Bible Humper

Hello Buffman,

Well, Bush is the most incompetent man to ever hold the office of president. It has never historically been expected that the president be a genius and extensively educated on geopolitics or economics, but Bush really drives home the truth that presidents are speech readers, not decision makers.

That the Republicans have sought to appeal to religious believers is nothing new, so the only question is "does the tail now wag the dog?". I say no, not really. I'll get into this more when I'm answering Galiel's post, but also need to see specific evidence to fully address this.

Ahh, but how much enthusiasm was there from the people to preserve the ancien regimes of these nations?

I think that the prospect of an analogous situation in America would provoke that well armed populace into action.


I disagree with this almost entirely. The main motivator for the backlash was the desire to preserve the status quo, not the fact that communism violates christian taboos.

The leaders of the christian community were certainly spooked by an ideology that denounces their religion as a stupifying agent in society, but their energies were merely marshalled, they weren't the driving force.

It would take a hell of a lot more than that! People won't simply roll over and take it up the ass just because the law says they have to, people seem more passive than they really are.

If Bush were to try to cancel elections, which he would have to do in order to preserve any outrageously theocratic intitiatives, he would be in for a rude awakening, IMHO.

The majority portion of "Big Money", who inherited their wealth and who have been raised as part of a social class distinctly exclusive.

Hello Galiel, I think that answering you would take too long for me tonight considering the effort you put into it, and my desire to answer all of your points more than superficially, so I'll catch up tomorrow.

Buffman

B.H.

(Hi there good neighbor. I apologize for this shotgun blast of info, but I have found this to be a very broad area of investigation...even after many decades of research.)

Hmmmm? I guess I've attempted to be too curt with my responses. My problem! I hope you will be patient with me. I have grown somewhat weary from repeating myself over and over since the late 1970's when I first began watching and recording the developments of the propaganda techniques/campaign being utilized, primarily, by the radical religious right...at that time.

I disagree with this almost entirely. The main motivator for the backlash was the desire to preserve the status quo, not the fact that communism violates christian taboos.

Where to begin? Where to begin? First, Communism doesn't really violate Christian taboos.(If we look closely, we may discover that Christianity began as a communal society. Aren't the Quakers rather "communal?") It was making Atheism the national standard of a communist government that upset the Christians. That standard denigrated/banned superstition as a means to achieve the greatest benefit for the greatest number of humans. That's when the label "Godless Communists" came into vogue. Then it was the actions of that communist government to curtail the influence of theism over the minds and affairs of the people that further frightened many Western religionists. (There have been many lengthy discussions concerning the importance of controlling the minds of the children. For all practical purposes, The Communist Party removed the Church from that educational process and made it increasingly more difficult for the previously indoctrinated adults to practice their faith beliefs in public.) A great deal of fine information can be found here:

<a href="http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/profiles/listmelton.htm" target="_blank">http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/profiles/listmelton.htm</a>

Here is the type of insight that was all too slow to penetrate the Western (Christian) world view.

<a href="http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/students/vb/Commies.HTM" target="_blank">http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/students/vb/Commies.HTM</a>

In this next article, the real problem is better exposed. Please keep in mind that I am not concerned with what some propagandists claim is the struggle between theism and atheism. I am concerned with the techniques that were used by the Communists to gain political control over much larger masses of people.

<a href="http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/blfaq_ath_myth_comm2.htm" target="_blank">http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/blfaq_ath_myth_comm2.htm</a>

And here is an article just chock full of propaganda ...depending on from which side of the line one wishes to view it. However, the techniques (Methods) remain valid ...especially when instituted with more modern scientific/social media exposure opportunities.

<a href="http://www.advocatesinternational.org/site/gv3.htm" target="_blank">http://www.advocatesinternational.org/site/gv3.htm</a>

I feel sure that you can appreciate that a meaningful discussion of propaganda would be far broader than can be easily enumerated here. (I sincerely hope that just these few URL's will help to peek your curiosity to investigate the subject in much greater depth.)

It would take a hell of a lot more than that! People won't simply roll over and take it up the ass just because the law says they have to, people seem more passive than they really are.

I wouldn't rush to place any money down on that bet...not if you haven't studied a good deal of human history. Thoughout history, tens-of-millions-of-people have simply rolled over and taken it in far more places than simply the anal sphincter...many in the back of the head.

If Bush were to try to cancel elections, which he would have to do in order to preserve any outrageously theocratic intitiatives, he would be in for a rude awakening, IMHO.

That's quite a stretch. Bush doesn't need to do anything so outrageous. He simply has to divert attention away from his failures, lies, and problems. Why not break with his most cherished philosopher, Jesus, and preemptively attack any nation he can sell to the American public as "evil?" (Especially if it is sitting on top of so much oil.) Bush is a moral hypocrite. Saddam is a brutal tyrant/murderer. There are many more just like him. Who appointed America to be the world's only moral policeman. Not the U.N. Not the World Court. If we can impose our so-called moral outrage on Iraq, why can't China impose its moral outrage on Taiwan? Or India on Pakistan? Or Indonesia on East Timor? Or Russia on Chetchnya? Iraq preemptively attacked Kuwait. We were outraged. Why did they attack? Why were we outraged? Is Kuwait a pluralistic Democracy?

The majority portion of "Big Money", who inherited their wealth and who have been raised as part of a social class distinctly exclusive.

Are you referring to the Bush's and Kennedys? That's certainly not old big money? What about the Rockafellers? Heard from them lately? I was seeking some specific names.

<a href="http://www.forbes.com/2001/09/27/400.html" target="_blank">http://www.forbes.com/2001/09/27/400.html</a>

<a href="http://www.motherjones.com/web_exclusives/special_reports/mojo_400/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.motherjones.com/web_exclusives/special_reports/mojo_400/index.html</a>

Have you been following all the pro-religious bills in Congress and the pro-religious administrative actions already taken and proposed by this current American administration?

<a href="http://www.ifas.org/books/000601.html" target="_blank">http://www.ifas.org/books/000601.html</a>

<a href="http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=164" target="_blank">http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=164</a>

<a href="http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=3634" target="_blank">http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=3634</a>

Jayhawker Soule

I agree that a band of individuals, who see and manifest themselves solely as unquestioning Followers, wholly influenced by, and committed to funding, an exclusive priesthood which, in turn, perceives itself as the sole coduit for the transmission of Divine Law, is potentially incompatible with "U.S.-ian democracy". While some Christians may not fall into this category, certainly all true Scottmen do, and the former simply reinforce the latter by their apathetic refusal to stand with U.S.-ian atheism in its effort to rid our country of this theistic scourge.

galiel

I'm glad you agree, although that is not my argument. It is not the free choice of a "band of indivdiuals" to manifest themselves in one way or another that is the issue, it is the institution of organized religion. I believe I made that quite clear, not sure how to make it clearer. Note the arrows in the diagram go downward only.

Now you've lost me. Is this some kind of lame Mike Myers reference?

Jayhawker Soule

No. That would be a Liam Mike Myers reference, except I believe Liam is Irish.

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

galiel

So, can't refute the substance, make a joke or change the subject. Classic, RD.

Jayhawker Soule

Your personal attacks are getting tiresome. To what substance were you referring?

galiel

The post from which you quoted in your "Scottman" response.

Vorkosigan

the other being the undistinguished Herbert Hoover--

Hey! Hoover was a lousy president, but he was a very great man, with wide interests and talents. He was probably the premier civil engineer of his generation, and worked in everything from disaster amelioration to tranlation of medieval mining texts (with his talented wife) Seldom has anyone so distinguished been elected President.

Jayhawker Soule

There were a bunch of kids in Europe who would fully agree with you. If you ever have a chance, visit <a href="http://hoover.archives.gov/visiting/westbranch.html" target="_blank">West Branch, Iowa</a>, just off of I80 not too far from the Illinois border. Not too far away is <a href="http://www.holocaust-heroes.com/quakers.html" target="_blank">Scattergood</a>, a Quaker hostel known for its effor on behalf of Jews during the Holocaust.