Tom Delay says "God wrote the Constitution."

[Carrikature]

I assume that your underlying point here will be that you're troubled about religious influence on western politics, which is why such statement concern you. But let me first preference my response by saying that contrary to erroneous belief among non-theists, Christians have very little influence in political matters other than minor ones. If they had as much political power as is assumed and feared by some, abortion would be illegal, prayer and bibles would be allowed in public schools, and we'd most likely see less raunch in the media. Point being, in the big picture, they have no influence at all when it comes to major issues. And before you mention the Iraq/Afghanistan wars because of your assumption that Bush was somehow influenced by Christian ideas (and I say this because it's something always brought up in these discussions), many influential voices on "the left" were just as adamant in pushing those wars as well as wars and military actions that are occurring after Bush. And it's not like Christianity is making any sort of dramatic comeback; if anything, it's on the decline. So, after considering all that, why would that statement bother you one way or the other?

There's a really important factor that you're missing here. Christians DO hold political influence, given that they're far and away the largest demographic of voters. The factor that you're missing is that most of them don't believe (or vote) quite as you think they should. Even with the numbers dwindling, the number of Christians remains much greater than the non-theists and alternate faiths.

[One Bad Pig]

I was referring to the slur against the left, that they worship the State as a god.

Oh, they don't, literally, and would never admit to such. However, for the left, the state always has the answer, if only more people would submit to its all-encompassing embrace. It's a soft totalitarianism a la Brave New World, but it is what it is.

Dominionism and theonomy honestly frighten me, and have for many years. For one thing, I have NEVER believed that the leaders who promote these concepts are actually motivated by religion. For another, while the leaders are willing to lie, cheat, and steal for political power,

Alas, very few political leaders (of the left or right) are unwilling to do so.

a few of their more radicalized followers are more than enthusiastic regarding the use of force to achieve their goals.

On the left, more than a few of the more radicalized followers are not only enthusiastic regarding the use of force, they actually use force. Examples: The Weathermen, Black Panthers, Earth Liberation Front, those upstanding individuals who cause street closures in my area every time the International Monetary Fund or World Bank meets, etc., etc., ad nauseaum.

ETA: Keep in mind your recent admonition elsewhere:

When you speak of the culture as a whole, yet only refer to traits found in the minority, you are most certainly defining the culture as a whole based on minority traits.

Most on the religious right would rightly reject violence as a means to the desired end.

While such use of force would doubtless not be successful, it would be tragic.

Indeed it would.

[KingsGambit]

An unfettered belief in capitalism to solve everything and an unfettered belief in governments to solve everything are both ideological pitfalls to avoid.

[One Bad Pig]

An unfettered belief in capitalism to solve everything and an unfettered belief in governments to solve everything are both ideological pitfalls to avoid.

Yes. And?

[Outis]

However, for the left, the state always has the answer, if only more people would submit to its all-encompassing embrace.

And for the right, the answer is always the same: shrink the state until it is small enough, and powerless enough, to drown in a bathtub. I'd say our recent examples of the fruits of deregulation (from the pollution of waterways in West Virginia and North Carolina, to the financial crisis that we're still digging our way out of, to ... well, you know the litany as well as I do) quite well illustrates that the situation is far too complex for either extreme of sentiment, and that a case-by-case evaluation and a politically centrist view is probably the best option.

Alas, very few political leaders (of the left or right) are unwilling to do so.

There have been a few. Jimmy Carter is the last who occupied the Oval Office, but his term as president was marred by other matters.

On the left, more than a few of the more radicalized followers are not only enthusiastic regarding the use of force, they actually use force. Examples: The Weathermen, Black Panthers, Earth Liberation Front, those upstanding individuals who cause street closures in my area every time the International Monetary Fund or World Bank meets, etc., etc., ad nauseaum.

To which I could reply with a list of those on the right. OBP, this is not an issue where the Left is guilty and the Right innocent. Only calling out one side for guilt is only speaking half the truth, and half-truths are often a more pernicious form of dishonesty than outright lies.

[KingsGambit]

Yes. And?

I genuinely get the impression that the former is fallen into more often; I hear rhetoric that a market solution exists for any conceivable ill. If people do believe this about the government, the claim is not made so bluntly.

[One Bad Pig]

And for the right, the answer is always the same: shrink the state until it is small enough, and powerless enough, to drown in a bathtub.

Hyperbole does not become you, Outis. For the last decade (at least), the right is reduced to begging for a reduction in the rate of growth, and rarely manages even that.

I'd say our recent examples of the fruits of deregulation (from the pollution of waterways in West Virginia and North Carolina, to the financial crisis that we're still digging our way out of, to ... well, you know the litany as well as I do) quite well illustrates that the situation is far too complex for either extreme of sentiment, and that a case-by-case evaluation and a politically centrist view is probably the best option.

The financial mess is largely the result of over-regulation, not deregulation. Big companies like regulation because they have deep enough pockets to cope with it while their smaller competitors do not. Then companies get "too big to fail" and government bails them out of the mess its own laws created in the first place. I don't know enough about the pollution to which you're referring to comment much either way, but I don't recall deregulation having anything at all to do with the EPA.

To which I could reply with a list of those on the right. OBP, this is not an issue where the Left is guilty and the Right innocent.

I never said it was. I was counter-balancing your fears of the right.

Only calling out one side for guilt is only speaking half the truth, and half-truths are often a more pernicious form of dishonesty than outright lies.

Keep that in mind yourself next time.

[Outis]

I genuinely get the impression that the former is fallen into more often; I hear rhetoric that a market solution exists for any conceivable ill. If people do believe this about the government, the claim is not made so bluntly.

I would agree. Current Democrat policy is not "leftist"--it is actually slightly right of center. Obama in 2008 was slightly right of center, and has sifted more to the right as he has been in office. Yet people accuse him of being a "leftist", and that's not even taking into the account the fact-free accusations of "Socialism" or "Communism" coming from some Republicans. (Cite 2008, 2012)

[seanD]

There's a really important factor that you're missing here. Christians DO hold political influence, given that they're far and away the largest demographic of voters. The factor that you're missing is that most of them don't believe (or vote) quite as you think they should. Even with the numbers dwindling, the number of Christians remains much greater than the non-theists and alternate faiths.

I understand they're a large political demographic, but it's apparently irrelevant when it comes to political influence on larger issues (at least issues that non-theists should be whining about), and I explained why it's irrelevant by giving a few examples in the post you quoted. But I don't understand what you mean by "how they should vote," or what relevancy that has to the post you quoted.

[One Bad Pig]

I would agree. Current Democrat policy is not "leftist"--it is actually slightly right of center. Obama in 2008 was slightly right of center, and has sifted more to the right as he has been in office. Yet people accuse him of being a "leftist", and that's not even taking into the account the fact-free accusations of "Socialism" or "Communism" coming from some Republicans. (Cite 2008, 2012)

This is a load of bovine fecal matter. I have not doubt you believe this is so, but it is largely fantasy. Obama is no communist, but he's socialist through and through. He moved toward the center in some respects as he was campaigning in '08, but his actions have belied those words.

Further, he's more than willing to blatantly lie to get his way, which you just decried a couple posts ago.

My views are admittedly colored by Jonah Goldberg's book Liberal Fascism (which I'm currently reading), but it's eerily prescient of what Obama has been doing as president, and his policies are right in line with what the left has been preaching for the last 100 years or so.

[Outis]

This is a load of bovine fecal matter. I have not doubt you believe this is so, but it is largely fantasy. Obama is no communist, but he's socialist through and through. He moved toward the center in some respects as he was campaigning in '08, but his actions have belied those words.

And he's more than willing to blatantly lie to get his way, which you just decried a couple posts ago.

This is not based on his statements, but on his actions. And OBP, if you consider Obama to be a "socialist," then you are utterly and completely ignorant of what Socialism actually is.

[One Bad Pig]

This is not based on his statements, but on his actions. And OBP, if you consider Obama to be a "socialist," then you are utterly and completely ignorant of what Socialism actually is.

Outis, President Obama's signature "achievement", Obamacare, is aimed squarely at putting 1/6 of the US economy more firmly under the control of the federal government. How is that not socialism? Granted, he's forced to work within the constraints of a republic, but he's used his pen to enormously expand the regulatory burden on the means and production of goods. And he'd do more if he thought he could get away with it.

[Outis]

Outis, President Obama's signature "achievement", Obamacare, is aimed squarely at putting 1/6 of the US economy more firmly under the control of the federal government. How is that not socialism?

Time for you to go back to school.

* Socialism, broadly defined, is social ownership of the means of production. "Social ownership" can be defined as cooperative ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership (where all citizens are deemed owners of public property), or the like.
* Regulation is not ownership. Regulation has NEVER been ownership.
* Those people who have been telling you that regulation of an industry is the same as ownership of an industry are lying through their teeth.

If the ACA is "state ownership of the means of production," kindly point out to me what hospitals, doctor's offices, insurance companies, or medical goods manufacturers are now owned by the government, rather than by their previous owners or shareholders? Tell me what the USGS pay grade is for a GP, a specialist, a surgeon, or a professor-level physician? Show me how doctors are now getting their paychecks from the government, rather than from the accounting department of their various practices or hospitals.

And if you can't show me those things, then your statement that the ACA is socialism is not just false, it is so false that it should shame you either at the thought of participating in such dishonesty, or of falling prey to such dishonesty.

Granted, he's forced to work within the constraints of a republic, but he's used his pen to enormously expand the regulatory burden on the means and production of goods.

Show me any EOs that "enormously expand the regulatory burden," WITH a quantified example of "enormously," or admit that you've been played for a fool.

And he'd do more if he thought he could get away with it.

Now you're simply making wild accusations, OBP--every bit as wild as the Truthers.

Show me the facts and figures, or admit that you have been played for a dupe. Refusal to do either indicates the latter.

[Darth Executor]

The Democrats are not socialist. Nor do they want socialism because that would kill any shred of plausible deniability of guilt that they have. They do want more of a mixed market, but calling it socialism muddles the issue since they don't want any overt power and the responsibility that comes with it.

They also aren't "right of center" and anyone who seriously believes the latter is such a colossal imbecile that pretty much anything he has to say should be summarily dismissed without a second thought. What the Democrats are good at is playing the long game. They infested schools and media (both news and entertainment) while conservatards were busy picking themselves up by their bootstraps and sliding around aimlessly. The Republican party exists for the sole purpose of pretending there is a second choice.

[Darth Executor]

* Regulation is not ownership. Regulation has NEVER been ownership.
* Those people who have been telling you that regulation of an industry is the same as ownership of an industry are lying through their teeth.

Ownership = control.

Since regulation (and taxes) are both forms of control it can be accurately said that a state that regulates and taxes property is part owner. Might wanna be careful with throwing around accusations like "lying through their teeth" around. It's possible (and in this case, actual) that they're smarter than you and/or have actually thought this through.