1
   

Are We To Become A Christian Fundamentalist Nation?

 
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 03:14 pm
Quote:
His reasoning was based upon his convoluted religious beliefs.


Oh, come on. If that was the case, it wouldn't have taken them weeks to formulate a position.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 03:36 pm
It took them weeks to formulate a cock and bull story in an effort to make the policy look like he was actually allowing for the research. It was a fabrication of lies.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 03:37 pm
Au,

How do you propose that we (as a society) distinguish between political and religious beliefs? (I assume you have your own personal ways of distinguishing political from religious, but I am specifically asking a policy question.)

There are many Americans who believe that stem cell research is wrong. As a society we need to decide whether there should be laws against it or not. What the laws should be is most definitely a political question.

Do the people who believe (for whatever reason) that stem cell research is morally wrong deserve a voice? Don't these Americans have the right to elect officials who represent them?

That's politics, and thats democracy. If you don't like it, then vote. But don't begrudge the votes of people who disagree with you just becuase of their religion.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 03:43 pm
Quote:
It took them weeks to formulate a cock and bull story in an effort to make the policy look like he was actually allowing for the research. It was a fabrication of lies.


More like a political ploy to appease the far religious right so that they will continue to throw their support (monetary and otherwise) behind the administration. It doesn't seem to me like the administration is really driven by religious principles but that, like the Reagan administration, they pay them lip service and push certain pet policy's of theirs to keep their political support. Remember, Bush, Sr. was pro-life before Reagan asked him to come onto the ticket, and I'm a firm believer that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree -- though it may notice where the tree made some sound-but-politically-dangerous economic choices (after foolishly saying that it would not raise taxes) and failed to mollify the more extreme end of its party and lost its bid for reelection.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 03:44 pm
Curious, I have this cousin (in florida) who is a full-blown pentecostal with all the bells and whistles including speaking in tongues, creationism and Satan under every bed. She also thinks Bush is a religious fanatic and wishes Clinton was still in office. Tis a mystery to me fer sure.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 03:52 pm
Perhaps I should clarify that I believe that what Bush thinks and this administration's policies are only obliquely related.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 03:57 pm
Brown
Quote:
How do you propose that we (as a society) distinguish between political and religious beliefs? (I assume you have your own personal ways of distinguishing political from religious, but I am specifically asking a policy question.)


Can you possibly believe that his actions regarding stem cell research could have been driven by any other reason than his religious beliefs? And the religious beliefs of the religious right.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 04:03 pm
I think E Brown's point is that religion is politics -- that is, it's as valid a moral and intellectual compass as any other, at least as far as our constitution is concerned -- that there's a difference between prohbiting the passage laws respecting the establishment of a particular religion and barring people of religious conscience from political participation.

Not that I see aything actually going on in Washington so pure and simple as following the moral dicates of any religion (unless profiteering be a religion), but that's a different question altogether.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 04:05 pm
Au,

I am saying that it doesn't matter.

He has the right to his beliefs. It doesn't matter where his beliefs come from.

You seem to be saying that an elected official (or a voter) shouldn't be able to hold a belief if it is a "religious" belief. Are you saying this? and if so, how would you propose that we make this distinction.

Are you proposing that we make a list of beliefs that a politician should not have?
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 04:16 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Are you proposing that we make a list of beliefs that a politician should not have?

One of the first should be thinking they speak with God, another would be believing they have been "annointed" to rule. In my former life as a paramedic we called these people psych patients!
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 04:28 pm
Au1929, I agree that his actions against stem cell research were driven by his religious beliefs. Actions against the freedom of abortion are almost entirely driven by religious beliefs. This list of religion-driven lawmaking is long and growing.

The point some of us are making, even coming from different religious viewpoints, is that hysteria and anger, verging on hatred, will surely fail. Even the most astute can succumb to hysteria when they feel so strongly about a subject. It is understandable when good people realize that the danger is real.

The list of religiously driven political actions is a long one and mostly public. As inroads are made, our freedoms are being eroded--I do find that frightening. The solution is education and steady, respectful, politicking aimed at the rational voters, including most Christians.

If anyone should be held responsible, in my opinion, for allowing so much power to come into the hands of zealots, it is the leaders of the moderate churches, who have maintained a cowardly silence.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 05:00 pm
like I said...christ yes....christians no.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 05:03 pm
Brown
I did not say that our elected officials should not or could not have religious beliefs. What I am saying that they should not act upon them while in public office. And in particular impose them upon the electorate. That is totally unacceptable. In fact violates the intent of law of the land.
As for the charge of hysteria I think that is way out of line. When did ones opinion become hysteria? Hell if it does than every thread on a2k is wildly hysterical.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 05:13 pm
Quote:
What I am saying that they should not act upon them while in public office.


For people that believe in that sort of thing (whoever that may be in government), religion is what helps you make difficult decisions. That is its purported purpose. (Well, that and social control, but that's only if you look at it from the outside, and with a cynical eye.) For the truly religious person, I doubt there's any way to ultimately separate decision-making from religious belief. Which disturbs me greatly, but there's no proscription about any process of decision making, simply against excluding any voice (at least since roughly universal suffrage, ha!) from trying to influence government.

Don't get me wrong: I wish fundamental Christians would get out of my government; unfortunately, it's their government, too, and they've got the right to access it through legal means.

Which is not to say that I won't continue to use my vote to oppose their agenda, which is usually diametrically opposite mine.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 05:25 pm
This is a democracy. People elect officials who reflect their values and interests. Elected officials act according to their values. It doesn't matter if these people are religious or if the values are religious. This is how democracy works.

When you say elected officials shouldn't "impose" their values on the electorate - what do you mean? this doesn't make any sense.

The elected officials are elected by the electorate. Many people voted for Bush because of his values (it doesn't matter if they are religious or not). There is no "imposing" going on. The electorate supports the officials, and if they don't then Bush will be gone in little more than a year.

I call it "hysteria" when posts describe Americans as a "Taliban". Statements such as those made at the beginning of this thread have the sole purpose of using irrational fear to a political end. They don't reflect anything real.

These debates are political and they are well handled in the political arena. America is a healthy enough democracy to handle such debates without resorting to such fear-mongering.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 05:32 pm
First of all, Bush was not elected into office. No matter what your views are - this alone makes him a weak President. The only reason he is there is a little more than a bloodless coup.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 05:35 pm
we all love democracy, well, we almost love democracy. its kinda like faith based initives as long as they are my kinda christian based initives we like them but not them weirdo kinda faiths. and by gawd them Iraqis outa have a democracy and elections as long as they elect people we really approve of. damn i hate it when them damn people dont go along with what i know is the right thing to do.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 05:36 pm
(er, dys, I hate democracy. just sticking with it until someting better comes along.)
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 05:44 pm
The following are excerpts from The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party

A web site produced by TheocracyWatch
a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics, and Social Policy at Cornell University


By Joan Bokaer, Executive Director
Susan McGreivy, Web Master

http://www.4religious-right.info/index.htm


Quote:
While this site is not about Republicans, it is about Republican strategists who target fundamentalist, Pentecostal and charismatic churches as a way to expand the base of their party, and about a very specific group of religious leaders who are using the Republican Party as a way to gain "dominion" over society. The ultimate political goal of the Religious Right is to make the United States a Christian nation. The ultimate legal goal is to make the U.S. Constitution conform to Biblical Law. The bar graphs in Government make it clear that the Religious Right is in a strong position to hold the Republican Party hostage to its agenda.


Quote:
To quote a highly respected, very conservative Republican, former presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater, "Our problem is with ... the religious extremists ... who want to destroy everybody who doesn't agree with them. I see them as betrayers of the fundamental principles of conservatism. A lot of so-called conservatives today don't know what the word means."


Quote:
From Planned Parenthood's International Family Planning, Global Resource Center: "On January 22, 2001, newly inaugurated President George W. Bush issued an executive memorandum reinstating the global gag rule on international family planning assistance. This was a highly divisive attack on reproductive rights, coming barely two days into the Bush administration and on the 28th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.


Quote:
The New York Times editorial, January 12, 2003, "The War Against Women:" "In resurrecting the gag rule, the new president broadcast a disdain for freedom of speech to emerging democracies, while crippling the international family planning programs that work to prevent hundreds of thousands of infant and maternal deaths worldwide each year. Most Americans would be shocked at the lengths American representatives are going to in their international war against women's right to control their bodies.


Quote:
On Jan. 30, 2001, Robert Scheer wrote in The Los Angeles Times: "Fully one-third of the world's workforce is effectively unemployed, and the United Nations estimates that 500 million new jobs must be created just to accommodate new arrivals in the job market over the next decade. Developing economies do not stand a chance of meeting that demand without aggressive population control. Yet Bush has chosen to cut funding for the very organizations, most notably Planned Parenthood, that work hardest to make birth control information available throughout the world."


Quote:
GOOD NEWS -- on September 5, 2003, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted to block the Bush Administration's efforts to expand the Global Gag Rule.


During the next election, those who are either members of the Radical Religious Right or are over their eyeballs indebted to them, will be greater, with the gerrymandering in Texas and Colorado and other stealth tactics. Holding out against extreme measures like the above will no longer be possible.

Quote:
From NARAL: "The cumulative effect of enacted anti-choice legislation is staggering: 335 anti-choice measures have been enacted since 1995. Until pro-choice Americans regain control of Congress and their state legislatures, the onslaught of legislation aimed at restricting women's choices and curtailing women's reproductive health options will continue unabated." This NARAL fact sheet covers a wide range of legislation that Congress, dominated by the Religious Right, has targeted against women and girls. Click Here.


Quote:
However, recent attendance at the Coalition's annual Road to Victory conferences has dropped dramatically, and its budget has reportedly halved from a high of about $25 million in the mid 1990s.11 In 1992 and 1996, GOP Presidential candidates invariably attended the conference, but in 2000 it took pressure from Pat Roberson on his 700 Club before George W. Bush sent Lynn Cheney, the wife of his vice presidential candidate, and a video of his personal greetings. Bush had already ducked a Republican candidate forum organized by the national Christian Coalition in New Hampshire in February 1999. Interestingly, the Coalition excluded Christian Right third party candidates Pat Buchanan and Howard Phillips from its 2000 Road to Victory conference.12 Part of the strategy of the Bush campaign appeared to be to keep the Christian Right at arms length in public, even though the movement was fairly uniformly supporting the GOP ticket. Apparently Bush campaign strategists calculated that the appearance of a close relationship between Bush and the Christian Right would be a liability for Bush's candidacy. Such an assumption is a measure of the shaky standing of the Christian Right in U.S. public opinion.


Quote:
This drive for "dominion" is underestimated by the media and political analysts. Karl Rove estimates the number of people from the Religious Right who voted for Bush in 2000 to be about 15 million, and he talked about raising that number to 19 million. With the Religious Right's passion to gain control of the federal court system and its ability to send followers to the polls by the busload, Rove's estimate is probably modest, and its number as a voting bloc could exceed 20 million.


Quote:
The Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act, a bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 107th Congress, was intended to bypass campaign finance reform and allow houses of worship to collect money for political campaigns. It was drafted with help from Pat Robertson's law school. These contributions would have been both anonymous and tax exempt. This bill was lobbied for intensively by virtually all the key organizations of the Religious Right, and opposed by a strong coalition of mainline religious groups. It was defeated in the House of Representatives on October 3, 2002, thereby denying unrestricted campaign contributions to be made through the collection plate.

Because most groups except the Religious Right opposed the bill, it was a good measure of their numbers in the House. Roughly 43% of those who voted supported the bill (178 for, 239 against). Candidates backed by the Religious Right won 18 new seats in the House of Representatives. The bill was re-introduced in January, 2003. To read a fact sheet on the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act from the Interfaith Alliance Click Here


Quote:
Another bill was introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives that indicates the strength of the Religious Right. While media attention focused on the two-ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments placed in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court by its Chief Justice Roy Moore, little, if any attention was focused on a House measure that passed on July 23, by a vote of 260 - 161. The bill blocks the federal government from spending any tax funds to enforce the 11th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals order to have the monument removed. During floor debate, the author of the bill insisted that Congress has the power to curb the courts. This bill is an assault on an independent judiciary.


The following is not a joke, even though it reads like a parody:

Quote:
Highlights of the Texas GOP Platform, 2002

"The Republican Party of Texas reaffirms the United States of America is a Christian Nation ..."

1. GOVERNMENT

"We reclaim freedom of religious expression in public on government property, and freedom from government interference."

Support government display of Ten Commandments.

Dispel the "myth" of the separation of church and state.

"A strong and vibrant private sector [should be] unencumbered by excessive government regulation"

Oppose Campaign Finance Reform

Oppose any form of gun control

Abolish:

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms;
position of Surgeon General;
EPA;
Department of Energy;
Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Department of Education;
Department of Commerce and Labor;
National Endowment for the Arts

2. ECONOMY

Abolish the dollar in favor of the gold standard.

Abolish the IRS

Eliminate income tax, inheritance tax, gift tax, capital gains, corporate income tax, payroll tax and property tax.

Repeal minimum wage law.

" ... gradually phase out Social Security tax" for a system of "private pensions"
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 05:48 pm
Lola, you are so informative - how sickening Cool You are not suppose to bring daylight to a bleak world Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/12/2024 at 08:06:58