No Wonder We've Got Bush(ed) - DPChallenge Forums

11/20/2004 12:50:39 PM · #1

Some just refuse to accept modernity. Given the following, it appears that any candidate (read: Bush) willing to pander and wear his religion on his sleeve, starts off with a about a third of the popular vote faithfully built in:
---------------------------------------------------------------------

*Gallup has been asking the following for many years, here are this year's results*

EVOLUTION

Just your opinion, do you think that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is � [ROTATED: a scientific theory that has been well-supported by evidence, (or) just one of many theories and one that has not been well-supported by evidence], or don't you know enough about it to say?

- Supported by evidence: 35%
- Not supported by evidence: 35%
- Don't know enough to say: 29%
- No opinion: 1%

[...]

Yet, [evolution] is not just any theory. It is one of the most basic theories in science today, and most biologists and other scientists believe that the theory is so well supported by data that it is a basic part of the scientific firmament. As National Geographic stated in its November cover story: "The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

CREATIONISM

The poll shows that almost half of the U.S. population believes that human beings did not evolve, but instead were created by God -- as stated in the Bible -- essentially in their current form about 10,000 years ago:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings -- [ROTATE 1-3/3-1: 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so]?

- Man developed, with God guiding: 38%
- Man developed, but God had no part in process: 13%
- God created man in present form: 45%
- Other/No opinion: 4%

BIBLICAL LITERACY

Although 45% of Americans believe that humans were created by God pretty much in their present form at one time 10,000 years ago -- a view that corresponds to the account of creation as presented in the Bible -- only 34% of Americans believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word:

Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible -- the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word, the Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, or the Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man]?

- Actual: 34%
- Inspired: 48%
- Fables: 15%
- No opinion: 3%

BELIEF IN A LITERAL BIBLE AND IN CREATIONISM

A segmentation of Americans based on their responses to the questions about creationism and biblical literacy finds that a quarter of Americans can be considered to be true literalists -- believing not only in the literal interpretation of the Bible, but also in the creationist view of the origin of humans.

25% of U.S. population is considered to be biblical literalists and believe that humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago. (These are the group's major characteristics):

- Women
- Age 30 and older
- No college degree
- Conservative
- Republicans
- Weekly church attendees
- Protestant

20% of U.S. population is considered to believe that humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago, but not biblical literalists. (These are the group's major characteristics):

- 18- to 29-year-olds

9% of U.S. population are considered biblical literalists but do not believe humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago. (These are the group's major characteristics):

- High school or less

46% of U.S. population are not biblical literalists and also do not believe that humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago. (These are the group's major characteristics):

- Men
- East and West Coasts
- Urban
- College graduates
- Higher income
- Liberal
- Independents
- Seldom, never attend church
- Catholics

THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF SUPPORT FOR DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION

% Who Believe that Darwin's Theory of Evolution Is a Scientific Theory Well Supported by the Evidence

*Subgroup*
------------------------
Postgraduate education: 65%
Liberal: 56%
College graduate: 52%
West: 47%
Seldom, never attend church: 46%
Catholics: 46%
50- to 64-year-olds: 44%
Men: 42%
East: 42%
18- to 29-year-olds: 41%
Independent: 40%
Democrat: 38%
Moderate: 36%

---------------------------------------------------------------------
//www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=14107

Message edited by author 2004-11-20 13:04:58.

David.C

11/20/2004 05:47:37 PM · #2

... and this has 'what' to do with 'what'? Not to mention how far of a stretch it is for you to include Bush into this. :p

About all I can see it showing is that most people will believe what they have been told to believe.

Comparing Darwins original theories (often missapplied) with Creationism is just silly. Darwin basicly said, in "Origin of the Species" that those with more survival characteristics are more likely to survive than those with fewer survival characteristics. He went on to hypothesize many things from this basic observation (and other have hypothesized much more since), but it is simply an observation of how ever increasing order can emerge from chaos -- and do so without an intended end result. For a much more general view of order emerging from chaos, visit the Santa Fe Institute and read up on the Science of Complexity -- a "unique scientific enterprise attempts to uncover the mechanisms that underlie the deep simplicity present in our complex world", Darwin's observation being just one example. This is all well documented with evidence that you can see for yourself if you are willing to look.

As for Creationism? It, like all religious arguements boil down so something similar to;

"Why is Creationism right?"
"God said so."
"Really, where?"
"In the Bible."
"So?"
"The Bible is the Word of God."
"Says who?"
"God."
"Really, where?"
"In the bible."
...

It is a circular arguement that gets nowhere and accomplishes nothing.

---

But I still do not see what any of this has to do with Bush.

David

magicshutter

Nikon D70

Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM

11/20/2004 06:07:24 PM · #3

I'm going to talk about both sides of this real fast here.

a. Scientists could say whatever they want and none of us (who are not scientists) could possibly know if they are right. I think science as a whole is definately great at putting together 'puzzles' but like any two year old, if you beat that piece against the board enough times it will eventually fit. And we (the blind) wouldn't know any better because it seemed smooth. Point is, if you trust humanity to be honest with you, then believe in Darwinism, if you believe that the words in the bible are actually those of God, and not just an interpretation some guy who had a vision gave, the believe in Christianity, Catholicism (spelling?) or just about any other misinterpreted religion.

b. I don't think you can have 'evolution' when the 'evolved' still exist. My point is, if we all came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

I myself am what you call agnostic. I believe in 'God' but think most if not all religions are wrong. My point is, I think all religions share the same God, only have different interpretations of God. I don't think any religion has even come close to 'truth' (what truth I don't know, I'm not God)

Sure, there is some driving force that makes all this stuff happen. But where in the bible does it say that God didn't make men out of monkeys.

All in all, even those who believe the 'Darwin Theory' still believe in God, because it was there before darwin found it. darwin didn't decide it this way, only suggested he figured out 'the truth'.

So I say God is God, regardless of how you 'see' him/her/it. People can suggest what God is all day long (yes even me) and still be way off (yes, me again). God (assuming he's all powerful and all that) would never allow his own image to be changes by mortal thought.. That defeats the purpose of God, in any religion.

Joe

orussell

Canon EOS Rebel T6s

11/20/2004 06:10:00 PM · #4

I think what he is trying to say, but probably is too polite to say, is that he thinks Bush was elected because of a certain mentality. I'm not saying that's what I think, then again I'm not saying it isn't either.

frychikn

Olympus C-5050Z

11/20/2004 09:52:33 PM · #5

Originally posted by orussell:

Actually, Bush was elected because he received more votes, both popular and electoral, than his opponents.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

11/20/2004 11:18:10 PM · #6

This forum thread was not started for a discussion about science versus religion. A political point is being made about how to win an election in the US. pander is the key word and it can be applied to any political candidate.

"Had Bush not cultivated the Christian right as his power base or courted its leadership as his informal advisors, re-election would have been impossible."

"With a disciplined voting bloc at its disposal, the Christian right pushed for increased influence on the White House in a second Bush term, rallying support for his re-election behind church walls, at stadium-sized rallies and across radio waves � often away from the media's gaze but always in the shadow of the offical Bush/Cheney campaign."

The preceding quotes taken from this article.

It goes on to say:
"Bush wore his religion on his sleeve like any other president; his Christian fundamentalist agenda was little more than free market fundamentalism with a pious patina."

Russell2566

11/22/2004 12:32:33 AM · #7

!

Message edited by author 2019-12-27 11:21:21.

11/22/2004 01:11:23 AM · #8

Originally posted by magicshutter:

b. I don't think you can have 'evolution' when the 'evolved' still exist. My point is, if we all came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

This is a terrible and tremendous misunderstanding of evolution. We, humans, did not evolve from monkeys; instead, both us and monkeys represent very distinct and now distant branches of the same evolutionary family tree.

As to what I found fascinating and puzzling about the poll, which has been conducted yearly since 1976, with pretty much the same results, are the following:

* 34% of those polled (and, thereby, of the U.S. population) belive that "the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word."

* 25% of those polled (and, thereby, of the U.S. population) is considered to be biblical literalists and believe that humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago.

These two percentages are simply incredible to me. The presence of such significant percentages of the U.S. population that hold such an alternate and un-factually based understanding of the natural and modern world creates conditions that ripe for exploitation.

Message edited by author 2004-11-22 11:03:56.

Anachronite

Sony DSC-S85

11/22/2004 02:49:09 AM · #9

someone call the waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaambulance... we have a sore loser

11/22/2004 12:33:32 PM · #10

Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by magicshutter:
b. I don't think you can have 'evolution' when the 'evolved' still exist. My point is, if we all came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

This is a terrible and tremendous misunderstanding of evolution. We, humans, did not evolve from monkeys; instead, both us and monkeys represent very distinct and now distant branches of the same evolutionary family tree.

As to what I found fascinating and puzzling about the poll, which has been conducted yearly since 1976, with pretty much the same results, are the following:

* 34% of those polled (and, thereby, of the U.S. population) belive that "the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word."

* 25% of those polled (and, thereby, of the U.S. population) is considered to be biblical literalists and believe that humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago.

These two percentages are simply incredible to me. The presence of such significant percentages of the U.S. population that hold such an alternate and un-factually based understanding of the natural and modern world creates conditions that ripe for exploitation.

If I may be so bold as to ask, "What is YOUR "factually based" understanding of the natural and mondern world?". Just the "facts" please.

thelsel

Fujifilm FinePix S602Z

11/22/2004 12:44:28 PM · #11

Originally posted by bdobe:

...it appears that any candidate (read: Bush) willing to pander and wear his religion on his sleeve, starts off with a about a third of the popular vote faithfully built in:

Pssst, I�ll let you in on a little secret. Jerry Falwell didn�t convince me to vote for Bush, Michael Moore did. Oh yeah, Babs and Madonna helped too.

11/22/2004 01:11:35 PM · #12

Originally posted by RonB:

If I may be so bold as to ask, "What is YOUR "factually based" understanding of the natural and mondern world?". Just the "facts" please.

I'll refer you to this statement, from the original post above:

Yet, [evolution] is not just any theory. It is one of the most basic theories in science today, and most biologists and other scientists believe that the theory is so well supported by data that it is a basic part of the scientific firmament. As National Geographic stated in its November cover story: "The evidence for evolution is overwhelming."

I'm a firm subscriber to and adherent of, the Reality Based Community; we believe in science, reason and social and technological progress. And, too, we are tolerant of those that choose to follow a religious tenet, as long as they don't opt to impose their theology and moors on the rest of their fellow citizens that don't share their world view.

11/22/2004 02:53:54 PM · #13

Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by RonB:
If I may be so bold as to ask, "What is YOUR "factually based" understanding of the natural and mondern world?". Just the "facts" please.

I'll refer you to this statement, from the original post above:

Yet, [evolution] is not just any theory. It is one of the most basic theories in science today, and most biologists and other scientists believe that the theory is so well supported by data that it is a basic part of the scientific firmament. As National Geographic stated in its November cover story: "The evidence for evolution is overwhelming."

I'm a firm subscriber to and adherent of, the Reality Based Community; we believe in science, reason and social and technological progress. And, too, we are tolerant of those that choose to follow a religious tenet, as long as they don't opt to impose their theology and moors on the rest of their fellow citizens that don't share their world view.

First you criticize those who believe in a literal interpretation of the biblical accounts for holding to an "alternate and un-factually based understanding of the natural and modern world". Then you yourself, essentially admit that you cannot escape that very criticism, by your failure to provide a factual base for your own understanding of the natural and modern world. The inept offering you make in your defense only serves to amplify that what the scientists offer are only theories, not facts; that they "believe" but cannot prove.

Hey, the biblical literalists also offer theories that they believe. What makes the theories that YOU believe any more credible than theirs? If you say "none", then it would be nice of you to stop labelling them as less intelligent than you. Otherwise, offer some facts to prove that YOUR theories more credible - like maybe some FACTS.

jaredldr

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

11/22/2004 03:11:48 PM · #14

Originally posted by bdobe:

[...]

Yet, [evolution] is not just any theory. It is one of the most basic theories in science today, and most biologists and other scientists believe that the theory is so well supported by data that it is a basic part of the scientific firmament. As National Geographic stated in its November cover story: "The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

If there were factual, believable, undisputed, evidence that supported evolution I promise you that more than 65% of the people with postgraduate education would believe it.

Reasons why 65% do believe it:

1) They have so much education they can't believe anything can be beyond human understanding.

2) They are of the liberal arts persuasion and have no freaking clue about the scientific method and base their belief in evolution on the fact that it flys in the face of religion which is detestable to them.

3) ANY "evidence" no matter how weakly it can be tied to supposed evolution theory is proclaimed because it is what they want to believe.

For a scientist to say that "Evolution is Fact" has no business being a scientist. The theory has so many holes that even an atheist scientist that was true to the field should call the theory into question.

Aside from religion saying that evolution isn't true lets look at the scientific reasons to doubt the theory:

1) Anyone who is a scientist can tell you that if you go into a project with an agenda you can probably make the data say, or not say what you want it to.

2) Scientist are not always netural bystandards that just report the facts. They often have to spin the facts to get grants or to get community support, or to support what they want to believe.

3) To date there is no undisputable evidence that proves the evolution theory. If you think there is show it to me. If there were it would be all over the place in a heartbeat.

4) Any Chemist or biologist worth their salt would have a problem with the whole notion of proteins spontainiously forming from a puddle of goo. In controlled evironments with the most high-tech equipment we still have problems making molecules do what we want them to. The idea that they would form such complex structures out of chaos is ludacris (not the rapper).

5) #4 completely disreguards the second LAW of thermodynamics. This is a law folks not a theory. Entropy or disorder is always increasing. Now lets think a puddle of disorganized goo or a cell/protein. Which one has more order? The fact that something with no order would go to something ordered spontaniously is just wrong. What would you think if a broken mirror flew off the ground and reassembled. Seems pretty unlikely yes?

6) I'm not a statistics wiz, but what I have read of just the mathematical odds of a living organism evolving out of nothing is statistically impossible given how long the universe has existed.

7) If the evidence is looked at objectivly there would be a better argument for genetic mutation and adaptation of species, not evolution which is conjecture drawn from the two.

8) The list could go on and on.

Unfortunately even if evolution were a fact the burden of proof is on the scientists proposing the theory. There is no faith in science.

But to say that evolution is a basic scientific tenet is a farce.

I am a scientist with post-graduate education (soon to be PhD) and most other chemist/biochemist I know think evolution theory is flawed if not blatently false.

And for the record most of them are agnostic, humanist or atheist.

If you really want to form an opinion on the subject I would suggest learning about and understanding the scientific method and then objectively look at some of the "evidence" supporting evolution. The insane assumption and gaps in the theory are astounding and if the topic were not in direct opposition to organized religion it would have been laughed out of the scientific community years ago.

Scientist should be insulted that Darwinism is considered the "religion" of science.

11/22/2004 03:34:50 PM · #15

Originally posted by RonB:

Otherwise, offer some facts to prove that YOUR theories more credible - like maybe some FACTS.

Ron, they are not MY theories, Evolution is the basis of the natural sciences. PERIOD. As for offering you facts, stop being silly. If the thousands of text books, experiments, facts, fossils, theoretical models, etc., out there have not convinced you, how do expect me to convince you? Please, the game you're trying to play is rather silly.

You're a creationist, and will not -- cannot -- be convinced otherwise, your Faith prevents you from considering the facts and evidence that overwhelmingly support Evolution.

The couple of people that have posted here clearly fall in the 25%-34% of the population that the poll identified as "Biblical Literalists" and it's this phenomenon that I'm amazed by -- that people that are a product of the modern world can still hold such archaic and quaint notions.

I grew up with religion and the fables of the bible, but at some point I understood them to be merely "educational tools." Now, while I appreciate the contribution that religion has made to philosophical/"moral" evolution, I see literal adherence to biblical scriptures as a detriment.

11/22/2004 03:52:19 PM · #16

Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by RonB:
Otherwise, offer some facts to prove that YOUR theories more credible - like maybe some FACTS.

Ron, they are not MY theories, Evolution is the basis of the natural sciences. PERIOD. As for offering you facts, stop being silly. If the thousands of text books, experiments, facts, fossils, theoretical models, etc., out there have not convinced you, how do expect me to convince you? Please, the game you're trying to play is rather silly.

You're a creationist, and will not -- cannot -- be convinced otherwise, your Faith prevents you from considering the facts and evidence that overwhelmingly support Evolution.

The couple of people that have posted here clearly fall in the 25%-34% of the population that the poll identified as "Biblical Literalists" and it's this phenomenon that I'm amazed by -- that people that are a product of the modern world can still hold such archaic and quaint notions.

I grew up with religion and the fables of the bible, but at some point I understood them to be merely "educational tools." Now, while I appreciate the contribution that religion has made to philosophical/"moral" evolution, I see literal adherence to biblical scriptures as a detriment.

You're flying over a desert island and see "TOM LOVES MARY" etched in the sand just above the highest waterline. You observe NO life forms on the island. You land. You investigate thoroughly. NO life forms anywhere. Just a strip of sand in the ocean without vegetation or any life of any kind.

Q, How do you explain the "TOM LOVES MARY" etched in the sand?

A1. If you only believe in science, you theorize that the random interactions of the waves, wind, and perhaps some floating debris caused what you observe. You come to this conclusion because there is no evidence to support any other theory - you found no footprints, no "tools" that could have been used.

A2 If you are NOT a scientist ( that is, you are not "trained" in the formal methodology of science ), you suggest that a man named TOM had visited the strip of sand recently and "wrote" a message in the sand. He stood in front of what he wrote and his footprints have since been washed away by the incoming tide.

I take it that you would believe Answer 1.

I would opt for Answer 2.

By the way. A single strand of DNA is probably on the order of 1 billion times more complex than the phrase "TOM LOVES MARY".

And just out of curiousity, which answer would require a greater leap of faith? Which would require a greater setting aside of logic and intelligence?

Message edited by author 2004-11-22 15:55:05.

11/22/2004 04:30:51 PM · #17

Originally posted by RonB:

And just out of curiousity, which answer would require a greater leap of faith? Which would require a greater setting aside of logic and intelligence?

Thank you for making my point. Clearly, there's nothing that I can offer to convince you of Evolution. Instead, you'll rather believe in the fable of Creationism, as it described in stories that have been transcribed, translated, interpreted and compiled in many subjective variations countless times since men have had the use of language.

11/22/2004 04:53:44 PM · #18

Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by RonB:
And just out of curiousity, which answer would require a greater leap of faith? Which would require a greater setting aside of logic and intelligence?

Thank you for making my point. Clearly, there's nothing that I can offer to convince you of Evolution. Instead, you'll rather believe in the fable of Creationism, as it described in stories that have been transcribed, translated, interpreted and compiled in many subjective variations countless times since men have had the use of language.

Just like most politicians, you completely avoid giving a direct answer to a plainly worded question. Somehow, I'm not at all surprised.

The point I helped you to "make" was that you cannot offer anything to convince me that macro evolution is factual, and that is true - you cannot, and apparently you cannot provide any for any rationale thinking person, either. That's why you deliberately try to sidestep the issue.

Creationism is no more a "fable" as you desscibe it, then is macro evolution. You have chosen to believe the fable of macro evolution as described in a series of stories some of which have been proven to be false, some the product of hoaxes, and the rest mere conjecture with no factual underpinnings - but because they have been repeated often and PRESENTED as fact, you and many others have fallen for them hook, line, and sinker.

So - a very simple question - one that even you should be able to answer: In the scenario I presented, how would you have explained the presence of "TOM LOVES MARY" etched in the sand? And on what basis?

11/22/2004 05:21:25 PM · #19

Originally posted by RonB:

So - a very simple question - one that even you should be able to answer: In the scenario I presented, how would you have explained the presence of "TOM LOVES MARY" etched in the sand? And on what basis?

The scenario is silly, and not at all analogous to Evolution. And, my not being willing to participate in this rhetorical exercise has all to do with simply not having the time. I've already made my point: I find it incredible that in today's world 25%-34% of the U.S. population could be considered "Biblical Literalists." As I see it, this speaks to a massive failure of our educational system, especially when it comes to teaching sciences. I can't locate the source, but I've seen a figure where only 6% of British citizens believe in Creationism -- a figure that's far more in sync with the modern world. Again, as I mentioned earlier, this Christian fundamentalism amongst a significant segment of our population -- I believe -- is dangerous; since it is such fundamentalism that sustained and fostered conditions that lead to militant Islam. Religious/Faith based fundamentalism of any kind curtails our ability to find common ground with the "other," based on *rational* and *reasonable* compromise. However, Religious/Faith based fundamentalism simply says, the "other" is immoral and dammed, and therefore cannot be dealt or negotiated with -- instead, the "other" must be converted or annihilated.

Message edited by author 2004-11-22 17:56:06.

MadMordegon

11/22/2004 05:49:38 PM · #20

"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."

"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition."

-Isaac Asimov

magicshutter

Nikon D70

11/22/2004 06:17:32 PM · #21

bdobe,

You speak of modern world as if it somehow has an affect on truth (which no one knows as I've pointed out). Ron has you pegged, I've yet to read any post you've made stating why you believe what you suggest. You say you've made a point but you havn't, all you have done is make it clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. You can spew on about 'polls', 'scientific fact' and about the 'fable' of the bible.

While I myself am Agnostic (Meaning I believe in God, but not religion) I find it humorous (and Ron pointed this out) that the only 'proof' you could ever have is a few reports (given in the best interest of the institution offering such reports), A few polls (If you think the human race knows enough to take such a poll seriously you are on serious medication). Also, I don't suspect you'd understand my next point since you are so blatently blasphemous in any religion, but the fact that you think God is something the human brain can fully understand makes you plain 'silly' to put it in your own words.

Keep dodging the point and saying you don't have time to play this 'game'. If you don't want to debate your obvious 'book given' opinion then stop posting nonsense and calling it fact.

Another thing, I'm tired of hearing about how people have 'phds' or are 'scientists'. Just because you do a few experiments and jot down all the nonsense your teacher spewed out doesn't make you all knowing and all wise. And to suggest that God needs proof to exist is just hilarious in itself.

I do agree on the other hand about the bible being human interpretation of God's word as no one could ever hear God's word. This does not on the other hand mean it's all a 'fable'. To say this would mean you don't believe in Abraham Lincoln, or Thomas Jefferson as you've never met them, only read what they supposedly wrote.

Joe

11/22/2004 06:32:27 PM · #22

magicshutter,

I'm literally flying out of the city in about 2 hours, that's why I don't have time to write an extensive response. Also, my sole point has been, is, and I'll state it again: I find it incredible that in today's world 25%-34% of the U.S. population could be considered "Biblical Literalists." As to the merits of religion, again, let me re-state what I stated earlier: I'm a firm subscriber to and adherent of, the Reality Based Community; we believe in science, reason and social and technological progress. And, too, we are tolerant of those that choose to follow a religious tenet, as long as they don't opt to impose their theology and moors on the rest of their fellow citizens that don't share their world view.

MadMordegon

11/22/2004 06:41:08 PM · #23

Just out of curiosity, how can you believe in "God" but not any religion? What "proof" is there of "God" without some sort of religion being the source?

frychikn

Olympus C-5050Z

11/22/2004 09:07:28 PM · #24

Originally posted by Russell2566:

Are we forgetting about how Kerry all of a sudden re-found god and started going to black only Catholic churches every weekend?

I guess it's also OK for Clinton to say he prayed every day for guidance and for Kerry to say the same thing, but GOD (forgive the pun) forgive President Bush does it as well. After all, only Democrats are allowed to do that!!!

Because when a republican does it, it means he's stupid and ignorant and can't do his job!!!

-- edit --
fixed mis-type

And don't forget about Jimmy Carter going to a white-only protestant church!

magicshutter

Nikon D70