Politics and Christianism

This is really great (3.00 / 1)

speaking of the Texas Freedom Networks Anatomy of Power, (by the way, the link does not actually take you to the report, but you can get to it if you do a search)

Thanks for posting this.

One thing that I think we as Dem's should be doing during this election cycle is make people completely aware of some of the more kookie aspects of the TGOP's official platform. I believe understanding just what it is that the party stands for will go a long way towards waking up some of the less crazy republicans, (yes there are a few) to say nothing of the independents who are considering voting for republican candidates.

Anyone who doesn't think this sh_t is crazy is unreachable anyway.

Prisoner of hope.

---

by: comeon @ Mon May 08, 2006 at 19:46:18 PM CDT

Fixed the link (0.00 / 0)

Sorry - I always forget one little thing or another to make the link work. It works now.

I agree about getting this out to people. Not that Democrats should necessarily be the "party of religion" either. Faith should belong to people, not politics. The next step, of course, is learning how to talk about faith without disenchanting voters. I believe the TFN will have more about that in the coming months, as well.

Great work by a great organization.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Mon May 08, 2006 at 20:18:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Great post! (3.67 / 3)

Thanks Phillip.  The research team at TFN put in a lot of work on this report, and they certainly appreciate your kind words.  We invite everyone to read the report and share it with your friends. 

If anyone would like to get a sneak peak of the hard copy of the State of the Religious Report, then swing by our office later this week.  We're conveniently located two blocks from campus at 608 West 22nd Street.

If you'd like to volunteer for TFN and join the fight against the religious right, then please sign up at: http://www.tfn.org/takeaction/volunteer/, or you can contact me at ian@tfn.org.

Also, you can sign up for our daily news clips:
http://www.tfn.org/subscribe/

 

---

by: Ian @ Tue May 09, 2006 at 16:05:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Excellent piece (0.00 / 0)

thank you for posting it!

---

by: The Trey @ Mon May 08, 2006 at 20:02:24 PM CDT

Pre-Empting name (2.00 / 1)

It only strikes me as fair: if the GOP can insist on refering to us as the "Democrat" party, rather than as the Democratic Party, then why shouldn't we (with at least as much justification) refer to "Christianism"?

I think it's a step toward reclaiming both faith and Texas.

---

by: Amerloc @ Mon May 08, 2006 at 20:42:59 PM CDT

I think this old comment thread sheds some light (2.00 / 2)

on part of the problem

This is the exact question and response I asked of our friend sfagrad02 from this diary.
me
No Snark 
I would like to ask you a serious question,

Why is it that most Republicans consider themselves Christians, and yet get up in arms about paying taxes and providing an economy and programs that support and protect the poor and the weak?

It seems to me that these are fundamental Christian values and I just honestly do not understand this attitude.

sfagrad02
The reason 
....is that it is not the government's responsibility to act as a nanny state..at least here in the United States (this isn't Cuba or Venezuela...sorry to be the bearer of bad news..). We have nonprofit organizations to assist the poor...
Tax dollars should be used to maintain roads and other essential functions that can be used for EVERYONE.

me
However 
There is a problem with that argument, well there are several, but for starters,

How can Republicans consistently use the Churches and their Christian values, make statements about how our country and our government were founded on Judeo-Christian values as a foundation for these arguments, but then turnaround and maintain that it is not the governments job to take care of the poor.

If it is ok to include Judeo-Christian values in our government system and make laws based on these values, then why is it not also not only ok but imperative that that same government based on those same arguments act in a Christian way in terms of economics?

I guess it comes down to this question, why are Republicans all about including Christian values in government when it comes to abortion, homosexuality, and the co-mingling of Church and State, but stop short of the values they claim as their own when it hits their pocket books?

Needless to say, I recieved no further response.

I think we need to make it clear to those Christians who are reasonable but have been put under the spell of the current Christanists, that you can't have it both ways. Either We have a government where Christian Values are upheld or we don't. If you don't want the government using your tax dollars to fund programs to care for the poor and support legislation that does the same, then you can not say you want a government based on Christianity. The buffet style of Christianity that the Chirstianists practice should be exposed at every opportunity. You simply can not have it both ways.

Prisoner of hope.

---

by: comeon @ Mon May 08, 2006 at 21:18:43 PM CDT

Ok, then.... (1.00 / 3)

If we're going to put your socialist view into place that government should be moral free, why don't we:
1) take adultery out of being grounds for divorce
2) legalize murder
3) legalize theft
4) take away protections for anyone who chooses to take off on a religious holiday
5) allow obscenity to be demonstrated in public, without restraint
You libs have protected freebies for deadbeats for years, yet you fight to the last beat to keep prayer out of schools, to keep abortion available on demand, to allow gays to marry freely, all in the name of your religion: godlessness.

www.completethewar.com

---

by: sfagrad02 @ Mon May 08, 2006 at 23:36:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

you got it all wrong (3.50 / 4)

if you want to make this about Godliness, lets examine the Bible.

How many times does the Bible talk about abortion, sodomy, etc VS how many times it talks about helping the poor?

The contest is not even close. The Bible talks WAY more about helping the poor.

Hey, it sure is funny how Republicans never read THOSE parts, isnt it?

---

by: David Mauro @ Tue May 09, 2006 at 00:28:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Something in the water? (3.50 / 2)

Do they put something in the water at SFA? These people want to establish a theocracy.  You want to live in a theocracy? Go to Iran.

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Tue May 09, 2006 at 00:48:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, here's why... (5.00 / 3)

1) Marriage is inherently a contract between two parties. Part of that contract is not to have sex with people outside the contract. Unless, in the contract itself, specific exemptions are made for adultery, you simply couldn't remove it as reason for divorce without violating the 'sanctity' of contracts in American law.

2)Murder's harm to society exists independently of religious prohibition. This is why murders that would be sanctioned per Old Testament law are not allowed in the US.

3)Same as 2

4)Actually, those are national holidays. While the government may not abridge your right to practice your religion, provided that such practice does not harm others, private industry can fire you even if you claim that you 'took the day off for a religious holiday'. Employers have a lot of latitude. How do you think they make people work on Sunday?

5)huh?

Prayer in schools is not illegal. A women's right to choose is exactly that, a right to make choice. Freebies for deadbeats? You mean like cheese, bread and milk for kids? Allowing gays to marry? Sure. Actually, society would really benefit from this... you guys are just too stupid to realize it.

Anything else?

---

by: The Trey @ Tue May 09, 2006 at 01:26:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'd like to thank all you guys above (0.00 / 0)

for picking that up for me.

I just didn't have the energy.

Prisoner of hope.

---

by: comeon @ Tue May 09, 2006 at 06:27:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You'll notice (0.00 / 0)

that for the second time,
our friend has no further comment.

Prisoner of hope.

---

by: comeon @ Tue May 09, 2006 at 13:14:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My Impression of the Article (4.00 / 2)

And everyone can take from this what they will:

I firmly believe God gave us free will, and the power to exercise that free will. It is his desire that we choose a clean, spiritual lifestyle. Which means we aren't in the situation to choose whether or not to kill, have an abortion, steal, lie, or anything else. However - we will be in those sitatuations, and the teachings of the Gospels show us and guide us as to how we should make decisions in those moments.

That is, of course, strictly my belief. Another Catholic may believe differently - that free will isn't as important, or what have you. That's OK -- because, for me, the ultimate judgment lies with God. Not with anyone else, for do not judge lest we be judged in return. For me, the glory of my faith and my spirit within me is that I am able to learn, reason, and make decisions under my own free will. And while I may not always be perfect - as no one can be, lest they be God - I can always seek forgiveness, and God will forgive me for my sins.

Therefore, as I learn, and as I learn from my choices and decisions, so long as I grow, evolve, and change to learn how the teachings of Jesus Christ apply completely to my daily life, I believe that God will understand, listen, and accept me. So long as I act with an open heart, with understanding and kindness, and so long as I do not ever turn anyone away from the Spirit of the Lord, God will find blessings with me.

Which is, honestly, the biggest problem with the religious right. I may be entirely wrong in my belief system - I freely admit that. But, b/c I understand the personal nature of faith, I understand that I shouldn't judge others for their faith and beliefs. Therefore, I am resistant to anyone who says, "believe this, or else you are not a real Christain," etc. For those who might establish a criteria of faith and say, "unless you believe and vote for and practice X, Y, and Z qualifications, then you are not of faith," -- I just can't relate with and accept those kinds of people as being true disciples and believers of faith.

I believe God gave us free will. He gave us the power to choose. Who are we to take away that God-given right?

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Tue May 09, 2006 at 03:12:09 AM CDT

Finally. A frame that fits this picture. (3.00 / 1)

Christianists like Bill Frist and his butt-buddy James Dobson don't give a cat's ass about poor people.

Christianism is Tom DeLay grinning through his mugshot, letting us "see Christ through him", while lobbyists pour champagne on his daughter in the hot tub.

Christianists like Rick Perry go to church to sign a bill that outlaws marriage except between heterosexuals, while our children go without the proper schoolbooks to pass the state-mandated tests to advance to the sixth grade.

Christianism is when Greg Abbott argues before the United States Supreme Court that a monument to the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the state Capitol doesn't violate the First Amendment.  And a majority of Justices agree.

Gee, I'm sure there's more examples of Christianism but I haven't even Googled yet.

Don't let the Blue Dogs getcha down. Primary them.

---

by: PDiddie @ Tue May 09, 2006 at 04:32:41 AM CDT

This debate over semantics is hilarious (1.00 / 3)

To a non-Christian, this is a non-issue.  It is particularly hilarious to watch you debate over strategy and tactics about how to deal with Christians other than yourselves.  You're ALL the enemy!  :=)  As I once pointed out to my mother, why argue when we only disagree about the viability of ONE of the dozens of religions in the world?  When we agree about the uselessness of all the others?

As far as I can see, faith is simply a synonym for superstition, and religion is a form of power politics.  It's all idiotic, and only idiots argue about it.  You must have a very narrow, contained life to even have time to bother!  Free yourselves of your religious shackles, and the whole world and all its realms are open to you.

---

by: Wanderer @ Tue May 09, 2006 at 09:45:28 AM CDT

Thanks (4.00 / 3)

So...by entering into an "idiotic" debate, you've made yourself one of the idiots. Bravo.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Tue May 09, 2006 at 09:47:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

We may not want to drink... (2.00 / 3)

... your kool-aid, but I don't think anyone (other than maybe SFAGrad2) would interfere with you serving it.

You can think whatever you want... I'm a methodist, we don't witness to others. We're too busy setting up for a drinks party.

Realms? Did you play D&D as a kid?

---

by: The Trey @ Tue May 09, 2006 at 10:54:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bush's God (0.00 / 0)

I stopped believing in "God" when Bush said God talked to him. Which I knew wasn't possible because Bush doesn't speak Italian and a monsignor told me God only spoke Italian when I asked why the Vatican was in Italy. Plus Methodists and other Protestants will go to hell.  That is what I was taught.  So why would God talk to someone who was going to hell? I was also taught never to question the Church. Ignoring it works well. Along with yoga and a good martini.

Most psychiatrists probably called around to see how someone filed committment papers on a US president.  People who claim God has talked to them usually are put in little rooms and watched for 48-72 hours.  Maybe they have a room at the White House where they watch him from time to time.

There is a supreme something in the universe which has inspired Man and the philosophical thought behind religion.  But I doubt seriously he/she/it is interested in talking to Bush. Or most Republicans.  Or most politicians to be honest which isn't politically correct to point out but then I'm not politically correct.

Just as many Democrats are pandering to "God" and I have as much use for them as I do the Republicans.

Most religion, when you move beyond the philosophy, is oppressive and its sole purpose is simply to control the masses. Perfect for Republicans. And some Democrats.

As for the philosophy, I do believe in the Ten Commandments. Others don't because they want to continue to lie, cheat and steal their way to happiness and the American Dream. Their God is simply money.  Why not?  God is on the money. In God We Trust.

Ask a Republican "where" God is and they will tell you "on a dollar bill."

---

by: Baby Snooks @ Tue May 09, 2006 at 13:13:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My problem with Sullivan (1.00 / 1)

The problem with creating the new terms of "Christianist" and -ism, is that they don't call these people on their lack of actual Christianity. Seriously - in what possible sense of the term is Fred Phelps a Christian? To use an adjective to describe him (or Jerry Falwell or James Dobson or any of the others) that has the same root as the one that describes the faith of Jesus is to desecrate the term. As I said in a recent protest letter to the United Methodist Church, Jesus didn't talk about homosexuality. Paul might have, but the religion isn't Paul-ianity, it's Christ-ianity. Paul was a person, and as a person, he had issues. I don't choose to make his issues mine. If you want to take back the term, take it back. Point out that a religion that spends it's time comforting the comfortable & either actively afflicting the afflicted or standing by & doing nothing to help them has nothing to do with that guy who drove the moneychangers out of the Temple. Here's a quote from the Bible (1 John 3: approximately verse 18 - sorry the sheet I kept from church last Sunday doesn't number each verse)"How does God's love abide in anyone who has the world's goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help?"

On the other hand, "Christian" isn't a label I wear comfortably. Not only do I think it is an awfully high standard to live up to (see the verse I quoted above), but I feel the term has been soiled by the so-called Christian Right. I don't know who it is that Pat Robertson hears from on a regular basis, but it certainly isn't the same Divinity I seek communion with. So, maybe they can have the term. Maybe I'm just being a divisive leftist. On the other hand - Jesus' kingdom may not have been a part of this world, but if reports are to be believed, he spent an awful lot of his time here feeding the hungry and healing the sick.

I realize I'm saying two completely different things. I'm deeply ambivalent on this subject. But I am glad people are talking about it.

Hill Country Ride for AIDSmy HCRA Page

---

by: BeckyH @ Tue May 09, 2006 at 16:47:00 PM CDT

First off.... (1.00 / 1)

I've leaned more towards the libertarian slant over the past year. So I'm not saying we should have a "bible based" government. I'm explaining the Republican concept behind morals and law. If you think Republicans have hidden behind the bible in politics, think of what Al Gore did in 1988, when he coddled with a preacher in Kansas that ran a group called "God Hates Fags."
I personally think that drugs should be legalized, and that the abortion issue should be left out of politics. But let's understand that when liberals accuse conservatives of hiding behind the bible, let's also remember when in 2004, Richard Gephardt said that health care is a moral value (code word for part of Marx's writings). So I'm just pointing out that Democrats and Republicans are both hypocrites.
Which is why I've recently converted to the third side- the Libertarian side.

www.completethewar.com

---

by: sfagrad02 @ Tue May 09, 2006 at 16:49:24 PM CDT

No you weren't... (2.00 / 2)

You were positing (incorrectly) that morality was exclusively the domain of religion. Specifically, you were saying that socialism was amoral which was stupid because no one was advocating socialism in the first place.

Go back to reading Ayn Rand and we'll call  you back when we're done fixing everything so you can come back and criticize our work. You know, like every retard libertarian out there.

---

by: The Trey @ Tue May 09, 2006 at 20:30:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And YOU'RE calling me a retard?? LOL (1.00 / 1)

Socialism is a sweetened version of communism. It favors the weakening of religion in society. It buys into the saying that religion is the "opium of the masses" and therefore must be reduced to rubble.
Before you let too many of those fumes from the weed get to you, scroll up and read comparisons of devout Christians to such clowns as Robertson and Falwell. As nieve as comparing Sen. Barack Obama with Louis Farrahkan. Just doesn't add up.
And besides, as much as you like to run down libertarians, you show your true socialist colors, as I'm sure you're aware that libertarians favor limited government, as opposed to your apparent support for a nanny state.

James Werner (Libertarian) for Texas Governor in 06!

www.completethewar.com

---

by: sfagrad02 @ Wed May 10, 2006 at 00:26:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Again, you miss the point... (2.00 / 1)

we weren't talking about socialism. The only person who seems overly concerned with socialism is you.

And yes, you are a retard with nothing but empty rhetoric and unworkable ideas.

---

by: The Trey @ Wed May 10, 2006 at 01:50:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So, The Tracy.... (1.00 / 1)

I'm sure you overlook the fact that far left organizations like the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State are in court around the clock to push for the ban of public displays of religion (although liberals of your type are likely to think that gay pride parades are no problem at all). It is socialism's goal to push for the watering down of values. That's why I brought up the subject.
And only a retard would start a name calling tirade. That's what one can expect from the MoveOn.org crowd. One who likely would take Marx's writings as gospel. 

www.completethewar.com

---

by: sfagrad02 @ Wed May 10, 2006 at 08:58:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Again, you're off topic (2.00 / 1)

No one was talking about the ACLU or AUS. Further, neither are socialist organizations.

Socialism's goal is NOT to push for the 'watering down of values'. You're just wrong there.

Seriously, at this point I have to ask if you ate lead pain as a kid. Did you? It either has to be that or some kind of a congenital defect.

---

by: The Trey @ Wed May 10, 2006 at 11:24:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Tell you what... (3.00 / 1)

We'll stop associating clowns like Farwell and Robertson with the religious right the day the religious right stops associating with them. But so long as folks like Tom Delay are saying things like I quoted in the article above, so long as Bush is counting on Farwell/Robertson for his base, and so long as folks like Ralph Reed have any sort of influence on anything, you can bet your ass I'm calling a bigot a bigot.

Now, a very great man once said that some people rob you with a fountain pen.

---

by: Phillip Martin @ Wed May 10, 2006 at 03:01:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

If you had kept up with the news over the past few years... (1.00 / 1)

You'd realize that the Falwell/Robertson/Dobson trio have been just as critical of Bush as they had once been supportive of him. For instance, Dobson had considered leaving the Republican party over the fact that the Republican party top apparatus has abandoned conservative principles. That's why we have the Libertarian and Constitution parties, which will be getting my vote more often in the near future.
And the real bigots are people like Howard Dean, Michael Moore and Barbra Streisand,- the Democratic jesters who have been spewing hatred against people who don't just take their faith as something recreational.
Most conservatives (I'm not talking about the activists- I'm talking about the ones who put their pants on one leg at a time) don't associate themselves with Falwell and Robertson. We think they're kooks. But I'm sure you think you can have some impact by posting to message boards and doing so. Keep dreaming- just as Texas liberals are dreaming that they're going to sweep the smorgas board of statewide offices back into Democratic rule. I need a good laugh every now and then.

www.completethewar.com

---

by: sfagrad02 @ Wed May 10, 2006 at 08:52:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

suggesting they abandoned conservative values (2.00 / 1)

assumes they ever embodied them in the first place. Hopefully true Christians who have been voting for these clowns are realizing they have been the party's chumps, all that christian rhetoric coming out of the GOP was and continues to be part of a power play that involved taking the Solid Dem. South, by playing on their religious beliefs and using them as a political weapon. They certainly knew they couldn't convert them by offering them anything of substance. It's all been smoke and mirrors.
And as far as the Lib and Const. parties being born of right wing christians dissatisfaction with Bush? How old are you anyway. These parties didn't just come on the scene yesterday.

Prisoner of hope.

---

by: comeon @ Wed May 10, 2006 at 09:46:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So, in which camp do you belong? (3.00 / 1)

The Falwell/Dobson/Robertson Axis or the Bush/GOP?

Again, I just want to know, why do you think all morality is based in religion? Is your own morality so weak that you need a religious foundation for it? Do you find yourself 'doing the right thing' more often because 'God may be watching' than because 'it's the right thing to do'?

Man oh man, a psychiatrist could write a book about you.

---

by: The Trey @ Wed May 10, 2006 at 11:31:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually, The Tracy.... (0.00 / 0)

my views have been evolving over the past year. So both extremes, liberal and conservatives, should brace themselves for a rough rollercoaster ride.
A few years ago, I was a hardcore conservative. Before then, I was a big government liberal. But I realize that both liberals and conservatives believe that government should be massive in some form or fashion- whether in giving out welfare checks or passing an unneeded Communications Decency Act Law or keeping drugs illegal.
Recently, I have seen that government should stay out of the abortion issue- to neither prohibit nor promote it. We should keep our foreign aid dollars here and use it for local law enforcement. We should stop trying to "promote democracy" all over the world and promote liberty here at home.
Those are the form that my views have evolved in.
I do believe that morality came from a religious origin, because right and wrong was given to us by God. God told Eve not to eat the apple. Moses gave us the Ten Commandments, which are a strong foundation of the laws that we have today- you know, to not murder, steal, display obscenities in public (in some cities you can get ticketed for that). I'm not saying things should be based on morality. It's just how the cookie crumbles whether you or I like it or not.
As a recently converted libertarian, I believe that people should be free to do as they please as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. But I also believe that the government shouldn't weigh down on us until we have to call for a crane to get it off our backs.
And I rarely ever associate myself with the GOP anymore. They put a chip on my shoulder when they ran away from priniciples of limited government. Even Clinton declared in 1995, in his State of the Union Address that the "era of big government is over."

www.completethewar.com

---

by: sfagrad02 @ Wed May 10, 2006 at 12:02:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fine, but that's what YOU believe... (2.00 / 2)

...not necessarily what someone else believes. My original point is that morals are NOT necessarily based on religion. For example, slavery is allowed under judeo-christian tradition, yet it is now considered to be immoral by almost everyone in the US and we have laws against it.

Further, the examples you offer of things that would be permissable if we 'abandoned' religion have already been discussed (you can reread it here since you obviously didn't get it the first time). Sweets, whether YOU like it or not, we don't live in a Christian republic. The US was, is and will always be a secular Republic with respect for all religions.

---

by: The Trey @ Wed May 10, 2006 at 14:03:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ok....we agree on one thing... (0.00 / 0)

America is not a Christian religion...it's written into the Treaty of Tripoli (1798)...
however, most religions are based on morality...although some more hardcore than others when it comes to issues such as the death penalty, drinking, dancing, etc....only atheists and agnostics wouldn't base morality on religion...

www.completethewar.com

---

by: sfagrad02 @ Wed May 10, 2006 at 14:18:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Please reread the report (5.00 / 1)

sfagrad02,

I respect your opinions, and I'm glad you're brave enough to post them on this site and take the heat.  A good healthy discussion never hurt anyone.

You just made a claim that the religious right folks are on the fringe of the conservative movement.  Hmmm.  You claim to be one of those old-fashioned conservatives who puts his pants on one leg at a time.  Cute one-liner, and I'll take you at your word.  However, your claim that the religious right has been relegated to the fringe of your conservative movement is both naive and misleading.

Phillip linked to a report about the religious right in Texas just yesterday. Maybe you should take some time to actually read it. Here it is again: www.tfn.org/rrreport06/.

Once you've taken a few hours to finish this A-Z catalog, then please feel free to come back to BOR and summarize your thoughts.  I'm honestly curious what you'll think of your conservative movement once you read all the facts.  If you truly are independent of the religious right, and if you truly base your political perspective on facts and science, then I would venture to say that you'll be quite shocked and scared.

---

by: algiles @ Wed May 10, 2006 at 16:56:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually.... (0.00 / 0)

I read about all kinds of religious movements constantly. You're talking to a keyboard player who plays in bars in a country band and soon in a variety/dance band on weekends and in church on Sunday. I make money from both of them.
And I have a big beef with televangelists. I'm a Christian and I would die for my faith. But I hardly watch any Christian broadcasting on TV because I also am aware that all they care about is paying for their next yacht and BMW. My pastor at my church gives me the spiritual nourishment that I need at no extra charge. I don't need to hear a bunch of mumbo-jumbo from some guy in a three-piece suit who ends his broadcast with "God needs your money, here's my address..."
So yes, I'm more complex than most would believe. And I don't even call myself a solid conservative anymore, because I'm more issue-oriented than anything else. The bass player in my country band tells me that I'm the most liberal conservative he's ever met. Yes, I know -- a contradiction in itself. But -- that explains me.

www.completethewar.com

---

by: sfagrad02 @ Thu May 11, 2006 at 00:05:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think I might go through all your comments (3.00 / 2)

and count how many times you use the phrase
"nanny state" I'm so sick of it because it is such a falacy.

All any one here is suggesting is a state that treats all citizens equally under the law and creates an economic system that treats all citizens fairly, and most importantly does not punish individuals for being poor by denying them access to government and quality of life.

Somewhat socialist, maybe, I won't argue that. What I will argue is the way you describe socialism. By my definition, Christ himself was a socialist. He believed in taking care of the poor, children and the socially disadvantaged, not kicking them aside as unfortunate casualties of an economic system that reequires an impoverished servent class in order to sustain an indecently wealthy upper class.

Prisoner of hope.

---

by: comeon @ Wed May 10, 2006 at 09:38:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Go ahead and count.... (1.00 / 1)

doesn't bother me. I'll even throw in the words "nanny state" to help keep you occupied....
True, Jesus advocated taking care of those who are less fortunate. But unlike Marx would have some believe, Jesus didn't say that was the government's responsibility. To say Jesus was a socialist was a distortion. Just as much as "turn the other cheek" was directed to address the individual. The only places in Scripture that governments were addressed by God or Jesus were in Leviticus and in Romans 13.
And yes, I know it's excrutiatingly painful for liberals that we have a free enterprise system here in the U.S., but that's just the way it is. If it bothers you that much, I'm sure France or Germany would love to have you there as a policymaker. I'm sure you'd be right at home with their "soak the rich," subsidize the poor ideology.
I myself grew up not having much, but I don't expect the taxpayers to pay my way so that I could live comfortably.
And I believe that the disabled need a hand up, but keep in mind that when they passed the welfare legislation, there were many on the left, Gephardt and others among them that were against even eradicating the abuse that had plagued our welfare system.

www.completethewar.com

---

by: sfagrad02 @ Wed May 10, 2006 at 11:52:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]