Posted on 04/15/2005 5:09:20 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
The Freedom from Religion Foundation issued a press release Sept. 13, 2001, calling the September 11 attacks by Islamist terrorists "the ultimate faith-based initiative."
The release went on: "Religion is not the answer, it is probably the problem."
And: "Prayer had its chance on September 11 and it failed."
September 11 "should have clinched the idea this is a naturalistic universe," group leader Mr. Barker says. "To stand by and do nothing makes God an accomplice. If He exists, why are we worshipping this monster?"
The fight against God and for abortion rights appear intertwined for Mr. Barker's mother-in-law, Mrs. Gaylor. She was born in 1926 in Tomah, Wis. A biography posted at the group's Web site, www.ffrf.org, says her mother died when she was 2 and her father, a farmer, found religion "embarrassing." She graduated as an English major from University of Wisconsin in 1949 and was married the same year.
After raising four children, Mrs. Gaylor, in 1972, founded the Women's Medical Fund, which has helped 14,000 poor women obtain abortions. In 1975, she published a book "Abortion Is a Blessing."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Nam Vet
For that, one only need to turn on the 700 club for a few minutes. Just listen to Pat Robertson's monologs for a litany of religiously-motivated political opinions. They would be fine in and of themselves, but he often stops to say that our laws are based directly on the bible. Oops. That's exactly what we tried to avoid with our constitutional defense against religious establishment: the Bible can be interpreted six ways from Sunday, so which interpretation is correct?
But more in line with recent court cases, we had Roy Moore and his various supporters around the country declaring that the 10 commandments are the fundamental basis for the laws of our land, not just the inspiration for them, or laws from which we took elements of ours, but the basis.
Even Alabama's own constitution declares that no particular religion has precedence over any other by law. Yet Roy Moore said that our law was Christian, and he even named off a particular version of the 10 commandments as the one he evidently preferred. He also failed to narrow down the laws to particular ones that had only civic implications.
Nowhere in any of our state constitutions or our federal constitution does it declare that we are a Judeo-Christian nation, and yet we are. We are by choice. We are by our personal decisions. But the Christian right would like nothing better than to twist our laws around to say that they do mean we are Christian legally.
The problem we face now is secularization. But some of us don't want to lose sight of religious freedom and tolerance, and a rational basis for our lawmaking, simply because the more timid among us believe that we can only save the country by (re)Christianizing it with our laws.
When it comes to murder (lawful or not) it really is necessary for folks to take a firm position.
That is the diametrical opposite of the beliefs of we who champion this great Union's Christian Heritage.
Hmmmm. You still didn't escape from 'splainin' yourself concerning killing your spouse. Should the rest of us be concerned or not, and what about your spouse?
Fringe lunatics. Reminds me of the Phelps', with their "God punished us with 9/11 because of homosexuals..."
I am reminded of both fringes when I wipe.
Sounds like there's an ex-wife out there somewhere. Do you have a picture of the body?
We have laws against that!
Your question to me suggests that you do not have the courage of those conditions but are willing to go all wobbly on us in a clench.
Now what kind of Libertarian is that? (a typical one in my experience, btw, but just giving you a chance to reconcile these two opposed positions).
BTW, risk, I don't watch the 700 Club. You, on the other hand, could probably use more of it than your present level ~ then you'd figure out what they are really talking about when they pray for "God's Kingdom" ~ LOL ROTFLMAO ~ look, you really shouldn't be discussing other people's religious beliefs until you gain some sort of understanding of their language. Else you'll simply look like an idiot.
Folks have been talking about a band of boogeymen imposing a theocracy on America since the founding. I see more than 200 years of it not happening. Frankly, I can't believe folks are still thinking this will happen.
What I do see are fanatical left-wing groups systematically seeking to impose secularism on me, and like most people I resent it. Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.
Only in the justifications for law proposed, and only where the issues can be construed as largely spiritual, not in the democratic legislation and enforcement of laws. Those are different things.
I disagree. Things should be exactly the reverse!
No, I'm saying we should discuss it with our duly elected representatives, both legislative and judicial, at the appropriate time. You can say anything you like about why you think the law means what it does. I can say anything I like about why I think it means what it does. This is called rational discourse.
The Bush administration's faith based programs are extreme? How so?
If you don't like the federal government giving grants to any charities, I won't argue with that. But when you single out charities that are organized by faith based groups and you call it extremism -- you're wrong.
I don't want my tax dollars going to support Islam. I think that's extreme. Look it up on the Whitehouse website, you'll find it right there.
I was just at the WH faith-based website and didn't see it. If you wish to make a point, then you should articulate yourself how our tax dollars are going to support Islam, or any religion...or at the very least you should supply a direct link.
You should be willing to look those things up for yourself, but here you go: http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/guidance/equal.html
Nice lecture to me.
You have no clue how many things I look up on the web and how much time I spend doing it. If I suspect that your point has a good chance of being bogus, then I spend an appropriate small amount of time if any tracking down your links. If I suspect you may have a point then I may spend more time tracking down your links.
Do you head off to a link every time somebody tells you too? Do you jump every time somebody tells you to jump?
but here you go: http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/guidance/equal.html
Your link is bogus. It doesn't back up your point. In fact it proves your point is wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.