News Surprising Change in Government: Separation of Church & State

[sid_galt]

I never thought I would see this day. Oh well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/21/AR2006032101723.html"

Granted that previous administrations gave taxpayer money to organizations allied with them, atleast on social issues, it promoted the separation of the church and state - the reduction of government. Now we have a president who is actively trying to put fundamentalism into American politics and way of life.
The sooner he and his fellow religious Republicans are kicked out, the better.

 

[Gokul43201]

I never thought I would see this day. Oh well.

Me neither.

That looks like the first complete turnaround that I've seen from anyone here. And it looks like it took a promotion of incompetence and a debasement of the value of truth and reason (by the administration) to tip the scales (I'm conjecturing).

The question now would be, would a McCain or Guiliani do the same thing ?

A while ago, I would have confidently said "no", but McCain's recent alliance with Falwell (no doubt to help win the primary) has left a very sour taste in my mouth.

 

[sanchecl]

Give money to churches or give money to teacher's unions. When it comes to managing the public purse, both parties stink! John Kerry and Hiliary Clinton's largest complaint against the current administration's spending addiction is that Bush isn't spending enough (The Economist. April 22, 2006, pg 9).

Two problems facing the US: first, the current administration is worse than we thought it would be. Second, the alternative seems intent on assuring the voting public that considering their party instead of the incumbent is a bad idea (Cynthis McKinney comes to mind for starters). Too bad on both counts! Looks like things will stay messy for a while.

 

[edward]

The giving of money to the churches is more about getting votes for the republicans from the church goers than anything. The fundamentalist vote has been the "swing vote" for the Republicans.

The situation is actually the opposite of what it seems. The administration knows the key trigger point beliefs held by the fundamentalists, and they play them to the hilt. Bush is not a fundamentalist by any means.

With the upcoming midterm elections we will be seeing the gay marriage issue popping up again. In the case of the immigration issue the Republicans are already running Democrat bashing ads on Spanish speaking radio stations in the Southwest.

From the link:

"These are just slush funds for conservative interest groups,"

The Karl Rovian tactics are up and running.

 

[sid_galt]

That looks like the first complete turnaround that I've seen from anyone here. And it looks like it took a promotion of incompetence and a debasement of the value of truth and reason (by the administration) to tip the scales (I'm conjecturing).

It's not only the incompetence. Clinton was incompetent. Carter was incompetent. But the Religious Right is attacking the very fundamental principles of the founding of America - the separation of Church and State.
Not to mention his war against science. So yes, it is his total rejection of truth and reason that has turned me off.

 

[sid_galt]

The situation is actually the opposite of what it seems. The administration knows the key trigger point beliefs held by the fundamentalists, and they play them to the hilt. Bush is not a fundamentalist by any means.

I don't think Bush is a pragmatist. If he had been, he would never have been so serious in pushing against the separation of church and state. It is precisely because he is a fundamentalist that he is dangerous.
Why do you think for instance that Bush is virtually not doing anything to improve his poll ratings? If he had been a pragmatist, he would have.

 

[loseyourname]

Bush doesn't have to improve his poll ratings. He's never again going to have to get elected. Something tells me he's just trying to cement a place in history and doesn't really care any further what the public of today thinks about him. He seems as convinced as anyone I've ever seen that what he is doing is right. As admirable as that can be when what one is doing actually is right, that makes for a fairly dangerous man, given the power at his disposal.

Regarding gay marriage, I doubt that'll come up again of the accord of republicans. It came up the first time because of Gavin Newsome and the Massachusetts Supreme Court. It was reactionary. They won't be so blatant as to make an issue out of it for no reason. San Fran and Mass gave them an excuse; unless that happens again, they have no excuse. Something else will occur that will give them the occasion to pontificate and pander to the religious right; they won't need to repeat themselves. I'm surprised no one but Bill O'Reilly has jumped on the lenient sentencing in these teacher/student sex cases.

 

[scott1]

What's worng with funding reilgous organizations? The money is going to be used for charity so they can help people and it has to be for everone.This isn't a good reason to vote democrat.

 

[BobG]

I never thought I would see this day. Oh well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/21/AR2006032101723.html"

Granted that previous administrations gave taxpayer money to organizations allied with them, atleast on social issues, it promoted the separation of the church and state - the reduction of government. Now we have a president who is actively trying to put fundamentalism into American politics and way of life.
The sooner he and his fellow religious Republicans are kicked out, the better.

That is a big turn around, although I wouldn't go quite as far as to abandon the Republican Party ... yet. It is a battle between the 'traditional' Republicans (traditional in the sense of which philosophies tended to dominate the Republican platform) and a more powerful religious right.

From a political sense, the religious right has done it right. They've mobilized their constituency and ensured there's always a heavy turnout of religious right voters. The religious right is more loyal to their candidate than most voting groups - how many other groups would stay loyal to a politician that's made as many mistakes as Bush has (in fact, the most dangerous facet of the religious right is that competence becomes a secondary consideration).

They've also managed to package their beliefs well. Consider the 'Laci Peterson law' where a person can be charged with murder of an unborn child. Emotionally, it's a winner with a large segment of the population, including pro-choice women who don't realize they're undermining the entire principle of 'pro-choice' - the idea that a fetus isn't a human until the moment of birth and has no rights.

The religious right has made themselves into a group Republican politicians have to pay attention to. Whether 'mainstream' Republican or Democrat, the rivals of the religious right have to step up their game - and Democrats haven't shown any more sign of that than moderate Republicans.

And when you consider the chances of more conservative Democrats like Ben Nelson, Ken Salazar, et al, gaining any significance in the Democratic Party, it's still worth it to wait and see what happens. Who knows, maybe the rest of the Republican Party will get its act together.

And as far as Clinton goes, he may have had a slimy personality and I may have been glad to see him go, but he wasn't incompetent - in fact, he might rank slightly above average. He wound up being a President of small accomplishments (with one of those being a needed reform of welfare; although a Republican Congress probably put Clinton in the position where it was best to embrace the changes rather than fight them).

 

[edward]

Originally Posted by edward
The situation is actually the opposite of what it seems. The administration knows the key trigger point beliefs held by the fundamentalists, and they play them to the hilt. Bush is not a fundamentalist by any means.

I don't think Bush is a pragmatist. If he had been, he would never have been so serious in pushing against the separation of church and state. It is precisely because he is a fundamentalist that he is dangerous.
Why do you think for instance that Bush is virtually not doing anything to improve his poll ratings? If he had been a pragmatist, he would have.

I see your point, Bush is a political fundamentalist. I was referring to Bush not being a religious fundamentalist. It may appear to some that he is, but from my experience with family mermbers who are Christian fundamentalists, Bush does not qualify.

Odd thing is, there is a point where some political and religious fundamentalist ideologies overlap. Those are the "trigger points" that the Rovian doctrine has used to be sure of getting the vote of the fundamentalist religious right.

 

[SOS2008]

The religious-right agenda is by no means dead, but pushing forward with initiatives in South Dakota, more recently Georgia, etc. I would not be surprised to see props on ballots regarding same-sex marriage, flag burning, etc. to get the Christo-Fascists to the polls.

As for Rove, his so-called demotion to focus on the 2006 elections should be very much of concern. Not only will he continue ads in Spanish (already known to be very successful in 2004), and slinging swift boat type untruths at Democrats, but he will find ways to leverage terrorism for continued success with "governing by fear" tactics.

But can the Repugs win back the biggest voting block of all, the elderly? Along with the elderly, even the Christo-Fascists are unhappy about Iraq and the looming energy crisis (at least anyway, when the price goes up at the pumps). Bush can't shake his mistakes in Iraq, or common knowledge that he is an oil man who's largest supporter is Exxon-Mobil.

 

[edward]

I can see Rove manipulating the high price of gasoline into: The price of gasoline is high because Democrats didn't support the war. Or for that matter he will make a connection between most anything that democrats did or didn't do and transform it into some frorm of scare tactic or illusion.

 

[Gokul43201]

Regarding gay marriage, I doubt that'll come up again of the accord of republicans. It came up the first time because of Gavin Newsome and the Massachusetts Supreme Court. It was reactionary. They won't be so blatant as to make an issue out of it for no reason. San Fran and Mass gave them an excuse; unless that happens again, they have no excuse.

What if they did bring it up; what if they did make an issue of it again ?

Contrary to your hopes LYN, the GOP just recently decided on the top three legislative issues to focus on for the rest of this year : (i) a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage, (ii) anti-flag-burning legislation, and (iii) new abortion limits.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-15-senate-gop_x.htm

Social issues top GOP pre-election agenda
Updated 4/15/2006 11:26 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — Protection of marriage amendment? Check. Anti-flag burning legislation? Check. New abortion limits? Check.

Between now and the November elections, Republicans are penciling in plans to take action on social issues important to religious conservatives, the foundation of the GOP base, as they defend their congressional majority.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/13/gay.marriage/

Monday, February 13, 2006; Posted: 7:17 p.m. EST (00:17 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday he plans a vote in early June on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, a move likely to fail but sure to spark a fiery election-year debate.

 

[edward]

What if they did bring it up; what if they did make an issue of it again ?

Contrary to your hopes LYN, the GOP just recently decided on the top three legislative issues to focus on for the rest of this year : (i) a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage, (ii) anti-flag-burning legislation, and (iii) new abortion limits.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-15-senate-gop_x.htm



http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/13/gay.marriage/

I agree, it worked in the past and the gay marriage issue is still a hot issue with the religious right. Rove will throw in everything but the kitchen sink in the 2006 elections, including gay marriage, gay adoption, and terrorism.

 

[SOS2008]

It's amazingly sad. The religious radicals can't see past their self-righteous noses to consider what will make a bigger difference in the long run for their children, and children's children. How will future generations afford to live with rising health care costs, energy costs, or ever own a home unless educated to compete in the new global economy? How will the economy continue to sustain record deficits and foreign debt? How will they live in a planet being destroyed by global warming? Not to mention the continued chipping away at the Constitution/Bill of Rights and checks and balances that preserve our democratic way of life.

Those who prevent important issues from being debated and addressed are the real evil doers and domestic enemy to be feared. I only hope the public has become alarmed enough about the truly important issues to prevent these idiots from dominating election debate again in 2006 or 2008.

 

[loseyourname]

What if they did bring it up; what if they did make an issue of it again ?

Contrary to your hopes LYN, the GOP just recently decided on the top three legislative issues to focus on for the rest of this year : (i) a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage, (ii) anti-flag-burning legislation, and (iii) new abortion limits.

Well, I could always be wrong then. If they do make an issue of this through the media, I think they'll have miscalculated. They won't have the overt actions of a so-called "gay agenda" to react to this time; at least I'm assuming they won't. You never know.

 

[Entropy]

What's worng with funding reilgous organizations? The money is going to be used for charity so they can help people and it has to be for everone.This isn't a good reason to vote democrat.

Then why not just give the money to charity? This money is going into building big shiney golden crosses and stained glass portraits.

 

[SOS2008]

Regarding Bush's Faith Based Initiatives and/or other similar policy:

1) Charities can be tax exempt as long as they abide by Separation of Church and State premises -- Non-profit organizations are not allowed to become involved in politics, and it is important to keep it this way. However, many of these churches are fighting to remove this IRS law. They want to remain tax exempt in regard to donations, but still be able to endorse candidates and organize block voting (which they do anyway, but under the radar).

We are debating how legitimate political campaigns raise money and how to reform against abuses (e.g., Abramoff). I don't even want to imagine what it would be like if churches, which use religious emotion, could become a PAC without scrutiny (they don't have to provide financial reports).

2) Bush's programs favor Christianity, which is contrary to basic premises against discrimination and tolerance for all religions. But most of all this is contrary to Separation of Church and State in which the government is not to embrace a particular religion.

3) There is a long list of abuses by churches in regard to how donations are raised and used. Mainstream charities, such as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc., have long established accountability in place to prevent fraud.

When a special interest group such as the religious right gains the kind of power that it has under Bush within one of our two major parties, I think it is a very serious matter. Many of these fundamentalists want a Christian theocracy so they can force their personal beliefs on the rest of the citizenry. There are reasons why our founding fathers created various forms of checks and balances, for example to ensure that a majority does not override the rights of a minority.

With the religious right having so much power within the Republican party, I think it's plenty good reason to vote Democrat -- to prevent these folks from having a majority in Congress.