Topic awaiting preservation: Scary web site! (Page 2 of 5)

Your ratrionalization of some of the ones you chose to quite is no less heinous.

Lahaye's quite is an expression of elitism and exclusion. It is frightening in that it would exclude the majority of people in the US who do not adhere to her narrow beliefs.

Dobson is just plain scary. To make a blanket statement about Universities shows his overwheening pride, overwheming ignorance and bias.

To claim all the kids of today are lost is completely wrong to begin with and incomplete as a statement. He should have, had he any interest in truth, concluded with (at the very least);"In my opinion". The only place truly poor education occurs is where the fallacies of the bible are promoted.

Kennedy's phrasing reveals the true attitude of the xian right. He uses the word "invade".

If the biased and antiquated teachings of religion were welcome, there would be no need to "invade".

Ashcroft excluded millions of people who do not hold with xianity and who also vote in the US.

Fournier is saying, "We aren't making the sort of headway we need on our own to have complete power, we need to get laws to MAKE people think and act the way WE think they should". This is typical of the mindset.

You may see Limbaugh as being satirical, but he merely echoes similiar statements heard by the likes of Dobson.

Evans is one of those men who feels challenged by feminism. It is surprising how many xian men have similiar feelings.

There are however many men who's minds are not fogged by religious dogma do not feel so challeneged.

Then of course there are the sports types, but that is a whole other problem.

It is worrisome Bug that you should go to such trouble to be an apologist for such frankly bigoted, exclusionist and elitist opinions.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Your rationalization of some of the ones you chose to quote is no less heinous.

Lahaye's quote is an expression of elitism and exclusion. It is frightening in that it would exclude the majority of people in the US who do not adhere to her narrow beliefs.

Dobson is just plain scary. To make a blanket statement about Universities shows his overwheening pride, overwheming ignorance and bias.

To claim all the kids of today are lost is completely wrong to begin with and incomplete as a statement. He should have, had he any interest in truth, concluded with (at the very least);"In my opinion". The only place truly poor education occurs is where the fallacies of the bible are promoted.

Kennedy's phrasing reveals the true attitude of the xian right. He uses the word "invade".

If the biased, exclusionist and antiquated teachings of religion were welcome, there would be no need to "invade".

Ashcroft excluded millions of people who do not hold with xianity and who also vote in the US.

Fournier is saying, "We aren't making the sort of headway we need on our own to have complete power, we need to get laws to MAKE people think and act the way WE think they should". This is typical of the mindset.

You may see Limbaugh as being satirical, but he merely echoes similiar statements heard by the likes of Dobson.

Evans is one of those men who feels challenged by feminism. It is surprising how many xian men have similiar feelings.

There are however many men who's minds are not fogged by religious dogma do not feel so challeneged.

Then of course there are the sports types, but that is a whole other problem.

It is worrisome Bug that you should go to such trouble to be an apologist for such frankly bigoted, exclusionist and elitist opinions.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Dio, you cannot complain about exclusionism if you favor it too. Can you? Don't you hold the exact opposite of what Lahaye said? For instance, I believe you would probably agree with this:

No, religion and politics do not mix. America is a nation based on the principles of the Enlightenment and rationalism. Christian values must never dominate our government. The fact that many citizens think the Bible is the basis of our society is frightening. Politicians who agree and attempt to use the bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office.

Isn't this simply a case of differing opinions in a pluralistic society?

James Dobson has a lot of experience in this area and to call him ignorant of the state of our education system just doesn't seem accurate to me. I don't agree with everything he has to say, particularly in his views on the role of women, but there are a great many things he has right. The pathetic state of our public school system is one of them.

I specifically stated that Ashcroft's statement was non-exclusionary because I knew that a defensive reader would take them as such. If you read it exactly as stated, it is simply making an observation about 3 groups of people who adhere to 3 major religions. In fact, adherents to those religions do believe what he explained.

Being challenged by women taking their rightful place in human society is one thing. Being concerned that inhibiting males from being male may have negative effects on society is another. There are cases where this is happening and I do worry about it. You do not help women by hurting men and visa versa. All people in our society must be encouraged to become the best they can each be individually. I pointed out the Evans quote because I believe he was probably referring to the latter.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Isn't this simply a case of differing opinions in a pluralistic society?

---

No, it is not.

One view supports the premise of the creation of our government. The other goes against its very fiber.

Excluding religious people from government and excluding areligious people from our government strikes me as opposite sides of the same coin.

I do not agree with her statement because I believe someone who does not use the bible should be allowed to hold public office. However, I do not think what she is saying necessarily goes against the fiber of our government. I am thinking mainly of the idea that religion serves as the guide to many of the things we do in government. Quotes like this come to mind:

quote:

---

Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

--George Washington, from his Farewell Address

---

quote:

---

I consider ethics, as well as religion, as supplements to law in the government of man.

--Thomas Jefferson to Augustus B. Woodward, 1824

---

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bugs, religion also serves as a guide that lead to some of the worst atrocities in our history.

One cannot just "pick and choose" here.

I agree with DL's post.

I believe very deeply in the seperation of the Church and State. This is however different from excluding those who believe in one religion or another from State - individuals may believe what they wish. But when in an official postion of office, allowing ones religion dictate policy, and erecting laws to that end, is clearly a violation of the principle of the seperation of Church and State.

And clearly making public statements like "no-one belongs in politics unless they believe like we do" is just...bollocks.

That said, there have been many State leaders that have been deep believers, and still managed to do their duty and keep seperate Church and State.

^ Amen.

What do you mean one cannot "pick and choose here"?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Jeese Helms - "All Latins are volatile people. Hence, I was not surprised at the volatile reaction."

---

While i feel that Helms is an idiot in general, my experience dating latin girls completely supports this statement

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

(Edited by Fig on 09-06-2005 02:03)

quote:

---

Excluding religious people from government

---

For the record, I did not read past this sentence yet.

Nothing about excluding religious people from government was said. And as far as I know, nobody here has ever suggested such a thing.

There is a *HUUUUUUGE* difference between a 'religous person' in govnerment, and a person who will use a position in government for the sake of furthering religious ideology. Your statement above to Diogenesis spoke of the latter.

Right. The statement is exclusionary rather than inclusive. It is clear from all of ther statements that the genral belief of those making them is that the government should be made up entirely of "right-thinking" (read: xian) people.

I have no problem with people with religious beliefs holding office so long as they are not trying to force those beliefs on others.

In fact, here in Canada, it has worked very well. We have had a succession of Catholic PM's and yet there is strong protection for a woman's right to abortion.

The current threat to that right comes from a bunch of right wing xians who, no surprise, are friendly with Dumbya. As well, Dobson, has recently opened a lobbying office here to promote his regressive ideas. He will find his reception less than cordial, except among those relative few who share his archaic views.

As for this bit of doggeral:

quote:

---

No, religion and politics do not mix. America is a nation based on the principles of the Enlightenment and rationalism. Christian values must never dominate our government. The fact that many citizens think the Bible is the basis of our society is frightening. Politicians who agree and attempt to use the bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office.

---

Religion and politics have always mixed, they should not be married.

NO religious doctrine should ever dominate any government, we see how it has ruined many people in the past and in the middle east today.

It IS frightening that so many people are so foolish and so eaily lead.

Policiticans who attmept to use religious doctrine in their role as politicians must not be allowed to do so. What they do in their private lives is up to them.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Seems to me the hardcore xians' screaming for their values to be entrenched in gov't is the same bunch screaming about too much gov't in our lives.

It just further reinforces *my basic belief* =) that organized religion in all it's many flavors is all about Power and Control nothing more.

Argue/debate all the scriptures, the origins of life...the original sin etc. it all boils down to power and control.

I don't know about you but I figure all flavors of *government* already have too much power and control.

Bugs, wehn you say things like "I am thinking mainly of the idea that religion serves as the guide to many of the things we do in government.", there is are also things like "Eye for an eye" and such beliefs that if the unbelievers will not believe, then put them to the sword.

European history is full of example of Xian Belief heavily mixed in with the State - where the borders of Church and State blur, or are non-existant.

And we see many examples of the horrors of such a combination.

That is what I meant by saying you cannot pick and choose. The potiential to do positive things is there, sure. But the potiential to do negative things is also there.

And it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to have the Church and State together, and still treat all citizens as Equal under the Law. What about Muslems, Hindu's, Buddhists, Native American Indians with their cultural beliefs, etc?

"Such will be tolerated, but you will go to xian schools, learn xian things, and behave like a good xist!" Or else!

I'm sorry, but that is not the America that was founded in the Constitution, that is not the America that is meant in the Bill of Rights.

No, but it is the America envisioned and striven for by the xian right in all it's flavours.

The enemy is at the gate, but he left his mind behind and operates strictly by rote and dogma.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

There is a *HUUUUUUGE* difference between a 'religous person' in govnerment, and a person who will use a position in government for the sake of furthering religious ideology. Your statement above to Diogenesis spoke of the latter.

---

This expresses the view of quite a few of you right? Not sure what's meant by "religious ideology" there but for the sake of my point let's replace it with "abortion ban" since that's a clear divide and I think probably solidifies the abstract "religious ideology"... What if the contituents want this? We are a democratic republic yes? This is not a church/state issue, as far as I'm aware the Consitution forbids the government from establishing a religion (this is why we left Europe aye?) not from making laws that conform with the will and moral values of the people.

This whole debate is a matter of perspective, which is why I normally choose not to engage at all, noone's listening or trying to see from the other's pov, for years now but one thing I have noticed, a few of you (normally) more mature/educated/eloquent/vocal lefties (for lack of a better
pigeonhole) are mean and at times, foolish. Perfect example:

quote:

---

The enemy is at the gate, but he left his mind behind and operates strictly by rote and dogma.

---

That's both mean and foolish from where I sit. The mean is obvious, the foolish is you pretending that you've seen it from their point of view, or understand their point of view. To think that you are better than the next man (enough so to not give a second thought to insulting them outright) while you rail against someone whom you perceive to be doing the very same within the framework of govt or media or whatever.

The Senator that goes to the hill to pass the law banning abortion, perhaps he does so because his constituents require it of him? Add to that the love he feels for life and the deep conviction he holds himself. Add to that his experiences with a family member who struggled through an abortion and regretted it etc etc etc... Is this man a mindless shell operating strictly by rote and dogma?!

I don't expect to ever change anyone's mind about anything but I'd like us to try to see things from each other's point of view and be kind to one another. If we can walk a mile in each other's moccasins it's a lot harder to hate/insult each other, and we begin to see more clearly.

I should make it clear that I do not favor a state religion nor do I agree with that quote from Lahaye. I firmly believe in the way the founders set up our government by keeping sectarian religion from running state affairs.

What I object to most strongly is the efforts of the secular Left to remove any trace of religion and openly religious people from public life. I know that the vast majority of you here, perhaps all of you, would never favor or support such a thing and for that I am quite thankful and appreciative.

Dio, I honestly thought I had heard you say that you didn't think religous people should hold public office [edit]In previous threads[/edit]. I apologize for that. I have a tendency to project positions onto debate opponents. I have heard such sentiments from some prominent people in some of Bill Buckley's debates over the years.

DL-44, you are quite right in pointing out that nobody here suggested that religious people should be excluded from holding political office.

I acknowledge there are those on the Right who do favor a theocracy. I do not think it represents the majority view by a long shot. If Lahaye was actually saying she favored a law requiring a religious test for office then she is a fool for holding such a position. I took her quote as an opinion about who should hold office and not calling for a legal requirement.

WS, getting away from "picking and choosing" is part of what is wrong with our current society. If we don't know how to judge right from wrong, who do you suggest we leave it up to? I think we should become more involved with "picking and choosing" and not less.

Take our laws against murder as an example. Wouldn't it be ludicrous to suggest we throw them out because they are found in the Bible and other religious texts throughout the world? One has to look at the intent of the law and do one's best to "pick and choose" what is truly right from wrong. It is not a perfect process and it never will be but that is our job.

The Mosaic Law was revolutionary for its time compared with the societies of the day. We look at it and think it is barbaric in some respects but how often do we study it in its historical context? Many of our current laws in this country are based firmly in the Judeo-Christian traditions and that is simply a fact of history like it or not.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 09-06-2005 21:58)

quote:

---

WS, getting away from "picking and choosing" is part of what is wrong with our current society. If we don't know how to judge right from wrong, who do you suggest we leave it up to? I think we should become more involved with "picking and choosing" and not less.

---

On this point, I agree to disagree.

WS, you know that some of the worst mass murder of the last century was done by atheistic regimes. Do you have similar distrust of that combination? I'm not sure I understand your position as it strikes me as looking for a solution that requires no serious thinking on the part of the citizen.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

[

quote:

---

JKMabry said:

This is not a church/state issue, as far as I'm aware the Consitution forbids the government from establishing a religion (this is why we left Europe aye?) not from making laws that conform with the will and moral values of the people.

---

It does not in any way exclude laws which happen to agree with religion. It does exclude laws which are an enforcement of religion.

Is this a very grey area? Certainly. Your examples seem to me to be very far from the reality of the situation being discussed here though. Of course such scenarios exist. But more often, and as we can see from many of the people quoted on that page, we have people using political office as a pulpit, and trying to use law to enforce what they feel their religion demands.

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

Take our laws against murder as an example. Wouldn't it be ludicrous to suggest we throw them out because they are found in the Bible and other religious texts throughout the world? One has to look at the intent of the law and do one's best to "pick and choose" what is truly right from wrong. It is not a perfect process and it never will be but that is our job.

---

Yes, it would be ludicrous to suggest we throw laws against murder out because they are found in the bible.

The basis of murder being illegal is *not* in any way biblical. It has been illegal in countless societies before and after, with and without, the bible.
(Of course, in most cases, those societies which did base their law on biblical sources also used the bible to determine who to kill and when... )

That is far different from, say, a law stating that we shall have no god before the judeo-christian god, or a law in regard to our use of graven images, or about taking the "lord's" name in vain, etc..

Certainly, and that is where the "freedom of religion" concept comes in. The goal is a society that allows people to practice their religion, or lack thereof, freely and without government intervention.

DL-44, weren't you and I talking once about Dubya praying about how to govern the nation? I thought your position was this was totally wrong. Am I recalling that accurately? If so, how do you see that in relation to allowing/disallowing religious people from public office? What I mean is that for the truly devout Xian, we are to ask God's direction in all important choices we make in life. I do not see this as a problem, do you? I would be interested in NoJive's and Dio's views on this as well.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

"abortion ban" ....What if the contituents want this?

---

Well the problem here JKM kinda goes like this, (at least my argument does.)

One day the 'constituents' elect someone who endorses *their* position that any female under the age of majority who finds herself pregnant is required by law to undergo an abortion and anyone who hides or helps her avoid the abortion is subject to: bla bla. And that's why your senator on the hill, painful tho' his personal experiences may be, should be telling his constituents that even tho' he agrees with them he cannot support such a law (banning abortion* because of what the 'other side' will likely do. To protect the 'other-side' from the 'other-side* is imo, pretty much what secularism boilds down to.

quote:

---

What if the contituents want this? We are a democratic republic yes?

---

This is the classic catch 22. In your last federal election the constituents cast more votes for the other guy but even if you forget about all the shennanigans and outright bullshit that went on there and look at it from the One person/One vote scenario this too is a bunch of hooey if you believe (as I did for eons) that this results in the 'will of the people.'

The 'First Past the Post' method of electing represenatives/gov'ts etc does not in fact result in true proportional representation as we have been lead to beleive.
But hey..that's a whole debate unto itself. =)

Jk, if the majority of constituents wanted a ban on abortion, there would be one.

There is not because the majority of constituents don't want one.

Let us deal with facts not 'what-ifs'.

The fact is, the religious right want an abortion ban and they are willing to do anything to get it, in the face of obvious facts that the majority of people do not want it.

There is no perspective at all in this matter. It is hard, cold fact the xian right are attempting to establish a theocracy in the US.

If they ever do, there wil be another civil war and the xian right are ournumbered.

As for being mean, truth often hurts. I myself am pretty much immune to insults and so and don't worry a bit if someone chooses to decide something I said was insulting. Up to them.

Bug, no apology required...see above.

As for "Praying to god" for direction...there is no god and so in my view of things, it is just an excuse for despots to do what they want under the flag of religion.

There is historical precedent...inquisition ring a bell?

At least the murderous aethists did their crimes honestly and not blaming it on some fictitious being.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

My quick 2 cents:

Setting aside the issue of abortion, as it is widely debated and comes down to whether a person considers the baby in the womb worthy of having rights, all groups want something that does not necessarily reflect the views of the majority.

But, what the majority wants means nothing at all, or should mean nothing at all. Our Republic was not set up as an all-out democracy with majority rule, it was set up to protect the rights and liberties of the individual above the whims of the mob and also above the whims of Washington.

People have been brainwashed into thinking we are a pure democracy -- a sad development that happened in the last century -- and if they knew what that really meant, they would be totally against it. If I and five others who happen to be on the town council decide that your property, which has been in your family for generations, would be a nice place to put a shopping mall, we can vote to take your land away, your property, your livelihood, your happiness, and there is nothing you can do to stop us. That is democracy.

On the other hand, as originally intended by those who instituted the united States, who loathed democracy in the pure form, there is nothing you can do, as I am shielded in my rights, my property, by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I am a sovereign individual and I make my own laws when it comes to me.

What the majority of constituents wants stops -- or should stop -- at the point where it infringes on another's liberties. There is no middle-ground here, because as we see quite clearly, once you cross the threshold of allowing the majority to dictate what the minority is allowed to do with their own lives, the downward spiral into tyranny begins. Government grows into a massive uncontrollable entity, and in the end, nobody's liberty is safe.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

quote:

---

Your examples seem to me to be very far from the reality of the situation being discussed here though

---

You may very well be right man, I'm not wholely on topic here, just entered to offer a tidbit, drawn back to plead for sanity etc etc. I'm workin on a pretty high-level overview vibe kind of conversation here, despite Diogenes' insistance that I conform to his/her conversational (formal debate?) requirements

Dio Ram : I am not talking about abortion, I simply used it as a concrete substitute in place of an abstract to try and make my point more clear by giving a practical example.

quote:

---

There is no perspective at all in this matter.

---

And you have proved my point most excellently with your words here, I thank you. There is always differing perspectives, whether you choose to acknowledge them or not, whether you agree or not...

quote:

---

WS, you know that some of the worst mass murder of the last century was done by atheistic regimes. Do you have similar distrust of that combination? I'm not sure I understand your position as it strikes me as looking for a solution that requires no serious thinking on the part of the citizen. - Bugs

---

Bugs, they didn't however justify such with Religious reasons, did they? I have a critical thinking process, when it comes to anyone in power - to consider otherwise, is to invite being used and duped. This is why Mr. Bush did not dupe me.

quote:

---

What the majority of constituents wants stops -- or should stop -- at the point where it infringes on another's liberties. There is no middle-ground here, because as we see quite clearly, once you cross the threshold of allowing the majority to dictate what the minority is allowed to do with their own lives, the downward spiral into tyranny begins. Government grows into a massive uncontrollable entity, and in the end, nobody's liberty is safe. - Ram

---

This is a very nice post. Well said.

quote:

---

And you have proved my point most excellently with your words here, I thank you. There is always differing perspectives, whether you choose to acknowledge them or not, whether you agree or not...
- JKM

---

JKM, I'm agreeing with you 100% here, and therefore, I am disproving your point I would also like to add, that every opinion is as valid as the next.

WS and RAM, good posts.

But I have a faint memory running about in the back of my head about a recent newstory from the US in which it was revealed the Bush Feds have quietly passed a law which would allow them the take your home or business away if it was decided (by whom, one wonders) the land could be made better use of.

JK, the reason I see it not a matter of perspective, is because there is no perspective on facts. On opinion, faith, philosphopy, child rearing etc, certainly, but facts are facts.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Dio: Kelo vs. New London

What is happening now is most states are coming forth with legislation to "protect" us. I think I've said it before, it is a shame it has to be done that way rather than just following the original tenets, but better than having a bulldozer in front of your home. There are still many cases where the proposed legislation is stalling... We'll just have to wait and see.

That is a perfect example though of exactly the type of thing the US founders sought to protect us from when constucting the Bill of Rights.

In any case, the fight is far from over...

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

(Edited by Ramasax on 09-08-2005 01:19)

TX for the link Ram and the re-assurance the fight is not over. I can see canadian governments licking their collective lips over this sort of thing.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

What I mean is that for the truly devout Xian, we are to ask God's direction in all important choices we make in life...

---

and once it happens in government's office, it truly becomes nothing more than...well, thereocracy.

I assume this is exact reason, USA wanted to seperate church and state, simply so that decisions in President's possition would not be based on "conversation with Jesus".

Bugs:

quote:

---

DL-44, weren't you and I talking once about Dubya praying about how to govern the nation? I thought your position was this was totally wrong.

---

Even if it wasn't DL, my position is yes, this is totally wrong. My reasons are many and as usual I'll ramble on far too long in a very disjointed manner. So feel free to bail out now. =) So from this heathens pov.

When Dubya states publically he's praying to god AND getting answers a couple of things are going on. He's pandering to the xian right he so rather cleverly manipulated leading up to the last election. And (imo) sets the stage to shirk any responsibility by using that good old 'get out of jail free' card available to all xians.

I've said this before and will again. When things go well it's 'praise the lord.' When things go bad it's ' the lord works in mysterious ways. We can't know gods plan.' or variations there of.

In other words if you work hard and all goes well you pass on all credit and if things go bad, responsibility also gets passed on. Ergo you're not responsible for either, so don't blame me. Don't thank me.

And I think dubya more than any other politician I've ever seen uses this 'card.' I bet you can count on one finger of one hand how many times he's said "I" made a mistake.

Then to top it off the hardcore xain's are saying... 'we hear ya dubya... ain't your fault... we still with ya dubya.' Dubya then casts his gaze skyward and says 'thankya lord.' as he wipes his brow.

As Dio said in one of these threads (so many similar posts I can't keep track -- plus I've not been online a lot lately) Anyhooo somewhere here Dio mentioned that here in Canada we've had a succession of Prime Ministers of the catholic persuasion and I have yet to see, perhaps make that 'determine' how their particular faith has played a role in their decisions as PM.

That is not to say matters of faith are never heard and loudly so. The recent 'gay marriage' legislation saw a few members of the ruling liberals quit the party and sit as independents over the issue. And if memory serves... a catholic bishop or archbishop threatened the PM with excommunication if he didn't vote against the legislation. Ya right... excommunicate the direct link to the top office in the land. Good thinkin' there.

Now in the past 10-15 years, there's been a bit of a shift in our federal political scene and I'm going to try for the readers digest version because, it's important in order to understand what's happening now.

The two main Federal political parties in Canada *were,* for eons the Liberals and Conservatives with the Liberals winning more elections. (again this is the RD version) Then somewhere along the line the New Democratic Party emerged on the Federal scene and tho' it has never come close to forming gov't it has at times elected enough represenatives to make its presence know and felt. The NDP are seen by some as 'godless socialists.' Socialists yes... godless I somehow doubt.

Then 10-12-15 years ago there emerged from the bible-belt of Canada (Southern Alberta) The Reform Party of Canada. Its first leader, born again xian Preston Manning is the son of Ernest Manning a much loved politician and evangelical minister who in the 1930's embarked on a gov't sanctioned Eugenics program the disastrous results of which are still being felt and 'settled' today.

The younger Manning, in the 60's was involved with the Rand Corporation and to this day won't say what he did there. And when you consider Donald Rumsfeld is a past chairman of Rand and Connie Rice a former trustee of Rand, cynics and skeptics like me don't think it could have been anything terribly beneficial. He said nicely. =)

When the Reform Party first emerged it put forward a platform of 'change', most of which, a 'reasonable' person could agree with. Preston himself, when presenting his 'changes' was very articulate... calm for the most part, certainly never out of control nor over the top. He does however have that Barney Fife look about him and after leading the party, out of the desert if you will, to more than respectable results (electing MP's) he never attained the brass ring.

Preston was replaced as leader by Stockwell Day a young turk with 'the looks' required for politics these days...and then he was replaced by Stephen Harper and it is Stephen who is now the head of the "Conservative" party. What??? 'conservatives???what did i miss???

Well you missed the circus and sideshows of sideshows.

Because the "Reform Party" was a grassroots movement based in the bible-belt most of the first candidates from across the country were born-again Xians. Well it didn't take long for the nutbars take off their wrappers. Good old fashioned racist remarks started coming out. Stockwell, the good looking young turk who wanted to be Prime Minister blurted out something about the earth being 5k years old. It just went on and on and on. And I was gleefully cheering them on I must admit.

In an effort to 'ressurect' itself into something more appealing, Reform changed its name to the 'Alliance Party' after pulling in some "Conservatives" who had become disenchanted with their own party's election results.

Then the 'Alliance' and 'Conservative' parties united in a wonderfully ugly and bitter battle that resulted in the "Conservative Alliance" (I beleive is the name) and it is Stephen Harper, a born again Xian, leading that party today. For how much longer tho'... is rather iffy. Just in the past few days there's been something of a purge in the 'conservative' office and what isn't quite clear yet is who was shown the door. The old die hards from the Reform days or die hard conservatives.

Regardless, when we next vote federally...and not that long from now... the 'Liberals' will simply point to.. and quote the nutbars. The Conservatives will point to Liberal corruption and the funnelling of millions and millions of taxpayer dollars to the Liberal party and thier friends etc.

The big problem for the 'conservatives' is that if you don't take a majority of the seats in Ontario and Quebec you can never form a 'majority' gov't. In Quebec where both Liberals and Conservatives field candidates it is the 'Bloc Quebecois' (yes another party lol) which always takes the majority of the seats there. Add to that...that Quebec is largely catholic...producing most of our Prime Ministers over the years...PM's that as a rule don't usually mention religion...I can't see Quebecers voting 'conservative' if there's even a hint of a born-again ban abortion..oh and btw the earth's only 5k old. Won't happen.


And Personally I wouldn't vote for anyone who publiclly states they talk to god and get answers. Keep your religion to yourself Mr./s politicians. I don't have much of a problem when I hear a politician say something like.. 'our prayers and thoughts are with them.' I have a huge problem when I hear a politician say... "Pray with me"... "The nation prays with you." First words outta my mouth... " Oh...just fuck off!" It is sanctimonious self-serving insincere claptrap period.

OH.. almost forgot the mission statement of the 'Parti Quebecois' is to separate from Canada and there they sit in our house of parliament. Gotta luv it. =)

We've got some pretty ugly problems up with corruption and outright thievery and I am something less than pleased with the Liberals but recently a woman on a vancouver talk-show pretty much summed up my feelings with our 'scandalous v born-again' politicians when she said: "I'd rather be robbed than preached at."

Now why didn't I just say that at the beggining and get it over with. <lol>

If nothing else... you'll have a better take on the results of our next election. =)

Good summary No-Jive, living up to your handle.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Bugs - I don't recall that conversation, though I don't doubt it.

Before I answer that fully though, let me ask you a quesstion:

How would you feel about our president holding a seance when faced with tough policy decisions, and basing his decisions on that outcome? Or getting together with the coven to cast spells, or holding ritual sacrifices to Baal in order to get guidance for our nation?
Or if the president came out and told the public that he was doing what he knew Satan wanted him to do?

{{edit - nojive, I haven't read your full post yet - will when I get home. too long for reading at work }}

(Edited by DL-44 on 09-08-2005 18:14)

As long as it is only sacrifices to Baal I am fine with it. The blood of a thousand virgins can never hurt.

Kidding aside, that is a good point, and one that I hadn't thought about at all, very good point. I am not sure exactly where you might want to go with it, but I am interested.

Dan @ Code Town

Or going out into the redwoods of California to worship a giant owl and perform pagan rituals.

Oh wait, that one's real.

Ramasax
www.AmericanSerf.us

Where are you going to find a thousand virgins? Born-again ones don't count.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

NoJive,

That was a very interesting read I understand the jist was you'd rather be robbed than preached at. Ok, I hear you and I appreciate the fact that you recognize there are no easy answers to our political problems.

It shouldn't come as any surprise that I don't like being preached at either. When it comes to politicians who are responsible for defining public policy I prefer individuals who will produce the results in society I would most like to see. In other words, if I have a choice between how they live their personal lives and what kind of policy they enact, I choose the policy. This sets the ground work for my answer to DL's question.

DL-44,

How would I feel about the president holding a seance etc? Well, exactly how I felt when I heard about Nancy Reagan consulting an astrologer which I assumed Ronnie condoned and/or participated. I was extremely disappointed. I was not, however, calling for his resignation or anything of the sort.

Assuming any of the hypothetical presidents were legitimately elected by the American public, I would support them just as any other president we've had. I would of course criticize them for actions I considered wrong but that is my duty as a good citizen. I would honest in pointing out that I would prefer them to honor the one true God but support them as president because that is how our system is designed.

Honestly, I want people in our government who will enact beneficial public policy and I know for a fact that nonXian and Xian leaders can do this effectively. This is why I am not concerned in the very least about Dubya and his praying. In fact, I applaud the fact that he says he goes to God for guidance. How is that any different from anyone going to whatever guidance they have come to rely on?

I would consider it proper for any president we duly elect to uphold the oath of office he or she swears. I fully expect them to draw upon sources of guidance and decision making that have gotten them to the place they were.

Here's another example. I remember a lot of criticism during the Clinton years about how Hillary was the one really running the presidency. Even if that had been the case, I don't know either way, I found it perfectly within the bounds of normal political game play. Married couples often share all sorts of things and how could anyone expect there to be no influence from one's spouse in a situation like that? I know that is a little different from the topic at hand but not far in the way I view things.

I hope that helps explain how I view this a little better. I look forward to your reply.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Those quotes are one reason why we europeans do not take america (as a state not as individuals) serious anymore. Lots of us(meaning europeans) ask themselves where has that great state gone that helped us 50 years ago and wich constitution is based on seperating church and politiks (read it if you don`t belive). We europeans have grown up with lots of different religions and ways of life but still we found a way of living together (ok i know ther still is the IRA but also the European Union)

and that brings me to a nother question... who made those taliban leaders so antio west??? well i must say it was the west its self by occupiing there lands for centuries drawing borders where they wanted and then leaving the country in amess.... who can blame them??? well i can`t! Yes their ways are not the best but its the only way they know it and that has nothing to do with their religion but wih the way they get manipulated. And the statements in those quotes are the same fanatism as the one used in arabic countries.

quote:

---

"With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew."

---

christianity derove from jewish religion ...........



PEOPLE LERN FROM THE PAST !!!

Whether it is astrology, any of the pantheon of gods, rolling the bones or casting chicken entrails, it is all frightening because it is nothing more than a form of slight-of-hand in which the person doing the praying, casting etc, uses to justify their doing exactly what they want.

This bears repeating, because it seems there are a number of people who still refuse to acknowledge this basic fact.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Bugimus - I don't recall asking for Bush's resignation based on his religion either.
But I am frightened by anyone who is in a position of leadership and tells the public they are acting on what some imaginary being wants them to do.

You say you would express that you wish they would follow the one true god.
You must understand that to me, all you are saying is "I want you to follow my superstition instead of yours".

People will rely on the guidance they are used to getting, certainly. I would prefer that guidance come in some sort of tangible form...
IC an accept that religion is not going to go away, and that our public officials are going to be influenced by it no mater what. I have a very big problem when a public official claims to be taking instruction from dieties.

Now, I want to clarify specifically here though:
if our president came out in a press conference, and told the public that he was doing "what he knew Satan wanted him to do", would you be ok with that?

If you would, I'll be very surprised and have to give that some thought.

If you would not, then you understand somewhat how I feel about him saying that he is doing what he knws 'god' wants him to.

quote:

---

Now, I want to clarify specifically here though:
if our president came out in a press conference, and told the public that he was doing "what he knew Satan wanted him to do", would you be ok with that?

If you would, I'll be very surprised and have to give that some thought.

If you would not, then you understand somewhat how I feel about him saying that he is doing what he knows 'god' wants him to.

---

Well DL, you must see it the way we see it. God believers mean: He is doing what "good wants him to do" So if it may be more acceptable to you to think that is what he would mean maybe you would not have a problem with it.

I really don't understand what you are trying to convey here. That a US president would ever give a press conference and publicly embrace "Satan" ??????? Though many leaders of countries do evil acts and initiate evil practices in their countries it may have nothing to do with religion. Its about power. Bad power what we determine is evil. Throughout all of history secularized establishments in the name of country, nation, etc rule according to their own ideologies. They repress their people with evil, torture, tyranny, and force them to live in an athestic society. So they are doing what evil wants them to do.

As you youself quoted before regarding "God". It is a generic word used to describe what God is. Same thing for Satan. Satan expresses evil. Is the Satan name his real identity? Its a name we have given evil. He can also say " what he knew that evil wanted him to do" if your trying to stress that point.



On another note:

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeese Helms - "All Latins are volatile people. Hence, I was not surprised at the volatile reaction."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



While i feel that Helms is an idiot in general, my experience dating latin girls completely supports this statement

chris

---

Fig. Why as opposed to other cultures of women????? I am eager to hear your response.