evidence for conservative Christian influence on US government

Thanks for the correction, Faith.I should have used the term "conservative Christian" instead of "Evangelical" to include all relevant groups.Indeed, there are some groups that go by the names of what most people consider quite mainstream denominations but are, for all intents and purposes, very conservative, radical Christian.

quote:

---

You might want to talk to monk about that concession.

​

He has never admitted that the conservative Christian minority has significant influence on US government.

---

I would say that conservative Christian groups have a greater voice in the current administration than in previous administrations. I don't have a problem conceeding the influence of religious elements with Bush.But Schraffy, you never ask questions like that. On occasion I agree with some of your points but you would never know it because of the way that you phrase your questions.For example, the same question, when posed by you to me, would be something like:"Monk, why don't you admit that the US government has been hijacked by extreme fundamentalist religious fanatics whose sole purpose is to dismantle every civil rights legislation enacted since the death of MLK?"Then, you get all huffy when I disagree with you.

Monk writes me:

quote:

---

You place one quote of mine in 4 separate locations in the same post and then complain because I haven’t responded by the end of the post.

---

Indeed I did, because instead of responding to me the first time you changed the issue. You took exception to shraf's quotation from TruthOut because you said it was an unreliable source. I responded to you that the info didn't come from TruthOut but rather from Harper's. I then showed that the info was available at other places as well, like Time magazine and the pastor's own website. You responded to that by changing the issue. I repeated myself several times in my next post to be sure you didn't change the issue again. Oviously, the tactic didn't work because here you are changing the issues again.But you can go right on changing the issues and casting aspersions to your heart's content. Somebody feels that we need more people like you at this forum, so you really needn't concern yourself with such mundane matters as fair debating practices.

quote:

---

BTW participating in a teleconference is not the same as a face to face meeting as implied in the OP. It may be a subtle thing but a face to face meeting carries more potential influence than a teleconference.

​

The point about the other denominations was made because if weekly teleconferences are evidence that religious groups are exerting undue influence on the Bush administration, then why is there no outcry against the weekly Catholic meetings? Would you consider Catholics to be extreme fundamentalist?

​

The Pelosi point was made to show that other members of government, including leading democrats, meet and plan strategy with religious groups from time to time, but those meetings don’t raise an eyebrow. When the Bush administration does so, left wing extremist herald that as the collapse of western civilization.

---

None of this garbage was at issue in the post from you to schraf that I responded to. Keep changing the issues, Monk. It's apparently the only way you know how to debate.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Faith writes:

quote:

---

I once belonged to such a church and left when I recognized too many elements of it in contradiction with the Bible.

---

I know what you mean. It's kinda like so many churches these days that insist people should make a big show of praying in public, in flagrant violation of Jesus' own direct admonition not to do so.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Elaborate on what legislation is attempting to regulate what Americans say and do in their private lives, other than campaign finance reform?You fight legislation.I fight enemies of the United States on the battlefield so you can fight legislation.All of the freedoms you enjoy aren't granted to you by the constitution. That's just a piece of paper. Your freedoms come from Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines that bought it for you with their blood.

---

I may not agree with what you say, But I will die defending your right to say it.
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

I’m not concerned about fair debating practices on this forum, use whatever practice you desire. I was just offering some help by pointing out how your techniques can be improved.I wasn’t changing the issues. My last post to you was on topic with regard to religious groups and government influence. If your objection stems from my question of Schraf’s grain of salt comment. What’s your problem?She is the one who raised questions about the quality of the material in the article she quoted, she is the one to say they are a liberally biased news outlet and should be read with a grain of salt. So I took her advice and approached the article with a degree of skepticism.I find that these so called meetings are actually telephone conferences attended by a large group of people and not a face to face meeting as implied in the OP. Further, I can’t find any sources that will show these meetings are more than election year campaigning. I don’t know if this is the case or not. Do you?ABE: eliminate duplicate quoteThis message has been edited by Monk, Wed, 06-01-2005 08:35 AM

Stop right there! The Pope also has his influence on all of the presdents, kings, and high powers we have now. Don't believe me? Ask who sits up front in the UN?

Monk writes me:

quote:

---

I find that these so called meetings are actually telephone conferences attended by a large group of people and not a face to face meeting as implied in the OP. Further, I can’t find any sources that will show these meetings are more than election year campaigning. I don’t know if this is the case or not. Do you?

---

Well, Harper's says: The article is dated May 26, 2005, so I would feel safe in assuming that the phrase "talks to President George W. Bush or his advisers every Monday" isn't referring exclusively to the presidential campaign. Did you not read that?Time, in an article dated from February of this year, as quoted on the pastor's own website, says: Again, nothing to indicate that those Monday meetings ended when the presidential campaign ended.All of this information was put to you before. Why have you ignored it?If you don't accept the authority of Time, Harper's or this wingnut's own website, then what authority will you accept?BTW, this right-wing idiot is based in Colorado Springs. Assuming he performs services on Sunday morning and evening he probably doesn't have time to jet out to DC every Monday. It should be no surprise that these are telephone conferences. You make much of that but I can't see how it matters, unless God doesn't approve of telephones.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Gee, I wonder why Bush didn’t meet with the NAACP leadership. Maybe it was comments like this from chairman Julian Bond on political appointments:

quote:

---

He [Bush] selected nominees from the Taliban wing of American politics, appeased the wretched appetites of the extreme right wing and chosen Cabinet officials whose devotion to the Confederacy is nearly canine in its uncritical affection.

​

The party appeals to the dark underside of American culture, to the minority of Americans who reject democracy and equality, they preach neutrality and practice racial division". Source

---

In 2000, Bush was jeered and heckled at the NAACP convention, and his opponents accused him of all sorts of lies such as Bush will undo Brown v Board of Education if he wins, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on school desegregation.What candidate in their right mind is going to risk bad PR during a presidential campaign?But I think the main reason Bush had issues with NAACP leadership is the campaign the NAACP ran endorsing a series of ads depicting the heinous dragging death of a black man in Texas. Remember these horribly false ads? They placed the blame directly as Bush’s feet when he was governor.So is it any wonder why he avoided the 2004 NAACP convention? Would you fault Kerry for not appearing before the swift boat veterans? I wouldn’t, it would be political suicide.But aside from that, Bush’s disagreement with NAACP leadership says nothing about his treatment of minorities. If fact, many african-americans have issues with NAACP leadership.Despite the animosity, Bush extended an olive leaf this past November by arranging a private meeting with NAACP leadership to which Bond responded:

quote:

---

We welcome any meeting with an American President, said Julian Bond, Chairman of the NAACP National Board of Directors. We look forward to discussion about our differences — and even agreement when our agendas intersect.

---

OK. Who sits there?

Is seeking advice on blowing the ever living hell out of other countries (amongst other travesties), based on the advice from magical men in the sky, grounds enough for impeachment? If not, why the hell not?!?Brad

quote:

---

Stop right there! The Pope also has his influence on all of the presidents, kings, and high powers we have now. Don't believe me? Ask who sits up front in the UN?

---

True, the Pope exerts influence, so do many groups. Schraf's contention is that only radical fundamentalist evangelicals have the ear of Bush. Your post argues against this, unless you consider the Pope to be a radical fundamentalist.

You've got the germ of a good thread here, Brad, but it's a bit off-topic in this one. Why don't you expound the idea for a paragraph or two in a proposed new topic?

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Monk writes:

quote:

---

Schraf's contention is that only radical fundamentalist evangelicals have the ear of Bush.

---

And I agree with schraf, but perhaps you're reading more into this than is really there. I can't speak for schraf, but for my part I don't begrudge Bush a meeting with anyone he pleases. I might feel better if he were to meet with people more sympathetic to my concerns from time to time, but he's the president and he gets to decide who he wants to meet with.In other words, I respect Bush's right to keep whatever associations he wishes to keep. However, I reserve the right to take the measure of the man based at least in part upon those associations. To me, the endless meetings with religious wingnuts is a major concern, and it is certainly enough to establish schraf's point in the OP of this thread.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

Read message 42, then continue.
Because the Pope has influence over the UN and the other world nation organizations, he will utilize this power. Is it really GWB's decision to uphold preservation of fetal babes? No. But it is neccesary for him to obey the pope. And this whole thing will simmer down to the point of total obeisance before the Vatican. Doubt it? The Pope will reveal all soon.