The End of the Christian Right

[The Gadfly]

Er, no, I do not want theocracy.

And you apparently have no idea what it is.

I know precisely what it is, a system where a particular set of religious beliefs is made the sole law of the land. When you advocate a so-called "personhood law" based on a set of religious beliefs that defines what a person is (as opposed to the constitutional definition, you are advocating for theocracy. When you advocate everyone else being forced to comply with what a particular religion says is "moral" you are advocating theocracy. When you would place a sectarian view of right and wrong, over and above the constitution and the rule of secular law, you are advocating theocracy You have advocated here, repeatedly, what amounts to government of Christians, for Christians, and by Christians, and to hell with anyone else's opinion on the subject, because Christians are always right, and any opinion to the contrary is always wrong. As a Christian, as a conservative and above all, as an American who values the constitution, and the Republic of law it created, I find that offensive, in the extreme. It is no more acceptable, for fanatical Christians to impose their religious beliefs and standards on others by force of law, than it is for fanatical Muslims to impose their religious beliefs and standards on others by the sword. BOTH are equally reprehensible. BOTH are an offense against liberty and frankly an affront to the notion of a great and loving God who gave to that created in HIS image the gift of free will. I once again repeat the charge I made earlier, that to do as you wish, would place the state in the de facto position of GOD.

After over sixty five years on this planet, I am not sure of much, but I am sure of this: there is a God, and I'm not him. Neither are YOU. You have every right to practice your faith; you have every right to live it in your daily life; indeed, you have every right to so live that people would look to you and ask "What do you have that sustains you? What do you have that your character is so noble? What do you have that your behavior is so just?" Well, do you do that? Or is it just a bit easier to say "I'm right, God says I'm right; you are wrong, because you don't agree with me, and since God cannot judge you at the moment, I will, and I have the right to ask the state to execute that judgment in His behalf, because I said so! Yours, as John Stuart Mill so eloquently said, "...is the position, which, when carried to its logical conclusion, amounts to nothing more nor less than this, that every other human being shall behave exactly as I think he ought; and the moment he shall deviate in the smallest particular therefrom, I have the right to full redress under the law."

That's tyranny, and when religious faith, belief and doctrine forms the basis and the justification for the same, that, my dear, IS a theocracy!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Religious tyranny often leads to judicial murder: witness the Inquisition, witness the Puritans. Organized religion and government will not be allowed to be intertwined in America.

 

[koshergrl]

Liberty is a Christian tenet, ppl. The founding fathers founded this country using CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE.

Using your boneheaded logic, that should make us a theocracy. But we aren't.

And I've never promoted theocracy, just as I've never said that all babies should be brought to term (another false stance that JS has attributed to me, then proceeded to argue against as if I'd actually said or believed it.)

Babies are human, just as handicapped people are human, just as old people are human. You can pretend it's just "religious nonsense"...but then all those strictures that allow us to look as humans as something a little "special" come from a tradition that we have the divine spark. I understand that progressives want to relegate us to dog status, and count progress as sliding back into the dark ages with regards to killing off unfit humans and denying ourselves to partake of the developments that enhance our quality of life, but that's just a progressive extremist thing.

 

[Newby]

Er, no, I do not want theocracy.

And you apparently have no idea what it is.

I know precisely what it is, a system where a particular set of religious beliefs is made the sole law of the land. When you advocate a so-called "personhood law" based on a set of religious beliefs that defines what a person is (as opposed to the constitutional definition, you are advocating for theocracy. When you advocate everyone else being forced to comply with what a particular religion says is "moral" you are advocating theocracy. When you would place a sectarian view of right and wrong, over and above the constitution and the rule of secular law, you are advocating theocracy You have advocated here, repeatedly, what amounts to government of Christians, for Christians, and by Christians, and to hell with anyone else's opinion on the subject, because Christians are always right, and any opinion to the contrary is always wrong. As a Christian, as a conservative and above all, as an American who values the constitution, and the Republic of law it created, I find that offensive, in the extreme. It is no more acceptable, for fanatical Christians to impose their religious beliefs and standards on others by force of law, than it is for fanatical Muslims to impose their religious beliefs and standards on others by the sword. BOTH are equally reprehensible. BOTH are an offense against liberty and frankly an affront to the notion of a great and loving God who gave to that created in HIS image the gift of free will. I once again repeat the charge I made earlier, that to do as you wish, would place the state in the de facto position of GOD.

After over sixty five years on this planet, I am not sure of much, but I am sure of this: there is a God, and I'm not him. Neither are YOU. You have every right to practice your faith; you have every right to live it in your daily life; indeed, you have every right to so live that people would look to you and ask "What do you have that sustains you? What do you have that your character is so noble? What do you have that your behavior is so just?" Well, do you do that? Or is it just a bit easier to say "I'm right, God says I'm right; you are wrong, because you don't agree with me, and since God cannot judge you at the moment, I will, and I have the right to ask the state to execute that judgment in His behalf, because I said so! Yours, as John Stuart Mill so eloquently said, "...is the position, which, when carried to its logical conclusion, amounts to nothing more nor less than this, that every other human being shall behave exactly as I think he ought; and the moment he shall deviate in the smallest particular therefrom, I have the right to full redress under the law."

That's tyranny, and when religious faith, belief and doctrine forms the basis and the justification for the same, that, my dear, IS a theocracy!

And what do you call it whenever any other group's beliefs or morals are forced on people via government fiat when they're not tied to a specific 'religion'? What makes their set of beliefs or morals any more right to force on people than a so called religious group advocating that their morals are the ones followed? My interpretation is that as long as your beliefs and morals aren't tied to a religion, then it's okay to force them on others and legislate them using government force. They aren't as easily singled out or grouped together as the so called 'religious' morals, so there is no criticism of them, but they are no different at all. Creating laws based around society's morals is hardly creating a theocrasy, regardless of where the morals originate from. No one is forcing anyone to follow any religion, period.

 

[JakeStarkey]

koshergirl states she does not think all babies should come to term: that is a fallacy based on her earlier postings.

But . . . taking her on her word on the last post, then that means if a baby threatens the mother's life, then abortion is acceptable.

Is that a correct view, koshergirl, of your beliefs?

If not, please tell us what is your view, specifically.

 

[Jarhead]

Religious tyranny often leads to judicial murder: witness the Inquisition, witness the Puritans.

Sounds like fear mongering to me

Organized religion and government will not be allowed to be intertwined in America.

But you are OK with it as it pertains to forcing Catholic Hospitals to offer contraception

Go ahead...Have me banned you freaking lunatic.

 

[Dragon]

Let's avoid generalizations here and get to specifics. Exactly how is the new morality being forced on those who don't believe in it?

Actually there are some ways, and I can list some of them:

1) If you are a husband, you cannot legally rape your wife.
2) You cannot sexually harass in the workplace without penalty.
3) You cannot beat up faggots and expect to get off because they're just faggots.
4) If a woman has an active sex life, you cannot rape her and expect to be acquitted because she has hot pants.
5) If you are an employer or a landlord, you cannot discriminate against women or homosexuals without penalty.
6) Because work opportunities for women have expanded, a man cannot expect to hold a woman in economic dependence as often as was once the case.

There are some other ways, but those will do for a start. Do you have any objections to any of those? If so -- well, if so I guess you're SOL.

But most of the complaints I've seen don't amount to having an alien morality forced on you, they amount only to being denied the privilege of having your own moral rules embodied in law. As your own moral rules no longer command majority support, that's how it goes in our democratic republic. Sorry about that. (Not.)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jarhead, quit acting like an insecure mommy boy, OK?

Fear mongering is exactly what religious tryanny wants.

Catholic hospitals should not be forced to do any such thing as long as they are not using state or federal funds.

 

[Katzndogz]

You can argue this until the cowbells ring, it won't change anything. It certainly isn't going to save the United States from becoming another failed nation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All na tions inevitably fail, katz, but not necessarily for the reasons the far religiious right are posting here.

 

[Katzndogz]

Jarhead, quit acting like an insecure mommy boy, OK?

Fear mongering is exactly what religious tryanny wants.

Catholic hospitals should not be forced to do any such thing as long as they are not using state or federal funds.

They do get state and federal funds because they accept patients that have medicare or medicaid.

Now if you think they should be able to turn these patients away, then I might agree with you. Christian hospitals ONLY for Christians. Christian doctors ONLY for Christians.

There's a solution for you.

 

[koshergrl]

Who would that be?

I find the extremist progressives much more alarming. At least the religious right isn't promoting eugenics and genocide...

 

[Katzndogz]

All na tions inevitably fail, katz, but not necessarily for the reasons the far religiious right are posting here.

They fail when the divisions in the nation are so pronounced that neither side will support the other. For a variety of reasons. Religion being just one.

 

[Dr.Drock]

All na tions inevitably fail, katz, but not necessarily for the reasons the far religiious right are posting here.

They fail when the divisions in the nation are so pronounced that neither side will support the other. For a variety of reasons. Religion being just one.

Not buying into the fearmongering.



Still not sure how you can say there's more division now than during the Civil War. Sounds like utter lunacy to me.

 

[Katzndogz]

This is from a lib outlet, so if they see it, it has to be there. This article addresses just the political divide but it's more than that.

More Political Party Division Today Than Since The Reconstruction Era! | The Progressive Professor

Newsweek Magazine this week has an article about the massive political divide that exists between the Democrats and the Republicans presently, and comes up with a shocking statement!

The partisan warfare between the parties, with each unable to cross the aisle for support in a bipartisan way, is the absolute worst it has been since the Reconstruction Era after the Civil War, when the Republicans dominated, and depicted the Democrats as the “party of treason”!

Does this mean that the American people are more divided by ideological conflict than during other controversial periods, such as FDR’s New Deal during the Great Depression; the McCarthyism “Red Scare” of the 1950s; the tumult over civil rights and the Vietnam War during the 1960s and early 1970s; and the administration of Bill Clinton in the 1990s?

Unbelievably, YES

 

[Dragon]

This is from a lib outlet, so if they see it, it has to be there.

That's reasoning from a false premise, namely that political liberals are less inclined to see divisions than others. The article also presents only opinions, not facts or proofs.

That said, I'm inclined to agree that we are facing serious divisions in our country; however, in some ways they are illusory. There is a majority position in favor of fixing the problems that people see in our society. It's just a question of translating that position into public policy in the face of corruption.

However, that's neither here nor there in regard to this thread. We are discussing the decline of the religious right. The divisions that are currently gripping us are economic and political, not cultural and moral.

And by the way, we survived the Reconstruction period with our nationhood intact. We even survived the Civil War that preceded it, in which our divisions were a lot worse. We will survive this, too.

 

[Dr.Drock]

This is from a lib outlet, so if they see it, it has to be there. This article addresses just the political divide but it's more than that.

More Political Party Division Today Than Since The Reconstruction Era! | The Progressive Professor

Newsweek Magazine this week has an article about the massive political divide that exists between the Democrats and the Republicans presently, and comes up with a shocking statement!

The partisan warfare between the parties, with each unable to cross the aisle for support in a bipartisan way, is the absolute worst it has been since the Reconstruction Era after the Civil War, when the Republicans dominated, and depicted the Democrats as the “party of treason”!

Does this mean that the American people are more divided by ideological conflict than during other controversial periods, such as FDR’s New Deal during the Great Depression; the McCarthyism “Red Scare” of the 1950s; the tumult over civil rights and the Vietnam War during the 1960s and early 1970s; and the administration of Bill Clinton in the 1990s?

Unbelievably, YES

Look at the election results when Lincoln was elected in the Civil War era, look at the different parties and candidates.


Then come back and try again with your fearmongering.



The population is moving away from YOUR set of morals, not morals in general, cry me a river.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Can anybody say "Home schooled"?

Regardless of the source, her education is vastly superior to yours.

I'm just sayin....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Religious tyranny often leads to judicial murder: witness the Inquisition, witness the Puritans. Organized religion and government will not be allowed to be intertwined in America.

Fakey jake, you fraud and fucking moron..

Over the course of 350 years, 2,251 persons were executed by the Inquisitions of Spain and Portugal. 6 people per year.

[ame=http://askville.amazon.com/people-killed-Inquisition/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=3878676]How many people were actually killed during the Inquisition?[/ame]

700 years later, hate filled leftists like you still point to it as the greatest crime in history. Yet Islam kills more than 6 people every hour in the name of their evil god, while you praise them as the religion of peace. And we aren't talking 700 years ago, this is happening today - while you defend and praise them.

Once again you prove that there is NO hypocrisy like demopocrasy.

You are truly a stupidfuck jake, truly.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Liberty is a Christian tenet, ppl. The founding fathers founded this country using CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE.

Why do you think the left hates Christians so much?

The concept that man is ultimately answerable to god flies in the face of the supreme state, where the subjects are to hold allegiance to none save the rulers of the state.

Marx recognized this. Any faith that teaches men are responsible to an authority that is greater than the state is a threat to tyrants. Christianity is particularly insipid in that it promotes the family, a clan that garners loyalty from members in excess of that given to the state.

The left seeks a world where no one questions the rulers, Christianity interferes with that.

Using your boneheaded logic, that should make us a theocracy. But we aren't.

And I've never promoted theocracy, just as I've never said that all babies should be brought to term (another false stance that JS has attributed to me, then proceeded to argue against as if I'd actually said or believed it.)

Babies are human, just as handicapped people are human, just as old people are human. You can pretend it's just "religious nonsense"...but then all those strictures that allow us to look as humans as something a little "special" come from a tradition that we have the divine spark. I understand that progressives want to relegate us to dog status, and count progress as sliding back into the dark ages with regards to killing off unfit humans and denying ourselves to partake of the developments that enhance our quality of life, but that's just a progressive extremist thing.

The left doesn't fear theocracy, they simply won't tolerate anything that questions their absolute authority.