1
   

Are We To Become A Christian Fundamentalist Nation?

 
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 05:54 pm
Brown
Quote:
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
.

This as you say doesn't make sense. What you are implying that if religious fanatics somehow capture the congress it is there right to impose their religious beliefs upon us all. You are apparently in concert with the religious right. That is exactly what they believe.

As to calling them Taliban. I think that is a darn good analogy. A religious zealot is a religious zealot. American or not. They all have the same aim to impose their beliefs upon all.

The imposition of his religious beliefs upon us was through the denial of funds for research. There are many ways for the president to impose his will upon the electorate.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 06:04 pm
Here's some more from the same site:

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


Quote:
Christianization of the Republican Party: In Their Own Words

"Christianization of the Republican Party," an article from the The Christian Statesman, claims, "Once dismissed as a small regional movement, Christian conservatives have become a staple of politics nearly everywhere." "Christian conservatives now hold a majority of seats in 36% of all Republican Party state committees (or 18 of 50 states), plus large minorities in 81% of the rest, doubled their strength from a decade before."

The article explains, "the twin surges of Christians into GOP ranks in the early 1980s and early 1990s have begun to bear fruit, as naïve, idealistic recruits have transformed into savvy operatives and leaders, building organizations, winning leadership positions, fighting onto platform committees, and electing many of their own to public office. "

The Christian Statesman is a publication of the National Reform Association. Who is the National Reform Association?

"The mission of the National Reform Association is to maintain and promote in our national life the Christian principles of civil government, which include, but are not limited to, the following:

"Jesus Christ is Lord in all aspects of life, including civil government.

"Jesus Christ is, therefore, the Ruler of Nations, and should be explicitly confessed as such in any constitutional documents. The civil ruler is to be a servant of God, he derives his authority from God and he is duty-bound to govern according to the expressed will of God.

"The civil government of our nation, its laws, institutions, and practices must therefore be conformed to the principles of Biblical law as revealed in the Old and New Testaments." Click Here.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 06:11 pm
Au,

This is a democracy!

Who determines what is a "religious fanatic"? Do you think you have the right to make this decision for the nation?

You say that someone can impose there beliefs on you by withholding funds for reasearch. Others will say that you are forcing your beliefs on them by using public funds for something they find immoral.

How do we decide?

Well, This is a Democracy.

If a majority of Americans decide the fetal research is immoral, they will elect officials who will pass laws to prohibit it. The minority can make their voice heard, but will eventually need to accept the will of the people. That is how Democracy works.

I will assert that Democracy is the best way to resolve these issues. Each American will support their views (religion and non). After a public debate the issue will be decided by elected officials. Those who you are calling the "religious right" are Americans and they are acting as part of the process.

Anyway, What makes you so sure that your moral vision for the nation is the correct one?
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 06:20 pm
More from The Rise of the Christian Right in the Republican Party

http://www.4religious-right.info/introduction.html

Quote:
How did this happen?

Voter apathy is the key to the phenomenal ascent of the Religious Right in the U.S. government. "With the apathy that exists today, a small, well-organized minority can influence the selection of candidates to an astonishing degree." Pat Robertson wrote these words in The Millennium, 1990, and it has been a key organizing principle of the Religious Right ever since.

Pat Robertson tells us who makes up that "well-organized minority." It includes only Christians who share his point of view. As he said on his television program, the 700 Club: "You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists, and this and that and the other thing. Nonsense! I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist." (Pat Robertson, the Most Dangerous Man in America? Rob Boston),

"The apathy of other Americans can become a blessing and advantage to Christians," wrote Mark Belisle and Stephen McDowell in 1989, in America's Providential History a popular textbook for Christian schools and the Christian homeschool movement. "If just 10% of all Christians in America today woke up and realized how easy it is, got involved consistently for the long haul, it would not take long to reform America completely."

For the authors, the term "Christian" refers to a very narrow group of people. The word "reform" is key. It means reforming the United Sates so that it becomes a "Christian" nation, or theocracy. The Texas Republican Party Platform, 2002, supports the same goal: "The Republican Party of Texas affirms that the United States is a Christian nation."

"How long?" continue Belisle and McDowell. "Believe it or not, it could be done within ten years…every godly representative in the state legislatures and the Congress could ... work with a godly president. New judicial appointments would begin radically changing ... the…courts ... One thing of great importance is for you to fulfill your Biblical duty to choose a godly representative by getting involved in local party politics for the rest of your life.


The following is from an article

Jesus Plus Nothing
By Jeffrey Sharlet

From the March 2003 issue of Harper's Magazine


http://www.harpers.org/online/jesus_plus_nothing/?pg=1.htm

Quote:
Ivanwald, which sits at the end of Twenty-fourth Street North in Arlington, Virginia, is known only to its residents and to the members and friends of the organization that sponsors it, a group of believers who refer to themselves as "the Family." The Family is, in its own words, an "invisible" association, though its membership has always consisted mostly of public men. Senators Don Nickles (R., Okla.), Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), Pete Domenici (R., N.Mex.), John Ensign (R., Nev.), James Inhofe (R., Okla.), Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), and Conrad Burns (R., Mont.) are referred to as "members," as are Representatives Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), Frank Wolf (R., Va.), Joseph Pitts (R., Pa.), Zach Wamp (R., Tenn.), and Bart Stupak (D., Mich.). Regular prayer groups have met in the Pentagon and at the Department of Defense, and the Family has traditionally fostered strong ties with businessmen in the oil and aerospace industries. The Family maintains a closely guarded database of its associates, but it issues no cards, collects no official dues. Members are asked not to speak about the group or its activities.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 06:24 pm
Pogo------
0 Replies
 
Diane
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 06:27 pm
Lola, your last two posts underscore the impact of the religious right on politics. All of the information you provided should be used in every political speech during this election period. I would be willing to bet that most Christians would be amazed at the greedy grasp for power that fundamentalists have been working on since the 80's.

Au, I don't think any person on this thread has been called hysterical. That word has been used to describe what happens when fear becomes hatred and when that kind of hatred begins to lose its rationality. Hysteria has been a part of politics from the beginning. It is encouraged by both the left and the right to give a kick to the electorate to kick the 'others' out of office.

So far, I haven't seen any hysteria on this thread--just good information. I guess some of us disagree on how we should proceed in ousting the fundamentalist right and whether they are purposely imposing their doctrine on this country's government. It makes for a good debate.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 06:32 pm
Brown
Quote:
Those who you are calling the "religious right" are Americans and they are acting as part of the process.


What process is that. The imposition of their religious values upon us. That is what the Taliban or all religious fundamentalists believe. The are doing it for our good. I will say again that is the reason for the principle of separation of church and state. The problems and conditions in the mid east stem from the belief that religious law should be civil law. Do we need a better example of the dangers of that thinking?

Quote:
Anyway, What makes you so sure that your moral vision for the nation is the correct one
?
Have not voiced any moral vision. My only problem is the making of national decisions based upon religious convictions of a particular religious denomination
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 06:35 pm
And a little bit more:

http://www.4religious-right.info/religious_right_dominion_over_judiciary2.html

Quote:
Speech by Ralph Neas

Ralph Neas, President of People for the American Way, spoke before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, October 10, 2002. He told the committee, "Mr. Chairman, the debate over the federal judiciary is part of an epic battle over the role of the federal government. The two-prong strategy of the right-wing of the Republican Party is simple but breathtakingly radical. First, enact a permanent tax cut which will eliminate $6 trillion in revenue over the next 20 years. That will in effect starve the federal government so it will be unable to fund many vital governmental functions performed since the New Deal.

"The second prong is to pack the federal judiciary with right-wing ideologues whose judicial philosophy would turn back the clock on civil rights, environmental protections, religious liberty, reproductive rights and privacy and so much more. Take away the money. And then take away legal rights that have been part of our constitutional framework for 65 years. We do indeed need a national debate. Before the American people wake up one morning and discover that their fundamental rights and liberties have vanished overnight."
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 06:44 pm
Religious Right Hijacks Stem Cell Debate

By Robert Kuttner
Web Exclusive: 12.10.01

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2001/12/kuttner-r-12-10.html
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 09:01 pm
Au,

This is a Democracy. (but we are just going in circles here.)

You clearly don't like those you call the "religious right". You have expressed at least one part of your moral vision -- i.e. the stem cell debate.

Please answer two question for me:

1) Outside of acting as part of the democratic system -- that is participating in elections, expression opinions, and instituting policy as an elected officieal. How are those you call the "religious right" imposing their will on you?

2) What are you proposing we do about it? A large part of society must support a candidate in order to be elected, This is the protection offered by a Democracy.

How do you propose we protect you from elected officials?
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 09:25 pm
ebrown,

Quote:
A large part of society must support a candidate in order to be elected,


This is an oversimplification. If you like, I'll provide some information that will demonstrate the conplexity of our political system and how minorities, specifically, this minority, get votes.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 09:28 pm
Lola, I would be interested!
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 09:28 pm
Poll worker: Before we register your vote, I need to ask you a few questions.

Voter: Uh .. Uh I.. I don't want to tell you who ...

PW: [laughs] Oh I am not going to ask you *who* you voted for. Under the "Protection from fundamentalism" act, I just need to determine *why* you voted.

So what issues determined your decision?

Voter: What do you mean?

PW: Well I need to make sure that you didn't vote for any religious reason. Just tell me what is the issue most important to you?

Voter: Well... capital punishment is important. I am against capital punishment.

PW: Hmmm. That is a hard one. Would you say your opinion is religiously based?

Voter: What do you mean?

PW: OK, do you believe that God is against capital punishment?

Voter: I guess so. Is that a problem?

PW: It may be. That is certainly a religious reason. Do you have any other reasons for being against capital punishment?

Voter: It kills someone.

PW: That's good, but we need to determine if your opinion about killing is religiously based. Do you think God is against killing?

Voter: Of course God is against killing...

PW: See, you are expressing a religious view. You are imposing your beliefs about God on other people. This is just the thing the "Protection from fundamentalism" act is trying to stop.

Voter: You mean I can't support a candidate because of her stance on capital punishment?

PW: Of course you can - as long as you are not religious about it. You need to make your decision outside of your religious faith.

Voter: How can I do that?

PW: Would you be against capital punishment if you didn't believe in God?

Voter: I believe in God. That's who I am. How could I possibly know how I would think if I didn't believe in God?

PW: Than I am sorry. I can't count your vote. The American public wants to be sure that you don't impose your religious views on them.

Voter: What if I am against capital punishment because of the expense?

PW: In that case... OK... Well is there a religious reason that you are against spending money?

Voter: No. I just don't like spending money

PW: Great! Now why didn't you just say that in the first place?

Voter: Then does my vote count?

PW: Not so fast....the anti-capital punishment candidate is also pro-life. As you know this is a potentially religious issue. Why do you support this position?

Voter: arrrgh
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 09:29 pm
Lola,

I am much more interested in your suggestions for changing our democratic system.

How would you solve the problem? (outside of my modest proposal).
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 11:17 pm
From the Netscape home page:Origins of Life studies
Quote:
Did Life Really Originate From THIS?

The tenets of many religious faiths hold that life sprung from clay. Science has now backed that up. Researchers from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston have shown that materials in clay were key to some of the initial processes in forming life, reports Reuters.

The essential material is a clay mixture called montmorillonite that not only helps create little bags of fat and liquid, but also helps cells use genetic material called RNA--one of the key processes of life. Earlier research showed that clay could catalyze the chemical reactions needed to make RNA from building blocks called nucleotides. Reuters reports that scientists Jack Szostak, Martin Hanczyc, and Shelly Fujikawa have now figured out that clay speeds up the process by which fatty acids form vesicles, tiny bag-like structures. In addition, the clay carries RNA into the vesicles.

"Thus, we have demonstrated that not only can clay and other mineral surfaces accelerate vesicle assembly, but assuming that the clay ends up inside at least some of the time, this provides a pathway by which RNA could get into vesicles," Szostak said in a statement announcing the findings. "The formation, growth, and division of the earliest cells may have occurred in response to similar interactions with mineral particles and inputs of material and energy."

What does this mean? First, Szostak emphasizes the team is not saying this is how life started. "We are saying that we have demonstrated growth and division without any biochemical machinery. Ultimately, if we can demonstrate more natural ways this might have happened, it may begin to give us clues about how life could have actually gotten started on the primitive Earth."

But the faithful have long believed that life formed from clay and the dust of soil. In the Old Testament there are multiple references:

Book of Genesis 3:19
God speaks to Adam in the Garden of Eden and says: "In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return."

Job 34:14-15
"If he should take back his spirit to himself, and gather to himself his breath,
all flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust."

Psalm 104:29
When thou hidest thy face, they are dismayed; when thou takest away their breath, they die and return to their dust.

The research findings were published in the journal Science.

Now, as a former Bio student, I am familiar with the research, and have tried to keep abreast of origin of life studies (Quick plug for RNA world advocates...Tom Chech, the person who discovered RNA autocatalysis is here at CU BOulder..Woo Hoo! Anyway...), however I disagree with the wisdom of including the bible verses in the story. It is all too easy for me to imagine a near future when research will have to be "biblically based" to be funded. Sad
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 11:26 pm
Hey hobitbob --

Pretty cool that the ribosome is a ribozyme, eh?
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 11:39 pm
Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Nov, 2003 11:49 pm
Hobitbob,

I'll work on that project tomorrow........tonight, I'm going to sleep.
0 Replies
 
Monger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2003 06:35 am
hobitbob wrote:
It is all too easy for me to imagine a near future when research will have to be "biblically based" to be funded. Sad

In the US? Don't hold your breath for that, bob. This is exactly the type of fear-mongering I believe ebrown is speaking of.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Nov, 2003 07:24 am
Brown.

Quote:
1) Outside of acting as part of the democratic system -- that is participating in elections, expression opinions, and instituting policy as an elected official. How are those you call the "religious right" imposing their will on you?

2) What are you proposing we do about it? A large part of society must support a candidate in order to be elected, This is the protection offered by a Democracy.



How can or does the religious right impose their will upon you? By capturing the tools of government. How is that accomplished? Through the vote. How is a minority, and they are a minority, able to wrest the tools of government from the majority? Simple by being aided and abetted by an electorate that is either too lazy or stupid to vote. They on the other hand vote as a solid group. Unfortunately when people come out of their stupor it is too later to do much about it. Democracy can only protected in this country by the vote. Use it or lose it.
IMO the religious right poses a major threat to our democracy and democratic values and is constantly on the attack. And if we sit idly by doing and saying nothing we become their enablers.
I will end this as we almost always do in disagreement.
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 © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 06:16:53