eBrown I heard you and, for whatever reason, I think you are seeing it through prejudicial eyes which may or may not be of your own making. I am heavily involved in various Christian denominations on the local, regional, and national level and NONE....I repeat NONE....fit the description you are sculpting for Christians and Christian groups in general. I know of some who are guilty of everything you accuse them and justifiably so. These are in a distinct minority and have relatively little influence, but they get huge amounts of press. A majority of the others are pretty centrist and do not support the politics of the far right. A fair number strongly mostly support the politics of the far left.
Christianity at the time of the Founding Fathers, however, was restrictive, judgmental, intolerant , authoritarian and frequently cruel to the point of being deadly. The Baptists, Quakers, Congregationalists, Calvinists, etc. etc. etc. carved out their own little niches and most pretty well excluded everybody else. And it was this kind of Christian expression that heavily influenced or at least colored just about everything our government did in those formative years.
And we nevertheless forged a magnificent Constitution and Republic with the capacity for us to learn and grow and evolve into a pretty decent people that cares about people and provides opportunity for everybody and is pretty much tolerant of everybody within their communities. There is nothing insidious about 90% or more of Americans being people of faith, and there is nothing dangerous about faith being a part of who people of faith are any more than it is dangerous that being athiest is part of who BBB is.
You aren't listening hard enough.
i understand what you're saying, eB. i was struck by a similar thought last night while watching a movie.
but, to me there is a huge difference between someone like billy graham and jerry falwell. robert schuler is world's away from bob jones.
graham and shuler are, imho, ministers that preach the teachings of christ while falwell and jones use christianity as an excuse to peddle intolerance and bigotry. i would include james dobson in the crowd with falwell and jones as well. in some ways, he's worse since he uses people's fears about their children's welfare as a tool to sow disdain for others.
it's the falwells, jones' and dobsons of the country that are driving the fundimental extremist agenda that's got you, and me, all pissed off.
graham, schuler and their type of preacher are just trying to make feel a little better about stuff.
or at least i think that's their intention.
And....sigh....if a news magazine or talk show is going to put on somebody to give the religious point of view, who do they invariably invite? Jerry Falwell. No wonder so many have a distorted view.
In response, let me bring this back to the topic.
Bush consistantly appeals to the American "Christianity" that I am so angry at, and he benefits from this appeal. This is why I agree with the statements that started this digression.
When Bush invokes God-- i.e. saying he will appoint judges who recognize that our "rights were derived from God."-- it is a rhetorical trick, everyone knows what he means (and it doesn't really have anything to do with the Declaration of Independence). He means pro-life, pro-gun, pro-capital punishment, pro-business etc. (IMO pro-life politics are the only part of this supported by a Biblically based theology).
And worse, "Christian" leaders are equating opposition to a far right political position with attacks on "people of faith". The linkage of religion and harsh conservative politics is being made by people inside the religious camp.l
Bush's use of religion is a codeword for a brand of politics that is supported in American churches, and is widely identified with American evangelical Christianity. That it is often directly at odds with the life and teachnings of Christ doesn't seem to matter.
Of course, I accept that Bush does have the right to use religion this way. But I don't think the effects of his use of "Christianity" is good for true Christianity or for the nation.
The fact that there is no discernable "Christian" voice that is speaking up against this use of Faith as a blunt political lever is a problem.
I accept that is your pont of view eBrown. For reasons I've already stated, I think you're dead wrong in your assessment of the situation. George bush evokes references to God and faith no more than Bill Clinton did and uses religious photo ops far less than Clinton did, but somehow it was okay with Clinton and not with Bush. I can only conclude that it is not his religious faith that bugs you leftwingers, but the fact that it is George Bush who has it.
When I hear George Bush say he will appoint judges who know our rights come from God, I hear a voice out of more than two centuries of tradition. You hear something evil. And that is ideology, pure an simple.
ebrown_p wrote:In response, let me bring this back to the topic.
Bush consistantly appeals to the American "Christianity" that I am so angry at, and he benefits from this appeal. This is why I agree with the statements that started this digression.
When Bush invokes God-- i.e. saying he will appoint judges who recognize that our "rights were derived from God."-- it is a rhetorical trick, everyone knows what he means (and it doesn't really have anything to do with the Declaration of Independence). He means pro-life, pro-gun, pro-capital punishment, pro-business etc. (IMO pro-life politics are the only part of this supported by a Biblically based theology).
And worse, "Christian" leaders are equating opposition to a far right political position with attacks on "people of faith". The linkage of religion and harsh conservative politics is being made by people inside the religious camp.l
Bush's use of religion is a codeword for a brand of politics that is supported in American churches, and is widely identified with American evangelical Christianity. That it is often directly at odds with the life and teachnings of Christ doesn't seem to matter.
Of course, I accept that Bush does have the right to use religion this way. But I don't think the effects of his use of "Christianity" is good for true Christianity or for the nation.
The fact that there is no discernable "Christian" voice that is speaking up against this use of Faith as a blunt political lever is a problem.
Yeah and it's a shame that there are a lot of people who fall for his trick without even thinking for one moment about whether his policies are truly Christian and charitable.
That is why the following article was very welcome news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4124418.stm
The Christian Progress Alliance will hopefully last long enough and have enough influence to drown out the nutballs that manage to dominate the political spectrum in the name of reasonable, rational, caring Christians.
I'm not too keen on some of the rather evangelical wording they use, but at least they're better than some of the nutballs that "supposedly" represent the right.
Very interesting Wolf,
The website is
http://www.christianalliance.org
From what they have written on their site, it seems like exactly what I was talking about.
I may be in error here but what I garner from eb's post is pretty much exactly expressed in foxfyre's post of a cartoon yesterday showing a US soldier with a target on his head essential demonstrating that the "liberal media" is actively pursuing harm/death to US soldiers. This flagrant message is filled with unbriddle hate, irrationality and meant to incite violence of thought towards "liberals" who have the gall to question the actions of president Bush.
e-Brown
e-Brown, I think you are right on target---except for one point. I think the radical religious right are trying to take our country back to the time of McKinley for the purpose of reversing the effects of the pitiful efforts of failed reconstruction.
The home base for this radical religious right is in the deep south. They were not satisfied with an Electoral College system in the Constitution that gave them an undemocratic advantage and a disproportional amount of power over the federal government. These are the same states that wanted to leave the US to maintain slavery. When they lost that battle, they then turned to segregation and Jim Crow terrorism to perpetuate the separation of the races. When they lost that battle in the 1960's civil rights movement, they turned to radical religion in an attempt to restore their corrupt power and began to organize forty years ago to achieve that goal.
Its time they lose another battle, don't you think?
BBB
ebrown_p wrote:And worse, "Christian" leaders are equating opposition to a far right political position with attacks on "people of faith". The fact that there is no discernable "Christian" voice that is speaking up against this use of Faith as a blunt political lever is a problem.
i agre with you that opposition to religion being inserted into government and such does more often than not get labeled an "attack on people of faith".
people of good will and true faith know better.
there is at least one org i know of that represents the non-extremist religious view. here's a link;
americans united
the current director is a protestant minister and the group has been around since the '40s. i'm not a member yet, but i support their work.
i also am starting to hear things about similar groups coming together.
I am pretty sure there are liberal Christians. I even know a few...
Brandon9000 wrote:dyslexia wrote:yeah those are good Brandon , them "founding fathers" really had it down good, I especially like "all men are created equal." (well, some men anyway) You like that one too Brandon?
What in God's name are you babbling about? Bush was criticized for referring to religion in speeches, which the Founders also did.
Brandon, you seem to have completely missed the intent of my post. I was not criticizing Bush for referring to religion in a speech. He was criticized for stating that he had a religious test for his judicial nominations. In my view that is against the Constitution.
Quote:Article VI, Section 3: "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
If you take his words literally, a religious test is exactly what he was boasting about. I did not just papaphrase the President's intentions as foxfyre did. I provided a direct quote with reference.
Quote:Pres. GEORGE W. BUSH: We need commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. And those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench.
Transcript
It is also available on video online for those that need to see his lips move and see it put in context of his other actions.
PBS Frontline The Jesus Factor, a President and His Faith.
Re: Liberal Supremes at work
McGentrix wrote:I really, really, really hope Bush gets to get someone on the Supreme Court. This is the second case of late the liberals have blown. I hope you are not the next to lose your home to bureaucracy...
*******************************************************
High court OKs personal property seizures
Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities
Thursday, June 23, 2005; Posted: 10:50 a.m. EDT (14:50 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.
It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.
The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes to generate tax revenue.
Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
This is one piece of evidence that there's Theocracy in our Government.
CG,
What evidence? Despite George Bush's best efforts, I don't think we have a theocracy yet.
