The Political Agenda of the Christian Right

[George Costanza]

The poster stated 'the christian right'.. not some extremists on the right... not any select persons... the guy was making the stupid post about the group as a whole.. you know it, he knows it, and I know it

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...genda-of-the-christian-right.html#post2204853

 

[Nosmo King]

Wow.. where do we begin to debunk this crapola??

They wish to protect innocent human life... whether that life inconveniences you or not
The life and wishes of the mother should have voice. Inconvenience is a sloppy word and it de-legitimizes what the mother wants.

Some wish to ban gay marriage.. but others wish to support civil unions or to get the government out of the marriage businessThe government is in the 'marriage business' because marriage is a legally binding contract. Why shouldn't law-abiding citizens avail themselves of this legal protection? And without diluting it to the second class status of 'civil union'.

Encouraging home schooling as a choice is a bad thing in a free society??

They wish to encourage the involvement of parents into the sex education of minors and that is a bad thing? They wish to teach that no sex is safe sex and that is a bad thing? They don't want a bunch of lefty teachers telling them that sex is OK and right when they are under age, even against the parents wishes, and that is a good thing??Abstinence only? Ask the Palins how that worked out for them! You betcha!

They want to ban contraceptives?? Show this in proof."Here's a condom. Here's how you don a condom." Are the Religious Conservatives going to tolerate such a lesson in a school?

They wish to stop harvesting of human lives for scientific research... Last I heard human experimentation was frowned upon when we heard of the experiments of ones such as MengeleThe difference between a living, breathing human and a frozen embryo is as vast as the difference between an acorn and an oak. Figure that out and then think about the Nazi reference. You dilute the horrors of the Holocaust for cheap political points which can be debunked by a bit of simple logic and clear thought.

Nobody wants to stop teaching scientific theories such as evolution, or other things. Just not the use of theories to try and offend the beliefs of others, and just to also teach that there are indeed other theories about the emergence of life.Teach creationism or "Intelligent" Design in a philosophy class. Keep mythology out of science classes.

THERE IS NO MOTHERFUCKING SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, you ignorant leftist swine... try and understand what your rights and the limitations of government actually areNext time a Conservative shouts about getting back to the values of our Founding Fathers, can you please repeat this about THERE IS NO MOTHERFUCKING SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE?

Show proof of making living wills illegal as supported by the entire 'christian right'.. we'll be waitingNice dodge there! slipping in that qualifier "the entire "!

Public decency laws are indeed supported.. for some people do believe (christian and otherwise) it is nice to have it that your children don't have to be exposed to anal sex acts in public or obscene behavior on public tv at 6PM dinner, etc... some people indeed, and rightfully so, don't necessarily want anarchy in public displays

More phony accusations by you and/or the author as a winger about judges and about a belief of an entire group

sorry about the clumsy nature of the rely. I don't know how to multi-quote so I used the color red in my responses.

1) So you are only selectively for the protection of human life...
2) You can already have a legally binding contract to ensure all the things a marriage contract allows.... you just need to have things like the tax laws changed for joint returns
3) Abstinence is the ONLY way to ensure no pregnancy happens.... there is no 'safe sex'... and I do not teach my kids that it is right for any non-adult to have sex and there is no consensual sex until one is an adult
4) Your example gives nothing into the assertion that the whole group is trying to ban contraceptives.. nice try though
5) A life is a life... what next?? Care to carve up those in a vegetative state for your research?? Only like the difference between a plant active in spring and dormant in winter.... You either wish to protect innocent life or you don't.... not harvest your select choices for your benefit
6) I have never stated that the founding fathers putting forth a 'Christian' government or anything of the sort....
7) The poster stated 'the christian right'.. not some extremists on the right... not any select persons... the guy was making the stupid post about the group as a whole.. you know it, he knows it, and I know it

I want to center this response on the stem cell issue. The difference between a frozen embryo and a genuine viable life is vast and apparent. What happens to those embryos discarded by fertilization clinics? Are there hoards of protesters there when the clinic cleans out its freezer? Is there any difference between an living human being and a smudge in a petri dish? Is there anything like an autonomous blood supply in that petri dish? Anything like a central nervous system to perceive pain? Calling that frozen mass a "human life" makes for cover for your argument. It's flimsy, hole-ridden cover, but any port in a storm, eh?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

About as useful and informative as the "10 traits of Socialists" thread and the "10 Traits of Capitalists" threads.

If this is what dialogue has come to in the country, we're toast.

Very astute of you to catch that - the "10 Traits of Socialists" thread was precisely the inspiration for this thread of mine here.

But it seems to be engendering a fair amount of comment, which is, after all, what this place is (or should be) all about, hey?

Have to rep that.

 

[Coyote]

Again.. you and the thread starter push the assertion that it is the entire 'Christian right' that is pushing for this... and because some (not not all of the 'some' are just on the 'Christian right') have a stance, does not paint it on an entire group.... some women are murders, it does not mean all women are murderers.. I know it is a hard concept for the mentally inferior who subscribe to the winger views, but at least try

You're right, not all do but many of those things are defining planks of the so-called Christian Right.

For example, among those considered in the fore front of the "Christian Right", Gary Baur, President of "American Values" American Values - Gary L. Bauer, President

 

[Dr.Traveler]

They want to ban contraceptives?? Show this in proof.

Stating they want to *ban* contraceptives may be a bit of an over statement, but talk to folks and you'll see that there's a growing push in more Conservative churches to encourage married couples to stop using contraceptives, with the justification that the Bible specifically commands "be fruitful and multiply."

It also wasn't that long ago that it was illegal for married couples to obtain contraceptives in many of the States in the Union. I still recall a time when contraceptives like condoms were kept behind the pharmacy counter at the drug stores in many midwestern states.

That is still a belief or choice... and those people are not forced into that church by the government (I.E. no establishment of a religion by government)... and they can choose that action with belonging to that group.. or they can choose not to

Keeping rubbers behind the counter is not banning their purchase or use

It is. And so far I haven't heard of churches denying or removing membership of couples that use birth control or other forms of contraceptives. Which is good, because my wife and I do. Financially, its the only responsible thing to do as a responsible parent should want to take steps to ensure they do not have more children than they can provide for.

The contraceptives behind the counter is a decision the shop keeper makes, and as long as legally shopkeepers are not required to keep them behind the Pharmacy counter, I'm ok with it. But you are honest enough to admit that the decision to keep contraceptives behind the pharmacy counter is a decision to restrict access to the product, right?

 

[DiamondDave]

sorry about the clumsy nature of the rely. I don't know how to multi-quote so I used the color red in my responses.

1) So you are only selectively for the protection of human life...
2) You can already have a legally binding contract to ensure all the things a marriage contract allows.... you just need to have things like the tax laws changed for joint returns
3) Abstinence is the ONLY way to ensure no pregnancy happens.... there is no 'safe sex'... and I do not teach my kids that it is right for any non-adult to have sex and there is no consensual sex until one is an adult
4) Your example gives nothing into the assertion that the whole group is trying to ban contraceptives.. nice try though
5) A life is a life... what next?? Care to carve up those in a vegetative state for your research?? Only like the difference between a plant active in spring and dormant in winter.... You either wish to protect innocent life or you don't.... not harvest your select choices for your benefit
6) I have never stated that the founding fathers putting forth a 'Christian' government or anything of the sort....
7) The poster stated 'the christian right'.. not some extremists on the right... not any select persons... the guy was making the stupid post about the group as a whole.. you know it, he knows it, and I know it

I want to center this response on the stem cell issue. The difference between a frozen embryo and a genuine viable life is vast and apparent. What happens to those embryos discarded by fertilization clinics? Are there hoards of protesters there when the clinic cleans out its freezer? Is there any difference between an living human being and a smudge in a petri dish? Is there anything like an autonomous blood supply in that petri dish? Anything like a central nervous system to perceive pain? Calling that frozen mass a "human life" makes for cover for your argument. It's flimsy, hole-ridden cover, but any port in a storm, eh?

Depends on what you hold sacred.... and innocent human life I do hold sacred... but we have had other things beyond frozen embryos farmed for stem cells... and also a fact that stem cells can be obtained in other ways that do not involve eliminating a developing life... it does indeed get tricky with the way medical science has farmed fertilized eggs for artificial insemination, etc... but it is indeed a slippery slope when the door is opened... and THAT is a major concern.. much like when government opened the door for unequal taxation... or opened the door for concentration camps for select undesirable groups... or opened the door to allow for experimentation on certain groups of individuals in the past.... and that HAS to be a major concern

As a parent of a former preemie who had to fight to stay alive after a very early birth... at a time where many have still gotten abortions... I take this issue very close to heart, when it comes to developing lives

 

[DiamondDave]

Stating they want to *ban* contraceptives may be a bit of an over statement, but talk to folks and you'll see that there's a growing push in more Conservative churches to encourage married couples to stop using contraceptives, with the justification that the Bible specifically commands "be fruitful and multiply."

It also wasn't that long ago that it was illegal for married couples to obtain contraceptives in many of the States in the Union. I still recall a time when contraceptives like condoms were kept behind the pharmacy counter at the drug stores in many midwestern states.

That is still a belief or choice... and those people are not forced into that church by the government (I.E. no establishment of a religion by government)... and they can choose that action with belonging to that group.. or they can choose not to

Keeping rubbers behind the counter is not banning their purchase or use

It is. And so far I haven't heard of churches denying or removing membership of couples that use birth control or other forms of contraceptives. Which is good, because my wife and I do. Financially, its the only responsible thing to do as a responsible parent should want to take steps to ensure they do not have more children than they can provide for.

The contraceptives behind the counter is a decision the shop keeper makes, and as long as legally shopkeepers are not required to keep them behind the Pharmacy counter, I'm ok with it. But you are honest enough to admit that the decision to keep contraceptives behind the pharmacy counter is a decision to restrict access to the product, right?

yes... just as you restrict access to alcohol to minors.. or playboy to minors... or sudafed to ensure meth makers don't get it.. or to restrict access to high end product that is very small and easily stolen... or to restrict access to things that are sampled by store patrons.. or so many other examples and reasons....

 

[American Horse]

The agenda of Christian conservatives is relatively limited and they believe that much of it can be accomplished through the federal courts. Broadly speaking, their agenda is as follows:

They want to control the right of women to have abortions.

They want to ban all forms of gay marriage.

They want to prevent the teaching of safe sex in schools and to encourage home schooling.

They want to ban the use of contraceptives.

They want to halt stem cell reserach using human embryos.

They want to stop the teaching of evolution and/or to start the teaching of intelligent design.

They want to bring God into the public square and eliminate the separation of church and state.

They want to overturn the legality of living wills.

They want to control the sexual content of cable and network television, radio and the Internet.

They want to eliminate an "activist" judiciary that limits or impinges on their agenda by placing God-fearing judges on the bench who will promote their sincerely held beliefs.

From "Conservatives Without Conscience" by John W. Dean (p. 109)

I don't know about y'all, but this doesn't sound too good to me.

Comments?

Are you really this stupid? Do you actually think before you regurgitate anything that you think makes the religious right look bad?

This is filled with outright lies and just doesn't deserve a point by point debunking. Thanks though for showing us all how utterly dumb you are.

Rick

From "Conservatives Without Conscience" by John W. Dean [III]
AND what a fraud and imposter John W. Dean is, and has always been
He was legal council to President Nixon. He was a liberal ideologue from the beginning, including the Nixon years.

He has made a living writing books viciously attacking conservatives and Republican political figures; a "yellow" journalist who knows well where his market is, virtually none of what he writes has a scintilla of balance or reason in it.

 

[DiamondDave]

Again.. you and the thread starter push the assertion that it is the entire 'Christian right' that is pushing for this... and because some (not not all of the 'some' are just on the 'Christian right') have a stance, does not paint it on an entire group.... some women are murders, it does not mean all women are murderers.. I know it is a hard concept for the mentally inferior who subscribe to the winger views, but at least try

You're right, not all do but many of those things are defining planks of the so-called Christian Right.

For example, among those considered in the fore front of the "Christian Right", Gary Baur, President of "American Values" American Values - Gary L. Bauer, President

No.. they are not... and THAT is where you and the original poster are wrong... one small sub group doe snot mean the whole group.. just as what goes for catholics does not go for every christian.. just as what one attendee in a church stands for does not mean the rest stand for... just as a 1 time attendee at a church does not mean that person is tied to that church.... you are trying to paint a picture to fit your winger stance.... and the following of that agenda is obvious

 

[Nosmo King]

1) So you are only selectively for the protection of human life...
2) You can already have a legally binding contract to ensure all the things a marriage contract allows.... you just need to have things like the tax laws changed for joint returns
3) Abstinence is the ONLY way to ensure no pregnancy happens.... there is no 'safe sex'... and I do not teach my kids that it is right for any non-adult to have sex and there is no consensual sex until one is an adult
4) Your example gives nothing into the assertion that the whole group is trying to ban contraceptives.. nice try though
5) A life is a life... what next?? Care to carve up those in a vegetative state for your research?? Only like the difference between a plant active in spring and dormant in winter.... You either wish to protect innocent life or you don't.... not harvest your select choices for your benefit
6) I have never stated that the founding fathers putting forth a 'Christian' government or anything of the sort....
7) The poster stated 'the christian right'.. not some extremists on the right... not any select persons... the guy was making the stupid post about the group as a whole.. you know it, he knows it, and I know it

I want to center this response on the stem cell issue. The difference between a frozen embryo and a genuine viable life is vast and apparent. What happens to those embryos discarded by fertilization clinics? Are there hoards of protesters there when the clinic cleans out its freezer? Is there any difference between an living human being and a smudge in a petri dish? Is there anything like an autonomous blood supply in that petri dish? Anything like a central nervous system to perceive pain? Calling that frozen mass a "human life" makes for cover for your argument. It's flimsy, hole-ridden cover, but any port in a storm, eh?

Depends on what you hold sacred.... and innocent human life I do hold sacred... but we have had other things beyond frozen embryos farmed for stem cells... and also a fact that stem cells can be obtained in other ways that do not involve eliminating a developing life... it does indeed get tricky with the way medical science has farmed fertilized eggs for artificial insemination, etc... but it is indeed a slippery slope when the door is opened... and THAT is a major concern.. much like when government opened the door for unequal taxation... or opened the door for concentration camps for select undesirable groups... or opened the door to allow for experimentation on certain groups of individuals in the past.... and that HAS to be a major concern

As a parent of a former preemie who had to fight to stay alive after a very early birth... at a time where many have still gotten abortions... I take this issue very close to heart, when it comes to developing lives

I don't believe this is a matter to be thought of as "sacred". A frozen embryo is no more human than an egg lost though menstruation or semen lost through masturbation. An embryo ain't human.

There are definite traits to human life. I'm happy your baby survived and seems, by the account you have just provided, to be doing well. But your preemie is a human. A fetus is a human. But an embryo just isn't. Not yet anyway.

And that slippery slope of which you speak. It's hardly an apt fear. No one is calling for concentration camps. No one is an evil Mengle slicing and dicing twins for his own amusement. That is genuine evil. This sort of hyperbole muddies the water of clear, honest debate.

The science involved in stem cell research is dedicated to the cure, treatment and hopefully eradication of some of life's most dreaded diseases and conditions. If you're 'Pro-Life" why aren't you for the elimination of Type I diabetes? Of cancer and dementia?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Care to address the agenda of the atheist left?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

yes... just as you restrict access to alcohol to minors.. or playboy to minors... or sudafed to ensure meth makers don't get it.. or to restrict access to high end product that is very small and easily stolen... or to restrict access to things that are sampled by store patrons.. or so many other examples and reasons....

So why restrict do it? Why restrict the access? That's the part I don't get. If you're in favor of greater personal freedom and greater personal responsibility why care about access to condoms or contraceptives?

They're not used to make illegal drugs, they're not exactly high end product. They're no more easily stolen than the $20 headphones that are all over a lot of department stores.

The only argument for restricting access to contraceptives is that you're worried about a possible corrupting influence on minors, like alcohol and pornography. But that slippery slope reasoning.

 

[DiamondDave]

I want to center this response on the stem cell issue. The difference between a frozen embryo and a genuine viable life is vast and apparent. What happens to those embryos discarded by fertilization clinics? Are there hoards of protesters there when the clinic cleans out its freezer? Is there any difference between an living human being and a smudge in a petri dish? Is there anything like an autonomous blood supply in that petri dish? Anything like a central nervous system to perceive pain? Calling that frozen mass a "human life" makes for cover for your argument. It's flimsy, hole-ridden cover, but any port in a storm, eh?

Depends on what you hold sacred.... and innocent human life I do hold sacred... but we have had other things beyond frozen embryos farmed for stem cells... and also a fact that stem cells can be obtained in other ways that do not involve eliminating a developing life... it does indeed get tricky with the way medical science has farmed fertilized eggs for artificial insemination, etc... but it is indeed a slippery slope when the door is opened... and THAT is a major concern.. much like when government opened the door for unequal taxation... or opened the door for concentration camps for select undesirable groups... or opened the door to allow for experimentation on certain groups of individuals in the past.... and that HAS to be a major concern

As a parent of a former preemie who had to fight to stay alive after a very early birth... at a time where many have still gotten abortions... I take this issue very close to heart, when it comes to developing lives

I don't believe this is a matter to be thought of as "sacred". A frozen embryo is no more human than an egg lost though menstruation or semen lost through masturbation. An embryo ain't human.

There are definite traits to human life. I'm happy your baby survived and seems, by the account you have just provided, to be doing well. But your preemie is a human. A fetus is a human. But an embryo just isn't. Not yet anyway.

And that slippery slope of which you speak. It's hardly an apt fear. No one is calling for concentration camps. No one is an evil Mengle slicing and dicing twins for his own amusement. That is genuine evil. This sort of hyperbole muddies the water of clear, honest debate.

The science involved in stem cell research is dedicated to the cure, treatment and hopefully eradication of some of life's most dreaded diseases and conditions. If you're 'Pro-Life" why aren't you for the elimination of Type I diabetes? Of cancer and dementia?

WRONG.. a human embryo is not a fully developed human that can take care of itself.. but it indeed human.... such a caveat makes it easy for those to throw away a life... just like when the Nazis considered the Jews less than human...

I am for the elimination of those diseases and many more.. just not at the expense of a developing innocent life... there are other research paths into these things.. there are other sources for stem cells... etc

 

[DiamondDave]

yes... just as you restrict access to alcohol to minors.. or playboy to minors... or sudafed to ensure meth makers don't get it.. or to restrict access to high end product that is very small and easily stolen... or to restrict access to things that are sampled by store patrons.. or so many other examples and reasons....

So why restrict do it? Why restrict the access? That's the part I don't get. If you're in favor of greater personal freedom and greater personal responsibility why care about access to condoms or contraceptives?

They're not used to make illegal drugs, they're not exactly high end product. They're no more easily stolen than the $20 headphones that are all over a lot of department stores.

The only argument for restricting access to contraceptives is that you're worried about a possible corrupting influence on minors, like alcohol and pornography. But that slippery slope reasoning.

I am not for restricting it, personally... unless a store is getting condoms ripped off constantly.. never said I was.. I said I understand reasons as to why some things have restricted access in stores

though I am still for restricting access to porno, tobacco, alcohol, etc

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Care to address the agenda of the atheist left?

It isn't that much different. Religious Extremists always try to legislate their beliefs, whatever those may be.

 

[Coyote]

Again.. you and the thread starter push the assertion that it is the entire 'Christian right' that is pushing for this... and because some (not not all of the 'some' are just on the 'Christian right') have a stance, does not paint it on an entire group.... some women are murders, it does not mean all women are murderers.. I know it is a hard concept for the mentally inferior who subscribe to the winger views, but at least try

You're right, not all do but many of those things are defining planks of the so-called Christian Right.

For example, among those considered in the fore front of the "Christian Right", Gary Baur, President of "American Values" American Values - Gary L. Bauer, President

No.. they are not... and THAT is where you and the original poster are wrong... one small sub group doe snot mean the whole group.. just as what goes for catholics does not go for every christian.. just as what one attendee in a church stands for does not mean the rest stand for... just as a 1 time attendee at a church does not mean that person is tied to that church.... you are trying to paint a picture to fit your winger stance.... and the following of that agenda is obvious

I'm not a winger, for one thing.

Nor is that the only group, just one example of the groups that make up the poltiical entity known as the "Christian Right". Their positions are not shallow, though I don't agree with them I understand the motivations.

They are pretty unified on their pro-life positions, and it's not through a desire to "control" women's bodies but an honest desire to see an end to what they see as the destruction of innocent human life.

Most oppose sex ed because they feel that is the job of the family. They oppose contraception for minors as well because again, they feel that up to the parents.

Most of the "main stream" Christian Right opposes gay marriage - can you find me any examples of groups that do not?

 

[manu1959]

is the agenda of the christian left the opposite of all of those....

 

[DiamondDave]

Care to address the agenda of the atheist left?

It isn't that much different. Religious Extremists always try to legislate their beliefs, whatever those may be.

Ahh.. but the original mention was not of 'extremists'.. merely the 'religious right'....

 

[Coyote]

Care to address the agenda of the atheist left?

It isn't that much different. Religious Extremists always try to legislate their beliefs, whatever those may be.

Ahh.. but the original mention was not of 'extremists'.. merely the 'religious right'....

Fair point.

 

[DiamondDave]

You're right, not all do but many of those things are defining planks of the so-called Christian Right.

For example, among those considered in the fore front of the "Christian Right", Gary Baur, President of "American Values" American Values - Gary L. Bauer, President

No.. they are not... and THAT is where you and the original poster are wrong... one small sub group doe snot mean the whole group.. just as what goes for catholics does not go for every christian.. just as what one attendee in a church stands for does not mean the rest stand for... just as a 1 time attendee at a church does not mean that person is tied to that church.... you are trying to paint a picture to fit your winger stance.... and the following of that agenda is obvious

I'm not a winger, for one thing.

Nor is that the only group, just one example of the groups that make up the poltiical entity known as the "Christian Right". Their positions are not shallow, though I don't agree with them I understand the motivations.

They are pretty unified on their pro-life positions, and it's not through a desire to "control" women's bodies but an honest desire to see an end to what they see as the destruction of innocent human life.

Most oppose sex ed because they feel that is the job of the family. They oppose contraception for minors as well because again, they feel that up to the parents.

Most of the "main stream" Christian Right opposes gay marriage - can you find me any examples of groups that do not?

I may oppose gay marriage as a person who is on the right side of the spectrum and considered 'christian'... but I am for legal/governmental equality for gay couples and for the elimination of the government in the marriage business, opting for civil or family union designations for all adult family units... and there are MANY who fit that mold on the 'christian right'... and there are many that do not

And anything for my children/minors is indeed up to me and not to a teacher or sales clerk