Does Religious People Have A Right to Participate in Politics?

[Adam's Apple]

Hating the "Religious Right"
By Hugh Hewitt for The Weekly Standard
March 31, 2005

THE TERRI SCHIAVO TRAGEDY has been seized on by long-time critics of the "religious right" to launch attack after attack on the legitimacy of political action on the basis of religious belief. This attack has ignored the inconvenient participation in the debate--on the side of resuming water and nutrition for Terri Schiavo--of the spectacularly not-the-religious-rightness of Tom Harkin, Nat Hentoff, Jesse Jackson, and a coalition of disability advocacy groups.

The attack has also been hysterical. After Congress acted--ineffectively, it turned out--Maureen Dowd proclaimed that "theocracy" had arrived in the land. Paul Krugman warned that assassination of liberals by extremists was not far off. And the Internet frenzy on the left was even more extreme.

Into the fray came former Missouri Republican Senator John Danforth, an ordained priest, and much admired man of integrity. In yesterday's New York Times, Senator Danforth blasted the control that he asserts is now held over the Republican party by religious conservatives. Danforth specifically criticized the congressional action on behalf of Schiavo, a proposed Missouri bill that would halt stem cell research, and concerns over gay marriage.

All of these charges--from the most incoherent to the most measured--arrive without definition as to what "the religious right" is, and without argument as to why the agenda of this ill-defined group is less legitimate than the pro-gay marriage, pro-cloning, pro-partial-birth abortion, pro-euthanasia agenda of other political actors.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/419dpncw.asp

 

[dilloduck]

Hating the "Religious Right"
By Hugh Hewitt for The Weekly Standard
March 31, 2005

THE TERRI SCHIAVO TRAGEDY has been seized on by long-time critics of the "religious right" to launch attack after attack on the legitimacy of political action on the basis of religious belief. This attack has ignored the inconvenient participation in the debate--on the side of resuming water and nutrition for Terri Schiavo--of the spectacularly not-the-religious-rightness of Tom Harkin, Nat Hentoff, Jesse Jackson, and a coalition of disability advocacy groups.

The attack has also been hysterical. After Congress acted--ineffectively, it turned out--Maureen Dowd proclaimed that "theocracy" had arrived in the land. Paul Krugman warned that assassination of liberals by extremists was not far off. And the Internet frenzy on the left was even more extreme.

Into the fray came former Missouri Republican Senator John Danforth, an ordained priest, and much admired man of integrity. In yesterday's New York Times, Senator Danforth blasted the control that he asserts is now held over the Republican party by religious conservatives. Danforth specifically criticized the congressional action on behalf of Schiavo, a proposed Missouri bill that would halt stem cell research, and concerns over gay marriage.

All of these charges--from the most incoherent to the most measured--arrive without definition as to what "the religious right" is, and without argument as to why the agenda of this ill-defined group is less legitimate than the pro-gay marriage, pro-cloning, pro-partial-birth abortion, pro-euthanasia agenda of other political actors.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/419dpncw.asp

Shhhhh the ACLU is trying to stay low key before they are in full control.

 

[Nienna]

Religious people not only have the right, they have the duty. Our founding fathers must be turning in their graves that such a question could even be asked. They believed that people should not be allowed to participate in government unless they were professing Christians. Oh how the times have changed!

 

[dilloduck]

Religious people not only have the right, they have the duty. Our founding fathers must be turning in their graves that such a question could even be asked. They believed that people should not be allowed to participate in government unless they were professing Christians. Oh how the times have changed!

Duty ??? Who is encouraging them to take up this duty?? So far all I've seen is the extreme right wing Christians acting like kooks.

 

[CSM]

I guess this raises the question then: should religious people be banned from voting? Dangerous ground to tread on methinks.

 

[dilloduck]

I guess this raises the question then: should religious people be banned from voting? Dangerous ground to tread on methinks.

I think the ACLU feels as long as they are divided and don't vote as a blatant bloc there's no problem. The ACLU will just snipe em one by one.

 

[CSM]

I think the ACLU feels as long as they are divided and don't vote as a blatant bloc there's no problem. The ACLU will just snipe em one by one.

You are probably correct. If it ever gets to the point where we decided who can vote based on their religion (or lack thereof) this country will be beyond help.

 

[musicman]

You are probably correct. If it ever gets to the point where we decided who can vote based on their religion (or lack thereof) this country will be beyond help.

I've got to go with that. When the canary in the coal mine dies, you KNOW you're in the wrong place!

 

[dilloduck]

I've got to go with that. When the canary in the coal mine dies, you KNOW you're in the wrong place!

MM---"canaries" are dropping like flies all over America.

 

[musicman]

MM---"canaries" are dropping like flies all over America.

So true. And, if you're the Monty Python fan I am, you'll know what I mean by this: The enemies of freedom are like Terry Gillam telling John Cleese, "That bird's not dead - he's pinin' for the fjords!"

 

[dilloduck]

So true. And, if you're the Monty Python fan I am, you'll know what I mean by this: The enemies of freedom are like Terry Gillam telling John Cleese, "That bird's not dead - he's pinin' for the fjords!"

Monty Python are pure genius. They can cut straight to the truth with humor

 

[Avatar4321]

Duty ??? Who is encouraging them to take up this duty?? So far all I've seen is the extreme right wing Christians acting like kooks.

Why is it kooky to protect the life of those who cant do it themselves? If people aren't willing to stand for the life and freedom of those who can't stand for themselves then we won't keep our lives or freedom for very long. There is nothing extreme about protecting life. In fact, Id argue that its extreme to encourage a culture of death. Dangerous precedents have been set that if they arent changed will be the downfall of our freedom.

 

[Avatar4321]

So true. And, if you're the Monty Python fan I am, you'll know what I mean by this: The enemies of freedom are like Terry Gillam telling John Cleese, "That bird's not dead - he's pinin' for the fjords!"

I think thats important to remember. There are people who are enemies of freedom. They want to have power over the people and are willing to do whatever it takes to find that power.

Trust me there are elitists out there who think that its dangerous to let the people decide their leaders. They think the average people are too stupid to make the right decision. In fact yesterday in class someone actually raised their hand and said that people are too stupid to govern themselves. Course he was a Bush hater. but its amazing to see what people see.

We need to stay dilligent because if we dont then our children will not have the freedom we do.

 

[musicman]

I think thats important to remember. There are people who are enemies of freedom. They want to have power over the people and are willing to do whatever it takes to find that power.

Trust me there are elitists out there who think that its dangerous to let the people decide their leaders. They think the average people are too stupid to make the right decision. In fact yesterday in class someone actually raised their hand and said that people are too stupid to govern themselves. Course he was a Bush hater. but its amazing to see what people see.

We need to stay dilligent because if we dont then our children will not have the freedom we do.

Amen to that, Avatar.

When I have more time, I'm going to research this a little better, but I clearly recall reading about some frank - and downright brazen - statements about the concept of elitism emanating from the FDR administration. America's inability to govern itself, the outmoded aspects of the Constitution, and the "need" for an "elite" governing class were articles of faith with that bunch. The name "Murdoch" - Roosevelt's ideological soulmate on these matters - rings a bell.

 

[Adam's Apple]

... should religious people be banned from voting?

That will be the next step in the liberal/socialist agenda if we are not vigilant.