[Psudo]

Jeff, I don't think the Christian element of the GOP can be reasonably compared to the Muslim element in Pakistani politics. While there has unquestionably been some (misdirected, I think) GOP opposition to Islam lately, I don't see the GOP advocating for a Christian theocracy. I see the GOP trying for religious tolerance, for example encompassing Jews (the neoconservative element, anyway), Baptists and Mormons at once (the two Christian theologies that are the most at odds), etc. I would like to see the anti-Muslim rhetoric toned down, but I suppose it's a fairly natural reaction for the motivations of war-time patriotism to promote vilifying the other side at every opportunity. Stupid, but expected and temporary.

The Democrats, for comparison, seem to consist of a mainstream of only vaguely or secretly religious candidates and a populist outreach to extreme minority religions via promotion of pacifism in the form of opposition to the war in Iraq (this appeals to Buddhists, some Muslims (since it's a Muslim nation in turmoil), as well as a subset of Christians who focus on the Lamb of God, innocent victim image of Christ, including the Amish and Mennonites; probably Hindus, too, though I merely speculative there).

(Note: The Amish and Mennonites switch parties based on the issues of the moment, with national pacifism their own independence being major issues for them. Mormons are not interested in such isolationism, but theologically refuse to take sides politically, neither advocating nor rejecting parties or candidates and staying officially silent on most political issues. But, with Mitt Romney running, they're likely to swing Republican this time around; not officially, but popularly.)

Inasmuch as Republicans portray themselves as the alternative to disenfranchised Democrats, they would necessarily position themselves as the proponents of Amish/Mennonite isolationism, portray the war in Iraq as a justified defense of Iraq's people rather than punishment or conquest, and to Christians as the party of Christ's righteous indignation, overturning the money lender's tables in the temple or destroying the olive tree that bears no fruit; a kind of "defender of the faith" position.

My point is that some of the GOP rhetoric is mere political positioning in the moment rather than deeply held beliefs, and that the deeply held beliefs of Republicans tend towards freedom of religion rather than Christian theocracy.

[Kjorteo]

Psudo, that is a really interesting idea, and I like how you defended it. Good writing, there.

Question, though. How do you justify the link between the right wing and a long-term freedom-of-religion ideal in the face of the extreme fundamentalist Christians? I don't especially think "freedom of religion" when I think of Pat Robertson, but he ran for President under the Republican banner a few times, and still holds a fair deal of influence just from the political bits on 700 Club episodes. Robertson, Falwell, etc. aren't freedom of religion; they're "Believe in Jesus and quit breaking otherwise benign moral standards like premarital sex, or you're going to Hell." However, they've been a huge part of the Republican party for a long time, arguably only finally detaching after the recent implosion of Republican factions, and arguably coming back even after that once they found Huckabee.

[Calbeck]

CanadianJeff wrote:

and where did you get the info that "the agent who did the suicide attack was implacably Taliban oriented."

You will forgive me if i'm a bit careful about jumping on the terrorism bandwagon.

Well, there's not a lot of non-terrorist groups in the world that suicide-bomb anyone. In fact, none at all that I can think of. And in that area of the world, if you're not Taliban or Al Qaeda, you're in a group affiliated with one, the other, or both.

It might be an assumption, but it's no great stretch.

Now, other groups might get an assassin, sure. A bomb thrower or a gunman. But to detonate yourself, you have to believe there's a cause behind it that overrides the value of your own life. In the Middle East, such causes are almost exclusively religious in nature.

[Psudo]

Kjorteo, I think you and they have a profound disagreement about whether or not sex outside of marriage is benign. Abortion and teen pregnancy are huge Christian Right political issues, and extra-martial sex is pretty much the sole cause of both. That makes it far from benign in their eyes. (I agree with them on that point, but since I'm both Christian and Republican that can hardly be surprising.)

Apart from that, the extremist views of a few individuals don't characterize the general GOP. There is a strong core of business Republicans who don't really care about anyone's religious views and just want government out of their way (or sending money their way). These act as a strong counterweight against the few archetypal theocratic views, just as the Christian virtues of responsibility and charity keep the few on corporate Republicans on the libertarian-to-kleptocrat scale in check. Hopefully, mostly, usually, ideally. Those are the factions the Republican Party tries to keep united. I think they work rather well as a check-and-balance system, though obviously not perfectly. Well enough to pretty consistently take my votes.

Sidebar: I'm not convinced Huckabee as the Christian Right candidate the media are portraying him to be. Ann Coulter has written two scathing columns lately demonstrating (in her obnoxious but effective way) that he has his shares of breaks with both Republican factions.

Second sidebar: Personally, I find the idea that one can live righteously and still be damned merely for not believing in Jesus to be a ridiculous doctrine. He can forgive willful violence and mayhem but not the unbaptized infant? I have to believe in a God of mercy extended to all by a consistent standard.

[Wally_Sconce]

Benazir Bhutto's 19-year-old son Bilawal assumed leadership of his
mother's political party yesterday, and immediately vowed to continue
her fight for a fully democratic Pakistan.

-----------

is 'assuming leadership of a political party' 'fully democratic'?

[ShepherdsDog]

Bhuttos family owns their party. It was founded by his grandfather.

[hellifiknow]

It's worth noting that Bhutto basically created the Taliban. Pakistan is ethnically divided, and keeping Afghanistan weak and overwhelmingly pro-Muslim was more or less the only way she saw to keep India from trying to encircle her country. She's no saint.