Do as we say, not as we do.

Theocracy is good for America, but bad for the world.

Oh, except when we support theocratic regimes, and oust secular leaders. In those cases, it's different. Trust us, it's too complicated to explain. <something about God>

The important thing is that America is a Christian nation, and that religious violence must be stopped. Not us, of course, the other guys. The bad guys. <something about 9/11>

Why are you not getting this? You just need to pray with me.

&#8220;God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.&#8221;
~ George W. Bush
2003-06-24, Reported in Israeli newspaper Haaretz
according to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, from minutes acquired by Haaretz from cease-fire negotiations between Abbas and faction leaders from the Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular and Democratic Fronts (circa, 2003-06), quoted from Arnon Regular, &#8220;&#8216;Road map is a life saver for us,&#8217; PM Abbas tells Hamas&#8221; (Haaretz.com: 2003-06-27). Bush is so full of it he expects us to believe that God too was deceived about the presence of WMDs.

&#8220;I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn&#8217;t do my job.&#8221;
~ George W. Bush, 2004-07-16, to a group of Amish he met with privately. First reported in the local papers, including the Intelligencer Journal and the Lancaster New Era.

&#8220;I am carrying out divine commands.&#8221;
~ George W. Bush
in front of the astonished Canadian prime minister Paul Martin

&#8220;I believe God wants me to be President, but if that doesn&#8217;t happen, it&#8217;s OK.&#8221;
~ George W. Bush
Texas 1999 at a meeting attended by Richard Land.

&#8220;I&#8217;ve heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for President.&#8221;
~ George W. Bush
reported by James Robison (a prominent evangelical minister)

rkzenrage wrote:

Bush is so full of it he expects us to believe that God too was deceived about the presence of WMDs.

God turned the WMDs to dinosaur fossils - you know, to test our faith.

That is beautiful... then he turned them into IEDs because we took him out of the pledge?

Actually, the IEDs are his response to gays in the military. Don't F with God!

Mr Phelps, meet Flint. Flint, Fred. Fred, Flint. :thepain3:

Flint wrote:

Actually, the IEDs are his response to gays in the military. Don't F with God!

If I W with god, then does that mean I can reap $600,000 by doing absolutely nothing productive?

Sure, just ask daddy.

If America ever goes to hell in a handbasket, it's going to be a neo-conservative "Religious Right" Christian Conservative handbasket. I only pick on them because they're the ones most likely to get religion passed into law. Madmen.

I got severely pissed when I went to a certain military-related forum and the most popular reason (by far) that people gave for not wanting gays in the military is because this is a Christian country and we all know what it says about gays in the bible. Holy shit, people. We have the most technologically advanced, culturally and racially diverse military in the world, and people want us to base our personnel policy on the freaking bible? This, in a nation that was founded on the separation of church and state. Okaaaaay. Gotcha. I understand that doesn't reflect the views of all or most Americans. Still scary.

Always cracked me up that those that talk the most shit about hating Muslim nations and the Taliban want to turn this nation into it.

rkzenrage wrote:

Always cracked me up that those that talk the most shit about hating Muslim nations and the Taliban want to turn this nation into it.

It's not easy being on the sidelines during a jihad/crusade. In this case we have a combo.

A crihad?

AlternateGray wrote:

If America ever goes to hell in a handbasket, it's going to be a neo-conservative "Religious Right" Christian Conservative handbasket.

I don't like the politics of these folks either but I think you are putting two different groups together. The leading neo-cons tend to be leftists who gave up or "liberals mugged by reality" in Irving Kristols words and often Jewish. I often hear lefties lumping these folks together, maybe because it isn't pc to notice Jewishness?

My interpretation of the phrase might be wrong. I've always taken "neo-conservative" to mean the new breed of republican- very conservative regarding economics, but very liberal when it comes to government regulation of morals; they're often mentioned by the media in the same breath with religion-based movements.

I just looked it up:
"But it is only to a degree that neocons are comfortable in modern America. The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives--though not with those libertarian conservatives who are conservative in economics but unmindful of the culture. The upshot is a quite unexpected alliance between neocons, who include a fair proportion of secular intellectuals, and religious traditionalists. They are united on issues concerning the quality of education, the relations of church and state, the regulation of pornography, and the like, all of which they regard as proper candidates for the government's attention."- Irving Kristol
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp?pg=1

It sounds mostly reasonable; but I can see how the neo-cons get easily lumped together with "religious traditionalists", depending on the issue at hand. I don't like the fact that they're essentially giving the r.t.'s more leverage; and while I don't agree with them politically, it's supposedly secular. What I don't understand is how a mostly secular movement can be united with the religious right concerning the relations of church and state. Huh?

I can say this, though. Stay away from my porn, Irving.

Griff wrote:

I don't like the politics of these folks either but I think you are putting two different groups together. The leading neo-cons tend to be leftists who gave up or "liberals mugged by reality" in Irving Kristols words and often Jewish. I often hear lefties lumping these folks together, maybe because it isn't pc to notice Jewishness?

They lumped themselves together. "Neo-con" and "religious right" aren't religious appellations, they are political. (And "neo-con" is not a code word for "Jewish" just because some of the original neo-cons were Jewish. PC doesn't enter into it - it just isn't true.)

What I take from the Kriston article is that neo-conservatives are not like the stodgy old conservatives, except for the stodgy part.

AlternateGray wrote:

...
I got severely pissed when I went to a certain military-related forum and the most popular reason (by far) that people gave for not wanting gays in the military is because this is a Christian country and we all know what it says about gays in the bible. Holy shit, people. We have the most technologically advanced, culturally and racially diverse military in the world, and people want us to base our personnel policy on the freaking bible? This, in a nation that was founded on the separation of church and state. Okaaaaay. Gotcha. I understand that doesn't reflect the views of all or most Americans. Still scary.

So those folks follow all the rules in the bible, right. After all, they must be good Christians. So they don't have tatoos, don't eat shellfish or pork, don't trim the hair on the sides of their heads (like Hassidic Jews), or any of the other laws in exodus and leviticus that may have made sense 4,ooo years ago but don't apply anymore (like homosexuality being an abomination).

Or cotton blend shirts. Polyester is the work of the devil.:devil:

richlevy wrote:

It's not easy being on the sidelines during a jihad/crusade. In this case we have a combo.

A crihad?

Everyone sing now (to the tune of an old Ken-L-Ration TV jingle):

"My God's better than your God, My God's better than yours!
My God's better 'cause he gives sal-al-vation, My God's better than yours..."

Spexxvet wrote:

So those folks follow all the rules in the bible, right. After all, they must be good Christians. So they don't have tatoos, don't eat shellfish or pork, don't trim the hair on the sides of their heads (like Hassidic Jews), or any of the other laws in exodus and leviticus that may have made sense 4,ooo years ago but don't apply anymore (like homosexuality being an abomination).

The New Covenant cut all that stuff out. Check Matthew 19:16-19 and Mark 10: 17-19.

Elspode wrote:

Everyone sing now (to the tune of an old Ken-L-Ration TV jingle):

"My God's better than your God, My God's better than yours!
My God's better 'cause he gives sal-al-vation, My God's better than yours..."

No, no, no, there's only one God....It goes;

"God likes me better than he likes you.
I know for a fact that this is true
God likes me better than he likes you
'Cause my preacher told me to hate you"
:lol:

"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher regard those who think alike than those who think differently."

--Nietzsche

Children & born agains alike.

Arbitrary alliance with people on 'your side' is such a pervasive part of our society that even being actively aware, I tend towards it. In fact, the whole concept of 'sides' to argument is remarkably obscene. To argument, to politics, to religion, to most everything that isn't a sandwich, die, or coin. Even a black & white photo has midtone shades.

Spexxvet wrote:

don't trim the hair on the sides of their heads

...so what you're saying is that the "mullet" makes baby Jesus cry?

Our jihad name is a Zeemer... this has been established.