I am constantly confounded by why people think that there isn’t enough scientific evidence for evolution and global warming to base public policy decisions on them but trickle down economics and the Bush Doctrine are solid enough to gamble our future on.
I don’t understand the wierd alliance between compassionate conservatives and Christians today. As I understand it, compassioante conservatives basically believe in some wierd combination of a societal “tough love” and supply sided economics. The way this has been explained to me is that if we cut off social services, everyone will be motivated to work harder and we could lower taxes to promote even more hard work, this would lead to more opportunity for everyone and people wouldn’t need social services anymore.
I am still struggling to find the “compassion” but my main point is… is abortion the only thing that is really keeping all these hordes of Christians in the conservative camp or am I missing something? IOW, if the Democratic platform tomorrow shifted and said that abortion was a state issue, would a lot of Christians suddenly become Democrat.
Please to explain exactly what the Bush Doctrine is.
While you’re at it, please to explain what a compassionate conservative is. Is that anything like Peter Rabbit or the tooth fairy?
(I kid, I kid. Sort of. OK, not really.)
They’re compassionate - they just never said for who. Rich people have felt the love for sure the past 5 years. Middle class and poor - not so much.
But the first OP has a very good point. The standards of evidence for this Administration vary wildly. The way the treat climate change and evolution is like if a liberal claimed that missiles all over Iraq were just lawn ornaments, not WMDs at all. Like many true believers of all stripes, reality is this annoying thing that gets in the way.
Kind of. Some Catholics would consider the abortion issue to be the most important and feel compelled to vote that way. I am Catholic and pro-life but I am pro-life across the board; Republicans kill people in a lot of other ways and since I don’t believe they will overturn Roe vs. Wade I wouldn’t vote based on that issue alone; I would probably vote Democrat based on the whole package of issues.
Well, there’s a tortured religious-based explanation for rejection evolution. I’m not saying it makes any sense but it’s there. I’m not aware of any Christian/anti-global warming connection, though. The earth’s either heating up or it’s not, regardless of how old it is; I’ve never heard anyone go one way or the other on the issue as a religious matter.
The Bush Doctrine and Reaganomics are Republican tenets, and they have nothing to do with Christianity.
Or maybe you’re under the impression Christians and Republicans are the same thing?
In answer to the OP I recommend the book What’s the Matter With Kansas? by Thomas Frank, which addresses exactly the question of how the rich Republican elite gained the support of the lower classes. To summarize as best I can, this is another of the Midwest’s trademark Populist rebellions, only this time the GOP managed to distract the masses from the notion that it is money that corrupts. So the masses went to the next best thing: secularism, and anything else not sanctioned by the Christian bible.
The Bush Doctrine is very ironic when you think about his debates during 2000 when he said the U.S. should not be invovled in “nation building” and should be isolationist in its economic policies (i.e. protective tariffs and such).
I know, I know, post 9-11, post 9-11. But if you say that, then you have to admit that Bush was wrong and Gore was right during the debates and then, where does that lead you… the democratic dark side 
LISSA, I think we are as we speak getting an object lesson in the costs of overreaching with the so-called Bush doctrine. But I honestly can’t think of any factor that would send me over to the dark side. I don’t even like the side I’m on – but I like yours worse. 
Quite a few Christians think the End Times are around the corner, so there’s no need to worry about anything in the future, because there isn’t one. This includes gloabl warming and every other environmental problem. There’s even some ( such as James Watt from the Reagan Admin ) who regard it as their Christian duty to destroy all non-human life. They interpet “stewardship over the Earth” as “use up the Earth”, and think that Jesus will come back when everything is dead.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
Science and scientific knowledge includes the possibilty of being wrong, usually just partially wrong, but there is a certain type of person that won’t accept this: they want absolutes and science won’t give them any.
It is this type of person that is currently enabling the power brokers in Washington to push whatever they want through. They only have to use language that doesn’t leave room for error, and ruthlessly attack the credibility of anyone who could raise doubts.
I like how Isaac Asimov put it in one of his essays; many people don’t want a scientist to tell them “There’s a 90% chance that white is white and black is black”. They want someone to tell them “Black is white and white is black, and you’ll go to HELL if you don’t believe it !!”
I like that; I really should read more Asimov.
And what “side” might that be? Perhaps it was not your intent, but I have a bad habit of taking umbrage when someone assumes my political affiliations because I criticized one party.
I’m of the opinion that both parties are nothing but a big steaming pile, and I have no hesitation to criticize either one.
I guess I should have separated this into two separate posts; one for the disconnect between dismissing evolution and global warming based on pretty thin evidence but embracing supply sided economics and the Bush Doctrine on what can generously be described as speculative theories, and another for the disconnect I see (other than on the abortion issue) between all of Christ’s teachings and the overall Republican platform.
You had me for the first two sentences of your post but then I hit a speed bump. Do you have a citation for those statements I quoted? :dubious:
A Straight Dope First: I’m askin’ for a cite!
Damn!