NationStates Jolt Archive

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution: (http://www.ajc.com/saturday/content/epaper/editions/saturday/news_1455213b128041970064.html?UrAuth=`NXNUOaNZUbTTUWUXUUUZT)

ELECTION 2004: Evangelicals claim to be GOP's base
Falwell says conservative values reign
Scott Shepard - Cox Washington Bureau
Saturday, September 25, 2004

Washington --- The Rev. Jerry Falwell boasted Friday that evangelical Christians, after nearly 25 years of increasing political activism, now control the Republican Party and the fate of President Bush in the November election.

"The Republican Party does not have the head count to elect a president without the support of religious conservatives," Falwell said at an election training conference of the Christian Coalition.

Falwell said evangelical Christians are now "by far the largest constituency" within the Republican Party, their route to dominance having begun in 1979 with his founding of the Moral Majority, a precursor to the Christian Coalition.

"I tell my Republican friends who are always talking about the 'big tent,' I say make it as big as you want to, but if the candidate running for president is not pro-life, pro-family . . . you're not going to win," he added.

Now, for those of you Republicans who are not conservative Christians--and I know there are plenty of you out there--you ought to be worried. These people already know they have a ton of power inside your party, and they are not only not afraid to use it, they'll steamroll anyone who doesn't adhere to their limited, bigoted worldview. Why? Because they believe that they are righteous and that God will bless them for their work.

Remember right after the 9/11 attacks, when Bush used the word "crusade" in a speech and everyone in the media and lots of us in the public shuddered at the use of that word? That was no mistake--Bush was telling his base exactly what they wanted to hear, that we were going to return to the days of Christian vs. Muslim.

Republicans--you can talk all you want about how conservative christians don't control your party, but they know that you can't survive without them, and they're willing to use that power to get what they want. You're facing an internal war in the next ten years for the soul of your party. I hope to God you win, because a major party made up solely of these nutballs is dangerous.

From the Atlanta Journal Constitution: (http://www.ajc.com/saturday/content/epaper/editions/saturday/news_1455213b128041970064.html?UrAuth=`NXNUOaNZUbTTUWUXUUUZT)



Now, for those of you Republicans who are not conservative Christians--and I know there are plenty of you out there--you ought to be worried. These people already know they have a ton of power inside your party, and they are not only not afraid to use it, they'll steamroll anyone who doesn't adhere to their limited, bigoted worldview. Why? Because they believe that they are righteous and that God will bless them for their work.

Remember right after the 9/11 attacks, when Bush used the word "crusade" in a speech and everyone in the media and lots of us in the public shuddered at the use of that word? That was no mistake--Bush was telling his base exactly what they wanted to hear, that we were going to return to the days of Christian vs. Muslim.

Republicans--you can talk all you want about how conservative christians don't control your party, but they know that you can't survive without them, and they're willing to use that power to get what they want. You're facing an internal war in the next ten years for the soul of your party. I hope to God you win, because a major party made up solely of these nutballs is dangerous.

This shift in alignment within the party has had me worried too. It's a shame on what the party used to stand for, IMO.

This shift in alignment within the party has had me worried too. It's a shame on what the party used to stand for, IMO.

Christians, of whatever stripe, have as much right to vote and campaign as anyone else. At least that's what MY copy of the Constitution says. :)

Yeah, didnt the Republicans use to be for limited government interference? Now they have no problem legislating even the most personal part of our lives.

Anyways, Jerry Falwell is a hateful bigot with a twisted view of life. He thinks he "owns" the GOP...that may very well be true. Defect to the Libertarians, it's your only hope. ;)

Oh yeah. It would help your "cause" if you actually knew how to use the English language! LOL!

"Jerry Falwell tells GOP: 'All your base are belong to us."

Christians, of whatever stripe, have as much right to vote and campaign as anyone else. At least that's what MY copy of the Constitution says. :)

Yeah, they do. People have all sorts of rights, but often misuse them to the detriment of others.

Oh yeah. It would help your "cause" if you actually knew how to use the English language! LOL!

"Jerry Falwell tells GOP: 'All your base are belong to us."


BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!! :D

Oh yeah. It would help your "cause" if you actually knew how to use the English language! LOL!

"Jerry Falwell tells GOP: 'All your base are belong to us."Wow. That joke just zoomed past you, didn't it?

Wow. That joke just zoomed past you, didn't it?

It's okay. Not everyone is going to understand the reference. It was a good joke though.

Christians, of whatever stripe, have as much right to vote and campaign as anyone else. At least that's what MY copy of the Constitution says. :)
Yes, and thats also completely aside from the point of the conversation. The point is that the Christian Right has hijacked the Republican party, leaving its old and more moderate adherents no place to go, and unable to stomach the radical changes within the party. We (I would place myself as a moderate Republican of a McCain-esque mold), if I may be so bold as to speak for such a wide range of people, cannot one the one side leave the party, there is no other place for us to go without us losing all. At the same time we cannot adhere to where the party is going, because, to use a phrase that fits in so perfectly an ironical sense, it would bring us straight to hell. Frankly attempting to bring religion into politics is a bad idea, and our founding father's knew it. If we bring it in now, God help us, because we'll need it. The last thing we need to do is fulfill the very thing our enemies have been saying we are doing for years: become a Christian state with its very policies found in that religion. No. Religion has its place, and it isn't politics. The fundamentalists don't belong, and by God (how can I resist these turns of phrase?) we cannot let them. To do such would bring even more tragedy to a party that is slowly losing touch with what brought its strength. We may have harnessed the "moral majority", but as a means to an end. They couldn't go to the Democrats, they still can't. Frankly, we have no reason to bend to their wishes, and if we do, we are damned. Religion is not meant to be part of a modern state, especially one founded on conditions 2000 years outdated.

Yes, and thats also completely aside from the point of the conversation. The point is that the Christian Right has hijacked the Republican party, leaving its old and more moderate adherents no place to go, and unable to stomach the radical changes within the party. We (I would place myself as a moderate Republican of a McCain-esque mold), if I may be so bold as to speak for such a wide range of people, cannot one the one side leave the party, there is no other place for us to go without us losing all. At the same time we cannot adhere to where the party is going, because, to use a phrase that fits in so perfectly an ironical sense, it would bring us straight to hell. Frankly attempting to bring religion into politics is a bad idea, and our founding father's knew it. If we bring it in now, God help us, because we'll need it. The last thing we need to do is fulfill the very thing our enemies have been saying we are doing for years: become a Christian state with its very policies found in that religion. No. Religion has its place, and it isn't politics. The fundamentalists don't belong, and by God (how can I resist these turns of phrase?) we cannot let them. To do such would bring even more tragedy to a party that is slowly losing touch with what brought its strength. We may have harnessed the "moral majority", but as a means to an end. They couldn't go to the Democrats, they still can't. Frankly, we have no reason to bend to their wishes, and if we do, we are damned. Religion is not meant to be part of a modern state, especially one founded on conditions 2000 years outdated.You're exactly right, (no pun intended) and that's the point I was attempting to address.

The Republican party does have an option, however. It'll cost them short term in the electoral system, but in the long run will help I think. Moderate Republicans can shift toward the center and abandon their psychotic buddies, and siphon off the moderates in the Democratic party. The Dems would probably tack left to pick up some of what they lost (or sit around with their thumbs up their asses--my party lacks some strategic sense sometimes), and we could effectively marginalize the religious right. They'd have to come to us rather than the party moving toward them.

Because here's the thing to remember about the conservative right--their roots are in the Dixiecrat party. They may have expanded a little beyond that, but that's where they got their start. The Republicans started appealing to them in '72 with Nixon's southern strategy, and now you're beholden to them. It'll take some short term pain, but it can be done.

What's dangerous is when people blatantly come out and say "Separation between Church and State is bad".

I wonder if an atheist could ever get elected president.

Or would they have to pretend to be Protestant Christian?

Yeah, they do. People have all sorts of rights, but often misuse them to the detriment of others.

True, but this is one of the prices of living in a Democracy. I see a lot more of this among members of the far left than I do from anyone else, especially if they're RICH far left. They know SO much better than we do what's best for us that they're willing to resort to lies, trickery and innuendo to put themselves in power. Their thinking goes something like, "I'm rich and was educated in an Ivy League college, so I MUST be destined to bring enlightenment to all these working-class slobs!"

Well, come November, when we "working class slobs" have the chance to paticipate in the electoral process, guess who we AIN'T gonna vote for!

Jerry Falwell will be one of the first with his back against the wall when Jesus comes. ;)

Well, come November, when we "working class slobs" have the chance to paticipate in the electoral process, guess who we AIN'T gonna vote for!

Bush obviously.

Jerry Falwell will be one of the first with his back against the wall when Jesus comes. ;)

Now THAT may be one of the the first TRUE statements I've seen on this entire board! :)

The Republican party does have an option, however. It'll cost them short term in the electoral system, but in the long run will help I think. Moderate Republicans can shift toward the center and abandon their psychotic buddies, and siphon off the moderates in the Democratic party. The Dems would probably tack left to pick up some of what they lost (or sit around with their thumbs up their asses--my party lacks some strategic sense sometimes), and we could effectively marginalize the religious right. They'd have to come to us rather than the party moving toward them.

Actually, as things stand now I think the Dems have the best chance at bringing in the Moderate vote this year, no matter what the Republicans do. Plainly speaking, Bush isn't a moderate, hasn't acted like a moderate, has ignored the moderates in his party, trotting them out when needed, and has largely been the essence of the, as I shall now dub it, "The Religious Right". With him as a candidate (I nearly killed myself in 2000 when he beat out McCain, thanks largely to smear tactics we are seeing again this year), the party cannot shift. No matter how much Fox News likes to say it, Kerry isn't that far left of the mainstream, oh he has some ideas that are definitely a tad more left than I'm that comfortable with, but hell, Bush has so many ideas so far right wing I think he's starting to invent a whole new direction. If I didn't live in Mass, I'd probably support Kerry just to give the party a chance to get itself back in shape for 08', as things stand, I'll just stand by and pray we don't hurt ourselves anymore than the last four years have.

Actually, as things stand now I think the Dems have the best chance at bringing in the Moderate vote this year, no matter what the Republicans do. Plainly speaking, Bush isn't a moderate, hasn't acted like a moderate, has ignored the moderates in his party, trotting them out when needed, and has largely been the essence of the, as I shall now dub it, "The Religious Right". With him as a candidate (I nearly killed myself in 2000 when he beat out McCain, thanks largely to smear tactics we are seeing again this year), the party cannot shift. No matter how much Fox News likes to say it, Kerry isn't that far left of the mainstream, oh he has some ideas that are definitely a tad more left than I'm that comfortable with, but hell, Bush has so many ideas so far right wing I think he's starting to invent a whole new direction. If I didn't live in Mass, I'd probably support Kerry just to give the party a chance to get itself back in shape for 08', as things stand, I'll just stand by and pray we don't hurt ourselves anymore than the last four years have.

He really isn't a conservative either. Conservative republicans dislike Bush too.

So if he isn't a Moderate, and he isn't a Republican, what is he? More importantly, how the hell did he get the nomination?

Their thinking goes something like, "I'm rich and was educated in an Ivy League college, so I MUST be destined to bring enlightenment to all these working-class slobs!"

Well, come November, when we "working class slobs" have the chance to paticipate in the electoral process, guess who we AIN'T gonna vote for!

ah, so you are voting minor party or nobody then.

Now THAT may be one of the the first TRUE statements I've seen on this entire board! :)

I'll bet you $5 that Pat Robertson pisses himself. :D

(or sit around with their thumbs up their asses--my party lacks some strategic sense sometimes)

seriously. as far as mainstream politics goes, the dems should be mopping the floor with these nut-jobs. that they aren't is a sad statement about the level of political discourse in the country. and the democrats slow uptake on, you know, fighting back and fighting hard sometimes.

I'll bet you $5 that Pat Robertson pisses himself. :D

ROFLMAO!! No takers! The really sad thing is that "primitive" Christianity has a lot to teach us, but given the mass media approach to exhaulting the prideful and ignoring the humble, what most people see as modern "Christians" is buffoons like these two ... and that evil Jim Baaker. SIGH!

ROFLMAO!! No takers! The really sad thing is that "primitive" Christianity has a lot to teach us, but given the mass media approach to exhaulting the prideful and ignoring the humble, what most people see as modern "Christians" is buffoons like these two ... and that evil Jim Baaker. SIGH!

What amazes me is that all these evangelical preachers have read the bible cover-to-cover every night since they were twelve, and yet they still don't seem to fathom that they have become exactly the sort that Jesus had a tendency to beat the shit out of 2000 years ago! Hehehe.

Oh yeah. It would help your "cause" if you actually knew how to use the English language! LOL!

"Jerry Falwell tells GOP: 'All your base are belong to us."


Wow....someone has never heard of Zero Wing.....



"Someone set us up the bomb!"

What happen?

Actually, as things stand now I think the Dems have the best chance at bringing in the Moderate vote this year, no matter what the Republicans do. Plainly speaking, Bush isn't a moderate, hasn't acted like a moderate, has ignored the moderates in his party, trotting them out when needed, and has largely been the essence of the, as I shall now dub it, "The Religious Right". With him as a candidate (I nearly killed myself in 2000 when he beat out McCain, thanks largely to smear tactics we are seeing again this year), the party cannot shift. No matter how much Fox News likes to say it, Kerry isn't that far left of the mainstream, oh he has some ideas that are definitely a tad more left than I'm that comfortable with, but hell, Bush has so many ideas so far right wing I think he's starting to invent a whole new direction. If I didn't live in Mass, I'd probably support Kerry just to give the party a chance to get itself back in shape for 08', as things stand, I'll just stand by and pray we don't hurt ourselves anymore than the last four years have.
Well, like I've said elsewhere, there's going to be a battle for the soul of the Republican party in the near future--assuming the moderates don't just defect en masse. On the one side you'll have the McCain, Snowe, Chaffee (who has already said he doesn't support Bush this year), Hagel types, and on the other side you'll have the DeLay, Santorum, Lott types. And I don't have to tell you who I hope wins that battle. Even though I think it would be advantageous for the Democratic party for the nutjobs to win, it wouldn't be good for the country as a whole, and that's the most important thing in my opinion.

Jerry Falwell is deluded if he thinks anyone other than Karl Rove controls the GOP.

What's dangerous is when people blatantly come out and say "Separation between Church and State is bad".

I wonder if an atheist could ever get elected president.


Probably, altough I read an interesting statistic before the last election that the majority of atheists would vote for a non-atheist over an atheist.
Whatever floats your boat I suppose.

I get the feeling that open atheists would have too much trouble getting past the stereotype that politicians in general have laid upon them, namely that they're a bunch of god-hating commies who want to burn bibles and perform abortions while spitting on the cross.

I'd love to see an openly agnostic person give it a shot, although I imagine they'd fall victim to the same trap (or worse, be called wishy-washy).

Wow....someone has never heard of Zero Wing.....



"Someone set us up the bomb!"
That game totally kicks. Downloaded it yesterday. Along with the best game ever: Revolution X.

Kerry: What happen?
Edwards: Swift Boats set up us the bomb!

All your base are belong to us!

Kerry: You know what you doing! Move, On, for George Soros!

oh Jerry Falwell, how do i love thee...let me count the ways...

from http://zombiedeathkoala.blogspot.com:

Q: What's worse than a big ol' pack of rabid Christian fundamentalists?
A: A bunch of rabid Christian fundamentalist lawyers.

Our beloved Rev. Jerry Falwall has started a law school at his own Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, at which he plans to train "conservative warriors" to fight "important battles against the anti-religious zealots at the American Civil Liberties Union." A difficult goal, particularly since the infamous baby-eaters at the ACLU have their own training camp stationed at what is arguably the world's foremost institution of legal studies, Harvard University Law School; the ACLU president, legal director, Women’s Rights Project director, and legislative counsel are all Harvard alums.

However, the innovative educational strategy for Liberty Law is well on its way to undercutting Harvard's moldy old tradition of legal excellence and dedication to the founding principles of justice and equality in the American legal system. Initiatives to radically overhaul American law are already being proposed by the creative and daring Liberty faculty, such as the proposal from one professor that the legal standard for when to restrict religious activity should be determined by a "Christian morality test." It is thus far unclear if Liberty Law will also back a proposal to define the legal standard for rape based on the opinions of convicted sex offenders.

According to the Liberty website's bold mission statement, courses will mix law with "history, objective reality, morality and common sense." The idea to view morality as apart from objective reality and common sense is not a new one, but the idea that doing so is in the best interests of education is a unique approach in a modern, non-theocratic nation.

This "reality is not morality" approach is classic Jerry Falwell magic, like when he took the moral stance of blaming the terrorist attacks of 9/11 on America's gay, feminist, and pagan populations, despite the fact that his own brand of religious fundamentalism has been more directly linked to those attacks than any gay, feminist, or secular agendas. Another example of Falwell's non-reality-based morality can be found in statements such as this one, made to the Associated Press earlier this year:

"Fifty years ago in America, there were few challenges to the moral and ethical values that are universal still among people of faith. It's only been in the past generation that we've abandoned the values under which this nation was built."

By a remarkable coincidence, it was exactly 50 years ago the Brown V. Board of Education was passed, representing one of the most historic challenges to the moral values of the faithful in that time.

Religiously affiliated law schools account for roughly a third of the American Bar Association's accredited institutions. However, the affiliations of schools such as the University of Notre Dame Law School are a far cry from Falwell's vision of "infiltrat[ing] the culture with men and women of God who are skilled in the legal profession." Students at Notre Dame receive a traditional legal education like that offered at secular law schools, despite the school's affiliation with the Catholic Church, while Falwell wastes no time in asserting that Liberty's curriculum will emphazise teaching Christian moral doctrines and how to make American laws conform to those doctrines. The ABA has thus far not commented on the likelihood of Liberty Law receiving its stamp of approval.

In comments to the DeathKoala Tribune, a Harvard Law School spokesman said the potential competition from Liberty Law has the Harvard faculty "Shaking in our boots." The spokesman continued, "How can Harvard's mere 187 year history and its stature as the premier legal training and research university compete with a wrathful Southern preacher and his army of non-Bar-accredited pseudo-lawyer acolytes? We're doomed, I tell you, DOOMED!"

Pimping your own blog, Bottle? :D

I saw a clip of an interview with Falwell about this on television--he's one of the more unintentionally hysterical people out there.

Pimping your own blog, Bottle? :D
hey, it was relavent! and you know how much i love citing my sources :)

I saw a clip of an interview with Falwell about this on television--he's one of the more unintentionally hysterical people out there.
Falwell is just plain FUN these days...he's getting the word out about the revolutionary new Falwell Yoga Technique, in which you can fit both feet into your mouth while inserting your head into your ass.

What amazes me is that all these evangelical preachers have read the bible cover-to-cover every night since they were twelve, and yet they still don't seem to fathom that they have become exactly the sort that Jesus had a tendency to beat the shit out of 2000 years ago! Hehehe.

As with them (and most leftist extremists ), "none so blind as those who will not see."

As with them (and most leftist extremists ), "none so blind as those who will not see."
How would you define a leftist extremist? Would that be "anyone who doesn't agree with me" by any chance?

Well, like I've said elsewhere, there's going to be a battle for the soul of the Republican party in the near future--assuming the moderates don't just defect en masse. On the one side you'll have the McCain, Snowe, Chaffee (who has already said he doesn't support Bush this year), Hagel types, and on the other side you'll have the DeLay, Santorum, Lott types. And I don't have to tell you who I hope wins that battle. Even though I think it would be advantageous for the Democratic party for the nutjobs to win, it wouldn't be good for the country as a whole, and that's the most important thing in my opinion.

If you'd like to hear my prediction for the next few years ... GWB will be re-elected President, although once again by the narrowest of margins; the Democrat Party will either splinter or learn to become more centrist; the Republican Party will spinter into two parties, one far right and the other more centrist; eventually the two centrist parties ( Democrat and Republican ) will merge, and two new parties will form from the far left former Democrats and the far right former Republicans; American will become a three-party Nation, with candidates from the centrist party seeking support from the other two from time to time; American domestic and foreign policy will periodically lurch from side to side, with the resulting confusion among friends and allies.

Remember, you heard it here first! ; ))

How would you define a leftist extremist? Would that be "anyone who doesn't agree with me" by any chance?

Not at all. I define "extremist" ( whether right or left ) as anyone whose mind is so closed that new information which conflicts with their preconcieced notions, from whatever source, is automatically rejected and attacked.

It'll be hard for the Democratic party to get any more centrist, considering the leadership spends more time trying to distance themselves from the left wing than they do actually trying to accomplish anything.

Oh these guys. They really are cute, aren't they? Don't worry about them. They've reached the peak of their power, and are good only for garnering votes, and nothing else. They have not fielded one serious candidate, nor had any Republican in high-ranking position of power. Before you inevitably point to one, however, try to remember that there is a difference between a Christian and an evangellical Christian. I am a Christian, and base my politics on that. It doesn't mean, however, that I believe in what these guys do.

But really, they are prime for picking. Not too long ago, evangelicals were a mainstay for Democrats. Just tell them that a party is more godly than the other, and they run like geese. It makes these guys really fickle, and should put the GOP in hot water. However, if that happens, it won't happen until after we defeat Hillary in 2008, and have New York a red state.

Are you serious, Purly? Tom DeLay is an evangelical, and he's the number two man in the House of Representatives. Rick Santorum is the evangelical version of Catholic and he's the number three guy in the Senate. And what about George W. Bush? Come on--he's an avowed evangelical, and you don't get much higher in the ranks than him.

Are you serious, Purly? Tom DeLay is an evangelical, and he's the number two man in the House of Representatives. Rick Santorum is the evangelical version of Catholic and he's the number three guy in the Senate. And what about George W. Bush? Come on--he's an avowed evangelical, and you don't get much higher in the ranks than him.
George Bush is not an evangelical, just a devout Christian. There is a difference. Bush does not, for example, make frequent apperances on the 700 Club, go to faith healers every Sunday after church, and doesn't kowtow to Oral Roberts, or whoever the heck Bill Graham's seminary was named after. As for Rick Santorum, it is impossible for him to be an evangelical, as he is a Catholic. There is a big, big, big difference between a devoutly Christian politician, and a Jerry Falwell type politician.

George Bush is not an evangelical, just a devout Christian. There is a difference. Bush does not, for example, make frequent apperances on the 700 Club, go to faith healers every Sunday after church, and doesn't kowtow to Oral Roberts, or whoever the heck Bill Graham's seminary was named after. As for Rick Santorum, it is impossible for him to be an evangelical, as he is a Catholic. There is a big, big, big difference between a devoutly Christian politician, and a Jerry Falwell type politician.
Nothing personal, Purly, but you're using an awfully odd definition of "evangelical." I mean, the word literally means "fundamentalist" and carries the connotation of militant Protestantism (which is why I said Santorum was the equivalent of an evangelical in the Catholic church), and Bush certainly fits that description.

Nothing personal, Purly, but you're using an awfully odd definition of "evangelical." I mean, the word literally means "fundamentalist" and carries the connotation of militant Protestantism (which is why I said Santorum was the equivalent of an evangelical in the Catholic church), and Bush certainly fits that description.
I'm not worried about these guys at all. Take a look at what Jerry Falwell used to say, and what he is saying now.
Basically, the reason why I'm not worried is that these "evangelicals" have no idea what they are fighting for. They're turned Christianity into a souless, baseless religion that builds theme parks, record lables, votes conservative, and occaisonally makes remarks about heathens to make it look like they're Christian. They've taken the soul out of it, and even if Jerry Falwell is still a Christian, he is leading millions into a false sense of security, and straight to hell. That's the "evangelicals" we identify, and are making up the Christian Coalition. People of genuine faith tend not to be like that, and like Bush has, realizes that separating Church and state saves the Church more than the state. Bush isn't even thinking of intergrating the two. Just because a politician says "God bless America", or uses faith as a reference point doesn't mean he's an "evil evangelical". Bill Clinton said God helped him during his trouble with Hillary, and to make important decisions. Does that make him an evangelical?

Ok, so if the Repulicans ever do nominate a non-fundamentalist christian priciple holding presidnet who would Jerry Falwell (with his massive influence) make the christians vote for instead????

Anyone?

I'm not worried about these guys at all. Take a look at what Jerry Falwell used to say, and what he is saying now.
Basically, the reason why I'm not worried is that these "evangelicals" have no idea what they are fighting for. They're turned Christianity into a souless, baseless religion that builds theme parks, record lables, votes conservative, and occaisonally makes remarks about heathens to make it look like they're Christian. They've taken the soul out of it, and even if Jerry Falwell is still a Christian, he is leading millions into a false sense of security, and straight to hell. That's the "evangelicals" we identify, and are making up the Christian Coalition. People of genuine faith tend not to be like that, and like Bush has, realizes that separating Church and state saves the Church more than the state. Bush isn't even thinking of intergrating the two. Just because a politician says "God bless America", or uses faith as a reference point doesn't mean he's an "evil evangelical". Bill Clinton said God helped him during his trouble with Hillary, and to make important decisions. Does that make him an evangelical?Whoa. Bush has done more to remove the separation between church and state than any other President in history--the Fooice on Faith-Based Initiatives ring a bell?

And there's a whale of a difference between the way Clinton invoked his faith and the actions Bush takes as a result of his faith. Clinton, to my knowledge, never let his faith override scientific evidence when it came to policy decisions. Bush has, in the stem cell decision for starters, and on anything involving abortion for another.

Christians, of whatever stripe, have as much right to vote and campaign as anyone else. At least that's what MY copy of the Constitution says. :)
until they start referencing their religion as reasons for doing stuff, then they start getting blocked by MY copy of the constitution

Whoa. Bush has done more to remove the separation between church and state than any other President in history--the Fooice on Faith-Based Initiatives ring a bell?

And there's a whale of a difference between the way Clinton invoked his faith and the actions Bush takes as a result of his faith. Clinton, to my knowledge, never let his faith override scientific evidence when it came to policy decisions. Bush has, in the stem cell decision for starters, and on anything involving abortion for another.
The Faith-Based initiative thingy was just a way for the government to tap into the vast reservoir of those types of charities. There are more of them than secular charities, yet they get little respect among the government. As for abortion and stem cell, they just aren't religious issues. They also involve a great deal of ethical issues. Many doctors, for example, have said they stop preforming abortions based on ethical grounds. And btw, all presidents have used their faith as a guide post for their policies. The only exception was James Buchanan, and he was an athiest, anyhow.

The Faith-Based initiative thingy was just a way for the government to tap into the vast reservoir of those types of charities. There are more of them than secular charities, yet they get little respect among the government. As for abortion and stem cell, they just aren't religious issues. They also involve a great deal of ethical issues. Many doctors, for example, have said they stop preforming abortions based on ethical grounds. And btw, all presidents have used their faith as a guide post for their policies. The only exception was James Buchanan, and he was an athiest, anyhow.
Oh come on--abortion isn't a religious issue? It's a purely religious issue. The whole question of when life begins is based solely on faith. And the construction of the office of Faith Based Initiatives was an open attempt to allow religious groups to qualify for federal funds without having to build a wall between their charity works and their proselytizing activities. It also allows them to circumvent federal hiring practices.

True, but this is one of the prices of living in a Democracy. I see a lot more of this among members of the far left than I do from anyone else, especially if they're RICH far left. They know SO much better than we do what's best for us that they're willing to resort to lies, trickery and innuendo to put themselves in power.
I didn't think that the far left even existed in the United States! Well, at least not in mainstream politics.

It's funny, in my country, Ireland, rich people are right-wing and working class people are left-wing. Is it the opposite in the USA?

I didn't think that the far left even existed in the United States! Well, at least not in mainstream politics.

It's funny, in my country, Ireland, rich people are right-wing and working class people are left-wing. Is it the opposite in the USA?
nope. in the US, education is correlated with movement toward the left, and income level is correlated with movement toward the right. what is sad is that education level and income level are less strongly correlated than in any developed nation in the world.

nope. in the US, education is correlated with movement toward the left, and income level is correlated with movement toward the right. what is sad is that education level and income level are less strongly correlated than in any developed nation in the world.
I'm a prime example of that. :D

I'm a prime example of that. :D
me too. according to statistics, i am in the top 1% of Americans in terms of the extent of my education, but i am living below the poverty line right now...and i am pulling in one of the biggest pay checks somebody in my field can get at this stage.

me too. according to statistics, i am in the top 1% of Americans in terms of the extent of my education, but i am living below the poverty line right now...and i am pulling in one of the biggest pay checks somebody in my field can get at this stage.
Yep. This year, I'll make more than I ever have in my life, but only because I'm working a job outside my fellowship, and because of where I live, I don't really get to enjoy the benefits of it.

Yep. This year, I'll make more than I ever have in my life, but only because I'm working a job outside my fellowship, and because of where I live, I don't really get to enjoy the benefits of it.
i'm not allowed to have any side-jobs during the first two years of my post, and i may not be allowed to have a side job until after my thesis is completed (depending on the stipulations of the training grant i receive). fortunately, i have nobody to support except myself, my place is rent controlled, and i don't need a car...i can't even imagine how some of the other students in my program do it, when they have kids, homes, and car payments to take care of off our puny paychecks.

ahh well, that will teach me to rely on the NIH for my employment :).

It is truly a sad example of Jewish deception when people think left-wing Zionists like George Bush and Jerry Falwell are "conservative Christians."

Yeah, didnt the Republicans use to be for limited government interference?

It depends on which era you're talking about. From 1856 until early in the New Deal, they were strongly in favor of big government. Then they were in favor of limited government for about two decades, until war criminal Dwight Eisenhower snatched the nomination from Robert Taft and became President. The Republicon Party has been stumbling further and further downhill since then, with no hope of regaining its footing.

I wish Falwell would get it through his thick skull that the only side God is on is everyone's side.

I wish Falwell would get it through his thick skull that the only side God is on is everyone's side.
Actually God is not on the terrorist side. But not on Jerry Falwell's side either but Bush does'nt know that.

True, but this is one of the prices of living in a Democracy. I see a lot more of this among members of the far left than I do from anyone else, especially if they're RICH far left. They know SO much better than we do what's best for us that they're willing to resort to lies, trickery and innuendo to put themselves in power. Their thinking goes something like, "I'm rich and was educated in an Ivy League college, so I MUST be destined to bring enlightenment to all these working-class slobs!"

Well, come November, when we "working class slobs" have the chance to paticipate in the electoral process, guess who we AIN'T gonna vote for!
hmmm let me see....
george bush is rich
george bush went to yale
didtn he to to harvard business school too?

i guess thats who you arent going to vote for

The only exception was James Buchanan, and he was an athiest, anyhow.

I didn't know that. I guess it was a big secret then at the time, cause I couldn't imagine anyone even remotely un-Protestant getting elected president in the 19th century.

Actually God is not on the terrorist side.

But Allah is. Prove me wrong...;)

Oh come on--abortion isn't a religious issue? It's a purely religious issue. The whole question of when life begins is based solely on faith.
I have an athiest friend who opposes abortion based on ethical grounds. No one says it's right to shoot someone, no matter what faith you are. The same logic can be extended to abortion.
And the construction of the office of Faith Based Initiatives was an open attempt to allow religious groups to qualify for federal funds without having to build a wall between their charity works and their proselytizing activities. It also allows them to circumvent federal hiring practices.
These charities are useful to tap in. There are far more of them than secular charities, and they do far more work in the US. If the government decided to show favoritism to one religious denomination over another, that's different. But otherwise, I don't see how that is a bad thing at all.

Nothing personal, Purly, but you're using an awfully odd definition of "evangelical." I mean, the word literally means "fundamentalist" and carries the connotation of militant Protestantism (which is why I said Santorum was the equivalent of an evangelical in the Catholic church), and Bush certainly fits that description.
for the love of GOD, incertonia, would you please stop using that word!!
i dont know where the moderators are but there are CHILDREN on this board

the word santorum should not be used in polite company, what if your MOTHER read this thread??

(put it into google, make sure you have safe search off)

I didn't know that. I guess it was a big secret then at the time, cause I couldn't imagine anyone even remotely un-Protestant getting elected president in the 19th century.

Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, but that was a time in our nation's history in between one of the "Great Revivals", so no one cared. James Buchannan was president at the start of one of these revivals, so he did keep it quiet. He was also rumored to be gay, as he never did marry.

It depends on which era you're talking about. From 1856 until early in the New Deal, they were strongly in favor of big government. Then they were in favor of limited government for about two decades, until war criminal Dwight Eisenhower snatched the nomination from Robert Taft and became President. The Republicon Party has been stumbling further and further downhill since then, with no hope of regaining its footing.

I'm surprised no one has come to Ike's defense yet.

It is truly a sad example of Jewish deception when people think left-wing Zionists like George Bush and Jerry Falwell are "conservative Christians."
And how are Jewish people involved in this?

I'm surprised no one has come to Ike's defense yet.
I won't. He was the worst Republican president we had ever had. Great generals, as a rule, always make crappy leaders.

Actually God is not on the terrorist side. But not on Jerry Falwell's side either but Bush does'nt know that.

Incorrect and ignorant statement.

God is not on any side, nor does he support any side; He saves all, regardless of terrorist affiliation.

I won't. He was the worst Republican president we had ever had. Great generals, as a rule, always make crappy leaders.

He wasn't a great general, either. He only advanced as far as he did through political connections. And, he was an abominable and heartless war criminal.

And how are Jewish people involved in this?
"There are about 200,000 evangelical pastors in America, and we're asking them all through e-mail, faxes, letters, telephone, to go into their pulpits and use their influence in support of the state of Israel and the prime minister."
“It is my belief that the Bible Belt in America is Israel’s only safety belt right now.”
"Israel must survive."
~Jerry Falwell

"There are about 200,000 evangelical pastors in America, and we're asking them all through e-mail, faxes, letters, telephone, to go into their pulpits and use their influence in support of the state of Israel and the prime minister."
“It is my belief that the Bible Belt in America is Israel’s only safety belt right now.”
"Israel must survive."
~Jerry Falwell
And what is wrong with Rev. Falwell's statements?

He wasn't a great general, either. He only advanced as far as he did through political connections. And, he was an abominable and heartless war criminal.
Well he certainly did float around the Atlantic Theater. Didn't he end up becoming the Allies' Supreme Commader?

The Republicans are skilled in convincing their Christian conservative core - actually people who, economically, would be better off voting Democrat - that they are really concerned about promoting conservative social values in America. This is just a fig leaf. The Republicans pay lip-service to social conservatism, but their real friends and masters - the people they really obey - are the corporations. It's all about money. The modern GOP has no real social values. Except the almighty dollar.

Amen to that!
You hit it dead-on. I defy anyone to rebuke this notion.

If you'd like to hear my prediction for the next few years ... GWB will be re-elected President, although once again by the narrowest of margins; the Democrat Party will either splinter or learn to become more centrist; the Republican Party will spinter into two parties, one far right and the other more centrist; eventually the two centrist parties ( Democrat and Republican ) will merge, and two new parties will form from the far left former Democrats and the far right former Republicans; American will become a three-party Nation, with candidates from the centrist party seeking support from the other two from time to time; American domestic and foreign policy will periodically lurch from side to side, with the resulting confusion among friends and allies.

The myopic thinking that all political thought must stem from Republican or Democrat ideals is appalling. "American will become a three-party nation" -that's cute! Guess what? It already is. Only there's actually MORE than three. Do you mean that other parties will be given equal coverage in the press? That their candidates will be "invited" to debates? It's a nice little theory though. I just don't think it's going to work according to your formula.

Are you serious, Purly? Tom DeLay is an evangelical, and he's the number two man in the House of Representatives. Rick Santorum is the evangelical version of Catholic and he's the number three guy in the Senate. And what about George W. Bush? Come on--he's an avowed evangelical, and you don't get much higher in the ranks than him.

Don't forget John Ashcroft.

True, but this is one of the prices of living in a Democracy.

We don't live in a Democracy, we live in a Republic.

I see a lot more of this among members of the far left than I do from anyone else, especially if they're RICH far left.

Hmmm...I'm poor and centrist myself. How 'bout you?

They know SO much better than we do what's best for us that they're willing to resort to lies, trickery and innuendo to put themselves in power. Their thinking goes something like, "I'm rich and was educated in an Ivy League college, so I MUST be destined to bring enlightenment to all these working-class slobs!"

Some of them think that way, and I agree wholeheartedly with your distaste for them.

Well, come November, when we "working class slobs" have the chance to paticipate in the electoral process, guess who we AIN'T gonna vote for!

The two guys from privileged backgrounds?

Are you voting Libertarian like I am or something?

for the love of GOD, incertonia, would you please stop using that word!!
i dont know where the moderators are but there are CHILDREN on this board

the word santorum should not be used in polite company, what if your MOTHER read this thread??

(put it into google, make sure you have safe search off)Oh, you mean this Santorum (http://spreadingsantorum.com)? Heh. I've had a link to that site on my blog for months now. :D

Oh, you mean this Santorum (http://spreadingsantorum.com)? Heh. I've had a link to that site on my blog for months now. :D
i am SHOCKED that you knew exactly what i meant and yet you continue to use such a word on a family friendly forum.

dont you wonder just how utterly aghast he must be to know that the #1 google result for his name is THAT?? hahahahahahahahaha oh the poor thing

i am SHOCKED that you knew exactly what i meant and yet you continue to use such a word on a family friendly forum.

dont you wonder just how utterly aghast he must be to know that the #1 google result for his name is THAT?? hahahahahahahahaha oh the poor thing

Bah, he prolly thinks the internet is just a haven for those godless commie liberals anyway.

i am SHOCKED that you knew exactly what i meant and yet you continue to use such a word on a family friendly forum.

dont you wonder just how utterly aghast he must be to know that the #1 google result for his name is THAT?? hahahahahahahahaha oh the poor thing
Dude, I was part of the original google bombing for that. It's one of the prouder moments of my internet life. :D

Bah, he prolly thinks the internet is just a haven for those godless commie liberals anyway.
of course he does
which is why you KNOW he has to look at it
he probably keeps a careful eye on the porn sites for that very same reason

Dude, I was part of the original google bombing for that. It's one of the prouder moments of my internet life. :D
*bows*
ahhhh to have known about it at the time

the word santorum should not be used in polite company, what if your MOTHER read this thread??

(put it into google, make sure you have safe search off)


only if i ever need to induce vomiting

Just digging this up because Mike Malloy is going off on Falwell right now. It's beautiful.

Just digging this up because Mike Malloy is going off on Falwell right now. It's beautiful.
slight tangent: did you see Mike Wallace's interview with Bill O'Reilly the other night? in that interview, Mike totally dropped the ball...good to see somebody bringing honor back to the name "Mike."

Didn't see it. I wonder if 60 Minutes does transcripts online? brb