Author Topic: Republicans and evangelicals  (Read 37221 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Republicans and evangelicals
« Reply #15 on: October 11, 2006, 10:33:34 PM »
Ah, but you CAN choose to be or not to be gay. It is not genetic, regardless of the propaganda being spewed from the MSM and pro-gay community.

If I was pro-gay, then I would be a hypocrite, jsut like in the referenced article since the Word of God clearly indicates this is a real no-no.
__________________________
I knew kids back in 2nd grade that we called "Tony-Marys" for lack of another term.  The little boy who plays with the girls, who likes to swing and knows all the jump-rope rhymes? Who loves to braid hair?  I think age 7 is pretty certainly a kid who didn't chose anything, except maybe whether he'd eat all his school lunch.
Is there any one sin that is worse than any other?
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

The_Professor

  • Guest
Re: Republicans and evangelicals
« Reply #16 on: October 11, 2006, 11:24:26 PM »
Sin is sin. Choice is choice. Choice can = sin.

Lanya: "Is there any one sin that is worse than any other?"

Does it matter? So, you ARE acknowledging that homosexuality is a sin?

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Republicans and evangelicals
« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2006, 12:57:17 AM »
No, I'm not acknowledging that homosexuality is a choice.  I think it is not at all a choice, any more than brown eyes are a choice.

 The bible says it's a sin.  That I acknowledge, although I don't know why. (I don't agree either.)  Because it doesn't lead to childbirth?
 So is lying, not forgiving others, letting the sun set on your anger...etc.  All sins. 
  I'm not going to be a part of legislating against sin, because then I would have to put an awful lot of people in jail for not helping their brother and his family out when the brother got sick. 

Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Republicans and evangelicals
« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2006, 04:53:22 PM »
I would encourage you to take a realistic look at both parties.  See under which party the country has prospered the most.

I have; that's why I usually vote Republican.

=============================================
This is just stupid and if you actually knew the economic history of the US you could not come to this lame conclusion.

A two party system would not be an entirely bad idea if neither of the two parties were the Republicans. The GOP sucks, anmd has pretty much sucked since TR left it in 1912.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Republicans and evangelicals
« Reply #19 on: October 12, 2006, 05:53:59 PM »
This is just stupid and if you actually knew the economic history of the US you could not come to this lame conclusion.

Unlike "Mr. Obvious" (who is frequently wrong), I have. In the latter half of the 20th century, the country has done better economically under a Republican president than under a Democrat president.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Republicans and evangelicals
« Reply #20 on: October 13, 2006, 10:20:36 AM »
Quote
I think it is not at all a choice, any more than brown eyes are a choice.

Out of curiosity, to those who do not think it is a choice, why would someone make the choice to be a homosexual?

Why would a kid in high school choose to suffer through a living hell every day by making a conscious choice to be gay?

I ask because I thought the same thing at one time. Yet, my wife had a friend when she was in high school who was gay. She went to a high school that was 100% white and let's just say not very tolerant to anyone who wasn't a standard WASP. This kid lived in terror every day. The jocks beat the shit out of him on a regular basis, his church ostracized him, and most of the community (small southern town) simply showed revulsion and did little to hide it.

So why would anyone choose that?
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Republicans and evangelicals
« Reply #21 on: October 13, 2006, 01:38:04 PM »
we called "Tony-Marys" for lack of another term.  The little boy who plays with the girls, who likes to swing and knows all the jump-rope rhymes? Who loves to braid hair?  I think age 7 is pretty certainly a kid who didn't chose anything, except maybe whether he'd eat all his school lunch.
Is there any one sin that is worse than any other?

I recall back in elemetary school, most of my friends were girls, it was always easier to talk to the girls, one of my best friends was a girl, and I was the only boy invited to her birthday party.  I'll concede I wasn't into braiding hair, but with my history, what went wrong with me, Lanya?  Am I a mutation?
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Republicans and evangelicals
« Reply #22 on: October 13, 2006, 01:40:11 PM »
Out of curiosity, to those who do not think it is a choice, why would someone make the choice to be a homosexual? Why would a kid in high school choose to suffer through a living hell every day by making a conscious choice to be gay?

Why does someone choose to commit adultery?  Why does someone choose to have sex even before they're in their teens?  Why does someone choose to take up S&M?  All of those acts have a plethora of negative connotations, if such information was learned by those around you, not to mention the general populace, so why would anyone chose to put themselves thru those versions of ostrasization?
« Last Edit: October 13, 2006, 02:26:39 PM by sirs »
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Mucho

  • Guest
You might be right, Lanya. Even the stupidest Evang should wake up after this.
« Reply #23 on: October 13, 2006, 02:22:02 PM »

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-faith13oct13,1,7912875.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
Book: Bush Aides Called Evangelicals 'Nuts'
White House advisors sought the support of conservative Christians but mocked them in private, writes a onetime administration official.
By Peter Wallsten
Times Staff Writer

October 13, 2006

WASHINGTON — A new book by a former White House official says that President Bush's top political advisors privately ridiculed evangelical supporters as "nuts" and "goofy" while embracing them in public and using their votes to help win elections.

The former official also writes that the White House office of faith-based initiatives, which Bush promoted as a nonpolitical effort to support religious social-service organizations, was told to host pre-election events designed to mobilize religious voters who would most likely favor Republican candidates.

The assertions by David Kuo, a top official in the faith-based initiatives program, have rattled Republican strategists already struggling to persuade evangelical voters to turn out this fall for the GOP.

Some conservatives lamented Thursday that the book, "Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction," also comes in the midst of the scandal involving former Rep. Mark Foley, another threat to conservative turnout in competitive House and Senate races.

The book is scheduled to be in stores Monday, but the White House responded to its assertions Thursday.

In the book, Kuo, who quit the White House in 2003, accuses Karl Rove's political staff of cynically hijacking the faith-based initiatives idea for electoral gain. It assails Bush for failing to live up to his promises of boosting the role of religious organizations in delivering social services.

White House strategists "knew 'the nuts' were politically invaluable, but that was the extent of their usefulness," Kuo writes, according to the cable channel MSNBC, which obtained an advance copy.

"Sadly, the political affairs folks complained most often and most loudly about how boorish many politically involved Christians were…. National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous' and 'out of control.' ''

It is unclear whether Kuo identifies any specific official as having used the dismissive language.

The book says that before the 2002 elections, then-White House political director Ken Mehlman issued "marching orders" to use the faith-based initiative in 20 House and Senate races, according to MSNBC. To avoid appearing overtly political, Mehlman said his staff would arrange for congressional offices to request visits from the faith-based program officials.

Throughout the 2002 and 2004 campaigns, faith-based officials would meet with lawmakers in some places in an effort to generate publicity for them, while also hosting conferences in battleground states attracting hundreds of pastors and community activists eager to learn how to apply for federal grants.

A spokeswoman for Mehlman, who is now chairman of the Republican National Committee, said he did not recall the directives mentioned by Kuo. As political director, she said, "it was Mehlman's job to both engage outside groups and inform decision makers in the White House about support for the president's agenda."

Kuo is scheduled to appear Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes" as part of a rollout arranged by his publisher, Simon & Schuster, which shares a corporate parent with CBS.

Despite a publisher-enforced embargo, a copy of the book was purchased early at a Manhattan bookstore by a producer for MSNBC's "Countdown," a spokesman for the cable channel said. Program host Keith Olbermann began reading excerpts on his Wednesday show.

Kuo's descriptions could do political damage to a Republican Party that has staked its formula for success on motivating the conservative base.

"Here we go again," said Paul M. Weyrich, a leading religious conservative with close ties to the White House, referring to the avalanche of negative factors that he predicted would keep "embarrassed Republicans" from voting, just as the Watergate scandal did in the 1970s. "If Republicans win, it will prove God is a Republican, since it will take a miracle."

Weyrich said Kuo, while still a White House official, told him of frustrations that the faith-based program had become entangled in politics. The initiative had been a signature proposal by Bush in the 2000 campaign but lost momentum amid partisan battles on Capitol Hill and the intense focus on security after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Weyrich said that Bush and many of his aides were genuinely interested in the program. But, he added, "I don't have any illusions about Rove. I think that he advocates conservatism because he believes it's the way to win."

The White House denied Kuo's account with help Thursday from two former officials popular among evangelicals — former speechwriter Michael Gerson and former faith-based initiative director Jim Towey.

Gerson called Kuo's account "laughable," while Towey cited a December 2002 e-mail from Kuo expressing positive feelings about the program's progress in promoting "compassionate conservatism."

"He doesn't seem to have been working at the same White House where I worked," Towey said. "I had marching orders from the president to keep the faith-based initiative nonpolitical, and I did."

Still, neither Gerson nor Towey denied Kuo's assertion that politics did factor into the initiative.

"Ken Mehlman was doing his job, which was to worry about races," said Towey, who is currently president of St. Vincent College, a Catholic school in Pennsylvania.

Towey's travel took him to a number of battleground states in 2002, but he said that he also visited places such as Boston that were not important to the GOP's electoral goals.

And in addition to meetings with Republicans, he said he appeared in public with Democrats such as former Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakots, who was running for reelection, and Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. of Tennessee, who is running this year for the Senate.

Kuo is not the first insider to accuse the White House of politicizing the faith-based program. John J. DiIulio Jr., the first director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, resigned after seven months and was quoted as saying that the White House was run by "Mayberry Machiavellians" who sometimes put politics ahead of other causes.

While many Democrats opposed the initiative as a violation of church-state separation, the White House used the program to build alliances with prominent African American ministers, some of whom switched political allegiances to back Bush. It was part of a larger minority outreach program designed by Rove and other conservative activists to slice off pieces of the traditional Democratic coalitions in order to build a lasting GOP majority.

peter.wallsten@latimes.com


 

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Republicans and evangelicals
« Reply #24 on: October 13, 2006, 02:26:26 PM »
Quote
Why does someone choose to commit adultery?  Why does someone choose to have sex even before they're in their teens?  Why does someone choose to take up S&M?

Adultery is not a parallel. After all, a committed homosexual couple could have one partner who cheats. The reasoning behind adulterous relationships is many and varied. We tend, probably due to our Christian heritage and our legal system, persecute the one committing adultery. I'm not so sure that's always appropriate. There are probably cases where adultery is an opportunity or an escape from an awful relationship for another person. Yet, that has little to do with the question at hand.

Before they are in their teens? I have no idea. Why do teenagers have sex? Biology. Rampaging hormones instructing them to procreate. Shit, when I was a teenager I probably didn't go 5 seconds without thinking about the ladies. Still has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Why does someone choose to take up S&M? I'm not sure. I'd say there are many psychological factors having to do with power, pain, and other issues. Again, this has nothing to do with my question.

Why would someone subject themselves to a torturous existence if they had a choice?

Your examples have nothing to do with that. Adultery is generally hidden and it is a choice. There is no debate about that. Fornication is not reprimanded by society. If anything is teenage society it is generally applauded. S & M is likely psychological in nature (though I suppose it could have a biological aspect) and is also generally hidden.




 
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Republicans and evangelicals
« Reply #25 on: October 13, 2006, 02:44:05 PM »
Adultery is not a parallel. 

Of course it is.  It's a choice, being made by an individual, with the cooperation of another individual.  Same as 2 homosexual folks. 

committed homosexual couple could have one partner who cheats

Of course......more choices.  I never implied cheating was restricted to heterosexual couples.  The point being, that deliniating choices can be applied to pretty much any & everything not genetically inheirent.  Until someone can find us a homosexual gene (and I realize how hard Science is trying to do that), it's still a choice, just as all those other ostrasizable acts
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Republicans and evangelicals
« Reply #26 on: October 13, 2006, 02:54:46 PM »
So people choose to be shunned by society, even to the point of being physically attacked?

This makes logical sense to you?
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8009
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Republicans and evangelicals
« Reply #27 on: October 13, 2006, 03:12:20 PM »
I`m not sure it`s a choice
I choose to  go the the fulsom leather festival.
and learned pretty much I`m as straight as they come
I can`t make myself be attracted to men.
how can it be a choice if I don`t find men attractive?
p.s. leather does not look good on the majority of people.
brrr.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Republicans and evangelicals
« Reply #28 on: October 13, 2006, 03:34:46 PM »
So people choose to be shunned by society, even to the point of being physically attacked?  This makes logical sense to you?

Of course not.  Neither is it logical for folks to commit adultery, risking not just hurt feeling, but bodily harm by the person's significant other, if found out.  Kinda helping to reinforce my point, Js
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Republicans and evangelicals
« Reply #29 on: October 13, 2006, 03:46:39 PM »
So people choose to be shunned by society, even to the point of being physically attacked?  This makes logical sense to you?

Of course not.  Neither is it logical for folks to commit adultery, risking not just hurt feeling, but bodily harm by the person's significant other, if found out.  Kinda helping to reinforce my point, Js
___________________________

Sirs, your mind works in intricate and fascinating ways. 

-sigh-
OK, do you think you could choose to be attracted to a man?  Because I don't think I could be attracted to a woman if I tried.  And there are naked photos of women in magazines I've seen.  Almost naked women at beaches, or used in advertisements, etc.
It's just not happening, it's not gonna happen, and choice is not a factor.  DESIRE can't be chosen.  You either feel it, or you don't.     I don't even understand how you can think it's a choice. 
If it's a choice, does that mean heterosexuals make the same choice? "By God, I think I'm gonna like boys!" I didn't say that to  myself when hormornes started raging. 
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.