Quote from: WerekoalaWhere did I even give a whiff of a hint of a speculation of the merest thought of saying that I believed that?

Ah, whoops. My bad. It was actually James who said that, not you. I'm sorry.

But since we're on the topic, I guess that your rebuttal here means that you do admit that the Religious Right are a powerful voting bloc, powerful enough that their participation or lack thereof is usually what determines the Republican's success or failure in an election, and thus explains why the Republicans are sucking their collective cocks?

QuoteIf 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?

Simple, because of the Gays.
I'd like to say it was because of the war, because there was a real "great awakening" in the American christian conscience and they all realized that no, Jesus would NOT have wanted them to send their sons off to murder other people's children in the name of oil company's wishes.  That in fact, Jesus does not sit on the board of Halliburton, and that he's called the "prince of peace" not the "Prince of Bunker Busters", much less the "Prince of Sexually Torturing Illegally-Held Prisoners".

But no, it was because a congressMAN sent some perverted e-mails to a 15 year old BOY (had it been a girl, it would have been "shame on him", but not otherwise a big deal), and for once the democratic spin doctors managed to to do their fucking job and suddenly make it look like the entire Republican congress were now auditioning for the cast of The Birdcage.

QuoteAnd 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?

Dude, if you want to pretend that all those things I listed did not exist, and are not happening, you go right ahead.  Maybe you're a diehard neocon republican who's in denial; there's a lot of those out there, rocking back and forth in a near-catatonic state trying to tell themselves that their party hasn't been completely subverted by a gang of apocalyptic loonies.

Or maybe you're actually one of the apocalyptic loonies, and are just being disingenuous with us.

But come on, I could quote you media sources, dozens of them, for the conferences Bush has on a weekly basis with Evangelical leaders (which is, incidentally, far more often than what he has with leaders of congress, or even did back when Congress was Republican). You'd claim that they were biased. Shit, if I told you the National Review or the Rush Limbaugh show had said it, you'd just claim they're "liberal east coast" reporting. So why the fuck would I bother?

Remember, this is the President, and now apparently the party, that "doesn't do reality".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSimple, because of the Gays.



But no, it was because a congressMAN sent some perverted e-mails to a 15 year old BOY (had it been a girl, it would have been "shame on him", but not otherwise a big deal), and for once the democratic spin doctors managed to to do their fucking job and suddenly make it look like the entire Republican congress were now auditioning for the cast of The Birdcage.

Boy did you mis-read that situation.  It had nothing to do with the fact that the congressman was gay, it was the fact that it was spun as predatory behavior on a child and then a coverup. If it had been a girl page, same scandal would have been in place.  Gay, in and of itself, meant virtually nothing to the scandal.

All of which calls into question, as I believe WK and I are doing,  your interpretation of events.  Where, exactly, do you get your information - or is this all speculation based on selected media reporting?

Quote from: RPGPunditDude, if you want to pretend that all those things I listed did not exist, and are not happening, you go right ahead.  Maybe you're a diehard neocon republican who's in denial; there's a lot of those out there, rocking back and forth in a near-catatonic state trying to tell themselves that their party hasn't been completely subverted by a gang of apocalyptic loonies.

Or maybe you're actually one of the apocalyptic loonies, and are just being disingenuous with us.

But come on, I could quote you media sources, dozens of them, for the conferences Bush has on a weekly basis with Evangelical leaders (which is, incidentally, far more often than what he has with leaders of congress, or even did back when Congress was Republican). You'd claim that they were biased. Shit, if I told you the National Review or the Rush Limbaugh show had said it, you'd just claim they're "liberal east coast" reporting. So why the fuck would I bother?

Remember, this is the President, and now apparently the party, that "doesn't do reality".

Ahhhh...Riiiight...You're adding to my understanding of why people liken you to Ron Edwards.  "I'd prove to you why you're wrong, but you're too stupid to even understand that."

Quote from: James J SkachI have two words for you - labor unions. C'mon Pundit, you know better than that. It's politics frex.

It certainly is, and there's no question that Labour Unions are almost entirely pro-Democrat.

But there's something of a difference in gravitas between a worker's right group, and a group that's supposed to be dedicated to the issue of your IMMORTAL SOUL. So you'll forgive me if I judge hypocrisy and worldliness on the side of one of those two groups to be a far greater crime than the other's.

QuoteIn 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.

That division isn't the issue. The issue is whether you can get a certain block of voters out to vote. The Religious Right's greatest asset is that they can get a block of millions of people out to vote, and all to vote republican, if they want to. Of course, if absolutely everyone else were to turn on the Republicans, it wouldn't be enough, which is why the Republican party can't sell itself completely over to the Evangelicals.  But the bloc is so significant nonetheless that the Republicans do openly promote themselves with some very extremist views to satisfy the very extremist leaders of this movement.

QuoteBut 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.

I agree, that this is true. But the fact that the republicans put those litmus tests on their Judges proves that this is what their "specific ideological persuasion" is.  The whole point in this argument is that you and Koala were trying to somehow claim that Bush and the Republicans are not really beholden to the Fundamentalist Evangelical Movement, or that if they were, that wouldn't really be so bad.
Your admitting that the Republicans do indeed have a litmus test for Judges, means that they are beholden, and that yes it is very bad, because it will destroy the very fabric of American secular democracy.

QuoteAnd 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?

Good for your mom. Catholic charities are generally genuine charities, and whatever else you can say about the Catholic Church (and there's a lot bad you could say) they do at least put up more than just a pretense of "aid" before getting down to the "conversion" business.

But the fact that there were some legitimate charities down there doesn't mean there wasn't a SHITLOAD of what are basically FRAUDULENT "charities" that went down to evangelize, and got paid government money to do so.

Operation Blessing, a "charity" run by Pat Robertson, which has been known i the past to use its airplanes to transport mining equipment for Robertson's corrupt mining operations in Africa, received FEMA money for going in to the region to rebuild churches (robertson's churches) and evangelize.

The "Convoy of Hope", another fake charity run by the Assembly of God, is infamous for engaging in "stealth evangelism"; they are famous for going to some of the most miserable places on earth, where people are starving, freezing or otherwise dying, and offering them one meal a day in exchange for attending bible classes.

I could keep going: Christian Disaster Response (really a front for One Way Ministries), World Harvest (really a front for the Focus on the Family, Dobson's organization, Mission of Mercy (actually a front for Bethesda Christian, and a particularly vile charity that targets children, trying to get them to convert away from their parents' religion), World Relief, Mercy Ships (present themselves as a medical charity, keeping secret that they're in fact affiliated with Campus Crusade are are mostly dedicated to evangelizing to students), Global Hope Network, International Foundation of Hope (both "fake charities" set up by Focus on the Family), Churches of Christ Disaster Relief (a charity that has engaged in church planting in the third world and who's orphanages have come under investigation for horrible abuses), and World Emergency Relief (a group who are run by self-style "Christian Supremacists" that have been known to turn away non-christians).

Even relatively mild Christian charities, like Billy Graham's Samaritan's Purse, or the Salvation Army, groups that really DO give charity, why should taxpayer money go to these groups? We know that Samaritan's Purse, for example, refuses to accept volunteers who aren't evangelical christians (requiring that they have a letter from their Pastor backing them up). To me, that makes it pretty obvious that they have an agenda beyond just helping the needy.

And if you still aren't convinced by all of this, remember that Volunteer Ministers got money too. They are actually a front for the Church of Scientology (its funny, the Christian "charities" try to pretend they're nondenominational relief efforts, the Scientologists in turn try to pretend they're Christian).

RPGPundit

Quote from: James J SkachBoy did you mis-read that situation.  It had nothing to do with the fact that the congressman was gay, it was the fact that it was spun as predatory behavior on a child and then a coverup. If it had been a girl page, same scandal would have been in place.  Gay, in and of itself, meant virtually nothing to the scandal.

Now who's kidding themselves? The media coverage played up the Gay angle, and that's what the evangelicals caught onto as well. You saw the evangelicals getting this sense that "the congressmen don't share our values", by which they meant "They knew this guy was gay, and yet they let him be there".  

Again, had it been a 15 year old GIRL, then for sure the Democrats would have scored a couple of points, the guy still would have been drummed out, but there's no way that the entire PARTY would have gone down with him. It was all because "JEEEZUS hates the gays".

QuoteAll of which calls into question, as I believe WK and I are doing,  your interpretation of events.  Where, exactly, do you get your information - or is this all speculation based on selected media reporting?

Where the fuck do you get yours? I'm a voracious reader, and politics is like my Football. Its my sport of choice. So I don't limit myself to just one source.
Now, where the fuck is your "·source" telling you that, no, the Evangelical leaders really didn't vote Republican this time around because they were really upset with the ballooning budget (because we've seen so many concerned reports about that from the Christian Coalition, budgetary concerns are virtually ALL they ever talk about :rolleyes:) or serious concerns about the bloodshed in Iraq (yeah, because so many of the Southern Baptist churches are holding protest marches about that :rolleyes:), and not because a Republican Congressman (and later, one of their own Evangelical pastors) was caught up in a gay scandal?

RPGPundit

Dude.

Everything you said the administration was pushing for was what the hard-core Religiious Right wants, NOT what the Administration has tried to accomplish. Not. One. Thing. On your list has been seriously attempted to be passed into law by the Bush Administration. I DARE you to prove me wrong. Go on, I'll wait.

YOUR problem is, your conspiracy-addled brain thinks there's no difference between Republican and Right-Wing ChristoFascist. You're so SO wrong. Unless you're telling me that there are enough Christo-Fascists in the US to elecet a Republican every time as President from here on out? If that's the case, then its over, 'innit?

Proof of your conspiracy-mongering is your long list of Christian Aid groups that are "fronts" for some dark, sinister Globe-Spanning conversion machine. Hey, got news for you - its not a) a secret or b) sinister. Evangalizing and spreading the Gospel is what Christians are SUPPOSED to do! Dosn't matter if they're a hard-right or gooey-left denomination, its their commission! There are these little groups of people called "missionaries" - maybe you've heard of them? Read the bible sometime. Fuck, I'm an agnostic and even *I* know that!

Are Republicans "beholden" to the Movement? Only inasmuch as they need them to be elected. Same way Liberals are "beholden" to wackjob Leftists like environmentalists and Che' shirt-wearing college students who think that Christo-Fascists Republicans are trying to turn the US into a Theocratic State (which incidentally you sound exactly like, in case you didn't know it). Does that mean they kow-tow to them? Not at all, or at best only in symbolic ways. Seriously - name ONE signifigant Religious Right Political victory in the last 8 years, that's all I'm asking for.

You've really, REALLY got a bug up your ass about this, don't you? I mean hell, I thought Nox was bad. How the hell did you end up on the same page on THIS of all things?

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, the Right is Crazy-Religious

No we're not.

Quote from: WerekoalaDude.
YOUR problem is, your conspiracy-addled brain thinks there's no difference between Republican and Right-Wing ChristoFascist. You're so SO wrong. Unless you're telling me that there are enough Christo-Fascists in the US to elecet a Republican every time as President from here on out? If that's the case, then its over, 'innit?

No, the reality of the situation is far more delicate than that.  The Republicans can NOT afford to lose the religious right, but they can't completely cater to them either, not to the point of losing their moderates.  At the end of the day, they need the Religious Right slightly more than they need the moderates, but the reality is they need them both to win.  If the Libertarian wing of the republican government woke up tomorrow and realized that voting republican has done NOTHING to give them the guarantees they want, and that the religious intrusiveness of the religious Right's desired social plan for america is just as bad as the nanny-state left, then their leaving en masse could have a serious effect.  Likewise if the related "small-government" fans, if they were to realize that in fact Bush's government (and most Republican governments including their hero Reagan) have been obscenely absurdly BIG-spending just as bad if not worse than the democrats, they would cost the Republican party election.  The reality is that the republican party depends on the votes of at least two utterly different groups of people with often OPPOSING priorities.
However, it is also the reality that of those two groups, the ones that act as an organized bloc and have powerful and visible leaders who are able to move their bloc en masse to "get out and vote" or to stay home that Tuesday, are the Religious right.  There is no libertarian or small-govt equivalent to the Pat Robertsons, James Dobsons, Jerry Falwells, etc. of the Religious Right. No celebrities that could take away millions of votes from the Republican Candidates, and thus far less reason to be activist and concerned about catering to that wing.

QuoteProof of your conspiracy-mongering is your long list of Christian Aid groups that are "fronts" for some dark, sinister Globe-Spanning conversion machine.

Clearly you misunderstand what I mean by "Front":  I mean that these groups engage in what is called "stealth tactics". They pretend to be a unicef-like charity dedicated to helping starving childrens or tsunami victims, with no religious component, and that people who donate to them will be helping build houses or schools. When in fact the money goes to sending these starving children more bibles than gruel, and building churches.
There are legitimate christian charities that do not operate this way. But there's far too many that do.

QuoteHey, got news for you - its not a) a secret or b) sinister. Evangalizing and spreading the Gospel is what Christians are SUPPOSED to do!

Not if you're claiming to be a charity that deserves federal money.

Quotemaybe you've heard of them? Read the bible sometime. Fuck, I'm an agnostic and even *I* know that!

You do realize I'm a religious studies professor, specialized in the origins of christianity and mystical movements?  I've probably read the bible from cover to cover more often than the average pastor. Certainly far more often than the average Christian.

QuoteAre Republicans "beholden" to the Movement? Only inasmuch as they need them to be elected.

Yes, that's what "beholden" means.

QuoteSeriously - name ONE signifigant Religious Right Political victory in the last 8 years, that's all I'm asking for.

The election, and subsequent re-election, of George W. Bush springs to mind.

QuoteYou've really, REALLY got a bug up your ass about this, don't you? I mean hell, I thought Nox was bad. How the hell did you end up on the same page on THIS of all things?

Nothing turns you off institutional religion faster than being a religious studies academic. I know these people, I've seen it all before, and I see it now, and I know how they think, and what they want, and what they'd do if they are allowed to.

You see, Nox is very wrong when he describes all Islam as evil. But any of the stuff he says, if you applied it solely to the Taliban, would probably be relatively close to even being correct.
These guys, the religious right in America, they're our taliban. They would be no better than the Taliban were in Afghanistan, if only they thought they could get away with it.

The real "clash of civilizations" that's happening today, I repeat, is not between Islam and "the West". Its between modern, democratic, SECULAR society, and religious fanaticism.  The Muslim world just has a much harder struggle for the secular humanist side, but this war will really be won or lost here, in "the west".

RPGPundit

Quote from: ZalmoxisNo we're not.

By the standards of the rest of the developed world, yes, you are.

If you don't like it because you are not religious yourself, then I'd suggest you strongly reconsider who you're making your bed with.

On the other hand, if you are religious but don't care for the likes of Jerry Falwell, then you have no one to blame but yourself. Failing to organize a moderate christian movement to oppose your very own personal taliban is what has gotten you into this mess, and the rest of us with you.

RPGPundit

QuoteI've probably read the bible from cover to cover more often than the average pastor. Certainly far more often than the average Christian.

That´s not hard to do: reading it once from cover to cover should suffice to back up that claim.

Quote from: RPGPunditBy the standards of the rest of the developed world, yes, you are.

Anyone who would make such a blanket statement is ignorant, regardless of nationality or numbers.

QuoteIf you don't like it because you are not religious yourself, then I'd suggest you strongly reconsider who you're making your bed with.

I'm a Christian who believes that the government should not favor one religion over another or force religious beliefs on others.

QuoteOn the other hand, if you are religious but don't care for the likes of Jerry Falwell, then you have no one to blame but yourself. Failing to organize a moderate christian movement to oppose your very own personal taliban is what has gotten you into this mess, and the rest of us with you.

RPGPundit

The Taliban overthrew a government and ruled as a strict theocracy. There is no fucking way in the universe of sanity that anyone with even the tiniest of brains could think that is close to happening in the US.

Quote from: RPGPunditNow who's kidding themselves? The media coverage played up the Gay angle, and that's what the evangelicals caught onto as well. You saw the evangelicals getting this sense that "the congressmen don't share our values", by which they meant "They knew this guy was gay, and yet they let him be there".  

Again, had it been a 15 year old GIRL, then for sure the Democrats would have scored a couple of points, the guy still would have been drummed out, but there's no way that the entire PARTY would have gone down with him. It was all because "JEEEZUS hates the gays".

The whole party went down with him (the puns available there....) because of the "cover-up."  I put it in quotes as I'm still not sure exactly how it all played out, but the appearence of what was going on should have sounded alarm bells for the leadership. You have someone like me - center right - looking at them and thinking they got what they deserved.  Am I some religious right anti-gay fuckwad?  No.

He got drummed out because of his actions - regardless of gay or not.  The party got whacked because of the perceived, real or not, cover-up.

Unless you are so unhinged as to only take "he doesn't share our values" as "HE'S GAY!" as opposed to "we don't think it's right for a man in his position of power to take advantage of a young page."

Quote from: RPGPunditWhere the fuck do you get yours? I'm a voracious reader, and politics is like my Football. Its my sport of choice. So I don't limit myself to just one source.

From all over, but I tend to lean towards center right (as I've said before, a friend once called me a conservative libertarian, whatever the hell that means) - WSJ, Washington Times, Tigerhawk, Belmont Club.  That's pretty much everyday reading. That, of course, is in addition to the center left of the mainstream media, so it's a balance. I'm not as voracious about it as I was, say, 6 months ago.  But I read every morning while I'm on the treadmill, so...

Quote from: RPGPunditNow, where the fuck is your "·source" telling you that, no, the Evangelical leaders really didn't vote Republican this time around because they were really upset with the ballooning budget (because we've seen so many concerned reports about that from the Christian Coalition, budgetary concerns are virtually ALL they ever talk about :rolleyes:)...

No, but that's not my point.  My point is the Republicans could have held the House and Senate if they hadn't abadoned any semblance of the party of small government, enforcing the border, etc.  So when the scandal hit, there was nothing to balance it out.  You couldn't say, "ya know, they fucked up this scandal, but look at all the work they've done on insert-your-issue-here that I'll vote for them.  That's why they lost. But this illustrates you Republicans = Evangelicals hyperbole.  There are Evangelicals that are Republicans. This does not make all Evangelicals Republicans, nor does it make all Republicans Evangelicals.

Quote from: RPGPundit...or serious concerns about the bloodshed in Iraq (yeah, because so many of the Southern Baptist churches are holding protest marches about that :rolleyes:),

I want to make sure I'm understanding your implication here...that Iraq is a religious crusade?  I thought it was at the behest of Oil. Would you make up your conspiracy adled mind on this one? Regardless, there's very little concern about bloodshed in Iraq except as a political tool.  It's a shame, really. But being concerned over the bloodshed is only one factor as to whether or not one believes it's right to have gone in and/or stay.

Quote from: RPGPunditand not because a Republican Congressman (and later, one of their own Evangelical pastors) was caught up in a gay scandal?

I don't know about evangelical pastors having anything to do with Republicans losing.  If you truly believe that...

Yes, I do believe it was not GAY! that made the scandal.

Quote from: RPGPunditThese guys, the religious right in America, they're our taliban.

So many problems with this statement, so little time...

Your Taliban? You're a resident of the US? Has the religious right in the US provided safe haven for terrorists who have then physically attacked Uruguay or Canada? What does the religious right have to do with you whilst you oppress the underclass in Uruguay?

This doesn't even touch on the actual real differences between the Religious Right in America and the Taliban.  Does the religious right in the US oppress women, ban music, stone adulterers, etc.? The fact that you equate them shows more about you than it does them.

For a religious studies academic, this is surprising.  Perhaps you should take up bat penises too?

Quote from: WerekoalaDude.

Everything you said the administration was pushing for was what the hard-core Religiious Right wants, NOT what the Administration has tried to accomplish. Not. One. Thing. On your list has been seriously attempted to be passed into law by the Bush Administration. I DARE you to prove me wrong. Go on, I'll wait.

YOUR problem is, your conspiracy-addled brain thinks there's no difference between Republican and Right-Wing ChristoFascist. You're so SO wrong. Unless you're telling me that there are enough Christo-Fascists in the US to elecet a Republican every time as President from here on out? If that's the case, then its over, 'innit?

Proof of your conspiracy-mongering is your long list of Christian Aid groups that are "fronts" for some dark, sinister Globe-Spanning conversion machine. Hey, got news for you - its not a) a secret or b) sinister. Evangalizing and spreading the Gospel is what Christians are SUPPOSED to do! Dosn't matter if they're a hard-right or gooey-left denomination, its their commission! There are these little groups of people called "missionaries" - maybe you've heard of them? Read the bible sometime. Fuck, I'm an agnostic and even *I* know that!

Are Republicans "beholden" to the Movement? Only inasmuch as they need them to be elected. Same way Liberals are "beholden" to wackjob Leftists like environmentalists and Che' shirt-wearing college students who think that Christo-Fascists Republicans are trying to turn the US into a Theocratic State (which incidentally you sound exactly like, in case you didn't know it). Does that mean they kow-tow to them? Not at all, or at best only in symbolic ways. Seriously - name ONE signifigant Religious Right Political victory in the last 8 years, that's all I'm asking for.

You've really, REALLY got a bug up your ass about this, don't you? I mean hell, I thought Nox was bad. How the hell did you end up on the same page on THIS of all things?

http://constitution-first.org/

http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/list/fbci/index.html?src=qc

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/29/bush.faithbased.01/index.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/abstinenceonly-education.html

Took about 3 minutes with Google.

Quote from: ZalmoxisThe Taliban overthrew a government and ruled as a strict theocracy. There is no fucking way in the universe of sanity that anyone with even the tiniest of brains could think that is close to happening in the US.

That isn't the point. Their inability to do so is purely because they are not given the leeway to. But their ultimate goals are the real question.  The point is not "can they do it", it is, "if the Christian Coalition had the power to do so, what society would they create? Would it be anything like America? Is it a place where you would want to live?".  That's what you should be considering.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThat isn't the point. Their inability to do so is purely because they are not given the leeway to. But their ultimate goals are the real question.  The point is not "can they do it", it is, "if the Christian Coalition had the power to do so, what society would they create? Would it be anything like America? Is it a place where you would want to live?".  That's what you should be considering.

RPGPundit

No, that's what you should be considering, living in a country where someone with enough muscle could do so.

Perhaps the reason you have Americans fighting you on this is for the very reason you dismiss. We believe strongly in the their inability to do so.

You might get a different response if Americans thought the religious right could somehow pull of a coup...but most don't, which is why there isn't as much hysteria as you'd like.

Who the fuck cares what the Christian Coalition wants?  They hold less power than most.  I'm more worried about someone taxing me or telling me I can't smoke in my own car (it's for the kids!) than about whether or not the Christian Coalition condones what I do in my bedroom.  That ship sailed long ago.

EDIT: I will be quick to point out that I don't know enough about Uruguay to know whether someone could, or not.  It was just an example, and perhaps a bad one.