From going through religious and political forums, I noticed some hubbers feel that democrats are pro atheists while republicans are pro religion. Although, I've met plenty of atheists that were republicans, and I've known quite a few religious democrats during my time. Therefore, I'm a bit confused by the stereotype and why it exist. Of course, it might just be my imagination, but this is just something that I've noticed from my observations. Can anyone please explain this to me, so I'll know if I'm crazy or not about this.
That maybe true, but do you think there's a stereotype about religion attached to each party? If so, would you say it's justified?
I'm an atheist. I'm an unenrolled voter (so called Independent) , but I am very liberal so am unlikely to ever vote Republican.
Most of the people I know are religious. Yes, the more religious the more likely they are to be leaning hard Right, but religion itself isn't a great predictor unless it is extreme.
Yeah, that's true. You do make a good point. Personally, I think the stereotype became created when George W. Bush took office, as I seem to remember him saying that God wanted him to be president. Which led to the stereotype to begin with. Then again, I could be wrong in that, but it just seems like it to me anyways.
There's a great deal of truth in that, Pcunix. And if you wanna confuse the hell out of people, the best way to do it is to be conservative in one area, but liberal in another. No one knows what to argue with you about.
Must have been some other rainbow haired dude who called me a tea bagger.
It's not stereotypes. It's the Platforms.
The Republican Platform (written "creed" or however it's defined) stands for traditionally conservative values, based upon Godly laws.
The Democrat Platform is almost the opposite.
I'm told that there used to be kinda a role reversal of that. But I'm not aware of it. And it was a rather liberal-minded person who told me that, so I dunno if it's even true or not.
All I go by is what the current Republican Platform says. And from what I've seen, the Party sticks to that pretty well.
There are many who call themselves Republicans, but who are basically just trying to undermine the Party from within.
And there are Democrats who claim to be conservative. But I don't buy it.
People are a little cynical about politicians who tout the usual line -- "Family Values, Godly laws, pro religion, etc, etc,"
Remember Senator Wide Stance and his anti gay agenda?
Less and less people buy the rhetoric anymore.
I don't remember the name.
Did he get suckered into turning against the Republican Platform?
No, he's just another pol who sold the voters on his holy persona and anti-gay rhetoric. Then he was caught in an airport restroom soliciting an undercover cop in the next stall.
Expecting a pol to do what's in your interest because he/she says they're religious isn't being very responsible.
Oh! Now I remember Craig.
The thing is....it was never really proven whether he was guilty. Wasn't it the cop's word against his at first? And he had a dilemma about whether to just plead guilty to get a lesser charge so his name wouldn't be dragged continually through the mud. And then later of course, several accusers came forth about his supposed former behavior as well.
I wonder....why hasn't Barack Obama been subjected to questioning about HIS alleged former homosexual activities?
Years ago, Congress had mercy on Barney Frank. But indeed no one wants to have mercy on any Republicans even if they aren't proven guilty.
"I wonder....why hasn't Barack Obama been subjected to questioning about HIS alleged former homosexual activities?"
This is a new one. I'm not all that interested in hearing the allegations but I'd love to see some valid references.
You haven't heard about Larry Sinclair?
I think that's the name; it's been a while since I heard about it.
And the murder of a homosexual "church" member of the infamous Rev. Wright's church where Obama was "mentored", with surrounding murders of other gays.
I dunno if I've even saved any links to those scandals. But I imagine there's still info available online. That is, if the great liberal eraser hasn't been swiped over all things Obama-related.
You didn't provide any references so I googled & came up with about a thousand sleezy forum sites but I could find nothing on any halfway normal news sites. These allegations were made by a crack-smoking former mental patient who had no evidence to back up what he said.
I feel like my PC needs a bath now.
Is this what politics has come down to these days?
Dirty politics is nothing unusual. Nor are images related to it. I see "dirty" stuff all the time, even around here, posted by anti-Republican people, and/or posts mocking Jesus in a sexual way, etc., and/or hubs talking about unconscienable stuff. Heck, if you google just Rev. Wright's "church", it should lead to a description of how the youth leader (I think he was the youth leader; he was of some status in that church) was openly homosexual. That's not "clean" by any stretch of the imagination. If memory serves me correctly, he was the one who got murdered. Don't quote me on that specific point, but I guess I can look it up again....
There's not a lot of political grist to be ground these days by anti-gay statements. When homosexuality became a family matter, even hard-nosed Dick Cheney realized that gays weren't evil inventions of the left. Also, Barbara Bush (the younger one) has reversed herself and came out for gay rights a short time back.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/us/po … 1bush.html
Contentious allegations should be referenced when they are used as a point in a discussion like this. Anyone can throw mud based on half-remembered "facts."
And political pull can cover up those facts. I'm not the only person who remembers them.
"Heck, if you google just Rev. Wright's "church", it should lead to a description of how the youth leader (I think he was the youth leader; he was of some status in that church) was openly homosexual. That's not "clean" by any stretch of the imagination. If memory serves me correctly, he was the one who got murdered."
It would be more convincing if you googled your own statements and provided us with evidence for what you say. Was the choir leader significant because he was openly homosexual or because he was killed?
No Brenda, he got busted about to perform oral sex on a man in an airport bathroom...
I don't know if i can agree with that, as that's kind of subjective. Sure, there's plenty of things endorsed by the church and republicans that are relatively the same like the stance against gay marriages and abortion. However, as I've said earlier, I've known plenty of people that are religious that are democrats, so I don't know if I would ever claim that.
Well all that maybe true, but you can say that about any party to be quite honest. As I've read some reports claiming that democrats are trying to turn this country into a socialist government; while others argue otherwise. Therefore, it's hard to embrace that concept.
Well then Brenda, if you're ever in Texas, you'll have to look me up, so I can introduce you to my grandparents in laws, as they've been calling themselves conservative Democrats for years. Hell, some people claim JFK was a conservative Democrat based on some of his politics.
If they knew what the Democrat Platform is, would they still call themselves Democrats?
Well I'm sure they still would. I know my grandfather in law is a history professor, and he does study politics quite a bit. Therefore, I'm sure he still would. However, I would be curious to see what he thinks about this topic, as that would be something interesting. I'll definitely be sure to ask him the next time i get a chance to see him.
I'm going to show my age here (which, I'd like to point out, isn't ALL THAT "advanced" ); but there sure has been a role reversal in the last few decades. It used to be the "general thinking" that Republicans were all about "corporate fat cats" and people "with money", and Democrats were all about the "regular people" who worked for a living, went to church every Sunday (in the case of lots of Democrats, the Catholic church in particular), and had "family values".
Religious stereotypes? I guess, if that's what you want to call it or label under.
The problem is- politics is too tightly tied to religion.
Over the course of history of elections, very few politicians have truly done anything right for the citizens, while at the same time, reaping whatever rewards(monetary) they can get their hands on, regardless of whatever happens to the citizenry.
Well Cagsil, I don't disagree with that assessment, as most politicians are out for themselves. However, would you agree though that there is a religious stereotype tied to each party in the perception of the public?
The "public" is too ignorant to stereotype anything. Stereotyping is an individual perception. Yes, more than one person could stereotype each party, the same as another individual, but it's still an individual perception.
The "pubic" would be luck to see which way is up or down, if it wasn't for politicians or some god to tell them.
Used to be only Republicans surrounded themselves with American flags and flag
lapels (only we are Americans). Now they are all equal-opportunity flag waivers.
This is an interesting thread. Thanks for starting it, stevennix.
I think it comes down to the separation of church and state argument. Democrats believe the two should be separate. Don't let your personal faith/beliefs get in the way of your ability to govern. Republicans believe that the two are completely intertwined. That God's law is the law of the land. Religious faith informs laws and policymaking.
It's a pretty basic difference and creates a HUGE chasm between the two platforms.
But don't for a minute think that Democrats are all atheists!
I know plenty of devout Catholics (including socially active nuns), Lutherans, Unitarians, Presbyterians and Jews who are Democrats. There are no doubt Democrats of other Christian and non-Christian faiths -- I just don't know them .
And with respect to liberal vs. conservative viewpoints, there's actually a grid.
You can be:
a. social liberal, fiscal liberal
b. social liberal, fiscal conservative
c. social conservative, fiscal liberal
d. social conservative, fiscal conservative
f. tea party
g. anarchist (hi evan!)
Your welcome, and thank you for sharing your insightful thoughts with us on this topic. You do bring up some very good points there MM. However, I never heard of the concept that democrats believe church and state should be separate; while republicans believe they should be intertwined. That's a new one by me, as I'll have to look that one up.
However, I do remember reading once that republicans believe in the exact reading of the law, while democrats believe in the interpretation of the law. However, that was a long time ago though.
Years ago Congress had "mercy" on Barney Frank?
Barney Frank had the courage to be open about his sexuality. He has been a pioneer in this regard.
"Mercy" has nothing to do with it. Congress accepted Barney Frank's coming out because they respect him as a legislator.
No hypocrisy on his part.
The hypocrites are the Republicans who consistently vote against pro-gay bills and then get outed as being gay themselves. They are the ones who should beg for mercy...
It wasn't just his "coming out". How conveniently you seem to forget. Or maybe you're just going along with the irregularity of his "vetting" just like the irregularity of Obama's vetting.
There was a huge scandal about Barney Frank's ties to the usage of his apartment by a "friend" of his for some sort of illegal activity. I don't remember all the story, but it was cause for Congress to think about ousting Frank.
One of my best friends is a devout Christian and a liberal Democrat. Another is a Methodist minister and a liberal Democrat.
If we're talking about the Constitution -- it's still true.
If we're talking about the Bible -- it's also still true
Ah, I see what you're referencing now, Brenda.
Here is a write-up from a news source that says its goal is to expose and combat liberal media bias.
Notwithstanding that agenda, there still is not alot of meat to this story. And obviously the Mass voters forgave Frank. He's still here -- more than a decade later.
well pcunix, I think we all look forward to seeing what you come up with.
by Doug Hughes6 years ago
"..._Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can't afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can't afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more...
by Richard Bivins6 years ago
If you haven't seen the video in the link below then go watch it now. It's only 4 minutes long but it Terminator parody to get out the vote.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP4qZE-HXe8It's definitely a push for Dems to...
by Ralph Schwartz5 months ago
With the Republican leadership choosing to follow in the footsteps of former majority leader Harry Reid, and change the Senate rules (known as the nuclear option) its assured that Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed...
by Credence23 years ago
Excellent op-ed page that discusses conservatism taking two distinct tracts. Have a read and share your opinion, please. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 … /?src=recg
by StripedCrunchy6 years ago
Ya know, I am really excited for the left to run Obambi and that entrenched old establishment DC guy, Joe soundBiten. What a loser ticket!Let us pray that the left is foolish enough to believe Americans LIKE high...
by James Smith4 years ago
Hans-Hermann Hoppe in A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism essentially argues that there are in fact only 2 possible economic ideologies: Socialism and Capitalism, and variations of. You either believe there should be...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.