Iowa Presidential Forum

So, true to form Iowa's gotten started early. The Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition, a social conservative advocacy group, held the first forum for prospective candidates for the Republican nomination. Apparently, the 'only the economy' rhetoric of the past year was ignored in favor of the gays and abortions, while simultaneously including the New Tea Party 'government is evil' attitude. The quotes I heard from the attendees were a little scary, to be honest, things like "I vote social conservative. I'm just so anti-abortion, and, and, pro-God in our government. It's our moral fiber." I'm hoping this turns out to have been a flash in the pan caused by having an almost laughably socially-far-right organization host the forum, but I'm not sure— many of the big potential candidates were there, like Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty.

EDIT: Oh, my favorite quote, from Tim Pawlenty: "The Constitution was designed to protect people of faith from government, not to protect government from people of faith."

edited 8th Mar '11 9:20:13 AM by Chalkos

"The Constitution was designed to protect people of faith from government, not to protect government from people of faith."

Is he really so dense that he doesn't see how it works both ways? Or does he just assume his audience is dense enough not to realize that?

I'm pretty sure the constitution was built so a religious tyranny couldn't be established.

It was both ways; the principle derives from the experience of the Puritans, who were religious people subjected to persecution by the government in collusion with other religious people.

Exactly. Once you let "people of faith" unduly influence the government, the government will turn around and oppress "people of faith"...those of a different faith than the ones that obtained the influence.

Am I expected to believe that Pat Robertson wouldn't outlaw my religion if he could?

Not to mention people whose lifestyles don't fit into their faith. There's plenty of gay Christians, for example.

My understanding is that in Conservative media, "protect government from people of faith" is a code word for doing things that Fox News loves to bash liberals for doing, like banning displays of the ten commandments or anything else associated with Christianity, suspending students who wear T-shirts with Christian messages, etc. That might seem silly, but there are people who believe that soon, there'll be manditory searches of lockers for bibles.

In other words, many conservatives fear for their own religious freedom.

Obviously another instance of the whole "political correctness gone mad" issue. I was under the impression that such behaviour was pursued by smaller groups in a position of localised authority (a town council, for example) and was not necessarily condoned by the national leadership.

Of course, from what I can see, both parties include a reasonably wide range of opinion. I'm sure that just as the Tea Party contingent currently represents the minority within the Republican Party (although this may be subject to change; I don't know a lot about that situation), this apparent anti-religion cadre is not extremely influential among the Democrats. That said, I think this reflects a problem. In both parties, there seems to be an ideological checklist you have to match, or at least appear to match, if you want to get anywhere.

If anything, this highlights the discrepancy between advocating for limited government in a non-interventionist sense while simultaneously supporting potentially interventionist policies on the basis of an assumed religious mandate.

Maybe I'm raving there. I've come to the conclusion that I don't know enough about the situation to say for certain.

"The Constitution was designed to protect people of faith from government, not to protect government from people of faith."

I would give my life for the latter, and not lift a finger for the former, for what it's worth.

Gingrich, the biggest name at the event, ripped President Obama, saying the president is indebted to the "secular, socialist left" and that a change must come.

"Secular" used in a negative context? Yikes!

Fuck the religious right lunatics. I am sick of them. My parents live in Iowa and I can already imagine my father frothing at the mouth about the Social right rearing their ignorance again.

We really need to do something about this two party system crap.

edited 8th Mar '11 3:02:01 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Just remember that Gingrich's idea of "family values" include boinking interns while prosecuting the POTUS for infidelity and serving divorce papers to his wife while she's recovering from cancer surgery.

Compared to that, I'd rather go with the "secular, socialist left".

—R.J.