Why The Right Needs Religion

This is a pretty significant editorial. Karl Rove, and his cynical campaign plan to embrace Fundychristers to help elect Bush, may have been the most destructive, and even nationally suicidal act in the history of US politics. He pushed a marriage of political and religious dogma that is effectively Constitutional ebola... naaah... this is a linkswarm comment. Not ebola. AIDS

You put far too much power and influence on Rove. ProfitChrist and GOP (and Dems) have slept together for decades.

My perception of it, Ghostie, is , since the 1999/2000 Bush campaign is that , yeah, while Fundychristers have been a moderately significant US curse, palling around with political heavy weights, since the 50's (I'm even meeping named after one :Peter John Marshall), after Bush was crowned prez by the Supremes, the Fundy influence was exponentiated (not to mention the universal availability of TV and the internet helped it go viral, of course). In short, the fundies were once behind the scenes, advising politicos, who took the advice with a grain of salt. Now politicos embrace meeping madness, to look good to the most religiously radical consitituents...I suspect thaat might have something to do with Allah meep-slapping God , on 9/11.

I couldn't agree more. Good job, comrade.

This phenomenon is not new. Religion = Power, from the beginning of history. Think of it this way: politics is just another form of religion, sans gods. Future generations will realize this and choose to organize in a way that values creation, not destruction. wtf am i talking about.

Think of it this way: politics is just another form of religion, sans gods. Future generations will realize this and choose to organize in a way that values creation, not destruction. wtf am i talking about.

And then everybody died.

politics=power religion=power Put 'em together and whaddaya got / bippity boppity boo.

I disagree with this article because there are Democrats (see Blue Dog Coalition) that are just as cozy with religion as Republicans

I don't doubt there are, Dismas. Theocratic zealotry has probably never been strictly aligned with political ideology, or even liberal of conservative. Denying that the Republicans use Fundychrist dogma as a bludgeon, regarding gays, Muslims, porn, ...think of other bad meep..I got stuck....while the Democrats cater to a more humanist branch of voters, seems to be somewhat lacking in realistic outlook, as per the last decade of excessive Fundy nonesense.(See: American Taliban.)

To be called by the common good to run for office or advised through the secret understanding of the greater good, as it seems is the case with most liberal politicians these days, provides an immediate trump card of moral superiority to bolster the nanny statist's ambition. It preordains any loss or rejection as either bullying by heartless meanies, or the work of Ayn Rand. The smug assurance in the selfless moral superiority held by these sanctimonious retards remains intact and unblemished.

Like it or not LOki, the USA and the Constitution were both created by Liberals.

Karl Rove, and his cynical campaign plan to embrace Fundychristers to help elect Bush, may have been the most destructive, and even nationally suicidal act in the history of US politics.

this is woefully shortsighted. i think if you thought about it for 5 minutes you could come up with 20 events that had a more significant impact on the country. starting with, you know, the secession of south carolina.

The smug assurance in the selfless moral superiority held by these sanctimonious retards remains intact and unblemished.

this schtick is really tired and i'm starting to believe that you're just an extremely dedicated troll (if so, then my hats off). still, i'm going to bite this time: what exactly is your alternative? leadership justified by alleged intellectual superiority rather than alleged moral superiority? no justification at all? in the lokian universe why would someone take office if not to create a better world? I am not trying to mock you here, I am honestly curious.

Like it or not LOki, the USA and the Constitution were both created by Liberals.

kind of irrelevant considering that the term 'liberal' meant something entirely different then than our pop definition of it today.

AMEN WOTAK!!! DISSENTION IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF PATRIOTISIM-THOMAS JEFFERSON!!!

revolution meep :)

kind of irrelevant considering that the term 'liberal' meant something entirely different then than our pop definition of it today.

Your words are bullmeep. The definition of the term is unchanged. The only difference is that FOX news and neo-conservatives have branded the term in a bad light amongst themselves to create a propaganda mantra to chant at those with more forward thinking, open minds.

Well . . .

wotak entirely wrong again . . . 2x!

Hahaha wotak is only wrong once mr loki. You see, America was founded by liberals, in the classical sense of Adam Smith and the 16th century. This is true because free trade was all the rage, colonies rebelled over taxation, and so on.

However, apparently wotak doesn't understand that liberal in the US means something completely different from what liberal usually means when referring to politics/economics. Don't worry though, lots of people have problems grasping this.

The definition of liberal has never changed. It's the same today as it was in 1776. Both of you are applying your own definition to the word and therefor are wrong. Just because neo-conservatives have decided that 'liberal' is a word that defines something bad doesn't make it so. I'll get my definitions from Merriam-Webster rather than Glenn Beck, thank you very much.