The candidates for the Republican presidential nomination are agreed on one point - there's a War on Religion and they are the martyrs.
The language that is used is pretty convoluted. What Gingrich seems to be saying, if the state requires a lack of bias on the part of adoption agencies, in order to give money to those agencies, then the state is antireligious. In other words, he is stating that the government should give money to the catholic church, even if the catholic church discriminates against people for not following catholic doctrine. The candidates use that as an expression of "bigotry" against christians. Therefore, that is a "war on religion".
Then Perry uses the argument, that the Obama administration's refusal to defend DOMA, is evidence of a "religious war". DOMA defines marriage in federal law as only between one man and one woman, and states if you are married in one state, other states do not have to honor that marriage, and the federal government can not consider that a marriage. So this means that the Obama administration is "fighting a war on religion." Apparently, all religion forbids same gender marriage. A lot, probably most, do, but not all. In addition, the Obama administration considered one section of the law unconstitutional, as the rationale for not defending that law. Again, Perry is claiming that if you support equality, and possibly if you support the US Constitution, then you are "bigoted" against christians.
It's interesting that in both cases, they are using actions that are intended address antigay bias, as evidence of a war on religion. Same old shit, just not naming it as such. It's really some religious people who are fighting a war on human fairness, and the same old antigay stuff without naming it as such.
It seems to me that they are trying to get around the US constitution, article 6 paragraph 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
I say that because in their election process, they are attempting to get the voters to test, or side with, the religious belief of the candidate. While that does not violate the letter of the law, it looks to me like it violates the spirit of the law. It seems to be an attempt by certain Rebublican candidates to get the Republican voters to impose a religious test, which would presumably mean "vote for me! I love Jesus more. Plus, I'm not a Mormon"
To fully label this demagoguery as "Republican" may not be completely fair. It seems limited to specific candidates and specific fractions of the electorate. I'm not siding with republicans here, but I don't want to fall into the same behaviors as some of the evil clown candidates like Perry Gingrich and Santorum. In the text of the article, it appears that Romney actually answered the question, while some other candidates used the question as an excuse to continue their war on gays.
I think that's a bit generous to the Republican Party. Not one Republican candidate will defend pluralism. Not one candidate will defend Article 6, paragraph 3. Even the secular element of the Party (the rich) winks at Christian bigotry. Talk about a lack of ethics. The party consists of two wings, the willfully stupid and the cynical. Yes, there's an odd 2% that don't fit in this dichotomy.
I'm just a generous guy :-)
Maybe Ron Paul? He might be that odd 2%. And there are concerns about his Baptist religious tendencies, and his Reaganesque denial of things done in his name, that he was supposedly unaware of so is not responsible for.
I will still be voting for Obama. I know he's flawed, but considering the alternatives, I have to be realistic.
Of course, I'll be down there voting Democratic as well. What choice do we have?
Good point about the libertarians. They aren't all religious, they just have this naive idea that all will be just ducky if we get rid of most government functions. They're not as flat-out stupid as the "social conservative" wing, but the concept isn't workable.
Same here. Now if only my brother would see reason. He is a total Paul-bot
Hear! Hear! Phil,
Obviously we can't scream "secularism!" But as democratic, rational and compassionate positions tend to be secular, we don't have to go there.