Quote from: RPGPunditThe Emperor Constantine wasn't a christian until (arguably) on his deathbed.  Yet his entire career was spent with the appearance of approving the formal Christianization of the Roman Empire, and we all know how that turned out.

Constantine didn't convert until on his deathbed because he knew that as a Christian, he couldn't do the things he needed to do to make Christianity the dominant religion. He needed forgivness for the acts he committed. What does that have to do with Bush?

Quote from: RPGPunditEVEN if your argument was correct, and it may or may not be, the appearance of the President sanctioning the likes of Haggard, Pat Robertson, Dobson, etc etc. is something that can have serious social and political consequences.

And I'm asking YOU - what appearance are you talking about? I'm pretty up-to-speed on current events, and I'm not a Christian per se, but I certainly don't recall the White House doing much, if anything, giving the appearance of sanctioning the Wingnuts you mentioned. At BEST, there have been a couple of bones tossed to a block of voters he depended on to get elected, but what's new about that?

What I DO see is a bunch of LEFT wingers screaming about how Bush is one last drop of blood from turning the US into a Theocratic State.

I don't see it.

Where do YOU see it?

Quote from: WerekoalaWhere do YOU see it?

RPGPundit isn't from the United States, nor does he live there.  Where do you think he sees it?

Quote from: John MorrowRPGPundit isn't from the United States, nor does he live there.  Where do you think he sees it?

Well, there are plenty of people who do live here with the exact same point of view. MY questions could apply to any of them who care to answer them.

Quote from: WerekoalaWell, there are plenty of people who do live here with the exact same point of view. MY questions could apply to any of them who care to answer them.

 Could be they "see" that warped version of things on whatever news media they watch or newspapers they read.

- E.W.C.

Better yet, what the heck does "sanctioned" mean, exactly?

What about Obama and Hillary in churches last week (or was it early this week)?  They talked about politics form the pulpit, didn't they? Was there immediately a cry of "Separation of Church and State!"?  Nope.

That's because of the group-think narrative from which Pundit draws his information and perspective: The Right is Crazy Religious and the Left is appropriately moral...

"Conservatves" have been winning the White House, and recently until 2006 the Congress, not because of some religious component, but the libertarian view that Regan espoused as part of his rhetoric. Sure the religious right makes up a part of the GOP, but I'd be willing to bet small-government is the real driver.

Quote from: WerekoalaConstantine didn't convert until on his deathbed because he knew that as a Christian, he couldn't do the things he needed to do to make Christianity the dominant religion. He needed forgivness for the acts he committed. What does that have to do with Bush?

Wow, that's a remarkably bizzare take on it, and remarkably forgiving of Constantine.
The truth is a little closer to the fact that right up to the end of his life he played the Cult of Sol Invictus and the Christians against each other, to make sure that he didn't get stuck with one group gaining too much power at one time. His conversion to Christianity at the very end was probably one-part pascal's wager and one part in remembrance to his mother, who was a very devout christian.

The point is, Constantine needed the Christians to be able to hold his empire together, to hold onto political power. He couldn't appear to be totally sold to them, so he kept things a little ambiguous, but at the same time he let them slowly take over every aspect of Roman society. I think the parallels are pretty fucking clear.

QuoteAnd I'm asking YOU - what appearance are you talking about? I'm pretty up-to-speed on current events, and I'm not a Christian per se, but I certainly don't recall the White House doing much, if anything, giving the appearance of sanctioning the Wingnuts you mentioned. At BEST, there have been a couple of bones tossed to a block of voters he depended on to get elected, but what's new about that?

What I DO see is a bunch of LEFT wingers screaming about how Bush is one last drop of blood from turning the US into a Theocratic State.

I don't see it.

Where do YOU see it?

Other than the weekly meetings with conservative evangelical religious leaders?
How about Faith-based initiatives for welfare; for education, vouchers, faith-based charities being favoured in national programs even if they're not even real charities (or even in the case of Hurricane Katrina, giving millions of dollars to a faith-based "relief" charity who's only "relief" was going to the afflicted areas to evangelize); not to mention abstinence-only education in schools (with public funding depending upon it), raising the legal drinking age, abstinence-only programs in Africa being a condition to the US paying its share of UN dues, theological litmus tests for US Supreme Court Judges (and Judges in general), the emboldening of religious groups to take over school boards and force "intelligent design" (aka young earth creationism) on science classes, forbidding stem-cell research, trying to turn back the clock on Roe Vs. Wade, and generally trying to blur the line in the separation of church and state at every turn?
Ah yes, not to mention invading Iraq because god told him to. Oh yes, and claiming that he won the presidency because god wanted it that way. The Divine Right at work, so much for those suckers who fought way back in 1776 to try to get rid of the very thing.

These are things, many of them, that even moderate christians do not support.  And yet, there we go. Its what leads  me to conclude that either Bush is a true believer, or, like the Emperor Constantine, a shockingly clever job of pretending to be.

RPGPundit

Quote from: James J SkachBetter yet, what the heck does "sanctioned" mean, exactly?

What about Obama and Hillary in churches last week (or was it early this week)?  They talked about politics form the pulpit, didn't they? Was there immediately a cry of "Separation of Church and State!"?  Nope.

There SHOULD be.  The Democrats are just pathetic, if not worse, when they try to pull that sort of shit.

Note that the ONE president who was really and deeply religious as a Christian, Jimmy Carter, made a point of never using his faith as a weapon.  When you compare him to a fuckhead like Bush, its pretty clear what a "good christian" really is; and yet the churchgoers throughout the fucking land buy into Dubya's "onward christian soldiers" bullshit.  Which only goes to show, most of them aren't real christians either. They're fake christians wanting a fake christian president.

QuoteThat's because of the group-think narrative from which Pundit draws his information and perspective: The Right is Crazy Religious and the Left is appropriately moral...

No, the Right is Crazy-Religious (or have sold themselves to the same, in the case of the totally non-religious Neocons), whereas the Left are a gang of incompetent boobs who have long allowed themselves to be led into failure and idiocy by superannuated hippie marxist-feminists and fashionable nanny-staters.

Quote"Conservatves" have been winning the White House, and recently until 2006 the Congress, not because of some religious component, but the libertarian view that Regan espoused as part of his rhetoric. Sure the religious right makes up a part of the GOP, but I'd be willing to bet small-government is the real driver.

Oh fuck, please. Bush's entire margin of victory in 2004? it was from a massive movement on the part of the Religious Right in a single state. Lots of people like to talk about wanting small government (ironically, Bush has created the BIGGEST government, and most intrusive, in US history), but those people will generally not be motivated enough to go out and vote, not if they weren't going to otherwise. But wave JEEEZUS in their face, tell them that GOD wants them to vote George Bush, and that the Demycrats are going to force their kids to have gay weddings, and they'll come out like the fucking golden horde.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditOther than the weekly meetings with conservative evangelical religious leaders?

What proof do you have that he does? And I mean PROOF, not hearsay.

Quote from: RPGPunditHow about Faith-based initiatives for welfare; for education, vouchers, faith-based charities being favoured in national programs even if they're not even real charities (or even in the case of Hurricane Katrina, giving millions of dollars to a faith-based "relief" charity who's only "relief" was going to the afflicted areas to evangelize); not to mention abstinence-only education in schools (with public funding depending upon it), raising the legal drinking age, abstinence-only programs in Africa being a condition to the US paying its share of UN dues, theological litmus tests for US Supreme Court Judges (and Judges in general), the emboldening of religious groups to take over school boards and force "intelligent design" (aka young earth creationism) on science classes, forbidding stem-cell research, trying to turn back the clock on Roe Vs. Wade, and generally trying to blur the line in the separation of church and state at every turn?

Wow, that's one hell of an ambitious platform!

Now, exactly how many of those things HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN PROPOSED AND/OR PASSED by this Administration? Weed out all the others and tell me, exactly, what the Bush Administration has actually proposed?

You're big on making claims, I think its time you started backing them up with some links, at the very least. Or has this all become "common knowledge" that can't be refuted because "everyone knows" its true?

Quote from: RPGPunditAh yes, not to mention invading Iraq because god told him to. Oh yes, and claiming that he won the presidency because god wanted it that way. The Divine Right at work, so much for those suckers who fought way back in 1776 to try to get rid of the very thing.

I seem to recall paying VERY close attention to all the debate and all the speeches given around the time the Iraq War was being proposed. I don't think I caught the "God told me to" speech. Got a link to that so I can watch it on YouTube or something?

Also, when did he say God wanted him to be President? I mean, aside from the fact that, as a believing Christian, he must feel that God DID want it or it wouldn't have happened. I think believing that God wants things done a certain way is a pretty basic Christian belief.

And yet other presidents have managed to be christians without making it sound like voting for the other guy is a vote for the antichrist's rule on earth.

RPGPundit

Ok, to cleae things up for non americans, there are differences between using a church as a public forum to address a large number of people and using a church for political partisian ends.

If a church is used in a partisan fashion, as in supporting one party or one candidate while shutting out others, that's partisan and disqualifies a chrich from tax exempt status.

Examples: When Clinton ran in '92, some catholic ministers told their parishoners that it was a SIN to vote for clinton. That's crossing the line.

When catholic ministers told their flocks it was a mortal sin NOT to vote SOLELY for anti-choice candidates, that was crossing the line.

When a pastor at a chruch asked people who'd voted democrat in 2006 to stand up, then told them to leave the church, that was crossing the line.


Now when a church allows a candidate to speak at it, that in and of itself does not cross the line unless they refuse, as a public building, to allow other parties and politicians to have rallies there.

A church does not endanger it's tax exempt status unless it becomes openly partisan and attempts to influence politics in a one way fashion. it may serve as a public/community assembly/rallying area without loss of TES.

Now if it openly says it's only going to allow one political view to be expressed, or pushes one political view, then it can lose it's TES.

"openly" being the key word to partisanship.  Its the worst-hidden secret in america that the evangelical churches, the baptists, and most of the other fundamentalist denominations have come out firmly on the side of Republicans, campaign for them, get people out to the polls to vote for them, etc etc. while they still retain their status by just barely avoiding that open endorsement that they have to avoid. They do ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING but that.

Meanwhile, there isn't exactly any massive movement of small-government socially open secular humanists out there influencing the Republican vote, the way James would like to pretend, certainly not on any level even close to the voter power things like the Christian Coalition, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Focus on the Family and other such groups bring in.  Otherwise, you'd see a libertarian party that was actually a serious force.

RPGPundit

Again, most atheists are so anti-religion because they don't want to have religion forced on them, as religion has tended to do whenever it was in power, regardless of the religion.

In other words "We'd rather keep you down than take a chance on you getting up and keeping US down."

Quote from: RPGPunditMeanwhile, there isn't exactly any massive movement of small-government socially open secular humanists out there influencing the Republican vote, the way werekoala would like to pretend.

Where did I even give a whiff of a hint of a speculation of the merest thought of saying that I believed that?

When did this shift from being about Bush to being about the Republicans in general? Is it because now you can't prove Bush thinks he's the Messiah while at the same time merely a sockpuppet for Pat Robertson, as you seemed to think he was a few posts back? If the Republicans so closely hewed to the Religious Right's desires, why did they not vote for them in large numbers in the mid-terms? Why so much dissatisfaction with the Bush Administration and the formerly Republican Congress among the hard-core Right? And when are you going to answer my questions from my LAST post, or are you just going to let me win that one by default?

C'mon, you can do better than this.

Quote from: Dominus NoxIn other words "We'd rather keep you down than take a chance on you getting up and keeping US down."

Ah, now there's a sentiment we can all get behind.

Quote from: RPGPundit"openly" being the key word to partisanship.  Its the worst-hidden secret in america that the evangelical churches, the baptists, and most of the other fundamentalist denominations have come out firmly on the side of Republicans, campaign for them, get people out to the polls to vote for them, etc etc. while they still retain their status by just barely avoiding that open endorsement that they have to avoid. They do ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING but that.

I have two words for you - labor unions. C'mon Pundit, you know better than that. It's politics frex.

Quote from: RPGPunditMeanwhile, there isn't exactly any massive movement of small-government socially open secular humanists out there influencing the Republican vote, the way werekoala would like to pretend, certainly not on any level even close to the voter power things like the Christian Coalition, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Focus on the Family and other such groups bring in.  Otherwise, you'd see a libertarian party that was actually a serious force.

In all fairness to WK, that was me.  And while your "margin of victory" is cute and all, there were quite a few other kinds of people who had to vote for Bush to get him to even so the margin would hold.  I mean, that is if you believe the country is basically 30/60/30.

But I don't want to sidetrack WK's better questions.  Theological litmus test for SC?  You've got to be kidding. How about the pro-choice litmus test from liberals? You see, it's only a bad litmus test if you don't agree with its application. And there is nothing - NOTHING - in the American system of government that says a President shouldn't appoint SC Justices that are of a specific ideological persuasion - that's one of the reasons you want your guy to be President. Other than National Defense, IMHO, it's the top issue voters shoiuld consider.

And don't give me that "they only went to evangelize business" for Katrina victims.  My mother, a practicing Catholic, just spent her Thanksgiving in Mississippi helping rebuild houses and the sister parishes church - volunteered.  She's 70.  She worked the food kitchens for all the workers. So how does that square with your sources of information?