Observations in Contradiction: Part 1

Noddy
Noddy wrote: They want to be taken care of and for years the Republican party has assured them, "We share your values. We share your concerns. We will take care of you."

The Republi8cans are such big fibbers!

At least when the Democrats lie, they do try to keep some of their promises.

BBB

Noddy, from one of "those people", may I say well put.

What a lot of these good midwestern "christians" don't see is that they are different from those people because of their lack of exposure to anything but local news, and practically never hear of what's going on outside their inner geographical circle, and although even in places with only one local channel and little internet service, it is possible, with effort, to explore the world and current events in more depth. They're by and large just not interested in doing so.

If they get a glimpse of MTV they automatically think all blacks are thugs, while ignoring the fact that most people on welfare are white and live in trailers in the Mid West. They have learned, through their limited exposure to the coasts that those big city intellectual types are amoral and sit around getting high and having deviant sex. It's very similar to back in the 70's when they watched Kojak and just knew that walking around in New York City was tantamount to inviting robbery rape or death while blissfully ignorant of the fact that the majority of both visitors and inhabitants of NYC make it through their lives unmolested.

The republican party, and in particular bushinc who I consider a dangerous splinter group of the republican party have recognized this and used it to their maximum advantage, I'll give them their props for that.

My remarks are merely examples and only the tip of the iceberg.

Piffka - Thank you for your kind words of comfort. Yes, I have many memorable moments from my trip that I will treasure forever. Thankfully, not all of the four weeks were spent on politics! : ) I must say in defense of the Midwest that they have some mighty fine baseball going on! With three younger siblings playing, I got to enjoy ALOT of baseball!

Thank you for the link and inset. I will take the time to look into this organization and read further. I love the "Peace is waged" too. My father always told us to "Kill them with kindness." Not always easy, but I've seen it work time and again on a personal level.

Welcome, Lil K.

So, BBB and Swimpy, that makes it sound like we need a third party or at the least that the Dems need to turn up the volume so they can be heard. I don't think a third party is viable at this time. I don't have a clue as to how to reach the voters being addressed, or how to make them think / question whether or not their values are truely represented when they vote.

Yes, the heartland IS full of good, respectable, decent, God-fearing people who are sure in their hearts that the Good, Old U.S. of A. is going to hell in a handbasket. Unfortunately, many of them also think the only solution is to vote for republicans because they think the republican party represents their good, respectable, decent, God-fearing values.

Does it or does it not? What policies of the republican platform support or contradict these beliefs?

Re: Observations in Contradiction: Part 1


Those using sound bites, tag lines, and untraceable email documents as arguments should try their luck on a2k for a couple of weeks. It's often a cure, if only temporary.

Well, squinney, more parties will give more choices, but not there, I suppose.

We have two bigger parties here, and two, three smaller in parliament(s).

Christians (and I must say here: Catholics and Lutherans/Protestants - we don't have more than those "two great churches") are here mainly Christian Democrats (or Christian Socialists in Bavaria, even more conservative, much more conservative).
And (especially in Bavaria) they follow there party.


On the other hand, the coomunists in our new states, still follow their party, too (although it got a new name now, and is democratic).

Such people don't want to hear and to listen.

My only hope is that even they get older ....

Squinney writes:


Now THIS I would see as a terrific basis for a thread. Take any single point from the RNC platform and put it out there exactly as it is written without any commentary. And then see if anybody can actually discuss it on its own merits without saying what you think is REALLY means.

Then do the same with the DNC platform.

Even thought the platforms are not binding on Congress and frequently have little actual influence, I think the exercise could be quite instructive.

Well, I went looking for some information and at the RNC site that states the platform... http://www.rnc.org/About/PartyPlatform/default.aspx?Section=4 they are still referring to Bush as Governor. Perhaps the time warp is real???

I don't think the 2004 platform has been signed off by the RNC and posted yet. I usually get it in my email and haven't seen hide nor hair of it yet. The convention is some time distant yet.

Hey is it true that 60% of all Americans are religious radicals?? it is why i believe you guys will never legalize gay marriages.






-Hans

Try philosophy and debate forum Hans - there's a pretty good thread on that subject going there.

Hmmm - interesting questions Squinney.

Here - many church leaders have come out quite strongly against the war with Iraq.

To me it would seem that churches with a strong conservative leaning are joining with a party with a similar one???

It seems to me that "christian" values can be and constantly are stretched and twisted any way - because so much lies in the interpretation of the folk doing the interpreting. Just as the same god can be assumed by so many different idiots to bless their killings and squabbles.

It is rather frightening, though, that so many folk seem content to swallow the stuff being fed them - about a WAR of all things, on a country which had not attacked America, without making themselves aware of the emerging "revelations" (to some!) about the misinformation that led to it.

Tell me - is it common for churches to be telling their flock how to vote?

I find it quite shocking, and I am trying to think if it is seen as normal here.

I can recall that the Catholics used to make comments about such things - but I have not been aware of such things for a long time. This does not mean they do not occur, though, I suppose.

I suppose the more fundamentalist a church is the more it would do such things???

The definiton of what a christian is has become so contradictory and so convoluted over time that's impossible practically to know exactly what a christian is.

Interestingly enough, the bible predicts this exact thing in no uncertain terms.

It does?

Actually - I think the "do unto others" thing is absolutely wonderful - and a damn fine basis for morality.

Sort of what most of the major religions teach, though, isn't it.

Ah that we would do thusly!

I think chuches may be getting a little bit of a bad rap. I would think what squinny described would odd rather than a normal thing happening. If we started getting pamplets about worldly things much less politics in our church the preacher or whoever was responsible would be run out of the church.

Nobody faint here, but I'm going to agree with Revel

Way back in the fall of 1972, our young, anti-Vietnam, left-wingish minister preached a very good sermon entitled "Let George Do It". Some may remember that George McGovern was running for president that year. While the sermon had nothing to do with McGovern or the election, years later some in the congregation were still grumbling about the preacher politicking from the pulpit.

Among Christian denominations and/or indiividaul congregations in the United States you will find every ilk from far left to far right politically, socio-economically, and religiously. But while Christian ministers and members will join marches or protests or rail against what they perceive to be the sins of the day, it is an extremely rare minister or lay leader who will do a campaign stump speech from the pulpit. Such would almost certainly trigger severe discord within the congregation.

There's a very interesting article/interview about an American minister, who's now a parish priest in Scotland in the 'Scotsman at Sunday':

'How can Blair live with Iraq deaths?'

I agree with the consensus. Good Thread.
I chose this post to answer because it addresses why I (and most of my fellow co-religionists) are voting for Bush and Republicans in general.

I am a 9/11 Democrat. I voted for Al Gore and most of his Democratic predecessors - for a long while now (including the 1st two terms of Paul Wellstone, may his name be remembered for good, the most Liberal Senator in Congress.)
I, like many here in cyberland, could definitely prove that Rich White Republican Plutocrats Controlled the World; politics; banks; oil; yadayada ad nauseum....
I loved seeing the nasty Republicans go insane as they foamed at the mouth, trying to eat Bill Clinton for shtupping his secretary....
It was all good fun and games and besides, look at my stock portfolio; gotta love the 90's; Let the Good Times roll.

After 9/11, I began studying Islam, politics, and the United States in particular. And I realized that we have a severe problem on our hands.
And that is Islamic Fascism.
Now, many of my co-religionists (Orthodox Jews) always felt this due to the vitriolic hatred by Islamic countries against Israel, but I always thought that maybe that was Israel's problem and not a "world wide phenomena."
I discovered that it's a big world wide problem. And, oddly enough, it's been a problem for a long time. And, bottom line, these people want to kill me!

Here is the crux of the issue:
Most people of religion make a divide between Good and Evil. Many non-religious people do not. Secular people tend to divide issues in a less stark manner.
One popular thought among non-religious people is that a Strong nation must be a Bad nation and a Weak nation must be a Good nation. It makes a certain kind of twisted sense, but it is not the view of those with religion.
An Immoral nation is a Bad nation and a Moral nation is a good nation.
Of course you can use this analogy to define the United States as an immoral nation. Naturally.
But, I believe that most religious people look at what the US (and Israel for that matter) stand for and do, and believe that it is moral.
And, I believe that most religious people look at what Islamic Fascists are doing and believe that it is immoral.
Therefore, it is incumbent for those of faith who look at the US and Islam this way to support the United States and its actions. And therefore, they also support President Bush.
This is my reasoning and there are many more like me; even many who really do not like Bush and love the "Democratic outlook" on politics ( ), but are still going to vote for Bush because he is doing the "right thing."
To the best of my knowledge, this applies also to Mid-Western, Heartland, (which is where I live) Christians.

Walter, I would be one objecting to a priest using a funeral as a political forum even if I agreed with his point of view. It is just inappropriate and insensitive to those who don't share the priest's point of view

Noddy24 has it right. While Bush has made a disaster of his first and probably only term in office let's not forget that he was elected in response to a liberal president who .... way before monica..... was totally devoid of personal character. In those days character did not matter. We in our pre 911 arrogance simply did not bother to concern ourselves with issues of character.


Then came a very close election and perhaps if Clinton had played his cards wiser Al Gore could have entered the White house and Bush would still be clearing brush in Texas.

Of course the character assassins that have been unloosed on Gore will jump on this as the worst fate possible to befall us..... I just have a hard time believing that Gore could possibly be as bad as Bush.