Bob McDonnell, GOD and the GOP

I find that his view, like many others of the GOP religious group is that their views on government is very much a set of opposites in great tension.

On the one hand, government exists, ordained by God, to bring about the conservative Christian values of individual responsibility, which then on the part of true Christians, flowers into everything that is good and true.

On the other hand, the government does NOT exist to reach out directly and help the poor and helpless in their time of need. Direct assistance to the poor, etc., is to be the work of individual Christians; government is not to be tasked(abused) in this manner.

So, are Christian citizens part of government, or somehow against government? In other words, what is government? Fish or fowl?

Yes, government is an instituiton of God, but like all human institutions, is imperfect. So, as it sets Christians free to do what they are called to do, why is it not, albeit in a flawed manner, called to carry out those tasks that we as citizens are tasked to do, but which we as individuals are not able to do? Why cannot we task government to act as our stead?

Conservative Christians don't seem to have any problem with government creating and directing military forces, but, when it comes to regulating the institutions of our society, then they want to pull back. This is at the heart of the health care reform debate: they think Christians should aid the poor and sick, but they don't think that government has any business of the institutions that might actually DO this. So, how, in their view, do these things actually happen? While co-ops and churches and groups band together and create much good, it is simply not scalable to the level of national need. To me, this is the hypocracy of their position. Government regulation is necessary to accomplish many goals that I as an individual cannot.

The concervatives don't seem to have problems with police, fire, or corrections systems; indeed they want them given more authority over miscreants. But they want to hold that in HEALTH CARE, or poverty programs, that there should be no government involvement.

But how do they justify this schizophrenic attitude?

Pr Chris

A term you'll remember fondly from the 2004 Presidential campaign: flip-flopper!

I guess Bob was against working women and birth control for married couples before he was for them.

Good luck, Virginia.

I wonder if Mr. McDonell will decline his medi-care when he reaches sixy five. But wait maybe Pat Robertson has agreeed to pay for him and his family. But wait, Does Pat Robertson use his medi-care for his health issues? Can any WAPO reader share info about those against reform using the government option of medicare?

Bob McDonnell writes, and at least one commenter seems to agree that:

"The civil government was ordained to secure the inalienable rights of individuals created in the image and likeness of God, and to facilitate a society in which other institutions are free to perform their covenant duties to God"

However, the US Constitution does not mention God. The preamble states:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[sic] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I see no mention of god here. The US government, as established by the LITERAL words of the Constitution, does not claim or hint that it is an "institution of god."

Moreover, Jesus is reputed to have said something about "Render(ing) unto Caesar..." Seems like Jesus beat Jefferson to the "separation of church and state" punch by some 1700 years.

We can debate what "promote the general Welfare" meant to the founders on another day.

Mike

It seems that Republicans worship the dollar more than they do Christ. We good do good works through our government. Republicans think it should only be a war machine.

Having such distain for the good services the government could provide, just because you have to pay taxes to run those service seems like greed to me.

Covenant marriage, where it would be nearly impossible for an abused woman to divorce... denial of contraception to adults... Pat Robertson brand so-called Christianity in public scools... the prosecution of fornicators and homosexuals... denial of abortion, INCLUDING in cases of rape and incest....
Sounds exactly like the Taliban.

Repubicans don't have room in their high moral grounds for compromising. It's either they way or you're against them, no in betweens. So to say he wrote that 20 years ago and his views has changes is highly unlikely. I have yet to see a Republican retract his/her values and they have said they aren't compromising and comes down hard on anyone in their party whom wants to do the christian thing and support healthcare reform.

Virginian women do you think he will put in his leglislation to help working single moms?

As a woman his goose is cooked and I wouldn't vote for him. He would suave you in and once in office He would talk budget cuts,which would come at the expense of women and children. But I bet he would do a bang-up job for rich who wants nothing more than a tax-cut!

A Republican talking about jobs? Ha their good they spend lots of money on analytical surveys about how to appease to people for political gain.

This man knows American's need jobs so why not campaign on that platform? However, I don't think he would deliver. He would probably take most of the Stimulus Infrastructure money and make a scandal outta that!!

Yes, we've found a politician who is intellectually dishonest.

Stop the presses.

Since Deeds offers nothing substantial in his campaign, he is very hopeful and reliant on what he sees as the stupidity of the voters and goes after something McDonnell wrote over 20 years ago. He has every reason to be upbeat given the great jounalistic bastion, Washington Post, continuing to carry this as newsworthy in its desperate attempt to seem relevant in Virginia's politics. If anyone out there is honest, s/he will readily admit to having views now that are different from the ones they held 20 years ago. Deeds doesn't want people to do that, though. He wants people to be dummies and pull that lever solely for abortion which no governor can outlaw anyway. McDonnell has given me a glimpse of what he wants to do to improve Virginia's roads, taxes, and education. Deeds has just given me bs about what he must wait and see before he can act. We've had 4 years of that crap with governor Timmy, and enough is enough!

on faith has made it a point to weigh in on politics on the side that has little or no faith in GOD...
you can't write about deeds because there is little to write about, because he is another suit in obama's army...
deeds answer to fix everything is raise taxes...
how soon before the middle class can no longer afford to live because their income is spent on taxes...
on faith should talk about that which faith is based on...
and not the politics I read here...

Want to hear the really scary part of Bob's story? Check the numbers of Ole Pat's "law school" grads that were in the Bush adm. & the Attorney General's office.The "religious unRIGHTEOUS" made a decision over 20 years ago to infiltrate the legal profession & the SUPREMES in order to install its agenda upon Americans.McDonnell believed that crap then & I'll wager, still does.Virginia,the home of Jefferson, Washington,Patrick Henry & thousands of real Patriots does not need the type of philosophy that Bob McDonnell & the Taliban wish to promote. Not on our daughters or our granddaughters.The republican party can do better. But so could the democrats.

Okay; and the alternative is the godless system we now have with 40% illegitimacy (70% in some areas); 50% divorce rates; 10% and rising cohabitation rates; increased high school dropout rates, drug abuse, and incarceration.

Keep doing what your doing and ignore the God of the Bible, and you will continue to get godless results.

I often wonder if the christians in our country would really like to see Pat Robertson's brand of christianity running the government.

The atheists? We'll find our way around it, certainly. We don't like any religion running the government, it's easier for us to resist.

But what about you, o True Believer? What happens when he decrees from on high how and when and where you can worship, and who?

Observe the incredible number and variety of sects, schisms, apostasies, churches etc. within christianity. You have more arguments and fundamental disagreements within than you do without.

Pat Robertson and his kind running our government should frighten you far more than it frightens the atheists.

The section of McDonnell's thesis that Waters quotes actually codifies the theological mindset. Maybe Waters is incorrectly labeling all conservative evangelicals as theocratic Dominionists, and I've encountered many who aren't. Or maybe Waters doesn't understand that any claim about a "God-ordained role for government" amounts to theocracy. Especially when the claim is used to advocate policy positions, which is what McDonnell did in his thesis.

"Politicians have a habit of saying what their audience wants to hear. "

True, but McDonnell chose to attend Regent (then known as Christian Broadcasting Network University). He could have just as easily attended another university where he wouldn't have needed to pander to the Dominionist agenda of the faculty.

"Of course, that was 20 years ago. Maybe his views have changed."

I hope so. I would dread the prospect of Virginia's governor being another Kay Coles James or Monica Goodling.

"In others words, our Judeo-Christian God set it all up this way, and it's up to the GOP -- God's Ordained Party -- to keep it that way."

Bingo! Nothing more truthful could be said! And those helping to keep it that way? Larry Craig, Mark Sanford, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Guliani, Rep. Vitter,... The list goes on and on.

"...the perverted notion of liberty that each individual should be able to live out his sexual life in any way he chooses without interference from the state."

Too bad the state didn't interfere with the sexual habits of McDonnell's mother and father.

Robertson's Taliban is alive and well in Ole' Virginny.

I wish a reporter would ask McDonnell just one question: Why did a man who trumpets the sincerity of his Catholicism decide, at age 34, to attend a school founded by a man whose theology was militantly anti-Catholic?

The only answer possible is that McDonnell was willing to subordinate his religious beliefs in order to get his ticket punched in hard right Republican circles, as Regent had already become a training ground for ultraconservative Republican activists.

In which case, careerism trumped being true to his religion.

I am sick of all this god $h!t

Enough already. god! Ha! If there were a god, how do you reconcile the fact that this so-called supreme, all good and powerful being would allow humans to destroy this gem of a planet? Humans are destroying the earth, and it will be ugly in its death throes. Explain to me how this god of yours could allow this to happen.

GET RATIONAL MAN BEFORE ITS' TOO LATE!

IGNORANTHILLBILLY, you wrote, "Okay; and the alternative is the godless system we now have with 40% illegitimacy (70% in some areas); 50% divorce rates; 10% and rising cohabitation rates; increased high school dropout rates, drug abuse, and incarceration."

You did and you didn't live up to your chosen name. You are right about the rate of illegitimacy, divorce, and incarceration, but wrong about high-school dropout rates and drug abuse. Furthermore, the rate of incarceration is the result of draconian prison sentences, NOT the number of persons being convicted in any one year, a result of harsh policies put in place by merciless right-wing politics:

HIGH SCHOOL DROP-OUT RATE. A table at the web site of the National Center for Educational Statistics shows a steady decline in high-school dropout rates from 14.1% in 1980 to 8.7 % in 2007. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=16

ILLICIT DRUG USE. "Illicit drug use by the Nation’s adolescents is declining for almost all specific types of drugs. When data for 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-graders are combined, they show that overall, past-month illicit drug use declined by 24 percent between 2001 and 2007, dropping from 19.4 percent to 14.8 percent. The downward trend in illicit drug use has been driven largely by declines in marijuana smoking. Illicit drug use by the Nation’s adolescents is declining for almost all specific types of drugs. When data for 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-graders are combined, they show that overall, past-month illicit drug use declined by 24 percent between 2001 and 2007, dropping from 19.4 percent to 14.8 percent. The downward trend in illicit drug use has been driven largely by declines in marijuana smoking." (source: National Institute on Drug Abuse, http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/nationtrends.html)

INCARCERATION RATE. "The United States of America has the highest incarceration rate on Earth. Though home to a little less than 5% of the world population, the US holds 25% of the world’s prisoners. . . . According to the New York Times, 'If lists were compiled based on annual admissions to prison per capita, several European countries would outpace the United States'. It is the length of these prison sentences in the United States that is a huge cause of such high numbers. One of the criticisms of the United States system is that it has much longer sentences than any other part of the world." (source: United States Incarceration Rate in Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate).

Is that supposed to be the best excerpt from the thesis, or the worst? There is certainly nothing wrong with that excerpt. If he wrote that the government should favor marriage over shacking-up arrangements, why would anyone argue with that? Taxes should be as low as possible so that the whole question is mute, anyway. And what's wrong with opposing babies being torn limb from limb by abortion? What happened to simple mercy??

What exactly is the purpose of the "On Faith" section? None of the contributing columnists seem to have a topic remotely favorable towards anything related to faith. Every column seems designed to attack either a specific part of religious belief or someone who is associated with religious belief. Everything faith-related is viewed with suspicion.

Most of the commentors follow the same pattern. If they aren't outright condemning all religion as sick or twisted, they suggest followers of religion have no place in public debate. In total, the message of "On Faith" seems to be, "Hey, you Godbags out there! Shut up, already, and go practice your quaint beliefs in your churches!"

Are you kidding? The clothing might change to dupe the victims, but the wolf will remain the wolf. McDonnell's ideals at Robertson's GOP university have not changed. They are still the ideals of GOP today. He is simply changing the shape and color of his robe to blend in with the rest of us, now that he needs our votes. Nice try though. Good for the rest of us, at least we know what we can really expect from McDonnell as the Governer.

That equating atheism with immoral behavior is part of the GOP agenda could not be more clear. May the FSM help us all. Ramen.

Cmckeonjr, my analysis of the trends use 1960 as a baseline, right before the Christian consensus in this country was obliterated. Of course, it had been eroding for years before the 1960s but it was obliterated for intents and purposes in the 60s and 70s and therefore my description of the trends is accurate, Ignorant Hillbilly though I may be.

All the money and all the social policies our secular government has thrown at the problem has not made a tangible dent in the trends when you use 1960 as the baseline. We have turned away from Christianity, our families have been torn asunder and all the tinkerings of the sociologist cannot put the families back together again.

I don’t live in Virginia, but this guy McDonnell actually has a clue as to what has happened, and recognizing the root cause of the problem is the only way to find real solutions.

Just as the Taliban has twisted the Koran for its own evil reasons, the GOP has twisted Christianity for power and glory for themselves, slowly moving from the GOP to the NAT. . .New American Taliban, where schools are turned into "religious" schools, where history is changed, where women must know their place and have no rights other than to take care of their menfolk. No thanks. I won't live under this sort of insanity. . .and I go to church!

Dmlpearl, your observation is correct and that is because the people at Newsweek, the Washington Post, and most of the MSM do not believe in God of the Bible. They like the words that the Bible uses because they are powerful. Words like atonement, redemption, alienation, forgiveness, sacrifice, etc. But they are basically secular humanists who believe that man is his own god and therefore deride and belittle all people who believe that there is a personal and sovereign God who rules the universe, as the Bible clearly teaches.

This is basically the view of President Obama and that is why he is described as the “Good Christian.” George Bush, on the other hand, was invariably described as the “theocratic or evil Christian.”

YoursTruly, the issue with the thesis is not necessarily the political positions that McDonnell took, but his stated reasoning for them. The section that Waters quoted is merely an elaborate version of Mike Huckabee's "God's standards."

Just reading a few paragraphs of McDonnel's thesis nearly put me to sleep. Sounds like he cranked out a paper to get a degree.

It would be a lot clearer to me if it were stated which god we are talking about here.
There are over 10,000 to chose from, you know (according to my newest edition of a book on comparative religion).
The thing I noticed while researching about a hundred of these gods is that most of them have different views on what constitutes morality, how much punishment one can expect if one doesn't toe a particular religious line, and there are all sorts of versions of heaven and hell.

Me thinks our well-read, founding fathers recognized this predicament and opted for a secular government instead of the oligarchic kind they left back in the old world.
Does anyone know McConnell's address? I'll send him my old copy on comparative religion--maybe he can learn something.

Jesus Himself accurately depicted the people with the mindset as expressed by McDonnell in his thesis: A Generation of Vipers.

Nothing more accurately describes all of those "Christians" who infest these tea party protests and town halls.

To finish my thought, our government is not supposed to favor any religions over others. It's not supposed to have an opinion on whether gods exist and how many gods there might be. To make any government policy based solely on sectarian doctrine is to effectively disenfranchise any citizens who don't belong to that sect. This would be true if a policy was grounded in the belief that gods don't exist. McDonnell's policy ideas on the family as stated in the thesis may or may not have merit. But his claim that the family and government have roles ordained by his god doesn't allow room for disagreement - the message is to disagree with him is to disagree with his god. Anyone can make any sort of claim about such ordained roles. McDonnell should have stuck to advocating policies based on nonsectarian principles. That way, people of all faiths or no faiths can at least appreciate his arguments even if they don't agree with what he advocated.

adrienne_najjar wrote:

"Enough already. god! Ha! If there were a god, how do you reconcile the fact that this so-called supreme, all good and powerful being would allow humans to destroy this gem of a planet? Humans are destroying the earth, and it will be ugly in its death throes. Explain to me how this god of yours could allow this to happen.

GET RATIONAL MAN BEFORE ITS' TOO LATE!"

And then what? Will not believing in God will make evil go away? Not even Sartre believed that.

Despite all the evidence McDonnell is a right wing crack pot I predict he will in November anyway. The reason I believe this is, with the exception of most posters here (a minority of the elecorate I might add), the average voter in Virginia is uninformed, or worse yet, completely disinterested and disengaged from the political process.

Those who will show up the polls in November and vote for McDonnell, however, are a very small but passionate minority who support all of the ideas expressed in McDonnell's master's degree thesis.

Unfortunately, this is the sad state of affairs of politics in Virginia and perhaps the entire country.

Those who feel passionately about guns, gays, God, and abortion show up at the polls in greater numbers than those who have different concerns (i.e. health care, the environment, financial security, foreign policy, etc.)

The idiot's thesis sounds like something from the Middle Ages: "Each institution in society has been instituted by God for specific, limited purposes . . ."

Gopgodgopgodgopgodgop, Jeebus Cripes, I'm sick to the death of people who always drag in the god crap. Their superstitions apply only to themselves.

"George Bush, on the other hand, was invariably described as the “theocratic or evil Christian.”"

How else could you describe someone who started a war in Iraq which killed tens of thousands people not to mention displacing more than two million Iraqi's from their country?

Is starting a war and killing innocent men, women, and children acting "christian" in any way whatsoever?

What about vetoeing legislation (SCHIP) to pay for the health care of poor children?

Is this "christian"?

What about torturing prisoners, lying to the American people, wire tapping, lavishing tax cuts on the very wealthy?

Is any of this consistent with philosophy of Jesus?

The above reasons are why myself and many others are very distrustful and hold in contempt the so called "christian right."

GW Bush and his ilk are frauds, demagogues and charlatans of the worst type and (this includes Bob McDonnell).

The "christian right" has perverted Jesus' teaching of love, peace, non-violence, forgiveness, sharing one's wealth into something that Jesus himself would undoubtedly not recognize today.

I would go on to say the so called "christian" right would call Jesus a "socialist and "pacifist."

MORE PROOF THAT RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING IT TOUCHES!

I would hope that the thesis marginalizes McDonnell. If the Virginia voters want that sort of theocratic reasoning in the governor's office, that is their business. The Washington Post deserves credit for vetting the issue.

However, at some point it turns into beating a dead horse - observe the GOP tactic for the latest SCOTUS nomination. It is no less tiresome for the WaPo to do as it was for the Republican'ts on the Judiciary COmmittee.

God, if he is up there, must be sick of what goes on in his name.

In America, to be elected in public office one has to claim devotion to god. That explains the Bible-thumping politicians. But scratch below the surface and their hypocrisy
becomes apparent.

"In others words, our Judeo-Christian God set it all up this way, and it's up to the GOP -- God's Ordained Party -- to keep it that way."

Statements like this in a masters thesis submitted in any college other than a "Christian" college would never have gotten hims a masters degree. If he still believes that the the GOP is "God's Ordained Party", he should not be in public office anywhere. I don't want anyone in any public office governing me who thinks that the parties ticket he ran on was ordained by any God. Anyone who believes that God is on his side of any issue, but of necessity believe that the opposing side is evil. It is that type of closed-minded thinking that leads to the inability of those in government to work together.

Face it. Truely conservative Christians would not flinch at the establishment of a USA with laws incorporating their ideals. Therefore, my type of faith will be too liberal and persecuted. I would be likely jailed for heresy, and probably have my tongue cut out! They only want to fight the Taliban because the Taliban has beat them to the punch, establishing (forcing) conservative Islamic law on the citizenry. They see the establishment of "Christian Law" in the USA as a step toward their rature to heaven.

Who is McDonnell running against? Why would the people of Virginia even consider voting for this barbaric religious fanatic over somebody else?

It's my real question to the democrats. You have got to be a bunch of real losers to lose to the republicans these days. How is it that you continue to do it?

Sorry, I can't take anybody who believes in the tooth fairy seriously; consequently I view the GOP as a collection of humorous, mental midgets.

I'm a voter, an American who supports the troops and a proud intellectual, atheist.

The puritans have been messing up a good thing ever since they landed at Plymouth Rock. It's time to put a stop to the nonsense.

I haven't read the entire thesis, but from the portions quoted I don't even understand why this is called a "thesis." It may be a fine justification of fundamentalist Christian doctrine, but where is the academic content? These passages appear to be unlike any other undergrad or graduate thesis I have read. Of the portions quoted all I see is purely subjective opinion, not arguments that could be tested by other sources. Is this what passes for scholarship at conservative Christian universities? What an embarassment to American higher education!

If Bob has repudiated the views in his "thesis", why doesn't he just list all the times he has voted against the ideas in the "thesis"?

Hint: Because he has never voted against the draconian ideas in his "thesis" because still believes in them.

Another clue is the fact that to this day his supporters are still vigorously defending those draconian ideas, right here on this blog for all to see!

You just can't have it both ways.

Bob is still a right-wing theocratic bigot, trying to hide his discriminatory ideas under a thin facade of disingenuous moderation.

Hey Bob: I can still SEEEEE the real you!

ROBERT FROST: Liberal when young - conservative when old.

ROBERT MCDONNELL: Flaming nutcake whwn young - tired old nutcake when old.

Approximately twenty-five years ago the Democrats placed a woman on its presidential ticket and twenty-five years ago apartheid South Africa changed its stark and evil features. Today, twenty-five years later, the GOP primary debates, conventions and rallies look like South Africa’s twenty-five years ago. South Africa changed. What’s wrong with the GOP, this being the ninth year into the new century?

The reason, which no one talks about, is that the GOP, up to its eyeballs in unadulterated hypocrisy, is being led by those, many are microphone thugs, whose speeches, talks, commentaries and discussions are loaded with nuances of divisiveness, fear-mongering, hatred and out right satanic evil. These are the people, who can make a total mess of the affairs of the country and then refuse to cooperate in cleaning up the mess they made.

In spite of the fact that many of these people go to church, one is left to wonder, who has the greatest impact upon them, their religious leaders or the Radio/TV thugs. Sadly, from what we are seeing the mic thugs are winning hands down. The tongue utters the contents of the heart.

From what I have read of Abraham Lincoln, I don’t think that he would have anything to do the Republican Party of today. Cloaked in “Real Americans” façade, it’s an embarrassment to this nation and it constantly feeds our enemies recruiting materials galore on a virtual silver platter. All Bin Laden, al Qaeda and Taliban need do is take film footage of a GOP rally or convention and recordings of some of the microphone thugs’ commentaries and they have a mother lode of recruiting materials. I cannot explain the GOP to my foreign friends, try as I might. Such will be the case as long as the GOP continues to present to the world a picture and to Americans, deeds completely opposite to that which they preach.

In this vein, I challenge anyone to take all or any GOP speech and their (GOP) life style and run them against biblical tenets and see if you aren’t trying to mix water and oil. For example, to the GOP poor people in a Republican Mayor’s city, are those, who should be rounded up and hauled off to someone else’s city, headed by a Democrat. The reason for the person being poor does in no way factor into their equation. The state of being poor is sufficient to be thus targeted. One hears hints of this type of psychotic and satanic mentality constantly streaming from THUG RADIO/TV. By this mentality only nine GOP Senators voted to confirm a woman, whose experience surpasses, by far, that of the Chief Justice. Go Figure.

Cmckeonjr, my analysis of the trends use 1960 as a baseline, right before the Christian consensus in this country was obliterated. Of course, it had been eroding for years before the 1960s but it was obliterated for intents and purposes in the 60s and 70s and therefore my description of the trends is accurate, Ignorant Hillbilly though I may be.

All the money and all the social policies our secular government has thrown at the problem has not made a tangible dent in the trends when you use 1960 as the baseline. We have turned away from Christianity, our families have been torn asunder and all the tinkerings of the sociologist cannot put the families back together again.

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

Neither your "analysis of the trends" nor your dogma is correct.

Your conclusions do not stand against the established facts of recent history, although that hasn't stopped the leadership in the Religious Right from repeating this same tired, discredited nonsense ad nauseum for the benefit of people like you.

And to answer the inevitable next question with which you will respond -- no, do your own homework on this, it's not my personal responsibility to alleviate you from ignorance.

Know this, though. Do more than a shallow analysis of these "trends" and you will know the truth, and it WILL set you free. BTW, I am a person of faith. I just don't impose my beliefs into fact-based analysis.

Try it sometime.

So it is unconstitutional to provide optional government insurance but declaring government to be ordained by Christianities' God is perfectly OK. I realize that my opinions are "opinions". I do not expect everyone or even a few to agree with me. But can we at least be somewhat consistent. If you are going to demand that the constitution be followed strictly, follow it strictly! This point of view is clearly unconstitutional and anyone espousing it is not fit to serve office.

As a follower of Christ I am most disturbed by the anti-Christian heavy handed approach to making all of society submit to your god. Above all the decision to become Christian is a matter of choice. The message of Christianity is one of love, respect, care and acceptance. Christ never asked us to judge one another, nor did Christ assume that all in society would follow him. The notion of one nation unified in a single-minded theocracy varies very little from the message of the talliban. This message is extreme and clearly anti-Christian.

Republicans hate paying taxes, hate the poor, hate the weak, hate the down-trodden, hate the huddled masses. They lied about WMD, trickle-down economics, Water-gate, gas prices, the recession (or as they called it a ‘turn-down’) and well everything. What do Republicans love? Money.

This leads me to believe that Republicans’ hate both America and God.

you can't write "deeds, GOD and dnc", GOD just doesn't belong between these two...

This article is part of a WaPo continuing series of stories designed to shift the momentum of the Governor's race in favor of Democrat R. Creigh Deeds.

Most articles will be front page, above the fold.

Be sure to collect all 20.

GEO12870,

You don't deny any of the well-documented allegations in the article though, do you?

It is astounding and sad that so few people realize that their concept of "God" was/is produced by men. That man "created" concepts of God(s) - not the other way around.

Bottom line: NO human being knows what or if God is, and no human being can possibly know anything about what a God (if any) wants or says.
Madness and ultimate stupidity.

I haven't had an opportunity to read all of his thesis, but if this is an example, it is poorly reasoned, poor theology, and poorly written. Did he actually get a pass on this? I would, as a theologian, in particular, like to see his reasoning from scripture. All I can comment about, other than that, is that the theological stance that he expressed vis-a-vis the family is without foundation, and expresses no understanding of what Luther would call the "two kingdoms," the thought that God operates in the church through the Gospel directly, and in the secular realm indirectly. In the "right hand" (church/Gospel) his rule is direct - whatever is there is "God given." In the secular realm, he rules only indirectly, and therefore things are subject to change. For instance, it does not matter whether, in the political realm, we have a king, democracy, etc. Marriage and family fall into that realm, so that they can have differing forms. Even the church, as far as its governance is concerned, falls into this realm.

He also has not read the prophets, who say that the primary task of government is to take care of those who cannot care for themselves - to be a voice for the voiceless. In the OT, God is,himself, this "voice for the voiceless;" in the appointing of kings, they are called upon to be "sons of God" in taking up this task, thus providing a balance of power against wealthy and powerful interests.

Scripture nowhere declares that the church should be "the primary source of support, counsel and restoration in the event of family dysfunction." Someone made that up.

So much garbage here, it'sdifficult to wade through (as well as the poor writing!).

"Cmckeonjr, my analysis of the trends use 1960 as a baseline, right before the Christian consensus in this country was obliterated."

You seem to be confusing the welfare state with religion or lack thereof.

Many of the problems you cite are due in good part to advancement of certain types of welfare. Specifically, welfare that rewards people for not working, for having kids without fathers, etc.

That was an abysmal failure. And Democrats and liberals bear the responsibility for that.

But that's not to say that this really had anything to do with religion.

Many in the welfare projects are deeply religious. In particular, in urban areas the black churches are huge powerbrokers.

And welfare that encourages people not to work or contribute to society is vastly different than things like Medicare, Social Security, etc.

And it's worth noting that the country turned quite religious in the 80s. And did the social problems you cite change with the increased religion? Nope.

I find it absolutely stunning that people that claim to be Christians are against health care reform and seem to have no problem with the status quo which leaves millions with terrible health care.

Is that really what Christ would do? Really?

ohhh SKY CAKE........

When will people quit fighting over who's right about the afterlife? It's so aggravating to watch people endlessly gnash their teeth and kill each other over what they've been told will happen when they die.

Great, we now have religion mixed in with healthcare reform. Chances are we'll be even more confused with how to fix healthcare. Can't we just say both are broken and need to be fixed?

Also since the 1960 baseline we have seen the advent of color television in every home.
Rather than blaming the lack of religion for the cited problems, I believe we should blame color tv.

I also note the vast majority of divorces, out-of-wedlock births, and members of our fine prison population are christian. In fact, the percentage of christians in the prison population largely reflects the same percentage in the population at large. One particular group which is greatly underrepresented in prison are the atheists.

It's not that people are turning away from your god, is it?

Conservatively estimating, 3 out of every 4 elected Republican Senators or Congressmen could have claimed authorship to this thesis. That's the reality of the Republican Party.

They cloak their true intentions. But since McConnell is so forthright, let's see his body of work since he was 34 in 1989. Proff it to us. Show the people an Op-ed, an article, or even a handwritten note that shows yours views have evloved from pre-historic to at least the 1950's. Come on, McConnell just do it and shut everyone up.

Or are your convictions unchanged and if so, why not? And please explain how your "new" orthodoxy fits in with current GOP ideology. This is a fiction no one should confuse with Star Trek.

Nine Stories in Five Days.

This article is part of a WaPo continuing series of stories designed to shift the momentum of the Governor's race in favor of Democrat R. Creigh Deeds.

Most articles will be front page, above the fold.

Be sure to collect all 20.

So Mr. Waters couldn't resist jumping into the discussion and up and down upon Bob McDonnell.

Is is surprising?

The Post doesn't want to let it go - despite the fact that this Post-driven "controversy" has fired up the Republicans and Independents because of the smears and patented unfairness, and the polls show Bob McDonnell just as far ahead after the "controversy" as before!

What could be more boring, and less telling, than pouring over someone's 20-year-old graduate thesis, when that individual has been in the public eye as a leader for over 15 years as a state representative and attorney general?

But if you want to keep rehashing it, Washington Post, and looking more and more stupid, go right ahead.

GEO82170,

Regardless of the WaPo's motivations, why don't you refute any of the well-documented allegations in the artice?

... because they are all true.

I suppose it's conceivable that the strong moral opinions held by a 34-year adult could change significantly over 20 years. He also could be lying about his views now in order to win the election.

Not knowing which is the truth, I think the risk of putting a(nother) social conservative dinosaur in the Senate is too great to give him the benefit of a doubt.

yourstruly1991 wrote:
Taxes should be as low as possible so that the whole question is mute, anyway
==============================
MOOT,the word is moot
Look it up--what are you talking about?

Hillman1, of course you are right that the social welfare programs facilitated the destruction of the American family. You would not have the level of illegitimacy in this country if the government was not subsidizing it. This is one thing that government policies could change but the country does not have the will to make the changes necessary to make an impact.

However, conservative Christianity has always taught that being paid for not working is shameful. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”During the Depression, many families would not take AFDC payments because of their Christian convictions. But once the Christian consensus was gone after the 1960s, the shame of not working disappeared for most and fathers abandoned their children in droves, which the architects of AFDC in the 1930s could never foresee. (AFDC was primarily meant for widows and orphans.) In fact, in the 1970s there arose organizations whose sole goal was to demand welfare payments. What was once a shame now became a right. Of course, the current debate on healthcare centers around the demand for yet another welfare right.

You should not conflate biblical Christianity with liberal Christianity, which is practiced in many (see Reverend Wright) but not all inner city black churches. Liberal Christianity is simply secular humanism striving for socialism; at has very little in common with the Reformation Christianity that founded this country (see the Puritans and the Pilgrims). Really, it has nothing in common with Reformation Christianity. You simply need to look at this blog and see how many liberal Christians (i.e., pseudo-Christians) hate me and my opinions.

Finally, this is not a very religious country. This is a canard used by the Left to label every Christian, like McDonnell, a theocrat. If this were a religious country you would have prayer in school, you would have non-sectarian Bible study in school, abortion would be outlawed, there would be no such thing as no-fault divorce (first introduced in 1969), welfare payments to perpetuate illegitimacy would cease, and this nonsense about gay marriage would not see the light of day. Of course, that is the way it was before 1960 but after the 60s all this changed.

This country has a large Christian minority in the south and parts of the Midwest. However, this group is a minority and their worldview, for the most part, does not impact national or state level policy.

The arrogant certainty that government or any institution is God created is absurd. Just because you believe something doesn't make it fack. Therein lies the problem with the religious and ideologues. Bush transfered is black and white belief is truth certaintiy from religion to government policy. Look what it got us. I choke when I hear the words "He/she is a good Christian. What's a bad Christian? What's a non-Christian. The arrogance of religious certainty is sickening.

Nugget from McDonnell's Thesis: The civil government was ordained to secure the inalienable rights of individuals created in the image and likeness of God, and to facilitate a society in which other institutions are free to perform their covenant duties to God._____________________________________
If humans are, indeed, created in god's image and likeness then under what theological construct do we bless a government approved health care system that requires great wealth or blind luck for access to it, Mr. McConnell?

Being Republican revolves around either being Authority or submitting to Authority. In practice, Authority exists in a world of delusion, self-deception, and power-mad manipulation of others. Hitler was God's annointed Authority and look what he did for Germany and Europe's minorities. You can, if it makes you more comfortable, organize your thinking around what you consider to be orthodoxy founded in the Word of God. I draw the line where your mental model forces me to adhere to your delusional instincts. U.S. pharmaceutical companies are operating a cartel in which prices are fixed much higher here than elsewhere. This is free-market capitalism? Well, if it is ordained by God, it must be.

Bob McDonnell was either lying then or lying now. Given what I've seen of the GOP in the last few years, I doubt seriously he's fundamentally changed his views. In fact, they seem quite consistent with the modern GOP. Much of the GOP seems to think its okay to use the forces of govt to inflict their Judeo-Christian right wing views on the the rest of society. Bob McDonnell has gone out of his way to hide his true colors. And all I can say to Virginia voters is beware. The last thing we need is another right wing religious conservative who's been schooled at Regents no less. I don't trust this guy at all. And furthermore, Bolling is no better.

I needed to add one sentence to my last post:

This country has a large Christian minority in the south and parts of the Midwest. However, this group is a minority and their worldview, for the most part, does not impact national or state level policy. That was not the case before the 1960s.

If this were a religious country you would have prayer in school,

Do you want your children to be pressured to pray to Allah or Shiva or Freya in school, or to listen to a speech by an atheist classmate about why belief in God is foolish? Your neighborhood may not be socially diverse enough to include significant minorities of Muslims, Hindus, Pagans or Atheists, but mine is. And it is no more fair to ask their children to pray to your God than it is to ask yours to pray to theirs, pure and simple.

you would have non-sectarian Bible study in school,

No such thing. Bible study is by definition sectarian, unless you study it objectively along with other holy books. Which, of course, folks like you will never allow.

abortion would be outlawed,

Because "Real Christians" believe that a two-celled blastula is a full human being and its mother is a thing to be used, whether or not she consents to such use or withdraws her consent later. Because "Real Christians" believe that a woman's humanity depends on her virginity, or her willingness to breed and breed and breed until she dies of it.

When you make your body the property of any children you have or may ever have, to use as they see fit without your right to say no, and pass the same into law for all men, then you may demand the same of women. If our human status and right to make decisions about who may or may not use our bodies is dependent on celibacy, so should yours be.

there would be no such thing as no-fault divorce (first introduced in 1969),

Because it's always better to force a couple to remain miserable together than to allow them a second chance, right?

welfare payments to perpetuate illegitimacy would cease,

Better to throw unmarried mothers out to prostitution and poverty, and leave their children to starve or die in uncaring, brutal orphanages, as we used to, right? Read Nicholas Nickleby or Oliver Twist again, with particular emphasis on the type of places unwanted kids used to be sent.

and this nonsense about gay marriage would not see the light of day.

Because, God help us, them darn gays want to be treated as equals! How dare they! What nonsense, to think that genitals should not be the most important factor in defining marriage, to rank love and commitment and fidelity and caring over what dangly bits you have hanging off your body. What idiocy, to believe that Americans should be free to make decisions about their private lives and families without Big Government telling them what's best for them! What horror, to have to cope with the idea that not everyone in America abides by your religious taboos! (If you can use secular law to impose Christian laws about marriage on gays, can Jews use the secular law to keep you from having pork at your barbecue?)

Faith in God is not the dominion of a political party. It is through prayer and meditation, we align our heart-mind with God. Denials and affirmations are tools we use. Through thoughts, words and actions, we live the Truth we know.

Jim Wallis wrote an interesting book, God's Politics. This book explains anyone can take compassionate action for the common good of all. No one needs to adopt a political party as the road to salvation.

"Dmlpearl, your observation is correct and that is because the people at Newsweek, the Washington Post, and most of the MSM do not believe in God of the Bible."

How do you know this? Have you taken a poll? Do you know them all personally?

"Finally, this is not a very religious country. This is a canard used by the Left to label every Christian, like McDonnell, a theocrat. If this were a religious country you would have prayer in school, you would have non-sectarian Bible study in school, abortion would be outlawed, there would be no such thing as no-fault divorce (first introduced in 1969),"

Simply not true. Every major poll shows the considerable majority of Americans are Christian.

But the considerable majority also believe that Christ isn't President, and vice-versa.

You don't have those things you mentioned because most believe they don't believe that government should be sanctioning religion.

Why? Your very posts are a perfect example. You spend paragraphs attacking other Christians because they don't believe exactly as you. Yet you want your particular dogma to be law.

If your religion is so weak that it must be propped up by force of law then it's truly weak.

It's worth noting that Christ came to His following in spite of government, not because of it.

Ignoranthillbilly attributes the following to the "mainstream media" (which includes the WaPo):

"This is basically the view of President Obama and that is why he is described as the “Good Christian.” George Bush, on the other hand, was invariably described as the “theocratic or evil Christian.”

Really? Invariably?? Can you give me *one* example of this?

You truly live up to your moniker.

Fortunately, I *do* live in VA, and will be happily casting casting my vote against the troglodyte McDonell.

God would be only be with Republicans living in America and no one else on Earth. Thats so typical of Republicans, its always about them and what they can get for themselves. Caring and compassion for others is socialist and dangerous according to the God of Republicans.

Yeah, baby, lets focus on McDonnell. While Barry sat in front of an absolute raving lunatic racist - lets focus on McDonnell.

While Van Jones sits in a WHite House office, free to spout off his communist, hate America BS, lets focus on McDonnell.

You disgusting propagandists, what do you see in the am when you look in the mirror?

Is he a member of the C street "Family" like Ensign, Stanford, and Coe?

These people are truly scary:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/07/21/c_street/

The fact is that leftist liberal Democrat states in America are prophesied to be doomed.

Maybe it's time for them to ask God what's wrong with them?

Stupidity is self-destructive.

Health care is good but when you let the idiots decide the kind of reform, it's sure to go down the drain.

Liberal Democrat California is about to release 27,000 prison inmates and legalize pot. Would you let these kind of minds tinker with health reform?

SCARY.

These idiots are self destructing and they don't even have a clue.

DUMB.

Yup, scary and dumb.

If the idiots in the military followed McDonnel's thesis, they would not have burned the Bibles sent by a church to Afghanistan. The idiots are sending more troops there to die.

Mr. McDonell is truly part of the Virginia Taliban. His agenda will do nothing to bring Virginia forward. His saying that he wants to create jobs is a joke. Last time I checked the only jobs guys like him bring in are big box store greeters and associates. Any woman who votes for him will amount to "chickens voting for Col. Sanders". I live in Virginia right in his home town. He will do nothing for a decent public transpotation system, nothing for education, nothing for decent affordable health care. In other words he is from the party of "no". Mr McDonell's world view only looks back to the grand time when The Patriarchy was never questioned. If he wins I think I need to hire a moving van.

"Finally, this is not a very religious country. This is a canard used by the Left to label every Christian, like McDonnell, a theocrat. If this were a religious country you would have prayer in school, you would have non-sectarian Bible study in school, abortion would be outlawed, there would be no such thing as no-fault divorce (first introduced in 1969), welfare payments to perpetuate illegitimacy would cease, and this nonsense about gay marriage would not see the light of day."

EXACTLY what McDonnell and you other christian supremacists are after. Your very statement labels him a theocrat. Do you read your own stuff when you write it?

Ignoranthillbilly, you are mistaken if you think only the Left wish to resist you theocratic monsters in your attempted takeover of our government.

Once upon a time I voted for and supported republican candidates ... that is until Pat Robertson in 1988 took over the GOP, running to be president for eternal life.

Now I have no one to support. The distinction between Obama's religiosity and yours is too subtle for my senses to detect. Perhaps the devil is in the details, another character from your fantasy bible.

And why do you stop at 1960 as a baseline, let us choose another time in our history: 1860, when half of the christians in our country supported slavery. Surely, it was the freeing of the slaves which started us on this downward spiral you are whining about today.

I get the biggest kick out of the obvious conservatives who have responded. Their statements are: 1. So what, it's 20 years old. 2. Deeds is a no good liberal atheist who wants to raise your taxes 3. It's the presses fault.

I'm sorry, but even if you assume all three responses were true what does it have to do with McDonnell? McDonnell wrote a conservative thesis 20 years ago at age 34. Subsequently, he apparently hasn't written anything telling us how his views have changed. He's still not addressing his thesis today. I want McDonnell to tell me what he believes today and I have yet to see that.

If Bob is a conservative Christian who believes in what he wrote he should say so. If he has changed his stances he should say so. To date all I've heard from him is his wife works, his kids work and he has several women who work for him. That's great, but it doesn't answer the question that is currently posed to him. How do you feel about these issues today? When, and if, Bob can come clean then we can all make a decision whether this is the type of person we want as the head of the State.

McDonnell's supporters are treating this thesis like it was some kind of student term paper by a kid still finding his way in life. On the contrary, this was a Master's thesis written by a 34 year-old man who had already earned one degree, served in the military, and had purposely chosen to get the rest of his "education" at Pat Robertson's law school. As we know from the Bush Justice Department shenanigans of Monica Goodling (another Regent Law grad), Regent's view of the U.S. Constitution is a bit skewed, and shared by few outside of the evangelical Christian community.

It was clear from his choice of majors that McDonnell planned to go into politics after graduation, and this thesis was a blueprint for his career. He now asks us to look at his record, but in doing so we find no evidence that he has actually moderated any of the positions he expressed in the thesis. Yes, political expedience has forced him to support some more moderate legislation, but in every chance he has had over his fourteen years in elected office, he has adhered to this blueprint whenever possible.

His current campaign has a very familiar ring to it. Back in the 1980s and 90s when the Religious Right was in its ascendancy, they often ran "stealth" campaigns. They would avoid mentioning the divisive social agenda, campaigning instead on taxes, education, transportation, etc., and faulting opponents who mentioned the divisive social issues. But as soon as they got into office, it was an all-out, full-scale culture war. Meanwhile, roads and schools continued to crumble as they catered to the anti-tax ranting of those who apparently believe that funds for these things come from a money fairy. Worse, millions more were wasted on court cases regarding their usually failed attempts to censor library books and computers, impose draconian restrictions on abortion that ignored the health and safety of women, and indoctrinate the young with abstinence-only sex [non]education.

McDonnell has the right to hold any views he wants, but he has a moral obligation to Virginians to be honest about them. Stealth campaigns serve no one except the campaigner. Those who share the views he has expressed in this thesis deserve to know whether or not he is still one of them. Others who find those views disturbing also have the right to the truth. McDonnell should have the moral courage to stand up for what he really believes, one way or the other. If he can't or won't do this, he is not worthy of the office of Governor.

"Bible study is by definition sectarian, unless you study it objectively along with other holy books."

Very true. No religion should be treated as the "normal" or "default" religion as a matter of general principle and a matter of specific First Amendment principle.

The Evangelicals who call themselves christians and have hijacked the Republican party give all good church going people a bad name. If government was run in the manner that Bob Mcdonnell advocates, the U.S. would be a theocreacy very little idfferent than Iran. Horrible thought. This is religion gone astray.

I live in Virginia.

I vote.

This Nov., I'll be honored to vote for our next Governor, Mr. McDonnell.

panamajack

Republicans are so damn twofaced as to be politically funny and sincere and dishonest in the same sentence.

REPUBLICANS say:
What a republican stated or wrote or believed in 20 years ago matters not to the current political establishment.
It has no effect on where a republicans
style of leadership will lead them in todays politically charged issues.
These statements suggest that republicans
only, are capable of change. That they alone are capable of changing with the dynamics of an ever changing voting constituency.

REPUBLICANS say:
It does matter what a democrat says 20+ years ago, During this last Presidential
election, it did matter what an 8 year old was doing back in the 70's, or what Hillary was doing as First Lady, but it did matter what McCain went through 40 years ago but it didn't matter what Palin did or said 10 years ago, But it did matter what Biden said and so on..........

Dems seen the changing dynamics of its citizenry, They seen that most of the new LEGAL immigrant citizens were from countries that held democratic beliefs and found a way to bring in them into the democratic fold, our party was changing
and growing while republicans were still nominating and electing the same ole old white angry men from the south.

As a female Democrat, I will be voting for Bob McDonnell for Governor this fall. He is more in touch with what the Commonwealth needs at this time. The WP must be so frightened of this formidable candidate they found it necessary to dig deep into his past. If this was so important, why wasn't it talked about when he was elected to the Assembly as well as Attorney General, both offices in which he served with dignity? Why didn't the WP dig deep when it came to Obama's candidacy last year? Just a simple, cheap shot at the better of the candidates for Gov. of VA and I'm not buying it.

"As a female Democrat, I will be voting for Bob McDonnell for Governor this fall."

Thanks. Now run along and make me a sandwich.

-Bob

Religion and Politics don't mix and shouldn't mix. These people who use an elected office as a pulpit for their personal religious bents should simply STAY OUT OF POLITICS. The purpose of seeking an elected office is to serve the people, not to serve the people who agree with your religious ideas. If you want a pulpit from which to blather your religious convictions, get ordained, not elected.

spidermean2 wrote: "The fact is that leftist liberal Democrat states in America are prophesied to be doomed."

If its a "fact" then do you have some biblical evidence to back that up? Does it specify "leftist liberal Democrat states" or are you just making stuff up again?

The Republican party seems to veer ever further off to the right and yet they pretend that they are still rational and capable of leading us. Someone above compared them to the Taliban, and that's a comparison that seems entirely valid.

ignoranthillbilly wrote: Okay; and the alternative is the godless system we now have with 40% illegitimacy (70% in some areas); 50% divorce rates; 10% and rising cohabitation rates; increased high school dropout rates, drug abuse, and incarceration.____________________________________________________
1. About the only "systems" around the world that uses religion-based guidance to run their societies are Muslim fundamentalists types- Saudi Arabia, Iran etc. Nice modeling, champ.
2. Perhaps you should select a more powerful deity to worship. The kind that can be whisked under the rug by puny secularists isn't worth your prayers.

Fate1,

It is just common sense that the enemies of America will hit the most vulnerable and of more value.

The Bible also states that the unbelievers will be destroyed.

Most very liberal democrat States fit to those categories.

Liberal Dems also think a missile defense shield is not that important.

Everything seems to be lining up towards a single point --- the destruction of leftist liberal atheistic gay-marrying Democrat States.

Stupidity is self-destructive and you guys are deciding your destructive fate.

Spiderman2... you are a moron.

Fate 1 wrote: The Bible also states that the unbelievers will be destroyed.______________________________
Yeah... so it does. That would explain the rise of Islam, Hinduism and The People's Republic of China, right. Do you know what happened in 72 AD, Fate 1? Rome reduced Jerusalem to bloody rubble thereby ending the that oft-occupied little political entity. It was the "believers" who were destroyed.

EDSANTAFE,

If morons have an IQ of 135, then where do you belong?

McDonnell was 34, already had two degrees and a family, had moved that family halfway across the country to attend that institution, and was studying towards a Master's degree and a JD. He was not some callow 20-year-old, as the article implies. The thesis is the real Bob McDonnell, not the leftward crash program to gain electability in the last year and change.

It is astounding that conservatives could spend months microparsing a single, extemporaneous sentence from a Democrat's Supreme Court nominee yet try to hand-wave away a 90-page opinion document that took months to research and write.

spidermean2 wrote: "It is just common sense that the enemies of America will hit the most vulnerable and of more value. The Bible also states that the unbelievers will be destroyed. Most very liberal democrat States fit to those categories."

How so? And can you explain what those of "more value" means?

spidermean2 wrote: "Liberal Dems also think a missile defense shield is not that important. Everything seems to be lining up towards a single point --- the destruction of leftist liberal atheistic gay-marrying Democrat States. Stupidity is self-destructive and you guys are deciding your destructive fate."

Who is going to launch nuclear missles at the democratic states in America?

I've got far too many faults of my own to be overly judgmental about anyone, but the extreme (IMHO) positions McDonnell outlined in his thesis seem to point to a desire for a theocratic state; or at least one in which religion plays a much stronger governing role.

He's clarified some of his positions and sounds like his views have moderated somewhat, but it is troubling.

TOJBY,

I wrote those words. You should first understand the difference between a false and true religion.

Doomsday is yet to come so don't count the chips yet.

spidermean2 wrote: "You should first understand the difference between a false and true religion."

True religion is your religion and false is anyone who does not agree with you? Just guessing...

Fate1,

Most vulnerable simply because they are located at northeastern coastal area and western coast.

More value - in terms of wealth and population density.

You wrote "Who is going to launch nuclear missles at the democratic states in America? "

It won't be called doomsday if there's no nukes flying. Who? It's in the Bible.

So what extremely left wing university did you attend David?

Fate1,

The Bible has shown its prophetic accuracy to those who understand it.

Understanding the Bible is key to true religion. America is the greatest nation and will remain to be the greatest because a big portion of its population understand the Bible.

Doomsday will occur if nations will challenge that. And guess what? It will be challenged.

An all-out nuke war is inevitable and the unbelievers both here and abroad will be doomed.

Most of the people of this world believe that the Creator of the Universe has written a book. We have the misfortune of having many such books on hand, each making an exclusive claim as to its infallibility. All are in perverse agreement on one point of fundamental importance, however: ‘respect’ for other faiths, or for the view of unbelievers, is not an attitude that God indorses.

Our world is fast succumbing to the activity of men and women who would take the future of our species on beliefs that should not survive an elementary school education. Religion is as much a living spring of violence and intolerance today as it was at any time in the past

RE: "Religion is as much a living spring of violence and intolerance today as it was at any time in the past"
=====================================
Agreed. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

A true religion believes in "freedom of conscience" and never thru forced conversion.

Salvation is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism don't believe in the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit and they are all classified as false religions.

True religion just preach as what Christ did. Part of that preaching is to warn of the coming destruction both here and the next life to those who don't listen.

America is the land of the free because of true Christians. Freedom and prosperity is synonymous to true Christianity.

The only reason the world is free today is because of America who defeated all the agents of bondage during WW2.

RE : "Religion is as much a living spring of violence and intolerance today as it was at any time in the past"

One word is lacking. FALSE. False religion, otherwise the statement becomes innacurate.

Intolerance to stupidity is a good virtue.

Germans tolerating a socialist leader in Hitler resulted to destruction of millions of people.

spidermean2 wrote: "Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism don't believe in the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit and they are all classified as false religions."

Who classified them as such?

spidermean2 wrote: "True religion just preach as what Christ did. Part of that preaching is to warn of the coming destruction both here and the next life to those who don't listen."

Where does Christ preach the coming nuclear destruction of the east coast of the United States where liiberals will meet their doom?

spidermean2 wrote: "America is the land of the free because of true Christians."

It wasn't always that way. The former slave states, which later created Jim Crow laws, are filled with people who claim they are the true christians. America became free after liberals pushed through the voting rights act and many civil rights laws. Before that America was far from being free, unless you were a white male.

spidermean2 wrote: "Freedom and prosperity is synonymous to true Christianity."

A statement with no evidence.

spidermean2 wrote: "The only reason the world is free today is because of America who defeated all the agents of bondage during WW2."

You'll also need to thank the Brits, the French, the commie Soviets and many more.

Dander,

"This man knows American's need jobs so why not campaign on that platform? However, I don't think he would deliver."

As opposed to President Obama? Who promised that his $1 trillion stimulus sham would keep unemployment below 8%. It's now at 9.7%. You heard me.

globalone wrote: "As opposed to President Obama? Who promised that his $1 trillion stimulus sham would keep unemployment below 8%. It's now at 9.7%. You heard me."

The important unemployment number is the unemployment rate of ex-Bush aides. 70% a month after Bush left office.

Why won't anyone hire ex-Bush aides? Maybe because they led this nation into a war of choice and a depression, and actively worked to do so?

To tag Obama with not doing enough to repair the economy Bush left him I think is a little harsh, especially only after 7 months of work. Bush couldn't find a man in the Afghan mountains after 8 years with the world's ost powerful military looking for him. But an economy on the verge of depression? That should only take a few months to fix, right globalone?

"Okay; and the alternative is the godless system we now have with 40% illegitimacy (70% in some areas); 50% divorce rates; 10% and rising cohabitation rates; increased high school dropout rates, drug abuse, and incarceration."

godless system? That's funny given that I constantly read that 80% (or some other numerical majority) of Americans are christian and our political system is rife with self declared "christians" on both sides (Stark being the only known non-theist holding high office).

And as for Divorce rates. Arkansas is the highest. Incarceration rates. Louisiana, Texas and Mississipi round out the top three. Bations of liberalism? I think not.

No, the problems you identify have much more to do with unabashed corporatism (where losses are public and profits private) and toxic mixture of religious ignorance and hypocrisy.

"Of the portions quoted all I see is purely subjective opinion, not arguments that could be tested by other sources. Is this what passes for scholarship at conservative Christian universities? What an embarassment to American higher education!"

Posted by: outragex | September 3, 2009 12:31 PM

Yes, this is a prime example of "Christian Scholarship" as practiced at Bob Jones, Liberty, Regent, et al. This should seriously frighten Americans as under Bush the graduates of these institutions were appointed en masse throughout the US Federal bureaucracy. Add to that the frightening increase of evangelical christian proselytizing within the US military and it should be quite clear to anyone with eyes, ears and a brain that the intent of these folks is roughly the same as that of the Taliban and the like. With the slight exception that they have their hands only slightly removed from the reins of the most powerful and deadly military force in the world.

I also have to wonder what the right wing christian commitment to democracy is when they cannot accept this president whose election they do not contest. At least the Taliban are honest about their dislike of democracy.

One has to wonder about these right wing christian's respect for democracy and whether they agree with the uniquely American saying that "I might disagree with what you say but I will fight and die for you to have the right to say it", especially when one poster here suggests Obama's words be screened before children can hear them less they become indoctrinated.

globalone wrote: "As opposed to President Obama? Who promised that his $1 trillion stimulus sham would keep unemployment below 8%. It's now at 9.7%. You heard me."

Today, with the front page news of the 9.7% unemployment rate, the stock market is up and the Nasdaq hovers around 2000 which has not been seen since this time last year, you remember, when McCain said the fundamentals of our economy are strong. I guess Wall Street must be stupid to not read today's news as badly as you. Maybe you haven't heard that jobs lag the stock market by many months in a recovery. If the markets are up, jobs will follow assuming the trend continues.

What Bush started and Obama has been doing has worked to stabalize the American economy. Like the flu, which only lives in your body for a few days at most, its the damage cause by the virus which can take a week or two to recover from. It seems the Bush administration flu is over and we are now recovering. It will take time. Drink lots of fluids and stay warm.

A true religion believes in "freedom of conscience" and never thru forced conversion.

Salvation is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism don't believe in the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit and they are all classified as false religions.

True religion just preach as what Christ did. Part of that preaching is to warn of the coming destruction both here and the next life to those who don't listen.

America is the land of the free because of true Christians. Freedom and prosperity is synonymous to true Christianity.

The only reason the world is free today is because of America who defeated all the agents of bondage during WW2.

Posted by: spidermean2

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

Christ wasn't a hateful troll; so why are you being one in his name?

Fate,

President Obama FAILED in his promise that unemployment would not climb over 8%. Those are the FACTS, and they are not in dispute.

Unlike you, I'm not interested in figuring out where to cast blame. How much of this belongs to President Bush, President Obama, or the Boogeyman is of little help to our country in its current situation. (Don't worry, I expect as much from a liberal.)

What I AM interested in is a President who doesn't PROMISE what he obviously can't deliver. A President who doesn't espouse "transparency" and a "change we can believe in", then turns around two seconds later and illegally hands the keys to a major U.S. auto manufacturer to a UNION. (Who, coincidentally, was one of his biggest $$$$ supporters).

And I'm certainly not interested in a President who tries to force Congress into redesigning a mammoth, monumental program like Health Care in two or three months.

But apparently, that's the game plan for our current President. Whatever the problem is the solution is always $$$$. Don't do the dirty work and try to fix the problem, just throw money at it. Certainly worked for education, didn't it?

globalone wrote: "President Obama FAILED in his promise that unemployment would not climb over 8%. Those are the FACTS, and they are not in dispute."

Well hey, Bush FAILED in his promise that he was invading Iraq because of their WMD, that the war would be over in a few months, that it would pay for itself, etc, etc, etc. Where were you then?

globalone wrote: "Unlike you, I'm not interested in figuring out where to cast blame. How much of this belongs to President Bush, President Obama, or the Boogeyman is of little help to our country in its current situation. (Don't worry, I expect as much from a liberal.)"

When a conservative says they do not want to cast blame you can be sure where blame lies.

globalone wrote: "What I AM interested in is a President who doesn't PROMISE what he obviously can't deliver. A President who doesn't espouse "transparency" and a "change we can believe in", then turns around two seconds later and illegally hands the keys to a major U.S. auto manufacturer to a UNION. (Who, coincidentally, was one of his biggest $$$$ supporters)."

Well, at least he didn't print up a huge "Mission Accomplished" banner to praise himself. He's a pragmatist after all and he said this would take time. And GM was saved along with thousands of jobs and a manufactiring base. Why so anxious after a few months but Bush allowed bin Ladin to run free for 8 years? Not important?

globalone wrote: "And I'm certainly not interested in a President who tries to force Congress into redesigning a mammoth, monumental program like Health Care in two or three months."

How about adding a huge part to Medicare and then threatening government employees when they say the $400B cost the president is saying is wrong and is really $500B? Just how things get done when republicans are in charge I guess. But what, we expect something different from democrats?

globalone wrote: "But apparently, that's the game plan for our current President. Whatever the problem is the solution is always $$$$. Don't do the dirty work and try to fix the problem, just throw money at it. Certainly worked for education, didn't it?"

And the wars. As Cheney said, deficit spending is ok, Reagan proved it. A stupider remark I have never heard considering the debt Reagan built up for this country. I guess Bush was just trying to be like him as was the 14 year reign of the republican Congress. If democrats had put us in this situation, from a surplus to a huge deficit, in 8 short years, invading a country only to find the reason did not exist, you'd be screaming for their heads considering how upset you sound. Where were you the past 8 years? Silently applauding the republicans as they trashed this nation?

Mr. McDonald writes:
"Republican domestic policies have demonstrated that man is capable of doing good only in an atmosphere of liberty and faith, not compulsion and atheism."

Let's talk about "liberty." Aren't Republicans the ones who want to tell a woman what she must do with her body? Aren't they the ones who want to legislate women out of the work force? Aren't they the ones who want to say to the homosexual that they do not belong? It seems to me that Republicans are all about their liberty and want to control everyone else's.

Let's talk about "faith." It is obvious that Mr. McDonald means the Christian faith. Curiously among the "faith" words he uses the word "justice" is not found. Justice is a major theme in both the Hebrew testament as well as the New Testament. In the Sermon on the Mount, the core of Jesus' ethical teachings, justice is his dominate focus. The justice Jesus talks about is both economic and social aimed at helping the "least of these." There is no Social Darwinism to be found in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.

On the major issues of liberty and justice to face our nation the Republican Party has been on the wrong side. Like storm troopers marching in lock step they have opposed civil rights, voting rights, social programs to help the poor and disadvantaged.

Remember how President Regan used to talk about 'Welfare Queens?" The Republicans give us "Welfare Kings" in the form of bankers who can't be inept or crooked enough to miss a bonus.

They oppose government intervention unless it opens the doors of the treasury to their friends and creates laws designed to penetrate our constitutionally protected privacy and bedrooms.

This is why this "incompetent, powerless" Baptist preacher will go to the polls this fall and vote in ways that won't please those those misunderstand both liberty and faith.

Fate,

Here's a teaching point from me. Take it for what's it's worth.

Life is not about being relative.

Go back and read your posts. Everything amounts to "yeah, but so and so did this or that." How is that helpful? How do we hold ourselves accountable and responsible when we try and constantly compare ourselves and the things we do with people who said or did things better? or worse?

If you believe President Bush was a complete failure in office, that's fine. I'm sure you have valid reasons in support of that argument.

But the success, or lack thereof, of President Bush is mutually exclusive of President Obama. We are to judge (hold accountable) President Obama on his words, on his actions, without respect to how good (President Reagan) or how bad (President Harding) others might have been.

Go4it,

"Aren't Republicans the ones who want to tell a woman what she must do with her body?"

I'm assuming that you are referring to abortion. If so, it's not about telling women what they can or can't do with their bodies, it's about reminding them (and men) of being accountable and responsible.

Abortion is the ultimate act of avoiding responsibility for one's own actions. It's an easy, selfish, irresponsible decision that is completely indefensible.

Globalone, I'm not advocating abortion, I'm just saying its not, mine yours or the governments business.

Go4it,

"Like storm troopers marching in lock step they have opposed civil rights..."

The Civil Rights Act of 1964. The percentages of those voting in favor of the bill..

The original House version: 80% of Party (A), 61% of Party (B).

The Senate version: 82% of Party (A), 69% of Party (B).

The Senate version voted on by the House: 80% of Party (A), 63% of Party (B).

Party (A)? Republican party.

Party (B)? Democratic party.

"Germans tolerating a socialist leader in Hitler resulted to destruction of millions of people."

Posted by: spidermean2 | September 4, 2009 11:55 AM

Ummm....is this what they teach in history books in Texas? Tell it to Hitler's first victims, the communists and socialists. Your ignorance is astounding. It makes sense that someone like you would see the word "socialist" in the name of the Nazi party and assume it was sincere and anything but a sham and a purposeful lie. Sort of like you might even think George W. Bush actually "believes" in the Christian faith, as opposed to shamelessly pandering to the faith for votes.

Like the commenter above says: "You are a moron".

Spidey:

Liberal Democrat California is about to release 27,000 prison inmates and legalize pot. Would you let these kind of minds tinker with health reform?
SCARY.

The reason why there is so much overcrowding in California prisons is largely due to drug law sentences. Guess what? They're FEDERAL laws, imposed by Congress on the states, not state laws. And so, because they cannot release non-violent drug offenders because their sentences are mandated by federal law, California is having to release offenders sentenced under state laws, many of them for violent offenses. Go figure! It is not state stupidity, but (mostly Republican) Congresses, who believe that the answer to everything is "lock 'em up and throw away the key.") laws which have been imposed on the states. It was a Republican Congressman from California who said "why should we treat prisoners for drug addiction? They're not supposed to have drugs in prison." Well, when they're released, they're still going to be addicted, and they'll be back in jail pretty soon.

As for marijuana, it is already legal in California for medical purposes, and whether it is generally legalized is not likely...the state would get too much grief from DEA. We don't need to have to put more people in jail.

The reason why we have so many people in prison is we have ridiculously long sentences in the US. Let's introduce sane laws that both punish and rehabilitate prisoners. For example, instead of 40 years for some offenses, let's instead mandate, say, five years, and require that in order to be released, they learn to read and write, do math and have learned a skill. Then work to make sure they have a job, a mentor and a place to live. Let them become productive citizens who contribute to society, not cost tens of thousands of dollars a year to waste away in jail.

Pr Chris

Globalone says:
"Party (A)? Republican party.
Party (B)? Democratic party."

Before you pat yourself on your Republican back so hard that you fall on your face, let's recall that the Democratic party at that time contained all of the Southern Dixiecrats, like Wallace, Thurmond, and Helms, who later switched parties and became part of Nixon's "Southern Strategy."

They and their ideological descendants have been poisoning your party ever since.

LASLO23,

This might cure your stupidity. All communists are socialist but not all socialist are communist.

Hitler was a socialist but not a communist, idiot.

Calsailor,

Here's a news item from the idiotic Democrat state. After legalization, they might need a brain care reform bill.

"A recent California Field Poll showed that more than half the people in the state, where marijuana for medical use was approved more than a decade ago, would approve of decriminalizing pot.

The state's faltering economy is one reason why. If legalized, marijuana could become California's No. 1 cash crop. It could bring in an estimated $1 billion a year in state taxes.

Democratic State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano is spearheading a cannabis legalization bill in the California Assembly. He believes the state's need to increase tax revenues will work in his bill's favor."

Fate1 wrote "You'll also need to thank the Brits, the French, the commie Soviets and many more."

Im not so sure if the Brits would have been able to defend their island if not for American military logistics support. The same can be said of the Soviets.

The French by the way was overran by Germany.

Germany and Japan was just too strong for the world to fight against.

America saved the day.

You idiots should read more about history.

Not only you don't understand the Bible, you also are ignorant about history.

Spiderman2 wrote: TOJBY,
... You should first understand the difference between a false and true religion. Doomsday is yet to come so don't count the chips yet.______________________________________
1. Religion is the ritualization of collective neurosis.

2. Doomsday is a morbid fantasy enjoyed by religionists.

According to the constitution that all these right wing conservative christian republicans swear they are "protecting", the proper balance of "the proper balance of church, family and state authority." would be that

1. The state has no right to intervene in family matters except to protect the health,welfare and rights of an individual member of that family. Ie the state cannot tell a family how to live in general, but may intervene if that way of life is detrimental to the welfare of an individual, lets say a baby that is being neglected or a child that is being abused.

2. The state has no right to interfere with anyones right to practice religion when and how they choose, so long as that practice of religion does not interfere with the rights of other citizens. Ie the state can not tell you what to believe or how to practice religion, so long as your religious beliefs and practices do not infringe on others rights. For exapmle the state cant say "be this religion" or "be that religion", but would be able to intervebne if for example someone "religion" involved human sacrifice, as that obviously infringes on the rights of others.

3. Conversely, and this is the one all the religious groups dont seem to be able to comprehend, the church has no right to intervene in matters of the state. So while one has the right to believe and practice religion as they choose, they have no right to try to impose their beliefs on the state. Thus, the state, in all official actions such as the passing of laws, creation of oaths, etc, should be 100% free of influence from any and all religions.

Unfortunately, with things like "under god" in oaths, the idea that same-sex marriage is illegal because the bible or other religious texts say it is wrong, the placement of the 10 commandments in schools, and a myriad of other issues it is all too obvious that while these conservatives want the government to stay out of their right to practice religion free from interference, they do not want to do the same. Instead of a seperation of religion and government, they want a seperation of OTHER religions and government.