by the christian right?
I am interested in hearing your opinions on how much you believe US policy is being influenced by the Christian Right. And do you believe this is a good thing?
Mike
I answered a little, but only beause the question lacked the definition for me to give an informative answer.
The term US policy has too broad of implications for me to answer properly.
There’s US foriegn policy (which seems goverened more by industry than morals)
There’s domestic policy, ect ect.
you get the point… 
jerm
Hey Jerm,
If that is how you read it, then you did fine. I meant “in general” and certainly your opinion is important no matter how you read it.
thanks,
Mike
Of course it’s a good thing Mike. 
If it was influenced by the Christian left, you’d have to queue for hours to get your mackerel.
If it was influenced by the non-Christian right, you’d get sushi instead of mackerel. (Yeuuchh. 
)
If it was influenced by the non-Christian left, you’d have to queue for hours, and you’d get nothing!
Only in America! 
Ali
Ok then, doc,
On foreign policy I’d say that there’s no Christian element present whatsoever.
The US pretty much set’s it’s goals based on long term economic strategy rather than the preservation of life, and commitment to uphold human god given rights, sanctity of life ect.
When it comes to domestic policy’s there seems to be a small but heard influence at least on the local level. But this is to be expected, when a large portion of people who frequent church (regardless of denomination) are active in the voting process, and either support or disagree with any given canidiates ajenda. The numbers certainly would suggest there would be representatives elected that share common concerns with these large religious groups.
You would think, that if all the donominations where following the word of God, that all of the resulting votes would reflect the simular moral properties. And with the exeption of a few issues like, abortion, mercy killing, gay marrige ect. I’d say there is a consitent presence that might even be very well higher than my answer to the poll, and lean toward moderate; if we’re going to seperate the two aspect of US policy that is.
I mean if you think about it, church’s are masses of organized people, so it’s alot easier to sway voting amongst these groups than say small militant secs, who would vote for a canidate like David Duke for example, for the sheer reason that they agree with a very narrow minded aproach to political manipulation and superiority, by vertue of race.
So yes, there is an influence, and rightfully so, but when it comes down to it, alot of the BIG decisions are going to be “money driven” even when you have a large amount of s-called Christian canidates in office.
I myself no longer catergorize my self a a Christian,(since the term seems to be loosing it’s honor) but rather a person who is aspiring to be more like “Christ” and that’s about all I will ever be. 
jerm
mmm…sushi…mmm…
It’s run by the fundamentalist right-wing.
| Quote (jeremysdemo @ April 03 2005,16:11) |
| I myself no longer catergorize my self a a Christian,(since the term seems to be loosing it's honor) but rather a person who is aspiring to be more like "Christ" and that's about all I will ever be. |
That's a very admirable stance to take. As an atheist who is also only trying to be more like Christ (as well our other great spiritual ancestors), I applaud you. If only more Christians thought that way. Most I know don't aspire to be more like Christ, but rather blindly follow the doctrine set forth by their clergy, and see opinions like yours and mine as some kind of sickness that must be dealt with.
By the way, the Christian right is totally influencing the US government right now. If they had their way, they'd round the "heathens" up in concentration camps the way the Nazis rounded up anyone who disagreed with them. If it keeps going on like this, separation of church and state will soon be a footnote in history books.
I chose "A little influenced"
Lest you guys forget, there IS a system of checks and balances in place. Or did the Right Wingers somehow repeal all of those? Sure the AMERICAN VOTERS swayed things to the right a little last election. Don’t you think it will sway back left and everybody can gripe about that too?
TG
Many people are reading the poll, but few are answering it. Please lend your opinion to this poll.
Thanks,
Mike
I was looking for something more middle of the road…like
"maybe, but only if the voters allow it to happen"
| Quote (clark_griswold @ April 04 2005,12:22) |
| I was looking for something more middle of the road...like "maybe, but only if the voters allow it to happen" |
I'm not really sure what you would rather have Clark. Does the question seem to lean toward a bias? I listed 5 levels of possible christian right involvment from none to very controlling. Certainly, the question assumes that there "might" be some involvment. But I did not answer the poll myself so I wouldn't lean it one way or the other.
I asked the question cause there has been much talk about this possibility in the news and here lately. I was also wondering if you do believe that the christian right has influence in the government, if you believe that this influence is good or bad and why.
The reason that there is no "maybe, but only if the voters allow it to happen" is because if there is involvment, then the voters have allowed it to happen.
take care
Mike
I voted moderately influenced, as there is inherent influence from whatever group as been voted into power, no?
Are you of the mind that the left had no influence in the admins of Pres Carter or Clinton?
| Quote (clark_griswold @ April 04 2005,13:46) |
| I voted moderately influenced, as there is inherent influence from whatever group as been voted into power, no? Are you of the mind that the left had no influence in the admins of Pres Carter or Clinton? |
Again Clark, I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that the current administration is made up of the christian right? Are you also saying that there is no seperation of church and state and we should assume that since George Bush is a christian that he will bring his christian ideals to bear in his policy making?
As for your second question, I do not believe that the Democratic party is strongly affiliated with any one church. Certainly, both Clinton and Carter were democrats. And even though Carter and Clinton were both christians, I do not think they brought their religious ideals to bear as part of their policy making.
Unfortunately, your answer sounds like you are feeling defensive about the possibility of the combining of church and state in the current administration.
The question is a simple one and and really allows the person answering to make their own choice. If you feel that the inclusion of the christian right is the same as any presidential administration then you should vote that there is not any influence in government policy making. For then there is no difference than business as usual.
I can only guess at the meaning of your post since your response is in the from of questions. This isn't Jeopardy. It is much easier deciphering statements than questions.
Since you voted "moderately influenced", do you believe that this is a good thing or bad? Or do you believe that it has no effect (good or bad) on government policy?
Mike
By the way, the Christian right is totally influencing the US government right now. If they had their way, they'd round the "heathens" up in concentration camps the way the Nazis rounded up anyone who disagreed with them. If it keeps going on like this, separation of church and state will soon be a footnote in history books.
It's sad to see people voted into office due to their "christian stance" when as you so blatently pointed out it is people that want to push what they feel is "right and righteous" on others. Christianity teaches tollerance, treated other and their beliefs with respect (even if you don't agree with them). I attended a private christian school and have seen many people that call themselves "christians" but live a life that is not only not "Christ-like" but judge others for their acts (which the bible explicitly states as wrong).
Too many people that call themselves christians are hypocrites IMHO. If you have to tell someone you are a christian (ie it is not obvious by your actions or the way you treat others) then you are most likely not a christian, seriously. It's so funny because most other religions don't suffer as badly from people claiming to be a follower w/o following the teachings (any sikhs or mormons I've met are devote followers of their religions).
It is very sad to see that a country is seemingly run by people like this (intollerant, judgmental etc).. I only live in the 'states for 2 years so I have no idea of the current status however. I am really astonished at the anti-gay marriage stance in the states (I am in Canada). It makes no sense to me, I do not agree with homosexuallity per se (or do not understand it would be more accurate), but i do have gay friends and I do believe they have a right to get married. Come on it's a legal agreement between two people that shows they will support each other and implies consequences otherwise (and signing this does imply an emotion commitment as well since it is a pretty big decision). Does it water down the meaning of marriage? Not in my opinion, it's people that get married for the "wrong reasons" or get divorced multiple times are the ones that are diluting the definition of marriage. If the morals of marriage were to be controlled by state maybe they should limit the amount of divorces you can have or stop marriages due to pregnancy or disalow men that have previously beaten women to get married again etc.. if you are going to get involved in morals in marriage as a gov't on something that doesn't hurt anyone yet has benifits for those invovled (I'm refering to gay marriage), then maybe you should get involved with moral issues that have negative consequences. Let's say there are two couple wanting to get married but you can only allow one: two men who claim to adore each other and have already lived together 10 years, or an alcoholic man that is possibly violent to a woman that was impregnated by him? By law the first one is wrong (and by morals depending on your beliefs, but not to everyone), the second is legal but I would venture that it is morally wrong to more than a select religious group.
At the same rate I don't believe the christian church should support gay marriage since it is against their beliefs and would infact dilute their teachings if they supported it. However that is entirely seperate from the state allowing it (it would just mean a justice of the peace would have to perform the rights).
Sorry I went off on a tangent.. don't even get me started on abortion though as long as you are mentioning the christian rights and forcing their beliefs on others.. The problem with people that are right or left winged in general is that they only see black or white in a world that is filled with a lot of grey areas.
It's sad to see people voted into office due to their "christian stance" when as you so blatently pointed out it is people that want to push what they feel is "right and righteous" on others. Christianity teaches tollerance, treated other and their beliefs with respect (even if you don't agree with them). I attended a private christian school and have seen many people that call themselves "christians" but live a life that is not only not "Christ-like" but judge others for their acts (which the bible explicitly states as wrong).
Too many people that call themselves christians are hypocrites IMHO. If you have to tell someone you are a christian (ie it is not obvious by your actions or the way you treat others) then you are most likely not a christian, seriously. It's so funny because most other religions don't suffer as badly from people claiming to be a follower w/o following the teachings (any sikhs or mormons I've met are devote followers of their religions).
It is very sad to see that a country is seemingly run by people like this (intollerant, judgmental etc).. I only live in the 'states for 2 years so I have no idea of the current status however. I am really astonished at the anti-gay marriage stance in the states (I am in Canada). It makes no sense to me, I do not agree with homosexuallity per se (or do not understand it would be more accurate), but i do have gay friends and I do believe they have a right to get married. Come on it's a legal agreement between two people that shows they will support each other and implies consequences otherwise (and signing this does imply an emotion commitment as well since it is a pretty big decision). Does it water down the meaning of marriage? Not in my opinion, it's people that get married for the "wrong reasons" or get divorced multiple times are the ones that are diluting the definition of marriage. If the morals of marriage were to be controlled by state maybe they should limit the amount of divorces you can have or stop marriages due to pregnancy or disalow men that have previously beaten women to get married again etc.. if you are going to get involved in morals in marriage as a gov't on something that doesn't hurt anyone yet has benifits for those invovled (I'm refering to gay marriage), then maybe you should get involved with moral issues that have negative consequences. Let's say there are two couple wanting to get married but you can only allow one: two men who claim to adore each other and have already lived together 10 years, or an alcoholic man that is possibly violent to a woman that was impregnated by him? By law the first one is wrong (and by morals depending on your beliefs, but not to everyone), the second is legal but I would venture that it is morally wrong to more than a select religious group.
At the same rate I don't believe the christian church should support gay marriage since it is against their beliefs and would infact dilute their teachings if they supported it. However that is entirely seperate from the state allowing it (it would just mean a justice of the peace would have to perform the rights).
Sorry I went off on a tangent.. don't even get me started on abortion though as long as you are mentioning the christian rights and forcing their beliefs on others.. The problem with people that are right or left winged in general is that they only see black or white in a world that is filled with a lot of grey areas.
That's a very admirable stance to take. As an atheist who is also only trying to be more like Christ (as well our other great spiritual ancestors), I applaud you. If only more Christians thought that way. Most I know don't aspire to be more like Christ, but rather blindly follow the doctrine set forth by their clergy, and see opinions like yours and mine as some kind of sickness that must be dealt with.
Very well said, I couldn't agree more.
I'm of the opinion that these power-mongers will say whatever will get them the most votes. They sold their souls to the fundies for the vote, and now they have to 'pay the piper' as it were.
Has anyone noticed that Bush doesn't seem to give a rats behind about gay marriage anymore, as soon as he got elected again, it fell of the radar screen?
.-=gp=-.
Very well said, I couldn't agree more.
I'm of the opinion that these power-mongers will say whatever will get them the most votes. They sold their souls to the fundies for the vote, and now they have to 'pay the piper' as it were.
Has anyone noticed that Bush doesn't seem to give a rats behind about gay marriage anymore, as soon as he got elected again, it fell of the radar screen?
.-=gp=-.
As for your second question, I do not believe that the Democratic party is strongly affiliated with any one church. Certainly, both Clinton and Carter were democrats. And even though Carter and Clinton were both christians, I do not think they brought their religious ideals to bear as part of their policy making.
I think Carter preached alittle too much & it got him into trouble. And of course, we know what got Clinton into trouble.
To answer Clark, I don't think the left had anywhere near the influence on Carter or Clinton, as the Evangelicals have on Bush. For one thing Bush is an Evangelical in disguise as a Compassionate Conservative. For another, the Evangelicals put Bush into power, whereas the ultra-left did not put either Clinton or Carter into power.
As Garrision said in his book, Ike and Nixon were the last Republican President's to be really concerned about the poor.
I think Carter preached alittle too much & it got him into trouble. And of course, we know what got Clinton into trouble.
To answer Clark, I don't think the left had anywhere near the influence on Carter or Clinton, as the Evangelicals have on Bush. For one thing Bush is an Evangelical in disguise as a Compassionate Conservative. For another, the Evangelicals put Bush into power, whereas the ultra-left did not put either Clinton or Carter into power.
As Garrision said in his book, Ike and Nixon were the last Republican President's to be really concerned about the poor.
| Quote (chutz @ April 04 2005,15:51) |
| I'm of the opinion that these power-mongers will say whatever will get them the most votes. They sold their souls to the fundies for the vote, and now they have to 'pay the piper' as it were. |
It is MUCH easier to talk the talk than it is to walk the walk..
Unfortunately it's the talk that gets people elected.
TG
| Quote (DrGuitar @ April 04 2005,14:17) | ||
Again Clark, I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that the current administration is made up of the christian right? Are you also saying that there is no seperation of church and state and we should assume that since George Bush is a christian that he will bring his christian ideals to bear in his policy making? As for your second question, I do not believe that the Democratic party is strongly affiliated with any one church. Certainly, both Clinton and Carter were democrats. And even though Carter and Clinton were both christians, I do not think they brought their religious ideals to bear as part of their policy making. Unfortunately, your answer sounds like you are feeling defensive about the possibility of the combining of church and state in the current administration. The question is a simple one and and really allows the person answering to make their own choice. If you feel that the inclusion of the christian right is the same as any presidential administration then you should vote that there is not any influence in government policy making. For then there is no difference than business as usual. I can only guess at the meaning of your post since your response is in the from of questions. This isn't Jeopardy. It is much easier deciphering statements than questions. Since you voted "moderately influenced", do you believe that this is a good thing or bad? Or do you believe that it has no effect (good or bad) on government policy? Mike |
Dr Guitar,
No, I don't believe that the current admin goes out of their way to use their religion as an influencing factor. Now, is there a faction of the party that does? ABSOLUTELY. ARe they right? Absolutely not.
My point was simply that EVERY administration is influenced by SOMETHING...some belief. Some religious. And it's every administration. That's why I say moderately influenced.
That's really all I was speaking to.