evidence for conservative Christian influence on US government

Then you should take your own advice and consider everything in this website with a grain of salt and that includes the report that this pastor meets with Bush or advisors every Monday. By your own admission, this news source is heavily biased.So how do you know these meetings occur every Monday? Where is this reported outside of the liberally biased news source that you quoted?

Ok, I read the Time article and this guy Haggard is evidently one of numerous evangelicals who participated in a weekly teleconference with the White House during the campaign. I'm not sure if these meetings are an ongoing routine now that the campaign is over. But even if it is true, many groups meet with the White House:

quote:

---

WASHINGTON (UMNS)Five United Methodist bishops made a pastoral visit to President George W. Bush on May 3 in a meeting that they said opened the door for future conversations and work with the White House.

---

Does this mean Methodist are taking over the White House?

quote:

---

Many of the task force members participate in a weekly White House conference call on Catholic strategy. The Thursday conference call, hosted by Tim Goeglin of the White House Public Liaison Office, has a rotating roster of participants, but regulars include Hudson, Princeton University political scientist and natural law scholar Robert George, Rev. Robert Sirico of the Acton Institutewhich promotes free-market capitalism from a Catholic perspectiveand Steve Wagner. Source

---

Hmmm.....Weekly conferences with Catholics. Looks like we have a Catholic takeover.

quote:

---

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California announced February 4 that Representative James Clyburn (D., S.C.), the son of a minister, will head a 25-member Faith Working Group that will identify faith-related concerns for the Democratic members.

---

Uh O. Does this mean Nancy Pelosi has been corrupted by Christianity?

C’mon berberry. You can do better than that. 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. Is this how you present your arguments?

quote:

---

Is Ted Kennedy a liberal socialist?

---

Why no reply berberry?

quote:

---

Is Ted Kennedy a liberal socialist?

---

That’s the second time I ask you

quote:

---

Is Ted Kennedy a liberal socialist?

---

Berberry, are you dodging my question?

quote:

---

Is Ted Kennedy a liberal socialist?

---

I’ve asked you 4 times. Since you refuse to respond, by default, your answer must be yes.Don’t duplicate questions in the same post. It’s a poor debate strategy.Now, to answer your question. Candidates meet with all sorts of groups during an election year. I’ve tried to find references where these teleconferences are continuing rather than just election year campaigning. I haven’t found any, have you?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.

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.

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

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.

---

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.

Thanks Tal, but of course it is you who is the real hero along with all who serve.

I agree, the heckling should have prompted Kerry to meet with veterans and discuss their concerns.

Those weren't the veterans that had concerns. It was the Swiftboat Veterans who raised so many issues about Kerry's record. Kerry ignored this group and that mistake was one of many that cost him the election.

For most folks I can do that, but with you it's different. Must be your clever wordsmithing skills.

Believe what you choose. In my opinion the swift boat incident had a negative effect on Kerry that lasted longer than it probably should have. Nonethless, it had an effect on voters.

Crash, Missouri is a red state. Does that mean you're moving to the coast?