Are We To Become A Christian Fundamentalist Nation?

Okay, no land deal in BC. Quick move to Tuscany.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

... The problem for those who hold with the current administration is that we dissenters are not only taking issue with policies, but with behaviors, dishonesty, manipulation, and the bona fides of the extreme supporters of the other side. I can understand George's discomfort, but it seems to me he hasn't made a real effort to take a hard look at the materials Lola has posted. I don't honestly see how one can look at the beliefs of the religious Right, their modus operandi, and their numbers without conceding that there's trouble ahead.

I have read Lola's materials. I am not at all uncomfortable.

Given that religious values and symbols are being so systematically excluded from public life, I find it hard to conclude that the 'religious right' is at all effective in its conspiracy to take control and impose an odd form of Protestantism on us all. At most they are slowing the retreat.

Are you suggesting that all the bad behavior, manipulation and dishonesty is on only one side of these issues?

0 Replies

The devil at work, Blathan.........if Canada falls, what shall we do?

0 Replies

ok, today's Washington Update.........

Quote:

November 7, 2003
Defending the Ten Commandments in Georgia

Yesterday morning, I was proud to join with Focus on the Family and hundreds of Georgia activists in defending the Ten Commandments and religion in the public square. Along with Alabama Judge Roy Moore - the man at the center of the Ten Commandments controversy - I spoke to the crowd in Barrow County, Georgia, where the ACLU is suing to force the removal of the county's Ten Commandments monument.

The Georgia lawsuit is one of many around the nation that have sparked a debate about the role of the courts. Some have said it is wrong for Judge Moore to challenge the ruling of a federal judge who ordered his Ten Commandments monument removed from the Alabama Supreme Court. However, it is important for us to distinguish between laws duly adopted by elected representatives and the opinions of what non-elected judges say those laws and freedoms mean.

(duh........this is the idea, checks and balances, folks, checks and balances......)

Quote:

These largely unaccountable judges are using the phrase "the constitution says" as authority - not to interpret the contract between the people and their government, but rather to impose their own ideas. These are ideas which, in most cases, are hostile to our Judeo-Christian origins; the bedrock of our nation.

Funny, I thought our government was based on the Constitution........

Quote:

I cannot think of a more foundational element of our republic than the Ten Commandments. But if we are to preserve our religious liberties we must take the jackhammer away from the federal courts. We must demand that Congress act now by limiting the federal judiciary's authority on such issues as the national motto, the pledge of allegiance, marriage, and the Ten Commandments.

And how, pray tell, would we do that? Really!

Quote:

To show your support for the Ten Commandments, click the link below and order a set of FRC's Ten Commandments book covers.

Additional Resources
Set of 5 Multi-Color Ten Commandments Book Covers
http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=FL011&f=WU03K05

Delay on Cloning Ban in UN, Need for Ban in US

Yesterday, those of us supporting a total ban on human cloning suffered a defeat at the United Nations. While the pro-life side had more than enough votes to support a treaty banning all cloning of human beings, those in favor of cloning were able, by a procedural maneuver, to postpone the vote for two years, supposedly to further study the matter.

"Further study" will reveal nothing new cloning creates a human being, and that human being should not be killed during research aimed at helping other human beings. The cloning lobby made the same misleading arguments at the UN that they have made here at home: (a) pretending there are two kinds of cloning, (b) pretending that so called "therapeutic cloning" does not subject a human being to lethal research, and (c) pretending that only when a baby is born is cloning "reproductive," rather than acknowledging that each and every time, human cloning produces a living human being in the embryonic stage of development.

As disappointing as the UN delay was, it simply means that there is even more urgency to pass a total ban on cloning here in the US. Our research leads the world, and developments here will have a significant impact on whether other nations proceed with cloning. A total cloning ban has previously passed the House of Representatives, but it languishes in the Senate where anti life forces threaten to filibuster any vote. As with the fight over the confirmation of judges, anti life forces are determined to use every means possible to defend the culture of death. Let President Bush and your Senators know that it is vitally important to pass a total ban on human cloning by clicking below.

Family Research Council...........what a name, research indeed.

0 Replies

Lola,

We all know you think they and their ideas are dangerous. You imply they are intent on taking over our political system. However the quotes and statements you offer us point only to their concerns about specific issues. Prominently this concerns the increased penetration of Federal law into our lives and the effects that brings, given the activities of the many well-organized secular advocacy groups and their activities with often activist Federal Courts.

You don't at all address the specific issues they raise.

Just as there are indeed religious and tradition-based advocacy groups seeking to limit the effects of what they see as legislation by an activist judiciary, there are numerous equally active secular and single issue advocacy groups bent on using those courts to change existing laws and alter public practices that have been around for a long time. Certainly today's controversies about judicial appointments well illustrates this phenomenon. The fact is that, in terms of the specific issues contested over the last twenty or so years and those before us now, the 'religious right' is very much on the defensive, resisting as it yields ground. It is the secular advocacy groups that are on the offensive and gaining ground.

What we have here is a democratic debate over important aspects of public policy. On what basis do you assert that one side of this debate (only) is led by conspirators bent on destroying our democracy? You have certainly said this many times, but the materials you cite as proof demonstrate only their political advocacy of a well-known and much-debated political agenda. In this their rhetoric, apart from metaphorical references appropriate to their views, is not materially different from that of their opponents. What is it that makes you conclude that the so-called 'religious right' is bent on leading the future evolution of our society in a way that their political opponents themselves are not? It seems to me that the two sides in these disputes differ only in the outcomes they seek.

In what way are your views on this matter any different from the conspiratorial theories of Senator Joe McCarthy in the 1950s?

Why not debate the issues instead of attacking the motives of the opposition?

0 Replies

george<

Are you a member of a "religious right" group? It certainly sounds like it.

0 Replies

william

George is religious (Catholic) and he is a Republican. He's a good guy, quite debate friendly, and has a modicum of sophistication in his thinking. His children are all in jail.

0 Replies

wiliamhenry3,

What is it about the proposal that we debate the issues instead of merely castigating the advocates on one side of the divide, that makes you conclude that I must be "a member of a religious right group"?

Are you a vigilante member of a secular lynch mob?

0 Replies

I am.

0 Replies

I know that, but I forgive you.

0 Replies

Let the hangings proceed. Well, to be kind, we could all frame pictures of ourselves and send them to the opposing side to hang.

0 Replies

I keep trying to find a key which will explain to me the gulf we often find between us. Let's not get into a debate about whose judiciary is in fact more "activist"!

I suppose your question, George (to Lola, essentially) as to what the difference is -- why the influence of the religious right is inherently more pernicious than the influence of, say, a huge teacher's group, or an office cleaner's union, or women's reproductive rights activists.

And the answer is, Because they have made it quite clear that their first allegiance is to an entity other than than the people and Constitution of the US. Not to mention that this entity speaks only to them and can only be interpreted accurately by them.

Their primary allegiance is to an entity or entities which seek to subvert or evade our laws and the standards set by the people and Constitution of the US. As the case against Judge Moore reminds us, "God" may not supercede the authority of the people as expressed through their laws.

The spokespeople for the religious right have made clear over and over again, that they seek to place "God" -- and specifically their "god" -- above the law. The law has been so deftly written that the same laws which protect us from religion also protect religious belief and diversity. They are trying to subvert those laws. That's plenty cause for alarm.

0 Replies

I admire Tartarn's candor. She freely acknowledges views that have long been implicit in the interpretations she and others have offered on this thread. However I find her views both repellant and contrary to the most fundamental principles of our law and democracy.

Tartarin offers the novel view that anyone who believes in the existence of God, the creator of the universe and mankind, is necessarily outside the law of our land and therefore has a lesser right to political advocacy than that of non believers. She goes on to assert that political advocacy by religious or religiously motivated groups is necessarily "more pernicious" and thus less justifiable than that of secular groups, even when the two are debating the same issue of public policy. She bases this view on the assertion that such believers hold to the existence of powers and law that are above and superior to the laws of the land, and are therefore less entitled to the rights enumerated under our constitution.

This view was not shared by the founders, who based their Declaration of Independence on the existence of individual and "inalienable rights, endowed by their creator", and justified their abrogation of George III's rule on his persistent violation of those rights. They adopted a Constitution which defined and limited the powers of the new Federal government, and which explicitly reserved powers not there enumerated to the states and the people. Later they added a Bill of Rights to that Constitution to explicitly codify those rights in the basic law they established.

Nothing in this basic law denies the existence of a creator or of a moral law superior to it - on the contrary it is explicitly derived from it. Nothing in that basic law reduces the access of religiously motivated people to the basic rights guaranteed to all. Nothing in that basic law demands that people renounce any religious or moral beliefs they might have, except as they relate to the basic rights of others as enumerated in the constitution.

Tartarin has, in effect, defined a new type of thought crime, the penalty for which is the loss of political rights. This is a view utterly antagonistic to the basic principles of or democracy.

0 Replies

That's the silliest damn thing you've written so far, George, and I'm forced to giggle rather than take offense. Like others here, though I don't believe in god, I do (quite warmly and sincerely) think others have an absolute right to do so. I do not think they have a right to put that belief above allegiance the law of the land when public officials. They may decry laws and fight against them, but no one who holds their personal god above the law while in public office should be allowed to continue.

0 Replies

george,

I'm not at home and soon to leave for the airport, so I don't have time to address your question above (Saturday morning) as well as I would like right now. However, I will say that my specific complaint against the religious right is that they're not being honest about their influence on this government. After the 1992 Republican convention, it was clear to everyone that if they speak out about their agenda, the Republican candidate cannot be elected. So in order to further their agenda, they have developed a tactic, in co-operation with the neocons, who have no qualms about lying to the "masses," of deception by silence. They know the voters would not approve their agenda. But they are a minority, highly organized for the purpose of furthering their agenda. They are more organized than any other minority in this country at this time. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with their level of organization. It is that they seek to further their agenda by stealth. It's true there are federal judges with a variety of convictions and I suspect they overall represent the diversity in this country. The radicals seek to form a judiciary that does not represent the electorate, but rather their own agenda.........without the mandate from the people. I hope I've made myself clear on this.

0 Replies

And I want to add, as I'm being rushed to end so we can leave.............that the Republicans, hopefully will come to regret their alliance with the neocons and the radical Christian fundamentalists. It the Democratic candidate makes good use of this alliance, makes it more public, the Republicans will be put out of business. And hopefully, when the Repubs re-coop, they will have divested themselves of these cheaters.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

...They may decry laws and fight against them, but no one who holds their personal god above the law while in public office should be allowed to continue.

In an earlier post Tartarin denied the rights of religiously motivated people to political advocacy. Perhaps she is now limiting that to merely denying them the right to hold public office. However, I would like to know who is it or by what right they would not allow such persons to continue in office.

Again I note that the signers of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution would not have met Tartarin's test for public office holders.

0 Replies

Nor would I think their range of knowledge adequate for high public office right now, George. But you're still making me laugh!!

0 Replies

Tartarin,

OK by me if you are laughing. Glad however too see your acknowledgement that it is you, and not those you oppose, who are seeking to change our constitution and limit our basic rights.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

..... However, I will say that my specific complaint against the religious right is that they're not being honest about their influence on this government. After the 1992 Republican convention, it was clear to everyone that if they speak out about their agenda, the Republican candidate cannot be elected. So in order to further their agenda, they have developed a tactic, in co-operation with the neocons, who have no qualms about lying to the "masses," of deception by silence. They know the voters would not approve their agenda. But they are a minority, highly organized for the purpose of furthering their agenda. ....

... It's true there are federal judges with a variety of convictions and I suspect they overall represent the diversity in this country. The radicals seek to form a judiciary that does not represent the electorate, but rather their own agenda.........without the mandate from the people.

Lola,

Many accused Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council of exactly the same tactic in 1992, in his case appearing centrist when in fact they represented a more leftist agenda. Other advocacy groups, from the NRA to NOW have used somewhat similar tactics. I'm no more fond of these tactics than you, but do note they are widely used across the whole political spectrum.

Both the 'radicals', as you call them, and the liberals who oppose them are working very hard to create a judiciary that represents their own agenda. I don't see much difference between them in this.

I agree with your sentiments on these matters but do not see in them any basis on which to prefer one group over the other.

0 Replies

Are We To Become A Christian Fundamentalist Nation?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know