I'm not sure if Venezuelan head of state Hugo Chavez believes in God, but I am now certain that he believes in the existence of the devil--and one who not only now roams the earth, but thinks of himself as "the owner of the world." There is something disturbingly similar between George W. Bush's most ardent fans, who believe him heaven sent, and George W. Bush's most steadfast foes, who believe him sent from a much hotter place. There is nothing supernatural about George W. Bush. He is actually rather ordinary. Hugo Chavez, on the other hand, is a cartoon character.

Bravo!

Its good to see a Conservative aknowledge the simalarites between America's craziest enemies and Bush's craziest supporters.

I've taken to calling the Fire and Brimstone Evis the "enemey within". If it weren't for them in 2000 we'd have either McCain or Gore as our president, either an improvement on this guy.

There is a key difference: Hugo Chavez is a head of state.

True that.

There's one remove between the endtime evis and the President.

I'd like to see many more removes though.

Just out of curiosity, who do you think are his crazy supporters?

I don't know if mean to me or Dan, but personally I think that there are may people in this country who think the Bush presidency is ordained by God and that Bush is therefore flawless and above reproach.

While many fiscal conservatives, Reagan Republicans, and conservative revolutionaries like William F. Buckley have abandoned him, 9/10 evangelical Christians still support Bush.

The figure for non-evis is 4/10.

The evis are his "Crazy Supporters". People who won't admit that his presidency has been a failure becuase they truly see him as the choice of God, just as the peasants in Europe once thought of their Kings.

HeHe- Do you believe,like a number of college professors and left wing bloggers,that George Bush and the CIA were the responsible parties for the 9/11 attacks?

What about George Soros and the MoveOn.org crowd who believes the answer to the terrorist problem is turning the animals over to the International Human Rights court? Perhaps the USA or the EU could charge and have them tried under international law violations?

Peace at any price is the solution to every national security threat?

That appears to be "mainstream" thoughts on the left.

Lets face it, European socialists values and middle America have the same core values. Keep believing that and prepare yourself to manufacture more excuses after the Democratic (socialists) party gets their clock cleaned in yet another election cycle.

HeHe, you "think" that there are may (I assume you meant to type "many") people in this country who think the Bush presidency is ordained by God and that Bush is therefore flawless and above reproach.

You then quote a startling precise statistic of "9/10 evangelical Christians still support Bush".

First, I am an evangelical Christian Reaganite who neither approves of everything Bush has done, nor would prefer John Kerry or Al Gore in the White House. Yet I, as you say, "support" the President. It's also a basic tenet of Christianity and indeed set forth in the New Testament that we are to pray for those in authority over us, including those we might personally loathe (yes, I did indeed pray for Bill Clinton, but was nonetheless thankful when he left office!), as well as those who have fallen short of our expectations.

However, I have yet to meet a single peasant...er,...person, Christian, evangelical Christian or atheist, who considers George W. Bush a "King" let alone "flawless and above reproach".

No offense taken or intended, but methinks I detect a bit of anti-evangelical bias in your postings that you might want to address.

Todd, thanks for the questions.

I don't believe that Bush or the CIA was involved in the 911 attacks. In fact very few people on the left believe in such theories. Fox News uses these nutcases to falsely suggest that they speak for the left.

I have a lot of respect for George Soro's politcal opnions. I support the ICC, but don't think it should try terrorism cases. Al Quadea's leaders should be TRIED under American law.

The Peace at Any Price slogan is an old staple of the Vietnam War era. I don't think it applies today. But just for fun: the anti-war movement was right about Vietnam. The country today is one of the most pro-American and capitalist in the world. And it isn't becuase we won the war (we didn't), its because we went home and changed Vietnam through example.

I don't know what's going to happen in the mid-term elections. But it is clear that George Bush was elected in 2000 only because our voting system (unlike those elesewhere) deals poorly with spoiler candidates, and that redistricting has kept the House in republican hands.

Thanks too for the questions Thom.

The 9/10 figure is something I came accross recently. I can't remember where. It might have been Chuck Todd on CSPAN. But it was reputable- and makes sense if you think about it. It's estimated that about 25% of Americans are evangelicals and that they overwhelmingly support Republicans for national office. Independents have been drifiting in big numbers away from Bush, and so have registered Reps who are fiscally conservative. If the evangelical community followed suit his approval would be much lower than the 40% it is now.

I realize the the term "evangelical" is vauge and that there is diversity in how religion is practice from denomination to denomination and from church to chruch. Nevertheless there are religious folk out there who think that the President is a representative of the Almighty and that he was sent to Earth to do battle with the enemies of America. These people are constantly calling CSPAN and spewing this stuff, and their representatives like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson are out there saying crazy stuff like "lets assinate Chavez" and "lesbians caused 911."

Now they don't represent all or even most of the evangelical community (which is why I call them endtime evis), but they are a powerful force in the Republican party and I think that's dangerous.

I'm not so sure I have a bias agaist evangelicals. I myself live happily in the most secular part of the United States (I'll let you guess where that is), but have spent most of my time in the red states. I understand the importance of religion to the average person living outside the our highly populated secular enclaves. But I cannot condone certain strands of the Christian movement which I see as violent, ignorant and regressive. (In fact I think it is more often the case the evangelicals carry a persecution complex and accuse any non-believer of trying to destroy their religion. Witness the maddess of "The War on Christmas".)

I"m critical of endtime evis because I really do see their influence as a threat to our country.

Check out this poll:
http://people-press.org/reports/images/287-2.gif

That's scary to me. When people start believing that the Bible should inform the law more than the opnions of the citizenry, that smells of a new creeping authoritarianism where leaders will ignore the will of the people and try to justify their selfish actions by finding some way to pass it off as the will of god.

There is something inherently anti-democratic in the idea that the will of the people should be secondary to the will of god. This is the exact same problem that most Muslim societies have, and its what keeps them mired in poverty, violence, and hatred.

Hehe

For what it's worth,with just a couple second search I found this figure for the number of people who regularly attend church in the U.S. It's from an atheist site from 1998, how accurate it is today I'll let people decide for themselves.

"....Conducted by sociologist Stanley Presser of the University of Maryland and research assistant Linda Stinson of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, it indicates that a more accurate assessment of church attendance data shows only 26% of Americans regularly attending church....."

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/church1.htm

Now I would assume evangelical's attend church regularly. So if your figure is correct and this figure is correct, then most regular church goers are evangelicals?

With all due respect, even with your caveat about all evangelical's not being of the psycho variety, you're still equating them with radical muslims.
The last I heard evangelicals, even the most radical weren't regularly practicing honor killings, public stonings, executing people for owning anything but the bible, or executing people for preaching a religious belief system different than their own.
The two groups aren't even in the same ball park.

The fears about too much of a religious influence on the presidency coming from the left sounds suspiciously like the things that were being expressed about having a president who was catholic.

Opus, my guess is that those figures were revised downwards by the athiest to make themselves seem more mainstream. It is also highly documented that churchgoing rose after 9/11, so 1998 figures are quite suspect.

I'm not equating evis with radical Muslims, but I am pointing out their similarites. They both place religion above the law, and in a society of laws that is a dangerous position to take.

Opposition to JFK's Cathoism actually came from religious intolerence, not secular opposition to religion in politics. It was Protestants that objected to his "Papist" agenda, not the secular left (which scarcely existed at the time.)

Dump the useless U.N. and this kind of foolishness won't be an issue.

HeHe, thanks for the studied reply. A few observations if I might. You keep offering opinions ("The Peace at Any Price slogan is an old staple of the Vietnam War era. I don't think it applies today." and "The 9/10 figure is something I came accross recently. I can't remember where. It might have been Chuck Todd on CSPAN. But it was reputable- and makes sense if you think about it.") disguised as fact in commenting on those with whom you disagree, while ignoring similar data regarding those with whom you agree.

Take for instance your statement "In fact very few people on the left believe in such theories (referring to government involvement in 9/11). Fox News uses these nutcases to falsely suggest that they speak for the left." Yet a recent "reputable" poll stated that 35% of Americans (and approximately 75% of Canadians for that matter) believe just that. So if you're earlier assertion that 25% of Americans are evangelicals is correct, and they worship Bush as you maintain, then one can only assume the 35% that believe the government orchestrated 9/11 has to be composed of far more than a few Angry Left nutcases Fox News dredged up. Furthermore, and this is just an opinion, I believe if you conducted a poll, many more on the Left than you think feel peace at any price is very much in vogue!

I would also respectfully submit that in a free society, it is no more your place to "condone certain strands of the Christian movement" than it is for me to sanction George Soros' political opinions, which incidentally carry about as much weight as anyone else's as far as I can tell.

Finally, you already live in a country where "people start believing that the Bible should inform the law more than the opnions of the citizenry". The Bible is one of the foundations of English Common Law, and our Founding Fathers undeniably used it as the basis of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. This is not opinion, but fact.

Hehe-

This study you cited questioning the gallup polls has some flaws:

1) The following paragraph is totally opinion and speculative. There's no basis of fact for this statement. We live in 2006, where American society no longer looks down on people for lack of church attendance. It's not 1956 when people were afraid to say they didn't attend church for fear that others might think they were "immoral".

"While bias may or may not be creeping into Gallup polls, there might be other reasons for why surveys reflect inaccurately high numbers on the question of church attendance. Presser opined that in the Gallup and NORC polls, "respondents felt the need to inflate their church attendance to impress the interviewers." The diaries used in the new study would not have suffered from that "social desirability bias."

2) This paragraph is even worse:

"And the study also confirms other trends, including "empty-pew syndrome," especially in metropolitan areas where religious groups are closing and consolidating parishes. In Boston, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church will be shutting down 60 churches in the next several years for lack of money -- and parishioners."

-The author cites this quote from Boston, a city with a historical large catholic irish base, but has since grown more and more multi-cultural and less and less Catholic. Also, the Catholic church's attendance is down nationwise in the US, and the churches that are being filled are non-denomination, evangelical churches, "megachurches" like Andy Stanley's "Northpoint" in Atlanta, Rick Warren's "Saddleback" in California, Joel Osteen's church in House, and yes, my own church in northern virginia (McLean Bible Church) whose attendence in near metropolitan Washington DC is over 12,000 each weekend.

Just because the Catholic church attendance, especially in Boston, is declining, doesn't mean church attendance is down. I tend to think the number of church goers is probably is probably 35-40%, but not 26%.

Thom, whether or not the founding fathers used the Bibile as a reference for their creation of this nation, they made the Consitution the highest law of the land.

They could have said the Bible is the highest law of the land, like Saudi Arabia does with the Koran.

But they didn't. And Americans should follow their wisdom.

Chris,

Dude that wasn't me who cited that study. It was Opus.

I agree with you, I think Church attendence is higher.

Wow! I was happy to see that even a Bush hater like Nancy Pelosi stepped up and lambasted Chavez for what he said about him.

In other words, he may be an a-hole, but he's OUR a-hole. I love it. Maybe there's still hope for us? Maybe.

HeHe is a perfect example of why the Democrats have values closer to western European socialists than middle america and as a result they are unable to win national elections. Do you think Clinton won by displaying an outright hostility to Christiantity? The left can win invitations to cocktail parties thrown by Euro-socialists and the Euro news media (including NY Times) may say nice things, but they can't win elections when middle Americans have a vote.

Hehe, As I wrote earlier: "The Bible is one of the foundations of English Common Law, and our Founding Fathers undeniably used it as the basis of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution."

I never said the Bible IS the Law of the Land; I only stated it was one of sources for it.

And lest you forget, I was simply addressing a point you raised in an earlier email wherein you stated "That's scary to me. When people start believing that the Bible should inform the law more than the opnions of the citizenry, that smells of a new creeping authoritarianism where leaders will ignore the will of the people and try to justify their selfish actions by finding some way to pass it off as the will of god."

Since the Founding Fathers already incorporated many Biblical principles into the Constitution, I think you'ld best be afraid....VERY afraid! After all, if the authoritarian Conservatives run rampant over the land, who knows what might happen! Some crazy reactionary judge may decide the government can confiscate your property and give it to private developers!

These things used to be way smarter.

Todd -- I defy you to name 1 western european socialist, and state that individuals values.

piece,
R.C.

Todd,

Good point. The best Democrats have won by espousing POSITIVE Christian values. Think Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton.

POSITIVE Christian values.

Not HATEFUL and SHAMEFUL Gay-Bashing.

For more discussion on this topic I suggest you catch the latest edition of Meet The Press.

John Danforth, minister and Senator, has some excellent comments on the Crazy Christians who run the Republican party.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/magnolia/jesuscamp/trailer/

OMG. How can you defend people like this?

They are ruining our democracy.