Coming from an Orthodox local church which saw a whole quarter of its faithful and clergy leave over a purely political change of stand by the bishops (ROCOR union with Moscow), I can tell you that you tremendously underestimate what drives the direction of these organizations. In the Orthodox Church, precedent is a major factor, which trumps money and membership. We have female deacons, but never, ever has there been ordained a female priest or bishop. There SHOULD have been, since the pagan Greeks had priestess’, but we don’t have one example in 2000 year history that we can cite. Not even among crazy break-away groups.

The difference between a traditional organized religion and a social organization is that members have a sense of belonging to a truth that is greater than themselves, even if they don’t understand how that is. How do you shape something like that the way you want? Boycott it?

I’m pro-business, a staunch capitalist, support lower taxes and actually supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (it’s just that the execution of both has been abysmal and caused more issues).

However I support the legalisation of drugs. I’ve been saying the same sort of stuff about prices being inflated by prohibition as is in that Norm Stamper article for a long time now. I support gay marriage, heck, I think people should be allowed to marry their cats if they want. I’m pro-choice, pro-gun control and anti-death penalty. For me those are the only pragmatic positions to hold.

If I could agree with the Democrats on issues like the wars, taxes or the environment (I do support taking action to lower our use of hydrocarbons but as a matter of scarcity rather than Climate Change) I’d probably support them. Hell, I loved Clinton.

Granted, I think your argument holds more weight with religion. One can be spiritual without needing an organised religion. Yet if we’re talking politics, I’m simply no longer idealistic enough that I believe it’s feasible to change the system from the two-party (it is largely a two-party system here too) one that we have.

I’ve struggled for years to define myself. Libertarian sounded a good fit but my support for the wars would probably rule that out, and it never quite fit entirely. Conservative works when I talk to English people since our brand of Conservatism is less extreme than yours, but it’s still not a perfect fit.

“Moderate” does fit but doesn’t really explain much. One can be a moderate with totally different views to the ones I hold. I guess “Pragmatist” suffers from the same problems too.

Anyway, I think a certain amount of compromise is acceptable, and the analogy of the KKK is a bit of a red herring. The current Republican Party is in the back pocket of the Christian Right yet Christianity is clearly not the core tenet of Republicanism.

Racism is the core tenet of the KKK. An anti-abortion stance, for example, is core to Catholicism, so to be a Catholic who’s had an abortion would be the height of hypocrisy. To be a Republican (which I guess, if I lived in the US, I would be) and oppose the Christian Right, however, isn’t, I don’t think.

I think Haukur’s right on where the line has to be drawn too. For you to make a compromise for yourself is fine. When you start to then lobby others without really acknowledging the compromise you’ve made, however, you lose all credibility.

The key is you must remain quite vocal about your compromise, and about the issues you disagree with. If I was the hypothetical in Haukur’s comment I’d say to someone “Although these are the things I agree with the Republican Party on, it’s important that I make it clear that these are the policies I disagree with”

That way you respect that person’s ability to make a choice for themselves that suits their values, not yours.