GOP buttons on their shirts and faith on their sleeves

Republican convention draws religious conservatives

09:51 AM CDT on Sunday, June 4, 2006

By WAYNE SLATER / The Dallas Morning News

SAN ANTONIO – Lt. Col. Brian Birdwell offered a greeting to delegates to the Republican convention. "It's great to be back in the holy land," the Fort Worth native said to the cheers of the party faithful.For the 4,500 delegates at last week's biennial gathering, it was both an expression of conservative philosophy and religious faith, a melding of church and state.

At Saturday morning's prayer meeting, party leader Tina Benkiser assured them that God was watching over the two-day confab.

"He is the chairman of this party," she said against a backdrop of flags and a GOP seal with its red, white and blue logo.

The party platform, adopted Saturday, declares "America is a Christian nation" and affirms that "God is undeniable in our history and is vital to our freedom."

"We pledge to exert our influence toward a return to the original intent of the First Amendment and dispel the myth of the separation of church and state," it says.

Just off the convention floor, among the warren of booths selling buttons and T-shirts denouncing Democrats, the table for WallBuilders – founded by outgoing party vice chairman David Barton – was piled high with books and DVDs extolling religion in government. The Keys to Good Government was one DVD. America's Godly Heritage was another.

John Green, an expert on church-state issues at the University of Akron, said the GOP has defined itself against Democrats by making religion, particularly issues such as abortion and gay marriage, part of its politics.

"This is not a political disagreement. This is a religious disagreement," he said.

Recent studies have found a "religion gap" suggesting church attendance is a good indicator of party affiliation. A survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that among those who attend church more than once a week, two-thirds vote GOP. Among those who seldom or never attend church, two-thirds vote Democratic.

At Saturday morning's prayer meeting, ministers delivered prayers, gospel singers sang, and the Rev. Dale Young, pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Laredo, picked up the convention's dominant theme of immigration.

"Lord, your words tell us there's a sign that this nation is under a curse, when the alien who lives among us grows higher and higher and we grow lower and lower," he preached.

The night before, East Texas evangelist Rick Scarborough exhorted Christians at a "values rally" to get involved in elections: "We must do more than pray. We also must put sweat to our tears."

Delegates sought him out, taking snapshots and having him sign his book Liberalism Kills Kids.

Houston activist Bobby Eberle, a candidate for party vice chairman, organized the Friday evening rally. Taking the stage, he took aim at "the ACLU, liberal Hollywood, Democrats and these left-wingers" who have bedeviled the GOP.

"We need to continue to fight, whether for the pro-life movement or for decency in programming," said Mr. Eberle, whose Internet enterprise had its own recent dust-up over decency.

Talon News, a conservative Web site owned by Mr. Eberle, employed Jeff Gannon as a White House correspondent until publicity a year ago over Mr. Gannon's appearance on gay prostitution Web sites.

Mr. Eberle dropped Talon News, Mr. Gannon left the press corps, and the matter did not appear to be an issue in the vice chairman's race, although he lost.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/DN-gopreligion_04tex.ART.State.Edition1.903cb29.html

Out of curiosity sedan, is it religion in general or the fact that the republicans have managed to corner the Christian religion vote thing that bothers you more?

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

And when you get all these dumb, panicky, dangerous animals together, sprinkle a little religion on em; voila! the new GOP
:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

Out of curiosity sedan, is it religion in general or the fact that the republicans have managed to corner the Christian religion vote thing that bothers you more?When I first read this article I thought of posting it in the Gay Marriage Amendment thread because it explains very well why the President has to pursue a fundamentalist agenda. You see, it isn't that Republicans have managed to corner the Christian religion that bothers me. It's that evangelical Christians have managed to corner the Republican party.

It is no great secret that religious people tend to be more conservative than non or anti-religious people.

Liberals tend to believe that any solution to a problem that does not involve religion is automatically the correct one. They often see any solution that is embraced by religious people as being automatically wrong.

I don't see it that way. I don't think solutions embraced by religious people are automatically more correct but I also don't see them as automatically less correct. I see religion as a tempering force.

Perhaps that is why I feel more comfortable with the Republican Party than with the Democrat Party. What Sedan seems to view as a weakness of the Republican Party I view as a strength.

Perhaps that is why I feel more comfortable with the Republican Party than with the Democrat Party. That's a great point. Just look at these threads as the microcosm. More intolerance rolls from left to right on religious issues than the other way around.

"Lord, your words tell us there's a sign that this nation is under a curse, when the alien who lives among us grows higher and higher and we grow lower and lower," he preached.

Because as we all know, God is American, and hates Mexicans.

Because as we all know, God is American, and hates Mexicans.
Not you, too, Hutz...

That's a great point. Just look at these threads as the microcosm. More intolerance rolls from left to right on religious issues than the other way around.

I can't agree with you there Brooks. If you look at the gay marriage issue, who do you see as being intolerant? It's certainly not the "left".

Liberals tend to believe that any solution to a problem that does not involve religion is automatically the correct one. They often see any solution that is embraced by religious people as being automatically wrong.

How is it that you know how liberals see things?


I see religion as a tempering force.


"It's great to be back in the holy land,"

At Saturday morning's prayer meeting, party leader Tina Benkiser assured them that God was watching over the two-day confab.

"He is the chairman of this party," she said against a backdrop of flags and a GOP seal with its red, white and blue logo.

The party platform, adopted Saturday, declares "America is a Christian nation" and affirms that "God is undeniable in our history and is vital to our freedom."

"Lord, your words tell us there's a sign that this nation is under a curse, when the alien who lives among us grows higher and higher and we grow lower and lower,"


I have to say that from my perspective, religion is definitely not a "tempering" influence on these people. It's the source of their zealotry.

I can't agree with you there Brooks. If you look at the gay marriage issue, who do you see as being intolerant? It's certainly not the "left".I never looked at gay marriage as a religious issue. Not everyone against gay marriage uses religion as their defense of their position.

I was more referring to the way some of the predictables 'round here deride others' heartfelt beliefs, and clump all religious people together as fanatics.

I never looked at gay marriage as a religious issue.

I would say that the vast majority of people who actively oppose gay marriage do so because of their religious beliefs.


Not everyone against gay marriage uses religion as their defense of their position.

True, but the fact that they don't "use religion" as their argument doesn't mean it isn't fundamentally responsible for their feelings on the issue.


I was more referring to the way some of the predictables 'round here deride others' heartfelt beliefs, and clump all religious people together as fanatics.

We do have our share of extremists, both liberal and conservative.

I was more referring to the way some of the predictables 'round here deride others' heartfelt beliefs, and clump all religious people together as fanatics.That's precisely what some of the other predictables do with Muslims. It seems that both sides have the same degree of religious intolerance, but towards different religions.

We do have our share of extremists, both liberal and conservative.

Extremism in the promotion of critical thinking is not a vice.

Openly lauding a god that orders infants to be hacked to death with swords..........now THAT is what I would deem *extremist*.

Not you, too, Hutz...

For a religious leader to imply that God would care about something like national borders and immigration is idiotic.

That's precisely what some of the other predictables do with Muslims. It seems that both sides have the same degree of religious intolerance, but towards different religions.

Excellent point Jester, but I wouldn't expect many religious people to agree with you.

That's precisely what some of the other predictables do with Muslims. It seems that both sides have the same degree of religious intolerance, but towards different religions.What intolerance does the right show toward Muslims?

Extremism in the promotion of critical thinking is not a vice.


I wouldn't call extremism a vice, so much as I would call it impractical. It seems to me that extremists only appeal to other extremists, and rarely can they sway large numbers of people to their point of view. Even if all they're trying to do is get people to think critically.

What intolerance does the right show toward Muslims?

One example would be when an atrocity is committed by someone who happens to be a Muslim, the act is attributed to their faith, but when an atrocity is committed by a Christian, they are labelled something other than "Christian".

Vile, who does that?

Here's something from another thread "America is chock full of bigoted, superstitious, religiously motivated individuals DEMANDING that their leaders get involved in such inane, repressive types of initiatives."

Where are religious people here saying that about the anti-theists?

What intolerance does the right show toward Muslims?

Huh?!

You mean other than the fact that the Reichwing faction in America ---with fundy Christians and neo-conservatives in the forefront--- has been preaching unalloyed hatred toward Muslims and the Muslim religion for the past 5 years, and is bent on exterminating a few tens of thousands of them, and appropriating their oil.........?!?

Free, thanks for staying rational on this one.
Are we doing this for oil or out of Muslim hatred?
Let's hear some of this unalloyed hatred.

Vile, who does that?

The news media on a regular basis.


Here's something from another thread "America is chock full of bigoted, superstitious, religiously motivated individuals DEMANDING that their leaders get involved in such inane, repressive types of initiatives."

Where are religious people here saying that about the anti-theists?

I'm lost Brooks. What are you getting at?

Free, thanks for staying rational on this one.
Are we doing this for oil or out of Muslim hatred?

The Conserva-fascist leadership of the US has been successful in instilling a hatred of Islam in the general population. They instill that hatred so that they will have support for their warmongering and their illegal attack on Iraq.

The powers-that-be do not do what they do out of *hate*, but out of pure greed and lust for ever more power.......i.e., control of massive oil reserves.

The hatred for Muslims they spread among the sheep is simply a means of gaining undying support for that agenda.

Let's hear some of this unalloyed hatred.

Okey dokey.

Conservative bigwig Paul Weyrich says that “Islam is at war against us” and that it is not a “religion of peace and tolerance like Judaism or Christianity.”

Jerry Falwell has stated that Mohammed was a “terrorist.”

Franklin Graham --the absolute fucking DARLING of the religious Reich in America-- has flat out stated that Islam is “evil.”

Pat Robertson has stated that “what the Muslims want to do to the Jews is worse than Hitler.”

Kenneth Adelman, another neo-con operative, says that “the more you examine Islam, the more militaristic it seems Its founder, Mohammed, was a warrior, not a peace advocate like Jesus.”

Eliot Cohen, another rightwing hater-of-all-things-Islamic, says that the enemy is not terrorism but “militant Islam.”

Norman Podhoretz wrote in Commentary magazine that -- “there is something in the religion Islam itself that legitimizes the likes of Osama bin Laden.”

1. The news media on a regular basis.

2. I'm lost Brooks. What are you getting at?1. Actually, UPI, Reuters and the NY Times don't even say "terrorists" anymore. It's too ....gasp.... judgemental. They'll say extremists or even militants. NEVER Muslims.
2. My original point (seems like years ago) that the real bile on these threads runs from the left to the religious rather than the other way around.

Free, Franklin Graham represents me as much as Ted Kasinski, the Unabomber, represents environmentalists.

One of the President's first statements after 9/11 was to tell people not to blame all Muslims.

The terrorists - extremists - militants - themselves use their religion as much of their rationale for their behaviors.

Yeah es, but you're not allowed to say that.

The terrorists - extremists - militants - themselves use their religion as much of their rationale for their behaviors.

And we gladly accept that explanation, yet when someone blows up an abortion clinic "for Jesus", we just as as gladly label them a "wacko", and Christians quickly disavow that person as a "true Christian".

The terrorists - extremists - militants - themselves use their religion as much of their rationale for their behaviors.
You don't hear Americans invoke Christianity for their actions? George Bush certainly throws out the God card quite often.

The military is off limits in this situation, however.

And we gladly accept that explanation, yet when someone blows up an abortion clinic "for Jesus", we just as as gladly label them a "wacko", and Christians quickly disavow that person as a "true Christian".
Because they're NOT true Christians, that's why.
And at least they do that.
One of the big criticisms Muslim clerics receive in this country is that they don't publicly denounce any Islamic terrorist actions.

You don't hear Americans invoke Christianity for their actions? George Bush certainly throws out the God card quite often.
He invokes his religion or invokes it to explain his actions. "Quite often" must mean there are a lot of examples.

I don't hear Muslim leaders condemming their behaviors. Do you?

He invokes his religion or invokes it to explain his actions. "Quite often" must mean there are a lot of examples.
I'm too lazy to get evidence, how dare you prod me to do so!

How is it that you know how liberals see things?

Unless liberals are posting things they do not believe in it is fairly easy to know how they see things just as it is fairly easy to see how conservatives see things, how far leftists see things, how the religious right sees things.

Are you suggesting that we can't extrapolate from what people say to how they feel about things and see things?

Because they're NOT true Christians, that's why.
And at least they do that.
One of the big criticisms Muslim clerics receive in this country is that they don't publicly denounce any Islamic terrorist actions.
::caresses beard, probing for some criticism::

Hmm...there is bound to be a way to dissect your point somehow. Okay, why is it necessary to have them publicly denounce these terrorist actions. The Church and other churches have disdain for the priest sex abuse scandals, does the Church have to bring itself out to say what should be and most likely is common knowledge?

One does hear Muslim clerics not only defending, but encouraging terroristic behaviors. Huge difference
The RC church - however belatedly, has condemned the behaviors of its' clergy.

The terrorists - extremists - militants - themselves use their religion as much of their rationale for their behaviors.

IF you're talking about the ones in the USA.....

......i would agree.

Completely.

Because they're NOT true Christians, that's why.
And at least they do that.

Then why do these same clerics make comments about "evil Muslims"?


One of the big criticisms Muslim clerics receive in this country is that they don't publicly denounce any Islamic terrorist actions.

But of course, they do.

Vile, who does that?Let me make a slight correction to my original statement - the conservatives on this particular forum generally aren't anti-Muslim, with the exception of a few members. But look around on other forums, particularly right-leaning ones, and you'll see perfect examples of intolerance or sheer hatred towards Muslims by conservatives. That's in addition to the anti-Muslim sentiments expressed by various conservative commentators in the media, examples of which can also easily be found.

One extremely illuminating moment occurred when Bush, with several other religious phonies in tow, traipsed down to the National Cathedral a few days after 9/11 and prayed the "Lord's Prayer" -- including the line "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us".

The same hypocritical leaders who forgave no one and who refused to acknowledge that the terrorist act might have had deep roots in poverty, despair, and in the radical pronouncements of religious zealots of a type all-too familiar to people here in the USA.

Instead, Bush unleashed our war machine on the Iraqi people in revenge for 9/11 --ignoring the fact that the Iraqis had no connection to 9/11.

One does hear Muslim clerics not only defending, but encouraging terroristic behaviors. Huge difference
The RC church - however belatedly, has condemned the behaviors of its' clergy.

You just made my point es...these clerics you call "Muslim" are no more Muslim than Eric Rudolf was a Christian.

You're citing one individual.

There have been a fair number of clerics publicly cheering these extremists.

You're citing one individual.

There have been a fair number of clerics publicly cheering these extremists.

Does this excuse the double standard?

You just made my point es...these clerics you call "Muslim" are no more Muslim Than Eric Rudolf was a Christian.

LOL!!

It's immensely pleasurable to see these Christian apologists with their incessant excuse-- "Aww, well, what happened there was that that person that did that wadn't a REAL Christian, ya see!!!!" -- get it shoved right back in their faces.....

LOL!!

It's immensely pleasurable to see these Christian apologists with their incessant excuse-- "Aww, well, what happened there was that that person that did that wadn't a REAL Christian, ya see!!!!" -- get it shoved right back in their faces.....

I appreciate the support FT, but es is no Christian apologist.

There have been a fair number of clerics publicly cheering these extremists.

In exactly the same way that there have been countless religionists and religious leaders here in the US cheering the war against Iraq.

http://www.geocities.com/johnnymcdowell/Gott_Mit_Uns.jpg

I appreciate the support FT, but es is no Christian apologist.

True.......but I was refering to the ones here who are, who no doubt read the remark in question.

Free, thanks for staying rational on this one.
........:lolhit:..........

....traipsed down to the National Cathedral a few days after 9/11 and prayed the "Lord's Prayer" -- including the line "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us....Instead, Bush unleashed our war machine ....1. The proper translation is "trespass", not "sin".
2. If Bush's religion dictated that he not respond, but he responded anyway, doesn't that mean he's not guided by his religion?
3. There's only hypocrisy here if you look at September 11th as a sin. Since you personally don't, what is the point of this?

1. The proper translation is "trespass", not "sin".

Good point.

I guess i'm going to Hell for that misspoken word.


2. If Bush's religion dictated that he not respond, but he responded anyway, doesn't that mean he's not guided by his religion?

Yes. Another excellent point. I do not think Bush has the SLIGHTEST compulsion to follow the religion he poses as being an adherant of.

BUT.....that does not alter the fact that he DOES have the ignorant masses convinced that he is a "Man 'O Gaaaaawd!!!"


3. There's only hypocrisy here if you look at September 11th as a sin.

Ahhh...but it WOULD be entirely applicable if 9/11 were a ""trespass"".....

Seems to me I heard someone say the corrrect word was "trespass".

Of course NOW that the argument is more easily made if the word was *sin*, you instantly revert to arguing the case from the point of view that the word was *sin*, necessitating that 9/11 be a "sin" instead of a trespass.

Imagine that; a conservative trying to have it both ways. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Of course NOW that the argument is more easily made if the word was *sin*, you instantly revert to arguing the case from the point of view that the word was *sin*, necessitating that 9/11 be a "sin" instead of a trespass.

Though I admit I rarely agree with you, you're usually easier to decipher.

Liberals tend to believe that any solution to a problem that does not involve religion is automatically the correct one. They often see any solution that is embraced by religious people as being automatically wrong.

We don't need healthcare...just pray you don't get sick.
We don't need levees or rescues... God only kills slothful blacks and gays.
We don't need reliable voting machines... God will pick the winner.

If their God has blessed America, why did their God give us 75% of the Earth's tornadoes and 95% of the world's lawyers, but only about 5% of the world's oil?
Why did their God fix it so our fearless leader doesn't have to cuddle up to Saudi tyrants who care solely about protecting their own wealth and don't give a shit about freedom?
Come to think of it with all these lame attempts to write intolerance and discrimination into the constitution, and to curtail expression which doesn't meet their standards, the Douchebag-in-Chief and his party have more in common with despots than most people would care to admit.

95% of the world's lawyers,

Where'd that stat come from?

....these lame attempts to write intolerance and discrimination into the constitution,Let's hear about it.
(Please set a precedent and respond here and defend one of your points)