Powered By Blogger

Translate

Monday, October 22, 2012

Does the religious right care more about politics than they do their own religion?


Just weeks before the 2012 Presidential election, Billy Graham says Mormonism is no longer considered a cult. This came just a week after Billy Graham met with Mitt Romney, and it made me ask the question, “does the religious right care more about politics than they do their own religion?”

I find it amusing that Billy Graham no longer thinks Mormonism is considered a cult when there is a Mormon Republican candidate running for president. It is pretty clear Billy Graham is using religion to get voters to support Romney, and it demonstrates that religion has become a tool by the religious right to persuade votes. Otherwise, Billy Graham and others should have said that Mormonism isn't a cult in the Republican primaries; instead they were claiming Mormonism was a cult and that Mormons are not Christian.

It is respectable to support a candidate because you believe they are the best choice for President despite their religious views, but to compromise ones religious beliefs and contradict what was said months earlier in order to persuade voters is disgraceful and shows a lack of conviction and character. It’s funny how they suddenly changed their mind about Mormonism. And because they did, I can only come to one conclusion – the religious right cares more about politics than they do their own religion, and they use their religion as a political tool. 

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Are Rational Republicans Struggling with the Tribal Effect?


In this 2012 Presidential Election there are two candidates which views are nearly polar opposite of each other. This has made the job of voters who vote based on issues very easy. But strangely for some this has made it oddly difficult. This is due to the tribal effect in politics. (For more on this topic check out The Tribal Effect in Politics)

When we hear about the undecided voters, it's hard to believe that they are independent voters, because with the two clear opposite choices we have, anyone who cares would have been able to make up their mind long ago. I find it more likely that the undecided voters that are talked about in the media are actually rational Republicans struggling with the tribal effect, they want to vote Republican but don't like the stance Republicans are taking on issues. Republican voters not struggling with this issue are either voting solely on the tribal effect so they can see the party they have always identified with win or they are part of the 1% and want a system that is rigged in their favor despite being unfair to the rest of America.

Republicans seem to think a different way than Democrats. Democrats tend to think for themselves about issues and come to their own conclusion and then choose who to vote for. Republicans seem to trust authority more and if they trust that authority the will simply agree or buy into what they are saying since they assume they know more about the issues than they do. While it may be true that authorities know more about issues than others, it doesn't mean they are correct or that they are right about what is the best for the country.

This way of thinking is similar to how religion works, followers of any religion tend to trust their Priest, Pastor, Imam, Rabbi, etc. simply because they are considered an authority on the subject. This is intellectually lazy. And it's no coincidence that the Religious right is strongly tied to the Republican Party. Both want to tell us how to think, and don't encourage critical thinking. The Texas GOP has even come right out and said, "We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills, critical thinking skills and similar programs…"

The good news is that there are rational Republicans thinking for themselves, and they care more about the issues rather than just staying loyal to their party. The Facebook page Republicans for Obama is good evidence of this, which has over 22,600 likes.

Labels can be helpful, they give us an idea about what an individual or group stands for, but labels should be the beginning of our inquiry not the end of it. No matter what party you identify with, if you can't explain the position of your opposition you should question whether you fully understand your own. After all, it's hard to disagree with something you don't understand.