[SPasse]

Hi All,

Well, I thought that I would start off this thread by stating the reasons that I vote Republican, and will continue to so… As a little background, I grew up in a working class (Democratic Voting) home. My father was a long time union member (Electrician-IBEW-Local 68). Before I became of voting age, I would have tended to support Democratic candidates over Republican ones.

1 My basic premise about human nature is that as I believe Ben Franklin is reported to have said, “The difference between a man and a dog is that if you make a dog prosperous, he will not bite you. The “Great Society” experiment is a text book case of how to throw billions of dollars at a problem and, not only not solve it but actually establish it an ongoing institution.

2 Government, time and time again, has shown itself to be the least efficient vehicle on know to man, to distribute (re-distribute) wealth to those who are truly in need.

3 The Democratic Party’s elite doesn’t give a dam about the poor or disenfranchised. They want power over people’s basic life decisions.
There is no more direct method of controlling people’s lives and votes than to have them dependent on government programs/handouts.

4 We need to get over the Idea that international diplomacy should be some kind of popularity contest. The reason that Western Europe is no longer following us lockstep is because, they no longer have to. The demise of the Soviet/Wausau military power block meant that Western European countries were free to pursue there own socioeconomic interests, “liberated” from the restrictions of not disenfranchising the US, which was protecting them from the Soviets. France, Germany have had (for at least the last 60 years or so, very different “world views”. Germany, is still in the process of reabsorbing almost half of it’s population (former East Germany) that spent the post WWII years under a Communist system. Our former allies will work internationally in their best interests, and if we don’t want to lose out, we will have to also. That is not to say that people of vision can not work together is seeking out areas where different countries national interests can be synergistic/complimentary.

5 If Bush is in the “pocket” of the Saudi Royal Family, establishing a quasi-democratic regime in Iraq is sure a funny way of paying them back. Oppressive governments are scared to death of a democracy taking hold in Iraq. Freedom movements in Lebanon, Egypt, etc. haven been emboldened as recent events have demonstrated. Even (NPR’s) Daniel Schorr has recently, begrudgingly admitted that this is what is happening (and why). The Iraq effect? Bush may have had it right | csmonitor.com

I could go on, but I think that I have supplied enough cannon fodder, to get a dozen threads going.

Nits – You bet. Someone who is completely happy with a political party’s platform (especially in a two party system) is probably not a “reasoning individual”

1 Energy Policy. It is in the national economic and military interests of the United States to develop alternative energy sources. Oil is a finite resource, which if for no other reason than the development of China, is going to be an over extended resource from now on. (Until alternate energy sources come on line) Repeal of the Solar Energy Tax Credits was one of the most short sighted things that our government has done. I believe that the Kyoto Treaty was mostly a politically motivated farce, but even if you do believe that Greenhouse Gasses are contributing to contributing to Global Warming, development of alternate energy sources would be the most direct and effective way of dealing with it. The current high cost of oil, may actually push alternate energy back on the “front burner” but there are certainly a lot less economically painful ways of going about this… I believe that all of the petrochemical needs (plastics etc) of the US could be met with domestic resources.

2 Government Fiscal Responsibility – Balanced Budget. The way to balance the budget is to cut spending, period. Alas neither party seems to have the backbone to do that anymore. Increasing taxes is not the answer. Bush is betting that the recovering economy will eventually help close the gap. While that would not be my preferred method, it certainly beats trying to tax your way out. Please show me a recession that we taxed our way out of.

I have purposely stayed away from Gay Rights and the Abortion issue. Alas those two subjects are even more unlikely to be topics for discussion that can be conducted with even a modicum of civility.

Regards,

Scott

[dougc]

Good to have you back, Scott, even if Ninong had to goad you into it.

1 Energy Policy. It is in the national economic and military interests of the United States to develop alternative energy sources. Oil is a finite resource, which if for no other reason than the development of China, is going to be an over extended resource from now on.

Even more ominous is the fact that both China and India will build hundreds of coal-fired electrical generation plants over the next 10-15 years. They will add more coal-driven capacity than now exists in the world. There is only a window of a few years to develop cleaner coal-burning technology and it will probably have to be done in this country. Closing up the vast loopholes in clean air regulations in the U.S. might push the development of this technology.

2 Government, time and time again, has shown itself to be the least efficient vehicle on know to man, to distribute (re-distribute) wealth to those who are truly in need.

Balance is needed here. Unbridled capitalism has also been demonstrated to be an inefficient means of distributing wealth. One only need look back to the late nineteenth century to see this.

Oppressive governments are scared to death of a democracy taking hold in Iraq. Freedom movements in Lebanon, Egypt, etc. haven been emboldened as recent events have demonstrated.

The only problem with democracy is that it tends to become unruly. We will undoubtedly find that Middle Eastern democracies do not take the form or pursue policies that align with our interests. Corrupt, tin-pot dictators are much easier to control.

I don't know whether you are lumping Social Security under the banner of the Great Society, but it doesn't look like we will get an honest debate about it anytime soon. Both parties are talking past each other and leave out inconvenient facts. More than insolvency of Social Security itself, I think politicians dread the loss of the revenue stream that currently feeds other goverment programs. This will dry up long before the system goes into the red. They like the "Overpay as you go" system that we have now.

[Ninong]

Hi Scott,

Originally Posted by SPASSE

1 My basic premise about human nature is that as I believe Ben Franklin is reported to have said, “The difference between a man and a dog is that if you make a dog prosperous, he will not bite you.

My basic premise is very similar to yours. I believe it was Mark Twain who said, "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man."

2 Government, time and time again, has shown itself to be the least efficient vehicle on know to man, to distribute (re-distribute) wealth to those who are truly in need.

Maybe we should give more money to all the right-wingnut religious groups so that they can buy more Bibles for the poor? OK, don't get upset, that's sort of a joke but some of those groups that Bush is funding with his faith-based initiatives are buying Bibles for the homeless.

Our system of progressive income tax is used by the government to promote goals the government thinks are worthy. That's why we have exemptions for dependents and deductions for mortgage interest. The government would like to encourage large families and home ownership. My brother had five kids and at one time made more money than me but I paid a lot more in taxes to send his five kids to school. That's redistribution of wealth.

The alternative would be to set up a regressive consumption tax. Call it a V.A.T. or a national sales tax, whatever you please. Some people seem to think this would be better. If properly designed without tax credits, we could discourage large families and even home ownership -- the value of homes would plunge with the elimination of the mortgage interest deduction. If politicians thought Social Security was the third rail, wait till they try messing with the mortgage interest deduction.

The argument over redistribution of wealth has been going on for decades. Even some of the people who would benefit most from the elimination of the estate tax are in favor of retaining it. The two wealthiest people in the world, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, have both expressed their opposition to the total elimination of the estate tax. I would like to see a compromise that raises the exemption to $3 million per person or $5 million for a family farm and lowers the maximum rate from the previous outrageous 50-55% to a maximum of 30%. I agree that the estate tax amounts to double taxation but we have double and triple taxation on just about everything already and we don't even seem to notice. I don't think dividends should be taxed at all. That's obviously double taxation and counterproductive.

There are a lot of changes that I would make to the tax code if I were emperor, but I'm not. Lucky you!

I think we do ourselves a disservice when we think in terms of the two major political parties when it comes to taxation and government priorities. Only the extremists in each party fully support what some people think is that party's position.

3 The Democratic Party’s elite doesn’t give a dam about the poor or disenfranchised.

This can be said about some "compassionate conservatives," too.

There is no more direct method of controlling people’s lives and votes than to have them dependent on government programs/handouts.

Patronage is the basis of political power in any political system that has ever existed including monarchies. Just look at Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for excellent examples.

4 We need to get over the Idea that international diplomacy should be some kind of popularity contest.

The popularity-contest yardstick is definitely not working in our favor at the moment. I can see why we might want to ignore that aspect of our foreign policy.

5 If Bush is in the “pocket” of the Saudi Royal Family, establishing a quasi-democratic regime in Iraq is sure a funny way of paying them back.

The Saudi Royal Family connection was overdone by Michael Moore. There is a connection but it doesn't influence policy. Our relationship with Saudi Arabia has been the same under every administration since Eisenhower and it is based on our dependence on their oil. They agree to sell us their oil and we agree to defend their corrupt monarchy. Both Democrats and Republicans have been willing to overlook the fact that that government is a repressive monarchy that supports radical Wahhabism.

Oppressive governments are scared to death of a democracy taking hold in Iraq. Freedom movements in Lebanon, Egypt, etc. haven been emboldened as recent events have demonstrated.

You're beginning to sound more and more like a Democrat. In fact, even George W. Bush is beginning to sound more and more like a Democrat when it comes to foreign policy. I remember back in 2000 when then-Governor Bush said that the U.S. would be bankrupted in no time at all if we continued our misguided adventures in nation-building abroad. Whatever happened to the good ol' GOP policy of live and let live with the dictatorships in the Middle East and South and Central America? We used to accept any dictator as long as he was our dictator and anti-communist. Hell, we even installed some of them (e.g., Iran) and helped overthrow their democratically elected opponents (e.g., Chile).

What's all this talk about spreading freedom and democracy? Sounds like something a liberal Democrat would be pushing instead of a pragmatic Republican. I guess if you can't find weapons of mass destruction, you have to switch the topic to something else. It's hard to argue against freedom and democracy. That's like saying something bad about motherhood and apple pie.

Why are Republicans all of a sudden so interested in taking down dictators so that they can install democracies? They seemed to get along just fine with dictators in the past. I agree that it's a worthy goal but can we afford all this freedom and democracy? Geez, I'm beginning to sound like a Republican now, worrying about balancing the budget and not running up the national debt to stick it to our children and grandchildren. Oh, wait, that's not the neocon Republican view, is it? I must be thinking about Dwight Eisenhower. He's the one who warned us about running up the national debt, although his warnings about the growing power and influence of the "military-industrial complex" are more widely remembered. I guess George Bush is too young to remember Eisenhower's farewell speech.

I can't wait to see which country we invade next. People of Iran, resistance is futile, you will be liberated. Here we come! I would much rather invade Canada so that we can get cheap prescription drugs!

I was only half-joking in most of the above, but my main point is that it is the Democratic Party that has been accused of being motivated by social justice in the world and allowing their sentimentalities to cloud their business judgment in dealing with repressive regimes like those in China for instance. That's because of all those labor unions that "control" the Democratic Party. They're the ones spouting all that rhetoric about equal rights and higher wages for the workers in all those repressive countries where we can get stuff made on the cheap. Globalization is supposed to mean that we let those sweatshop countries make all the cheap crap that people buy at Wal-Mart (a lovely company) and we sit back and dream up new ways to scam the California energy-grid computers like Enron did or how to charge the taxpayers $27.5 million to transport $82,100 worth of cooking oil from Kuwait to Iraq like Halliburton did. We certainly don't want to let some namby-pamby view of freedom and democracy and workers' rights cause the cost of our imports to go up.

Republicans sure have changed a lot under the Bush-Cheney administration. I thought they voted for Bush (the first time anyway) because they wanted a balanced budget and a reduction in government. They got just the opposite. I thought they voted for him because they didn't want us to get involved in expensive overseas experiments in nation-building. I guess I was wrong. Looks like they voted for him because he reads the Bible and doesn't speak French fluently like Kerry. Hell, he doesn't even speak English fluently. Maybe that got him some extra votes, too.

Someone who is completely happy with a political party’s platform (especially in a two party system) is probably not a “reasoning individual”

I'm never completely happy with any of them but I'm more unhappy with the faction of the Republican Party that is in control right now than I have ever been with either political party. There are a lot of things that I didn't agree with in past Republican administrations and even past Democratic administrations but I never had the same feeling of disgust before that I have now for this administration.

1 Energy Policy. It is in the national economic and military interests of the United States to develop alternative energy sources.

How un-Republican of you! You're beginning to sound like the Governator in one of his more lucid moments. I only like Ah-nult when he's approving new environmental laws or pushing for alternative fuels because those are the two areas that upset his pals in Washington the most.

2 Government Fiscal Responsibility – Balanced Budget. The way to balance the budget is to cut spending, period. Alas neither party seems to have the backbone to do that anymore. Increasing taxes is not the answer.

Neither party has a monopoly on balancing the budget. Clinton balanced the budget and produced record surpluses his last three years in office. Bush has unbalanced the budget more than any president in memory (my memory anyway). Increasing taxes has never been the answer but you can't run around cutting trillions of dollars from tax revenue at the same time that you are engaging in extremely expensive nation-building experiments abroad.

Bush is betting that the recovering economy will eventually help close the gap.

That's wishful thinking at this stage. That's what Poppy called "voodoo economics." I think Poppy was talking about Reagan's "trickle-down" economics. You do remember the Laffer curve, don't you? That was a laugh alright.

Ah-nult ran on the promise of balancing the budget and not borrowing to do it. Within weeks after he took up residence in Sacramento he said things were much worse than he thought and it would now be necessary to float a $16 billion bond to balance that budget gap. That passed. Now he's trying to figure out how to balance the current budget gap, which I think is only about $8 billion. Ah-nult's praying for a revival of the good ol' days when everybody was paying taxes on all their dot-com stock option profits. Maybe the new $3 billion California funding of stem-cell research (which he supported!!!) will create a new boom in biotech there. I think it will but it will take a long time to equal the sort of taxes that the dot-commies were generating in the late 1990's and the first few months of 2000.

Please show me a recession that we taxed our way out of.

Or invaded our way out of.

I have purposely stayed away from Gay Rights and the Abortion issue. Alas those two subjects are even more unlikely to be topics for discussion that can be conducted with even a modicum of civility.

OK, I'll stay away from those two topics, too. But... What about that Roman Catholic judge, who is a registered Republican appointed by Republican Governor Pete Wilson, ruling yesterday that California's law banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional?

Where are all these activist Republican jurists coming from? Scalia will have to get his son to ask the Pope to have them excommunicated!

In 1948, California was the first state in the nation to legalize interracial marriage. In 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court declared all of the various state laws forbidding interracial marriage unconstitutional, more than 90% of the white people in this country disagreed with that decision according to a Gallup poll at the time. Sometimes the courts are ahead of public opinion.

And, not to get too deeply into a subject that you would rather not discuss, but what about the conventional Republican view of states' rights? Do the states still have the right to regulate marriage? Cheney seems to think so. Bush thinks so, too, but he's being dragged into the constitutional amendment thing by the religious right.

[schrocat]

I've voted Republican in the past because of the partys promises for smaller govt., fiscal responsibility, and a balanced budget...



Man!! did my kids get burned or what!!

Oh well.

No use in crying about it. guess I'll spend the next few years waiting for the enevitable Republican "war on McCain" from the draft Condi crowd.

[Ninong]

Scott,

Let's see, this thread was two and a half years ago, so I guess it's time for you to tell us again why you vote Republican.

Fiscal responsibility?

Balanced budgets?

Non-interventionist foreign policy?

No nation-building adventures abroad?

Restore America's image?

Keep America safe?

Maintain a strong military?

Control illegal immigration?

Restore honor and dignity to the White House?

Family values?

[salt-rookie]

All of this talk of coal burning??? Whay WILL happen to the Keyoto Treaty???

Ninong....You FORGOT, we ALL love Laura!

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by salt-rookie

All of this talk of coal burning??? Whay WILL happen to the Keyoto Treaty???

Ninong....You FORGOT, we ALL love Laura!

Wow! I'm not sure what to say here???

Are you sure you wanted to post that in Scott Passe's "Why I Vote Republican" thread?

You seem to be making two points, the second of which seems to be a profession of someone's "love" for Laura. Perhaps that's why you vote Republican???

The first point really has me confused. What are you talking about when you ask about "all this coal burning" and "what will happen to the Kyoto Treaty?"

That really has me confused. Are you saying that "burning coal" and or our government's non-participation in the Kyoto Protocol are somehow related to your support for the Republican Party?

To tell you the truth, I'm not even sure if you're expressing support for the Republican Party or not? Which is it? Do you actually "vote Republican" or are you trying to tell us why you don't vote Republican?

BTW, the United States has never ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Neither has Australia.



P.S. -- And just so there's no confusion, I'm not the one who opened this thread with the title "Why I Vote Republican." I have never voted Republican in my life!

[MarkS]

I vote Republican because I do not like the Democratic Party's stance on religious issues for one, and their unwavering support for Socialism. I'm a conservative-leaning moderate, and would vote Democrate, but my religious beliefs are very important to me and the Democratic Party does everything they can to distance themselves from those beliefs. On the flip side, I think that the Republican Party goes to great lengths to court my beliefs, to the point of supporting the extrimist sides of my religion and others. While I find great fault in that, I vote Republican because its the lesser of two evils.

I'd love to see our government 100% secular, but the Democratic Party is the only party trying to get that done and they seem to be taking an Athestic stand point (Athesism IS a religion, like it or not) and that's just as extreme as the far right-wing stand point.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by MarkS

I vote Republican because I do not like the Democratic Party's stance on religious issues for one, and their unwavering support for Socialism.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There is tension between the "Free Exercise Clause" and the "Establishment Clause." Most Democrats believe that freedom of religion is best preserved when the government does not officially sanction or recognize any one religion over any other. Some Republicans believe that since America is predominately Christian, the Christian religion should be shown favoritism.

Recently, a Hindu chaplain was invited to offer the opening prayer in the House of Representatives. Some Republican members of Congress were outraged because in their minds Hinduism, with its multiple deities, doesn't qualify as a religion in the same sense as the major monotheistic creeds -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Was it appropriate to have a Hindu chaplain offer prayers in the House of Representatives? That's an interesting question.

Should prayer be allowed in public schools? That's another interesting question. The answer may seem obvious to conservative Christians who live in the Bible belt but less obvious to parents of children attending school in the San Francisco Bay Area or the Sacramento area. For example, in the Elk Grove Unified School District, where my two godsons go to school, there are 86 different languages spoken by the students. Christianity is the dominant religion but by no means the only one represented in their student body. They have a large number of students who adhere to Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, Confucianism, Judaism and Islam (both Shia and Sunni). Some students are not members of any organized religions. Why would it be fair to allow only Christian prayers in such a public school where a large number of students are not Christians?

Should students be allowed a moment of silence to pray or not pray as they see fit? Why can't they do that at home instead? The late Rev. Jerry Falwell said that he looked forward to the day when all public schools would be run by fundamentalist Christians and Bible study would be compulsory. That's not only extreme, it's unconstitutional and un-American.

We have avoided the problems many other countries experienced because we have maintained a separation between church and state. Freedom of religion is best preserved when the state stays out of it. Just ask Mexico.

As for the "socialism" part of your comment, programs such as Social Security and Medicare, that many Republicans want to abolish, promote the public welfare and provide for the general good. I cannot imagine going back to the 1920's. We do not have a socialist form of government, not even close. We don't even have universal health care, something most other developed nations have had for years.

However, I agree with you that people who are opposed to all forms of government assistance, including Social Security, should vote Republican.

I'd love to see our government 100% secular, but the Democratic Party is the only party trying to get that done and they seem to be taking an Athestic stand point (Athesism IS a religion, like it or not) and that's just as extreme as the far right-wing stand point.

I don't think the Democrats are trying to impose atheism on anyone. I think what they are trying to do is resist the pressure from the fundamentalist Christian right to make Christianity the official religion of the United States. Rev. Pat Robertson has even said that only good Christians are qualified for appointment to the federal bench. That's both unconstitutional and un-American!

It's interesting that someone who professes to be a Christian would consider atheism a religious belief. Atheists, by definition, do not believe in any gods at all. Most definitions of religion include the belief in at least one god. The early Christians were called atheists by the Roman government because they rejected the official gods. The Greek root atheos means "godless." This should be obvious to us as reefkeeping enthusiasts because we are familiar with words beginning with the prefix a-, such as azooxanthellate -- without zooxanthellae. Anyone who professes to be an atheist is expressing a rejection of belief in gods. Anyone who professes to be an agnostic is expressing a lack of knowledge upon which to base a belief in gods.

Some people say that acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution constitutes a "belief in the religion of evolution." I have heard some of those same people say that acceptance of "global warming" constitutes a religious belief system. I think they call it "ecology." I guess that makes "ecology" a religion? What about vegetarianism? Surely that's a religion, too?

Most definitions of religion require "belief and worship" in at least one "deity," as well as "ethical behavior towards other persons." This would conform with the definition put forth in the New Testament:

Matthew 22:36-39: "Teacher, what is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

As a self-proclaimed devout practicing Christian, perhaps you can point me to the appropriate passage in Holy Scripture where it is written that atheism qualifies as a religion?

[MarkS]

Originally Posted by Ninong

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There is tension between the "Free Exercise Clause" and the "Establishment Clause." Most Democrats believe that freedom of religion is best preserved when the government does not officially sanction or recognize any one religion over any other. Some Republicans believe that since America is predominately Christian, the Christian religion should be shown favoritism.

Recently, a Hindu chaplain was invited to offer the opening prayer in the House of Representatives. Some Republican members of Congress were outraged because in their minds Hinduism, with its multiple deities, doesn't qualify as a religion in the same sense as the major monotheistic creeds -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Was it appropriate to have a Hindu chaplain offer prayers in the House of Representatives? That's an interesting question.

Should prayer be allowed in public schools? That's another interesting question. The answer may seem obvious to conservative Christians who live in the Bible belt but less obvious to parents of children attending school in the San Francisco Bay Area or the Sacramento area. For example, in the Elk Grove Unified School District, where my two godsons go to school, there are 86 different languages spoken by the students. Christianity is the dominant religion but by no means the only one represented in their student body. They have a large number of students who adhere to Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism, Confucianism, Judaism and Islam (both Shia and Sunni). Some students are not members of any organized religions. Why would it be fair to allow only Christian prayers in such a public school where a large number of students are not Christians?

Should students be allowed a moment of silence to pray or not pray as they see fit? Why can't they do that at home instead? The late Rev. Jerry Falwell said that he looked forward to the day when all public schools would be run by fundamentalist Christians and Bible study would be compulsory. That's not only extreme, it's unconstitutional and un-American.

We have avoided the problems many other countries experienced because we have maintained a separation between church and state. Freedom of religion is best preserved when the state stays out of it. Just ask Mexico.

I do not want this country run by any one religion. The only way to truly have freedom of religion is to have the government secular, and thus non-biased. I do not agree with the other religions out there, but I will be first in line to fight for their right to practice it.

I have a problem with prayer not being allowed in school. It runs against the Free Exercise Clause. Preventing someone from practicing their religion, regardless of the setting, by any form of government is a direct constitutional violation. Atheists must understand that while the school buildings and grounds are government controlled, the students and faculty are not. Allowing free exercise of religion on government property is not government promotion of religion. The ACLU and Atheists have twisted the Free Exercise Clause to meet their own ends.

To that end, I feel that any religion, represented by the students, should get equal time. You can say a prayer that is completely religion neutral. Of course, that leaves the Atheist students, but they should not be forced to participate.

Originally Posted by Ninong

As for the "socialism" part of your comment, programs such as Social Security and Medicare, that many Republicans want to abolish, promote the public welfare and provide for the general good. I cannot imagine going back to the 1920's. We do not have a socialist form of government, not even close. We don't even have universal health care, something most other developed nations have had for years.

However, I agree with you that people who are opposed to all forms of government assistance, including Social Security, should vote Republican.

There are good points to Socialism, and welfare is one example. However, that is where it should end. I do not want to see health care socalized. Yes, other countries have had universal health care for years, but look at the costs involved. Either the people are overtaxed to pay for it, or the simplest of procedures requires a lengthy wait. This is one place where the individual should be responsible for their own good. If you cannot afford health care insurance, there are places to go. If you cannot afford the medications, all you need to do is contact the drug company (I buy mine at Wal-Mart for $4 a pop). This is being pushed on us and we're all being told that the poor are screwed because they don't have insurance. As one of those poor, with many equally poor or even poorer friends, I can directly refute that.

Originally Posted by Ninong

I don't think the Democrats are trying to impose atheism on anyone. I think what they are trying to do is resist the pressure from the fundamentalist Christian right to make Christianity the official religion of the United States. Rev. Pat Robertson has even said that only good Christians are qualified for appointment to the federal bench. That's both unconstitutional and un-American!

I agree that they should push to resist that, but at the same time, do not back groups like the ACLU that spend 99% of their time going after Christianity and religion in general.

Ninong, quoting Robertson or Fallwell just makes you look ignorant. They DO NOT speak for Christians and are part or the minority right-wing extremist sect of the Christian religion (sadly, the sect that gets the most press). When I hear them speak, it turns my stomach. They are two of the most ignorant, stupid, and in many cases hateful, public faces of my religion to pop up in many years. No serious Christian quotes them or takes them seriously.

Originally Posted by Ninong

It's interesting that someone who professes to be a Christian would consider atheism a religious belief. Atheists, by definition, do not believe in any gods at all. Most definitions of religion include the belief in at least one god. The early Christians were called atheists by the Roman government because they rejected the official gods. The Greek root atheos means "godless." This should be obvious to us as reefkeeping enthusiasts because we are familiar with words beginning with the prefix a-, such as azooxanthellate -- without zooxanthellae. Anyone who professes to be an atheist is expressing a rejection of belief in gods. Anyone who professes to be an agnostic is expressing a lack of knowledge upon which to base a belief in gods.

Some people say that acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution constitutes a "belief in the religion of evolution." I have heard some of those same people say that acceptance of "global warming" constitutes a religious belief system. I think they call it "ecology." I guess that makes "ecology" a religion? What about vegetarianism? Surely that's a religion, too?

Most definitions of religion require "belief and worship" in at least one "deity," as well as "ethical behavior towards other persons." This would conform with the definition put forth in the New Testament:

Matthew 22:36-39: "Teacher, what is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

As a self-proclaimed devout practicing Christian, perhaps you can point me to the appropriate passage in Holy Scripture where it is written that atheism qualifies as a religion?

I say Athesim is a religion due to parallels. Religions believe in a diety. Athesim believes in the non-existance of such a diety. Religions have a holy book of some sort as a guide for their members. Athesim has it's own documents, although not in a single book form. Religious people meet in groups, to discuss the religion, as do Athesists. I could go on. The parallels are there. Athesim qualifies as a religion due to its practices, even if they are the polar opposite of all other religions. All groups are either of a religious nature or not. Considering that Athesim's founding principles are based on religion, I feel it qualifies as such. Thats my own, personal, belief and I expect you to disagree.


Ninong, you sure like to ramble! It kind of makes it hard to reply.

[Ninong]

How can you possibly say that no one takes Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell seriously? What about the Republican Party? What about the White House?

Jerry Falwell founded Liberty University and Pat Robertson founded Regent University. Do you realize how many of their graduates are working in the Bush Administration?

Pat Robertson operates The 700 Club and he was a Republican Party presidential candidate in 1988. I don't see how you can say that no one takes him seriously.

Besides, the White House consulted with both of these men on virtually every issue of importance, especially Supreme Court nominations. Perhaps it was just Karl Rove playing them for suckers, as the deputy head of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives said in his book, but the fact of the matter is that both of these men were openly courted by the current Republican power elite.

Look at how quick John McCain was in kissing up to Falwell this time around?



The Republican Party leadership has been sucking up to the likes of Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and Pat Robertson for years.

[MarkS]

I didn't say no one. I said no serious Christian takes them seriously. Your taking political posturing as a sign of wide-spread support. Thats just not the case. They are quacks and their supporters are quacks.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by MarkS

Your taking political posturing as a sign of wide-spread support. Thats just not the case. They are quacks and their supporters are quacks.

Well, the thread is a political thread and the current leadership of the Republican Party does seem to pay a lot of attention to the right-wing Christian fundamentalists like Pat Robertson, James Dobson and the late Jerry Falwell.

If they are quacks and their supporters are quacks, perhaps you should reevaluate your support of a political party that is subservient to a bunch of quacks?

At one time John McCain said of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson that they were "agents of intolerance" but he has since changed his tune. According to John McCain, they are no longer agents of intolerance. They didn't change, McCain did.

[schrocat]

Atheism is not a religion no matter how you slice it, want it, or wish it to be.

Secular Humanism on the other hand...

Also, this late in the game, to try to dilute the influence the fundies have had in making the Republican party what it is today is history revision of the highest order.

[SPasse]

Schrocat,

“Atheism is not a religion no matter how you slice it, want it, or wish it to be.”

I respectfully disagree.

Religion is the belief in the unknown based on what cannot be systematically proven.

Atheism is the belief that there cannot exist what cannot be systematically proven.

Both are belief systems that cannot be proven or disproven systematically and therefore religion.

Perhaps an argument can be made that Agnosticism is not a religion.

Regards,

Scott

[Ninong]