"O God" . . . ???? What is this -- a religious relival meeting or a political convention?

[defendandprotect]

"We pray - Amen" . . . ???

Took this break to acknowledge "god" . . . ???


Evidently, "god" is running the housing/mortgage crisis . . . ???


Boy . . . is there a lot wrong with this convention . . . !!!

[grannie4peace]

1. no

[IndyOp]

2. I am willing to put up with the prayer at the start of an event until someone rewrites the

words to the militaristic "Star Spangled Banner"

The rockets red glare,
Bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night
That our flag was still there.

Oh, say does that
Star spangled banner yet wave,
O'er the land of the free,
And the home of the brave.

:(

[meow2u3]

10. The Star-Spangled Banner was written circa the War of 1812

Last time I checked, that war was necessary to repel a British invasion, the only war ever fought on American soil against a foreign power. THE definition of a just war.

I don't like military action myself. But We the People have a right to defend ourselves from belligerent foreigners who want to kick us out of our own homes.

[damntexdem]

18. And the rockets and bombs in the poem were coming from the British.

The U.S. didn't mount much of a successful defense, only survived -- until it achieved a major military victory after the war was declared over.

Actually, had the British won at New Orleans, they likely would have tried to continue occupation of the city, so as to choke off trade from the entire (then) west of the U.S. But that was all after the poem was written, anyway.

[AZ Criminal JD]

76. You sound disappointed in the outcome.

[Courtesy Flush]

82. Then we'd all be speaking British

:rofl:

[defendandprotect]

30. Celebrating a revolution is one thing . . . celebrating war another . . . having children sing

about bombs is still another ---

But We the People have a right to defend ourselves from belligerent foreigners who want to kick us out of our own homes.

And, considering the fact that we were commiting genocide against the native Americans ---
the true occupants of this nation -- at the very same time that we were fighting to free
ourselves from colony/King . . .

I'd say the whole "definition of a just war" is probably a wash!

All you're saying here is that the most violent people WIN . . . !!!


And, not all that long ago, we were fighting in Vietnam - blasting away with bombs/napalm --
in order to keep that tiny nation in chains -- while we again stole resources.

[Ex Lurker]

56. and the Native Americans were

warring amongst themselves, kicking each other out of their homes, and enslaving other groups long before the Europeans reached these shores. That doesn't make it right, but the European invasion was hardly unique. It's what humans have done to each other since the beginning of time.

[Hugabear]

61. Please...do not even try to justify how we mistreated the Native Americans

I'm so sick and tired of that bullshit rationality. "Everyone else was doing it, so why not us"

Maybe so, but you won't find very many instances that match the scale of what we did to the Native Americans. We're not talking about a small tract of land, we're talking an entire fucking continent. I don't recall Native American tribes giving each other smallpox-riddled blankets.

[Ex Lurker]

62. I'm not justifying anything

but history is what it is. The Europeans had the technology, so they won. That's all. If they had never fired a shot in anger, their culture would still have overwhelmed the natives--it's all about demographics and technological advantages, and it was a foregone conclusion from the time the first Spaniard set foot on Hispaniola. That theme has been repeated throughout history. It was on a grand scale, but the Mongols and Huns both conquered more territory in less time. There's nothing unique about it. It's what ethnic and national groups have always done to each other, and it continues to this day.

[defendandprotect]

117. Amazing that anyone would even try to sell that crap any more . .. but they do!!!

When it comes to barbarians, it was the Western European riddled with disease and filth

who introduced hatred and violence here ---

They've turned a paradise into a hell ---

in their own image!

[defendandprotect]

116. Of course . . . the only civilized human beings were the Western European invaders . . . !!!

What societies anywhere didn't have their tribal arguments?

Native Americans were NOT enslaving others --- as the Columbus journals so well
suggest they were called "in deo" -- which translates to "People of God" because
of their gentleness -- which is why THEY were enslaved ---

along with a Papal Bull to push that idea . . . !!! "Enslave them or kill them" . .

And when we get to "scalpers" guess who they might also have been . . . ???

"Squaw" is the word for "vagina" ... guess who was calling their women that?

Keeping their children from breast milk -- telling them it was no good because
it was "blue."

Kidnapping their children and sending them off to Christian missions schools runs
by Catholics and Mormons!!! Another hit on the organized patriarchal parade into
sexual abuse of children ---

TORTURE, BEATINGS, MURDER . . . yeah, it was all there at those schools, as well!


As the native American has said . . .

"When they came, we had the land and they had the book --
when they left, we had the book and they had the land --"


And, no . . . humans have not been violent with one another since the beginning of time --

they have been violent with one another since patriarchy took over, overturning

female-centered societies with violence.


Since then, males have been creating a world in their own image --

a world of VIOLENCE, DESTRUCTION, PAIN and their "sky god" is symbolic of that violence.

[EFerrari]

53. Sure, but do we have to sing about it for the next two hundred years?

lol

[Swamp Rat]

58. LOL!

:rofl: :hi: :hug:

[EFerrari]

60. Como estamos?

:hi:
:hug:

[damntexdem]

12. Well, actually, F.S. Key's poem was about a weak power being bullied by a militaristic empire ...

and surviving. The song has been used so often to glorify our own bullying of weaker opponents that we tend to forget the origins. The British sailed up the Chesapeake, burnt Washington, and were bombarding the defenses of Baltimore. Then they declared 'mission accomplished' and left. The war was then settled by negotiations, followed by a U.S. victory in the major Battle of New Orleans, after the peace treaty had been signed.

[defendandprotect]

32. Violence won another day and we proceeded on . ..

to commit genocide against the native Americans, who home this was.

Not too long ago, we fought to keep Vietnam from gaining its independence --

How do we yet shun truth; how hypocritical are we still?

[dysfunctional press]

14. do you know the history of the poem?

and what the rockets red glare/bombs bursting in air are referring to?

if not, you might(sorry to use so militaristic a word, btw) want to read up on it.

[damntexdem]

20. They were bombing a fort.

Its name might have been McHenry; but I might be misremembering. Not itself something worth looking up. The important thing was that the then major imperial power in the world sailed up into the U.S., burned the capital (including the Capitol), and were then trying to force the defenders of one of the major cities to surrender. They had little more luck than the U.S. has had in some of its more stupid imperialistic invasions.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

91. That's true.

They had little more luck than the U.S. has had in some of its stupid imperialistic invasions, such as the time we imperialistically invaded Canada, precipitating the British to sail up into the U.S. and burn down Washington D.C.

[janetblond]

3. a revival? Oh noooooooooo! They're not!! OMG!!

Whoever's running this convention is an idiot!
The music yesterday was AWFUL!

[defendandprotect]

33. Is it the job of the Democratic Party to "acknowledge" ..... "god" . . . ????

[Greyhound]

55. Cronyism/nepotism sucks no matter which side engages in it.

Wonder why so many huge companies produce such unmitigated crap? There ya go.

Imagine if Paris had elected to work for a living and was running granddad's business...

[Township75]

4. NPR had a big story yesterday about how Obama and the Dems are going to make this convention...

Faith Friendly, largely because Obama is open and comfortable with his own faith, as well as those of others.

There is nothing wrong with this convention. Obama is just doing what he does best: being himself, breaking down barriers, and getting ready to demolish the repubs in the upcoming campaign.

[defendandprotect]

34. Again . .. do you think it's the role of the Democrats to ACKNOWLEDGE . . . "god" . . . ???

[AZ Criminal JD]

78. Short answer: Yes.

[Indenturedebtor]

5. They're going after the fundy base... I wonder if it will work.... n/t

[BeHereNow]

7. No, it won't work. Not enough declarations of smiting innocent people.

Fundies only come running if they think gays or brown people
will be targeted for some old fashioned public stoning.

Obama hasn't hinted at anything bloody enough for the fundie cultists.

That's why they remain at worship to the altar of McSame.

BHN

[damntexdem]

21. Forget the fundie base, other than for minor defections from the GOP.

The aim is at great numbers of Americans who are not fundie but who think that they should be, or who in fact are, 'religious.' If it gets them to open their ears to messages about the economy, rights, and peace, so much the better.

[Goblinmonger]

75. Yeah, hell

who cares about helping the theocracy gain hold if it gets us a few votes.

[krabigirl]

29. No way will it work. They should give it up now.

[defendandprotect]

35. Yeah . . . when you inherit the crazies, you may get votes --- but what are you encouraging?

[Indenturedebtor]

36. My concern as well... look what they did to the pukes n/t

[defendandprotect]

47. Look what they've done to science . . .schools . . . medicine . . .intelligence . . . !!!

[qwlauren35]

65. No, really, they are NOT going after Republicans.

They are going after Southern and Midwestern Democrats who have religious roots AND a Democratic mindset.

This notion that only Republicans support public prayer is a crock.

[Indenturedebtor]

67. Well you don't have to be a puke to be a fundie :( n/t

[NYCGirl]

6. You do realize that the Senate opens with a prayer EVERY WORK DAY, right? NT

[kirby]

8. How unconstitutional is that! n/t

[NYCGirl]

9. Well, they've been doing it for over 200 years and no one's complained yet, I guess.

[JackRiddler]

13. No, people have been complaining about religious bullshit the whole time...

Unfortunately, the religiously conditioned majority don't only seem to ignore the complaints - they apparently do not even perceive them.

[NYCGirl]

15. Really, so which Senator proposed to stop the morning prayer? NT

[kirby]

24. Does it matter???

The Bill of Rights is not subject to the whims of the majority. They are rights for everyone, including the minority, be they agnostic, athiest, or even those who are relogious but understand the separation between church and state.

Here is something from James Madison:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents should discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense. How small a contribution from each member of Congress would suffice for the purpose? How just wouldd it be in its principle? How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience? Why should the expense of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Govt

Were the establishment to be tried by its fruits, are not the daily devotions conducted by these legal Ecclesiastics, already degenerating into a scanty attendance, and a tiresome formality?

Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex: or to class it cum "maculis quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura."


*From Madison's Detached Memoranda drafted sometime after 1817.

[JackRiddler]

25. Ah, I see. Only Senators get to speak. Well then, I'll respect my feudal lords and STFU.

[defendandprotect]

48. Of course, people have complained . . . no one mentioned it to you, that's all . . .

[Luminous Animal]

66. Well, actually...

there was quite a ruckus a couple of years ago when the Senate was opened with a Hindu prayer.

[NYCGirl]

81. They've done Buddhist and Muslim prayers, too. NT

[VP505]

11. Yes they do, too bad that

few of them genuinely have the integrity for it to be anything but for show.

[Scout]

17. you got it. it's a show. and not just for politicians.

there's a lot of religious people who don't live and truly believe, but when asked outright will claim to be religious.

i think it's because they don't have the gonads to be their true selves, and just have to follow along and do what's expected and "normal."

[defendandprotect]

37. Yes -- and taxpayers pay quite a bit for those services . . . !!!

As I recall this --- and I haven't heard much about it in 10 years or more ---

the Senate Chaplain made at least what the Senators all made --- with full benefits ---

and taxpayers pay his salary.

It's always been "he's" . . .

And they always refer to a male "god."


Oddly enough, in the USHR the Chaplain made out even better -- for some reason his salary

was more than $325,000 per year -- paid by taxpayers with full benefits ---

One of them was regularly traveling around DC in a limo every day ---


My opinion is that if the reps want prayer that they have a chapel --- and should use it.

And that if they want a Chaplain, THEY should pay for it --

We could VOLUNTEER OUT these services and have spiritual leaders --- a different one every

day -- gender balanced --- speak in the Senate and House.

Wake up, America !!!

[TwilightZone]

16. Is this your first convention?

This is pretty standard fare.

[defendandprotect]

38. It's standard as to latter years . . .

as everything has been corrupted since the '63 coup on government . . .

What's the earliestd convention you recall?

[spoony]

69. Read this: from the 1856 Democratic National Convention

http://tinyurl.com/55gs2m

This is the earliest convention from which I could find proceedings. I suspect the case would be the same from the earliest in 1832. This is not new.

[Postman]

19. Who needs rw religous screwballs when we have the party of "change"?

Gimme a break.

[SammyWinstonJack]

74. !

:thumbsup: :evilgrin:

[TreasonousBastard]

22. Both. This is...

a democracy and in a democracy...

You have to get more votes than the other guy.

In the US, there are many more people who either appreciate religious observance or don't care than who object to it. Many, many more.

So, when going for more votes than the other guy:

Don't piss off the religious.

Don't worry about those who don't care.

Fuck those who object.

[defendandprotect]

39. Really . . . ? It looks more likes STEALS to me since the mid-1960's . .. !!!

http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

and haven't "votes" have been being bought by corporations . . . ????

Maybe we're watching two different political scenes?


Just sayin' . . . I'd like to hear more about Separation of Church & State . . .

because that's all that makes us a democracy --- it's what gives you your highest

privilege --- freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, free will.



Hi, America --- try to wake up!!

[Mojambo]

23. I think it's a ridiculous spectacle, but whatever.

As long as we win and then politely close the door on god when it comes time to govern I really don't care if the Democrats want to pound their chest for some imaginary person in the sky.

[defendandprotect]

43. As someone else suggested . . . . many "don't care" . . .

I do care because I think that Separation of Church is important, essential to democracy ---

and playing mind-games with the public about ACKNOWLEDGING "god" doesn't help them grow up.


Nor does it help them understand how democracy is balanced on the head of that pin....!!!

Nor awaken the concerns that should exist in regard to the Vatican still standing against

the concept of democracy - equality for all.

[Ex Lurker]

57. the conventions are irrelevant dog and pony shows

I can't believe anybody still pays attention.

[Mojambo]

59. I actually think the real meat and potatoes of conventions can be great

And it's something most Americans could benefit from seeing, and especially participating in.

Of course the corporate media doesn't give us any of the good stuff. Platform debates etc. No no, we get the empty calories of speeches, and commentary on speeches. Nothing but political junk food. Skip the helping of healthy civics.

Our democratic diet sucks.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jazzjunkysue]

27. "Under God" is relatively new. It's not original. And it creeps me out, too.

If we're going to have religous prayer at the convention, I want it to be Buddhist.
And if anyone is uncomfortable with that, then we should just refrain from dragging the bible or any other ideology other than freedom into it.

You want to pray? Who's stopping you? Why do you have to pray at my convention on my TV? Doesn't it count in your home or your church?

[defendandprotect]

44. Because . . . and many seem to still be missing this . . . ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF GOD . . .

is what occurred at this convention sometime today . . . !!!

And more than anything --- especially since they got bounced from the schools where they

had access to young minds --- the "god" business needs acknowledgment from government to

to the public that "god" does in fact exist.

They got it today!!!

[jazzjunkysue]

51. Why? Why does God need the public schools?

[defendandprotect]

52. Why . . .? You're kidding, right. . . . ?

And you're still missing the word 'ACKNOWLEDGMENT' . . .

If "god" is acknowledged and/or taught in schools then it becomes real ---

If it's out there on it's own -- minus government acknowledgment -- then . . . less real.


As patriarchy requires organized patriarchal religion for its authentification,

so too does "god" require government acknowledgment for its authentification.

[jazzjunkysue]

73. God is less real? If you're a believer, then how could God ever be less real?

This is political, not religous.

And if we're going to let religion in the schools, I've decided I want that religion to be Buddhist.

What's wrong with that?

[defendandprotect]

87. Exposure and brainwashing has to be continuous . . .

Ask yourself why so many don't question the reality of patriarchal religion as an
underpinning for patriarchy, itself -- ?

There's a lot of threat, intimidation behind organized patriarchal religion ---
First, its war on women --- then its war on Jews, homosexuals, etal ---

Granted the overt violence and armies are gone at the moment --
though there continue to be rumors of Vatican activity againsd Muslims and
Bush's stuff isn't entirely clear of the look of a "Crusade."

Much of organized patriarchal religion's war on women is in the form of propaganda --
written propaganda, just as their vile campaign against Jews also took the form of written
propaganda over 1,000+ years.

That propaganda has to be repeated often --- and adopted by government -- in order to
remain believable.

Belief in sky gods is something new in history -- old religions were based on nature,
pleasure. Organaized patriarchal religions are based on domination, violence, pain,
exploitation of nature, natural resources, animal-life and even other human beings
according to various myths of inferiority.

Without acknowledgment by government, "sky god" belief loses its power --

In fact, it was PROTESTANT Bibles which were first in our schools and Catholics fought
to rid the schools of them realizing that it gave Protestants an advantage.

What if the Convention this week had had no "prayer" . . .

What would have been lost to us . . .?

What would have been lost to organized patriarchal religions . . . ?

[Kaleko]

28. Like you were when you wrote that post?

[spoony]

68. Um, no, compare that post to the OP

The OP was faux outrage, as indicated by the ... and !!s and broken, frothy sentence structure. The reply was a big eye-roll at such nonsense.

[Kaleko]

71. I'd say the OP conveyed a strong sense of exasperation

with a dash of genuine outrage. Wildeye's retort, using swear words like "fucking" and "fuck" twice in a row while calling the OP's sentiments "faux", is a pretty good example of a performative contradiction.

Not that it matters much.

[upi402]

31. really, christian taliban is like cancer

metastasized

[defendandprotect]

45. ....and a BIG MONEY MAKER . . . which is too often unacknowledged . . .!!!

[spoony]

70. Could you use more exclamation points

it helps recognise how over-the-top you are.

[Goblinmonger]

77. Could you dismiss the reality

of those that don't believe in god any more than you do? It helps recognize how truly intolerant of the minority you actually are.

[spoony]

79. Except that it isn't reality

And most people--theist and atheist--aren't driven to mouth-foaming keyboard-slapping by the little things that so terribly oppress you and your swooning, hand-wringing cohorts. Flyers at schools. Christmas greetings. Invocations at conventions. These things are taken in stride by most. Especially by those people who aren't quite stupid enough to think that Democrats just began praying at conventions in the last few years, and that it's a sign that soon you'll all be put into camps.

It's only that peculiar anti-theist strain that does this. Not atheists at large. Just historically challenged whiners.

[Goblinmonger]

80. Nice loaded language

"mouth-foaming" nice.

Perhaps it isn't about being "historically challenged" but about realizing that each of those things is just another example of the creeping theocracy. When one thing is allowed to happen and then the next is challenged, it is very common to hear "well, we do that one thing, so why not this."

And speaking of historically challenged, why don't you take a look at what James Madison would have had to say about all of this. I guarantee he would not have been a fan. You remember him, right, the guy that actually wrote the constitution.

[spoony]

83. It's been "creeping" for centuries. Mostly backwards.

A quick look at convention prayers from the past make it clear that the party is far more open now than then, and any objective observer can hardly conclude otherwise when other areas of diversity are brought into the scope.

[Goblinmonger]

84. Now who's historically unaware?

When did the motto go on the coinage? When did the "under god" get added to the pledge? When did faith-based initiatives become governmental policy?

How about when the Christians almost gave birth to a bovine when a Hindu dared give that opening prayer? That certainly indicates that the Christians don't feel entitled to their theocracy.

[defendandprotect]

93. And, again, more indications that religions require/seek government acknowledgment . . .

[spoony]

109. Such myopia

When before that had a Hindu even been invited to give the prayer? In the past it wouldn't have even been considered. And if words on coins or some patriotic mumbo jumbo are the basis of your argument for a looming theocracy, you need either a nap or a dictionary. Taken as a whole, there is less religion (specifically, much less Christianity) in school and government than there was in the past. There was no theocracy, there is no theocracy, there will be no theocracy, no matter what your faith tells you. Good day!

[Goblinmonger]

110. Is hateful name-calling all you have

You give no examples to support your argument. All you do is make the claim and then hand out the old standard that you have been told many times is incorrect and insulting by saying atheists actually have faith/religion. Nice.

And you completely ignore the faith-based initiatives portion of my argument. Now why could that be? Probably because you have nothing to say about it?

[defendandprotect]

92. Ah, you've addressed the wrong "mouth-foaming keyboard-slapping" ....

poster --- !!! Yep . . . it's me!!

"Christmas greetings" seem to have "oppressed" many citizens because that doesn't happen
in schools anymore -- thankfully. There are "holidayseasonal" messages now . . .

Invocations at gatherings where parents were held hostage to "god" greetings and pleas
are also gone ---


However . .

I don't recall anyone anyone suggesting that praying by Dems would head us all "to camps" . . . ????


And, yes, as someone pointed out above there are many who simply "don't care" ---

but as I've pointed out repeatedly, our freedom and democracy are centered on Separation

of Church & State and that without it, we don't really have democracy.


So, I'll be keeping at it ---

[DS1]

86. seconded, agreed, totally

some people can't handle being content

[dysfunctional press]

40. that's a big part of why i can't get all too excited about politics in our country...

until we as a civilization get past this ridiculous adherence to ancient mythology- we're fucked. no matter WHICH party controls the big chair.

[LWolf]

41. Last time it was a patriotic military focus.

This time it's religion on display.

:shrug:

[shaniqua6392]

42. The Obama's are Christians and so am I.

There are many Democrats out here who are Christians. I am a strong supporter of the separation of church and state so I do understand what you are saying. But it does help bring Christians into the Democratic fold. The Republican Party does not own the rights to all Evangelical Christians in this country. So just look upon the prayer aspect of the convention as being a prayer for Obama.

[defendandprotect]

46. Whatever Obama may be . . . Separation of Church & State still exists . . .

and for excellent reasons . . .

It guarantees our highest privilege --- the right to free thought and freedom of conscience,

without which there is no democracy.


I'm sure if Muslim prayers had been recited today it would "help bring Muslims into the

Democratic fold." But . . . notice that's not what happened. Should it have?


Considering what the "Evangelicals" have done to the Republican Party and the intelligence

of the nation in fighting Evolution and other science .... why would Democrats be pursuing

crazies?

The poor in our country have little to do with anyone praying or not . . .

it has to do with the ability to fool people. hmmmm.....

Unregulated capitalism is merely organized crime and corporations are getting the

help they need for their theft from our politicians.






The Obama's are Christians and so am I.
There are many Democrats out here who are Christians. I am a strong supporter of the separation of church and state so I do understand what you are saying. But it does help bring Christians into the Democratic fold. The Republican Party does not own the rights to all Evangelical Christians in this country. So just look upon the prayer aspect of the convention as being a prayer for Obama.
Get to know the poor in your country. Love them. Serve them.-- Mother Teresa

[Fumesucker]

49. I'm just an ignorant atheist, so perhaps you could explain the meaning of these "red words" to me?

Matthew 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

[defendandprotect]

54. Oh, that . . . . that seems to be the disposable part of the Bibble . . .

the part they threw back . . .

How embarrassing to have such a public display of one's most personal feelings ---

and how they seem to enjoy it!!!

[deaniac21]

72. Armaments, chapter two, verses nine to twenty-one.

And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying,
'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade that, with it, Thou mayest blow
Thine enemies to tiny bits in Thy mercy.' And the Lord did grin, and
the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies
and orangutans and breakfast cereals and fruit bats and large chu--

And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou take out the
Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three
shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting
shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two,
excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the
number three, being the third number, be reached, then, lobbest thou thy
Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My
sight, shall snuff it.'

[LanternWaste]

111. I imagine that those verses could be interpreted literally

I imagine that those verses could be interpreted literally, but aren't we supposed to make fun of people who interpret biblical verses literally?

[EFerrari]

63. Shouldn't churches own Evangelical christians?

I mean, is this a collection we need to start? 9 out of 10 of all the Democrats I've ever met are Christians. There is no need to pander in this ridiculous, offensive and fake way. It cheapens both Democrats AND Christians.

[earth mom]

50. I am totally disgusted by this crap. But given Obamas campaign has been loaded with religious code

words for months now, I'm not surprised. Totally and thoroughly disgusted and furious, but not surprised.

And Michelle Obamas speech last night was as religious as she could go without actually saying God or Jesus.

:puke:

[RoyGBiv]

64. It's awesome ...

Love it.

LOVE IT.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

85. Grow Up And Get A Clue Sometime.

You're embarrassing yourself with such stupidity.

[Xithras]

88. I always get a laugh about how clueless anti-Christian Democrats can be.

According to a Time Magazine survey last year, only 40% of self-identified "Evangelical Christians" in the U.S. also identify as Republican (down from well over 50% in the last election). A Zogby poll earlier this year found that a full third of white evangelicals vote as Democrats.

If 33% vote as Democrats, and only 40% now identify as Republican, that leaves 27% of the evangelical population up for grabs in the next election. According to the Barna poll a while back (a poll by an evangelical organization) only 27%(!!!) of self proclaimed "born again Christians" said they were definitely voting for a Republican, while 40%(!!!) indicated that they wanted to vote for a Democrat.

Why the change? First, you need to remember history. Prior to the Reagan years, political affiliation wasn't directly related to religious beliefs in this country, and the evangelical population was split pretty evenly between the parties. Reagan managed to swing them to the Republican side in droves, but that effect is waning. Jerry Falwell is dead and buried, and TV evangelism isn't nearly as political (or as popular) as it was back in the days of the Moral Majority. While it may try, it doesn't have the same ability to equate morality and Republicanism as it once did.

Second, the evangelicals themselves are waking up and realizing that they're being used. Most born-again evangelicals read their Bibles and are NOT pro-war or pro-corporatism, even though their religious leadership may be. I personally know several evangelicals who are LIVID with Bush's handling of Iraq. They tend to get upset for different reasons (like the fact that Bush is doing nothing while Iraq's ancient Christian and Jewish populations are being exterminated) but they're angry at the handling of the war all the same. They're realizing today that Republican support for evangelicalism is mostly token, and that the parties real interests lie in corpoate wealth building and warmongering...two ideals that run counter to the fundamentals of Christian evangelicalism.

I see a lot of vitriol spewed at evangelicals here, but I think that most DU Democrats would be shocked if you actually sat down and talked to a few. While you'd have some serious disagreements on the subjects of abortion and gay rights, you'd also discover that MOST evangelicals take Jesus' statements against war, and for helping your fellow man, fairly seriously. They probably agree with us on more subjects than they DISagree with us on.

And I've met very few who genuinely want to see the U.S. turn into a theocracy. "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and unto God the things that are God's". In virtually every mainstream Christian religion, that passage is understood be one of the earliest advocacies of a seperation between church and state. I learned that 25 years ago in sunday school.

Now that you've read all this, I have a simple question. Are you willing to be tolerant and put up with a few prayers to appease that portion of the population, or would you rather see the Democratic party be painted as anti-religion and chase those voters back to the Republicans? I don't know about you, but I choose the option that HELPS US WIN ELECTIONS!

[fascisthunter]

89. It's Not Anti-Christian.... it's Called Preserving a Secular Government

it was founded on secularism.....

nice framing

[Xithras]

90. It's called democracy.

Secularism and religious belief are not mutually exclusive concepts, and a democratic society requires that the views of that society be reflected in its leadership. Many evangelical Christians, and in fact most Christians of all stripes, believe firmly in the presence of God while at the same time supporting the concept of a religously neutral government. Most people understand that there is a mountain of difference between having a government representative express his cultural beliefs as they relate to religion, and having a government representative force those beliefs on others or try to craft laws mandating obedience to those beliefs.

In a free society, all people (including political leaders) must have the ability to express their religious beliefs as they see fit. In an intelligent society, we recognize that we must be tolerant of other peoples cultural norms, even if we personally consider them silly. The role of a secular government is simply to ensure that those cultural or religious beliefs don't influence laws that cause discrimination against those who do not believe.

[fascisthunter]

95. Your statement before of "clueless anti-Christians" I do not agree with.

You generalized your assessment, therefore I assume you speak of the OP and those in agreement with the OP.

Your response to me I do agree with, but is besides the point. When folks get upset that religion and government are in such close intimacy, many rightfully get perturbed. That does not mean they are anti-christian or any other religion. It just means they wish to preserve a secular government.

[Fumesucker]

96. If as you say..

The role of a secular government is simply to ensure that those cultural or religious beliefs don't influence laws that cause discrimination against those who do not believe.

Then perhaps you can point to the 15% or so of politicians who are non religious/agnostic/atheist, since that is the percentage of such people in the general population.

If you cannot point to roughly 15% or so of our politicians who are non theistic then perhaps your idea that there is no discrimination against those who do not believe is incorrect.

[defendandprotect]

97. We really do need to laugh at organized patriarchal religon more . .

Now that you've read all this, I have a simple question. Are you willing to be tolerant and put up with a few prayers to appease that portion of the population, or would you rather see the Democratic party be painted as anti-religion and chase those voters back to the Republicans? I don't know about you, but I choose the option that HELPS US WIN ELECTIONS!

First, let's not forget that Jimmy Carter had quite a whack at throwing religion into
the political mix . . . and somewhere along the way there --- was it the Carter race/?
Pat Robertson was flirting with a run -- in fact I think he ran for a while/?

But coming back to your question . . .

We sent out a posse to wake up the Evangelicals and they realized that ...

they were being used ---
they're not pro-war or pro-corps --
they're LIVID with Bush's handling of Iraq --
they've recognized GOP interests lie in corporate wealth building/warmongering
but still anti-choice and homphobic . . .
AND . . .
few who genuinely want to see the U.S. turn into a theocracy

BUT THEY WOULD BE CHASED AWAY IF DEMS WEREN'T ACKNOWLEDGING A MALE 'GOD' -- !!????

IMO, these crazies have already done a bunch of harm to the GOP, to intelligence levels,
to science ---

It seems they need to be led around by the nose or they're not happy ---
and if you flash the Bibble at them . . . they're all set to go!!???

You're really sure these are people we need in the Democratic party . . . ???

[Fearless]

94. The fact is that much of this nation believes in such superstition...

And in the election season I can't see it hurt to keep one's friends close and one's enemies even closer.

Besides, many of us believe such things too.

So, I'll put up with it, even as a strong atheist.

[defendandprotect]

98. Unfortunately. . . .

We then have to recognize that there are people running the SHOW who understand
what YOU believe in and are putting on a show for you . . .

Or do you think that they're sincere in their "superstititions" and willing to make
a display of their most private feelings --- contrary to what the Bibble says
about praying in public?????

I'm not saying that you are a "believer" in organized patriarchal religions, but
that you're a believer in holding to this pattern of exploitation of those hung
up on "sky gods."

[Fearless]

99. As long as they support what I believe I couldn't care less if they prayed to Joe Pesci.

[defendandprotect]

100. Well . . . welcome the crazies then . . . GOP may be happy to get rid of them!

[Fearless]

102. So long as they vote for our candidates, I'll accept that. Like the creepy aunt no one talks about

[defendandprotect]

103. They are more than the "creepy aunt" in the GOP . .. they've stymied Evolution

teaching -- are trying to outlaw birth control products by linking them to abortion ---

and have moved this administration to play stupid with science ---

Remember "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" . . . !!

And the numerous other intrusions on STATE in regard to abortion and science and homosexuality!

Indeed, I would say they've thoroughly impacted the United Nations and its family planning

programs . . . where money has been withheld.

PLUS they're now attached to the taxpayers' wallets in "faith-based" contributions to

their churches . . . with Obama promising MORE --!!!

[Fearless]

107. The people which you speak of are not going to vote for Obama.

I can't believe that I'm going to say this but... Religion does not require fundamentalism or dogmatism.

[defendandprotect]

113. Have you missed that many posters here have taken for granted ....

that this religous DISPLAY is about attracting Evangelicals for Obama . . . ?

I didn't suggest that -- they did!

Organized patriarchal religion, as practiced by Evangelicals, does require belief in the

Bibble as the true word of "god" -- every word of it.

And, in fact, this Pope intends to move the Catholic Church to Evangelicalism . . . !!!


Individual spirituality -- especially as it is based on nature --- has nothing to with

organized patriarchal religions --- they are two different things.

[Fearless]

114. I fundamentally disagree that it is those who they are targeting.

But those who are part of that third branch of the Rethuglican party... social conservatives.

[defendandprotect]

115. I see what you mean . . .

three opinions on what they're doing ---

mine --- generally religiously nutsy
theirs -- appealing to the Evangelical crazies
yours -- appealing to the Rethuglican party social conservatives

[Fearless]

119. I hope that with the preface and closing to tonight's benediction that we can all come together.

[defendandprotect]

120. Until the forces which divide us --- capitalism, patriarchy, and the violence and

inequality they bring, people will be separated by the harm they do --

Unfortunately, organized patriarchal religion is the underpinning for patriarchy and

therefore, for much of what is wrong, not only in America but globally ---

Consider simply "Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" as licenses

for exploitation of nature, natural resources, animal-life - and even of other

human beings according to various myths of inferiority.

Meanwhile, patriarchy creates a world in its own image -- one of violence, cruelty

and pain -- symbolized by its violent and vengeful "sky god."




ben·e·dic·tion
Also called Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. a service consisting of prayers, at least one prescribed hymn, censing of the congregation and the Host, and a blessing of the congregation by moving in the form of a cross the ciborium or monstrance containing the Host.

[libodem]

101. We just can't look like a bunch of atheists

and expect to go anywhere. We are after the swing voters and those fat-ass republics think they have cornered the market on religious votes. It just ain't so. We have beautiful believers in the Democratic Party. People of strong faith and conviction. We need to respect that. America is not ready for a strictly secular leader. Personally, I don't care much for any organized religion. But, I'm not sure that I don't believe in some greater force out working in the Universe. I want to be free to believe that if I want to. And I want others to have the freedom to believe as they wish. That's what's right about America. I'm sick of the Anne Bag-O-Bones Coulter calling us Godless just cuz she can strike the keys on a keyboard. She's a liar. And hallelujah!

[defendandprotect]

105. Yeah . . . if we weren't praying regularly in plein aire we'd be Commies . .. !!!

because Ann Coulter says so . . . !!!

So let's be sure to twist ourselves into religious zealots --

who needs intelligence --- ?

We need "pie in the sky when you die" and the "sky god."

There's quite a difference between true inner spirituality and organized patriarchal religions --
a world of difference!

In order to be FREE to believe or not believe you need Separation of Church & State and that's
the issue in this post I put up. Let's respect that!

Because that's where your FREEDOM is based . . . on the head of that pin . . .

Without the right to freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, free will --

you are not free and that's what Separation of Church & State does for you!!


And, embrace the spaghetti monster in the sky all you want . . . he still can't
protect you from your fears of Ann Coulter!!!








We just can't look like a bunch of atheists
and expect to go anywhere. We are after the swing voters and those fat-ass republics think they have cornered the market on religious votes. It just ain't so. We have beautiful believers in the Democratic Party. People of strong faith and conviction. We need to respect that. America is not ready for a strictly secular leader. Personally, I don't care much for any organized religion. But, I'm not sure that I don't believe in some greater force out working in the Universe. I want to be free to believe that if I want to. And I want others to have the freedom to believe as they wish. That's what's right about America. I'm sick of the Anne Bag-O-Bones Coulter calling us Godless just cuz she can strike the keys on a keyboard. She's a liar. And hallelujah!

[TankLV]

104. I'd call it "If they can pander, so can we..."

I don't much like it - but I never even thought about it or any reaction I never had to it until you brought it up...

I do believe in God - and I believe in Jesus as a historical figure - but not much else anymore...

I know that this bible NONSENSE was MIS written by MEN, not "god"...and if it once was, no longer is even remotely the "word of any god"...that is a FACT...

[defendandprotect]

106. Notice that the religious right is pretty much over and even the GOP is

questioning holding on to them . . .

Pander if you must!

[HughMoran]

108. Kinda makes me wanna ask the question "were you born yesterday?"

Just because you haven't noticed or seen this before doesn't mean that it hasn't happened at every convention - in the history of this country.

[defendandprotect]

112. ...and that somehow makes it right in your mind . . .????

Let me assure you, I've seen a few conventions and this kind of piling on is of more

latter times ---

Meanwhile, I notice that a lot of people took for granted that this is DISPLAY . . .

and intended to hook the religious Evangelicals . . .!!!

[apocalypsehow]

118. There's something wrong, alrighty, but it isn't this convention...

:eyes: