Discussion:
The Evangelical White House...
(too old to reply)
Heidi Graw
2004-11-03 21:45:29 UTC
Permalink
The Moral Majority elected their man into the White House. They're already
wringing their hands at the prospect of appointing extreme hard-right
Supreme Court judges. Americans may end up with a biblical court system.
Christians all across America are happily celebrating the prospects of
implementing their Evangelical agenda.

Yet despite the Christianization of the American political system, to what
extent can they realistically succeed? Even if the Supreme Court interprets
the laws conservatively instead of liberally, we can expect ongoing and
consistent courtroom challenges. If one thing Americans can do well that is
in the area of litigation. ;-)

So, do Americans really have to fear for their social liberalism? With Bush
having only 51% of the popular vote, I doubt he would risk raising the ire
of the remaining 49% of the voting population. He does not have a solid
enough mandate to change the social norms too dramatically.

I predict the Bush Admin will pay a lot of lip service to the Christian
masses, hoping that that'll appease them without actually having to actually
do anything. Bush only needed their vote. He got it. This will now allow
him to continue with his war-mongering and quest to control the world's oil
supply. He's not going to have too much time on his hands to muck about
with American's social and personal lives.

I don't expect any Wiccan or Asatru military or hospital chaplains or prison
outreach groups will end up banned.

Americans will be able to remain in shock and awe over a pair of boobies,
while porn magazines will remain readily available on the market. Gays will
continue to marry. Women will continue to have abortions. On the social
front, I don't expect much will change.

Heidi
Rex F. May
2004-11-03 22:05:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heidi Graw
The Moral Majority elected their man into the White House. They're already
wringing their hands at the prospect of appointing extreme hard-right
Supreme Court judges. Americans may end up with a biblical court system.
Christians all across America are happily celebrating the prospects of
implementing their Evangelical agenda.
Or so they think, as you indicate below.
Post by Heidi Graw
Yet despite the Christianization of the American political system, to what
extent can they realistically succeed? Even if the Supreme Court interprets
the laws conservatively instead of liberally, we can expect ongoing and
consistent courtroom challenges. If one thing Americans can do well that is
in the area of litigation. ;-)
So, do Americans really have to fear for their social liberalism? With Bush
having only 51% of the popular vote, I doubt he would risk raising the ire
of the remaining 49% of the voting population. He does not have a solid
enough mandate to change the social norms too dramatically.
Dead on. He has no intentions of that sort. Never did.
Scott Lowther
2004-11-04 02:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heidi Graw
The Moral Majority elected their man into the White House.
As did more than half of those who bothered to vote.


They're already
Post by Heidi Graw
wringing their hands at the prospect of appointing extreme hard-right
Supreme Court judges.
They may be, but Bush's history does nto indicate "hard right wing."
Post by Heidi Graw
Americans may end up with a biblical court system.
And monkeys may fly out of your ass.
Post by Heidi Graw
Yet despite the Christianization of the American political system, to what
extent can they realistically succeed?
Basically none.
Post by Heidi Graw
So, do Americans really have to fear for their social liberalism?
Only under Democrats.


With Bush
Post by Heidi Graw
having only 51% of the popular vote, I doubt he would risk raising the ire
of the remaining 49% of the voting population.
Taking your other untenable positions for granted for the sake of
arguement... what possible interest would a second-term President have
in future elections?
Post by Heidi Graw
This will now allow
him to continue with his war-mongering and quest to control the world's oil
supply.
Remember, the shiny side goes *out*.
Post by Heidi Graw
Americans will be able to remain in shock and awe over a pair of boobies,
while porn magazines will remain readily available on the market. Gays will
continue to marry.
That seems less likely. Eleven states had ballot issues on gay marriage,
and I believe they *all* came out against it.
bowman
2004-11-04 03:17:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lowther
Eleven states had ballot issues on gay marriage,
and I believe they all came out against it.
Yup. There are thousands of heart broken sheep in Montana today....
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
2004-11-04 07:34:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heidi Graw
Americans will be able to remain in shock and awe over a pair of boobies,
while porn magazines will remain readily available on the market. Gays will
continue to marry. Women will continue to have abortions. On the social
front, I don't expect much will change.
I hope you are right. But then, people said the same after a certain A.
Hitler had been elected into office as chancellor of Germany...
--
May the High Gods walk with you

Tocis, German warrior of Thor
Heidi Graw
2004-11-04 09:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
Post by Heidi Graw
Americans will be able to remain in shock and awe over a pair of boobies,
while porn magazines will remain readily available on the market. Gays will
continue to marry. Women will continue to have abortions. On the social
front, I don't expect much will change.
I hope you are right. But then, people said the same after a certain A.
Hitler had been elected into office as chancellor of Germany...
Consider the communications technology that was available in the 1930's to
what is available today. Bush cannot in any way control absolutely all
media within the USA as Hitler could do within Germany. Bush can do his
propaganda spiel as much and as often as he wants, but today's infotech will
permit other viewpoints to be told. Squashing opposing voices is virtually
impossible *today.* It's also harder nowadays to engage in secret and
covert operations. Anyone with a micro camera can broadcast worldwide. So,
while the Admin may monitor us, we can also monitor them. It cannot be a
one-way communications stream any more. Those days are long gone.

And when people are in the know, even if they heavily disagree with one
another, implementing extreme programs becomes that much harder. At worst
Bush could nibble away at some edges...ie..make access to abortions slightly
more difficult or costly.

He can't even ban gay marriages outright 'cause civil unions seem to be
acceptable. All it takes is for a liberal church to bless and sanctify that
same sexed couple. A more conservative church might refuse...and since they
have the freedom to express their religious convictions and conscience,
these churches do have the right to refuse to bless gay people. They may
criticise liberal churches, but they can't actually shut them down. So,
American gays can still get married....register their civil union and
receive blessings by a Gay Christian Church....even if there is a
Constitutionally entrenched definition for the word "marriage" that claims
marriage can only be between a man and a woman. That definition means dick
all when people can still engage in civil unions and can have their
relationships blessed. If it looks like a duck and acts like a duck it is a
duck.

So, this leaves issues regarding social benefits which a gay couple may not
have at this time, ie. widow and widower pensions, or other survivor
benefits that married couples are allowed to have. Power of attorney and
decision-making regarding what to do with a corpse can all be handled by
writing up a legally binding civil contract. As for survivor benefits, this
can be challenged using "equality" clauses. You don't even have to use the
word "spouse" when fighting for such a thing. One can also name *anyone* as
a beneficiary when it comes to insurance policies and private pension plans.
Wills can take care of all sorts of other needs to ensure the gay spouse is
adequately supported.

I'm actually quite confused about the American gay advocacy. There are
already all sorts of ways they can be married in a very real and meaningful
way. Heteros have their civil marriages...gays their civil unions....both
are licensed and legally recognized. Whether union or marriage...the
function is identical. Both gays and heteros can find clergy to bless their
unions/marriages. The two words, union and marriage, even mean the same.
Gays can also draw up wills, name beneficiaries, and draw up civil
contracts...just like any hetro couple. Gays and heteros can wear rings on
their fingers.

Where inequality exists is when it relates to government support programs.
And in this I agree that when it comes to government services, sex
discrimination should not exist. All citizens should enjoy equal treatment
under the law. If I can draw a widows pension, so should a survivor of a
civilly united and licensed gay couple. Gay people pay taxes, too. They
should be able to receive equal benefit and equal opportunity just as any
other couple.

In a way I'm kinda wondering ig the objection to gay marriages isn't so much
a moral issue, but rather a financial one instead. Conservative hetero
couples may fear they will have to share tax-money designated for survivor
benefits and that by allowing gay marriages it may increase the tax burden.
The financial aspects are not much talked about, although I think this plays
a role. Consider approximately 10% of the human population is gay. If they
all got married and had a spouse die, more survivor benefits would have to
be paid out, more spousal exemptions benefits can be claimed. The private
arrangements are not the problem...it's those publically supported programs
that *are.*

Heidi
Scott Lowther
2004-11-04 13:29:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heidi Graw
Consider the communications technology that was available in the 1930's to
what is available today. Bush cannot in any way control absolutely all
media within the USA...
Nobody canmuch to the very great annoyance of the mainstream media
itself. Vast amount of effort were put into gettign Bush voted out of
office by the usual media outlets... last minute "discoveries" of
bullshit, the presentation of obvious forgieries as proof of somethign
or other, denial of presentation of both sides. But the alternate media,
in the form mostly of the Internet, was able to much more effectively
counter them.
Post by Heidi Graw
Squashing opposing voices is virtually impossible *today.*
Dan Rather has got to be *pissed*.
bowman
2004-11-04 13:58:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lowther
But the alternate media,
in the form mostly of the Internet, was able to much more effectively
counter them.
I wouldn't put that much stress on the internet. It's gradually gaining
influence but many of voters aren't wired or don't trust it. Their
preferred vehicle is radio talk shows or perhaps alternate publications.
afaik it is out of print, but at one point the Spotlight was the preferred
reading matter at the finer Podunk barbershops.

From what I can see from the morning after analysis, Clinton's blowjob has
destroyed the credibility of the Democratic party. The economy, immigration
issues, long term goals, and foreign policy were not the issue.
Skald Grimnir
2004-11-04 19:56:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by bowman
From what I can see from the morning after analysis, Clinton's blowjob has
destroyed the credibility of the Democratic party. The economy, immigration
issues, long term goals, and foreign policy were not the issue.
It wasn't the blowjob that destroyed credibility. It was the fact that he
lied about it.
Personally, I voted for Bush both times, and never liked Clinton.
However, for the public, a lie is one of the worst of sins. Everyone expects
that politicians lie, but when they get caught, that's it.
Celebs have learned that if you come out, admit there is a problem, plead
for forgiveness and the support of the people, they tend to get forgiven.
Heidi Graw
2004-11-04 20:16:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skald Grimnir
Post by bowman
From what I can see from the morning after analysis, Clinton's blowjob has
destroyed the credibility of the Democratic party. The economy, immigration
issues, long term goals, and foreign policy were not the issue.
It wasn't the blowjob that destroyed credibility. It was the fact that he
lied about it.
Yet who in their right mind would even pursue such a question? Monica
voluntarily gave the Pres a blowjob. So what? It's claimed he got
"caught"....Well...no-one should be looking for that in the first place!
Now, had Clinton actually raped the woman and harmed her in some way,
o.k...then the public may have an interest in the case. But, a silly tryste
in the Oval office is nothing that the public should get all riled up about.
That's a private matter between man, wife and mistress.

Granted a politician may be a public figure, but even as such he or she is
entitled to some privacy. The public doesn't *own* the politician. The
public does not need to know when a Pres had had sex, when he went to the
bathroom and when he farts and burps! That kind of close scrutiny is
absolutely not necessary.

But the Moral Majority with all their self-righteous rage and indignation
actually believe they have a right to determine people's sex lives. And of
course, the Media thought this would be a great sensationalist story to
spread around. A lot of people made money off this blowjob....millions and
millions of dollars. It deserves recognition in the Guinness book of world
records. Most expensive blowjob: Bill Clinton's xxx million dollars.

Heidi
Skald Grimnir
2004-11-04 20:35:50 UTC
Permalink
But the Moral Majority with all their self-righteous rage and indignation
Post by Heidi Graw
actually believe they have a right to determine people's sex lives.
That's actually somewhat funny comming from you. I've rarely seen someone so
full of "self-righteous rage and indignation" as you. You tend to forget
that this is a democracy. You tend to paint Bush in the light of near evil,
saying that "The Moral Majority" got their way. Well, maybe if the democrats
were more convincing in their arguments, they would have won.

Not everyone who voted for Bush consider themselves a part of the Moral
Majority. I don't give a damn one way or the other about Gay marriages. I am
pro-choice, like my wife. However, I disliked Kerry, and refused to vote for
him. His medical plan was utter and complete shit.

So, remember it is a democracy, people got their way, and if you want it to
change, in 4 years go out and support whatever Democrat you want, and we
will see who the next republican canidate is, and another duke it out fest
will begin.
Heidi Graw
2004-11-04 21:37:10 UTC
Permalink
(snip)
Post by Skald Grimnir
You tend to paint Bush in the light of near evil,
Yes, that's because he *is* evil! He actually puts Satan to shame. LOL...
Post by Skald Grimnir
saying that "The Moral Majority" got their way.
And that's a fact! The Moral Majority has 4 million members across the USA.
Bush-baby won by 3 million votes. The Moral Majority carried this devil
incarnate into the White House.
Post by Skald Grimnir
Not everyone who voted for Bush consider themselves a part of the Moral
Majority.
I know that. There were all sorts of moderates, atheists and assorted
others who voted for Bush. However, that does not take away from the fact
that the Moral Majority put Bush into the White House. Now we're having to
live with that idjot for another 4 years.

Oh well...
Heidi

bowman
2004-11-04 13:48:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heidi Graw
In a way I'm kinda wondering ig the objection to gay marriages isn't so much
a moral issue, but rather a financial one instead. Conservative hetero
couples may fear they will have to share tax-money designated for survivor
benefits and that by allowing gay marriages it may increase the tax burden.
It depends. Montana passed a proposition to amend to state constituion to
defime amrriage as a hetero union. Eastern Montana is quite conservative,
while the western part of the state is liberal. The religious right
maintains a very low profile compared to the midwest.

The argument against gay marriages revolved around the tax breaks, dependent
medical insurance benefits, and so forth.

However, among the conservative Christians, I believe the issue is entirely
moral. A friend of mine has little use for the Catholic Church -- except
for its unswerving condemnation of gay marriage and abortion.
Rex F. May
2004-11-04 15:20:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by bowman
Post by Heidi Graw
In a way I'm kinda wondering ig the objection to gay marriages isn't so much
a moral issue, but rather a financial one instead. Conservative hetero
couples may fear they will have to share tax-money designated for survivor
benefits and that by allowing gay marriages it may increase the tax burden.
It depends. Montana passed a proposition to amend to state constituion to
defime amrriage as a hetero union. Eastern Montana is quite conservative,
while the western part of the state is liberal. The religious right
maintains a very low profile compared to the midwest.
The argument against gay marriages revolved around the tax breaks, dependent
medical insurance benefits, and so forth.
However, among the conservative Christians, I believe the issue is entirely
moral. A friend of mine has little use for the Catholic Church -- except
for its unswerving condemnation of gay marriage and abortion.
It's a very real fear that homosexual "marriage" will dilute real marriage,
morally and financially. Maybe companies who have been giving bennies to
married couples will stop when they find themselves required to do the same
to homosexuals.
Rex F. May
2004-11-04 15:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heidi Graw
In a way I'm kinda wondering ig the objection to gay marriages isn't so much
a moral issue, but rather a financial one instead. Conservative hetero
couples may fear they will have to share tax-money designated for survivor
benefits and that by allowing gay marriages it may increase the tax burden.
The financial aspects are not much talked about, although I think this plays
a role. Consider approximately 10% of the human population is gay. If they
all got married and had a spouse die, more survivor benefits would have to
be paid out, more spousal exemptions benefits can be claimed. The private
arrangements are not the problem...it's those publically supported programs
that *are.*
To some extent, it's the demand that there be perfect symmetry AND COMPLETE
ACCEPTANCE. That's the problem with hate speech laws. Plenty of groups
would like criticism of them to be illegal.

And, to some extent it's just moral exhibitionism.
Herman
2004-11-04 18:52:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
Post by Heidi Graw
Americans will be able to remain in shock and awe over a pair of boobies,
while porn magazines will remain readily available on the market. Gays will
continue to marry. Women will continue to have abortions. On the social
front, I don't expect much will change.
I hope you are right. But then, people said the same after a certain A.
Hitler had been elected into office as chancellor of Germany...
Tocis, the Plastic Thor, your homeland now is a shithouse of degeneracy.

Hank
Herman
2004-11-04 18:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heidi Graw
The Moral Majority elected their man into the White House. They're already
wringing their hands at the prospect of appointing extreme hard-right
Supreme Court judges. Americans may end up with a biblical court system.
Christians all across America are happily celebrating the prospects of
implementing their Evangelical agenda.
Yet despite the Christianization of the American political system, to what
extent can they realistically succeed? Even if the Supreme Court interprets
the laws conservatively instead of liberally, we can expect ongoing and
consistent courtroom challenges. If one thing Americans can do well that is
in the area of litigation. ;-)
So, do Americans really have to fear for their social liberalism? With Bush
having only 51% of the popular vote, I doubt he would risk raising the ire
of the remaining 49% of the voting population. He does not have a solid
enough mandate to change the social norms too dramatically.
I predict the Bush Admin will pay a lot of lip service to the Christian
masses, hoping that that'll appease them without actually having to actually
do anything. Bush only needed their vote. He got it. This will now allow
him to continue with his war-mongering and quest to control the world's oil
supply. He's not going to have too much time on his hands to muck about
with American's social and personal lives.
I don't expect any Wiccan or Asatru military or hospital chaplains or prison
outreach groups will end up banned.
Americans will be able to remain in shock and awe over a pair of boobies,
while porn magazines will remain readily available on the market. Gays will
continue to marry. Women will continue to have abortions. On the social
front, I don't expect much will change.
Heidi
Ms. Graw, your ramblings reinforce the notion that the greatest threat
to Western Civilization and the White Race comes from women voting.
The 19th amendment to the US constitution should be repealed. Women
think with their twats and spinal columns.

Hank
Skald Grimnir
2004-11-04 20:06:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Herman
Ms. Graw, your ramblings reinforce the notion that the greatest threat
to Western Civilization and the White Race comes from women voting.
The 19th amendment to the US constitution should be repealed. Women
think with their twats and spinal columns.
Hank
Those rambling I fully disagree with. While I disagree with much that Heidi
says, I do not feel that because she has an opinion different than mine that
she is a threat to Western Civilization.
And as much as I know you did not mean it in this context, I find it
refreshing when voters show a little spine in their stances.
My wife is not a very political person. She is for gay marriage, and pro
choice, however, she agreed with me that Kerry was not the way to go, and
for some different reasons than I did.
Heidi Graw
2004-11-04 20:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Skald Grimnir
Those rambling I fully disagree with. While I disagree with much that
Heidi says, I do not feel that because she has an opinion different than
mine that she is a threat to Western Civilization.
That is very generous of you, Skald. I appreciate your comments. Now, to
satisfy my curiosity about those "ramblings" with which you "fully"
disagree, could you do me a favour and interject my "ramblings" by inserting
"disagree" and/or "agree". No need to provide an explanation. Here's a
repost of what I rambled about:

"The Moral Majority elected their man into the White House."

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

"They're already
wringing their hands at the prospect of appointing extreme hard-right
Supreme Court judges."

Do you agree or disagree?

" Americans may end up with a biblical court system."

Do you agree or disagree?

"Christians all across America are happily celebrating the prospects of
implementing their Evangelical agenda."

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

"Yet despite the Christianization of the American political system, to what
extent can they realistically succeed? Even if the Supreme Court interprets
the laws conservatively instead of liberally, we can expect ongoing and
consistent courtroom challenges. If one thing Americans can do well that is
in the area of litigation. ;-)"

Do you agree or disagree with above statement?

"So, do Americans really have to fear for their social liberalism?"

Please answer YES or NO. ;-)

"With Bush
having only 51% of the popular vote, I doubt he would risk raising the ire
of the remaining 49% of the voting population."

Do you agree or disagree?

"He does not have a solid
enough mandate to change the social norms too dramatically."

Do you agree or disagree with the above statemtent?

"I predict the Bush Admin will pay a lot of lip service to the Christian
masses, hoping that that'll appease them without actually having to
do anything."

Do you agree or disagree with that prediction?

"Bush only needed their vote. He got it."

Agree or disagree?

"This will now allow
him to continue with his war-mongering and quest to control the world's oil
supply."

Agree or disagree?

"He's not going to have too much time on his hands to muck about
with American's social and personal lives."

Agreed or disagreed?

"I don't expect any Wiccan or Asatru military or hospital chaplains or
prison
outreach groups will end up banned."

Agreed or disagreed with the above statement?

"Americans will be able to remain in shock and awe over a pair of boobies,
while porn magazines will remain readily available on the market. Gays will
continue to marry. Women will continue to have abortions. On the social
front, I don't expect much will change."

Do you agree or disagree with the above?

My interest in this excercise is to try to discover to what extent we agree
and disagree. I find it rather tiresome for people to make wholesale
statements when in all likelihood we may agree or disagree on just *some*
things. ;-)

So, if you wouldn't mind, could you please indulge me in this little
excercise? Just provide an "agree" or "disagree"...simple and fast.

Thanks a bunch,
Heidi
Heidi Graw
2004-11-04 20:56:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Herman
Ms. Graw, your ramblings reinforce the notion that the greatest threat
to Western Civilization and the White Race comes from women voting.
The 19th amendment to the US constitution should be repealed.
Hank, you're not the only feminist to think this. You have a lot of support
for this notion. There are yet men in this world who believe women need to
be protected and kept out of the public domain. The darling of the
household ought not to get her hands messy working at a real job. It is the
man's duty to go out into the world to toil away to bring home the goodies.
*He* is to work for her and the children. And in return, it's a small
effort on her part to merely sexually service the man after he has toiled
away for so many long hours each and every day and for her to dote on the
children. Home, hearth and motherhood...those ideals are very attractive to
a vast number of women. This is why in the Middle East any effort to
liberate women has been so difficult. A great many women actually enjoy not
having to go out to work to bring in the family income. They like hanging
around at home to gossip with their friends and watch tv all day. Who cares
if the guy nearly drops dead of exertion. These hardline feminists will
refuse to give up their cushy life. I'm somewhat confused as to why you
support such radical feminism: the women get the goodies, the men have to
toil to get them those things. Oh well...your choice...

Heidi
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...