(Howard Dean) Trying to play the Jesus card

[horge]

Originally posted by JohnBT
"So, how is the guy lying?"

He's a politician and his lips are moving; therefore there's a good chance he's lying.

 

[RealGun]

"We need to talk about Christian values and how they're Democratic values," he said. "Jesus taught to help the least among us. He spent his life reaching out to the disenfranchised. The Democratic Party is the party of that value, not the Republican Party."

If I am able to help someone, I would like it to be voluntarily, not by someone else's idea of entitlements, tax and spend, and who should get it.

 

[Sean Smith]

What Dean is saying makes perfect sense. Take God and Guns away from the Republicans, and they would probably lose 1/4 of their votes. The problem for the Democrats is convincing anyone that they are credible on those issues.

On guns, well, the Democrats are generally hopeless. Some Southern Democrats aren't virulently anti-2nd Ammendment, along with the occasional Yankee oddball like Dean himself. But it is an objective fact that a much greater proportion of the Democratic Party than the Republican Party is actively anti-2nd Ammendment.

However, if the Democrats could fake 2nd Ammendment "neutrality" on a national level, they could probalby gain alot of votes. Alot of gun owners want government handouts too, as long as they can keep their .30-06.

God is tougher, no pun intended. The "godliness" of politicians in America seems to hinge entirely on their opposition to abortion and their antipathy towards gays, along with opposition to the occasional court-ordered enforcement of the 1st Ammendment. Since the Democratic party's constituencies include... feminists and homosexuals... their ability to move on those issues is pretty limited.

And Dean has bungled his attempt to bring God into the equation, with his blatant ignorance of the Gospels, and the documented fact that he quit his curch over a bike path. Even by political standards, he looks like a hypocritical dunce.

 

[K-Romulus]

+1 to RevDisk

and the others who said the same . . .

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

God is tougher, no pun intended. The "godliness" of politicians in America seems to hinge entirely on their opposition to abortion and their antipathy towards gays, along with opposition to the occasional court-ordered enforcement of the 1st Ammendment. Since the Democratic party's constituencies include... feminists and homosexuals... their ability to move on those issues is pretty limited.

I think that you're forgetting that the Christian world in the USA includes far more than Protestant evangelicals.

The anti-war stance of the Democrats plays well with many liberal Catholics and others, and many other Churches (Epis. Unitarian, etc.) really don't have big problems with abortion

 

[Rebar]

Even by political standards, he looks like a hypocritical dunce.

Especially when he shows pure mean-spiritness:

But he did draw howls of laughter by mimicking a drug-snorting Rush Limbaugh.

http://www.startribune.com/dynamic/story.php?template=print_a&story=5360513
What happened to love the sinner hate the sin? Guess Christian values only apply by liberal for liberals.

And concluding his backyard speech with a litany of Democratic values, he added: "This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good."

http://www.ljworld.com/section/citynews/story/197427
So, republicans are evil now. Nice.

Dean and his cohorts are so filled with hate, they'll never convince anyone that they're the Christian party.

 

[tetchaje1]

Wasn't it Dean who in a speech during the campaign in the South said, "We can't be so fixated on God, Guns, and Gays!"

For those who are defending him, he is playing you like a fiddle

So, uhm, we shouldn't promote 2nd Amendment amoung Democrats?

The Republican Party has nearly a monopoly on all branches of government. WH, Congress and soon all the courts. Kindly explain to me why current gun control laws aren't being gutted like a fish?

Plenty of Democrats are Christians. I'd say probably the majority are Christians. Just because the Democratic Party generally doesn't want the government to support coercive religion does not make them anti-religion. Are there some anti-religious loonies in the Democratic Party? Sure. But they are not the majority.

Yes, we should be promoting the 2nd Amendment among all parties, and you are correct that there really is no real difference between Dean and Bush on guns. Neither of them are activaly banning them, but neither of them are doing a dang thing to repeal the useless and unConstitutional laws that we have on the books.

The Republicans have proven their ineptness in being any different from the Democrats in most areas of public policy -- even after the majority of Americans rejected the Democratic party platform in the last election. Instead of getting to work on the issues that the majority of Americans find important, they extended the olive branch and said, "Now we can work together in Congress to get things done." They won, their constituents voted them in for a reason. They should be cleaning up in Congress by reflecting what their constituents want -- within the realm of the Constitution, of course.

Your premise that most Democrats are Christians is true, but your premise that the Democratic party represents Christianity is off base. The basic party line of the Democrats is an anti-Judeo-Christian machine that continually erodes my Constitutional right against government prohibiting my free exercise of religion. Nobody is forced to participate in religion, and there is no law stating that the Anglican or Catholic or Baptist church is the official religion of the land. That was the intent of the limitation clause in the 1st amendment, NOT to remove God and any references of God in the government, rebuilding the nation in the image of man instead of the Creator, be he Allah, Buddha, Jehovah, or Jesus Christ.

 

[grampster]

When have "values" been an attribute for any politician?

Politics has always been about money and power...money and power to promote an agenda held by a few (The Party) and supported by the many (Sheeple). Representative democracy in our Constitutional Republic depends upon good men standing up and involved, knowledgeable people supporting them. Well, history shows us that many of those who have stood up have been scoundrels. The people are not very knowledgeable or involved and it is showing.

To say that Dean is any worse than any other politician is a stretch. Imho, a few of them are honorable. Maybe even more than a few. But the lust for money and power draws the scoundrels like manure draws flies. I don't trust any of em. Dean or for that matter any politician rarely sticks by his principles when push comes to shove and it involves the possibility of losing the money or the power. Until the man on the street begins to pay attention and demand that our leaders have the interests of our country first and foremost, then all we're gonna get is more of the same socialistic crap from the right and the left, as we stand by and watch our freedom eroded slowly but surely.

I'm not sure that there is a solution...history also shows us that every civilization decays. It's maybe taking a bit longer for America because of how we got our start and the freedoms that we have enjoyed. In the past the media shouted freedom from the rooftops. Now all they do is hold it up to scorn and are in lockstep with the Nanny State.

I'm starting to get exercised and I feel a rant coming on...stop now. sigh....

 

[RevDisk]

Yes, we should be promoting the 2nd Amendment among all parties, and you are correct that there really is no real difference between Dean and Bush on guns. Neither of them are activaly banning them, but neither of them are doing a dang thing to repeal the useless and unConstitutional laws that we have on the books.

The Republicans have proven their ineptness in being any different from the Democrats in most areas of public policy -- even after the majority of Americans rejected the Democratic party platform in the last election. Instead of getting to work on the issues that the majority of Americans find important, they extended the olive branch and said, "Now we can work together in Congress to get things done." They won, their constituents voted them in for a reason. They should be cleaning up in Congress by reflecting what their constituents want -- within the realm of the Constitution, of course.

Indeed. In my opinion, the Republican Party has failed to live up to its promises. Democrats are usually fairly honest about their intentions. Their rational and "reasons" are always murky, but they're up front about their overall intentions. They have the courtesy of stabbing you in the chest, rather than the back.

The Republican Party refuses to do anything about dismantling gun control. They won't directly support it, but they absolutely do not go out of their way to rolling back the clock. I don't count the Assault Weapons Bill. They did nothing and chose to ignore it. While this was not bad, it wasn't a sign of support of RKBA. Bush made some ambivalent comments regarding the AWB, I believe meantioning that he would sign it if it crossed his desk.

So, the question is, what now? What does one do if both political parties refuse to fix the situation?

Your premise that most Democrats are Christians is true, but your premise that the Democratic party represents Christianity is off base. The basic party line of the Democrats is an anti-Judeo-Christian machine that continually erodes my Constitutional right against government prohibiting my free exercise of religion. Nobody is forced to participate in religion, and there is no law stating that the Anglican or Catholic or Baptist church is the official religion of the land. That was the intent of the limitation clause in the 1st amendment, NOT to remove God and any references of God in the government, rebuilding the nation in the image of man instead of the Creator, be he Allah, Buddha, Jehovah, or Jesus Christ.

I don't believe I said the Democratic Party represents Christianity.


The First Amendment :

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


While I don't claim to be a Constitutional scholar, my take on the Constitution's view of religion is "all or none". Allowing one religion to post its writings, codes, commandments, slogans, etc and forbidding equal space for any other religion is a no-no. Similiarly, allowing all religions except for a specific religion is a no-no.

The Declaration of Indepence quotes "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and "Creator". It does not at any point specifically meantion any religion's deity (not Allah, Buddha, Jehovah, Yahweh or Jesus Christ). The line in question is "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them". The Constitution doesn't meantion God, Nature's God, or Creator.

You are correct that the Constitution forbids Congress from denying you free exercise of religion. It also forbids Congress from giving any religion preferential treatment.

If you want to open the door to religion in government, be prepared for the consequences. Minority and "odd" religions would have as equal footing as established "respectable" religions.

 

[Desertdog]

Minority and "odd" religions would have as equal footing as established "respectable" religions.

They already give prefrences in many instances.

There was the school district that had to allow the students of one religon to wear their ceremonial knife to school. Instant expulsion for any other student with any knife.

LA CA had to remove the small cross from th city seal and the new seal had a Aztec godess on it.

The Manorah and Muslim Crest display on city property but not the Nativity Scene.

San Jose CA had to remove a Ten Commandment monument and the city installed a Mayan Godess statue in it's place. Court said that's alright.

I am sure THRs can list many , many more examples.

 

[RevDisk]

They already give prefrences in many instances.

There was the school district that had to allow the students of one religon to wear their ceremonial knife to school. Instant expulsion for any other student with any knife.

Those would be kirpans. They have deep religious meaning to Sikhs, which happen to be the fifth largest religion in the world. Asking a Sikh to not wear his karpan is like asking a Jew to take off his star of David or a Christian to take off his cross. Not bloody likely.



Still, we're getting slightly off topic. My original point, which has probably been lost, is that Dean worships Christianity in his own way. As far as I know, he's not anti-Christian or anti-religion. Most of the Democratic party is not. A handful of real anti-religious loonies do enjoy tossing lawsuits around. Some are valid, others are questionable. It's for the courts to decide which is which.

While I seriously doubt the Democrats will deeply embrace the second amendment, pro-2A folks could try being supportive of Dems that want to leave gun control alone. Will the politicians change later? Probably. But since the Republicans don't intend to do anything about gun control, time to start looking for unlikely allies.