|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Mar 31st, 2004 04:48 PM | ||
| kellychaos | Talk about "opiate for the masses". I find it ironic that the party that cares least for the middle class is able to ride on their backs gripping the reigns of christian morality in one hand and the whip of a terrorist threat in the other. | |
| Mar 30th, 2004 10:22 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach | I think most of our elated politicians are atheists. The rest is posturing for public office. | |
| Mar 30th, 2004 06:09 PM | ||
| Perndog |
Whether or not a candidate's religious expression should matter is irrelevant; the fact is that it DOES. In this overwhelmingly Christian country, the best Christian in any particular election automatically gets points in his favor. And whether or not it is in good taste (which is pretty subjective anyway) to exploit religion in a campaign, a candidate who has such a tool would be stupid not to use it because it is so powerful. I'll change my mind when I see a couple more Jews and atheists in public office. EDIT: I meant publicly recognized atheists. |
|
| Mar 30th, 2004 04:23 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach | Sorry, I was generalizing the specifics again, but I agree with you en toto. Bush started it and the critique was warranted. It was tasteless then and remains so. | |
| Mar 30th, 2004 04:07 PM | ||
| kellychaos | And anyone who DOES use it as a means to propel their elections deserves to get called on it when his/her hypocrisy is in evidence. Bush is the one who displayed his morality as a badge representing he and his administration. If He would have kept it private, as you've indicated, it wouldn't be fair play, from either those who support christian conservative values or those who take issue with it. Once you have used it as your weapon; however, the gauntlet is thrown and you get what you deseve. | |
| Mar 30th, 2004 03:58 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach | Just to clarify, I am not in any way supporting Bush's position in regards to Christianity, past or present. Simply saying any politician who attempts to propel their career/campaign/pogroms through religious exploitation is employing a strategy which can only be described as tasteless. I agree with Kennedy - Matters of religious preference are a private matter, and while they testify to character and predisposition, any leader should be considered on merit of past actions and issues, not. . .Lip service paid to philsophical or quasi-spiritual establishments. | |
| Mar 30th, 2004 03:55 PM | ||
| kellychaos |
Jesus was a capricorn. He ate organic foods. He believed in love and peace and never wore no shoes. 
|
|
| Mar 30th, 2004 12:32 PM | ||
| Protoclown | I think this was a brilliant move on Kerry's part, but only if he takes advantage of the opportunity to call Bush out for being a hypocrite for naming Jesus his favorite political philosopher and then declaring the use of relevent scriptures "tasteless". | |
| Mar 30th, 2004 09:24 AM | ||
| mburbank |
What Brandon said. I endorse your right to disagree with me, Mr. Shach, but don't presume to know what I find tasteless or extreme. Why, once I ran into an entire troupe of boyscouts who'd been seperated from their scout master on the freedom trail, and after a short series of negotiations involving baseball cards and a large drum of vegetable shortening, I... But that would be telling. |
|
| Mar 29th, 2004 07:34 PM | ||
| Brandon |
Tasteless? I think it's about fucking time somebody called these Religious Right conservatives on their hypocrisy. Republicans have been wrapping themselves in scripture for years in order to debase their opponents and win elections. It wasn't so much Kerry painting himself as a true believer as it was exposing Bush on being a Christian-In-Name-Only. |
|
| Mar 29th, 2004 07:08 PM | ||
| Perndog |
Quote:
And just about all of politics, *especially* large-scale campaigns, is pandering to appease the simple. You can't tell me all or even a large part of what these guys do to get elected is a matter of educating the public to make rational choices about the candidates' political positions. |
|
| Mar 29th, 2004 06:52 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach | Burbank, you know as well as I do this is tasteless to the extreme. Neither of them carry themselves with the humility of the Faithful, and regardless of whom such arguments are made by, it is quite simply pandering to appease the simple. | |
| Mar 29th, 2004 04:22 PM | ||
| kellychaos | Live by the Word, die by the Word. | |
| Mar 29th, 2004 04:17 PM | ||
| AChimp | I personally think that Kerry just has a firm grasp of irony and how to demonstrate it. Everytime the Republicans do something, he does it, too, and we get to listen to Bush & Co. whine about it. | |
| Mar 29th, 2004 03:10 PM | ||
| mburbank |
I disagree strongly. Suppose Lieberman was the candidate. Lieberman made an issue of his faith and the role of his faith in politics. Had W. used scripture to question Lieberman's record in the light of his faith, I would not have objected. I might well have objected to his interpretation of speciffic scripture as it pertained to Lieberman, I might well have objected to him pointing to motes in other peoples eyes before removing the beam in his own, but I would not hve objected to the use of scripture. Should W or his crew wish to say Kerry is wrong and present the evidnce of their compassion, more power to them. Should W. and his crew wish to apply scriptural ethical arguments to actual positions Kerry as taken, that door is now open. I think Kerry raises a very valid point. W ran on his faith and touted his compassion. I found W's injection of Jesus into the campaign failry tasteless, as I find Pat Robertsons public declaration that W. has been anointed by God to lead us repulsive. The republican base calls itself "The Religous Right", as if they own faith. I think concidering this, W should not be surprised nor should his people feign shock when he is questioned on the same grounds. |
|
| Mar 29th, 2004 01:51 PM | ||
| Drew Katsikas | Max, you'd be up in arms if W. attacked an individual citing scripture. This is retarded, and I'm ashamed for Kerry. | |
| Mar 29th, 2004 01:44 PM | ||
| Royal Tenenbaum |
"But that's me having a perverted lust for the seperation of church and state" Everyone should have that, and it's in no way perverted. |
|
| Mar 29th, 2004 11:32 AM | ||
| davinxtk |
I think anyone who uses their faith to gain political clout in any way shouldn't be in office. But that's me having a perverted lust for the seperation of church and state. |
|
| Mar 29th, 2004 11:17 AM | ||
| mburbank |
W's favorite Political Philosipher OUT OF BOUNDS! Bush Campaign Blasts Kerry's Bible Quote By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer ST. LOUIS - John Kerry cited a Bible verse Sunday to criticize leaders who have "faith but has no deeds," prompting President Bush's spokesman to accuse Kerry of exploiting Scripture for a political attack. Kerry never mentioned Bush by name during his speech at New North Side Baptist Church, but aimed his criticism at "our present national leadership." Kerry cited Scripture in his appeal for the worshippers, including James 2:14, "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds?" "The Scriptures say, what does it profit, my brother, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?" Kerry said. "When we look at what is happening in America today, where are the works of compassion?" Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said Kerry's comment "was beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse and a sad exploitation of Scripture for a political attack." Beyond the bounds of acceptable Political discourse? W has cited Jesus as his favorite political philosipher. I think that pretty much makes scripture fair ground. If he'd cited Adam Smith as his favorite political philosipher wouldn't it be reasponable to pose questions about wether or not he followed Smith's philosiphy? I think they're pissed that a Democrat has finally challenged the Republican claim on faith in general and Christianity is particular. Jimmy Carter thought it would be tasteless tto point out that he was a deeply religous man and Ronald Reagan rarely attended church services at all. Look where it got him. W has made the nature of his faith a central tenet of his political capital. I think saying that questioning his acts in the light of his faith is out of bounds is a little absurd. |
|
