Lost in all the kerfluffle about the upcoming confrontation with the rules committee and the "Dump the Trump" faction is the work being done on the Republican platform. Check out what the New York Times has to say about it:
Republicans moved on Tuesday toward adopting a staunchly conservative platform that takes a strict, traditionalist view of the family and child rearing, bars military women from combat, describes coal as a “clean” energy source and declares pornography a “public health crisis.”
(next seven paragraphs omitted for brevity)
What Republicans will probably end up with when they formally vote next week to ratify the platform approved in committee on Tuesday is a text that can seem almost Victorian in its moralizing and deeply critical of how the modern American family has evolved.
The platform demands that lawmakers use religion as a guide when legislating, stipulating “that man-made law must be consistent with God-given, natural rights.”
It also encourages the teaching of the Bible in public schools because, the amendment said, a good understanding of its contents is “indispensable for the development of an educated citizenry.” (Seriously? What other organizations do we know of that demand political policy follow their interpretation of a religious text?)
The pornography provision was not in an initial draft that the Republican National Committee drew up and released on Sunday. But delegates added it on Monday at the same time they were inserting many ... amendments opposing gay and transgender rights. It calls pornography “a public menace” that is especially harmful to children. (never mind that no one, not even the SCOTUS, has been able to provide a definitive and legally unchallengable example of what is or is not pornography)
.... highlighting and parenthetic comments within the quoted material mine ... -"BB"-
Sounds to me like the GOP rallying cry this year is going to be something like
"God, guns, and guts canMake America Great Again!"
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?
It also encourages the teaching of the Bible in public schools because, the amendment said, a good understanding of its contents is “indispensable for the development of an educated citizenry.”
I could go along with this. My HS English teacher said one could not understand the plays of Shakespeare without a thorough knowledge of the Bible. Note carefully, the stipulation for a good understanding of its contents. I would begin with the research and writings of Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels.
