T Nation

The New Crusades?

Apparently Bush gathered 80% of the Christian vote. Gay marriage- bad. Abortion- bad. One hundred thousand Iraqis (more than half non-combatants) dead in a dubious war? Fine. They aren’t Christians, those Iraqis, are they? The priorities of America’s Christians seem pretty fucked up if you ask me. Killing fundamentalists in Afghanistan who want you dead- hey I have no problem with that, but the support of America’s Christians for this war sticks in my craw.

You create a fiction. I’d address the idea that Bush wants to kill non-Christians, considering the number of Muslims who now benefit from Bush’s actions, but it’s ludicrous and a waste of time, so I’ll go straight to domestic policy.

Never forget, even part-time Christians and moderately religious folk have a hard time squaring a vote for a man that supported partial-birth abortions.

Moreover, mainstream America - ie, not evangelicals - don’t support gay marriage by and large. It’s a moderate position - even Kerry wouldn’t commit to it.

You desparately want to oversimplify and disrespect devout Christians - I wonder if you’d have such disdain for devout Jews or Muslims.

Look, the plurality of Bush voters said they what was most important to them was “moral values”. Well, I voted on moral values also.

Why is it that to the so called “moral majority”, morals only include abortion and gay issues? The big business Republicans can sell this to them all the while feeding their own agenda of moral values. To Republican leaders, what is really immoral is the redistribution of wealth. We are the richest country in the world, yet the only liberal democracy to not guarantee health care to our citizens. Explain that. I believe Jesus prioritized helping the sick and needy.

On the Bush Supreme Court, its not Roe v Wade that will be brought up. Its federalism and the role it plays. Look for things like affirmative action and social welfare programs to be attacked.

Travis, I hate to break this to you, but we do have guaranteed health care for all citizens, and even non-citizens. We have had it for a very long time. Go into the lobby of any not-for-profit hospital and you will see a plaque or something similar stating that you will be treated whether or not you have the ability to pay. A great deal of patients that come through my hospital never pay a damn dime.

How come all the Kerry supporters on here automatically define “moral issues” as abortion and gay marriage? I don’t believe the term “moral issues” was defined in the exit polls. I think you’re making a large, incorrect assumption.

[Addendum: This is like how people got fooled by reading too much into polls asking whether the country was “going in the wrong direction” – but those polls never asked why people thought that. Many people assumed those should represent votes for Kerry, or at least persuadables for Kerry. However, in that sample there was certain to be a percentage of people who thought the country was “going the wrong direction” because it was following a liberal path on some issue that they cared about, and those people would almost surely not vote for Kerry, even if displeased with Bush on something like spending, trade, or judicial nominations.]

So it was all the christian’s fault that gay marriage referndums went down 11-0 nation-wide?

If you want a scape goat - maybe you should look at the activist judges that brought this on.

It’s not radical, or christian, or fundamentalist to exercise your right to vote.

If judges would’ve kept their elitist noses out of the legislating business, we might well be learning how to say ‘President-elect Kerry’.

Why the bigotry?

If anyone could get a stat that explained how Jews voted on gay marriage, that could be interesting.

Moreover, Black Americans - who are overwhelmingly Democratic - do not support gay marriage. I’ll see if I can find how that vote went.

I suspect that Muslims in America did not support a gay marriage initiative.

What’s sad is the diversion to these issues when we should be concentrating on our men and women overseas. We should be focusing on restoring better relations with the world. We should be focusing on how we will finance this war when Bill Gates, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, Kerry, and every other estate worth over ten million is paying less taxes than ever.

But instead, Karl Rove did a great job of diverting middle America’s attention to an ammendment that wouldn’t pass. Both candidates were against gay marriage. But one had a humble respect for the Constitution and the other thought that the Constitution is a tool to use for every single policy initiative that comes to mind.

[quote]ILOVEGWBUSH3 wrote:
Apparently Bush gathered 80% of the Christian vote. Gay marriage- bad. Abortion- bad. One hundred thousand Iraqis (more than half non-combatants) dead in a dubious war? Fine. They aren’t Christians, those Iraqis, are they? The priorities of America’s Christians seem pretty fucked up if you ask me. Killing fundamentalists in Afghanistan who want you dead- hey I have no problem with that, but the support of America’s Christians for this war sticks in my craw.[/quote]

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq do have one thing in common with the crusades: they are both responses to muslim agression. At least the Christians are n’t strapping TNT to themselves and running into cafes.

[quote]anubis12 wrote:

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq do have one thing in common with the crusades: they are both responses to muslim agression.

[/quote]

How dare you bring accurate history into this? Facts annoy the left.

Just remember that there is a difference between radical Muslims and most Muslims.

[quote]ILOVEGWBUSH3 wrote:
One hundred thousand Iraqis (more than half non-combatants) dead in a dubious war? Fine. [/quote]

You are a moron if you truly believe that. RLTW

rangertab75

[quote]TravisCS84 wrote:
…But instead, Karl Rove did a great job of diverting middle America’s attention to an ammendment that wouldn’t pass. Both candidates were against gay marriage. But one had a humble respect for the Constitution and the other thought that the Constitution is a tool to use for every single policy initiative that comes to mind. [/quote]

Really? Name another amendment proposal besides the marraige amendment.

I personally think it should be a state’s rights issue, but in order to reign in activist judges, something has to be done.

I think the real reason for the ‘New Crusades’ is a thumbing of the nose at those who - instead of letting the people decide - legislate from the bench.

[quote]TravisCS84 wrote:
What’s sad is the diversion to these issues when we should be concentrating on our men and women overseas. We should be focusing on restoring better relations with the world. We should be focusing on how we will finance this war when Bill Gates, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, Kerry, and every other estate worth over ten million is paying less taxes than ever.

But instead, Karl Rove did a great job of diverting middle America’s attention to an ammendment that wouldn’t pass. Both candidates were against gay marriage. But one had a humble respect for the Constitution and the other thought that the Constitution is a tool to use for every single policy initiative that comes to mind. [/quote]

No, no, no you confused President Bush with those liberal judges who try to legislate from the bench. You know who I mean, the one’s who thwart what the majority wants!

I guess the question I have to the lefties is why does a discussion in regards to abortion always result in an assault against fundamental Christian values?

Does it really take the bible to imply that abortion is something we as a society should be moving away from?

Are any of you really pro-abortion? In my world, that’s akin to saying you arepro-murder, pro-rape or pro-pedophilia.

And before you suck your underwear up your ass, I am not using this as an analogy for being pro-choice. Just pointing out that abortion is a brutal practice and I don’t see how anybody could be fnundamentally in favor of it.

Additionally, even a sidewise implication that the war in Iraq was sparked or is energized by religious fervor is asinine. I’ll just leave it at that.

I think you guys are spending an awful lot of time trying to group those with ideals different than your own into segments of society that you can then cast disdain on. Christians are easy targets.

At some point you are going to have to just accept that people are not comfortable with a party that has a basic mantra of, “Everything is OK except having an opinion that is different than ours.”

[quote]apwsearch wrote:

At some point you are going to have to just accept that people are not comfortable with a party that has a basic mantra of, “Everything is OK except having an opinion that is different than ours.” [/quote]

Gee, that was hypocritical. How about “everything has to be done our way and everything is fine as long as you agree with us?” I am a christian and I am also pro-choice. What wonderful stereotypes do you have to throw in my direction? This topic has been discussed in other threads. I suggest you read those as well. I don’t intend to retype what has already been posted.

[quote]apwsearch wrote:
I guess the question I have to the lefties is why does a discussion in regards to abortion always result in an assault against fundamental Christian values?

Does it really take the bible to imply that abortion is something we as a society should be moving away from?

Are any of you really pro-abortion? In my world, that’s akin to saying you arepro-murder, pro-rape or pro-pedophilia.

And before you suck your underwear up your ass, I am not using this as an analogy for being pro-choice. Just pointing out that abortion is a brutal practice and I don’t see how anybody could be fnundamentally in favor of it.

Additionally, even a sidewise implication that the war in Iraq was sparked or is energized by religious fervor is asinine. I’ll just leave it at that.

I think you guys are spending an awful lot of time trying to group those with ideals different than your own into segments of society that you can then cast disdain on. Christians are easy targets.

At some point you are going to have to just accept that people are not comfortable with a party that has a basic mantra of, “Everything is OK except having an opinion that is different than ours.” [/quote]

apwsearch:

Very fine point you make! The extreme liberals will do anything to silence you. And they do it in the name of political correctness. Whacky, simply whacky.

ProfessorX:

Thanks for the suggestion. What makes you think I have not read those other threads? I have just chosen not to participate.

I am not in the habit of taking peoples internet personas very seriously.

Additionally, thanks for the tidbit but I am ambivalent about you being a Christian and pro-choice. What a courageous position.

Given your little outburst, you are obviously pretty emotional about this topic so I will back off.

I would sure hate to offend your sensitivities.

The point of my original post was not to say that I particularly support abortion or gay marriage, but that America’s Christians seem quite outraged by these two things, which, it could be argued, are nobody’s business but the people concerned, but are not outraged by death on a massive scale.

How can you be ‘pro-life’ and pro-war?

I am not a starry eyed idealist. I recognise that sometimes war is inevitable or necessary. But the war in Iraq does not fall into that category. Yet many church leaders actively supported Bush and most church-goers voted for him. It’s amazing how little they care for the individuals in other countries, innocent children and women who are getting killed, mistakenly or not, but would deny a rape victim the ability to abort a fetus with no self-awareness, or two harmless homos the chance to properly pledge their commitment to each other.

From what I have heard, it doesnt seem like the court will be taking any gay marriage cases any time soon. I haven’t heard anything like that in recent times. We have about the most conservative court of the twentieth century right now.

But as far as courts not representing the majority, well, they’re not supposed to. They’re suppose to represent the Constitution.

Back in the 1950s during segregation, you think your local representative would promote anti-segrationist legislation? Not if he wanted to keep his job amist a racist constituency. Thats why we don’t elect judges.

And thats why liberals starting loving the court, because cases like Brown v Board of Ed accomplished what would have never happened in congress.