[extropy-chat] No Joy in Mudville

[Zero Powers]

OK, OK, maybe Giu1i0 was exaggerating to make a point.  But I think he
makes a legitimate point.  GWB has made no bones about his supposed
belief that God has put him in office for a "divine" purpose. 
Personally I'm not convinced he's nearly has religious as he makes
out.  But he won this election largely on the backs of the religious
right, and he's not about to let them down now.

You can be damned sure he feels he's got a mandate now and he aims to
use it to push the fundy agenda down our throats.  Get ready for 4
more years of thinly veiled gay-bashing, and attempts to encroach on
abortion rights.  Four more years of furrowed Federal brows and
hand-wringing over the fate and moral rights of clumps of cells. 
While, thankfully, California strikes out on it's own to pursue the
probable biomedical gold mine of stem cell research.

Taliban-style theocracy?  No, not quite.  Alright, not even close. 
But is there really *that* much difference between depriving a woman
of her freedom of reproductive choice and forcing her to wear a burka?
 Or how about constraining the familial rights of committed couples
simply because they happen to be of the same sex?

So, no, the Christian fundamentalist political agenda is not quite the
same as a Taliban-style theocracy.  But in my view it's really only a
difference of degree, not kind.

Of course YMMV

Zero

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 23:04:06 -0800, J. Andrew Rogers
<andrew at ceruleansystems.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2004, at 10:23 PM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
> > I am not complaining that you elected a Republican president. There
> > have been many good Republican presidents. I am complaining that you
> > elected a president who wants to turn the US into a fundamentalist
> > theocracy in the purest taliban style.
> 
> 
> This is yet another example of what I was talking about though.
> 
> There is not a shred of evidence that the president "wants to turn the
> US into a fundamentalist theocracy in the purest taliban style".  That
> is pure tin foil whack job conspiracy theory fodder.  This is the type
> of crap the right wing fringe always said about Clinton, with the same
> level of enthusiasm and assuredness, and with the same quality of
> "proof" and "evidence".  It is precisely the same comfortable
> fallacious reasoning that makes people believe that if a person owns a
> gun, they will commit a mass murder at some point in the future.  Or
> that if you have a penis, you'll likely be a rapist given the
> opportunity.  It is nonsense.  Yet I hear garbage reasoning like this
> all the time, and after the election, on this list of all places.
> 
> We have had plenty of very religious presidents in the past, and we
> undoubtedly will have more in the future.  Never has it resulted in a
> taliban-style theocracy, or a real theocracy of any type.  Although the
> left-wing uses this to great effect to whip up opposition from secular
> audiences.  Old political trick, and you guys fell for it.
> 
> Get a grip people, and some legitimate historical perspective.  At
> least try to apply consistent and reasonable standards of analysis to
> the election.  Stop drinking the hyperbole Kool-Aid that the opposition
> parties are always too willing to provide.
> 
> 
> j. andrew rogers
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>