PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:07 am Post subject:
That's interesting....I wonder how many of the Democrats who have supported Bush a majority of their time in Congress are Southern Baptists...excluding Lieberman, of course.
i have a notion for a long time now. the iraq war, from the start, we knew LOTS of things in feb 2003 that were lies, yet he got overwhelming support. my theory is simply that even though supporters know of the lies, that politicla expedience and pressure prevents them from acting on it. for the rst, it's just the stupid and blind allegiance factor.
Makes you wonder doesn't it. We are all watching a movie that started in the year 2000 when George Bush got " elected " Some applauded and some cried.
The movie continued with the attack on the twin towers in September, 2001. Most people cried, but some did not.
The President and his advisors decided it was a good idea to invade Afghanistan and then Iraq in 2003. Iraq had WMD, a bad dictator, and the country supported terrorists and hence posed a threat to the United States. Many people applauded this act, but many did not.
George Bush got " re-elected " again in 2004. Amazing isn't it? The War in Iraq was already seen by many to be unnecessary and the reasons for invading it were most likely fallacious. But, the terrorist threat continued and America needed protection, and of course the Christians believed all of this stuff.
George Bush and Company want us to believe that right now, as we speak, it might be a good idea to invade Iran and to possibly use nuclear weapons against this country because they pose a threat to America. This, in spite of already losing wars in Afghanistand and also Iraq. Many Evangelical Christians believe everyting their president says and would support him unconditionally.
The Christians are watching the same show as you and I, but they are seeing different things. They see everything as generally postive since George Bush got elected. He is a good man and a Christian they think. So, they basically support his actions with regard to foreign policy.
I think this blind support is instructive. Where would George Bush be without the obedient Christians behind him?
No wonder they say to not mix politics and religion. Because it can indeed produce deadly results. It just seems almost cult like in its intensity, the Christian religion I mean. These poor souls have been brainwashed. I don't think anything else can describe it really. Remember the stories and the movies about some poor runaway girl that had joined up with some violent cult and had to be kidnapped and " re programmed ". She had to be disconnected from the environment that was hurting her mind. Patti Hurst also comes to mind here as someone inluenced by a cult. The SLA brainswashed and used her didn't they?
Well, I say the Christians, as a group need to be reprogrammed en masse. I think the salvation of America might lie in the alteration of these peoples' brains. They have been deluded, by their leadership, by their President, and by the media in my opinion.
This Christian group is seemingly the most vulnerable and hence they are dangerous. I do not mean dangerous in the physical sense, but in the political sense. They are able to cast votes, but it is the same kind of vote as one who resides in a mental institution. Do we trust these people to vote reasonably and to make an honest assessment of things? Of course not. And, so it is with the Christian Evangelical. I say they are simply not confident to vote and that there voting rights should be taken away from them.
Too harsh you say? Not possible to do in a democracy? Well, if you gave everyone of them a psychiatric evaluation I think you would find many failures in reason and judgement and in the business of right and wrong. They are simply not living in the same world as those who are able to see the difference in right and wrong. It is a question of morality and the Christian religion seems to be selling a different version of what a reasonable person would assume morality to look like.
If you are not satisfied with my harsh methods perhaps you would agree that it is their leadership that should be taken to task. Everyone one of them rounded up and questioned and given that same psychiatric evaluation to determine their fitness to disseminate morality to others in their care and based on their ideas about rightness and wrongness and killing and death.
And, if you still are not satisfied with my methods then how about considering taking in the man himself and questioning him and his motives. Perhaps all of this could be accomplished in a simple impeachment process where all of our concerns could be aired, and most likely resolved. I have no other answers for you at this time.