The "Christian" right

[Alexander Hamilton]

It's not as if religion is to blame for carjacking, kidnapping, security cameras, security devices on clothing, divorce, child abuse, the change in adults from protecting kids from the adult world to exploiting them as an economic conquest, abortion, shootings over pettiness, intrusive employment applications, attacks on folks smoking a legal product, attacks on restuarants for selling food, animal behavior at sporting events, lewd behavior and language on tv and radio, and so forth.

504278[/snapback]

 

And lack of religion is to blame? All those things, or variants thereof, were around when as you say, religion was more publicly accepted.

 

And as to any implication that religion exists under a rock or something, let's return to the fact that 84% of this country is Christian. An overwhelming majority of US presidents were Christian, and certainly none were any other organized religion. You can get Jesus on the TV and radio at any second of the day.

 

There's some outcry about the oppressed Christians every effing day, and it's so tired. MOST of the country is Christian--you're hardly oppressed.

[stuckincincy]

Hmm, thats true, but if I recall correctly religion is the driving force behind changing the definition of science in this country.

 

I also seem to recall that they are pushing to make gay Americans not equal to straight Americans just because they're not straight.

504456[/snapback]

 

Hmm...I don't think religion or any other thing is going about re-defining science - if that were possible in the first place.

 

The idea is to give exposure to an alternative view. And I am surprised that those who purport to know anything about science would resist the exposition of an alternative. Quite the contrary, in fact. To deny aternative thought would decidedly be bad science.

 

I'm not aware of any law that singles out homosexuals, save for the BS "hate crime" laws that make a mockery of equal justice for all.

[buckeyemike]

I suppose this would be a bad time to bring up my non-mainstream Muslim Pan-Islamic Caliphate speech from two years ago?

504263[/snapback]

 

Go right ahead, I'd love to hear it.

 

Mike

[jshockeyguy7]

ok, maybe i worded it a bit wrong. I too share the sentiment that religion does not belong hand in hand with government at any level. The shame in my opinion is that some people see that as a mandate to remove God or anything close to a sense of morality if it somehow includes religion.

 

We have the ACLU, who has done some good deeds for the country in the past, running around bitching about the words "under god" in our pledge of allegaince. To me that is just insane.

 

People spend too much time arguing about what values our country was founded on. Freedom of religion is one of them for sure, and thats both fine and understandable. But how are words in a pledge alienating these peoples rights? The most signifigant amendment of our constitution is that of speech. If you dont want to say it then dont!

 

The California example is just one of many unfortunately. We now have the people of Oregon claiming that it is justifiable and moral to have two people engage in live sex in buildings near residential zones and schools. If you are a person of moral reasoning i do not understand how this is justifiable. Have sex and go watch sex all you want... just keep it away from residential areas and kids who shouldn't be around this stuff.

 

I guess my real gripe with the whole issue is since when does having a sense of morality and reason mean your a conservative right-wing religious zealot? It seems like there is a blindfold on people of all partisan nature, and it eliminates any sort of reasnable, moral agreements or concessions being reached.

[Chef Jim]

The funny thing is that my Poli Sci prof is a moderate-to-hardcore Libertarian, depending upon the issues.  I was nervous about taking a Poli Sci class, I was afraid I'd get stuck with some devout socialist and learn nothing, but it turned out to be an awesome class.

 

I guess it's because I'm old enough to be most of my classmates' father, but he had me over to his place a few weekends to meet his wife and kids.  We'd have a few "age-appropriate" beverages and shoot the bull.  Real interesting guy that can take and/or argue any position when it comes to politics. I got a lot out of his class - he makes you think for yourself and not regurgitate material from a text.

504134[/snapback]

 

In my best Get Smart voice: "Hope I wasn't out of line with that liberal Christian hating scum remark."

[Campy]

In my best Get Smart voice:  "Hope I wasn't out of line with that liberal Christian hating scum remark." 

504541[/snapback]

Not at all. You were describing my Psych and Sociology professors to a 'T'

[Chilly]

Hmm...I don't think religion or any other thing is going about re-defining science - if that were possible in the first place.

 

The idea is to give exposure to an alternative view. And I am surprised that those who purport to know anything about science would resist the exposition of an alternative. Quite the contrary, in fact. To deny aternative thought would decidedly be bad science.

 

Kansas School Board Redefines Science

 

I'm not aware of any law that singles out homosexuals, save for the BS "hate crime" laws that make a mockery of equal justice for all.

504481[/snapback]

 

Texas Proposition #2 that passed

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Kansas School Board Redefines Science

Texas Proposition #2 that passed

504559[/snapback]

 

Geez. That was so easy, you have to wonder if it was a set-up.

[Chilly]

Geez.  That was so easy, you have to wonder if it was a set-up. 

504569[/snapback]

 

[Campy]

ok, maybe i worded it a bit wrong.  I too share the sentiment that religion does not belong hand in hand with government at any level.  The shame in my opinion is that some people see that as a mandate to remove God or anything close to a sense of morality if it somehow includes religion. 

On an emotional level, I agree 100%. There is a part of me that wonders what it would be like to be raised Buddhist or Muslem in America though. If the roles were reversed for instance, I'd be none too happy with something like Ramadan being crammed down my throat by a passive endorsement of Islam by the government.

 

On one hand is the freedom of religion versus freedom from religion argument, and on the other is the desire to make sure that we're an inclusive nation, not one prone to exclusivity because of religion. That's a great point you made. I don't think there are any easy answers.

 

We have the ACLU, who has done some good deeds for the country in the past, running around bitching about the words "under god" in our pledge of allegaince.  To me that is just insane.

     

People spend too much time arguing about what values our country was founded on.  Freedom of religion is one of them for sure, and thats both fine and understandable.  But how are words in a pledge alienating these peoples rights?  The most signifigant amendment of our constitution is that of speech.  If you dont want to say it then dont! 

Yup. My solution's a lot like yours, but it makes too much sense and is too simple to go anywhere. I always thought that just pausing after "one nation" would do the trick. Don't have the teacher say "under God," but allow the kids to say it if they choose, and make it a non-issue if they'd rather not. Problem solved.

 

The California example is just one of many unfortunately.  We now have the people of Oregon claiming that it is justifiable and moral to have two people engage in live sex in buildings near residential zones and schools.  If you are a person of moral reasoning i do not understand how this is justifiable.  Have sex and go watch sex all you want... just keep it away from residential areas and kids who shouldn't be around this stuff.

I hadn't heard about the Oregon situation, but if that was in my community I'd probably lobby to have the arse of the zoning schmuck who approved that. With all of the freedoms we have, we sometimes forget that they require a great deal of responsibility on the part of those who exercise them. In other words, sex shows by a school is flat out irresponsible.

 

I guess my real gripe with the whole issue is since when does having a sense of morality and reason mean your a conservative right-wing religious zealot?  It seems like there is a blindfold on people of all partisan nature, and it eliminates any sort of reasnable, moral agreements or concessions being reached.

504507[/snapback]

I think the problem may be, or at least my problem is with the people using their religion in arguing their points on moral issues. While I may agree with the person's point, like someone in Oregon who's PO'd that live sex shows take place near a school, they'll lose me as soon as they start thumping a Bible.

 

IMO, their (nor my) religious views should never be used to either restrict rights or to legislate morality. It seems that the Bible-thumping extremists are more vocal than the people with the more secular arguments even though they have the same goal - in this case to put a stop to live sex shows near a school.

 

Legislating morality is tricky business because, as someone pointed out above, the majority of us are Christian. As Christians in a country that promises her citizens the freedom to worship any god as they choose, we have a responsibility to ensure that our faith isn't used to craft law.

 

Good post jshock, I can't say I disagree with anything you said - especially on an emotional level. But hey, sometimes I just gotta' throw my two cents in!

 

And thank you for "fixing" it for me too.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

IMO, their (nor my) religious views should never be used to either restrict rights or to legislate morality.  It seems that the Bible-thumping extremists are more vocal than the people with the more secular arguments even though they have the same goal - in this case to put a stop to live sex shows near a school.

504580[/snapback]

 

First thing I thought of reading this was the all-too frequent PETA protests in front of KFC franchises. Morality-legislating zealotry isn't limited to the bible-thumping Christian right, it's alive and well at both fringes.

[Bill from NYC]

First thing I thought of reading this was the all-too frequent PETA protests in front of KFC franchises.  Morality-legislating zealotry isn't limited to the bible-thumping Christian right, it's alive and well at both fringes.

504695[/snapback]

 

That is different Tom. The "left" knows what is "right" for us.

[RuntheDamnBall]

First thing I thought of reading this was the all-too frequent PETA protests in front of KFC franchises.  Morality-legislating zealotry isn't limited to the bible-thumping Christian right, it's alive and well at both fringes.

504695[/snapback]

You guys can call me when PETA is changing our elections or laws. Sure, they're nuts, but as a percentage of the electorate, or of the left even, how many are members of PETA vs. how many on the right who ascribe to a fundamentalist Christianity?

[Campy]

First thing I thought of reading this was the all-too frequent PETA protests in front of KFC franchises.  Morality-legislating zealotry isn't limited to the bible-thumping Christian right, it's alive and well at both fringes.

504695[/snapback]

No argument, but PETA certainly doesn't use religion to advance their cause. If they did, they'd put themselves out of business. Genesis 1:30 says that God gave us plants and animals to use as food.

[Bill from NYC]

You guys can call me when PETA is changing our elections or laws.  Sure, they're nuts, but as a percentage of the electorate, or of the left even, how many are members of PETA vs. how many on the right who ascribe to a fundamentalist Christianity?

504720[/snapback]

 

Leave your number, because restrictive laws are constantly enacted by the extremist left (although I admit that there is some collaberation by repubs).

It will not be long before barbecues are banned at tailgates. Of this I am sure. Fumes, you know, and the smell of burning flesh which is offensive to militant vegetarians.

 

Your point about the right consisting to some degree of fundamentalist christians is taken.

That said, please don't try to tell us that the dem party isn't up to it's neck with other wackos besides JUST PETA. How about the peace at any and all cost apologists? What about environmentalist extremists? Did you see the anarchists at the NYC Republican Convention? One was pushing around a stroller with an infant on a 90 degree day with a huge sign for abortion rights!

Many leftists demonstrate against the death penalty for any criminal yet march all over the place FOR abortions.

 

The fundamentalists DO make up a good portion of the repubs, but they wouldn't be enough to win elections on their own. The sicko libs have pushed millions of average Americans away from their party. Look at the list of the original 9 ninnies that competed in the dem primary.

Find any extremists in the bunch? Or, is the entire party leadership/membership, other than PETA, just a bunch of Average Joes?

[pope zimli]

The "religious right" has every right to believe what it wants. Hell it even has the right to show up on my porch every once in a while to ak if I have "found Jesus" (I never even knew the guy was lost). However they are going a little far when they try to impose their religious views on the rest of us, many of whom are or are directly descended from folk who came here to avoid persecution from religious bigots (friggin protestants in my case...note however that my brand of religion gave us the inquisition and other examples of religious bigotry). I think we ought to be very careful about politicians who claim to have Jesus, Mohammed or Buddha on their side. Hearing Pat Robertson sit in judgment on the folks of Dover Pennsylvania would be scary, if it weren't for the fact that Pat is such an a-hole.

[Campy]

Leave your number, because restrictive laws are constantly enacted by the extremist left (although I admit that there is some collaberation by repubs).

504734[/snapback]

No argument, but the extremist left isn't claiming that the US is a Christian nation and that Biblical parables should be tought in public schools, which is what this thread's about.

 

The "yeah, but the other guys are worse" angle doesn't cut it in this debate.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Leave your number, because restrictive laws are constantly enacted by the extremist left (although I admit that there is some collaberation by repubs).

It will not be long before barbecues are banned at tailgates. Of this I am sure. Fumes, you know, and the smell of burning flesh which is offensive to militant vegetarians.

 

Your point about the right consisting to some degree of fundamentalist christians is taken.

That said, please don't try to tell us that the dem party isn't up to it's neck with other wackos besides JUST PETA. How about the peace at any and all cost apologists? What about environmentalist extremists? Did you see the anarchists at the NYC Republican Convention? One was pushing around a stroller with an infant on a 90 degree day with a huge sign for abortion rights!

The "extremist left" couldn't get a damn thing done in this country. It's too small. Maybe in Oregon or California, but I'd say the laws they enact are in line with the social values of a lot of people there. I don't think they should legislate them, but nor do I feel that the right should legislate its moralist positions. I suppose you're talking about the smoking ban, but I just can't see barbecues at tailgates being banned, and I'd love to see some evidence of even a proposition for a ban. BTW: smoking ban, signed into state law by that noted leftist George Pataki.

Many leftists demonstrate against the death penalty for any criminal yet march all over the place FOR abortions.

"Many" does not equal a representative figure or percentage. I think the views are more complex on this one. There are plenty of Catholics who are against both the death penalty and abortion. And I don't think it's inconsistent that you can be pro-abortion rights (note, I said "rights," not pro-abortions) and have a child. This is all beyond the point, though. Aside from the smoking ban, which was passed by a city board that I think could hardly be described as leftist, and some ridiculous laws in CA and OR, like the handgun ban, where are leftists controlling the agenda? If they are, it certainly hasn't worked.

 

Perhaps it's just the way I see it, but it appears there is a lot more muscle and power involved in the struggle to get ID, and prayer, in schools, the ten commandments in courtrooms. Maybe it's because religion appeals to the emotions of a lot more people. Maybe the media has just been covering it a lot more, I can't say. But when some whacko bombs a McDonalds, people call him a whacko. When Pat Robertson says hellfire is going to rain on a Pennsylvania town, he gets to appear on CNN. He clearly has more influence and his position, even if widely viewed as nuts, is heard in the public sphere. I am far from advocating that PETA should get a voice in the media, I am just making the case that the far right so-called Christian agenda is very much woven into current American politics, while the fringe left is just that: on the fringe.

The fundamentalists DO make up a good portion of the repubs, but they wouldn't be enough to win elections on their own. The sicko libs have pushed millions of average Americans away from their party. Look at the list of the original 9 ninnies that competed in the dem primary.  Find any extremists in the bunch? Or, is the entire party leadership/membership, other than PETA, just a bunch of Average Joes? 

504734[/snapback]

I'd argue the Republicans wouldn't win elections without the religious right. No way. Not in this day and age. Why else would Bush kowtow to them so often?

 

As for the "original 9 ninnies," I have my own problems with the Democrats and their complete inability to field a reasonable and good candidate. But I'd hardly call them all extremists, and you'd note that the ones who are were considered fringe candidates, like Kucinich and Sharpton. Kerry wasn't an extremist. Hell, he wasn't sure what the hell he was.

 

Edwards was a Southern Democrat, probably the best kind of candidate they could put up, but the trial lawyer thing and his inexperience hurt him. Dean is actually, if you look at his positions, a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. Don't confuse his being mentally unhinged with his positions (which appealed to a lot of people, both Republican and Democrat). Bob Graham, super centrist, not much of a candidate. Wes Clark, entered too late, not unreasonable. Lieberman, giant weenie, about as Republican as one can get for a Democrat. CM Braun, did next to nothing, poor candidate.

 

If these candidates were extreme in any respect, it was that they were on the whole extremely unmotivating and unorganized. Fun to argue, though

Edited November 16, 2005 by RuntheDamnBall

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

No argument, but PETA certainly doesn't use religion to advance their cause.  If they did, they'd put themselves out of business.  Genesis 1:30 says that God gave us plants and animals to use as food.

504722[/snapback]

 

http://www.jesusveg.com/

 

Though when I wrote that, I was thinking more along the lines that PETA is itself a quasi-religious (i.e. a cult) organization.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

You guys can call me when PETA is changing our elections or laws. 

 

You have GOT to be kidding...

 

Sure, they're nuts, but as a percentage of the electorate, or of the left even, how many are members of PETA vs. how many on the right who ascribe to a fundamentalist Christianity?

504720[/snapback]

 

Not exactly a fair comparison, comparing the membership of a specific organization to everyone who "ascribes to" a fundamentalist Christian belief. A fair comparison would be something more akin to comparing PETA/Earth First membership to 700 Club/Operation Rescue membership...which is about the same, about a million each. Or comparing the number of people who share PETA's beliefs and philosophy to the number of people who ascribe to fundamentalist Christianity...which is likewise probably about the same, at several million. But, just like not every Muslim isn't a terrorist, not every vegetarian environmentalist is a member of PETA, and not every fundamentalist Christian is a political extremist, either.

 

But I wholly understand your point of view...when overgeneralization suits you, use it.