Did you know that the Republicans changed the stars in their official elephant logo to three stars downward in the year 2000, the very year in which Skull & Bones George Bush was "elected" President? This Republican logo is the traditional elephant logo as this book front page cover demonstrates. The book is entitled, "The Pictorial History of the Republican Party", by Beryl Frank, published in 1980. As you can see, the stars on this elephant logo are the same as the traditional stars on an American Flag. On the GOP's official website the stars are facing downward. Click here to see. GOP.com

<snip>

In witchcraft the pentangle is used with the "head" of the star pointed down, illustrating man worshiping Satan. When pointed down it also becomes the face of the goat. Satanists use a pentagram with two points up, often inscribed in a double circle to emphasize the exclusion of God, and sometimes with the head of a goat inside the pentagram. Why would a nation based on Christian principles install as its leader someone who was a member of a secretive satanic cult called Skull and Bones? After 8 years of leading our country deeper into the squalid sewer of torture and political corruption, it seems a little late to be asking such questions. But for the record, my understanding is that the stars were inverted and turned upside down when Bush was appointed president.



More:
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/satanic-stars-on-republican-party-elephant-symbol/question-924769/

Hopefully the other House Democrats could keep the representative inline

But Satan is part of the Christian tradition. And, it possible to include Christ in the Wiccan system. The pentagram is associated with many belief systems, even Christian. We shouldn't be in the habit of disrespecting witches as Satanists. They are often more like tree huggers.

The only way I could see it happening if is he were the lesser of two evils (and by evil, I do not mean the literal devil).

which the Right Winger likely is in one way or another. It seems then it boils down to policy and we know what Right Winger policy is.

Democrats have already closed the book on this one; they are willing to vote for an anti-Satanist.

about 'the devil' or 'Satan', but couldn't find any (apart from describing natural selection as "devil take the hindmost", which doesn't count). So I didn't think it fair to refer to him since I couldn't see he did use such rhetoric. And that was 100 years ago; you might say Democrats have evolved since then (as they have, in race policies, for instance).

I'd vote for Satan rather than the GOP.

What I'm going to look at is about 90% their previous record of action - what do they vote for, what do they vote against, what sort of legislation do they sponsor, what sort of deals do they make to get things done, and where does their money come from.

ONLY after I have that would I start collecting data from their speeches and comparing it to the actions. Only in the case of a perfect 100% correspondence would I use their speech as a basis for predicting future behavior.

If they are observing and commenting on real data that supports their claims, then the data is there, no matter what their claims are. If there's no supporting data, than ANY claim - including moderation, thoughtfulness, predictability, adherence to principles, whatever - is nothing more or less than hot air, and deserves no more consideration.

With the exception of "against God", I think the current crop of neocons has made a sufficient case for themselves being against every form of human pleasure and progress, that there is a pretty good argument for exactly that. They are no longer rational actors attempting to maximize their own take at the expense of others, they are true believers in an ultimate reality that both transcends this one and justifies the utter destruction of this one.

So yeah, if their actions even sort of resembled their rhetoric, I'd vote for them. That's not saying I AGREE with them, otherwise I'd nearly never vote. It's just saying that I think them less damaging than their opponent, and a leftist with that issue has got to be better than a right-winger, ALL of whom have that issue (except that they're wrong about the sides too) as well as other issues.

Another way to put it - it would be a hell of a lot easier to get myself to vote for that person than it would be to get myself to vote for a Democrat who believes in extrajudicial killing under ANY circumstances. God's trivial compared to that.

there`s only a hand full of republicans who actually care about people and they are leaving the party. a health political system has to have the abililty to give and take.

If they thought that 'anything goes' in the cause of defeating what they perceive as evil, then they could easily become dangerously authoritarian. And left-authoritarians are not very different from right-authoritarians. You don't even need to believe in a literal devil for this; cf. the behaviour of most leaders of Communist countries.

If they were committed to democratic principles, but had a bizarre spiritual outlook, then yes, I would vote for them against the likely alternatives.

Would a respectable candidate make a "claim" like that? It is so religious specific it could give one pause in actually viewing the candidate with any degree of confidence. Should we start looking under the beds for Beelzebub? Looking for fairies would be far more pleasant.

So I guess the answer is does the candidate have any quantifiable evidence that would sway a non ideologue? People can certainly "follow" Satan, and it doesn't make Satan any more or less real. But the worship itself alone would cast doubt on any ability to govern a secular nation let alone one that so has many professed Christians and Muslims.

But, a candidate whowould gratuitously toss around claims such as that would certainly not have my respect. Though there could be a possible scenario where the alternative would be more unpalatable. In that case, God/dess help us all.