Quote from: WerekoalaNow, again, what on the huge laundry list that Pundit posted has the Administration ACTUALLY DONE or even TRIED to do? Not one of those links you posted addressed ANYTHING he claimed that BUSH has tried to do, just what his supporters WANT him to do.

What part of "Welfare reform has been one of the centerpieces of President Bush's domestic agenda since the onset of his administration.   This was evident in the creation of key legislation and supporting executive orders designed to place government money into the hands of "faith-based" charity organizations." or "During President Bush's tenure as governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000, for instance, with abstinence-only programs in place, the state ranked last in the nation in the decline of teen birth rates among 15- to 17-year-old females." are you not understanding here? Where does it say Bush didn't push these agendas, only his backers (apparently behind his back if you are to be believed)?

Quote from: WerekoalaThere is not one school district in America that teaches abstinence-only sex education.

http://www.siecus.org/policy/PUpdates/arch04/arch040123.html

Perhaps you should do more thorough research before making such sweeping assertions.

Quote from: SigmundWhat part of "Welfare reform has been one of the centerpieces of President Bush’s domestic agenda since the onset of his administration.   This was evident in the creation of key legislation and supporting executive orders designed to place government money into the hands of “faith-based” charity organizations." or "During President Bush’s tenure as governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000, for instance, with abstinence-only programs in place, the state ranked last in the nation in the decline of teen birth rates among 15- to 17-year-old females." are you not understanding here? Where does it say Bush didn't push these agendas, only his backers (apparently behind his back if you are to be believed)?

Bush as Governor of Texas 7 years ago =/= Bush as President of the USA now. Try again.

Quote from: SigmundPerhaps you should do more thorough research before making such sweeping assertions.

You are the one making "sweeping assertions". The link you provided was from 3+ years ago and its been struck down since then - and more importantly it was NOT pushed by the President of the USA on a national level. Try again.

Quote from: WerekoalaBush as Governor of Texas 7 years ago =/= Bush as President of the USA now. Try again.

It's still Bush pushing an agenda. Not these "backers' you seem to feel are truely running the gov.

QuoteYou are the one making "sweeping assertions". The link you provided was from 3+ years ago and its been struck down since then - and more importantly it was NOT pushed by the President of the USA on a national level. Try again.

How is a specific link refuting your broad statement "sweeping"? Once again, you said...

Quote from: WerekoalaThere is not one school district in America that teaches abstinence-only sex education.

... and the link I provided proved you are wrong for making that sweeping, all-inclusive statement because there is indeed at least one school district that has adopted the policy exclusively. Whether it has since been changed again does not change the fact that your statement is inaccurate. Stop pouting about it and move on to making an actual accurate point for once.

So, are we only allowed to include actions taken to further agendas in the last week? How about in the last month? Would that be ok? Oh, and they can only be policies that haven't been blocked/reversed/etc., right? Cuz we know that if Bush's administration fails at pushing through policies, then they didn't really want them anyway, right? Get real.

Quote from: SigmundSo, are we only allowed to include actions taken to further agendas in the last week? How about in the last month? Would that be ok? Oh, and they can only be policies that haven't been blocked/reversed/etc., right? Cuz we know that if Bush's administration fails at pushing through policies, then they didn't really want them anyway, right? Get real.

As much as it might seem disingenuous to exclude the one school district that had it's abstinence-only program struck down, it speaks to the point I think WK is making (and I said to Pundy at some point).

That point is, no matter how much you might want to say the Religious Right is about to make the US some kind of Christo-fascist state, it's not happening. It's the beauty of the system, to ameliorate wide swings and fringe elements from taking power.

Do they have an agenda they'd like to push?  Sure, it's the right of every citizen and assembly of citizens to have that agenda.  If the Religious Right can't have an agenda, then neither can the left.  Agenda does not necessarily equal implementation.  Otherwise, we'd have to run around shouting "the Left is trying to make us a Socialist (or Communist) state!!!" Usually, the people doing that are called wing-nut fanatics, right?

So does this mean calling those who equate the agenda with the inevitable instantiation of that agenda wing nuts too? I'd daresay we wouldn't equate pundy with raving lunatics, would we?

Quote from: James J SkachDo they have an agenda they'd like to push?  Sure, it's the right of every citizen and assembly of citizens to have that agenda.  If the Religious Right can't have an agenda, then neither can the left.  Agenda does not necessarily equal implementation.  Otherwise, we'd have to run around shouting "the Left is trying to make us a Socialist (or Communist) state!!!" Usually, the people doing that are called wing-nut fanatics, right?

The difference is that 98% of democrats do not, in their heart of hearts, want to create a communist state.

Whereas 98% of the Religious Right DO, in their heart of hearts, want to create a christian state, where non-christians are not allowed to vote, homosexuality is a crime (possibly punishable by death, the various wise reverend doctors of podunk university will debate that after the revolution), women must be covered to the ankles, the dubious practices of "cults" like the scientologists, muslims, buddhists and catholics will be seriously restricted, all education will be christian-based education, and abortion will be considered first-degree murder punishable by death (no debate on that one).

Fundamentalist Christians obviously constitute a minority, both in the United States as a whole, and probably in the Republican party. But they're a much BIGGER minority in the Republican Party, backed up by the vaguely religious (people who think they don't really care, but consider themselves vaguely "socially conservative", and will thus give these guys extra backing without really understanding what they want). And when we say minority, we're still talking a minority of MILLIONS in your country. And millions who think and act alike, all on the order of their religious leaders, and who've totally bought into dangerous apocalyptic concepts, are convinced that the end of the world is not only happening but should be HURRIED UP so they can go be with Jesus, and think that Christianity is MUCH more important than those worldly things like democracy or the constitution.

So there is considerably more call to be concerned about the actual "end-motives" in the heart of hearts of a substantial part of the Republican party, then that of the Democrats, who are lacking in sufficient spines, brains or balls to desire anything truly revolutionary or controversial.


RPGPundit

Since this has become a thread about Bush ... :rolleyes:

Quote from: James J Skach... I'd be willing to bet small-government is the real driver.

Pity Bush loves BIG government.  I can't imagine why any self-respecting libertarian would support him at this stage.

I can't imagine why any self-respecting anything would support him at this stage.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe difference is that 98% of democrats do not, in their heart of hearts, want to create a communist state.

Whereas 98% of the Religious Right DO, in their heart of hearts, want to create a christian state, where non-christians are not allowed to vote, homosexuality is a crime (possibly punishable by death, the various wise reverend doctors of podunk university will debate that after the revolution), women must be covered to the ankles, the dubious practices of "cults" like the scientologists, muslims, buddhists and catholics will be seriously restricted, all education will be christian-based education, and abortion will be considered first-degree murder punishable by death (no debate on that one).

OK..let's take these...umm...extreme...positions one at a time.

First, the two percent of Democrats that want to create a Socialist state abut equal the 98% of the "Religious Right," certainly as you define them later in the post. Because you're comparing two different sets. In other words, the "Religious Right" as you define them certainly DO NOT make up 98% of the Republican party.

Second, are you sure you want to assert that there's an overwhelming super-majority (which doesn't even really get close to the 98% you claim) of Religious Right who want to:
Allow only Christians to vote.
Make Homosexuality a crime.
Make women cover themselves to the ankle.
Restrict other religions.
Make abortion first degree murder.

About the only ones I've ever seen being seriously pushed by any significant group of people is the abortion issue – a debate I think we should leave to another thread.  Even homosexuality is wodely accepted – with only a few states that even have/enforce sodomy laws anymore. Gay marriage or protected status is a separate issue - again, another discussion we should probably leave to another thread. But I seriously can't recall anyone significant talking about making homosexuality a crime.  The other issues you mention are, quite literally, absurd.  I mean, I've never even heard of a desire on the part of anyone to allow only Christians to vote, make women cover to the ankle, or restrict the practice of other religions.

It makes me ask: Who is telling you that this is the desire of any significant movement in America? I mean, I really have to question your source, or the way in which you are interpreting it. It's such a huge disconnect between what you're asserting and the reality in the US, I'm really perplexed.

Quote from: RPGPunditFundamentalist Christians obviously constitute a minority, both in the United States as a whole, and probably in the Republican party. But they're a much BIGGER minority in the Republican Party, backed up by the vaguely religious (people who think they don't really care, but consider themselves vaguely "socially conservative", and will thus give these guys extra backing without really understanding what they want).

Ummm, yeah.  Well, see, you are now putting together people who are socially conservative with people who want to have only Christians vote.  That's like saying people who want to socially liberal are the same as the International Communist minority in the Democrat party.

And it's interesting what I think you miss.  This is horse-trading.  Will social conservatives use the Far Right to get elected?  Absolutely as much as the social liberals will use the Far Left. And then...well...you see what happens – they both run into middle America, which despite all the lovely jabs about how bland and hickish it is, seems to have an amazing amount of wisdom. So when the Far X tries to push it's agenda they get turned back.  Are there incremental changes?  Sure, that's the ebb and flow of politics. Are we headed towards right wing fascism? No more than the 2006 election meant we are headed for full-blown socialism.

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd when we say minority, we're still talking a minority of MILLIONS in your country. And millions who think and act alike, all on the order of their religious leaders, and who've totally bought into dangerous apocalyptic concepts, are convinced that the end of the world is not only happening but should be HURRIED UP so they can go be with Jesus, and think that Christianity is MUCH more important than those worldly things like democracy or the constitution.

Again – this makes me ask just where this comes from, being as disconnected from reality as it is.  Are there millions of Christians? Sure. Are there millions of fundamentalist Christians? Most likely there are.  Are there millions of Fundamentalist Christians who believe abortion should be illegal? It's likely there are. Are there millions of Fundamentalist Christians who believe any of the other things you mentioned? I highly doubt it.  Much less that listen to leaders who have bought into "dangerous apocalyptic concepts," or think the end of the world "should be hurried up." Where, really, do you get this stuff?  I'm not asking to be confrontational, I'd love to see the source as I've heard NOTHING about this kind of thing in any serious discussion of politics in America.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo there is considerably more call to be concerned about the actual "end-motives" in the heart of hearts of a substantial part of the Republican party, then that of the Democrats, who are lacking in sufficient spines, brains or balls to desire anything truly revolutionary or controversial.

Ooooh...now it's a substantial part of the Republican part again? And I don't happen to think trying to make the US socialist or communist is particularly "revolutionary." I mean, it would doom the world to misery until such time as it was reversed, but that's about it.  The whole Socialism=Revolution concept died long ago.  Socialism is as bourgeois as Capitalism frex. We agree on their lack of spines and brains - except that I'd say it extends to most politicians of either party.

Quote from: AkrasiaPity Bush loves BIG government.  I can't imagine why any self-respecting libertarian would support him at this stage.

I couldn't even find where I said that, but I assume my point was that republicans were shown to be, when left in power too long, as susceptible to the lure of Big Government as the Democrats. Another reason they got whacked.

Quote from: James J SkachAs much as it might seem disingenuous to exclude the one school district that had it's abstinence-only program struck down, it speaks to the point I think WK is making (and I said to Pundy at some point).

That point is, no matter how much you might want to say the Religious Right is about to make the US some kind of Christo-fascist state, it's not happening. It's the beauty of the system, to ameliorate wide swings and fringe elements from taking power.

Do they have an agenda they'd like to push?  Sure, it's the right of every citizen and assembly of citizens to have that agenda.  If the Religious Right can't have an agenda, then neither can the left.  Agenda does not necessarily equal implementation.  Otherwise, we'd have to run around shouting "the Left is trying to make us a Socialist (or Communist) state!!!" Usually, the people doing that are called wing-nut fanatics, right?

So does this mean calling those who equate the agenda with the inevitable instantiation of that agenda wing nuts too? I'd daresay we wouldn't equate pundy with raving lunatics, would we?

That may be, but WK was so adamant that not one school district has adopted the program. All I'm saying is for someone who wants to try and call others on verifiable "facts" to themselves be so loose with the "facts" is a bit silly.

I don't really agree fully with Pundit either, I usually vote republican, and I voted for Bush myself, but I don't like the president's pushing of religious programs even a little bit. I agree with you mostly, yet I feel saying he has no agenda along those lines (and I know that's not what you are saying) is either a mistake born of ignorance or a deception. I just don't feel it's anywhere near the impending crisis Pundit seems to. I am willing to at least consider it however as I constantly demonstrate to myself that I don't know everything

Whatever Bush's agenda may be, in two years his ability to push that agenda all but disappears. There is no fear of America becoming a tool of the Christian right because we'll soon have a Democrat in the office.

Skach: You obviously haven't been actually paying enough attention to the things Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, etc are saying to their true believers (and remember, each of these guys represent a multi-million dollar organization with millions of supporters, in some cases bigger than many famous corporations), and occasionally even saying when not among the "faithful".

You should try reading, just for starters, Chris Hedge's book, American Fascists. The guy is hardly a "left-wing hack" or something like that, he's a respected foreign correspondent, a devout presbyterian and a graduate of Harvard Divinity School. This is a real christian responding to the hijacking of his religion, and the attempted hijacking of his country.

RPGPundit

Quote from: James McMurrayWhatever Bush's agenda may be, in two years his ability to push that agenda all but disappears. There is no fear of America becoming a tool of the Christian right because we'll soon have a Democrat in the office.

I wouldn't be totally sure of that Democratic Victory just yet. I have learned the hard way to NEVER underestimate the ability of the Democratic party to try their absolute hardest to lose an election. And if they try as hard at that as they usually do, they might do just that.

RPGPundit

I don't' know how, but I totally missed this Pundit response.  It looks like he's on vacation now, but I'm going to respond in case he checks in and fells like continuing...

Quote from: RPGPunditIt 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.

Perhaps the funniest thing in this response is equating Labor Unions to Worker's Rights Group. I judge them equal for the reason that the worldly Labor Unions affect peoples' lives in the here and now.  Who knows what happens in the afterlife or if the hypocrisy is worth a red cent.

Quote from: RPGPunditThat 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.

I don't know about extremist views with which the Republican party associates – you'd have to elaborate. If it's abortion, we should debate that in a separate thread; likewise for Gay Marriage or Gay Rights. You may see them as extreme, but there are quite a few people who are not fundamentalist Christians that think otherwise.

Now as to the importance of the votes of the Religious Right – similar to what I've said in what turned out to be subsequent posts - it's no different than the influence of the Anti-War Left on Democrats.  Look at how that is perplexing the Democrat party leaders. Politics is about how to get voters to vote for you (unfortunately). This sort of horse-trading goes on all the time.  In fact, you could take the abandoning of Republicans in the 2006 election as a sign that the Religious Right did not get what it wanted. I know it also supports the idea the Religious Right is a large block within Republicans, but I think you'd see the same if, for example, the Labor Unions abandoned Democrats in an election.

Quote from: RPGPunditI 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.

Ummm...I admit no such thing.  What I admit is that it's perfectly fine to have an ideological test for the judges that you, as President, appoint.  For example, does the candidate believe in the Constitution as a "living document" or does the candidate believe in reading in more strictly. That's a litmus test. The fact that someone likens that to the abortion debate tells you more about the abortion debate than the SCOTUS. Which is more dangerous, Ginsberg or Roberts? See, you seem to think someone would answer Ginsberg because she's pro-choice, as opposed to someone who would say Ginsberg because she believes the SCOTUS can find rulings in sources other than the Constitution itself. The reverse would be true for the other side of the ideological debate.

Quote from: RPGPunditGood 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.

I sincerely hope you are not insinuating that my mother did any converting or attempt any. My sister and her went down there and worked. Not one bit of proselytizing. The only time I heard my devout Catholic parents ever try to argue/convert was with me – and that's completely understandable, don't you think? It's also how most of America practices religion – whether you choose to believe it or not.

Quote from: RPGPunditBut 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.

My lord (no pun intended), do you really want to get into the fraud angle on this?  Have you not heard the reports of people using FEMA cards to buy lap dances and big screen TV's?  I'd be interested to see how much was given to "faith based initiatives" and how much in direct aid from the Feds (FEMA, etc), then compare how the money was actually put to use.  Who do you think would win that contest, hmm?

Quote from: RPGPunditOperation Blessing, a "charity" run by Pat Robertson, which has been known in 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).

Wow, fronts and infamy and accusations. I honestly don't know squat about these, and could care less.  Show me the money and the results. Then we can both denounce them for wasting tax-money or truly evangelizing with the money instead of helping.  Until then, please forgive me if I take with a grain of salt what you and people who are opposed to faith based charities getting tax money say, ok?

Quote from: RPGPunditEven 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.

Yeah, because just helping people out of the kindness of their hearts would be so foreign to a Christian – right?  I mean, aren't you the one saying that if they were true Christians, they would act this way or that way (say, be against OIF).  Are you now calling into question their Christianity?

But the larger issue is your opposition to Faith-based Initiatives.  That's a valid debate we can have in a separate thread.  But to use that as a reason to fear all fundamentalist Christians as the next Nazi state in Amerika is ridiculous.

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd 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).

We can snicker all we want at the Scientologists.  But my question is if they get results. Does Volunteer Ministries help people turn their lives around and become productive, self-sufficient citizens?  What the fuck do I care if some percentage of the people they help become Scientologists in the bargain?  In fact, you do a disservice to your argument by pointing out that Scientologists get money as well as Christians.  How does this support your assertion that the Fundamentalist Christians, who railroaded this desire for Faith-based Initiatives over the objections of a screaming American public, have the goal of repressing the practice of other religions if the fucking Scientologists are getting money?

My theory in response to the OP, is that Satan whispers these thoughts into atheists ears, lacking Christ in their hearts they have no protection from his influence you see.

On an unrelated note, Bush's Christianity is not as evident in his policies as the left tends to think, if it were the Christian right wouldn't be so fucked off with him, as someone said upthread.  He manages the remarkable trick of pissing off the liberals and many in the centre with occasional faith based policies while not implementing enough of them to satisfy the Christian right.

It takes a special gift to annoy so many people.  Bush's problem is that he is incompetent, not that he's Christian.