Democrats Are Risking Political Damnation

I understand the conflicting objective and subjective views of Christianity (and other religions for that matter) It seems that agnostics and athiests are primarily the ones that denounce religious views expressed by Bush and I think this is understandable too. I have not derogated, and certainly have not denounced, his religous views except insofar as relates to the proper role of his faith (or any faith) in governance, and as regards a particular notion which I believe he has demonstated of his personal importance in providence (you disagree).

My observation, however, is that so far those who have a problem with Bush's faith-based rhetoric do not have any problem with Bill Clinton who said the same kinds of things. If anything, Clinton has assigned more Christian reponsibility and duty to implied policy than has Bush. But I disagree with both those claims I have to conclude that 1) they liked Clinton and 2) they don't like Bush. true But to interpret the similar faith-based rhetoric differently between the two men is, by my definition, demonstrated bigotry. "Irrational hatred" is your term here, not mine. Words are but part of what we see differently. Thus I could make the opposite claim of 'irrational credulity'.

(Craven will probably point out the holes in my argument here.) He's busy with a local tart.

I am thinking whether I 'consistently' interpret dislike/disapproval of George bush as 'irrational hatred'. I disagree that I do. Very common claim from you. But what looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck.....well sometimes the shoe does fit, mixed metaphors notwithstanding That covers both bases, then.

As far as my views of whether Bush or Clinton demonstates the most sincerity in his professed Christian faith, you are entirely correct. You cannot really differentiate between the two by looking at speeches or transcriptions of press conferences. So my opinion here is based on known and observed behavior that I have commented on in earlier posts in this thread. And my opinion is exclusively my own. I do not presume to speak for anybody else. Ok.

Now I wonder. Assuming that we have accurately guaged the religious persuasion of each party, should we consider a man who professes a certain faith in God and tries to live up it to be more dangerous than a man who professes the same faith and doesn't? I guess that could be a legitimate debate. Please notice the structure of your question. It's clear to whom you refer in each alternate case as you have already described the two men precisely that way. But I (and others) don't accept the descriptions. To show you what I mean...let's do a different question....which should we consider more dangerous, a man who believes god is supporting him and directing him regardless of what others might think, or a man who acknowledges god as a directive force in the world but one who has given him no special licence or approval?

And again, you suggest that any/all dislike or disagreement with the man must stem from irrational hatred. You do this consistently.

I would be more leery of the first. But if you say that describes George Bush, I respectfully disagree.

I have repeatedly challenged any to show me any verifiable quote from any speech or any press conference that would support that allegation. So far nobody has even acknowledged the challenge, much less produced any quotes.

The March for Women's Lives is not just about choice on abortion, but literally about life or death for women all over the globe. The 34 Million Friends organization (which has been raising money dollar-by-dollar to replace the $34 million withheld for the last two years by the Bush Administration from the United Nations Population Fund) will be there. Founders Jane Roberts, a retired schoolteacher from California (the embodiment of all the Mrs. Witherspoons of our lives) and Lois Abraham, a lawyer from New Mexico, have raised millions and enabled the United Nations to re-open clinics in Mali and Senegal that provide pre-natal care and contraception. According to the Population Fund, the loss of $34 million from the United States led to two million more unwanted pregnancies, 800,000 induced abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths and 77,000 deaths of infants and children. Bush is expected to withhold the $34 million appropriated by Congress for the coming year as well.

Anti-choice policies threaten the lives of women around the world. Kofi Annan said, "HIV infection and AIDS are spreading dramatically and disproportionately among women. Today, AIDS has a woman's face." The first official action George W. Bush took as president was to reinstate the global gag rule of the Reagan years -- no clinic that so much as mentions abortion, even to women who will die without it, can receive U.S. aid. Between 1972 and 1989, Planned Parenthood used USAID financial assistance to provide 330 million cycles of birth control pills, 1.3 million condoms, 14 million IUDs and provide $92 million in financial assistance to over 439 family planning agencies around the world. The gag rule cut all funding to Planned Parenthood. Of course more abortions were the result.

For those of you that still have doubts about GWBush's religious beliefs, gander this link.

I will challenge you as I have challenged everybody else. Find me a quote or quotes from any verifiable Bush speech or press conference in which he said anything about God, faith, or religion that would alarm anybody who did not have a deep seated distrust or dislike of GWB.

So far nobody has been able to do that.

But at the same time, progressives should not belittle the notion that American foreign policy will support the objective of promoting God-given freedoms around the world. There is plenty of intellectual elitism in both parties, but in political terms, it's an arrogance that the Democrats would be well-advised to resist.

One of the most ferocious divides today is that between evangelical and secular America. Some conservative Christians are all too quick to sentence outsiders to hell. And liberals denounce stereotypes of Muslims but not of "Christian nuts."...

Of course, it's fair to criticize the Christian right's policies. Regular readers know I do so all the time, for religion is much too important an influence on policy to be a taboo. For example, while we're on the subject of gay marriage, one question for fundamentalist Christians is this: What's your basis for opposing lesbianism?

Granted, the Bible denounces male homosexuality, although it strikes me as inconsistent not to execute people who work on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2) and not to crack down on those who get haircuts (Leviticus 19:27) or wear clothes with more than one kind of thread (Leviticus 19:19).

But there's no clear objection in the Bible to lesbianism at all. And since some fundamentalists have argued that AIDS is God's punishment for gay men, it's worth noting that lesbians are at less risk of AIDS than straight women. So if God is smiting gay men for their sin, is he rewarding lesbians for their holiness?

Those kinds of pointed questions are fair, but sneering is not.