The estimable Dr. Blanchard gets to dish out one of his pithier headlines in celebration of President Barack Obama's really bad poll numbers. Dakota War College's new and shadowy Bill Clay/Hans Grüber also finds the low Obama numbers trumpet-worthy.
You guys know the joke about the two guys in the woods, right? They hear a bear, one guy sits down to put on his running shoes, other guy says, "You can't outrun a bear!" Shoe guy says, "I don't have to outrun the bear; I just have to outrun you."
The analogy is imperfect, but according to Public Policy Polling, in Ohio, at least, the President has the Nikes:
Obama's net approval is a -8 spread. Every Republican's net favorability is even worse than that. Ohio voters don't like Obama. They like the GOP Presidential field even less. So at least for now Obama's up 2 points on Romney at 45-43, 4 points on Perry at 45-41, 7 points on Bachmann at 48-41, 8 points on Cain at 47-39, and 13 points on Palin at 51-38 [Tom Jensen, "Obama, GOP Candidates All Unpopular," Public Policy Polling, 2011.08.16].
I'm certainly not going to crow about my President's riding below 40% in the polls. "He's bad, but they're worse!" doesn't make my top ten list of effective campaign messages. As Dr. Blanchard calmly responds (and as Ms. Herseth-Sandlin may remind), you'd like your incumbent to have a little more margin heading into the campaign.
Still, none of the GOP candidates have made the kind of first impression that makes the general electorate stand up and cheer any more than they do for the well-known President. And I have a feeling that the GOP leaderboard won't play well with more exposure, at least not with the all-important center.
So sure, GOP friends, keep crowing about the President's low scores. By some counts, Obama may only have a couple field goals on the public opinion board. But you guys haven't found your kicker yet. Watch out for that bear (and for mixed metaphors)!
Good eye bro. More: http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/08/maslow-20-a-new-and-improved-recipe-for-happiness/243486/
Obama is the sitting president and has bad numbers. How many Republican candidates are in the race. As soon as one is picked the polls will look much different, with things going even farther south for Obama.
with the state of the economy and with unemployment still higher than we were promised it would go, why does obama need to tour in a bus made in Canada?
Racism is alive and well in the chemical toilet, eh Tim?
Hey larry, just exactley what did I post that is racist?
Why wasn't Ron Paul included? He did finish second in the Iowa Straw Poll.
A few things about the Obama numbers. To make them have any meaning regarding the Presidential race, you first have to look at them state-by-state against the electoral college votes. The poll Blanchard references doesn't do that. You would also look at the unfavorables (Obama's are currently 52%) and realize that about 15 of those points are unhappy lefties. Finally, the Gallup poll is a survey of adults, not likely voters... not even registered voters. All that said. Obama's seen better poll numbers, to be sure.
p.s. Obama's only been at 39% in the Gallup daily poll. All the others still are higher.
To reinforce Bill's point about looking at the numbers state-by-state, all Democrats do much worse in the Confederate south as opposed to the rest of the country. While that makes the overall percentages look bad, in sports it's known as "padding your stats."
Keep hoping he wont be slaughtered. I want to be there when it happens and see the look on your faces.
p.s. His numbers on the economy are 2.5:1 negative. This landslide baby!
I could beat the guy who pedals while the people wallow with these kind of numbers.
Those are the economy's numbers, Troy. All it proves is that people don't lie when they take polls. The economy does indeed suck. And if you can find anybody with better grades on it, I hope you'll point them out. Obama's problem is that he's just continued with Bush policy thanks to the GOP obstructionists. That's just the way it is right now, bud.
Hot dog! Troy Jones declares! He picks up the gauntlet John Thune won't and offers himself as the mild-mannered South Dakota conservative to unify Republicans! We need some campaign buzz around Sioux Falls to boost the economy. Run, Troy, run!
Troy, I would certainly enjoy having the bunch of us all together to see the looks on each other's faces on Election Night. Perhaps we should arrange a massive online video conference/election bash? Multiple sites, hookups to giant flat-panel TVs, ongoing panel analysis for interested viewers?
No worries, Tim: I see nothing racist in your comment. (Larry, I forwarded your link to a debate coach whose students often argue Maslow!)
GOP obstructionists Bill? Really? What about the first 2 years, Democrates enjoye a majority in both houses of congress, and yet failed to pass a budget.
Tim, with some people, if you say anything bad about Nobama, you are racist. I did not vote for him, therefore I'm a racist.
Dominionism is racism: http://www.alternet.org/story/152096/michele_bachmann_vs._rick_perry%3A_who%27s_the_bigger_right-wing_extremist?akid=7423.281997.TMmwOV&rd=1&t=2
Dominionism is not what those who follow Jesus Christ would agree to. And larry, Dominionism is very much like the Social Gospel the left push in the name of Chirst. Both are heresy.
Who would Ron Paul choose as a running mate, Steve?
The charge of dominionism has become an ad hominem attack to denigrate Christians one disagree with.
Technically, it is a term to describe a person motivated by their faith to be involved in government/politics. Members of the Abrahamic faiths usually reference Genesis when God told mankind to have domininion over the earth to be good stewards of what God has given them.
Many Abolitionists, Suffragists (ala Susan B. Anthony), civil rights leaders (ala MLK), social justice activists (ala Dorothy Day) were practicing "dominionism." In recent times, much of the anti-abortion and anti-capital punishment are forms of dominionism.
It is hilarious I never hear a liberal accuse a religiously motivated Christian who supports extreme environmental policies of being a dominionist but they are quick to accuse an anti-abortion Christian of it. The converse is true for conservatives criticizing a politically liberal Christian.
Unfortunately, this is just another example of using terms to denigrate a person's ideas just because they might have motives related to their faith. In reality, it has just become another form of bigotry against Christians.
Yes, Tim, really.
I don't think that's true, Troy. There are profound theological and philosophical differences among various members of the Christian faith. That's precisely why they aren't all Catholics. To lump them all together as being the same flavor of Christian would be foolish indeed, especially just to make a political point.
So I get to agree will Bill for once. If dominionism is Christian, then Christian is not about Jesus Christ. Jesus was not a political messiah. Both the Dominionists on the right and the Social Gospelers on the left are off base in regard to the Bible. The Kingdom of God is not of this world.
"Who would Ron Paul choose as a running mate, Steve?"
Probably someone nobody has heard of. You know, a non-establishment Ron Paul type.
I'm not and you are missing my point. Dominionism is a principle adhered to by essentially all members of the Abrahamic faiths to apply their religious beliefs in how they see the world and set out to impact it.
A religious person who advocates any public policy position they believe is grounded in their faith is practicing a form of dominionism. "Dominionism" like "tolerance" are neutral terms. Whether it is good or bad, one must look at the object and make judgement on the object.
For instance, dominionism that promotes a good (acting with justice toward another) is a judgement of the object (justice) and not of dominionism. Or tolerance that promotes an evil (child sacrifice) is a judgement of the object (child sacrifice) and not of tolerance.
The fact that people of different faiths (or even the same faith) see their obligation of domininionism different (anti abortion or anti capital punishment) is irrelevant. And so is the charge of dominionism. In one way or another, it is impossible for a person of faith who seeks to impact the world to not be practicing dominionism.
Steve, either your don't understand dominionism or you are a Gnostic.
Dominionism is nothing more and nothing less than a person of faith applying that faith in how they live there life. If I choose to be in public life and perform my duties according to my faith, it is domininionism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
Troy we (Larry, Steve and I) are using the term in this context (see above link). It is NOT adhered to by all Abrahamic faiths. Emphatically not.
And here is why true followers of Jesus christ should not be jumpin in with these dominonists:
On the website of Governor Perry's The Response, one of the honorary chairmen listed was Samuel Rodriquez. According to the website of "Come Let us Reason", Rodriquez was part of the "Third Way's" efforts to bring "evangelicals and progressives" together through the drafting of "Come Let us Reason Together: A Fresh Look at Shared Cultural Values Between Evangelicals and Progressives".
Where does the idea of "third way" originate? This idea derives from the belief system of philosophers such as Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and finds its contemporary manifestation in the "Third Way" movement of today's progressives. In the Third Way, capitalism, socialism, and communism merge to form a misanthropic combination of the three. This blending is now represented in the terms "the New World Order" and "the new enlightenment."
I doubt the leadership of the New Religious Right has even heard of the Hegelian Dialectic Process. Do you think they know that as far back as 1953, it was revealed in U.S. Congressional hearings that the socialists had infiltrated the churches and religious organizations in order to transform America from within? This tactic was also expressed by Saul "the red" Alinsky.
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=7411
This is an interesting crossroads here.
Let me sum up from my individual perspective.
I see Sibby arguing that religion has no place in politics while at the same time using a definition of religion so broad as to basically include ALL belief systems, presumably even Atheistic and Agnostic and Scientific Determinism.
This to me is absurd.
Our words have to have a more specific meaning in order for them to be useful. And we have to agree on their meaning, or we don't really have a language.
Next, I think I'm hearing from Sibby that social justice has no place in Christianity and perhaps not even in politics.
I disagree. But I do appreciate his point.
The upshot for me is that if neither politics nor Christianity is concerned with social justice, I'm not interested in either of them.
LOL. Well, as that article says at the beginning "The use and application of this terminology is a matter of controversy."
It is controversial because it is an appropriation of the term by liberals to denigrate any effort of a Christian to be in the public square by implying dominionism is related to Christian nationalism. Or, in the context you are using it and from your reference, Joe Carter in First Things said "[T]here is no “school of thought†known as “dominionism.†The term was coined in the 1980s by Diamond and is never used outside liberal blogs and websites. No reputable scholars use the term for it is a meaningless neologism that Diamond concocted for her dissertation.[41]"
Dominionism is the theological principle the people of God are to exercise good stewardship over the gifts given them by God. And this is virtually universally practiced by all Abrahamic Faiths (and probably the others) except those who adhere to Gnosticism who believe matter is evil.
P.S. I had to look up "neologism" which is a new usage of a word. If we are going to have a conversation, we can't be making up new usages of words to serve a particular agenda.
p.s. Sibby, your progression of thought since I've been reading you is living, breathing proof of the Hegelian dialectic, my friend. You have gone from thesis, to antithesis, to synthesis, to new thesis more times than I can shake a stick at, brother. LOL.
p.s. It has brought you somehow into a kinder, gentler Sibbspace however, so whatever it is you're doing, brother, keep it up!
"whatever it is you’re doing, brother, keep it up"
Reading the Bible most every day.
Troy, let's use different terms then. How about evangelicals, apocalypticists, and dispensationalists? Creationists, fundamentalists? Wing nuts? LOL.
Okay, but maybe you only need to read it once or twice, Sibby. No need to obsess. There is other good literature equally as powerful. Just a suggestion. ;^)
Crap is a neologism, Troy. Short for Crapper where you take one. It used to just be the name of the appliance and it's inventor, Mr. Crapper. Somehow that factiod seemed relevant just about now... (pun intended).
How about we just use words as they are meant to be used, in the context they are meant to be used, where they are relevant and not denigrate another via ad hominem attacks?
OK now back to the issue of the post. We have a Progressive left president with low approval ratings, but not as low a the Dominonist Republican Establishment candidates. So what impact is the Progressive's left's infiltration into the Dominionist right having? They both want to bring in the Kingdon of God. What are they fighting over?
Troy. Good idea. What is the proper context for "Wing-nut?" Or are you saying there is no such creature?
Troy,
I'm not going to argue that Christians ought to make every effort to give God dominion in their lives. I applaud your effort to get to the bottom of a term's origin and insist that it's used properly. I think that basic Christianity demands nothing less.
Two of my favorite images about Christian life are in Matthew 10:16: Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
Those images imply to me that Christians are called not frighten or be seen as powerful and threatening. It also implies that they should avoid being the equivalent of road kill by intellect not by driving over everyone else first. I believe it's a metaphor that illustrates that Christians’ strength lies in God not in worldly institutions.
When I hear Perry and Bachmann talk about faith, they seem to emphasize the power they have to gain victory over those who disagree with them. They imply they are seeking political office to help usher in God’s kingdom on earth. To my mind they seek to be wolves in the midst of sheep and they want their bites to have a touch of venom.
The also seem to emphasize that they should have political office because they have faith. In that way, Perry and Bachmann both seem to seem to have at least one foot in the Christian Reconstruction camp. I don't see Christian Reconstructionism as a Christian world view.
Sibby, those are all strawmen, brother. All of them. Don't you get it? We're talking about people here. And most of us are confused and afraid. When that happens, the poll numbers go nuts.
There are some, to be sure, for whom confusion and panic works in their best political interest.
But there is also the fact that things just really are confusing and scary.
Everything is happening closer and closer to the speed of light these days, and our brains just can't keep up. We have never in history known so much and at the same time understood so little.
LK,
Perry and Bachman get their fuel from those of the New Apostolic Reformation who think they are the same Aposles Jesus was speaking to in Matthew 10. Yet they still don't get it. Perhaps that is because they spend too much time in the Book of Joel.
Bill,
What we know are lies. That explains the confusion.
"...what we know are lies..."
Something tells me Steve would have gotten along with Bertrand Russell pretty well. "All statements are false, including this one."
Cory: thanks for the plugs. I calmly respond. The Republican field looks weak to me. There is certainly no Ronald Regan in it. Still, as some commenters have pointed out, the field is only beginning to narrow. However unpalatable the Republicans are, voters will have chose one of them or Barack Obama. Challengers tend to rise with time.
Obama will go into the race carrying an unprecedentedly bad economy and maybe a second recession. Even his own troops have no confidence in his leadership, which has been largely non-existent. The lack of focus that doomed Kerry is much more on display with the Hyde Park Hamlet.
Bill Flemming is right to point out that national polls don't target states. However, Obama is polling very poorly in a lot of key states. His approval rating has fallen to 35% in Pennsylvania. Can he win without Penn?
As your post implicitly concedes, Obama wins only if the Republican nominee polls even worse than he does. That is certainly possible. If Obama is returned to office, we will have four more years of no plans or coherent leadership. That is what you have to hope for.
LK,
Thank you for the response. It is so much better to talk with one and not at them.
I have heard this charge against both of these people and as a Catholic, I am pretty sensitive to the brand of evangelicalism as it is openly anti-Catholic. Especially with Perry, I don't see it. Yes, he is from a brand that culturally has a tradition of "enthusiasm" to which our midwestern culture (formed by the stoicism of Scandinavian Lutheranism and recusant Irish Catholicism) is not familiar. Yes, they have some theological views on sanctification and justification contrary to what most midwestern Christian faiths accept. But, I don't see them being the brand that should cause both you and me to fear them.
Because Perry has been an executive, one gets to see more evidence of their ability to reconcile their faith views with the tension of the secular as evidenced by some of the current criticism of Perry from the most conservative, some of whom are of the flavor you refer. With Bachman as one without executive experience, it is less evident but so far I have seen nothing out of bounds.
Ken, Ken, Ken, we all know that once he doesn't have to campaign for re-election, that's when the real Marxist revolution begins.
All numbers fluctuate, but Gallup's Aug. 4–7 sample shows Obama beating a generic Republican opponent 45% to 39%. Not stellar, 16% to divvy up (come on, people, it's not that hard to pick!), plenty who could change their minds. But narrowing this weak GOP field will allow people to focus on the specific weaknesses of that one GOP candidate, which will not narrow the President's margin.
Troy, Bill, LK, Steve, I'm enjoying your conversation. Please continue! I'll note that in LK's response, I hear the basis of an interesting distinction. Acknowledging my biases and risking sprawling generalization, I'll suggest that the Bachmann-Perry pews have this bad tendency to shout about their piety entitling them to or granting them power. The Social Gospel/Progressive Left Christians (I may be living with one) seem more like the wise yet harmless sheep among the wolves, more concerned about following their faith's command to do good than to gain power. Again, that's a feeling, an impression, not a fully studied and reasoned judgment, but LK's distinction does get me thinking.
Cory, you are exposing your bias of a liberal Christian wants power to do good but a conservative Christian wants power for power itself. Your own post this morning has obvious piety and superiority with regard to motives.
No, I don't think so, Troy. Maybe Lefties for Jesus are just better at messaging and hiding their lust for power, but I don't hear the Social Gospel singers saying they're running for office because God told them to. I don't see them turning the cross into a campaign banner the way Perry and Bachmann do.
Believe me, Troy, I'll be turned off by anyone, Right or Left, who plays the religion card for power. I'm rather sensitive to such behavior. But when folks on either side talk about making America a Christian nation. When the Right says that, I hear a desire to exclude me. Damned atheists, you're wrecking the country! Get out, or at least get out of the way! When the Left says they want a Christian nation (though I don't hear the Left say that as much), I usually don't feel threatened. Theirs feels like a more inclusive call, one that I and other non-Christians can support without getting into doctrinal debates or relegating ourselves to second-class citizenry.
Either side has to obtain and wield power to achieve its goals. That's a problem for any Christian. The Social Gospelers seem to deal with that problem by at least avoiding the exclusivity that characterizes the Right wing's public piety.
Cory,
Despite your claim of sanctimony liberals don't do it and your personal piety with regard to opposition to "playing the religion card for power," I can't help but notice how quick you are to use it to oppose conservatives.
Furthermore, maybe I missed it but I don't recall you reacting against Nancy Pelosi saying this in support of Obamacare:
"Today is the feast of Saint Joseph the Worker, particularly significant to Italian-Americans. And it's a day where we remember and pray to Saint Joseph to benefit the workers of America. And that's exactly what our healthcare bill will do."
This was a blatant and overt attempt to "play the religion card for power." Reverend Wright's claim the Obama candidacy was ordained by God as restitution for the past was equally blatant (a claim Obama not only didn't temper but fueled with statements such as "we are the one we have been waiting for" which is an obvious reference to foretelling of the Messiah and/or His Prophets/Messengers).
If you are to be consistent, you have to oppose not only conservatives invoking of the supernatural but also liberals (ala Pelosi) and not resort to the converse as you have done in this thread and others.
Sidenote: Pelosi invoked St. Joseph not on the feast day of St. Joseph the Worker but on the Solemnity of St. Joseph, husband of Mary. Now for many, this would seem to be splitting hairs but not for Catholics.
First, a Solemnity celebrates something very special in the life of Christ while a Feast Day celebrates and honors a special person who promoted Christ's mission on earth. A Solemnity is obviously more significant and the call for reverence and humility central.
Second, within Catholic understanding, invoking a St. especially on a Feast Day is appropriate. While not often done outside Catholic environments where all understand the concept of invoking the intercession of Saints to petitiion Christ for something, Pelosi's call, if done on St. Joseph's Feast Day to promote a cause of the worker, would be acceptable. However, Pelosi's "abuse" of a Solemnity is offensive. Solemnities are not for our purpose or petition God but to praise and recognize the Incarnation of God. In the case of this Day, the faithful are usually called to reflect on how well we accept the special missions (as Joseph accepted the role of Husband of Mary and Stepfather of Jesus) given to us by God. A day of looking inward and not outward.
With this statement, Pelosi only exposed how little she understands the faith she claims to hold.
Troy, Cory, I think the difference is that the right thinks that money is power. The left is hoping that the people are. Politics is about who gets the money. These days, I'd say that's ALL its about, GOP proselytizing notwithstanding. Maybe that's really all politics was ever about?
The Immaculate Deception, eh Troy?
The Holy Ghost=Temporal Lobe Epilepsy.
Bill, your statement is rather ironic since the left recognizes money is power which is why they want to take it from the people and place it in the hands of the government.
Larry, I do have a sense of humor. Hilarious.
Troy,
I think you and I are living proof that politics colors faith as much as faith colors politics. I'm pretty sure that we are looking at some of the same events and drawing far different conclusions. The irony of our conversation is that I come from an evangelical background and I am frightened by Perry and Bachmann whereas you as a Catholic are not.
Your point about regionalism is important for two reasons. First, it probably explains a bit of my discomfort with Bachmann and Perry. If I may be allowed an imperfect analogy, growing up in the Dakotas, the evangelicals I grew up with preferred discussions and argument formed by the likes of George Will or William F. Buckley. The Southern folk seemed to be much more comfortable with Rush Limbaugh. I don't like Rush on the radio, so I certainly don't want him or his equivalent in the pulpit. As I said it may be an imperfect analogy, but I think it helps clarify.
As a Southern governor, (I know there's an argument whether Texas is in the West or South, but the state joined the Confederacy so I'll always consider it part of the South even if residents wear cowboy hats.) Perry had a culture that supported his expressions of faith and his version of fundamentalism. He seldom had to deal with people who expressed differing evangelical views about how to express faith as a governing official let alone mainstream Protestant or Roman Catholic views of that role. If he is to be the face of the United States, he is representing a far more diverse culture than the one he represented in Texas. I guess I don't see that he's had to reconcile much.
As far as Bachmann goes, I got alarmed when I heard her on the Chris Matthews program three years ago state that members of congress need to be investigated to see if they are loyal to the United States.
One more point on faith and politics, when I married my Catholic wife I told the priest who married us and did the pre-marriage counseling that I had trouble with the Pope being able to speak ex cathedra but that I understood that Calvinism/evangelicalism/fundamentalism created millions of people speaking ex cathedra because the tenants of "faith alone" and "scripture alone" allow unwarranted expressions of certainty. Perry may be prone to such error because he is so used to being part of a culture that accepts such pronouncements and attitudes.
Perry and Bachmann frighten me because they combine certainty, enthusiasm, and stubbornness in both faith and politics. I'd feel safer if I saw more evidence that they understood that we "all see through a glass darkly" not perfectly or that faith is the "evidence" of things unseen not "perfect proof."
On a totally unrelated note, I was in Dallas in June and walked into a bakery and discovered that in Texas a kolache is a hot dog wrapped in dough. I don't know if I will ever be able to vote for people from a state confused hot dogs with pastries.
Troy, where is the exclusivity in Pelosi's statement?
I can hardly think about your first comments as I'm laughing so hard at your kolache observation.
But to your real point if I can stay focused. I've had to learn to "read" the words of Evangelicals in the context and manner with which they are using them even if sometimes they use the same words differently than me. The "stubbornness" or "certainty" you see in their words are much more cutltural than they appear. Two examples:
First, I've had opportunity to explore the words for intent and, in the end, I found more agreement than disagreement despite my first impression. Like your kolache, words become shorthand for different concepts in different locales. Not to delve into the theological differences, many use the term "born again" to be shorthand for an adult (or age of reason) assent to Christ as Lord and Savior while other's use it to be shorthand for becoming an adopted child of God through Baptism. When I began to substitute evangelical use of "born again" in the context of both my Confirmation as well my daily aspiration to submit to Christ I found common ground even though we used different shorthand words.
Second, when my sister lived in Nashville, before Mass she warned me I might be shocked by the "tone." And, I was. There were "Allelluiah's" shouted during the Sermon, there was swaying during the singing etc. From a demeanor perspective, I'd have felt more at home at a Sioux Falls Baptist Church than I was at a Nashville Catholic Mass.
Regarding their political certainty, how is this different than Obama's intransigence on his political certainty, even in the face of the obvious failure of his every effort to reduce unemployment? (Or is it his efforts havent failed as he hasn't yet tried since we will FINALLY get his plan in September? :) )
People of all stripes in pursuit of office display and talk with a certain "certainty" with regard to their philosophy. And, not accusing ANY of being duplicitous, it is rare to find one upon election being "stubborn" as they will quickly find a need to compromise to govern. In fact, Obama is probably the most intransigent I've ever seen with regard to his own certainty and with regard to any compromise he might have assented has so openly stated it was a "temporary" concession.
Sidenote: To criticize Perry for being an across-the-board idealogical conservative flies in the face of the criticism he is getting from certain conservative factions. Or, the fact Bachman doesn't represent my brand of conservatism in all respects.
Cory, I thought you said you would be offended by anyone who "plays the religion card for power." This should offend you.
But, now I see you are backtracking it to say it is only when they are asserting "exclusivity" and, in particular, to you. Well, when you assert somehow Perry's (or any other conservative Christian) has views to be disregarded because they invoke religion in discussing policies, you are practicing your own form of "exclusivity." A devout person of religion can not discuss themself or their views without referencing their faith.
I love your knee jerk opposition to when a Christian uses the term "Christian nation" as a sign of "exclusivity" but I should have no opposition to when people refer to us as a non-Christian nation. Considering the fact a majority of the nation is Christian and many of its guiding principles are clearly Christian (not only exclusively Christian as these principles are held by people of non-Christian faiths as well as those of no faith) and particularly referenced by our Founders and our founding documents, the statement we are a non-Christian nation is on its face false.
Do you mean to imply there is no place in America for Christians or they should be second-class citizens? I suspect the answer is no. Then, why do you think when someone uses the term "Christian nation" they are implying there is no place in America for atheists or you are to be a second-class citizen? Why can't they be meaning a nation founded on certain universal Christian principles?
I tried to find it but there is an article by a noted Orthodox Jewish Rabbi who finds no offense to America being called a "Christian Nation" because he says it is in the context is as follows:
1) Its Consitution recognizes the dignity of all people who have certain rights by virtue of their being. These rights were not given to them by their government and can't be legitimately denied by their government. In practice, this dignity gives them universal suffrage, freedom of religion (or no religion) and the other First Amendment protections plus the others, and the aspiration for equality in law.
2) Its people aspire to act justly both with regard to its own citizens and others. I think he is referring to the Christ-command to love others as you love yourself.
I think there were others.
But to your point, I talked before about "shorthand" use of words to communicated concepts. The use of the term "Christian nation" can mean essentially two concepts:
1) One is a nation that lives up to certain Christ taught principles and its laws support these principles such as those I tried to recall from the Rabbi. Principles I don't think you disagree with.
2) The other is one that would require a profession of Christianity to hold office, etc. or would otherwise discriminate against non-Christians by virtue of their religion in law.
You might disagree with Perry and Bachman on a host of issues, even on issues they might reference as being based on the Bible or faith. But, for you to somehow think their views represent #2 is at best inaccurate and at worst paranoid.
In the end, if you expect me to accept the characterization we are a "non-Christian nation" doesn't "exclude" Christians from having the ability to participate in public life, is it unreasonable for me to expect you to accept the characterization of "Christian nation" as one who aspires to live up to certain Christian principles?
I don't want to brutalize the equine after its demise here, but the point about "tone" and learning "to read" is important.
Evangelical is my native religious language so I am pretty sure I get the language and nuance of "born again" or "justification" or "not being "of the world." When I hear Perry, Bachmann, or Cain, I am hearing a tone that I has more to do with talk radio that evangelicalism. In my mind, it sounds like something that I might have heard in 1858 South Carolina. I didn't hear that tone from Huckabee last cycle.
As far as intransigence in Washington, I'm getting very nostalgic for Reagan, O'Neil, Baker era. I was in college and starting a career then. Plans were pushed through; compromises were made, and corrections occurred. Everyone seemed to understand that the red meat that got thrown to the respective bases would be barbecued and served as a hors d' oeuvres during happy hour. Now it seems that we're all expected to live on steak tartare alone
Actually LK, you are making a great point. Because you and I might hear something different, might it because we each wish it to be so? You want to hear a "stubbornness" or "certainty" because you want to "hear" why they are not acceptable to you while I want to hear why they might be acceptable to me.
I think in the end, all of us would be wise to be less quick to make judgment (for or against) until we see them over a long time (which is why I don't think we should arbitrarily shorten campaign seasons). The matters we are discussing are not easy to discern at first blush. How many liberals 30 years ago would have said what you did about Reagan? I have the same view of O'Neill today.
Maybe over time I'll come to find Perry a "wingnut" as Fleming likes to say or you'll come to find Perry like you found Huckabee. Only a few are given the gift to peer into another's soul. The rest of us have to watch people over time. :)
Troy, as per every revolution, money is power until it is not. The bottom line is, that it is not.
Troy,
The only thing I'll disagree with in your last comment is the implication that I'm a liberal. I'm to the right of Cory. :)
LOL Big whup. Nancy and Barack are to the right of Cory.
(Thanks for the distraction and discussion. I've been at the office now for several hours and it is good to clear my head from my spreadsheet every so often. I just hope my wife doesn't see my post lest she think I've not been working and could have been working on my "Honey Do's.)
The President has plenty of time to lead our team down the field and the earth haters' primary season will be a bloodbath or an orgy of death: http://www.thenation.com/blog/162877/mitt-romney-dark-prince-oligarchy-battles-demons-democracy