April 14, 2006
America's Increasingly Religious Nature
Many liberals are hoping that recent polls mean that the attitude of America is moving away from the right. However, a recent study conducted by Harvard social scientists shows that America’s youth is becoming more religious and their political views are changing accordingly.
The study suggests that the 2008 election will turn, increasingly so, on the religious and moral character of the candidate. The Republican Party will have a chance to maintain its mandate by continuing to advance morally correct messages and to factor in the role of god into our lives.
What this may mean is that although people have demonstrated some frustration with current affairs, they are still calling out for a party that cares about God and the role that religious doctrine plays in guiding our country's moral character. Good news for the party that is guided by a mission of morality. Bad news for the party that has yet to find its own sense of morality and is often reduced to the "we're not Republicans" campaign strategy. No matter what party is holding office, I think it is becoming clear that America is demanding that their statesmen be of a moral character and be more in line with the religious nature of this country.
Posted by Xander Jones at April 14, 2006 12:55 AMOverall, the youthful voting bloc is 32 percent Democrat, 24 percent Republican and 41 percent independent or unaffiliated. In addition, 44 percent are “traditional” liberals and 16 percent “traditional” conservatives
A breakdown of collegiate party preferences reveals further complexities. Republicans are composed of 34 percent traditional conservatives, 30 percent religious centrists, 20 percent secular centrists and 16 percent who consider themselves traditional liberals. Among Democrats, 59 percent are traditional liberals, 24 percent are religious centrists, 9 percent secular centrists and 7 percent are traditional conservatives.
I wouldn’t count too much on this helping Republicans from what I read.
Posted by: womanmarine at April 14, 2006 01:41 AM
Xander,
Your link is to an article from the Washington Times, which is Reverend Moon’s newspaper. When you advocate ‘moral character’ and ‘religious nature,’ are you covertly advocating that we all become Moonies? Just wondering.
You know, some Republicans are evangelical Christians. They don’t know about the Washington Times, and Reverend Moon’s Unification Church. Many Republicans, especially Republican Christians, dislike cults. They would resent it if they knew you were slipping them Reverend Moon’s opinions through the paper he founded, the Washington Times.
Here is a really choice quote from Wikipedia’s article on Reverend Moon, and his newspaper, the Washington Times:
“Moon announced that he would save everyone on Earth as he had saved the souls of even such murderous dictators as Hitler and Stalin, who he claimed had received ‘the Blessing’ through him. Moon said the reformed Hitler and Stalin vouched for him from the spirit world, calling him ‘none other than humanity’s Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent’. [10]
The media ignored the event at the time except for Moon’s Washington Times…”
Look, if you’re a Moonie, that’s fine. If you want to cite the Moonie newspaper, that’s fine too. But as a matter of honesty, you owe it to the people who read this site, to clearly state it, and let them know you’re citing Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s newspaper, especially when you start talking about how Americans are becoming more religious.
womanmarine,
It’s funny how you left out the part about “Secular Centrists” being the LEAST LIKELY TO VOTE. It was right in between the first part you quoted and the second. Good spin!!
Posted by: Duano at April 14, 2006 01:46 AMHa, no covert “Moonie” message intended. Simply providing the hyperlink which provided the most detailed description of the Harvard conducted study.
Posted by: Xander Jones at April 14, 2006 01:49 AMXander,
Didn’t think so, since I looked at what your wrote on another site, and you strike me as a reasonable person. I’m sure you already took the point- since respectable journalists don’t work for the Washinton Times, anyone using the Times as a resource should be… well, very cautious, especially when the topic is religion.
Duano:
Sorry, it wasn’t meant as spin, I was trying not to quote too much, just enough for folks to go read it.
Posted by: womanmarine at April 14, 2006 02:06 AMDuano:
You’ll notice they are included in the numbers I DID quote. I was hoping to pique curiosity so folks would go read the thing.
I stand by my assessment of the information.
Posted by: womanmarine at April 14, 2006 02:07 AMWomanmarine,
You’re right that the new religious character of America’s youth wont have a large immediate impact (although I think it will have some immediate impact), but todays college grads are tomorrow’s voting public. I think its significant that the traditionally secular group is becoming increasingly religious minded.
Posted by: Xander Jones at April 14, 2006 02:35 AMXander,
Even if young people are becoming more “religious”, there is not necessarily a correlation between that and their voting stance. There are quite a few religious organizations out there which are leftist in nature. I know it’s hard for the religious right to believe, but many on the left are religious, too. Really.
Also, the way that younger voters percieve and react to political stimuli is in many ways different than the voting patterns of older voters. They have widely differing issues which affect them, hence their party affiliation may not be based simply on moral issues. Furthermore, older and younger people commonly disagree about the substance and import of “moral issues”. Younger people, in general, are more tolerant and open-minded than their older counterparts.
Actually, it sounds like you are way out of touch with the feeling of young Americans these days. They’re not as simple as you might believe.
My suggestion: If you want to know what is really going on with the youth of America, try hanging out with them a little rather than depending on scientific studies for your information.
Had you done that your post might be a little more realistic.
Posted by: Beijing Rob at April 14, 2006 05:14 AMI recently disected a Youth Of America, in order to discover what gives it that peculiar smell… I hope that Beijing Rob’s obvious bias against Scientific Inquiry won’t preclude him from considering my findings!
Based upon my analysis of the Youth (my protocols included infrared electrospectrometry and a Taste Test), my conclusions are that the Youth Of America was comprised of the following:
Oxygen - 42.0%
Carbon - 12.8%
Ignorance - 11.4%
Hydrogen - 7.5%
Angst - 7.2%
Nitrogen - 4.5%
Hip-Hop - 3.2%
Calcium - 2.1%
Tetrahydrocannabinol - 2.4%
Phosphorus - 2.1%
Gasoline Fumes - 1.5%
Dirty Laundry - 1.4%
Grunge - 1.2%
Potassium - 0.4%
Teen Spirit - 0.3%
Surprisingly, no Religion (as such) was found in my initial results; however, after careful analysis I have determined that the combination of Ignorance, Angst, and Dirty Laundry within the peculiar bioelectric field generated by the Youth Of America yields an isomer of Religion, known as Callowfervour(14-18), which mimics adult Religion to the untrained eye.
The peculiar smell referenced above comes from Teen Spirit, as determined by the Taste Test.
From my personal experience, I think political identification with the right is not a necessary consequence of spiritual awakening.
The Right has done a poor job of expressing religious values. Their primary public expression of it deals with regulating reproduction and sexuality. Dealing with your sexuality in a moral manner is part of Christianity and other religions, but it is merely part. We’ve badly neglected much of the teachings of Christianity and other religions, forgetting lessons about things so simple as basic human kindness, charity, humility, and the fallible nature of mankind.
It is not inconsistent to be both religious and a liberal, if you define liberalism as giving people the freedom to choose their own way in life. One can take a firm but merciful stance on matters of crime. One can fight dishonesty and thievery in the halls of power and elsewhere. One can fight corruption and excessive influence by the powerful that harms the average citizen. All those are consistent with a different kind of conservatism: one of basic values.
That’s what the Republican Party has lost in its blind quest to gain the power to win the culture wars. It’s lost sight of the truth that in focusing on these few divisive religious values, they’ve forgotten a number of values that Americans could easily hold in common, and whose conservation, as it is, would do the country good.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 14, 2006 07:26 AMSo when one becomes a Republican do they also inherite the kingdom of heaven? Or is it when one obtains salvation they inherit the republican party?
Excuse me, but the premise of this article is complete bull. I am a Christian and I am more left than right on issues and I’m certainly no Republican. Yes, there are some fundamentalist of certian demoninations of Christianity that feel that they must be republicans based on a single issue….abortion. Anyone that votes based on a single issue only, in my opinion, is shallow at best.
As far as the Republican party goes; one only need to read the news to find out just how “moral” this party is.
Posted by: Tom L at April 14, 2006 09:14 AMIt seems as if you dance around the real reasons for conservative Christians voting Republican. ABORTION and the traditional moral values that you cannot seperate from us in any election.
Liberal Christians evidently do not see the slaying of our most innocent and defenseless citizens as abhorent.
All we see out of the Democratic party is ACLU, move on. org, liberal judges that consistently bend laws trying to make us more ‘European’, leniency with violent crminals, pandering to the ‘reverse racists’ and the ultimate relinquishing of our military power because they view our desire to defend ourselves as somehow evil.
Next, we see the Democrats taking both sides on the illegal alien issue that threatens our very sovereignty.
To add to this, they have so derided the liberation of Iraq that no one dare speak honestly about what needs done in Iran.
Perhaps the Eurowenies can handle this one?
Most people in this country are Christian but their practice and religiousity vary. They do not hold extreme social views. Social conservatives and the religious right do not represent the majority of Christians in this country, but they are the most organized voting bloc and very influential in the Republican party. We see John McCain courting them. Politicizing moral values makes people feel good, but does not get them security and/or improve the economy. This election the Republicans have no credibility on morality. Just look at DeLay, Abramoff, Bush Administration deceptions. The Emperor’s clothes are off.
Posted by: Steve at April 14, 2006 09:45 AMthe people … are still calling out for a party that cares about God and the role that religious doctrine plays in guiding our country’s moral character.
You want to know what it will be like if we have ‘religious doctrine’ as the law of the land, read A Pro-Life Nation in this week’s New York Times magazine. The article chronicles how El Salvador enforces its ban on abortion. Scary reading. And then tell me that this is the kind of ‘moral character’ we are talking about here.
Posted by: Steve K at April 14, 2006 09:48 AMLiberal Christians evidently do not see the slaying of our most innocent and defenseless citizens as abhorent
So tell me, Rex, which candidate you support advocates comprehensive, universal health care for children under five years of age? I assume those are the citizens you are referring to.
Posted by: Steve K at April 14, 2006 09:52 AMWomanmarine,
“44 percent are “traditional” liberals and 16 percent “traditional” conservatives”
The thing is, “traditional” liberals are (certainly) not “today’s” liberals. Today’s liberals are the socialist party or one that is more affiliated with Western Europe (Worthless!).
Look at the south; they’ve “traditionally” voted democrat; yet, now the south (predominately) votes republican.
Posted by: rahdigly at April 14, 2006 10:04 AMToday’s liberals are the socialist party …
Define socialist. Tell me specific legislation they produce that ‘non-socialists’ do not.
Posted by: Steve K at April 14, 2006 10:11 AMsocialism like the drug prescription coverage just passed by this administration and this congress? This is undboubtably the most expensive socialist program that has ever been passed….by Republicans!
There’s really little difference between the parties….
Posted by: Tom l at April 14, 2006 10:17 AMIn lieu of intelligent comments lets all call each other socialist, that will help the otherwise intelligent discussion going on.
Posted by: j2t2 at April 14, 2006 10:34 AMRex-
It’s unfortunate, really. You would expect one of the leading bloggers on the Blue Column to be an Atheist. You would expect him to be pro-choice. You would expect him to be a europhile aiming to hamstring America’s military power and lose us wars.
I write here as an example of how the Democratic Party of today transcends the cliched stereotypes that the Republicans have been using as their Straw Man for ages.
On the topic of Abortion, I am pro-life. I take the systemic view on that, though.
I believe it that people have become too unforgiving and shrill about it, making it very difficult for those who aren’t predisposed to the notion of humanity from conception to sympathize with our view.
To those who believe humanity develops in a child, the zealous anger and hatred seems a contradiction of a religion that is supposed to be forgiving and peaceful. Since they don’t see embryos and fetuses as human yet, they feel doubly offended at the moral high dudgeon many abortion opponents get into. This is why pro-choice folks enjoy the majority on this subject.
Additionally, there is a question of the law. Abortion is supported under the concept of medical privacy- that medical decisions belong to the patient under a condition of informed consent. If the law considers the child part of the mother, which the scientific argument could be made is the case, then abortion is covered as a mother’s medical decision. Abortion is not the only thing that medical privacy covers, though. It prevents forced sterilizations and abortions as well. If we damage medical privacy, the unscrupulous could do harm to the innocent under the cover of law once more.
Abortion must be ended in such a way that the unwanted children are taken care of, Medical privacy is protected, and that people understand the sense of our moral objections, rather than thinking we’re a bunch of power-hungry hypocrites looking to control their lives.
As for Europe? Let them mind their own business, and we ours. We have many interests in common, share a largely capitalist economy, and a tradition of law and human rights that goes back centuries. They’ve got their share of important thinkers, we’ve got ours. America does not need to throw childish insults across the Atlantic at historic allies to maintain its integrity and independence of thought.
As for violent crime, I think you’re off the mark. Both criminals and those who pursue them need to be kept in check, because the power to take away freedom in a society like ours is not one to be arbitrarily given. If our “liberal” justice system and our “liberal” judges are causing a problem, overbearing control of the judiciary is not the answer. It will only make things worse, in fact. Legislation needs to be clarifying and optimizing rules of evidence and procedures for police work.
To overlook the need for checks and balances with law enforcement is to ignore some of the fundamental amendments to the constitution and their purpose. A black person shouldn’t be suspected instantly of stealing a car just because the one they’re riding in is nice. Opposing racial profiling is not being politically correct, it’s being just under our laws. I think we generate a great deal of unnecessary pain and suffering through our fear, and I think its time we let go of it and relax.
You want the honest truth? I was for liberating Iraq. The way Bush went about it, though, was wrong, and it has cost us unnecessarily. He failed to give our nation the solid factual foundation for going to war that would justify the pre-emptive action we took. He failed to plan for an aftermath to this war that didn’t fit his own fantasies (and that of his advisors) as to what would happen post-war. As a result, our invasion was only the prelude to a fiercer bloodier war, not the majority of the conflict itself. He’s failed consistently as well to make sure our soldiers had what they need to complete this mission.
And now he wants to fight in Iran? Maybe that will be necessary. But if we really are Christians, we will try and be peacemakers first, warriors second. I have no doubt we could win such a war if we had to. Bush’s wasteful approach to this last war, though, has eaten up a great deal of resources, and left our volunteer army in a state of unreadiness for the next war.
Ultimately, as a Liberal Christian, I see an administration lacking in responsible principles. It is so intent on taking back government from the liberals, so intent on realizing it’s wishlist of policies, that it is not counting the cost nor revisiting the wisdom of its plans.
Truly moral behavior is best expressed when a person understands that they do not act in a vacuum, but that their behavior has consequences for others. True morality recognizes that even with the best intentions and ideals we can stray, and that in fact they can blind us to what really is the moral course of action if we pursue those intentions and ideals blindly and selfishly.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 14, 2006 10:35 AMSteve,
“Define socialist. Tell me specific legislation they produce that ‘non-socialists’ do not…which candidate you support advocates comprehensive, universal health care for children under five years of age? I assume those are the citizens you are referring to.”
Now, “Universal Healthcare” is a good example of socialism; especially, when it is financed through the gov’t. So, not only did you help define what socialism is; you changed the subject instead of dealing with the issue head on. First, focus, then you can go on with your Universal health care for kids. Rex made a good point; the liberals are dancing around the moral issues.
rahdigly,
I guess this means you have zero moral problems if children go without health care?
I’m getting right back to the initial topic of this post: religious values. The self-described ‘values voters’ appear to draw the line when something is proposed that actually helps the poor, innocent, and defenseless if it might fall under the label of ‘socialism.’
Posted by: Steve K at April 14, 2006 10:53 AMStephen,
“And now he wants to fight in Iran? Maybe that will be necessary. But if we really are Christians, we will try and be peacemakers first, warriors second.”
Uhh, Stephen, we’ve been diplomatic with Iran close to a year now. It won’t take much longer to figure out that those nutcases will not comply with anybody and we’ll end up bombing the crap out of them.
Xander, good post. When you say statesmen please tell me you are not referring to the politicians of today.
” A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman thinks of the next generation” James Freeman Clarke
In recent years some of the churches have been actively pursuing the teens and young adults by changing the way they operate- rock type bands, sermons updated for today etc. I think they deserve credit for some of this new interest in religion and spirituality.
Gee, rahdigly, a whole year of diplomacy. Well, I bet our mature, statesman-like president is just plum worn out by now.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at April 14, 2006 12:53 PMrahdigly,
“It won’t take much longer to figure out that those nutcases will not comply with anybody and we’ll end up bombing the crap out of them.”
And with diplomacy like that we’re really going places.
“The thing is, “traditional” liberals are (certainly) not “today’s” liberals. Today’s liberals are the socialist party or one that is more affiliated with Western Europe (Worthless!).”
The right in this country want it six ways from sunday.
You want to talk about “socialism” look at any of today’s religions.
The Republicans decry “socialism” until it fits their adgenda, and then they put forth socialist programs just like the Democrats.
It’s about the votes, and nothing else.
Yo mental wimp, you’ll (eventually) see that you can’t (CAN’T) negotiate with psychos. Corrupt leaders yes, but tyrants that are “hell-bent” on destroying the world, uhh don’t think so. “Not, even close, bud”.
Yo, rahdigly,
“Yo mental wimp, you’ll (eventually) see that you can’t (CAN’T) negotiate with psychos. Corrupt leaders yes, but tyrants that are ‘hell-bent’ on destroying the world, uhh don’t think so. ‘Not, even close, bud”.”
Everybody has a price, we just haven’t found it yet.
Republicans are the party of morality? What have you been smokin’? The Republican President lies and people die. The Republican Congress has put American on the auction block to the highest bidder and lines their pockets with bribes. They cut programs to help the poor and line the pockets of the wealthy. Are these the morals you’re talking about? Just because the President hasn’t gotten a blow job in the oval office (that we know of) doesn’t make him a moral man.
Neither side sees morality in the same way. The right seems to view morality in the context of sex, while the left seems to view morality in the context of helping others. You call it socialism, but read the Bible and see what it says about it.
Take the story of Sodom for example. The right insists that the city was destroyed because of homosexuality. The left, on the other hand, sees Sodom as being destoyed because it’s citizens didn’t take care of the needy and poor. Funny thing is, the Bible clearly states that Sodom was destroyed because it neglected the needy and poor and makes no mention of homosexuality at all.
So why is it that the right is so fixated on sex, while leaving all other forms of morality behind?
You may celebrate the day when the Government decides morals and enforces those morals on the masses, but I will continue to vote for the party that protects my God given right- Free Will.
“Universal Healthcare†is a good example of socialism
rahdigly,
You mean like the Universal Healthcare plan supported by Massachusetts Republican Gov. Mitt Romney? What about that huge medicare prescription drug plan passed by Republicans? Do you not consider that socialism because it was put into effect by Republicans? Funny how you only call programs “Socialism” when they are put into effect by Democrats.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at April 14, 2006 01:35 PMJayJay,
You notice that rahdigly has a habit of cherry picking the snippets he wants to respond to. I asked him a while ago to define socialism and he still hasn’t.
But I guarantee he’ll continue to use the term because it’s such a good sound byte that makes anyone who disagrees with him sounds unamerican.
I discovered long ago it’s pointless to discuss with him because he’s incapable of responding to direct questions.
Xander,
You are a genuis! You got the Dems!!!
It’s amazing Dems think they can hide this stuff. They control all the news, except for FOX. I pray O’Reilly shines the light upon this story, which has been hidden by the mainstream media. We need more truthtellers like the Reverend Moon. A Dem told me a story about him planning to release poisonous gas into his people’s subway system. Can you believe the lengths they will go to to discredit Christians?
This will finally teach the Dems that religion and government are the same. They wouldn’t vote for Bush even though he made clear he gets his marching orders from Jesus! Also, Bush said he was going to give government money directly to churches - who could be against that??? I can’t believe how unAmerican they are. It’s like they don’t know the constitution says everyone should be a Christian.
Posted by: Max at April 14, 2006 01:47 PMInteresting, so, the Republicans are the party of morality, whew…Thanks for straightening us all out. Lemme see here… which morality are we talkin about? Are we talkin about morality of lying, money laundering, unmitigated greed, taking care of our fellow Christians (you know the ones I mean - those darkies in New Orleans - well, I guess there may be some speculation on the far right as to wether they are capable of being Christians) - Or, do you really mean that the republicans are the party of moral reprehensibility? Ah…yes…that jives a little more closley with the truth….ooohhh….there’s that ugly little word..”truth”….Time for the Republican mantra…”Clinton….Clinton…Clinton”….If that doesn’t serve the immediate purpose we can use the other popular Republican mantra…”9/11…9/11…9/11”…Gotta go now..I see some swift boats coming my way.
Posted by: Scott at April 14, 2006 01:55 PMJayjay,
“You mean like the Universal Healthcare plan supported by Massachusetts Republican Gov. Mitt Romney? What about that huge medicare prescription drug plan passed by Republicans? Do you not consider that socialism because it was put into effect by Republicans? Funny how you only call programs “Socialism” when they are put into effect by Democrats.”
I was waiting for someone to slip up on that and, Jayjay, you’re the one. I said if they do it through “gov’t funding” it’s socialism. The private sector is how Romney’s plan will pay for it; that’s certainly not how the socialists would want it. Right?! Exactly!
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/socialism
Actually, Tom 1 hit the nail right on the head with this “socialism” topic:
“socialism like the drug prescription coverage just passed by this administration and this congress? This is undboubtably the most expensive socialist program that has ever been passed….by Republicans! Theres really little difference between the parties…”
Bush is in the middle of a conservative and liberal. For the conservative side he’s staunch militarily, for tax cuts and pro-life; the liberal side, he’s for big-gov’t spending and soft on immigration. Yet, the libs won’t give him any credit on any issue; none whatsoever!
Posted by: rahdigly at April 14, 2006 01:58 PMThe right can lie, steal, cheat, kill, and maim. They can run this country into bankruptcy and sell our souls to big business. They can run up huge debts and pass them onto our children and their children’s children. But, at least the gays can’t marry! Those are some wonderful morals those Cons have.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at April 14, 2006 02:09 PMThe private sector is how Romney’s plan will pay for it; that’s certainly not how the socialists would want it. Right?
Wrong! Romney’s plan is paid for with public funds. Currently Mass. spends 1 billion a year to insure the poor. Romney’s plan will require 2 billion, the other billion comming from the federal government, in other words you and me. The plan will shift dollars from citizens that will not benifits from the plan in other states to finance Universal Heathcare in Mass. I thought you Cons were against shifting money from one person to another. It will also madate by law that everyone in Mass. buy health insurance. That sounds like the government sticking their nose in people’s private business, telling them how to spend their money. I though you Cons were against that, too.
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at April 14, 2006 02:18 PMXander:
Your logic is simple: The youth are becoming more religious, the religious party is Republican, therefore these kids will vote Republican.
But it’s all wrong. I’m not sure the youth is becoming more religious and I don’t see how you can call the Republican Party religious. Today’s Republican Party is one of the most corrupt I’ve ever seen. Other commenters have already pointed out Republican sins. Is corruption part of their religion?
Do you really believe that truly religious people will want to become part of the Culture of Corruption? No way. The youth will be disgusted with the gross immorality of the Republican Party. They will join the Democratic Party, the party that fights for freedom of ALL religious people to worship according to their own consciences.
Posted by: Paul Siegel at April 14, 2006 02:37 PMWrong! Romney’s plan is paid for with public funds. … I thought you Cons were against shifting money from one person to another. It will also madate by law that everyone in Mass. buy health insurance. That sounds like the government sticking their nose in people’s private business, telling them how to spend their money. I though you Cons were against that, too.
It’s amazing how much socialism is out there when you start to actually define Socialism:
Public Roads
Postal Service
Utility Regulation
Public Schools
Medicare
Social Security
Regulation of food, medicine, etc.
Conservatives should just come up with their own dictionary and put in it “socialism (n.): a bad, bad, naughty word.”
I hope everyone has a very pleasant Spring-rebirth of nature holiday weekend!
Steve
The youth will be disgusted with the gross immorality of the Republican Party.
Indeed, it seems quite possible that the truly religious and spiritual will increasingly turn away from what appears to be a morally bankrupt Republican Party. That party needs a revival in more ways than one. They’re rotting at the core and taking the nation with them.
Posted by: Reed Sanders at April 14, 2006 03:33 PMTo Xander
Yes.
And that very precisely defines Most of the LEFT Wing Democrats.
Bob M.
The article discussed youth viewing politics through a moral lens. That does not necessarily mean a religious lens. But, having said that, I welcome it. If the youth are viewing politics through a moral lens, then their confidence in the Republican Party is fading in future generations. Iraq is living proof.
Bush’s telling Congress the Rx drug bill would be under 400 Billion so don’t worry about the cost. Then within 23 months, Bush’s administration announces ‘OOPS! Make that 1.2 Trillion. Sorry about that, but thanks for being gullible enough to pass it. The sooner we can bankrupt the country the sooner we will be forced to cut entitlement spending and drastically. Who the hell do these poor people think they are banking on government promises should poverty befall them?
Posted by: David R. Remer at April 14, 2006 03:42 PMSteve K,
“It’s amazing how much socialism is out there when you start to actually define Socialism.”
Why don’t we show socialism at it’s most basic form that most of us participate in as well?
The tithe is also a socialist “program”. In fact some religions belive that it is a requirement to get into heaven.
It is in reality, a “take from the rich, and give to the poor” program that happens every time the basket is passed around at your place of worship.
Where the money actually goes is another thing entirely.
If that doesn’t sound like the government, I don’t know what does.
Posted by: Rocky at April 14, 2006 03:45 PMJayjay,
“That sounds like the government sticking their nose in people’s private business, telling them how to spend their money. I though you Cons were against that, too.”
First of all, I’m not a conservative; I’m an independent. I’m not a fan of “Universal healthcare” b/c I think you should work for a living and support your own damn kids. I donate to my church and various charities without the gov’t telling me how much I should donate. And, plenty of other Americans contribute without the gov’t telling them to, by the way.
I just don’t like modern liberalism; it doesn’t help our country (at all), it just rips it apart. Liberalism didn’t work in Somalia, Darfur, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, and in New Orleans. It just doesn’t work my friends. In fact, the only ones “liberalizing” these days are the conservatives; some irony, huh!
Posted by: rahdigly at April 14, 2006 04:46 PMWhat does the increasing religiosity of America mean? Studies show the more intelligent a person is, the less likely that person is to be religious. Religious belief is negatively correlated with SAT scores, and so on and so on. Even the Bible says:
“Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.” (1 Corinthians 1 v 26-27)”
Does this mean we’re witnessing a new Dumbing Down of America?
Posted by: phx8 at April 14, 2006 04:48 PMIf we become more religiously fundamentalist as a nation, the catalyst is a backlash to what some view as a “toxic” popular culture.
Posted by: Mike Tate at April 14, 2006 05:04 PMMike Tate,
“If we become more religiously fundamentalist as a nation, the catalyst is a backlash to what some view as a “toxic” popular culture.”
And, of course beliving in a higher power is going to fix all that, right?
Posted by: Rocky at April 14, 2006 05:11 PMA “toxic” popular culture and the technology which spawned the culture.
But with the new Dumbing Down of America, the so-called increase of religiosity among youth, will globalization continue? Iranian youths want their Ipods and cel phones. They’re not demonstrating for more Bibles.
Posted by: phx8 at April 14, 2006 05:17 PMI am so happy to read American youth is turning more religious. Maybe they will care about our God-given earth and won’t sell it short for few oil bucks. Perhaps they will stand by the truth and not lie about life threatening matters such as war. Hmm, maybe they’ll even practice what they preach and turn the other cheek. I can’t wait to see our youth make personal and political decisions that turn down such vices as cigarettes and alcohol. It is a shame to see how many hypocrital alcoholics we have now. What a joy it would be to have moral character in our government. No more cheating lobbists who make a career out of stealing money while claiming to be the party of principal. Now I am really full of hope for the future!
Posted by: Johnny at April 14, 2006 05:23 PMRahdigly-
First of all, I’m sure we can agree that Diplomacy is not something we just do so we can get it out of the way of the war we want to fight. That is my view. War is what we go to if it is clear that there is no other way. If Iran is so monumentally stupid as to provoke us, then we’ll both be on the same side on this issue.
The non-military bag of tricks should not be underestimated, though. We should look into the internal politics of Iran, and stir up things there. Iran has a generation of young men just itching to take hold of power, and many of these people are far more moderate than the current leaders.
We also have no idea of what kind of deals might attract internal rivals of the current president to engineer his downfall. If we make it tempting enough, we could avoid a War, and still have a safer world.
Point is, it’s better to exhaust those options rather than being the first to breach the peace.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 14, 2006 05:34 PMI just get a kick at how the religious right and the conservatives are lambasted on this blog; like they’re the real enemy here. And yet, you have the next hitler of our time, the President of Iran (speaking of religious fanatics), reiterating the “Annihilation of Jews” and that “the holacust never existed” just days after his country was dancing a jig at the fact that they enriched uranium; against the world bodies’ wishes, I might add. Excellent. Keep it up!
Posted by: rahdigly at April 14, 2006 05:39 PMxander:
The Republican Party will have a chance to maintain its mandate by continuing to advance morally correct messages and to factor in the role of god into our lives.
Yeah, like Tom DeLay? Like Bob Ney? Like the leaker-in-chief?
Here’s something you apparently either don’t know or don’t understand about Republicans and conservatives: everything’s for sale - their votes, their ethics, the air, water and food, your health, even their wars. So where do you get the idea it’s “morally correct” or that “god” (was that a typo? shouldn’t that be God?) has any role in the life of a Rep or a con, when the only concern of a Rep or a con is the almighty dollar?
I don’t know about your “god” but my God condemned the hypocrites and the Pharisees and he kicked the moneychangers out of the temple.
rahdigly,
“I just get a kick at how the religious right and the conservatives are lambasted on this blog; like they’re the real enemy here. And yet, you have the next hitler of our time, the President of Iran (speaking of religious fanatics), reiterating the “Annihilation of Jews†and that “the holacust never existed†just days after his country was dancing a jig at the fact that they enriched uranium; against the world bodies’ wishes, I might add. Excellent. Keep it up!”
You know, for the life of me I have searched your post, and can’t seem to find your point.
Gee, what does your post have to do with the growing religious electorate?
Posted by: Rocky at April 14, 2006 06:46 PMRocky:
can’t seem to find your [rahdigly] point
That’s because in order to have a point, he would need to have a complete sentence, which would imply having a complete thought. Betcha didn’t find those either, did you?
Posted by: wanna_be_jack at April 14, 2006 06:54 PMRahdigly-
Do you think I would write of engineering the downfall of somebody I didn’t consider a real enemy? Oh yeah, really, lets overthrow our friends.
Step back from giving your beatdown to that particular straw man for a moment. We want Diplomacy not because we’re unwilling to fight, but because a good peace is the target of any good policy. It behooves us then to use non-military options first, and if we cannot gain our security that way, then attack.
Another advantage to this approach is that diplomacy can make wars more winnable when employed properly, and in advance of action. We can hobble their support from other countries, making war more difficult for them. We can gain support (real, not the token contributions of the Coalition of the willing) for our endeavours, making the war easier for us. We can soften up the support internally for their side of the war, by making it clear to those in the know that we did our best to avoid the fight, and that those shitheads in power are the ones who called down the lightning.
Beside, the President’s passive aggressive approach has done spectacularly little to diminish Iran as a threat, or frustrate its nuclear ambitions. You may blame that on the ineffectiveness of diplomacy, but I think it’s got more to do with the fact that this admininstration would rather set foreign policy in the Defense Department than State.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 14, 2006 06:54 PM“Betcha didn’t find those either, did you?”
I wasn’t going there.
Posted by: Rocky at April 14, 2006 07:03 PMWheather wrapped in a flag or a Bible verse pandering is pandering. I am a Christian and as such I expect any other “Christians” words and deeds to agree. The republican party has used lip service to those of us who believe to return “the money changers to the temple.”
Posted by: Ted at April 14, 2006 07:12 PMRahdigly:
The real enemy to us all is religious extremism in any form, this includes both muslims and christians as well as any other religion you could imagine. Extremists are close-minded to any set of beliefs not handed down to them by their corrupt leaders, and they feel it is their duty to force everyone else to live by these same beliefs.
I was lucky enough to have never been forced into any religion by my parents, but encouraged to search for my own answers. Now to imply that they are atheists would be completely wrong, my mother is Catholic and my father Protestant, but they felt it was wrong to force a set of beliefs on another.
But this is how the fundamentalists get their strength, by brainwashing the impressionable minds of the youth, and the uneducated to go along with them out of FEAR. Fear of people different than you, Fear of uncertainty, Fear of change.
And it became all to clear to me at a young age that the basis of all religions was CONTROL. As humans began grouping together into large agricultural enclaves in a world that had previously been dominated by small nomadic packs, a social heirarchy to establish order became inevitable. In the nomadic days leaders came to power through brute strength (the alpha male of the pack), but as the numbers of people living in villages grew the physical strength of a leader was no match for the large numbers of villagers. So a set of laws was introduced, and the leader would claim to be a divinity in order to scare the villagers into following. As civilizations advanced, so did the nature of religions. But looking at any powerful nation one could see at its heart a belief system to keep the populace in line. The ruling class has always used relgion to stay in power, just look at the way our leaders scared off the threat of communism coming to our country throughout the last century. Communism represented the worst fears of the ruling class, so they denounced them as all being atheists, and an evil empire.
Today they divide us over such PRIVATE issues such as gay marriage and abortion, so that they can take more money away from the middle and lower classes. It is all about control using fear.
Now let me clarify my beliefs:
I am not an atheist, however I do not subscribe to any relgion written by people claiming to be the word of God.
I am not a communist, however I do believe a strong nation that is beneficial to all its citizens finds the correct balance of socialism and capitalism.
If we are going to survive as a species we need to put an end to all religious extremism.
Stephen,
“You may blame that on the ineffectiveness of diplomacy, but I think it’s got more to do with the fact that this admininstration would rather set foreign policy in the Defense Department than State.”
You’re right, I do believe that diplomacy will fail with Iran and it’s not b/c of the Bush Admin, the state dept, the defense dept, or any other American. It’s b/c the Iranian president is an extreme, religious fanatic that wants death to the Jews and Christians (aka the infidels). And, people on this blog want to worry about the “religious” electorate and the “right-wingers”, “neo cons”, “Iraq”, “Religion itself”. Don’t you see the absurdity here?! If you don’t then let’s look at what the Iranian President said today:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/14/D8GVSUC0H.html
“The president of Iran again lashed out at Israel on Friday and said it was “heading toward annihilation,” just days after Tehran raised fears about its nuclear activities by saying it successfully enriched uranium for the first time. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a “permanent threat” to the Middle East that will “soon” be liberated.”
So, do you still believe that you can be “diplomatic” with this guy?! Hmmm.
“Today they divide us over such PRIVATE issues such as gay marriage and abortion, so that they can take more money away from the middle and lower classes.”
Uhh, the “they”, in your comment, is actually “We the People”; Americans are divided over those issues; which are legitimate issues to debate.
And, again, the ones using religious fanaticism and fear are the Iranians. How does one not worry or show (some) fear after what a psycho like said today: “Israel is a “permanent threat” to the Middle East that will “soon” be liberated.”
Now, this is just days after they enriched uranium, against the world communities’ wishes, and after month (and months) of assurances that their nuke program was for “peaceful” purposes. Please!!!
Wake up, people!!!!
Posted by: rahdigly at April 14, 2006 07:53 PMrahdigly,
“And, again, the ones using religious fanaticism and fear are the Iranians. How does one not worry or show (some) fear after what a psycho like said today: “Israel is a “permanent threat” to the Middle East that will “soon” be liberated.”“
Well if you insist on continueing down this road.
Israel can take care of itself.
Whatever we hope to gain in a confrontation with Iran is going to end up much like Iraq, except we are going to get our asses kicked (though we will win in the end), and it will be a war of attrition that will drain all resources away from the rest of the “war on terror” and the “war on immigrants” and rebuilding New Orleans and whatever other new disaster is looming on the horizon.
War with Iran ain’t gonna be a cakewalk. If youy think that we will just waltz in and bomb the crap out of them, and they will just roll over like Iraq you have rude suprise coming.
No rahdigly, THEY are the Ruling class (business leaders) who have joined forces with your religious leaders and co-opted your religion for the purposes of their own agenda.
Iranians aren’t the only ones preaching fear and fantacism, wasn’t it Falwell who said the events of 9/11 were because of homosexuals and other actions the church doesn’t condone.
Posted by: bushflipflops at April 14, 2006 08:12 PMbushflipflops,
Interesting theory about extremism.
Posted by: Amani at April 14, 2006 08:16 PMLiberalism didn’t work in Somalia, Darfur, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, and in New Orleans.
Rahdigly,
I know you don’t like Liberalism. I know you think that Liberalism is a road to ruin. It does not follow that societies that are ruined were Liberal or were ruined by Liberalism.
Just my futile attempt of the day to point out to Rahdigly that wanting something to be true does not constitute proof.
Posted by: LawnBoy at April 14, 2006 08:35 PMBeing a Christian or Jew or Muslim or any of the other 10,000 religious sects and cults doesn’t make you smarter. It simply means that you are gullible and easily fooled.
All “holy books” are nothing more than a collection of myths and fables passed down orally for thousands of years.
Being “religious” also makes you dangerous. How many millions of human beings have died for the “faith”, or because of it? So-called holy wars have plagued mankind since the beginning of history.
The Old Testament in the Christian bible reads like a Stephen King novel.
God is spiritual; humans are religious. That is a huge difference.
You want to make the world a safer, kinder and gentler place?
Outlaw religion.
I think that religion will play a role in the election, as it always does. What will be interesting to see is what role it will play. In this last election there were evangelicals that were very concerned with the Bush administration and voted Democratic, more so than in the past.
Posted by: Charlie at April 14, 2006 08:44 PMXander,
Amazing. Support for the Republicans is eroding like a beach during a hurricane, and the best thing you can come up with is that future generations will be more Republican because of morality? And you claim that
The Republican Party will have a chance to maintain its mandate by continuing to advance morally correct messagesMaybe support for Republicans is dropping so fast because more and more folks are realizing that what the Republicans SAY has NOTHING in common with what they DO. Which, by the way, is one of the definitions of hypocricy. I didn’t think that hypocricy was a moral value.
Rahdigly,
Liberalism didn’t work in Somalia, Darfur, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, and in New OrleansFirst of all, I’ll remind you that Ray Nagin was REPUBLICAN most of his life, and only changed parties in the last few years. Second, you present no evidence that the other societies you mentioned were liberal in any way. So your statement ranks right up there with some of your equally believable assertations, such as that Henry Ford was a Communist.
Posted by: ElliottBay at April 14, 2006 09:24 PM
I am surprised no one mentioned Ann Coulter’s latest book:
“Godless. The Church of Liberalism”
Progressives want to sound religious, but I believe Coulter has hit the nail on the head.
Posted by: Baptist Peacher at April 14, 2006 09:29 PMBaptist Peacher (hey that’t the way he spelled it),
As far as Ann Coulter is concerned, I guess you get the spokesfolks you deserve.
Elliot,
Be carefull we don’t want to sound like we’re ganging up an him again, ad nauseum.
Baptist Peacher,
That would be the same “hate Americans first” Ann Coulter who thought that it was a reasonable question whether it was better to impeach President Clinton or to assassinate him?
Posted by: ElliottBay at April 14, 2006 09:46 PMNo matter what party is holding office, I think it is becoming clear that America is demanding that their statesmen be of a moral character and be more in line with the religious nature of this country.And we know how well that’s working out for places like Iran and how well it worked during the Hundreds Year War and the Crusades. All I can say is keep your stupid religion out of my life and if another pretend messiah type asshole like Bush wins in 2008 we’re seriously screwed. Posted by: Dave at April 14, 2006 09:59 PMPosted by Xander Jones at April 14, 2006 12:55 AM
What publication fired her again? Oh yeah, it was that liberal rag National Review.
Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at April 14, 2006 10:01 PMDave,
How about keeping your ignorant, mentally retarded religion of atheism out of our(90%of Americans) lives and go have a liberal socialist European circle jerk with George Sauros and Michael Moore.
“THE FOOL HATH SAID IN HIS HEART ‘THERE IS NO GOD’”
Posted by: Duano at April 14, 2006 10:33 PMEverybody has a religion. To see all those above words you would think that church, God, religion, faith, belief and religious right were all the same thing. It isn’t. Some people’s religion is their boat. For some it is drugs or alcohol. For others it is their ego. And for some it is a relationship with God.
Ulysses
I really feel sorry for your lack of belief in the true and living God who created you and gave you life and a way to choose what you wanted. It is sad that you have cast aside the history and literature book called the Bible. You should try studying the Bible sometime and you will not find anything to do with Stephen King and his way of writing. The Bible is the most factual book ever written.
Outlawing religion solves nothing, because people will always have their own religion. Outlawing religion would be unconstitional in this country.
Posted by: tomh at April 14, 2006 10:41 PMHow about keeping your ignorant, mentally retarded religion of atheism out of our(90%of Americans) lives and go have a liberal socialist European circle jerk with George Sauros and Michael Moore.“THE FOOL HATH SAID IN HIS HEART ‘THERE IS NO GOD’”
… And they’ll know we are Christians by our love, by our love
They will know we are Christians by our love…
I’ve oft found the proselytism of the Christian right, nee moral majority to be an interesting study. The rally cry - mantra seems to solely focus on abortion and gays. Yet they say nothing of how adorning a pine tree w/decorations as a way of celebrating the birth of the Christ child: Pagan ritual is it not? Divorce being an invention of man; the Christian bible does not allow for divorce. (But how can one have a movement, if you tell a minority of your followers that they are adulterers and their children are illegitimate?) And since when did Easter eggs become a part of Easter…Aren’t Easter eggs a symbol of fertility. An Easter egg hunt at the White House, why do they not decry this…Yet they pontificate on and on about how Christians are being persecuted….Might it be, that, at the end of the day, it’s all about aggrandisement of power and filling coffers: One group of elites doing battle w/another group of elites?
Posted by: Eisai at April 14, 2006 11:55 PMEisai
The Bible does allow for divorce. Study the scriptures and you will see.
Google “church attendance statistics” and then try your theory again. Then pinch your tongue and say “My Mommy has a big fat purse.” I dare you.
Posted by: Sarah Cynthis Sylvia Stout at April 15, 2006 12:08 AMWere you refering to this article about church attendance?
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RIN%20Vol.1No.2/Church_lies_polling.htm
Posted by: bushflipflops at April 15, 2006 12:13 AMtomh,
If I’m mistaken about the Bible vis a vis divorce; I stand corrected. (Maybe I should have said God did not grant divorce?) I was of the understanding that it was “Moses†that introduced divorce to the children of Israel?
Point of fact, I am an extremely religious person, age 19, but I can’t stand the Republican Party as a whole (ironically I’m currently working on a campaign for a republican, whats the expression, “politics makes strange bedfellows”).
Granted, I’m not a Christian, but my friends who are extremely Christian are mostly against the War in Iraq, want to help the poor, and for the most extreme Christians I know (the ones who read the bible and try and follow Jesus as closely as possible)are for an OPEN border policy, something even I don’t agree with.
Religion means a lot of things, but just because a candidate is from the Christian Right does not mean they’re getting all the religious voters. Point of fact, there are no atheists in congress.
Posted by: iandanger at April 15, 2006 12:47 AMDo any of you Christian Republicans ever actually read the bible? In case you haven’t had the chance, here’s a quick refresher. There’s this whole section called the “New Testement” and its mainly about this guy named Jesus and his ideas and deeds. While I myself must have missed the part where it lists his party affiliation, even a casual read makes it pretty clear that he would be against the death penalty, in favor of publiclly financed universal health care, would not have favored the invasion of Iraq, and would be very much against for-profit corporations that enrich themselves without FIRST taking into account the impact their actions have upon all people.
But hey, since Jesus was against abortion I guess republicans own him.
Oh, wait a minute… where exactly in the bible does it say that life begins at conception?????
Posted by: TomPay at April 15, 2006 01:43 AMPersonally I know that all three of my children (adults in their 20’s) go to church, and destest the Bush Adminstration. They lean towards the Liberals side.
More importantly THEY actually vote.
Which is why it doesn’t really matter what this age is professes to believe.
Most of them DO NOT vote.
Therfore I am not concened about what they may believe.
rahdigly said:
Bush is in the middle of a conservative and liberal. For the conservative side he’s staunch militarily, for tax cuts and pro-life; the liberal side, he’s for big-gov’t spending and soft on immigration. Yet, the libs won’t give him any credit on any issue; none whatsoever!
I’ll be happy to give Bush credit fo increasing the size of government spending, and being soft on immigration.
Problem is, I disagree with not only both of ‘those positves’ but all the other stuff you mentioed.
If the Republican’s can find a why to stay out of my personal LIFE, I most likely would not be considering voting for Democrats.
I am also afraid people such as Bush and extreme conservatives will push their veiw points
on Christianity on the entire USA.
Oh in case people wonder, I consider myself to be a Christian, but I believe that God gave us the power of choice from a reason.
TomPay:
even a casual read makes it pretty clear that he would be against the death penalty, in favor of publiclly financed universal health care, would not have favored the invasion of Iraq, and would be very much against for-profit corporations that enrich themselves without FIRST taking into account the impact their actions have upon all people.
Its rather apparent that you’ve most likely given the New Testament only a casual read. There are references to God knowing us in the womb—-that’s one of the ways that people reach the belief that life begins at conception. I won’t quote chapter and verse because its better for you to read things in full context to get the true meanings.
To try and assume that Jesus would be against the things you say is really a stretch. The main thing Jesus said was that we should love one another—-therefore our actions should be out of love. The Bible in general talks a lot about just punishment for actions and also about taking responsibility. I think thats part of what Jesus would want for us today.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 15, 2006 04:26 AMI guess this means you have zero moral problems if children go without health care?I’m getting right back to the initial topic of this post: religious values. The self-described ‘values voters’ appear to draw the line when something is proposed that actually helps the poor, innocent, and defenseless if it might fall under the label of ‘socialism.’
Posted by: Steve K at April 14, 2006 10:53 AM
Bless you, Steve K!!! And, since you have just made my “evening” (morning), I will favour you with TWO definitions of Socialism.
The first is one that Jesus might have said, himself: “From each, according to their Ability, to each, according to their Need.” That’s what he practised, but you’d never know it listening to the Social Darwinism of the “Pro-Life,” Pro-War, Pro-Gun, Pro-Death-‘Penalty’ “Christians.”
The second is my own: “Socialism is the putting into practise of the concept that no Government which does not serve the Needs of its People should exist.”
Put those two together and you have Socialism. Heaven on Earth.
Rocky and LawnBoy: Hysterical! :oD And spot on.
>>Progressives want to sound religious, but I believe Coulter has hit the nail on the head.
Posted by: Baptist Peacher at April 14, 2006 09:29 PM
Peachy,
More likely she got hit on the head by the nail (hammer too), that’d give her some excuse for her idiocy.
Let’s make a bargain…I won’t throw Anne Coulter at you if you won’t throw MM at me…okay?
Back to the thread.
Religion may be growing among our youth (I have my doubts), but it’s a surity that the religion that grows is a lie. No religion grows without recruitment (mission, conversion, et al), and it is impossible to recruit without lying. Hence all great religions are based on lies…wow!
I’m just one of those damned truth telling athiests…
Posted by: Marysdude at April 15, 2006 09:02 AMDuano
How about keeping your ignorant, mentally retarded religion of atheism out of our(90%of Americans) lives and go have a liberal socialist European circle jerk with George Sauros and Michael Moore.And how about if you go up to the top of this column, re-read where it says to criticize the message and not the messenger, AND LAY OFF THE PERSONAL ATTACKS. Otherwise, you’re gonna get kicked out of here … again.
Posted by: ElliottBay at April 15, 2006 09:08 AM
Maysdude?
Truth telling atheists? You are entitled to your opinion of course but that does not make it a fact - just an opinion. I also have my doubts that there is an increase in religious belief among the youth or that religion necessarily translates to votes for a specific party.
Posted by: Mike P at April 15, 2006 09:19 AMSorry for the previous typo.
There appears to be such animosity against evangelical Christians. I believe it is because we whole-heartedly believe in something. There are many doctrinal differences between Baptists and other evangelical denominations and for that matter, even among Baptists. But, there is a common thread between all evangelicals and that is our belief that man is basically evil and Christ is the only one who can pardon that evil nature.
As a result of these beliefs, we hold to certain biblical truths: that humans come into existence at conception, that homosexuality is an “abomination†before God, that there are no gray areas when it comes to sin, and that some things are worth fighting for.
Now, because of these beliefs, we are ridiculed, by the left, as being ignorant bible thumpers. We can no more change our basic beliefs, as Christians, than the left can pretend to have the same beliefs. The very nature of progressive thought is to deny God, deny His Word, and place in every man the idea that within each of us is a spark of divinity. This is the same lie Satan told Eve in the Garden of Eden. To view mankind as sinless is to place mankind on the level with God and that very thought caused Lucifer to be cast out of Heaven.
As to the original thread of this article, I would hope that people would embrace morality. It would most certainly cause them to lean to a conservative ideology. Morality is the enemy of liberalism.
Now, I am sure to stir up a controversy, but in your zeal to debate me, I would hope you use logic and not attacks. I have read enough on Watchblog to come to the conclusion that liberals rule the site and that conservative Christianity is hated.
I gotta say I wasn’t too impressed with that article. I was a conservative libertarian for years before I became a christian. The choice of both those paths were purely independant of one another. As long as I’ve been able to vote, any mention of religion results in a prompt rolling of my eyes no sooner than it flies from the mouth of any politician. My governor is a mormon. If I gave a rat’s ass about religion in my voting habits, I wouldn’t have voted for him.
The only dem that I’d have considered voting for in ‘04 was Leiberman. Do you see a pattern here kids? For more of us than most care to think, faith and civics are different entities.
I vote small gov’t whenever it’s feasable to do so. I don’t care if the candidate shares my faith or bows to a bottle of Mr Clean while singing Bryan Adams songs.
As long as you’re someone who will grow a set and get this nation off of a socialist path you have my vote.(which means i’ll be voting 3rd party in ‘06 and ‘08. Join the fun!)
Tom H
I respect your faith and anyone who chooses to believe in revealed religion. What I don’t respect is your belief that there is something wrong with me because I don’t believe in your “holy” book.
Yes, the Bible is filled with beautiful stories and is based in historical fact, but simply because that is the period in which these anonymous authors were writing these stories.
And, yes, I believe a carpenter from Gallilee named Jesus actually lived. And I believe that he may have been closer to the Creator than any man before or since.
He was a great teacher, but he was just a man. He was not God or the son of God. The founders of the religion had to make him a God if their religion was to survive. Jesus would probably be horrified to see what they have done to him.
Your statement that the Bible is the most factual book ever written is nothing more than a statement of faith. (Do you really believe the sun stood still or the Earth stopped revolving so Johsua had more daylight to slaughter the Canaanites?”
The Old Testament is filled with such slaughter and horror inflicted by the Israelites, who claimed they were only doing God’s will. As told to them by whom? Their prophets. Who were the prophets? Human beings who claim to talk to God!
All “holy” books were written by human beings claiming to be inspired by God. That is why the “revealed” God has all the attributes and weaknesses of humans.
In all revealed religions, the book is not about the religion, the book is the religion.
Tom, I do believe in the one true God, I just don’t believe He’s to be found in the Bible, or Koran or Torah.
I am of like mind with Thomas Paine, author fo the Age of Reason, who believed the only irrefutable evidence for the existance of God is to be found in His creation. Paine said the following about that:
“Do we want to contemplate his power? We see it in the immensity of the creation. Do we want to contemplate his wisdom? We see it in the unchangeable order by which the incomprehensible Whole is governed. Do we want to contemplate his munificence? We see it in the abundance with which he fills the earth. Do we want to contemplate his mercy? We see it in his not withholding that abundance even from the unthankful. In fine, do we want to know what God is? Search not the book called the scripture, which any human hand might make, but the scripture called the Creation.”
I will leave you with an interpretation of the 19th Psalm by 18th century English poet Joseph Addison, which captures my feelings about my Creator.
“The spacious firmament on bigh,
With all the blue etherial sky,
And spangled heavens, a shining frame,
Their great original proclaim.
The unwearied sun, from day to day,
Does his Creator’s power display,
And publishes to every land
The work of an Almighty hand.
Soon as the evening shades prevail,
The moon takes up the wondrous tale,
And nightly to the list’ning earth
Repeats the story of her birth;
Whilst all the stars that round her burn,
And all the planets, in their turn,
Confirm the tidings as they roll,
And spread the truth from pole to pole.
What though in solemn silence all
Move round this dark terrestrial ball
What though no real voice, nor sound,
Amidst their radiant orbs be found,
In reason’s ear they all rejoice,
And utter forth a glorious voice,
Forever singing as they shine,
THE HAND THAT MADE US IS DIVINE.
So, don’t feel sorry for me, Tom. I’m in good hands.
Baptist Preacher,
“There appears to be such animosity against evangelical Christians. I believe it is because we whole-heartedly believe in something. There are many doctrinal differences between Baptists and other evangelical denominations and for that matter, even among Baptists. But, there is a common thread between all evangelicals and that is our belief that man is basically evil and Christ is the only one who can pardon that evil nature.”
That, sir is where most of us part ways.
I belive that man is basicly good, and it doesn’t take a Christian to belive in charity towards your fellow man.
But, this is not a glass half full issue, and frankly I could give a rat’s ass what you belive.
You are, after all entitled to it.
You are also entitlted to speak out about your beliefs. What you belive is entirely up to you. That doesn’t, however, entitle you to judge me, or anyone else. It also doesn’t entitle you to push your beliefs on me or anyone else.
Christian, means Christ-like, and Christ teachings included treating everyone as you would want to be treated. That would include any “sinners” that you might come accross.
The “leaders” of Christianity, self-proclaimed or not for the most part seem to be the archtype of what Christianity is suposed to be. They are greedy, power-mad, opinionated clods that wouldn’t know Christ if he walked up and introduced himself.
Some percentages and/or statements have been used in this thread (ie youthful voting bloc, collegiate party preferences, etc.) that I believe need to be expanded if references to them are used further in this thread.
Sadly only 40% of the age eligible voters between the ages of 18 and 24 vote. Yet, this group has the most at stake regarding their future. The situation worsens in mid-term elections where people have even less interest by whom and how they are governed because only about 25% of them go to the polls.
In terms of the overall age eligible population, somewhere between 80 and 100 million do not vote at all.
Posted by: steve smith at April 15, 2006 11:11 AMRocky:
“For I perceive thou at in the gall of bitterness, and in…â€
“That doesn’t, however, entitle you to judge me, or anyone else. It also doesn’t entitle you to push your beliefs on me or anyone else.â€
I have not judged you, your words judge yourself. I would never presume to push my beliefs upon you.
I do not care what the leadership of Christianity believes; I have enough to answer for myself. I also do not run across sinners: as I stated earlier, we are all under the bondage of sin.
Progressives are angry: angry that they cannot understand our beliefs change our beliefs, or convince us they believe the same as we. You have been fed a diet of humanism. Thus proves my point, you believe man to be inherently good and on the same level as God.
Should I deny God’s word simply because Tom H, says it is a historical book with no spiritual meaning? I don’t think so. Liberals are the first to cry “inclusive†and yet, in the same breath, deny our rights to religious liberty. Our morality is not something we say; it is a motivating part of our life. In other words, it is part of a Christian’s lifestyle. As part of our lifestyle, our religious beliefs many times determine the way we vote.
Tom H
Sorry, I didn’t address your last comment about outlawing religion.
When I speak of religion, I am not speaking about a belief in God. That is the problem with followers of the “revealed” religions. They say that if you do not believe in THEIR version of religion as found in THEIR “holy” book, then you are somehow tainted, different, a person to be pitied, sometimes scorned, sometimes even hated, so much so that you must be killed.
The God in my life requires no sacrifice beyond recognizing he exists and seeking to live my life in a manner that does not shame him or his Creation.
As I mentioned earlier, I believe in the MAN Jesus. I also believe that some of the authors of the Christian Bible actually knew and wrote about his teachings.
But I find that there is no need to make up stories about him raising the dead or performing cheap parlor tricks by changing water to wine to make his life more meaningful to me.
Read the Jefferson Bible sometime. Even though in editing the Bible, Thomas Jefferson removed all references to miracles performed by Jesus and to his divinity, his teachings lost none of their meaning. If anything, they are even more relevant and inspiring.
His teachings of love, charity, hope, tolerance and, yes, faith, instinctively speak to something deep within the human spirit, something that I believe was put there by the Creator at the moment of our conception to help guide us on our journey through this life.
That is why I oppose abortion.
If all human beings would turn away from the myths and fables of their “holy” books and look within themselves to that place where the Creator resides, we would find that he is the same yesterday, today and forever, for all of mankind, not just a select few.
Maybe then we could put aside our alleged differences and finally get on with making the Earth the paradise the Creator always intended it to be.
Posted by: ulysses at April 15, 2006 12:43 PMI do think some religious types are in the Republicans pocket. Mostly religious zealots, who are deeply vested in stopping gays from marrying, torturing prisoners of war, barring women from abortion, etc. Frankly, these people scare me. I don’t see them as real Christians. I don’t like what they do for religion or what they do to the Republican party.
If this is the direction our country continues to move in at some point I’ll become really disgusted, like our forefathers were, and leave for a place where freedom of expression is tolerated and people are free to do what they want.
Posted by: Max at April 15, 2006 12:58 PMThere are not many topics (if any at all) that have been argued as extensively yet not produced a “winner” as has religion. I do not include the creation of man by GOD and the evolution of man through other circumstances in my initial statement.
I cannot even remember all of the christian references that have developed, we have christian, and evangelical christian, often it is simply “the evangelicals” and of course we have the dreaded fundamental right evangelical christians.
There are even more than these few but, in almost every case each catagory annoys someone who is opposed to their views because those views are perceived as being “pushed on them” in an unsolicited way. Sometimes this is true and should be realized and tempered by the “christian” group in question. Often it is nothing more than someone who believes strongly in something and sees the good in something, trying to pass the information to someone who he or she feels could benefit. The person delivering the information does not know if the recipient is aware of what is being imparted or has an opposing position to it. Typically, christians demonstrate their faith by giving testimony to others about it’s value.
Now we have atheists and, other groups who will not accept religion as championed by christians because there is not clearly defined scientific evidence to support the christians beliefs and claims.
Arguments/discussions between these two groups held between highly educated individuals from both camps ranging from the reasonably informed and concluding with the less knowledgable but yet faithful to a fault always have the same outcome.
Realizing that noone has or will win the argument/discussion on the issue, they drag it into an arena where each is more comfortable, there is more reference material, more facts available and, to be sure, more experts to involve. The seperation of church and state, which most everyone beiieves in and is constitutional law becomes the new battlefield. Here the religious issues can be absorbed into the political ones and we have a new result…each side wins a few and loses a few.
Posted by: steve smith at April 15, 2006 01:01 PMBaptist Preacher,
“Progressives are angry: angry that they cannot understand our beliefs change our beliefs, or convince us they believe the same as we.”
By implying that I am angry, you make the assumption that I even care what you belive, I don’t. I don’t feel the need to change your beliefs.
Why would I waste my time and energy on such a futile exercise as that?
I was raised a Catholic and moved away from it when the answers to my questions about faith, required “faith” to belive.
“You have been fed a diet of humanism. Thus proves my point, you believe man to be inherently good and on the same level as God.”
This is the biggest crock….
What exactly is your point?
Do you presume that man has to be on the same level as your “God” to be inherently good?
Some the greatest attrocities in the history of mankind have been committed on mankind by mankind in the name of some God.
The ignorant savage must be saved or killed, sacrificed, and therefore cleansed in the name of “God”.
“I have not judged you, your words judge yourself. I would never presume to push my beliefs upon you.”
You just did.
man is basically evilPosted by: Baptist Preacher at April 15, 2006 10:12 AM
Nah. Man is basically ignorant, and usually prefers it that way.
Posted by: Z at April 15, 2006 01:58 PMZ, we are all born ignorant. But I have yet to meet a 4 year old that was not infinitely curious and reaching to know. It is what we do to, and with, our children that results in their ignorance, and yes, in great part, it is by political design. An informed electorate, student body, investor shareholders, are all threats to those in power.
And if you can’t keep them ignorant, at least keep them divided. Those are the American maxims.
Posted by: David R. Remer at April 15, 2006 02:29 PMBaptist Preacher said:
“We are all under the bondage of sin.”
The concept of Original Sin may be the most insidious and hateful myth perpretrated on believers by the authors of the Christian bible.
To tell little boys and girls in Sunday school class that they were born sinful and the only way to save themselves from eternal damnation is through a Gallilean carpenter is a most hateful and hurtful form of child abuse.
But, if you are not sinful, what need have you of redemption? And if you have no need of redemption, what need do you have of a saviour?
And if you have no need of a saviour, where does that leave Jesus and the Christian church?
Saul of Tarsus may have been greatest salesman in the history of mankind!
BTW, Tom H didn’t say the Bible has no spiritual value, but only that it is the most accurate book ever written. If you re-read his post, I think you’ll determine, as I did, that he a God-fearing man who believes the Bible to be the literal word of God. (If he believes it is the most factuasl book ever written.)
I repect his and your beliefs. I just don’t agree with you.
Posted by: ulysses at April 15, 2006 02:52 PMTom H
Sorry. You did say factual, not accurate. There is a difference.
Posted by: ulysses at April 15, 2006 03:00 PMZ, we are all born ignorant. But I have yet to meet a 4 year old that was not infinitely curious and reaching to know. It is what we do to, and with, our children that results in their ignorance, and yes, in great part, it is by political design. An informed electorate, student body, investor shareholders, are all threats to those in power.And if you can’t keep them ignorant, at least keep them divided. Those are the American maxims.
Posted by: David R. Remer at April 15, 2006 02:29 PM
Too true. We could do better for kids.
Posted by: Z at April 15, 2006 03:09 PMPresident Bush was recently asked if he thought that the war on terror, increased natural disasters, and other atrocities were signs that the apocalypse was coming soon. Bush dodged the question without giving a definite answer, and this was troubling to me. It means either:
1) Bush doesn’t believe this to be true, but he doesn’t want to upset the large number of evangelicals who do.
or:
2) (the really scary posibility) he actually believes that the Apocalyspe is coming soon, but doesn’t want to come across as a nutcase to the rest of America.
Either scenario is troubling, for if option 1 is the truth it means our government is catering to extremists, and if option 2 is true then our government is controlled by extremists.
Now I know that revelations talks about the end times, and most faiths have prophecies about the end of mankind. The difference with the evangelicals compared to everyone else is they believe it’s happening now and they are supporting policies to help it happen. Their strong support for Israel has nothing to do with caring about jewish people, but to fulfill the prophecy that the Jews will occupy the holy land when Jesus returns, so they can be sent to hell with the rest of the sinners.
Taking a step back you could see how this set of beliefs is beneficial to big business. Since the world is going to end soon why bother worrying about the environment, this helps businesses as they can reduce environmental protections to cut costs (since most of them are concerned only with immediate gains and not long term sustainability).
We all have to treat this world like it will be around forever, so this means taking care of the environment and finding ways to make all industries sustainable for future generations to have. If I’m wrong and the Apocalypse happens let’s make sure it’s a God-fulfilled prophecy and not a self-fulfilled prophecy.
Posted by: bushflipflops at April 15, 2006 04:12 PMI think that Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black summed it up nicely:
“The union of government and religion tends to destroy governmnet and degrade religion.”Posted by: Chuck H at April 15, 2006 04:13 PM
Dave,How about keeping your ignorant, mentally retarded religion of atheism out of our(90%of Americans) lives and go have a liberal socialist European circle jerk with George Sauros and Michael Moore.
“THE FOOL HATH SAID IN HIS HEART ‘THERE IS NO GOD’â€
Posted by: Duano at April 14, 2006 10:33 PM
Sounds like a violation of the Watchblog rules to me. With no response from the editors, I suppose I would be safe in telling Guano to go f**k his ignorant superstitious hateful fascistic regressive self?
Posted by: Dave at April 15, 2006 04:28 PM>>Morality is the enemy of liberalism.
Now, I am sure to stir up a controversy, but in your zeal to debate me, I would hope you use logic and not attacks. I have read enough on Watchblog to come to the conclusion that liberals rule the site and that conservative Christianity is hated.
Posted by: Baptist Preacher at April 15, 2006 10:12 AM
BP,
Don’t tell Jack, sic-eagle, or many others that these sites are ruled by liberals.
Once again you fundies equate morality with religion (and no doubt, only YOUR religion), but please give it a little more thought, because they are NOT related. As a true believer, you may not know very many non-believers, but you likely know at least a few. You very likely do know several believers, so…after really thinking about it and giving only honest appraisal…are the believers YOU know more moral than the non-believers YOU know? As a moral person, you cannot lie.
Xander Jones,
Could it be that the Youth of Today has lost faith in their Parents, Elders, and Civil Leaders? Certainly this kind of movement in Written History has taken place before. However, what both he Deocrats and Republicans are missing in the relationship between mass religous movements and the over throwing of Political Parties in America.
Just look at the Mid-1800’s and the raise of the Republican Party. Could 2008 or 2012 see the change of a major political party in America. After all, neither the Democrats or Republicans will take on a debate of Right vs. Wrong, yet Today’s Youth is searching for exactly that in their Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders. Is it no wonder they resort back to Human Teachings to discover that World left behind by the Youth of the 60’s?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 15, 2006 05:08 PMulysses:
You say that Jesus was a real man who was a great teacher. That is true, and is of historical record. But there is a problem with leaving him just as a teacher.
Roman history shows that a man named Jesus Christ was crucified for claiming that he was the Son of God. We can subject this story to the same kind of historical proofs that we use to determine the existence of Socrates or Alexander the Great. That means we are not buying into the story simply on faith, but rather on the same solid proofs that render other stories accurate.
So…its verified that Christ was crucified for claiming that he was the Son of God. If he truly said that, wouldn’t that make him a liar if it wasn’t true? Or perhaps a lunatic if he really believed something like that, if it wasn’t true?
If he were a liar or lunatic, how then would he be a great teacher? I dont see people like David Koresh, Charlie Manson, Jim Jones etc as great teachers, and neither would I see Christ as a great teacher if he were a liar or lunatic.
Of course, if its true thats a wholly different thing. But I’d like to understand how you can see someone who is one of three things—liar, lunatic or Lord—as a great teacher, if he is one of the first two things.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at April 15, 2006 05:51 PMJoe,
“Roman history shows that a man named Jesus Christ was crucified for claiming that he was the Son of God.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that when asked if he was the “son of God, Christ’s reply was “so you say”, which is far from claiming he was the son of God.
“Iranians aren’t the only ones preaching fear and fantacism, wasn’t it Falwell who said the events of 9/11 were because of homosexuals and other actions the church doesn’t condone.”
Exactly. Instead of answering to the real threat “Iranians and their religious fanaticism”, you retort with Jerry falwell. Thanks, you just proved my point. Instead of talking about how serious of a threat the Iranians are; especially after the Iranian president called for “the annihilation of Jews” and they will be wiped of this planet with a “great wind”, you go back to the right-wing religious nuts. Nice.
And the rest of you, keep teaming up; all you’re proving is that you’re no (NO) match for the rahdigster. Not even close. :O)
Rahdigly:
They are both threats, no one denies that Iran and other islamic fanatics hate us, they make it well known. But the christian fanatics of the republican party are much more sneaky, using spin and half-truths and preying on their under-educated followers through their carefully selected interpretation of the bible in order to undermine and usurp our country.
Posted by: bushflipflops at April 15, 2006 07:20 PMUlysses, Eisai, Baptist Preacher
I believe that the Bible is the inspired, literal Word of God. If there are any non-truths in the Bible, then the whole Bible is a lie. I don’t believe the Bible to be a lie. Man was born in sin according to the Bible. If man is not of sinful nature, there would be no need for the Ten Comnadments, laws, rules and regulations. The Bible is a historical book as well as a spiritual guide book to follow in the life I now live. Jesus is the Son of God. He laid down his life for all of mankind as a redemption for our sinful nature. We must accept this gift of life for it to be of any value to us. Some day every knee shall bow and every tongue that Jesus Christ is Lord. I really hate to show you wrong. I really would enjoy knowing that you believe the above. In the name of Jesus have a gloriious Easter and Resurection weekend.
tomh:
I’m curious to know if you also believe the earth is 6000 years old, and dinosaur fossils were buried by the jews in order to trick everyone else. I know neither of those statements are in the bible, but many literal interpreters believe them to be true.
Logic dictates that God by definition is infallible, therefore if the bible contains any slight factual error or contradiction then it therefore cannot be the literal word of God.
Posted by: bushflipflops at April 15, 2006 07:30 PMFor factual errors in the bible check out:
http://home.inu.net/skeptic/sunstil.html
Posted by: bushflipflops at April 15, 2006 07:34 PMJesus was not crucified by the Romans for claiming to be the son of God; they could have cared less. They killed him because the Sanhedrin accused him of claiming to be king of the Jews.
According to the Bible (not historical fact) when Pontius Pilate asked Jesus if he was king of the Jews, he answered “So you have said.” And, according to the Bible, Jesus added that “My kingdom is not this world.”
Anyone who believes in God could make that same statement.
According to the Bible (not historical fact). the Sanhedrin’s high priest, Caiaphas, asked Jesus if he was the son of God and Jesus is supposed to have answered “You have said so,”
not “I am.”
And even the four Gospels ca