evidence for conservative Christian influence on US government

In another thread that you were on, and I believe commented on, I pointed out that a certain evangelical leader openly stated that they have a direct connection and greater influence over the White House.Your citations merely show other meetings with other religious groups, some which may be part of routine access and some which may not.That does not change the fact that this administration is courting religious groups, most especially evangelicals, in order to formulate policy. They are also spurning non religious input. What might be a more enlightening exercise is for you to look up meetings on policy issues and find out how many don't involve religious reps, and how many nonreligious reps are allowed in.Before 9-11 the administration was planning a crackdown on what is right now legal pornography. Ashcroft called in religious reps to hear their concerns and suggestions for how to proceed and yet did not meet anyone within the business community he was about to crack down on to hear their concerns and suggestions... not to mention anyone of a nonreligious background.Indeed, Ashcroft's shifting resources from counterterrorism to porn occured in the lead up to 9-11, and may have been responsible for it. I certainly consider him responsible when they were all very clear that a threat existed. He thought porn was more important than terrorism.9-11 abruptly ended their planned attack and harassment of American businesses for religious ends, but have slowly reintroduced elements of it now more just harassment rather than open attack. They have, unbelievably, been shifting FBI elements back to porn. And when I say porn I mean adult porn. They have also been allowed to cultivate a negative and hostile approach to people in those businesses.That is one example. There is also other similar approaches in education and science at large. The fact that he has championed and pushed into place "faith-based" gov't entities in order to shift tax dollars into religious organizations which he defends discriminating against non religous people, should be enough.Your disinfo cannot erase the truth. I thought that's what you guys like... the truth. The TRUTH is that this administration is pushing for a religious founded (faith-based) gov't that is actually hostile to citizens which are not of faith, or have practices which are seen by fundamentalists as "the enemy".

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It is true that his brand of disinformation is better than yours. He at least seems to read articles to make sure they don't wholly contradict his point, before citing them.But he is just as easy to break down. You should set your sights higher. I'll one up you. I do disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it, and I will fight any legislative moves to regulate what you say or do in your private life even if it is offensive to me.Care to match me?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I could, but you were right to correct me. I'm not sure why I used the limited term "legislative". How about "moves by the government"? Really? Who?I mean I can fight our current enemies. Remember modern warfare is asymmetric and total and so we are all involved, including reg'lar citizens. Even a porn producer managed to take down some AQ assets. There haven't been any real battlefield engagements of any enemies so far.Afghanistan was necessary and the closest we have gotten to your description, but was not really a regular battlefield war. Actually my freedoms came from everyone, including soldiers. The best fights (outside of WW2 and the Revolutionary War) have been by reg'lar citizens against people attempting to use the gov't to crush human rights. MOST of the rights I value came from people who fought enemies in OUR gov't, and not some foreigners.There are enemies both foreign and domestic and unfortunately the armed forces are usually impotent to fight the domestic ones because they happen to be in charge of the military.I have a healthy respect for the military and those who choose to work in that profession. I have little respect for those who use that service as some sort of "better than thou" badge, especially when they are helping some of the domestic enemies (intentional enemies or unintentional enemies due to ineptness) of this nation."Never a boast or brag", remember?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Uhhhh, without Europe there never would have been a US to begin with. They saved our ass repeatedly. One might also note that more than US soldiers helped win WW1 and WW2, including Europeans.Not sure if you're up on your geography but Britain is in Europe. Without that as a staging area and launching point, it is unlikely we would have won against Germany. Not to mention if Russia had not been there we might also have gotten our asses handed to us.Never a boast or brag soldier. You can be proud without being insulting... can't you?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Look, I get the idea that one can be against abortion and for the death penalty and not necessarily be a hypocrite. However I think the confusion comes in with the "pro-life" term. If one is pro-life that tends to suggest you'd be against killing for any reason, including as punishment... after all we are supposed to leave punishment to God.Perhaps a better term for his position is "pro-birth". That would be less confusing.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I was addressing the rather large claim of the US either having kicked or saved all European's asses. The statement is patently false and your comments don't change that fact.Remember the US struggle for independence was "our war" and they entered to help us (some of them anyway). In WW2, we also received assistance with our end of the war. Japan certainly did NOT attack Europe, and Germany was attacking our ships.We entered WW2 to help our own interests (not saying it was selfish) as well as deal with our own war with Japan. Yes we did help Europeans, but not all of them were crushed and without them, we would not have likely won... not to mention Russia.It is very insulting and ignorant to claim we went over to save European ass or kick it, as if we owed nothing to them nor received critical help from them in our fight.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Actually he can't do that either right? That's one of the religious mysteries I can't figure out.God knows all and sees all and does all and planned everything from before we were born, and yet a regular human can foil all of his schemes with a 10 cent coat hanger?I really can't believe if there is a God, that anyone might accidentally stop his next son's birth... or anyone he cared about. Yet that seems to be the argument.AbE: Now that I think about it some more, if he really is a just God wouldn't it be true that all the babies that get aborted would be NOT innocent? That is they were destined to be evil and commit heinous crimes?This message has been edited by holmes, 06-01-2005 02:27 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Wow, I didn't realize you spoke for all protestant denominations. What and amazing person you must be... Now back to reality.I grew up a protestant, I lived in a protestant dominated suburb, I went to a protestant affiliated school. I watched and went to many different protestant gatherings. There are PROTESTANTS that believe pro-life means just that PRO-LIFE and so any termination of life is wrong.I mean for god's sake faith, are you telling me the Amish and Mennonites aren't Protestant? How about the Quakers? And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There are many many protestant groups, and some most certainly hold a more strict notion of PRO-LIFE. Perhaps the position should be called "anti-murder" then, instead of pro life. Jesus would disagree you. At least that's what several PROTESTANTS told me. Now are you disagreeing with Jesus?By the way why would it be against reason not to kill for any reason? I certainly don't agree with that position but some very sane people have. Ghandi for example? He led a successful revolution and life with that very concept.Are you calling Ghandi irrational? Weird.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that Xians can be for the death penalty yet be against abortion.My point was more about clarifying what the problem is in calling onesself "pro-life" when one is also for the death penalty. It does seem inconsistent.In making that point I was then playing devil's advocate (or maybe God's advocate) by stating a religious argument used by some with very strict ideas about pro-life and so are against the death penalty.We don't have to start a thread on the theology of the death penalty, as I can see both sides supporting their case with scripture. If you want to have at it with other religious types on that issue, be my guest (I'll just watch).

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Thanks, sorry to steal your thunder.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well that sure is a mature outlook. But yes, you should have identified that it was a section of protestants and not the entirety of protestants.What I don't get is how you consider them less Bible Believing. You could say they have a different interpretation, and perhaps that their interpretation has been mistaken for some reason. I mean that's what they claim about protestants who believe the Bible allows for murder... uh, execution. But they certainly do believe the Bible.Indeed its all bit of hypocrisy on your own part to be slamming them so hard. The Xians split with the jews due to differences in some interpretations/beliefs regarding scripture and God. Then the Catholics rose up as the prime force in Xianity, after which Protestants split because of their differences with interpretations/beliefs. And of course Protestants have splintered into countless denominations based on verying interpretations/beliefs.There is hardly a large body of Xians that do believe in a singular interpretation. Perhaps you can share what denomination you are and how it holds the absolutely correct interpretation? I see, two wrongs make a right. I'll remember that. I didn't claim they were or are the standard. I was just reminding you that you are not the measure of a true scotsman. Really? Almost the entirety of Europe has been without a death penalty for some time. They have been pretty orderly. Heck, they have less crime that us.Sounds like someone else's reason might have slipped their leash. Oh by the way, this is coming from someone who supports the death penalty. Your argument is a bunch of garbage.Many religious types feel that they do not need to resort to mundane and evil violence because their God will protect them from it. And if they do get hurt then it is the will of God. It's called Faith.Despite what you claim, the New Testament is not filled with Jesus extolling the virtues of violence in order to create a more ordered society. If you remember his specific words were to turn the other cheek. He did not go on to say if struck again, turn that MF into mincemeat.When faced with violence against himself, if you remember your Bible, he did not struggle or allow for any violence to occur against the very people come to kill him. He even healed some damage that one of his disciples inflicted on a soldier.The earliest Xians were generally "prolife" in the strictest sense. If you remember your history they were punished severely for their beliefs and did not put up violent struggle. Some of the disciples met the same fate as Jesus.Now if you want to claim that Jesus, YHWH, and his disciples were all nonXians that had no idea what they were talking about while preaching and writing, well I leave that up to you and the other denominations to fight it out.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

They're multisyllabic and don't manage to somehow sneak in a "motherhood" type issue like "life" or "choice". I'd be willing too accept your suggestion but the majority of Americans may not be willing to quite yet.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm sorry but those guys have been the ones trying to redefine America over the last half century.The founders were clearly against the likes of Robertson and his intentions for gov't. It was not really until after the taming of the West that we began to see gov't in the form of what you are discussing, and that was not Traditional, that was Progressive in every way.It was socialism pure and simple, and not economic socialism, but having the gov't micromanage morality in people's personal lives. This continued to grow throughout victorian times, and then vacillated between traditional (free) and progressive (socialist-moralist) for decades right up through the 1970s. Since then we have been pretty much stuck in a "progressive" moralist climate and NOT traditional hands off America. No, that's what they think is dangerous. They tout as "traditional" almost exclusively laws and iconography from the late 1870's through the 1950's... but that isn't traditional at all. And like I said the 70's through the 50's were not all of one flavour, but varied so there was hardly a "tradition" which lasted long during any of it.If you cannot handle the idea of a secular gov't wholly absent of "faith based" programs, and little micromanagement of people's lives, then you are not Traditional.Robertson is not traditional.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Faith, I gave you a breakdown of our cultural/legal history so as to show what Traditional is and where people like Robertson are pointing to when they say "traditional". They mean "what they grew up with". But that isn't traditional, its just what they grew up with which was a very Progressive agenda politics.Instead of dealing with my post you simply say you have a cite which tells me what's really going on and hand me some odd rant against Marxists and Democrats.I am not a Marxist, nor a Democrat, which means your article has nothing to do with me and I am still telling you that what Robertson is wanting is not some Traditional American... just the America that HE grew up with which was progressive.By the way I love one of the quotes... These are the same people called wimps and peacenik hippies? Hey, pick a criticism and stick with it. As far as I can tell the conservatives are just as rude and likely to put a boot in ones groin.I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but you're more likely to get a boot in the groin from a KKK member, a Nazi party member, or a Redneck, than a hippy and those are some of the most liberal people out there.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

In a way you are correct. They were deists and found the evangelists to be appalling in their hypocrisy and ignorance. Within the last half century the "alien philosophy" of evengalism has grown to drive out rational thinking, including rational religious thought.Of course if your criticism is that Xianity in general held greater sway back then, and in the last portion of the 20th century has been diminishing, you would also be right. Regardless of which denomination of Xianity you are talking about, it is true that demographics show an increased number of other religious and nonreligious philosophies within the US.Thankfully the founding fathers wanted a nation not dependent on a single religious character and so created a secular gov't. While this is true, you miss the rather obvious statements they also made about the nature of religion and gov't. A bit of pick and choose. As it is you also missed their acidic commentary on evangelist Xianity. They were deists and believed that while Christ taught good moral sense, that it was a rational position and his "miracles" were tales for children.They did not hold that other religions were incapable of morality, or that nontheists were incapable of morality... just that they did like the moral lessons within the teachings of Christ. So true, as a naturist and an amorous individual who certainly had affairs, he'd be quite shocked regarding the immorality of having a gov't tell a person how they should think and behave would be defended as if it were the essence of rights and freedoms.I can't remember which founding father it was, perhaps Franklin, that commented that there could be no greater insult than a gov't telling a man how he should live his life. I think it may have been Jefferson (but we know all about that rascal: miscegenistic pedophile that he was).Freedom is the right to make ones own course free of the intrusion of gov't. The populace will be better off with good morals or ethics, but a good gov't is not the creator or purveyor of such things. That comes, as they discussed, with a healthy populace interested in seeking to better themselves through reason and tolerance.At this point reason and tolerance are spat upon by left and right alike. We are in a "progressive" age where both sides demand to be the arbiters of morality for others and dictate this using the gov't. Both wolves cloak themselves in the flag and guise of the foundig fathers. Shame on both sides.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)