Karl Rove: Atheist?

[JackyJackBN]

2) Should evangelical Christians be without representation in the two major parties? It seems to me that both Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton have made a bid for their vote. Shouldn't they?

No. They aren't a state. They should not get to have representation.

Editor 1, me 0. (Unless you're deliberately using the sarcasm font this time, which would also work.)

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Did I miss something?
Are Kerry and Kennedy excommunicate?
If they're not, then Chris's point about their relative Catholicism is, well, irrelevant. They can receive the sacraments, partake in the fellowship of the Mass, and be part of the people of God until the church formally says they can't.
And his points about Rove require that you believe Rove ever speaks in any political context with a modicum of good faith.
Uh, no.
Otherwise, who cares? If this story is to prove that the "religious" right in the country is more concerned with its politics than with its religion -- they'll gladly vote for an atheist who says the right things about the womb babies -- and that it therefore is subject to be played for suckers, well, there's no news there.

 

[Ace]

If true, I don't know why this is so alarming or surprising.

Politics is the art of pandering.

Would it be better if Rove actually believed that the world was created in six days 6,000 years ago? Would that make him a more palatable figure? I don't see how. Are many Republicans happy to use evangelicals and fundamentalists to achieve their goals? Of course, why shouldn't they be?

My Bible says the earth was created in 6,000 years six days ago.

Of course, I'm dyslexic.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

If this story is to prove that the "religious" right in the country is more concerned with its politics than with its religion -- they'll gladly vote for an atheist who says the right things about the womb babies -- and that it therefore is subject to be played for suckers, well, there's no news there.

Most of the religious right wouldn't give the time of day to an atheist. To even get the support needed to have any sort of base to work with, you have to be known at church and for your moral righteousness. You also have to be willing to slam the "god-less liberals" in places like school board meetings and town hall meetings just to get attention, which then helps build the base from which those sorts of candidates see their political careers rise.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

If this story is to prove that the "religious" right in the country is more concerned with its politics than with its religion -- they'll gladly vote for an atheist who says the right things about the womb babies -- and that it therefore is subject to be played for suckers, well, there's no news there.

Most of the religious right wouldn't give the time of day to an atheist. To even get the support needed to have any sort of base to work with, you have to be known at church and for your moral righteousness. You also have to be willing to slam the "god-less liberals" in places like school board meetings and town hall meetings just to get attention, which then helps build the base from which those sorts of candidates see their political careers rise.

I disagree, at least as regards to the large religious right organizations.
If there were a conservative atheist who lined up with them on their pet issues, and a devout Christian who didn't, they'd go for the godless guy, any time. Hell, these are people who believe there's a legitimate theological argument to be made on gun control and the estate tax.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

I speak from having lived among and covering those sorts of people. I've seen how it plays out first hand. You?

 

[Ace]

If this story is to prove that the "religious" right in the country is more concerned with its politics than with its religion -- they'll gladly vote for an atheist who says the right things about the womb babies -- and that it therefore is subject to be played for suckers, well, there's no news there.

Most of the religious right wouldn't give the time of day to an atheist. To even get the support needed to have any sort of base to work with, you have to be known at church and for your moral righteousness. You also have to be willing to slam the "god-less liberals" in places like school board meetings and town hall meetings just to get attention, which then helps build the base from which those sorts of candidates see their political careers rise.

I disagree, at least as regards to the large religious right organizations.
If there were a conservative atheist who lined up with them on their pet issues, and a devout Christian who didn't, they'd go for the godless guy, any time. Hell, these are people who believe there's a legitimate theological argument to be made on gun control and the estate tax.

To be honest, Fenian, Abraham asked God for a son because he was afraid he was going to die and have to pass along everything to a servant, since he was childless.

So the whole Jewish population was promised by God because Abraham didn't want his stuff to pass on to just anyone.

 

[cranberry]

If this story is to prove that the "religious" right in the country is more concerned with its politics than with its religion -- they'll gladly vote for an atheist who says the right things about the womb babies -- and that it therefore is subject to be played for suckers, well, there's no news there.

Most of the religious right wouldn't give the time of day to an atheist. To even get the support needed to have any sort of base to work with, you have to be known at church and for your moral righteousness. You also have to be willing to slam the "god-less liberals" in places like school board meetings and town hall meetings just to get attention, which then helps build the base from which those sorts of candidates see their political careers rise.

I disagree, at least as regards to the large religious right organizations.
If there were a conservative atheist who lined up with them on their pet issues, and a devout Christian who didn't, they'd go for the godless guy, any time. Hell, these are people who believe there's a legitimate theological argument to be made on gun control and the estate tax.

I agree with Fenian here. The GOP would much rather embrace godless rich men; there just aren't any left. The GOP just needed to form a coalition with some subset of the non-rich who consistently vote narrowly on non-economic issues. Ralph Reed and the fundamentalists were a perfect fit.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Lived among less than covered, but covered extensively since 1979.
There is absolutely no way a major religious right organization would endorse anyone to the left of the current president. Watch them line up behind Mitt, if he's the nominee, despite the fact that he belongs to what they regularly refer to as a "cult." They've made peace with Catholics, as long as they hold the correct political opinions, despite all that evangelical fuming about the ***** of Babylon in Rome.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

Well I guess it depends on how far left that candidate's ideology is. If you had a candidate that was, say to the right of Mike Castle but definitely to the left of a Coburn, but was also a baptist preacher, I think the right would rally around him.

Then again, I also think anyone who is a bible thumper would almost reflexively take the same positions that the religious right does pretty much automatically, and I doubt very much a self-professed atheist (which incidentially are non-existent in politics) would take those same positions. So pondering this hypothetical is probably as useful as a speedo on Ted Stevens.

 

[Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L)]

Did I miss something?
Are Kerry and Kennedy excommunicate?
If they're not, then Chris's point about their relative Catholicism is, well, irrelevant. They can receive the sacraments, partake in the fellowship of the Mass, and be part of the people of God until the church formally says they can't.
And his points about Rove require that you believe Rove ever speaks in any political context with a modicum of good faith.
Uh, no.
Otherwise, who cares? If this story is to prove that the "religious" right in the country is more concerned with its politics than with its religion -- they'll gladly vote for an atheist who says the right things about the womb babies -- and that it therefore is subject to be played for suckers, well, there's no news there.

Kerry and Kennedy are both still technically Catholics since they paid for annulments. Those same annulments made bastards of their children (in the literal sense) just so Kerry and Kennedy could look good in the eyes of Catholic voters. Kerry and Kennedy threw their children under the bus in order to pander to the voters but lets not dwell on that because they are Democrats. Right? Isn't that what it comes down to?

Oh - Fenian is the same guy who rates drunk driving among the worst of social sins but who also defends Ted Kennedy at every turn. I only point this out to show where Fenian's priorities and moral relevance lay.

 

[Ace]

Did I miss something?
Are Kerry and Kennedy excommunicate?
If they're not, then Chris's point about their relative Catholicism is, well, irrelevant. They can receive the sacraments, partake in the fellowship of the Mass, and be part of the people of God until the church formally says they can't.
And his points about Rove require that you believe Rove ever speaks in any political context with a modicum of good faith.
Uh, no.
Otherwise, who cares? If this story is to prove that the "religious" right in the country is more concerned with its politics than with its religion -- they'll gladly vote for an atheist who says the right things about the womb babies -- and that it therefore is subject to be played for suckers, well, there's no news there.

Kerry and Kennedy are both still technically Catholics since they paid for annulments. Those same annulments made bastards of their children (in the literal sense) just so Kerry and Kennedy could look good in the eyes of Catholic voters. Kerry and Kennedy threw their children under the bus in order to pander to the voters but lets not dwell on that because they are Democrats. Right? Isn't that what it comes down to?

Oh - Fenian is the same guy who rates drunk driving among the worst of social sins but who also defends Ted Kennedy at every turn. I only point this out to show where Fenian's priorities and moral relevance lay.

You think many "lefties" are going get worked up about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of children? That's a non-starter, Chris.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Did I miss something?
Are Kerry and Kennedy excommunicate?
If they're not, then Chris's point about their relative Catholicism is, well, irrelevant. They can receive the sacraments, partake in the fellowship of the Mass, and be part of the people of God until the church formally says they can't.
And his points about Rove require that you believe Rove ever speaks in any political context with a modicum of good faith.
Uh, no.
Otherwise, who cares? If this story is to prove that the "religious" right in the country is more concerned with its politics than with its religion -- they'll gladly vote for an atheist who says the right things about the womb babies -- and that it therefore is subject to be played for suckers, well, there's no news there.

Kerry and Kennedy are both still technically Catholics since they paid for annulments. Those same annulments made bastards of their children (in the literal sense) just so Kerry and Kennedy could look good in the eyes of Catholic voters. Kerry and Kennedy threw their children under the bus in order to pander to the voters but lets not dwell on that because they are Democrats. Right? Isn't that what it comes down to?

Oh - Fenian is the same guy who rates drunk driving among the worst of social sins but who also defends Ted Kennedy at every turn. I only point this out to show where Fenian's priorities and moral relevance lay.

I think you were trying for "moral relativity" there.
I shouldn't have to say that you have utterly no proof of the "paid for annulments" charge but I will say it anyway, for the record. (And "some blogger said it once" doesn't count.) And the "legitimacy" question is moot because all the children are "legitimate" in the eyes of the law. As to the Church, well, I don't know exactly, but I'm fairly sure that, all rhetoric aside, the children are considered to be perfectly fine whether or not their parents' marriage is annulled
Their children seem to be fine with their fathers -- appear with them, campaign for them, remain confident that Dad knows the names of the grandkids -- which, it must be pointed out, could not be said of the younger Reagans, poor souls.

 

[Yawn]

Did I miss something?
Are Kerry and Kennedy excommunicate?
If they're not, then Chris's point about their relative Catholicism is, well, irrelevant. They can receive the sacraments, partake in the fellowship of the Mass, and be part of the people of God until the church formally says they can't.
And his points about Rove require that you believe Rove ever speaks in any political context with a modicum of good faith.
Uh, no.
Otherwise, who cares? If this story is to prove that the "religious" right in the country is more concerned with its politics than with its religion -- they'll gladly vote for an atheist who says the right things about the womb babies -- and that it therefore is subject to be played for suckers, well, there's no news there.

Kerry and Kennedy are both still technically Catholics since they paid for annulments. Those same annulments made bastards of their children (in the literal sense) just so Kerry and Kennedy could look good in the eyes of Catholic voters. Kerry and Kennedy threw their children under the bus in order to pander to the voters but lets not dwell on that because they are Democrats. Right? Isn't that what it comes down to?

Oh - Fenian is the same guy who rates drunk driving among the worst of social sins but who also defends Ted Kennedy at every turn. I only point this out to show where Fenian's priorities and moral relevance lay.

Kerry and Kennedy should co-author a book on "Parasites and Politics: You can't have one without the other."

 

[dog428]

Did I miss something?
Are Kerry and Kennedy excommunicate?
If they're not, then Chris's point about their relative Catholicism is, well, irrelevant. They can receive the sacraments, partake in the fellowship of the Mass, and be part of the people of God until the church formally says they can't.
And his points about Rove require that you believe Rove ever speaks in any political context with a modicum of good faith.
Uh, no.
Otherwise, who cares? If this story is to prove that the "religious" right in the country is more concerned with its politics than with its religion -- they'll gladly vote for an atheist who says the right things about the womb babies -- and that it therefore is subject to be played for suckers, well, there's no news there.

Kerry and Kennedy are both still technically Catholics since they paid for annulments. Those same annulments made bastards of their children (in the literal sense) just so Kerry and Kennedy could look good in the eyes of Catholic voters. Kerry and Kennedy threw their children under the bus in order to pander to the voters but lets not dwell on that because they are Democrats. Right? Isn't that what it comes down to?

Under the bus? Really?

I'm missing the importance here. Were the kids forced to move out onto the streets? Did they struggle through life in any way? Were they denied some right because of their "*******" disctinction?

I'll tell ya, if I'm getting thrown under a bus, I want it to be that one.

 

[Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L)]

Did I miss something?
Are Kerry and Kennedy excommunicate?
If they're not, then Chris's point about their relative Catholicism is, well, irrelevant. They can receive the sacraments, partake in the fellowship of the Mass, and be part of the people of God until the church formally says they can't.
And his points about Rove require that you believe Rove ever speaks in any political context with a modicum of good faith.
Uh, no.
Otherwise, who cares? If this story is to prove that the "religious" right in the country is more concerned with its politics than with its religion -- they'll gladly vote for an atheist who says the right things about the womb babies -- and that it therefore is subject to be played for suckers, well, there's no news there.

Kerry and Kennedy are both still technically Catholics since they paid for annulments. Those same annulments made bastards of their children (in the literal sense) just so Kerry and Kennedy could look good in the eyes of Catholic voters. Kerry and Kennedy threw their children under the bus in order to pander to the voters but lets not dwell on that because they are Democrats. Right? Isn't that what it comes down to?

Oh - Fenian is the same guy who rates drunk driving among the worst of social sins but who also defends Ted Kennedy at every turn. I only point this out to show where Fenian's priorities and moral relevance lay.

I think you were trying for "moral relativity" there.
I shouldn't have to say that you have utterly no proof of the "paid for annulments" charge but I will say it anyway, for the record. (And "some blogger said it once" doesn't count.) And the "legitimacy" question is moot because all the children are "legitimate" in the eyes of the law. As to the Church, well, I don't know exactly, but I'm fairly sure that, all rhetoric aside, the children are considered to be perfectly fine whether or not their parents' marriage is annulled
Their children seem to be fine with their fathers -- appear with them, campaign for them, remain confident that Dad knows the names of the grandkids -- which, it must be pointed out, could not be said of the younger Reagans, poor souls.

Fenian - you have to decide between the language police and the morality police. Please pick one.

Saint Thomas Aquinas says, ""Holy Communion ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it." As far as I know - St. Thomas did not blog.

Ted Kennedy for one is guilty of murder (which the last time I checked is a sin - you may argue the point but I'm guessing that the family of Mary Jo would disagree). And do you want to get into the adulteries of JFK or Joe Sr.? If we are to take Kerry at his word - then when he was in Vietnam he was worse sinner than than Ging-ass Kahnn (besides the fact that he had a child with his first wife - so either he was a fornicator or an adulterer for all those women he ****ed since getting or while in the process of the annulment). And if he lied about his "exploits" in Vietnam (Christmas in Cambodia anyone?) - and has not yet confessed his sin - then he remains a "public sinner." Of course I am fully expecting you to profess better knowledge of Catholic Canon than St. Thomas.

You may also want to wrap your mind around this quote:

"Human life, even at its earliest stages, has a certain right which must be recognized—the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old."

Was that some nut-case Evangelical or was that Ted Kennedy in 1971 when his election was not secure and he still needed the Catholic vote? Now he has the vote of people like Fenian who will vote for him no matter who he kills or how stupid his positions.

 

[dooley_womack1]

The only thing of interest about this (other than waiting how long it takes someone to bring up Gingrich and Livingston) is that the architect of a movement that plays the God card as assiduously as Whitlock plays the race card is an admitted atheist. That he has the balls (or the knowledge that it will long be forgotten in the endless news churn) to do so makes this the first time I ever liked anything about him.

 

[Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L)]

The only thing of interest about this (other than waiting how long it takes someone to bring up Gingrich and Livingston) is that the architect of a movement that plays the God card as assiduously as Whitlock plays the race card is an admitted atheist. That he has the balls (or the knowledge that it will long be forgotten in the endless news churn) to do so makes this the first time I ever liked anything about him.

dooley - Rove regrets that he is not a person of faith. That in no way says that he does not believe in God. If you can find a quote from Rove that says specifically "I am an atheist" - then I will quit the board.

If this was a Jeopardy game - the category would be "Taking Quotes out of Context" or "Making Believe Public Figures said what I project them to say".

 

[dooley_womack1]

But I would pick "The Rapists" for $500.

 

[zeke12]

If you regret that you are not a person of faith, you are a person without faith.

If you do not have faith in god, you do not believe in god.

It's really not hard. It takes a absurd amount of parsing to get where you want to go, Chris.