Religious Fanatics and those who oppose them running our country PLEASE POST HERE

[Flying FuManchu]

Republican political consultant Bill Greener said people in the nation's "heartland," where Republicans racked up one victory over another, often saw urban Democrats on the East and West Coasts as smug and elitist.

"If you project a view that people who express strong religious faith are a threat, people who hold that faith are going to feel a sense of resentment," he said.

This thread feeds into that quote or exemplifies the problem IMO and probably helped contribute to the fall of Kerry. That is probably why you might have had exit polls saying Kerry was going to stomp Bush but in the end Kerry got beat.

IMO and this is my opinion, religious people i.e. evangelicals aren't always loud and obnoxious. Some are actually very to themselves and not very vocal about the beliefs b/c they do not want to offend. Yet they hold those beliefs strongly. Sort of like not rocking the boat and the desire to be loved/ liked by people. So IMO probably many decided not to participate in exit polls are come out strongly for Bush in the open while still voting for Bush,... LOL. Sort of similar to what actor Ron Silver said about there being "Kerry supporters" who voted Republican in secret (they don't want to be ostracized by the "majority." There are probably more evangelicals then we probably believe and IMO this election shows that b/c I personally thought Bush was going to lose and the "youth vote" would help take it (LOL at vote or die).

Now the pundits are pointing to the "evangelical" vote as being the key to victory for Bush. The question is, how are the Democrats going to react to this. Are they going to be resentful and more abrasive towards evangelicals (who have shown voting power stronger than the youth vote) or are they going to reach out alah the Republicans sort of have (i.e. their propping up of Powell, Guiliani, Scwarzenegger, Rice, Ridge, etc.).

Some of the above posts indicate more what we see in the quote made by Bill Greener.

But don't let me stop some people from attacking religious beliefs that some people really hold dear to their hearts.

 

[BVS]

Oh he's pretty far right, don't let yourself be kidded by that "compassion conservative" title he gave himself.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

I don't believe Bush is far right... he's some weird mish mash conservative...

 

[Irvine511]

Re: Re: Religious Fanatics and those who oppose them running our country PLEASE POST HERE

Tackleberry, I would have to say there are some fundamental flaws in your analysis here.

1. The war on terror is not a war on religion or a war driven by religion. GWB has repeatedly made that clear to avoid confusion on the issue.

2. Most voters base their decision on their own moral compass. In essence, you are saying this is wrong if they use the Bible for their own moral compass.

3. If I vote for someone because I feel that their values most closely match my own and the Bible guides my values; how in the world is that a theocracy?

4. If we are going to define "what God or Jesus would do" we must use the Bible. People can come to different conclusions on what "God would do" (to the extent that is even possible).

If you think that GWB is establishing a theocracy, I would be interested to see what laws you would point to as evidence of this theocracy.

Tackleberry, I would have to say there are some fundamental flaws in your analysis here.

1. The war on terror is not a war on religion or a war driven by religion. GWB has repeatedly made that clear to avoid confusion on the issue.

2. Most voters base their decision on their own moral compass. In essence, you are saying this is wrong if they use the Bible for their own moral compass.

3. If I vote for someone because I feel that their values most closely match my own and the Bible guides my values; how in the world is that a theocracy?

4. If we are going to define "what God or Jesus would do" we must use the Bible. People can come to different conclusions on what "God would do" (to the extent that is even possible).

If you think that GWB is establishing a theocracy, I would be interested to see what laws you would point to as evidence of this theocracy.

it doesn't matter what GWB says, it matters what he does. he projects an image of muscular christianity to the world, and then invades Muslim countries. Bush's heavily theocratic language in his speeches get major airtime in the arab world. whether correct or not, fair or not, this does look like a Christian war on Arabs. and that helps the Al Qaeda propaganda machine.

as for theocracy in America, what's indisputable is that Bush's "compassionate conservatism" is really the use of the government to impose and subsidize certain morals over others. for example, in 2002, the President unveiled millions of dollars to randomly test high school kids for drugs. he doubled the federal money currently spent to admonish teens to practice sexual abstinence. he is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on antidrug propaganda and sending federal agents to bust pot clubs for those using medical marijuana to ease the pain of crippling diseases. Republican Senators are even trying to withhold federal funding from states that allow medical-marijuana ads on public transport. in 2003, he proposed an extensive government program to coach newly released ex-cons into better lives. who are these government-backed mentors are? what exactly are they preaching?

 

[Irvine511]

Yes, and I completely agree and like I've said elsewhere, I flipped straight to the back of the booklet and voted NO for the discriminitory ammendment. However, I'm getting REALLY annoyed with the stereotypical attitude towards Republicans. Just because I am a religious Republican does NOT mean I am against gay marriage, I'm against any sex-ed besides abstinence, etc. Why is it OK for the Democrats to be all over the board, but just b/c SOME people vote with a homophobic bias, ALL Republicans are being called fanatics and bigots?

because your party is in power and this is the agenda they're pursuing.

but i feel your pain. it was how i felt living in Europe as an American -- people demanded explanations (and often held me responsible) for things i didn't believe in.

not fair, but that's how it works, unfortunately.

 

[BestDrummer]

Im a christian and I voted for Bush on that reason alone. How is that wrong? Isnt it our system to vote for whoever you want for whatever reason you want? If you think there should be some subject that should not be a bases for people to vote for their caditate on, then that would not be freedom. I am an american and whatever reason i see fit personnally to vote for is my business and is the RIGHT WAY.

 

[Irvine511]

Im a christian and I voted for Bush on that reason alone. How is that wrong? Isnt it our system to vote for whoever you want for whatever reason you want? If you think there should be some subject that should not be a bases for people to vote for their caditate on, then that would not be freedom. I am an american and whatever reason i see fit personnally to vote for is my business and is the RIGHT WAY.

yes, of course. you can vote however you choose. and no one stopped you, nor should anyone stop you.

but you can be criticized. that's the American way, too.

 

[starsgoblue]

P.P.S. Blame The Christians

Sarcastic or not, this is out of line! I'm a Christian. I did not vote for Bush. But comments like this make me feel like I am being persecuted and criticized for my faith--unacceptable! Don't blame Bush being President on ME and MY faith, those factors have nothing to do with it.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Allright allready, I felt that there was enough context to that statement given by the previous bit about recriminations on left wing blogs (it is a meltdown at DU and Kos) but I apologise for making you feel persecuted for your faith, now can I try something that we can all agree on.

Blame Michael Moore

 

[BestDrummer]

And I dont see how all this negativity is productive. you all want a democracy but when 51% of america uses thier democcracy and the other 49% that want democracy but were out numbered(wich is how democracy works)shit thier pants and get all pissed off cause they lost fair and square... hmmm seems very hipocritcal to me. So Whoever screams democracy here please except what democracy hands you. We saw democracy at its finest.... but people are so pissed off its not even funny.

 

[jer2911]

Im a christian and I voted for Bush on that reason alone. How is that wrong? Isnt it our system to vote for whoever you want for whatever reason you want? If you think there should be some subject that should not be a bases for people to vote for their caditate on, then that would not be freedom. I am an american and whatever reason i see fit personnally to vote for is my business and is the RIGHT WAY.

AMEN to that !! I voted for Bush, because he did not go against my dearly held values as a Christian and for that reason alone.
I find it ammusing that certain segments of society are all for free speech and personal freedom(logging protests in the redwoods, burning the flag, gay marriage, etc.).......except when it comes to a President speaking about his faith.

And for the person who asked WWJD about war, gay marriage, etc.........if you study the Bible, you will find your answers.

 

[A_Wanderer]

People find whatever they want to find in religion, from the most devout, good and honest believer to the most evil *ahem*activist of nondescript religous afflitation. It is all a reflection of the individual.

 

[starsgoblue]

It amazes me that people would completley diregard the fact that the economy is in the shitter and would vote merely on the principles that a person supposedly purports.

 

[BVS]

And for the person who asked WWJD about war, gay marriage, etc.........if you study the Bible, you will find your answers.

Hmmm you're Bible must be different then mine, it says nothing about striking first or denying someone rights in mine and believe me I've studied it for 29 years.

 

[Irvine511]

And for the person who asked WWJD about war, gay marriage, etc.........if you study the Bible, you will find your answers.

jesus said absolutley NOTHING about homosexuality.

he did say, however, that we should love everybody.

the bible also condones slavery, says you shouldn't eat shellfish, have sex with a woman if she is menstruating ... basically, the bible says a lot of things. i'm baffled by people who put stock in literal interpretations of a text written 2,000 years ago by at least four different guys that has been translated however many times over the centuries into English.

if it works for you great. but don't use it to limit my freedoms.

 

[MadelynIris]

Paul said alot against homosexuality. Do you believe in what Paul wrote?

Just curious.

 

[A_Wanderer]

^Damn straight, practice your religion the way you want but dont force the rest of the people too, its unwarranted interferece - you need less government in your life.

 

[Irvine511]

Paul said alot against homosexuality. Do you believe in what Paul wrote?

Just curious.

as a secular humanist who admires the basic jesus message, i really don't care what Paul has to say.

 

[cseggleton]

Taking the advice of one of the moderators who closed a few threads and told us to create a new one, I have created....a new one.

(a) there's no denying that religion played a huge role in this election. More than any other I can think of. There's also no denying that religion has played a huge role in the war against terrorism and the war in Iraq

(b) Bush attracted voters because of this, and MOST of them are from the south. Now without calling them "hicks" (which they may be...or maybe not) regardless, they are basing their votes on religious values, ones that Bush has used time and time again to run this country and to implement his policies.

(c) I think this is wrong. Because it violates separation of church and state. This is essential to a democracy. A religion based country is NOT a democracy, but rather a theocracy. I fear this country's shift to the extreme right is falling into this category.

(d) that being said, I think these religious values and morals contradict the way this country is being run, and will unfortunately be run in the next 4 years. I ask you this in your deepest of hearts: would God or Jesus "ban" gays from marriage, would God or Jesus start a war, Would God or Jesus have the highest death penalty numbers of any state (Texas). Hmmmm....

a) Is there a problem voting for a candidate that believes alot of the same stuff you believe? Religion playing a role on the war on terrorism? Iraq? IMO these fanatics attacked us;....paybacks are hell!

b) Most of Bush's supporters are in the South. They were everywhere except the Northeast, West Coast, and parts of the UP. Hicks? They? You sure do generalize about people

c) Correct me if I am wrong. But Seperation of Church and State gets taken way out of context. I believe its intent was to say the Government can't tell you how to worship. Stop worrying about the extreme right. Our country has always balanced out....that is why it is so great. We are a melting pot!

d) I am not going to touch the God or Jesus one....gay marriage does not really concern me....death penalty I can see both sides of the argument....God or Jesus starting a war? Don't think they would but I bet they would go into a country and free opressed people.

Anyway next time you are in the South stop on by and we can drink some moonshine, pick a banjo, shovel some cow shit, slop the pigs, and waive a confederate flag around.........oh the sarcasm

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

Re: Re: Religious Fanatics and those who oppose them running our country PLEASE POST HERE

2. Most voters base their decision on their own moral compass. In essence, you are saying this is wrong if they use the Bible for their own moral compass.


Actually, I am saying it is wrong for people to just use the bible for a moral compass. Southern slave owners used the bible all the time to justify owning slaves....

I guess those who let their moral compass be their guide will have their Bibles and their guns to keep them warm when they lose their jobs.

We have this quaint thing in this country....it's the separation of church and state. Religion should not dictate policy in this country. I am sickened by this election.

 

[A_Wanderer]

President Bush received the exact same percentage of gay votes — 23 percent — as he did four years ago. This despite the president's vocal support for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marraige.

 

[BVS]

Paul said alot against homosexuality. Do you believe in what Paul wrote?

Just curious.

Paul said "God doesn't want man to allow homosexuals to marry?"

 

[Irvine511]

President Bush received the exact same percentage of gay votes — 23 percent — as he did four years ago. This despite the president's vocal support for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marraige.

i was shocked at that too, though i had thought it was down slightly, but not by as much as one would have thought. many of them obviously thought the war or the economy was pre-eminent. many gay men are wealthy, and were maybe bought off by four more years of tax cuts. there are also a lot of self-haters out there. but for evangelicals, "moral values" trumped the war. it wasn't about the war on terror for the Bush base. it was about the war on gay unions.

irony.

 

[deep]

Paul said alot against homosexuality. Do you believe in what Paul wrote?

Just curious.

I don't want Shia law.

I want secular laws.


I have a lot of personal beliefs that you would not want imposed on you as laws.

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

Re: Re: Religious Fanatics and those who oppose them running our country PLEASE POST HERE

a) Is there a problem voting for a candidate that believes alot of the same stuff you believe? Religion playing a role on the war on terrorism? Iraq? IMO these fanatics attacked us;....paybacks are hell!

b) Most of Bush's supporters are in the South. They were everywhere except the Northeast, West Coast, and parts of the UP. Hicks? They? You sure do generalize about people

c) Correct me if I am wrong. But Seperation of Church and State gets taken way out of context. I believe its intent was to say the Government can't tell you how to worship. Stop worrying about the extreme right. Our country has always balanced out....that is why it is so great. We are a melting pot!


Anyway next time you are in the South stop on by and we can drink some moonshine, pick a banjo, shovel some cow shit, slop the pigs, and waive a confederate flag around.........oh the sarcasm

As a history teacher, I will correct you b/c you are mistaken. The separation of Church and State does not only mean the government cannot tell you how to worship, and by the way, it does with the "under God" bit in the pledge. It also applies to the government not creating legislation involving any sort of relgious matter. In addition, by trying to create an ammendment that would define what marriage is, W is stepping on states rights as well as the separation of church and state.

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

I don't want Shia law.

I want secular laws.


I have a lot of personal beliefs that you would not want imposed on you as laws.

Very well said. I applaud.

 

[U2democrat]

I'll be kind and bite my tongue on this issue, otherwise I'd piss people off like never before.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Your grace is to be applauded, I too shall abstain from going into my profound dislike of the evangelical conservative christian movement (I can like individuals but the principles and actions of the group I find wrong).

 

[MadelynIris]

I have a lot of personal beliefs that you would not want imposed on you as laws.

Of course not. This is resistance to a NEW LAW - that is to change the definition of marraige to include others than man/woman.

Are we not allowed to resist new laws?

As far as the Paul thing goes - I hear ya.

But how do you form your beliefs.. do you take the 'red text' out of one of the gospels and go from there? You know some else besides Jesus had to fill in the gaps. More of a narrative, ya know.

That would be kind of hard to figure out - unless you just sort of paraphrase/generalize it yourself.

Mark

 

[The_Sweetest_Thing]

Re: Re: Re: Religious Fanatics and those who oppose them running our country PLEASE POST HERE

As a history teacher, I will correct you b/c you are mistaken. The separation of Church and State does not only mean the government cannot tell you how to worship, and by the way, it does with the "under God" bit in the pledge. It also applies to the government not creating legislation involving any sort of relgious matter. In addition, by trying to create an ammendment that would define what marriage is, W is stepping on states rights as well as the separation of church and state.

Exactly.

Perhaps the 'under God' bit has to change in the pledge? So many Americans aren't religious, nor do they all abide by the same religious codes. Is it fair to have people pledge to a God they don't believe in?

Most of the big issues in this election dealt with religion--something the state should be removed from. Pass the laws and allow people to choose whether or not to use those services (marriage, etc for homosexuals) based on their own moral code.