Is hiprocracy, revolting against civil rights, decision in policy making, and/or election results a fair...?

Question

assesment of how christian fundamentalism affects american politics?

Answer 1

Pat Robertson says the goal of Christians should be Dominion over this government and the country. Some have gone so far as to suggest that if the govt. does not support their agenda they will not support the govt. Some are pressuring Universities to not teach tolerance or they will cause trouble for those schools. They exert enormous pressure on the politics of today, and many of their positions are intolerant. This puts them at odds with the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and poses thoughtful questions for us all.

Answer 2

YES!! Just look at all the right wingers who have recently been exposed as homosexuals. Yet they rail against it. Hypocrisy. They say Islam is a bad religion, and should not be forced on anyone. Yet they try to force there beliefs on everyone else. Hipocrisy. They go to there church on Sunday and worship Jesus, who preached love thy neighbor. Yet they are haters. Hipocrisy. Personally I am a Lutheran, and I'm happy with that. I don't feel the need to force my beliefs on others. Why do these Christian Fundamentalist need to? They are no better then a Muslim fundamentalist. And don't say they haven't bombed any body. They haven't bombed any body yet, because the gov. is on to them. See Ku Klux Klan. And all these wacko militia out in the woods who run around with there guns every weekend. YOU CAN GET MY GUN WHEN YOU PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS. Sickos. That's your hypocritical Christian Fundamentalist. And yes they do effect politics. The republicans play to them for ther votes. After this last election one can only hope the republicans stop making policy to appease them.

Answer 3

maximum persons of human beings disliked the British because they made life problematic on them. the U. S. replaced into doing each and each and every of the artwork and the British were making a collection of money off the U. S. as a results of the indisputable fact that they had a monopoly on the commerce so almost each and everything leaving the U. S. would bypass on to Britian and then they might promote it from there for a competent income. the U. S. only needed to have some variety of self authorities or some variety of say contained in the British authorities because their were tens of millions of human beings that were compelled to stay less than British rule yet that they had no say contained in the course the country would bypass. Taxes were the perfect straw even though it had to do with way extra issues they disliked. It wasn't because they needed to bypass west and the British did not have a take care of the section human beings. they really made deals with the section human beings after the U. S. grew to develop into autonomous. They really suggested in the journey that they fought the U. S. they might supply them guns and money. 2/3's of human beings weren't hostile to the revolution. The majoirty supported the decision. there have been really a small variety of human beings that remained unswerving to the British and this replaced into only because they concept their replaced into no way that the U. S. could beat them.

Answer 4

Chew on this piece of hypocrisy from one of your liberal tree hugging queens of flip-flop:

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

Answer 5

No. Not even close.
Given a choice between the Christian right & the Heathen left, I'll take the former any day.

BTW I'm not Christian.