How does the Republican Party fix itself?

[Littlelebowski]

Negative. The religious takeover of the Republican party is well documented and goes back a long way. The religious side of the Republican Party is who ensured Bush's wins. Even Barry Goldwater spoke about the religious people taking over the Republican Party. I can't tell you how many people I've met that decried Palin's idiotic stance on abortion and abstinence only teaching.

We are not a theocracy and the Republican Party needs to get rid of the religious stuff and let the preachers worry about it.

[Jay Cunningham]

It seems the real conservatives (which are basically borderline libertarians, or at least classic liberals) are so concerned about alienating the rank and file Religious Right that they won't ditch the non-secular platform which the party has adopted over the last 20 years in favor of what would truly benefit the party and the nation as a whole, a return to the fundamental core beliefs with which this country was founded upon.

I would much rather be deciding between a Federalist and a Democratic Republican, rather than a Social Democrat (or in the case of BHO an evolutionary socialist) and a Christian Funda...er....Republican.

Agree!!

[Jay Cunningham]

The religious takeover of the Republican party is well documented and goes back a long way. The religious side of the Republican Party is who ensured Bush's wins. Even Barry Goldwater spoke about the religious people taking over the Republican Party. I can't tell you how many people I've met that decried Palin's idiotic stance on abortion and abstinence only teaching.

We are not a theocracy and the Republican Party needs to get rid of the religious stuff and let the preachers worry about it.

Agree again!!111

[El Mac]

Obviously you equate: Republican Party = conservative = Christian

That equation is not working out so well - the proof is in the election results.

No, my equation is this:

Republican Party = conservative talkers but quasi-liberal walkers = Christian placaters.

In other words, they are neither conservative by any stretch of the imagination nor are they Christian. In the past, they have tried to garner the votes of Christians by the party platform of pro-life. But to date, they have done nothing to further that plank. In fact, if anything, they've done all they can behind the scenes to remove the plank outright or minimize it. McCain and company lost the vast majority of Christian voters. The vast majority of the Christian voters were sickened by McCain's squalid attempt at election and many rightly chose to stay home rather than vote for him.

Swallow the liberal lie if you will.

[El Mac]

Negative. The religious takeover of the Republican party is well documented and goes back a long way. The religious side of the Republican Party is who ensured Bush's wins.

And conversely largely ensured that McCain didn't win?

We are not a theocracy and the Republican Party needs to get rid of the religious stuff and let the preachers worry about it.

Agreed. Having said that, I don't see where the Retardicans ever promoted 'religious' stuff.

[El Mac]

It seems the real conservatives (which are basically borderline libertarians, or at least classic liberals) are so concerned about alienating the rank and file Religious Right that they won't ditch the non-secular platform which the party has adopted over the last 20 years in favor of what would truly benefit the party and the nation as a whole, a return to the fundamental core beliefs with which this country was founded upon.

That is some nice verbage. But please tell me specifically what you are talking about? In other words:

1) what is the non-secular platform you speak of?

2) what would truly benefit the party and the nation as a whole?

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

What have the Jesus-freaks tried to legislate? The Jesus-freaks just need to work on their public image. The press is more than happy to paint them as snake-handling, minority-hating, gun-loving bumpkins. Get out there and tell the true story about how conservatives and churchgoers donate more time and money than the compasionate liberals.

Powell and the East Coast Intelligensia "conservatives" hold the moral conservatives in contempt, and are the first to tit for the financial bailout. So if you aren't in the moral part of the conservative party, and you aren't in the fiscal part of the party, what are you?

Sure, there is the bible-thumper museum in Kentucky that has dinosaurs with people, but is that any a faith-based science than the current idlol of Global Warming.

[decodeddiesel]

That is some nice verbage. But please tell me specifically what you are talking about? In other words:

1) what is the non-secular platform you speak of?

2) what would truly benefit the party and the nation as a whole?

1) Although some were religious, the founding fore-fathers took great steps to separate church and state when drafting the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This is what I am talking about when I am discussing secularity, or the separation of church and state. I'm sure you know of the concept but others may not. I am not advocating a departure from a moral and ethical society, but what I am saying is that morality and ethics is something which is universal among human beings and is not defined by a religious code or scripture. I don't need to go into specific examples as they have already been well documented in this thread.

2)Two things:

A departure from the Keynesian style economics which this country has adopted on a unified bi-partisan front (bail outs, sub-prime interest rate tampering, etc.), and a return to a laissez faire style free market economy which is driven by supply and demand and not the federal government.

A reaffirmation of the ideas and concepts initially presented in the Declaration of Independence (government with the consent of the governed; state of nature; rights of life, liberty and property) and further emphasized in the Bill of Rights.

[El Mac]

1) Although some were religious, the founding fore-fathers took great steps to separate church and state when drafting the Articles of Confederation and later the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This is what I am talking about when I am discussing secularity, or the separation of church and state. I'm sure you know of the concept but others may not. I am not advocating a departure from a moral and ethical society, but what I am saying is that morality and ethics is something which is universal among human beings and is not defined by a religious code or scripture. I don't need to go into specific examples as they have already been well documented in this thread. .

Ah, so you really can't ennunciate any "non-secular" party platform planks by the evil Christians.

And just to be clear, the Founders wanted to keep government from dictating via a state-sponsored "religion" what the people could and couldn't worship. They did not mean to take "God" out of government. Far from it. But thats really another point and doesn't have anything to do with the current Retardican platform.

2)Two things:

A departure from the Keynesian style economics which this country has adopted on a unified bi-partisan front (bail outs, sub-prime interest rate tampering, etc.), and a return to a laissez faire style free market economy which is driven by supply and demand and not the federal government.

A reaffirmation of the ideas and concepts initially presented in the Declaration of Independence (government with the consent of the governed; state of nature; rights of life, liberty and property) and further emphasized in the Bill of Rights.

Well on this we agree. The Retardicans have surely let us down when it comes to true conservative fiscal principles.

[chadbag]

I am not advocating a departure from a moral and ethical society, but what I am saying is that morality and ethics is something which is universal among human beings and is not defined by a religious code or scripture. I don't need to go into specific examples as they have already been well documented in this thread.

Actually there is no universal moral code that all human beings subscribe to.

Moral codes come from various places but the most powerful is a belief in a higher being and the goodness of human's as children/offspring/creations of this higher being.

There is ample data to support this. But I may just call attention to the fact that religious people are more likely to be generous with charity, help out fellow humans out of their own pockets/resources and to be more honest and ethical in their dealings.

If you look at the asian countries, especially China, but my wife, who is from Japan, says Japan has similar problems and has a continual list of tales from the online japanese newspapers she reads to support it, anyway, the asian countries do not share a judeo-christian background like most western countries and their "business ethics" are basically non-existent. And if you look at most of the western country crooks and unethical business partners, they have no influence from religious belief.

Almost all the great failures of humankind in the last few hundred years (communism/nazi-ism/etc) come from ideas that here is no greater good and no greater being -- do not come from a religious background. There are some counter examples of zealotry being used to justify bad behavior (islamic terrorist etc) but I would put forth that those who do that are using faith as an excuse for political power.

Good people exist everywhere but the culture of the people in general is reflective of their "secularist" or "faith based" history and background. Those that have a background of faith in God tend to be more generous, more ethical cultures and as that faith is diminished in the name of "secularism" that goodness and ethical basis diminishes.

I am not talking about a specific church. The founding fathers wanted to get away from the corruption of state sponsored "churches". They did not want to get away from true faith.