[Catria]

Lol!

Jump up and down all you want Demosthenes...everything I said about Bush's religious delusions are true. His fundamentalist beliefs are well documented...why can't you admit this obvious point at least?

But...are you claiming he's pretending to be a religious nut to impress his "core supporters"? Because if he is, that's even MORE contemptible. Lahwdy...he'll be goin' strite to hell!

no, not necessarily fundamental religious types either, which you seem to have a problem seperating...and they say Americans are blindly Anti-Muslum...I see why now, it's the pot calling the kettle black

What?? Since you can't even recognize G.W. is a fundamentalist, I think it might be you who has a problem seperating extremism from *lite* religion.

Anyway relgion in the US generally doesn't have the same connotation here as elsewhere (Boondock had a very good point about this in another thred) So that when someone here says: God Dammit! They don't literally mean for God to damn someone to hell..

My God...really? Well what a revelation.

[Catria]

What's more, these fundamentalist beliefs held by the President have significant ramifications for America and the wider world. Here's some reading for you Demosthenes:


President George W. Bush, as the American Humanist Association has frequently pointed out, regularly ignores or willfully obstructs science that contradicts his evangelical beliefs or hinders his powerful friends in industry.

The Humanist Association

https://www.americanhumanist.org/press/NFBushScience.html


Fundamentalists achieve their goal by using religion to gain control over the lives of people. Fundamentalists interpret religion to suit their own ends. They claim to speak and act in the name of God. They prescribe religious rituals that absorb people's attention rather than help people to think and analyze situations for themselves.

National Catholic Reporter

http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/globalpers/gp042303.htm


But with George W. Bush a devout born-again Christian now in the White House, the Bible Belt is not funny any more. And it becomes clearer each day that the President’s religious beliefs are shaping U.S. foreign policy.

Micheal Lind

http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3025

[Demosthenes]

Play games all you want Catria, I can find all sorts of articles painting somone in any light I want them to be seen in. Fact is you hate religion, whether or not you have a good reason too doesn't concern me, so that anyone who (god forbid) associates themselves with god or religion must be the DEBIL!

I strongly dislike envirenmental whacko fundamentalist nutcases but I don't waste my time tracking down articles trying them on Al Gore sleeve because he pandered to them. I can dig up ways radical envirenmentalism has adversely affected everyone also but it really doesn't accomplish much.

If you want to do that concerning religion and Bush, more power to you. To me it's just playing political games.

[Nox]

Fundamentalists achieve their goal by using religion to gain control over the lives of people. Fundamentalists interpret religion to suit their own ends. They claim to speak and act in the name of God. They prescribe religious rituals that absorb people's attention rather than help people to think and analyze situations for themselves.

National Catholic Reporter

http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/globalpers/gp042303.htm

God I love the Roman Catholic Church ... Yes, the RCC who criticize the Fundamentalits for:

"using religion to gain control over the lives of people." - This is the problem with any and all organized religions.

"interpret religion to suit their own ends." - Isn't this one of the complaints a fellow named Martin Luther had in his 95 Thesis?

"claim to speak and act in the name of God" - Isn't this the role of the Priest, Bishop, Arch Bishop, Cardinal and Pope?

"prescribe religious rituals that absorb people's attention" - The word Mass comes to mind.

"rather than help people to think and analyze situations for themselves." - Martin Luther is rolling on the floor laughing at this.

Now El Pope ... get with the program and clean up your organization. If you can't figure out what I mean, I'll give you a little hint: Fix your pedophile problem. Maybe then you won't have to worry about President Bush trying to "absorb people's attention" like you are trying to do with this cheap attempt at diversion.

Nox

[Catria]

Fact is you hate religion, whether or not you have a good reason too doesn't concern me, so that anyone who (god forbid) associates themselves with god or religion must be the DEBIL!

If you want to do that concerning religion and Bush, more power to you. To me it's just playing political games.

Rubbish. I put in those links because you refused to acknowledge George Bush's fundamentalism or its implications. Thus, I felt it necessary to prove my point to you. What's wrong with that? Why don't you actually read that first link and see how fundamentalism can affect goverment policy?

I criticize religion with reasonable points and when its relevent [which it is here in relation to the President]...not gratuitous bashing. I should be able to this without being accused of irrational *hatred*.

Anyway, every other ideology on this board is open to challenge any time anyone feels like it...why not religion?

[Demosthenes]

Why don't you actually read that first link and see how fundamentalism can affect goverment policy?

Because I already have the gist of such messages. Remember I'm not some born and raised Conservative with no conception of Liberal thought or ideas. I realize very well what Fundamental religious people are capable of (Timothy McVeigh, perpetraters of 9/11, etc...) not to mention the influence they try to wield.

You can say you don't hate all religion if want but I don't believe it. You're posts consistantly paint a fear of religion, and while you claim you only mean fundamentalists I am left with an impression that you are very intolerant of anyone's religion. Perhaps in person I wouldn't think so but I can only percieve based on your posts.

All that said, I stand by my assertion that Bush is hardly fundamentalist, He may or may not be religious and that may or may not be all for show but nothing inconsistant with anything any other politician in any country of any party does (within the realms of sanity of course, before someone tries to claim the that this is no different than the Nazis)

Anyway, every other ideology on this board is open to challenge any time anyone feels like it...why not religion?

Well I don't make it a habit to do that. Whether others do or not is something out of my control except in this forum, and even then only to a degree. I'm not saying religion cannot be questioned, as you seem to be assuming. It, of all things should be questioned so that its relevance remains true. I am just not nearly as fearful of it as you are. You choose to see all that's bad with religion while never claiming it has done anything good. That's fine but I don't have to agree, nor do I have to let your bias stand.

As an example I will once again refer to radical envirenmentalism as a comparable example. It is a dangerous and potentially harmful ideaology that has no basis in fact and clearly exists only on in a panic striken individual who is not reasonable. I'm sure you can appreciate the same standard as it applies to a fundamentalist religious person.

If a Democrat/Liberal such as Al Gore were to say: "We need cleaner air because the earth demands it" That wouldn't necessarily make me condem him as radical envirenmentalist. I might observe that he was pandering to them, but I would say this statement in and of itself is just a moderate "feel good" thing to say. Not the mark of a radical fundamentalist. If he were to suddenly join PETA or some other organization and blindly follow their every doctrine then I would say he had become a radical envirenmentalist.

So, to me articles linking Bush to fundamental religion is on the same level of reality as me presenting articles linking Gore to Peta. Political games.

[Catria]

You choose to see all that's bad with religion while never claiming it has done anything good. That's fine but I don't have to agree, nor do I have to let your bias stand.

Never? I think I said somewhere in that Kalb discussion that religion has been both bad and good.


You're posts consistantly paint a fear of religion, and while you claim you only mean fundamentalists I am left with an impression that you are very intolerant of anyone's religion.

Fundamentalism on this particular thread. It's true I'm critical of religion generally...but that's because it doesn't make sense! My criticisms do actually stem from thought on the subject and not from some deep, blind well of hatred as you imply.

But like you...I'm sick of the discussion. So forget it.

[Demosthenes]

Evidently you don't recall how he lost the election by more than 500,000 votes and abused his relatives' and friends' power to get into office.

Oh my God! Don't you people ever get over it? WTF? Can you prove any of this or is this just another cynical conspiracy theory? (as if I need to ask) I am so tired of the left spewing such unprovable rubbish that I want to lock their think tanks in one big room and force them to watch alternating airings of a certain big, purple dinosaur and sesame street until they learn enough from theses preschool level programs to shut their damn yaps unless they can actually speak without making shit up!

Show me proof of this conspiracy theory of yours Unka Vernon. I mean I want to see the facts, not:

"Well his brother is the gubner of florida, what more proof do you need?"

I want to see which links to relatives you mean, I want to see exactly how they supposedly influenced the election, I want to see the evidense your basing your conclusion on, if you have any. Otherwise if you're just spouting off and can't prove a thing... (PG version) Just hush up!

[uncle vernon]

Oh my God! Don't you people ever get over it? WTF?

I've heard the "get over it" argument from a few too many George Bush supporters and I'd just like to say that I can't believe that the party that is supposedly more pro-America would be making it.

If you have any support at all for what America is supposed to be, then it's baffling that you should say, "Get over it. So the electoral process of our country was undermined and our new 'president' actually lost the election. I wanted him to win anyway, what's the big fucking deal?"

As far as giving you 'proof', the New York Times reported the actual results in Florida about six months after the election (whereas British papers reported it the same week), albeit far from the front page.

Can you give me proof that he won the election (and don't give me "he's president", see if you can find a way to disprove this "conspiracy theory")?


Black and Hispanic communities (primarily Gore voters, if it even needs to be said) had the votes from anyone who had a similar name, birthday, social security number, etc. to a convicted felon thrown out. I won't even go into the fraud in the overseas ballots, because the more than 1,500 assured votes for Gore in the prior batch would have, according to the 'official' count, put Bush at least 967 votes behind in Florida.

I'd suggest you read "Stupid White Men", but I wouldn't expect you to be able to get over your "omg micheal moore is a liar no way he makes it up its bs!!!11" rhetoric long enough to read the whole book.

By the way, I just want you to know that I'm not trying to piss anybody off here, I just like a good spirited political debate.

[Demosthenes]

Yes I expected as much, basically you can't prove it, just a bunch of mumbo jumbo...ah well go on cryin cause Gore lost for all eternity for all I care...and I'll read Michael Moore when you start reading Newsmax. And don't give me the "there just biased conservatives BS, but I bet you couldn't get over yourself long enough to read 1 issue, much less say, 12.

[uncle vernon]

Look, man, I've read "The Way Things Ought To Be", and I haven't since been able to touch a conservative publication without feeling queasy.

My personal opinions aside, I'll admit that Michael Moore's movies and books are incredibly slanted and filled with his own political agenda, but there are some facts intertwined with the propoganda.

As far as not citing sources, I DID! Unfortunately, you have to pay to get back issues of the New York Times online. I can't afford to, but if you can, look around in the issues between January and April 2001, you'll find your proof there.

Or just look in British papers circa the election.