Honest Question For Die-Hard Conservatives/Creationists/Pro-Lifers.

I have a question for the super hard-core conservatives out there. I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats in my lifetime. Indeed, these days the only political party which I can at all identify with is the Libertarian Party...however historically speaking I would say that about 70% of my voting has been for the Democrats. In short, I would be considered to be largely one of those "swing voters" which are so highly coveted in our current political landscape, given that we are very much a country divided these days.

That being said...during this election cycle I have been and continue to support Ron Paul. I prefer Paul as my candidate of choice, however should the GOP delegates in Tampa give in to pressure to nominate Romney I will be voting for Gary Johnson. However, last election I voted for Obama...mostly because I was opposed to Bush's bailouts, crony capitalism, and unconstitutional wars.

However, in deciding to support Ron Paul I had to essentially "go against" some of my deepest convictions. Specifically, I STRONGLY disagree with Ron Paul's stance on abortion and I was always a little uncomfortable with his devout Christianity, given that I'm an Atheist and a secular humanist. However, I'm also SMART enough to know that it's not really possible to agree with ANY person on 100% of ALL issues ALL the time. Thus, Paul got my support even though I disagreed with him on a few a things because I feel that we really won't have much of a country left if we don't start electing a whole lot politicians in local, state, and federal govt. that are predominantly of the Libertarian or "Paulian" perspective.

So my question is this....

"Is the "other side" ALSO willing to meet halfway on certain things in order to save the Republic?" For example:

1. Let's say that a Democrat was running for Governor of your state who was a member of the NRA, fiscally conservative, and vehement supporter of civil liberties and Constitutional Rights but they were an avowed Atheist and went so far as to say that they thought the Book of Genesis was "nonsense". Meanwhile the Republican candidate was a devout Christian who believes the Bible is the LITERAL word of God...but was fiscally liberal and think that Romney's health care plan would be a fantastic thing for your state regardless of what happens w/ ObamaCare.

2. Let's say your perfect "dream-candidate" was running for President and you agree with them philsophically on ALL things including but not limited to religion, economic issues, foreign policy, and even that abortion is "murder". However, the ONE thing your "dream-candidate" says that you DO NOT agree with is that the government should completely stay out of ALL matters concerning human reproduction and sexuality. The reason this candidate cited is for this is that they feel it's too dangerous to set a precedent for the government to get involved in human reproduction because TODAY it might be to outlaw abortion because it's "murder"...but 50 years from now the idea that the government can have a say in your reproductive affairs is used to CULL unborn fetuses who do not meet certain genetic criteria in an Orwellian Hellscape which we can barely imagine.

3. Other scenario? Feel free to make your own.

NOTE: PLEASE DON'T TURN THIS INTO A THREAD ABOUT [I]WHY[/I] YOU BELIEVE IN GOD, ARE A PRO-LIFER, ETC. I really don't care about that and there are many, many, other threads on ATS about those topics. I'm only interested in the decision making processes about "meeting in the middle" so to speak.

Have at it...I can't wait to hear what everyone comes up with!!

I'm none of those things, but from a logical standpoint politics and religion should not mix. In other words, you shouldn't vote for a politician because of his/her religion, but rather because of his/her policies. In the end, the guy/girl's religion doesn't mean much. I'd vote for a die-hard christian if he/she appealed to me on a political level, and I'd vote for a die-hard atheist if he/she appealed to me on a political level.

Of course, many American's think that politics is a beauty contest, and in many ways it is, but honestly these people aren't going to get serious unless we start taking them seriously. If Romney get's more hype because of his hair than his policies and Ron Paul gets no hype because of his lack of political imbecility, that's really saying something, isn't it?

I'm voting for a leader of the country, not the leader of my Church. Different jobs, different requirements. I suppose religion might be a feather tossed into the scales, but it's not controlling by any means. Christians can be foolish, uninformed, and unqualified, just like any other human.

I vote based on my understanding of democracy, freedom, and the laws of our country. I take my citizenship in this country very seriously, and my right to vote is an obligation that I will not neglect to exercise. That being said, I am not hard-core conservative, nor am I a liberal. I do tend to lean to the conservative side in my beliefs, but my voting is non-partisan. I research each candidate and vote my conscience, not my religion (yes, these are seperate). So, to answer your question... I will not meet anyone in the middle with my vote, but rather give you the assurance that it will be based on a solid understanding of each candidates platform and who will best represent my interests and those of my country, community, my family, and my neighbors.

I remember my grandparents talking about the elections when I was young, I remember spirited and heated conversations about Carter and Reagan at the dinner table. Where is the passion and love for our country that they had? My own children are leaving college apathetic toward the political system, one of them even expressing that she will not vote in this election, that no candidate is worth her vote. I have no one to blame but myself for not instilling in them the same passion for democracy that I was taught.

Originally posted by milominderbinder
1. Let's say that a Democrat was running for Governor of your state who was a member of the NRA, fiscally conservative, and vehement supporter of civil liberties and Constitutional Rights but they were an avowed Atheist and went so far as to say that they thought the Book of Genesis was "nonsense". Meanwhile the Republican candidate was a devout Christian who believes the Bible is the LITERAL word of God...but was fiscally liberal and think that Romney's health care plan would be a fantastic thing for your state regardless of what happens w/ ObamaCare.

As a conservative who would normally vote Republican, in this case I would vote for the Democrat. But, you see, I also agree with him on the Bible and Genesis.

2. Let's say your perfect "dream-candidate" was running for President and you agree with them philsophically on ALL things including but not limited to religion, economic issues, foreign policy, and even that abortion is "murder". However, the ONE thing your "dream-candidate" says that you DO NOT agree with is that the government should completely stay out of ALL matters concerning human reproduction and sexuality. The reason this candidate cited is for this is that they feel it's too dangerous to set a precedent for the government to get involved in human reproduction because TODAY it might be to outlaw abortion because it's "murder"...but 50 years from now the idea that the government can have a say in your reproductive affairs is used to CULL unborn fetuses who do not meet certain genetic criteria in an Orwellian Hellscape which we can barely imagine.

I would vote for the candidate once again. Is he a Democrat, too?

Your problem here is that you are making a lot of assumptions. First you assume that all people who would label themselves conservatives are creationists. You've mixed up your sub-sets. You could probably get away with saying "all creationists are conservatives" or that they "tend to vote Republican," but that doesn't mean all conservatives, or even the majority of conservatives are creationists. I'm fiscally very conservative and socially tend to be conservative, but in the conventional sense of the term, I'm an atheist (not quite, but it would be splitting hairs and throwing us off topic to deal with that here).

Your second assumption is how you equate conservatives with being pro-life. I think the candidate's reasoning is fallacious. He's asking me to believe that because the government outlaws murder today, in 50 years they might not, so we shouldn't outlaw murder today. I think that's crazy reasoning, but under your scenario, I'd still vote for him.

I think you need to be very careful in your typecasting of conservatives. It's simplistic thinking, something liberals like to say conservatives do. One thing I object to with regards to conservatives is the need to pass litmus tests on issues to "prove" I am a "true Conservative." That's an illogical argument (called the 'True Scotsman fallacy.")

I'm surprised you didn't throw racism in there, since it's such a popular accusation these days.

The religious disparity between Christian and vocal atheist might be a bit too much for me to overlook. Not really sure how I'd respond in regards to that one.

As for the abortion issue, I'm strongly pro-life. I could write a rambling manifesto here explaining my thoughts on the topic... but there's no point to it. I believe that the abortion issue in the USA is a manufactured divide, intended to help keep the nation gridlocked in a two party system. The media does their part, making it seem like a boilerplate topic which one party or the other will actually act upon... but when you get right down to it, any changes that occur will be cosmetic/superficial at best and the machine will continue to roll. We had 6 years of a supposedly very pro-life government not that long ago. GOP majority in both chambers plus a vocal pro-life president... was so much as a single earnest attempt made to re-examine Roe v Wade?

Irregardless of what I believe, I strongly feel that the "moral" issues are used to divide and conquer us, while the fiscal and global agendas are driven towards the same cliff by either party.

So to answer your question(s), I would absolutely vote for the candidate whose economic and foreign policy philosophies were the most in-line with my own.

Who cares if the president believes in abortion or God or Flying Spaghetti Monsters if the country implodes due to overspending and overreaching of military engagements?

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
I'm none of those things, but from a logical standpoint politics and religion should not mix. In other words, you shouldn't vote for a politician because of his/her religion, but rather because of his/her policies. In the end, the guy/girl's religion doesn't mean much. I'd vote for a die-hard christian if he/she appealed to me on a political level, and I'd vote for a die-hard atheist if he/she appealed to me on a political level.

Of course, many American's think that politics is a beauty contest, and in many ways it is, but honestly these people aren't going to get serious unless we start taking them seriously. If Romney get's more hype because of his hair than his policies and Ron Paul gets no hype because of his lack of political imbecility, that's really saying something, isn't it?

Exactly my thoughts as well. It so often seems to me that only one "side" is flexible enough to come together to save what's left of the country. Once upon a time (and not so long ago) the majority of the country thought the way you do. There were two very loud and vocal minorities on each end of the extremes and then the vast swath of the country fell somewhere in the middle.

As hopeful as I am about the rise of Libertarianism...I worry that that one side will prove absolutely inflexible and then the libertarian-style candidates slowly morph into being simply neocons who don't spend money.

Thanks for the feedback, though. I hope I hear more answers like yours.

1:The candidate who does the best job regardless of his religious affiliation would get my vote.
2: No .

Originally posted by charles1952
I'm voting for a leader of the country, not the leader of my Church. Different jobs, different requirements. I suppose religion might be a feather tossed into the scales, but it's not controlling by any means. Christians can be foolish, uninformed, and unqualified, just like any other human.

Indeed. It's not so much foolishness, ignorance, or lack of qualifications I worry about, though...it's the inflexibility.

I often think that we have a serious problem on how we define so many of the words we use in our political discourse. For example, the word "compromise" can mean "coming together in a show of mutual respect such as in a negotiation of some kind" or it can mean "to undermine or weaken" such as in "The foundation of that building has been compromised" or "We have been informed there has been a breach in security which has compromised company information".

Clearly one of these definitions has clearly negative connotations...and the other was what enabled the vastly differing opinions of the "Founding Fathers" to be worked into a framework which was acceptable to everyone. Somewhere along the way a lot of these words became so corrupted and tainted by punditry that they seem to have actually changed peoples BEHAVIORS. It's as though "compromise" has become a dirty word. I can't count how many times I've received VERY nasty remarks from pro-life Ron Paul supporters who have even gone so far as to say "we don't need you if that's the way you think".

I have a thick skin and could care less...but many, many, others will be turned off by this sort of thing. One would think that it would be nothing but open arms in these groups for a guy who voted for Obama last election. Isn't the whole entire point of a political campaign designed to get people to CHANGE THEIR MINDS? When you're candidate is the massive underdog and there are powerful forces aligned against him...you just can't be so

I worry that this little pod of rigid "believers" risk undermining their own movement. And it encompasses more than just religion as well. Look at North Dakota this week. All in all...I'm a fiscal conservative and you don't need to ask me twice if we, as a society, should cut spending. But the knee-jerk absolutism of eliminating ALL property taxes OVERNIGHT is just plain nuts to me.

I actually think it's a GOOD IDEA...but the same people who are so super-pissed about their property taxes will be even MORE super-pissed when their libraries close and the malls are filled with "punk kids" who don't have a school to go to anymore. Why not advocate for an elimination of property taxes in exchange for a state consumption/sales tax? Granted...that tax rate might be 15%+...but it beats the hell out of the myriad of car accidents that will occur when all the traffic lights go out, right? Especially when they have to argue with their insurance companies who BOTH refuse to pay the claims because there was no police report about the accident.
Why not SLOWLY decrease the property taxes while SIMULTANEOUSLY increasing whatever revenue stream is designed to replace it?

It just seems that even when the goals of people are PERFECTLY aligned...there seems to be a HUGE amount of people who cannot take pause and flex a little bit for the greater good.

Originally posted by schuyler

As a conservative who would normally vote Republican, in this case I would vote for the Democrat. But, you see, I also agree with him on the Bible and Genesis.

OK...so

I would vote for the candidate once again. Is he a Democrat, too?

Your problem here is that you are making a lot of assumptions. First you assume that all people who would label themselves conservatives are creationists. You've mixed up your sub-sets. You could probably get away with saying "all creationists are conservatives" or that they "tend to vote Republican," but that doesn't mean all conservatives, or even the majority of conservatives are creationists. I'm fiscally very conservative and socially tend to be conservative, but in the conventional sense of the term, I'm an atheist (not quite, but it would be splitting hairs and throwing us off topic to deal with that here).

No I hear you...you're more or less like I am. Essentially slightly to the right of Moderate whereas I'm slightly to the left of Moderate. I'm not assuming that "all conservatives are Creationists" by any means...that's why addressed the question to the most hard-core elements of the demographic that fit all three qualifiers.

In retrospect though I probably didn't make it clear enough in the headline...but I was really posing the question to those who fit in all three categories. I still very much appreciate your input. Thanks for the feedback.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
The religious disparity between Christian and vocal atheist might be a bit too much for me to overlook. Not really sure how I'd respond in regards to that one.

As for the abortion issue, I'm strongly pro-life. I could write a rambling manifesto here explaining my thoughts on the topic... but there's no point to it. I believe that the abortion issue in the USA is a manufactured divide, intended to help keep the nation gridlocked in a two party system. The media does their part, making it seem like a boilerplate topic which one party or the other will actually act upon... but when you get right down to it, any changes that occur will be cosmetic/superficial at best and the machine will continue to roll. We had 6 years of a supposedly very pro-life government not that long ago. GOP majority in both chambers plus a vocal pro-life president... was so much as a single earnest attempt made to re-examine Roe v Wade?

EXACTLY!! That's refreshing to hear. My personal standpoint is that I feel it's more cruel to bring an unwanted child into the world than to simply euthanize it. I was one of those unwanted children myself, and I would have gladly chosen to be aborted rather than go through the upbringing I did. However...it's neither here nor there. We both know all the reasons for people's feelings on both sides of the argument.

I think Ron Paul's solution to the matter is exceedingly wise in simply leaving it up to the States. From a legal perspective the States are responsible for all other violent crimes...so if it's murder...then it ought to fall squarely in the camp of being up to the States. From a PRAGMATIC perspective even though I am Pro-Choice (or even Pro-Abortion) I cannot possibly conceive of persuading the Bible Belt to see things my way...nor do I feel compelled to do so. Hence...leaving it up to the States allows for cultural differences in this very vast country of ours...no problem in my book.

It just shocks me how many people are not willing/able to compromise in this fashion.

Thanks for the feedback.

Wow I got a chuckle out if you voting for Obama mostly because you were opposed to Bush's bailouts, crony capitalism, and unconstitutional wars.

Lots changed huh?

Originally posted by blamethegreys
Irregardless of what I believe, I strongly feel that the "moral" issues are used to divide and conquer us, while the fiscal and global agendas are driven towards the same cliff by either party.

So to answer your question(s), I would absolutely vote for the candidate whose economic and foreign policy philosophies were the most in-line with my own.

Who cares if the president believes in abortion or God or Flying Spaghetti Monsters if the country implodes due to overspending and overreaching of military engagements?

This is exactly what is happening! I would give you 60 stars if I could.

Religion is the strongest magnet in the universe. If you can get to the masses by embracing or omitting it, you've already won. You have successfully and fundamentally divided everyone into a camp. If you hate abortion, you also love welfare tax breaks for mega wealthy because they're job creators. If you support a woman's right to choose then you also love government programs and tax dollars to help the less fortunate and you're a communist.

Big wigs absolutely love to remove all critical thought from the equation. There is no middle ground anymore because middle ground is what leads to logical thinking and altering the status quo.
This is why Ron Paul scares the living beJesus out of those who rule and lobby.