A post from "Jesusland"

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by amber

Actually, there is nothing inherently offensive in that map. Look again, it only says "Jesusland" and "United States of Canada" - No offensive words or anything. And, clearly, you don't find the word "Jesus" offensive, and probably not "Canada" either. Unless you were offended that where you live wasn't included as part of Jesusland?

Come on, Amber. We're all smart enough to figure out the derogatory and condescending implication of that map.

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by takenbythesky

When church leaders tell their congregations how to vote, and their president states that he speaks for God, there is no separation of church and state-they're in bed together.

I've seen this mentioned a few times, so I thought I'd address it. The Republican leadership didn't force any church leaders to say that. Don't blame the party for their actions. That being said, I agree it's in bad taste.

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Interestingly, I think trends historically fail once they get too much power. So, the pendulum will swing back - at least I hope.

You know what, honestly, I was thinking the same thing. It's inevitable and the nature of America to retreat when one part starts becoming too powerful. I actually think it's healthy. So you guys can take comfort in that.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

I've seen this mentioned a few times, so I thought I'd address it. The Republican leadership didn't force any church leaders to say that. Don't blame the party for their actions. That being said, I agree it's in bad taste.

If the church leaders in question are Republicans and support the Republican Party... and if the Republican Party sits down with said church leaders to discuss certain issues and create focus-groups (as they have done with Pat Robertson, etc.)... then I don't think it's a huge leap to assume that the Republican party (perhaps not its members, but certainly its representatives in the government) is in bed with the church leaders.

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by wondergirl9847

Someone famous, and I am blanking on his name right now ( ) said "Nobody falls into a simple set of labels."

Whoever said that is a genius.

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

But I know the score about myself, and everyone else can think whatever they want.
Assumptions made about me don't make me feel bad or guilty, unless they're true.

I admire your thick skin. I'm afraid I still can be hurt by lies, although I try not to be.

So if you feel you're being stereotyped unfairly, prove people wrong by your actions. The surest way to change minds is to lead by example.

Good advice.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

You know what, honestly, I was thinking the same thing. It's inevitable and the nature of America to retreat when one part starts becoming too powerful. I actually think it's healthy. So you guys can take comfort in that.

I do take comfort in that (to some degree, at least), but I'm still concerned about exactly HOW powerful certain trends will get, before things start moving the other direction.

And, of course, it does little good for the people who need equal rights NOW... not later.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

I admire your thick skin. I'm afraid I still can be hurt by lies, although I try not to be.

Thanks for the compliment.
Unfortunately, some of us can't help but develop a thick skin. It's not a choice... it's forced upon us.

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by DeeGeMe

You keep citing exit polls that say that for 21% of you--moral values were the single most important voting issue. Uhm--would these be the same exit polls that showed John Kerry winning the election? Because you know, they were wrong too! Just saying. . . .You can't have it both ways you know--to believe one is correct and one is wrong would be. . . . what's the word I'm looking for. . . hypocritical, maybe?

Good point. Perhaps moral values has nothing to do with why Bush was elected. Would that make his election more valid to you?

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But that is not a fair assessment; you are lumping all Christians together, which I do not think anyone here is doing.

I believe Jamie was talking about the "Jesusland" map which does indeed lump all Christians in those states together, does it not? But I realize that is non-representative of the views of non-extremist Ledgies.

I think people, myself certainly included, object to the Christians or any other religion that want it their way or no way and anyone who opposes them is a goddless heathen who deserves to be a second class but full tax paying citizen. These people exist - just look at Falwell and Robertson and they minister to tens of millions. I do not think anyone is arguing ALL Christians feel this way I mean look at all of the posts where people have declared themselves to be Christians and then declare themselves opposed to the far religious right

What I find problematic is the assertion that the extremist religious right - people like Falwell and Robertson - are exemplary Republicans. That's a misconception.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

Good point. Perhaps moral values has nothing to do with why Bush was elected. Would that make his election more valid to you?

I think for many non-Bush Supporters (if not all of them), it just seems inconceivable that Bush could have won a second term, based on his record regarding the economy, the employment rate, the deficit, the War In Iraq, etc.

Folks are trying to figure out how others could still support him when all the facts are considered, so "moral issues" seem to be the only conclusion.
Whether it's an accurate conclusion or not is altogether different.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

What I find problematic is the assertion that the extremist religious right - people like Falwell and Robertson - are exemplary Republicans. That's a misconception.

Unfortunately though, Falwell and Robertson have become the poster-boys for Christian Republicans.
And I see very few Christian Republicans lamenting that fact... which many feel lends credibility to the idea that they're accepted as such.

Not to mention the fact that George W. has buddied up to these individuals, and has allowed them to represent him (and vice versa).

Obviously Mr. Robertson, et al., feel VERY strongly about having a Republican in the White House (even enough to ignore the current president's past alcohol and drug problems)... leaving one to wonder why they feel it's so important.

[sodascouts]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Obviously Mr. Robertson, et al., feel VERY strongly about having a Republican in the White House (even enough to ignore the current president's past alcohol and drug problems)... leaving one to wonder why they feel it's so important.

Kerry has his extremist supporters, too, you know. In fact the president of North Vietnam called him a war hero and wanted very badly for him to be elected. I don't define Kerry by that, though. (In my example I'm extrapolating Kerry's supporters to the supporters of the Democratic party, obviously).

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

Of course it's terrible that civilians have killed. But more died under Hussein. Everyone acknowledges his atrocities. And those guys choose their own paths; we didn't make them do anything.

Yes, Saddam is a horrible, evil man whose government tortured and killed tens of thousands.

However......

That is still not a reason for the US to unilaterally invade the sovereign nation that was Iraq. There are many, many, many governments on Earth today that are as bad as Saddam was if not worse. Myanmar, North Korea, the Sudan, Congo, Rwanda- not to mention Paraguay, Turkmenistan, Iran, Syria, Liberia, Nigeria, Tunisia, etc., etc., etc.... When are we going to invade those countries and fix their problems? I can tell you when- never, because none of them have the world's second largest oil reserves and a dictator who tangled with Dubya's Poppy.

What I want to know is since when did the United States of America decide to become the official police unit of the United Nations of Earth?

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

Kerry has his extremist supporters, too, you know. In fact the president of North Korea called him a war hero and wanted very badly for him to be elected. I don't define Kerry by that, though. (In my example I'm extrapolating Kerry's supporters to the supporters of the Democratic party, obviously).

I think that perhaps has more to do with the feeling of other leaders that Bush has little-to-no regard for their countries, their people, their needs, etc., than it does with them alligning themselves with a particular U.S. political party.

Wouldn't you rather have a President whom other countries felt comfortable dealing with, than one that other countries regard as Public Enemy Number One?

I'm not saying that another country's opinion of our president should decide your own, just that I think it's important to remember that we're not the only country in this world, and we need to ALL work together.

How can we resolve the heated situation with North Korea, if they don't trust our leader?
How can we ever resolve ANY heated situation, if a country doesn't trust our leader?