nationally televised religious rally...

I ask for specific examples because your sweeping pronouncements are almost entirely devoid of substance. They might bolster your inflated sense of intellectual superiority, but they are not exactly conducive to meaningful debate.

 

As always Huck resorts to attacking the statements of the opposing view when he can't logically defend his own statements and positions.

As for DeLay and his claimed Christianity... Paul CLEARLY states that Christians are to avoid even the APPEARANCE of evil. DeLay's actions may have not been evil or unethical but his actions certainly have the appearance of evil. DeLay also took money from gambling interests.

The budget. The recent budget makes huge cuts in Medicare while giving tax breaks to the wealthy and upper middle class. James 2 CLEARLY says that Christians are not to give preferential treatment to the wealthy. "Often the Bible presents concern for the poor as an accurate measure of an individual's faithfulness".(Luke 3:11,James 2:14-19) (Ajith Fernando " Our Responsibility to the Poor. taken from Practical Christianity The down to Earth Guide to Heavenly Living Chapter 24 page 604.

btw Huck, Some of Pratical Christianity's contributors include Tony Campolo and Chuck Colson so you could hardly call it a Lefty Propaganda.

Here's an excerpt from Chapter 24 Politics and Christianity from th e afore mentioned book. Should Christians be Politically Involved? author Mark Hatfield

... As a result of the separation of church and state we find great religeous diversity in our country.
Because of that constitutional separation, Christianity in the form of the institutional organized church is constrained from formal integrations with our government. But Christianity in the form of an individual's theological identification with the body of Christ can and should play a part in the political process.
Working as individuals within the political systems is not contrary to our Christian faith. We believe in the redemption of humanity, a redemption that takes place on an individual basis not on an institutional basis. Likewise our political influence comes from the involvement of individuals not institutions.

It would be wise for us all to carefully examine the warning provided by de Toqueville. He said "Once religeon is mixed with the bitter passions of the world it cannot avoid losing influence: The Church cannot share the temporal power of the state without being the object of a portion of that animosity which the latter excites".

People of faith like Martin Luther King Jr. used his influence to bring changes to society which were meant to free oppressed people. The Neo-Conservative Dominionists are using the name of God to forward an agenda that would bring severe oppression to those that don't agree with them and would in the process destroy Democracy. see www.theocracywatch.org


Ultimately the kingdom of God is based on freedom of conscience. I am a Christian and am proud to say so. The best way to solve society's problems is NOT to establish a theocratic dictatorship and force people to change their outward behaviour. The best way to bring about a positive change in society is to lead individuals to Christ. When Christ dwells within, our hearts are changed. When our hearts are changed by Christ, Christs in dwelling power helps us to do that which is right and good and helps us desire to do what is right and good.. So if we Christians devote our time and energy in leading individuals to Christ we would eventually end up with a society of people with changed hearts and the end result would be changed behaviour.

 

Both parties realize this.

The Republicans came to regret the two-term limit when Reagan was in his second term. There was a half-serious move by Republicans to try to repeal the 22nd Amendment near the end of Reagan's second term but it didn't go anywhere.

.

 

When have I defended DeLay's (apparent) ethics violations or Bush's budget priorities?

Don't send me to a web site. Give me a few specific policy examples.

 

My "sweeping pronouncements" are full of substance and verifiable claims for any, unlike yourself, who bother doing any research. It's quite clear that you dont give due attention to events, processes nor the motives that drive them (nor, it seems, even the foundations of the very faith you profess). Instead you make further bogus left/right distinctions to avoid actually hearing the truth of any matter, simply because it is served up with more passion than your preferred media soundbites have accustomed you to.

I oppose the entire fraudulent, US political aparatus. This you would have noted if you did more than skim through posts (as another well known poster on these forums habitually demonstrates) to find some minutia that will allow your facile reasoning to discard it all without diligent consideration (ala the same aforementioned poster).

The very charge you level against those, like myself, who take your simplistic views to task is clearly a reflection of your own avoidance of "meaningful discussion". Substance is derived from a will to be informed and to pursue the information one is provided with a spirit of enquiry. Your dismissive retorts show quite plainly that you lack that fundamental characteristic.

 

A perfect case in point. Translated: "don't ask me to expend any effort to do actual research. Do the legwork for me and give me the gist".

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

 

If you're overweight, a waist is a terrible thing to mind.

.

 

Alternate translation: Don't expect me to sift through reams of propaganda on a shrill web site with an obvious axe to grind.

Again, I ask for some specific examples of policies advocated by sinister conservatives "that would bring severe oppression to those that don't agree with them." If this evil plot is as pervasive as people here claim, then it should be easy to demonstrate.