CNN's God's Warriors

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by feartheflames

Amanpour is an objective journalist... I am very disappointed I missed it

I'm sure CNN will air these a few more times.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Republican does not equal Right Wing Christian Evangelical.

Man...this gets old.

What does Republican equal, then? Small government fiscal conservatives? Ha!

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What does Republican equal, then? Small government fiscal conservatives? Ha!

Those are two things the party is supposed to represent, yes.

Its not the evil entity some of you have made it out to be.

Democrats====good
Republcans====evil

truly, that's how myopic some of you are about this.

The venom is unbelievable.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What does Republican equal, then? Small government fiscal conservatives? Ha!

Why do you feel the need to put them in a box? Why can't they be anything and everything? What's a democrat? An anti-war, abortion loving pushover who'll do anything to appease others? Weak? See how I can box people too? Doesn't make it right.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Fair enough.

I think he has a point though -- the last thing America needs is another right-wing Christian evangelical type becoming President. And if it happens, I think we know which party that person will belong too.

If I may paraphrase the great Ann Coulter -- "all Republicans are not right-wing Christian evangelists, but all right-wing Christian evangelists are Republicans.".

Sure he has a point. But he claims for that not to happen, a democrat will have to win the election. Completely false.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Sure he has a point. But he claims for that not to happen, a democrat will have to win the election. Completely false.

true, if McCain or Guliani are elected then it's not likely that right wing christians will gain a stronger foothold, though things might stay largely the same. but right now Romney is leading the pack, and most certainly he will pander to that demographic. i said a democrat has to win because in all likelyhood the republican candidate will be one of the christian right's choosing. plus a democrat getting in power is much more likely to start some change and reverse some of the damage that Bush has wrought, whereas a republican is likely to just leave things as they are for fear of alienating their base

in all truthfulness, both parties suck and the states (and the world) would be much better off with an independent winning, a person not connected with the standard ring of power and who isn't at the mercy of hundreds of lobby groups. but that just isn't going to happen, Americans will continue to only have 2 real choices in their "democratic" elections and right now the democrats are the best choice of the "field"

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by feartheflames

Amanpour is an objective journalist... I am very disappointed I missed it

agreed, she did a great job and that was probably the most informative and interesting show i've ever seen on CNN. it's also nice to see a female journalist getting by on her intelligence and talent instead of her looks

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Fair enough.

I think he has a point though -- the last thing America needs is another right-wing Christian evangelical type becoming President. And if it happens, I think we know which party that person will belong too.

If I may paraphrase the great Ann Coulter -- "all Republicans are not right-wing Christian evangelists, but all right-wing Christian evangelists are Republicans.".

True.

But, unlike Hemi, you did not mention that a democrat would be a better candidate. Like I said, BOTH sides are religious. Obama, whom many here probably like, is ALSO religious. Heck, just reading news headlines each day, its obvious all candidates are invoking religion, the Bible, God just to win the religious vote.

Saying a Democrat is a better candidate because of religious reasons flat out shows ignorance on Hemi's part. But than again, with such a close-minded attitude toward religion, it doesn't surprise me.

Remember in the other thread we were talking about actually 'uniting the country' and solving the problem of 'red state' 'blue state?' Isn't it rather obvious that both sides are guilty of pushing the other side even further away? Sad really...because you have a candidate(Obama) who is saying ALL the right things, yet people will ignore him because he is too much of the happy medium.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Why do you feel the need to put them in a box? Why can't they be anything and everything? What's a democrat? An anti-war, abortion loving pushover who'll do anything to appease others? Weak? See how I can box people too? Doesn't make it right.

No way!

From one extreme to another...that is exactly what the democrats are. Yet, people would jump all over me if I seriously said something like that. Strangely enough, it seems to be alright to stereotype the Republicans around here.

Isn't Ron Paul a Republican too? I guess we should lump him into the 'neo-con, war-mongering, right-wing religious freak' classification too, right? Yet, if you examine his political stance, he is everything 'but' what I just said.

Sadly, just like Obama, people will ignore Ron Paul because he is too much in the middle of things.

[Cal-Gal]

Originally Posted by feartheflames

Amanpour is an objective journalist... I am very disappointed I missed it

I totally agree...I think the 'God's Warriors' series was credible because Amanpour was such a great tour-guide, weaving through the stories of the three Western religions.

She's a tremendous journalist, and her background is pretty amazing -spent her childhood in Iran, adolescence in England, educated in America - no wonder she can see several sides of an issue.

In a world that is seriously lacking strong female role models for young girls, Christiane Amanpour is someone worth looking up to.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Azure

True.

But, unlike Hemi, you did not mention that a democrat would be a better candidate. Like I said, BOTH sides are religious. Obama, whom many here probably like, is ALSO religious. Heck, just reading news headlines each day, its obvious all candidates are invoking religion, the Bible, God just to win the religious vote.

Saying a Democrat is a better candidate because of religious reasons flat out shows ignorance on Hemi's part. But than again, with such a close-minded attitude toward religion, it doesn't surprise me.

Remember in the other thread we were talking about actually 'uniting the country' and solving the problem of 'red state' 'blue state?' Isn't it rather obvious that both sides are guilty of pushing the other side even further away? Sad really...because you have a candidate(Obama) who is saying ALL the right things, yet people will ignore him because he is too much of the happy medium.

yes both sides invoke religion, but NOT equally. if the presidential race came down to Obama and Romney, who would you want to win? who do you think would be more likely to stick even more right wing religious chief justices in the supreme court?

true not all the Republican candidates are as bad as Romney. Paul would be a good choice, but he won't win. McCain wouldn't be bad either, but he won't win. and though Guliani wouldn't be holding the religious flag, he woudl still be a disaster and thankfully won't win either. what you're left with is the very high probability of the Republican presidential candidate being of the right christian demographic's choosing. you don't have that problem on the Democrats side

[Thunderball]

I think we can all agree that America needs a moderate and rational President. That does not necessarily mean a Democrat, nor does it immediately exclude the Republicans. We have to wait and see who comes out on top. The only reason America voted in GWB for a second term was because the Democrats didn't get it and did not bring a palatable candidate capable of grabbing the moderates. Kerry was an abhorrent candidate, arguably worse than Bush, seeing as he obliterated his own substantial lead in the polls early on. People went with the devil they knew, knowing that he'd at least be a lame duck president towards the end and be limited in what damage he could do. Probably the politically wise thing to do judging by the alternative at the time.

I definitely agree that the hardcore christians need their asses kicked out of government, but I am much more sympathetic to the basic tenets of the Republican party that these zealots seem to ignore.

As for the Iraq war... I wouldn't go so far as to say its illegal. We discussed it in my International Law class back when it was happening, and the general concensus was it was a legal grey area. While the UN resolution on Iraq gave them right to respond, the type of response may have been ultra vires to the resolution. As well, the assumption that they were at risk (BS quotient notwithstanding) may also have given them the right to a pre-emptive attack. One can also say that the fact that the UN is essentially run by a single country's veto might also have come into play as rationale to circumvent the UN on one hand, and point to its resolutions on the other. Not legal, but definitely not illegal... like I said... grey area indeed.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

yes both sides invoke religion, but NOT equally. if the presidential race came down to Obama and Romney, who would you want to win? who do you think would be more likely to stick even more right wing religious chief justices in the supreme court?

true not all the Republican candidates are as bad as Romney. Paul would be a good choice, but he won't win. McCain wouldn't be bad either, but he won't win. and though Guliani wouldn't be holding the religious flag, he woudl still be a disaster and thankfully won't win either. what you're left with is the very high probability of the Republican presidential candidate being of the right christian demographic's choosing. you don't have that problem on the Democrats side

As it stands right now, Obama has my attention...I'm still reading up on Ron Paul. There are others of course, but I would never vote for Romney, OR Guliani. Ever.

We really have no idea who will run. Hillary? She'll kill her own campaign with her dumb comments. Obama? My choice, personally...Romney? You seriously think the American people will vote for a Mormon? Nothing against them, but just like you, people make their choice based on 'religious grounds'...rather than actually political values. Thompson has strong showing on numerous polls, and he seems like the proper 'conservative'....don't know where he stands on religious ideas. He has other things that I have issues with though.

You make it seem like one side is 'worse' religiously than the other. Yet, both sides are going to pander to the religious...both left and right...to gain votes. Its a fact of American politics.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Azure

No way!

From one extreme to another...that is exactly what the democrats are. Yet, people would jump all over me if I seriously said something like that. Strangely enough, it seems to be alright to stereotype the Republicans around here.

Isn't Ron Paul a Republican too? I guess we should lump him into the 'neo-con, war-mongering, right-wing religious freak' classification too, right? Yet, if you examine his political stance, he is everything 'but' what I just said.

Sadly, just like Obama, people will ignore Ron Paul because he is too much in the middle of things.

Something very similar happened in Alberta at a provincial level just recently. However, in that case, the middle of the road, appease everyone guy won.

People operate in a gang mentality (for lack of a better word, thanks Tupac). They join on side of a battle and fight to the bitter end. A democrat is likely a democrat for life, same with republicans. They see eachother as bitter enemies for, casting doubt across the entire concept that democracy is for enlightened people.

Indeed, go watch Question Period at Parliament some time and you will see exactly who runs the worlds goverments: pompus ignorant little fools with an intellectual scope of a gnat. For actual intelligence you have to go beyond the elected field and into the civil service.

I take issue with anyone willing to follow an ideology or swear allegiance to a political party. Every situation requires it's due process to determine the best course of action. Application of an ideology decrees there is only one way to approach an issue and completely negates the opportunity to examine it and address it with the best option availible. Narrow thinking prevails.

But all of that was completely off topic.

I havn't seen these CNN stories but they sound really interesting. I watch God Camp and got suitably disturbed by it. There are some people in the States actively trying to form a mass population of obidient zealots who will vote to keep themselves and their cronies in power. The rhetoric spewed out of some of these church groups is really disturbing. Makes me glad I live in Canada where the worst we have to deal with is the occasional farmer complaining about gun control. At least our government can't turn it's military on the population to any degree of effect.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Azure

You make it seem like one side is 'worse' religiously than the other. Yet, both sides are going to pander to the religious...both left and right...to gain votes. Its a fact of American politics.

Someone should really make it illegal to invoke religiocity in a political forum. It's not any religious organization is in control of a secular society. Technically it has no place in the discussions at all.

But I'm being naive I guess. One can wish though eh?

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Azure

As it stands right now, Obama has my attention...I'm still reading up on Ron Paul. There are others of course, but I would never vote for Romney, OR Guliani. Ever.

We really have no idea who will run. Hillary? She'll kill her own campaign with her dumb comments. Obama? My choice, personally...Romney? You seriously think the American people will vote for a Mormon? Nothing against them, but just like you, people make their choice based on 'religious grounds'...rather than actually political values. Thompson has strong showing on numerous polls, and he seems like the proper 'conservative'....don't know where he stands on religious ideas. He has other things that I have issues with though.

You make it seem like one side is 'worse' religiously than the other. Yet, both sides are going to pander to the religious...both left and right...to gain votes. Its a fact of American politics.

well lately one side has been worse than the other. it wasn't always like this, and hopefully it can change in the future, but as of right now if i were an American, there is no way i'd put my faith in whomever wins the Republican nomination

and as for Romney, his religous values ARE his political values. that was the whole point of the God's Warriors segment on Christians, they've blurred the line between politics and faith so bad that for some candidates there is no difference. the big thing is seperation of church and state. if i knew a candidate was guaranteed to not let their religous views interfere with how they ran a country, then i wouldn't care if they believed in the flying spaghetti monster. but as it stands right now, the more right wing and devout a christian candidate is, the less likely that is to happen

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

well lately one side has been worse than the other. it wasn't always like this, and hopefully it can change in the future, but as of right now if i were an American, there is no way i'd put my faith in whomever wins the Republican nomination

and as for Romney, his religous values ARE his political values. that was the whole point of the God's Warriors segment on Christians, they've blurred the line between politics and faith so bad that for some candidates there is no difference. the big thing is seperation of church and state. if i knew a candidate was guaranteed to not let their religous views interfere with how they ran a country, then i wouldn't care if they believed in the flying spaghetti monster. but as it stands right now, the more right wing and devout a christian candidate is, the less likely that is to happen

And which candidate would that be? Like I said, BOTH sides are going to involve their religious views into the political game in order to gain votes. You have the whole Bible Belt down there ripe for the picking. Obama, Hillary, Rudy, Mitt...they're all going to throw the 'God-fearing' politician angle towards these people.

Personally, while I believe in the separation of church and state, I find it disturbing that you're so quick to condemn one party of doing something you disagree with, while at the same time you put the 'other' party up on a pedestal...when in fact both are very similar.

Yet, even though you talk about supporting the separation of church and state, which in theory means you would never vote for a candidate based on their so-called religious views, you contradict yourself by saying you would 'never put your faith in the Republican candidate'....seemingly because of his religious views. True separation of church and state? Perhaps the first step would be for people to stop voting for candidates based on their religious views.

Does that mean those views will suddenly disappear? Not at all. But it will mean that said candidate will not have the power to invoke religion into a political situation because he KNOWS that his voters don't support him in such a way.

Sadly, I'll be dead before such a thing happens. Both sides, which you nicely made obvious, are guilty of voting in such a peculiar manner.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by llama64

Someone should really make it illegal to invoke religiocity in a political forum. It's not any religious organization is in control of a secular society. Technically it has no place in the discussions at all.

But I'm being naive I guess. One can wish though eh?

Absolutely. It does become frustrating when both sides have set themselves to an extreme position....which does nothing to help solve the biggest problem in the US. Lack of unity amongst the people.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

yes both sides invoke religion, but NOT equally. if the presidential race came down to Obama and Romney, who would you want to win? who do you think would be more likely to stick even more right wing religious chief justices in the supreme court?

true not all the Republican candidates are as bad as Romney. Paul would be a good choice, but he won't win. McCain wouldn't be bad either, but he won't win. and though Guliani wouldn't be holding the religious flag, he woudl still be a disaster and thankfully won't win either. what you're left with is the very high probability of the Republican presidential candidate being of the right christian demographic's choosing. you don't have that problem on the Democrats side

No offense hemi..but I don't think you have a very good grasp on the Republican candidates and their chances.

Romney is FAR from a lock...and he's the only guy you've given a chance to win the nomination.

If a RW evangelical is the choice of the Republican party Sam Brownback would be making noise. He ain't.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

No offense hemi..but I don't think you have a very good grasp on the Republican candidates and their chances.

Romney is FAR from a lock...and he's the only guy you've given a chance to win the nomination.

If a RW evangelical is the choice of the Republican party Sam Brownback would be making noise. He ain't.

well Romney is leading the pack, and if he doesn't get it who does? McCain's campaign is a wreck, Guliani won't get the right wing vote for his progressive views, and maybe it's just me but i just can't picture saying President Huckabee. Thompson seems to be the only other name that's getting attention but he's not even officially running, so i didn't count him. if he does man up and he doesn't bend over for the christian right, then great. my whole point was that with a republican the chance of getting a president who will let his religious views interfere with politics is much higher. i'd love for a candidate to come along, take charge, and prove me wrong