America proved its a nation of religious values

[Mr.Vicchio]

That is the only way to explain how Bush won, how 11 out fo 11 gay marriage bans won, how the GOP increased its control of both the House and Senate.

The DNC has been pushing further left, further secular, many big name supporters of the Democrats include the ACLU, Americans for the Sepereation of Church and State, and other such entities that seem to share one thing in common. Removing or restricting the rights of the religious in this country.

The GOP has been on the other hand, more open to the religious, agains gay marriage, abortion, and for free expression of religion.


That I think, is the main reason that George W. Bush won re-election despite the polls, despite the millions of dollars poured into 527 groups against him.

And from the reaction of the DNC pundits, supporters and movers and shakers... I don't see this trend changing anytime soon.

[Samildanach]

I have a question for you Mr V. Its a hypothetical one of course.
Assuming the gay section of society could establish a religion in which homosexual acts were not only tolerated but actively encouraged as part of the religion, would they not be covered by the first amendment and as a consequence surely they would be free from any legislative problems hence forth?
I only ask this because I am not an American and I do not have a very good understanding of when the constitution can be over-ruled etc. It would seem from my perspective that this would be the perfect way out for the gay community and the democrats as if the gay community were protected by the first amendment it becomes un-necessary for the democrats to have this as an issue inthe future.

[gr8fuldaniel]

This only proves they can rig an election. You cant use this election as a basis for any ratios because the numbers were flip-flopped. The central computers were tampered with and you cant plausably extract anything concrete until we determine exactly how many machines were breached. Sorry.

Developing........

[Mr.Vicchio]

Yeah gr8, reach for those straws man, reach for those straws. I hope the left takes that angle, this is election number 3 the left has been beaten, keep blaming everyone but yourselves.


Sam, Athiesm was recognized as a religion by the Supreme Court in the 70's if memory serves, thus by removing all religion in schools the governments are promoiting athiesm.

Just food for thought on your question.

The answer to that is, yes they could form a "gay religion" but marriage is not just a religious affair, its also a legal status, outside of the religous component.

BTW anyone see that Italy rejected Gay marriage by like 70%?

[gr8fuldaniel]

So which religion are you saying should be taught in school?
Maybe I find Bush's idea of a bloodthirsty God, unquenched by the blood of Iraqis and bent on the genocides of Iran and anyone else with oil........to be somewhat appalling.

Do we get to vote in another rigged election for the mythology of our choice? Only to be cheated out of it by Diebold and appointed the god Karl Rove decides we need to worship and adore.

[Gorgo]

A better explanation at counterpunch.org

"A May 2004 ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 54 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in most cases and another CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll found that 81 percent of respondents believe that abortion should be either sometimes or always legal [1]. Suggesting, as Vijay Prashad does, that these kinds of polls "might have been weighted for the coasts and not Kansas," [2] is an outlandish grasping at straws. It reflects an irrational (and elitist) refusal to accept that even people in the Midwest may, indeed, be more progressive than stereotypes of academia and the liberal establishment suggest. It shirks the responsibility that the left has of organizing that sentiment into something concrete and legitimates throwing up our hands at the hopelessness of the "ignorant masses."

So if Americans do have generally progressive viewpoints, why didn't this materialize at the polls? The question actually begs another question: Who says that voting is an accurate expression of the political consciousness of the American people? How can anyone claim that people voted against their "class interests" in this election, when both Kerry and Bush stood diametrically opposed to their class interests? Kerry offered not even the semblance of an alternative to the Bush agenda. When the media talked about something other than what Bush and Kerry did during the Vietnam War, right-wing discourse defined the debate. Kerry and Bush quibbled over how to suppress the Iraqi resistance and Kerry was even more bellicose than Bush on Iran and North Korea! Furthermore, Kerry's obsession with a balanced budget prevented him from making a dynamic case for health care, higher wages, unemployment relief, etc. If the discourse throughout the election season prioritized right-wing issues, why are we surprised that voters prioritized right-wing issues? This campaign was defined by the war on terror, and John "I'm-reporting-for-duty" Kerry did nothing to shift the paradigm--and so terror defined the politics of the electorate. Combine this with the fact that the "religious right," who (unlike the left) has the chutzpah to build a grassroots movement and demand things of the Republican Party, was mobilized, and you have your explanation for the 2004 election.

The disconnect between Americans' political consciousness and the election also has to do with the apolitical nature of elections, rooted in Americans' rightful cynicism at the electoral process and politicians. Since November 3, I have heard a barrage of anecdotes about how someone's Bush-supporting cousin, brother, sister, mother, father, or uncle cared more about the image of leadership that Bush represented, whether or not he was a "family man" or whether or not they could have a beer with him, than actual policy. Students, professors and others decried the fact that many people vote on their "emotions." It's a shame that some of these storytellers were too busy lamenting the "stupidity" of their relatives to ask why someone would have such apolitical reasons for voting in the first place. De-politicization like this is the result of cynicism due to the absence of a real political debate on issues that matter to Americans. Voting on apolitical or "moral" issues is another way of "checking out" of the political system. And Kerry's campaign was not going to reverse this cynicism. On the contrary, he probably enflamed cynicism with his disingenuous, focus-group based campaign which many people saw right through. In fact, real political debate has been absent from elections for so long, and cynicism about government is so high, that elections themselves cannot politicize people. There is widespread recognition among people that no politician will significantly change things like the economy, health care, or jobs and so voting (especially for a sorry Democrat like Kerry) will not be an effective funnel for people's anger at the system. Regardless of how many celebrities scream, "Vote or die," dissatisfied people will continue to either stay at home, as 45 percent did, or vote on apolitical issues (religion, morality, whether a candidate seems like a nice guy, etc.) "

[Samildanach]

Ahh I finally see where you are coming from I think. The christian community associate marriage purely with Christianity and the definition of it being between a man and a woman. I can understand how that could be due to history etc. But what is to stop someone drawing up parallel legislation for Gay couples and calling it something different? say a 'Garriage' :)
But then there are all those Gay folk who are also Christian folk
hmmmm........and they should in theory be able to practise their religion under the first amendment.....
so thats where the problem lies. ...The religious sector of society can't accept or are intolerant of their gay members?
I think that normally what happens here is something similar to what happened to the protestants and catholics.
A split occurs within the church and both carry on practising what they believe yet still both fall under the banner of Christianity. So it then comes down to a legal battle. The first group that can get marriage defined as either one or the other wins. However there are all kinds of snarls because one of your primary laws of the land is the practice of any religion is protected as something paramount in your law. If one religion says one thing and another sector of it says something entirely different then both would be right as first amendment rights should not be able to be breached in any way shape or form.
So in theory if I was a judge I couldn't make a call about it because I would be denying someones religious rights by doing so. Traditionally marriage has always been between a man and a woman in the past, however religions do change as evidenced by specific sects splitting off. For example would you ask a judge to call the protestant religion more valid than the catholics? Its a very nasty thing to have to sort out. I pity the judge who has to deal with that. Hes in for backlash either way.
EDIT After thinking about it for a while I think the judge would HAVE to allow gay marriage to ensure first amendment priviledges as it is the only way he is not infringing on religious rights. He can either fail it shut denying gay members there right to practice their religion or he can fail it open which conserves first amendment rights for everyone.

[Mulkaccino]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mr.Vicchio,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Sam, Athiesm was recognized as a religion by the Supreme Court in the 70's if memory serves, thus by removing all religion in schools the governments are promoiting athiesm. Just food for thought on your question.[/b]

Schools teach math, science, history, literature, etc. They do not teach people live with our without religion. They are not promoting Atheism; they're staying out of religion. There is a difference between not supporting any religion and supporting against the idea of a god.

I can't imagine atheism being declared a religion. I don’t' have full access to the net right now, so I can't do a search, but any anyone provide data on the U.S. declaring atheism a "religion." If so they need to look up what it means to be religious and what is means to be an atheist.

<!--QuoteBegin-Mr.Vicchio,

The answer to that is, yes they could form a "gay religion" but marriage is not just a religious affair, its also a legal status, outside of the religous component.

BTW anyone see that Italy rejected Gay marriage by like 70%?[/quote]

I'm assuming by your last quote you're inferring that because the majority of people disagree with gay marriage that makes it immoral. That is absolutely fine. Just keep your mind open and remember that the majority of people in our past have also supported slavery, female oppression, "separate but equal" laws, and religious prejudice among many others. It seems that sometimes the majority winds up being morally incorrect given time.

[Samildanach]

Atheism a religion?!? Really???
Im a atheist and I didn't consider myself religious.
I thought the whole idea of atheism was that you don't believe in any gods whatsoever. How that could possibly get defined as a religion is beyond my powers of reasoning. But if someone knows the reasoning behind it please feel free to explain it.

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mr.Vicchio,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That is the only way to explain how Bush won, how 11 out fo 11 gay marriage bans won, how the GOP increased its control of both the House and Senate.[/b]

So that means 11 states are openly homophobic or that the voting majority was homophobic?

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mr.Vicchio,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The DNC has been pushing further left, further secular, many big name supporters of the Democrats include the ACLU, Americans for the Sepereation of Church and State, and other such entities that seem to share one thing in common. Removing or restricting the rights of the religious in this country.[/b]

You're always on about your constitution, what's wrong with groups lobbying for it to be maintained?
<!--QuoteBegin-Mr.Vicchio,@

The GOP has been on the other hand, more open to the religious, against gay marriage, abortion, and for free expression of religion.[/quote]
So they're fascists then?

<!--QuoteBegin-Mr.Vicchio,

That I think, is the main reason that George W. Bush won re-election despite the polls, despite the millions of dollars poured into 527 groups against him.

And from the reaction of the DNC pundits, supporters and movers and shakers... I don't see this trend changing anytime soon.[/quote]
I think that you know as well as I do that BOTH sides have poured millions into that group (it's a freakin' loophole that must be fixed, something like that would never be tolerated in the UK). I mean, Dems had Moveon, Reps had that Vietcon Veteran campaign going, etc etc.
Both sides slagging each other

[Nono]

America proved its a nation of religious values

Example: Thou shallt not kill.

[Samildanach]

You know that has always struck me as rather odd actually.
I would have thought that the ten commandments should superced everything else...actually I will start a separate thread on it. Maybe some christians can explain it to me.

[Scribbler1]

The line, "thou shalt not kill" doesn't appear in the Muslim religion, or if it does it is apparently ignored. Theirs is a religion of intolerance and that is what we are discussing here.

I think if you believe in ANY religion you must by default believe in what that religion teaches and not what anyone else says. The problem is the colossal arrogance of some which not only defines THEIR thinking but allows them to comforably believe they should have the power to impose that thinking on others.

Just as with the aforementioned religion, many people in this country have adopted a religion of intolerance as well. And having their beliefs reflected in local and state laws is not even enough, as they want to make it a national issue. Their attitude is "my god said it to me, and although a lot of people don't have a problem with it as it doesn't personally affect them and even if you don't believe as I do you're just going to have to live with what *I* believe."

Bush's people know that as well and they just tapped into it. Unethical, but a brilliant political strategy. You notice the minimal coverage of the abortion issue? That's yesterdays news and it doesn't get votes. In this country a lot of religious people (and atheists as well) do not approve nor condone abortion and would NEVER consider having one, but feel they don't have the moral authority to impose that feeling on others. They also realize in all the years it has been legal, the country hasn't been sucked into the fires of hell. Not a good issue with which to play on people's emotions. The Bush campaign, however, has noticed that the gay marriage issue is a great emotion grabber. As for myself, I know that as I was growing up, there was no "Will and Grace" on TV and most people found that lifestyle repulsive, as did I. That feeling is in a LOT of people, but I have long since realized it's none of my business and when I see this brought up, I just muzzle my baser instincts and consider the reality of any percieved threat this issue is to the country. I find NO threat to the country so I don't consider the national banning of it an issue.
But since the fundamental christians have obviously forgotten that abortion didn't vaporize the country they focus on this new terrible threat to our very way of life. And Bush is right there to cleverly capitalize on that fear.

I also want to state for the record that I don't like gay marriage either, at least on a gut level, as that was how I grew up. I had the same gut reaction when I saw a black man with a white woman. I long ago discarded that racist viewpoint, but I will probably always have it with me, and gays holding hands on the street still makes me feel weird. However, like racism I just put a lid on it and realize it isn't hurting anyone.

[gr8fuldaniel]

America proved its a nation of religious values

Originally posted by Nono, Example: Thou shallt not kill.

Good point, heres another doozy:

Thou shalt not commit adultery

There are no laws against it though.

[Technosoul]

I do not think that Bush winning the White House is proof that America has voted for the rights of the fundamentalists. If you concider the facts. Assuming the vote count is correct we have at least 49 percent of the voting population who did not vote for Bush, plus a bunch of people who did not even vote but who might not be religious in the extremes expressed by Bush.

And also a percentage of those who did vote for Bush might have done so for reasons that have nothing to do with his personal perspectives about gays or about abortion. A lot of his votes were the result of concerns about who would be more effective in the war with torrorism, or even because of his tax refunds or because they thought Kerry would spend too much money, etc.

So you might well be over-estimating the numbers who voted for Bush just to push fundamentalism upon the majority.

Technosoul.

[Gorgo]

Vicchio, once again you come up with the most assinine, insulting ideas. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the ACLU are and have been working hard for your right to believe whatever stupid thing you want to believe.

[Mr.Vicchio]

No, they are not.

Gorgo.

they actively seek to remove my right to express my religious beliefs. If I were a school teacher with a cross on a pendant, the ACLU and AUSCS would file a lawsuit against me.

How is that working for my rights?

hmm?

Keep on calling those of faith bigots, it shows you lack understanding as to WHY there were 11 gay marriage bans on the ballots.

I'll give you a hint, San Fransisco Mayro Gavin Newsome and the Mass. Supreme Court.

[gr8fuldaniel]

By that reasoning it should be legal for a teacher to wear a swastika to class. If you are going to allow symbols on teachers you have to allow gang colors too. Right?
What does a teachers religion have to do with the curriculum?

[Gorgo]

I didn't call anyone a bigot. You should get on your knees and thank the people at the ACLU and AU for helping you perform your religious beliefs. This country has the most diverse religious communities precisely because of the separation of church and state which those organizations promote. Otherwise, you'd be stuck with the government promoting some other religion, or lack of religion. Government does not promote atheism, it is supposed to be secular (but of course, if far from secular). There is a difference that you'll want to learn.

This allows you the freedom to talk like a moron if you want to.

Religion, as we've seen from Bush, has nothing to do with morals or values. It has to do with believing in things for which there is no good evidence.

[Osborn F Enready]

This is the essential things people just can't seem to GRASP.

In order to have "equal rights", that means occasionally the individual is going to be visually, audibly or olfactorily offended at some times, and not others. If you have "equal rights" and "free speech", there is only one acceptable form of equality to stay within the definition of "equal". All or none.

To wear a swastika or any other "symbol" of ideology or belief would be "equal" to wearing a cross or a religious pendant.

As someone I dislike said, who I invariably must agree with....

``If you can't say Fuck, you can't say, Fuck the government.''
-Lenny Bruce

This is the same concept with liberty. All or none, is all that is "equal". That is why the constitution was worded the way it was, so that all people, understanding common english, could grasp and understand the clear intention of the document to limit the federal governments intrusion and "decision making" for its citizens.

If people want to limit free speech in their own home, it is their right, but THEIR RESPONSIBLITY. The manufacturers, broadcasters, and networks are not MEANT to be responsible to idiot proof the system so irresponsible parents or religious folk dont have to hear words or topics THEY find disagreeable.

Liberty is well defined by the forefathers, as is justice and equal. Their definitions are all that are acceptable, since they drew up the document based on the meanings they expressed and outlined. Any modern interpretation must be held to those standards, or it is simply, unconstitutional. Period.