[Long] Dear Republican Party...

Post Reply New Topic

Unfortunately yes, but said superstitions change over time. Specific religions die out to be replaced by the next. The Abrahamic Religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) have remarkable staying power, but like every other religion out there it'll eventually die off and no one will care.

I am not so sure of that. Some memes are as sticky as Gorilla Glue (tm).

ruveyn

My ex-wife once told me that she did not want me to allow our kids any access to the Internet because it provides too much information. What she was concerned with was my habit of reading to my kids from science textbooks for their "bedtime stories" instead of the Bible, and she did not want them learning even more things that would undermine her authority over them.

Nowadays, neither of them can stand to be with her for very long.

"... and the truth shall set you free."

Revenge of the Nerds, indeed!

I'm not gonna put a timeline on it, but I'm pretty certain. Over my time in the church, I watched the congregation go from packed every Sunday to maybe 30 regulars and some in-and-outs. A lot of people still pay lip-service to religion, go to church on Christmas Eve, that sort of thing... but the devout and pious Christian is a stupidly rare thing to find in my experience. People are just finding it more and more difficult to reconcile the bible with their:

Sense of morality (ever read the Old Testament in full? Some of it is absolutely horrific!)

Acceptance of scientific facts and theories (Creationism is very rightfully dying out)

Day-to-day lives (I don't care who you are, you sin every day. Saying otherwise is a righteous little crock. Most people don't like being told they sin so often doing simple things.)

All those self-righteous, sanctimonious bullies who believed that their lofty stations in life were God-given, and that God Himself had granted them both the the right and the privilege to decide who deserved the punishment that they were yet to inflict.

And those who deserved to be punished the most were those of us who valued learning and getting the right answers ... thus causing them and their superstitious beliefs to look stupid.

Does anyone still not understand why I hate religion?

And why I love science?

Revenge is sweet.

The social welfare state has become the majority source of religious related affiliations in some European Countries. It is still suspending the laws of physics to believe that the social welfare state is an eternal source of support, but as long as it provides hope and faith for another good day, the beneficial effect is similar.

The provision of health care reform, in the US, will likely only exacerbate the move for some away from religious affiliation. But, a choice of not reproducing, for any species as a whole, or isolated country, is not necessarily a good thing either, that also appears to come with this entire modern package of abilities outside inherent nature.

The culture in Japan, is providing some direct evidence of what happens when this phenomenon moves to the more extreme levels in a relatively isolated area, where immigration of those still reproducing is not an easy goal to obtain, as seniors are expected to comprise 40% of that population by the year 2060,

Several nationwide polls done in Japan indicate anywhere from 70 to 80% of that country has no religious affiliation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/01/30/japan-population-crisis-shrink-one-third_n_1241350.html?just_reloaded=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Japan

The overall implications for western civilizations, in general, are staggering, as a life of human isolation is becoming a "social norm" in Japan. It's a generally uncommon phenomenon when social animals lose their interest in reproduction with other flesh and blood social animals.

http://www.anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap1801/1801taylor.htm

Which leads me back to the prophetic vision of John Calhoun here, in his "behavioral sink experiment" of what happens to social animals, when social roles disappear and resources for subsistence are still abundant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun#1962-1963

As much as one might discount the value of organized religion, it provides the potential for social roles well after employment, spouses, neighborhood friends, and children disappear. So do local bars and Bowling leagues, but they too are becoming a rarer reality of life. Does technology provide an equivalent substitute?. If Japan, South Korea, and Hong Kong, is any indication, at best the answer is questionable. And at the same time, part of the reason the opportunities and motivation for those other opportunities are disappearing, as well. This is really not nearly the issue when one is young and healthy as opposed to when one is older and not quite so healthy, as evidenced in Japan.

I have a difficult time understanding Republican viewpoints, at times, but perhaps whether cognizant or non-cognizant some are literally fighting for what they experience as a "hardwired" instinct for survival, for what they understand has worked in life, for generations. Tradition. While others may view the issue in a more "progressive", "experimental" sense, for a greater inclusion of others.

The US remains a melting pot for continued sufficient human social and political balance, as the new traditions are becoming ethnic ones.

While the borders may concern some, they are a driving force of the continued survival of the country. In terms of flesh and blood human beings; insurance for continued reproduction.

Republicans have more diversity? What, different shades of white?
The Democratic diversity might seem more homogenous only because Democrats regardless of color want the same thing essentially - a decent, middle class life, social justice, and the right to love who you want. Sounds pretty splendid to me.
As for the Republicans being the party of Christians - well, for evangelicals, who have pushed the Republican party to the far right fringe. Mainline Christians may individually find a home with the GOP, but most of their churches simply can't see the benefit of going insane to be part of the party.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I say good riddance if they are on the way out. After Bush lied about Iraq being connected to Al Qaeda and used the invasion as an excuse to heavily subsidize a company Dick Cheney had stock in, I hope they become a footnote real soon.

I re-elected Obama, not just because Romney scared the hell out of me with some of his comments, but because he did put regulations on health insurance companies that needed to be in place and because he got us out of the forever war in Iraq Republicans seemed to want to keep going as long as possible. I just don't think the health insurance reform went far enough.I think all insurance companies should be non-profit, especially if were mandated to be on it, health, car, or otherwise.

That's not true. Actually go around some real Democrats some time. Don't just listen to what some fat turd in radio land tells you about them. ...and if you have actually been around them, don't immediately engage in hostile, hot button debates. There's nuance there if you pay attention for it. They disagree on a lot, and they're humans. They're just as much of a tent party as the Republicans, if not more so. I mean, how many open Lesbians, Buddhists, Muslims, and Vegans are serving as Republican representatives? None, if I remember right. Pass this off as just lefty multi-culturalism, but it really does take real co-operation for people of vastly different back grounds like this to work together. At least DNC attendants have never thrown peanuts at a black news reporter before, unlike those at this past RNC.

I mean hell, the DNC was split over a resolution about whether to name Jerusalem a territory of Israel or not, where Republicans supported it more unanimously because of Christian fundamentalists who see the city as biblically mandated property of the Israelites. They're not all on the same page about everything, and there's some very blatant examples that prove this.

Well let's define this more then:

Most of them don't vote democrat because they happen to buddhist, muslim, or vegan.

Most of them vote democrat because they adhere to two or more of the following ways to frame the world: Race, Class, Gender, or the Environment. Or they associate themselves with left wing values: Tolerance, Equality, Multiculturalism, Secularism, and Compassion.

Show me the large bodies of Democratas who are interventionist versus the large body of Democrats who are Isolationists, and I'll consider your party "Diverse." I'll consider your party diverse when there are 3 or more fundamentally different viewpoints sourced from fundamentally different values, battling it out for controlling the way the party will behave in the coming years. That extends to free-trade versus protectionist Democrats, or liberal land-use vs. centralized planning, etc, etc, etc.

The Paleocons, the Neocons, the Libertarians, the Social conservatives, socially-liberal conservatives, etc. are all often very very opposed to the other wings of the party, we have unique platforms that are source their inspiration from different "values", not merely a gradation between moderate conservative and far-right. Social conservatives don't always buy into Liberty, many Libertarians fear us sourcing our ethics from God or having it manifest itself in the social policies the state enacts and protects like marriage, Paleocons are very protectionist, and Neocons favor interventionism. Where in the DNC do you see such huge fundamental differences between various groups in the party? You don't, what you see are gradations between moderates on any of the left wing ways of looking at the world or left-wing values that I posted above, and a linear line that goes away from the center, but the ways of seeing the world and values are identical regardless of which end you are on.

They make up 3/4's of my family. I've only lived in SF, SJ, Oakland, Seattle, and Portland, I've only had liberal friends growing up and through college, I read their blogs, I watch their shows, I know better then to challenge their position, that would be like telling an observant pious muslim that God doesn't exist and that Muhammad was a _____(Epithet of choice). I live as a left-winger, if you struck up a conversation with me on the bus, politically, I'm a great yes-man, and very often I can probably articulate their positions better then most of them can.

They disagree but when they disagree its very often just on the strength of their convictions, there are no major convergences within the party over whether they should drop "Class" as a way of framing the issues.... Some might want to tax just the top 1%, and others might want to tax the top 10% but that is just differences in degree. Some want to stick it to Israel, others might think that is counter productive but there are no fundamental disagreements amongst most of the party faithful.

Ideologically? Yes.

Which is what counts. Race is and should not be something to base your doctrine on, or have as a way of looking at the world. Your genitals don't define you, and neither should your income.

But people have been given grief their whole lives for their "genitals" and their "income." That's why the liberals have taken up those positions - because the right has refused to.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

You know, it's stuff like this (link) that lead people to characterize the Republican party and also Libertarians as being soulless scumbags.

That's a lot of emotion to expend in defense of Mitt Romney. Most Republicans don't share his passion. Romney got fewer votes than McCain.

Now let's see if that jackass can actually live up to his own advice.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer