You have grasped the essence.
Regards,
Shodan
Seems to me that Americans voted Bush in after 4 years of incompetance and credible charges of election fraud, mainly based on his stance on the gay marriage issue.
Seems to me that Bush isnt the problem, just a symptom of a much larger issue, which would be widespread ignorance, religious leaders not being held to any kind of academic standard while wielding a tremendous amount of influence via the pulpit.
If you really want to get rid of Bush and his ilk, you need to continue to battle ignorance, donate to organizations that improve education standards, and vote intellectual vs voting moral if you have to prioritize between the two (not an ideal situation)
-
On the “angels” sidelight, perhaps The Black Crowes might throw a little light on the subject?
-
Every advocacy group I’ve ever seen, from ultra-conservative to ultra-liberal and of nearly every single-issue agenda there is, manages to come up with judgments on what’s the “right” way to vote in their own estimation. Rep. Frank doesn’t get high marks from the ACLJ, Sen. Frist from People for the American way.
-
Neither Mr. Bush now, nor Mr. Clinton last decade, deserves/d impeachment for espousing policies that were contrary to the opinions of part of the electorate, or for various subterfuges to mask this as “an impeachable offense.”
IF Mr. Bush is actually taking actions that in some material way subvert the Constitutional rule of law, or IF it is proven that his cronies with his full consent and participation subverted the 2000 or 2004 elections in a clear material way (as Nixon attempted in 1972), then there are grounds to impeach him. Note the capitalized, bolded IFs.
Neither. But I content that two equally-informed voters may reach different conclusions. There is, therefore, NOT one knowledgeable “correct” way to vote, and other ignorant “wrong” ways to vote, as you said.
Er… I also contend that stuff above.
I think you misunderstand me. I’m not saying that any given choice is necessarily ignorant (although it can be). By “ways to vote,” I was referring to how the choice is made, not the choice itself.
If you listen to right-wing radio, though, you’ll definitely hear the contention that voting a certain way is not only “ignorant” and “stupid” but often “immoral” as well.
Cite?
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t quite understand how “insulting” those who believe in demonic possession is insulting all of religion. Do you think it is impossible to be a Christian without believing in demons? Specifically, do you feel that a Christian must believe mental illness is caused by demons because the Bible says so?
Further, since religion is not equivalent to Christianity, are there any religious beliefs that you would not object to calling superstitious? Thor causing thunder? Cargo-cultism?
My old friend the nun who was a Bell Labs research supervisor would be quite insulted if you said her faith required her to believe in demons.
Here’s an example. Other than that you can also just turn on any random broadcast of Hannity or "O’Reilly or Limbaugh.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, noone is entitled to their own facts. -Pat Moynihan. Facts don’t have to be fair and balanced.
The effort to be fair and balanced can just as easily lead to the distortion of the truth as having an agenda.
Well, yes, repeat, no.
I’m no Bible scholar, read maybe 20 books on the subject and that wouldn’t even get me into the Dilletantes Cocktail Party. But it is pretty clear that the earlier Gospels, esp. Mark, place considerable emphasis on demon possession, especially as that form of possession reveals the divinity of Jesus. There are passages the relate demons speaking directly to Jesus and, more or less, begging for mercy. There is mention, in fact, of enemies of Jesus pointing to these occurances as proof that Jesus was of demonic inclination, not angelic. That he would have to be a commissioned officer in the Army of Darkness in order to give orders that would be obeyed.
The later Gospels are more sophisticated and urbane in their approach, far more theological and intellectual. More inclined to think of such magical themes as the kind of thing you use when preaching to the Judean equivalent of white trash. But not the sort of thing you talk about to an urbane, first century Hellenized world citizen. Mattew was a Pentecostal, Paul was a Methodist.
One of the more intriguing NT stories has disciples reporting back to The Boss. They told him that excorcists over in the next county were casting out demons by using His name as a source of power, and that the disciples had busted their chops verily because they weren’t Xtians and had no right to do so. The Boss answered to the effect that the disciples were out of line, and anybody who was trying to do good was on The Team. Don’t fuck with them, they’re Good Guys.
So…would a strict theological interpretation demand that the aforementioned nun accept as a teaching the existence of demons? I think so, but would be perfectly pleased to be overruled by someone who is actually Catholic.
The time to contest an election is immediately after an election not two years later. Sure people were disappointed but Kerry chose not to contest. Whether it was because he thought it would be pointless or because he thought that it would harm an already divided nation, I couldn’t say.
One thing we don’t need is for half the population to say “I told you so” to the other half of the population and act like they deserve an apology.
I never really cared who became President in 2000. There were some questions about the election results in Florida but it didn’t really bother me, I figured how much of a difference could it make, how much harm could they do. Then we had 9/11 and the world changed.
Bush said Osama Bin Laden did it and that Afghanistan was hiding him so we were going to go into Afghanistan to get him, by force if necessary. Some people objected but so far so good. Then Bush said that the war on terror required us to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. Over 80% of America took that to mean (or somehow independently reached the conclusion ) that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11. Officially the primary reason for the invasion is the clear and present danger posed by Iraq. Our legislature is so full of cowards that they pass the legislation by an overwhelming majority even though they KNEW that most of America thought we were going into Iraq for revenge. So we thumb our noses at our closest allies (and the rest of the world) who plead with us not to invade Iraq and we engage in a policy of unilateral pre-emptive invasion on fairly inconclusive information. To top it all off, we execute the occupation so poorly that the rest of the world just sat back and said “I told you so.”
It turns out that all the rationales for the preemptive invasion were wrong. Normally I would say that you go with the information you got and make a decision but if you want to engage in a policy of pre-emptive invasion, you must meet a higher standard (IMHO). Why? Well, aggressive wars are anathema to civilization and require more justification than a defensive or retributory war.
“We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy” - Justice Robert Jackson, The Nuremberg Trials.
I seem to recall the Pubs spent eight years doing that and far worse. And the republic survived . . . ermmm . . . OK, maybe not . . . But we won’t get it back by acquiescence!
Thanks, but I would prefer one that actually proved what you claimed.
Regards,
Shodan
col_10022, welcome to the SDMB! I agree with you about our legislature. But the possibility of voting irregularities continues to concern me. I am not focused on the past, but I am troubled about future elections – especially involving electronic voting machines. I think they may lead to still more cowardly legislators.
You mean, when Coulter calls liberals “godless” she does not mean “immoral”? Please parse that for us. (I would deny “godless” = “immoral,” but Coulter would never even admit to considering that possibility.)
No question that it’s in the Bible. And I can’t speak for her (or for Catholics) but isn’t it reasonable that these demons are treated the same way as the creation story? That demons are symbolic for the true causes of mental illness? She was an engineer, not a psychiatrist, but as far as I can tell if she would confess to believing in this, she would segregate it from her work like I understand many religious scientists do. I’m sure there is at least one devout Catholic psychiatrist out there who treats patients quite well without reference to demons.
Some theologians conceptualize “demons” as being symbols for…well, for inner demons. Stuff like rage, greed, jealousy, hate, lust – negative emotions or drives which are spiritually crippling and impede one’s access to God.
Pretty much an inevitable progression, isn’t it? You start in talking about Bush, you end up, sooner or later, with demonology. Has anyone ever seen his head, shaved? Just sayin’, is all.