[excon]

Is school prayer back? Is abortion outlawed? Do people work on Sunday? Are 10 commandments allowed in public buildings?

Hello in:

For the present time, the answer to your questions is no.

But, that's because of the Constitution - NOT because the religious extremists running the country WANT it that way. Surly, you don't think they do. If that's so, I have a bridge that I can sell you.

excon

[speechlesstx]

At present, do you believe that fundamentalist religion has an unparalleled influence in the highest government levels in the United States?

Um, no. The idea that Bush is a "religious fundamentalist" that's been hammered on so much by the left is ridiculous. Just as ridiculous is the idea that "right-wing evangelical fundamentalist neocons" have unparalleled influence with Bush and the GOP in general. There's a tremendous difference between the pejorative "fundamentalists" and people whose faith influences their daily lives, those of us who "believe" while recognizing the rights of others, that aren't out to destroy the constitution, as opposed to those who wish to excessively "impose" their beliefs on others.

Considering oneself "born again" or "evangelical" is not ominous, nor does it warrant the fear, ridicule and contempt emanating from "progressive" circles. Of course our faith influences our politics and our values, and anyone who pretends their own politics and values aren't affected by some other influence is kidding themselves. That is as mythical as the idea that Christians are dumb sheep doing the bidding of their leaders seeking to impose their will on everyone. It is precisely this group of Christians that advocate free will while the minority left seek to impose their values on the rest of us.

Steve

[Dark_crow]

Um, no. The idea that Bush is a "religious fundamentalist" that's been hammered on so much by the left is ridiculous. Just as ridiculous is the idea that "right-wing evangelical fundamentalist neocons" have unparalleled influence with Bush and the GOP in general. There's a tremendous difference between the pejorative "fundamentalists" and people whose faith influences their daily lives, those of us who "believe" while recognizing the rights of others, that aren't out to destroy the constitution, as opposed to those who wish to excessively "impose" their beliefs on others.

Considering oneself "born again" or "evangelical" is not ominous, nor does it warrant the fear, ridicule and contempt emanating from "progressive" circles. Of course our faith influences our politics and our values, and anyone who pretends their own politics and values aren't affected by some other influence is kidding themselves. That is as mythical as the idea that Christians are dumb sheep doing the bidding of their leaders seeking to impose their will on everyone. It is precisely this group of Christians that advocate free will while the minority left seek to impose their values on the rest of us.

Steve

Well forget "progressive" circles that has nothing to do with the topic…

You said it… ‘Of course our faith influences our politics and our values, and anyone who pretends their own politics and values aren't affected by some other influence is kidding themselves.”

I agree, and the ‘Poe’ report points to a big increase in religious fever
:p

[ETWolverine]

I defined it in post #3- and gave my argument there. you don’t read much before you respond… huh! :mad:

First, I tend to read the original question and respond first to that. After than I peruse the rest of the posts in the string so that I am not unduly influenced by other answers before giving my own. That's just the technique that I use.

But now that I have looked at post #3, I can't say that I really see your point. Are all evangelicals to be considered fundamentalist? Are they the ONLY fundamentalists in this country? Does the fact that a large portion of this country's population identify with some evangelical beliefs mean that they are really evengelicals? In what way are evengelicals influencing the federal government? Is the fact that the president happens to be of a particular religious group an indicator that this particular religious group has more influence than any other? If Mitt Romney were elected President, would that indicate that Mormons have undue influence, even though they are so few in number in the USA? Did Catholicism have "unparralleled influence" over the federal government when JFK was president and his brother, RFK, was AG? And if 54% of the country actually believes in Evangelicalism, is any influence that goup has over the government really "unparralled", since they would seem to be the majority, and their influence would seem to parallel their numbers?

So... I think your definition of "fundamentalist" is faulty. I also believe that your assumption that numbers are the sole determining factor of what is "influential" is faulty. And finally, I question what real influence of this particular group that you identify as "fundamentalist" has over the government.

Elliot