The contempt for Christianity on Democratic Underground...

[murdoch]

...which supposedly exists, is nothing compared to the contempt that the lobbying firm of Jack Abramoff had for the Christian conservatives it was trying to manipulate.

Michael Scanlon was Jack Abramoff's partner, and Scanlon is who rolled over on Abramoff to the feds and got Abramoff in hot water. Scanlon and Abramoff were lobbying for Indian casinos and had former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed running interference for them with regard to opposition to gambling and casinos from Christian groups. Here is part of a memo from Scanlon talking about how he felt about his religious right brethren within the conservative movement:

"Mobilization - We plan to use three forms of communications to mobilize and win these battles. Phones, mail and Christian radio...Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them. The wackos get their information form (sic) the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees".



This e-mail and others was released by the US Senate in this file, but I should warn you it is very large, takes a very long time to download, and you have to have Adobe's (free) PDF reader Acrobat.

http://www.indian.senate.gov/2005hrgs/110205hrg/110205exhibits.pdf

[flvegan]

1. "Wackos"

Wow. Just wow.

[EVDebs]

62. They really are 'bonkers' but

still, you don't insult people to their faces. Show some tact for cryin' out loud !

Their beliefs are bonkers, but they are at the heart of power
US Christian fundamentalists are driving Bush's Middle East policy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1195568,00.html

(BTW, Monbiot got it wrong: dispensationalism, a.k.a. futurism, originated in the 16th century with Jesuit Francisco Ribera see www.aloha.net/~mikesch/antichrist.htm . I've also seen even the History Channel making this same mistake along with Bill Moyers in an article recently. The "Left Behind" end-times theology originates in the Counter Reformation, not in the mid-1800s, FYI).

[Ezlivin]

2. Hey, if you've got people so credulous that they'd believe in talking

donkeys, walking on water and raising people from the dead, you'd be stupid not to milk them for all they're worth.

In PT Barnum's time these people would be called "marks".

[papau]

4. I thought one posted on DU because you did not like the GOP smear

technique?

[Rowdyboy]

5. It looks like some are working to perfect just that smear tactic here....

Doesn't it. And they always think they're so clever.

[CarbonDate]

41. It's not their techniques that bother me.

It's their ends, not their means that bother me.

But I more or less agree that the poster in question could have been more tactful.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

7. Talking donkeys?

you mean Democrats?

[Inland]

8. Sure. Book of Shrek, ch d1, v 14

Or the Book of Tobit. A little obscure. I had to look it up on the internets to remember the name.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

9. Ah...the book of Shrek

flying donkeys, too. I know it well. I have a two-year old grandson.

[noonwitch]

15. Balaam and his talking donkey from Numbers 22

An obscure story not taught much in Sunday School, about the perils of ignoring God's orders.

There is a lot of christian bashing on DU. I'm a liberal christian, I don't necessarily believe every biblical story is the literal truth, and I certainly don't agree with the condemnation of homosexuality, among other things. Jesus said "Love your neighbor as yourself". He didn't add "but you can hate them if they are gay or practice a different religion than you". He even went so far as to tell us to love our enemies. I do take the Sermon on the Mountain at face value, because it is direct teaching on how to live your life in love and with respect for others. The overall message of doing right, not because it will get you some special reward, but because it is the good, kindly, just and loving thing to do is always relevant.

Allegories, such as the creation story or Jesus' many parables, are fables, like Aesop's. They contain truth, but are told in a way so as to draw in the listener or reader, instead of boring them with theological arguments.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

17. You know, I had to Google that

as a card-carrying Episcopalian we kind of skipped over that part.

It's a nice story, isn't it? Kind of reminds me of Aesop.

[Critters2]

13. When you make statements like this,

it becomes a little hard to criticize others for being intolerant, doesn't it? Or at least it makes it hypocritical.

Critters, who believes in people raising from the dead

[0007]

14. Wine from water? Did the Naz pull a leg or two with a fast

gypsy while the gang was bombed?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

16. I'm sure you pride yourself

on being part of the reality-based community. And oooh, you do it SO WELL.

But your manners suck. You need to be spanked.

[0007]

26. You're a very assuming Grannie.

A very wise man once said,

"He is not strong and powerful who throweth people down; but he is strong who witholdeth himself from anger"

Your disguised, holier than thou rebuke, doesn't go far with me sister.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

32. Well, I was teasing you..

reading into your "Naz" statement and all that we were being like cool and stuff. Sorry I misread you.

If I ever rebuke you, it won't be disguised... be sure of that, brother.

[thebigidea]

36. the Naz is an ancient Lord Buckley term for Jesus

an old time hipster... he did jive talk routines, and not really anti-Jesus or anything either:

So now everybody's talkin' about The Naz.

Oh, this beautiful, swingin' man.

How he's settin' the country on fire with great sparks of great love
like a swingin' non-stop satellite goin' through all the lands
and valleys and puttin' down the scene with such beauty
and such power and such charm
that there are now sparks seventy-five feet long shootin' out of the grapevine
and they now got five thousand of these little cats and kitties
in The Naz's home town, where the cat live, lookin' to get straight.

Well, he knows he can't straighten them there.
It's too small a place to want to hang everybody up.

So The Naz backed away a little bit
and he look at these cats and these kitties
and he say, "Come on, babies. Let's cut on out down the pike."

And there went The Naz.

And these five thousand cats and kitties are stompin' up a storm.

Behind them there's a great love river of joy.
It's goin' like a great chain through these gorgeous cats and kitties
as they're swingin' along on the beat of the Naz
and the birds are flyin' on one side
and singin' love songs to these cats and kitties
and there's a great jubilee of love.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

39. You taught me something tonight

because I never heard of the gentleman, but I've googled him and had a lot of fun with the findings. Thanks.

The Naz. Hmmm. Wonder how that will look in needlepoint?

[0007]

37. Argh! my bad. I misread you as well.

Everything is six two and even. We'll start over, minus the guise, eh?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

40. Cool

only rebuke the repukes. New motto.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

18. My dear Ezlivin,

I am writing to inform you, that I, TallahasseeGrannie, a Baby Boomer in good standing, a teacher of 33 years, a wife of 34 years, a mother of two, grandmother of two, published author, Nationally Board Certified Teacher, accomplished artist of 27 stained glass windows in 10 churches nationwide, faithful Democrat, Al Gore supporter, grower of the largest chickens in Leon County, Florida....

believe the following:

Jesus Christ was born of a virgin
He was ressurected from the dead
He ascended into heaven
He healed the sick, the blind
He raised the dead
He talks to me daily
He walked on the water

And some day, in my flesh, I shall see God.

Now, if you would like to milk me for all I'm worth, go ahead and give it a try.

I am not stupid, I am not sub-human. I am not an incredulous idiot.

I am a woman who has a faith you don't understand and which you belittle. I don't know why. Perhaps it threatens you, although it shouldn't. I am not asking you to join me in it. I am not asking anyone to join me in it. I am happy all by myself in my faith. Perhaps you are just a boorish sort of person with bad manners. I don't know. Or maybe you like to come here to stir things up. But I just thought I'd explain who I am so you know.

Oh..I don't believe donkeys talk.

[Ezlivin]

19. My dear TallahasseeGrannie

You sound like a perfectly wonderful person. I was born and raised a Christian (Southern Baptist) in Tampa, so there's a couple of touchstones for you.

I also have a MDivBL (Master of Divinity with Biblical Languages - Hebrew & Greek) from the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. I've been married 28 years, paralyzed for 26 years, and I'm a disabled veteran of the Naval Submarine Service. I am a former minister.

Hey, I believed that donkeys could talk, that people could walk on water and that the dead could rise. So I've been there and know what the mindset is. Once I bought into that, I could pretty much be sold anything with a "Christian" label on it. I watched it happen around me all the time as we were sold on building new buildings, supporting this program or that set of missionaries.

When I was completing my graduate degree, I went to a LDS church as part of research for a paper I was writing on "cults". I met some very nice, warm, genuine people who believed that Joseph Smith had some golden tablets that he translated with special glasses. They also believed that Jesus visited America and "saved" some of the Native Americans (Indians) who were, indeed, the lost tribe of Israel. These were full-grown, educated adults. They believed these things.

One of my major areas of study was apologetics, or the defending of the faith. I realized that I defended my faith in the same fashion as the LDS people defended theirs. I could not convince them that they were wrong; they could not convince me that I was wrong.

If I repeated the doubts I aired in my original post at some other place or time, I would be killed. Christianity, like many other faiths, cannot countenance unbelief or "heresy". For thinking for myself the punishment would be death. Many people died at the stake because they refused to believe what they were told. Countless bodies litter the landscape scoured by the righteous.

For that reason I like to speak out, for we live in a special time where I do not have to fear the almighty reach of the church. I do not have to cower in my basement, fearful that church authorities will find out that I do not subscribe to their particular beliefs.

Perhaps Mr. Bush and his friends will change that. Perhaps I'll burn at the stake one day for voicing my unbelief.

We'll see what the good Christians of this country decide.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

21. Thanks you for your well-considered explanation

and I hear and truly understand your history (to the extent possible with brief words)and I understand and even empathize with your loss of faith. It happens. It is between you and whatever.

What I don't yet understand, however, is that since we do NOT live in an environment where you will be burned at the stake or otherwise punished for not believing, why you would say hurtful and belittling things to those who DO believe?

Because I would think that given your history you would have a strong feeling for the many variations of human need and belief and would, as a progressive thinker, demonstrate respect for the creed of others? Frankly, given your very solid "resume'" I am quite surprised. You are well-spoken and articulate, surely you have more regard for the niceties that have kept us from killing each other more than we even have?

But I'll bet there is more to the story. Care to PM me?

[autorank]

24. Grannie...

" since we do NOT live in an environment where you will be burned at the stake or otherwise punished for not believing" Well, maybe not here and not now but certainly elsewhere. The sad thing is that acts are taken by self-proclaimed Christians who, by my reckoning, have little or no understanding of "the Good News." Bush the Believer, wrapped in his public relations holy cloth, attacked a country that did not attack us and "burned" plenty of people where they stood. We can debate the number of innocents who died which may range from 20k to 120k. What really matters is that a self-proclaimed Christian (Jesus is his favorite "political philosopher") killed and injured a bunch of people for one or more of several reasons and without any justification.

It is the duty of all Christians to stand up and bear witness--this President lies when he says that he's walking the path of Jesus when he kills and maims.

To me that's the whole point. You can read Jesus' words all day and night and not find even a hint that violence is endorsed but many clear references to a peaceful path and peaceful resistance. To go from that to bombing places and claiming your Jesus informed is the ultimate attack on Christianity, one that I find as hopeless as it is misleading.

Time for all believers to call * what he really is, a liar when it comes to Christianity as he's a liar in every other sphere of his life.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

28. Well, now that's an entirely different

topic.

I disagree with just one thing. Even though GWB is a self-proclaimed Christian, this is NOT a Christian war. I can understand the interpretation of it that way, however, if you connect the RW with the Church, etc., (which I don't) so that is probably a debate likely to go anywhere.

The denomination I belong to is very active in its antiwar stance.

My only issue with the poster was in belittling people who believe. In whatever.

But I can't argue with 95 percent of your argument.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

42. Correction

The threat of violence is both explicit and implicit in the Bible, and Jesus is not exempt from that:

Matthew Chapter 13
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Revelation Chapter 2
20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.


From http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/Violence_and_God.htm :

"In the New Testament, Jesus supported mutilation. To avoid lusting after women, he recommended that men pluck out their own eyes.(Matthew 5:28-29) To prevent masturbation, he advocated that people cut off their hands.(Matthew 5:30) And he endorsed castration for "the sake of the kingdom of Heaven," and said to let "those accept it who can."(Matthew 19:12)"


I don't mind if you believe in the Bible, but don't pretend that one can, in your own words: "not find even a hint that violence is endorsed..." The Old Testament is filled with violence, whoring, incest, and other practices that I find abhorrent. That doesn't mean that I can't get something positive out of reading the Bible, and that there aren't (again, in your words) "many clear references to a peaceful path". But please don't misrepresent what the actual words of the Bible say.

[druidity33]

51. yes, but...

you fail to mention that Matt ch2 is a parable (not exactly,"this is what i say you should do" territory) and in the Revelations quote he talks specifically of "the corrupt church" and the different falsehoods of the church. As for the other Matthew quotes... do you really think he meant for us to "pluck out our eyes" or is that justa metaphor? As a practising druid, i don't have any problem searching for truth wherever it leads, regardless of religion. I have equal respect for the Bible, the Quran, the Upanishads, the teachings of Black Elk, Theosophy, and many other deep and worthy tomes/disciplines of study. All that being said, of course there is violence in the Bible, Nature cannot live without the violence inherent in it. Would we ever have a storm if there was naught but a peaceful sky? What the other poster was implying was the life and words of Jesus Christ seem to contradict the essence of violence. I would also mention as an aside that the only record of Jesus is what others recorded of him hundreds of years later... historically and archaeologically speaking this is tantamount to a HUGE uncertainty. There is little proof to anything but that Jesus lived. What he said, what he did, will always be a question of faith. IMO, what the actual words of the bible say are nearly irrelevant becaus they were written by men, not God. What matters is what's in your heart and how you live your life. So mote it be.

y gwir yn ercyn cyd

[Inland]

27. It's great you don't live in fear of persecution for heresy.

Me, personally, I live in fear that someday I'll call a huge group of people credulous and stupid within earshot and that they'll give me a culturally diverse beating.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

29. Culturally diverse beating

hmmmm

sounds kind of kinky. I'm seeing paddles painted with PreColumbian tribal symbols, maybe?

[autorank]

44. Nah, just tell them you're a Gnostic. That's what I do.

If they're Catholic, they usually think it's cool and if not, they don't know what I'm talking about.

And I am...maybe I'll start my own forum but then real believers would never join a group;)

[jonnyblitz]

22. what I would like to know is why you DON'T believe donkeys

talk but you DO believe the other stuff which is equally as absurd to those of us who don't believe? :shrug:

I can respect you as a person and not question your sanity or intelligence but STILL think your religious belief system is total bullshit, btw.

many of my friends whom i respect and love are religious, like you, and they know how i feel.

[PassingFair]

30. Yeah, I'm scratching my head, too...

Believes in "Zombie Jesus", but not in talking mule.
Aren't both the dictated "Word of God".

Obviously a "cafeteria christian".

[TallahasseeGrannie]

34. Well, I feel like I'm all on my own here, but here goes

the mule was in the Old Testament. I'm a Christian. I take the New Testament as truth, not the Old. And my denomination doesn't believe in the "dictated word of God" meme.

Zombie Jesus. Eloquent.

Now, where's that cafeteria? I'm hungry.

[PassingFair]

35. So.....

the only part of the OT you believe is the prophesy of "his" coming?

Anything else?

Looks like the only part of the "Old Country Buffet" you get is dessert!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

38. I don't know enough

about ancient history to have the slightest idea if any of it is historical or not. I'd doubt it.

And I always eat dessert first..life is short.

[TygrBright]

57. PassingFair, are you just poking a stick in the cage...?

...or are you really young, ignorant, and dogmatic enough to believe there is only one methodology for "belief" and its expressions?

I believe George Washington held a fundamental value that honesty and that he promoted that value as a sound basis for public service. I don't believe he cut down a cherry tree and confessed to Daddy about doing it "with his little hatchet."

I believe that in the late ninth century, King Alfred of Britain was deeply worried about the incursions of the Danes, and reached a personal low point in his reign. I don't believe he travelled incognito and lodged with a peasant woman who asked him to watch her cakes, which he subsequently let burn while brooding over the Danish threat.

Nevertheless, I believe that the stories about George Washington and his hatchet, and King Alfred and the cakes, have a fundamental kernel of truth in how they illuminate values and character, which are not things subject to objective quantification or logical, rational, causative justification. "Belief" or "faith" in the context of theology, religion, teleology, etc., is a reference, not to empirical 'reality.' (Want to have a go at solipsism sometime? Reality itself is a very shaky concept. Interestingly, this is covered in that book you apparently despise, in which a follower of "Zombie Jesus" points out that the phenomenon of human life carries limitations that prevent us from perceiving reality effectively.)

It is naive and childish to equate religious "beliefs" with "belief" in the sense of the ability to perceive, evaluate, and accept empirically-demonstrable phenomena, and even more so to assume that disbelief in anything one cannot empirically demonstrate is reliable evidence of rationality.

Perhaps I'm just being stuffy, though. Maybe you don't really think that way. Perhaps you're just monkey-wrenching the discussion for personal enjoyment and because your sense of humor takes you that way. If so, please remember that text has limitations on conveying nuance that can only be overcome by the skilled choice and clever arrangement of words to explicitly realize that inflection. Readers cannot see tone of voice or facial expression.

helpfully,
Bright

[Inland]

64. Here's another biblical verse:

Matthew 7,6. "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet."

In other words, I like your thoughts but since the answer to the opening question was "yes", you wasted your time.

[PassingFair]

67. So long as you don't doubt the existence of the Pink Dragon that

...lives in my garage, I promise I won't dare to doubt the whole rising from the dead thing, though both have the same un"reliable evidence of rationality".

[Catrina]

79. I know, let's root our all those who believe in

that 'whole rising from the dead thing' and burn them at the stake, no, better yet, let's throw them to the lions. It worked in the past, after all!! Wonder how all that happened? How long it took to stir up enough hatred to make a sport out of throwing 'believers' to the lions'?

'Those who choose to ignore history are bound to repeat it' or something like that.

Personally I think it's kind of cute that you have a pink dragon in your garage,:sarcasm: and if you invited me to see it, I'd probably humor you and pat it on the head!! That would be called 'tolerance' ~ you know, biting your tongue when someone believes something you think is 'wacko' because we live in a country that allows us to believe in something no matter how wacko others may think we are. So long as they aren't forcing anyone else to believe it.

Interesting how it's become fashionable to bash Christians for their beliefs. Abramoff and his crew did take it to a whole other level, though. One that should be of great concern to the American people, since his use of their beliefs may have tipped the election to the worst administration in living (and most probably historical) memory.

[PassingFair]

82. Whoa! Clean up in Post 79! Over-reaction needs clean up...

"burn them at the stake, no, better yet, let's throw them to the lions"

Yes, and I call for the execution of all those who believe they have been abducted and probed by aliens, too!

Since when is it "fashionable" to bash people for questioning unfounded and unprovable claims of supernatural phenomena?

No one attacks me when I say that I think "ghost hunters" are silly, but question someone who hears "Jesus" talking to her, and I'm Hitler!

Go sell victim-hood somewhere else.

[papau]

84. Unprovable Assertions that something is not true makes for a

cute rejection of another's "victimhood".

I believe that is a good summary of your post.

It is hard to put logic into a post without logic - just assertions.

Not that "God is real" is more than an assertion -

but it has the same wieght on the scale of logic as the "there is no God" assertion - despite all the atheist posts that try to claim otherwise.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

31. I wouldn't bore you with

the rationale for my beliefs, but they focus on various prophesies and fullfillment and also personal experiences that I have been privileged to have.

And I certainly don't deny your right to think I'm a tad loony, but I do put forth that you shouldn't tell ME that anymore than you would tell me I have a big ass. Which I do. BUT YOU WOULDN'T TELL ME THAT, RIGHT?

That's all I'm saying. I personally think that faith is a continuum and we all fit somewhere on the line, all the way from there ain't nothing out there to seeing angels dancing on the head of a pin. Happily we live in a time where we can believe whatever we want (at least in this country) but we do have this problem. See, we have to get along and not hurt each other's feelings. Because hurt feelings lead to ... you know, like genocide and stuff.

Now I know DU is all about kicking ass, but do we really have to?

[bobalu]

56. Why are you and a couple of others here putting Grannie

on the defensive for her beliefs?...They have NOTHING to do with her politics --at least in a negative sense...

I think there's an issue of "respect" here which needs to be observed.

There is, I believe a Religion Forum for those who want to discuss these things. Maybe you should go to it.

.and yes, I'm a "newbie", but an "oldie" politically and I have lurked here for a very long time.

Peace

[Zebedeo]

83. Right on, Grannie!

Jesus Christ was born of a virgin
He was ressurected from the dead
He ascended into heaven
He healed the sick, the blind
He raised the dead
He talks to me daily
He walked on the water

And some day, in my flesh, I shall see God.

You shall.
:loveya:

[YOY]

53. Carnyspeak: "Rubes"

Fit's many of them well...

[Catrina]

77. Wow, Abramoff would have hired you in a heartbeat

To use the beliefs of any religious group for the nefarious reasons these criminals did is beyond cynical, it is evil, imo.

[Kolesar]

3. you tease

I would like to find a memo like that showing how the republicans want to use the Christians to accomplish their anti-environmental goals. (Judicial nominations, in particular)

[Inland]

6. You mean, this "so called 'memo' by an alleged 'Jack Abramoff;"

Because we aren't allowed to trust our own reading ability, both the contempt on DU and the existence of Abramoff are all in the "so called" category.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

10. I am confused

is this memo real?

[murdoch]

11. Yes

This page of the memo is one of hundreds of pages released by the US Senate in their hearings. You can go to the Senate's web page and download this page and the hundreds of others if you want. The memo is legitimate:

http://www.indian.senate.gov/2005hrgs/110205hrg/110205exhibits.pdf

I should tell you though that this PDF file is quite large and takes some time to download even with a fast (DSL/Cable) Internet connection. You also need a program like (free) Adobe Acrobat to read it.

[xchrom]

12. manipulating the ''virtuous citizen'' is right out of the playbook

of leo straus and machiavelli.

ralph reed however -- made his bed and he can sleep in it.

[Initech]

20. Man, 1984 is becoming more real ever day!

[autorank]

23. Murdoch=Recommended

Talk about contempt. They respect nothing except their own greed, which seems to be endless. Whoever dies with the most toys wins! That's their world view.

This is some great stuff. Thanks for sharing it.

[VaYallaDawg]

25. Excellent information, murdoch.

Let's hope it gets in the news on Christian talk radio. Although I can't really feature them using the word "wacko" to describe their own constituency - even if it does appear in the documentation!

[wiley]

33. Recommend this thread, please

This is so cynical, so slimy. It doesn't matter what you believe, this is blatant manipulation and total disrespect to anyone who considers themselves Christian or American or ethical in any sense of the word.

CORRUPT LYING REPUBLICANS
IMPEACH THEM ALL!

[rman]

43. k&r

[ddeclue]

45. What kills me about Abramoff is that he emailed everything!

Didn't learn anything from Iran-Contra or Monicagate.

Clinton only ever sent 2 emails his whole Presidency.

I guess it's good for our side, he's stupid.

Doug D.

[eridani]

46. What about a mailing campaign directed toward--

--evangelical churches? A brief excerpt, heavily underlining the 'wackos' part, plus context that Scanlon was trying to get Christians to vote against one gambling interest to benefit another gambling interest. Finish it off with something to the effect of "This is what wealthy Republicans really think of you. The reason you are still voting Republican is what, exactly?"

Anybody interested?

[bobalu]

59. I think this is an excellent idea...How do we go about it?

[eridani]

71. Is there a national church directory somewhere?

If so, we could break it out by states and cities.

[bobalu]

73. I will check on it, eridani

and pm you if I can...I'm new here...not sure how to get in touch if I'm too "new" for PMing.

Maybe you can PM me?...not sure of the rules on this.

[rucky]

47. Psssst, fundies...

SUCKERS!!!

[On the Road]

74. Personally, I Find "Sucker"

to be one of the most enraging and effective insults, and one of the most likely to change a person's thought process. Especially if it's backed up by a document like this.

[dutchdemocrat]

48. I have put the 318 pages of the papers in HTML format here

http://www.chris-floyd.com/jack/

If you don't like PDF's.

I hate them personally.

http://www.chris-floyd.com/jack/

[Helga Scow Stern]

60. Thanks! It makes for some fun reading.

[Lerkfish]

49. I'm confused how the two items are related?

are you alleging DU christians are connected in some way to Abramoff?
are you alleging its ok to bash DU christians because Abramoff bashed RW christians?
are you alleging DU christians should not feel they are treated contempuously because Abramoff, who is not posting on DU, is more contemptuous?

I'm confused...I see no connection between the two, frankly.
For one thing, DU christians are, as far as I know, progressive, and not of the group Abramoff is bashing.

Are you posting this to allay fears of bashing, to minimize and discount bashing, or to encourage more bashing because its not as bad as Abramoff's bashing?

:shrug:

[Catrina]

78. Those documents, emails etc. were presented to the Senate

committee that uncovered the Abramoff/Scanlon/Kidan schemes. The hearings were on C-Span and should have been covered by the MSM, imo.

I didn't get the impression that the OP was meant to do anything other than inform people of the evil tactics of Abramoff and his crew, ie in this case, cynically using the Christian right, with the help of one of their own, most revered 'leaders', Ralph Reed.

These revelations are political gold to those who knew that the 2004 election was stolen, that dirty tricks were used, that 'wedge issues' were deliberately created or used to divert attention from the real issues. Now we see the proof. I think it's extremely important that all Americans get to see how the Republicans 'won' the election.

Here's another dirty trick they used, as told to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, by Abramoff's crew. He would create 'entities', groups which supposedly were 'issue groups'. Let's say eg, a group called 'Christians Against Gambling'. In fact, there would be no such group, but he would get a telephone number for the phony group.

Then he would conduct phone banks. His people would contact Christians and ask them eg, 'How do you feel about Gambling' followed by 'Would you like to contact 'Christians Against Gambling' and help them fight for your cause?' If the person said yes, they would get the phone # he had assigned to the non-existent group. Several fake phone lines like this would be in a drawer, depending on the issue. When one of them rang, an Abramoff employee would take it out of the drawer and answer it. What wasn't clear in the Senate hearings was whether the 'Young Repubs' who were answering these phones, knew it was all phony.

But these were just some of the lessor deceptions thought up to win over the Christian right and let them think their causes were being fought by Republican focus groups, when in fact, these groups were just names. I don't know either whether Ralph Reed was aware of these dirty tricks being played on his so-called constituency. That may be revealed later.

[Lerkfish]

81. I'm referring to the opening:

-----
The contempt for Christianity on Democratic Underground...

...which supposedly exists, is nothing compared to the contempt that the lobbying firm of Jack Abramoff had for the Christian conservatives it was trying to manipulate.
------

[ComerPerro]

50. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you

[robbedvoter]

52. "bring out the wackos to vote against something" - sums it all

Fuel out the paranoia...I wonder if there's any wako that feels cheap today....

[txaslftist]

54. Nice catch, terrible framing in your title.

[Dora]

55. I agree - it alienates readers uninterested in the Xian/Atheist debate n/t

[iconoclastNYC]

58. I have contempt for "religion"

Which is a big huge scam that people are born into and rarely escape.

It all comes down to power and money. Some religions are greedier than others but it all comes down to that.

Religion was created to elevate a class of people above the rest of society by virture of them being god's messengers. It's a bunch of bullshit based on fairy tales and smoke and mirrors.

[bobalu]

61. Yeah, um..thanks for sharing

but everybody doesn't believe that...As pointed out earlier, there IS a "Religion Forum"...Perhaps it might be more appropriate to discuss it there?

[txaslftist]

63. Heh.

Ah, the zealotry of the fanatic.

[bobalu]

65. ....Ah, yes

:evilgrin:

[iconoclastNYC]

75. Belief is the problem.

You are taught (from birth) to believe things that have no basis in observable facts and taught to dismiss anyone as a "heretic" who actually beleives in things like fact, reason, logic, and science.

[bobalu]

80. I believe you are speaking of

certain religions or TYPES of religions (fundies?) I was taught that Science and faith are NOT incompatible and that evolution, for instance, was certainly possible and no threat to religious belief.

The contempt for science of which you speak is not a part of the mainstream religions I know of, Catholicism, Judaism or most Protestant sects.

As for believing in things "that have no observable basis in fact"...both I and my scientist partner -- not to mention many others -- have experienced things which probably have "no observable basis" in fact - at least by third parties...But IN FACT..we experienced them..and we're both very sane, intelligent folks.

I'm not very religious. In fact, I'm basically agnostic. But I find militant atheists as annoying as militant religionists.

If our politics...meaning those of the people on this board...are more or less simpatico, why does it matter what our NON-political beliefs are?:shrug:

[wiley]

66. Created to?

or has become for some people who see its' ability to manipulate believers?


Religion is a scam is pretty harsh.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Arugula Latte]

68. Well, I happen to agree with you, iconoclastNYC

Organized religion in the last 2,000 years has mostly been about power, subjugating others, money, and controlling the masses so they won't rebel against their masters. Now, the people who lived long ago and thanked their gods and goddesses for a decent harvest or what have you, that's different.

[IndyOp]

69. Voting *against* something is a stronger motive than voting *for* -

Interesting. Right now Dems are planning to put minimum wage bills on the ballot in many states to get Dem voters to the polls in Nov '06 -- maybe we need something Dems can vote against?

[robbedvoter]

70. remember the power of ABB? There's no shortage of targets

Too bad elections...sigh

[mitchum]

72. There's a sucker born again every minute