# My letter to the New York Times/William Kristol and John McCain



## Peter Alexander (Oct 13, 2008)

Mr. Kristol, as a "maverick" evangelical Christian I am really tired of hearing about Jeremiah Wright being a legitimate character issue without equal character consideration of Mr. McCain's cheating on his wife, ably discussed in a Fox Special. Both actions speak volumes about character issues.

Are we prepared to dissect which is the greater character issue, cheating on your wife vs. sitting under a pastor whose sermons cause concern? 

How easy for you and the McCain folks to brush aside Mr. McCain's character issues as something in the past to be forgotten and dismissed! Since McCain and Palin have publicly professed their commitment to Christ, perhaps they should both re-examine one of the non-negotiables set by Christ vs. the Religious Right,viz, Matthew 7:3-5:

_Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye._

As a retired officer of the US Navy, McCain knows well that a captain is responsible for his crew, on sea, on shore. There is no excuse for him permitting underlings to say what he lacks the courage to say to Obama's face. 

Take down those commercials, Capt. McCain, and focus on the issues the way the American people are asking you to. 

What I've seen these past two weeks during the worst financial crisis of our times, is Mr. McCain flitting around. This is not the kind of stability I want in the White House. 

And when I see fellow "Christian" Sarah Palin whipping up the crowds so that her commanding officer has to quiet them, there is no way that failure of leadership that will do anything to win, including destroying another, is going to earn my vote. 

I'm not interested in any more of this puny advice that fails to respect the American voter. 

This coming Wednesday evening in the final debate, I'm not in the least bit interested in Mr. McCain's juvenile assertion that he's going to beat Mr. Obama's "you-know-what." 

I want direct answers to direct questions. 

My family has fought in every American conflict since the French and Indian War. My father retired as a Full Commander. My youngest just earned her third stripe in the USAF. Polio blocked me from continuing our family tradition. Nonetheless, I know what duty, honor and country is all about. 

So here's some straight talk. 

I will not vote for McCain just because I'm Republican. I will not vote for McCain because both McCain and Palin say they are Christians. My vote must be earned with straight answers and thoughtful approaches, especially with health care, since 1 million polio survivors like myself have pre-existing conditions so buying across state lines does us little good. 

Mr.Kristol's vote is secured. Mine isn't. 

Thank you.


----------



## Hans Adamson (Oct 13, 2008)

That's great Peter. I hope you will vote for Obama. 

Best,


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 13, 2008)

Good points, and well written


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 13, 2008)

Excellent letter, Peter.

I think it's critical that both candidates and their campaigns show respect and debate issues, policies and plans. Otherwise, it will be terribly hard for our next president to gain the respect needed to truly lead our country.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 13, 2008)

Wow! I'm really touched that you cared this much and that people here are in agreement.

Not ever wanting to fall into the trap of using racism as an excuse for my hardships, I've pretty much ignored racism my whole life. I was utterly disappointed that Palin and the McCain campaign made race and issue especially when McCain repeatedly said that it would not be an issue and that "there was no place for it in the campaign". 

It really disgust me that there are individuals out there that fall so quickly into the old thinking patterns of the past.

Thanks for speaking out.

best,

Jose


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 13, 2008)

Great letter, Peter, and very well put.

I for one wouldn't have cared if Obama were Arab, Muslim, and didn't have a family.  But your comments are right on. We've seen way too much of religion used in hypocritical ways recently.

The problem is that Kristol's ears are sealed and what's between them has been dormant for a long time.


----------



## Ed (Oct 14, 2008)

Its great to see religious people like yourself disliking McCain. Just hope they dont try and rig the thing like last time. I dont know how much Obama will fix, but Im certian McCain will be the worst administration ever, even worse than Bush and thats really saying something.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Oct 14, 2008)

Ed @ Tue Oct 14 said:


> Its great to see religious people like yourself disliking McCain. Just hope they dont try and rig the thing like last time. I dont know how much Obama will fix, but Im certian McCain will be the worst administration ever, even worse than Bush and thats really saying something.



Please reread again carefully. I *never* said I disliked McCain. My challenge is to focus on the issues.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 14, 2008)

It seems that some in the McCain campaign have confused their base with the mob.

I have a good friend who is a very dedicated fiscal conservative who will never ever vote for a Democrat. He's not happy at all with the McCain campaign. It's not just the mudslinging and rabble rousing. It's the lack of consistent, conservative principles.

When a candidate has principles, one can debate the merits. Without principles, a campaign is reduced to tactical events.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 14, 2008)

That's why I always say Palin appeals to the base Republicans.


----------



## rJames (Oct 14, 2008)

Well, they say that one letter is worth 10,000 opinions so it is worth writing even though its impact will be nil. Peter, I hope you have friends at the Times so that someone other than an intern will read this.

People see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. Or are they just cynical? I love to hear what Bay Buchanan has to say after Palin speaks. She is quite the dancer...that Bay.

This latest debate over whether racism has been injected by the Republicans or Democrats. OK the name of George Wallace came up. After the benediction that we've now all seen on CNN, I'm surprised the name of Adolph Hitler didn't come up.

paraphrased...McCain needs to win so that their God doesn't think he's more powerful than our God. Isn't that what he said? Was he hired? Did anyone have to approve this guy? Should someone distance themselves from his comments?

There is only one God right? So, if all these religious people from different religions are praying and "talking" to God (and getting answers) doesn't that mean that someone is either lying or getting answers from crossed lines i.e. THE DEVIL!!!!! :evil: :evil: (shriek heard in background)


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 14, 2008)

This race is getting so ugly, I'm starting to seriously wonder if some nut is not going to decide to get rid of the terrorist, either before or after the election... watch this video:

http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=28870

It would be great if the moderator tomorrow could ask McCain about his campaign's effect on already-racist voters.


----------



## JB78 (Oct 14, 2008)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Tue Oct 14 said:


> This race is getting so ugly, I'm starting to seriously wonder if some nut is not going to decide to get rid of the terrorist, either before or after the election... watch this video:
> 
> http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=28870
> 
> It would be great if the moderator tomorrow could ask McCain about his campaign's effect on already-racist voters.



>8o 


This is just disgusting, it's even worse than the ones from Ohio. If I have seen this clip sitting in Sweden it's just no way that people on the McCain/Palin campaign haven't, it's a fucking disgrace that they're not strongly condemning this behaviour.

It's also typical that this is the party that during the "lipstick on a pig"-thing strongly reprimanded Obama for not "speaking up" against the crowd who according to them clearly cheered because they thought it was aimed at Palin. Just imagine if the crowd would've said "kill her" during the rally instead, this campaign would've been over.


Being a guy who's enjoyed many of your products Peter, it feels really good to know that you aren't one of these ignorant racist fucktards and that you will not stand for it. 


Best regards
Jon


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 14, 2008)

Interesting stuff. I've never seen so much overt bigotry but I always knew it was there. That and the constant Christian references make me nervous. 

BTW- the word "retards" over here has seen it's day.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 14, 2008)

I love the word retard... keep it.. it needs a renaissance


----------



## Thonex (Oct 14, 2008)

Ned,

That video is scary!!! :shock: 

It makes me sick to see that level of ignorance... and then to place it in a mob context... truly scary.

I've got to say... I really am concerned for Obama's safety.

T


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 14, 2008)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Oct 14 said:


> I love the word retard... keep it.. it needs a renaissance



"retard' is an unfortunate direct reference to those born with downs syndrome among other genetic "abnormalities".


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 14, 2008)

artsoundz @ Tue Oct 14 said:


> Christian Marcussen @ Tue Oct 14 said:
> 
> 
> > I love the word retard... keep it.. it needs a renaissance
> ...



I see. I thought it was interchangable with "idiot".. and as such, "retard" is a more interesting word.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 14, 2008)

I dont think anyone here means it like I may be implying So please forgive me if it's uncomfy. Just wanted to give a heads up. 

"Ignorant racist bigots" works for me. But in truth even those words are probably counterproductive but I , in my outrage for all that I've seen lately, cant help but refer to those awful people this way. 

America has it's flaws and this is by far the worst. Maybe there is some force larger than all of us letting this happen as a much needed wake up call. Maybe in grandest scheme of things, this is all healthy and needed to evolve as a peacefull society. 

And I'm hopeful the rest of the world admits America isn't the only place that harbors this stuff.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 14, 2008)

Jesus against Obama? Check this video out. This was last Sunday. I'd like to know why no one from the McCain campaign stopped this guy from saying this at a campaign rally. This Rev Arnold Conrad is actually asking the Christian God to stop Obama who, in is opinion, has Buddha, Mohammed, etc on his side! What's to stop somebody after this from moving to criminal action on behalf of the Lord? Really, if something happens, I hope all on the McCain camp go to jail...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g0d3_KE5js


----------



## spectrum (Oct 14, 2008)

Yeah...a shameful knuckleheaded prayer indeed. :-(

The very notion that the Lord needs to be reminded at a political rally that "God's reputation needs defending" by supporting any particular candidate is pretty absurd. I don't think you'd find too many people of faith that would actually agree with the nonsense theology of that statement.

Y'know, I think God's probably just a little bit bigger than that! 

It's a particularly offensive prayer, since Obama is an authentic and devout Christian himself!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 14, 2008)

I especially like the idea that his god is the one who supports McCain while all those other people are praying to a different one who supports Obama.

What a fool.


----------



## Ed (Oct 14, 2008)

spectrum @ Tue Oct 14 said:


> I don't think you'd find too many people of faith that would actually agree with the nonsense theology of that statement.
> !



Really? Because I think I've seen a LOT of people of faith that would agree with that. Not sensible religious people, like you, but the far right wing extremists. Im not just picking on Christians here, as there are more than enough idiots that follow other religious as well to agree with similar nonsence, but the evangelical Christian right in America has some of the dumbest most scariest people in the entire world within it.


----------



## Ed (Oct 14, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 14 said:


> I especially like the idea that his god is the one who supports McCain while all those other people are praying to a different one who supports Obama.
> 
> What a fool.



Obama is a Muslim probably just like Osama bin Laden, Bin Laden is Muslim too and Bin Laden is a terrorist and terrorists are evil and therefore Obama is an Evil Muslim Terrorist. 

~o)


----------



## spectrum (Oct 14, 2008)

Ed @ Tue Oct 14 said:


> spectrum @ Tue Oct 14 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think you'd find too many people of faith that would actually agree with the nonsense theology of that statement.
> ...


Not if you posed it to them as a theological question. Most would see it for the silly thought that it is.



> Not sensible religious people, like you, but the far right wing extremists.


As evidenced by the videos that have been posted, there are clearly no shortage of ignorant and scary wingnuts out there. It really grieves me to see this kind of junk in my country.



> Im not just picking on Christians here, as there are more than enough idiots that follow other religious as well to agree with similar nonsence, but the evangelical Christian right in America has some of the dumbest most scariest people in the entire world within it.


I understand what you mean, but be careful, it's way too easy to label a lot of good people with a very broad stroke like that.

I notice more and more that the terms "Evangelical Christian", "Far Right" and "Extremist" are becoming almost interchangeable on forum discussions like this....but these are three distinct groups and not necessarily at all the same thing.

For example, one of the most representative pastors of Evangelical Christianity in the US is someone more like Rick Warren, who actually had a really excellent political discussion with both Obama and McCain. I thought it was one of the most thoughtful and interesting of all of this campaign. Rick is friends with both men, didn't endorse either and gave them both equal time and respect.

Check it out here:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politi ... ideosearch

Rick is far more representative of the millions of typical Evangelical Christians in the US and one of the most respected authors and teachers.

So it's not all knuckleheads.


----------



## dcoscina (Oct 14, 2008)

I also fear for Obama's safety. This guy very well might be the next great president but I worry that we will only get a glimpse of his greatness ...:(


----------



## hbuus (Oct 14, 2008)

About Obama's safety if elected president, keep in mind that George W. Bush has been the #1 target for angry, fanatic islamists around the world for several years now - yet nobody ever got to him (thankfully, regardless of what one may think of him and his politics).

Sure, these guys would probably have to get into the country first, but in the past hasn't it been proven that there are security holes in the US airports? I think I read that somewhere.

Fanatic muslims must more or less equal fanatic racists in terms of willingness (hell, sheer eagerness) to commit murder on a president. So to recap, my logic tells me that since nobody ever got to George W. Bush, odds are that Obama will also not become hurt if elected president.

Hopefully I am right.


----------



## Robobino (Oct 14, 2008)

hbuus @ Tue Oct 14 said:


> ... keep in mind that George W. Bush has been the #1 target for angry, fanatic islamists around the world for several years now .



Really?... Do you have proofs?...

All I see in the Middle-East, is innocent people defending their land... and American "patriots" slaughtering civilians...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 14, 2008)

> I notice more and more that the terms "Evangelical Christian", "Far Right" and "Extremist" are becoming almost interchangeable on forum discussions like this....but these are three distinct groups and not necessarily at all the same thing.



As I've posted before, Jimmy Carter and Bill Moyers are both Evangelical Christians - for example.

And so is Peter A, an extremist if I've ever seen one...


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 14, 2008)

right. Huckabee is no Jimmy Carter.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 14, 2008)

> Really?... Do you have proofs?...
> 
> All I see in the Middle-East, is innocent people defending their land... and American "patriots" slaughtering civilians...



The Middle East is never as simple as that from any angle. But I've always thought that George Bush makes the perfect poster boy for terrorist recruiters. He's stupid, arrogant, and aggressive - the perfect combination to focus rage on.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 14, 2008)

"Huckabee is no Jimmy Carter."

I was just about to edit my post to mention Huckabee. No, he's not Jimmy Carter, but he also isn't the guy in that video. He said a lot of good things, and many of his social attitudes are quite liberal - for instance his championing of music and other arts in schools as a way of engaging kids rather than leaving them behind.

Now, being very liberal I do have a lot of problems with his plank and would never have voted for him, but he's not a right-wing fool. I thought he was a very interesting candidate.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 14, 2008)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/us/po ... ref=slogin

Meanwhile the NY Times poll has Obama ahead by 53% to 39% because of McCain's attacks. It's not working, and I'm glad.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 14, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 14 said:


> "Huckabee is no Jimmy Carter."
> 
> I was just about to edit my post to mention Huckabee. No, he's not Jimmy Carter, but he also isn't the guy in that video. He said a lot of good things, and many of his social attitudes are quite liberal - for instance his championing of music and other arts in schools as a way of engaging kids rather than leaving them behind.
> 
> Now, being very liberal I do have a lot of problems with his plank and would never have voted for him, but he's not a right-wing fool. I thought he was a very interesting candidate.



I actually agree with much of that. In fact, anytime I see him om The Daily Show or Sat night live, etc- I get a strong sense he's a very decent man. Then I see him with Chuck Norris like the other night and I lose a bit of respect for him. In the end, he isnt and wasnt someone that can lead this country yet he does have some leadership potential, no doubt.

In fact, even McCain has some of those qualities for me. one thing that i've been reluctant to mention given the topic of this thread (out of great respect for Mr. Alexander and Mr. Omnisphere ) is the fact that John McCain has taken responsibility for his infidelity in his first marriage. 

I cant begin to say how much I admire him for that. Not only did he take responsibility for himself (which I've found VERY few do w/regard to that subject) but for something that is so personal and,frankly, is nobody's business, he put it out there to the WORLD.Of course, politically, he had to. But I believe he means and understands his indiscretion fundamentally and he makes clear it came from a fundamental flaw in his character and not from his Vietnam experience. 

now- I've lost so much respect for him but I'll never forget that part of him. 

.So- phew- that's off my chest.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 14, 2008)

hbuus @ Tue Oct 14 said:


> About Obama's safety if elected president, keep in mind that George W. Bush has been the #1 target for angry, fanatic islamists around the world for several years now - yet nobody ever got to him (thankfully, regardless of what one may think of him and his politics).
> 
> Sure, these guys would probably have to get into the country first, but in the past hasn't it been proven that there are security holes in the US airports? I think I read that somewhere.
> 
> ...



3 million Mexicans managed to cross the border illegally last year so you would think some of those angry Muslim would cross that border too huh? Or maybe there's no threat after all and this is a giant hoax huh? Or maybe terrorist don't have maps?...


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 14, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 14 said:


> > Really?... Do you have proofs?...
> >
> > All I see in the Middle-East, is innocent people defending their land... and American "patriots" slaughtering civilians...
> 
> ...



And why would the ME be more complicated than other places? 



> But I've always thought that George Bush makes the perfect poster boy for terrorist recruiters. He's stupid, arrogant, and aggressive - the perfect combination to focus rage on.



We agree on that!


----------



## Robobino (Oct 14, 2008)

Fernando Warez @ Tue Oct 14 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 14 said:
> 
> 
> > > Really?... Do you have proofs?...
> ...



But he has been elected *TWICE*!!


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 14, 2008)

Robobino @ Tue Oct 14 said:


> Fernando Warez @ Tue Oct 14 said:
> 
> 
> > Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 14 said:
> ...



I'm convinced the GOP stole both election. Do a research of the voting machine...

Actually, i was just watching a film on this subject. A film that every American here should watch.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=-hNxBa6KENE


----------



## hbuus (Oct 14, 2008)

Fernando Warez @ Wed Oct 15 said:


> hbuus @ Tue Oct 14 said:
> 
> 
> > About Obama's safety if elected president, keep in mind that George W. Bush has been the #1 target for angry, fanatic islamists around the world for several years now - yet nobody ever got to him (thankfully, regardless of what one may think of him and his politics).
> ...



Err...did you read what I wrote at all? Yes, I believe angry muslims could enter the US if they wanted to. Yes, I believe there is a threat to president Bush. So where is it that the two of us disagree?


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 14, 2008)

hbuus @ Tue Oct 14 said:


> Fernando Warez @ Wed Oct 15 said:
> 
> 
> > hbuus @ Tue Oct 14 said:
> ...



Well maybe we don't!  

It's just that I'm sick of this hoax that is the war on terror. Sorry!


----------



## hbuus (Oct 15, 2008)

Fernando Warez @ Wed Oct 15 said:


> Well maybe we don't!  [...] Sorry!



Hehe! No problem


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 15, 2008)

spectrum @ Tue Oct 14 said:


> I notice more and more that the terms "Evangelical Christian", "Far Right" and "Extremist" are becoming almost interchangeable on forum discussions like this....but these are three distinct groups and not necessarily at all the same thing.



Well - to play devils advocate () I would say this is not without reason. Obviously it depends on what one understands by the words. 

I guess I would take issue with "Far right" as in my understanding the word is something akin to nazism. If we however simply mean "very nationalistic" then I think we are getting closer. If we also mean very socially conservative then we are also getting there. There is a direct correlation between "the more christian you are, the more to the right you are"... And while Rick Warren is saavy enough not to endorse anyone, I guess we all know who he is chearing for - although admittedly the recent downturn of McCain may have changed that. 

As for extreme... Well... Not extreme as in flying yourself into a building. But I would definately use the word extreme about home schooling (with a religious slant), denial of scientific fact, believing the end of the world is near, and hatred towards minority groups like homosexuals. In fact any form of litteral reading of the bible or arguments such as "because the bible says so" even if it's contrary to what we know. It is an extreme position to regard the book as the answer, and that everything else must conform to that answer - and if it does not, then obviously something is wrong with the question. 

[Edit] Just wanted to say that I'm not saying that all Evangelic Christian support the above positions. Just that many of them do, compared to the population as a whole, and as such they get those labeling. 

A few short ones:

- Yes, Bush is likely the #1 target of muslim terrorists. 
- Yes the middleeast is far more complex than most other places. 

There. Now back to work.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 15, 2008)

hbuus @ 14/10/2008 said:


> About Obama's safety if elected president, keep in mind that George W. Bush has been the #1 target for angry, fanatic islamists around the world for several years now - yet nobody ever got to him (thankfully, regardless of what one may think of him and his politics).



I respectfully disagree. I think fanatics do not want to kill Bush, just like Bush never really intended to get Bin Laden. They need each other. You always need a bad guy when you want your followers to give you more money for arms (and which you will use for other goodies as well, of course). That's why I think that many bad groups want the Reps to win. Sure they'll take a hit or two in terms of losing combatants, but they will continue to have something to scare their population into suppporting them. I believe it's the same thing in the US: Muslims are the new Communists. It's all about spreading fear in order to keep the military beast well-fed. :( :roll:


----------



## JB78 (Oct 15, 2008)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Oct 15 said:


> hbuus @ 14/10/2008 said:
> 
> 
> > About Obama's safety if elected president, keep in mind that George W. Bush has been the #1 target for angry, fanatic islamists around the world for several years now - yet nobody ever got to him (thankfully, regardless of what one may think of him and his politics).
> ...



Couldn't agree more Ned!


----------



## Niah (Oct 15, 2008)

JB78 @ Wed Oct 15 said:


> Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Oct 15 said:
> 
> 
> > hbuus @ 14/10/2008 said:
> ...



=o


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 15, 2008)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Oct 15 said:


> hbuus @ 14/10/2008 said:
> 
> 
> > About Obama's safety if elected president, keep in mind that George W. Bush has been the #1 target for angry, fanatic islamists around the world for several years now - yet nobody ever got to him (thankfully, regardless of what one may think of him and his politics).
> ...



Well, I couldn't disagree more. Well I could... but I disagree quite a bit. I agree with the general notion that it is benificiorary for rulers to have enemies. I do however strongly disagree that Bush would not take down, or capture Bin Laden if he could. Likewise if say one of the 9/11 hijackers (the ones who weren't zionist agents obviously ) could have killed Bush at the white-house they would! 

Secondly... You mention opposition to communism as if it wern't worth opposing. Now I'm not saying that in the name of fighting terror or communism, that all is fair game... But I for one am VERY, VERY happy that the US (and west) won the cold war and not the soviets. Just like I would not want islamic fundementalism to prevail in our current cultural struggles. 

I tend to enjoy my freedoms to speak, assemble, critizise those in power and stay free or religious oppression.


----------



## dcoscina (Oct 15, 2008)

I do not think Obama has anything to fear in terms of foreign attempts on his life. It's domestic right wing fundamentalists who he has to worry about. Generally, liberal minded people do not subscribe to firearms and as such do not have the resources nor compulsion to kill elected officials they do not like nor understand.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 15, 2008)

Christian Marcussen @ 15/10/2008 said:


> Secondly... You mention opposition to communism as if it wern't worth opposing. Now I'm not saying that in the name of fighting terror or communism, that all is fair game... But I for one am VERY, VERY happy that the US (and west) won the cold war and not the soviets.



:roll: :roll: :roll: 

To some people (not you included, of course) in North America, anyone left of centre is considered a Liberal (dirty word). Liberal = Socialist = Communist = enemy. Ridiculous. And have you read about McCarthyism and how it affected the arts community? Most artists I've met who are socialists are bright, open-minded people.

PS: There's no need to target Bush. He's already been taken down by the events of the past 8 years.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 15, 2008)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Oct 15 said:


> Christian Marcussen @ 15/10/2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Secondly... You mention opposition to communism as if it wern't worth opposing. Now I'm not saying that in the name of fighting terror or communism, that all is fair game... But I for one am VERY, VERY happy that the US (and west) won the cold war and not the soviets.
> ...



No need to roll your eyes. It is hard for me to know that when you say "Communism" you mean "Left of center"... 

And yes, I am well aware of McCarthyism and it's effects, which is why I said "not everything is fair game". 

I thought you suggested that communism was not a real threat, since you compared it to muslims (which generally are not a threat).


----------



## Ed (Oct 15, 2008)

Fernando Warez @ Tue Oct 14 said:


> I'm convinced the GOP stole both election. Do a research of the voting machine...
> 
> Actually, i was just watching a film on this subject. A film that every American here should watch.
> 
> http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=-hNxBa6KENE



Great film, and its mainstream as well (HBO). I dont understand why no one is talking about it here, theres been talk about every other subject. Surely talking about polls and who said what and when and how it will affect the outcome of the election means nothing if we cant trust the election process. This should be a massive scandal!


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 15, 2008)

spectrum @ Wed Oct 15 said:


> Christian Marcussen @ Wed Oct 15 said:
> 
> 
> > If we also mean very socially conservative then we are also getting there. There is a direct correlation between "the more christian you are, the more to the right you are"
> ...



Well, that is obviously not what I'm saying. I'm however saying that followers of Christ have poltical views and these tend to be to the right of the political spectrum, and even further right on social issues. Do you have data to suggest otherwise? I have data to back up my claims (http://pewforum.org/)

Apart from Mormons, Evangelic Christians have the highest percentage of people who consider themselves Republicans (38%). If you add to that the percentage for "leaning republican") you get 50% - as opposed to 34% democratic. 

More importantly when were are talking right and left, 52% regard themselves as conservatives and only 11% regard themselves as liberal. (compared to 37% and 20% for the US national total, which in this case is in line with mainline churches). Again only Mormons "score" higher.



> > ... And while Rick Warren is saavy enough not to endorse anyone, I guess we all know who he is chearing for - although admittedly the recent downturn of McCain may have changed that.
> 
> 
> So you know how Rick and all Evangelical Christians are going to vote then...eh?



Yes, I have a pretty good idea how a majority of them will vote. I also believe Rick Warren is on the record for saying he is clearly pro-life and that this is a position important to him. So I think it's a fair guess that he will vote McCain, just like a majority of white Evangelic Christians most likely will. (68% in Aug 2008, opposed to 28% for Obama). 



> > As for extreme... Well... Not extreme as in flying yourself into a building. But I would definately use the word extreme about home schooling (with a religious slant)
> 
> 
> Home schooling is extreme? Wow.
> ...



hehe... Nah, your charater is in very high regard here 

However now it's my turn to say "wow". Wow - talk about cherry picking what I wrote? I specifically said "(with a religious slant)". 

What is worse though is that you missed the point. I'm not claiming that someone who is homeschooled can't turn into a 'great mind' (although the odds do go down with home schooling - but that's not really the issue here). 

What I said was that home-schooling _with a religious slant_ is extreme. Home-schooling in itself is not extreme, but for the underlying reasons for doing it can be. The second highest reason being "religious" ((38%) in a 2003 survey). 

The highest reason being given is "Can give child better education at home" (48%). We can only guess what that means. But my guess is that it does not have so much to do with algebra. Rather i'm guessing the number hides more religiously founded reasons. Just a qualified guess based on the fact that 49% of parents home-scooling their kids are "born again christians"*. 

But why is this extreme? Because teaching an impressionable mind that religion trumps science and factual knowledge is just that - extreme. Now, are there sensible evangelic christians who teach their children about science, evolution, and other scary subjects?  Sure, I guess... But considering religious reasons ranking so high for why people home-school their children, I'm guessing that "learning both sides" is the absolute best we can hope for in most cases.



> > hatred towards minority groups like homosexuals.
> 
> 
> Wow. Do you realize how offensive what you are saying is?
> ...



Right - granted I should not have said minority groups in general and perhaps the word hatred is a tad too strong. However evangelic christians are amongst the most "anti-gay" religious group in the US and definately the largest. 

Only 26% think that homosexuality should be accepted by society (half compared to the national total and catholics)

64% Think that society should discourage it (compared to 40% of the national total, 34% of mainline christians, 30% Catholics and 15% of Jews).

But why would they not be "anti-gay"? They score amongst the highest when it comes to litteral readings of scripture, and the bible does not have nice things to say about homosexuals. In fact I'm suprised the numbers aren't worse 



> > In fact any form of litteral reading of the bible or arguments such as "because the bible says so" even if it's contrary to what we know. It is an extreme position to regard the book as the answer, and that everything else must conform to that answer - and if it does not, then obviously something is wrong with the question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, yes and no... the degree part is pretty important. I would not call all people of faith extreme... not at all. But if the degree of their faith means that the physical world must conform to what their book says... or else the world is wrong... then yes, that classifies as extreme to me. Now in relation to this debate, it just so happens that Evangelic Christians per definition score pretty high marks in that area  

To be a bit more specific, 59% og Evangelic Christians regard the scripture as "Word of God, litterally true word for word". Only "Historically Black Churces" score higher (62%). Compare this to 22% for mainline christians, 50% of Muslims, 23% of Catholics. 

Additionally Evangelic Christians are generally opposed to stemcell research, which is about as extreme a position you can have. Only 32% Evangelical Christians are in favor, as opposed to 51% for mainline christians and 66% of secularists. 



> Do you really know what an "Evangelical Christian" is? Or is it just a handy label?



Evidently I do know, and have a pretty good grasp of their general affiliations and values. This however does not rule out that it is a handy label - it is. 



> I think you illustrated my point perfectly.



Yes - but I can back up my claims with data. Of course I likely have a higher regard for data than Evangelic Christians  


--------------------------------------------------

* In fairness Only 15% were defined by the poll as Evangelical Christians though. To be defined as such they had to live up to the following:

- Believing that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches
- Saying that their faith is very important in their life today
- Believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians
- Believing that Satan exists 
- Believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not by works
- Believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth
- Describe God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today

I'm guessing however that some of those who only were catagorized as "born again christians" would in fact describe themselves as "Evangelical Christians" if they were asked directly and for that reason the numbers are likely higher. At any rate the pointstil stands.


----------



## Thonex (Oct 15, 2008)




----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 15, 2008)

Another defination of extreme, and one which seems to make sense, is when positions differ a lot from the general opinion (Obviously this says nothing about the truth or merits of the general opinon or differing from it). 

I expect that all people are extreme by this definition on specific issues. For instance claiming there is no God would be an extreme position in the US seing as only something like 15% are atheist. However being extreme on a few issues would generally not be sufficient to characterize a person or group as extreme. It takes more than that. 

Well, I just looked up some more data on the subject of religiosity. What is interesting is that Evangelical Christians tend to have an extreme position regardless of the question. They always tend to be in either the top percentages, or the bottom percentages... hardly ever are they in the middle of the road. Ironically to this debate they also score the highest when it comes to believing faith is imortant in relation to politcs. 

For anyone interested in ressearch on these subjects I recommend the site I linked above, and on it, this research paper: 

http://pewforum.org/publications/surveys/green-full.pdf


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 15, 2008)

One problem here is the term "evangelical." What *exactly* does that mean?

Also, there is a big difference between individuals (who can believe whatever they want) and demographic groups.

My wife is an active Christian here in the Pacific Northwest, who is very liberal, as are many of her Christian friends. On the left side of the Cascades, that's pretty common.

Even if 99% of "evangelicals" believe a particular thing, that still leaves one in a hundred who don't.

The environment is a particularly important topic. Many Christians see themselves as stewards of God's domain - and that group isn't happy at all with Republican attitudes toward the environment. True charity is another tipping point topic.

Personally, I hope that we will see more and more examples of Christians who are not in lock-step with the Pat Robertsons of the world. People shouldn't need to choose between religion and left-to-moderate politics.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 15, 2008)

Yeah, I was going to make that point. 

But I feared if I did, it would be used as a straw man to argue that I don't know what I'm talking about :D

But you are right, the term needs to be defined. One of the polls I referenced defines an Evangelical by the 7 points I mentioned a few posts back. However as I also pointed out, I think many people regard themselves as evangelical even if they don't answer yes to all 7 of those points. The survey I linked to defines them in accordance with what church they belong to. Obviously those two definitions will generate differences in the numbers of Evangelical Christians. 

But without hanging ourselves too much definitions, the points I tried make still stands. In general, the more christian, the more to the right. Whether you call yourself Evangelical or not is not really important for my central arguments. 



> Even if 99% of "evangelicals" believe a particular thing, that still leaves one in a hundred who don't



I'm not quite sure what your point is here? I acknowledge that not everyone agrees with everyone in their group, and not all Evangelics are the same. Surely we can do qualified generalizations?



> Personally, I hope that we will see more and more examples of Christians who are not in lock-step with the Pat Robertsons of the world. People shouldn't need to choose between religion and left-to-moderate politics.



I agree... this would be great. However the trend is pretty clear.



> My wife is an active Christian here in the Pacific Northwest, who is very liberal, as are many of her Christian friends. On the left side of the Cascades, that's pretty common.



Great stuff! Out curiosity... Is she a litteralist? I have a feeling that generally liberal Christians, would be less litteral in their reading of scripture. I have nothing to back up this claim though - it's just a hunch.


----------



## Ed (Oct 15, 2008)

Spectrum, your position is very hard to defend. It must be annoying to be associated with such radicals but unfortunately they are there. Evangelical "extreme" Christians contain the KKK, Neo Nazies, they contain anti-scientist Creationist leaders and followers, they contain all the anti abortionists that go on marches saying that abortion doctors are murderers, they contain the throw-your-hands-in-the-air-fall-on-your-knees-and-thrash-around, charlatan faith healers and their massive congregations. They contain the most passionate, loudest, and popular spokesmen like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson or Ted Haggard, which headed the largest evangelical organisation in America! I could go on. ... You may be one of the more "liberal" evangelicals, you may even know others like you, but generally evangelicals belieò”   ˆ†”   ˆ†”   ˆ† ”   ˆ†!”   ˆ†"”   ˆ†#”   ˆ†$”   ˆ†%”   ˆ†&”   ˆ†'”   ˆ†(”   ˆ†)”   ˆ†*”   ˆ†+”   ˆ†,”   ˆ†-”   ˆ†.”   ˆ†/”   ˆ†0”


----------



## Ed (Oct 15, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Oct 15 said:


> Not really, Ed. Lots of Evangelical Christians aren't social conservatives, and the religious right is made up of people from many branches of Christianity. The guy who runs Blackwater is Catholic, for example.
> 
> What is true, according to a survey I read after the last presidential election, is that the more you go to church or synagogue (i.e. religious Jews) the more likely you are to have voted for George Bush - for what it's worth.



Nick if you cant predict what Evangelicals will vote or believe, why is there so much data and predictions on what or who evangelicals will vote on. There is a *general *behaviour that comes from the evangelical Christian community, like it or not. I realise this is a generalisation, but thats the entire point.

Its like Islam. You have the extreme Muslims who are of course commited to jihad and death(!) to the western world. Then you have the more liberal Muslims who say islam is a peacefull religion and these other Muslims arent real Muslims. So we can sit here and say that the more Islamic you are the more fundamentalist and extremist you will probably be, and you would be *RIGHT*, but liberal Muslims would take exception for the same reason a liberal Christian would if you said the more Christian you are the more fundamentalist you are, which is what we are seeing here in this thread.


----------



## spectrum (Oct 15, 2008)

Ed @ Wed Oct 15 said:


> ...for the same reason a liberal Christian would if you said the more Christian you are the more fundamentalist you are, which is what we are seeing here in this thread.


Ah...except that there's a big difference between theologically liberal and politically liberal. Sometimes the two go hand and hand, but not necessarily.

For example:



Christian Marcussen @ Wed Oct 15 said:


> > My wife is an active Christian here in the Pacific Northwest, who is very liberal, as are many of her Christian friends. On the left side of the Cascades, that's pretty common.
> 
> 
> 
> Great stuff! Out curiosity... Is she a litteralist? I have a feeling that generally liberal Christians, would be less litteral in their reading of scripture. I have nothing to back up this claim though - it's just a hunch.


Most Washington State Evangelical Christians (a very large community BTW) do indeed believe in the Bible as God's word. Many of them are also more left-leaning politically, hence Obama's lead there.

I have many Evangelical friends in Washington state, and they are all for Obama, Pro Environment, etc.

So much for the stereotypes.


----------



## spectrum (Oct 15, 2008)

Ed @ Wed Oct 15 said:


> Spectrum, your position is very hard to defend.


Not at all. 

I'm an American, and there are plenty of knuckleheads in my country. But that doesn't equate that the majority are knuckleheads. (you folks may disagree of course! )

That's like saying that it's indefensible to defend people from Ohio, because there are some extremely ignorant people from Ohio staying idiotic stuff like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRqcfqiX ... m/home.php

Evangelical Christians are an extremely LARGE group of people. Of course there are extremists within this group, like the ones you mentioned. The actions of some of those people are shameful and wrong, but they don't define the beliefs of the majority of Evangelicals. But they certainly get the most media attention.

But what's way incorrect here is the notion that Evangelicals represent one train of political thought only. It seems like "Evangelical" has now replaced the term "Fundamentalist", and that's what's incorrect.

For example, some noted Christians that attend churches that are considered within the Evangelical community:

Al Gore
Bill Clinton
Jimmy Carter
Barack Obama
Al Sharpton
Jessie Jackson

Not exactly a group of right-wing extremists! 

Yes, Evangelicals believe in God, try to follow Christ, are more often to be Pro-Life and read the Bible as much more than simply a book. Apparently, this alone enough for some of you guys to believe that is qualification alone for the "extremist" label.

But I find that position to be the "extreme" one. 

How about we avoid such broad labels and respect our differences of opinion?

I believe that we can have differing world views and that there is plenty of room for people of all types of faith.

At the end of the day, one can speak best from his own experience. In my life, I've personally known thousands of these folks labeled here as "extremists". My experience is that there's a great deal of diversity of opinion amongst believers on political matters and many issues in life.

My point is simply that broad labeling like this is potentially dangerous and not very open-minded, wherever it is applied. Whether it's calling Obama a Muslim, who "pals around with terrorists" or broadly labeling Evangelicals as being of one political stripe or opinion. It's just not the case.

I'm done.

Back to making extreme patches.... 

Cheers!

spectrum


----------



## Ed (Oct 15, 2008)

spectrum @ Wed Oct 15 said:


> Ed @ Wed Oct 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Spectrum, your position is very hard to defend.
> ...



That depends Eric, does the majority of Ohio believe what these guys believe? If so, then you *are *justified in saying that *generally*, the people of Ohio are, like you put it, idiotic. 



> Evangelical Christians are an extremely LARGE group of people. Of course there are extremists within this group, like the ones you mentioned. The actions of some of those people are shameful and wrong, but they don't define the beliefs of the majority of Evangelicals.
> 
> But what's way incorrect here is the notion that Evangelicals represent one train of political thought only. It seems like "Evangelical" has now replaced the term "Fundamentalist", and that's what's incorrect.



Then could you define what you believe an evangelical to be?



> For example, some noted Christians that attend churches that are considered within the Evangelical community:
> 
> Al Gore
> Bill Clinton
> ...



No that would certianly not earn you the extremist label to me. But the point still stands, when talking *generally *evangelicals can be said to - probably - believe certian things both religiously, politically and socially. You could say the same thing about very devout Muslims, if you meet one you can be fairly certian they will probably believe certian things as well. Usually its wrong to generalise, but in certian cases generalities are correct and justified.

To recant a story, my Aunt doesnt believe there is a God, believes there isnt a literal hell or heaven and believes in no supernatural power ...yet still calls herself a Christian. She goes to church and reads passages from the Bible when they tell her too, she likes Jesus and thinks all of it is bascially a big metaphor. Honestly. She wont listen if you try and tell her what they really meant when writing the Bible or what it all really means. Im telling you this because this is surely the most liberal "Christian" position that anyone could ever take! And yet, if you said to her that the more Christian you are the more right wing and extremist you are she would be upset at this generalisation. She would say of course she is a "true" Christian, and her beliefs are justified as Christian. To be "_more Christian"_ would just be a greater sence of what she already now believes. Thats why she would object to that and thats why YOU object to it. 



> How about we avoid such broad labels and respect our differences of opinion?
> 
> I believe that we can have differing world views and that there is plenty of room for people of all types of faith.



Sure. But Evangelicals do MAKE UP a large marjority of fundamentalists because fundamentalist Christians are almost always Evangelicals. I know there are more normal evangelicals, but most of the time will *still *hold some form of irrationality that i spoke about above. Either they are anti-gay or they are in whole or in part Creationist. Usually they will be anti abortion, so saying that the evangelicals will probably vote in favour of someone that will ban abortion rather than the politician with the more liberal stance on the subject isnt an unfair generalisation, its a fact! If there was no way you could make any assertions based on what evangelicals will do voting day, look at these crazies you referenced in Ohio. They are Republicans, where are these same idiots at Democrate rallies? They arent there because thats seen a much more liberal leftist party. 



> My point is simply that broad labeling like this is very dangerous and close-minded, wherever it is applied. Whether it's calling Obama a Muslim, who "pals around with terrorists" or broadly labeling Evangelicals as being of one political stripe or opinion. It's just not the case.
> 
> I'm done.



I realise this but if a lot of evangelicals dont like how their movement has been somehow hijacked by these idiots they should show their disgust for them and publically denounce them. Personally however I still believe the evangelicals that believe like you do are in the minority!



> Back to making patches....



o=< o-[][]-o


----------



## SvK (Oct 15, 2008)

A nation of immigrants....

Many Republicans are complaining that they can't even take their children to Palin rallies because they are so hateful. America is a nation of immigrants and unless you are an American Indian, somwhere along the line your ancestors got on a boat to get here. If John McCain was half the leader he claims to be, this is what he would tell his angry mobs.


SvK


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 16, 2008)

> To recant a story, my Aunt doesnt believe there is a God, believes there isnt a literal hell or heaven and believes in no supernatural power ...yet still calls herself a Christian. She goes to church and reads passages from the Bible when they tell her too, she likes Jesus and thinks all of it is bascially a big metaphor. Honestly. She wont listen if you try and tell her what they really meant when writing the Bible or what it all really means. Im telling you this because this is surely the most liberal "Christian" position that anyone could ever take! And yet, if you said to her that the more Christian you are the more right wing and extremist you are she would be upset at this generalisation. She would say of course she is a "true" Christian, and her beliefs are justified as Christian. To be "more Christian" would just be a greater sence of what she already now believes. Thats why she would object to that and thats why YOU object to it.



Right. Yeah, I know the type - we have a lot of them here. A friend of mine calls himself Christian, yet believes in reincarnation - bhudist style. Now, them c<alling themselves Christian does not make it so. 

I would have no problem calling your aunt, or my friend, less Christian than Eric. In fact I think one can question if they are Christian _at all_. It's all a scale and and one point you decide to ignore so many central ideas that you simply cease to be Christian. However one can still live a life based on Christian values and simply adobt the philosophy and teachings of Jesus. In fact my girlfriend is very much like your aunt, and I have in part convinced her to stop calling herself Christian and rather say spiritual or religious. 

What she says is that she feels spiritual and that she can relate to the core messages of Jesus. So she uses Christianity as a vehcile for that spirituality. But when asked specifically about the content of the Bible she would dismiss most of it as alagories, and sensible thoughts on life and how to live it... Like Harry Potter I then reply :D

In other words she would not regard the book as devine, and most likely not even devinely inspired.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 16, 2008)

The underlying issue is that our candidates' religion should remain their own business, and voters who use it as a test are misguided - unless the candidate allows the religion to affect his or her politics in a bad way, of course.


----------

