Smart Republicans

[Skeptic Ginger]

As a fairly conservative non-Christian (non-religious) person, who has a fair number of people in common with me, I'd say this is not correct. There may be a lot of Christians who vote for him 'just because' he's a purported Christian. Christians tend to be conservative, but that's not universal.

Again, as a non-Christian, I don't see him as trying to "Christianize the government" anymore than I saw previous administrations trying to 'secularize' the government, I see them bringing their own values and views into their job. Believe me, a viewpoint of the Clinton administration by a lot of people was that it lacked morals and frequently abused its power as a state (Whitewater, Lewinsky, Ruby Ridge and Waco and Gonzales)

I recommend Dr Thomas Sowell's book "A Conflict of Visions" as an excellent work on how the two different world views can't talk to each other because they don't use the same olanguage. "I believe this way, and if you don't you have a different viewpoint or are misinformed" vs "I believe this way, and if you don't you are evil, hate the poor, want to destroy the environment"

I recommend you take a look at the actions of the well funded, well organized Evangelical groups that began to grow in the Reagan years and have been working to change the US into a "Christian" nation. They have been promoting federal court appointments like Judge Moore of the "Ten Commandments in my courtroom" to school board members like the Dover school board wanting to add Bible teaching to science classes. These guys have shoved abstinence only education and HIV prevention programs down the throats of not just the US but the world as well. They are receiving millions in tax dollars for "faith based" programs which amount to rewards for getting your congregation to vote Republican. The extremists among them visit the White House often.

If you are interested I'll find you some sources but a quick Google search will turn up a wealth of information just as easily.

I will look at your source as well.

 

[RandFan]

Thank you both.

I am having a hard time with the bombardment of ad homs from a minority of members. I really want to address actual issues. There are many points of view and we can all learn from those points whether they contain something new or whether they help one fine tune their own points when challenged.

But when people throw naive insults around I guess to make themselves feel better, it just clutters the thread.

Here's an idea. Stop cutting and pasting pages and pages of text. Instead pick a subject and make an argument consisting of connected premises that establish your point. When folks make counter arguments to your argument then address the counter arguments. DON'T CUT AND PASTE MORE TEXT as your counter argument. What many of us (if not most of us) want from forum participants is for them to tell us what they (the person making the argument) thinks. Not Air America or Rush Limbaugh. Let us see that you understand the issues and are not just regurgitating talking points.

Please note that a number of the people who have taken issue with you SERIOUSLY DON'T LIKE BUSH! That should be a red flag.

 

[RandFan]

What the Illinois governor rightfully concluded was that until the justice system was corrected it was inevitable innocent people had been and would be executed.

I don't understand. I thought that Ryan was a Republican?

 

[RandFan]

Clearly in the mind of Bush and many others, those Iraqi deaths are close to meaningless.

?

Hardly, Bush knew that Saddam was a dictator that was happy to let his people starve to death while he used oil for food money to build palaces. It's clear that Bush believed that He would win in Iraq and free the Iraqis.

You are just spouting rhetoric now. It's clear that you wish to paint Bush as a monster. It isn't convincing when you make such leaps.

 

[PBTree]

Another question from Oz.

Would it be possible for you to have a prez who isn't a believer? Does your consitution go so far as to allow "freedom of/from religion".

Could we ever see the day when a prez gets up there and swears the oath of office and declares "my word of honour" instead of the other nonsense, at the end?

Don't think it would ever happen here but I've been wrong before.

 

[RandFan]

Another question from Oz.

Would it be possible for you to have a prez who isn't a believer? Does your consitution go so far as to allow "freedom of/from religion".

Could we ever see the day when a prez gets up there and swears the oath of office and declares "my word of honour" instead of the other nonsense, at the end?

Don't think it would ever happen here but I've been wrong before.

I honestly don't think it is possible right now. I think Atheists make poor politicians. They seek what is right and not what is expedient. They don't pick their fights. They are not politically organized and don't think about public relations. And perhaps they shouldn't but trying to take In God We Trust off of the money and god out of the pledge, while morally correct mostly serve to galvanize the very organized and politically astute evangelicals who use such efforts to wrongly paint such efforts as an attempt to take god away from the religious. It's become good god believers against godless evil doers. It's BS but effective. And BTW it goes back to the removal of prayer from schools.

This is one of those can't win for losing dynamics. I think religion is losing ground in many areas. The culture war was won and the religious right lost. Big time. They know it and they are striking back. There is a backlash right now but I predict it will fail. Freedom has been chipping away at religion for a long time. There are a lot of reasons why people don't want to go to church. It's easier now than it ever was before to drop out and now that there is the Internet it's getting even easier to find out the BS in religion.

 

[bjb]

I believe the Illinois governor recognized that since the Innocence Project was finding a large % of the cases they looked at were wrongful convictions, then out of 100 executions you would definitely have at least some innocent people. And when I first looked at this I assumed the Innocence Project examples were a selected sample but there was actually other studies that put the estimate of wrongful convictions on serious felonies and death penalty cases over 25%, IIRC.

What the Illinois governor rightfully concluded was that until the justice system was corrected it was inevitable innocent people had been and would be executed. It is close to 100% probable based on statistics that Bush allowed more than one innocent person to be executed.

I wish I could keep up with this thread. A few years ago, I read through the infamous 'last meal' web page that the Texas prison system maintains. It also contains the last statement from each prisoner that has been executed. I read through all of the statements because I was curious to see how many prisoners might have been innocent. All but one or two admitted they were guilty. Most expressed regret except for a couple who pretty much said they were glad they killed their victims. I don't remember all of the details but my impression of the 'innocent' prisoners was that there was quite a lot of physical evidence that linked them to the crime. As I was reading, I noticed that the page was written to make the accused look as bad as possible so it's not exactly an unbiased source.

Anyway, this is how I got my mostly favorable impression of the Texas system. Almost all of the executed prisoners admitted they were guilty and the few that didn't had very strong cases against them. I have to point out that the Innocence Project hasn't had the same success in the state of Texas so my conclusion is that Texas does not have the same problems as Illinois.

Here's a link to the Texas Execution Information Center. I haven't read it in well over five years so maybe there have been some executions of people who claimed to be innocent. You can all decide for yourselves, but you have to read through all of the cases, like I did.

 

[Piggy]

I think Atheists make poor politicians. They seek what is right and not what is expedient. They don't pick their fights. They are not politically organized and don't think about public relations.

Wow. What a tremendously unsupported sweeping statement!

 

[Geek Goddess]

According to Hersh in the New Yorker article,
He didn't spend more than a few minutes reviewing any of the death penalty cases as governor of Texas.

I for one, think these are examples of a pattern of utter disregard for the life of people Bush considers "them" and not "us".

I have mixed feelings about capital punishment (see my sig line). My point is not necessarily to defend Bush, but to point out that he's being vilified as some sort of gleeful killer when the fact of the matter is that he merely REFUSED TO OVERTURN what literally dozens of judges, jurors, attorney, witnesses, etc., decided for each case - through the original trials and multiple appeals. BUSH did not decided to execute these people, he declined to second-guess what all these other people and the courts had decided. Actually, I would find it more arrogant of him to do so. The death penalities had been going on before Bush got there, and continued aferwards. Texas is a heavily Democratic state, with a minority (non-white) population right at 51% -Bush is the second (or maybe third, I can only find Briscoe) Republican since Reconstruction to be elected governor, and he is the only person elected to two consecutive terms as governor in about the same time frame. Texans regularly 'throw them out'

 

[Geek Goddess]

I recommend you take a look at the actions of the well funded, well organized Evangelical groups that began to grow in the Reagan years and have been working to change the US into a "Christian" nation. They have been promoting federal court appointments like Judge Moore of the "Ten Commandments in my courtroom" to school board members like the Dover school board wanting to add Bible teaching to science classes. These guys have shoved abstinence only education and HIV prevention programs down the throats of not just the US but the world as well. They are receiving millions in tax dollars for "faith based" programs which amount to rewards for getting your congregation to vote Republican. The extremists among them visit the White House often.


I will look at your source as well.

Not disagreeing. However, I meant (at least) for my point to be is that those people are trying to change the nation BACK to what they think it was for over 100 years, and that any group has as much right to try to influence the government as any other. As I said, I'm not religious, but I believe that 'abstinence' works every time, and as for 'shoving' - nations are only 'forced' to accept the policies when they choose to accept the dollars. I am not a Christian or religious, but that doesn't mean that I want to have affirmation of homosexuality shoved down MY throat, tax-funded support of art that couldn't be sold for Monopoly money in a back alley, or so on. I certainly don't care for what I see as liberal extremists getting the government to bend their way, either. They scare me. Creationists scare me, but I believe that science will overcome eventually (again).

 

[zakur]

"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing." - Karl Rove

 

[Piggy]

"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing." - Karl Rove

Which brings us back to the thread title. Looks like the stupid money's on the Republicans.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

affirmation of homosexuality shoved down MY throat

Please explain this.

The only way homosexuality could possibly 'be shoved down your throat' would be if the government made heterosexual interactions illegal. I don't ever see that happening.

 

[Piggy]

Please explain this.

The only way homosexuality could possibly 'be shoved down your throat' would be if the government made heterosexual interactions illegal. I don't ever see that happening.

Oh, no. GG is saying that "affirmation" of homosexuality is being forced on people. Which means that GG would prefer that homosexuality be in no way "affirmed", that we instead require that homosexuals be marginalized and denied the same basic rights which other human beings enjoy.

 

[RandFan]

Wow. What a tremendously unsupported sweeping statement!

As sweeping as Republicans are stupid? Hmmmm......

Hey, I've been wrong before. Please to point me in the direction of the atheist organization with a political agenda and PR arm?

 

[Piggy]

As sweeping as Republicans are stupid? Hmmmm......

Every bit.

Hey, I've been wrong before. Please to point me in the direction of the atheist organization with a political agenda and PR arm?

Not sure I get your point, here. I'm just sayin', not all atheists are obsessed with the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

[zakur]

Hey, I've been wrong before. Please to point me in the direction of the atheist organization with a political agenda and PR arm?

Here are links to American Atheists' current campaigns and suggestions for activism. And here's a link to their PR arm.

The Council for Secular Humanism has a PR arm. Among the CSH's objectives is "To promote secular humanist principles to the public, media, and policy-makers."

Here is a link to the PR arm of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Read more about the FFR here.

I believe all of the above qualify as non-profit, educational, tax-exempt organizations under Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3), but you cannot deny that their agendas and action plans have definite political underpinnings.

 

[hammegk]

Let's see.... Unjustified pre-emptive war.... Incompetence in managing that war.... Refusal to correct mistakes which contribute to continued casualties.... Condoning torture.... Refusing to grant habeas corpus to people caught in blanket sweeps or turned in by bounty hunters.... Just the usual stuff, you know....

You forgot a couple of things. He is also 'our' elected POTUS, and he has more important things to do than waste time on useless posturing in bbs'es like this one.

 

[Geek Goddess]

Oh, no. GG is saying that "affirmation" of homosexuality is being forced on people. Which means that GG would prefer that homosexuality be in no way "affirmed", that we instead require that homosexuals be marginalized and denied the same basic rights which other human beings enjoy.

I will ignore your obvious attempts at personal insults. All citizens have the same civil rights in this country, in law if not yet in actual practive. There is a difference between upholding and enforcing existing laws for civil rights, and creating new classes of protected minorities.

There is a difference between tolerating and accepting something, and affirming/supporting something. I have a close friend who is practically a full-time gay 'activist' Mike says his goal is not just to get society to accept his lifestyle and protect his basic civil rights, he wants people to be silenced from criticizing his lifestyle, he wants the same stigma to be attached to someone saying 'homosexuality is wrong' as it is to use slurs against gays or racial groups. He wants people to SAY and AGREE that his lifestyle is perfectly acceptable. His words, not mine.

 

[Jekyll]

he wants the same stigma to be attached to someone saying 'homosexuality is wrong' as it is to use slurs against gays or racial groups. He wants people to SAY and AGREE that his lifestyle is perfectly acceptable. His words, not mine.

I thought saying 'homosexuality is wrong' was a slur against gays.