The Religious Right's Era Is Over

Time ^ | February 16, 2007 | Jim Wallis

[Elsie]

Obvious because he stopped the crowd from enacting their violent religious law?

HE stopped nothing.

HE knew what the law said: 2 or more WITNESSES to the crime were needed to carry out the sentence.

None came forward, therefore, in perfect HARMONY with 'The LAW', she was set free.

[Elsie]

I at least provided a background and gave examples.

You provided examples of the QUALITITES; NOT from where they came. You merely STATED they evolved in Man.

When I ask why then do atheists exhibit the same or even more moral traits, I'm usually met with silence.

Usually; but not now.

Atheists are still HUMAN and can CHOOSE to not 'believe' in a higher power than themselves if they wish.

---

Not that I have bought in yet, but scientists believe that even higher level computers will begin assuming some human traits both bad and good.

(There's that belief again.)

"Hal - open the pod bay doors..."

---

If so, I imagine many of the fundies will go out and commit suicide, just as when small forms of life are found on Mars and elsewhere.

Great imagination!

(There's that belief one more time.)

[Mrs. Don-o]

"...values the [Religious Right] here decries most, abortion and gay rights, have little or nothing to do with the presidency. Those issues will ultimately be resolved in the court system."

And the court system (Federal courts in general, SCOTUS in particular) depend on the presidency.

Q.E.D.

[cowdog77]

It appeals to no one but those whose actions are not condoned by traditional societal values.
________________________________________________
Bingo........all a liberal really wants is for his sin to be condoned.

[TChris]

Yeah. Cheers. The "Religious Right" has been in such a long-time position of oppressive rule, and now all the downtrodden masses can finally breathe free air!

Give me a break.

Where does all this trembling fear of the "Religious Right" come from? I have a good friend who actually told me he fears the "Religious Right" more than radical Muslims. ...and he was raised in a conservative, Baptist home!

I just don't understand where the irrational fear and loathing comes from.

[madprof98]

I just don't understand where the irrational fear and loathing comes from.

You answered your own question: the friend was raised in a conservative, Baptist home. The porno groupies, the one-night-standers, the abortion aficionados, and so on all know that what they're doing is wrong. That "internal parent" we call conscience lets them know it long after their parents have gone to the grave, which is why they waste so much time and effort trying to convince the rest of us that it isn't so. If it were so, after all, if the Mommy and Daddy inside their head were really right, why, they might FEEL BAD - and in today's culture, absolutely nothing is worse than feeling bad. As things stand, if somebody makes you feel bad, you can sue them! And if you can't sue them, well, you can try to kick them out of your political party. That's what the Rudyphiles are trying to do to the rest of us. We remind them of the Mommies and Daddies they know are really right.

[steve-b]

The "Religious Right" leadership became another Big Government pressure group and its credibility sank along with that of Big Government in general.

Grassroots social conservatives with the sense to separate themselves from that albatross still have a chance of exercising leadership by persuasion and example, though it will take a decade or two for the bad smell left by the Big Government Religous Right to dissipate.

[steve-b]

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?

Jefferson's dismissal of the notion that his neighbor saying that there were twenty gods, or no gods, was anybody else's business.

Next question?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

LOL!

Again??

Ya gotta love Time magazine.

[MACVSOG68]

And the court system (Federal courts in general, SCOTUS in particular) depend on the presidency.

And I'm quite comfortable in the notion that the person I vote for will look to judicial nominees who understand that the first purpose of the Constitution is the protection of the rights of all of its citizens, and secondarily can distinguish between the judicial and legislative branches of government, especially their job descriptions.

[steve-b]

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.

It is particularly amusing when they've just gone on at length about interpreting the Constitution based on "Original Intent"[tm], and are confronted with multiple quotes from the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment indicating that, yes, its original intent was to make the federal Bill of Rights binding on the states.

Judges have engaged in corrupt legislation from the bench, not in creating the Incorporation Doctrine (which was the part of the intended effect of the Fourteenth) but in making it "selective" (e.g. some of those quotes expressly state that one of the reasons for the Fourteenth was to abolish the "gun control" laws passed to disarm the freedmen).

[MACVSOG68]

You provided examples of the QUALITITES; NOT from where they came. You merely STATED they evolved in Man.

Well, I cannot explain to you that higher intellect is an evolutionary process. I gave you an example of the chimp to demonstrate an abstract ideological characteristic. I could tell you that the higher the intellect in various species within the animal kingdom, the more of these qualities one will encounter. But apparently that does not satisfy you.

You can tell me that unless God provided them, they could not exist, but then one could ask you why God provided them, and where his power to do so came from, and we would be in exactly the same place.

Atheists are still HUMAN and can CHOOSE to not 'believe' in a higher power than themselves if they wish.

Which means what? If a non-believer can demonstrate the same qualities of morality and justice as one who believes he has received them from a higher being, so what? Was the chimp in my example a moral animal? Did God or evolution provide him that instinct to assist another less able chimp? Why don't worms act accordingly?

Great imagination! (There's that belief one more time.)

You seem incapable of distinguishing between belief and faith. I believe something because I have observed sufficient evidence to warrant that belief. I have faith because I have no evidence, but still accept it.

[MACVSOG68]

It is particularly amusing when they've just gone on at length about interpreting the Constitution based on "Original Intent"[tm], and are confronted with multiple quotes from the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment indicating that, yes, its original intent was to make the federal Bill of Rights binding on the states.

Well, that's two of us who know it. But is still remains one of the great all time secrets....

Judges have engaged in corrupt legislation from the bench, not in creating the Incorporation Doctrine (which was the part of the intended effect of the Fourteenth) but in making it "selective" (e.g. some of those quotes expressly state that one of the reasons for the Fourteenth was to abolish the "gun control" laws passed to disarm the freedmen).

The 14th is perhaps the most interesting of our "rights" amendments, in that is has been the most fought over of all of them, and even the courts were afraid of it for almost a hundred years.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"...the Big Government Religous Right..."

You may think this is going to be a sarcastic post, but it's not. I'm looking for insight here.

The "Big Government Religious Right" which wants to terminate Planned Parenthood's multi-million dollar annual government funding?

The BGRR which wants -0- government funding for Embryonic Stem Cell Research?

The BGRR which wants the govt. NOT to entitle man-on-man sexual unions with those famous 1049 federal rights, benefits and privileges that are supposedly given to married couples?

The BGRR which believes that the education of children is the proper domain of parents (primarily), churches, local school districts, and states (in that order) and that the federal government should butt out?

The BGRR which believes that the government has -0- authority to authorize the deliberate killing of an innocent human being -- ever?

It appears that all these positions call for a smaller, scaled-down, humbler idea of government funding, prerogatives and power.

But I think you must have something else in mind. Please illustrate what you mean by the BGRR.

[Mrs. Don-o]

[On laws against prostitution vs. laws against polytheism]

Your answer, steve-b, seems to jump into a different category from the one addressed by Mr. Silverback.

Laws against prostitution are related to ethics, public health, and the stabilty of marriage, which has ramifying impacts on public order, since every society, including this fair Republic, is built on the primary social building-block of marriage and family.

These are legitimate this-worldly public policy concerns.

In contrast, polytheism, monotheism, agnosticism, atheism, etc. have to do inherently with supernatural or naturalistic philosophical claims which do not impact directly on secular government concerns.

Hence voters in a democratic republic could find justification for repressing prostitution, bathhouses, public indecency, sexual contact with minors, and so forth, but not for repressing polytheism per se.

[Elsie]

You seem incapable of distinguishing between belief and faith.

 

 

No, I don't think so...

 

---

---

---

 

be·lief (b-lf)

n.

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.

2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.

3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

---

[Middle English bileve, alteration (influenced by bileven, to believe)of Old English gelafa; see leubh- in Indo-European roots.]

Synonyms: belief, credence, credit, faith
These nouns denote mental acceptance of the truth, actuality, or validity of something: a statement unworthy of belief; an idea steadily gaining credence; testimony meriting credit; has no faith in a liar's assertions. See Also Synonyms at opinion.

Antonym: disbelief

 

---

---

---

 

faith (fth)

n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.

3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Idiom:

in faith

Indeed; truly.

---

[Middle English, from Anglo-Norman fed, from Latin fids; see bheidh- in Indo-European roots.]

 

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[Elsie]

I believe something because I have observed sufficient evidence to warrant that belief.

Nope...

I KNOW something because I have observed sufficient evidence to warrant that KNOWLEDGE.

[Elsie]

The "Big Government Religious Right" which wants to terminate Planned Parenthood's multi-million dollar annual government funding TAXPAYER MONEY?

The BGRR which wants -0- government funding TAXPAYER MONEY for Embryonic Stem Cell Research?

The BGRR which wants the govt. NOT to entitle man-on-man sexual unions with those famous 1049 federal rights, benefits and privileges that are supposedly given to married couples?   (RIGHTS are not GIVEN; only PRIVILEGES are!)

The BGRR which believes that the education of children is the proper domain of parents (primarily), churches, local school districts, and states (in that order) and that the federal government should butt out?

The BGRR which believes that the government has -0- authority to authorize the deliberate killing of an innocent human being -- ever?

It appears that all these positions call for a smaller, scaled-down, humbler idea of government funding TAXPAYER MONEY, prerogatives and power.

But I think you must have something else in mind. Please illustrate what you mean by the BGRR.

 

 

We MUST quit using THEIR terms!!!!   It's OUR MONEY!!!!

[Elsie]

The "Religious Right" leadership became another Big Government pressure group...

Divide and Conquer still works.

It's no WONDER all these fringe loonies UNITE in the Demcratic Party, for by themselves they'll get none of their crap passed!

You scratch MY back.....

If the RR fragments to 'lead' by example and persuasion, guess what will be accomplished in the long run.

[MACVSOG68]

No, I don't think so...

But did you before going to the dictionary? Again for the umpteenth time, what is your point?