Religious Intolerance Cuts Both Ways!!

[Bonnie]

Cal Thomas

April 20, 2005

Democrats, who have been taking a crash course in the language of religion in hopes of winning some "values voters" away from Republicans in time for the next election, are agitated about a telecast scheduled for Sunday, April 24.

The event will feature not only some prominent religious conservatives, but also Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. The announced purpose of "Justice Sunday" is to pressure senators to do away with the requirement of a "super majority" of 60 votes before a filibuster against President Bush's judicial nominees can be broken. The sponsors of the telecast, a coalition of Christian conservative groups, want a simple majority, improving the likelihood that most of Bush's nominees would be confirmed.

Democrats claim the telecast, which will be distributed to churches, Christian TV and radio stations and the Internet, will suggest members of their party are against "people of faith." They charge Republicans with exploiting religion for partisan ends. The New York Times and Washington Post published lead editorials last Saturday (Times) and Sunday (Post) criticizing the gathering.

The Times editorial was titled "Bill Frist's Religious War" and claimed the group sponsoring the telecast is guilty of "intolerance." It also asserted the judges Democrats may wish to filibuster are "unqualified."

Apparently the American Bar Association endorsement of these judges is no longer sufficient for the Times, which once believed ABA approval was the gold standard for determining the qualification of a candidate for the federal bench.

The Times, which needs to take some medication and lie down for a while, also charged Frist with trying to confirm judges who would "accept a theocratic test on decisions."

Sen. Richard Durbin, Illinois Democrat, must not have been paying attention to "progressive Christian" Rev. Jim Wallis, who has been trying to teach Democrats the language of faith.

Durbin said, "I cannot imagine that God - with everything he has or she has to worry about - is going to take the time to debate the filibuster in heaven." Gender confusion about God won't play well in red states, Senator, where the deity is regarded as "Father."

This isn't really about religion. It's about results. Liberals have been happy to align themselves with clergy and congregants who preached a social gospel that mostly followed the Democratic Party line.

From abortion, to gay rights, the ordination of homosexual priests, same-sex "marriage," disarmament, peace movements, environmentalism, government programs and a host of other issues, any clergy or lay person who signed off on the agenda and objectives of liberals was more than welcome at the political table and was never thought to be a threat to the Constitution or accused of attempting to impose a theocracy.

But let conservatives organize to express themselves and suddenly we are told they are a danger to our way of life and religious storm troopers can soon be expected at the door to take us away in the middle of the night to dungeons where we will be brainwashed into accepting the religious and political doctrines of the uneducated fanatics.

For better, and sometimes for worse, "people of faith" have spoken to moral and political issues since before the founding of the nation. Why is the republic in danger only when conservative religious people speak and act? Why are only conservatives seeking to impose a "theocracy" and liberals are never charged with such motives?

The answer is that liberals fear their earthly power is slipping away. They are less able to impose a secular leftist world view on the country. They know that the courts have been the only means by which they have been able to force their views on a majority who do not share them.

Christian conservatives have the same constitutional right to use the political system to advance their views as religious and secular liberals do. Whether they should expect government to restore their view of righteousness is another matter. But to deny them that right is to make them second-class citizens and denigrate their faith. Isn't that the ultimate intolerance?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/printct20050420.shtml

 

[007]

Democrats claim the telecast, which will be distributed to churches, Christian TV and radio stations and the Internet, will suggest members of their party are against "people of faith."

There's no "suggest" about it, it's pure and simple "FACT".

Religon stands in the way of abortion, queers wanting to marry, or any one of a myriad of other immoral reasons liberals champion that are in complete opposition to the Bible.

Keeping liberals in check from flushing this country down the toilet is a full time job. Their ever present push on humanity into the gutter is lead by none other than the devil himself. He's in hell laughing his ass off as his legions of anti-religon robots do their level best to destroy morality. He has charged the godless with opposing anything to do with religon.

 

[suspiria]

There's no "suggest" about it, it's pure and simple "FACT".

Religon stands in the way of abortion, queers wanting to marry, or any one of a myriad of other immoral reasons liberals champion that are in complete opposition to the Bible.

Keeping liberals in check from flushing this country down the toilet is a full time job. Their ever present push on humanity into the gutter is lead by none other than the devil himself. He's in hell laughing his ass off as his legions of anti-religon robots do their level best to destroy morality. He has charged the godless with opposing anything to do with religon.

Democrats dont oppose everything to do with religon, we know there is a seperation of church and state, not to mention not everyone in this country believes in the bible, and thats not wrong.

 

[Bonnie]

Democrats dont oppose everything to do with religon, we know there is a seperation of church and state, not to mention not everyone in this country believes in the bible, and thats not wrong.

There is no actual seperation of church and state even mentioned in the constitution as members here have noted many times over, if you do a search on previous posts you will see all the replies on this. Many in this country do in fact believe in the bible and as such make up a large voting constituency. Of course it's not wrong to not believe in the bible but it is for a minority of people to make bad law for the majority. What religious people do not like is to be told to sit down shut up and keep their ideas to themselves because some of those ideas are rooted in faith.

 

[suspiria]

There is no actual seperation of church and state even mentioned in the constitution as members here have noted many times over, if you do a search on previous posts you will see all the replies on this. Many in this country do in fact believe in the bible and as such make up a large voting constituency. Of course it's not wrong to not believe in the bible but it is for a minority of people to make bad law for the majority. What religious people do not like is to be told to sit down shut up and keep their ideas to themselves because some of those ideas are rooted in faith.

I agaree everyone should have there own opinion, but when people dont believe in the bible, there looked at as inmoral. I think some republicans vote based on fate alone, because they feel very stongly about there beliefs.

 

[dilloduck]

Democrats dont oppose everything to do with religon, we know there is a seperation of church and state, not to mention not everyone in this country believes in the bible, and thats not wrong.

The ACLU does THAT dirty work for them

 

[dmp]

I agaree everyone should have there own opinion, but when people dont believe in the bible, there looked at as inmoral. I think some republicans vote based on fate alone, because they feel very stongly about there beliefs.

You have issue with people voting based on their beliefs? Weird.

 

[suspiria]

You have issue with people voting based on their beliefs? Weird.

no I think some republicans vote soley on there RELGIOUS beliefs. I dont have an issue I was just saying thats what I have noticed.

 

[dmp]

Democrats dont oppose everything to do with religon, we know there is a seperation of church and state, not to mention not everyone in this country believes in the bible, and thats not wrong.

Here's some free education for you:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That's it.

 

[dmp]

no I think some republicans vote soley on there RELGIOUS beliefs. I dont have an issue I was just saying thats what I have noticed.

...and Democrats do as well. People are the sum of their experiences...that includes upbringing...faith...morals.

Atheists vote based on 'their' views on religion, too.

 

[suspiria]

Here's some free education for you:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That's it.

Im not saying people shouldnt do it or I think its wrong

 

[dilloduck]

no I think some republicans vote soley on there RELGIOUS beliefs. I dont have an issue I was just saying thats what I have noticed.

And some people vote for people because they look nice-----whats your point?

 

[dmp]

Im not saying people shouldnt do it or I think its wrong

...and I'm just making sure you understand what how Constitution 'protects' religion. You mis-used the "Seperation of Church and State" above: I want to make sure you are clear in your understanding.


Oh...and welcome to the board, n00b!

 

[suspiria]

And some people vote for people because they look nice-----whats your point?

I was just pointing it out, democrats and republicans are different in the way they vote

 

[dilloduck]

I disagree---I think all people vote for who they think is the better candidate.

 

[suspiria]

I disagree---I think all people vote for who they think is the better candidate.

During the last election alot of people went to the polls, to vote against gay marriage, while they were there they voted for bush. I think if they felt strongly with kerry on other issues, they still voted bush. Because they felt so stongly about gay marriage, it's something that there religon said was wrong

 

[dmp]

During the last election alot of people went to the polls, to vote against gay marriage, while they were there they voted for bush. I think if they felt strongly with kerry on other issues, they still voted bush. Because they felt so stongly about gay marriage, it's something that there religon said was wrong

I think you'd be surprised how many non-religious people have the common-sense ability to know homosexuality is a perverse, destructive lifestyle.

 

[suspiria]

I think you'd be surprised how many non-religious people have the common-sense ability to know homosexuality is a perverse, destructive lifestyle.

Well thats one opinion, and some might say it shows intolerance. People think its wrong because the bible says so, where else would you get the idea from??? If the bible didnt say so, do you think so many people would be against it?

 

[dmp]

Well thats one opinion, and some might say it shows intolerance. People think its wrong because the bible says so, where else would you get the idea from??? If the bible didnt say so, do you think so many people would be against it?

There are PLENTY of discussions about Homosexualty and Homosexual-Marriage on this board - no need to hijack this particular thread.



Search!

 

[dilloduck]

Well thats one opinion, and some might say it shows intolerance. People think its wrong because the bible says so, where else would you get the idea from??? If the bible didnt say so, do you think so many people would be against it?

the bible says not to kill-----then is punishing murderers merely intolerant ?