Well, perhaps it's a good thing that the White House thinks people like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson are crazy.

Pat Robertson is a little crazy. I'm a Christian, but I'm not horrifically concerned about the Christian leadership; I'm not part of the pop scene anyway.

Honestly this is the most I've ever identified with or liked the Bush Administration. Roberton IS "insane" and Falwell IS "rediculous." Frankly, if a political leader were to run solely on the issue of calling out unchecked religious fundamentalism in our country (and do so openly) they would almost surely get my vote.

Well Jerry Falwell is ridiculous and Pat Robertson is insane (and vice versa). Just because the Bush White House says it doesn't mean it's not true.

"Even the worst among us has many true beliefs" - Jamie Whyte

Well Jerry Falwell is ridiculous and Pat Robertson is insane (and vice versa). Just because the Bush White House says it doesn't mean it's not true.

"Even the worst among us has many true beliefs" - Jamie Whyte

Sandra Dee

Pat Robertson insane! Jerry Fallwell ridicuous! What an odd feeling to be in agreement with the White House.

Falwell is ridiculous, Pat Robertson is nuts, I think we all agree on that. I don’t lament the fact that the faith-based program belly-flopped—it was a bad idea anyway. Why are we so intent upon dismantling our entire social welfare program only to rebuild it with a horrendously dubious infrastructure in the hands of religious institutions? I think that it is time that American Christians stop tilting at their current windmills and start fighting battles that are a bit nobler, things like child poverty, better public education, universal health care, and income equality.

Well, read most major speeches by Abraham Lincoln and you'll see Biblical quotes all over it. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter used Christian phrases all the time. None of this is new.

Then of course, there is the political movement of Martin Luther King, Jr., which worked out of churches. Faith and politics has been part of American culture from the start.

What is great about this segment though is the tour of the Christian conference, when helping the poor was ignored. That is something the Christian right (and by the way, there is no "card" to carry -- it isn't the ALCU) really needs to focus more on.

Kuo is definetly going to feel the brunt of the White House smear machine and there will many voices that will reel. Hell, let's speculate on who will say what ...

Cheney: "That tumour has rendered him invalid."

Robetrson: "He has fallen from the grace of God! Pray for his salvation"

Coulter: "The liberals have infected our religion!"

Bets, anyone?

Ha, this dumbass sounds surprised.

The irony here is the pretention that evangelical Christian leaders such as Robertson, Falwell and Dobson are not themselves cynically using the faithful as a means to increase their own political influence.

Believers never seem to notice how consistently religion functions as the back door to political power. It's an abusively deceptive sort of populism that posits an authority beyond the regime du jour, and by which anyone who is charismatic or manipulative enough to claim the mantle of God's Voice wins power rivaling that of the secular politicos.

People who criticize atheists on the basis of brutal "atheist" regimes have failed to distinguish that these regimes do not adopt atheism out of a Dawkins-like concern for religion's effects on the human condition, much less because of any particular interest in objective truth or morality, but because they view religion as political competition to be eliminated.

In this way the political abolishment of religion is just as dangerous, and for precisely the same reasons, as political marriage to religion. American Christians who support theocracy, either explicitly or by implication, have not realized that you can't get religion in your government without getting government on your religion. They imagine their preachers will tell their politicians what to do, and not the other way around, ignoring completely the fact that the politicians have the money and the guns and the courts and the prisons.

For this reason it is very comforting to me that the Bush Administration is not staffed with the aspiring priest-kings their pandering appeals to the faithful suggested to many of us they were. In their abject hypocrisy lies at least a small hope that not every single thing that has historically made America great will be left utterly ruined by the opportunists we were (statistically, at least) duped into electing.

This guy is upset because the Christian right isn't getting enough bang for their out of the withe house. He talks about feeding the poor... its all BS he is talking about abortion. You know the conservatives thing bush has been way to liberal http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/235mjdqp.asp I will bet that the staff is going to turn on this president as time goes by.... they will be lumping him with Falwell. It is my impression the neos around bush are taking advantage of his Christ complex thats because they need the eggs so to speak. It Kuo putting the reps on notice or is he sending an olive branch to the dems.... either way he is looking to religious-iz politics

So the Bush agenda does not spring from religion at all. I doubt the agenda of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell springs from religious faith either.

A false Christian and a real Christian makes absolutely no difference. Why? Because if I have it right (and I think I do) then Christianity never represented reality, thus an honest believing Christian and a dishonest believing Christian fall on equal turf: they both have it wrong, and they both practice falsehoods!

I've been reading this blog regularly for over a year and have learned to take the good with the bad. But this is by far the dumbest post I've read on this site so far:

A false Christian and a real Christian makes absolutely no difference. Why? Because if I have it right (and I think I do) then Christianity never represented reality, thus an honest believing Christian and a dishonest believing Christian fall on equal turf: they both have it wrong, and they both practice falsehoods!

Gelf:

"People who criticize atheists on the basis of brutal "atheist" regimes have failed to distinguish that these regimes do not adopt atheism out of a Dawkins-like concern for religion's effects on the human condition, much less because of any particular interest in objective truth or morality, but because they view religion as political competition to be eliminated."

Erick: "A false Christian and a real Christian makes absolutely no difference [Or a good or bad Christian is still a Christian.]"

Good points, guys.

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God - having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them. 2 Timothy 3:1-5

The last days? Dude, you've practically summed up most all of human history.

Btw, posting biblical verses on a secular blog has about as much impact to the majority of its readers as someone telling me that I'll have 7 years of bad luck for breaking a mirror. There occur much better ways, other wisdoms, and secular texts far superior to the Bible and without intractable flaws, and with the added ability to change it for the better as new situations arise.