Kerry to conceded at 2

[Darth Wong]

Don't be a fucking idiot, Shep. Every major religious organization in the country picks Bush over Kerry; that is more than enough evidence, not to mention the oh-so-coincidental correlation between church attendance and Bush votes. If that's not enough evidence for you, you're a fucking moron. So once again, find me ONE fundie who voted for Kerry. Your pathetic evasions simply prove that you know you can't.

Trying to evade the issue eh? I want hard concrete proof of your "claims". I want documented statistical analysis of your claims made above. The discrepancies between the exit polls and the actual results indicates that if anything else, it's DEMOCRAT voters who are giving bush his edge, not a sudden surge of fundies such as you claim.

You seriously disbelieve that all of the major religious organizations in the US endorsed Bush over Kerry? Honestly, you think that's not true? What evidence do you want? Their website addresses so you can check it out for yourself even though you know perfectly well that it's true? Or do you doubt that there's a correlation between the Bible Belt and the Bush vote even though anyone can look at the red/blue map and see it right there? Do you know how to read a map, Shep?

[MKSheppard]

You seriously disbelieve that all of the major religious organizations in the US endorsed Bush over Kerry?

And we all know how slavishly American Catholics follow the Pope.

[Darth Wong]

You seriously disbelieve that all of the major religious organizations in the US endorsed Bush over Kerry?

And we all know how slavishly American Catholics follow the Pope.

Just as slavishly as homophobic anti-abortionists would line up to vote Kerry, right?

PS. Let's put it this way: there's as much likelihood of a fundie voting for Kerry as there is of a gun nut being a Michael Moore fan. Sure, it's possible in a big country, but it's not too bloody likely and you know it.

[The Original Nex]

The thing that worries me is that people (including the scary Right-Wing, Uber-Conservative, Religious branch of the Republican Party) seem to forget that there is a separation between Church and State in this country. It's illegal to pass laws based on religion. Bush openly flaunts the fact that he makes his decisions based on his faith. I almost rather that he'd stayed a drunk than become this crazy "Born-again" Christian. I get the sad impression that many of these Evangelicals blindly follow everything bush says or does simply because "he's like us too."

[Perinquus]

The thing that worries me is that people (including the scary Right-Wing, Uber-Conservative, Religious branch of the Republican Party) seem to forget that there is a separation between Church and State in this country. It's illegal to pass laws based on religion. Bush openly flaunts the fact that he makes his decisions based on his faith. I almost rather that he'd stayed a drunk than become this crazy "Born-again" Christian. I get the sad impression that many of these Evangelicals blindly follow everything bush says or does simply because "he's like us too."

No one wants the wall of separation between church and state kept up more than I do, but there is a difference between following the dictates of your conscience, as influenced by your personal faith, and enacting religious laws. The exact wording of the establishment clause is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

And that's all it says about that. At the least, we can be quite sure the establishment clause was intended to expressly prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion or a state church, comparable, for example, to the Church of England. It is far less clear that the establishment clause was meant to prevent the federal government from acknowledging Christianity in general, or in somehow preventing the religious sensibilities of government officials from ever influencing their decisions. After all, the very same First Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights which contains the establishment clause also opened its legislative day with prayer. I really don't believe that there is anything in the constitution to prevent a president or any other politician from being influenced by his religious scruples. As long as he does nothing toward establishing a state religion, financially supporting any religion with government money, or prohibiting other people from following their own religious practices, he is staying within the strict meaning of the establishment clause.

[Darth Wong]

That would be a valid defense if he had not been passing bills designed to funnel federal money toward religious institutions as long as they call themselves "charities", among other things such as trying to ban gay marriages based on a lot of smokescreen bullshit which you and I and everyone else knows is nothing more than a distraction from the real reason, ie- the Bible.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Yes, mobilizing 4 million fundies too inbred to vote otherwise is a remarkable accomplishment indeed.

Statistical proof that those 4 million are fundies? Otherwise, shut up.

Even Faux News analyzed this as moral issues (which apparently were more important than terrorism [sigh]) bringing out more of the Republican base, rather than appealing to centrists.

[Perinquus]

That would be a valid defense if he had not been passing bills designed to funnel federal money toward religious institutions as long as they call themselves "charities", among other things such as trying to ban gay marriages based on a lot of smokescreen bullshit which you and I and everyone else knows is nothing more than a distraction from the real reason, ie- the Bible.

I too see that as a violation of the establishment clause. I think no federal money should go toward religious institutions. Hell, I don't even think churches should be tax exempt.

The problem is, no matter what I may think, there is a precedent for this sort of thing. That same first Congress which proposed the very Bill of Rights which features the establishment clause (and which, as I mentioned, opened its proceedings with a prayer) also voted to allocate federal dollars to establish Christian missions in the Indian lands. The government has also been challenged (unsuccessfully) over the practice of having military chaplains. So government dollars have been granted to religious endeavors, and this has withstood legal scrutiny up to now. So however you and I may decry Bush passing bills designed to funnel federal money toward religious institutions, the truth is he isn't actually doing anything that hasn't been sanctioned before.

[Darth Servo]

Let's see, in his first term, he pretty much did what ever he wanted without respect for anyone but the corporations and fundies, right. How much more over-the-top will he get now that he doesn't face the need for re-election. Any chance he'll do something that will get himself impeached?

[SirNitram]

Let's see, in his first term, he pretty much did what ever he wanted without respect for anyone but the corporations and fundies, right. How much more over-the-top will he get now that he doesn't face the need for re-election. Any chance he'll do something that will get himself impeached?

If logic and sanity prevailed, he'd be impeachable now, considering they managed it with a blowjob before. But the universe where logic and sanity prevail ain't this one, never has been.

[Elfdart]

The only things that are impeachable are those that cause a majority of the House to vote as impeachable. The Republicans won't do it and that Democrats can't.

[Darth Servo]

Nitram, Elfdart--a guy can dream, can't he?