2
   

The Religious Right and Contemporary American Politics

 
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 07:42 pm
Just Wonders
Just Wonders, neither issue. They are both "wedge issues" designed to divide people into them-against-us and to win elections = power and money.

You will have to do better if you want to play in this game.

BBB
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 08:05 pm
It's not a game, it's a discussion. The Democrats just elected as Minority Whip a Senator who is a devout Mormon and totally against abortion.

If you don't think that merits discussion or fits into the title of this thread fine.

Continue with the more appropriate "fascist" talk.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 08:11 pm
We're not talking about those people, Just Wonders......this thread is about the FARs. We're not talking about those people who overlap this group of individuals, we're talking about this group. It's not that you're not allowed to contribute, it's just that I'm asking you to do so on the topic.

I'm not doubting that one person or another has a mixture of values. Most people do. I think it's about the best sign that people are thinking for themselves than any other I can imagine. But we're not talking about that.

I'm identifying this group and their closed minded approach to living and how they're effecting the American political scene and we're trying to talk about that group.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 08:14 pm
Ah, well, I can certainly see how irrelevant a Centrist Democrat is to the topic, then.

Good to have such "open-minded" people fielding these discussions.

Good luck in '06 and '08 Smile
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 08:35 pm
oy
0 Replies
 
dare2think
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 08:39 pm
candidone1 wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Are we also going to talk about the atheist left as well?


I think traditionally we have seen more harm done by the religious right than the athiest left.

Hey, what about the atheist right, there are atheist right you know. And there are religious left.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2004 11:39 pm
oy indeed.......let's move on
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 12:42 am
http://www.4religious-right.info/

Quote:
TheocracyWatch is a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy (CRESP) at Cornell University. CRESP is a nonsectarian, action-based educational organization with its roots in religious dialogue, human rights advocacy, and ethical thought.

TheocracyWatch raises awareness about the pervasive role of the Religious Right in the U.S. government. It disseminates information through its speakers bureau, powerpoint presentations, CDs -- both audio and powerpoint -- and a DVD. It also conducts interviews with the media.



Quote:
Christian Coalition Rates the U.S. Senate, 2004
To see Senate scorecards produced by the League of Conservation Voters, a consortium of environmental organizations, compared to the scorecards produced by three dominionist organizations, the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, and the Eagle Forum, click here. (These tables were provided by Glenn Scherer of Grist Magazine, October, 2004.)

The graph on the right is based on Christian Coalition scorecards. It shows how often members of the U.S. Senate voted with or against Christian Coalition supported bills. Republicans are red, Democrats are blue. Forty-one out of fifty-one Republican Senators received scores of 100% from Christian Coalition, meaning they voted with Christian Coalition 100% of the time.

One Democrat received a score of 100% -- Zell Miller, (D-GA) who was in the national spotlight when he spoke at the Republican convention. Thirty-one out of forty-eight Democrats and one independent received scores of 0. This graph indicates that there are basically three moderate Republicans in the U.S. Senate: Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine. Those three Senators are in the sixty percent column.


Do you know these people?
United States Senate Republican Leadership


Bill Frist, TN Mitch McConnell, KY Rick Santorum, PA


Bob Bennet, UT Kay Bailey Hutchinson, TX Jon Kyl, AZ George Allen, VA
They are the seven highest ranking Republican Senators in the U.S. Senate.

Every one of them received a scorecard of 100% from Christian Coalition.

That means they voted with Christian Coalition 100% of the time. They all received scores of 0 to 8% from the League of Conservation Voters -- a consortium of environmental groups.

How were people representing such an extreme ideological point of view elected to the top positions in the Republican Party? The leaders of the Republican Party were chosen by their colleagues who share their values.


Christianization of the Republican Party: In Their Own Words
Christianization of the Republican Party, an article from the 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.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 12:59 am
Lola
To add to my earlier post: I think that eventually, the Religious Right will realize that they have been manipulated by corporate interests to front for their goals in the contest for power in the US. That's why I use the term fascist to describe the manipulators. I'm not saying that the Religious Right is necessarily fascist; I'm saying that they have been manipulated by corporate fascists.

I feel sad that these devout people, who hold genuine and deeply felt religious ideals, will feel betrayed by those who used them to reach their own goals. I think they will be shocked to discover the duplicity of the elite wealthy class who used them to cover their true agenda.

Am I the only one who marveled at the suspicion the Religious Right held against John Kerry, whom they saw as a wealthy man, but considered George Bush to be one of them, a common man. They turned a blind eye to George Bush's wealth and that of his family. They fell for George Bush's folksy personality and communication style, thinking he is one of them. This reflects their strong suspicion of anyone they believe is an intellectual elite. I suspect this reflects their strong negative reaction to anyone they perceive as feeling superior to them.

The Religious Right has fallen for the myth that they are George Bush's true base. In fact, at a taped gathering, George Bush addressed a group of wealthy corporate donors earlier this year saying, "Some say you are only my campaign contributors; I say you are my base." I wonder what the Religious Right would think about that if they knew the truth of what Bush said?

I think the Religious Right used Bush as a candidate they could control. So these two forces have joined hands to achieve both of their goals. This is the greatest threat to the US.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 01:13 am
http://www.4religious-right.info/introduction2.htm#Estimate

Quote:
Estimate of Political Strength
The drive for "dominion" is underestimated by the media and political analysts. Karl Rove estimates the number of people from the religious right who voted for Bush in 2000 to be about 15 million, and he talked about raising that number to 19 million. With the religious right's passion to gain control of the federal court system and its ability to send followers to the polls by the busload, Rove's goal could be modest.

The magazine Campaigns and Elections published a study in their February issue, 2002, evaluating the relative strength of the Religious Right in state Republican Parties. They are weak in seven state Republican Parties, all in the Northeast. The color-coded maps to the right demonstrate a shift from the year 1994 (top) to the year 2000 (bottom). Red is strong, green moderate, and yellow weak. The study's conclusion:

"In 2000, Christian conservatives were perceived to hold a strong position in 18 state Republican parties, the same number as in the 1994. The moderate category had 26 states, exactly twice the 1994 number. And the weak category declined to seven cases, down from 20 six years prior. Clearly, the biggest change was the increase in the moderate category, but there was considerable movement in all categories."


http://www.4religious-right.info/taking_over.htm

Quote:
"The Fifteen Percent Solution: How the Christian Right Is Building From Below To Take Over From Above" by Greg Goldin was originally published in the Nation in 1993. Quoting moderate Republicans from Goldin's article:

""What the Christian right spends a lot of time doing," says Marc Wolin, a moderate Republican who ran unsuccessfully for Congress from San Francisco last year, "is going after obscure party posts. They try to control the party apparatus in each county. We have a lot to fear from these people. They want to set up a theocracy in America."" According to Craig Berkman, former chairman of the Republican Party in Oregon:

"They have acquired a very detailed and accurate understanding of how political parties are organized. Parties are very susceptible to being taken over by ideologues because lower party offices have no appeal to the vast majority of our citizenry. Many precincts are represented by no one. If you decide all of a sudden because it's your Christian duty to become a precinct representative, you only need a few votes to get elected.

Increasingly, they have the key say-so on who will be a delegate at the national convention, and who will write the party platform and nominate the presidential candidate. In a state like Oregon, with 600,000 registered Republicans, it is possible for 2000 or 3000 people to control the state party apparatus. If they are outvoted by one or two votes, parliamentary manipulations begin, and after two or three hours of discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the more reasonable people with other things to do leave, and in the wee hours of the morning, things are decided. That's how they achieve their objectives."
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 01:53 am
The Christian Right's Humble Servant
The Christian Right's Humble Servant
By Max Blumenthal, AlterNet
Posted on November 15, 2004, Printed on November 16, 2004
http://www.alternet.org/story/20499/

Only a few days after 9/11, a shaken George W. Bush invited a small group of evangelical leaders to the White House to offer him spiritual counsel. There, they quietly discussed Scripture and the implications of 9/11 for a few moments. Then former Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) president James Merritt turned to the president with a few words of encouragement.

"Mr. President, you and I are fellow believers in Jesus Christ," Merritt said.

Bush shook his head affirmatively.

"We both believe there is a sovereign God in control of this universe."

Bush nodded again.

"Since God knew that those planes would hit those towers before you and I were ever born, since God knew that you would be sitting in that chair before this world was ever created, I can only draw the conclusion that you are God's man for this hour," Merritt stated.

It was then that Bush lowered his head and cried.

Three years later, the nation was bitterly divided and God's pre-destined president was plunged in a fight for his political life. Without a domestic plank to run on and a staggering record of failure to run from, Bush's re-election was no longer the slam dunk it was once thought to be. Had Bush not cultivated the Christian right as his power base or courted its leadership as his informal advisors, re-election would have been impossible. Indeed, while the presence of Bush consigliere Karl Rove in the White House blurred the lines between policy and politics, the influence of the Christian right on Bush's domestic agenda formally wedded the familiar bedmates of conservative ideology and Calvinist theology. With a disciplined voting bloc at its disposal, the Christian right pushed for increased influence on the White House in a second Bush term, rallying support for his re-election behind church walls, at stadium-sized rallies and across radio waves - often away from the media's gaze but always in the shadow of the offical Bush/Cheney campaign. And when they helped carry Bush to an unlikely but overwhelming victory on November 2, he - and the Republican party, by extension - were secured as the Christian right's humble servants.

"Bush's victory not only establishes the power of the American Christian right in this candidacy, but in fact established its power to elect the next Republican president," lamented Arthur Finkelstein in an interview with the Israeli daily Ma'ariv. Finkelstein, who is an advisor to New York's moderate Republican governor George Pataki, added that the "Republican party became the Christian right, the most radical in modern history ever."

To be sure, Bush is not a dyed-in-the-wool theocrat. When he kicked alcohol and became an evangelical Christian, it was the mainstream evangelical icon Billy Graham who oversaw his rebirth. And though he was involved in evangelical bible study groups in Midland, Texas in the 1980s, it was not until he declared a run for the Texas governorship that he was exposed to the hardline ideology of the Christian right. In 1993, as Bush groped for an approach to handling poverty that would set him apart from the mold of the mean-spirited, Gingrichian grinch, Rove invited self-described "social Calvinist" intellectual Marvin Olasky to join the campaign as Bush's social welfare guru.

In his influential polemic, "The Tragedy of American Compassion," Olasky put forth his theory that poverty is a spiritual problem that government policy has not caused and can not necessarily cure. Thus, Olasky argued, government should loosen its grip on the social sector and return it to the biblically-ordained care of the church. Olasky's theories were to a large extent derived from the teachings of 19th century neo-Calvinist politician Abraham Kuyper, (Olasky is a Kuyper Institute fellow) who declared, "The family, the business science, art, and so forth are all social spheres, which do not owe their existence to the state ... but obey a high authority within their own bosom; an authority that rules by the grace of God...." Bush took this essentially theocratic idea and with Olasky's help, repackaged it as "compassionate conservatism," a label that helped cast Bush as a moderate in the media spotlight.

However, to those among the Christian right who understood the gravity of Olasky's influence on the Texas governor, Bush's rise was cause for encouragement. And Bush's friends in the corporate community, meanwhile, were soothed by the anti-government, laissez faire ideology undergirding his "compassionate conservatism." To them, Bush wore his religion on his sleeve like any other president; his Christian fundamentalist agenda was little more than free market fundamentalism with a pious patina.

Eight years later, the widely accepted perception of Bush as a "uniter" had helped smooth his path into the Oval Office. In one of his first acts as president, with support from centrist Democrats like Sen. Joe Lieberman, Bush put Olasky's ideas into action by establishing the Office of Faith Based Initiatives in January, 2001. The office essentially ceded a portion of government's social welfare responsibilities to religious groups. With Olasky standing by his side at the signing ceremony, Bush declared, "compassion is the work of a nation, not just a government," a seemingly benign statement with theocratic undertones that rang throughout the fundamentalist community. Indeed, beside transforming the federal government into an ATM machine for the religious right, establishing the office was a bold statement of Bush's commitment to the conservative Christian worldview.

Congress' passage of a ban on late-term abortions in November, 2003 - again with centrist Democratic support - presented Bush with yet another opportunity to burnish his credentials with the religious right. As Bush signed the bill flanked by Christian right mandarins like Jerry Falwell, Lou Sheldon and Sen. Rick Santorum - an image seemingly calculated to rankle the 100 Planned Parenthood activists protesting outside the White House - cries of the ceremony's 400 attendees erupted in cries of "Amen!" Later that day, Bush celebrated privately with a virtual who's who of the religious right, including Falwell, radio host Janet Parshall, SBC leader Richard Land and National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) president Ted Haggard, who leads a 14,000 member church in Colorado Springs, Colo. Together, they joined hands and prayed.

"Following the prayer," Falwell wrote in an email to his followers, "I told President Bush the people in the room represent about 200,000 pastors and 80 million believers nationwide who consider him not only to be our president but also a man of God."

The meeting underscored the Bush administration's acute sensitivity to its base. By the time Bush signed the late-term abortion ban, conference calls with religious right leaders like Haggard, Falwell and Focus on the Family's James Dobson had become a weekly affair. Leading the calls were veterans of the religious right like White House public liaison Tim Goeglein (former spokesman for Gary Bauer) and southeastern regional campaign director Ralph Reed (former director of the Christian Coalition). "We have direct access," Haggard told the Wall Street Journal. "I can call [Goeglein], he'll take my concern to the president and get back to me within 24 hours."

During a January conference call led by Bush, SBC's Richard Land and Focus on the Family's James Dobson urged the President to endorse a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in his State of the Union. Though Bush would not address the issue in his State of the Union, he assured Dobson and Land that his endorsement would be forthcoming. A month later, just after San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom had begun marrying gay couples, Bush made good on his promise.

The language Bush used to explain his decision to endorse the amendment sounded remarkably like the language Dobson and others would have used to demand it: "A few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," Bush said at a Feb. 24 press conference. To many homosexuals, Bush's comment came as an insult (did Bush consider them barbarians?). However, to conservative Christians, the comment was yet another coded statement of Christian conviction. "Here is a man who is simply committed to a system of beliefs," Dobson said of Bush to the Post.

Indeed, from a conservative Christian standpoint, homosexuality is a danger to civilization because it threatens all social spheres, not just the family, making it in many ways a more salient issue than abortion. As the Rev. Ronnie Floyd of First Baptist Church in Springdale, Ark. told the Post, gay marriage "is different from abortion. It touches every segment of society, schools, the media, television, government, churches. No one is left out."

According to Frederick Clarkson, a leading researcher on the religious right and author of "Eternal Hostility: The Battle Between Theocracy and Democracy," the conservative Christian notion that gay marriage undermines civilization is "part of the idea that all homosexuals have a pathological need to spread their lifestyle. And that homosexuality is a matter of choosing perversion. It's threatening [to conservative Christians] and they want to protect their children from it." Hence, the need for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Asked in the third presidential debate whether he believed homosexuality is a choice, Bush ducked the question. "I just don't know," he told the moderator, Bob Schieffer. He went on to reiterate his call for a Constitutional amendment barring gay marriage because, "it's very important that we protect marriage as an institution, between a man and a woman." It was yet another coded suggestion of the threat homosexuality poses to civilization. Having garnered Bush's full support for their touchstone issue, the religious right was happy to endure the parade of pro-choice RINO's (Republicans In Name Only) speaking at the Republican National Convention, and was unfazed by the fact that figures like Falwell were pointedly uninvited. Bush had done more than express the requisite sympathy for their beliefs as Ronald Reagan often did, he had become totally beholden to them. As Christian Coalition president Roberta Combs told a reporter during the convention, "We still own the president."

When the official Bush/Cheney re-election campaign kicked into high gear, the religious right's shadow campaign had been underway for nearly a year. The Southern Baptist Convention's Land had created a program to cultivate "values voters" called IVoteValues, which included a Web site rating candidates according to issues of concern to conservative Christians. Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, a legal arm of the Christian Coalition, sent mailers to 45,000 conservative pastors explaining how to rally support for Republican candidates without threatening their church's non-profit status. The Presidential Prayer Team, a private evangelical group bankrolled by Arizona Diamondbacks owner Jerry Colangelo ran ads during the summer on 1,200 radio stations urging listeners to get on their knees and pray for the president.

The shadow campaign had received a much-needed injection of resentful rage when the Democrats and RINO's in congress flouted Bush and voted down the Federal Marriage Amendment. In response, Dobson used his popular radio show, which can be heard on 3,000 stations worldwide, to slam the "anti-family" liberals in congress. In September, when a new anti-gay marriage amendment was introduced in the House, Dobson began rallying support for a massive "Mayday for Marriage" rally on Washington DC for a gay marriage ban. Just three weeks before the election, around 150,000 conservative Christians gathered on the Mall to hear firebrand speeches denouncing gay marriage and of course, Kerry. "Sen. Kerry might be confused as to what marriage is, but we all know that marriage is between a man and a woman and no one else need apply!" declared Gary Bauer, whose political action committee, Campaign for Working Families, was running TV ads in swing states falsely accusing Kerry of supporting gay marriage.

Rightist evangelicals weren't the only ones determined to re-elect Bush, as the Catholic right joined the shadow campaign with equal enthusiasm. To the Catholic right, the former altar boy, John Kerry, was a "cafeteria Catholic" whose liberal social politics rendered him a heretic. So to ensure none of their flock strayed to Kerry's side, twelve bishops declared that voting for Kerry was a "grave, mortal sin." Bishop Michael Sheridan issued a pastoral letter to the 125,000 Catholics of Colorado Springs, Colorado calling the presidential election "critical" and stating that anyone who votes for a pro-choice, pro-gay civil union candidate like Kerry "ipso facto place[s] themselves outside full communion with the Church and so jeopardize their salvation." In other words, vote for Kerry, go to hell.

Grassroots right-wing Catholic activists were just as fired up about sinking Kerry's hopes as their bishops were. Earlier this year, two Northern Virginia Catholic activists, State Sen. Thomas Cucinelli and Terry Wear, approached the Republican National Committee's deputy Catholic outreach director, Martin Gillespie (brother of RNC president, Ed), about sparking a grassroots effort to increase Catholic turnout for Bush. Gillespie promptly hired dozens of field workers to canvass swing states for Catholic votes. Under Cucinelli's direction in Ohio, the RNC's field workers inundated parking lots outside Catholic churches with pro-Bush fliers the Sunday before election day. According to the Washington Times, Cucinelli's cadres unloaded 5 million fliers that day alone.

Though the Catholic shadow campaign was spearheaded by right-wing activists and Republican party operatives, it targeted so-called "swing" Catholics who are socially conservative but not necessarily Republican. As Leonard Leo, the RNC's Catholic outreach chairman, told the National Catholic Reporter, "Swing Catholics and faithful Catholics are often in accord on a number of the "culture of life" issues and I suspect that it is this combination of voters which will be pivotal in deciding who controls the Catholic vote in this election."

Evangelical groups relied on a similar tactic to increase turnout for Bush. One group, a 527 called the Citizen Leader Coalition, mounted a campaign to register and mobilize young 280,000 Christian voters in 10 swing states to vote for Bush. "This is a well-conceived and focused project which can be achieved by the dedicated efforts of a relative few and a realistic amount of money and resources, compared to what liberals are spending," the Coalition told potential donors on its Web site.

Part of the Coalition's campaign included inundating conservative churches with hundreds of thousands of voter guides contrasting Bush's positions with Kerry. While Bush appears on the right side of every issue on the voter guides, Kerry is accused of everything short of Satanism. Kerry "insists on judges who support the ACLU's radical anti-Christian, anti-God, anti-family agenda," the guide reads. The guide also falsely claims Kerry "supports gay marriage" and "participated in the Left's assault on [Mel] Gibson." The Citizen Leader Coalition was joined by dozens of other groups like the Traditional Values Coalition in distributing millions of voter guides to make sure conservative Christians knew the issues, or at least their version of them.

The voter guide tactic was derived from a brilliantly successful campaign by the California Pro-Life Council in 1990. In an effort to take over the California state GOP, the Council recruited 90 pre-screened "stealth" candidates to run for local office, none of whom even bothered to run a campaign. The Sunday before the election, Council activists hit church parking lots with 250,000 fliers plugging their candidates' Christian credentials. When the dust cleared, 60 of their 90 candidates were elected. A stunned local media dubbed the takeover, "The San Diego Surprise." As Clarkson pointed out in "Eternal Hostility," then-Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed quickly adopted the Council's tactic into his arsenal, making voter guides a staple of future Christian right campaigns.

For the Christian right, Bush was no different than any other stealth candidate. No matter how unqualified he was, no matter how shallow his understanding of policy might have been and whether or not he was outwitted by Kerry in the debates, they had pre-screened him and declared him one of their own. And they would reward him with their votes in record numbers.

While election-day exit polling relied on vague terms like "moral values" to produce inconclusive evidence about conservative Christian voters (do only fundamentalists have moral values?), they did reveal that the rate of voters who attended church once a week leapt by 2 points from 2000 and that 64 percent of them voted for Bush. Similarly, rates of anti-abortion voters increased by 3 points; they also voted for Bush almost unanimously. All in all, 79 percent of evangelicals voted for Bush. In Ohio, where 25 percent of the population is Catholic, Bush won a whopping 54 percent of the Catholic vote, a reflection of the Catholic right's intense opposition to Kerry and the success of the RNC's grassroots Catholic outreach efforts. He also won 79 percent of the evangelical vote there.

Having consolidated the Republican party as a vehicle for their moral uprising, the Christian right is certain to play a major role in shaping Bush's social policy for the next four years. With over two decades of grinding cultural battles behind them, their mood now seems to be a mixture of self-satisfaction and entitlement, as if their date with destiny has finally arrived. As the Christian right's direct mail wizard Richard Viguerie wrote in a post-election memo, "Now comes the revolution."

--------------------------------------

© 2004 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/20499/
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 09:02 am
If I recall, the numbers of the "religious right" that voted in 2000 and in 2004 remained pretty much the same. I wonder where this sudden idea that they would "reward him with their votes in record numbers." comes from.

Let me ask this question...

If Kerry were elected, do you think he woould be Soros' butt-boy? Do you think Kerry would have given more credence to the extreme liberal agenda that helped him win the election?

I don't. I think Kerry would have been president first, liberal second. Just as Bush is president first, christian conservative second.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 09:07 am
McGentrix wrote:
If I recall, the numbers of the "religious right" that voted in 2000 and in 2004 remained pretty much the same. I wonder where this sudden idea that they would "reward him with their votes in record numbers." comes from.

Let me ask this question...

If Kerry were elected, do you think he woould be Soros' butt-boy? Do you think Kerry would have given more credence to the extreme liberal agenda that helped him win the election?

I don't. I think Kerry would have been president first, liberal second. Just as Bush is president first, christian conservative second.


While I agree that Kerry would not have seen his election as a mandate for liberal ideals, I do not believe that the same can be said about Bush. He's as much as said so.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 09:09 am
What has he done to make you believe this? Which Christian moral of his has been forced upon anyone?
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 09:15 am
McGentrix wrote:
Which Christian moral of his has been forced upon anyone?


Stem cell research, faith based social initiatives to name two and there are others coming, most likely abortion restrictions in the immediate future.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 09:21 am
McG, that second question of yours is made of straw so I'll ignore it. But let me ask you, do you really think that he sees himself as president first, Christian conservative second? Or do you believe that he sees himself as put in that position by God in order to serve God?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 09:23 am
You mean by being the first president to fund stem cell research he is somehow imposing his Christian Morals? Wouldn't a complete ban have been more in line with his beliefs?

Faith based initiatives for all faiths?

The Office focuses its efforts on the following populations:

At-risk youth
Ex-offenders
Homeless
Hungry
Substance abusers
Those with HIV/AIDS
Welfare-to-work families

Are these such bad things that you blame Bush for wanting help? Jimmy Carter is behind this 100% btw...
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 09:31 am
I believe the intent of this thread is to be a critique of just what is the relationship of the religious (FAR) right and current politics in america. The intent , at least, is not to attack or defend either ideology but rather to explore and observe what influence, in any, currently manifests itself. Well, at least that's my intent. So perhaps we can move back a few steps from 'your just bigots' and offer some conversation about what is happening (or not).Thank you, thank you all very much.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 09:36 am
I have always said that religious based organizations and non-profits are the best resources for providing services to vulnerable populations of all kinds.

My objections with faith based initiatives are:

The funds are coming from taxes. In the "good old days" private charities took care of people in need.

I don't care for the government picking and choosing WHICH faiths are going to be the recipients of this money.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Nov, 2004 09:36 am
McGentrix wrote:
You mean by being the first president to fund stem cell research he is somehow imposing his Christian Morals? Wouldn't a complete ban have been more in line with his beliefs?

Quite right, McG: I agree that Bush is a very bad Christian.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2020 at 07:17:44