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

[tackleberry]

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_Wanderer]

*cough* It wasn't Bush who was campaigning in Churches.

P.S. If you voted for Bush you are an ignorant backwards foolish voter who doesn't want what "the world" wants for you - I know this because all those elitist pricks bemoaning the death of democracy at DailyKos and DU tell me so.

P.P.S. Blame The Christians

 

[BVS]

I think someone mentioned we're more like Saudi Arabia...and thought it was a compliment.

Everything we're fighting and trying to free other countries from is what we're moving closer to. But some will never see that. They fear so much that they can't control their own or their child's salvation so they need the government to help them along.

 

[u2bonogirl]

hrmm
Im a christian
I voted for kerry

 

[Liesje]

Sorry, but not supporting gay marriage or abortion are not exactly "fanatical". Some of the posts containing blanket statements against Republicans are so absurd, they're laughable!!! You honestly think Dubya is "extreme" right?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Extreme religious fanatacism is impaling homosexuals with red hot pokers - not banning gay marriage.

It is Stoning women to death for adultery instead of allowing them to do as they wish.

It is attempting to exterminate other people because of their religous beliefs.

If is having your government authority become divine thus justifiying any and all of its actions.

There are enough moderate republicans to keep the system working - it is not a monolithic group of theocrats.

 

[pianorocker]

P.P.S. Blame The Christians

Being Catholic, queasy about Bush, and for gay marriage, I take offense to that. You need to rethink your generalizations.

 

[Liesje]

Extreme religious fanatacism is impaling homosexuals with red hot pokers - not banning gay marriage.

Exactly. A lot of the posts here are painting your average Republican as some racists KKK person or something like that. and the Republicans are the ones that are supposedly living in fear?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Don't worry pianorocker, I am a libertarian atheist, I don't care what you worship as long as it doesn't hurt anybody and that bit was sarcasm.

 

[Liesje]

Being Catholic, queasy about Bush, and for gay marriage, I take offense to that. You need to rethink your generalizations.

No worries, I think he was being sarcastic.

 

[medmo]

I agree with the majority of what you are saying but take exception to your "hicks in the south" statement. The traditional south, excluding FLA, is only responsible for 79 electoral votes. What about the other 204, or whatever the number is going to end up being? This was a bigger than expected victory, and it shows that there are problems with our side, and they are not all in the south. If you are trying to place the blame on them, I think you are wrong.

What about the hicks in Colorado?

 

[pianorocker]

No worries, I think he was being sarcastic.

probably. It just touched a nerve. Today's not been the greatest of days for many reasons.

 

[Boston01]

The notion of "sides" bothers me and is a continuing problem for the US.

 

[nbcrusader]

(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....

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.

 

[Irvine511]

Extreme religious fanatacism is impaling homosexuals with red hot pokers - not banning gay marriage.

It is Stoning women to death for adultery instead of allowing them to do as they wish.

It is attempting to exterminate other people because of their religous beliefs.

If is having your government authority become divine thus justifiying any and all of its actions.

There are enough moderate republicans to keep the system working - it is not a monolithic group of theocrats.

that's not extreme religious fantacism, that's murder.

as for the moderate republicans ... you've been had by your own party. you thought McCain, Guiliani, and the ever more impressive Schwarzenagger were the heart and soul. nope. it's the party of Santorum, Ashcroft, and Delay.

and you fell for it! you helped him appear moderate at the convention. y'all got served!

if ya'll are smart and not as monolithic as you think (and i know some very smart, sane moderate republicans ... libertarians, more like), you'll start some sort of coup and save your party from these fanatics.

and, yes, they are fanatics. not murderers, but fanatics.

 

[MadelynIris]

LOL! I love how you guys paint this picture that our religious beliefs should have nothing to do with our political beliefs.

IT'S THE AMERICAN WAY! For example, the MILLIONS THAT LEFT EUROPE TO COME TO AMERICA (because of it's political freedom) TO WORSHIP HOW THEY WANTED!

Laws are derived from beliefs of right and wrong. Many peoples beliefs on right and wrong are derived from their religion/spirituality. GET OVER IT!

Mark

 

[deep]

Extreme religious fanatacism is impaling homosexuals with red hot pokers - not banning gay marriage.

It is Stoning women to death for adultery instead of allowing them to do as they wish.

It is attempting to exterminate other people because of their religous beliefs.

If is having your government authority become divine thus justifiying any and all of its actions.

There are enough moderate republicans to keep the system working - it is not a monolithic group of theocrats.

anti semitism is putting people in concentration camps-
not excluding them from country club memberships

racism is lynching blacks
not making them sit in the back of the bus.

 

[MadelynIris]

if ya'll are smart and not as monolithic as you think (and i know some very smart, sane moderate republicans ... libertarians, more like), you'll start some sort of coup and save your party from these fanatics

If ya'll were smart, you'd realize what americans are voting for and change some of your positions to match those. That is, if you want to get elected into office.

Mark

 

[A_Wanderer]

America is not about having the government telling people who they should lead their lives based on Christianity. It is about liberty!

 

[BVS]

Sorry, but not supporting gay marriage or abortion are not exactly "fanatical". Some of the posts containing blanket statements against Republicans are so absurd, they're laughable!!! You honestly think Dubya is "extreme" right?

But it's a step in that direction. I think you have to question the motives of anyone who goes out of their way to deny right's to any paticular group. Be it women, homosexuals, minorities, people of other religions, etc. If it doesn't harm anyone and the only reasoning you have is a "religious" one then it's wrong. Like someone said if you don't believe in gay marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex, but if you go out of your way to deny them that right you are no better than those that deny women rights to education, voting, or going out in public.

 

[nbcrusader]

It is hyperbole - demonizing those with conservative Christian beliefs.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I agree with you but there is a big difference between not allowing gay marriage and opressing women, gays can live their lives openly (an exceptional thing in this world), I think that it is a false moral equivalence.

 

[Liesje]

But it's a step in that direction. I think you have to question the motives of anyone who goes out of their way to deny right's to any paticular group. Be it women, homosexuals, minorities, people of other religions, etc. If it doesn't harm anyone and the only reasoning you have is a "religious" one then it's wrong. Like someone said if you don't believe in gay marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex, but if you go out of your way to deny them that right you are no better than those that deny women rights to education, voting, or going out in public.

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?

 

[tackleberry]

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.

1. GWB initially called this war a "crusade" That P.O.ed a lot people around the world who took that statement to heart and classified this as a religious war. Even though he has clarified that it is not, he did still say this, and I think a lot people took it to heart. Also, regarding the war in Iraq: Dubya said that he listened to a "higher father" for advice on what to do about Iraq, rather than listenting to his own Father who actually won a war there. I have a real problem with this.

4. In your "heart" what do you think God or Jesus would do about these issues? I went to catholic school for 12 years and in that time, I never interpreted the Bible or the teachings of Jesus Christ as ones that oppose gay people's rights and start wars based on advice from a "higher father"

This far right attitude could possibly cause this country to say it is a democracy, but in reality rule by a theocracy. Maybe I am over stepping my bounds here, but I am just afraid of this, not saying it has already happened.

 

[BVS]

LOL! I love how you guys paint this picture that our religious beliefs should have nothing to do with our political beliefs.

IT'S THE AMERICAN WAY! For example, the MILLIONS THAT LEFT EUROPE TO COME TO AMERICA (because of it's political freedom) TO WORSHIP HOW THEY WANTED!

Laws are derived from beliefs of right and wrong. Many peoples beliefs on right and wrong are derived from their religion/spirituality. GET OVER IT!

Mark

Where do you draw the line? What if your religion told you owning slaves is your right, or that women aren't equal, or that you need more than one wife? If this caught on and enough people voted for it, then it would be OK?

Use your religious/ moral compass to guide your voting all you want, but you cross the line once it interferes with someone else's rights. Everyone deserves this freedom you speak of not just the majority.

 

[A_Wanderer]

You want a theocracy, take a trip back to 1999 and visit Afghanistan, go over to Iran or Saudi Arabia today - I think that you will spot a few "minor" differences in the way that the government works.

 

[BVS]

I agree with you but there is a big difference between not allowing gay marriage and opressing women, gays can live their lives openly (an exceptional thing in this world), I think that it is a false moral equivalence.

So now it's equality with exceptions...yay freedom.

 

[BVS]

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?

It's completely wrong to paint any group with the same brush.

 

[A_Wanderer]

What do you mean equality with exceptions?

I 100% support gay marriage, recreational drug use, dwarf tossing - as long as it doesn't harm anybody or infringe on their rights. I am merely saying that a ban on gay marriage is not on the same level as forcing women into subjegation.

 

[Liesje]

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

This far right attitude could possibly cause this country to say it is a democracy, but in reality rule by a theocracy. Maybe I am over stepping my bounds here, but I am just afraid of this, not saying it has already happened.

1. I still am failing to see how Dubya is "far right" because at one time he used the word "crusade" and prays to God about war....

2. A theocracy has no President, it is run by God and His clergy. *mental picture*.....I don't think we need to worry too much about getting there!