The Religious States of America
- Thread starter David85
- Start date
E-Z-B
CAGiversary!
I posted this in another thread but still feel it underscores the f-ed up beliefs of the Republican party:
God's Anointed One Was Elected-
Be Afraid
http://www.rense.com/general59/godse.htm
What you are about to read is an actual email Jeff Rense received...
Mr. Rense,
Hello! I believe what we have here as far as the 2004 elections is a close tie between the devil and God. Not Kerry and Bush. And God prevailed obviously and placed the most morale person in office during the "end times".
Abortion and Christanity are reasons for my voting for Bush along with the gay marriage ban! I have been rejoicing since Bush's (the good Lord aboves Win!) victory. He is a family and moral man and believes in the sanctity of marriage, honesty, anti-choice/pro life. He is going back to the beliefs of our founding fathers of the U.S.A.
Of course since God is with Bush the world hates him because they don't want to turn to the bible and away from their vile-sinful lifestyles that are abominable to God. Jesus was hated by the world too. Doesn't it make since when you are born again TRULY through the blood of Christ the world would hate you too? Well, that is Bush. Wake-up. Bush sincerely cares about this nation because he has the love of God living within him. So, it is ones choice to accept Christ or not. If not they send themselves to hell by living in opposition to Gods rule. Don't blame him.
God Bless,
(Name removed)
____
If your mouth is not hanging open, it should be. Reading this, whether you are a Christian or non-Christian, should turn your blood cold as ice.
What you have just read demonstrates how powerfully these people in Washington, in cooperation with media, tele-evangelists, right wing pundits and authors, and even local ministers, have through outrageous polarization created mindless, belief-driven drones who clearly have lost all ability to discern true good from true evil.
They have completely abandoned the warnings of Christ regarding false Christ's, false prophets and those who would 'come in His name', accepting them as genuine God-chosen leaders, with the perfect blend of psychotic nationalism and fundamentalism that can only lead to serious disaster. These people are fully convinced and persuaded that George Bush and the political party they lay claim to is just one step from holy; special, set apart from the sinful world and sinful, evil "democrats" "independents" and other Satanic non-republican/NeoCons, chosen by God, led by God, and most specifically, ordained by Jesus Christ, Himself.
They are so polarized that, as the letter above reveals, they truly believe the political opposition to be either evil, of the devil or somehow backed by Satan and clearly rejected by God. The writer of the letter sees George Bush as the hand picked man of God to lead America; even the world.
It makes me wonder what she thought of President Clinton, who was also apparently chosen by God; in fact, over Pat Robertson, a minister of the Gospel!
This is so close to worship that it is quite scary. This person is no longer making political evaluations based on facts or reality, but upon a new Christian faith suited just for US politics, created and formulated by NeoCons and others. Their Jesus is clearly not the Jesus of scripture, but a new Jesus, and Bush is His Pope.
The new Jesus is a warlord, who calls upon his earthly minions to smite evil -- whereas the Jesus of scripture says the exact opposite. The new Jesus desires to see government conformed to Christianity -- whereas the Jesus of scripture had no regard for earthly goverment, neither did any of his Apostles seek to change government.
The new Jesus believes in killing for peace, whereas the Jesus of scripture called for self-sacrifice over all, and never doing harm to another, even when wronged. The new Jesus is clearly a capitalist and favors corporate America over all -- whereas the Jesus of scripture held no reguard for business or profit making whatsoever, but gave freely and taught his followers to do likewise.
These NeoChristians have so lost their way that they represent a perfect picture of everything the prophets, Christ and the Apostles warned about regarding the seductive power of evil in the likeness of good, "for do not marvel, that Satan comes as an angel of light and his ministers as ministers of the paths of righteousness." They are the perfect example of how easy it will be for the forth coming Antichrist to bring about what Paul called "a great falling away" from the faith, when the man of sin is revealed. Through a false peace, and promise of security, he will destroy the many.
The George Bush this woman has placed her faith in to such an enormous degree is the same George Bush who, while claiming to be a Christian, put to death Carla Faye Tucker, who asked only that her death sentenced be changed to life in prison, so that she could continue her prison ministry for Christ, which she had labored over for 14 years while behind bars for a crime she committed while in drug-induced stupor as a teenager. The same George Bush who saw fit to silence the voice of the Gospel of salvation in Christ through Carla via execution, claiming he could not even stay her execution, much less commute her sentence to life in prison. The same George Bush who turned right around and stayed the execution of serial killer and sexual predator Henry Lee Lucas, allowing him to live out his life in prison and die of natural causes behind bars, while doing numerous television interviews and flaunting his grinning, Satanic face for media-hogs lapping up the blood of his sordid tales of rape, mutilation and murder.
Her reasoning is beyond comprehension. The world hates George Bush, so he MUST be approved by God, because Jesus was also hated by the world. This kind of twisted rationale is precisely the kind of retarded pablum being served in Churches and on Christian television across the nation to the ignorant and gullible. The disdain for Bush comes from him being so like Jesus. It sounds like something Sean Hannity might actually spout, with a straight face. It's enough to make one vomit.
The mass murderer Pol Pot was hated by the world, ipso facto, he MUST have been approved of God and doing the right thing. If this is the level of discernment and intellect NeoChristianity is creating in the sheeple, there is going to be serious hell to pay. Christians worth their salt and aware had better take these poor brothers and sisters aside and do everything they can to unscramble their poor brains, before it's too late.
Whether one believes in the prophets or not, the letter above is a chilling reminder of just how unhinged and divorced from reality well meaning people can be taken, with just the right finely tuned influences and forces. Every thinking Christian should distance him or herself openly, vocally, loudly and clearly from everything and anything having to do with this psychotic ilk, not only for the sake of Christ, but for the sake of the nation.
God's Anointed One Was Elected-
Be Afraid
http://www.rense.com/general59/godse.htm
What you are about to read is an actual email Jeff Rense received...
Mr. Rense,
Hello! I believe what we have here as far as the 2004 elections is a close tie between the devil and God. Not Kerry and Bush. And God prevailed obviously and placed the most morale person in office during the "end times".
Abortion and Christanity are reasons for my voting for Bush along with the gay marriage ban! I have been rejoicing since Bush's (the good Lord aboves Win!) victory. He is a family and moral man and believes in the sanctity of marriage, honesty, anti-choice/pro life. He is going back to the beliefs of our founding fathers of the U.S.A.
Of course since God is with Bush the world hates him because they don't want to turn to the bible and away from their vile-sinful lifestyles that are abominable to God. Jesus was hated by the world too. Doesn't it make since when you are born again TRULY through the blood of Christ the world would hate you too? Well, that is Bush. Wake-up. Bush sincerely cares about this nation because he has the love of God living within him. So, it is ones choice to accept Christ or not. If not they send themselves to hell by living in opposition to Gods rule. Don't blame him.
God Bless,
(Name removed)
____
If your mouth is not hanging open, it should be. Reading this, whether you are a Christian or non-Christian, should turn your blood cold as ice.
What you have just read demonstrates how powerfully these people in Washington, in cooperation with media, tele-evangelists, right wing pundits and authors, and even local ministers, have through outrageous polarization created mindless, belief-driven drones who clearly have lost all ability to discern true good from true evil.
They have completely abandoned the warnings of Christ regarding false Christ's, false prophets and those who would 'come in His name', accepting them as genuine God-chosen leaders, with the perfect blend of psychotic nationalism and fundamentalism that can only lead to serious disaster. These people are fully convinced and persuaded that George Bush and the political party they lay claim to is just one step from holy; special, set apart from the sinful world and sinful, evil "democrats" "independents" and other Satanic non-republican/NeoCons, chosen by God, led by God, and most specifically, ordained by Jesus Christ, Himself.
They are so polarized that, as the letter above reveals, they truly believe the political opposition to be either evil, of the devil or somehow backed by Satan and clearly rejected by God. The writer of the letter sees George Bush as the hand picked man of God to lead America; even the world.
It makes me wonder what she thought of President Clinton, who was also apparently chosen by God; in fact, over Pat Robertson, a minister of the Gospel!
This is so close to worship that it is quite scary. This person is no longer making political evaluations based on facts or reality, but upon a new Christian faith suited just for US politics, created and formulated by NeoCons and others. Their Jesus is clearly not the Jesus of scripture, but a new Jesus, and Bush is His Pope.
The new Jesus is a warlord, who calls upon his earthly minions to smite evil -- whereas the Jesus of scripture says the exact opposite. The new Jesus desires to see government conformed to Christianity -- whereas the Jesus of scripture had no regard for earthly goverment, neither did any of his Apostles seek to change government.
The new Jesus believes in killing for peace, whereas the Jesus of scripture called for self-sacrifice over all, and never doing harm to another, even when wronged. The new Jesus is clearly a capitalist and favors corporate America over all -- whereas the Jesus of scripture held no reguard for business or profit making whatsoever, but gave freely and taught his followers to do likewise.
These NeoChristians have so lost their way that they represent a perfect picture of everything the prophets, Christ and the Apostles warned about regarding the seductive power of evil in the likeness of good, "for do not marvel, that Satan comes as an angel of light and his ministers as ministers of the paths of righteousness." They are the perfect example of how easy it will be for the forth coming Antichrist to bring about what Paul called "a great falling away" from the faith, when the man of sin is revealed. Through a false peace, and promise of security, he will destroy the many.
The George Bush this woman has placed her faith in to such an enormous degree is the same George Bush who, while claiming to be a Christian, put to death Carla Faye Tucker, who asked only that her death sentenced be changed to life in prison, so that she could continue her prison ministry for Christ, which she had labored over for 14 years while behind bars for a crime she committed while in drug-induced stupor as a teenager. The same George Bush who saw fit to silence the voice of the Gospel of salvation in Christ through Carla via execution, claiming he could not even stay her execution, much less commute her sentence to life in prison. The same George Bush who turned right around and stayed the execution of serial killer and sexual predator Henry Lee Lucas, allowing him to live out his life in prison and die of natural causes behind bars, while doing numerous television interviews and flaunting his grinning, Satanic face for media-hogs lapping up the blood of his sordid tales of rape, mutilation and murder.
Her reasoning is beyond comprehension. The world hates George Bush, so he MUST be approved by God, because Jesus was also hated by the world. This kind of twisted rationale is precisely the kind of retarded pablum being served in Churches and on Christian television across the nation to the ignorant and gullible. The disdain for Bush comes from him being so like Jesus. It sounds like something Sean Hannity might actually spout, with a straight face. It's enough to make one vomit.
The mass murderer Pol Pot was hated by the world, ipso facto, he MUST have been approved of God and doing the right thing. If this is the level of discernment and intellect NeoChristianity is creating in the sheeple, there is going to be serious hell to pay. Christians worth their salt and aware had better take these poor brothers and sisters aside and do everything they can to unscramble their poor brains, before it's too late.
Whether one believes in the prophets or not, the letter above is a chilling reminder of just how unhinged and divorced from reality well meaning people can be taken, with just the right finely tuned influences and forces. Every thinking Christian should distance him or herself openly, vocally, loudly and clearly from everything and anything having to do with this psychotic ilk, not only for the sake of Christ, but for the sake of the nation.
Frankly, I think that suspect e-mail is just bullshit. Until we know WHO actually sent that mass mailing, we can't conclude it was from Bush, the GOP, or any affiliates. If you read the linked page, responses talk about the perceived views of some christian americans, not Bush. For you to use it as a evidence of secret dastardly Republican party agenda is irresponsible.
It could have been anybody. The local priest, police association, or local whacko. It's also the opinion of one person and certainly not a scientific statistic on attitudes of everyone who believes in the virgin birth.
You may know it's not hard to send mass e-mail. It's not expensive either.
It could have been anybody. The local priest, police association, or local whacko. It's also the opinion of one person and certainly not a scientific statistic on attitudes of everyone who believes in the virgin birth.
You may know it's not hard to send mass e-mail. It's not expensive either.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='bmulligan']...You may know it's not hard to send mass e-mail. It's not expensive either.[/quote]
Sad thing is, in this day and age, it's not hard to believe either.
Sad thing is, in this day and age, it's not hard to believe either.
[quote name='E-Z-B']...Whether one believes in the prophets or not, the letter above is a chilling reminder of just how unhinged and divorced from reality well meaning people can be taken, with just the right finely tuned influences and forces. Every thinking Christian should distance him or herself openly, vocally, loudly and clearly from everything and anything having to do with this psychotic ilk, not only for the sake of Christ, but for the sake of the nation.[/quote]
The unhinged and divorced from reality permiate all walks, not just republican. A primary reason we do not have direct popular election of the president. An inherrent contradiction in the recent democratic push to eliminate the electoral college is their faith in the masses, as long as they aren't fundamentalist christian masses.
The unhinged and divorced from reality permiate all walks, not just republican. A primary reason we do not have direct popular election of the president. An inherrent contradiction in the recent democratic push to eliminate the electoral college is their faith in the masses, as long as they aren't fundamentalist christian masses.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='E-Z-B']...Whether one believes in the prophets or not, the letter above is a chilling reminder of just how unhinged and divorced from reality well meaning people can be taken, with just the right finely tuned influences and forces. Every thinking Christian should distance him or herself openly, vocally, loudly and clearly from everything and anything having to do with this psychotic ilk, not only for the sake of Christ, but for the sake of the nation.[/quote]
The unhinged and divorced from reality permiate all walks, not just republican. A primary reason we do not have direct popular election of the president. An inherrent contradiction in the recent democratic push to eliminate the electoral college is their faith in the masses, as long as they aren't fundamentalist christian masses.[/quote]
So we just deal with an electoral system that weights the election towards the sparsely populated states? Exactly where do you think the fundamentalist christians live?
The unhinged and divorced from reality permiate all walks, not just republican. A primary reason we do not have direct popular election of the president. An inherrent contradiction in the recent democratic push to eliminate the electoral college is their faith in the masses, as long as they aren't fundamentalist christian masses.[/quote]
So we just deal with an electoral system that weights the election towards the sparsely populated states? Exactly where do you think the fundamentalist christians live?
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
Aristotle says it best:
"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side."
— Aristotle (ca. 384-322 B.C.E.) Greek philosopher, from 2000 Years of Disbelief, James A. Haught, ed.
"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side."
— Aristotle (ca. 384-322 B.C.E.) Greek philosopher, from 2000 Years of Disbelief, James A. Haught, ed.
[quote name='camoor']Aristotle says it best:
"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side."
— Aristotle (ca. 384-322 B.C.E.) Greek philosopher, from 2000 Years of Disbelief, James A. Haught, ed.[/quote]
We can safely say that we are living in a different time than Aristotle. The founding of our Nation while not the first representative form of government, is the most well defined and most strongly protected by individuals who hold these truths to be self evident. We are also less prone to be tyrranized as our pillars of government are inherrently opposed to one another to ensure justice and protection of individuals' rights. While far from perfect, governmental power is more evenly distributed and difficult to wrestle from other branches virtually eliminating rule by fiat. Please stop imagining Bush as holy roman emporer. it's a not so clever image to encite the masses, nothing more.
"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side."
— Aristotle (ca. 384-322 B.C.E.) Greek philosopher, from 2000 Years of Disbelief, James A. Haught, ed.[/quote]
We can safely say that we are living in a different time than Aristotle. The founding of our Nation while not the first representative form of government, is the most well defined and most strongly protected by individuals who hold these truths to be self evident. We are also less prone to be tyrranized as our pillars of government are inherrently opposed to one another to ensure justice and protection of individuals' rights. While far from perfect, governmental power is more evenly distributed and difficult to wrestle from other branches virtually eliminating rule by fiat. Please stop imagining Bush as holy roman emporer. it's a not so clever image to encite the masses, nothing more.
David85
Banned
I guess you people really don't understand shit.
Bush won because he won Ohio, he won Ohio because the asshole Christains went out and voted because there was an anti-gay law being voted on. If it was not for that Kerry would have won. Thus asshole Christains are to blamed. Are all of them dumbasses? No, some are smarting up after the sex abuse cases, the majority of them still dumbasses.
Bush won because he won Ohio, he won Ohio because the asshole Christains went out and voted because there was an anti-gay law being voted on. If it was not for that Kerry would have won. Thus asshole Christains are to blamed. Are all of them dumbasses? No, some are smarting up after the sex abuse cases, the majority of them still dumbasses.
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
And also there were some discrepancies with the vote count, some democratic precincts reported 7-15% turnout even though a much larger percentage of registered, legal voters went to the polls.
pfunkpearl
CAGiversary!
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='camoor']Aristotle says it best:
"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side."
— Aristotle (ca. 384-322 B.C.E.) Greek philosopher, from 2000 Years of Disbelief, James A. Haught, ed.[/quote]
We can safely say that we are living in a different time than Aristotle. The founding of our Nation while not the first representative form of government, is the most well defined and most strongly protected by individuals who hold these truths to be self evident. We are also less prone to be tyrranized as our pillars of government are inherrently opposed to one another to ensure justice and protection of individuals' rights. While far from perfect, governmental power is more evenly distributed and difficult to wrestle from other branches virtually eliminating rule by fiat. Please stop imagining Bush as holy roman emporer. it's a not so clever image to encite the masses, nothing more.[/quote]
Maybe you don't understand...but our democracy model was founded upon the greek and roman models of democracy..so the quote is quite valid in comparrison to our curent society...but unfortunately we are looking more like a holy dictatorship....bush and "his will of the people" bullshit....he seems to forget almost half the country voted against him...
"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side."
— Aristotle (ca. 384-322 B.C.E.) Greek philosopher, from 2000 Years of Disbelief, James A. Haught, ed.[/quote]
We can safely say that we are living in a different time than Aristotle. The founding of our Nation while not the first representative form of government, is the most well defined and most strongly protected by individuals who hold these truths to be self evident. We are also less prone to be tyrranized as our pillars of government are inherrently opposed to one another to ensure justice and protection of individuals' rights. While far from perfect, governmental power is more evenly distributed and difficult to wrestle from other branches virtually eliminating rule by fiat. Please stop imagining Bush as holy roman emporer. it's a not so clever image to encite the masses, nothing more.[/quote]
Maybe you don't understand...but our democracy model was founded upon the greek and roman models of democracy..so the quote is quite valid in comparrison to our curent society...but unfortunately we are looking more like a holy dictatorship....bush and "his will of the people" bullshit....he seems to forget almost half the country voted against him...
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='pfunkpearl'][quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='camoor']Aristotle says it best:
"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side."
— Aristotle (ca. 384-322 B.C.E.) Greek philosopher, from 2000 Years of Disbelief, James A. Haught, ed.[/quote]
We can safely say that we are living in a different time than Aristotle. The founding of our Nation while not the first representative form of government, is the most well defined and most strongly protected by individuals who hold these truths to be self evident. We are also less prone to be tyrranized as our pillars of government are inherrently opposed to one another to ensure justice and protection of individuals' rights. While far from perfect, governmental power is more evenly distributed and difficult to wrestle from other branches virtually eliminating rule by fiat. Please stop imagining Bush as holy roman emporer. it's a not so clever image to encite the masses, nothing more.[/quote]
Maybe you don't understand...but our democracy model was founded upon the greek and roman models of democracy..so the quote is quite valid in comparrison to our curent society...but unfortunately we are looking more like a holy dictatorship....bush and "his will of the people" bullshit....he seems to forget almost half the country voted against him...[/quote]
Very well said.
The Roman Empire was originally a Republic that was overthrown by the head of the army, Julius Caesar, during a time of great turmoil in which the Republic was busy fighting enemies far from Rome's center. There are actually a good deal of valid similarities between the government of the old Roman Republic and the America of today.
However the point that I was trying to make, the point that the great Aristotle expresses so clearly, is that a man who wishes to exert his private will over the people would do well to put on an attitude of over-the-top devotion to religion. Speaking to divinities and claiming to be spiritually reborn certainly qualify
"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side."
— Aristotle (ca. 384-322 B.C.E.) Greek philosopher, from 2000 Years of Disbelief, James A. Haught, ed.[/quote]
We can safely say that we are living in a different time than Aristotle. The founding of our Nation while not the first representative form of government, is the most well defined and most strongly protected by individuals who hold these truths to be self evident. We are also less prone to be tyrranized as our pillars of government are inherrently opposed to one another to ensure justice and protection of individuals' rights. While far from perfect, governmental power is more evenly distributed and difficult to wrestle from other branches virtually eliminating rule by fiat. Please stop imagining Bush as holy roman emporer. it's a not so clever image to encite the masses, nothing more.[/quote]
Maybe you don't understand...but our democracy model was founded upon the greek and roman models of democracy..so the quote is quite valid in comparrison to our curent society...but unfortunately we are looking more like a holy dictatorship....bush and "his will of the people" bullshit....he seems to forget almost half the country voted against him...[/quote]
Very well said.
The Roman Empire was originally a Republic that was overthrown by the head of the army, Julius Caesar, during a time of great turmoil in which the Republic was busy fighting enemies far from Rome's center. There are actually a good deal of valid similarities between the government of the old Roman Republic and the America of today.
However the point that I was trying to make, the point that the great Aristotle expresses so clearly, is that a man who wishes to exert his private will over the people would do well to put on an attitude of over-the-top devotion to religion. Speaking to divinities and claiming to be spiritually reborn certainly qualify
I'm not saying your comparisons are invalid, they do contain truths. However, you are refering to a republic who's representatives were not elected by the people. It was not a representative republic.
You elect your state senator and your congressional representatives, not some feudal lord, not the richest man in the county, not the governor of a territory, not the divine right leader of the land. This is a MAJOR point you overlook. The congress and the people have more power than you are giving them credit.
Now perhaps there is a majority of christian demagogues who wish to control your behavior so that it complies with the laws of (a certain) god and not man. The foundation of our government is a document that prohibits this from becoming law. I can understand your animosity toward a president who clamors for a constitutional ammendment restricting freedom in the name of religion. However, such ammendments have been instituted before and have rightfully been repealed. Somehow, right and freedom always seem to triumph over religion. Unfortunately, this process is not immediate, but such is the nature of government.
It is interesting that Democrats proclaim the will of the people as soverign, yet when they are in the minority, they claim just the opposite.
You elect your state senator and your congressional representatives, not some feudal lord, not the richest man in the county, not the governor of a territory, not the divine right leader of the land. This is a MAJOR point you overlook. The congress and the people have more power than you are giving them credit.
Now perhaps there is a majority of christian demagogues who wish to control your behavior so that it complies with the laws of (a certain) god and not man. The foundation of our government is a document that prohibits this from becoming law. I can understand your animosity toward a president who clamors for a constitutional ammendment restricting freedom in the name of religion. However, such ammendments have been instituted before and have rightfully been repealed. Somehow, right and freedom always seem to triumph over religion. Unfortunately, this process is not immediate, but such is the nature of government.
It is interesting that Democrats proclaim the will of the people as soverign, yet when they are in the minority, they claim just the opposite.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='bmulligan']I'm not saying your comparisons are invalid, they do contain truths. However, you are refering to a republic who's representatives were not elected by the people. It was not a representative republic.
You elect your state senator and your congressional representatives, not some feudal lord, not the richest man in the county, not the governor of a territory, not the divine right leader of the land. This is a MAJOR point you overlook. The congress and the people have more power than you are giving them credit.
Now perhaps there is a majority of christian demagogues who wish to control your behavior so that it complies with the laws of (a certain) god and not man. The foundation of our government is a document that prohibits this from becoming law. I can understand your animosity toward a president who clamors for a constitutional ammendment restricting freedom in the name of religion. However, such ammendments have been instituted before and have rightfully been repealed. Somehow, right and freedom always seem to triumph over religion. Unfortunately, this process is not immediate, but such is the nature of government.
It is interesting that Democrats proclaim the will of the people as soverign, yet when they are in the minority, they claim just the opposite.[/quote]
No true American believes the will of the people is completely 100% soverign, don't try and put that on Democrats. All laws must pass the test of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, thus preventing the will of the majority supressing the rights of a minority group.
I agree with everything else you posted, my only point was that most deeply religious people don't necessarily agree with the policies of President Bush, but believing that he has god on his side they go along with him "in faith". The greatest irony is that Jesus disagreed with the militaristic leader of his day (Julius Caesar) and was crucified for being a rabble rouser. And today, the biggest backers of our chicken-hawk President call themselves Christians. The hypocrisy reminds me of another quote:
"There never was more than one Christian, and he died on the Cross."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
You elect your state senator and your congressional representatives, not some feudal lord, not the richest man in the county, not the governor of a territory, not the divine right leader of the land. This is a MAJOR point you overlook. The congress and the people have more power than you are giving them credit.
Now perhaps there is a majority of christian demagogues who wish to control your behavior so that it complies with the laws of (a certain) god and not man. The foundation of our government is a document that prohibits this from becoming law. I can understand your animosity toward a president who clamors for a constitutional ammendment restricting freedom in the name of religion. However, such ammendments have been instituted before and have rightfully been repealed. Somehow, right and freedom always seem to triumph over religion. Unfortunately, this process is not immediate, but such is the nature of government.
It is interesting that Democrats proclaim the will of the people as soverign, yet when they are in the minority, they claim just the opposite.[/quote]
No true American believes the will of the people is completely 100% soverign, don't try and put that on Democrats. All laws must pass the test of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, thus preventing the will of the majority supressing the rights of a minority group.
I agree with everything else you posted, my only point was that most deeply religious people don't necessarily agree with the policies of President Bush, but believing that he has god on his side they go along with him "in faith". The greatest irony is that Jesus disagreed with the militaristic leader of his day (Julius Caesar) and was crucified for being a rabble rouser. And today, the biggest backers of our chicken-hawk President call themselves Christians. The hypocrisy reminds me of another quote:
"There never was more than one Christian, and he died on the Cross."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
I don't get this lumping of "christians" that people seem to love to do.
I for one haven't seen the Pope mention anything about American politics in his recent press statements or liturgies.
Chrisitianity has so many branches that just blaming it when you mean fundamentalist arms of it would be just as ridiculous as blaming the entire Muslim faith for something that only the Sunnis or Shiites did or believe.
Those getting up on thier little bully pulpits right now and decrying Christianity as a whole are no less of bigots that those they are decrying.
I for one haven't seen the Pope mention anything about American politics in his recent press statements or liturgies.
Chrisitianity has so many branches that just blaming it when you mean fundamentalist arms of it would be just as ridiculous as blaming the entire Muslim faith for something that only the Sunnis or Shiites did or believe.
Those getting up on thier little bully pulpits right now and decrying Christianity as a whole are no less of bigots that those they are decrying.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='JSweeney']I don't get this lumping of "christians" that people seem to love to do.
I for one haven't seen the Pope mention anything about American politics in his recent press statements or liturgies.
[/quote]
:shock:
Yeah, besides the official Catholic church stance that voting for a man who doesn't support chuch precepts is immoral (Read: Kerry is pro-choice, so don't vote for Kerry). And the statement of some Bishops that they would deny Kerry communion. (Kerry is Catholic btw)
And Bush's meeting with the Pope, where the Pope decried the war in Iraq after getting a medal from Bush (I'm sorry, from America
) for being such a swell guy.
I am NOT blaming Christianity. I am saying that just because someone says that they are talking to the Christian god and therefore they know what's best for you as a Christian, well it really pays to be skeptical. However as Aristotle said, the majority of people will fell better because they think that their leader is protected by divine power, and they are more hesitant to doubt him because this divine power could bring the fire and brimstone down on them.
Aristotle is not talking about thoughtful religious practitioners, he is referring to the average subjects of a land, in Christian parlance known as "the sheep"
I for one haven't seen the Pope mention anything about American politics in his recent press statements or liturgies.
[/quote]
:shock:
Yeah, besides the official Catholic church stance that voting for a man who doesn't support chuch precepts is immoral (Read: Kerry is pro-choice, so don't vote for Kerry). And the statement of some Bishops that they would deny Kerry communion. (Kerry is Catholic btw)
And Bush's meeting with the Pope, where the Pope decried the war in Iraq after getting a medal from Bush (I'm sorry, from America
) for being such a swell guy.I am NOT blaming Christianity. I am saying that just because someone says that they are talking to the Christian god and therefore they know what's best for you as a Christian, well it really pays to be skeptical. However as Aristotle said, the majority of people will fell better because they think that their leader is protected by divine power, and they are more hesitant to doubt him because this divine power could bring the fire and brimstone down on them.
Aristotle is not talking about thoughtful religious practitioners, he is referring to the average subjects of a land, in Christian parlance known as "the sheep"
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
Yeah, besides the official Catholic church stance that voting for a man who doesn't support chuch precepts is immoral (Read: Kerry is pro-choice, so don't vote for Kerry). And the statement of some Bishops that they would deny Kerry communion. (Kerry is Catholic btw)
The Catholic church is not all that different than any government, nor the College of Cardinals and the groups of bishops all that different than politicians... the Vatican is a country after all.
There are liberals and conservatives, moderates and extremists throughout. Yes, the Church disagrees with him, and belives one of his stances to be immoral? Did they exile him? Brand him a heretic? Say "John Kerry is not a Catholic?"
Yes, some bishops have said they'd refuse him communion... but it's still judging an entire group by a vocal minority.
I am NOT blaming Christianity. I am saying that just because someone says that they are talking to the Christian god and therefore they know what's best for you as a Christian, well it really pays to be skeptical.
You aren't the only one posting, camoor. Lots of people in here are painting with VERY broad strokes... decrying bigotry and ignorance while looking like a poster child for it at the same time.
However as Aristotle said, the majority of people will fell better because they think that their leader is protected by divine power, and they are more hesitant to doubt him because this divine power could bring the fire and brimstone down on them.
I understand the concept, and I do believe that it would fit the though process of some, I highly doubt that's a majority, though. It seems like a mindset from back in Aristotles time, when people did believe in the concept of rulership by "divine right". It doesn't jive well with many of many of the major Prodestant and Catholic Church doctrines...it seems to be more fitting of the televangelists and such, offering easy answers and asking little sacrifice (except for your money) in return.
Aristotle is not talking about thoughtful religious practitioners, he is referring to the average subjects of a land, in Christian parlance known as "the sheep"
Well, I guess we could agree on that, but do those people actually make up the majority of our society? I'd like to believe not...
The Catholic church is not all that different than any government, nor the College of Cardinals and the groups of bishops all that different than politicians... the Vatican is a country after all.
There are liberals and conservatives, moderates and extremists throughout. Yes, the Church disagrees with him, and belives one of his stances to be immoral? Did they exile him? Brand him a heretic? Say "John Kerry is not a Catholic?"
Yes, some bishops have said they'd refuse him communion... but it's still judging an entire group by a vocal minority.
I am NOT blaming Christianity. I am saying that just because someone says that they are talking to the Christian god and therefore they know what's best for you as a Christian, well it really pays to be skeptical.
You aren't the only one posting, camoor. Lots of people in here are painting with VERY broad strokes... decrying bigotry and ignorance while looking like a poster child for it at the same time.
However as Aristotle said, the majority of people will fell better because they think that their leader is protected by divine power, and they are more hesitant to doubt him because this divine power could bring the fire and brimstone down on them.
I understand the concept, and I do believe that it would fit the though process of some, I highly doubt that's a majority, though. It seems like a mindset from back in Aristotles time, when people did believe in the concept of rulership by "divine right". It doesn't jive well with many of many of the major Prodestant and Catholic Church doctrines...it seems to be more fitting of the televangelists and such, offering easy answers and asking little sacrifice (except for your money) in return.
Aristotle is not talking about thoughtful religious practitioners, he is referring to the average subjects of a land, in Christian parlance known as "the sheep"
Well, I guess we could agree on that, but do those people actually make up the majority of our society? I'd like to believe not...
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
Great points JSweeney. Maybe I should explain where I'm coming from.
I was watching a documentary on Bush and Kerry (Public Broadcasting) and when Bush was campaigning for Governor in Texas, he put up ads that were blatantly untrue, had attack groups coming out of nowhere then disappearing, etc
However, everyone on the documentary agreed that the real genius of his entire political career has been the targeting of religious groups, mobilizing them through his zeal for religion, his born-again status, and his use of faith in making important government decisions. By getting this core base, and catering to a few extra select groups on the side (Hispanics for example) he has consistently won elections.
My arguement is that the most ardent supporters of Bush, besides hard-core Republicans, were people who were impressed by Bush's incredible show of faith, and not necessarily his policies (for example, I don't think it's very Christian to bolster the profits of drug companies like he does, but that's a different post...)
In ancient Greece, a tyrant was a ruler who had seized power without legal right to it. Is Bush a tyrant? Depends on what you think of what happened in Florida 4 yrs ago (jk, I really don't think he is). Is he using his Christianity as a selling point so that he can enact policies that people might otherwise disagree with? I'm inclined to answer yes, I wish people thought for themselves but as the great PT Barnum said and the not-so-great Karl Rove proved:
No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
I was watching a documentary on Bush and Kerry (Public Broadcasting) and when Bush was campaigning for Governor in Texas, he put up ads that were blatantly untrue, had attack groups coming out of nowhere then disappearing, etc
However, everyone on the documentary agreed that the real genius of his entire political career has been the targeting of religious groups, mobilizing them through his zeal for religion, his born-again status, and his use of faith in making important government decisions. By getting this core base, and catering to a few extra select groups on the side (Hispanics for example) he has consistently won elections.
My arguement is that the most ardent supporters of Bush, besides hard-core Republicans, were people who were impressed by Bush's incredible show of faith, and not necessarily his policies (for example, I don't think it's very Christian to bolster the profits of drug companies like he does, but that's a different post...)
In ancient Greece, a tyrant was a ruler who had seized power without legal right to it. Is Bush a tyrant? Depends on what you think of what happened in Florida 4 yrs ago
(jk, I really don't think he is). Is he using his Christianity as a selling point so that he can enact policies that people might otherwise disagree with? I'm inclined to answer yes, I wish people thought for themselves but as the great PT Barnum said and the not-so-great Karl Rove proved:No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
I was watching a documentary on Bush and Kerry (Public Broadcasting) and when Bush was campaigning for Governor in Texas, he put up ads that were blatantly untrue, had attack groups coming out of nowhere then disappearing, etc
While I agree that this is dirty politics, I doubt either candidate was directly involved in these attack ads... and both sides played all of the loopholes as best they could.. and blantanly disregarding honesty, fair play and decorum in the process. The Democratic party is just as guilty as the Republican on this front. I actually believe that all of these loopholes need to be sealed up. A lot of dyed in the wool democrats who were saying "its all fair game" during the elections are crying now just because some of the Republican boosters and intrest groups did a better job than them. (Better in terms of more effective... most of the ads were vile and unecessary, regardless of the party affiliation.)
However, everyone on the documentary agreed that the real genius of his entire political career has been the targeting of religious groups, mobilizing them through his zeal for religion, his born-again status, and his use of faith in making important government decisions. By getting this core base, and catering to a few extra select groups on the side (Hispanics for example) he has consistently won elections.
I can see that... his "born again" status gains him a little more cachet in the traditionally weak areas of the Republican party (urban minorities, etc.)... it does explain the numbers in the recent election.
My arguement is that the most ardent supporters of Bush, besides hard-core Republicans, were people who were impressed by Bush's incredible show of faith, and not necessarily his policies (for example, I don't think it's very Christian to bolster the profits of drug companies like he does, but that's a different post...)
Well, I could see that... it is a good explanation as to why he got such a
its the other posters that clouded the thread with an anti-christianity sentiment that I didn't care for.
In ancient Greece, a tyrant was a ruler who had seized power without legal right to it. Is Bush a tyrant? Depends on what you think of what happened in Florida 4 yrs ago (jk, I really don't think he is).
Is he using his Christianity as a selling point so that he can enact policies that people might otherwise disagree with? I'm inclined to answer yes, I wish people thought for themselves but as the great PT Barnum said and the not-so-great Karl Rove proved: No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
I can agree with that entirely... but that's more of a sanction of the relative intelligence of the American people than of Christianity.
(Again, this isn't an issue with most of your posts, but rather the thread in general).
People use bastardized scientific concepts all the time to push through half-assed plans. Does that make everyone who believe in the use and application of the Scientific Method worthy of the same criticisms Christians are getting bombarded with throughout this thread?
While I agree that this is dirty politics, I doubt either candidate was directly involved in these attack ads... and both sides played all of the loopholes as best they could.. and blantanly disregarding honesty, fair play and decorum in the process. The Democratic party is just as guilty as the Republican on this front. I actually believe that all of these loopholes need to be sealed up. A lot of dyed in the wool democrats who were saying "its all fair game" during the elections are crying now just because some of the Republican boosters and intrest groups did a better job than them. (Better in terms of more effective... most of the ads were vile and unecessary, regardless of the party affiliation.)
However, everyone on the documentary agreed that the real genius of his entire political career has been the targeting of religious groups, mobilizing them through his zeal for religion, his born-again status, and his use of faith in making important government decisions. By getting this core base, and catering to a few extra select groups on the side (Hispanics for example) he has consistently won elections.
I can see that... his "born again" status gains him a little more cachet in the traditionally weak areas of the Republican party (urban minorities, etc.)... it does explain the numbers in the recent election.
My arguement is that the most ardent supporters of Bush, besides hard-core Republicans, were people who were impressed by Bush's incredible show of faith, and not necessarily his policies (for example, I don't think it's very Christian to bolster the profits of drug companies like he does, but that's a different post...)
Well, I could see that... it is a good explanation as to why he got such a
its the other posters that clouded the thread with an anti-christianity sentiment that I didn't care for.
In ancient Greece, a tyrant was a ruler who had seized power without legal right to it. Is Bush a tyrant? Depends on what you think of what happened in Florida 4 yrs ago
(jk, I really don't think he is).Is he using his Christianity as a selling point so that he can enact policies that people might otherwise disagree with? I'm inclined to answer yes, I wish people thought for themselves but as the great PT Barnum said and the not-so-great Karl Rove proved: No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
I can agree with that entirely... but that's more of a sanction of the relative intelligence of the American people than of Christianity.
(Again, this isn't an issue with most of your posts, but rather the thread in general).
People use bastardized scientific concepts all the time to push through half-assed plans. Does that make everyone who believe in the use and application of the Scientific Method worthy of the same criticisms Christians are getting bombarded with throughout this thread?
[quote name='jsweeney']People use bastardized scientific concepts all the time to push through half-assed plans. Does that make everyone who believe in the use and application of the Scientific Method worthy of the same criticisms Christians are getting bombarded with throughout this thread? [/quote]
I believe Christians have been engaged in 'strong-arm' criticism of the scientific method since they were afforded political power. Science has about 1500 years of catching up to do.
I believe Christians have been engaged in 'strong-arm' criticism of the scientific method since they were afforded political power. Science has about 1500 years of catching up to do.
bread's done