Cheaper to buy the Afghan Opium Crop?

[kandrathe]

Hi,

After reading this article I'm agreeing that if would be best if the US/EU just ponied up the money($600 million or so) to buy the crops from the Afghan farmers at a reasonable market price. Easier than hiring Blackwater to destroy good will and fields of poppies. Maybe our pharmaceutical companies can find a legal outlet. I'm not familiar enough with opiate derivatives, like morphine, and their shelf life.

Or, a two pronged carrot/stick approach, build a farm price support system that pays a high price for alternative Afghan crops, and make it widely known that at any time opium poppies will be destroyed if discovered. I mean, that is why most farmers in the southern US do not grow marijuana.

[ShadowHM]

Or, a two pronged carrot/stick approach, build a farm price support system that pays a high price for alternative Afghan crops, and make it widely known that at any time opium poppies will be destroyed if discovered. I mean, that is why most farmers in the southern US do not grow marijuana.

:rolleyes:

Since we just *can't* contempllate legalizing any of it.... <_< (Yes, Occhi, I would still insist on regulating it. :P)

Maybe, just maybe, we could muster that much common sense as to try something (heck, anything!) other than the same old, same old? :unsure:

[kandrathe]

Since we just *can't* contemplate legalizing any of it.... (Yes, Occhi, I would still insist on regulating it. )

Maybe, just maybe, we could muster that much common sense as to try something (heck, anything!) other than the same old, same old?

If I recall correctly, didn't the Brits do the purchase thing with India and Turkey?

[Taem]

:rolleyes:

Since we just *can't* contempllate legalizing any of it.... <_< (Yes, Occhi, I would still insist on regulating it. :P)

Maybe, just maybe, we could muster that much common sense as to try something (heck, anything!) other than the same old, same old? :unsure:

Don't be so absurd! The bible tells us foreign substances in our bodies are a sin, thus they must be wiped off the face of this Earth. Yes, that must be why God put them on the Earth in the first place, to teach us gardening and plant removal techniques; it all makes sense now!

BTW, that was sarcasm if you didn't get that, but I do believe regardless of how much people want to differentiate Church and State, it still has a huge impact in the way politicians work.

[kandrathe]

Don't be so absurd! The bible tells us foreign substances in our bodies are a sin, thus they must be wiped off the face of this Earth. Yes, that must be why God put them on the Earth in the first place, to teach us gardening and plant removal techniques; it all makes sense now!

BTW, that was sarcasm if you didn't get that, but I do believe regardless of how much people want to differentiate Church and State, it still has a huge impact in the way politicians work.

:rolleyes: Your straw man is not very flame retardant. So, let's not get all bigoted on the Bible.

Purity of body is a Hebrew custom that carried over into the ascetic predilection of early Christians. It happens that the Puritans of the Oliver Cromwell, and Mayflower fame -- (as in Pure) were also enamored with ascetic traditions. Some of that puritanical zeal still exists in America.

There are are least two sides to sin from a religious point of view. One is to protect the "child" to prevent the sin, the other is to strengthen the "child" to resist the sin. The 2nd point of view would look at the first and say that to prevent sin is to prevent choice. An all powerful God could prevent sin, however it would make mankind a slave to righteousness. Most religions in the world have the notions of good and evil, and that the nature of (adult) humanity is prone to wickedness requiring atonement. In thinking about it, Christianity is probably one of the more tolerant of the more popular religions to the use of substances that can be intoxicating.

The people who you see in the 1st camp are either trying to control all human behavior ( a lost cause ), or are more likely trying to protect their *real* children from intoxicating substances and allowing their personal beliefs to distort their views on how all people should behave. These are the hot head loud mouth (ir)religious people who distort everything, can quote scripture out of context like a mimeograph, and give people the impression that all religious people are stupid and nut jobs (e.g. the Westboro idiots).

There is plenty of historical theology on the philosophy of "SIN" and its necessity for free will, and some that come to mind are;

• St. Augustine -- "City of God", "Confessions", "On Christian Doctrine"<>
  
• St. Thomas Aquinus -- Summa Theologiae<>
  [st]They are tedious reading, so embark on them only if you are very interested in understanding the long history of the philosophy of good and evil, and its relationship to free will. What will really blow your mind is that some philosophers argue that humanity may have more freedom than God, because man can choose to sin while God by his very nature cannot. Anyway, the point is that most Christians and Jews believe that each person should encourage "good" choices, but that to remove the choice of "evil" does not remove the desire for the evil thing. So, it is the coveting of evil that pollutes the soul, not merely the evil act of polluting the body.
  
  Back to drug and alcohol abuse... There are references to drinking in the Old Testament (e.g. Proverbs), and some references in the New Testament, that it is at least unwise, and at worst used as a means to coerce someone into doing evil acts. It is the "out of your head crazy" inebriation that is usually proscribed. While, drinking is proscribed entirely in Buddhism, and Islam. Drinking of wine or spirits is listed as one of the "Five Great Sins" in Hindu laws, although it is used ceremonially with marijuana in Tantric traditions. So, sit back and sip some Laudanum and take a puff from that hookah filled with the devil's lettuce. :) Just don't get all crazy and kill anyone now.

[Occhidiangela]

Cheaper to buy the Afghan Opium Crop?

If you can't lick 'em, joint 'em. ;)

@ Shadow: regulate like booze and cigarettes? Works for me. And a bit for the taxman as well. We need to rebuild our roads.

Occhi

[Taem]

:rolleyes: Your straw man is not very flame retardant. So, let's not get all bigoted on the Bible.

Purity of body is a Hebrew custom that carried over into the ascetic predilection of early Christians. It happens that the Puritans of the Oliver Cromwell, and Mayflower fame -- (as in Pure) were also enamored with ascetic traditions. Some of that puritanical zeal still exists in America.

There are are least two sides to sin from a religious point of view. One is to protect the "child" to prevent the sin, the other is to strengthen the "child" to resist the sin. The 2nd point of view would look at the first and say that to prevent sin is to prevent choice. An all powerful God could prevent sin, however it would make mankind a slave to righteousness. Most religions in the world have the notions of good and evil, and that the nature of (adult) humanity is prone to wickedness requiring atonement. In thinking about it, Christianity is probably one of the more tolerant of the more popular religions to the use of substances that can be intoxicating.

The people who you see in the 1st camp are either trying to control all human behavior ( a lost cause ), or are more likely trying to protect their *real* children from intoxicating substances and allowing their personal beliefs to distort their views on how all people should behave. These are the hot head loud mouth (ir)religious people who distort everything, can quote scripture out of context like a mimeograph, and give people the impression that all religious people are stupid and nut jobs (e.g. the Westboro idiots).

There is plenty of historical theology on the philosophy of "SIN" and its necessity for free will, and some that come to mind are;

• St. Augustine -- "City of God", "Confessions", "On Christian Doctrine"<>
  
• St. Thomas Aquinus -- Summa Theologiae<>
  [st]They are tedious reading, so embark on them only if you are very interested in understanding the long history of the philosophy of good and evil, and its relationship to free will. What will really blow your mind is that some philosophers argue that humanity may have more freedom than God, because man can choose to sin while God by his very nature cannot. Anyway, the point is that most Christians and Jews believe that each person should encourage "good" choices, but that to remove the choice of "evil" does not remove the desire for the evil thing. So, it is the coveting of evil that pollutes the soul, not merely the evil act of polluting the body.
  
  Back to drug and alcohol abuse... There are references to drinking in the Old Testament (e.g. Proverbs), and some references in the New Testament, that it is at least unwise, and at worst used as a means to coerce someone into doing evil acts. It is the "out of your head crazy" inebriation that is usually proscribed. While, drinking is proscribed entirely in Buddhism, and Islam. Drinking of wine or spirits is listed as one of the "Five Great Sins" in Hindu laws, although it is used ceremonially with marijuana in Tantric traditions. So, sit back and sip some Laudanum and take a puff from that hookah filled with the devil's lettuce. :) Just don't get all crazy and kill anyone now.

Your sidestepping the issue: most politicians in America, rather they believe in a religion or not, understand that the majority of Americans are religious minded; 86% in 1990! Regardless of what you say kandrathe, this number has to play a significant role in the way a politician conducts his or her office, along with the more poignant and controversial aspects of religion in our modern day culture, i.e. death penalty, abortion, drug use, etc. To be "soft" on any of these issues where so much of the people "believe" in faith would be a death sentence to ones campaign, don't underestimate that. Now I don't know about you, but I have gone to enough Sunday School to know that 'drugs are bad,' or at least thought of as criminal and immoral after they were made illegal. There are many places in the modern Jewish bible and all it's offshoots, including Christianity, Islam, etc. where it says you must respect the common-law. So in a fanatical religious persons mind, the war on drugs is two-fold: keep impurities out of your holy temple of a body, and to obey the common-laws of the country, so long as they don't contradict your religion, which in this case, they don't. So again, I'll repeat, any American politician going soft on the drug issue is committing political suicide because of the large amount of the population who considers themselves religious.

[Zenda]

Your sidestepping the issue: most politicians in America, rather they believe in a religion or not, understand that the majority of Americans are religious minded; 86% in 1990!

That reminds me of a interview I once saw on TV, right before Bush was elected (for the second time, iirc). There were two Texan range owners, one Republican, the other a Democrat. The Republican, a Mexican-looking middle aged guy, said he'd vote for Bush because he would keep the meat prices high. The Democrat, a white older guy, said he'd also vote for Bush because he believed the other candidate wasn't religious enough.

This is no joke, and I didn't make it up.

[kandrathe]

So again, I'll repeat, any American politician going soft on the drug issue is committing political suicide because of the large amount of the population who considers themselves religious.

I would say that drug and alcohol use is a moral issue that stands outside of religion. It happens that most of those who are strongly religious, and vocal about it stand on one side of that issue. According to a survey by Ellison Research 65% of Americans believe that hard drugs are "sinful", while only 41% believe that smoking pot or getting drunk to be sinful. And, interestingly enough, only 35% believe that "not taking care of your body" is sinful. Only 14% thought that drinking any amount of alcohol was sinful.

Ok, now about "politicians". I think they choose to go with the flow to maximize their constituency. They rarely have the courage to talk plainly to "the people", and the elitist jerks usually assume voters are all dumb as posts.

Of course, what I'm talking about here is not having the US government distribute heroin for recreational use. I'm trying to figure out a way for the Afghan farmer to make some money on their crops while the UN figures out how to help them replant their fig trees. Even if we bought it and burned it, this would be better than going around destroying the crops that people are depending on to provide an income for their families.

BTW, even in Afghanistan, it is considered sinful (Haram) to cultivate Opium. In fact, Opium is banned under the Afghan constitution, the government opposes any form of legalisation, and even the Mullah's are angered at anyone suggesting to build it up as a cottage industry. Nevertheless, Afghanistan has the biggest Opium crop ever.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Ok, now about "politicians". . . . the elitist jerks usually assume voters are all dumb as posts.

No one has ever gone broke (or lost an election) by underestimating the intelligence of the average person.

Also, it seems that the big stink with drug use (and alcohol) came about with the industrial revolution. Can't have the wage slaves incapacitate themselves to the point that exploiting them is no longer profitable, can we?

OK, that's simplistic. But not totally out of the question.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Hi,
No one has ever gone broke (or lost an election) by underestimating the intelligence of the average person.

Also, it seems that the big stink with drug use (and alcohol) came about with the industrial revolution. Can't have the wage slaves incapacitate themselves to the point that exploiting them is no longer profitable, can we?

OK, that's simplistic. But not totally out of the question.

One thing I found interesting though, was that the record low for opium crop in Afghanistan was 2001 (8000 Ha, versus 190,000 Ha today) when the Taliban fielded a religious militia to stamp it out. I guess the "war on terror" trumps the "war on drugs". There is some documentation indicating that many intelligence agencies, including the CIA, work within the drug trades. It provides a cover for covert operations, including para-military operations, and is self funding. An observer of just the "data" might draw the conclusion that the invasion of Afghanistan might be related to Taliban interference in the CIA's profit center. If you look close enough there is this weird convergence of terrorism, oil, drugs, and arms. So, I guess the question is; "Does the CIA play in the pigpen, or sustain the pigpen?"

[Colonel_here]

Hi,

After reading this article I'm agreeing that if would be best if the US/EU just ponied up the money($600 million or so) to buy the crops from the Afghan farmers at a reasonable market price. Easier than hiring Blackwater to destroy good will and fields of poppies. Maybe our pharmaceutical companies can find a legal outlet. I'm not familiar enough with opiate derivatives, like morphine, and their shelf life.

Or, a two pronged carrot/stick approach, build a farm price support system that pays a high price for alternative Afghan crops, and make it widely known that at any time opium poppies will be destroyed if discovered. I mean, that is why most farmers in the southern US do not grow marijuana.

I think the idea was considered however the downside of this approach was the fact that there was no way to get the Afghan farmers from growing opium again and expect the UN to buy it up in the next year.

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
No one has ever gone broke (or lost an election) by underestimating the intelligence of the average person.

Also, it seems that the big stink with drug use (and alcohol) came about with the industrial revolution. Can't have the wage slaves incapacitate themselves to the point that exploiting them is no longer profitable, can we?

OK, that's simplistic. But not totally out of the question.

--Pete

The Progressive movement had more to do with that, IMO, than the industrial revolution, though neither operated in isolation. See also the coincident moves that bore fruit as Prohibition and Women's Suffrage. Fruit from the same tree, and informed significantly by the evangelical Protestant strain that had been growing in influence from the mid 19th century onwards. (John Wesley Hardin was more my cup of tea than John Wesley, as far as whiskey is concerned. If only the latter had opined that . . .

"Tradition, experience and reason, are subject always to scripture, because only there is the Word of God revealed so far as it is necessary for our libation." He missed a golden opportunity, as I see it.)

Freaking panty bunched load of tea totallers, all things considered, interfering with the hard working, hard drinking citizen's way of life. Disclaimer: I of course like my beer, my scotch, and my wine as the occasion allows. I'd like to let the doper smoke his spleef on his back porch if he'd like. Just don't drive stoned, as we shouldn't drive drunk -- if our dear doper friend can remember where the keys are in the first place? :lol:

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

So again, I'll repeat, any American politician going soft on the drug issue is committing political suicide because of the large amount of the population who considers themselves religious.

If you paint with a broad enough brush, you can assert pretty much anything, all while saying nothing.

Which you've just done. See the italics I added to your last sentence.


What flavor is it?

Monty Python moment arrives:

Bleeding seabird flavor! It's a bloody Albatross!

Occhi

[Taem]

If you paint with a broad enough brush, you can assert pretty much anything, all while saying nothing.

Which you've just done. See the italics I added to your last sentence.
What flavor is it?

Okay, I'll bite; from the very website I linked:

81% of American adults identify themselves with a specific religion:
76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9 percentage points per year. This decline is identical to that observed in Canada between 1981 and 2001. If this trend has continued, then:
at the present time (2007-MAY), only 71% of American adults consider themselves Christians

It would seem I was talking about Christianity, however, and I'll quote myself here:

Now I don't know about you, but I have gone to enough Sunday School to know that 'drugs are bad,' or at least thought of as criminal and immoral after they were made illegal. There are many places in the modern Jewish bible and all it's offshoots, including Christianity, Islam, etc. where it says you must respect the common-law.

Check it out. Modern-day Christianity (which is nothing more than the Gnosticism Jesus taught, combined with the concept of a Monotheistic god derived from Egyptian concepts, and throw in some written history) and all of its offshoots, Islam, the Koran, . . . all the bibles off shooting from the Jews, have something to say about obeying established law when in foreign countries unless that law contradicts your current religion. If you want quotes from these bibles, I can use my google-fu, but I really don't feel like it; the last time I did some religious research to make a point, it took over a week.

But kandrathe does bring up an interesting point about morality and I think it could be said that for the most part, religion and morality go hand-in-hand. That being said, since our politicians are so concerned about morality, it can only be surmised that one lifts up the other. When the issue of abortion came up, Mr. Bush brought up religion. When gay marriage was brought up, Bush brought up religion; bush/faith. When the issue came up in China, Bush shoved in China's face. Religion plays a major role in politics rather you choose to believe it or not. Christianity? Islam? Judaism? Something else? Does it matter, because if religion and morality go hand-in-hand, your walking a fine line when preaching to the mass when 75-85% of your audience is religious. You need to make these people happy by telling them what they want to hear. Drugs is a topic of much debate, to be sure. Do you honestly believe if they started becoming legal, first the legalization of marijuana, then other drugs, that religion would not come into the conversation at some point in time? I'm sure you'd have some politicians chanting, "and god will condemn us for this action in the future, mark my words..." I can already see it.

I think kandrathe's idea about buying the crop for legal use in the states with higher paying incentives for other "legal" crops is the best solution, but that just won't happen because the politicians don't want to be viewed as "soft" on the drug issue, and IMO this all goes back to religion and the mass. It all ties in together. If logic ran the roost instead of reactions based on votes, do you think the drug issue would be as big as it is today in America? I honestly don't know, but somehow, I doubt it.

[Occhidiangela]

Okay, I'll bite; from the very website I linked:It would seem I was talking about Christianity

And I asked which flavor. Seems you missed the point. Quelle surprise.

Check it out. Modern-day Christianity (which is nothing more than the Gnosticism Jesus taught, combined with the concept of a Monotheistic god derived from Egyptian concepts, and throw in some written history)

"Which is nothing more"

Gee, there is a substitute for something of substance. Once again, I asked about your broad brush, your conflating real people with an abstraction, and you give me a load of cod's wallop.

That ends the time I have for your drivel on that topic. When you are willing to stop using a caricature, I might have time for your insight. As it is, all I see is a bigot blowing hot air.

Occhi

[Taem]

And I asked which flavor. Seems you missed the point. Quelle surprise.

I apologize, but I don't quite get your meaning. If I am being ignorant in some way, please inform me before I make a fool of myself (if I haven't already :huh:).

"Which is nothing more"

Gee, there is a substitute for something of substance. Once again, I asked about your broad brush, your conflating real people with an abstraction, and you give me a load of cod's wallop.

[. . .] When you are willing to stop using a caricature, I might have time for your insight. As it is, all I see is a bigot blowing hot air.

Do I exaggerate? I don't feel I do after the research I have done into religious studies, but perhaps I am only fooling myself in your eyes? As for being a bigot, well if you feel I come across as prejudiced and intolerant of any points of view save for my own, then I am truly sorry to have offended you Occhi. That was not my intent. The entire purpose of my post was to show a direct correlation between faith and politics; I used quotes of Bush Jr. as an example of how religion can play into the way politicians think and work, but this was a poor example of how it affects the actions they partake of - not to mention, he is but one of many. I don't know, maybe it is purely speculative on my part to assume the two (religion and politics) clash quite often when voters are concerned; what I perceive as a politician saving face for religious minded voters could actually be an act of conscious morality. Without facts to back up my assumptions that politicians are acting a certain way because of religious repercussions, I have no proof that they in fact are at all, so my assumptions are, once again, purely speculative - regardless of how I might feel about the topic.

I guess you might find it humorous that I am saying that after having written this: "Religion plays a major role in politics rather you choose to believe it or not." I'll assert that rather there is actual proof or not of how religion effects political decisions, it must come into each politicians mind when they reach out to voters - how could it not? They worry about the voters race, sex, culture, upbringing, wealth, etc., and must pander to each demographic they encounter. While some areas have a White population of 60% or greater, others have a higher female population, or more poor or wealthy. When you have a demographic of 75-85% of the entire population claiming to be Christian, what better way of reaching your fellow constituents than relating with them on their own level? Theory? Perhaps, but it seems like a very logical course of action to me, and one that might ultimately effect the way certain laws are written into existence, or therefore, not written (such as legalizing drugs). But again, as you put it, this is very subjective material (theory based on theory of), so to state aloud that politicians cater to a religious crowd is incorrect, and I apologize for neglecting to mention in my first post that this is only my opinion, with zero fact to back it up I might add.

For some real world tried-and-true examples of how religion effected politics, I turn to the kings of old who sentenced to death anyone who said the world was round, or anyone that didn't agree that the Earth was not the center of the universe. How about the Crusades, or the trials held at Salem? But enough of this hocus-pocus. I am sure that this is ancient history compared to our modern and advanced culture; no, I have no doubt that we will overcome religion at every obstacle since religion obviously plays no part in politics anymore<_<.

[kandrathe]

The broad brush is taking a class of people (Christians in this case) and saying that they all believe in the same thing. It's like saying "Poles love Kielbasa." It may be an intuitive assumption, and then again it is bigoted because maybe only 50% of poles really love Kielbasa, and the other half merely tolerate it.

We've had this same discussion with the word "Evangelicals", where I've tried to show that it's more of a 40/60 split between Democrats and Republicans. While, the same is true in reverse with Catholics which is more of a 60/40 split of Dems to Reps. You shouldn't just assume that since 60% or 80% of America has a religious affiliation that A) politicians will take the cowardly route and distance themselves from a non-violent approach, and B) that people are not smart enough to understand that if we buy out the crops they won't be available for making Heroin. Wouldn't it be refreshing for some politician to actually try something brilliantly different, explain it well so even the stupid people understand, and then followed through and got it done.

We've been fighting this war on drugs for 35 years, and the net result is billions spent, indeterminate reduction in various drug flows, and the largest prison population (per capita and total quantity) in the world (2 million people, or 1 of every 142). Various figures I've seen show that between 30% to 45% of the prison terms are for drug offenses only. The federal government spends $10 to 15 billion a year for interdiction, and $35 billion a year for prisons. Add to that the state and local tabs. Does anyone even know the name John P. Walters, and what he does?

You raised another point before in which I think you are correct. Although you confused the issue with morality and religion.

<Begin Rant on Politicians>
All politicians will garner support from voters for having a ridiculously tough stance on crime. They choose the most heinous crimes as anecdotes to show how when they get elected the "Willie Horton's" of the world won't get another chance to get out of prison and repeat their crimes. The result; You get the "3 strikes" laws, like in California, that see people incarcerated for life without chance for parole for stealing a video tape. Or, you get prisons stuffed with people for victim-less crimes, or things that are so ridiculous that they need to make up a crime to tell the other inmates.

Politicians are just trying to sell their brand, and that brand needs to have a bunch of stuff in it that you agree with. The more planks in the platform for the politician that folks agree with, the more likely he will be to get elected. So, both politicians jump all over the same stuff and twist it around to make themselves look good. The simplest example would be the McCain, Obama differentiation on "Gas prices". No one likes paying $4 a gallon for gasoline, and people are pretty hot on that topic. So, Obama caters to the Go Go Green crowd and he's gonna move to bio-fuel in a big way, and employ a bunch of people making bio-fuel (which is a little scary if you think about land use and the price of food). John McCain is going to also give tax credits for the wannabe Go Go Green crowd, and drill for oil out in the ocean (he's going out on a limb to risk offending the dolphin huggers). Neither candidate has really addressed the problem, but they have some sound bites for you on some shoot from the hip silver bullet that they hope you'll believe they can catch in their teeth. The "truth" is that if oil is selling for $150 a barrel, the price of fuel is going to be high.

Who's got the better product? Which flavor of BS do we all like here? So, dip into the potpourri of popular political planks; fight crime, lower taxes, simplify government, better education, strong defense, save social security, better health care, secure the borders, create jobs, stop inflation, etc, etc, etc, -- and its all a bunch of bull excrement to get them elected. Then they just do what they have always done -- take your money and spend it on some additional government bureaucracy to control your life, or run some program for which you don't qualify or enforce some additional laws that affect either everyone, or no one.

The reality is that politics is a misdirection to keep you from seeing the international oligarchies that really run the show. If anything bugs you, they want you to blame the politicians and the government.
<End Rant on Politicians>

[Occhidiangela]

I apologize, but I don't quite get your meaning. If I am being ignorant in some way, please inform me before I make a fool of myself (if I haven't already :huh:).

While no apology is needed, I accept the good grace you demonstrate in offering one.:) Please accept my apology for being nastier than necessary in response.

Do I exaggerate? I don't feel I do after the research I have done into religious studies, but perhaps I am only fooling myself in your eyes?

It's not the exaggeration, not hardly, it was the generalization which elicited my response in the first place. You seem to have fallen for the meme that religious = conservative. Go back thirty five years. The greater bulk of Americans were "religious" then as well, but dope smoking ran rampant, and was an accepted societal norm, albeit illegal, to a far greater extent than today. I went to high school with a lot of stoners, and had numerous teachers who were stoners in college.

As for being a bigot, well if you feel I come across as prejudiced and intolerant of any points of view save for my own, then I am truly sorry to have offended you Occhi. That was not my intent.

Kandrathe explained the trace of potential bigotry well enough, so maybe it's "sounds like a bigot" or "sounds like a bigot's argument" (in this case, bigoted against Christians) rather than "you, MEAT, are a bigot." We all slip up now and again, in terms of clarity and precision.

The entire purpose of my post was to show a direct correlation between faith and politics;

Then let's look at some of my local Catholic friends. They have faith. They tend to vote conservative. They are vehemently opposed to the death penalty, to the point of siding with the liberal opponents of the death penalty. Oversimplification, perhaps, this alleged mapping between faith and politics? Likewise, Christians in the anti war movement: how to you resolve that with your correlation? Is it due to painting, as I suggested earlier, with too broad a brush?

I used quotes of Bush Jr. as an example of how religion can play into the way politicians think and work, but this was a poor example of how it affects the actions they partake of - not to mention, he is but one of many.

Given his ineptitude at speaking publicly, using quotes of George W Bush as an example of anything is fraught with risk. :lol:

I don't know, maybe it is purely speculative on my part to assume the two (religion and politics) clash quite often when voters are concerned;

I see it rather differently. People bring all of what they are to their political decisions, an element of which is their faith. Some dwell on it more than others, and you are being baited into believing that a very vocal minority speaks for all. This is not uncommon in politics, as in the political realm, those who get the most done tend to be small, well organized and energetic factions who sell a message, honestly or otherwise, and try to move the great unwashed.

what I perceive as a politician saving face for religious minded voters could actually be an act of conscious morality.

Morality and politician are a rare match. That is my cynical take on that.

Without facts to back up my assumptions that politicians are acting a certain way because of religious repercussions, I have no proof that they in fact are at all, so my assumptions are, once again, purely speculative - regardless of how I might feel about the topic.

The politician plays to the crowd whose votes he wants. I have seen that called pandering. Last year a book came out, I only read a review, synopsis, about how the Bush team has used the Christian Right, and in many cases, alienated part of their core support base. Need to go find that again to give you a cite.

I guess you might find it humorous that I am saying that after having written this: "Religion plays a major role in politics rather you choose to believe it or not." I'll assert that rather there is actual proof or not of how religion effects political decisions, it must come into each politicians mind when they reach out to voters - how could it not? They worry about the voters race, sex, culture, upbringing, wealth, etc., and must pander to each demographic they encounter. While some areas have a White population of 60% or greater, others have a higher female population, or more poor or wealthy. When you have a demographic of 75-85% of the entire population claiming to be Christian, what better way of reaching your fellow constituents than relating with them on their own level?

If you assume that All Christians are the Same drones, sure. I note that Christians have the same gift as other religions, in bickering about who is right within that box.

Theory? Perhaps, but it seems like a very logical course of action to me, and one that might ultimately effect the way certain laws are written into existence, or therefore, not written (such as legalizing drugs). But again, as you put it, this is very subjective material (theory based on theory of), so to state aloud that politicians cater to a religious crowd is incorrect, and I apologize for neglecting to mention in my first post that this is only my opinion, with zero fact to back it up I might add.

I tend to agree that politicians pander to any constituency, since it is their votes that offer the politician power. See Obama and his pandering to, or if you like, appealing to, the Christian voters. On his web site is a somewhat wordy, but IMO interesting, video of him addressing the problem of Americans of Faith and those who do not embrace a Faith working together. One of the few coherent things I've seen a politician say on the topic, the interface of religion and politics and more importantly social interaction, in some time.

I have no doubt that we will overcome religion at every obstacle since religion obviously plays no part in politics anymore<_<.

Who is this we, paleface? :blink: (Reference to an old Lone Ranger/Tonto joke.) I will point out to you that you don't have the big battalions on your side, if you think "overcoming religion" is a suitable long term goal.

How you intend to account for that is of interest to me.

Put another way: Christians and Muslims in America, Bhuddists and Jews, Hindi and Wiccans, are all voters to. Who are you (or anyone) to tell them they can't participate, or can't vote their conscience?

Occhi

[kandrathe]

The Progressive movement had more to do with that, IMO, than the industrial revolution, though neither operated in isolation. See also the coincident moves that bore fruit as Prohibition and Women's Suffrage. Fruit from the same tree, and informed significantly by the evangelical Protestant strain that had been growing in influence from the mid 19th century onwards. (John Wesley Hardin was more my cup of tea than John Wesley, as far as whiskey is concerned. If only the latter had opined that . . .

"Tradition, experience and reason, are subject always to scripture, because only there is the Word of God revealed so far as it is necessary for our libation." He missed a golden opportunity, as I see it.)

Freaking panty bunched load of tea totallers, all things considered, interfering with the hard working, hard drinking citizen's way of life. Disclaimer: I of course like my beer, my scotch, and my wine as the occasion allows. I'd like to let the doper smoke his spleef on his back porch if he'd like. Just don't drive stoned, as we shouldn't drive drunk -- if our dear doper friend can remember where the keys are in the first place? :lol:

Occhi

Here's yer fire & brimstone -- Sermon 52: The Heinous Sin of Drunkenness. Read this when you're in the proper mood, out loud, in your best George Whitefield voice. ;)