In God we trust but do we trust Bush?

Good point Roy. In a way it's almost like the North vs. the South again. Stereotypically you have the devout fundamentalist Christians in the South and the not so in the North (and West). Although some states have switched their allegiance.

I've bounced around some of these states in my short time on this Earth so it's interesting to see how religion influences politics.

Seperation of Church and State? Hogwash. It's merely evolved.

The US has a history of both fundamentalist revivalism AND separation of Church and State.

Patrick Henry, for example, wanted something like a theocracy; Jefferson (IIRC) and others felt that religion was a negative force in politics and had to be kept out.

Roger Williams, with a charter from, I believe (but could be wrong), a Puritan Parliament, founded the colony of Rhode Island on the basis of 'soul liberty' and welcomed, explicitly, 'Jews, Catholics, and Turks' in 1636. George Washington wrote something like, 'The US is not a Christian nation any more than it is Jewish or Mohammedan nation.'

So separation of c&s is not hogwash in the US, but there has been ebb and flow. Religion can be a drug, and unscrupulous politicians have used it and will continue to do so. Someone could probably come up with a slogan to that effect.

But there are good elements in religious feelings that, eventually, overcome the pols.

BTW, among the antecedents of the Republican Party are the Anti-Masonic, the Anti-Catholic, and the Know-Nothing parties.

I am very confident that the moral bankruptcy of self-styled 'Christian' leaders - who support the death penalty, an unprovoked war against Iraq, transfer of wealth from poor and middle classes to the already rich while railing against abortion and homosexuality - will eventually become apparent to enough of their followers to make them politically impotent on the national scene.

Remember - the State of Texas has just purchased new text books that define marriage as being between a man and a woman forever - this is a state with something like the 8th highest divorce rate in the US. A kid who 'learns' this in school and returns to a single-parent home will notice the disconnect and respond in some way that the state didn't expect.

So things will improve here. I just don't know when.

Regards.

Phil

We are regressing to the middle ages. As the civilized world marches forward, we are debating the merits of teaching "intelligent design" in our schools, outlawing homosexual union and turning our backs on what might be the greatest medical advance in the history of the world. At some point the United States will adopt the fetish previously elevated to a cottage industry in France. . .lamenting our own decline in popular literature. Perhaps then we will see what we are doing and reverse course.

judd

Justin
You beat me to it, good points indeed. There are now three schools in the UK that teach creationism and not Darwin evolution. This is a very thin end of a terrible wedge. The French were correct in my view in keeping religion and state education separate. I know of local examples in Bristol UK where the parents keep their kids out of school for biology lessons. This is awful. Science is the new religion as we understand more and more. More and more there is no need for religion and its bogus ideologies.
Martin

Fundis will always brainwash their children. Wet liberals like me try to present all sides of a discussion, usually arguing for the explaination I go with. I get the impression that in the States this is becoming increasingly unamerican. There's no time to wallow in the luxuries of learning - if you're a good citizen, it's like we say it is, and anyone who says otherwise should be reported to the authorities. McCarthy here we come..... again.

Harry

I have this sinking feeling that the moral compass followed by Bush may well be under the influence of people holding somewhat fundamentalist views and these views will excersise dominion over many areas of internal politics and policy making as hinted at in previous postings. What happens when Bush and followers decide to follow a strictly literal reading of the Bible and use this as a guide when formulating Middle East foreign policy? This worries me a lot as the fallout from these decissions may well reach out across the pond and touch not only my but those residing in the Middle East.

Should I or they be worried?

In god we trust? Dont think so

There's no doubt that this sentiment exists here in the UK. As an opinion it's as valid as any other POV. As a life choice it's none of anybody's business and each to their own beliefs. But as a guid for all to follow and transgress from at thier peril? That'll never fly. We have to follow the US on their foriegn policy - we shouldn't but we do and that's a whole different discussion. Fortunately, it stops there. Views and opinions may be in accord in some circles but our society and the rules on which it's based is bears nothing more than a superficial resembelence in most cases - thank goodness.

Cheers

Harry

quote:

---

Bush supporters do like the way that God features in his thoughts, policies and deeds

---

...and these people really believe that God would approve of George W Bush's actions. The lot of them make me sick.

At what point does the number of Iraqi civilians slaughtered by the Bush regime surpass those inflicted by Saddam on his own people (now the only justification we have for our being there in the first place)? I'm sure the US are not far off.

The actions of this man resemble the Nazis more closely every day.

Jonathan

Actually I think it resembles nothing more than what the Americans have done already. How many native americans did they slaughter to take over the country? Didn't 'god' play a large part in that as well? Evil fucks though the Nazis were/are, if you look back through american history you might be forced to conclude that making the Nazi analogy let's them off too lightly.

Not that the english have much to be proud of either. But that's another discussion.

Harry

Harry,

To be honest I'd be wary of comparing the Nazi atrocities with anything, really. I'm sure the respective histories of most latter-day Western-democracies such as ours and the US are littered with incidents of man's inhumanity to man, but I think that what the Nazis did takes it all to a different level altogether, ie. the systematic annihilation of an entire race based on nothing else but pure hatred. I don't think anyone with a shred of decency in them could watch even a few minutes of the scenes of yesterday's 60th anniversary commemoration of the release of the prisonsers at Auschwitz-Birkenau and not be moved in some way. Sixty years on, the deeds of the Nazis have an impact, which the whole world has to address, and learn from, and re-learn, again and again, year after year, to make sure it never happens again.

I struggle to see what other incident of history compares with that.

Cheers,

JR

I don’t think you can compare anything to anything else. Oh – that’s what you just said. Right then. Agreed.

Driving home last night listening to the radio, someone commented that what’s frightening about the atrocities committed by the Nazis is that they should have managed it in the 20th century. I wish I could share that view. The fact is that mass murder, genocide, eugenics, and all the rest of it were going on before and have happened since. It just never stops. Seems like we never learn.

I used to think that you couldn't teach kids anything. They take no notice of you and only learn by their own mistakes - and often not first time. Turns out I was wrong to single kids out.

Digressing somewhat…..

quote:

---

I think that what the Nazis did takes it all to a different level altogether

---

Cambodia 1970s? Rwanda 2000s?

Oh of course those people weren't 'westerners' but that doesn't make it less appalling.

Despicable as the holocaust was, the US are perpetrating the equivalent as the coverage of this weeks Auschwitz rememberance is going on air. Anyone see the documentary news item on the BBC from Fallujah the other night?

Jonathan

Jonathan,

Point taken about Cambodia and Rwanda, but I was answering Harry's specific point about comparing what the Americans atrocities to those of the Nazis. Regardless of what happened in Falluja, I still question whether such a comparison is valid.

JR

I am being a bit argumentative/devils advocate here and apologise for it. I need a weekend!

Jonathan

Jonathan,

No problem. Re the weekend - amen!

Cheers,

JR

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roy T:
I have this sinking feeling that the moral compass followed by Bush may well be under the influence of people holding somewhat fundamentalist views and these views will excersise dominion over many areas of internal politics and policy making as hinted at in previous postings. What happens when Bush and followers decide to follow a strictly literal reading of the Bible and use this as a guide when formulating Middle East foreign policy? This worries me a lot as the fallout from these decissions may well reach out across the pond and touch not only my but those residing in the Middle East.

Should I or they be worried?

---

You have a "sinking feeling"???? All this is already happening, and more. The Right fundies make no bones about it.

Judd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shayman:
Despicable as the holocaust was, the US are perpetrating the equivalent as the coverage of this weeks Auschwitz rememberance is going on air. Anyone see the documentary news item on the BBC from Fallujah the other night?

Jonathan

---

This is over the top. The US military is not rounding up all Sunnis or Shia or Bahia or whatever, marching them to concentration camps and then leading them to gas chambers. Despite how much you my disagree with the war (or all wars), there is no systemic attempt here to wipe an ethnic group off the face of the earth.

There is no comparison.

Judd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justin:
You have a "sinking feeling"???? All this is already happening, and more. The Right fundies make no bones about it.

---

The Christian fundamentalist right are more influential when it comes to domestic policy, particularly with regard to education, abortion and gays.

Since 9/11, the neoconservatives have become more influential in the field of foreign policy. The neocons don't come from the far or religious right. Most are, in fact, disaffected exiles from the left.

Recently, Bush's foreign policy has been particularly influenced by Natan Sharansky and his book "The Case for Democracy".

Sharansky was a Soviet dissident whose policies were formulated whilst inside a Soviet prison. On his release he emigrated to Israel where he is now a politician. Sharansky's influence was particularly clear in Bush's recent Inauguration address.

The main change to foreign policy that has come as a result of the neocon/Sharansky influence is that the US has started to move towards supporting democracies and withdrawing support from dictatorships. This is in contrast to the traditional US and European policies of propping up regimes for the sake of stability or declaring against regimes that were allied to the Soviet Union.

The battle lines are now being drawn between 'free societies' and 'fear societies' as opposed to capitalism versus communism.

Regards
Steve M

quote:

---

This is over the top. The US military is not rounding up all Sunnis or Shia or Bahia or whatever, marching them to concentration camps and then leading them to gas chambers

---

Head out of ar$e time! The US's treatment of Fallujah makes Mai Lai look like a day out at the park. You may not get shown it in the US but the town of half a million or so people is now completely laid waste with wild dogs roaming the town eating the thousands of dead bodies in the streets/houses. And why? Do you really believe its because all half million people were terrorists posing an imediate and real threat to the USA? No its because they are Sunni Muslims and wouldn't be voting the way Bush wants them to.

I sincerely hope in 60 years time we'll be watching shame-inducing coverage of these atrocities as we are with the Auschwitz coverage this week.

Remember before you reply....no Iraqi has yet perpetrated an attack against the US and no Iraqis were involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Jonathan

yes. we do.

thanks for asking

Jim

quote:

---

Originally posted by JonR:
Jonathan,

Point taken about Cambodia and Rwanda, but I was answering Harry's specific point about comparing what the Americans atrocities to those of the Nazis. Regardless of what happened in Falluja, I still question whether such a comparison is valid.

JR

---

Sorry Jon - I didn't make it very clear. I don't think you can compare one atrocity with another. Singling out the Nazis for particular retubition is valid, but putting it into some sort of league table doesn't help, because all such acts are equally awful. The native American body count must stack up to a number that the Nazis could only dream of - and it was a systematic, caculated cull. But we should not conclude that one was worse than the other - they are all terrible. And that's just two examples of scores of them.

Cheers

Harry

quote:

---

Originally posted by 7V:
The neocons don't come from the far or religious right. Most are, in fact, disaffected exiles from the left.

---

What's that got to do with the price of fish? Even if it was true that "most" of them started out on the left, presumably it's what they now believe which matters, not what they used to believe. Or are you suggesting there's something in left politics which leads someone ineluctably to turn into a neocon?

quote:

---

Originally posted by 7V:
The battle lines are now being drawn between 'free societies' and 'fear societies' as opposed to capitalism versus communism.

---

That's just a soundbite.

-- Ian

quote:

---

Originally posted by sideshowbob:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 7V:
The neocons don't come from the far or religious right. Most are, in fact, disaffected exiles from the left.

---

What's that got to do with the price of fish? Even if it was true that "most" of them started out on the left, presumably it's what they now believe which matters, not what they used to believe. Or are you suggesting there's something in left politics which leads someone ineluctably to turn into a neocon?

---

Not at all. I was merely drawing a distinction between the neocons, who seem to be actually leading US foreign policy, and the religious right who were the subject of this thread. I was saying that I don't believe that the Christian Fundamentalists are particularly influential in US foreign policy.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The battle lines are now being drawn between 'free societies' and 'fear societies' as opposed to capitalism versus communism.

---

That's just a soundbite.

---

Quotation marks were placed around 'free societies' and 'fear societies' in order to indicate that these were free or fear societies in the opinion of the US Government.

It was simply a statement that matches what Bush stated clearly in his inauguration address.

Regards
Steve M

quote:

---

Originally posted by 7V:
Not at all. I was merely drawing a distinction between the neocons, who seem to be actually leading US foreign policy, and the religious right who were the subject of this thread. I was saying that I don't believe that the Christian Fundamentalists are particularly influential in US foreign policy.

---

Ah, I see. Fair enough, but AFAICT "Christian fundamentalist" is a reasonable description of Dubya, and there seems to be a commonality of policy between the neocons and the religious right, so I think there's a bit of hair-splitting going on.

quote:

---

It was simply a statement that matches what Bush stated clearly in his inauguration address.

---

Exactly. A soundbite :-)

-- Ian