http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=aHRr2Ul10eC0&refer=latin_america


the fucking irony is palpable

I think Pat Robertson needs to re-read the Ten Commandments.

I read that as well..what a freaking idiot.

Noted that yesterday. It's an extreme statement, but not out of character for the "Christian" political leadership in the US (Robertson, Falwell, Veira, Dobson, etc.).

Interesting. Fuller quote (emphasis mine):
You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.
So, it's not human rights violations or genocide or crimes against his own people that has Robertson's Depends in such a twitch so much as a "huge pool of oil" that Chavez might threaten to withhold from us.

What Would Jesus Pay at the Pump?

Christian Hypocracy at its best! No wonder nobody takes them seriously...

No reason to judge all Christians b/c of one person
Ok, to whoever wrote that, fair enough. :p

If only that were true. Been around the dinner table in, say, Jacksonville, Florida lately? I have, and it wasn't pretty. These 'extremists' have a lot more clout than you or I would like to think...

Regards,
Nydia

These 'extremists' have a lot more clout than you or I would like to think...

That's because these "Christian Political Leadership" people are scum con artists as well as.

In Canada this nut job would have been arrested for promoting hate crimes by noon today.

Robertson's star is setting, but he still retains considerable influence over his flock. Also, the current crop of extremist leaders learned their trade from Robertson and Falwell and have taken it a large step further into the political realm. Enabled by Bush, Frist, DeLay and others, extremism has become a force that cannot be dismissed. If you're not taking them seriously, you're not paying attention.

Once again, for the people who missed it the last 10 times...

Islamic Fundamentalism : Islam :: __________ : Christianity

While this is clearly a case of some jackass speaking for only his own interests I'm curious.

Are you likening this to Fatwa's issued by the Controlling force in the Islamic faith?

Roberts hardly speaks for me, and I'm right of center in my political views. I know for a fact he doesn't speak for any major power in Washington. Anything he's ever tried to run for in recent memory has been a laughable wash at best.

Compare that to the Fatwa's issued by the Islamic leaders. They are to be adhered to upon punishment of death. Aswell as punishment in the hereafter.

Not the same....apples oranges et all...

Fandros

The comparison isn't between edicts but between influence. Those who issued fatwas against Rushdie, the US, etc. influence a subset of followers of Islam*, just as extremist Christian leadership in the US influences a subset of Christians. The tactics differ, of course, but the ultimate goals (dominance of a religious viewpoint over the populace) aren't terribly dissimilar. In Islamic societies, violence is the usual course of action.

In the US this isn't as practical. The extremist elements are often well-funded and wield considerable political influence; violence is usually the recourse of the lone actor (e.g., Eric Rudolph). Rather, the tactic here is to acquire political power, subvert the sciences, enact laws that support the agenda, and support judges that view the Constitution as a biblically based document.

I'm glad that the Robertsons of the world don't speak for you Fanny (though that was obvious; clearly I'm talking about extremists), but to consider their kind powerless is naive at best. It's not that Robertson made a surprising statement -- that's not the point at all. Rather, the kicker is that his statement isn't surprising at all.

*I imagine quite a few Muslims would take umbrage at your suggestion that extremists are the "controlling" force of their religion, or even numerically significant.

While there are debateably fewer people that would consider it moral to kill someone on Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson's word, several dead doctors are mute testament that the effective equivalent of a fatwa does exist in American fundamentalist Christianity. I also don't think you really grasp how deep the fundies are in the neocon puppetmasters currently in charge of the Republican party.

I mean, we have a serious public debate about modifiying THE CONSTITUTION to ban gay marriage.

Do you know who Ralph Reed is?
Do you know what the Christian Coalition is?
You probably dont, but you should.

Ralph Reed = Pat Robertson. You dont think he speaks for major Powers in Washington?
HELLO. Ralph Reed was one of Bush2004 main organizers.
Sent out by the REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE to people in Arkansaw
http://www.theocracywatch.org/arkansas_flyer.jpg

This man has influence and power. He is one of the most powerful people on the Right. No, he doesnt speak you for you, but he is VERY close to the people who do.
Bill Frist, Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum, Bob Bennet, Kay Bailey Hutchenson, Jon Kyl, George Allen. Every one of those are US Senators who have voted the way the CC suggested they do 100% of the time.
These are the people who got GWB elected. Massive success with voter turnout and mobilization. If these people dont endorse you as a republican, you are done in many states, and if you want to be president, they better love you.
interesting read,
A Short-Lived Sigh of Relief

In 1988 Pat Robertson ran for President in the Republican Primaries and lost to George Bush Sr. In 1989 the Moral Majority disbanded. A lot of people concerned about the Religious Right breathed a deep sigh of relief. But there was one strange event that should have been a warning sign.

Pat Robertson beat Vice President George Bush Sr. in the Iowa Republican caucuses. How did Pat Robertson beat the Vice President in that state? Members of his campaign worked precinct by precinct to take over the party leadership at the local level until, eventually, they controlled the state party apparatus.

In March, 1986, I (Joan Bokaer) was on a speaking tour in Iowa and received a copy of the following memo Robertson had distributed to the Iowa Republican County Caucus:

"How to Participate in a Political Party

Rule the world for God.

Give the impression that you are there to work for the party, not push an ideology.

Hide your strength.

Don't flaunt your Christianity.

Christians need to take leadership positions. Party officers control political parties and so it is very important that mature Christians have a majority of leadership positions whenever possible, God willing."

As can be seen from the documentation on this page, one of their tactics was to tie up the meetings for hours until people left. Then they appointed themselves leaders and made key decisions. Once they took over the local leadership throughout the State of Iowa, they could control the state party apparatus. After their success in the Iowa '88 primary, they used the same tactic in several other states -- precinct by precinct.

Republican State Party Platforms began to get pretty interesting in 1992. The Republican Party of Washington State in 1992 outlawed witchcraft and yoga classes.
The Decade of Pat Robertson

In 1990, Pat Robertson laid out his key organizing principle in his book The Millennium:

"With the apathy that exists today, a well organized minority can influence the selection of candidates to an astonishing degree."

Robertson said to the Denver Post in 1992,

"We want...as soon as possible to see a majority of the Republican Party in the hands of pro-family Christians..."

Robertson hired Ralph Reed as the Christian Coalition's political mastermind. To get their candidates elected Reed and Robertson taught them to use stealth: avoid publicity, stay out of debates, and work below the radar screen. Don't call attention to yourself. And then Christian Coalition campaigned on their behalf exclusively in fundamentalist, Pentecostal and Charismatic churches.

While candidates avoided the limelight, Christian Coalition Family Values Voter Guides were distributed to participating churches. Church telephone directories were used for "get-out-the-vote" telephone banks.
1994: A Watershed Year

By election time in 1994 Christian Coalition had distributed 40 million copies of the "Family Values Voter's Guide" in more than 100,000 churches nationwide. 1994 was the year Republicans took control of Congress for the first time in 40 years. It was also the year that Republicans made a huge gain in State Legislatures.

The purpose of focusing on state legislative races was to enable Republicans to gerrymander Congressional Districts. To be sure, both parties have used the practice of gerrymandering to their advantage, but, in recent years, Republicans have elevated this practice to new heights.

Up until 1994, Democrats held strong majorities in both houses of most State Legislatures. In 1992 Democrats had majorities in both bodies of twenty-five legislatures, Republicans eight. In 1994, Democrats had majorities in eighteen, Republicans, nineteen. By 2003, Democrats had sixteen, Republicans, twenty-one.

Ralph Reed Time Magazine, in May, 1995, called Ralph Reed "The Right Hand of God" and credited the Christian Coalition with giving the Republicans their victories. Out of forty-five new members in the U.S. House of Representatives and nine in the U.S. Senate in 1994, roughly half were Christian Coalition candidates.

1996, 45 million voter guides were sent out.

In 2000, 75 million voter guides were sent out to support George Bush.

In 2002 - 24 million. In 2002 the Religious Right backed candidates won 18 new House seats, and 11 Senate and Gubernatorial elections. Ralph Reed resigned from Christian Coalition in 1997, it lost its tax exempt status in 1999, and Robertson resigned in 2001.

The organization appears to have lost much of its momentum, but it changed the course of American politics. The candidates it has supported now reside in the U.S. Congress, state legislatures, the courts, state boards of education and more. And most of the Republican leadership of the U.S. Congress consistently receive 100% scores from Christian Coalition. Thirty-eight out of fifty-two Republicans in the U.S. Senate received 100% scorecards from Family Research Council in 2003 and forty-one out of fifty-one Senators received 100% scorecards from Christian Coalition in 2004.

To see Senate scorecards produced by the League of Conservation Voters, a consortium of environmental organizations, compared to the scorecards produced by three organizations that promote the theocratic right -- the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, and the Eagle Forum -- click here. (These tables were provided by Glenn Scherer, October, 2004.)

Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), speaking at a Christian Coalition gathering in October, 2002 said about the voter guides:

"As a candidate, I could see my polling numbers shoot up as those voter guides went out. I appreciate it and they work."

Bush-Cheney Campaign, 2004
Ralph Reed, former Executive Director of the Christian Coalition, relied on stealth tactics throughout the nineteen nineties. He no longer needs to use stealth. As a senior official of the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign, Reed attended the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention to ask pastors explicitly for their help in winning votes.

Mr. Reed delivered his remarks at a Bush-Cheney "pastors reception," paid for by the Bush campaign. The hosts were the departing president of the Southern Baptists and three other prominent leaders, and the reception was in a conference room of a hotel adjacent to the convention. As the pastors came in, a campaign aide collected about 100 signatures and addresses from ministers pledging to endorse Mr. Bush's re-election publicly, to "host a citizenship Sunday for voter registration," to "identify someone who will help in voter registration and outreach" and to organize a " 'party for the president' with other pastors" on specific dates closer to the election. (New York Times, June 18, 2004)


These people are extremely motivated, extremely well funded and extremely well placed.

Another worthwhile read (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-statesman23aug23,1,5389280.story?coll=la-news-politics-national&ctrack=1&cset=true), this one also displaying the extreme level of organization the extreme right is using to train future candidates for office. A small excerpt:

Nearly every Monday for six months, as many as a dozen congressional aides — many of them aspiring politicians — have gathered over takeout dinners to mine the Bible for ancient wisdom on modern policy debates about tax rates, foreign aid, education, cloning and the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Through seminars taught by conservative college professors and devout members of Congress, the students learn that serving country means first and always serving Christ.

They learn to view every vote as a religious duty, and to consider compromise a sin.

That puts them at the vanguard of a bold effort by evangelical conservatives to mold a new generation of leaders who will answer not to voters, but to God.

http://www.cc.org/photosinclude.cfm?archive=Road%20To%20Victory

et tu Andrae Crouch??

Just like Chavez said.."Who the fuck is Roberts"

Shame on the media for even giving this whack job any air.

Haha...
I love it. Now Pat Robertson is a Whack Job.
Oh poor Republicans... youll dance to his tune again soon enough.
This is the part where you learn you cant have your cake and eat it too. The Butchers Bill is due.

His people own your party.

His people ...all 3,000 of his daily viewers..ya they sure do.

Christian Coalition
he is the founder.

Haven't been to a church in a dogs age. Nor have I, or my local cabal of friends, listened to Pat ever.

He , and his ilk, are no more in charge of our party than Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Carter, Susan Sarandon, David Duke etc etc, are in charge of yours L2.

Believe it or not we're also capable of independent thought as you are. Difference is, we're not mouthing our words around the mulch of sour grape atm.

Don't worry, in a few years I'm sure it'll be the Republicans that are bitching about Democratic standards being enforced. You know the ones...wishywashiness, mealymouth empty promises and yes...TAX TILL YOU DIE!!...

Fandros

Ibudin, do you have any conception of the number of members of the Christian Coalition? How many hang on Dobson's every word (a number that includes Rove, DeLay, and a number of those pictured in L2's link)? Rev. James Kennedy, from the article I linked to, has over 3.5 million adherents listen to his sermon every Sunday. He's far from alone.

Without them, the Republican ability to win elections is crippled, and the Repubs know it. What's the one thing that got Bush to return to DC during a vacation? How has Frist nearly destroyed any hope of a 2008 nomination for president? What was Delay up to a couple Sundays ago? Read anything Santorum has said/written lately?

In 1998, he (Pat Robertson) warned that hurricanes and other natural disasters would sweep down on Orlando, Fla., because homosexuals were flocking to Disney World there on special "gay days." And he has often denounced the United Nations as a first step toward a dangerous "one world government."

And to this man you attribute ultimate political power. Although a true idiot would suggest that the last few years of Hurricane intensity would suggest that indeed God was punishing Fla...

He's a lightning rod, nothing more.

Fandros

You're not listening, Fandros. It's not this man. It's an entire network of extremely influential, well-funded, well-organized individuals and organizations that have a profound influence on the Republican party. The Repubs of old are essentially gone (fiscal conservatism? what's that?) -- you've been sold out. Answer the questions I posed above to see what the party has become.

Haven't been to a church in a dogs age.

It doesnt matter if you have been to church or not. What matters is you are on a bus, and driver is being told where to go by people just like Pat Robertson. You are basically along for the ride.

He , and his ilk, are no more in charge of our party than Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Carter, Susan Sarandon, David Duke etc etc, are in charge of yours L2.
How wrong you are on a number of levels. (btw, David Duke is a Republican. He ran for governor of Lousiana in 1992(?) recieving 32% of the Republican vote in the Primary to finish 2nd)
The reason the Democratic Party is in such bad shape is that it HAS allowed people too far to the left to enter into positions of power. The same mistake the GOP is making now. Except the GOP is making it on a far, far grander scale. And it has an organizing philosophy behind it, unlike the Dems, which merely suffers from a dearth of talent. See, the Dems lost the edge because they were in such a high majority for far too long. People stayed in elected positions for way to long, killing the new, young blood from emerging.
When are you going to understand that the RR is the major force for getting people elected in so many southern and midwestern states? They now set the agenda.

Believe it or not we're also capable of independent thought as you are.
Im sure you are. But what does independent thought matter in an election?
With the Religious Right, you have a very reliable base who marches in lockstep and isnt interested in Debate, because they already know the truth, God told them.

Difference is, we're not mouthing our words around the mulch of sour grape atm.
What is this a fucking football game to you?
"Yay, Rah, Sis Boom Bah.. Our team won!"
An election is a prediction. You try to pick out who would do the best job and you vote for that person. This election was a bit of a deranged Sophies Choice.
Who exactally won?
How is Iraq going? A Dead on Arrival Constitution thats almost 100% certain not to get ratified because of Sunni anti-federalism, was delivered that promised a return to Islamic law.
2 more Brigades are being sent to Iraq.. more than year after "Mission Accomplished"
The month of August is already the deadliest since "Mission Accomplished" with over 90 troops dead and the month is not even over.
The administration is doing everything is can to get the fuck out of there, dfemocracy or not, before the midterm elections because of fears of a "Tet Offensive" that is causing peoples hair to fall out.
Anyone seen Osama "Dead or Alive" Bin Laden?
What are you paying at the pump for gas?
WTB WMD
But have no fear.. the President is on vacation this month.
Why dont you go out back and polish up that "So Glad I voted for Bush" Bumpersticker and ponder if Odysseus put a "Thank Zeus I Chose Charybdis" sign on the back of his ship.

wishywashiness
Dogma seems to be working so brilliantly.

mealymouth empty promises
like troops dying for the "Promise of the Week"

TAX TILL YOU DIE
Newsflash. No matter who is in charge, youll be taxed till you die, and afterward too.

Look, Pat Roberson is not God, does not represent all sects of Christianity, and is not the epitome (at all IMO) of Christianity and its true principles. Don't be blaming the religion itself. Feel free to attack him for exercising his right to free speech but again, please do not assume that we Christians and related denominations are mindless masses just drooling to do the bidding of those who supposedly represent us.

Robertson, Jesse Jackson, Billy Graham.. and/or whoever else you dislike.. they're not the self-proclaimed leaders of all of us.

Again with the straw men...yeesh. No one said Robertson was god, no one said he represents all Christians, no one blamed the religion itself, and no one said you're all mindless masses. Now go back and read what has been said and get back to us.

"...no one blamed the religion itself" -

Christian Hypocracy at its best! No wonder nobody takes them seriously...

"...and no one said you're all mindless masses." -

With the Religious Right, you have a very reliable base who marches in lockstep and isnt interested in Debate, because they already know the truth, God told them.

Statements like these seem to set the general theme for a thread like this, which is what I was responding to, not that I have anything personally against those who said the above statements. Just want to clarify my feelings.

Statements like these seem to set the general theme for a thread like this...
No, they distract from the general theme, which is the influence (and underestimation thereof) of the radical religious right on the Republican party. While the phrases you quote may justify your previous comment, you haven't approached the central point of all this. You may not want to, given the implications, but giving into distraction only reflects badly (and, well, distracts).
-----
All this notwithstanding, I think you'd have to agree that Robertson's statement is hypocritical with regard to generally accepted Christian belief. Also, polling indicates that while evangelicals possess a surprising diversity of opinion with regard to major issues of the day (e.g., abortion rights, death penalty, etc), they do tend to vote en masse.

Ya know there was a time, long long ago, where I actually felt good about voting republican. :(

I think we can all agree that Robertson's retarded, but I find it hard to deny the effect Christianity has on American politics. Without religion, the Republican party would have to redesign its entire platform in order to produce a competitive presidential candidate. I'm not trying to feed Christians (or Republicans) to the lions (Democrats do the same thing with different special interest groups), but you'd have to be blind to miss it.

For thousands and thousands of years, religion has been the number one propaganda device -- any others simply pale in comparison. Don't discount it.

"...no one blamed the religion itself" -



"...and no one said you're all mindless masses." -



Statements like these seem to set the general theme for a thread like this, which is what I was responding to, not that I have anything personally against those who said the above statements. Just want to clarify my feelings.

Blame the religion? Why is it that the most vocal Christians are always the most hypocritical? Or have we already forgotten about Matthew Shepard and all the "God hates Fags" signs at his funeral, as well as www.godhatesfags.com (http://www.godhatesfags.com) website with the little counter telling us how many days Matthew Shepard has burned in hell? This is a whole different discussion for another thread, my point is the same however.

Btw I have been going to Catholic Mass, and saying my Hail Marys so don't think that I have something agianst Christians in general. I just think that its a damn shame that so called Christian leaders make statements such as this when all it does is damage the publics views on the regular Christians who don't subscribe to all this holier-than-thou bullshit.

Sorry if I offended you.

I sense a bit of hysteria here about the "religious right" that I think needs to be put in perspective.

First of all, they are only one of a number of "special interest groups". Do they wield a disproportionate amount of political clout? I'm not sure at all that is the case from a historical viewpoint. I suspect they wield no more influence than the labor unions did in prior decades before their decline. They are definitely a current factor in politics, but then so are the gays, environmentalists, labor, feminists, ethnic blocks, and big business lobbies. Different presidents and congressional leaders are influenced by different groups, but they *all* heed the biggest chunk of voters that put them into office.

Is the US on the verge of becoming a theocracy? The way some are talking, one might think so but I see it as simple over-reaction by the "secular left". There has *always* been religious involvement in US politics, as much or even moreso in the past than today and we always managed to keep our generally secular character. It's only been in recent decades that people have been trying much harder to directly remove religion from politics and government altogether. Did you see controversy or complaint when FDR or Lincoln asked the nation to pray during wartime? Do that today, and you get slammed for "imposing religion" upon government and the people. Our perceptions and culture have changed is all, making any religious statement in public more sensitive. Such statements, when they happen, do not mean the US is under the thumb of far right evangelicals. If we were, church attendance would be mandatory, public schools would teach mandatory bible study, there would be no legal porn or gambling industry, etc.

I am not saying the religious right should not be opposed in the political arena by those who don't agree with it's tenets. I for one disagree with most of their program and want to limit their power as well. That's normal politics. But if you want more people to take your opposition seriously, I would suggest refraining from demonizing those more religious than yourselves or overstating the threat situation. Except for Pat Robertson of course. He is clearly a fool and deserving of scorn ;)

Pat Robertson has little influence on the Republican party (certainly less than the equivalent left crazies like Howard Dean). The wacky left likes to beat that drum because it sounds better and takes away attention from their own nutjobs.Religious people are part of the Republican base (Catholics, Protestants, Jews, etc.) primarily because the Democrats have become (or are seen as) anti-religious. When a number of major religions consider killing wrong, it's no surprise they vote in large numbers for the party that seeks (or at least appears to seek) the killing of unborn children. Likewise on the Democratic position regarding gays. If the Democratic party became a little more inclusive and accepting of different opinions, they would gain back some of the religious vote.

If there seems to be an edge of "hysteria" or overstatement in these posts, it's due to the surprising tide of denial and avoidance elicited by the discussion and portrayal of simple facts and informed opinion.
Do they wield a disproportionate amount of political clout? I'm not sure at all that is the case from a historical viewpoint.
Whether the clout is disproportionate depends on what you're comparing them to. I do believe that the religious right's votes carry tremendous weight with the Republican party, and that a candidate will have a difficult time getting elected (particularly to the Presidency) without their support.

Now, the Republicans do engage in a lot of pandering, unsupported by substance. For example, Bush has made no real effort to push an amendment banning gay marriage, despite it apparently being worse than terrorism. :rolleyes: The religious right has been played to some degree, but they recognize this and don't plan to be fooled again. Without real action, those votes will disappear.

Furthermore, I wouldn't restrict the reaction to all this to the "secular left." Non-evangelical Christians and theists of other religions share these kinds of concerns. This isn't a black and white "Christian vs atheist" issue.
They are definitely a current factor in politics, but then so are the gays, environmentalists, labor, feminists, ethnic blocks, and big business lobbies.
Other than big business lobbies, do any of those (or any other) interest group compare with the religious right in election influencing number or dollars? Labor, perhaps, but its organization and influence have deteriorated over the years.
Did you see controversy or complaint when FDR or Lincoln asked the nation to pray during wartime? Do that today, and you get slammed for "imposing religion" upon government and the people.
Waxing a bit hyperbolic here. More germane issues are the subverting of science (abstinence only programs, ID, etc), 10 commandments displays, bible curriculum in public schools, and related topics that belong in their own threads. I'm as secular as they come and could care less about bids to pray such as you describe.
But if you want more people to take your opposition seriously, I would suggest refraining from demonizing those more religious than yourselves or overstating the threat situation.
I think everyone is more religious than myself. ;) The warning is well taken, but I suggest that L2 and I have presented far more than "demonization" of the religious, and that the evidence en totum indicates some measure of threat upon our liberties (at the least, upon liberties that I consider worthwhile, some of which aren't even gambling and porn).

Currently, the Republican party is heavily influenced by the religious right, and its leaders (Bush, Frist, DeLay, etc) have shown a willingness to pander to them (recall the questions I posed above) and, to a lesser extent, legislate or attempt to legislate on their behalf. I think that this will ultimately prove untenable, that independents will backlash against overreaching on the right, and that the religious right will need to field their own candidate a la Robertson of years back. That won't prove tenable either, resulting in an odd alliance the results of which are hard to determine. In the meantime, the religious right grooms their own candidates for higher office and influences policy as their able, all the while claiming "victim" status.

It's extremely hard to compare SIG's like gays, feminists, etc. to religion. You're comparing a very small bushel of apples to a gigantic sea of oranges. The numbers are nowhere close to one another.

Waxing a bit hyperbolic here. More germane issues are the subverting of science (abstinence only programs, ID, etc), 10 commandments displays, bible curriculum in public schools, and related topics that belong in their own threads.

Yet all of the more "germane" issues you mention are also not new issues- all of them have been argued at various times in preceding decades. I remember the big argument when I was a kid in the sixties being the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge of allegiance and sex education in public schools. Evolution vs creation curriculum is an old issue as well. There is nothing new here folks. The Presidents of yesteryear had to be more overtly god-fearing, churchgoing family men than today if they wanted to win an election. If anything, IMO American society is far less religious now than in the past. I think the levels of church attendance of today compared to yesteryear bear that out.

You're comparing a very small bushel of apples to a gigantic sea of oranges. The numbers are nowhere close to one another.

Then replace "feminists" with "women's issues" and suddenly you have half the population involved. In addition, it's not really "religion" you are talking about, but rather a very vocal subset of religion (i.e the fundamentalist evangelical branches). A much less large number than you seem to imply.

A much less large number than you seem to imply


It doesn't matter how large they are if they are motivated and the majority let them do as they will. That is the key: if they act to set their agenda in place and the rest of the people who don't care all that much what happens to them sit around and let it happen, they could enact some of the changes they want. Apathy and Organization they operating factors here.

To use a less controversial example:

Up until very recently, North Carolina had laws in effect that prohibited the sale of beer over 6% alcohol. Those laws were put into place at the direction of textile factory owners who thought that stronger beer would be bad for production and business.

Those mill owners accounted for a very small percentage of the population, but they got their law on the books. They were a small, powerful group who got what they wanted done. It can happen- and if it doesn't happen at a national level, it can happen at a state level- but if enough states pass the law (as in the 21 drinking age) it pretty much becomes a Federal law at that point in time.

It is also interesting to note that the vote to repeal the beer law above was DAMNED close, passing by a small count (27-21). Why? The textile factories are long gone and you can buy hard liquor in most areas of the state.

Three guesses as to what the most often cited reason was that I could find (it isn't religion).

(edit) fixed that awful first sentence.

It doesn't matter how large they are if they are motivated and the majority let them do as they will.

I just thought I would say I agree completely with this statement.

*Edit* BTW, my guess would be drunk driving to your question.

I don't dispute that many of the current battles are new takes on old situations (though some, such as stem cells and cloning, are more novel). However, I think it evident that the religious right's level of organization, funding, and influence in diverse social and political arenas is greater than you credit (and here I think we can agree to disagree).

The extent to which these efforts yield rewards is open to question. In some respects, the agenda has clearly been served (federal support for flawed abstinence only programs, stem cell restrictions, etc); in other respects, not so much (anti-gay marriage amendment). Time will tell on all this, but I think it a mistake to ignore or downplay this facet of our political arena.

When a number of major religions consider killing wrong, it's no surprise they vote in large numbers for the party that seeks (or at least appears to seek) the killing of unborn children.

and then vote for the death penalty, or in the case of our current president, being the governor when the most executions have occured.

I'm not saying either side is right, both have their nutjobs. Hypocrisy abounds from all angles and people just try to act like everyone is a hypocrit but themselves when politics/religion is ever involved.

Time will tell on all this, but I think it a mistake to ignore or downplay this facet of our political arena.

I think our disagreement lies in the extent. I feel it is also a major mistake to overstate the facet, as it leads to a "boy who cried wolf" attitude among the large middle of the spectrum population. When someone like myself constantly hears dire predictions of religious control of the country (not necessarily from people on *this* board), I tend to take the source less seriously than if they just point out specific instances that policy needs to be opposed without turning it into a vast cultural armageddon.

As far as stem cell research and cloning goes, they are new developments but ones with perfectly reasonable moral questions that need not be religious in origin. For example, what legal rights (or lack thereof) should a human clone have? If such clones are fundamentally faster aging and prone to disease as some studies suggest, do we really want to add to our population in an already overcrowded world with that method? Is farming genetic material to get stem cells that would otherwise develop into a human being murder? Such questions are involved and don't necessarily spring from the religious segment of our society alone.

For example, what legal rights (or lack thereof) should a human clone have? If such clones are fundamentally faster aging and prone to disease as some studies suggest, do we really want to add to our population in an already overcrowded world with that method? Is farming genetic material to get stem cells that would otherwise develop into a human being murder? Such questions are involved and don't necessarily spring from the religious segment of our society alone.
I agree, though I have the "mad scientist" viewpoint on these issues. There are some who believe that capitalism should roam unfettered through the economic marketplace; I have a similar view of science. :eek:

I'm sure Dr. Wentworth or Dr. Strong would support your "mad scientist" belief.

Completely unfettered research in the name of "science" is not a good thing.

*edit to delete Mengele reference since some folks couldn't see past that he was a "Nazi" which is totally irrelevant to Thormir's assertion that ethics has no place in science*

*laugh* A Nazi comparison, how...unimaginative, if typical.

But I guess my offhand, rather facetious (note the emote) statement could be interpreted that way by someone lacking any sense of discernment. For the record, I don't believe in "unfettered" scientific research, but I'm not adverse to pushing the envelope in some respects.

Please pardon the derail.

So what who elects who.. If the christians voted democratic, and the unions voted Republican, then I am sure that the views would be reversed on how the media and both parties regard them. If interest groups really make that much of a difference, then how come we are not all unionized and all Christian? There is a diversity in this country that counterbalances everything. Unions are hurting because of high costs that companies are required to spend in order for Huge benefits, and paying 85% unemployment when GM closes a line for a month. You wonder why companies outsource...

I am not going to defend the Christian right either, heaven forbid, some of thier ideas are screwed up, but they are not as bad as what the media and anti-christians would make you believe. As soon as Bush makes mention to God, or Jesus, you would think that the plague hit, the world is over, and the Christian right is taking over,,,, OHHH no. Since there has been "proof" provided earlier about how Bush is a puppet, how about this.. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kengor200409070843.asp

Since Clinton used Jesus and God... then he must have been a puppet also. Oh. wait, no.. he was not elected by Pat Robertson.. so he is fine.

I think the thing that bothers me the most, is that the media and people who want to use every little thing for a POLITCAL gain, jump on things like this with a huge hard-on. Every thing from Cindy "can I get more airtime" Sheehan, to the changing of college mascots, have become the sole focus of Political manuevers. For example, look at the media attention that Sheehan is getting. Look at her agenda and tell me how it makes ANY sense. Ok.. I can understand her protesting the war that took her son (who volunteered to be a marine and re-enlisted before he died), but demanding that the Israeli's leave Gaza? What the hell does that have to do with her son? How often did Israel clear out Gaza while Clinton was in office? But yet, Bush is in office, and he gets zero credit that they are clearing out, but all the blame when Israel does something bad. Lebanon kicked Syria out, but yet things are getting worse over there if you believe the media. Oh, and back to Sheehan... Clinton had people protesting back in 99.. does anyone remember??? probably not, since the media really did not make a huge deal and camp out with them, and sing Kum-by-ya. so here.. http://www.iacenter.org/yugdemos.htm

And for the record, I sympathize with Sheehan, and the rest of the families that have lost fellow soldiers. I sympathize for the families who have lost fire-fighters and Police officers that were being paid by the government to put thier lives on the line. I sympathize with the people who are killed by a dictator who kills you because you are not Sunni. And most of all, I sympathize with people who think that there is ALWAYS a hidden agenda, and believe this war was waged because of Oil (obviously it was.. look at the gas prices).

I am glad I was able to serve my country and spent a year in hell so that Anti-war people can say what I was doing was a crime and pointless. Thank you for your support.

Shanno

Pat Robertson has now issued an apology, saying he spoke out of frustration with the situation of Chavez' accusations of US conspiring to kill him. /shrug


I firmly believe that the states that were displaying the Ten Commandments at courthouses and capital buildings were well within their right to do so, since the founding fathers based our laws on those same Ten Commandments, and the country for it's first 200 hundred years was predominantly Christian. Does that make me a religious right nut?

I firmly believe that the decision to bear a child belongs to the woman and hope that she will have enough information available to her regarding safe sex and contraception that the need for abortion will not arise, but that if it is required that the option is available. When men can carry and deliver a baby, then they can stick their nose into the matter; as long as they are sticking something else into the matter, they too need to be informed on safe sex and contraceptive measures and should a pregnancy result and carried full term, they need to be accountable for 50% of the child;s support and upbringing. Does that make me a liberal nut?

The point I am trying to make is that I, like everyone else, form opinions on ideas and seek like minded people to associate with for the most part. Because there is not a large movement of folks in the moderate middle, you don't hear as much about us. But what many of us see is that the "religious right" (the Reeds, Robertsons, etc) are going to end up doing the same thing to the Republican party that the Michael Moores and Barbara Streisands have done to the Democrats.

When you cozy up to an organization for the purpose of getting their votes, you will be expected to deliver just as you would for accepting large campaign contributions from big business. The Republicans got cozy with Reed and Robertson and their Coalition, and the repercussions will be felt when that voting block is not available. Robertson showed himself to be a brilliant tactician in his strategy for moving into the party apparatus.

I'm sorry this thread is over, there was a refernece to Nazi's.

Okay...I'll wade through the burning straw men to touch on a couple points.
For example, look at the media attention that Sheehan is getting. Look at her agenda and tell me how it makes ANY sense.
Sure. Her "agenda" is quite simple. She wishes Bush to personally tell her what the "noble cause" is that her son died for. Since the cause of this war has been ever-changing, it is -- to her -- a legitimate question. Everything else is beside the point, though that hasn't stopped the wingers from doing their best to smear her and pick apart her every word as if she were some Beltway pundit rather than a grieving mother. Some of her comments haven't been well thought out, but her essential point remains.

And if she's getting a fair amount of media attention, Bush has only himself to blame. On yet another month long vacation, she's right down the road. He could have taken the high road, talked to her, agreed to disagree and be done with it.
I am glad I was able to serve my country and spent a year in hell so that Anti-war people can say what I was doing was a crime and pointless.
Whether the war was criminal or not has no bearing on you, only on the administration. Whether the war was pointless or not also has no bearing on you, but on the incompetent leadership that sent you "to hell." I would like for this war to produce something worthwhile, but currently we're looking at an Islamic Republic at best, and a partitioned, wartorn mess at worse.

I firmly believe that the states that were displaying the Ten Commandments at courthouses and capital buildings were well within their right to do so, since the founding fathers based our laws on those same Ten Commandments, and the country for it's first 200 hundred years was predominantly Christian. Does that make me a religious right nut?
At the very least, it's much more complicated than that. The Founding Fathers based our laws on Enlightenment principles that owe as much or more to Solon than Moses, to a vaguely defined unitarian principle of a god rather than the specifically Christian god. A few words from Jefferson in a letter to Adams:
Where did we get the ten commandments? [The Bible] itself tells us they were written by the finger of God on tables of stone, which were destroyed by Moses; it specified those on the second set of tables in different form and substance, but still without saying how the other were recovered. But the whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful, that it seems vain to attempt minute inquiry into it; and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the other texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right from the cause to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine.
Worse, most of the commandments are simply unconstitutional. Here's the rundown, cribbed for time's sake from a libertarian [url=http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2003/12/was_american_fo.php]essayist[/i]:
1. Thou shall have no other Gods before me.

Blatantly unconstitutional. The free exercise clause of the first amendment guarantees that we each have the right to follow any God and any religious belief system we wish.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me

Also unconstitutional on free exercise grounds. Americans can make any graven image they wish to make, and bow down to whatever god or idol they wish.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain

Unconstitutional on both freedom of religion and free speech grounds.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy

Again, unconstitutional on free exercise grounds.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother

A good idea, in most cases, but a law requiring it would be unconstitutional and outside the purview of government. You can't legally enforce an individual's feelings toward their parents.

6. Thou shalt not kill

This one is obviously constitutional, and is a part of our legal system. But it's also found in EVERY legal system, even those that have nothing to do with the bible or Christianity. No society can condone murder of each other and survive, so this is simply a survival imperative.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery

Another one that is a good idea, but not constitutional if legally enforced. Adultery is a moral wrong, but it's a private matter between individuals.

8. Thou shalt not steal

This is the second one that is obviously constitutional, but also found in every legal system regardless of the religious system that may have initially spawned it. A universal imperative that would be part of the law even if the bible never existed.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour

Some have interpreted this to be analagous to our perjury laws, but nothing in the text indicates that. It's talking about lying in general, not in a legal sense during court proceedings. And while lying may be wrong, it's not legally wrong except in specific circumstances - perjury and libel/slander. Under our system, most instances of lying would be covered by the first amendment free speech clause.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's

Not only unconstitutional, it would require the ability to read minds. If coveting what your neighbor has was against the law in the US, there would be no "keeping up with the Joneses". You cannot, under our system, legislate against thoughts or feelings. [Also, coveting is the basis for our entire system of capitalism, though I don't know that our founders would have considered this argument.]

Some of you republicans seem incapable of being anything other than cheerleaders or alternatively victims.
Lets understand something. This isnt against religion. Hell, Im probably more religious than most of you. However my personal melange of beliefs includes the concept of a personal tao to go along with christian ethos mixed in with some hindu/buddist interconnectivity.
But you see, its mine, its very personal and it makes sense to the only person that is has to. Me. Its my life. Nobody can live it but me, because in the end, we are all completely alone and nobody can give you what you need for peace when your time comes.
But the fundies dont see life that way. They are 100% convinced that they have all the answers already. Their values should = law.
And yes, they are not a majority, and probably nobody here is one, you wouldnt play EQ if you were.
These are the people pushing for "Intelligent Design" to be taught in classrooms. So much so that while even Bush cant bring himself to advocate this nonsense, he cant politically go against it. Notice the Texas Two Step when asked if he supported "ID" to be taught in public schools.
"I think people should be exposed to many different ideas"

The problem is that these people have a very specific agenda. Unions who controlled the Democratic Party had a pretty profound effect, but they were basically 1 or 2 issue orgainizations. Higher workers wages, Domestic job protection.
The religious right has the same type of clout, but with a much, much more far reaching agenda. They want to transform America. They say it, they openly admit it, they are proud of it.

Theyve spelled it out for you people.. just read.

Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.

It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less... Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. (George Grant, The Changing of the Guard, Biblical Principles for Political Action: Biblical Blueprint Series, 1987, pp. 50-51. Grant is an Author, educator and former Executive Director of Coral Ridge Ministries. )

Christianization of the Republican Party: In Their Own Words

Christianization of the Republican Party, an article from The Christian Statesman, claims,

Once dismissed as a small regional movement, Christian conservatives have become a staple of politics nearly everywhere. Christian conservatives now hold a majority of seats in 36% of all Republican Party state committees (or 18 of 50 states), plus large minorities in 81% of the rest, double their strength from a decade before.

The twin surges of Christians into GOP ranks in the early 1980s and early 1990s have begun to bear fruit, as naive, idealistic recruits have transformed into savvy operatives and leaders, building organizations, winning leadership positions, fighting onto platform committees, and electing many of their own to public office.

The Christian Statesman is a publication of the National Reform Association. Who is the National Reform Association?

The mission of the National Reform Association is to maintain and promote in our national life the Christian principles of civil government, which include, but are not limited to, the following:

Jesus Christ is Lord in all aspects of life, including civil government.

Jesus Christ is, therefore, the Ruler of Nations, and should be explicitly confessed as such in any constitutional documents. The civil ruler is to be a servant of God, he derives his authority from God and he is duty-bound to govern according to the expressed will of God.

The civil government of our nation, its laws, institutions, and practices must therefore be conformed to the principles of Biblical law as revealed in the Old and New Testaments.

Voter apathy is the key to the phenomenal ascent of the theocratic right in the U.S. government.

With the apathy that exists today, a small, well-organized minority can influence the selection of candidates to an astonishing degree.

Pat Robertson wrote those words in The Millennium, 1990, and it has been a key organizing principle of the theocratic right ever since.

if you care enough to stop being such victims, pull your heads out of the sand and read this (http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7007&abbr=cs_)

And you know what Shanno.. Fuck you.
Nobody is against US soliders. But ya know something, you are a fireman in a building thats just gonna burn down. I applaud and admire our soliders bravery and sense of duty, but the mission sucks. Its not your fault, our servicemen and women have done everything that has been asked of them and more.
But you know something. You all volunteered. Ours is 100% professional Army. Nobody told you were getting a free cruise then shanghai'd you to Iraq. Lets dispense with this idiocy that we cant criticize because it would hurt morale. This isnt 1918, 1942 or 1969 when American boys were being drafted and thrust into war and it was imperative that people back home supported these people in one of the hardest times imaginable for them. The situation is vastly different.
I am glad I was able to serve my country and spent a year in hell so that Anti-war people can say what I was doing was a crime and pointless.
ya, that exactally why you did. Unless you did it so people would pat you on the back and youd get free drinks at the VFW

Lleauric makes a great point in that this war is being fought by a volunteer army, versus the combined volunteer/draftee status of our military in previous conflicts. Yes, this is a war, but only because the US declared war on Iraq for reasons still not clear. You were there because you asked for the job. I fully support the troops, but tire of the comments about morale meaning people cannot exercise their right to discuss the issue.

Your commander in chief has yet to spell out what victory will mean, other than removing Saddam and having democratic elections. If those two points are the only focus of this war, then some can say we won. But the reality that faces all of us every single day is that we have lost this war (look at the big picture please), and all the small "victories" people claim by pointing out varied "rights" that are now available to women in Islamic countries, or having democratic voting taking place, or whatever today's flavor are all overshadowed each time we read of the gas prices going up. Those oil-producing countries can stay out of the fray for the most part and act the part of good allies, while they continue to increase the price of oil, understanding the basic economics of more money spent on gas (this includes your heating bills as well, which were forecast today to increase 16% this winter) means less money available for other purchases, slowly lowering people's standard of living and affecting everything from the corner market to Wall Street.

Remember, these people are extremely patient, and if it takes ten or twenty years of steadily rising gas prices, so be it. Watch for the OPEC countries to have a hand in fostering an atmosphere of animosity and competitive bidding on oil contracts in the coming years between China and the West.

Sorry for the derail.

Back on the topic of religion and politics, it may interest some of the younger folks who would not remember that one of the biggest hurdles John F Kennedy had to overcome in many voters minds was being a Catholic. That seemingly insignificant religious affiliation (by today's standards) was discussed more than many of his platform planks.

The idea that religion is "used" is a given; with the country being predominantly composed of people who have some religious faith or affiliation, it is comforting to see your leader embracing those same basic precepts, therefore the photo ops of Clinton emerging from Sunday worship, much as has been done with other Presidents to varying degrees.

I firmly believe that the states that were displaying the Ten Commandments at courthouses and capital buildings were well within their right to do so, since the founding fathers based our laws on those same Ten Commandments, and the country for it's first 200 hundred years was predominantly Christian. Does that make me a religious right nut?


Well, Thor nicely took care of the Commandments consideration, but it's also important to remember that a good many of our Founding Fathers as well as the general intelligentsia in colonial America at their time were Deists, not strictly Christians. That's why our historical documents make reference to "God" but not Yahweh, Iehova, Jesus or Allah.

Sadly Deism is mostly unrecognized nowadays, even though the basic belief system (centrally that some higher power exists and set the universe in motion but doesn't directly interact with our daily lives) is still fairly prevalent amongst a mostly silent segment of modern intellectuals that aren't outright atheists.

Jefferson is a great example of a Deist. He once wrote a version of the New Testament without miracles and portraying Jesus as just an ordinary man who did great things.

Thor, you did a great job of presenting an intellectual basis for why I should not believe as I do that the states were within their right to display the ten Commandments. But, I will continue to believe so, and think the only reason they were ever taken to court was for the ACLU to get another notch on the gun, so to speak.

And yes, many of those commandments are unconstitutional, yet for all practical purposes were indeed considered the law of the land, and in some cases were in fact written as law. Many states had adultery statutes up into the 60's and 70's still, and it was grounds for divorce. And the fact that we forced our God onto Africans and American Indians who were considered Godless heathens for believing something other than the commonly accepted and practiced Christian philosophy was seldom challenged on constitutional grounds if ever.

Keeping the Sabbath holy is still seen in the "blue" laws that prohibit car dealerships from being open on Sundays, or banning off-sale of liquor on Suindays, etc.

Honoring thy father and mother was seen in the commonly accepted view that children were property, and beating a child for transgressions was an acceptable practice.

While I may indeed be factually incorrect that the laws put into effect by the founding fathers were based specifically on those 10 commandments, I will continue to believe that they were the basis of the laws our country was founded on.

And I still think the federal government has no business telling state governments that they cannot display those Ten Commandments in their courts and capital buildings. I also believe that people taking the oath of Citizenship should be able to speak it in English, but that is another thread.:rolleyes:

Well...logic and facts can only go so far I guess. ;)

I do want to comment on one thing, though:
But, I will continue to believe so, and think the only reason they were ever taken to court was for the ACLU to get another notch on the gun, so to speak.
You should realize that the ACLU has consistently (http://www.aclu-wa.org/Issues/freespeech/News-SpokTransit.html) supported (http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2005/jun/16/061610228.html) free (http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3379553&nav=15MVaB2T) expression (http://www.iclu.org/news/news_article.asp?ID=97) of religious (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=11876&c=159) beliefs (http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=15680&c=159) by individuals (as opposed to the state, or states).

Please explain to me how someone can be a Christian and support the war, any war. The Bible says "thou shall not kill." How can you be a Christian if you condone killing? It doesn't matter if someone is "deserving" of death or not. No human under the laws of God has the right to kill another human. Even if someone was trying to kill you, you still don't have the right to kill them. If a Christian was a true faith, he would embrace the opportunity to be with his Lord as soon as possible. Clinging to ones mortal life shows little faith. Why do you think muslims are able to let go of it so easily? Because they have mountains more faith than their Christian counterparts. There is no Biblical precedence for war and killing that is within the law of God.

If you support or participate in the war, you are an intentional sinner, period.

Actually, I've heard that the more accurate translation of the commandment from ancient Hebrew is "Thou shall not murder", which has all sorts of different implications than "Thou shall not kill".

I just thought that was interesting.

While I may indeed be factually incorrect that the laws put into effect by the founding fathers were based specifically on those 10 commandments, I will continue to believe that they were the basis of the laws our country was founded on.

What? Hell no. Only three of the ten commandments are applicable to our legal system: don't lie, steal or kill. Obviously, our legal system's parallel of those ideas means it could have only been based on the ten commandments. The notion of not killing people is so very complex, that it could not have possibly come from any other source.

Specifically crediting the ten commandments for such blatantly simple ideas is like trying to copyright taking a piss.

Gulor, the "Thou shalt not murder" is common in hebrew texts/culture (and makes a lot more sense). As you might expect, they make a distinction between necessary and unnecessary loss of life.

Necessary and unnecessary? Slippery slope if there ever was one. Who decides? Is the death penalty necessary? Are Iraqi civilian casualties necessary? Killing a human being is a sin, in violation of God's law, period.

Why God decides, of course.

So killing someone by accident (infecting them with a lethal disease or even killing someone in a car wreck for example) or killing someone in active self defense is a violation of God's law period? Gotcha. I guess it's a good thing all you need to do is "find Jesus" before you die and all is forgiven, 'cause I for one am not going to passively allow someone to blow my head off if I could kill them first. I'm funny that way.

Not that it matters much, I'm sure to burn in hell for any number of other transgressions anyway (assuming the christian dogma is correct).

Murdering is different than killing. It is understood in many Christian religions/denominations that if you kill in cold blood, i.e. murder (you know, without just reason.. breaking into someones house to steal some things and capping the owner in the head is obviously a bad thing), you are breaking a serious commandment.

Obviously killing someone by chance in a car wreck or by accident does not apply, though the law of the land can obviously take effect. This is a complex thing in some ways, but those who believe it understand it enough, and if you don't believe in a divine being then just go about your life and don't worry about it. It's pretty pointless for me to try to explain this if you're going to deny/reject it anyway.

Study a primary source or at least know what you are criticizing before you do so.

The difference between Murder and killing is mostly perspective. And legally speaking, about 30 years.

Killing a human being is a sin, in violation of God's law, period. Cados said it much neater, but just before you go off touting this - flip through the Old Testament a bit. There were plenty of times when killing (or all out war!) was sanctioned.

Divinely sanctioned genocide doesn't do much to clarify the commandment, though it makes more sense if one interprets it as only applying to other Hebrews. I don't know of any prominent Christian theologians who hold this view (they have their own excuses for the Amalekites, Midianites, etc., which I find specious at best), but it's not uncommon for a society's rules to be applied differently with regard to non-members of that society.

A perfect society will be created when stupidity can be seperated from politics. Or maybe just when the stupid decide to not pursue careers in politics?

The point that most of you are trying to make is how can we wage a war against extremist Muslims and claim the higher ground when we have jerkoffs like Robertson running his mouth? Point taken. Still, like most things in this world...its all about money. Religion is just a crutch or "the wool pulled over people's eyes" half the time in American politics to disguise problems too complicated and too well entrenched in achedemic theories to understand.

Chavez is a smart man. His nation is a high production member of OPEC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC) with much infuence, and any displeasure with the USA that OPEC has results in their standard form of protest: Cutting crude production and raising prices. Lets get rich while show what we really feel about American foriegn policy! Also, seeing as he markets himself as a staunch critic of all things US of A, he has a ripe market to tap selling petroleum to nations the US doesn't approve of or just don't wish to do business with American companies or government officials. The man is doing his nation a favor as a result. Religion is not even a factor. Most of Latin America is Catholic for the love of pete. This is about cash. Reading the one page article about OPEC should explain alot about how the world goes 'round (http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm) and easy it is for the future to kick the USA squarely in the balls (http://www.thedesertsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050821/COLUMNS03/508210311/1081/business) by decisions made by smart (http://aolnetscape.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/fasttrack/20050715/IBYUAN15%3Fsection%3DFinance&e=912) nations that import alot of oil (http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501041025-725174,00.html). One has to wonder exactly how much time passed from the date Saddam declared he wanted his compensation for his petroleum to be in euros until our military arrived at his doorstep. You want to rest easy at night while people like Chavez are around? Stop wasting so much petroleum produced energy. You hear that Pat? Good bet your church gives you a nice gas hogging status symbol ride. Fucking ignorant asshole.


Honestly if we killed every world leader that didn't like the US government, there would only be Tony Blair left. Maybe. If the UK goes euro its doubtful even Tony would be our bud anymore. So why do people like Pat Robertson even generate one page or discussion here at our little corner of Cyberspace?

...latest edit. Changed link to just the paper by CóilÃ*n Nunan, removing it from the political commentary.

First off.. LL, thanks for telling me how you think. It is nice to know that since this is a volunteer military, then I should never hear you ask why Bush has never sent his daughters to fight in the war, or any other prominant Senator or Congressman. You preach about how this war is wrong, and how this adminstration is responsible, but where you out there voicing your opinion when that last president was fighting in Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, and Iraq? Or all along supporting Israel, or surrounded by scandel (i.e. whitewater, Monika the blowjob queen)? Nope. I am sure you were not.

People like you are so transparent. You are the one that is filled with hate, and spitefullness. Bush could INVENT the cure for Cancer and AIDS, and you would still bash him for being anti-abortion, and a dumb texan who cannot speak, and use cool nicknames like "Dubya" Like with the last election, it was not what can Kerry offer, it was vote for whomever because we hate Bush. I am sick of that shit. No matter who the president is, whether it is a Rep or a Dem, he is still my Commander in Chief, and I will follow him. I do not think that you would understand something like this, since your political views are so slanted. Is there anything that a republican has supported that you have ever liked? I know that while I vote republican, I can say that I will and still support Governor Granholm of Michigan and Senator Levin (who are both quite Liberal). Btw, out of curiosity. Honest answer now.. Did you vote in the last election?

Thor, Continue on with my post, and post where I asked what the hell Israel has to do with Sheehan's son dying? It is easy to pick and chose parts of a post (which you are a master at doing), that fit your need, but answer the whole point. And if Bush were to stop and take time to talk to EVERY person that has a beef with him, then he would be taking to Millions of people. Please.. give me a fricken break. Oh.. and every mother that has lost a child due to poor heath care, you had better get in line behind Cindy.. because Bush should be giving you all free heath care. Sheehan should be the one taking the High Road and respecting her son's choice to VOLUNTEER for a life in the military.

Now back to the original point of this post. What Robertson said, is what many people have thought to themselves in the dark corners of thier bedroom. How he said it is wrong. I disagree with him coming out in a PUBLIC forum and saying this. Saying and thinking something is ALOT different then acting upon it. I did not hear Robertson say.. "Puppet Bush.. I demand that you kill Chavez in the name of God". No, he just expressed an OPINION that was not the smartest thing to say. Just like the famous actors who promised to leave the country if Bush was re-elected, but yet there they are... still making movies and holding up "we support Cindy, because it is the Hip thing to do".

It will be interesting in the future to see if it might not have been a good idea to follow up on Robertson's opinion. Just like how the world would have been a different place if we had acted and nabbed Osama when he had the chance. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34942
or even when he was offered up by Sudan in 96.

Shanno
posting his OPINION

Wheee...coherency not your strong point. It's tempting to respond to those first laugh filled couple of paragraphs, heh, but I'll let L2 take care of that.
Thor, Continue on with my post, and post where I asked what the hell Israel has to do with Sheehan's son dying? It is easy to pick and chose parts of a post (which you are a master at doing), that fit your need, but answer the whole point.
First, you ought to provide a link to whatever statement of Cindy Sheehan's you're talking about. People have been putting words into Cindy's mouth as part of the smear campaign against her, so it's always good to have a source. Even then, it's entirely irrelevant to what she is doing and why. Her thoughts on Israel aren't any more relevant than what laundry detergent she uses. She's asked a very simple question, and Bush refuses to address it, though he could have done so easily and in a politically useful manner.
Oh.. and every mother that has lost a child due to poor heath care, you had better get in line behind Cindy.. because Bush should be giving you all free heath care.
Uh..sure...okay. If Bush gave kids cystic fibrosis, spina bifida, MD, etc. you might have a point. That coherency thing again...
Sheehan should be the one taking the High Road and respecting her son's choice to VOLUNTEER for a life in the military.
Respecting her son's decision to join the military has nothing to do with respecting Bush's decision to go to war.

But let's discuss Casey Sheehan a moment, and what he died for. Shanno, you've kvetched that those opposing the war render your time spent "in hell" pointless. Casey and 7 others were killed by forces loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr. Al-Sadr is now a political player in the Shiite community working to install Islam as the basis for the future Iraqi republic (which, at present, appears to be our best case scenario). How many have died in attacks on insurgency strongholds, only to have the insurgents return as soon as our forces leave? How many ordinary Iraqis and others in the Muslim world have been radicalized by Bush's war?

You fought, and Casey died, for an Islamic republic that will likely end up allied closely with Iran. You fought, and Casey died, for the terrorist training ground of Osama's wettest dreams. And now, according to Bush, we're fighting so that your fighting will mean something -- a vicious circle of "dying because others have already died."
Now back to the original point of this post. What Robertson said, is what many people have thought to themselves in the dark corners of thier bedroom. How he said it is wrong
Right, he should have talked like Yoda instead. "Assassinate Chavez we should -- much oil he has," sounds infinitely more wise and righteous.
Just like how the world would have been a different place if we had acted and nabbed Osama when he had the chance. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=34942 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34942)
or even when he was offered up by Sudan in 96.
You'll need to do better than linking to a WorldNutDaily article -- that outfit has zero credibility (hell, you'd do better reading the Washington "Moonie" Times). But if you want to play the hindsight game, imagine Bush's ratings had he used US troops at Tora Bora instead of relying on Afghani warlords and mercenaries. Imagine if Bush had taken one of the three military options to nail al-Zarqawi instead of passing up on killing a known terrorist because it might weaken support for his upcoming war. Imagine if Bush had fought this war competently. Imagine if he had a better game plan than "we must show resolve."

You seem to be falling for the pro-war talking point that to oppose the war is to somehow oppose our troops or their efforts. This is a false and poisonous meme that I urge you to rethink.

Proof? How about one from a PRO cindy site. If you would take 5 secs (google is amazing), then you would have saved the attempt to assume I am a Rush/Hennity robot. Anti-Sheehan propagada I am sure... http://judicial-inc.biz/cindy_sheehan_Israel.htm

So, since Bush did not invent diseases, then he invented Terrorism?, World Hunger, and Dictators?

Also, I want you to run for President. You obivously know what kind of country Iraq is going to be. I am amazed that you are so omnicient. What did I have for breakfast today?

As for joining the military? What do you think our main job is? Look cute in our fatigues? We fight, We protect, and more importantly, we enforce US policy.. no matter what it is... From Yugoslavia and Bosnia to Iraq and Afgahanstan. It is that simple. You make it sound like Bush was all alone in his decision. It had to go thru Congress and the Senate. It passed them all. Sure... now I will hear the Bush lied about WMD. EVERYONE thought, and KNEW Saddam had them in the past, and refused weapon inspectors. So, now we know EVERYONE was wrong. So we should just pull out and let the country fall into total anarchy. Ya.. that would really help the world image of our foriegn policy. Not to mention, give the insurgents ALL the confidence in the world. Why is it that we have a policy that we will NEVER bargain with terrorists? Because the moment we do... They will want more and more. Weakness is a cancer.

I never said that being against the war is Unpatriotic, but lets put it in other terms. When you have protesters sitting outside Walter Reed hospital holding up signs that read " you lost your leg for a lost cause" or "you lost a arm for a unjustified war" what kind of message does that send. Ya.. that is really fucking great for the Moral. Not to mention the Moral of the insurgents when they see that they are causing an effect... thanks for poking the bees nest with the stick again.

And if you are going to question my resources, then show me where Bush had a chance to nail al-Zarqawi instead of passing up on killing a known terrorist because it might weaken support for his upcoming war. Show me this. CNN? Dan Rather? or how about Mikey Moore? Come on.. I am sure some Liberal media outlet showed you this.

So before you judge me.. tell me what gives you such great insight on how Iraq will turn out. Educate this poor schmuk soldier, and show me the light.

shanno

Proof? How about one from a PRO cindy site. If you would take 5 secs (google is amazing), then you would have saved the attempt to assume I am a Rush/Hennity robot. Anti-Sheehan propagada I am sure...
Why should I take time to support your assertions? Not my job. I asked for a link so that I could see what she said. Goodness, so defensive...

Note that the link also provides her reasoning for discussing Israel. Now, if you want to argue against her reasoning, go ahead, but frothing about like a rabid Taz on cocaine crying, "Look what she said!" does nothing to support your position...whatever it is. It's also totally irrelevant to the reason she's there in the first place.
So, since Bush did not invent diseases, then he invented Terrorism?, World Hunger, and Dictators?
He invented a 9/11-Iraq link, which he continues to exploit. He's invented "progress" in Iraq. He's invented new reasons for us to be there as the old ones went "inoperative." Of course, my reply you quoted was in response to one of your bizarre non-sequiturs, but if you want to continue clawing at the wall of this dead end, be my guest.
Also, I want you to run for President. You obivously know what kind of country Iraq is going to be. I am amazed that you are so omnicient. What did I have for breakfast today?
Heh, speaking of bizarre non-sequiturs... I appreciate the breakfast question, though, it allows so many options for shameless snark it almost feels wrong to take advantage. A bowl of cherry jello with angel dust sprinkles? "Special herb" tea carefully placed on a worldnutdoily?

Whatever. Thanks for your vote, but I didn't say I knew what kind of country Iraq would be. I do, however, have a pretty good idea of the possibilities. It requires its own separate thread, but at this point an Islamic republic is the best (not necessarily most likely) case. Other options include a tri-partite state (in name or in fact) with the Shiites controlling the south, the Shiites and Sunnis warring for the middle, and the Kurds controlling the north. Also possible is complete civil war resulting in warlords controlling various provinces and fighting it out for resources. None of these outcomes is favorable to the US, and all become worse for us by staying there.

And ya know what? You don't need to be omniscient to figure all that out. It does help to check multiple sources, though.
As for joining the military? What do you think our main job is? Look cute in our fatigues?
Quote supplied more for demarcation than because there's anything here to respond to. The armed forces serve many purposes (e.g., deterrent), but simply having a tool doesn't mean you use it for its own sake. Firemen don't burn down houses just to give themselves something to do.
So we should just pull out and let the country fall into total anarchy. Ya.. that would really help the world image of our foriegn policy.
Memo to shanno, our world image is already in the toilet (and for those not watching, Bolton is currently ready to flush it at the UN). Iraq is already near anarchy and getting worse, and our presence is -- in large part -- contributing to the problem rather than preventing it.
Not to mention, give the insurgents ALL the confidence in the world. Why is it that we have a policy that we will NEVER bargain with terrorists? Because the moment we do... They will want more and more. Weakness is a cancer.
The insurgents already have all the confidence they need. They are launching attacks on our forces -- can you get more confident? Will they be any less confident next year? In 5 years? 10? At just what point do we decide, "Hey, I bet if we leave now they won't be very confident."

Also, you fail to understand the opposition. Most insurgents fight us because they see the US as an invader of Muslim soil and an occupier of Muslim lands. The truth of that is easily debated, but it doesn't matter to them. For the sake of space, I'll leave it at that.
When you have protesters sitting outside Walter Reed hospital holding up signs that read " you lost your leg for a lost cause" or "you lost a arm for a unjustified war" what kind of message does that send.
It sends the message that the anti-war protesters are against the war. Could the holders of those signs have been more diplomatic (http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Veterans_Gather_in_Protest_111203.htm)? Sure, maybe they could have followed your advice for Robertson and kept it all in the corner of a dark room or something. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, though. "Protesting is okay so long as no one notices?" Coherency again.
Not to mention the Moral of the insurgents when they see that they are causing an effect...
Oh, I got it. The moral of this morale-based story is, "We should keep fighting the insurgents or else they might give a rousing cheer before getting on with their lives."
And if you are going to question my resources, then show me where Bush had a chance to nail al-Zarqawi instead of passing up on killing a known terrorist because it might weaken support for his upcoming war.
Sure thing, Captain Google! NBC news broke (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/) the story back in the day. Also, even if WorldNutDaily is correct, it doesn't change anything. "Defending" Bush and his war by attacking Clinton -- while typical methodology -- isn't a defense at all.
So before you judge me.. tell me what gives you such great insight on how Iraq will turn out. Educate this poor schmuk soldier, and show me the light.
At last, the latest ramble comes to an end. Replying to all this, I feel trapped inside some recursive Escher contrivance. Anyway, you asked for the source of my "great insight" -- here it is. I read, a lot. I pick out the facts from the chaff, soak in the opinions of those most likely to know what they're talking about, and form my own opinion. Whether my opinion really is "great insight" remains to be seen, but it seems built upon a firmer foundation than scrawlings at WorldNut or the knee-jerk "but Clinton!! -- but the liberals!!!!" reaction that is about the only consistent theme in your posts.

In retrospect, this is too fragmented to fit under one topic (that has little to do with what shanno's going on about). I may break up later posts into new threads if tangents remain the order of the day.

Okay, I have a better idea. The last few posts make the evolutionary bush of life look like A. Square's Flatland (or maybe its sequel, Tangentland), so I'll try to distill everything down to a simple question for shanno, to be answered in 50 words or less:

What is your point?

It is nice to know that since this is a volunteer military, then I should never hear you ask why Bush has never sent his daughters to fight in the war, or any other prominant Senator or Congressman.
Huh?
Chewbacca is a wookie from the planet Kasyyhk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about that; that does not make sense. Why would a wookie, an 8 foot tall wookie, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall ewoks? That does not make sense! But more importantly, you have to ask yourself, ‘what does that have to do with this case?' Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case. It DOES NOT MAKE SENSE! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does NOT MAKE SENSE! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.


You preach about how this war is wrong, and how this adminstration is responsible, but where you out there voicing your opinion when that last president was fighting in Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Kosovo,
You realize those 3 are all the same conflict... right?

Somalia
1992? High School.

and Iraq?
huh? Im going the give you the benefit of the doubt that you arent a moron and meant to type Afganistan or did you think we were talking about the Clone Wars or something.

Or all along supporting Israel,
Damn them Jews!
News Flash, every American President since 1946 has supported the state of Israel 100%. Because it is the right thing to do. Heres a follow up Shanno, Jews arent evil people, and the Freemasons arent a group trying to take over the world.

or surrounded by scandel (i.e. whitewater, Monika the blowjob queen)?
Im generally not against blowjobs. I really dont see them as bad as 2000 Americans dying for convuluted (sry 4 teh hudge wurd, srsly) reasons.

People like you are so transparent.
interesting, I assume everyone that doesnt agree with you is transparent. How else could you completely ignore common sense and truth except by pretending not to see it.

You are the one that is filled with hate, and spitefullness.
Which is why im against this war.. because Im so hateful. If I were more like the Republican version of Jesus and full of (tainted?) Love, I would embrace this war and ride a MOAB down into a city Dr. Strangelove style.

Bush could INVENT the cure for Cancer and AIDS,
How about he work on pronouncing "Nuclear" correctly first. Lets not get ahead of ourselves.

and you would still bash him for being anti-abortion,
Im not against him for being anti Abortion. He doesnt ever have to get one if he doesnt want. I AM Against him for making laws that make this decision for the rest of the country though.

Like with the last election, it was not what can Kerry offer, it was vote for whomever because we hate Bush.
Pretty much... Kerry sucked. But that was almost enough to beat him.

I am sick of that shit.
Move to North Korea... everyone loves the "President" there and everyone supports him 100%! They seem to have that nationalistic spirit you so crave.


No matter who the president is, whether it is a Rep or a Dem, he is still my Commander in Chief, and I will follow him.
Are you German by chance?

I do not think that you would understand something like this,
Actually I understand it alot better than you. Blind Obedience isnt a tough concept to grasp.

Is there anything that a republican has supported that you have ever liked?
The Emancipation Proclaimation was pretty cool.

Did you vote in the last election?
yes, point?

What Robertson said, is what many people have thought to themselves in the dark corners of thier bedroom.
Who are these people wishing death on Hugo Chavez in their dark corner in the bedroom? Oh, you Shanno... dude.. scary picture.

Necessary and unnecessary? Slippery slope if there ever was one. Who decides? Is the death penalty necessary? Are Iraqi civilian casualties necessary? Killing a human being is a sin, in violation of God's law, period.

How about Iraqi's killing American civilians by beheading them? Or desecrating the bodies of the Falljuah Four?

There are animals on both sides of the coin. People need to quit acting like the damn Iraqi's are so innocent.

So if they kill innocent people, We can kill innocent people?

Bunny: [after Pvt. Taylor doesn't shoot a disabled Vietnamese guy] Fuckin' pussy, man. He's laughing at 'ya. Thats the way the gook laughs. I bet your crying your little heart out aint 'ya? About Sandy and Sal and Manny.
[Bunny beats the guy's brains in with the butt of his shotgun]
http://www.moviesoundscentral.com/sounds/brains.wav


People need to quit acting like the damn Iraqi's are so innocent.
Most are, some arent.. unless they are all the same to you.

So if they kill innocent people, We can kill innocent people?




Most are, some arent.. unless they are all the same to you.

Ok now we're quoting Hollywood soundbites? Your sources sure are authorative.:confused:

As for the innocent people, re-read my post. I did not say it was ok to kill civilians, I simply pointed out the fact that American civilians who aren't part of the military are being killed by Iraqi's.

Is that some sort of Jihad declaration by me to kill Iraqi civilians? No. Do I have remorse for Iraqi civilians being casulties in war? No. I used to feel sorry for them, now I don't feel sorry for either side. Both sides are committing atrocities agianst each other. It doesn't matter if we killed 1 more, 100 more, or 10,000 more civilians than they have. Both sides are killing civilians. So quit acting like the Iraqi's are so goddamned innocent.

but where you out there voicing your opinion when that last president was surrounded by scandel (i.e. whitewater, Monika the blowjob queen)?


Sheehan should be the one taking the High Road and respecting her son's choice to VOLUNTEER for a life in the military.



Ok, I am not great at getting quotes how I want them, but these two points from your post demand a response.

First, if you want to argue Republican versus Democrat strengths and weaknesses, choosing to bring up the Clinton "scandals" is a very poor choice, considering the scandal evolved from the attempt by a few members of the republican party to destroy Clinton after he won the election over Bush senior; and after being unable to find criminal behavior in the Whitewater issue (even though they locked up Susan McDougal for not agreeing to say what they wanted her to) how they allowed illegally obtained "evidence" to be used to incriminate him, and kept Linda Tripp from being prosecuted for illegally taping a conversation; and, the result of this was Clinton lied about cheating on his wife. They spent more money on this campaign to destroy Clinton then what was spent on the investigation into the attacks on September 11. This was a low point in the history of the republican party.

And as far as Mrs. Sheehan, I do not see her not respecting her son's choice. I do see a mother who is grieving the loss of her child, and looking for someone to blame, basically. I will not say if she is wrong or right, being a parent and not knowing how i would handle that situation. But I think the comment about her taking the High Road is out of line, since it implies that you decide what that High Road is, and unless you are a parent and can relate to what she has experienced you do not have that right.