These are the same kind of feelings I began to have years ago as I realized that the republicans really do not care about family values, faith, or anything else other than enriching themselves. As long as the Dobsons and the like pretend the republicans actually care about people of faith you will see little real progress on “Christian” issues.
If the Christians were to start a 3rd party, even one that composed only 15% of the electorate, and ran their own candidates, you would have tremendous leverage. You would win some seats in the house (primarily in the south) and those candidates would have an unsullied (or less sullied) platform, rather than having “Christian” planks built into a platform that contained decidedly non-Christian planks.
In Norway the Christian party (Kristelig Folkepartiet, or KFp) has for decades wielded influence far beyond its numbers because of this dynamic. They are able to look at every initiative proposed by the left and the right and to examine them in the light of their Christian beliefs. Shock of shocks, sometimes they support the right, sometimes they support the left! The previous prime minister, Kjell Magne Bondevik, came from the KFp, even though the party had only 22% or so support in the 2001 elections. He served until after last year’s elections and his university degree was in theology.
As long as you (meaning Christians) remain as part of one of the larger parties you will forever have bruises on your forehead from banging it against the wall after episodes like this one. It would probably take 20 years to build a Christian party here but I’d think it would be preferable to the current arrangement.
Would doing so cede dominance to the democrats? No way – remember that no democratic presidential candidate has won a majority of the votes since 1976 – and it took the disgust of Watergate for that to happen. In a real sense I think there truly are 3 roughly equal groups in this country, and the Christians dilute their potential power by remaining part of one of the legacy, Machiavellian groups.
It would work in a parliamentary system, but not in our two-party system, it seems to me. Also -- which Christians would be part of this party? I know heathenous conservatives with which I have more in common in terms of political beliefs than I do with many professing Catholics. Still, discuss.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Hmm. Pikkumatti, my intention with that post was to address the principle, not the application... so we really aren't in any conflict of ideas here.
Everything starts with individual rights. This was, IMO, the intention of the founders, in that if one works backwards from the ideal, one is more likely to end up close to it than if one starts with zero and tries to create it one small step at a time. The experience of the freed slaves after our Civil War is illustrative of that. It took nearly 100 years and the passage of additional laws to give blacks the same basic rights enjoyed by everyone else. It took nearly 150 years for women to be granted full citizenship.
In each case, a significant group of people were subject to the tyranny of the majority. The protections created by the founders failed to serve them. That is my main point.>
OK. But the Civil War (and Civil Rights Era) and women suffrage eras are over.
Now, everyone is subject to the "tyranny of the majority" in one way or another. Just that it relates to different things for different people. But we are each free to try to change the minds of the majority, aren't we?>
Yes we are, my friend, and even when I disagree with your goal I will support you in standing up to the majority.
It goes beyond the changing of minds. It's also about negating the majority when the delineated rights of the individual have been violated. I don't know about alot of others, but that's my motivation for opposing the Patriot Act, warrantless domestic spying, and presidential executive orders that are in clear violation of existing statutes.
It's a balancing act. It's one where we seem to fall down more often than not. The moment we surrender, the moment we stop standing up for our individual rights, is the moment the tyranny wins.>
dbkenner,
"Surely no sane person who has not suffered a serious head injury could believe that the establishment clause means Christians should not participate as Christians in the political process. The idea is laughable on its face."
Yes, it IS laughable, and I did not suggest it. Christians are free to "participate" in the political process - as should Jews, Muslims, atheists, all. My objection is that they wish to make the tenets of their religion the LAW, the law that will govern people who are NOT of their particular persuasion.
What if, say, the Catholics wanted to pass laws that said divorced people should not be legally allowed to re-marry??? The RCCInc is free to hold that view; I contend that they are NOT free to force other people to hold to that 'religious view'.
Capice yet?
"My views trump yours if a) my guy gets elected"
And what if 'your guy' (and why not your 'gal'?) believes in white supremacy, or that inter-racial marriages ought not be permitted? That's some 'trump' ya got there.
Who, then, WILL protect the minority from the tyranny of the 'majority'? Apparently you belive no one will and no one should. Feel free to correct me if i am wrong.
"b) if he actually does what he promised me he would."
See above re inter-racial marriage and then puke your guts out. I just did.
"This assumes that what I want is really in my interests"
But who looks out for the interests of the minority? NO one? YIKES!
"The ranting is so confused and silly I just pray that there's a laughing frat boy on the other end who not so drunk that he actually believes those comments."
Nope, a happily, legally married gay man of 55 who has experienced everything of which he writes, stone cold sober.
But thanks for your "compassion" anyway.>
"But the Civil War (and Civil Rights Era) and women suffrage eras are over."
We only wish that were true.
Inter-racial marriage has been legal since 1961, but it took Alabama until 1999 to change their laws because up until then, a 'majority' of the people were agin' it. (And even then more than 25% of the people still opposed it.)
Women STILL do not have the right to make independent legal decisions regarding their reproductive health.
Dream on pikumatti.>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.