13 replies to this topic

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

There are currently more than a dozen serious potential contenders for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. A disproportionate number of them are religious extremists, including several (Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee, and Sarah Palin, to name a few) who are avowed Christian Reconstructionists. For those of you who do not know, Christian Reconstructionism is a movement that advocates Christian domination of the levers of societal power — government, media, education, the arts, etc. In its most extreme form, it advocates a Christian theocratic dictatorship similar to that depicted in the novel The Handmaid's Tale. In the story the United States has been replaced by the Republic of Gilead, a theocratic military dictatorship. From the Wikipedia entry:

 

Beginning with a staged terrorist attack (blamed on Islamic extremist terrorists) that kills the President and most of Congress, a movement calling itself the "Sons of Jacob" launches a revolution and suspends the United States Constitution under the pretext of restoring order. They are quickly able to take away all of women's rights, largely attributed to financial records being stored electronically and labelled by gender. The new regime moves quickly to consolidate its power and reorganize society along a new militarized, hierarchical, compulsorily Christian regime of Old Testament-inspired social and religious ultra-conservatism among its newly created social classes. In this society, almost all women are forbidden to read.

 

Don't get me wrong. I don't think that such a scenario is likely. I would never tempt fate by calling it impossible, however. There are real-life politicians in real-life elected office who would LOVE to see something like this happen (Michele Bachmann and Sam Brownback come to mind), but fortunately for society they are in the minority. Still. It is not difficult to concoct a scenario in which some catastrophe or series of catastrophes lead to a breakdown of the social order. Again, not likely, but not impossible. In such situations far-right demagogues often rise to the top. We saw it happen in the 1930s in the United States, although it's a slice of history largely forgotten today. I'm not saying America is going to become a far-right dictatorship; I'm just saying if it did it would probably be a far-right Christian dictatorship, like the Christian Reconstructionists want.

Bottom line: Backup your porn.
 

[Justavictim82]

But this sounds like Christian Sheria Law? I thought only Islam wanted to oppress and subjugate

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

[voice=1950s educational video narrator]That's what many white people think, Justa. But sadly, it's just not true. Why, one day a Colored might even be president! Wouldn't THAT be something?[/voice]

[Thrash]

yea im sure glad im not one of those loonies.

[Manoka]

Yeah I don't think they really count as extremists who want to take over America from their political stand points. 

 

They're not particularly violent or extremist. I mean worst case scenario is, they don't want the government to recognize gay marriage and they want abortions to end. Gay marriage isn't even legal in Australia, so, calling us extremists, idk. 

 

 

Now if you said the same about Russia, you might have some validity, but I think it's more of a power grab than a desire for Christianity, so even they don't really get close. 

[Thrash]

Jorost is a crazy anti-religion person.. he hates all of them no matter what they preach.

 

It astounds me as how he constantly thinks Christianity is a threat to our well being.

 

Also, I don't know where you came up with this list of people who are running for the GOP, because I've heard nothing of any of them getting in the ring.

 

I'd vote for Perry, Huckabee or Palin over Clinton any day.

 

I'm also with Paul or Cruz if they go in.

 

Heard Romney's been pretty popular again too for the nom, that'll be a Hillary vote for me.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Yeah, it's kind of weird, but Romney is the most popular one by far. Who'd have thunk it? Certainly not me.
 

There are a lot of potential Republican candidates. It's an open year, no incumbent running, and traditionally the White House switches parties after eight years. So anyone with even a snowball's chance in hell who can raise enough money is going to give it a shot. After all they've got nothing to lose. It seems to me the most likely candidates are:

Mitt Romney

Jeb Bush

Rick Santorum

Rand Paul

Ted Cruz

Marco Rubio

Rick Perry

Mike Huckabee

Chris Christie

Bobby Jindal

Paul Ryan

Lindsey Graham

Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin are always possibilities, but I consider them vanity candidates who have no real shot at winning their party's nomination. Ditto anyone like Herman Cain or any conservative radio talk show host. Guys like that are just in it to boost their visibility for the next contract negotiation.

 

None of those guys looks particularly appealing, although at least Rand Paul has the benefit of being interesting. He's probably the smartest pick the party could make right now.

[Justavictim82]

Jorost is a crazy anti-religion person.. he hates all of them no matter what they preach.

 

It astounds me as how he constantly thinks Christianity is a threat to our well being.

 

Also, I don't know where you came up with this list of people who are running for the GOP, because I've heard nothing of any of them getting in the ring.

 

I'd vote for Perry, Huckabee or Palin over Clinton any day.

 

I'm also with Paul or Cruz if they go in.

 

Heard Romney's been pretty popular again too for the nom, that'll be a Hillary vote for me.

 

None of those candidates are electable Thrash. The GOP keeps wanting to push right but they also realize that a Far-Right candidate is unelectable. Your best shot is to throw a moderate up against Clinton with a Right VP again. 

[Thrash]

lindsey graham kill me now

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Thrash is correct; I am strongly against organized religion. And I have a particular dislike for far-right organized religion, whether homegrown or foreign. Our homegrown variety lacks the clout of their overseas counterparts, I'll grant you. But just because they are unable to do the things I describe does not mean they do not dream about them. People like that are quite real, and quite serious. Luckily they're also quite mad, which generally limits the progress they make.

 

Still it's fun to play what if.

[Redezra]

I believe Jorost and I dislike organized (or in my case any) religion in politics for a simple reason; Religion's underpinning, the concept of "faith", requires immediate suspension of rational inquiry.

 

Anyone running the country should be asking the hard questions, and should be fielding the hard answers. To do any less is to risk societal collapse simply by not thinking things through. And before you start going "Hey there Redezra, we think things through", I'd like for you to consider, if you can, all the questions you can't ask of or because of your faith. These are generally the ones you respond with "something something God something something".

Here's a good one to start you: "Do the economic and societal benefits of abortion outweigh the questionable moral implications? Should we implement it simply on those grounds?"

[Haflinger]

Oh god Santorum lol.
 
Click here and laugh.

[Thrash]

Santorum is another I would vote for..

 

from the people I've heard that might run that I won't vote for:

 

Jindal

Rubio

Ryan

Romney

Graham

Bush

 

I'm still up in the air on Christie, I liked him way back but he's been pretty bad recently.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I believe Jorost and I dislike organized (or in my case any) religion in politics for a simple reason; Religion's underpinning, the concept of "faith", requires immediate suspension of rational inquiry.

 

Anyone running the country should be asking the hard questions, and should be fielding the hard answers. To do any less is to risk societal collapse simply by not thinking things through. And before you start going "Hey there Redezra, we think things through", I'd like for you to consider, if you can, all the questions you can't ask of or because of your faith. These are generally the ones you respond with "something something God something something".

Here's a good one to start you: "Do the economic and societal benefits of abortion outweigh the questionable moral implications? Should we implement it simply on those grounds?"

 

Yeah that's basically it. Mindless belief without evidence, or in spite of it, is not a laudable character trait, in my opinion. I value reason, wisdom, and compassion; faith is at best irrelevant, at worst highly destructive. I would like to see a more pragmatic, evidence-based approach to problem solving, without the influence of this or that book of fairy tales. We don't need some god to tell us how to be good people. We can figure this out. Other countries have done it. It's not a coincidence that the countries with the highest standard of living are also the least religious.

 

Religion as a private, personal matter is none of my business. Religion as an organized political force exerting influence on public policy? Public policy that might affect me? As conservatives like to say about gays: I don't care what people do as long as they're not all up in my face about it. Keep your gods to yourself.