Religion And Politics In 2012
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-11-06/religion-and-politics-2012
It once looked as though religion could play a central role in this election. Mitt Romney is the first Mormon in modern times to run for president and both vice presidential candidates are Roman Catholic. But many voters don’t see it that way. According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, most Americans are comfortable with what they know about the candidates’ faith. And they report their votes will have little to do with the nominee’s religion. Still, American politics is polarized by questions often connected to our religious beliefs –abortion, religious liberty, and gay marriage. But are we polarized to the point of no return? Join Diane and her guests as they discuss the role of religion in politics.
Guests
Jonathan Haidt
social psychologist and author of "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics And Religion."
E.J. Dionne Jr.
senior fellow, Brookings Institution. Author of "Our Divided Political Heart: The Battle for the American Idea in an Age of Discontent."
Michael Gerson
syndicated columnist, author of "City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era."
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
ecgberht on November 9, 2012 @ 5:49 pm wrote: “So when Democrats do what you like, you'll happily own them, but when they do something you don't, they belong to somebody else! Brilliant!”
No, what’s “brilliant” is the new low you’ve achieved for sophistry, and evasion and avoidance. But let’s spell it out once again.
You invoked the opposition of Southern Democrats to the Civil Rights Act. (Comment of November 6, 2012 - 11:10 am) Thus, you first noted a division among Democrats (the southern ones opposed civil rights).
I simply added the fact that the division was between Southern conservative Democrats and Southern conservative Republicans on one side (who opposed civil rights), and the Northern liberal and moderate members of both parties on the other side. (November 8, 2012 - 1:06 am)
(Tell me, why don't you "own" the behavior of those Southern conservative Republicans?)
Since I also, correctly, pointed out that today’s Republican Party is almost exclusively composed of conservatives (with no liberals left and few moderates), you tried to blame Democrats exclusively for opposing the civil rights laws, and tried to “absolve” Republicans of any responsibility for opposition. (November 8, 2012 - 10:05 pm)
(And, of course, in typical fashion, you then falsely accused me of what you actually were doing: laying the blame on one party alone.)
Too bad, in my subsequent Comments (starting at November 9, 2012 - 5:44 pm), I exploded that little fantasy too.
Meanwhile, of course, you evade and avoid the history I cited. Why? Because it’s dead set against you!
(Including the fact that the majority of the votes cast for the Acts was by Democrats.)
johnandere on November 10, 2012 @ 10:55 am wrote: “Because I'm under no obligation to answer or address anything you write or ask and often don't have the slightest interest in doing so. Get it?”
Translation: “Because I have no valid response to make, and I’m hoping no one will notice.”
“That is the biggest pile of double-talk gibberish I've ever read.”
Looking in the mirror again, are we?
Tell me, eggie, ever hear of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003? Know where the government, specifically Congress, got the power to put such a restriction on citizens? The Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
Source: Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007).
Please feel free to continue parading your ignorance.
Oh, and eggie, I can't help noticing that for all your expressed disdain for what I write, and alleged desire not to respond, when it suits your purposes you can go on and on. Ever think that if you just ignored what I write, I might go away?
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Ciao.