Now Democrats Embrace Fundamentalism

limerickman

I try to read as wide a spectrum of newspaper - in terms of their political stance - in order to try to arrive at "the truth".

The Daily Telegraph (centre/right and conservative) states that US politicians
and candidates for the Presidency have to state what their religious beliefs are, to the electorate.
The Guardian (centre left and liberal) states the same thing.
The Sunday Times ditto.
The Irish Times ditto.

Therefore, I think Carerra is correct - religious affiliation of the candidates does influence the candidates "electability" with the electorate.
For example, I read that Romney is Mormon and that this could be a factor as to why he isn't as popular as other candidates.
I read that Guilliani is nominally Catholic - but with several divorces behind him and his stance on abortion makes him less palatable to the electorate.
Clinton is Methodist and this has the potential to make her more compelling to
some voters.

In other words, religion does seem to be a factor with the elctorate - it may not be a decisive factor but it is a factor nontheless.

In my country, Britain and Europe, the religious belief of a candidate going for office is irrelevant.
In fact, it isn't even commented upon.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets" - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

CDAKIAHONDA

Well, why don't we run an election on that platform? "Freedom and Liberty for all!" Anyone want to raise a dissenting opinion? Who's not for the Big "F" and "L"? Why don't we all run on a platform of "responsible government," " social reform," and "equality? A chicken in every pot?"

Riddle me this, if religion is just a belief system, how does it differ from Party Affiliation? Plenty of fanatical Labor Party members and socialists, bully pulpit and all. Most terrorist groups have a political as well as religious agenda. If, as in America, the basic issues, like "F" and "L" are pretty darn indivisible, how does a party set itself apart? How does a candidate as an individual?" How does a religion? How do you?

Any guess as to why the controversial issues of abortion, gay marriage, etc...come to the fore in America, while suicide bombers make headlines in the Middle East?

wolfix

The thing is that religion has become political in the last few decades. So when a person religious affliation is announced, the voters have a feel for what he may believe in.

The last election saw Kerry run. But it caused Kerry to think about if he should make a big deal of his faith. Even though the CR seems to have the political reputation of radicalism, many see the Catholic Church as the same. The anti -abortion stance that the Catholic Church stands for would alienate many of Kerry's voters. If he would have announced a anti-abortion platform his faith demands, we would not even know who he is today. I think there were bishops that denounced Kerry in the last election and stated they would not serve him communion.

But, it is not as Lim says a decisive factor. Every election has a single issue that determines an election. The last election was the war.
Religion scares the liberals. They try and paint the canidates as nutcases if religion pops up in a political speech. Even though the Catholic Church is as liberal as it gets, it goes against the big issues of the liberals.
The next election is going to be interesting concerning religion. I'm thinking illegal immigration is going to be a big issue. With the majority of immigrants of legal status being Catholic, the tide could swing towards the softening of the immigration laws to appease the voters. And the Democratic voting base and the Republican voting base is against softening of the laws. It might be a bad time to be a Catholic canidate. Which is kinda strange with Bush being seen as soft on immigration while his hardline buddies are for stricter laws.

__________________
"I rule my world with a cellphone."

CDAKIAHONDA

If you change the first line from "last few decades" to "always has been," I do believe you nailed it! Bush is from Texas, immigration is the backbone of the "Tejas" agricultural economy.

wolfix

Your post has it nailed. Except to say that Romney is Mormon and could be a factor. It is stronger then "could be"...... It is a death sentence politically nationwide. Mormons seem to be misunderstood by many in the USA. I am not that familiar with the belief system, but I do know many people that are wary of them. I don't why.

__________________
"I rule my world with a cellphone."

limerickman

So would the religious beliefs of a candidate influence you in deciding whether or not you would vote for that candidate?

I think that it is really interesting that when the your country was founded that Washington & co were intent to found a country that had clear demarcation between church and state.
It appears that they went to great length in order to make sure that this demarcation was entrenched from the outset (and I think that it was a very wise move for them to create this demarcation).

Today, it seems that this established demarcation isn't as clear - given all the speculation about the various candidates religious beliefs/affiliations

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets" - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

wolfix

Me personally vote for someone because of their religious beliefs?
Good question...... I have to think about that.

I think that in a election year, many issues get raised. Religion is just one of them. America seems to get lost dealing with social issues such as abortion and gay rights instead of other more important issues that face the country. And those issues cross over into the political arena from the religious pulpit. And it has been those two issues that have polorized voters into seperate religious camps.
Beyond abortion and gay rights I doubt if religion would get much media attention in elections or in everyday life.
I would make the comment that the US seems to have a stronger religious attraction then Europe, but then when I consider Ireland/Poland/ and Italy, I don't know if I would be correct.


One of the tougher things in comparing Europe to the US is size. Europe is seen as a area just slightly bigger then the US with many different countries and many different cultures. The US is one country with just a few cultures trying to live as one. When that is examined it can be said "When things are good in America, things are great. But when things are bad, they are really bad." Both good and bad are on a much larger scale here. A NY'er and someone from Seattle are totally different individuals leading different lifestyles living under one rule.

A person from Athens thinks like a person from Athens and is ruled by Athenians that think like him. He can live totally under different rules then someone from Limerick......

If Europe was to vote for one individual to rule all of Europe, do you think that religion may play a larger role?
From the American publics perspective, I have noticed that American politicians seem to resemble the Royalty in England more then they resemble European politicians. Like the Royalty in England, we examine every aspect of our political leaders lives. We judge them at every level. We are intrigued by their personal lives and behavior. Let's face it, Prince Charles's love life gets more press then Tony Blair doing anything. We are on a first name basis with the royalty...... Charles,Di, Camellia, William,Harry, *Fergie........... And I cannot even name the person who is next in line for Blair's job.

* fergie may be Europes hottest thing in the past 2 decades..... Thinking about Fergie and Finola Hughes have occupied way too much of my time.

__________________
"I rule my world with a cellphone."

limerickman

Fair comment.

I can only tell you that the religious affiliation of politicians here in Europe is of no consequence.

I'd better qualify that.
If a politician makes play of their religious faith, it doesn't appear to go down well with the electorate.
Blair is an interesting example.
His wife is a leading barrister - and she is Roman Catholic.
In his early years as PM Blair made great play about his religious faith (he's Anglican) and there were rumours that he attends Mass with his wife.
In 2005 it was said that he has was seriously considering converting to RC.
He would be the first RC Prime Minister ever in the UK.
British press were very unimpressed at the thought of the occupant of No 10 being an RC.

When he started talking about God in 1997/1998- the Press and the public said that they didn't want to know about what he believed in.
(this was when he was popular 1997-2000).
Then when he threw his lot in with Bush - not only did people oppose the war but they started throwing his own words about him being a christian etc back at him and telling him that his war in Iraq was unchristian.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets" - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

Carrera

The ideal is very hard to attain. The Government of a society should be strong and disciplined but it should also stand for genuine liberty and personal freedom.
The problem with America and Europe and also the U.K. is the political system seems worn out, stale and insincere. Politicians are big on talk of democracy and Christianity yet don't practise either.
For a start, people needs to be included in electoral processes. No way in this world should Bush and Blair simply decide to drag us all into a war without even a referendum. People were just ignored and only oil companies and big corporations heard out. This is not democracy. Democracy means rule of the people but what we see in practice is an Oligarchy - an elite rule of the upper class (Bush and his associates).
What people want is jobs, prosperity, security, defence, social order, decent health care e.t.c. We don't want cheap immigrant labour and sweat shop factories and we hope to see honest, sincere, accountable politicians.

__________________
"Everybody has a philosophy. However, what philosophy you have is a matter of choice, and most people don't make a conscious choice with regard to what philosophy they accept."

wolfix

Very good points.....I also believe the larger the country, more individual rights can be lost. The more people there are, the more diversity there is, the more laws are needed to protect everyone. One problem I see in America is that the individual states lose power to the federal government. The belief systems[non-religious] vary from state to state. I personally do not want anyone from California making any decisions for me, because they are faced with different problems and obstacles then we are in the midwest. And vice a versa. Illegal immigration is not really a problem in my area, it may even be a good thing. However, in California, illegal immigration is a problem and a burden on the state budget. Rules adopted in California do not always work here.

I'm curious...... If a Protestant ran for a major office in Italy, would it be a issue?

Also, more individual rights are being lost with the world getting smaller. The terrorism that America faces is a whole new thing to us. Recently we have been informed of a few terrorist plots that were hatching...... Fort Dix and JFK.
A close relative of mine who works in the federal government and watched the plane come down on the Pentagon tells me he has worries working in DC for those reasons. And I believe there have been more plots of terrorism that we in the public do not know about.
It's new to us.
How do we handle it?
If the government tries to prevent terrorism, some toes may get stepped on. People scream "freedom!" But if the government didn't try, then the people scream "protect me!" Americans can look to Europe to see that we can not have it both ways.

__________________
"I rule my world with a cellphone."

CDAKIAHONDA

Not "now"....but....

Kind of a reversal for both Geo-political entities, USA and Europe? The relatively young nation, democraticly founded on a more, (certainly not totally), secular concept (USA) perhaps morphing INTO a more religiously inspired system. Systems of more secular governments having predominantly morphed FROM long, long, tradition of religiously dominated government, (certainly not totally), that were often believed, and promoted, to be divinely ordained, ruled by hereditary Monarchy (Europe).

Perhaps it's a constant reversal, societies in constant "flux?" Does the seeming resurgence of a "psuedo-Monarchal" (Bush, Clinton) system developing in the US have any validity? Will it be mirrored again, later, perhaps even much later, in Europe? Are we seeing the same thing, in its own fashion in Russia, where state control WAS the religious equivalent?

It stands to reason, although it may not be born out in fact, and therein lies the rub, that the inherent inequities and challenges of society need result in disillusionments with current systems. Changes often require different, but perhaps recycled as well as new or hybrid systems and beliefs emerge, and the process of change continues?

We are a facinating species..... Would that we lived longer as individuals so we could see more of it!

Carrera

"I also believe the larger the country, more individual rights can be lost."

I agree. The Greeks of 400 B.C., for example, weren't overly numerous and populations were small. Politicians and statesmen were also better educated and more accountable.

"The more people there are, the more diversity there is, the more laws are needed to protect everyone."

"Diversity" is the key word. Consider the following:

The population of the U.S.A. was originally comprised of Irish, English, European settlers with indigenous Indians and Africans who arrived as slaves. Today, the U.S. population is becoming far more diverse with Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Asian, Jewish and other influences. According to Bill Clinton, the U.S. will become an ethnic mix of multiple cultures and languages within, say, another couple of decades. Even Spanish could become the official language.
Compare this with the Roman Empire. Rome was originally made up of Romans, Latins and Italians. The language spoken was Latin and the State religion was simplistic, rustic and not overly complex. The military was strong enough to conquer Greece and defeat Carthage.
Eventually, as Rome expanded, it absorbed other races such as Gauls, Germans, Huns, Vandals, Britons, Greeks, Jews, Dacians, Goths e.t.c. The Roman army became totally transformed.
Back in the times of Julius Caesar the average conscript was a Latin speaking Roman or Latin but by 300 A.D. the average conscript would more than likely be a German or Gaul.
So, the first point that needs to be grasped is that both the U.S. today and the Roman Empire yesterday became far far more diverse over centuries of time. Imperialism was also a factor.
In the case of the Roman Empire what happened? In simple terms, it failed to hold together because, in the final analysis, it came to represent such a wide range of ethnic, cultural, religious, economic diversities, the basic glue that originally bonded it all together started to melt. Also, "nationalism" (that widely misunderstood term) weakened to the point the average Roman couldn't see anything advantageous to himself in the system as a whole. He had no real desire to serve in the army and felt that the State was now too diverse to represent his interests. So, many Romans fled to enclaves such as Britain, married a local tribeswoman and buried his currency in a wood somewhere (these continue to be found today).
In the end, the whole structure came unstuck. It ended with Huns, Goths, Vandals and Dacians fighting each other, some representing what was left of the Roman army and others actually invading from outside with invaders and defenders often joining sides.
Something similar is happening in the U.S. today. Thousands of immigrants pour through the borders without due process and politicians have no option but to grant amnesties and legalise the new arrivals. New arrivals bring their own set of values and beliefs with them and, in many cases, these don't correspond with the values of fifties or sixties America. Often, religion is a big factor. Many voters will be Catholic speakers of Spanish from Nicaragua, Cuba and Mejico. Other immigrants will be Orthodox Jews or Moslems from the Middle East.
Religion is such a factor, the Democrats face a simple choice: Either address religion or go out of fashion.
Here is another worrying point - human rights in the U.S. Sure, rendition and torture has been taking place in Argentina and Chile for decades and now we see this same disregard for basic human in America. Scores of C.I.A. operatives are immigrants from former despotic regimes. Many generals once held positions within South American terror squads but are now based in Iraq with U.S. insignia. The former respect for humane treatment and civilized military conduct is fast disappearing. Other values are being imported but Blair simply won't face it. Mistakenly he simply clings to this erroneous idea that the U.S.A. of today is the same U.S. that fought Hitler's Germany yet treated Nazi war criminals according to Geneva conventions and with due process (despite the fact these war criminals were worse than Al Quaida).
So, immigration changes society. Diversity even weakens it once it gets out of control and Gorbachev was basically spot on. He recently warned Bush not to go down the road of Empire but to concentrate on building a strong economy instead in order to work multilaterally with other countries (it's worked for Japan and China).
The trouble with imperialism is it inevitably sows the seeds of its own self destruction which is what happened to the Romans, the British and the Russians. Expansion without leads to multiculturalism within and, in the final analysis, too much diversity will inevitably fail to bond together under any common ideology.
The U.S. and U.K. often boast of tolerance towards immigration but I suspect what they are also tolerating is lesser Third World values at the expense of civilization and democracy. It's mind-boggling to imagine the U.S. and U.K. populations would now embrace political leaders who condone torture and the idea of no right to a trial in a court of law (on the mere basis of suspicion).

__________________
"Everybody has a philosophy. However, what philosophy you have is a matter of choice, and most people don't make a conscious choice with regard to what philosophy they accept."

Colorado Ryder

Oh come on now. Haven't you learned anything from Wurm about 9/11? We all "know" that a "missile" hit the Pentagon.

Colorado Ryder

This is one of those differences between Europeans and Americans. Europeans don't understand why Americans think religion is important. Europe cannot fathom the cultural implications of religion in American society.