Originally Posted By gadzuux From today's New York Times Editorial - <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/opinion/21thu3.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09 /21/opinion/21thu3.html</a> Excerpt (Registration required to access link) September 21, 2006 Taxpayers may find it hard to believe that the must-pass $500 billion defense budget could be held hostage to a mischievous amendment empowering evangelical chaplains to speak in the name of Jesus at nonreligious military gatherings. But that is the case in Congress, where hard-right Republicans have held up passage of the defense bill in an attempt to license zealot chaplains to violate policies of religious tolerance at secular ceremonies. Despite the firm opposition of the Pentagon and ecumenical chaplain groups, House Republicans have been defending this egregious pro-evangelical thumb on the scale in negotiations with the Senate. We expect the Senate, mindful of the nation’s multidenominational legions fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, to reject the fine-print travesty. At its heart is religious intolerance — not respect of chaplains’ consciences — and a naked attempt to elevate evangelical beliefs to primacy in the ranks. These very abuses caused a scandal at the Air Force Academy two years ago after cadets complained that ranking officers tolerated evangelical chaplains’ proselytizing and discriminating on campus. Proponents hope to exploit the urgency of passing the defense bill — part of the annual attempt to make a “Christmas tree†of the measure by weighting it with nonessential favors for political patrons. Another controversial amendment aims at allowing war veterans to introduce hunting to a pristine part of the Channel Islands National Park off the coast of California. A spokesman for Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California, said the proposal would “preserve the herds†and provide veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan with “the experience of a lifetime.†Surely the Senate will oppose such a wacky exploitation of veterans as just another sop to the gun lobby. ----------------------------------------- These people have no shame. They cravenly use these defense budget bills to promote their own narrow minded extremist religious agenda of hate and intolerance. This isn't your garden-variety christianity - this is "rapture" time. And they're trying to insert into the midst of a war zone in muslim countries. Does the GOP represent you and your beliefs?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Does the GOP represent you and your beliefs?" Not this GOP, not anymore.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>Not this GOP, not anymore.<< This ought to really rile up Beau: Ditto.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< "Does the GOP represent you and your beliefs?" Not this GOP, not anymore. >>> Double ditto.
Originally Posted By FaMulan <<< "Does the GOP represent you and your beliefs?" Not this GOP, not anymore. >>> Triple ditto.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<<< "Does the GOP represent you and your beliefs?" <<< On some items not any more, the problem is neither does the Dem side on a number of topics.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Of course, neither does the editorial board of the NY Times.>> Exactly. This is why the NY Times is losing people faster than DCA once the DL fireworks start. People don't buy into the NY Times liberal view of the world. But people on here do!!! Fantasyland. For fun, track the NY Times stock the last year. Ouch.
Originally Posted By fkurucz Come on, isn't it obvious? They are pandering (once again) for the evangelical vote.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I suspect there's more to it than that, and that the NY Times editorial board isn't telling the whole story.
Originally Posted By DlandJB Who says the evangelical vote is going to walk lock step with Bush and the reactionary hard right? "Evangelical," despite what the press would have you believe, is not a political term. There is a lot more that goes into a biblical view of the world than just flash points like abortion. It also includes compassion, seeking peace, and a personal favorite "What would Jesus do?" Jesus ate with sinners and tax collectors. He showed love and compassion. He stood up to the self righteous politicos who sneered at him and his followers. I think the media and most of congress doesn't have a clue about evangelicals.
Originally Posted By woody >>This is why the NY Times is losing people faster than DCA once the DL fireworks start. People don't buy into the NY Times liberal view of the world.<< Hey, didn't you say no DCA in World Events? Besides, I'm the great DCA basher. >>Does the GOP represent you and your beliefs?<< That depends. On values, YES YES YES. On immigration, not with comprehensive reform, but definitely with the newly passed fence legislation in the House of Rep. On terror suspects tribunal, Bush is right on, and McCain is wrong. On religion, YES YES YES.
Originally Posted By DlandJB This is why the NY Times is losing people faster than DCA once the DL fireworks start. People don't buy into the NY Times liberal view of the world. >>>>>>>> All newspapers are losing readership. People are not subscribing because they get their news from other sources. We started out with two papers and have dropped one of them because there is no time. Also, the quality of writing and editing in newspapers today is declining at an alarming rate. When we lived in the D.C. area there were two papers -- The Washington Post and the Moonie-owned Washington Times. The Times has a reputation for dumping its papers at schools and recreation centers, etc...so it can claim a higher circulation than it actually has. But the Post has also seen a drop. Most people just don't have time or interest in paying for a paper when they can access news on the internet which they are already paying for anyway.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>On religion, YES YES YES.<< Ah, so the GOP is a religious body. Noted.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Ah, so the GOP is a religious body. Noted." Well, the GOP HAS made many people invoked the Lord's name.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>>>Ah, so the GOP is a religious body.<< Your hostility is noted.<< Hostility? Hardly. You said that you agree with the GOP on religion. In fact, you said "YES YES YES." Before I became a Catholic, I would have said that I agree with the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod on religion. Since then, I only agree with the Catholic Church on religion. The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod and the Catholic Church are both RELIGIOUS bodies that have defined doctrines and teachings (i.e., catechisms, creeds, etc.) and do religious things (prayers, masses, sacraments, etc.). The GOP is a secular political party that doesn't have religious doctrines and teachings, but since you agree with them "on religion" (as you say, "YES YES YES"), then you must think of them as a religious body. Perhaps you might want to explain that a little more?
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> I suspect there's more to it than that, and that the NY Times editorial board isn't telling the whole story. << That's the solution for when you don't have a suitable come-back for the topic at hand - mug the old grey lady instead. I would have expected no less.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I suspect there's more to it than that, and that the NY Times editorial board isn't telling the whole story.<< I think it is a pandering issue. They can't deliver on Abortion, Gay Rights, etc., so heck, they'll pass a bill on a non issue like this one, an tie it to a bigger bill. Of course it will be opposed by the far left, which will give it visbility and make the GOP look "active" in the eyes of the Fundee-vangelical crowd.
Originally Posted By woody >>The GOP is a secular political party that doesn't have religious doctrines and teachings, but since you agree with them "on religion" (as you say, "YES YES YES"), then you must think of them as a religious body.<< A stretch of imagination. You only reveal your fear that people do vote on values and religion. >>Perhaps you might want to explain that a little more?<< The government makes policy on religion as do our judicial branch. Since policy does matter to me as do you, the Republican position matters a great deal, but that doesn't mean I think they are a religious body. That's ridiculous. I'm not sure where that came from except from Liberal talking points.
