Their numbers, other than England, were so minimal as to be statiscally insignificant. That, and many were expecting political favors for their involvement.

Regardless, the man who set the ball rolling was our own religious lunatic. The religious affiliations and opinions of the other leaders are, as far as I can see, meaningless.

__________________
All things serve The Beam

That's not my point. My point is that the ball couldn't have rolled ANYWHERE without the agreement of many, many other checks and balances.

So, again, what's the danger?

__________________
Obama Low Effort Wealth Spread. I can't believe it's not earned!

Despite occasionally similar language, nobody could realistically call any of these men (Lincoln, FDR, or JFK) Dominionists.

Here is the Wikipedia article on Dominion Theology:

Dominion Theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Kennedy were all quite strongly secular in their political orientations, despite what may have been sincere personal religious beliefs, clearly they were not Dominionists. Some extremists of the Religious Right are Dominionists, and there are some indications that President Bush may be. If so, he is the first Dominionist president we have ever had, and I must say the results are, perhaps predictably, lamentable.

I'm not prepared at this point to stick that label on Palin. She does belong to a Dominionist Church, but as already pointed out, we can no more assume from that the extent to which she agrees with the pastor's extremist views than we can make the parallel assumption about Obama and Rev. Wright. It does, however, raise questions.

There's no point in making superficial comparisons with language used by previous good leaders to try to claim that Dominionism wouldn't be dangerous if it gained power. The comparisons ARE superficial, and should be dismissed.

As for the "checks and balances" that allegedly might have stopped Bush, there's only one that mattered, and that's the U.S. Congress. Unfortunately, the Democrats in the House suffered an acute case of collapse of the spine in the wake of 9/11 and did not do their job. I have never been so angry with the Democratic Party as a whole, as I was in 2003 when they could have kept us out of Iraq and failed to do so. Does this mean that Bush is not solely to blame for the fiasco? You bet it does. But that does not in turn mean that having a Dominionist in the White House isn't dangerous. In fact, it makes it more dangerous, because sometimes the checks and balances don't work.

So what? It happened here, and, given political considerations and powers, could easily happen again. It's quite pertinent that the ball, so to speak, rolled in favor of the religious nutjob we have in power now.

That's the danger.

__________________
All things serve The Beam

So you honestly are saying that the only reason we went to war was because of Bush's religious beliefs and if he wasn't a Christian, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq?

__________________
Obama Low Effort Wealth Spread. I can't believe it's not earned!

Partially, yes. Partially, no.

He's a dry-drunk. They are most usually fanatics. I know many.

He could be a Hindu, but he'd still be a fundamentalist, my original point, btw, and he likely would have taken us into an undeclared war.

__________________
All things serve The Beam

and that means what? if god told them too then there ya go......if they found it in their inteste to go along then why not us?

of course it is because it won't fit and can't fit your belief that she is so inclined....wow no kidding?

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Wait. I thought it was the language these folks use to express their faith that solicits the "creepy" feelings, not their type of religious beliefs (evangelical, dominion, Joshua gens, whatever).

It's been demonstrated that some great leaders used the same type of language - the same language that the "cons" mentioned here have used.

Since when does our country find it acceptable to discriminate against someone based on their religious beliefs?

It has nothing to do with his being a "Christian." Calling Dominionists Christian is like calling al-Qaeda Muslim: it's true, but it's only a tiny fraction of the whole truth. It suggests either that all Christians are as extremist as Dominionists, which is a slander, or that Dominionists are no more extreme than Christians generally, which is a whitewash.

We have never had a president who wasn't Christian. If Bush is a Dominionist, though, he's the only Dominionist president we've ever had.

Then you thought wrong.

Oh, I don't think so. Look at the posts in this thread.

And, if it ISN'T the language, again, since when is it OK to discriminate based on religious beliefs?

Exactly. While JFK and FDR evoked God at particular moments, in the case of FDR in a moment of extreme national crisis, the Bush crowd makes decisions about foreign and domestic policy based on their interpretation of Biblical law. It is the very opposite of seperation of church and state. No one is saying you cannot have faith. As I mentioned earlier, every President has been a Christian, with the exception of Thomas Jefferson who was a Deist. So the issue is not "Christian" the issue is a particular kind of Christianity. Something TSG has said a bunch of times.
Kind of since always. Jews and Catholics had a very rough go of it for the majority of U.S. history and don't get me started on Muslims in the present day (remember how many people voted against JFK because he was Catholic, not Protestant). Americans have demonstrated an open willingness to discriminate based on religion, even if the law of the land says otherwise. This isn't a huge stretch. This country had legal systems of racial discrimination even as it professed to be a place where "all men are created equal." Now if by "acceptable" you mean "legal" well OK. But homosexual sex is "legal" in America, but it is still unacceptable in most places outside of major cities.

But protestant Christians....yeah, they really have never been subject to systematic discrimination in this country. Now is no different.

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

So, then, how many of those respective leaders explained that god told them to go do this?

Other than that, your point is a dodge. Our leader specifically said that god told him to do this. I'll wait for your evidence that any other leaders held similar opinions.
If I understand you correctly, and I'm not sure I do because of the strange way you write, then it's up to you to supply proof that this was, indeed, what they thought.

I stand by my point that she is, religiously, a fanatic.

This is a bad thing.

__________________
All things serve The Beam

Then I suppose you have no room to complain if others deride BHO for a perceived religious belief.

I have zero problems with anyone taking a candidate to task for their religious beliefs. Regardless of candidate, regardless of belief.

Period.

Why would I complain about someone doing that to Obama?

__________________
All things serve The Beam