Democrats want to talk about Religion
Democrats have realized that they must break the perception that "faith cannot be discussed", according to a news article that just came out on Yahoo! News. So let the merry-go-round begin as Moderate Democrats strive to put Religion back in their topics in anticipation of gaining votes for the upcoming election as well as the Presidential Election in 2008.
How much do you think this is going to piss off Liberals who are strongly in favor of separation between church and state? The Democratic party has been having problems for a while now with feuding amongst themselves, but could this be the straw that broke the Donkey's back?
The moderates believe that by speaking about Religion, it will help the Democratic party connect with churchgoing Americans, "who polls show are more apt to vote with the GOP".
This will be a change for Democrats as in the past they have had to be careful on topics such as faith and values, "perhaps to avoid alienating secular voters and irritating party activists who champion the separation of church and state".
What is funny though is that President Bush has been made fun of for so many things, but he is one of the most devout Presidents of Jesus Christ this nation has ever had. What is humorous is that Democrats have taken notice to this and it seems to me, it is truly follow the Leader. Besides, Republicans seem to be able to talk about faith and we all know how it worked for John Kerry, "who appeared uncomfortable talking about his Roman Catholic affiliation" during the 2004 election.
Anyway, this is funny how Democrats are now having to back pedal as they realize that they could potentially be in trouble for future elections. God it feels GREAT to be a Conservative.
posted by Diego @ 4:52 PM
12 comments
12 Comments:
What criteria are you using when you declare Bush one of the most devote "Presidents of Jesus Christ" ever?
In the fact he regularly refers to his Christian beliefs, do a google search or even a Yahoo! search and you will find similar passages. Yes, even Political Libs will admit this.
Hey Diego,
I'm not trying to change the topic here, but I see that you are an avid supporter of Bush. Do you think he is a true conservative? What are your views on what William F. Buckley said recently concerning this? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/22/eveningnews/main1826838.shtml (Yea, I know its CBS.)
Here are some points that Boortz made regarding Bush's faux conservatism...
...there are many other reasons why George W. Bush is not a conservative. In fact, except for the tax cuts and Supreme Court appointments, he's quite liberal. Consider this:
Bush signed into law a campaign finance reform bill that is an affront to free speech. That's not very conservative.
Bush, with Teddy Kennedy's help, pushed through the 'No Child Left Behind' act, which instituted unprecedented federal control over our school system. That's not conservative at all.
Under President Bush, government spending has grown faster and government has grown larger than at any time in our history. An entirely new government agency has been created....The Department of Homeland Security. Growing government by leaps and bounds? Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave....and that's not very conservative.
George W. Bush pushed and signed into law the prescription drug program for Medicare. This is billions and billions in new entitlement spending not even his fellow Texan LBJ could dream of. It was one of the single biggest expansions of welfare spending in decades. Not conservative.
Bush's complete inaction on illegal immigration and his policy of looking the other way on border security and allowing as many illegal aliens in as want to come it not only outrageous, it's not conservative.
I could go on and on. One thing is very clear: Buckley is right...George W. Bush is not a conservative Republican at all.
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.
To the World,
What does it mean to be a Conservative Republican? It means doing the best thing possible for the country, even if doesn't appear "user friendly" in the beginning. In order to make my points about George W. Bush, I first need to set the stage.
If you are flying on an airplane with your small child (say 1-3 years old) and an emergency happens in which oxygen masks are required..... what do you do?
The answer is you put your mask on first, and then you take care of the child. At first glance that might seem really COLD HEARTED.... ALMOST MEAN. But, you realize that you don't put your mask on, (protecting yourself first) there will be no one to protect your child long term.
Sure, you could have put the child's mask on first, but if you pass out no one is there to ensure the child leaves their mask on....... (REMEMBER THIS STORY... WE WILL COME BACK TO IT)
Now, let's address your concerns: In fact, except for the tax cuts and Supreme Court appointments, he's quite liberal.
Well, that is sort of like saying, except for the explosion the Space Shuttle had a great flight. It misses the most important point, the Supreme Court appointments will shape law in the country for decades to come. (oxygen mask)
The tax cuts will help business prosper, creating jobs and growth. (oxygen mask)
Now, to your point, "....except for the tax cuts and Supreme Court appointments, he's quite liberal...." No, it is the oxygen mask in that he affected what you could first. He was able to have the greatest and most immediate impact with the Court appointments and and tax relief, not to mention the long term impacts.
What are my views on what William F. Buckley? My view is this..... Buckley doesn't have to stay in power. Anyone can talk a perfect game, ".... gee all you have to do is strike out 27 batters in a row, and the game is won..." but the real world doesn't work that way.
There is only one way to bring about total change, its called REVOLUTION. And clearly it is not, and should not be the answer. Thus, since we cannot bring about total change, compromises must occur.
Now, look at the Bush administration's accomplishments.
1. It has shaped the Supreme Court for decades to come. (how many laws will lean more conservative because of it???)
2. Tax relief (business growth) Enough said.
Now, about staying in power. Our founding fathers established a government that they knew would swing from left to right and back again, but swing slowly. Again, change comes slowly, so if you want to have a huge long term impact you must effect long term events (i.e. supreme court, business growth) and you need to stay in power as long as possible.
Liberals achieve power by "giving away the farm". If you make minimum wage, or come from a cycle of welfare.... you would be an idiot to vote republican. Liberals stay in power with pork to the masses.
Republicans like Bush would be limited to one term if they went after a 100% conservative agenda.
I don't know, over here the main political christian group is the christian socialist movement, which puts an emphasis on jesus as someone who helped the poor and the underdog, as opposed tot he super rich. they are pretty successful.
If the dems could get in touch with the leftish denominations, like Quakers, some of the mormons, methodists etc... they'd be sorted.
here methodism and social-democrats are pretty interchangable, we meet in their churches and they vote for us!
also note that it is possible to be both deeply religious and profoundly secular, like that philosopher the US way of life owes so much to, John Locke.
Liberalism and religion are not mutually exclusive. Ann Coulter would like you to THINK this...it's just that most liberals don't feel the need to wear their religion on their sleeve. I'm here to debunk some of this B.S. about liberals: most of us are religious. Don't fall for that "godless" line. I have a hard time believing Bush's pious act, with all that cursing of his.
The liberals that do wear religion on their sleeve, the so-called religious left, have recently gained popularity with views supporting environmentalism (it is God's Earth, after all) programs for the poor, and promoting peace. These are extremely moral, just - hell, BIBLICAL causes. They're just not the same "moral" values that the right wants to shove down the throat of every American, Christian or not.
The typical response from the religious right is that these guys are wackos, heathens, or worse. James Dobson is famously feuding with a leader of the religious left. If I remember my New Testament, the Pharisees were known for praying in public so everyone could see how devout they were. I'm pretty sure Jesus frowned on that.
If the left is accused of politicizing religion, it's because they've been forced to play that hand: the right wants to hold religion exclusively, but only because it's a powerful political tool to begin with.
Mike,
You are exactly right about Liberalism and religion not being mutually exclusive. What I have found to be true of Liberals, is that they want religion to be there such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, however, Liberals have a problem with CHRISTIANITY.
They do not “wear it on their sleeve” because they cannot talk about what they do not truly know about. Case in point, Al Gore in the 2000 Election referred to Matthew 6:21 but totally blotched the true scripture meaning and why did he try to use scripture? To appeal to the Religious CHRISTIANS of America in hopes of gaining votes.
All that cursing Bush does? He said SHIT, it’s not like the Nobel Peace Prize winner who said she would kill George W. Bush, but what would happen if a Republican said that about a Democrat? The presses of the Liberal media would be buzzing and would attempt to demise the character of the individual. However, a Liberal makes this statement and it is overlooked, “she’s protected by Freedom of Speech”. Republicans wouldn’t be.
Liberals believe in taking from the rich, giving to the poor and creating people who solely depend upon the Government. Jesus never took from the rich to give to the poor, never gave the poor Power to be rich, however my friend, Jesus made men into Fishermen not welfare recipients. How can you compare what Liberals do, to the Bible? As long as people rely upon the Government, Democrats will always have votes.
If you are that familiar with the New Testament then surely you will know that in John Chapter 7 that the Bible says we are to judge Righteously meaning we can judge someone based on Religious acts, on whether or not they are performing “Christian” acts.
The “Right” hold religion exclusively because it means more to us than it does Liberals. Liberals are about Darwinism, not a Creator of the Heavens and the Earth. Liberals support Religion as long as it is not Christianity.
that may be true (at least in your country). What I am saying is that they shouldn't, because true liberalism is about tolerance, and that should include tolerance of faith , regardless of what it is... and that means christianity too.
I think the right make a mistake in taking 'anti-science' positions and that the US left makes an even bigger one by taking 'anti religion' standpoints.
consider gay marriage. even many conservatives would agree that it is not the state's business to intrude into private life, and as such, many of the more libertarian conservatives could support some way of legally recognising gay relationships. but liberals in the US have to call it 'marriage' (a term which comes from religion! you can't change the meaning of a word for politics...) and say that it is exactly the same! Why? why is it worth the bother?
because they are worried about exclusively gunning for their core vote rather than reaching out to the mainstream and aommon sense. And they wonder why they lose elections.
Bush actually sets an example by putting votes first. take his attitude to hispanic immigrants. he is pro-immigrant, which seems liberal, gets votes from former dems. at the same time, he is letting some profoundly christian people into the country which he aims to make a new base extension for the right.
so he gets left votes, but shores up the right. masterful.
ON RELIGION IN THE LEFT, you are right that religion is about living a way of life, and the values. it was jesus that washed the feet of the poor, and since the chief concern of the left is greater equality and reduction of poverty, they can put jesus's teachings into action in terms of leftish values just sa you do for the right. by shunning religion, they shoot themselves in the ass. Not that a libreal would be caught shooting...
The point I was making is that here, christianity is basically left wing, especially the protestant faiths eg Church of England (you call them episcopalean?), catholic jesuits (quite a lot of them), methodists (who are mostly socialist) etc.
why doesn't the US left represent progressive religious views rather than distancing itself from all religion.
SECULARISM is not against religion. It is against religous involvement in the state. US liberals are secular because the UK had state religion (episcopalean) and thus discriminated against other faiths, e.g. the Puritans, Plymouth Brethren etc.
hence the Mayflower.
You can be religious and still not believe religion must be involved in the state... to me belief to the contrary is much closer to that of 'modern' Iran and the Ayatollahs...
I am keen on US politics. I lie the glitz and the big show that gets made out of everything, and I admire how seriously you guys take democracy (however f*cked your voting system is! mind you ours sucks too...).
also, what happens in america influences what happens here. you pull the strings and blair dances.
Diego --
The part about Bush swearing was sarcasm...of course, Cheney is pretty good at it too. He loves the F-Bomb.
You brought up Gore in 2000, either misquoting or mischaracterizing scripture.
Please watch this video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgEzfDDyBHM&search=colbert%20report%20ten%20commandments
...and tell me how that is different, if not worse, than stumbling through scripture. At least Gore was trying -- if it had been a scripted political move, he would have nailed it, right?
But this comment - "Liberals believe in taking from the rich, giving to the poor and creating people who solely depend upon the Government" - is pure bogus. Pure mischaracterization, pure misunderstanding. Frankly, the world ain't that black & white...or else life would be a whole lot easier.
One-third of homeless people are U.S. veterans (http://www.nchv.org/background.cfm), and 15% are mentally ill (http://www.schizophrenia.com/sznews/archives/001384.html)
Do the homeless vote? Can schizophrenics vote? Does that even matter? In your worldview, they're all lazy. Picture yourself telling a mentally challenged Vietnam vet with no legs to simply "get a job." Liberals are out to help those who CAN'T help themselves. As for the sponges: that's what welfare reform is for.
I guess when you said Jesus didn't do handouts, you were skipping that whole Cana wedding thing, as well as the "Feeding of the 5,000." Both sound pretty charitable to me.
As for you, crankyright --
SO MANY things to refute (like that b.s. about taking prayer out of school) but I'm happy to direct you to just this:
http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://centerforreason.blogspot.com/2006/03/landscape%2Dof%2Dabortion.html
Who's killing off who's votes?
To both of you: the internet makes research really easy. Reading Michael Savage and Ann Coulter is not research. And I can smell Hannity a mile away. So far I'm not sure you're doing a good job of humiliating anyone on this blog...well, not the liberals at least.
Mike,
I watched the video of Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) and it is sad, comical, a whirlwind of emotions all in one. If I try to defend Westmoreland, then you come back with an "excuses" thing and there is no excuses for him, he looked like a dumbass...but I tell you what, how many Liberal politicians would react the same way? Lights blaring down on you, Comedian/Host trying to trip you up on every word you say? How many faulter under pressure? Like I said though, no excuses.
The goal of Liberals is to strive on people's emotions. They do not target the well-to-do members of our society. They focus upon the individuals who are of lesser status. How they do this is by hitting on human nature. This nature is that of envy. The "poor" envy the "rich" and thus the Liberals have set it up to try and gain votes, by targeting people's emotions with being envious. How many people who depend upon the Government for assistance sway away from the Democratic party? Not very many, why? Because Democrats are there to "equal" the playing field. They talk about making programs more affordable, but what they are actually talking about is what it is going to cost the individual with tax INCREASES.
Your stats are incorrect about the homeless. Your invalid stat that you gave was actually meant to be 1 in 3 MALES sleeping out on the streets have at one point in time worn the uniform of our Military. What about the 2 in 3 who don't? The website you got these bogus shit from, quoted problems relating back to post-dramatic syndrome, etc. and that many were of the Vietnam era. I know 80-95 Nam vets and they are doing just fine and Yes, many still have flashbacks or the Post-Dramatic syndrome that the website blames on this homelessness. Also, another aspect is the Friend/Family support network.
Do the homeless vote? They do when you exchange votes for packs of Cigarettes, i.e. Gore Campaigner was doing this at homeless shelters.
Schizophrenics vote? Hmmm....my wife's step-dad does and guess what, don't blame schizophrenia on Post-Dramatic syndrome- it's inherited, thus you have a bad example there.
The disability that these Vets receive is more than what you think.
You call the others "sponges", but guess what...Liberals are there to help them out and many can help themselves out.
Feeding of 5,000 with Jesus...that is the difference between Liberals & Conservatives. Back in the day of Jesus, that was seen as a MIRACLE, not a charity. It was a miracle in the fact he could take 5 loaves of bread and feed 5,000 people. I overlooked it, because I didn't think any Liberal was that stupid to try and use it against me. Sorry Mike, I gave you too much credit.
I can only smirk about your comment at the end...you've given invalid "Numbers", gave info on how you "feel" and "think" and then are mistaken of what a MIRACLE is...my friend, we do not have to humiliate you, you are doing a fine job doing it to yourself.
Mike,
Went to your abortion site that you posted...went to it and saw that to get the report it was $10.00, so I highly doubt you or anyone else paid the $10 to see this, everyone just took the other persons' word for it.
They use the word "Christian" in having X amount of abortions, but we do not know what the variables were for the "Research"...it could have been polled, but we all know that you can manipulate polls to be any way you want them... i.e.
1. As a Kid did you EVER go to bed hungry? A. Yes B. No
Assuming you said "Yes" just like every other reader, can we draw the conclusion that your parents abused you because they let you starve?
Again, we do not know the criteria for the Research.
Prayer in School- how is this B.S.? Then the next thing you do, is try and divert us to a site about abortion, this is proof of a Liberal dodging (kind of like Clinton)the issue.
I remember in elementary school, before we did anything at all, we assembled as a class, as Americans, as Individuals and recited the Pledge of Allegiance...
I think it is a shame that my little girl will not be able to do that because of Liberals. Liberals have taken the "Under God" out of our schools, not Republicans. This goes back to the POINT Cranky MADE, Liberals and Conservatives differ on this subject.
What's a matter with Coulter, Hannity, even Rush Limbaugh...afraid that they easily weaken the "Left" argument?
Find this blog interesting because both liberals and conservatives miss the boat usually on religion and mixing politics..pretty much everything!! At the end of the day, most people think both parties have become too extreme and are on the fringes of being irrelevant.
People will listen to the message of Rush, Hanity, and Ann Culter and think it might be radical; putting Al Franken and Randy Rhodes as an alternative is just as radical. Conservatives win the moral debate, not because they are right, but because the liberals don’t have a message, and are too scared to fight back.
To think that liberals are going to go around carrying bibles and touting scripture, when for the better part since Kennedy, democrats have ran from moral or religion in politics, is as funny to me as it is to say abortion is wrong but the death penalty is right!! Only one person gets to decide life and death in my book and it’s not anyone in government. Jail yes, death penalty no!! Abortion NO!!
Both sides miss the boat about Church and State and Freedom of Religious Expression. If you want to argue that there should be prayer in school, you should also argue that all religions should be respected, including the right to NOT practice it yourself, or have it forced upon you by a school administrator. At the same time Christian expression should not be banned, but Jewish, Hindu, and Muslim expression be celebrated.
The Framers didn’t say there shouldn’t be religion in state, they said, no theocracy. No state sponsored religion. And Christianity is not the state sponsored religion of the US, nor should it be. We are not a theocracy. God is not mutually exclusive to the US and is over all nations and all people. Jesus was a Jew, he wasn’t a Baptist from Mississippi. God doesn’t love America but neglect Russia. Celebrate that in your schools and in your churches, synods, and mosques.
And what I find really silly is to sit and argue the intent of Jesus as being either conservative or liberal is absurd and borders on being blasphemy. Jesus was the greatest human being of all time and was above political ideology. Or if you want to say it better, he is the best of both ideology’s, without the worst of either, and believe me there are bad parts to both. You won’t find that argued in a Catholic or Methodist Church or a Baptist or Fundamentalist Christian Church.
I know I’m the worst nightmare of both parties. One who understands the debate and can sift through the spin and lies and can make decisions based on rational thought. I don’t drink either Cool Aid. I decide elections. I’m part of that “scary majority,” one of those “undecided” voters. The “other” third..I’m one of those who don’t carry a card of either political party. I vote for the “best” candidate, regardless of if it is a repo or a libo. I’ll tell you something, the more extreme both of your sides get, the more you lose people, the closer the day comes when you’re not going to be able to shut out a real third party movement.. Keep up the bad work libs and cons.. Your doing such a wonderful job!!
Post a Comment
<< Home