Fred Thompson for Poker?

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This post may mean this thread should go to the politics forum, but I couldnt help but mention how Karl Rove fits into all of this. The "permanent republican majority" he envisioned was primarily based on "motivating the base" and thus winning close elections but governing as if the elections were landslides for his side. The base he used was the FOF types, and it is now clear that they have so much clout within the republican party that getting the nomination without their support is nigh impossible. Unfortunately for us all, the FOF agenda is basically an anti-american agenda and alienates the majority, turning centrists to the democrats. For the next few election cycles it is pretty clear that the republican party may as well change its name to the "American Christian Taliban" party, a more honest name and one that really wont cost them any more votes than they have already lost.

For online poker players this means our choices will be limited to being criminals and outlaws (the republican way), or playing legally, but under heavy regulation and taxation (the democratic way).

Makes me really sad that an American "personal freedom and personal responsibility" way is nowhere near the mainstream.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

This type of thinking is very near sighted and shows a lack of understanding on what principles/morals this country was founded upon by our founding fathers. If you believe that strong conservative morals and policies haven't ruled this country from day 1, then a history lesson is needed. The morals, laws and attitudes of this country become more liberal and less conservative every year and it started 200 years ago. Most, if not all of our founding fathers held most of the same beliefs as FOF. To call FOF anti-American is comical, since their beliefs are exactly what this (Christian) country was founded upon.

I'm sorry but I just think it's ridiculous to act like strong conservative morals and Christian influence in government just came about with George W.

[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG

Thomas Jefferson wrote a bible that eliminated all references to Jesus as god and expressed deep admiration for Hindu philosphy in his writings. Ben Franklin, John Adams and George Washington were well known "deists" - they accepted a god, but hardly were devout christians. These are just a few examples. The founding fathers knew full well the history of Europe and its (then) seemingly endless religious wars and set about specifically to insure the same did not happen here.

You sir, are the one with absolutely NO knowledge of American History.

Skallagrim

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do agree though that the influence of evangelical Christianity on American politics did not begin with GWB. It didn't begin with William Jennings Bryan either. It has been a constant throughout our history as has the resistance to it by more secular factions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But it became a much bigger problem in this country starting with GWB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Much bigger problem than when? 1918? Like FoF has anywhere near the power of, say the WCTU. Do you honestly think that the UIGEA is a bigger threat to individual freedom than amending the constitution to criminalize alcoholic beverages?

Christian evangelicals are nowhere near as powerful as they were 100 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, Kurn. There were thousands of people working in past administrations from Pat Robertson's box top law school helping to shape policy. Now there are only a hundred or so in W's administration. Things are much better now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that religious fundamentalists are not a problem in the US. Hell, they're a PITA everywhere in the world. But let's be realistic about history. Ask yourself this: Could they get the constitution amended to criminalize internet gambling (or any other of their hot button issues)?

Careful, now, that requires a 2/3 majority of both houses *plus* ratification by 38 States. The answer is, they can't. If they could, they would've done it with abortion 20 years ago.

Yet 89 years ago they had the power to make liquor illegal. They are not even remotely close to that kind of influence today.

[Skallagrim]

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis.

And another thing, despite its apparent consensus today, yoo believers in America being founded on "Christian" values have read your bible havent you? You would then know that the "christian" part of the bible (the new testament) contains absolutely ZERO proscriptions for how to form a government, run a country, or make civil laws. This was a well known and hotly debated subject at the time of the founding fathers. Please do a small amount of research on the Founding of Rhode Island by Roger Williams if you doubt me - he struggled with the issue of how to organize a "christian state" all his life and finally gave up.

The Gospels were written by a sect that never expected to have secular power and all the affirmations in the gospels implore christians to reject secular power, give ALL their possessions to the poor and await the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God. A pretty tough way to run a society dont you think? The real debate has thus always been how much Jewish law do we use? But even that has been hypocritical, as no one is pushing for a constitutional amendment requiring all males to be circumcised.

The use of religious belief to stir up political passions and repressions is indeed as old as human history. Our founders knew that quite well and decided to try something new: a society based on reason and secular law.

When FOF rejects reason and secular law, instead insisting on faith and their interpertation of god's law, they are being un-american, pure and simple.

Skallagrim

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

you believers in America being founded on "Christian" values

This clearly can't be directed at me. If it is, please cite anywhere on this forum where I have said this in the past 6 years.

[ktulu22]

Interesting thread fellas

[Skallagrim]

[ QUOTE ]
you believers in America being founded on "Christian" values

This clearly can't be directed at me. If it is, please cite anywhere on this forum where I have said this in the past 6 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Kurn, that was not directed at you. It was directed at LuckyTxGuy and all who buy the revisionist history currently being spouted by FOF and its minions.

The post says reply to you only because you posted last before mine.

Skallagrim

[BigAlK]

[ QUOTE ]
Guiliani-too many wives, or Romney-Mormon).

[/ QUOTE ]

Too many wives or Mormon. Hmmm. Sounds like the same problem to me. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[oldbookguy]

Thanks BigAl, I needed a laugh!

obg

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis.

And another thing, despite its apparent consensus today, yoo believers in America being founded on "Christian" values have read your bible havent you? You would then know that the "christian" part of the bible (the new testament) contains absolutely ZERO proscriptions for how to form a government, run a country, or make civil laws. This was a well known and hotly debated subject at the time of the founding fathers. Please do a small amount of research on the Founding of Rhode Island by Roger Williams if you doubt me - he struggled with the issue of how to organize a "christian state" all his life and finally gave up.

The Gospels were written by a sect that never expected to have secular power and all the affirmations in the gospels implore christians to reject secular power, give ALL their possessions to the poor and await the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God. A pretty tough way to run a society dont you think? The real debate has thus always been how much Jewish law do we use? But even that has been hypocritical, as no one is pushing for a constitutional amendment requiring all males to be circumcised.

The use of religious belief to stir up political passions and repressions is indeed as old as human history. Our founders knew that quite well and decided to try something new: a society based on reason and secular law.

When FOF rejects reason and secular law, instead insisting on faith and their interpertation of god's law, they are being un-american, pure and simple.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Every Christian should think of that. When you have to go out into the world, you have to struggle with those issues on what you encounter. I was lucky in college to have a very awesome class on natural politics and The Bible as a political document was part of it. Its like trying to figure out Shakespeare's politics, its hard. It does come down to what you say, you are called as an individual to give up the world, die to self, and take the cross and follow Christ. If you are really harsh and strict, any of us who have jobs and keep money and ignore duress in the world are sinning. A good place to look as well is Dostoyevsky. Brothers Karamazov, open it, start at "The Brothers make friends" and read thru "The Grand Inquisitor".
No matter what denomination or faith you espouse, Jesus refused repeatedly secular authority, and any interpretation towards politics has to honour that. If you want to look at the Old Testament, look at Isaih. Chapter and verse are elude me at the moment, but Aquinas references the part where when an evil leader is presiding over a nation, people should look at their own sins, and that God chooses who will rule over them, and not YOU. If God wants Bill CLinton president, Bill CLinton will be Pres. Not whoever FoF endorses. If God wants a policy he will move the leader to that policy, look at Pharoah in Egypt(Pharoah only hardened his heart after the first plague, then God hardened it).
Nothing makes me angrier as a Christian than hearing these little fake ass, holier than thou, home schooled, brainwashed young fucktards say Gambling is a sin. A perfectly nice girl who works at Starbucks said that and I lit into her and I hope I made her cry for saying something that stupid. Its regrettable no one seems to want an education to look at The Bible and what God says, they rely on mass produced commercialized brainwashing. Catholics have it a bit better I think, as they have always been strict in theology with high educational standards, but Protestants have always been prey to charismatic leaders who
spout drivel for donations and now votes. I had to bite my tongue at a funeral recently when some guy was BRAGGING he had a degree from Southeastern Seminary.

[CountingMyOuts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do agree though that the influence of evangelical Christianity on American politics did not begin with GWB. It didn't begin with William Jennings Bryan either. It has been a constant throughout our history as has the resistance to it by more secular factions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. But it became a much bigger problem in this country starting with GWB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Much bigger problem than when? 1918? Like FoF has anywhere near the power of, say the WCTU. Do you honestly think that the UIGEA is a bigger threat to individual freedom than amending the constitution to criminalize alcoholic beverages?

Christian evangelicals are nowhere near as powerful as they were 100 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, Kurn. There were thousands of people working in past administrations from Pat Robertson's box top law school helping to shape policy. Now there are only a hundred or so in W's administration. Things are much better now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that religious fundamentalists are not a problem in the US. Hell, they're a PITA everywhere in the world. But let's be realistic about history. Ask yourself this: Could they get the constitution amended to criminalize internet gambling (or any other of their hot button issues)?

Careful, now, that requires a 2/3 majority of both houses *plus* ratification by 38 States. The answer is, they can't. If they could, they would've done it with abortion 20 years ago.

Yet 89 years ago they had the power to make liquor illegal. They are not even remotely close to that kind of influence today.

[/ QUOTE ]

My issue with the Religicans runs much deeper than the UIGEA. While they may not have enough power to make online gaming illegal, they are in positions where they are setting policy, including foreign policy. Not all neo-cons are secular.