Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Nov. 12th, 2004

Ultimately, here is what I get from the fashionable blaming of Christians for the failures of the left.

Adolph Hitler rose from obscurity by blaming the jews for the treaty of Versailles. This treaty was a horrible burden on Germany, but it did result from the practices (and excesses) of the leaders of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Hitler obviously wouldn't gain any traction by blaming mom and dad, so he astutely exploited historical dislike of Jews to gain power for the National Socialist party and himself.

The left is clearly willing to blame the minority evangelicals for its current woes; the difference, of course, is that Christians, like it or not, do form the majority social class in this country, so much so that any candidate for higher office must publicly embrace Christianity. The liberals would like to blame their failure to explain and sell its platforms to the majority of Americans on the Christians, specifically the evangelicals. This will not work; the majority of Christians are moderates who bear little resemblence to the church of the inquisition. Any attempt by the far left to persecute the Christians, even the evangelicals, on the basis of religion will alienate the moderate Christians in both parties (not to mention, of course, those among the independent).

(I didn't see the Hillary Clinton speech the other day, although Rabid did. Apparently Hillary is telling people that they need to use the bible to help the poor and disadvantaged.)



Nov. 12th, 2004 07:55 pm (UTC)
Re: part two
Can you show me where Bush has said he would limit the rights of gays? I have not seen this, except for the (what I consider to be) semantic limitation of the word 'marriage' to be limited to single male/single female relationships. I don't get it, though; why the insistence on the antiquated term? What is wrong with Civil Union, if such a contract has the same rights and privileges?

Any amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman would be bogus. Certainly it would be turned over in time like the eighteenth amendment. It would lose Bush voters among the moderates.

One thing that would be interesting to see would be a measurement of the voter's happiness with a candidate.

I'm certainly not thrilled with Bush; as I have said, I might well have voted for a democratic candidate if a reasonable one had been presented. I voted for Clinton his first term. I voted for Perot for Clinton's second term. By no means am I Republican.

My point is that the moderates on both sides and in the middle probably outweigh the ends if a reasonable candidate can be found. I can't help but feel that most people just don't care that much about these supposedly hot-button issues. The vocal ones, sure.

Now, as to comments taking exception to my comparison of the left's unhappiness with Christians to the start of the Holocaust; aren't such comparisons fair game? Certainly we've seen enough garbage comparing Bush to Hitler; just think back a few days to when the unhappy left were comparing the election of Bush to the start of the Holocaust and advent of concentration camps.

Also; it's ludicrous to use the same exit polls that predicted a decisive Kerry victory to divine actual voter's beliefs or motivations.


Bjamexza Q. Pyndejo / James O. Payne, Jr.
Bxiie Q. Pyndejo

Latest Month

May 2013

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Keri Maijala