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

Skip to comments.

The Religious Right's Era Is Over
Time ^ | February 16, 2007 | Jim Wallis

Posted on 02/17/2007 6:23:04 AM PST by NYer

As I have traveled around the country, one line in my speeches always draws cheers: "The monologue of the Religious Right is over, and a new dialogue has now begun." We have now entered the post-Religious Right era. Though religion has had a negative image in the last few decades, the years ahead may be shaped by a dynamic and more progressive faith that will make needed social change more possible.

In the churches, a combination of deeper compassion and better theology has moved many pastors and congregations away from the partisan politics of the Religious Right. In politics, we are beginning to see a leveling of the playing field between the two parties on religion and "moral values," and the media are finally beginning to cover the many and diverse voices of faith. These are all big changes in American life, and the rest of the world is taking notice.

Evangelicals — especially the new generation of pastors and young people — are deserting the Religious Right in droves. The evangelical social agenda is now much broader and deeper, engaging issues like poverty and economic justice, global warming, HIV/AIDS, sex trafficking, genocide in Darfur and the ethics of the war in Iraq. Catholics are returning to their social teaching; mainline Protestants are asserting their faith more aggressively; a new generation of young black and Latino pastors are putting the focus on social justice; a Jewish renewal movement and more moderate Islam are also growing; and a whole new denomination has emerged, which might be called the "spiritual but not religious."

Even more amazing, the Left is starting to get it. Progressive politics is remembering its own religious history and recovering the language of faith. Democrats are learning to connect issues with values and are now engaging with the faith community. They are running more candidates who have been emboldened to come out of the closet as believers themselves. Meanwhile, many Republicans have had it with the Religious Right. Both sides are asking how to connect faith and values with politics. People know now that God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and we are all learning that religion should not be in the pocket of any political party; it calls all of us to moral accountability.

Most people I talk to think that politics isn't working in America and believe that the misuse of religion has been part of the problem. Politics is failing to resolve the big moral issues of our time, or even to seriously address them. And religion has too often been used as a wedge to divide people, rather than as a bridge to bring us together on those most critical questions. I believe (and many people I talk with agree) that politics could and should begin to really deal with the many crises we face. Whenever that happens, social movements often begin to emerge, usually focused on key moral issues. The best social movements always have spiritual foundations, because real change comes with the energy, commitment and hope that powerful faith and spirituality can bring.

It's time to remember the spiritual revivals that helped lead to the abolition of slavery in Britain and the United States; the black church's leadership during the American civil rights movement; the deeply Catholic roots of the Solidarity movement in Poland that led the overthrow of communism; the way liberation theology in Latin America helped pave the way for new democracies; how Desmond Tutu and the South African churches served to inspire victory over apartheid; how "People Power" joined with the priests and bishops to bring down down Philippine strongman Ferdinand Marcos; how the Dalai Lama keeps hope alive for millions of Tibetans; and, today, how the growing Evangelical and Pentecostal churches of the global South are mobilizing to addresse the injustices of globalization.

I believe we are seeing the beginning of movements like that again, right here in America, and that we are poised on the edge of what might become a revival that will bring about big changes in the world. Historically, social reform often requires spiritual revival. And that's what church historians always say about real revival — that it changes things in the society, not just in people's inner lives. I believe that what we are seeing now may be the beginning of a new revival — a revival for justice.

The era of the Religious Right is now past, and it's up to all of us to create a new day.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: brayingass; evangelical; evilshepherds; fauxchristians; frankfurtschool; gramsci; jimwallis; ohplease; purposedriven; religiousleft; sayingdoesntmakeitso; socialjustice; spiritualwarfare; subversion; wallis; wishfulthinking
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 401-420 next last
To: NYer

End of the relgious right ehhh ?

How's this for a test --- A NATIONAL REFERENDUM ON THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE ?

or better still :

A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO DEFINE MARRIAGE AS BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN...

Now that's a real world test to see if the religious right's influence has really ended.


341 posted on 02/18/2007 5:54:45 AM PST by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
The REPUBLICANS refused negotiation? That's ridiculous.

The Republicans wouldn't even negotiate with themselves. Take immigration reform for instance. The House Republicans refused to name conferees to meet with the Senate to try and work out their differences. They held border security as hostage...and ultimately lost. With Social Security, the Republicans refused to sit down with no preconceived plan to see if they could make some progress with the Democrats. They refused to take privatization off the table, and the Democrats refused to talk with privatization as the line in the sand. But it's more the Republican's fault because they were in control of Congress.

On the other hand, we got 35 judicial confirmations including 2 USSC justices after Republicans and Democrats got together and signed a truce. I could go on, but you get the idea. It's no secret, the voters certainly did.

342 posted on 02/18/2007 5:56:50 AM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: NYer

This drivel from a magazine that once named Adolph Hitler as its Man of the Year.


343 posted on 02/18/2007 6:02:52 AM PST by AlGone2001 (He's not a baby anymore...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner
It was. That was a dispute over who had custody over the Terri and the medical power of attorney, her husband or her parents. In the opinion of Christians, Terri's right to life overruled any erroneous opinion of the State court and so they legitimately appealed to their federal government.

So, in other words, our republican form of government is great...as long as it complies with the wishes of Christians. Why then have a republic, why not just a central government?

The problem there is that states do not have the power to change the meaning of marriage. Marriage does not come from the state, but from the Church. The State merely records marriages and promotes them.

Not so. Marriage, divorce, adoption, are all state regulated activities. A couple may or may not have the marriage blessed by a church, but it must be legalized by the state. The state, by virtue of the 10th Amendment has the power to regulate all facets of family law...including marriage.

If the people of Massachusetts do not remedy this themselves, and they have not for several years. I see no remedy for this other than a constitutional amendment.

In other words, once again, as long as a state complies with the wishes of Christians, it can do as it is empowered to under the 10th Amendment. Why create the illusion of a republic? Let's just let a gathering of like minded Christians get together, and redo our Constitution to your liking?

I'm sorry, I don't know what example to which you refer.

Well, just a few examples would include Loving, Lawrence, Griswold, and Eisenstadt. These are basis human rights issues where the court ruled that no state's powers can trump the basic human rights of its citizens.

344 posted on 02/18/2007 6:13:55 AM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner

Marriage does not come from the state, but from the Church. The State merely records marriages and promotes them.








So, the hundreds (or thousands) of gay marriages performed by ordained clergy each year are legal?


345 posted on 02/18/2007 6:17:52 AM PST by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
If we are more that 'animals', it is because we were created that way: by a God, for His OWN reason, wished to do so.

You say that because you have been taught it. Pure faith notwithstanding, I see a highly evolved animal that has reached the point of assuming such qualities as a part of his makeup. Some call it God-given; some call it natural progression. But those qualities do exist. And I maintain they do not exist because of Christianity.

Without a 'religion', the non-religious cannot hold on the the Self-Evident Truth, so the foundation is very shaky.

Not at all. Nonbelievers in a higher being still believe that certain natural rights exist in all humans that are part of the human makeup. These rights are not trumped by the state, nor are they given by the state. Whether they are given by a higher power is irrelevant to many.

And we know that Christians throughout their history have systematically deprived human beings of those rights. Did they do that under the auspices of God? Slave owners (Christians) showed Bible passages that justified their ownership of fellow humans.

346 posted on 02/18/2007 6:27:27 AM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
This Nation does - see above.

Then if so, why have many of the freedoms enjoyed by all today come out of resistance to them by Christians?

347 posted on 02/18/2007 6:29:53 AM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
You are almost right, but it was FOR the 'people', BY a religious set of men, as indicated in the Declaration.

And those very same religious set of men realized that religion had no place in our government, as you wisely point out in Article VI. On that we can agree.

348 posted on 02/18/2007 6:32:39 AM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
It is the religious right that wants it cleansed of anyone not committed to a Christian oriented nation.

This is NOT true.

Unfortunately it is. If you have followed the threads here for the past couple of years, you cannot have missed how the religious right wants "its" party cleansed of any but the so-called social conservatives.

349 posted on 02/18/2007 6:37:19 AM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Better to meet a bear robbed of her cubs than a fool in his folly - Proverbs 17:12
350 posted on 02/18/2007 6:53:49 AM PST by Gritty (A wicked man listens to evil lips; a liar pays attention to a malicious tongue - Proverbs 17:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback

"Can you name me a passage where Jesus or any of His disciples defines the role of government and the church's relation to it? (Hint: there is one, arguably two, this is not a trick question.)"

Well I would immediately think of the ancient messianic prophecies and how they had all been interpreting the prophecy to expect a military leader who would lead a political revolution against the Roman empire. Instead, He came up with a motto like: "Render unto Caesar."

He wasn't a big fan of the Judaic theocratic leaders, either. He sort of came in the center of their religious/capitalist machine and literally upturned everything. In my personal reading (and I have had so many Biblical 'experts' priests pastors and preachers try to say it means something else) but I see the good JC trying to seperate spirituality from religion, business, and politics in order to eliminate secular greed. He says you can make your relationship with God a personal thing and that He is there when just 2-3 are gathered in His name. He isn't trying to build a new political organization, he's trying to embarass the one that has grown old and corrupt and judgemental.

"Where did Jesus call for the repeal of Jewish or Roman laws against prostitution?"

Or I could ask, when did he ever use law against any sinner? The law said the prostitute could be stoned to death, but obviously He didn't see any justice in that. Modern day Christians seem readier to hurl that rock, even if in a more symbolic and less physically violent way.

"Can you cite me any writing by a Founder that advocates repealing laws against prostitution or any other sin that was outlawed at that time?"

Well nope. The best I can think of off the top of my head is support for laws that would simply allow Jews and Catholics to vote. I also have a hard time reading the Bill of Rights without seeing it as a means of protecting Americans from all sorts of frivolous prosecution. Although things weren't up-front legalized, search, interrogation, and censorship is so limited that if the government actually held to those ideals I doubt we would have the world's largest prison population (and we do have more prisoners than China and Russia combined - and sure, that's because China executes people wholesale - I just don't like being in that kind of prison club)

"Ah, now let's talk about homsexuals. Have you ever wondered why the Religious Right doesn't have any groups to counter burglary or gluttony but they have groups that counter gay rights? Well, when was the last time you came across a well-funded lobbying effort on behalf of burglars? When was the last time you heard someone say that if a parent wants to teach their children why they shouldn't steal, that parent must be motivated by hatred?"

Not all crime or sin is a crime of direct violation. No one sane is going to justify theft of personal property or physical violence because they directly infringe on another person's rights. What about that guy smoking a joint, or wanting to marry his boyfriend, or someone who has become so in love with the concept of America and denied legal entry that they would risk ANYTHING to come here? Who here would risk EVERYTHING to come to America?

How can you argue a compelling social interest without crossing the fine line into socialism, where every individual's actions become the business of the state in the hopes of efficiency? A person in situation A is a liability because they are statistically likely to do B. Or person C is a liability because their lifestyle has a higher incidence of D. Sure. That's the logic that will outlaw guns, fast food, TV, and whatever freedom is deemed too expensive for our current socialist system to pay for. Already the Brits have begun denying their "universal" health care to smokers and overweight people (and by overweight, a lot of aging- and ex-Atheletes are falling into this category.)

Personally, I think it's silly that the government is involved with the business of marriage at all. Marriage is a religious tradition, right? So keep it in the churches. I'd rather not turn our judges into pastors.

My issue is how a certain type of socialist logic is sold under a "pure" Christian banner. Free will takes a back seat to the social costs of sin, even if the sin itself has no effect on violating another citizen's freedom. Moral outrage? Fine, judge people who have done no direct harm in your heart - not in the courts and not in the constitutions.

"Can you cite for me an example of an American politician telling people they should vote for him because he's a Christian?"

Almost every president has run on this platform. We've had a handful of Deists with Christian fundamentals, 1-2 Catholic, 1 unspecified, 1 Southern Baptist and the rest are all other protestants! At best, its a sham label that is merely a pre-requisite for consideration.

"Got any GOP types who've done that? If so, do you think that you could (if you had the research time) prove that even 5% of GOP pols campaign on their relationship with Jesus?"

Nope! Again, the politicians don't need a personal relationship with Jesus. They just have to be "tough on crime," opposed to gay marriage, opposed to abortion, and skeptical of immigration - and they'll snag the Christian votes. The policies that are demanded as a substitute for that relationship with Christ are pretty ironic, but that's just my opinion and I respect your opinion to disagree! Obviously, I have some personal biases as I said in my other post I have experience with what it's like to be marginalized/demonized by a Christian community simply for being sick. Its a pretty raw deal. Thank God the immigrants and the homosexuals and drug users understood and accepted.

"Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, so you do unto me."


351 posted on 02/18/2007 7:18:24 AM PST by kaotic133
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
Me: "In the opinion of Christians, Terri's right to life overruled any erroneous opinion of the State court and so they legitimately appealed to their federal government."

You: "So, in other words, our republican form of government is great...as long as it complies with the wishes of Christians. Why then have a republic, why not just a central government?"

The appeal to the Federal government did not overturn the republic or federalism. It was a legal maneuver to save a life. I fully support federalism and would vastly prefer a smaller federal government.

Do not take this one case to be advocacy for a federal theocracy. European and Church history is quite clear mixing civil government and religion leads to corruption of both.

Me: "The problem there is that states do not have the power to change the meaning of marriage. Marriage does not come from the state, but from the Church. The State merely records marriages and promotes them."

You: "Not so. Marriage, divorce, adoption, are all state regulated activities. A couple may or may not have the marriage blessed by a church, but it must be legalized by the state. The state, by virtue of the 10th Amendment has the power to regulate all facets of family law...including marriage."

The state regulates, but does not originate. Marriage existed before the US, before any European country, before ancient Israel. Laws may regulate, but may not change the definition--unless the state wishes to start its own religion. That is one way to interpret the MA decision. You're already on record against state religion, as I am.

Me: "If the people of Massachusetts do not remedy this themselves, and they have not for several years. I see no remedy for this other than a constitutional amendment."

You: "In other words, once again, as long as a state complies with the wishes of Christians, it can do as it is empowered to under the 10th Amendment. Why create the illusion of a republic? Let's just let a gathering of like minded Christians get together, and redo our Constitution to your liking?"

Again, this is a special, unique case, not a policy statement. A marriage amendment that states marriage is only heterosexual would be NO CHANGE from the 231 year status quo of our government. It would merely remedy the erroneous decision of the MA court (not people) to overturn the millennia old institution of marriage.

Me: "I'm sorry, I don't know what example to which you refer."

You: "Well, just a few examples would include Loving, Lawrence, Griswold, and Eisenstadt. These are basis human rights issues where the court ruled that no state's powers can trump the basic human rights of its citizens."

I'm sure you have some point here vis a vis government and religion, but not knowing these cases I cannot discuss it. You must be explicit rather than allusive.
352 posted on 02/18/2007 7:45:26 AM PST by Forgiven_Sinner (Here's an experiment for God's existence: Ask Him to contact you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner
The appeal to the Federal government did not overturn the republic or federalism. It was a legal maneuver to save a life. I fully support federalism and would vastly prefer a smaller federal government.

The problem with that was that it was just that...a legal maneuver, with the state legal process working as designed and as the state of Florida had the power to exercise. That some didn't like the outcome was no justification for doing an end-run around the legal system.

The state regulates, but does not originate. Marriage existed before the US, before any European country, before ancient Israel. Laws may regulate, but may not change the definition--unless the state wishes to start its own religion. That is one way to interpret the MA decision. You're already on record against state religion, as I am.

No the state does not originate, but once the state assumes legal jurisdiction, I see nothing anywhere that prevents it from making modification as it and the good people of the state see fit. Once we became a legal nation, we were not bound in any fashion by cultural or religious traditions. To want the state to accept only a Christian definition of marriage is to go against your previous statement desirous of a separation of Church and state.

Again, this is a special, unique case, not a policy statement. A marriage amendment that states marriage is only heterosexual would be NO CHANGE from the 231 year status quo of our government. It would merely remedy the erroneous decision of the MA court (not people) to overturn the millennia old institution of marriage.

My point is that each of these instances I cited seem to be unique, and are designed to limit the powers of the state pursuant to the 10th Amendment. Even one is troublesome for many. Marriage is primarily a cultural institution. That a state regulates it is to ensure that the contract serves all parties and provides the legal basis for certain benefits. But that state is not bound in any way to restrict that institution to only those people the Church deems appropriate. And cultural issues should not be the object of constitutional amendments.

I'm sure you have some point here vis a vis government and religion, but not knowing these cases I cannot discuss it. You must be explicit rather than allusive.

Well I didn't think giving you the names of the cases was being "allusive", but Loving referred to the courts striking down miscegenation, with Christians arguing as did you earlier that marriage has traditionally excluded racial mixing; Griswold was the case that ruled the Constitution recognizes and protects the right to privacy (in this case, birth control); Lawrence reinforced the right to privacy of all persons including homosexuals; Eisenstadt ruled that unmarried couples had the same rights to privacy in contraception as married couples.

All of these cases have been fought vehemently by Christians, and they are part of the cases that explain why Christian activists despise the 14th Amendment.

What many here fail to understand is that religion is a cultural institution, not a constitutional one. And culture is the prerogative of the people. Culture changes over time, and it is not proper for the Constitution to be made into an instrument to impact those cultural changes in any fashion.

353 posted on 02/18/2007 8:28:42 AM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2
That's true but Jesus said we should flee it if possible.

What scripture are you taking that from? Paul fled in some cases and in others he went where he knew he'd encounter trouble. (for example, he received a prophecy by someone taking his belt and binding his hands as a warning of what awaited him in Jerusalem...and yet he still traveled there, which led to his appealing to Cesar). Now I'm not advocating seeking persecution, but there may/will be occasions when we are not to flee it in every case.

354 posted on 02/18/2007 8:51:03 AM PST by highlander_UW (I don't know what my future holds, but I know Who holds my future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Welcome to the church of Laodicea. The end justifies the means, all principles are negotiable, and the Bible didnt really SAY that, or if it did, it must be a mistranslation or never was meant to be taken literally in the first place.


355 posted on 02/18/2007 8:56:35 AM PST by Mom MD (The scorn of fools is music to the ears of the wise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VOA
"Out of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa " by Keith Richburg.

I have, and have posted a reference to it, as you have, more than once on this forum.

There's no other book quite like it.

356 posted on 02/18/2007 10:44:39 AM PST by happygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
Thank you for your clear and patient explanation of your views. I generally agree with your comments about the separation of the Church and state, and generally disagree with you in that I believe it is right and proper for Christians to contend politically for their views in the political arena. I don't see why they should be any different from any other interest group.

Regarding your comment here:

"What many here fail to understand is that religion is a cultural institution, not a constitutional one. And culture is the prerogative of the people. Culture changes over time, and it is not proper for the Constitution to be made into an instrument to impact those cultural changes in any fashion."

I agree that most of the time religion is a cultural institution, produced by human culture. I agree that religion is not a constitutional issue, except in terms of the freedom of practice thereof, as explicit in the first amendment, and implicit in the rest of the Constitution. What is not mentioned as a Federal power is a private freedom.

The exception regarding religion is that God exists in objective reality and has specific desires regarding beliefs and practices, as revealed in the Bible. These transcend human culture. The constitution was not created in a vacuum and has implicit assumptions, such as heterosexual marriage. When a state supreme court or a state legislature seeks to change the meaning of marriage, Christians, representing anywhere from 20-60% of the population (depending on your definition), can legitimately contend for an amendment to set this definition in our government, to preserve our cultural interests. There is nothing illegal or wrong about this--the only question is, is there sufficient political will to do this?

Personally, I think not. If the country was not outraged by Roe v. Wade to move to a right to life amendment (which I expected at the time), it will not be moved to a marriage amendment. If people will not amend the Constitution to protect the lives of millions of babies, they will not amend it to prevent states from calling homosexual domestic arrangements "marriage".

So I think you will not be disappointed by the creation some religiously oriented amendments. I don't think the country is religious enough.
357 posted on 02/18/2007 11:33:14 AM PST by Forgiven_Sinner (Here's an experiment for God's existence: Ask Him to contact you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Thanx, I needed that. Just a real feeling sorry for myself moment, but I'm as thick headed as the next person


358 posted on 02/18/2007 12:54:32 PM PST by SaintDismas (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: Forgiven_Sinner
I generally agree with your comments about the separation of the Church and state, and generally disagree with you in that I believe it is right and proper for Christians to contend politically for their views in the political arena. I don't see why they should be any different from any other interest group.

That's a reasonable point, but the concern of many here is the influence they play in Republican politics. To be sure, 2008 is in all likelihood going to be a bad year for Republicans. Our Party is going through a sorting out process to see if we can field a good candidate. We all want a candidate who can not only win, but has conservative values.

The religious right however, has defined those values differently from most conservatives. Many of the issues of the RR have little to do with the presidency, but much to do with the judiciary. But the candidate that would be satisfactory to the RR would in all likelihood be destroyed in the general election. Americans are tired of fringe politics. That is why Kerry lost, and why Hillary is desperately trying to paint herself as a moderate.

The exception regarding religion is that God exists in objective reality and has specific desires regarding beliefs and practices, as revealed in the Bible. These transcend human culture.

And I respect the beliefs of those who embrace those values, but they do not transcend human culture; they are a part of the human culture, just as the beliefs of Hindus, Jews, Muslims and others. Their beliefs form the basis for the culture that exists in their parts of the world. It is very clear what can happen when those religious (cultural) beliefs are brought into the government. Basic human rights become subject to the particular religious belief rather than as human values untouchable by governments. They are no longer unalienable, but defined and restricted by priests, ministers, rabbis or other religious "officials".

The constitution was not created in a vacuum and has implicit assumptions, such as heterosexual marriage.

That is not correct. There are no implicit assumptions in the Constitution that would in any way make any part of our culture, including marriage, sacrosanct. As I mentioned in my last post, culture is the domain of the people. A government's prime responsibility is to defend the human rights of its citizens. Secondarily, is to create a societal structure that permits the greatest freedom of expression while ensuring the basic needs of its citizens in the areas of defense, monetary, and a handful of other needs consistent with a republican style of government. That permits the people to keep or change the culture as it desires. If the people of one state wish to incorporate cultural issues into their constitution, then by virtue of the 10th Amendment, that is their prerogative.

When a state supreme court or a state legislature seeks to change the meaning of marriage, Christians, representing anywhere from 20-60% of the population (depending on your definition), can legitimately contend for an amendment to set this definition in our government, to preserve our cultural interests. There is nothing illegal or wrong about this--the only question is, is there sufficient political will to do this?

We must first look at what the goal of those people is. Is it to protect heterosexual marriage? I doubt it since, single couples and divorce are infinitely greater threats to the institution than are a handful of gays and lesbians marrying in one state. Will two gays marrying in Massachusetts have any impact on any other heterosexual marriage anywhere? No evidence of that.

Then I can only conclude the goal is to ensure that all 50 states comply with what is essentially a Christian dictate concerning homosexuality. My next question then is what is next? I asked that of a few of the very ardent anti-homosexuals on the forum, and was told that this would be just the beginning. Their goals are far more devious and dark than they want the majority of Christians to know about.

Personally, I think not. If the country was not outraged by Roe v. Wade to move to a right to life amendment (which I expected at the time), it will not be moved to a marriage amendment. If people will not amend the Constitution to protect the lives of millions of babies, they will not amend it to prevent states from calling homosexual domestic arrangements "marriage".

Most, like me want to see Roe rejected because we believe that there is no innate right to privacy when a third party is concerned (faulty judicial logic), and that it belongs within the purview of the states like most everything else. So hopefully, most Americans will reject these religious amendments, and depend instead on our great Constitution and Republic to do the job intended by the Founding Fathers.

359 posted on 02/18/2007 1:07:35 PM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: MACVSOG68
With Social Security, the Republicans refused to sit down with no preconceived plan to see if they could make some progress with the Democrats. They refused to take privatization off the table, and the Democrats refused to talk with privatization as the line in the sand.

The Republicans even proposed (much to the annoyance of many of us here) raising the cap on taxes on Social Security to make up for the claims of shortfall from the "privatization" (that was not privatization in any sense of the word). The Democrats played like there isn't a problem with Social Security at all.

You don't seem to follow current events very much, but you are obviously influenced by left-wing talking points.

360 posted on 02/18/2007 2:23:53 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 401-420 next last

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.

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