Letters to the Editor
Mishima666
Published Letters: 125 Editor's Choice: 28
-
It's not about the leaders
[Read the article: James Dobson's Rudy problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I spend time hanging out on the web sites and blogs of the religious right. While the religious right has "leaders," it's not like the individual Christians follow them with robot-like obedience.
Were Giuliani to get the nomination, that would simply be too much for many of them to stomach, and it wouldn't matter what Dobson or Robertson said. In fact, if Dobson or Robertson endorsed Giuliani, the effect would be to undermine their own influence.
Look, for very many folks in the religious right, abortion is literally murder. It is the "abortion holocaust." It is part of the "culture of death," that also includes euthanasia, assisted suicide, and infanticide. Abortion is the result of "sexual promiscuity," of which homosexuality is also a manifestation. Homosexuality is also tangentially related to the culture of death, since homosexual coupling is by nature infertile. Abortion is generally condemned in the Christian tradition, and homosexuality is specifically condemned in the Bible. Abortion and homosexuality are seen as part of a larger descent into cultural degeneracy that includes pornography, uncontrolled illegal immigration, mass media that promote unchristian values, divorce, homosexual adoption, and a loss of personal responsibility aided and abetted by the welfare state.
Whether or not you agree with any of that doesn't matter. This is how these folks see things. And they see these issues not separately, but interrelated, as a whole package. And the whole package adds up to a liberal culture war intent upon the destruction of the traditional family.
If abortion is murder, how then do you vote for someone who advocates the murder of the unborn? You don't. You either sit out the election, or you vote for another candidate, whether or not he or she has any chance of winning.
People in the religious right have spent decades in fundraising, development of candidates, refining issues, voter drives, and constructing think tanks and policy groups. They did all this in order to achieve a position of great influence in the Republican party. At this point, for the Republicans to give the nomination to a man who is the living incarnation of all the religious right have fought against would, I believe, cause a huge rupture in the Republican party, and the fallout would go far beyond the presidential election.
-
Re: What Confuses Me
[Read the article: James Dobson's Rudy problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]edgore writes: "Is why the well-known adulterer Newt...Gingrich is acceptable to these bible-thumping bozos. I think that as much as anything this shows that they are rotten to the core."
What has happened in recent decades is a fundamental realignment among conservative Christian groups.
In the past, religious differences tended to cryatallize along theological lines. Years ago, what really mattered is whether you had the right beliefs on the Trinity, whether you went to the "true" church, whether you were a "papist," and so on. Religious groups tended to perceive each other as enemies.
Today, religious differences tend to crystallize along the lines of social issues. Now, what really matters is whether you have the right views on abortion, homosexuality, the Terri Schiavo case, and so on. Today, the enemy is no longer other religious folk, but "liberals" and those on the wrong side of social issues.
Thus, conservative political leaders can tap into support from the religious right through supporting their social agenda. This gives them a "pre-fab" base of organized support that includes fundraising and other resources. The personal life of the politician, as long as it is not too outrageous, is overlooked or even forgiven, especially if the politician offers a few words of remorse.
Does this constitute "being rotten to the core?" Well, if you have to choose between opposing past adultery in a political leader and his perceived assistance in ending the (as they see it) abortion holocaust, which would you choose, were you of that religious persuasion?
-
Amen! Say on, brother!
[Read the article: The presidential primary scam]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm a registered Democrat, and have been for decades. But I don't give a rat's behind about the primary. I couldn't care less about "who's strong on defense," or "who has has best healthcare plan," or whether a "woman" or a "black" could win. Why?
Because I live in a state that has the primary election in May. So by the time I "vote" for the presidential nominee -- which I won't -- the election will already be over. Some people in Iowa or New Hampshire, or wherever the hell, will decide that for me. In years past the candidates I'd like to vote for have already been eliminated, even if their names are pathetically still printed on the ballot.
But you say, "oh no, you should still follow the candidates and give money to the one you like." Forget that, Jack. My vote don't count? Then my money doesn't either. You want my money? Then let my vote count. Otherwise, forget about it. Go ding some SOB in Iowa. We used to have "taxation without representation," and people thought that was a big deal. Now we have election without representation, and it's built into the system. Wake me up when the primary is over in early 2008.
-
The marriage always comes first.
[Read the article: Will my family drag us down?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You made a promise to your wife -- in sickness and in health -- but that doesn't include everyone else in your family.
The question to ask is what is best for your wife and child. Their interests are primary and must always be primary.
Your mother and sister, bless their hearts, are a black hole. No care they get will ever be enough. More will be required.
Again, wife and child are the priority.