American teocracy

[darkkwings]

Lo all...
Sorry if my English suks. I'm from Portugal and here, and in all Europe, many people think that America is mixing religion and Politics in a dangerous way. The creation/evolution debate is another weird thing. Some ppl are trying to mix science and religious beliefs. I don't know. Bush is almost an American Mullah Omar...

[TrongaMonga]

Portugal, eh? I've heard it is quite a great country

Tens que me dizer por PMs de onde és e tal

Anyway, it is part of the american values to be a Christian. And with that, I mean what we in Europe call Protestants. And, as such, according to those very same values, the conservatives believe that children should be taught to have the same mentality than they have, instead of trying to improve different ways of thought.

Religion in politics is used as anything else, a tool. They don't really use it for true, in my opinion.

[B~E]

Oh, if the religious right was able to pull off so much influence in the last years, like on the Terry Shiavo case, on same sex marriage, on when it will be the time to replace the two juges, they will have all the right to congratulate themselve on it. If anyone is to blame, its the left, with its lack of ideas, organisation and visibility.

[MacMan]

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

If anyone is to blame, its the left, with its lack of ideas, organisation and visibility.

Uh... what? You're an idiot if you think the left wing is somehow "to blame" for anything. If you're going to point a finger, please direct said finger to the American public.

You can't honestly say the left lacks ideas. Modern liberals still cling to the idea of the Great Society, which, when it was only partially implemented, proved to be very successful. The problem is that modern liberals lack the power to bring back the Great Society, and for some reason you want to blame them for this. It's not exactly their fault that Robert Kennedy was shot dead. They lost their one candidate who was well-recieved by the public and willing to carry Johnson's torch. They were in a frenzy to recover for the election, and republicans were able to play on that disarray. We had Vietnam, we needed a "strong leader." The American people successfully lost focus on the matters at home. De ja ****ing vu. The hope of realizing the Great Society died with the election of Nixon and the domestication of the minds of the American people.

There's not a doubt in my mind: If the American people had kept liberals in power, we would have been much better off, socially and economically. As for the status of current liberals, I don't see how you can blame the minority. They're doing all they can, and that's pretty much nothing. If they get a reputation for filibustering everything, the people are going to see that as annoying and they aren't going to want to elect them. Liberals, at the moment, are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

[B~E]

Originally Posted by MacMan

If you're going to point a finger, please direct said finger to the American public.

Its not the American Public's job to elect the liberals, its the liberals' job to convince the public to elect them. And if the liberals failed at getting elected, thus empowering the right, its their own miserable fault, because it is their own responsability. You believe that its the public's responsability to elect the best party. In a way it is, but it is the party's responsability to be the best.
And according to your post, you speak of vietnam as an event than the left wing could not have possibly successfully dealt with. Maybe you are right, but again, it was still their own responsability to be successful there.
So in the end, I believe I'm pointing the finger in the right direction.

The domestication of the minds of the American people? What is that?

[Aluqah]

It's they're "freedom" thingy to blame.

[MacMan]

They were in a position to sweep the election, and then there was an assassination. You act like that makes them to blame for their loss.

The domestication of the minds of the American people? What is that?

Exactly what it sounds like.

[B~E]

And you act as if Ted Kennedy was the only decent democrat candidate in the past 37 years. If they are not able to find anyone else that is well-recieved by the public and able to resuscitate and revive this Great Society idea, maybe there is a problem within the party itself, as I pointed out earlier, as opposed to within the American People.

[Tipsy]

Mixing politics and religion, how exactly is it possible to not do this? Since this is about the United States, and to my knowledge every president we have ever had was Christian of some denomination, it would be impossible if they were truly their stated religion to not mix religion and politics. Christianity is not just something that you get up and go to church on Sunday and be done with it. It is a way of life, something that effects nearly every part of your life. Whenever there is a president or politician that believes in any religion that is a way of life, there is going to be a mix of religion and politics. To put it simply, unless religion is completely irradiated there is going to be religious influence in politics no matter how hard people try to keep the state separate from the church.

As for mixing science and religion I do not see how it is possible to separate them. Science studies the how things happen, work, etc. And if you believe in God, what is science studying? The universe which was created by God, something that was created by whom the person believes to be the most high.

The creationism versus evolution debate I can't really comment on because the whole taking the bible literally, especially with two creation stories that cannot coexist in the literal sense, show make it obvious that the story of Adam and Eve did not actually take place.

As for the Republican Party, or as Howard Dean calls it, "the White Christian Party" and religion, it should be obvious to everyone that they are using it to take the 'moral high ground' over the Democratic Party, which did help Bush quite a lot in getting re-elected.

Originally Posted by TrongaMonga

And with that, I mean what we in Europe call Protestants.

Europeans refer to all Christians as Protestants?

Originally Posted by MacMan

The hope of realizing the Great Society died with the election of Nixon and the domestication of the minds of the American people.

The Great Society program was doomed to fail before it was even started. If I were to blame it on anyone, I would put most of the blame on Harry Truman. A big reason the Great Society program was never fully implemented was because it was never fully funded. A big reason it was never fully funded was thanks to the Vietnam War sucking up resources that could go to the program. Thanks to the wonderful foreign policy that destroyed the cornerstones this country was built on, FDR and Truman helped to pass various things to change our foreign policy and lead us straight to the path of the problems we have today. Specifically with the Truman Doctrine helping to cause our activity in the Vietnam War for the case of helping destroy the Great Society program before it was ever started. I am not saying that these presidents did not help the country in other parts of their time in office, I am just saying if you want to lay the blame on destroying the Great Society program's ability to go in full force early on and prove beyond the doubt of any of the propaganda out there, it was thanks to these two presidents. Then again, my opinion of them being responsible for some of the worst things to ever happen to the United States may be weighing in here.

[TrongaMonga]

[Europeans refer to all Christians as Protestants?

No, no. But what Americans call Catholics, is what we call Christians. And what Americans call Christians is what we call Protestants. There was once someone from this forum that didn't know Christians and Catholics were the same thing but different ideologies, so that's the impression I have.

[Tempest Storm]

They were in a position to sweep the election, and then there was an assassination. You act like that makes them to blame for their loss.

They were in a position to sweep the elections last year. With an approval rating around 50%, the Dems had a massive head start, half the country didn't like him!

What is the liberal answer to the War on Terror, or Iraq? Kerry never stated his position. Bush did. I'ld rather follow someone with a plan I disagree with, than a guy with no plan that I might agree with.

Plus, there's something that concerns me with the liberals and taxes. They like taxing ppl, they think things can be done best by a fat government. Concervatives these days are much better, but I sleep easier with econimist like Bush in power, than with a econimist like say, Hillary Clinton. Needless to say, I'm not convinced the States would be such a grand place if liberals had reigned for the 50 years like you think.

[munchyman]

Originally Posted by darkkwings

Lo all...
Sorry if my English suks. I'm from Portugal and here, and in all Europe, many people think that America is mixing religion and Politics in a dangerous way. The creation/evolution debate is another weird thing. Some ppl are trying to mix science and religious beliefs. I don't know. Bush is almost an American Mullah Omar...

You couldnt be more right, my friend. Even if you are from portugal and your english sucks, its still better than most of the shit i hear around San Francisco day in and day out.

Anyhow, I think the europeans have bush pegged pretty accurately. He is mixing religion and politics, and even more to everyones annoyance, hes impeding the progress of science when its literally waving its dick around in our face.


Bush isnt almost an american mullah omar...he is......except for the fact that he doesnt cover our women....although some think that he should...heh.