Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

I would add that perhaps christian conservatives feel safer with Bush in that he acknowledges the influence of God in his decisions. I know that that makes some people uneasy, as it sounds like he’s crazy. But it is something that rings very true with the regularly practicing christian public. And I believe that this is in part what voters were referring to as Moral Issues.

Let me add that I’m not saying this makes for good policy, only what contributes to certain voters being comfortable with their choice. I believe in God and am quite spiritual in a traditionally Christian sense, however, I am not comfortable with quite a few of Bush’s decisions.

The question for the next round is: will the GOP’s next candidate offer the same sense of safety?

Well, at least there won’t be all that “don’t change horsemen mid apocalypse” talk.

The President’s talk of his faith and his dropping IN PUBLIC the name of Jesus in the first debate made many evangelicals feel safe amidst a world in which thy feel ridiculed. It made them feel safe in the same way it makes others very nervous.

I think they feel ridiculed by the world (mammon), which they see Dems a part of. We are on the opposing side of the spiritual war they believe to be going on all around them all the time, every day, until Jeebus returns. They believe we will burn in Hell while they will bask in the warm golden shower of Yawey’s paranoid, egomaniacal, and codependent love. It worries the rest of us because we realize these child souls trapped in adult meat believe in the end of days which they are so eager and willing to help usher in, as exemplified by GW, a warrior president for Christ.

Joseph Briggs:
“I think they feel ridiculed by the world (mammon), which they see Dems a part of.”

Yeah, they feel so persecuted and unfairly shat upon by us Demonic Liberal Elitists - but its all in their narrow little minds.

“We are on the opposing side of the spiritual war they believe to be going on all around them all the time, every day, until Jeebus returns.”

And yet, isn’t it strange how they believe they are so much a part of the “culture of life” but they love the death penalty and won’t support protecting the environment? Their religion preaches to them about charity and doing good works, but all they can say when someone mentions poverty is personal responsibility? They’re so darn _selective_ about their spirituality, its nutty.

“They believe we will burn in Hell while they will bask in the warm golden shower of Yawey’s paranoid, egomaniacal, and codependent love.”

LOL!

“It worries the rest of us because we realize these child souls trapped in adult meat believe in the end of days which they are so eager and willing to help usher in, as exemplified by GW, a warrior president for Christ.”

They wanted their Reverend Mister President and now they’ve got him. Little do they realize they’ve been used like a cheap hooker by the neo-con corporate machine now known as the United States Government. [Heavy Sigh]

Last night on a radio talk show, a Pro-Choice caller to Hugh Hewitt asked if he thought Bush would nominate a justice to the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v Wade. He replied with a flat out ‘no.’ Hewitt explained to the caller that it was politically untenable. You could almost hear her balloon go ‘pop.’

Republicans supposedly owe Christian Fundamentalists for the electoral victory, for turning out to vote. But what will happen when its time to pay up? What will happen when the bill comes due? Safety and comfort with a known quantity are understandable, but it will take more than that to keep those people in the fold, and coming back to vote Republican in future elections. If, after possessing Legislative majoraties, the Executive Branch, and the Supreme Court, the Republican politicians still avoid ponying up, it could cause a lot of dissatisfaction. Interesting dilemna…

Folks —

I’m an atheist and even I’m a little offended by this talk. People have a right to their beliefs even if they seem silly to you, and talking about evangelical Christians as though they’re crazy isn’t going to change anybody’s mind.

Although the Jeebus reference was pretty damn funny….

Matthew said:

OK, having sucked you in on the wedge religion issue, this essay will get more boringly cerebral and discuss the core decisive emotion of voting, with a passing look at how the possibly decisive evangelicals might have reacted or played a part.

Matthew, I know that you had nothing to with the nosedive this post took,because it truly would have made for good discussion.
But when you operate anything that is intended to suck,you really should be carful what the end that sucks is laying in before you turn it on.
You wouldn’t think trolling in consertave waters that you would hook so many liberals. :)

Alejo:
“People have a right to their beliefs even if they seem silly to you, and talking about evangelical Christians as though they’re crazy isn’t going to change anybody’s mind.”

The election is over. I’m done with trying to change anyones mind. For the next four years I’ve got to watch as Dubya turns the historically secular nature of our government into a rabidly unconstitutional, religiously invasive and less free government. I’m more than a little pissed about that, and I am a trifle annoyed by the holier than thou crapola that has been carpeting Watchblog for the past week, so I’m not really in the mood to be delicate with the feelings of an Evangelical Rightwinger.
And while I agree that they have every right to their beliefs, I feel I must point out that so do I - in thinking them hypocritically selective with their spirituality, and down right nutty in general.

Adrienne

Everyone has a right to thier beliefs; but when those beliefs amount to beliefs about large , identifiable groups of fellow- citizens that are pejorative in the extreme viz. “down right nutty in general”- the chance to advance our knowledge by dialogue and discussion goes out the window. People vote for the candidate who they think will best represent thier interests. Most evangelical Christians voted for Bush, but a sizable minority voted for Kerry. Most Gays voted for Kerry , but a sizable minority voted for Bush. All four groups above voted based on their own assessment of the situation - each human being is more than their religion or sexual orientation, and it is distressing to see posts that imply or state that one of these groups AS A GROUP is lacking in intelligence. I thought that idea was soundly refuted in the Furore over “The Bell Curve” a few years ago.

I accept scientific explanations of anything that can be explained by scientific explanations. So I don’t believe in transubstantiation. I don’t fear witchcraft. I don’t pay any attention to astrology, numerology or voodoo. I have never seen a ghost and don’t expect to. Nostradamus doesn’t impress me and space aliens have never visited the earth. Reasonable evidence disproves all these things. But when you get to the ultimate questions about the nature of life, science is no longer of any use. The fact is we just don’t know. I always tell my friends that I am not religious enough to be an atheist, since that requires the biggest leap of faith there is – that everything came from nothing.

I hear that religious people are intolerant, but I find a lot more intolerance in many of the most non-religious. You can easily detect a militant anti religiousness in many of these posts. We all make moral decisions based on our beliefs. Secularists are just surer they are right for no particular reason. What is the logical defense of a pro-choice position? Why should the choice of an abortion belong exclusively to the woman? Some people make a moral choice in deciding the option should be hers, but it is, after all, a matter of their opinion. Nietzsche talked about going beyond good and evil. Few people want to follow him and those that do often fall into totalitarian traps worse than the believe systems they tried to abandon.

We live in a pluralistic society. Religious ideas are part of that mix. Few religious people want to create a theocracy or force their beliefs on other. I recall a religious friend in college who told me with true sorrow that I would probably go to hell and there was nothing he could do to help me – free will. Should I have been insulted? He didn’t try to force me to do anything. He was just stating his believe. Should he lie to me? I think what bothers many of us less religious types is the sneaking suspicion that they may be right. See you all in hell.

I can’t beleive I’m going to put my boots on & step into this.But since I felt the same way when we had the Clinton years I do feel your pain!
I’m from the religious right,but I don’t think that makes me evil.

“I’m not really in the mood to be delicate with the feelings of an Evangelical Rightwinger.”

That would be me! :-O Don’t worry Adrienne we can take it.

“I’m done with trying to change anyones mind.”

Don’t give up yet,you already have me reconsidering my stand on gun control!

Seriously though Adrienne, as much as I would rather for you to be right,none of that will happen.My worst fears when Clinton got elected never came to pass.(other than nafta)and that was the rights issue! I think this camPAIN brought to the front burner the far right & the farther lefts ;) strongest feelings.
I for one would like the hot button issues to be dealt with,at least for a few more decades. God forbid (sorry Algeo)that we might actually both have to budge to meet in the middle. As much as I oppose all abortion and the extreme left are for it.Both want everything.That’s not going to happen.
I think we all know what the compromise both would have to make would be.It’s that,or just keep throwing rocks at each other.
Gay marriage traditional marriage. You know where us radical rights stand.How about civil unions? Step back for us step up for them. Not what either wants but contain the fire.

Remember,Roe -vs-Wade was was added to the constitution just as under God was added to the Pledge.One is just as important to me as the other is to you!

Just some thoughts that might change the tone and bring back civil debate.But what do I know,I’m just the average joe!

I find it interesting, with a bit of wry amusement, at the intolerance of the supposedly tolerant. They appear to think tolerance is necessary only in one direction, and that since they arrogantly assume themselves to be right, they have no need to be tolerant of those less intelligent than themselves.

In thinking this way, they ultimately defeat their own belief in tolerance, since they prove to be mightily intolerant of those with differing opinions.

Jack, your friend was correct in stating that he cannot make your decision about God for you. You must make that choice yourself. Sounds as though your friend believes that there are consequences to your choice, though you may not believe those consequences are there yourself.

To me the analogy is that of joining a prestigious country club. You are offered entry at any time that you choose, but….you must request entry. Should you decide NOT to be a member of the club (heaven), then that is your choice and you will not enter the club.

You might later wish that you had made a different choice…you might still be able to change your mind, or it might be too late. This is not for us to determine.

Jbod,

I find it interesting, with a bit of wry amusement, at the intolerance of the supposedly tolerant. They appear to think tolerance is necessary only in one direction, and that since they arrogantly assume themselves to be right, they have no need to be tolerant of those less intelligent than themselves

So are you saying that the right just doesn’t even say they are tolerant, or are you claiming to be tolerant also and saying that the left is worse? I haven’t done any kind of count, but I’ve seen people on the left called wish-washy, out of touch, ivory tower intellectual snobs, and terrorists. I think that especially post-election, everybody is pretty upset/estatic and strong feelings are coming out on both sides. I’m a believing Christian myself, but I can tell you that the left has by no means cornered the market on hypocrisy.

pooleb you have hit the nail on the head. Its not just one side or the other that has hypocrits in its midst. Its both. We all need to accept that fact, take a step back, and tackle these issues through a knowledge of whats involved and at stake. Cut down on the rhetoric and look for practical solutions. They won’t be pretty and they won’t satisfy everyone but they could work.

As to some of the issues raised I feel that I should throw in a few comments.
1). Gay marriage. I think that this issue is going to resonate in both directions on both sides for a long time to come. Amongst the Evangelicals because if they truly believe what is in the bible all of the bible then they have to defend marriage as between a man and a woman period. On the side of the liberal’s they of course will fight for the right’s of gays to be married. How else can they be when they see a whole segment of the population being restricted and kept out of what is a major aspect of life in this country. The problem of course is partly being caused by the fact that the government became involved in a religous affair. If the government hadn’t moved into this aspect of religous life, then the religious right would have their marriage, and the gay community would have their commited relationships. And the government would only need to recognize civil unions. A union that was distinct from the religous marriage.

2. Abortion. Again we have what is a devisive issue. Where you come down on this issue is decided a lot by beliefs. I feel that this one will be pulled back and forth dependent on the current makeup of the country. The evangelicals certainly cannot condone abortion except in cases where its the only way to preserve the life of the mother and still be true to their beliefs. And the other side fears giving an inch cause they think that will open the door for the pro-lifers to move the bar further against abortion. I think the only solution on this one is for a certain moral centrist position to work its way through the society such that we have less of a need for abortions through personal responsibility and this takes off some of the pressure that is fueling the rhetoric on both sides. I certainly don’t see any other solution other than peopls attitudes and habits making it a moot point.

3) Lastly Government and Religion. Government has no place whatsoever in telling people who or what they can believe in. This means that the government shouldn’t have the authority to restrict peoples expresion of their beliefs. This means that the government shouldn’t be able to stop or restrict religous displays or activities to the extent that such practices do not interfere with other peoples life, or liberty. And this goes for those that practice atheism as well as Christians, Muslems, Deists etc.

4) Faith Based Initiatives. Here the appropriate response should be tax deductions for gifts to charitable organizations regardless of said organizations religious beliefs. Let each person decide who he or she wishes to support. Remove barriers to charitable organizations. Letting such organizations work without interference is the best solution because it goes back to a local solution is better than a centralized one.

As you can see I am for getting government out of peoples hair and letting people take the repsonsibility for themselves and their own lives. This is not to mean that we as a society through our representative the Government shouldn’t provide some form of safety net. A safety net is a good thing, but only if such a net is designed to get the person that fell back on their feet and not needing the net as quicly as possible.

Trent.

jack said: We live in a pluralistic society. Religious ideas are part of that mix. Few religious people want to create a theocracy or force their beliefs on other.

You are so wrong about that, jack. The Texas School Board and their Christian coalition (millions strong) have been successful in pushing creationism into school text books, and minimizing to the extreme evolution. If brainwashing millions of other parent’s school children with theological representations of the physical world over empirical scientific methodology does not not constitute forcing one’s beliefs on others, I don’t know what does.

Pooleb:

I specifically didnt point fingers at anyone regarding tolerance. I spoke neither of the “right” nor of the “left”. I was simply pointing out that by reading the threads on WB, you can tell who is truly tolerant and who is not. And in some cases, those most loudly proclaiming their tolerance are the least tolerant.

What many people seem to want is tolerance for THEIR ideas. They don’t seem to realize that it doesn’t work that way. These people don’t even know who they are, so pointing to specific people would simply cause them to bluster in irritation.

Tolerance is not simply accepting any idea that comes along. To do so would result in a kind of anarchy and chaos. Tolerance is an overused concept, often used by people who simply want to promote their own ideas. Its sort of like bi-partisanship, which is most often used by the part NOT in power, to be denied when a party gets into power.

Tolerance, in the same way, is desired when one is not in the mainstream, but is often denied to others. For instance, many want tolerance for other cultures to be as they are, and not to be changed by the United States. Yet there are also those who rightly cringe at cultural issues like how other cultures treat women poorly and want THOSE things changed.

jbod —

And how can you tell who the tolerant ones are?

I didn’t say Jesus fans are crazy. I didn’t say I won’t tolerate them or that America shouldn’t tolerate them. I described what I see their struggle as, and I put a few playful jabs in my description - nothing worse than what they have said about liberals over the past few years. I am all for Christianity. I just wish the people I was poking fun at were real Christians.

I also don’t have any problem with the inevitible fact that there are and will be Christians in public office. My problem comes from faith-based political support and policy arguments. No politician should ever say they believe Yawey chose them for anything. The US was formed to get away from kings who used to say the same exact thing. We fought the war of independence to escape this kind of fickle, faith-based rule. When our politicians start talking like that, we need to raise some alarm. When the country starts to embrace politicians who think like this and demand a Christian nation, we need to raise more alarms. When this populace gains significant control of government, we are required to fight against it.

Personally, I don’t understand all the “lay down, shut up, and take it like the bitch you are” talk from the Republicans. Our system is founded on confrontational principles. Our legal system runs on confrontation. Our congressional system allows for filibusters. Seriously, if someone’s faith is shaken or offended by my harmless language then who is the one with the problem? And the protests sound suspiciously like Political Correctness.

I believe in tit for tat (as has been virtually proven by artificial intelligence experiements to be the most successful survival strategy). Repubs say I’m out of touch with America, I say they are out of touch with reality. They say I’m bereft of morals, I say they exploit morals. It’s a vicious cycle. And that’s okay. Life isn’t pretty. Just ask any Christian: humans are inherently corrupt. I believe in treating them exactly that way, especially anyone shouting their Christianity from the rooftops.

Faith should motivate individuals, not public policy. Arguments within the public sphere must be conducted with verifiable facts and contested reason. Faith, by its very nature, cannot be contested, therefore cannot enter the realm of public discourse.

Alejo:

Your question is a good one, and its part of what I wrote about. Sometimes you cant tell who is being tolerant and who is not being tolerant until after the fact. True tolerance means tolerating anything, which of course no one does. Some define tolerance as people being able to do what they choose as long as they hurt no one else. But this definition misses the pain and emotional damage that something like, say, divorce causes.

Tolerance is overrated as a concept. Most people want to be considered tolerant, yet also want to be considered principled. If I see a father berating a child in a vicious verbal assault, do I tolerate his right to raise his children, or do I stand on the principle that his behavior is over the line? It sometimes is impossible to be both tolerant and principled at the same time.

The answer to your question is that you have to look at the whole person in context with the circumstances. Too often, we look at one instance and fill in the blanks around it. And that doesnt work well.

David

I worry about creationism in textbooks, but that is not the only worry I have about textbooks.

My kids bring home these politically corrected books where Harriet Tubman gets a full page and George Washington is relegated to single paragraph. The only thing they can say about Thomas Jefferson is that he may have fathered a child with one of his slaves and the Pilgrims seem to have traveled to America as a lifestyle choice. I have to tell my kids the real American story, but caution them to fill in the politically correct one on their tests. Who is responsible for this?

America is the most successful nation in the history of the world, but from our history books in school you would think we stumbled from one failure to another. Don’t get started on textbooks. Joe made a good point about tolerance being seen as a one-way street. There is plenty of intolerance in the liberal establishment. I don’t believe in creationism, but I would be willing to have a little creationism, if I could have Washington and Jefferson (and maybe even Robert E. Lee) back.

jbod —

Tolerance is overrated as a concept. Most people want to be considered tolerant, yet also want to be considered principled. If I see a father berating a child in a vicious verbal assault, do I tolerate his right to raise his children, or do I stand on the principle that his behavior is over the line? It sometimes is impossible to be both tolerant and principled at the same time.

I’m hoping you don’t mean it to sound that way but this sounds like a copout. It’s as though you’re saying that since tolerance can’t be perfected that it should be tossed as a concept. I imagine I’m misreading you though.

You answered the conundrum in this paragraph when you said

Some define tolerance as people being able to do what they choose as long as they hurt no one else.

One could also define freedom that way.

But this definition misses the pain and emotional damage that something like, say, divorce causes.

I’m not sure how this statement relates to tolerance. A truly tolerant person would never get divorced?

The word “christophobia” has been used a lot recently, and it’s really evidenced in this thread. It’s obvious that a lot of you hate and/or distrust Christians. And this is from the people who say they are more tolerant than everyone else. Tolerance is based on principals or values or faith, not the other way around.
Almost all presidents and presidential candidates, including Kerry, have claimed to be Christians. So what’s different about President Bush? When has Bush ever tried to force his religion on us?
Not on the gay marriage issue. He supports the amendment because he feels that the people should have a say, instead of having it imposed on them by the courts. Most people who voted for the state amendments don’t necessarily support a federal one. Remember, the amendments passed in the blue states as well as the red. This has nothing to do with homophobia or intolerance. It’s that people want laws made by the legislatures, not the courts. If gays want their marriages to be recognized, they should go about it the right way.
Abortion is not really a religious issue either. Bush never put it in that context. He sees it as a life-and-death issue. Unless this thread turns into a flame-war about abortion, I’ll refrain from giving you my personal opinions on the issue.
I’m not entirely knowledgeable on Bush’s position faith based initiatives. But I don’t think He’s trying to force his faith on us here either. From what I’ve heard, he wants faith-based organizations to be treated the same as other organizations by the government.

The word “christophobia” has been used a lot recently, and it’s really evidenced in this thread. It’s obvious that a lot of you hate and/or distrust Christians. And this is from the people who say they are more tolerant than everyone else. Tolerance is based on principals or values or faith, not the other way around.
For example while my values and faith tell me NOT to be tolerant of terrorists, they tell me TO be tolerant of homosexuals.
Almost all presidents and presidential candidates, including Kerry, have claimed to be Christians. So what’s different about President Bush? When has Bush ever tried to force his religion on us?
Not on the gay marriage issue. He supports the amendment because he feels that the people should have a say, instead of having it imposed on them by the courts. Most people who voted for the state amendments don’t necessarily support a federal one. Remember, the amendments passed in the blue states as well as the red. This has nothing to do with homophobia or intolerance. It’s that people want laws made by the legislatures, not the courts. If gays want their marriages to be recognized, they should go about it the right way.
Abortion is not really a religious issue either. Bush never put it in that context. He sees it as a life-and-death issue. Unless this thread turns into a flame-war about abortion, I’ll refrain from giving you my personal opinions on the issue.
I’m not entirely knowledgeable on Bush’s position faith based initiatives. But I don’t think He’s trying to force his faith on us here either. From what I’ve heard, he wants faith-based organizations to be treated the same as other organizations by the government.

Jack
You asked, “Who is responsible for this?”
- You, as the parent are.

I do not allow my children to do book reports on celebrities or sports stars, instead, they do them on our founding fathers.
They never use the word democracy when describing our form of govt. and they correct the teachers when they do. When they take tests, they put down Constitutional Republic and not democracy, if the question is marked wrong, I speak with the teacher and get it corrected. I know this because the teachers always ask me at parent teacher conferences.
They know about the civil war and the states rights issues that led to it.
They know the Constitution and I have them read it and tell me about it.
We are not religous, but they know they will make their own decision about religion when they are ready to.
I teach them to be respectful of religion and the people who are religous and not practice HATE towards these people, such as been posted in this thread.

Matthew, good post.
To bad so many people think its OK to totally disrespect, bash, laugh at, degrade and even HATE christians and their views. But if someone simply disagrees with their views (ie. gay marriage) they will rake them through the coals, call them idiots, racists and bigots.

JBOD
Party of tolerance? Not if your a christian and don’t believe as they do.

Alejo
As a fellow atheist, I too am offended by all this HATE against religious people.

Alejo:

My point about divorce is that people want to accept a couple’s decision to divorce. In accepting this decision, one is therefore tolerant of the decision. But….this runs counter to the commonly held notion of being tolerant to those instances where no one gets hurt.

Now, I’m not suggesting we don’t allow divorce, but I am showing how the definition of tolerance changes depending upon issues and who is using the term. As such, its well overrated, or perhaps I’d be more accurate to say that its overUSED.

I’m not saying tolerance is good or bad. I’m saying that even those who claim that tolerance is necessary are not tolerant of things they don’t believe in. Society is not set up to be tolerant totally—that’s why there are laws in place. We have laws against murder, against driving without seatbelts, about perjury etc.

Tolerance has become, in my opinion, a buzzword that sounds great, but is not well thought out by most who use it.

stilltryin:
“Everyone has a right to thier beliefs;”

I already agreed with this.

“but when those beliefs amount to beliefs about large , identifiable groups of fellow- citizens that are pejorative in the extreme viz. “down right nutty in general”-”

Well, I didn’t say all Christians were nutty in general, just the Evangelicals. Just like I wouldn’t say Muslims were nutty in general, but I’d say this would definitely apply to the Taliban. Religious extremism _is_ nutty in general. That may not sound PC to you, but I call it as I see it.

“the chance to advance our knowledge by dialogue and discussion goes out the window.”

There is no chance of discussion with a fanatic - the foaming intensity of their faith seals their minds completely shut.

As for the rest of you taking jabs at me for my supposed “intolerance”, maybe you should know that for many years, and currently, I come in direct contact with Evangelicals when I do volunteer work.
I’ve had to tolerate them plenty, though I wouldn’t say it was easy.
Usually the Born Agains assume I’m one of their true believers just because I show up (they’d never imagine a non-believer could posess a sense of morality!), and I can say unequivocally that they are a very closed minded group, and yes, nutty in general. Also, the hypocrisy I see with many of these people strikes at the very heart of what I was raised to believe the words of Jesus were really all about - compassion.
I don’t feel this from the Born Again crowd. Even as they do things which help people, they don’t seem to _identify_ with the human suffering right before their eyes. Instead, most of them treat what they’re doing like its just another rung on the ladder that’ll get them to Heaven.
Maybe I’m able to pick up on this paradox because I don’t have the luxury of saying “There but for the _Grace of God_, go I” the way they do. All I see is are people suffering who We the People have let down because of a lack of compassion - in the richest country in the world. And it sickens me.

Jeez, now I sound like a “Bleeding-Heart Liberal” and no fun at all! Oh well… :^)

Joseph Briggs - well said!!! I agree completely.

jbod —

Tolerance is indeed a buzzword, as is “compassionate,” and as such are sometimes used by people who don’t mean them. The fact is that tolerance, honesty, and compassion are all ideals we should all be striving for even though they’re never perfectly acheivable.

Adrienne —

I wasn’t trying to start a round of Adrienne-bashing by my earlier comment. I was just trying to say folks won’t let much credence to your post if you appear to write off a group of people. I personally find any sort of zealotry off-putting and I tend not to trust it, so I know what you mean.

“Sometimes you cant tell who is being tolerant and who is not being tolerant until after the fact.”

I can tell you right now that what is happening to gay people, and what they are trying to do with abortion and stem cell research is extremely intolerant. We don’t need to wait until they’ve accomplished their goals to see that religious rightwingers are attempting to impose their beliefs on the masses - and that because they have no constitutional right to do so, we need to stop them.

Adrienne

I think your post validates Joe’s point about selective tolerance.

I support gay marriage and have written and spoken in support of it, but I don’t think it is a right protected by the Constitution. Most Americans seem to oppose gay marriage. The anti gay marriage ballot initiatives passed by about 70%. It is not that the right wing wants to impose a ban on the masses, rather that an elite wants to impose gay marriage on the majority of the people. Supporters need to persuade people to accept it, not beat them over the head about it. That would be tolerant of opinion on all sides.

Abortion is another interesting subject. The Supreme Court created that right out of the “penumbra” of the Constitution. I am pro-choice (although reluctantly) but it should not be a Constitutional right. It will no doubt remain legal, but proponents need to persuade a majority of Americans of their point of view. That would be tolerant.

Stem cell research is actually a not a tolerance issue at all. The Federal government funded stem cell research for the first time during the administration of President Bush. There was no Federal funding before that and there still is no rule against stem cell research; it is just that the Feds will only fund existing lines. Private parties or states can fund all they want. It is hardly intolerance to be unwilling to pay for something to the extent than someone else wants.

George W. Bush won because he got more votes. He got more votes, in part, because he believes in God.

People of faith aren’t afraid of the most powerful man in the world, asking for four more years of that power, while acknowledging that God is the creator, and we are the creatures.

George W. knows that we are here at God’s will. God allows us free will to screw up, but it is His omnipotent power that guides W and we are better off for it.

Average Joe:
“As much as I oppose all abortion and the extreme left are for it.”

It is not just the extreme left who wants to uphold a thirty year old Supreme Court standing on abortion.

“Both want everything.That’s not going to happen.
I think we all know what the compromise both would have to make would be.It’s that,or just keep throwing rocks at each other.”

I personally don’t approve of abortion after the first trimester, unless the heath of the mother is in danger, but I believe women should make these decisions for themselves. I don’t consider my views on a womans right to privacy extreme in any way, shape or form.
Anyone who wants to do away with abortion completely I feel is being very intolerant and extreme. Not only do I feel they are out of bounds to think its all right to invade a womans privacy, but I believe they are acting in direct opposition to the concept of Freedom that we Americans esteem so highly.
And to touch on another aspect of this: The fact that the morning-after pill has not been approved by the FDA when it has been safely used in Europe for quite some time I feel is also very intolerant.

“Gay marriage traditional marriage. You know where us radical rights stand.How about civil unions? Step back for us step up for them. Not what either wants but contain the fire.”

This country just made the call on civil unions - and no state voted to allow them. In one state they even went as far as banning gay couples from owning property jointly. There is no in between here. Gay people deserve the same rights as every other American. To say they don’t is discrimination and it is unconstitutional, plain and simple.

One thing I think we’re missing here is that Christians didn’t vote for Bush because he’s a Christian. Because Bush is a Christian, he represents someone with a similar view of what the governement should be.

Seriously, if someone’s faith is shaken or offended by my harmless language then who is the one with the problem?

It’s not your language, its your blanket attitude that all Christians are clueless and you have it all figured out if we’d all just listen.

Little do they realize they’ve been used like a cheap hooker by the neo-con corporate machine now known as the United States Government. [Heavy Sigh]

Again, Christians are clueless saps who will believe anyone who says they are a Christian. Completely oblivious to the fact that a lot of Christians are really upset about how the war in Iraq has been run, and would rather vote for someone else besides Bush, if there were a viable option.

Jack —
Well said. No one can force anyone to believe anything, but that doesn’t mean that Christians should just keep their beliefs to themselves.

averagejoe—

Remember,Roe -vs-Wade was was added to the constitution just as under God was added to the Pledge.One is just as important to me as the other is to you!

So that’s just like how Dred Scott was added to the constitution, or Plessy v. Fergusson? We’ve made mistakes before when deciding who should have basic human rights. Some people feel quite strongly that Roe v. Wade is a similar situation. My full opinion here.

I believe in tit for tat (as has been virtually proven by artificial intelligence experiements to be the most successful survival strategy)

Just as an interesting side note, there’s a new strategy better than tit for tat. here.

Well, I didn’t say all Christians were nutty in general, just the Evangelicals.

So that makes it okay, then.

“the chance to advance our knowledge by dialogue and discussion goes out the window.”

There is no chance of discussion with a fanatic - the foaming intensity of their faith seals their minds completely shut.

The problem is that you are treating all Christians as fanatics. If you have a problem with certain people, fine, but making general statements about entire groups of people based on your experience with a few unfair. Its not as if there aren’t people on both sides whose “foaming intensity” of their own opinions seals their minds shut.

Usually the Born Agains assume I’m one of their true believers just because I show up (they’d never imagine a non-believer could posess a sense of morality!)

You’ve got to be kidding. Just as both sides have their share of intolerance and hypocrisy, I know of no Christians who see Christianity as a prerequisite for compassion or morality.

What do you care what they think about you anyways? You’re your own person with your own decisions. And what do you care what their attitude is? If you’re interested in helping the unfortunate, shouldn’t you be glad that there are more people helping, regardless of where their heart is? Not that you can tell where that is for sure anyway.

AParker:

Just as both sides have their share of intolerance and hypocrisy, I know of no Christians who see Christianity as a prerequisite for compassion or morality.

I’m not going to make any generalizations here, but I do know Christians who feel exactly that way. When I told them I was an atheist they asked, “So why don’t you rob banks and kill people?”

Most people are smarter than that, luckily.

Adrienne
A fair and honest question for you.
“Are their beliefs wrong simply because they are religious people?”

Granted, most people (left and right) disagree with gay marriage because of religion. They are wrong.
Most people that disagree with abortion, do so because murdering an innocent child is wrong. Usually, the media only shows the religious fanatics though. That is wrong.
I support abortion, but not if its govt funded or used as birth control.

Aren’t the socialist leftwingers attempting to impose their beliefs on the masses also?
“Helping your fellow man” sure sounds religious to me. Forcing someone to do that is unconstitutional.
“Thou shalt not kill” sure sounds religious also. But yet, lefties spout that at executions. Are they trying to force me to believe in their god because he says killing is wrong?

There is no evidence to support your fear and hatred of deeply religious people and their supposed quest of taking over our country.

PS
I only used “socialist leftwingers” because you said “religious rightwingers.”
Both terms are wrong when used to identify the majority groups views.

Seriously, if someone’s faith is shaken or offended by my harmless language then who is the one with the problem?

It’s not your language, its your blanket attitude that all Christians are clueless and you have it all figured out if we’d all just listen.

You laid the blanket over me. I think many Christians spend many long hours contemplating their faith and I never said otherwise. Again, if you don’t like me teasing I think it’s your problem.

Adrienne:

Your comments about Evangelicals and how they want to use good deeds as “rungs” of the ladder to Heaven simply show that you are mistaken about the evangelical Christianity that I know. You say this group has no intelligence, or at least not the ability to use any intelligence (“There is no chance of discussion with a fanatic - the foaming intensity of their faith seals their minds completely shut.”)

The first and foremost misunderstanding is your suggestion that good deeds or works get you to Heaven—this is entirely NOT what evangelical Christians believe. If this is what you think they believe, then you are simply mistaken.

Evangelical Christians believe that a relationship with Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to heaven. You simply cannot get to heaven by doing good deeds; in essence, you cant “work” your way to heaven. It is this bellwether belief that allos evangelical Christians to believe that people can do many bad things in their lives, but can and will be forgiven if they engage in this relationship with Christ.

As far as being foaming at the mouth, as you suggest, I think I have been able to converse quite well with you. True, we disagree on many (most) things, but that is simply a difference of viewpoint, rather than intelligence.

I’ve been complimented by more than a few in Watchblog for my comments, in that they are salient and intelligently written. I mention this not as a pat on my back, but rather to dispel the notion that Christians are not intelligent, cannot discuss rationally, and are generally “nutty”.

To dispel entire groups of people as being crazy is silliness on its face. That you disagree with them does not make them fanatics either. I doubt anyone would consider me a fanatic, yet I believe in Christ.

For the record, you may think as you will. I take no offense in your perception of Christianity. I do think its important to correct misperceptions though.

To be a Christian does not in any way mean you are a good person or a bad person. There are those who believe in Christianity who do wrong things (I am one of them). Likewise, there are police officers who break the law, priests who commit sins, politicians who break their promises, spouses who break the very vows they believe in, doctors who become addicted to drugs, and on and on and on.

This simply means we are fallible. It doesnt have to change what we believe in.

Conservatives are not trying to “impose their beliefs”, rather they have a viewpoint of what should be allowed and disallowed and argue towards making that viewpoint a reality. No one is saying, “you must believe that a fetus is alive.” The point is that science cannot say whether it is alive or not, and as such I think when we’re talking about millions of perhaps-alive, perhaps-not, we ought not be terminating them so readily. No one knows for sure that these things absolutely aren’t alive! How can we be so indifferent to someone just _choosing_ whether or not they want to _keep_ it, as though its a stray cat or something. It might be a human life and we’re so attached to our own convieniences that we’ve created a culture where we can just throw them away as though its just another choice. Me going into Wal-Mart and shooting up the place is just another choice, but it’s one the government seeks to discourage.

Now that I’m way off on the issue, I’ll return to the point. You might see it as though conservatives are trying to impose their beliefs, but it goes the other way too; although you might call them opinions, they’re still what you believe in. Both sides are arguing for their viewpoints, and both sides think they’re right. So in the meantime, certain people on _both_ sides will see the other side as ‘imposing their beliefs/opinions’, rather than seeing both sides having similar goals yet different solutions.

jack,

I support gay marriage and have written and spoken in support of it, but I don’t think it is a right protected by the Constitution.

Equal protection isn’t a constitutional right?

Most Americans seem to oppose gay marriage. The anti gay marriage ballot initiatives passed by about 70%.

The Sedition Act was passed only a few years after our constitution was ratified. If individual rights were put up to popular vote, many wouldn’t survive.

It is not that the right wing wants to impose a ban on the masses, […]

Two of the eleven state amendment initiatives explicitly ban civil unions or recognition of any other intimate partnership that is not one man and one woman.

[…] rather that an elite wants to impose gay marriage on the majority of the people.

Much like abortion, the gay marriage issue is not legislative in nature, it is interpretive. These “activist judges” ruled that a ban on gay marriage denies equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional. There is no new law created, just an interpretation of established law as applied to new circumstances.

Supporters need to persuade people to accept it, not beat them over the head about it. That would be tolerant of opinion on all sides.

The desire to undermine the integrity of the Constitution of the United States of America need not be tolerated. Fighting to have rights recognized and enforced is perfectly understandable and noble. This usually gets ugly. No one should be surprised if this issue does too.

Abortion is another interesting subject. The Supreme Court created that right out of the ‘penumbra’ of the Constitution. I am pro-choice (although reluctantly) but it should not be a Constitutional right.

Well, yeah. The right to privacy is implied in the constitution. The right of a woman to make private medical choices that will effect her life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is implied in the implied right to privacy. This was all precipitated by myriad state legislation regarding this individual right at the time of Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court is required to create decisions that will standardize protections of individual rights that are so disparately implemented.

It will no doubt remain legal, but proponents need to persuade a majority of Americans of their point of view. That would be tolerant.

Sounds like pandering. If the left has the law on their side then shouldn’t the right have to pander? Besides, there are many concessions made to accommodate the demands of the religious right.

Thank you Jack and kctim for showing some of the hypocrisy in these arguments.

The intolerance begins when someone addresses a question from the standpoint that they know that their position is right to the exclusion of all other possibilities. For evangelicals it is their belief that there is only one way to get to heaven (John 14:6). For others it is their equally unyielding belief in a particular political ideology. Either one can cause a person to do onto others what he accuses they are doing onto them.

Neither side of the isle has a lock on religion or morals.
You can pick any issue that you feel strongly about and you will find persons in the other side that share your views on that one issue.
Its at that point you have something to build on to understand the other views and issues.
It may never change your opinion,but when you understand anothers views, you’re on your way to tolerance.
In my humble opinion, tolerance is based on understanding, and intolerance is based on fear.

Now its too easy to think that the other person fears your opinions or lifestyle, it might just be that you fear theirs also.

Every emotion or opinion is based on something.
A bully on the playground is that way because of fear, a defence against what they fear, if they can dominate, they won’t be dominated, They become what they fear from others.
If we could eliminate fear in society, we could eliminate racism, eliteism, class warfare, and all the other nasty crap that both sides hate.
I would really like to see every group of people, religion, color,whatever, all live together, If you are 20% of the population, I Think that in a perfect world, you should be 20% of every area in the USA, The big hangup is fear, both the majority and the minority.

Get over your own personal fears, learn to understand other people and views, you dont have to change your personal views, just make an atempt to understand other views.
Overcome fear, that is the key for both sides.

Thats my opinion, and I’m sticking to it.

You laid the blanket over me. I think many Christians spend many long hours contemplating their faith and I never said otherwise. Again, if you don’t like me teasing I think it’s your problem.

Your broad misrepresentation of Christianity is the blanket, and my apologies for my statement that you think Christians are clueless, my brain combined your post with another. Will make sure to check posts more carefully.

Adrienne,
You said, “I can tell you right now that what is happening to gay people, and what they are trying to do with abortion and stem cell research is extremely intolerant. We don’t need to wait until they’ve accomplished their goals to see that religious rightwingers are attempting to impose their beliefs on the masses - and that because they have no constitutional right to do so, we need to stop them.”
What IS happening to gay people? No one has proposed laws against homosexuality. No one is trying to oppress them. You are implying that almost eighty percent of people in this country are intolerant homophobes. This is not the case at all. Gay marriages are not recognized because they were not legislated. Most state governments would probably allow civil unions and some might even allow gay marriage itself. But that’s not they way they tried to get it. They tried to get it passed unconstitutionally through the courts.
Abortion is now legal because of a similar court ruling.
When you ignore all the arguments the abortion debate comes down to: is it or is it not a woman’s right to kill her child simply because it is still inside her?
RvW does not answer this question. The decision was based on a “right to privacy,” not right to life or right to choose. Invalidating it will have little effect on laws that are passed by either side.
Now, whose side is more tolerant? In these days of birth control, there is little need for abortion. But what if the pregnancy happened accidentally anyway? There are plenty of people willing to adopt children. I think the tolerant thing to do would be to have the baby and give it to them, instead of killing it. I realize current laws make it difficult to adopt. But it will be easier to change laws about them than to pass laws about abortion.
I don’t see bush imposing his beliefs on either of these issues. It seems to me it’s the other side trying to impose things in an unconstitutional way.
I’m sorry; I know I said I wouldn’t talk about it… I apologize.
As for stem cells, no one wants to ban stem cell research. So I do not see any intolerance, especially since the research can be done privately or by the states, such as in California.

Alejo —

Exactly. I’m not saying those people don’t exist. But they are definitely in the minority. The problem is that they tend to be the ones people remember.

Joseph

I don’t believe the equal protection applies in this case. So far, neither has the Supreme Court. I think if gay marriage activities go that route, they will hit a brick wall. As a generally conservative guy, I have changed my mind on the subject. I think others can too.

As for abortion, I don’t think it hurts to try to persuade your opponents, even after you have a decisive win. Isn’t that what Democrats are asking of Republicans after this election (sorry, can’t resist). Seriously, in any important issue, it is never enough to have only the law on your side. You have to get widespread support, or else the law could change.

AParker,

Conservatives are not trying to “impose their beliefs”, rather they have a viewpoint of what should be allowed and disallowed and argue towards making that viewpoint a reality.

They can live by their beliefs without creating legislation to impose their beliefs on others. By trying to turn their beliefs into legislation, they are trying to impose their beliefs on others.

No one is saying, “you must believe that a fetus is alive.”

By trying to guarantee fetus rights, they are in fact saying that a fetus is alive and whether you believe it or not, it should be law.

The point is that science cannot say whether it is alive or not, and as such I think when we’re talking about millions of perhaps-alive, perhaps-not, we ought not be terminating them so readily.

Your argument goes both ways. If we are uncertain then let the law work as it stands until all facts are known. Your side has compassion for your theory of life, my side has compassion for those who are actually alive.

No one knows for sure that these things absolutely aren’t alive! How can we be so indifferent to someone just _choosing_ whether or not they want to _keep_ it, as though its a stray cat or something. It might be a human life and we’re so attached to our own convieniences that we’ve created a culture where we can just throw them away as though its just another choice.

You are generalizing those who get abortions as casual users. You are belittling their choice as some trivial inconvenience. I think this is wholly unfair and heartless.

Me going into Wal-Mart and shooting up the place is just another choice, but it’s one the government seeks to discourage.

Don’t conflate the issue with mass homicide. They aren’t the same, which is why we have a word for each act. The choice to kill random Wal-Mart shoppers is not a private choice. There is no comparison.

You might see it as though conservatives are trying to impose their beliefs, but it goes the other way too; although you might call them opinions, they’re still what you believe in. Both sides are arguing for their viewpoints, and both sides think they’re right. So in the meantime, certain people on _both_ sides will see the other side as ‘imposing their beliefs/opinions’, rather than seeing both sides having similar goals yet different solutions.

Sure. The difference is those on the left usually try to use facts and reason rather than superstition and faith.

Jack, the SCOTUS has yet to weigh in on gay marriage as far as I know. They should be able to get their chance after a case is brought up to challenge the various state constitutional bans.

The “law on our side” comment was specious, sorry. My real point was that concessions have been made (parental notification, abstinence advocacy, etc).

Actually, AParker, I think Christians misrepresent Christianity, not I. But that’s beside the point. My first summary of Christianity was based upon what I understand of Southern Baptists. Certainly a generalization but not a misrepresentation.

(And since this is a short comment: Thanks, Adrienne.)

Joseph Briggs,

You said, “The difference is those on the left usually try to use facts and reason rather than superstition and faith.”

Really? What about the abortion dispute?
The only real argument for it is, “a woman has a right to chose because it is inside her body.”
The only real argument against it is, “abortion is murder.”
These are BOTH based on beliefs, not facts.

Both sides make laws based on their beliefs and try to spin the facts to support them. That doesn’t mean they are trying to impose their beliefs. They are just trying to do what they believe is right.

And as long as we are trying to be tolerant, I suggest you take back your use of the word “superstition.” You see? You have a right not to agree with religious people. The intolerance comes when you berate them for it. After all, you can’t prove scientifically that there is no God to believe in.
Also, people are not necessarily religious just because they have right-wing viewpoints.

Joseph

By trying to turn their beliefs into legislation, they are trying to impose their beliefs on others.

The point is that its not based on the belief of the fetus being alive, its based on the scientific notion of not knowing when the fetus is alive.

By trying to guarantee fetus rights, they are in fact saying that a fetus is alive and whether you believe it or not, it should be law.

It is not the same as saying it is alive, only that we don’t know whether it is or not, and we therefore shouldn’t take a stance as a society that it for sure isn’t manslaughter.

Your side has compassion for your theory of life, my side has compassion for those who are actually alive.

I don’t see it as compassion for those who are actually alive. Of course you disagree, but the majority of abortions are ones where the woman willingly participated in sexual activity, and doesn’t want the inconveniences of pregnancy. I’m not saying all abortions are this way, only a majority. I’m also not advocating doing away with the legality of abortions in certain situations although morally I’m still against them.

Also, I’m not belittling their choice and I don’t see how you characterize me that way. I see the prevalent use of abortion in our society as a way of avoiding pregnancy because it would be an inconvenience. Again, not in all cases, but in a majority.

As far as conflating the issue, I’m saying that there are certain choices that the Government wishes to discourage, and I think that abortion should be one, since we do not know the status of the fetus. As the fetus might be alive, the choice of abortion is not necessarily a private one either, and we cannot simply treat it as a private choice.

Sure. The difference is those on the left usually try to use facts and reason rather than superstition and faith.

Of course you categorize it that way, but the facts are such that we shouldnt’ be treating fetuses as though we know they aren’t human.

Joseph -

It is a frustrating part of being a Christian that so many Christians interpret things differently. However your comments come across as belittling and condesending. People have their beliefs for a reason, just as you do, and it’s not because they’re stupid, suckers, or that they’ve been duped. (most of them anyways, I can’t speak for all)

But to say that Christians misrepresent, and _you_ don’t, is ridiculous. You are clearly misrepresenting via exaggeration and an incomplete understanding of Southern Baptist philosophy.

However, there is merit to the fact that Christians misrepresent other christians. For instance, Rev. Fred Phelps from Kansas making headlines everytime he protests anything remotely artsy with his band of followers chanting “God hates Fags”. I don’t need to go into the details, but this is clearly an extremist viewpoint and not to be identified with mainstream Christian faith. Again, the problem is that this is what sticks in people’s minds, and is what carries through to their beliefs about Christians.

jbod:
“Your comments about Evangelicals and how they want to use good deeds as “rungs” of the ladder to Heaven simply show that you are mistaken about the evangelical Christianity that I know.”

If you had heard some of the comments that I have heard over the years that Evangelicals have made about the very people they supposedly want to help out of the goodness of their hearts - often followed by quotes from the bible, you might see why I feel that their hearts are often not in what they’re doing.
You don’t have to agree with me - it is only my opinion.
Perhaps I am wrong in thinking that charity without compassion is a puny thing, but it is how I feel. And yet, as long as the help is given to those who need it, I tolerate any and all of it - but as I said, it often isn’t easy.

“You say this group has no intelligence, or at least not the ability to use any intelligence (“There is no chance of discussion with a fanatic - the foaming intensity of their faith seals their minds completely shut.”)”

I never said they have no intelligence, and would never. I said that in general they seemed nutty. Not _crazy_, but nutty. In my mind theres a difference. :^)
I consider viewing the bible in a literal sense to be ridiculous, naive, and fanatical - and that in doing so, Evangelicals close off all chances of discussion. And I stand by that because the minute someone starts quoting bible verses like they’re the laws that everyone must live by, any opinion that anyone else might hold is moot.

“people can do many bad things in their lives, but can and will be forgiven if they engage in this relationship with Christ.”

And I think that is xenophobic and naive - and again, we don’t have to agree.

“As far as being foaming at the mouth, as you suggest, I think I have been able to converse quite well with you. True, we disagree on many (most) things, but that is simply a difference of viewpoint, rather than intelligence.”

I agree, but have you ever entertained the idea that this is only because you’re not as extreme as other Evangelicals? Judging by many I have come in contact with, I’d be inclined to think that may be the case.

“we are fallible.”

Of course. Everyone is.

“It doesnt have to change what we believe in.”

I’m not trying to change what anyone believes in! Nor do I hate anyone because of their beliefs. What I don’t like is religious beliefs entering into our laws and subverting the meaning of the constitution. The first amendment is supposed to protect all of us - the believer and the non-believers alike. Freedom of, and Freedom from religion, both. I’d like to see it stay that way - and so should you. Its in all of our best interest - and it seems to me that our founders had a greater understanding of the importance of that stance within our government than the majority of Americans currently do, and I perceive this to be a very serious threat to the meaning of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Joseph,
You’re misunderstanding RvW.
You said, “The right to privacy is implied in the constitution. The right of a woman to make private medical choices that will effect her life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is implied in the implied right to privacy.”

Where does the constitution mention any of these things?

One document does. The Deceleration of Independence. It says:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The constitution, not the DoI, is the law of the land. Neither of them mentions a right to privacy.

If you’re going to interpret the constitution (wrongly) based on the DoI, as you seem to want, you have to recognize that it says life is a self-evident, unalienable right. You must also acknowledge the use of the word “creator.”

Hey Briggsy, you’re on a roll. That last post said it much better than I could have.

Adrienne,

“People can do many bad things in their lives, but can and will be forgiven if they engage in this relationship with Christ.”
And I think that is xenophobic and naive - and again, we don’t have to agree.

People are xenophobic because they believe God forgives sins????

What to you mean by “charity without compassion?” That Christianity is all for show? You don’t know why other people do things.
You’ve said some very consenting things for someone who claims to believe in the First Amendment. Nobody is “foaming at the mouth.”
You seem to be implying that only atheists should be involved in government and that anyone else is a threat.
You are a prime example of the intolerance we discussed earlier. I’m sure people told you about their religion, as is their right. And I’m sure you ignored them, as is your right. But I’m willing to guess that no one ever tried to force you to become a Christian. So why do you have such a problem?

I think a lot of people posting here need to realize that not all right-wingers are Christians and not all left-wingers are atheists.
Not everyone bases their values on religion or the lack thereof.

Traveler, you’re right. And the fact is that we will probably never agree whether abortion is wrong or right because we see it from completely different angles. It would be a more interesting conversation, however, if we could try to acknowledge each others’ validity rather than being dismissive.

Adrienne:

By using the terminology that you have (“foaming at the mouth, nutty, ridiculous, naive, and fanatical”), you have also impugned the intelligence of this group. I personally don’t know many nutty, ridiculous, naive, fanatical AND INTELLIGENT people——do you?

As far as your anecdotal examples of what you have heard from evangelical Christians, I would challenge you to truly understand what the beliefs are, rather than simply negatively taking some comments as the entire truth. Perhaps those people were not exhibiting their beliefs well, perhaps they dont really believe what evangelical Christians believe, perhaps you misunderstood their intent….I dont know which of these applies.

What I DO know is that what you believe evangelical Christianity to be is not very close at all to what it really is. Its about as correct as if I were to base an assessment of Islam on the terrorists who espouse Islam. It wouldnt be correct. You are free to hold to your idea of what Christianity is, but I’d urge ou to understand it more completely before claiming to know all about it.

As far as our Founding Fathers, they believed strongly in God, and were against government prohibiting their freedom of religion. We have come to a point where freedom of religion is denied in public settings. People have become confused on one major issue here: To allow someone to practice their religion is not the same as condoning that religion.

High school valedictorians are prohibited from invoking God in their valedictory speeches. Why??? Because some feel that this would be taken as the school condoning religion. They are mistaken. It is the school allowing the valedictorian to say what he/she feels. The school is neither condoning nor denying what is said, but rather simply allowing it to be freely expressed.

What a quagmire this thread has become ;). It may take me a while to get through all of this. But for now…

TheTraveler,

You said, “The difference is those on the left usually try to use facts and reason rather than superstition and faith.”

Really? What about the abortion dispute?
The only real argument for it is, “a woman has a right to chose because it is inside her body.”
The only real argument against it is, “abortion is murder.”
These are BOTH based on beliefs, not facts.

Fact: women are guaranteed rights as natural born persons. Fact: a fetus is not, by definition, a natural born person. Fact: abortion is a term used to describe the act of destroying a fetus while still in the womb. Fact: murder is the term for the willful killing of a person.

And as long as we are trying to be tolerant, I suggest you take back your use of the word ‘superstition.’ You see? You have a right not to agree with religious people. The intolerance comes when you berate them for it. After all, you can’t prove scientifically that there is no God to believe in. Also, people are not necessarily religious just because they have right-wing viewpoints.

I don’t mean to berate when I use the word, ‘superstition,’ I mean to be exact. Institutional Christianity is based on fear of the unknown, a trust in the magic of Yawey, and an ignorance of the antecedents of their mythology. Here, too, ‘ignorance’ is not used in derision, just as fact. Our understanding of Babylonian and Sumerian mythology has only come about in the last century, and most Christians do not know or understand the relationship these myths have to their own.

Beagle,

Now its too easy to think that the other person fears your opinions or lifestyle, it might just be that you fear theirs also.

[…] Get over your own personal fears, learn to understand other people and views, you dont have to change your personal views, just make an atempt to understand other views.

History has taught me to fear Christianity and all religions as they (try to) apply to government. I don’t base my fear on their beliefs, I base it on their actions. Our separation of church and state was put in place to explicitly avoid the tyranny of religion over government. I’ve spent many years studying the Bible, Christianity in general, and other religions of the world throughout history. I’ve made every attempt to understand their views.

jbod —

I’m reminded of the recent court battle over Ohio’s state motto, “With God All Things Are Possible.” It’s not new (or really all that inspiring, in my opinion) but somebody apparently got worked up enough over it to file a suit. That’s the sort of “eradication of religion” mentality you’re talking about, right? That mindset scares me just as much as any religious fanatacism does.

Joseph,

I don’t mean to berate when I use the word, ‘superstition,’ I mean to be exact. Institutional Christianity is based on fear of the unknown, a trust in the magic of Yawey, and an ignorance of the antecedents of their mythology. Here, too, ‘ignorance’ is not used in derision, just as fact. Our understanding of Babylonian and Sumerian mythology has only come about in the last century, and most Christians do not know or understand the relationship these myths have to their own.

Wow, You’re insulting people’s beliefs in the same paragraph you’re using to say you’re not!

“Fact: women are guaranteed rights as natural born persons. Fact: a fetus is not, by definition, a natural born person. Fact: abortion is a term used to describe the act of destroying a fetus while still in the womb. Fact: murder is the term for the willful killing of a person.”

I agree.
But think about what you’re saying. You said the fetus is not a natural born person. You did not say it was not a person. You’ve already admited you don’t know what it is scientifically. So your argument is based on the use of the term “natural born.”

So I guess I’m asking what your defination of natural born is.

TheTraveler,

You said, “The right to privacy is implied in the constitution. The right of a woman to make private medical choices that will effect her life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is implied in the implied right to privacy.”

Where does the constitution mention any of these things?

Please. I was addressing Jack’s assertion that abortion became a specific and singular right under the penumbra of the constitution due to the Roe v Wade decision. This means the decision was based on what is seen as implied in the constitution. Now, look over my statement you quote again.

Joseph,
I’m sorry if I misunderstood you.
I’d like to read your reaction to my other remarks, though.

This is a little off-topic, but illustrates why I fear Bush. I think he bases his decisions on faith, not on truth. The following quote is from Science, Vol 305, Issue 5692, 1873 , 24 September 2004

“U.S. policy with respect to HIV/AIDS is a case in point. The virus is spreading at an alarming rate, devastating Africa and now making horrifying inroads into the teeming continent of Asia. Stopping the spread, especially among the youngest and most productive members of society, should be the highest international priority. With a vaccine far in the future, stemming the tide requires that we educate people to protect themselves; and although abstinence and fidelity prevent exposure to HIV, under most circumstances the only safe and effective protection is condoms.

Initially, the Bush administration gave scant recognition to the protective value of condom use. The Centers for Disease Control Web site (which was once changed to suggest, incorrectly, a possible relation between abortion history and breast cancer) contains a confusing mixture: some emphasis on condom failure rates and a plug for abstinence. Complaints apparently led to the addition of a positive statement about condom effectiveness. The U.S. Agency for International Development now promotes condom use. But the emphasis is on use in selected target populations, although the value of much more widespread use has been demonstrated repeatedly in scientific studies.”

Now, I am religious and don’t want to see the government passing out condoms to my kids. However, I think that in Africa, where HIV is decimating the population and there is not really time for a massive, continent-wide abstinance campaign (assuming that abstinence campaigns work), the most effective methods of fighting the disease should be used.

Another example of this kind of thinking can be found in how the administration approaches climate change. This time, the motivation is not “values”, but corporate policy. Bush decided that the greenhouse effect was unproven and refused to hear any mention of the greenhouse effect from the EPA, despite the consensus among scientists that greenhouse gasses are in fact leading to climate change. He makes up his mind, then doesn’t allow any facts to change it for him.

A third example is my least favorite, the war in Iraq, which has been discussed at length elsewhere. Bush believes that God told him to go to war, so no actual facts were going to change his mind, and he actively resisted any information that said we should not go, that it may be harder than he thought, that the Iraqi people would not strew our path with flowers, etc.

Now, I am religious. I think faith is valuable and I value mine highly. However, I don’t think that having faith precludes having an open mind to the truth, especially in secular matters.
I live in OK, and I was listening to Tom Coburn (ultraconservative) debate Brad Carson (moderate Democrat). Carson said that the best way to improve Oklahoma was to improve the educational system. Coburn said, no, we need to strengthen our families, then everything else will fall into place. He got the biggest cheer of the night. I just wanted to say “Oklahoma has the biggest emphasis on “family values” of any state! It is the most conservative place I have ever been! how on earth is increased talk about values going to fix this place?” It was just a huge example to me of the idea that “I have faith, I will follow it and it will turn out great, despite all evidence to the contrary”

I know this post has been long and not really on topic. I’m just hoping that the faithful (of both sides) can turn off their preconceived notions and examine objective evidence, at least when it comes to matters of policy.

Traveler:

“People are xenophobic because they believe God forgives sins????”

No, xenophobic because: “People can do many bad things in their lives, but can and will be forgiven if they engage in this relationship with Christ.”

“What to you mean by “charity without compassion?”“

I mean going through the motions of kindness while feeling anything but kind while doing so.

“That Christianity is all for show?”

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t, in my opinion.

“You don’t know why other people do things.”

No, but I can take a stab at guessing.

“You’ve said some very consenting things for someone who claims to believe in the First Amendment.”

By “consenting things” do you mean agreeable things? If so, great, glad someone agrees with me.

“Nobody is “foaming at the mouth.”

Oh yes, some definitely foam. Maybe you just haven’t met them yet, but they’re out there!

“You seem to be implying that only atheists should be involved in government and that anyone else is a threat.”

I’m implying nothing, I’m saying straight out that the government was designed as a secular entity rather than as a religious entity, and that religious judgements belong to the members of religious congregations, but should never be inforced upon the society as a whole. And if they are, then the words Liberty and Freedom mean nothing at all in America.

Btw, I’m not an atheist, I’m agnostic. In other words: God is unknowable. Also: philosophy good, dogma bad.

“You are a prime example of the intolerance we discussed earlier.”

No doubt it makes you happy to think so.

“I’m sure people told you about their religion, as is their right. And I’m sure you ignored them, as is your right.”

Often with religious people you’re not allowed to ignore them. You’re forced to walk away in order to escape the self-righteous preaching.

“But I’m willing to guess that no one ever tried to force you to become a Christian.”

I had to go to mass every Sunday until I left home at eighteen.

“So why do you have such a problem?”

My problem is in watching the abolishment of the founding American principle of the Separation of Church and State.

And what is your problem, exactly?

pooleb,
Bush’s position on HIV isn’t going to have much of an effect on it. Both abstinance and condoms are ways to help. I think they both should be tought, as they are. This is what President Bush is doing. And he has increased funding by massive amounts. So I’m not sure what your problem is. I’m not sure what all this has to do with his religion either.

“Bush decided that the greenhouse effect was unproven and refused to hear any mention of the greenhouse effect from the EPA, despite the consensus among scientists that greenhouse gasses are in fact leading to climate change.”
If you look at his record, Bush has worked to reduce emissions.
Bush never said “God told him to go to war.” Now you’re just making stuff up.
You’re right about being off topic. We’re trying to have serious debates here. If you are only here to flame the president, I suggest you do it on another thred.

Fact: women are guaranteed rights as natural born persons. Fact: a fetus is not, by definition, a natural born person. Fact: abortion is a term used to describe the act of destroying a fetus while still in the womb. Fact: murder is the term for the willful killing of a person.

Fact: you’re over-specifying life to persons who are already born when we don’t know that is necessarily true. Although a fetus is not born we do not know if it has life and therefore constitutionally guaranteed rights. Since we do not know, we must make a decision about whether or not to grant them a right to life. I think yes, you think no, but don’t act as though your reasoning is based completely in fact and logic, and mine is not at all.

I don’t mean to berate when I use the word, ‘superstition,’ I mean to be exact. Institutional Christianity is based on fear of the unknown, a trust in the magic of Yawey, and an ignorance of the antecedents of their mythology. Here, too, ‘ignorance’ is not used in derision, just as fact. Our understanding of Babylonian and Sumerian mythology has only come about in the last century, and most Christians do not know or understand the relationship these myths have to their own.

Christianity is not fear based, in personal or institutional form. Just because some Christians have used scare tactics to win converts doesn’t mean that’s what the faith is based in. I’m not sure what other support you have for Christianity being based in fear of the unknown.

As far as ignorance, its not as though we know whether or not these other belief systems did or to what extent affect the beginnings of Jewish heritage. However Christianity radically changed the system of the Jews, and as such its foundations are not those of Jewish culture.

As a result, without the inaccurate descriptions of the origins of Christianity, we can see that it is founded not in fear, or in ignorance, and therefore by definition not a superstition, but a solid belief system.

Religions based in superstition do not last long, certainly not 2000 years. All it takes is one logically thinking person to explain the unexplained, and the belief system will collapse. The longevity of the Christian faith speaks to its nature as a solid system of faith, and not some ignorant mob of persons afraid of going to hell. Not that those people don’t exist within the faith, but that they don’t represent mainstream Christianity.

All it takes is one logically thinking person to explain the unexplained, and the belief system will collapse.

I think what you actually mean is prove the unexplained, because if the above statement were really true everybody would be in my camp, and they ain’t, by a long shot.

Yes, good point. I meant as though in a situation with persons isolated from science, and someone explaining why the sun rises and sets.

jbod:
“I personally don’t know many nutty, ridiculous, naive, fanatical AND INTELLIGENT people——do you?”

Yes! I grew up in Princeton, New Jersey not far from the University, and I attended there. People can be _bloody brilliant_ and also be all of those things!

“You are free to hold to your idea of what Christianity is, but I’d urge ou to understand it more completely before claiming to know all about it.”

I know plenty about Christianity. And I wasn’t dissing it as a whole - just the Evangelical variety, because of their extreme views.

“As far as our Founding Fathers, they believed strongly in God,”

Some did, some didn’t.

“and were against government prohibiting their freedom of religion.”

Yes, and against government imposing religion on the people.

“We have come to a point where freedom of religion is denied in public settings.”

That is because We the People have never demanded that religious observances be included in public spaces, until now. But it is clear that our founders didn’t think religion belonged in public settings. If they had wanted this to be case they could have and would have written religious doctrine right into the constitution of our government. They chose not to because the concept of liberty is a universal one and can be viewed completely separate from any religion.

George
“Thank you Jack and kctim for showing some of the hypocrisy in these arguments.”

Apparently, this hypocrisy can’t be defended either.
Instead of SEEING the error, the extreme left chooses to IGNORE it. Typical!

Traveller,
I’m not that off topic. I just provided a few examples of how faith shouldn’t always be applied to policy decisions, and the danger of thinking you know all the answers before you start looking, which I see as kind of a problem for people who value faith above all else. Bush said he consulted “a higher father” before going to war. What do you think that means? I use Bush as an example because he’s the one in power making these kinds of decisions.

Adrienne:

Actually you proved my statement wrong. And I’ll admit, you are intelligent too, and thereby provide additional proof.

That is because We the People have never demanded that religious observances be included in public spaces, until now. But it is clear that our founders didn’t think religion belonged in public settings.

You are quite incorrect on this. For years and years, prayer has been offered in the public halls of Congress, Christmas trees and Hanukkah candles have brightened public squares, and even our money proclaims God. Religion was accepted in public places because it was seen that in doing so, the government did not necessarily sponsor the specific religion, but most certainly did condone it.

You are right that change has occurred though. Now it is not acceptable to pray in public, nor to speak of God in a valedictory address, nor draw pictures in school that have Jesus in the picture, even as a part of an assignment. Religion is now being EXcluded, where as before it was included, but not sponsored. Therein lies the flaw in your reasoning.

Alejo:

You provided a perfect example to the kind of religious exclusion that is going on today. And I’d agree with you that both sides can be scary.

Adrienne:

I put a “ha ha” in parentheses after my comment about your intelligence, and the implication of what goes along with it. No offense intended—-ah hell, a little offense was intended, but only in fun.

Adrienne,
I think one paragraph you wrote sums up what you think:

I’m implying nothing, I’m saying straight out that the government was designed as a secular entity rather than as a religious entity, and that religious judgements belong to the members of religious congregations, but should never be inforced upon the society as a whole. And if they are, then the words Liberty and Freedom mean nothing at all in America.

I agree 100%. The government should never force a religion on people or keep them from practicing one(first amendment). But like I said before, I don’t see that happening through President Bush or anyone else.

And I agree that Christians aren’t perfect. But there’s really no reason for condescension. (that reminds me, I meant condescending not consenting earlier, by the way).

Most people think they are better than everyone else, whether they have religion or not. It’s called ego, and I’m afraid there’s not much we can do about it.
If you don’t like what people around you are saying about religion or anything else, asking them politely to leave you alone usually works.
But remember, freedom of speech is also a founding principle.

I had no intention of lowering myself into this discussion, but having read the entirety thereof, I’d feel cheated if I didn’t get my two cents in.

A number of you have discussed at length why or why not non-religious people should fear a continuing Bush presidency. While it is true that some religious politicians (such as the Texas Board of Ed) spread their own beliefs in the educational system, this is generally at the local level, and almost never federally. Nationally, Christian conservatives have been largely concerned with preventing change, not creating it, and more concerned with domestic than international legislation.

What did Bush do on religious items in his first term? He created Faith-Based Initiatives. As much as one may disagree with this legislation, it’s fairly innocuous. Similar to the stem-cell debate, it concerns federal funding, not legality and illegality of any activity.

Bush’s views on terrorism & the ‘clash of civilizations’ are often credited to his religion. However, if you look at the most hawkish elements of his administration, they are mostly Jewish and/or agnostic. This is an issue that stems from a worldview that overlaps sometimes with Christianity, but sometimes not.

Only with the HIV/AIDS funding for Africa did faith play a major role in international policy. As the first of any major initiative to fund treatment as well as prevention, it approached the issue from a “dignity” or “culture of life” standpoint, rather than one of pragmatics or economics.

TheTraveler,

I don’t mean to berate when I use the word, ‘superstition,’ I mean to be exact. Institutional Christianity is based on fear of the unknown, a trust in the magic of Yawey, and an ignorance of the antecedents of their mythology. Here, too, ‘ignorance’ is not used in derision, just as fact. Our understanding of Babylonian and Sumerian mythology has only come about in the last century, and most Christians do not know or understand the relationship these myths have to their own.

Wow, You’re insulting people’s beliefs in the same paragraph you’re using to say you’re not!

Do you think it an insult to assert that Institutional Christianity is based on fear of the unknown? A trust in the magic of Yawey? Or the lack of historical context? Or maybe calling them myths? Or saying the myths are derived from Sumeria?

All religion is based on fear and fear of the unknown. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s just a simple consequence of starting out with no claws, weak teeth, no fur, and an upright posture that exposes our most vulnerable parts.

Do you not like that I characterize Yawey’s alleged omnipotence as magic? From a secular POV, what should I call it? Advanced alien technology?

Lack of historical context got you down? Quick quiz for Christians: Name the Sumerian person/character who is the basis for the myth of Noah. I’ll accept his Sumerian or his Akkadian name. What is the Sumerian word for ‘wilderness?’ Give me the timeframe between the origins of these stories and the invention of the written word. Has Judaism been monotheistic from its beginnings? Who is the prophet who brought monotheism into the Jewish faith? Who was the first historical monotheist? Hint: he wasn’t Jewish or Christian. Bonus points if you can name his famous family members.

“Fact: women are guaranteed rights as natural born persons. Fact: a fetus is not, by definition, a natural born person. Fact: abortion is a term used to describe the act of destroying a fetus while still in the womb. Fact: murder is the term for the willful killing of a person.”

I agree.
But think about what you’re saying. You said the fetus is not a natural born person. You did not say it was not a person. You’ve already admited you don’t know what it is scientifically. So your argument is based on the use of the term “natural born.”

So I guess I’m asking what your defination of natural born is.

Birth has been, historically, the marker of the beginning of life. The inherent rights of all individuals is based upon the notion of natural born persons. I do know what a fetus is, scientifically: it’s a fetus. It is not a person, given that it hasn’t been born. I know, this is a traditionalist view but I feel it necessary to avoid debilitating legal contortions. I value life but I don’t value it so much so that I am willing to rescind the rights of an existing person for the sake of an ideology. Face it, we’re mulch. Life is a gory business. A demonstrated value of life is not achieved through the criminalization of abortion. There are better ways to express such sanctity. Anti-abortionists value their ideology more than they do the real individuals involved in these traumatic choices. I prefer to value the life at hand. It’s too easy to say, every human life counts. It’s much harder to mean it and act on it. It’s too easy to criminalize abortion, it’s much harder to address the real reasons why it happens and find solutions.

(Now to try to catch up with this thread again.)

Pooleb,
The examples you gave don’t have any thing to do with President Bush’s religion, except for the one about the war.
If I was about to send troops into battle, I’d pray too! As I’m sure most people would.
But Bush never said God told him to go to war, as you quoted him, so it’s kind of a non-issue.
Following religious values and imposing a religion are two very different things.

Adrienne