The Lefts' Attack on Religion Exposed

[dilloduck]

Pick a link--any link---You will find numerous claims by pundits, celebs, etc that the conservative Christians are trying to take over America and force their beliefs on others. I (as a lot of you already know) am very anti-evangelical right but a staunch supporter of Bush. While this issue was always hinted at and inferrred, the left has finally OVERTLY launched the anti-christian movement. (You think they waited until the election was over to get a few believers to vote their way?).
This is the VERY essence of attacking our constitutional right to worship as we please and act accordingly. If I believed in hate crimes, this would certainly qualify in my book and deserving of punishment, not excused as free speech. The Jewish Community has the anti-defamation league to protect itself from exactly this kind of attack and the Christians may be wise to consider a similar form legal protection for no other reason than to stop the hateful propaganda so that real issues can be discussed.
What kind of faction would have as it's platform gay marriage, abortion rights, overt sexual behavior disguised as free speech etc. Is their whole agenda in their crotch? I guess it is---about 2 inches behind their genitalia.

 

[clumzgirl]

Are you reacting to some specific new development in the news that I haven't heard about yet?

 

[freeandfun1]

Did you catch that c*nt Maureen Dowd on The Chris Matthews Show last night? She said the rapture is coming and that her and the democrats will be taken into heaven while the hypocritical conservatives will be left behind.

What an uninformed, uneducated and ignorant statement.

 

[nakedemperor]

Did you catch that c*nt Maureen Dowd on The Chris Matthews Show last night? She said the rapture is coming and that her and the democrats will be taken into heaven while the hypocritical conservatives will be left behind.

What an uninformed, uneducated and ignorant statement.

I watched that and the tone, laughter, and smiles all indicated that it was humor, she was joking, it was ironic.

 

[freeandfun1]

I watched that and the tone, laughter, and smiles all indicated that it was humor, she was joking, it was ironic.

it was condescending and a smack of ignorance. she just doesn't get it. they continue to insult those that believe and then wonder why they won't vote for their (the left's) candidates.

and it wasn't a smile, it was a smirk.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Pick a link--any link---You will find numerous claims by pundits, celebs, etc that the conservative Christians are trying to take over America and force their beliefs on others. I (as a lot of you already know) am very anti-evangelical right but a staunch supporter of Bush. While this issue was always hinted at and inferrred, the left has finally OVERTLY launched the anti-christian movement. (You think they waited until the election was over to get a few believers to vote their way?).
This is the VERY essence of attacking our constitutional right to worship as we please and act accordingly. If I believed in hate crimes, this would certainly qualify in my book and deserving of punishment, not excused as free speech. The Jewish Community has the anti-defamation league to protect itself from exactly this kind of attack and the Christians may be wise to consider a similar form legal protection for no other reason than to stop the hateful propaganda so that real issues can be discussed.
What kind of faction would have as it's platform gay marriage, abortion rights, overt sexual behavior disguised as free speech etc. Is their whole agenda in their crotch? I guess it is---about 2 inches behind their genitalia.

All of the platforms that you mention are all anti-religious, anti-morals. That is the whole point of the communist-backed left wing: destroy religion in America so the State will replace God.

It's sad when the very freedoms our country provides are used against us.

 

[dilloduck]

Are you reacting to some specific new development in the news that I haven't heard about yet?

Bill Maher for one---I'm primarily amazed by the specific open expressed hatred towards one religion. I guess what goes around-------

 

[shadrack]

All of the platforms that you mention are all anti-religious, anti-morals. That is the whole point of the communist-backed left wing: destroy religion in America so the State will replace God.

It's sad when the very freedoms our country provides are used against us.

Communist-backed left wing?? Anti-morals?? How can you say that's what it is? You might could say "anti-religious fundamentalist morals", but not anti-morality in general. And not backed by communists.

Many who are religious feel as though they shoulder the burden of morality and many within the political parties feel as though they possess the blueprint to individual rights. Unfortunately for all of us, today, these two very separate groups work very closely together.

The problem is that the corrupt religious leadership spend the majority of their time trying to change law instead of hearts.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Communist-backed left wing?? Anti-morals?? How can you say that's what it is? You might could say "anti-religious fundamentalist morals", but not anti-morality in general. And not backed by communists.

Many who are religious feel as though they shoulder the burden of morality and many within the political parties feel as though they possess the blueprint to individual rights. Unfortunately for all of us, today, these two very separate groups work very closely together.

The problem is that the corrupt religious leadership spend the majority of their time trying to change law instead of hearts.

Yes, I can say that. You know what the ACLU does, don't you? How it attacks religion, trying to stamp it out everywhere in our culture? They don't even want us to celebrate Christmas, for Christsake. Did you know that the ACLU has its roots in the Communist party? If you think they are just trying to "separate church and state", you are so wrong - it goes way beyond that. They are using every clever legal method they can to bastardize our Constitution and eventually bend it to their will.

Also, if you are familiar at all with the Communist Manifesto, you would know that one of the first goals is to destroy religion in a society. Religious practices are anathema to communism. Why? Because communism has no God. It replaces God.

Individual rights and Christianity go hand-in-hand. Christians are individually responsible to God. A man will have to answer to God for himself alone, for his individual actions. He is not "part of the whole" which is what communism promotes. Secularism is what communists are pushing for, because it is how they replace individual responsibility to God with individual responsibility to the State instead. Then individuality is crushed and men become just numbers, subject to the State.

Where do the morals of SECULARISM come from? Do you have a list of these morals written down somewhere? I would like to know exactly what the morals of the secularists are - since you indicate that they have them.

As far as I can tell, secularism in our country has produced nothing but a corrupt society.

 

[Mariner]

to have to sit through a Christian school prayer before a football game, or if you want to create "faith-based" public services, where I may not feel comfortable on account of my religion, then that certainly qualifies as trying to push your beliefs on me, doesn't it? Bush supports both these things, doesn't he?

By the way, the Democratic platform does not support gay marriage. It's the Republican platform which, in seeking to ban it, seems fixated on sexuality.

Maureen Dowd was just as hard on Clinton in his day as she is now on Bush. She's a gadfly by nature.

Mariner.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

to have to sit through a Christian school prayer before a football game, or if you want to create "faith-based" public services, where I may not feel comfortable on account of my religion, then that certainly qualifies as trying to push your beliefs on me, doesn't it? Bush supports both these things, doesn't he?

By the way, the Democratic platform does not support gay marriage. It's the Republican platform which, in seeking to ban it, seems fixated on sexuality.

Maureen Dowd was just as hard on Clinton in his day as she is now on Bush. She's a gadfly by nature.

Mariner.

Yes, he does and good for him.

There is no State religion being enforced when people gather together to pray. This is called freedom of religion. You are not required to participate if you don't want to.

Faith-based public services is an excellent way to help poor people. Church groups are everywhere and are great sources for networking in terms of helping someone. Why is it liberals are against helping poor people just because the help happens to come from a church? They are not required to become religious, although it probably would help them in their time of need if they tried it. They are much more likely to get personal attention and better assistance from a church group instead of being just a cold number in a big impersonal government building. This type of help is not a form of a state religion, it is our government reaching out to the poor through the use of church organizations of all faiths. It's a natural match.

Of course the Dem platform did not support gay marriage. As per usual, they are two-faced. That's why Kerry was the perfect candidate.

 

[Avatar4321]

By the way, the Democratic platform does not support gay marriage. It's the Republican platform which, in seeking to ban it, seems fixated on sexuality.

Bosh. Democrats most certainly do support gay marriage. However, they are just more willing to enforce it through nonDemocratic ways like through the courts or just having executive officers declare a change rather than passing it through legislation. You see Republicans can't ban gay marriage. Its never been allowed to begin with. In fact the whole concept is a contradiction like a circular square, a feathered mammal, or any other illogical construct.

The Republican party is a party of life. We find life sacred. We think matters of life and death are vital to the survival of society. Hence why we encourage people to be responsible in regards to sex. If you do not respect the method life enters the world, you put as risk yourself, society, and generations of people who come after you.

If anyone id fixated with sex in society its Democrats. they are the ones who have the hollywood freaks engaging in it every five seconds on the big screen. they are the ones who encourage free love. They are the ones trying to trade sex for votes. This is probably due to their dissatisfied sex life, as shown in the study we discussed last month.

Your statements are analogous to a drunk claiming someone who doesnt touch the stuff or drinks moderately has a fixation on alcohol.

 

[NATO AIR]

with rhetoric like this, the religious right isn't doing much better than the liberals criticizing it

as far as i'm concerned, screw both sides.

the libs just cry about the ill of the world and try to force the government to fix them. never real answers or progress happens.

the religious right focuses on gays and other side issues without focusing on the real immorality of the world we live in, the nation we live in, a "me first, accept no responsibility" society, millions of children underneath the poverty line, millions of families without health insurance, hundreds of thousands of women (and some men) the victims of domestic violence.

until the religious right starts tackling these issues, i have no respect for the great majority of them, they're a bunch of hypocritcal, sideshow playing idiots.

from this past week's ABC This Week:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_11_07.php#003956

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Dr. Dobson, you also have a problem with the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy. I want to show something that was reported in "The Daily Oklahoman" during the campaign. In the "Daily Oklahoman," it quoted you saying, "Patrick Leahy is a God's people hater. I don't know if he hates God, but he hates God's people." Now, Dr. Dobson, that doesn't sound like a particularly Christian thing to say. Do you think you owe Senator Leahy an apology?
DR JAMES DOBSON: George, you think you ought to lecture me on what a Christian is all about? You know, I think -I think I'll stand by the things I have said. Patrick Leahy has been in opposition to most of the things that I believe. He is the one that took the reference to God out of the oath.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But Dr. Dobson, excuse me for a second. You use the word hate. You said that he's a "God's people hater." How do you back that up?

DR JAMES DOBSON: Well, there's been an awful lot of hate expressed in this election. And most of it has been aimed at those who hold to conservative Christian views. He is certainly not the only one to take a position like that. But
I think that that is -that's where he's coming from. He has certainly
opposed most of the things that conservative Christians stand for.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apology?

DR JAMES DOBSON: No apology.

 

[dilloduck]

with rhetoric like this, the religious right isn't doing much better than the liberals criticizing it

as far as i'm concerned, screw both sides.

the libs just cry about the ill of the world and try to force the government to fix them. never real answers or progress happens.

the religious right focuses on gays and other side issues without focusing on the real immorality of the world we live in, the nation we live in, a "me first, accept no responsibility" society, millions of children underneath the poverty line, millions of families without health insurance, hundreds of thousands of women (and some men) the victims of domestic violence.

until the religious right starts tackling these issues, i have no respect for the great majority of them, they're a bunch of hypocritcal, sideshow playing idiots.

from this past week's ABC This Week:

Agreed---both factions need to take responsibilty for improving themselves and address the real suffering in the world. Time's a ticking.

 

[NATO AIR]

to clarify here, i'm sick and tired of the sideshow bullshit.

gays getting married is not the emergency crisis these folks claim it is.

children not having enough food, women being beaten by their loved ones, families paying tens of thousands of dollars for health costs because they don't have health insurance, elderly people abandoned by their selfish children and a broken system, children being abused and lost in state systems (like florida's infamous DCF), parents working multiple jobs on a meager budget and still not making the cut come bill time (along with having nearly no time to be with their kids, support them, raise them, love them)

in addition MTV, FOX, NBC, etc etc showing risky, detailed sex on TV or talking about on TV in front of kids at 3 pm, 5 pm, etc

a violent culture that promotes irresponsibility, lying, cheating and laziness.

these are our nation's real problems socially.

 

[NATO AIR]

Agreed---both factions need to take responsibilty for improving themselves and address the real suffering in the world. Time's a ticking.

thank you dillo.

it is ticking and its been ticking for 20 years, and the religious right and the liberals have done jack shit to address these issues.

the great majority of americans get caught up in their bullshit and we don't make any progress on them, we end up arguing about gays, cheating husbands in office, what ever... its all secondary to our real problems, the real issues.

 

[Mariner]

the Democratic platform supports gay marriage, and that this indicates an unhealthy interest in others' sexuality. This is not true--only the Republican platform mentions gay marriage, in the form of seeking to ban it via a constitutional amendment. When it comes to social engineering by fiat, that's about as heavy-handed as you can get.

Even here in liberal Cambridge, not all Democrats support gay marriage, so I think it would a stretch to say they do so nationwide. This seems a perfect place to let federalism do its work--some states can forbid it while others permit it, and we'll watch and see how things go. The gay couples I know are quiet and hard-working. The fact that some of them now wear wedding rings hasn't caused any riots or anarchy yet.

When it comes to the "activist court" in Massachusetts which ordered the state to stop discriminating in its application of marriage law, why not read the actual ruling. The language should make conservatives happy, really--it's all about equality under the eyes of the law. If government weren't in the business of marriage in the first place, then there would be no problem. But if government is in this business, then it has to be fair, since fairness is the grand overarching principle in the founding of our country. Seeking to prevent others from doing what they want to do is anti-conservative. You may want to spend your days picking off beer cans with an AK47. Someone else wants to spend the day with her partner. Why not just leave one another alone, in the American tradition of privacy.

On school prayer, you say I don't have to participate. Fine, then can I have equal time for a Hindu prayer prior to every football game? Can I pledge allegiance under Allah if I so choose? If not, why not? I'd just be expressing my American freedom of religion.

Regarding faith-based services. Imagine you lived in a Muslim country where Christians were regarded warily and were always being stopped by the police and sometimes beaten up by their neighbors. If you were in poverty or developed a major mental illness and needed help, would you feel happy and safe skipping down to the local Mosque-based social service agency where the workers were enthusiastically Muslim, or would you prefer that social services be delivered by a secular state entity that officially proclaimed its religious neutrality?

Mariner.

 

[shadrack]

Yes, I can say that. You know what the ACLU does, don't you? How it attacks religion, trying to stamp it out everywhere in our culture? They don't even want us to celebrate Christmas, for Christsake. Did you know that the ACLU has its roots in the Communist party? If you think they are just trying to "separate church and state", you are so wrong - it goes way beyond that. They are using every clever legal method they can to bastardize our Constitution and eventually bend it to their will.

Also, if you are familiar at all with the Communist Manifesto, you would know that one of the first goals is to destroy religion in a society. Religious practices are anathema to communism. Why? Because communism has no God. It replaces God.

Individual rights and Christianity go hand-in-hand. Christians are individually responsible to God. A man will have to answer to God for himself alone, for his individual actions. He is not "part of the whole" which is what communism promotes. Secularism is what communists are pushing for, because it is how they replace individual responsibility to God with individual responsibility to the State instead. Then individuality is crushed and men become just numbers, subject to the State.

I may not agree with every position the ACLU takes, but you have to admit they have taken them on all sides.....on one extreme and the other.

Where do the morals of SECULARISM come from?

Generally what people do is look at a situation and determine what would be considered a "good" outcome. Then, they begin to place higher values on beneficial qualities or acts called virtues. And, to be moral would be to conform to these virtues.

You and I have rights and duties to the state, but your beliefs in what is "good" are your own. The most important thing is to cooperate and understand why a person believes that a certain outcome is "good". That requires, not to focus on the doctrine, which is divisive and, frankly, beyond ourselves, but requires a pragmatic humanism and a belief in benevolence.

As far as I can tell, secularism in our country has produced nothing but a corrupt society.

No "moral" society has ever been corrupt?

 

[freeandfun1]

No "moral" society has ever been corrupt?

If it is corrupt, it is not moral. Just because there are corrupt or immoral people within a society, that does not mean the entire society is corrupt and/or immoral.

 

[hylandrdet]

Pick a link--any link---You will find numerous claims by pundits, celebs, etc that the conservative Christians are trying to take over America and force their beliefs on others. I (as a lot of you already know) am very anti-evangelical right but a staunch supporter of Bush. While this issue was always hinted at and inferrred, the left has finally OVERTLY launched the anti-christian movement. (You think they waited until the election was over to get a few believers to vote their way?).
This is the VERY essence of attacking our constitutional right to worship as we please and act accordingly. If I believed in hate crimes, this would certainly qualify in my book and deserving of punishment, not excused as free speech. The Jewish Community has the anti-defamation league to protect itself from exactly this kind of attack and the Christians may be wise to consider a similar form legal protection for no other reason than to stop the hateful propaganda so that real issues can be discussed.
What kind of faction would have as it's platform gay marriage, abortion rights, overt sexual behavior disguised as free speech etc. Is their whole agenda in their crotch? I guess it is---about 2 inches behind their genitalia.

Romans 14 v. 1-4

1. Let every sould be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of GOD: the powers that are ordained of GOD.

2. Whosoever therefore RESISTETH the power, resisteth the ordinance of GOD: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4. For he is the minister of GOD to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of GOD, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

This was the format conservative religious leaders used in their "political preaching" prior to the election. Sure enough, it worked.



Now this is the DEMOCRAT'S true POLITICAL POSITION on SIN


http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20040811.htm
"Let He Who Is Without Sin..."

The "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" incident is one of the most well-known lessons of the Bible. A woman, who had been caught in the act of adultery was brought to Jesus Christ by the scribes and Pharisees as a test to see if the Messiah was a liberal in matters of the Law of God.

In response to their deceitful query, He didn't condemn the woman, not because He was a liberal, not because He condoned her sin, but because the men who brought the woman to Him were Hypocrites.

He was the only person there that day who was free of sin, the only one who had the right to "cast the first stone." He didn't stone her (or her accusers), but instead forgave her and told her to "sin no more." Otherwise, the day is coming when she, if she didn't thereafter repent, won't be stoned, but will be burned - along with the hypocrites who brought her to Him that day, if they didn't thereafter repent of their sin:

We Democrats gave upon you, the individual, the FREEDOM to choose to repent; much in the same manner that Jesus gave the adultress the FREEDOM to choose. We will not force you to repent through legislation; to do so would have us condemned as hypocrites and we shall burn alongside the sinners.

How can a hypocritical President win reelection, on a platform of moral values, execute his agenda without violating everything Jesus Christ had stood for on that fateful day? Answer, he can't and I predict he won't; if he tries, the congress and the supreme court will fight back and win!!!