There's the Garden of Eden, from where man was banished. There's
dominion over the earth and its creatures, ranking the environment
subordinate to man. There's the idea that Jesus can multiply fish and
bread from thin air to feed the masses. Jesus was a carpenter and hung
on a wooden cross, placing forest products in a strict utilitarian
context. There's raising the dead and reincarnation, which implies a
spiritual violation and divorce of spirit from the natural order of
things. There's the whole famine, plague, flood thing of environment
as antagonist.

Then there's the idea of hell being a volcanic, subterranean realm in
earthly bowels made of fire and brimstone. I don't know if that last
idea is in the bible, but it is certainly popular among Christians.
The point is the earth is not a happy place for Christians, and their
ultimate goal is to reach somewhere better. For Christians, the earth
is a stepping stone, a place of trials and tribulations, and in whose
bosom lay the fire and brimstone of eternal damnation. The Bible, as
used and interpreted by the majority of Christian fundamentalists, is
not a model of environmental stewardship.



OK, I'm gonna debate ya on this a little, although I certainly don't share
Larry's perspective. I think you're stretching with your "Bible as
Anti-Environment" thesis. For starters, while the Bible does assign man the
role of master over the creatures and lands of the Earth, it explicitly
charges him to PROTECT creation, not destroy it. And harvesting it for
man's use does not equate to destruction; I don't think anybody would say
that fishing or hunting equates to environmental destruction. Of course,
like any activities, you have the good along with the bad- for every kid
with a fishing pole on a quiet northern lake, there's a trawler with a drag
net wreaking havoc on marine environments. I'm not sure how you can say
that Jesus as a carpenter is a sign that the Bible is anti-environment; one
of my best paddling buddies is a finishing carpenter. For that matter,
aren't his wooden canoes just as "utilitarian" as a wooden cross? Famine,
plague, and antagonists? Remember the tsunami thing that several of our
friends in Asia recently dealt with? I suspect they would agree that nature
is indeed an antagonist at times! Treating nature as antagonist is one
thing; destroying it to further your own interests entirely something
different.

Is earth a place of trials and tribulations? Sure. If you're leading a
life *without* trials and/or tribulations, please share your experiences- I
bet you're the only one in that position :-) Why is Earth as a place of
trial a bad thing? I endure the "trial" of whitewater whenever I can, and
believe me, there are many rapids that I view as being antagonistic, almost
malevolent! But trials and adversity are not bad; they give you the chance
to stand tall. I believe that is the true function of creation as described
in the Bible- a place to rise above trials and tribulation, a place to meet
those challenges and succeed! If others view the trials and tribulations of
life on earth as an enemy rather than a spiritual refining process, that
would be their failing, IMO.

I certainly agree that there is some movement in the Christian right to
treat the enviroment like a big cookie jar, but that really isn't the fault
of the Bible or it's writers. I would opine that that is more indicative of
Christian fundamentalists failure to understand God's desire that man act as
a steward of the environment. Personally, I believe that Christian
fundamentalists fail to understand God's instructions in more areas than
just environmental stewardship, but that's a whole different story.

Frank Bell wrote:

There's the Garden of Eden, from where man was banished. There's
dominion over the earth and its creatures, ranking the environment
subordinate to man. There's the idea that Jesus can multiply fish
and
bread from thin air to feed the masses. Jesus was a carpenter and
hung
on a wooden cross, placing forest products in a strict utilitarian
context. There's raising the dead and reincarnation, which implies
a
spiritual violation and divorce of spirit from the natural order of
things. There's the whole famine, plague, flood thing of
environment
as antagonist.

Then there's the idea of hell being a volcanic, subterranean realm
in
earthly bowels made of fire and brimstone. I don't know if that
last
idea is in the bible, but it is certainly popular among Christians.
The point is the earth is not a happy place for Christians, and
their
ultimate goal is to reach somewhere better. For Christians, the
earth
is a stepping stone, a place of trials and tribulations, and in
whose
bosom lay the fire and brimstone of eternal damnation. The Bible,
as
used and interpreted by the majority of Christian fundamentalists,
is
not a model of environmental stewardship.



OK, I'm gonna debate ya on this a little, although I certainly don't
share
Larry's perspective. I think you're stretching with your "Bible as
Anti-Environment" thesis. For starters, while the Bible does assign
man the
role of master over the creatures and lands of the Earth, it
explicitly
charges him to PROTECT creation, not destroy it. And harvesting it
for
man's use does not equate to destruction; I don't think anybody would
say
that fishing or hunting equates to environmental destruction. Of
course,
like any activities, you have the good along with the bad- for every
kid
with a fishing pole on a quiet northern lake, there's a trawler with
a drag
net wreaking havoc on marine environments. I'm not sure how you can
say
that Jesus as a carpenter is a sign that the Bible is
anti-environment; one
of my best paddling buddies is a finishing carpenter. For that
matter,
aren't his wooden canoes just as "utilitarian" as a wooden cross?
Famine,
plague, and antagonists? Remember the tsunami thing that several of
our
friends in Asia recently dealt with? I suspect they would agree that
nature
is indeed an antagonist at times! Treating nature as antagonist is
one
thing; destroying it to further your own interests entirely something
different.

Is earth a place of trials and tribulations? Sure. If you're
leading a
life *without* trials and/or tribulations, please share your
experiences- I
bet you're the only one in that position :-) Why is Earth as a place
of
trial a bad thing? I endure the "trial" of whitewater whenever I
can, and
believe me, there are many rapids that I view as being antagonistic,
almost
malevolent! But trials and adversity are not bad; they give you the
chance
to stand tall. I believe that is the true function of creation as
described
in the Bible- a place to rise above trials and tribulation, a place
to meet
those challenges and succeed! If others view the trials and
tribulations of
life on earth as an enemy rather than a spiritual refining process,
that
would be their failing, IMO.

I certainly agree that there is some movement in the Christian right
to
treat the enviroment like a big cookie jar, but that really isn't the
fault
of the Bible or it's writers. I would opine that that is more
indicative of
Christian fundamentalists failure to understand God's desire that man
act as
a steward of the environment. Personally, I believe that Christian
fundamentalists fail to understand God's instructions in more areas
than
just environmental stewardship, but that's a whole different story.

Frank, if it doesn't shake you up to badly, I am with you on this one!
Stewardship is the key, and in fact I believe there will be a day of
reckoning for all those who claim to be Christians and were poor
stewards. The Scriptures say that we who claim a greater understanding,
will be held to a greater responsibility. Now that is not an excuse for
staying ignorant, but those who may be proposing to hurry the Lord's
return by trashing the environment, may not be so happy when He starts
asking them to give account.

Now I would also have to say that I have never heard any of the
Christians I know propose trashing the environment, though I can also
understand that there could be some that would. There are definitely
some wackos out here who make some pretty bizarre claims. However the
solution is not to lump all Christian fundementalist into one big pile.
There are many various flavors, though the lions aren't to
discriminating. TnT

Frank, if it doesn't shake you up to badly, I am with you on this one!

Ha ha ha! Nope, I may get super ****ed off at the American right, but when
hasn't political debate been a nasty business? What the hell, eh? This
*is* usenet, after all :-)

Stewardship is the key, and in fact I believe there will be a day of
reckoning for all those who claim to be Christians and were poor
stewards. The Scriptures say that we who claim a greater understanding,
will be held to a greater responsibility. Now that is not an excuse for
staying ignorant, but those who may be proposing to hurry the Lord's
return by trashing the environment, may not be so happy when He starts
asking them to give account.

I completely agree with you. I've always thought that certain individuals
on this earth who claim to be about the Lord's business may suddenly
discover that they're in fact opposing it; Christian, Moslem, Jewish, or
otherwise. And making that discovery when they're standing before their
maker won't be pleasant.

Now I would also have to say that I have never heard any of the
Christians I know propose trashing the environment, though I can also
understand that there could be some that would. There are definitely
some wackos out here who make some pretty bizarre claims. However the
solution is not to lump all Christian fundementalist into one big pile.
There are many various flavors, though the lions aren't to
discriminating. TnT


Agree again. I know a few fundamentalist-types who are very deeply involved
in environmental protection. With the current conservative politics of
America, Christians in the United States feel (and are) politically
empowered. Unfortunately, this gives the lunatic fringe types a louder
voice, along with those who have more moderate opinions.

Frank Bell wrote:

There's the Garden of Eden, from where man was banished. There's
dominion over the earth and its creatures, ranking the environment
subordinate to man. There's the idea that Jesus can multiply fish and
bread from thin air to feed the masses. Jesus was a carpenter and hung
on a wooden cross, placing forest products in a strict utilitarian
context. There's raising the dead and reincarnation, which implies a
spiritual violation and divorce of spirit from the natural order of
things. There's the whole famine, plague, flood thing of environment
as antagonist.

Then there's the idea of hell being a volcanic, subterranean realm in
earthly bowels made of fire and brimstone. I don't know if that last
idea is in the bible, but it is certainly popular among Christians.
The point is the earth is not a happy place for Christians, and their
ultimate goal is to reach somewhere better. For Christians, the earth
is a stepping stone, a place of trials and tribulations, and in whose
bosom lay the fire and brimstone of eternal damnation. The Bible, as
used and interpreted by the majority of Christian fundamentalists, is
not a model of environmental stewardship.




OK, I'm gonna debate ya on this a little, although I certainly don't share
Larry's perspective. I think you're stretching with your "Bible as
Anti-Environment" thesis. For starters, while the Bible does assign man the
role of master over the creatures and lands of the Earth, it explicitly
charges him to PROTECT creation, not destroy it. And harvesting it for
man's use does not equate to destruction; I don't think anybody would say
that fishing or hunting equates to environmental destruction. Of course,
like any activities, you have the good along with the bad- for every kid
with a fishing pole on a quiet northern lake, there's a trawler with a drag
net wreaking havoc on marine environments. I'm not sure how you can say
that Jesus as a carpenter is a sign that the Bible is anti-environment; one
of my best paddling buddies is a finishing carpenter. For that matter,
aren't his wooden canoes just as "utilitarian" as a wooden cross? Famine,
plague, and antagonists? Remember the tsunami thing that several of our
friends in Asia recently dealt with? I suspect they would agree that nature
is indeed an antagonist at times! Treating nature as antagonist is one
thing; destroying it to further your own interests entirely something
different.

Is earth a place of trials and tribulations? Sure. If you're leading a
life *without* trials and/or tribulations, please share your experiences- I
bet you're the only one in that position :-) Why is Earth as a place of
trial a bad thing? I endure the "trial" of whitewater whenever I can, and
believe me, there are many rapids that I view as being antagonistic, almost
malevolent! But trials and adversity are not bad; they give you the chance
to stand tall. I believe that is the true function of creation as described
in the Bible- a place to rise above trials and tribulation, a place to meet
those challenges and succeed! If others view the trials and tribulations of
life on earth as an enemy rather than a spiritual refining process, that
would be their failing, IMO.

I certainly agree that there is some movement in the Christian right to
treat the enviroment like a big cookie jar, but that really isn't the fault
of the Bible or it's writers. I would opine that that is more indicative of
Christian fundamentalists failure to understand God's desire that man act as
a steward of the environment. Personally, I believe that Christian
fundamentalists fail to understand God's instructions in more areas than
just environmental stewardship, but that's a whole different story.


The examples I used illustrate the idea of man's subjugation of
nature. Many Christians believe in a spiritual hierarchy; man is above
the animals (nature) and God and the angels are above man. Indeed,
Satan, who was God's favorite angel, upon thinking himself the equal
of God was cast from heaven into hell (earth?). Or, so the story goes.

The contention isn't that the Bible is anti-environment. Rather, the
Christian belief of earth/nature as a couple notches below some lofty,
heavenly ideal is not pro-environment. It's as if earth/nature is a
kind of waiting room, or queue or elevator before entering into the
kingdom of heaven.

Jesus multiplied fish and loaves. This doesn't happen in the real
world without serious consequences. I recently posted a story about
the environmental effects of fish farming. You can see satellite
photos of rain forest deforestation by slash and burn to clear cattle
pastures. Old growth forest continue to decline, other forested lands
have been replaced with commercial monoculture forests. The natural
environment can indeed be antagonistic, but the Bible uses these as
examples of God's wrath and punishment for man's digressions.

There was a brief, almost tenderly naive period of popular
environmentalism during the activist '60s. Joni Mitchell, in her
dedication to the times, says in "Woodstock," "We've got to get
ourselves back to the Garden." The sentiment that we can get back to
the Garden has been misplaced and forgotten.

Some of the writings of Naturalists, Thoreau, Abbey, Craig Childs,
etc. are among the most beautiful, evocative and inspiring writings I
have ever read. Nature is a place of deep spirit. Our boats may be
wood or petroleum based, but they express a sense of conservation. A
river can evoke a timelessness. Nature comes across, through and
reflected back upon us. We see through fresh eyes and breath moist
air, like being born again.





--
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me

- From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon

Frederick Burroughs wrote:
Frank Bell wrote:

There's the Garden of Eden, from where man was banished. There's
dominion over the earth and its creatures, ranking the environment
subordinate to man. There's the idea that Jesus can multiply fish
and
bread from thin air to feed the masses. Jesus was a carpenter and
hung
on a wooden cross, placing forest products in a strict utilitarian
context. There's raising the dead and reincarnation, which implies
a
spiritual violation and divorce of spirit from the natural order of
things. There's the whole famine, plague, flood thing of
environment
as antagonist.

Then there's the idea of hell being a volcanic, subterranean realm
in
earthly bowels made of fire and brimstone. I don't know if that
last
idea is in the bible, but it is certainly popular among Christians.
The point is the earth is not a happy place for Christians, and
their
ultimate goal is to reach somewhere better. For Christians, the
earth
is a stepping stone, a place of trials and tribulations, and in
whose
bosom lay the fire and brimstone of eternal damnation. The Bible,
as
used and interpreted by the majority of Christian fundamentalists,
is
not a model of environmental stewardship.




OK, I'm gonna debate ya on this a little, although I certainly
don't share
Larry's perspective. I think you're stretching with your "Bible as
Anti-Environment" thesis. For starters, while the Bible does
assign man the
role of master over the creatures and lands of the Earth, it
explicitly
charges him to PROTECT creation, not destroy it. And harvesting it
for
man's use does not equate to destruction; I don't think anybody
would say
that fishing or hunting equates to environmental destruction. Of
course,
like any activities, you have the good along with the bad- for
every kid
with a fishing pole on a quiet northern lake, there's a trawler
with a drag
net wreaking havoc on marine environments. I'm not sure how you
can say
that Jesus as a carpenter is a sign that the Bible is
anti-environment; one
of my best paddling buddies is a finishing carpenter. For that
matter,
aren't his wooden canoes just as "utilitarian" as a wooden cross?
Famine,
plague, and antagonists? Remember the tsunami thing that several
of our
friends in Asia recently dealt with? I suspect they would agree
that nature
is indeed an antagonist at times! Treating nature as antagonist is
one
thing; destroying it to further your own interests entirely
something
different.

Is earth a place of trials and tribulations? Sure. If you're
leading a
life *without* trials and/or tribulations, please share your
experiences- I
bet you're the only one in that position :-) Why is Earth as a
place of
trial a bad thing? I endure the "trial" of whitewater whenever I
can, and
believe me, there are many rapids that I view as being
antagonistic, almost
malevolent! But trials and adversity are not bad; they give you
the chance
to stand tall. I believe that is the true function of creation as
described
in the Bible- a place to rise above trials and tribulation, a place
to meet
those challenges and succeed! If others view the trials and
tribulations of
life on earth as an enemy rather than a spiritual refining process,
that
would be their failing, IMO.

I certainly agree that there is some movement in the Christian
right to
treat the enviroment like a big cookie jar, but that really isn't
the fault
of the Bible or it's writers. I would opine that that is more
indicative of
Christian fundamentalists failure to understand God's desire that
man act as
a steward of the environment. Personally, I believe that Christian
fundamentalists fail to understand God's instructions in more areas
than
just environmental stewardship, but that's a whole different story.


The examples I used illustrate the idea of man's subjugation of
nature. Many Christians believe in a spiritual hierarchy; man is
above
the animals (nature) and God and the angels are above man. Indeed,
Satan, who was God's favorite angel, upon thinking himself the equal
of God was cast from heaven into hell (earth?). Or, so the story
goes.

The contention isn't that the Bible is anti-environment. Rather, the
Christian belief of earth/nature as a couple notches below some
lofty,
heavenly ideal is not pro-environment. It's as if earth/nature is a
kind of waiting room, or queue or elevator before entering into the
kingdom of heaven.

Jesus multiplied fish and loaves. This doesn't happen in the real
world without serious consequences. I recently posted a story about
the environmental effects of fish farming. You can see satellite
photos of rain forest deforestation by slash and burn to clear cattle

pastures. Old growth forest continue to decline, other forested lands

have been replaced with commercial monoculture forests. The natural
environment can indeed be antagonistic, but the Bible uses these as
examples of God's wrath and punishment for man's digressions.

There was a brief, almost tenderly naive period of popular
environmentalism during the activist '60s. Joni Mitchell, in her
dedication to the times, says in "Woodstock," "We've got to get
ourselves back to the Garden." The sentiment that we can get back to
the Garden has been misplaced and forgotten.

Some of the writings of Naturalists, Thoreau, Abbey, Craig Childs,
etc. are among the most beautiful, evocative and inspiring writings I

have ever read. Nature is a place of deep spirit. Our boats may be
wood or petroleum based, but they express a sense of conservation. A
river can evoke a timelessness. Nature comes across, through and
reflected back upon us. We see through fresh eyes and breath moist
air, like being born again.





--
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me

- From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon

After the rancor of the day, your post is almost as refreshing as a
good time at the lake. I spend most of my boating time in a local
reservoir here in Denver, far from pristine, but tell that to the duck.


I was down there one evening, just paddling along, and here comes a
mother duck with her little ducks stretched out behind her. I just fell
in line and followed, and they did not seem the least bit bothered.
Maybe even seemed to adopt me. A very spiritual experience as the
daylight faded! TnT

"Frederick Burroughs" wrote in message
...
Frank Bell wrote:

There's the Garden of Eden, from where man was banished. There's
dominion over the earth and its creatures, ranking the environment
subordinate to man. There's the idea that Jesus can multiply fish and
bread from thin air to feed the masses. Jesus was a carpenter and hung
on a wooden cross, placing forest products in a strict utilitarian
context. There's raising the dead and reincarnation, which implies a
spiritual violation and divorce of spirit from the natural order of
things. There's the whole famine, plague, flood thing of environment
as antagonist.

Then there's the idea of hell being a volcanic, subterranean realm in
earthly bowels made of fire and brimstone. I don't know if that last
idea is in the bible, but it is certainly popular among Christians.
The point is the earth is not a happy place for Christians, and their
ultimate goal is to reach somewhere better. For Christians, the earth
is a stepping stone, a place of trials and tribulations, and in whose
bosom lay the fire and brimstone of eternal damnation. The Bible, as
used and interpreted by the majority of Christian fundamentalists, is
not a model of environmental stewardship.




OK, I'm gonna debate ya on this a little, although I certainly don't
share
Larry's perspective. I think you're stretching with your "Bible as
Anti-Environment" thesis. For starters, while the Bible does assign man
the
role of master over the creatures and lands of the Earth, it explicitly
charges him to PROTECT creation, not destroy it. And harvesting it for
man's use does not equate to destruction; I don't think anybody would say
that fishing or hunting equates to environmental destruction. Of course,
like any activities, you have the good along with the bad- for every kid
with a fishing pole on a quiet northern lake, there's a trawler with a
drag
net wreaking havoc on marine environments. I'm not sure how you can say
that Jesus as a carpenter is a sign that the Bible is anti-environment;
one
of my best paddling buddies is a finishing carpenter. For that matter,
aren't his wooden canoes just as "utilitarian" as a wooden cross?
Famine,
plague, and antagonists? Remember the tsunami thing that several of our
friends in Asia recently dealt with? I suspect they would agree that
nature
is indeed an antagonist at times! Treating nature as antagonist is one
thing; destroying it to further your own interests entirely something
different.

Is earth a place of trials and tribulations? Sure. If you're leading a
life *without* trials and/or tribulations, please share your experiences-
I
bet you're the only one in that position :-) Why is Earth as a place of
trial a bad thing? I endure the "trial" of whitewater whenever I can,
and
believe me, there are many rapids that I view as being antagonistic,
almost
malevolent! But trials and adversity are not bad; they give you the
chance
to stand tall. I believe that is the true function of creation as
described
in the Bible- a place to rise above trials and tribulation, a place to
meet
those challenges and succeed! If others view the trials and tribulations
of
life on earth as an enemy rather than a spiritual refining process, that
would be their failing, IMO.

I certainly agree that there is some movement in the Christian right to
treat the enviroment like a big cookie jar, but that really isn't the
fault
of the Bible or it's writers. I would opine that that is more indicative
of
Christian fundamentalists failure to understand God's desire that man act
as
a steward of the environment. Personally, I believe that Christian
fundamentalists fail to understand God's instructions in more areas than
just environmental stewardship, but that's a whole different story.


The examples I used illustrate the idea of man's subjugation of nature.
Many Christians believe in a spiritual hierarchy; man is above the animals
(nature) and God and the angels are above man. Indeed, Satan, who was
God's favorite angel, upon thinking himself the equal of God was cast from
heaven into hell (earth?). Or, so the story goes.

The contention isn't that the Bible is anti-environment. Rather, the
Christian belief of earth/nature as a couple notches below some lofty,
heavenly ideal is not pro-environment. It's as if earth/nature is a kind
of waiting room, or queue or elevator before entering into the kingdom of
heaven.

Jesus multiplied fish and loaves. This doesn't happen in the real world
without serious consequences. I recently posted a story about the
environmental effects of fish farming. You can see satellite photos of
rain forest deforestation by slash and burn to clear cattle pastures. Old
growth forest continue to decline, other forested lands have been replaced
with commercial monoculture forests. The natural environment can indeed be
antagonistic, but the Bible uses these as examples of God's wrath and
punishment for man's digressions.

There was a brief, almost tenderly naive period of popular
environmentalism during the activist '60s. Joni Mitchell, in her
dedication to the times, says in "Woodstock," "We've got to get ourselves
back to the Garden." The sentiment that we can get back to the Garden has
been misplaced and forgotten.

Some of the writings of Naturalists, Thoreau, Abbey, Craig Childs, etc.
are among the most beautiful, evocative and inspiring writings I have ever
read. Nature is a place of deep spirit. Our boats may be wood or petroleum
based, but they express a sense of conservation. A river can evoke a
timelessness. Nature comes across, through and reflected back upon us. We
see through fresh eyes and breath moist air, like being born again.




Theology comes in all flavors and sizes, but the idea that 'nature is there
to be used' is not uncommon. The concept of stewardship, to many, implies
having your hands on every aspect: I don't know a single forester who does
not believe that managed forests is not good stewardship. In fact, every
forester I know (coming from Maine, thats not a few) believes that hands-on
forestry is far superior to just letting the forests be. In their eyes, a
monocultural stand of identical Spruce trees, all in a row, without any
Budworm or disease is far superior to the same mountain side covered with
diverse species, with all the undergrowth and rot and natural disease. Its
not at all unlike the BLM under Floyd Dominy stating that undammed rivers
were just 'going to waste'.

It has taken 30 years and untold amounts of effort for the legitimacy of
free-flowing rivers to be re-established (it was quite well established
before industrialization rearranged and redefined 'natural resources'). I
fear we are facing an even larger battle for the idea of free-standing
forests to regain legitimacy. Not every Tom Dick and Harry can go out and
dam a river, but every landholder can go out with a chainsaw and 'improve'
their tree lot. And make some money while they are at it.

Currently, 'natural resources' are seen as a bank account, not an end it
itself. Whereas, in the past, national parks and national forests were seen
as preserves of 'the way it used to be', now they are seen as deposits of
trees, oil, minerals and water in a pretty wrapping, waiting for the right
time to be extracted. And current laws and legislation are being written
with precisely that view in mind. Get the resources out before we grand
national forest or national park status to the wrapper.

--riverman

The reason that I assert that the the the liberal left has lost touch
with America is that they have consisitantly lost ground in recent
elections to the Republic/moderate/right. That's just simple math, look
at the makeup of Congress, the Governorships of the states, and the
trend in memberships in the state legislatures. I live in a state that
is HEAVILY democratic, to the tune of 3 to 1, yet we now have a
Republican legislature and governor. Manipulated the Media? The media
I saw were all heavily in favor of Kerry.

But to blame this swing on "fundamentalist christians" is stereotyping
and scapegoating, frankly it sounds like a bunch of Nazis blaming all
their troubles on the Jews, or the Klan on the Blacks. Moyer
stated that there is a anti environmental element in the Protestant
Christian Religion, I say that it is absolute bull****. I don't see
armies of Christans wacking down trees to hurry the END. I've had to
sit through many a sermon in my day, from Catholic to Pentecostal, and
I have never heard anything like that from any of the pulpits. Do the
"Christians" vote a more conservative social value than espoused by the
Democratic Party? Yes, but mainly on issues like abortion and gay
marriage. But this is America and they do have the right to speak and
vote for what they believe whether you agree with them or not.

Frankly, I find the idea that since my guy didn't win, the people that
supported the winner are stupid and gullible as elitist at best. It's a
big country out there and people have a lot of different priorities on
why they vote, many may not be yours. But it's pretty evident from
recent elections that the Republicans have presented a program more to
their liking than the Democrats.

Let's start on the easy stuff. The only two educational groups that are
consistantly Democratic are the people with no High School education
and the Post Graduates. High School Dropouts and College Professors.
The College Educated have consistantly supported the Republicans by a
large margin.

You seem to miss the point. 76 percent of the country claims membership
in some Christian religion.
If one includes the Catholics, at least 50 percent of these groups are
socially conservative, probably a higher percentage. To run on a
platform that emphasis certain social causes that don't coincide with
the values of these groups, then gripe because they voted their social
values is pointless and rather stupid.

If one looks at the issues that Voters considered important this
election, the two that were foremost in most of the voters minds was
national security and the economy. The voters, and I agree with them,
thought that Bush had a better plan than his opponent, who in reality
didn't come forward with much concrete on either count. While you may
feel that Gay marriage and Abortion rights are important issues, it
seems that the voters feel differently.

Only 49% of Congress is Democratic?

Frederick Burroughs wrote:

Jesus multiplied fish and loaves [and healed lepers, walked on water...]

Rather, accounts of his life written one or two generations later claim
Jesus did those things. (Mark, Matthew, and Luke date from AD 70 to 90.)

It's interesting that the letters of Paul, which were the first portions
written of the New Testament, make no mention of miracles performed by
Jesus during his lifetime, only of his resurrection.

Environmentalism is an updated form of native american religion, I suspect.
It's amazing how much influence native americans have had over our culture,
especially considering how we mercilessly wiped them out. For example,
the Iroquois Confederacy served as a model for US government.

riverman wrote:

My personal take on that is that this assessment is not entirely incorrect.
The only defense for how the right-wing voted that I have heard here, or
anywhere, is that the left wing has 'lost touch with America. (which, of
course, raises the question of our own nationality..) Not once have I heard
a right-wing voter tell me what the multitude of issues are that they have
lost touch WITH. They never support their vote with tangible analysis of
complex issues. Like the national debt. Like the environment...

Pax Christi (a religious NGO) undertook a survey asking voters what was
the most urgent moral crisis facing the country. Results:

33% greed and materialism
31% poverty and economic justice
16% abortion
12% gay marriage

Most media outlets focused on the 3rd and 4th place items, which were
outnumbered 65% by other issues. I read about it in a Noam Chomsky essay:
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Jan2005/chomsky0105.html