Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: gobucks
An activist liberal judge is a very religious person. To claim he or she is not is to not know how they live day to day, or choose to ignore it if they do know about it.

I do find it interesting that when fundamentalist Christians set out to insult something the first thing they call it is a "Religion"

Secular humanism is the fastest growing religion today in the USA.

Secular Humanism is a meaningless buzzword

But yes, the fastest growing "religion" is people claiming no religion. Doubling in number in 10 years while Christians declined by ~10%.

And they voted overwhelmingly, like more than 80 percent, for democrats.

More like 62-36

But considering George Bush #1 said they are not real Americans, it's hard to blame them

But interestingly enough, From the Link above (p. 38)

People with no religion are actually less likely to be Democrats than many of the people in many Christians sects including the Baptist, Catholics, Methodist, Pentacostals and Episcopalians. In fact they are 1% less likely to be a Democrat than the population as whole.

They are less likely to be Republicans of course but they all a'int the radical left wingers you probably think they all are. I would rather not concede this growing group to the Democrats.

You fail to recognize the fight over judges if you are unwilling to know about what they say in the privacy of their wine and cheese shin digs about 'people' and the purpose of people. What they say about 'careers', what they say about animals even.

I'm fully aware what the left is all about, which is why I'm here.

I promise you: the left is not irreligious. They have a faith, a liturgy ... and the number one thing they fear is faith which competes effectively with theirs.

And it's why you fear them. They want to use the power of big government to force their socialist agenda on everybody while you want to use the power of big government to force your religious agenda on everybody.

Interestingly, I have yet to see someone put together three links to political journal articles which thoughtfully and reasonably provide the evidence that the Christians in the GOP are driving fence sitters into the arms of leftists. That explains how the GOP profits and the democrats suffer if the godful GOPers and the godless GOPers both agree that shutting up about God and Christ.

Good luck finding a non-biased person to do such a report.

Knowing that Christians vote GOP overwhelmingly, why is it a bad thing that we reach out to fence sitters and introduce them to Christ?

Do you have any links which address these points?

Yeah,

The 1998 Election

The 2004 election (That a joker like Kerry even came as close as he did)

The election of Bill Clinton twice

From the Southern Baptist Familiy Life Council findings - Quote "88 percent of the children raised in evangelical homes leave church at the age of 18, never to return". If your own children don't want any part of your agenda, how do expect to keep/attract non-fundamentalist to the Republican party with it?

Demographics. Gen-X and especially Gen-Y are less religious than the older generations. As the older generations die off the numbers of Christians is going to continue it's decline.

The Santorum Amendment was quitely withdrawn

No prominant Republican on the national level has or will ever say the world is only 6000 years old

***

Now back to the topic of this thread.

Yes, If we make this fight over judges a fight only for the Religious Right the we will lose, The abortion debate was fought on religious grounds and look how well that worked out*. Make the debate about the Constitution, runaway liberal activist judges, etc, and assuming Frist has the balls we will win.  

* In one of life's greatest ironies, the tide in the abortion issue has turned not because of religion but because of science (via better ultrasounds, etc) which so many fundamentalist Christians hate so much .

32 posted on 04/27/2005 9:39:15 PM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: qam1

" Good luck finding a non-biased person to do such a report."

That's my point - it is only here, at FR, that the biased folks such as yourself are making this argument ... none of the libertarian think tanks are saying any of what you are arguing as to why religious GOPers should back off. It is a key reason why when the evo fanatics attack Christians here, I always ask for the defense of what they claim is motivating them: saving the wonderful GOP from the horrible clutches of Christians.

Provide some links I say! But the links are not present ... at least you linked to SOMETHING ... but none were a non-FR point of view that agrees with you.

The links you did provide effectively brush us Christians with evidence of how ineffective we really are ... but not how bad for the GOP we are.

"I do find it interesting that when fundamentalist Christians set out to insult something the first thing they call it is a "Religion""

I wasn't intending to insult at all. It is clear to me the secularists deceptively state that they are religion-free. They are not ... they have their own 'spiritual' lingo and practices, their own pursuit of 'goodness' as they define it.

"And it's why you fear them. They want to use the power of big government to force their socialist agenda on everybody while you want to use the power of big government to force your religious agenda on everybody."

I do not fear them. And I do not want to use 'big government' to force my 'religious agenda' on anyone. I do want my representatives to bring a total stop to the insane homosexual agenda being forced on little kids.

You seem to not understand something qam1.

A credenda is a list of things to be believed.
An agenda is a list of things to do.

The former fuels the latter, necessarily, and the latter does not exist w/o the former.

Be honest: your credenda does exist ... just like mine. Thus, your agenda exists, just like mine. But what your credenda is missing is something mine is offering: attractiveness.

The story of Christ is far more compelling than Immanuel Kant's first imperative.




35 posted on 04/29/2005 4:06:47 PM PDT by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/Laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson