Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
of course not, but i'm not the one who started a thread with an unqualified premise.
|
Nonsense.
It is not unqualified to presume that there are near-infinite variations in political motivation - from full support of stringent fiscal and social conservative ideals to no support of many conservative ideals. Everyone has their own unique methods of judging to what degree they support various parties based on the importance and number of issues they agree with as represented in those parties. This thread presents the question:
As there are many conservatives who are not predisposed to the religious control of the conservative party, how much religious control of the conservative party are they willing to accept before they decide to take back control of their party?
This thread is founded on a very qualified premise and then proceeds to a point of discussion on that premise. Whether you agree with how I have presented it or not.
Impossible. I can't be wrong because it is my opinion. And though you claim I am wrong here, you support my opinion with the last paragraph of your post, no less.
Quote:
|
your presumptions are irritating.
|
Go somewhere else.
Quote:
|
religious people cast a single vote each, just like you. just because a larger percentage of religious people vote one way or the other doesn't necessitate religious control.
|
I never claimed anything necessitated religious control. But religious control is what we have.
Quote:
|
but what's extreme about it? i defy you to describe a major plank in the conservative platform that is unequivocably "extreme". my guess is that you cannot.
|
I can list dozens of aspects of conservative philosophy that are extreme. Why? Because the adjective extreme is subjective by nature.
So you're labeling it religion paranoia, but you take issue when I label something extreme? Which is it: we're allowed to use subjective terminology or we are not? You can't have it both ways.
Quote:
|
the simple fact is that religion and politics intersect at the crossroads of morality. each seeks to define morality on specific terms (be that the law of the ten commandments or the law passed in congress). when you say that religion controls politics, you're really only objecting to people using their votes to forward their moral ideals that differ from your own. religion paranoia is a crutch for these types of arguments. the decision to not pull the plug on a comatose person or to not shred the flesh of a viable fetus in a mother's womb and suck out the limbs with a vacuum can be made without religion.
|
That means absolutely nothing in the context of this thread. You're defending the term religion - but I'm not attacking religion. Obviously the religious right has a set of morals that I disagree with. And many conservatives disagree with those morals as well - which is what this thread is about, whether you want to turn it into a defense of religion or not.
Quote:
|
when you describe opposing arguments entirely with a frame of religious motivation in a secular republic such as ours... you disqualify all positions other than your own on illegitimate grounds.
|
The only position I disqualify is the position that religion has no bearing on political motivation. That is not what you have choosen to argue. I am not disqualifying religion and I am not disqualifying your position - except in so far as your position is not on topic.