Random thoughts on what I think is wrong with the country, the Democrats, Republicans, and the world in general. Or whatever else I feel like talking about.
the real reason we lost
Published on November 3, 2004 By Psikotik In Democrat
I have to admit, I was one of those who supported John Kerry, and as a whole didn't like George Bush. I believe that the war in Iraq was a distraction and based on a predetermined notion by the administration that they wanted to take Saddam out. I believe that by far his policies help those who are more well off, an attempt to recreate Reagan's "trickle down" economics which created huge deficits. I have other policy differences, but that being said, except for Iraq, I think he has done well in the war on terror.

The candidates had clear differences in fiscal, economic, healthcare and other areas. This year would be a chance for people to make a choice in which direction they wanted this country to go, to make a statement about a war that many do not support. So imagine my surprise when I saw the data and "moral issues" was the top factor in how people voted, the economy second, and terrorism THIRD.

I have no problem with moral issues influencing a persons decisions, but with so much going on in the country and in the world, I think changing the moral fiber of the country isn't the top of the list. And let's be fair, when someone says moral values, they mean "MY moral values". A person in San Francisco and an Evangelical Chrstian may both be moral people, but their moral VIEWPOINT will probably not be the same. This does not make either person less moral, or right or wrong, simply different.

This goes to a much larger issue in this country - the role of religion in politics. Approximately 20% of the total votes for George Bush were from Evangelical Christians. They voted for him by a margin of around 80% to 20% for Kerry. Their turnout was also very high due to very effective voter registration drives, organized trips to the polls and the fact that 11 states were voting on amendments to ban gay-marraige. Evangelicals as a rule are pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and to a lesser degree feel that sex and violence in the media is causing a "decay" in this country. They are highly motivated, getting highly organized and feel it is their spiritual duty to save the people and this country from what they define as evils. It is their right to their beliefs - religious freedom is a cornerstone of this country, it is the last part that scares me. The laws of this country should not be based on the beliefs of the church. That is not a democracy, that is a theocracy. Evangelicals believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, totally infallible and this belief give to them a strong sense of rightness to what they do. I honestly don't dislike Evangelicals, my uncle is one. I am not a church-going person, but I do consider myself moral and I am frightened that a religious group is getting very close to being able to legislate it's morals and force it's beliefs on everyone.

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Nov 03, 2004
By: Psikotik
Posted: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 on psikotik.JoeUser.com
Message Board: Democrat
I am not a church-going person, but I do consider myself moral and I am frightened that a religious group is getting very close to being able to legislate it's morals and force it's beliefs on everyone.


This statement is incorrect. They are in no way close to what you are saying. The morals portion of the election was held by 22% of the american voting public.
on Nov 03, 2004
Yes, only 22% said it was the reason they voted for Bush, but you are ignoring the fact that 20% of his total vote was from Evangelicals, whom many of his policies have been meant to appeal to and obviously he couldn't have won without. Not to mention the even larger effect these groups can have on smaller congressional and senatorial races. For right or wrong the Republicans are considered the "religious" party and they do court that vote. If you look at Congress and the Supreme Court it is entirely plausible that in the near future they will be able to exert undue influence on policy decisions.
on Nov 03, 2004
"...but I do consider myself moral and I am frightened that a religious group is getting very close to being able to legislate it's morals and force it's beliefs on everyone."

Unfortunately this entire argument is a fallacy. The liberal extreme left or the moderate middle legislate their morality. Example, " Women not having the right to kill their unborn children is immoral.", "Merit is the least important factor in determining someone's qualifications for a job or admission into law school, instead we should place undue importance on external factors." Of course I could on and on. I will save you the futility. For you know, that legislating morality is the goal of any political party, furthermore it the goal of any society democratic or dictatorial.

Cheers, Ithaycu
on Nov 03, 2004

Reply #2 By: Psikotik - 11/3/2004 9:48:35 PM
Yes, only 22% said it was the reason they voted for Bush, but you are ignoring the fact that 20% of his total vote was from Evangelicals, whom many of his policies have been meant to appeal to and obviously he couldn't have won without. Not to mention the even larger effect these groups can have on smaller congressional and senatorial races. For right or wrong the Republicans are considered the "religious" party and they do court that vote. If you look at Congress and the Supreme Court it is entirely plausible that in the near future they will be able to exert undue influence on policy decisions.


So what? You make it sound like they don't have a right to voice their opinions with their vote.
on Nov 03, 2004
How is saying "A woman has the right to CHOOSE an abortion if she wants" the same as saying " I believe abortion is murder and therefore NO ONE should have one"? There is a large difference between legislating a secular "you do your thing, I'll do mine" attitude and legislating a Biblical " you will follow the Lord's law" kind of morality. Affirmative action has nothing to do with the argument, as I am talking about religious issues and that is a socio-economic issue. Groups that boycot musicians or try to get TV shows cancelled because they don't like the content - can you honestly tell me they aren't trying to forcing their moral code on others? They don't have to see or hear anything they don't want to, they are trying to keep me from seeing or hearing it. Sorry made the reply to the wrong post.
on Nov 03, 2004
"I welcome faith to help solve the nation's deepest problems."

-George W Bush, November 3, 2004.

Let's hope God really is on his side because if not then Bush is being led by some crazy voice in his head. But for now

ONE NATION UNDER GOD FOREVER!
on Nov 03, 2004
Psikotic,

I don't see murder as something that is strictly "the Lord's law"....
on Nov 04, 2004
"I welcome faith to help solve the nation's deepest problems."

-George W Bush, November 3, 2004.

Let's hope God really is on his side because if not then Bush is being led by some crazy voice in his head. But for now

ONE NATION UNDER GOD FOREVER!


Either that or the crazy voice is really Cheney
on Nov 04, 2004

Let's stop allowing Christians to vote, but let's also stop allowing Pagans and Buddhists from voting too. They bother me too. Atheists too. Muslims too. Let's place our hands in good hands: Scientologists!


Unfortunately this entire argument is a fallacy. The liberal extreme left or the moderate middle legislate their morality. Example, " Women not having the right to kill their unborn children is immoral.", "Merit is the least important factor in determining someone's qualifications for a job or admission into law school, instead we should place undue importance on external factors." Of course I could on and on. I will save you the futility. For you know, that legislating morality is the goal of any political party, furthermore it the goal of any society democratic or dictatorial.


It's funny, because I always hear about how self-righteous, intolerant, and oppressive Christians are, yet I see those same traits in the people who accuse Christians of those traits.

on Nov 04, 2004
Evangelicals believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, totally infallible and this belief give to them a strong sense of rightness to what they do. I honestly don't dislike Evangelicals, my uncle is one. I am not a church-going person, but I do consider myself moral and I am frightened that a religious group is getting very close to being able to legislate it's morals and force it's beliefs on everyone.


The "threat" of Evangelicals taking over and forcing their religious beliefs on all our citizens is not just overblown leftist fantasy, it is irrational. I for one, would happily abandon a political party that attempted to do that, but it would never come to that. There is too much religious diversity in our country for any monolithic theocratic revolution to ever occur, the freedom to practice one's own religion being too firmly rooted in our reason for being, despite our ethical/moral values being informed by Judeo-Christian ideals.

And Messy has a point - this is an equal-opportunity country when it comes to intolerance.

You need not live in fear.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Nov 04, 2004
Do the math. By your statistics, Evangelists make up only 10% of the voting populace. And that makes them roughly 6% of the adult populace! And they are going to control the country? No more so that blacks, who represent 12% of the populace, or Hispanics (12% also). You theory is severly flawed. But you do come across as an evangelical bigot. They have a right to their opinion the same as you. Does not make them more right, or more wrong, just diffferent opinions.
on Nov 04, 2004
Hey, I have NOT been burnt at a stake nor even being threaten with harm from Christians for being an Occultists who associates with Wiccans, Buddhists, etc.

I did however suffer vocal persecution under Clinton but ever since 9/11 they backed off...I wonder why...hmm...yes, I wonder...what could it be...oh well I am sure I will remember why...just not right now...

... Plinko!!
on Nov 06, 2004
The math doesn't have to be that they are more than 50% of the votes. All a group has to do is be a solid bloc that will consistantly give money to and vote for a party to gain favor in voting and policies from it. Look at the influence companies, unions, etc.have on each party. It's not how many people you know, it's do you know the right people. If the Evangelicals are able to stay this organized and mobilized they will be a force to be reckoned with. They were approximately 11.5 million of Bush's 59 million votes. He won by 3.6 million. Do you think he could have won without their overwhelming support? Do you believe that candidates from either party don't pay back those who put them in power?
on Nov 06, 2004
Reply By: citahellion
Psikotic,

I don't see murder as something that is strictly "the Lord's law"....


citahellion - But that statement is based on you belief that life begins at conception, while others believe it begins at the point the fetus is viable as a life. What do you base your assumption that abortion is murder on? YOUR faith and morals.
on Nov 06, 2004
Grim, I would assume that you're being left alone since 9/11 because the nation came together after the attack and because they're a lot more afraid of muslims than you right now - not some kind of new-found tolerance.
2 Pages1 2