Originally Posted by Si modo

since when is it OK to discriminate based on religious beliefs?

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

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.

Originally Posted by CorpMediaSux

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.

Originally Posted by historybuff

And how has this been allowed to affect policy? I get that you think it's creepier or more extreme, but I have yet to be convinced that it's dangerous. Sarah Palin did not ban books and she does not advocate creationism being part of the curriculum.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

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.

Originally Posted by historybuff

Even if she is -- why? Give me the likely scenario you fear.

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

As I said, I'm not ready to call Palin a Dominionist. The fact that she belongs to a Dominionist church isn't sufficient evidence. There are many reasons for belonging to a church. Many people belong to churches for social reasons without agreeing with everything that's taught by them. Her membership in the church raises questions, but it doesn't answer them.

I am not completely convinced that Bush is a Dominionist, either, but if that was the reason, or part of the reason, for the ill-advised and self-destructive invasion of Iraq, then you have your answer as to how it affects policy.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Please. This isn't rocket science. Stop playing the fool.

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

Suppose someone had a religious belief that dictated a hereditary monarchy and a theocracy, with all religions except their own outlawed. Would this, in your view, be a valid reason to vote against such a person for national office?

There are some senses in which it isn't OK to discriminate based on religious beliefs. Religious beliefs can't be outlawed, and one can't discriminate when it comes to housing or employment. But voting is a different story altogether.

I will not vote for a Dominionist, any more than I would vote for a radical Islamist, a follower of the Aryan Nations, or a follower of Nichiren Shoshu. And I make no apologies for that.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Please. This isn't rocket science. Stop playing the fool.

Originally Posted by historybuff

I think you can't come up with any reason why it is "bad" or any scenario that can't be explained away as highly unlikely if not impossible within our system of government. Just tell me one thing that she could actually enact to harm us because of her religious beliefs.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

People who subscribe to fanatical positions tend to:

(a) make snap judgements
(b) disregard the advice of surrogates
(c) be utterly convinced of the 'truth' of their own positions
(d) dispense with such individuals whose own opinions vary from their own because of 'c' above.

Look at our current president. He maintains god told him to go to war with Iraq.

I don't need to be told twice that his kind of person should not be president.

Do you?

Originally Posted by historybuff

You have provided no proof that Palin displays any of the above and you're dodging the question. What's a likely scenario? What, specifically, do you think could happen? Just one example of how -- IF she's a fanatic -- can can enact something to harm the country.

Originally Posted by historybuff

But what danger do you think it poses? How, with the checks and balances that exist in our system, will this effect our country? You keep saying "dangerous." What is the danger?

Originally Posted by Si modo

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?