The Republican You Tube Debate: Abortion pt 2

The next question was:

If Roe v Wade was overturned, and Congress passed a bill banning abortion, would you sign it?

Giuliani to his credit, said he would not sign the bill, would leave it up to the states. The foundation of such an action, vetoing the bill, must be a belief in a woman’s right to have an abortion. Despite being at a Republican primary debate, where the political pressures favor the right-most candidate, he held firm to his belief.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, would sign the bill, but he said that the country isn’t there yet. So where is the country Mitt? What is it that we want? According to him, “Where America is, is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade”. So let’s be clear about this, Mitt wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he believes the American public is ready for it. Aside from the fact that the current court has indicated is preference for precedent, Mitt Romney is flat wrong. The American public does not support overturning Roe v. Wade, as this study earlier this year indicates.

Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney both are making fire about overturning Roe, a long held goal for conservatives. Although this may work in the primary, once the general electi0n begins, things change. If either candidate's anti-abortion stance catapulted them into the nomination (as it could since the front runner is pro-choice), the issue that defines either candidate's success will become abortion, and their stance against it will be clear and undeniable. But as the chart indicates, the public is not ready to overturn Roe v. Wade. Convincing fellow republicans is difference than convincing the sea of moderates, who favor the courts ruling. This opinion would undoubtedly affect their choice for president, the Republican nominees ignore this fact at their own peril.

The Republican YouTube Debate: Literal Interpretation of the Bible Pt. 1 Rudy

This question splits the religious and political community apart. The questioner asked, do you agree with every word in the Bible? Essentially this question is asking if candidates believe the things that have been shown to be scientifically untrue. For example, The Bible’s account of the age of the Earth, and the creation of animals and man are all completely out of line with scientific reality. When we find a 3.2 million year old skeleton of a species that was below our current evolutionary state, but walked upright, it’s impossible to believe that god simply created man out of dust 5,000 years ago. These kinds of contradictions were at the heart of the question. He was asking, “Do you accord every word of the bible with literal meaning, thereby believing things that are absolutely false, or do you admit some things are not literal?” This question may seem silly, but in a country where the majority believes that the Bible is literal truth, it may hold electoral importance.

Rudy Tootie Fresh and Fruity

Rudy Giuliani answered the question first, he said that he believed the whole thing, but that parts were allegorical, and parts were meant to be interpretive. He stressed that it was important to him and even went so far as to say it is the “greatest book ever written”.

Some other Atheists might object to his general belief in supernatural beings, his professed religiosity. But I am more interested in his religion in practice, than in performance. Rudy says that he interprets the Bible and that parts are literal, but others aren’t. The practical reality is that Rudy has been married and divorced multiple times disrespecting fidelity throughout. Obviously, his belief is that the Bible does not extend over his sexual life, maybe that’s something he thinks shouldn’t be interpreted in a literal context.

Politically he’s pro-choice, to his credit I might add, but that doesn’t jive with the Bible’s implication; that every baby has a soul from conception, which is robbed of life by abortion. Certainly that isn’t up for interpretation.

Rudy’s uses of religion the way most politicians do, to get votes. I have no problem with that, religion is a tool to control people en mass, always has been, always will be. Rudy is a cagey political veteran going back to the bread and butter of superstitious politics.

Because of Rudy’s perceived problem with religious voters, he tried to establish his religiosity. At the same time he seemed cautious, stopping short of professing literal belief. It was a calculated and political performance, but one that no one should interpret as religiously genuine.

Robertson endorses Giuliani

Chris Britt, Springfield, IL -- The State Journal-Register

“The Lord had some very encouraging news for George Bush. What I heard [from God] was that Bush is now positioned to have victory after victory and that his second term is going to be one of triumph, which is pretty strong stuff.”

That wonderfully incorrect prediction is from Pat Robertson. You might remember him as the guy who called for the assassination of democratically elected president of Venezuela Hugo Chavez, an action that, as the cartoon points out, puts him in league with terrorists. He is a, televangelist, ex-presidential candidate, and perhaps the worst prophet in the history of man, and today he endorsed Rudy Giuliani.

“Why do I care?” you ask. Allow me to explain…

This move could throw the evangelical movement into uncharacteristic disunity, and could even mark the beginning of the end of the Christian Right. You see, the Christian right has built its political power on the backs of its believers. They have been able to have a significant effect on politics because evangelical leaders have been able to mobilize their parish.

This mobilization is often accomplished by tapping into the parishioner’s common religious beliefs. Pastors and Priests link religious dogma, such as “Thou shall not kill” to selected political issues, like the national debate on abortion.

Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, who is pro-abortion, quad-divorced, and pro-gay rights, ensures that voters will not be able to link their presidential vote to religious belief. This raises two interesting questions: If Pat Robertson didn’t choose Rudy based on theological grounds on what grounds did he choose him? And, Will religious voters be motivated to vote when doing so would require them voting against their religious values?

The answer to the first question is obvious. The religious right wants power and their leaders are going to line up being the candidate they think will win. Giving the winning candidate votes now, buys them influence later.

The second question is a little more tough. In the past, republican strategists haven’t been completely confident when voters didn’t have a direct religious reason to vote for a candidate, in 2004 despite George W. Bush’s perceived religiosity, the GOP put 11 same-sex marriage bans on state ballots to bring out the religious voters. Will they be able to do the same thing in 2008? We’ll have to wait and see.

Christian Conservative Leaders Threaten Third Party Run pt. 2

Richard Land, Eternally Hawt

In part two of our analysis of a Newsweek interview with Richard Land President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Land discusses Mitt Romney’s prospects with the religious right.

"bzzzzz-whiiiirrr-*POP*- boop"

What Land wants most is a JFK style speech from Mitt, but he wants a few specific things from the Morman Candidate.

He wants Mitt to stop equating Mormonism to Christianity, “He is not going to win that argument”, “What I think Romney has to do is he has to give a speech in which he defends the right of a Mormon to run for president and appeals to Americans' basic sense of fair play.”

And Land wants Mitt to promise to have an administration with no higher percentage of Mormons than in the population.

Again, Land is unconcerned of the religious differences between himself and Mitt Romney. What he is concerned with is ensuring they have access to the administration. This is high level political power brokering. Mitt is being asked to make public concessions in order to gain the support of Land’s influential voting bloc.

Land is single-mindedly focused on promoting his groups agenda, and you cannot blame him, that’s his group’s states goal. But the next time someone tells an Atheist to calm down, to stop being so evangelical about their beliefs, keep in mind that religious influence still seeps into our government, poisoning reasonable debate with dogmatic absolutism. Land’s group and others are actively trying to push their religious values on other people who do not share them. By overturning Roe v. Wade, they seek to make what should be their private religious beliefs, publicly enforced law, sounds familiar. Salman Rushdie has said this is the key problem with Islam, the politicization of religion, we ought to be on the lookout for it domestically as well.

Richard Land’s problems with the front running candidates has lead to questions about the potential of Christian Conservatives running a third candidate. Land is quick to point out that it could only happen if Rudy Giuliani gets the nomination. But adds, “this is not a bluff”.

The big mystery is why they don’t support Huckabee, Land’s paradoxical answer seems to be that the Arkansas Governor doesn’t have enough support to earn the Christian Conservatives support. A religious Catch 22 that doesn’t make sense to me.

Land says, “when I am asked why Huckabee isn't doing better, I can only answer that that's up to the voters.” It seems to me another way to answer that question is to say, “Because you haven’t backed him”.

Christian Conservative Leaders Threaten Third Party Run pt. 1

This election is going to be hell for the Republicans. Not only do they not have a candidate, but they do not have their typically unified base. The Christian Conservatives, instrumental in every modern Republican victory, don’t have a candidate they can get behind.

Newsweek spoke to Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. He spoke about the GOP’s problem with evangelical voters, and whether or not the Christian Right plans on running an independent candidate.

The Republican Ralph Nader

As a leader at the highest levels of the religious right, what Mr. Land says, really indicates their movements motivations and methods.

First, he discussed what Rudy Giuliani could do to gain their support.

I has invisible cup

He would [have to] say, number one, "I will only appoint strict constructionists, original-intent jurists to the federal judiciary." Strict constructionists by definition think that Roe v. Wade was an overreach and is a badly decided decision.

Which he’s already done, Land adds,

if he also said, "I will not veto any legislation that comes across my desk that restricts abortion. And if he were then to further say, "I will veto any legislation that comes to my desk that expands abortion rights …" If he did that he would mitigate the damage.

What’s interesting is that Land isn’t actually worried about the candidate’s views, just his actions. They are willing to support someone they disagree with, as long as their agenda gets promoted. How Christian of them.

Next time; Religious evaluation of Mitt Romney