Democratic judicial appointments?

5/3/05 1:24:31 PM

I'm sure that Republican judges who are not . . .

. . outspokenly "born again" Christian extremists are listed under the heading "Democratic judges".

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #205,714

by warmachine

5/3/05 1:38:07 PM

I assume there's no need to 'Run!'?

Living in the UK, I have to assume this Pat Robertson does not hold office and is merely some voiciferous, religious nutter. And people watch him because it's like watching a train crash. I assume there is no need to 'Run! Get out while you can!'?

Post #205,715

by boxley

5/3/05 1:44:23 PM

he's running for president :-)

All tribal myths are true, for a given value of "true" Terry Pratchett
[link|http://boxleys.blogspot.com/|http://boxleys.blogspot.com/]

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 48 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]

Post #205,721

by JayMehaffey

5/3/05 1:55:16 PM

He tried

He ran for president once, but that was before the religious types had totally infiltrated the Republican party and he didn't know how to play the press game or how to deal with corporate lobbyists. So didn't end up doing very well directly, but he did get the Republicans to give in to the right wing Christians a lot more and thus indirectly did a lot of damage.

In any case he is not just any run of the mill religious nut job. He runs the CBN, Christian Broadcasting Network, which is best known for the 700 Club and broadcasts right wing Christian material around the globe. He also made a personal fortune in various shady dealings.

Jay

Post #205,717

5/3/05 1:46:48 PM

And it is the underlying sentiment..

...in all of the above posts that give Robertson the continued fuel to spout this bullshit.

As long as this attitude persists and continues further down that path...in order to balance the Coalition will continue to drift that much farther out in opposition.

Its not a simple matter of tolerance. Tolerance is easy. Its how >in your face< things are now with the explosion in avaiable information and in pop culture due to TV, etc.

Its not equal access that is the desire...its the elimination of the thought because they're "crazy".

Fer instance...Faith Based initiatives. How TERRIBLE is it that we should support good work being done in support of fellow citizens? Why its the END OF THE FREAKIN WORLD becasue those doing the helping believe something that you don't. So, the scream comes out that we are endorsing this and destroying the Constitution. In the meantime, we bitch that the government isn't helping the "poor/colored/infirm/insert your group here that could have been helped by a "religious" charity" at likely less than half of what it would cost to have the gov't do it.

Would the above situation require that to be a citizen I be baptized by the Church of United States? Would I need to receive communion in said church in order to run for the school board?

Follow it to its not so logical end and see if you like it when you get there. You might. I see the end a very divided and angry population that simply can't tolerate the fact that more of someone has a different set of beliefs and must shout TYRANNY on a continual basis until the cry comes to shut up...or the shouts become only so much background noise.

Robertson is an ass. So are most of his ilk. But the "opposition" is driving anyone with a passing belief in the church to side with them...because of this attitude that anyone who believes in God must be a psycopath and must be STOPPED. "One Nation under GOD" isn't tolerable. Civil unions are intolerable...IT MUST BE MARRIAGE...etc....

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #205,723

by JayMehaffey

5/3/05 2:02:08 PM

The terrible part

How TERRIBLE is it that we should support good work being done in support of fellow citizens?

The terrible part is that only certain organizations are allowed to get into the program. Only Christian groups need apply, and even then only certain ones. They have to be either so large and well known they can't be ignored, be right wing, or be willing to send votes Bush's way.

I would actually tolerate faith based programs if they where actually implemented in an unbiased manner and open to all, both as clients of the services and providers of services. But it is the nature of reality that they are not and never will be.

More over, a religious organization that really wanted to provide services could easily setup a non-profit group to run the services and take the governments money. The only reason to let religious groups do it directly is to tie the money to religion.

Jay

Post #205,730

5/3/05 2:50:47 PM

How do you know?

The cry was so loud and fast that nothing, in the end, really got off the ground.

And the major organized religions are obviously going to be the ones doing the most work. So forgive the Christian religions for being the majority of these. The churches are already established as non-profits. So under your rules they would have to set themselves up as that >again< in order to help. Silly. Though in a governmental sense, the irony in that is not lost on me ;-) (waste not, want not and all that)

Yes, the devil is in the details. But the opposition wants to make sure that if the starving man is fed that the one doing the feeding simply not be allowed to discuss their beliefs while doing so. You know, the beliefs that probably convinced that person to volunteer and help the poor fella to begin with.

Again, Robertson and the vocal minority are a bunch of idiots...even most "religious" people think so. Unfortunately, those opposed leave no wiggle room...forcing those borderline folks back over to the Coalition.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #205,733

by tuberculosis

5/3/05 3:00:58 PM

I have no problem with faith based charity

that is open and provides services with no strings attached.

I'm not a big fan of the Hare Krishnas but the HK temple in Detroit (with some help from Henry Ford Jr) feeds an awful lot of people without telling them that their souls are in mortal danger all the time.

Its the ones that set up the big buffet and require you to be baptised before being given a plate that I object to. Hard vs Soft sell I suppose. But if you're going to put those kinds of conditions on things, then don't expect to work with the government.

Evangelicals are their own worst enemy here. They could change their approach and end the objections. But they're apparently too filled with "holy spirit" or something to develop actual compassion and respect for alternative beliefs.

If your thing is so good, do good works and people will seek to be like you. Stay a preachy fear mongering asshole and you will be shunned and impeded.

What a fucking surprise.

"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect"   --Mark Twain

"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."   --Albert Einstein

"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses."   --George W. Bush

Post #205,776

by Simon_Jester

5/3/05 6:48:26 PM

I do....

not with faith-based charities...

but I do have a problem with Tax Dollars going to faith-based charities.

Look the government can cut a check - or not. I don't see any reason for Tax Dollars going to faith-based charities. If the government wants to help out some bloke, fine, run a program and help some bloke. Do NOT take my Tax Dollars and give it to someone who claims they are going to help some bloke.

(I'm not biased in this, btw. I don't believe in the US Government giving Tax Dollars to the American Red Cross or the United Way either.)

Post #205,803

by boxley

5/3/05 8:51:59 PM

so you are against privitization of government?

salvation army gets a lot more bang for the buck than the state welfare office.
thanx,
bill

Post #205,861

by hnick

5/4/05 7:17:30 AM

Maybe so..

but the Sally Anne is not accountable to the public. The government is (well... it's supposed to be.) If they are using tax dollars, there should be some accountability.

Post #205,864

by boxley

5/4/05 8:11:17 AM

thats what audits are for.

Post #205,868

by pwhysall

5/4/05 8:25:06 AM

I thought they were to get rid of thetans.

Post #206,013

by Simon_Jester

5/4/05 11:45:15 PM

So does the United Way and Red Cross....

yet I still don't see any reason for my TAX DOLLARS to go to them.

Besides, you and I both know that charities and privization are two different things. (The key elements being those Audits and Measurements that you just mentioned below.)

Post #205,747

by JayMehaffey

5/3/05 3:32:59 PM

Not most, all

The cry was so loud and fast that nothing, in the end, really got off the ground.

It doesn't have nearly the scale or money that Bush wanted. But there is an office of faith based programs that does distribute money.

So forgive the Christian religions for being the majority of these.

I fully expect that most of the money for Bush's faith based program will go to Christian groups. But in fact, all of it has. Not a single dollar has gone to a non-Christian group yet.

Yes, the devil is in the details. But the opposition wants to make sure that if the starving man is fed that the one doing the feeding simply not be allowed to discuss their beliefs while doing so. You know, the beliefs that probably convinced that person to volunteer and help the poor fella to begin with.

No, what we want to avoid is situations like the faith based prison programs being trialed in Florida. In this program a Christian group is providing job training and other programs to prisoners, but only to Christians.

Jay

Post #205,755

5/3/05 4:10:17 PM

Same for tsunami relief.

There were Christian "charity" groups down there making conversion to Christianity the condition for aid, no matter how badly you needed help. Hopefully they've all been thrown out of the region by now, but I doubt it, there's a lot of money behind this crap.

If other Christians object to being tarred with the same brush I use on the extremists, then they'd better start making a clear and evident effort to reign in the extremists istead of condoning them because "they're fellow Christians". Otherwise I consider them fellow tavelers.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #205,759

by imric

5/3/05 4:57:40 PM

5/3/05 4:58:48 PM

Oooh. Threats.

"There were Christian "charity" groups down there making conversion to Christianity the condition for aid, no matter how badly you needed help"

What percentage of Christian groups did this? Or are you arguing from 1 to many? Oh, that's right - you threatened to 'tar them all with the same brush as fellow travellers'. From that statement, I guess I am 'justified' if I tar YOU with the same brush as the Neocons - after all, you exhibit the same level of logic, and the same regard for justice that they have.

And, BTW, what percentage of Christians (even eliminating the subset you object to) went over (from the US) to help after the tsunami? Donated $ and/or time for aid? Do you know? Do you know enough to compare that to all the non-Christian aid proffered (from the US)?

Also, I'd like to hear you cite hard evidence of all the non-extremists that condone them because "they're fellow Christians". I'm a Christian, buddy, and I have NEVER condoned that kind of bullshit. My ex-grilf, a fundamentalist, born-again Christian, opposes these bastards vociferously as well. Indeed, I have NO Christian friends that aren't bitter about the hijacking of the term "Christian" by the right. To hear you talk, most Christians go along with this crap, though.

Show your cards, Andrew. I'm calling your bluff.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Edited by imric May 3, 2005, 04:58:48 PM EDT

Expand All History

Post #205,766

5/3/05 5:34:11 PM

Skip, you're an exception

According to polls, and overwhelming majority of people who call themselves devout Christians voted for Bush in the last election.

If they are all so bitter, why are they voting for the politicians who are doing the hijacking?

Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #205,769

by imric

5/3/05 6:06:46 PM

5/3/05 6:07:14 PM

Are you sure?

That it wasn't that the overwhelming majority of those who voted for Bush called themselves 'devout'? *grin*

What percentage of the citizens of this country are Christian? 'Christian'?

What percentage of those voted for Bush? Is THAT number 'overwhelming'?

A quick google yielded this:
[link|http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=103|http://people-press....p3?AnalysisID=103]

Here, it can be seen that religious composition of the vote DID favor Bush, but it's by no means overwhelming. There was a big (10%) percentage jump in evangelicals voting for Bush, but they weren't even near a majority of voters.

IOW, there is no 'overwhelming majority' of Christians that voted for Bush as a whole, though a majority of a minority subset of 'Christians' did.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Edited by imric May 3, 2005, 06:07:14 PM EDT

Expand All History

Post #205,770

5/3/05 6:20:58 PM

Look at your link more closely

The sub-table titled "Church Attend". That's across all denominations, and measures devoutness pretty concretely - how often you go to Church.

The vote was about evenly split among those who claim to go to Church a few times a month. People who go more frequently were for Bush. People who go less frequently were against Bush. At the maximum frequency of several times a week, Bush won 64-35, which I'd call a pretty overwhelming margin. At the minimum frequency of never, Kerry won 63-36, which is likewise pretty overwhelming.

I've seen other pre-election polls where people were asked how devout they were and who they planned to vote for. The results were pretty much in line with the results that your link shows.

There is a strong correlation in this country between how devout you are (measured in any reasonable way) and how likely you are to support Bush.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #205,781

by imric

5/3/05 6:59:21 PM

Extremes

At the maximum frequency of several times a week, Bush won 64-35; 16%
At the minimum frequency of never, Kerry won 63-36; 15%

Again, the 'overwhelming majority' only applies to minority sets.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #205,784

5/3/05 7:30:03 PM

What portion of the country is devout?

You're arguing that I'm talking about a minority of a minority and then tarring all Christians.

This is unfair. I said up front devout Christians. Most people are not that devout, devout Christians are a subset of all Christians. I'm very specifically not saying all Christians, just devout ones. Here we're identifying 15% of the population as being devout based on behaviour, and we find that Bush won by 2-1 odds in that group.

But let's change that slightly. Let's widen it to people who are devout enough to go to Church weekly (which is what most religions say that you're supposed to do). If we take the 44% of the population that goes to Church at least once a week we find that (does some calculations) Bush won over Kerry by 60% to 39%. That's a 3-2 margin, which is still fairly overwhelming.

Now there is one thing that I got wrong. These are figures for those who voted. Voter turnout was pathetic. If we make an obvious correction, what I should have said is, an overwhelming majority of voters who call themselves devout Christians voted for Bush in the last election. I think that the evidence is pretty clear for that statement.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #205,792

by imric

5/3/05 7:45:08 PM

I'll accept that.

60/39 isn't what I'd call 'overwhelming', though it is a clear majority.

"...minority of a minority and then tarring all Christians"

Actually, I saw your qualifier - I just don't accept that "most devout"="devout". My problem was that ANDREW seemed to be making that argument.

[link|http://www.runningworks.com|

]

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #205,795

by Another Scott

5/3/05 7:58:12 PM

If you assume the polls had a representative sample...

Post #205,798

5/3/05 8:08:19 PM

Polling is fairly accurate

We know how to do it. We know how to do it wrong, but we also know how to do it right. Normally we do a decent job of it.

Furthermore it isn't just one poll, every major poll that I've seen in the last few years which addresses any variant of this question has come up with the same basic answer. The more religious you are, the more likely it is that you support Bush. Unless all polling organizations have serious methodology problems (which I strongly doubt), the country is politically polarized along religious grounds.

:-(Incidentally that kind of polarization is a significant risk factor for totalitarianism.)-:

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #205,811

by tuberculosis

5/3/05 11:07:10 PM

Is it "religious" or "church going christian"?

I'd be interested to know how Bush played with orthodox jews and devout muslims for instance.

Post #205,819

5/4/05 12:10:38 AM

IIRC, both of those flipped

In 2000 Bush lead among Muslims and lost among orthodox Jews.

In 2004 Bush lead among orthodox Jews and lost among Muslims.

Cheers,
Ben

I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)

Post #205,804

by boxley

5/3/05 8:55:01 PM

agreed the repo in my house isnt an ardent church goer

just likes bush and takes him at face value. And the campeign to push out negatives on backfired, she took one look at moore, said he is an asshole and ignored all other statements made about bush
thanx,
bill

Post #205,780

by jb4

5/3/05 6:56:04 PM

What he said.

I'll make it easy for you: Wake me up when a Mormon "faith-based charity" gets gubbmint money to help those with darker skin then they have.

(Then we'll talk about a Moonie or Muslim (gasp!) charity...)

jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

Post #205,740

5/3/05 3:12:00 PM

OK, so there are some moderate Christians . . .

. . who might be put off by criticism of extremist Christians. So i'm supposed to keep my mouth shut about the nut cases until they completely take over the government and I'm not allowed to open my mouth.

The U.S. today is like Germany in the 1930s except the fasciests are waving crosses instead of swastikas. People kept their mouths shut then and it worked out real well, didn't it.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #205,763

by a6l6e6x

5/3/05 5:08:14 PM

Re: "crosses instead of swastikas"

For the record, swastikas are crosses. Hakenkreuz, German for swastika, means hooked cross.

Alex

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell

Post #205,818

5/3/05 11:53:00 PM

Not actually, despite the German name.

The original symbology was not a cross, but the wheel of the heavens and the procession of the Zodiac.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #205,756

by hnick

5/3/05 4:33:55 PM

Tolerance is supposed to be a 2 way street

If one side is tolerant and the other side isn't, the tolerant side is going to be destroyed for their tolerance. Those like Robertson need to be counterattacked or they will win.
It's probably not a big deal; I don't hold a lot of hope for decency and tolerance in this country any time soon. Be nice if I was wrong.

Post #205,789

5/3/05 7:37:43 PM

Re: Tolerance is supposed to be a 2 way street

"Those like Robertson need to be counterattacked or they will win. "

Not a chance in hell. Attack them and they get louder and gain support. Ignore them and they become irrelevent.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #205,777

by jb4

5/3/05 6:53:24 PM

Uhh, Bill? Put a cork in it.

Any "faith based charity" that wants (and I mean really wants) to help any "poor/colored/infirm/insert your group here that could have been helped by a 'religious" charity' at likely less than half of what it would cost to have the gov't do it." is perfectly free to do it. Now. Today. Without oversight. Without interference. And without taxpayer money. That is your point of the "...less than half..." quip of yours, wasn't it?

Post #205,791

5/3/05 7:43:59 PM

Uh, no.

The point of that is that they can help, and do and it would be financially wise to support THEM over creating another government hierarchy to oversee doing the same thing.

The government is fabulous at building more departments. It absolutely sucks at getting rid of them..which is how you end up with stories of $5000 toilets and the like.

No matter. If the Religious Right don't destroy this place it will likely implode on its own. We'll find something else to focus our collective ill will once they're gone.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #205,910

by jb4

5/4/05 1:37:35 PM

Didn't you see "Independence Day"?

The $5000 toilets are a money laundering scheme for financing Area 51! ;-)

Post #205,963