Post Obama-McCain Debate: Are the Far Right Christian Fundamentalists Giving up on Earthly Change this Election Cycle?

I get mail. I have my friends who still inhabit that far right terrain that frankly, try as I might, I don't understand. So I get chainmail forwarded to me, lots and lots of echainmail. It's often full of scorn or righteous anger at the heathens... most of the time I never even open it. But the one below had a curious sad tone of pending defeat to it. Am I reading too much into it?

from chainmail :


  1. The Bible will still have all the answers.
  2. Prayer will still work.
  3. The Holy Spirit will still move.
  4. God will still inhabit the praises of His people.
  5. There will still be God-anointed teaching and healing.
  6. There will still be singing of praise to God.
  7. God will still pour out blessings upon His people.
  8. There will still be room at the Cross.
  9. Jesus will still love you.
  10. Jesus will still save the lost.



There's nothing overtly out of line from a religious perspective with these sentiments, of course, but I am curious and looking for your thoughts: Does this email sound like that of a group of folks that think they are going to win the election?

No votes yet


Appears to me this is just a reminder of the preacher/priest/etc. being put back behind the maybe the way it used to be. Soothes the soul.

Let's get our clergy busy with harvest festivals, raising funds to repair church steeples and preparing for the Christmas Carol Service and out of business that they don't understand.

As the economies worsen, people will need support. Any preacher that appears on TV or at conferences is not going to be looking after their flock. Shame on them if they let this happen :)

and the wistful tone is music to my ears.

But the fundamentalist base is one thing, the levers which move it are entirely separate.

Maybe a better model for me to offer, chickens come from eggs and I'm not counting votes yet since it's the embedded lobbyists that worry me.

from Martial Law?

[...] Lest you think the only patriots left are dead guys, you may recall, last week, a Democratic congressman from California, Brad Sherman's, startling revelation that a few of his colleagues in the House were warned that if they voted down the bailout measure, martial law would be imposed in America.

Now a San Diego private attorney general, Paul Andrew Mitchell, intends to pursue a criminal investigation into whether the implied threat of martial law constitutes conspiracy "to engage in a pattern of racketeering activities," or extortion. Whether this lawsuit has teeth, or is found to be frivilous, in the end, isn't really what's important here. One cannot, after all, yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre, with impunity, so why should anyone be allowed to yell "police state" in the halls of Congress without consequence?

As you know, the power to suspend habeas corpus is a legislative one, and the President must be authorized by legislators to remand that right. A state of martial law, however, would mean the suspension of all civil liberties, giving the military direct rule. Martial law can result from war, social calamities, natural disasters, stolen elections, but when private citizens (lobbyists?) threaten members of Congress with the possibility that troops will be redeployed from Iraq to Main Street if certain preconditions aren't met sets a dangerous precedent. Why would a private citizen, or lobbyist, make this kind of threat? [...]

"So your party is the only party that can save the country from the mess that your party created?" - attrib. Jon Stewart

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson

Must have been something in the water that day!

When the $700 billion Wall Street rescue plan went up in smoke on Monday, House Republicans who opposed it immediately got a threatening e-mail — from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

“KEY VOTE ALERT!” the headline read in GREAT BIG PRINT.

“Make no mistake: When the aftermath of congressional inaction becomes clear, Americans will not tolerate those who stood by and let the calamity happen,” it continued.

“The Chamber will score votes on, or in relation to, this issue in our annual How They Voted scorecard,” read its closing, underlined and bold-printed final sentence.

The implicit threat: A bad rating on that scorecard could mean a loss of campaign cash, direct mail and any other help the deep-pocketed Chamber can deliver to lawmakers in tight races.

BTW........after 9/11(New York) and Katrina(Louisiana) didn't Bush get authority to declare Martial Law or was that intervene miliartarily in cases of a national emergency so that the government could supersede states rights?

don't you go scaring me like this, Avahome!

We have to hold out for a few more months....NO FEAR!