Comparing Cats and Dogs in the Republican Party

Last updated:
Print Friendly, PDF & Email


According to C.S. Lewis, one of the most influential Christian philosophers of the mid-twentieth century, “The world does not exist in 100 percent.” Lewis was addressing the topic of Christians versus non-Christians, and he took the position that the vast expanse of people living should not be categorized as 100 percent Christian or 100 percent non-Christian.

Lewis expounded by stating, “There are people (a great many of them) who are slowly ceasing to be Christians but who still call themselves the same: some of them are clergymen. There are other people who are slowly becoming Christians though they do not yet call themselves so.” Therefore, it is reasonable to assume some who identify themselves under the banner of another religion may be focusing on a foundational principle of Christianity, like humility or mercy, and thereby be closer to God than they imagine. Conversely, it is also reasonable to assume an individual who claims the mantle of Christianity lacks a full understanding of God’s truth, and has placed barriers between their speech and the condition of their soul. There are also a good many people who are simply confused with jumbled up beliefs that are inconsistent, but they are honestly searching for truth.

By this reasoning, Lewis thought the practice of judging Christians versus non-Christians in the mass rather foolish and unproductive. He thought it useful to compare cats and dogs, and even men and women, in the mass because it is easy to identify which is which, and because neither animal nor human can slowly turn into another form of animal or sex.

So when comparing Christians versus non-Christians in general, we are only comparing ill-defined and vague ideas which serve very little purpose and most often cause unnecessary division. Let us decide, instead, to judge based on the content of one’s character, not on one’s self-proclaimed Christianity.

The same can be applied to political parties. Let us judge based on one’s adherence to the party’s platform by way of policies supported, not on their association to the party itself. There are many within the Republican ranks who have drifted from the principles of self-reliance and individual responsibility, as well as the ideal of the individual being the smallest minority who must be protected against the onslaught of the majority. These self-proclaimed Republicans are little more than pro-life Democrats, who seek to promote collective, progressive policies that have no foundation in the American Republic.

Within the Republican party, we can now compare cats and dogs.