Dominionists run for highest office in US

[daveman]

Anyone who harms others or trys to deny the rights of others under the banner of Christianity are not Christians. I have told you that many times.

There is no point in vilifying Christians as a whole. Or the Pentecostal or Apostolic movements.

And dont do the expected and claim that you did not vilify those groups because you have in




this thread and any other thread you can.

I completely agree, those who try to harm others are not true Christians. The problem is, THEY think they are, and THEY call themselves Christians. YOUR statement that ALL terrorists are Muslim is inaccurate.

I wouldn't trust a Pentecostal or the Apostolic movements myself. But, if you happen to be one of them, I won't hold that against you.

I like you.

Dont get all passive agressive on me. You can not claim you like me then bash my faith.

She did the same thing to me. When I didn't accept her overtures, she played the "you're not a good Christian" card.

 

[daveman]

We know from facts and history how many on the left hate religion.

It’s telling how the right always attempts to deflect the issue, in this case with lies represented by the example above. You’ll find no greater advocates of religious freedom then progressive civil libertarians, such as the ACLU and Americans United. Their efforts to keep the wall of separation between church and State ‘high and impregnable’ ensure all Americans remain free to practice the religion of their choice.

The mistake many conservatives make is to incorrectly infer that restricting government via the Establishment Clause is somehow a ‘violation’ of the Free Exercise Clause, when it’s clearly not.

You like to think you're educated. Can you tell us how a President may establish a national religion? No one else has been able to, despite the fear that it will happen.

 

[daveman]

What's your point

Barack Obama invokes Jesus more than George W. Bush

That's different. Somehow. It just is.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I'm kind of right.

You're definitely right leaning.

Not so much as you think. I'm dead center. And I'm not going to take crap from either side.

I am correct. You are not going to take away my freedom of speech. I'll fight you to the death if you ever even consider trying that shit on me by passing legislation that will start the erosion process on freedoms of the American people. You will only be sorry if you succeed, because you will wake up not only the sleeping giant, you will wake up the angry sleeping giant.

I am not personally taking away any of your rights. I support hate crime laws. My friends that I'm visiting hear about the attitudes of people on this message board who oppose hate crime law and are shocked by the ignorance. I told them they think minorities will have "special rights". I say yeah, I bet minorities feel real "special" to be victims of hate crime.

Of course, I know plenty of people who know what it's like to feel discriminated against. I'm staying with some het friends who are a mixed race couple.

Conservative Christian groups seem to be alarmed about two factors:

That the law would inhibit hate speech in religious settings directed against sexual minorities.

That sexual orientation (i.e. heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality) might become a protected class in hate-crimes legislation. This would lead to greater acceptance of homosexuality as a normal and natural sexual orientation for a minority of adults.

Hate crime law does not violate the First Amendment.

"The Supreme Court has squarely rejected the argument that hate crime violates the First Amendment. Although the Court said in the 1992 case of R.A.V. v. St. Paul that the government may not single out a crime for special punishment in virtue of the message it expresses, it later said that this is quite different from specifically penalizing a particular motive, which is constitutionally permissible

Thus, in the 1993 case of Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the Court unanimously said that the First Amendment's prohibition on criminal penalties for hate speech does not bar enhanced penalties for particular motives. Motive analysis, the Court noted, has long been understood as essential to the operation of the criminal law."
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20070509.html

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You're definitely right leaning.

Not so much as you think. I'm dead center. And I'm not going to take crap from either side.

I am correct. You are not going to take away my freedom of speech. I'll fight you to the death if you ever even consider trying that shit on me by passing legislation that will start the erosion process on freedoms of the American people. You will only be sorry if you succeed, because you will wake up not only the sleeping giant, you will wake up the angry sleeping giant.

I am not personally taking away any of your rights. I support hate crime laws. My friends that I'm visiting hear about the attitudes of people on this message board who oppose hate crime law and are shocked by the ignorance. I told them they think minorities will have "special rights". I say yeah, I bet minorities feel real "special" to be victims of hate crime.

Of course, I know plenty of people who know what it's like to feel discriminated against. I'm staying with some het friends who are a mixed race couple.

Conservative Christian groups seem to be alarmed about two factors:

That the law would inhibit hate speech in religious settings directed against sexual minorities.

That sexual orientation (i.e. heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality) might become a protected class in hate-crimes legislation. This would lead to greater acceptance of homosexuality as a normal and natural sexual orientation for a minority of adults.

Hate crime law does not violate the First Amendment.

"The Supreme Court has squarely rejected the argument that hate crime violates the First Amendment. Although the Court said in the 1992 case of R.A.V. v. St. Paul that the government may not single out a crime for special punishment in virtue of the message it expresses, it later said that this is quite different from specifically penalizing a particular motive, which is constitutionally permissible

Thus, in the 1993 case of Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the Court unanimously said that the First Amendment's prohibition on criminal penalties for hate speech does not bar enhanced penalties for particular motives. Motive analysis, the Court noted, has long been understood as essential to the operation of the criminal law."
FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: The President's Disingenuous Arguments Against Expanding the Federal Hate Crime Law

And there is her motive openly admitted to by her.

She would deny any religion that preaches that homosexuality is a sin from doing so. She would violate the 1st AMENDMENT for the sole reason she is gay and has a thin skin.

By the way Sky hate crimes do NOT, in the United States, include speech yet. A Church is free to preach that Homosexuals are sinners if they practice their sexual deviations. BUT you would like them to wouldn't you? Admit it.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Not so much as you think. I'm dead center. And I'm not going to take crap from either side.

I am correct. You are not going to take away my freedom of speech. I'll fight you to the death if you ever even consider trying that shit on me by passing legislation that will start the erosion process on freedoms of the American people. You will only be sorry if you succeed, because you will wake up not only the sleeping giant, you will wake up the angry sleeping giant.

I am not personally taking away any of your rights. I support hate crime laws. My friends that I'm visiting hear about the attitudes of people on this message board who oppose hate crime law and are shocked by the ignorance. I told them they think minorities will have "special rights". I say yeah, I bet minorities feel real "special" to be victims of hate crime.

Of course, I know plenty of people who know what it's like to feel discriminated against. I'm staying with some het friends who are a mixed race couple.

Conservative Christian groups seem to be alarmed about two factors:

That the law would inhibit hate speech in religious settings directed against sexual minorities.

That sexual orientation (i.e. heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality) might become a protected class in hate-crimes legislation. This would lead to greater acceptance of homosexuality as a normal and natural sexual orientation for a minority of adults.

Hate crime law does not violate the First Amendment.

"The Supreme Court has squarely rejected the argument that hate crime violates the First Amendment. Although the Court said in the 1992 case of R.A.V. v. St. Paul that the government may not single out a crime for special punishment in virtue of the message it expresses, it later said that this is quite different from specifically penalizing a particular motive, which is constitutionally permissible

Thus, in the 1993 case of Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the Court unanimously said that the First Amendment's prohibition on criminal penalties for hate speech does not bar enhanced penalties for particular motives. Motive analysis, the Court noted, has long been understood as essential to the operation of the criminal law."
FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: The President's Disingenuous Arguments Against Expanding the Federal Hate Crime Law

And there is her motive openly admitted to by her.

She would deny any religion that preaches that homosexuality is a sin from doing so. She would violate the 1st AMENDMENT for the sole reason she is gay and has a thin skin.

By the way Sky hate crimes do NOT, in the United States, include speech yet. A Church is free to preach that Homosexuals are sinners if they practice their sexual deviations. BUT you would like them to wouldn't you? Admit it.

There is a big difference between preaching that homosexuality is a sin, and gang raping, brutally beating and stabbing a lesbian activist to death.

I'm sorry you can't seem to tell the difference.

RGS you have every right to think gays are committing sin. Hate crime law doesn't prevent that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am not personally taking away any of your rights. I support hate crime laws. My friends that I'm visiting hear about the attitudes of people on this message board who oppose hate crime law and are shocked by the ignorance. I told them they think minorities will have "special rights". I say yeah, I bet minorities feel real "special" to be victims of hate crime.

Of course, I know plenty of people who know what it's like to feel discriminated against. I'm staying with some het friends who are a mixed race couple.

Conservative Christian groups seem to be alarmed about two factors:

That the law would inhibit hate speech in religious settings directed against sexual minorities.

That sexual orientation (i.e. heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality) might become a protected class in hate-crimes legislation. This would lead to greater acceptance of homosexuality as a normal and natural sexual orientation for a minority of adults.

Hate crime law does not violate the First Amendment.

"The Supreme Court has squarely rejected the argument that hate crime violates the First Amendment. Although the Court said in the 1992 case of R.A.V. v. St. Paul that the government may not single out a crime for special punishment in virtue of the message it expresses, it later said that this is quite different from specifically penalizing a particular motive, which is constitutionally permissible

Thus, in the 1993 case of Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the Court unanimously said that the First Amendment's prohibition on criminal penalties for hate speech does not bar enhanced penalties for particular motives. Motive analysis, the Court noted, has long been understood as essential to the operation of the criminal law."
FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: The President's Disingenuous Arguments Against Expanding the Federal Hate Crime Law

And there is her motive openly admitted to by her.

She would deny any religion that preaches that homosexuality is a sin from doing so. She would violate the 1st AMENDMENT for the sole reason she is gay and has a thin skin.

By the way Sky hate crimes do NOT, in the United States, include speech yet. A Church is free to preach that Homosexuals are sinners if they practice their sexual deviations. BUT you would like them to wouldn't you? Admit it.

There is a big difference between preaching that homosexuality is a sin, and gang raping, brutally beating and stabbing a lesbian activist to death.

I'm sorry you can't seem to tell the difference.

RGS you have every right to think gays are committing sin. Hate crime law doesn't prevent that.

Your previous post says you want it to. Your continual lies and open hatred of Christians says you want it to.

Remind us again how a President can change the Constitution.

 

[Sky Dancer]

And there is her motive openly admitted to by her.

She would deny any religion that preaches that homosexuality is a sin from doing so. She would violate the 1st AMENDMENT for the sole reason she is gay and has a thin skin.

By the way Sky hate crimes do NOT, in the United States, include speech yet. A Church is free to preach that Homosexuals are sinners if they practice their sexual deviations. BUT you would like them to wouldn't you? Admit it.

There is a big difference between preaching that homosexuality is a sin, and gang raping, brutally beating and stabbing a lesbian activist to death.

I'm sorry you can't seem to tell the difference.

RGS you have every right to think gays are committing sin. Hate crime law doesn't prevent that.

Your previous post says you want it to. Your continual lies and open hatred of Christians says you want it to.

Remind us again how a President can change the Constitution.

Prove it. Show me the post that says I want to take rights away from Christians.

I didn't say that the President alone can change the Constitution. I've said that it is the expressed goal of dominionists to take over every branch of the government.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is a big difference between preaching that homosexuality is a sin, and gang raping, brutally beating and stabbing a lesbian activist to death.

I'm sorry you can't seem to tell the difference.

RGS you have every right to think gays are committing sin. Hate crime law doesn't prevent that.

Your previous post says you want it to. Your continual lies and open hatred of Christians says you want it to.

Remind us again how a President can change the Constitution.

Prove it. Show me the post that says I want to take rights away from Christians.

I didn't say that the President alone can change the Constitution. I've said that it is the expressed goal of dominionists to take over every branch of the government.

More LIES, you said that if we elect Perry or Bachmann you fear a theocracy will occur. You know that is fear mongering because it simply can't and won't happen.

As for your desire to make speech a hate crime that is clear in the post I quoted.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Your previous post says you want it to. Your continual lies and open hatred of Christians says you want it to.

Remind us again how a President can change the Constitution.

Prove it. Show me the post that says I want to take rights away from Christians.

I didn't say that the President alone can change the Constitution. I've said that it is the expressed goal of dominionists to take over every branch of the government.

More LIES, you said that if we elect Perry or Bachmann you fear a theocracy will occur. You know that is fear mongering because it simply can't and won't happen.

As for your desire to make speech a hate crime that is clear in the post I quoted.

Nope. I'm not in the slightest bit interested in attacking free speech. Hate crime law does not limit free speech.

I said that Bachmann and Perry are dominionists. I think people ought to know that about them when they vote. I won't be voting for either of them.

You can vote for whoever you wish.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So basically, they're the Christian equivalent of Islam's Taliban.

Yes, they are, and they represent a far more dangerous threat to America than Shariah Law.

The "Christian Taliban" , as you call them, is more likely to elect a President in the US than any Muslim ever gets to run for higher office.

You didn't say this?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Founding Fathers were cognizant that religious fanatics may attempt to subvert the secular nature of the Constitution in favor of a theocracy, so they crafted the 1st Amendment to maintain the separation of church and state. However, the religious right is not content to follow the tenets of the Constitution, and through movements like the moral majority have made every attempt to turn America into a theocracy by methods both covert and overt.

It is extraordinarily disturbing that religious organizations would attempt to influence the government or its leaders by preaching from the pulpit and encouraging church members to apply pressure to their representatives, but the past few years have seen an increase in direct involvement by fanatical representatives in Congress and it doesn’t bode well for America as a democracy. The religious right has lobbied for Christian-based, socially conservative policies in the realm of the family and especially to promote pro-life groups and anti-gay initiatives, but the new Christian Reconstructionists and Dominionists are taking their demagoguery to a new level inside the halls of government.



The Threat From Within: Dominionists Taking Over America

You didn't post this?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I can go on if you really want me to?

 

[Sky Dancer]

So basically, they're the Christian equivalent of Islam's Taliban.

Yes, they are, and they represent a far more dangerous threat to America than Shariah Law.

The "Christian Taliban" , as you call them, is more likely to elect a President in the US than any Muslim ever gets to run for higher office.

You didn't say this?

Of course I said that, and I stand by it. I think it is much more likely that we elect a dominionist President than a Muslim one.

It is more likely that we become a Christian theocracy than a Muslim one.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The Founding Fathers were cognizant that religious fanatics may attempt to subvert the secular nature of the Constitution in favor of a theocracy, so they crafted the 1st Amendment to maintain the separation of church and state. However, the religious right is not content to follow the tenets of the Constitution, and through movements like the moral majority have made every attempt to turn America into a theocracy by methods both covert and overt.

It is extraordinarily disturbing that religious organizations would attempt to influence the government or its leaders by preaching from the pulpit and encouraging church members to apply pressure to their representatives, but the past few years have seen an increase in direct involvement by fanatical representatives in Congress and it doesn’t bode well for America as a democracy. The religious right has lobbied for Christian-based, socially conservative policies in the realm of the family and especially to promote pro-life groups and anti-gay initiatives, but the new Christian Reconstructionists and Dominionists are taking their demagoguery to a new level inside the halls of government.



The Threat From Within: Dominionists Taking Over America

You didn't post this?

I did, and I agree with it. Dominionists are much more prevalent in the GOP than they used to be.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Religious hatred comes from all sides, while the Islamofascists have the major handle on it right now.

Freedom of speech stops when it infringes on the rights of others, such as not being subject to state-supported, tax-supported school prayers.

All the rest of the discussion that does not fit within the above is inaccurate.

 

[tonystewart1]

Religious hatred comes from all sides, while the Islamofascists have the major handle on it right now.

Freedom of speech stops when it infringes on the rights of others, such as not being subject to state-supported, tax-supported school prayers.

All the rest of the discussion that does not fit within the above is inaccurate.

Quote me the article section or admendment that address that. The constituion protects you from the govt it does not protect us from each other. That is the job of state statutes passed by the cititzens of the states themselves.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Religious hatred comes from all sides, while the Islamofascists have the major handle on it right now.

Freedom of speech stops when it infringes on the rights of others, such as not being subject to state-supported, tax-supported school prayers.

All the rest of the discussion that does not fit within the above is inaccurate.

Quote me the article section or admendment that address that. The constituion protects you from the govt it does not protect us from each other. That is the job of state statutes passed by the cititzens of the states themselves.

You made the assertion, son, so you defend it.

Too many righties and lefties here make assertions then demand others to refute their nonsense with evidence. Doesn't work that way.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bachmann is probably a dominionist, Perry is simply a clever user of social values concervatives, just as Bush, who promised then took away.

None of them should be prevented from running if qualified. However, their expressed beliefs have consequences as Bachmann and Perry are going to find out.

 

[BDBoop]

Bachmann is probably a dominionist, Perry is simply a clever user of social values concervatives, just as Bush, who promised then took away.

None of them should be prevented from running if qualified. However, their expressed beliefs have consequences as Bachmann and Perry are going to find out.

Meet the Christian Dominionist 'Prayer Warriors' Who Have Chosen Rick Perry as Their Vehicle to Power | | AlterNet