. That should have no place in the public political arena, and should not be used as a litmus test for a candidate.