Who Are the Real Religious Bigots?

[mudwhistle]

In all seriousness, when someone tries to force their religious views on others, they need to be stopped. That goes for the folks that actively work to undermine religion in the public venue, and for the folks that would see their religious belief codified as law, be they Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Jewish, or Atheist. That tendency to try to force belief on others is something I see much more often on the Right than on the Left.

That's because you're delusional . . . and blind.

What religious beliefs does the left push?

Sharia Law and Global Warming.

 

[Qball]

And you're clearly a rational thinking being. I never said that there are not folks on the Left who will try to use Federal Power to force their views on others. I just see a lot of "Small Government" types that are all too quick to pass laws supporting their particular views of morality as soon as they're handed the reigns.

They can't be their "particular" views if they convince a majority of people to elect them into office, and since you can't rationally argue that either side succeeds in not doing it (because most issues do boil down to, to one degree or another, what we feel is right or wrong), it's sort of a useless point altogether to try and make one side look like hypocrites for passing laws supporting their views of morality.

Except for the fact that one side engages in this while they also trumpet reduced Federal Power to meddle in our every day lives. Liberals typically make no such claim, while Conservatives that pass such laws while trumpeting reduced government power must be either liars or schizophrenic.

So yes, both are guilty. But one gets the additional problem of doing such things in direct contradiction to their stated goals.

Instead of discussing this in the abstract, exactly which laws are you talking about? Because I'd say liberals play a different game in which they'll complain about said conservatives, and then turn around and do the same thing. So no, liberals wont stand in your way if you're gay and want to marry your partner or if you want an abortion or if you want to legally smoke pot, but they will intervene, say, if you don't want to buy health insurance, if you want to buy your kid a Happy Meal, or if you want to buy your kid a violent video game.

One side wants to save your soul and other wants to save you from yourself. Quibble over which is worse all you want, but in the end it's basically the same.

 

[mudwhistle]

They can't be their "particular" views if they convince a majority of people to elect them into office, and since you can't rationally argue that either side succeeds in not doing it (because most issues do boil down to, to one degree or another, what we feel is right or wrong), it's sort of a useless point altogether to try and make one side look like hypocrites for passing laws supporting their views of morality.

Except for the fact that one side engages in this while they also trumpet reduced Federal Power to meddle in our every day lives. Liberals typically make no such claim, while Conservatives that pass such laws while trumpeting reduced government power must be either liars or schizophrenic.

So yes, both are guilty. But one gets the additional problem of doing such things in direct contradiction to their stated goals.

Instead of discussing this in the abstract, exactly which laws are you talking about? Because I'd say liberals play a different game in which they'll complain about said conservatives, and then turn around and do the same thing. So no, liberals wont stand in your way if you're gay and want to marry your partner or if you want an abortion or if you want to legally smoke pot, but they will intervene, say, if you don't want to buy health insurance, if you want to buy your kid a Happy Meal, or if you want to buy your kid a violent video game.

One side wants to save your soul and other wants to save you from yourself. Quibble over which is worse all you want, but in the end it's basically the same.

I think costs are what's the issue.

Saving your soul is cheap.

Everything the Dems want to do always ends up costing us a ton.

 

[ClosedCaption]

That's because you're delusional . . . and blind.

What religious beliefs does the left push?

Sharia Law and Global Warming.

 

[Immanuel]

In all seriousness, when someone tries to force their religious views on others, they need to be stopped. That goes for the folks that actively work to undermine religion in the public venue, and for the folks that would see their religious belief codified as law, be they Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Jewish, or Atheist. That tendency to try to force belief on others is something I see much more often on the Right than on the Left.

That's because you're delusional . . . and blind.

What religious beliefs does the left push?

Many push tolerance, the problem is that like many Christians, they don't practice their faith.

Immie

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

In all seriousness, when someone tries to force their religious views on others, they need to be stopped. That goes for the folks that actively work to undermine religion in the public venue, and for the folks that would see their religious belief codified as law, be they Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Jewish, or Atheist. That tendency to try to force belief on others is something I see much more often on the Right than on the Left.

That's because you're delusional . . . and blind.

And you're clearly a rational thinking being. I never said that there are not folks on the Left who will try to use Federal Power to force their views on others. I just see a lot of "Small Government" types that are all too quick to pass laws supporting their particular views of morality as soon as they're handed the reigns.

You said it's the religious right that does most of the pushing. That's nonsense.

What religious beliefs does the left push?

Lefyism is pure statism, what doesn't it attempt to impose against the fundamental rights of ideological liberty and free association?

 

[hippie2049]

How dare the Left question Republican aMericans currently engaged in the Republican presidential primaries about their religious views. Republican candidates do not wear religion on their sleeve, so asking them questions about their religious views is an underhanded ploy.

Why isn't anyone asking hard hitting questions like "Is Obama a secret Muslim?" and "Is Obama's Rev (Imam) Jeremiah Wright an America hater?"

Michele Bachman and Rick Perry both advocate notions of Dominionism. Dominionism, in the context of politics and religion, is the tendency among some politically active conservative Christians to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action, especially in the United States. It is also known as subjectionism. The goal is either a nation governed by Christians, or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law.

 

[Political Junky]

How dare the Left question Republican aMericans currently engaged in the Republican presidential primaries about their religious views. Republican candidates do not wear religion on their sleeve, so asking them questions about their religious views is an underhanded ploy.

Why isn't anyone asking hard hitting questions like "Is Obama a secret Muslim?" and "Is Obama's Rev (Imam) Jeremiah Wright an America hater?"

Michele Bachman and Rick Perry both advocate notions of Dominionism. Dominionism, in the context of politics and religion, is the tendency among some politically active conservative Christians to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action, especially in the United States. It is also known as subjectionism. The goal is either a nation governed by Christians, or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law.

That's worked out so well in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

How dare the Left question Republican aMericans currently engaged in the Republican presidential primaries about their religious views. Republican candidates do not wear religion on their sleeve, so asking them questions about their religious views is an underhanded ploy.

Lefty's typical intellectual dishonesty on display once again. From the piece:

It doesn't bother me if the media vet presidential candidates on their religious beliefs and associations, provided equal scrutiny is applied to all of them, including closet secularists. One's worldview invariably informs his political views, and information about those worldviews can't hurt.

But Keller's concern isn't with the religious beliefs of all candidates, only Christians, and not all Christians, just those who take the Bible seriously. He doesn't seem to have any problem with the religious beliefs of non-Christians or about charlatans who opportunistically pass themselves off as Christians. Wouldn't an objective reporter have as much interest in someone fraudulently proclaiming a certain faith as he does in one who sincerely professes a faith he finds repugnant? —David Limbaugh​

Michele Bachman and Rick Perry both advocate notions of Dominionism. Dominionism, in the context of politics and religion, is the tendency among some politically active conservative Christians to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action, especially in the United States. It is also known as subjectionism. The goal is either a nation governed by Christians, or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law.

Nonsense. Hysteria. Crazy talk.

Inevitably, what lefty’s really talking about when he rattles on like this are actions that stop him from imposing his filth. It's just a matter of getting into the specifics.

 

[Ravi]

The reality is that throughout our history, the halls of American government have teemed with Bible-believing Christians, and they've never pushed for theocracy.

Sure they have. Laws about abortion, gay marriage, etc, are all laws of theocracies.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Bush's "faith based initiatives" are an example of what happens when dominionist "regents" are elected.

In 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives voted for provisions in a social services bill that allow religiously based job discrimination in publicly funded programs run by churches.

The Civil Rights Act, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, posed a problem to faith base charities receiving tax-payer dollars, for it bans discrimination in employment on the basis of race, gender, or religion. But religious charities receiving faith based dollars didn't want to be forced to hire people of other religions, and especially didn't want to hire gays or lesbians. Bush didn't let the Civil Rights Act deter him from giving money to charities that discriminate in hiring.

 

[Ravi]

That's because you're delusional . . . and blind.

What religious beliefs does the left push?

Many push tolerance, the problem is that like many Christians, they don't practice their faith.

Immie

Equality and tolerance are two different things.

You don't need to be tolerant of anyone. But you must treat everyone as equals in the eyes of the law. At least in America.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The reality is that throughout our history, the halls of American government have teemed with Bible-believing Christians, and they've never pushed for theocracy.

Sure they have. Laws about abortion, gay marriage, etc, are all laws of theocracies.

Murder, theft, embezzling, graft, assault, battery, rape, having sex with minors, etc. are also considered immoral...

Nice try though.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What religious beliefs does the left push?

Many push tolerance, the problem is that like many Christians, they don't practice their faith.

Immie

Equality and tolerance are two different things.

You don't need to be tolerant of anyone. But you must treat everyone as equals in the eyes of the law. At least in America.

Uhm.. what?

 

[Ravi]

The reality is that throughout our history, the halls of American government have teemed with Bible-believing Christians, and they've never pushed for theocracy.

Sure they have. Laws about abortion, gay marriage, etc, are all laws of theocracies.

Murder, theft, embezzling, graft, assault, battery, rape, having sex with minors, etc. are also considered immoral...

Nice try though.

Laws that limit personal freedoms for moral reasons are theocratic laws.

 

[yidnar]

A college in Indiana just banned the National Anthem for being too violent.

You can't make this shit up.

You know...that has been debated for as long as I remember. It is NOT a new thing. That along with the fact that the melody is damn hard to sing.

it's hard for liberals to sing because a lot have a annoying lisp that many homosexuals in suffer from !!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Sure they have. Laws about abortion, gay marriage, etc, are all laws of theocracies.

Murder, theft, embezzling, graft, assault, battery, rape, having sex with minors, etc. are also considered immoral...

Nice try though.

Laws that limit personal freedoms for moral reasons are theocratic laws.

What is a personal freedom?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

A college in Indiana just banned the National Anthem for being too violent.

You can't make this shit up.

You know...that has been debated for as long as I remember. It is NOT a new thing. That along with the fact that the melody is damn hard to sing.

it's hard for liberals to sing because a lot have a annoying lisp that many homosexuals in suffer from !!

Ok, that's wrong, but I laughed my ass off.

 

[hippie2049]

Lefty's typical intellectual dishonesty on display once again. From the piece

Michele Bachman and Rick Perry both advocate notions of Dominionism. Dominionism, in the context of politics and religion, is the tendency among some politically active conservative Christians to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action, especially in the United States. It is also known as subjectionism. The goal is either a nation governed by Christians, or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law.

Nonsense. Hysteria. Crazy talk.

Inevitably, what lefty’s really talking about when he rattles on like this are actions that stop him from imposing his filth. It's just a matter of getting into the specifics.

Right wing projection the following are all examples nonsense, hysteria, and crazy talk.

The description of Dominionism was copy and pasted from from the Wiki entry on Dominionism.

I am praying for rain in Texas.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The reality is that throughout our history, the halls of American government have teemed with Bible-believing Christians, and they've never pushed for theocracy.

Sure they have. Laws about abortion, gay marriage, etc, are all laws of theocracies.

Here come some of the specifics.

So abortion on demand relative to the life of the unborn is a legitimate right? Note the imposition on another life and the fact that lefty insists on governmentally funded abortions, forcing some to pay for the abortions of others. It's your filthy murder, keep it to yourself.

Gay marriage? Note: lefty isn't arguing that government should get out of the marriage business altogether. No. He's arguing that the power of the government should be expanded further in terms of familial relations, albeit, on the basis of a sexual orientation not recommended by nature; that is to say, a whole new regime of governmentally enforced civil rights protections should be advanced against the fundamental rights of private property, ideological liberty and free association. Of course, queers are free to marry; no one is stopping them. Lefty just wants to make it official as a means of shoving his morality on others, a little social engineering. Hence, he equates governmental silence on the matter as theocracy?! Huh?