[That's my point. When you have crazies representing the party, there is no interest.
and limit it to protection of religious liberties rather than enforcement of religious ideas
That doesn't happen. Almost all opposition of enforcing religion is from the left.
Sure. I'm not saying that opposition to enforcing religion isn't from the left. What I'm saying is that there is very very little actual enforcement of religion going on at all to oppose. What also happens is that the left, under the guise of said opposition actually attempts to impose restrictions on religious freedoms that aren't in any way about forcing religion on other people. When free speech is allowed in public spaces *unless* it is religious in nature (say holiday displays in public spaces), that's not protecting people from having religious views forced on them (much less forcing someone to convert or die or something, unless you think merely being exposed to religious concepts somehow magically forces people to become religious), but preventing religious people from expressing their belief in the public square. Forcing people to violate their own personal religious tenants (say by forcing them to purchase health insurance which pays for abortions and/or birth control) is not protecting the masses from religious indoctrination either. It's purely about sticking your finger in the eyes of people who have faith you don't agree with. The pendulum has swung very far in the wrong direction on this.
That the GOP has become the party that protects those religious beliefs and freedoms does not in any way mean that the GOP is itself about enforcing religion. They just are willing to stand up and protect people's personal beliefs., whatever they may happen to be. It's just that for the last several decades that has tended to be Christian beliefs, so that's who will tend to migrate to the GOP for that reason.
The left believes in using the power of government to impose their ideas on the country. The right believes the opposite, that the government should not be telling people how to live.
Close, but not actual. The left believes that the Federal government should have a larger role, while the right believes that the states should have a larger role.
That's not quite true either though. The right believes in the principles of small government, at all levels, specifically the concept behind the 10th amendment. Powers not vested in the federal government pass to the sates, and those not to the states, pass to the people. We believe that power should rest at the "lowest" level possible. With the lowest of all being the individual making a choice at that moment. The left believes it should rest most at the highest level possible, with as many decisions being made and enforced from the federal level as possible. Trying to make it purely about states versus federal is not true at all. We also don't like state governments having too much say either, preferring local city or county ordinances for many things (and again, preferring as few of those as is practicable as well).
It really is about how much government, not just where the government power lies. That latter part is only a concession to the need for government at all, in which case it should rest at the lowest level. And I suppose where the GOP differs from the Libertarian party is where that level of concession lies. Again though, the underlying concept is "as little government and laws as possible".
The "belief" of government "controlling" people is hogwash that the right makes up when a scenario does not work out the way they want. Else, the right will happily use the "rule of law" to dictate how people should or should not behave.
it's funny you should scoff at the idea of the government controlling people at a time when it is literally telling people who can go to work, what businesses can operate and which can't, and jailing people who don't comply.
I'll also point out that our belief in following rule of law is based on a respect for the law, and the concept of applying the law equally. That does not preclude minimizing the amount and extent of law though. We want just the laws that are needed, but that those laws should then be enforced, equally and fairly. What we don't like is a government that passes a zillion crazy laws, and then selectively enforces them, more or less making it about arbitrary punishment at that point. If you cross the wrong politician or express the wrong opinion, suddenly laws that everyone breaks but are never enforced get applied to you. That's not justice.
The marriage of small government ideology and traditional religious belief in the GOP was driven by the rise in the Dem party of secularism and socialism.
???? None of this is true. The Democrats of yesteryear are/were openly religious. The older black population (Democrats) are largely religious. Both parties have been supporting Christian concepts well before the secularism started attacking religious holidays, etc.
Huh? Yeah, the "Democrats of yesteryear", as in "no longer support that". Yes, "older black population", as in "younger people don't support that either. The Democrats have become increasingly anti-religion for the last 40+ years. That was my point. It's not like a switch was flipped, but that a process began and has continued over time. I've seen it progress over my lifetime and it's quite obvious.
Both parties may have equally supported Christian religious concepts "before secularism began attacking religious holidays", but that doesn't negate my point. Those secularists who do those attacks are overwhelmingly aligned with the Democratic party, are supported by the Democratic party, and are provided political cover by the Democratic party. That is where the secularism is. What's funny is that many Democrat politicians will still claim to be religious, but they are silent when various organizations who support their party attack religious institutions and/or beliefs. They insert or allow to be inserted language in legislation that is entirely about attacking religious freedoms. Of course, at the time when called on it, they will insist that the law doesn't actually say what it says, and wont actually be applied the way those crazy religious folks are claiming. But then, just as with a number of portions of Obamacare where actually applied in exactly the way religious groups were concerned about, and despite their promises to the contrary, they still remain silent on the fact that those groups have to go to court to force the protection of the religious freedom they were promised when the law was passed.
How many Democrats scoffed at the idea that faith based organizations would be forced under the ACA to buy insurance that paid for abortion and/or birth control. They spoke loudly of "religious exceptions" then and that it would just not happen and was just fearmongering by the Right, who didn't really care about freedom, but just wanted granny to die or something. And then exactly that happened. Exactly how many of those Democrats who made those statements then went on TV and publicly stated that the application of the law was wrong, or that they supported those religious groups, or even that they were wrong when they said that the law would never be applied that way.
Zero, right? So tell me again how much the Democratic party support religious freedom? Not much. So yeah, folks who do care about that tend to move to the GOP. As I said at the start, it's not that the GOP platform is particularly pro-religion, but that it's opposed to persecution of everyone, equally, including people of faith. I don't protect religious freedom because I'm religious (I'm not particularly), but because it's the right thing to do.
That's because you're looking at this purely from the right. The same exact thing happens from the left with the Libertarian party. It's not a 50/50 split, but if you have a *real* candidate then you're evenly impacting both parties. If you have a Republican with Libertarian views, then yes, you will be hurting the GOP ticket. Amash is a great example of that.
Um... You actually think that people who are actual libertarians vote Democrat? That's... crazy. Now, I'll admit that I have run into a smallish number of liberals who call themselves libertarians, but that's largely because they don't actually know what libertarianism is. They think it's just a fancy term for liberal. Like "I'm liberal, but more cerebral or something, so I'll add some extra syllables to make people think I'm smarter". Bill Maher used to call himself a libertarian. Not sure if he still does. Um... He's not one. Not even remotely close.
Folks who actually understand and pursue the ideology of libertarianism will not *ever* vote for the Democratic party. At least, not in the form it has existed for the last 40ish years or so. The Dems have become the direct antithesis to every basic principle of the libertarian ideas. You *can't* support the Democratic party and be libertarian. Again, not unless you have either a completely wrong understanding of libertarianism or the platform of the Democratic party.
I suppose I could except some local races where national party platforms may not necessarily apply, of course. But I was speaking about applying libertarian principles to a national party platform, at and that level, pretty much 100% of any voter who votes for the Libertarian party would otherwise have voted Republican (or not at all). None of them would be moving from the Dems. You're thinking the Green party or some such.