After the stunning re-election of Barack Obama — stunning only in the sense that so many Republicans seemed so sure that mo, and God, were on their side — the scramble to console, blame, analyze, backtrack, and repackage themselves is absolutely fascinating.
Many have arrived at the conclusion that the Hispanic Vote was the game changer in this election, one heretofore overlooked or ignored by the GOP braintrust. So, much recent discussion has centered around how to reach Hispanics with the Conservative message and/or bring them into the Republican fold.
Apparently, this is not just a GOP issue.
Manolo Matos recently posted a piece at The Friendly Atheist entitled How the Atheist Community Can Reach Out to Hispanics. What struck me about this article was how many parallels seem to exist between the beleaguered GOP and the atheist community regarding Hispanics. Matos sets the stage:
Over the past year, there has been an increased concern about the lack of diversity in the atheist movement…
Realize that atheist groups are all different in their composition and there is no such thing as a panacea to fix the “problem.” In the case of the Hispanic community, there are subgroups within it and this makes the issue even more complicated. Because the Hispanic community is comprised of many countries and cultures, we have to take into consideration this diversity.
If you want a short answer to the question of how to attract the Hispanic community to atheist groups I’m tempted to say two things: good food and good music. (emphasis mine)
I’m not sure if that last line is meant as a joke or not. I hope it is. Either way, just swap “atheist” for “Republican” throughout the article and you’ll see what I’m getting at. Atheists, like Republicans, have a diversity problem. In this case, a “Hispanic problem.”
But there are other strange parallels.
For instance the demographics of atheists in the United States looks something like this:
Overall, U.S. Americans who profess no religion or self-identify as atheist or agnostic are more likely to be white or Asian and less likely to be black or Hispanic, as compared to the general adult population in U.S.
In the US men are more likely to be atheists than women.
Like the Republican Party, atheist groups apparently are made up primarily of white men (although, I’m sure most of my conservative friends would challenge that notion, and rightly so). Nevertheless, whether real or manufactured, the GOP gender gap is an issue.
Atheist groups face a similar “gender gap.” Notable atheist PZ Meyers has labelled this the atheist community’s Women Problem. he writes,
So here’s the Woman Problem, and it’s not a problem with women: it’s a problem with atheist and skeptic groups looking awfully testosteroney. And you all know it’s true, every time I post a photo of some sampling of the audience at an atheist meeting, it is guaranteed that someone will count the contribution of each sex and it will be consistently skewed Y-ward.
So, like the GOP, atheist groups also have a “Women Problem.” But the similarities don’t stop there.
38 of the 50 Top Atheists in the World are white men, most of them “old” white men, and some would even say “angry” old white men (Meyers, in the previous article, rather fittingly describes himself as “the loud and assertive male”). It echoes the recent narrative that the GOP is a dwindling collection of “angry, grumpy, old white men.” Apparently, that label can also be attached to the atheist community’s chieftains.
Okay. So where am I going with this?
Well, it has to do with both groups’ response to the “Hispanic problem” and what I consider the weakness of their approach. Republicans appear divided on how to address the issue. While some suggest easing the Immigration rhetoric, even to the point of amnesty, others suggest simply ratcheting outreach to Hispanic enclaves. The conversation, to me, lacks bite and misses crucial elements of transferable ideology.
Likewise, Matos’ suggestions as to how atheists can garner the “Hispanic vote,” so to speak, is similarly generic. He lists eight points. They are:
- Understand our cultures.
- Try not to use the term “America” to refer to the U.S.
- Most Hispanics are living a double life.
- Discrimination is not foreign to Hispanics.
- Understand nonverbal communication between cultures.
- There will always be subgroups in large communities.
- Integrate the Hispanic community into atheist conferences.
- Do not obsess about diversity.
I’m sorry, but these points seem remarkably bland. If this is how atheists (or Republicans) seek to integrate Hispanics into their cause, the long-term results will undoubtedly be disappointing. Why?
Because both atheism and conservatism are intrinsically ideological. They are not, or should not, be defined by age, gender, or skin color, but by ideas.
Understanding our cultures, not using the term “America,” discerning “non-verbal communication” or “subgroups” — not to mention simply supplying “good food and good music” — do little to transfer ideology. They may gather a few warm bodies, but that’s about it.
Which is why I think Matos’ eighth point comes the closest to illuminating the real issue:
Diversity is important and we want to include everybody in our community, but when we obsess about it, we usually obtain the opposite results. Talking all the time about how “it’s great that you’re here because we need more of you” will most certainly put people on the spot and make them feel like they are outsiders (or “tokens”). Diversity is desirable but it must be organic. We can increase diversity by following the recommendations I just laid out, but when we focus excessively on increasing diversity, the majority will get tired of the subject and the emphasis will push minorities away. (emphasis mine)
Focusing solely on “increasing diversity,” whether among the god-less or the God-fearing, is always futile. “Diversity is desirable but it must be organic. ” However, the approach of many atheists and Republicans to the “Hispanic Problem” seems anything but “organic.”
- Until atheists can “convert” others, persuade that atheism is a compelling worldview, there will be no “real” organic expansion of atheism.
- Until conservatives can “convert” others, persuade that conservatism is a compelling worldview, there will be no “real” organic expansion of conservatism.
Long-term, sustainable growth, only occurs as ideas are communicated, embraced, tested, proven trustworthy, and passed on. If we’re content to make “converts” by simply providing “good food and good music,” we substitute long-term growth for short-term demographic bumps. Sure, we might “increase diversity.”
But is increasing diversity the issue, or furthering ideas?
Atheists and Republicans share a unique parallel problem in reaching and assimilating Hispanics. Their approaches, however, could significantly affect the future of their prospective movements. Slogans, cliches, handouts, and token campaigns to reach any voting bloc may fatten the membership rolls, get or keep our guy in office, but do little to perpetuate ideas.
When we are defined by the skin color and gender of our members, rather than our ideas, all “growth” is inorganic.
Republicans and atheists, though polar opposites, both grow their groups, long-term, through the perpetuation of their ideas. Sure, we can invite “outsiders” to our conferences, provide “good food and good music,” and “understand nonverbal communication between cultures.” But counting different colored faces in the crowd does nothing to advance or validate our beliefs.
Unless that belief is simply to get more colored faces in the crowd. In which case, our ideas don’t deserve perpetuation.
My question is this: how do we, with our ideas and principles of individual freedom and responsibility, fight back against the idea of collectivism that is so paradoxically divisive as it inherently views a populace as little more than voting blocs organized along various racial and economic boundaries when the proponents of that concept are doing a damn fine job of basically buying votes with the promise of entitlement on top of entitlement? It seems that we’re down to a situation in this country of one side saying, “leave me alone, stop taking from me, let me live my life freely,” vs. the other saying, “give me this, give me that, what else can you give me… hey Monty, let’s make a deal.” I try to have hope and engage others in real debate over these ideas, but at times like this it really starts to seem to me that the only cure is to give them what they want so that it will hurry up and hit the inevitable breaking point, after which, they’ll be desperate for the self reliant and hard working individuals to come back in and rebuild. Yes, I know just how nihilistic that can sound, but here we are, and it just seems like that may be where we’re at short of a miracle.
So… God… if you’re listening…. well.. anytime now would be nice. 🙂
I share your nihilism, Les. I think the societal “breaking point” is inevitable. This election has made that clear to me. Mark Steyn made the point in THIS BOOK that democracy contains the seeds for its own undoing. When the electorate is tipped far enough, the populace can choose to dismantle its own freedom. My only answer would be that going slow and deep is far better than quick fixes and handouts. Hopefully, that approach will sustain is through the “breaking point.”
I hear you, Les. Honestly I think the trajectory you’re referring to will be sustained until something massive happens that gives people a rallying point. Rome fell as a divided, bickering, bloated shell of its former glory. Besides the obvious spiritual need for Christ, on a more practical note, we need what essentially bonded and re-bounded the US after the Great Depression: our own World War II. Not necessarily literally another world war, but something so big it shakes us all out of complacency.
Not sure my atheist friends will like this comparison. Politics is more about pandering than transferring big ideas. How else can you explain the US re-electing a regime that’s driving us toward bankruptcy? Sad that receieving welfare, food stamps, amnesty, health care have replaced significant intellectual discussion.
Totally agree!! I was once a middle of the road, moderate swinger (in the political sense) but I am aligned with the right after years of what I consider hypocrisy. Dems say they promote women, yet stand by leaders who abuse them (Clinton) and they stand for free speech and open mindedness unless it’s speech they disagree with (Christian). I came back to the Republican party because I wanted an ideology that fit with my own. I am NOT looking to be a party hack.
The hypocrisy of the democrats was never so fully on display than in 2008 when they so completely turned against a woman who represented all they stood for: she was a working mom who had achieved the office of governor. The feminists alone should have organized their entire movement around Sarah Palin. Instead, the democrats targeted her for character assassination. Mark my words, if Palin had run as Obama’s VP, she would have been hailed as an American Hero and the definition of what a woman should be.
Of course, the Republicans aren’t much better (See: Terrible Financial Ethics).
Fascinating article, Mike. Now, what I’d really like to know is WHY both of these groups are comprised of white men…especially the atheists. Republicans are pretty easy…not to simplify, but many Republicans are hard-workin’, pull up your own bootstraps folks. Traditionalists, business owners, nuclear families, Evangelicals, on and on. They’re united around a cause. I’d suggest that atheists are so summarily comprised of white men because white men need a cause. Especially the frustrated anti-religionists that make up most of the atheists anyway.
I’ll just throw this out there: I think a lot of white men are a bit lost these days. Especially North American and European white men. They’re not really sure what their place in society is. So, they’re looking for causes to be a part of. In the Evangelical world, notice the over-abundance of white men in both the popular current Reformed movement and Emergent movement. Both sides have noticed this, too, and are essentially trying to do the same thing as atheists and Republicans: figure out how to not make it a White Boys Only club.
As I said, I think the GOP as “angry, white, men” is a stereotype that’s not nearly as true as its opponents pretend it is. Atheism’s white male issue, to me, seems far more provable. But why would that demographic rise when/if ideology is the thing driving atheism. My guess: Current atheism is rooted in secular academia, long the domain of the European white male, and is the result of intellectual inbreeding rather than conversion.
One of the facts that show how the conservative movement isn’t just all white males is that the “gender gap” isn’t between men and women. It isn’t even a gender gap, but a marital gap. Married women overwhelming vote conservative. Single women do not. And the bulk of single women are in the younger ages, which we also know tend to be more liberal in their outlook. As they marry, suddenly they get very conservative.
Antidotal as it may be, my own daughter did this. We had disagreements about voting for Obama in 2007 when she was in college. 4 years later and a marriage with kids, and she was rooting for Mit from the beginning. She hasn’t even hit 30 years old yet. Go figure.
Which, that to me, says this has more to do with the issues each group tends to be concerned about, and whether it is perceived which group can provide an answer for that or not they identify with. The way those groups will come into the Rep. or atheist fold is if they present their issues and beliefs in a way that answers those issues.
Needless to say, I agree with your assessment here. I’ll only add that I think atheist and agnostics appeal to men more than women, in general, is because in general, men tend to be the logical mind-focused types, while women depend more on feeling. And atheism is devoid of good feelings that make you go, “This makes sense of my life, I can identify with that.” Religion is much better in that sphere by and large.
That’s fascinating. I don’t know why I’d never thought of the idea that marriage either genders conservatism or conservatism goes hand in hand with marriage, thus married women would be more likely to be conservative voters. Interesting.
Also on why women tend less to be atheists. I wonder if it has to do with the perception of power. Men because of culture and physical ability feel more powerful then women, thus we don’t need a God looking out for us. Women are in danger in relationships from abusive others, dark alleys, etc. They are literally targets and victims (I’m speaking statistically, not mindset). So women SENSE their need for protection outside themselves, more than men do. Weakness breeds faith.
Bobby B: “both of these groups are comprised of white men…especially the atheists. Republicans are pretty easy…not to simplify, but many Republicans are hard-workin’, pull up your own bootstraps folks. ”
Not trying to start a war, but are you aware you have just said that White=Hard Workin….?
The insinuation (and not very disguised) is that Non-White=Not Hard Workin..
My PC antennae just prick right up at that…….
Negative. There are no insinuations being made. It is arguably a fact that Republicans SEE THEMSELVES as hard working and some of them (again, not all) see others (democrats) as lazy and entitled.
“Long-term, sustainable growth, only occurs as ideas are communicated, embraced, tested, proven trustworthy, and passed on. If we’re content to make “converts” by simply providing “good food and good music,” we substitute long-term growth for short-term demographic bumps. Sure, we might “increase diversity.” But is increasing diversity the issue, or furthering ideas?”
AMEN!
It’s not just conservative politicos or atheists that face this problem. At a recent church council meeting, one of the council members asked me what we could do to increase church attendance. I told him that we need to build relationships that allow us to talk about Jesus to individuals.
He wasn’t happy with that. He wanted a program, a gimmick, a thing to throw money at and make the problem go away. He didn’t want to talk ideas; he wanted to talk about “good food and good music.”
Granted: We need to know the culture we’re aiming to reach. It’s good to avoid putting so many feet in our mouths we can’t get our ideas out. Still, you’re right: it’s the ideas we want to perpetuate — not necessarily our culture, but sharing Jesus to others!
That “fast track” to just change a cosmetic and not worrying about sharing ideas is not something for just the two groups you compare… that threat seems to be all over!
I’ve sat in on many such church meetings, Jon. I think this is why the Seeker-Sensitive initially took off. It applied pragmatic modernistic growth methodology to church. It’s also why the growth was shallow and short-term. Bill Hybels and Willow Creek, one of the early pioneers of the movement, recently admitted they built their church on an unsustainable foundation: Without genuine discipleship, all church growth is vacuous. The alternative is the one most ministers and churches dislike: Long-term, incremental, spiritual foundation laying. It’s less quantitative, but inevitably produces a longer tail.
I was pleased when Willow Creek made that announcement that they were changing streams — not happy that there had been failure, but that there was such a willingness to evaluate and change. That takes a lot of guts to admit there’s a need for change!
Thinking long-term? That’s preposterous! Thinking about spiritual growth that lasts for decades? Insane! Can’t be done! (Please not sarcasm. 😉 )
As usual, great article, Mike!
I will point out that Ron Paul and the broader Liberty Movement has absolutely NO problem attracting young people and Hispanics.
When an aging white man stands up publicly, and is willing to go after crony-capitalism, the policies of the Federal Reserve, DHS, NDAA, TSA, SOPA, drone strikes, the “Kill List”, end of due process, assassination of Americans, endless wars of aggression, and the combined welfare/warfare state, young people and Hispanics are hearing a “forbidden” message that the powered elite of both parties absolutely will NOT discuss.
In essence, they have a “truth” gap: the reality of what many younger people and Hispanics perceive is happening around them, as compared to what the establishment is willing to discuss as being important. They are two entirely different worlds!
Dr. Paul’s message of restoring Liberty and the emphasis on the government playing a Constitutionally-limited role in our lives was a very empowering message to both demographics.
For the Republican party to roundly repudiate and reject the restoration of Liberty and Constitutionally limited-government, and attempt to purge these elements from their midst at the RNC, in my opinion, is to reject the future of the party.
Are following the Constitution, the restoration of Liberty, and having truly conservative fiscal policy such a huge price to pay to breathe new life into the aging body of the G.O.P., or will it continue it’s trajectory into the dustbin of history?
As usual, a Domschot (can’t tell if this is Joel or Jill) said what I was thinking.
Say, what a second! That was Joel–definitely his writing and thinking style, if you would only study it more closely……lol. I agree with him on this one, though. The Republicans lost–at least in part–because they ignored the liberty movement.
It’s odd that the Republican party has more elected Latinos than the Dems. Real conservatives too. Many of the legal Latino immigrants don’t want amnesty for their illegal ethnic “kin”. They want what conservatives want. Secure borders, hard work, etc. I think as you exposed here, Mike, this is a bogus argument. As for atheists, their stereotype is so often proven when they appear as guests on radio, TV. They’re mean-spirited, anti-God, want their ways enforced over others’, and to me they demostrate the tactics of liberals.
Funny you mention this, Nicole. I live in Texas and we just elected Ted Cruz as one of Texas’s senators…a Hispanic Republican.
And yes, one just has to type ‘Richard Dawkins’ into the YouTube search field to find angry white atheist rhetoric.
Good post, Mike. Good comparison too. I wonder if you could add the whole “Why aren’t more women and non-Asian minorities involved in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) careers?” to this as well.
God help us. And let’s hope that conservatives stick to their values.
Speaking of angry, white, old men atheists, anybody see Bill Nye’s YouTube video saying Creationism is ‘’not appropriate” for children? Now, even among conservative Evangelicals there’s lots of disagreement as to creation, but it’s fascinating the language being adopted by atheists. Now, religious belief isn’t wrong…or even stupid…it’s dangerous. I used to watch Bill Nye the Science Guy all the time in elementary school!!
Anyway, I’m probably getting a bit off topic…
Yep. But the danger of allowing parents to present religion to children has been a talking point for some time in non-libertarian atheist circles. I come from a family with atheist members (WWII survivors) who would have been banished to “lower-class” stigma, had they stayed in the Old World.
Here in the New World, they seized upon post-secondary education and elitist humanist rhetoric as ways of erasing their low birth in their own minds. So, to me, anytime I hear intellectual elitism ranting on about knowing what’s best for the unenlightened bourgeoisie, I hear an echo of misappropriated European/British class pretension.
jmho, but it seems a bit contradictory to the humanist idea that people are essentially good and capable of directing their own destiny, if only the oppressive dogma of others is disallowed from constraining them. 🙂
I saw Bill Nye in that video. What he was essentially saying is that if you force your children to reject science, you damage them. I agree with him. I don’t have all the answers, but I am satisfied that the earth is much older than 8 or 9 thousand years, and I see evolution as the most logical explanation for life in its myriad forms. Better and more detailed understanding of how it all works is what science is all about. I have not closed my mind that there is a higher power behind all of this, but it is quite difficult to reconcile the simplistic biblical stories with reality. For me and mine.
Now THIS is more like it! I will add the following experience: When I became a counselor because the previous counselor, an woman who’d grown up in Mexico, I inherited her responsibilities. One of those was advising the Hispanic Culture Group. It was to laugh! Unable to pass the responsibility to someone (ANYONE!) more appropriate, me — a BIG, old, fat, white guy — met with the group of 20 adolescent latinas and latinos. What was I supposed to do?
While I DON’T want to give atheists a leg up on this “problem”, perhaps one or two Republican activists might take my advice.
When I sat down with the kids, I looked at them. They looked at me and I said, “Look, I am about as non-hispanic…is that the word I should be using?” I paused.
One of the girls shrugged and said, “It’s OK.”
“OK — for now. Anyway, I’m about as wrong for the job as a person can be. There’s no one else who will be your advisor, so all I have to say is that you’re gonna have to teach me everything I should know. OK? Just assume I’m an idiot when it comes to ANYTHING about the culture you guys celebrate.”
Know what happened? They taught me — and they enjoyed it. Oh, FYI — I wasn’t trying to get them to join ME. I wanted to join THEM. And they were happy to help me…
I think part of the issue, is that conservatives are trying to further ideas. Republicans (in terms of the brand) are simply trying to increase market share. Thusly, you can’t ignore while adding members to the roll does not increase ideas it does create peer pressure. Consider why many black conservatives feel austracized for not supporting the democrats or the first black president?
I think from a marketing stand point, their goal is to create an image that will foster power. Sorry, I’m too cynical to think they actually want to foster a message.
I think the days of trying to revitalize the Republicans should be over. We need to move the conservatives into another party (probably the Libertarians). Thus creating competition that would force the Republicans either to go further big government, cutting into the Democrat voters, or go limited government to try and attract back the exodusing voters.
Vote Libertarian!
Can’t see this happening, because social cons get absolutely nothing from the libertarians, and to be blunt most of their economic ideas are a bit wacky too. Might as well just not vote altogether and save the psychic worry if they are the only alternative, because the social cons will outright revolt once they hear the new party champion legalizing drugs, abortion rights, and single sex marriage out of the desire for no government intrusion into personal life.
D. M., I have said this a few times, too. If you go FAR ENOUGH LEFT, you meet the LIBERTARIAN RIGHT. It is amazing, and suprising. The “circle of political life”, I call it…
I’m not for the libertarian platform per se, but I think it more feasible at this point to flood the Libertarians with conservatives and adapt the name brand, than to fix the republicans.
As for social issues, aside from abortion, I would stay away from social issues. Not because they’re unpopular. Not so say there’s not a right and wrong. But, I’m not sure that fight should take place in the political arena. Forcing a true moral standard on people who are in terms of faith or lack of faith, opposed seems pointless. What does it accomplish? In the political field, I would say legislation should be so that no one has to acknowledge any type of “marriage”. If you want to be “married” being gay, fine just don’t force me to recognize it. And don’t make it a hate crime to disagree. I mean, what is the point of making marriage between gays illegal while saying homosexuality itself is legal? And if we’re going to go for that, why don’t we go for legislation to make divorce harder? To criminalize adultery?
Unless as a culture we are united in understanding righteousness, then I think its better to keep the government out of issues than empower a morally lost government with the hope that now and then it will get it right even though no one has been convicted of right and wrong. Those issues are for the church to lobby to the private community.
Problem is, all laws are a legislation of someone’s morality. If there is no moral grounds to a law, then there is no purpose in having it. Even the speed limit is based upon some level of morality, that going too fast will kill people, and that is bad. Where the line is drawn as an acceptable risk may vary, but if we didn’t believe that it was immoral to drive as fast as you want and risk killing people in the process, there would be no speed limit laws.
The question isn’t whether we are legislating morality, but whose morality we are legislating. For instance, the morality question in legalizing marijuana is one particular to the Libertarians. One may fall on one side or the other on the issue, but being in favor of doing so is forcing a particular moral viewpoint upon other people using the legal system.
It is true that you can’t easily force a morality upon a people through legislation. People will believe what they want to believe. There are still radical racist in the US, even though they are fewer and less vocal than they were in the 60s, despite the Civil Rights laws on the books (which, btw, have a very strong moral component to them, that it is wrong to treat people unequally based on the color of their skin).
Not pushing for specific “social conservative” issues is merely choosing which moralities you’re going and not going to push for in our laws that you deem too controversial to deal with, which is also based upon a particular moral pragmatic view point. Problem is, for many conservatives as well as Libertarians, they are not so ready to give up their own moral outlook for the sake of winning. So I have my doubts about the success of any plan to flood the Libertarians with conservative Republicans, assuming that could even be pulled off successfully. You’d have a better chance turning the Tea Party into a real political party at this point.
R.L., I agree. All legislation is morally based. Either a right or wrong morality. Therefore, we must legislate morality. However, the same people (including me in a sense) who would like to say legislate marriage as only between one man and one woman, seem to have no interest in legislating adultery as a crime? Is it less of a moral problem? Less a problem that we have people hopping from sexual encounter to sexual encounter? And again, even if you make marriage thusly defined, isn’t the actual act of homosexuality the problem, not whether it is a relationship recgoznized by the state?
My point is even those who are “sticking by their guns” are in fact picking and choosing which battles to face. And I think that makes sense. No one is saying these things are not still sin, but this is a nation of unbelievers as well. So why are we picking on one particular sin and making this “the line” when we have so many others to choose from?
I mean, I would think getting prayer back in schools or anything to do with dismantling the educational monopoly of the secular public system, would be a far more important battle than whether or not we call homosexual relationships marriage. I mean that’s why we have so much headwind now because we send generations to people for eight hours a day who say “God has no place here; his account of creation is a simplistic myth; and his position on social issues is hateful and intolerant.”
I’m saying, here we are fighting over what something is called and not whether it is being done. Dragging a mostly unbelieving nation (or at best, uncommitted believing nation) kicking and screaming to a moral semantic is counter productive, and not a moral imperative. Again, why this one line and not the other equally abominable things spelled out in the bible?
Respectfully.
J.S., I pretty much agreed with what you said. As far as adultey goes, in many if not most states, there are already laws on the books prohibiting it. However, they are rarely enforced. Mostly because society has so accepted it as “normal” it rarely gets enforced, and when it does, there is a backlash.
Except when it comes to divorce, then it can play a factor in how things are split up depending on the state.
So my guess is most social conservatives do pick and chose what lines to stand on, because you can’t stand on them all. So they pick and chose those they feel are at least “winable” and those that they feel are essential. Also, those others would feel are important and essential and can glum onto.
For instance, changing the school system is a local and state issue. You might win the “battle” in one state or city, but you’ve got a ton more to win to even think about making a dent, and it seems a long ways off. Instead, many Christians leave the public education for home schooling or private schools that aren’t secular based, which unfortunately leaves the public school system with fewer Christian voices in it. So I don’t think you can say they aren’t addressing the issue, only not believing that using the legislative route would get them very far.
Things like abortion and gay marriage are more national issues that are in search of a national solution. And both involve core Christian beliefs, both the sacredness of life, and the sacredness of the union that brings that life into the world. Maybe there are other issues of equal weight that should be highlighted as well.
My only qualm with them is that they turn from genuine concerns to causes that require that conflict to continue in order to have a reason to exist. Since Roe vs. Wade, we’ve only had four (I think, might be three, I’d have to check who was president when that came down) Democratic presidents. All the rest Republicans. And for some strange reason we’re still one short on the Supreme Court of being able to overturn that decision. Seems like it has been one short forever, despite the Republicans being in control of the Presidency so many times.
Who know we had so much in commmon?
Kind of scary when you think about it.
JQ