Render Unto Caesar-Some Christian conservatives confuse religion and politics

re: What "conservative Christians" would criminalize depends upon whom you speak with, so demanding a list is hardly an argument. )))

I guess that means you don't have much of a list, just a blanket insinuation without substance. But I'll at least take a look at the bland examples you did offer... There are still vestiges of blue laws in a few states (sharia law?), it's pretty tough to advance the pro-life pt of view (and I do believe there is an athiest prolife org out there, anyway), and there was a little more to Prohibition than religion.

That the best you can do? Letting a few merchants get some rest one day a week, and that amounts to a threatened theocracy?

This is plain old thinly-disguised personal distaste for the beliefs of your political allies--and it'll get on the nerves of those allies if you don't keep it under control.

If the neos don't like sitting at the same table with the religious right, just say so instead of delivering pompous little lectures . We could always move on down the line.

re: In my view, "conservative Christians" need to understand the intellectual and historical antecedents of the different view and will ultimately have to choose between supporting a conservatism that differs from theirs, but preserves a sphere in which they are free to live as they choose, and supporting a state that is tinged to a greater or lesser degree with theocracy...

In other words, you're takin' over the joint? Straight out of James Cagney...

If the latter, there will be little support, and the left, who will not even respect their sphere, will gain power.

No one's stopping the 'tarians from sucking up the lattes in the jazz bars with their liberal buddies...

1. Is marriage perverted if not christian, or jewish? Can others marry without it being perverted? Hindus? Muslims? Transit workers?

2. Ask a catholic priest about man-boy relationships. Are these relationships somehow acceptable since they too, among billions, have found the one true god?

3. Special rights under the law? No, only equal. And, why would you argue that marriage is a legal artifact when point 1 seems to imply that marriage is a function of a god? Is marriage only valid under the law, or must it have the endorsement of a deity? If a deity is required, does law have any role to play? Why invoke law? Isn't a god sufficient?

You thoroughly misunderstand my point. If I read the temper of the American body politic at all correctly, there is unlikely to ever be a majority that would support a hard religious right candidate or policies. That's simply my assessment of the facts, based upon historical knowledge and interest in contemporary affairs, not distate for their views. If my assessment is correct, then my analysis follows that the religious right's alternatives are the existing conservative party (the 'pubbies) or letting the left rule.

Wow, Liberation, you really know how to pull things out of your ***.

1. Is marriage perverted if not christian, or jewish? Can others marry without it being perverted? Hindus? Muslims? Transit workers?

Marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman. Not sure what your gay transit workers have to do with it.

2. Ask a catholic priest about man-boy relationships.

Oh, so you think that those gay/pedophile relationships are fine? Your bigotry is showing. You just put together a sentence without bashing religion.

3. Special rights under the law? No, only equal.

Everyone is afforded equal protection under the law. But a mistress doesn't get health benefits, and neither should gay "partners". THAT is equal treatment.

1. By definition? Site your source please. Try not to thump too loudly. BTW - I didn't say the transit workers were gay. Your point is unclear and says to me that you're not sure where you stand. You're lashing out. Better to seek some inspiration.

2. Of course I don't condone those relationships. But a formal religon tolerates them. Does god accept them as well? Do you? I think not. Why do you assume that I condone them from what I wrote? Your dogma jets are in overdrive.

3. You're saying marriage is meaningful only if government sanctioned. Health benefits to a spouse enjoy preferential tax treatment, it's a government distinction. So, who takes precedence? A god or the government? Does a god require government approval? A god? A four star, seven carbon, three dimensional, ocean going, 24 carat, steam powered, omnipotent god? Come on, why invoke government to shore up your point? It's a distinction made by men, not by gods.

Yes. Jesus did not specifically address homosexuality. However, he did say:

The Fulfillment of the Law
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-20)

I suspect he did not feel it necessary to have a long discussion on whether or not homosexuality should be legal while being immoral, and whether Heather should have 2 mommies or not, or whether fisting should be part of gay "reality TV."

If you want to hear someone really laugh, just ask the Holy Spirit how Jesus would have responded if someone were to have been able to ask those questions back then.
:-)

Liberation, I'm not going to get into a flame war over this. If you don't think that marriage is "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife," you're out in left field somewhere. You're trying to put words in my mouth about one thing after another, religion, government, "dogma" . . .

If you want to be a troll, get off this board. Go to DU, mutter things to yourself in the dark. But I don't want any part of it.

...I also don't think you can replace the words you put forth and maintain a cogent piece. But hey, I've been wrong innmuerable times before.

Well, then what is the difference betwix them?

I don't think his determination is worthy either, but you must conceed that if he's using Homosexuality as a precedent that can not be worthy of changing people's hearts and minds for a politcal cause, and only for a religious mission, you surely can not apply Abortion and Drug Abuse either for a policy-making crusade.

(Run-on application humbly requested before sentence coiffed.)

" I could have pointed out that I have opposed the gay left’s attacks on organizations like the Boy Scouts; that I have decried the intrusion of the gay left’s sexual agendas into the public schools and that I have written the harshest critiques of the gay left’s promotion of organized promiscuity and subversion of the public health system, as the root cause of the AIDS epidemic,.."

Well, duh-h-h,--- the evasively-named "Human Rights Campaign" is the gay left.

"Well I know what triggered this response. I began my article by pointing out that homosexuality did not seem to be high on the scale of Jesus’ priorities ...."

Let's see if I've got this straight (if you will excuse the insensitivity of the expression):

What we would regard as severe repression of homosexuals was the norm in Jerusalem of Jesus time, therefore, since Jesus did not bring up the subject, it follows that he didn't see much wrong with homosexuality. -------Huh?

See, this wacky stuff is what happens when people don't read their Bibles in context!

there is unlikely to ever be a majority that would support a hard religious right candidate or policies. )))

Cheewillikers, what condescension.

Yup, we pore barefoots out chere cain't wrap our unsophisticated bumpkin-brains around such notions as "compromise" and "negotiation". Any sign that religious rightwards expect a place at the conservative table--that they have as much right to push an agenda as the Sierra Club, Log Cabin Republicans, et cetera--and look how you characterize them--as naifs. What makes you think that they expect the whole pie, when you know that even the best activism will only give you slices of that pie? Why wouldn't they know what you know? Unless you think they're just too dumb to figure it out...

Keep on underestimating them. Here's a clue--not only do they have your number, but they'll play on that kind of intellectual vanity to further their own ends.

I'm kind of disappointed in Horowitz (I've been a fan of his since "Destructive Generation"). He's feeling way too sorry for Andrew Sullivan--alientating allies isn't going to cure his friend.

{I believe that the religious right seriously underestimates how negatively the average voter perceives them, and how susceptible the average voter is to leftist scare tactics waving the spectre of the religious right like the 'bloody shirt'.}

The shrill rhetoric of the "religious right" is the reason states like CA, NJ, WA, and OR are danger zones for the GOP. However, the "religious right" vote is a valuable asset for the GOP. Last year, the "religious right" provided the muscle to elect Sen. Wayne Allard (CO), Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC), and Sen. John Conryn (TX). Moderate to Liberal Republicans can't afford to dismiss the "religious right." At the same time, the "religious right" must understand that the GOP does not stand for "God's Own Party."

I agree with you. The country is large, and what's mainstream varies from place to place.

Because the religious right is concentrated in areas where they are not so far out of the mainstream, they fail to understand that in states such as those you mentioned (and I would add upstate New York, CT, MN, MI MD and other states that have recently barely elected Republicans after long periods, or where Republicans barely lost recent elections), they are perceived as way outside the mainstream.

Likewise, we who live in those places with a more socially liberal climate of opinion need to be more sensitive to the rest of the country.

The political problem, if one reviews the results of the 2000 and 2002 elelctions, is that the more populous states with the most electoral votes and power in the House, are in the areas most uncomfortable with the rhetoric of the religious right.

re: the religious right seriously underestimates how negatively the average voter perceives them)))

It's not exactly news to them. Urbanite 'tarians seldom manage to hide their icky-poo reactions. Some try to distract from it with meandering dependent clauses and arcane victorian usage of punctuation, but the end result is still--"icky poo."

What you are promulgating is a kind of blood libel. It's past the point of being treated with patience.

To explain: conservative Christians bring their issues to the conservative table. They bring votes, they expect some attention. Guess what--they've earned it and have every right to push a political agenda of their choosing.

What they choose to concern themselves with...They don't happen to like the fact that ordinary California businessmen are now required to hire six-foot guys named George who show up to work in fright wigs, high-heeled Manolo Blahniks, and tight cocktail dresses. They don't like the fact that a staggering redefinition of the nature of marriage is probably around the corner. The homosexual agenda includes bizarre attacks on wholesome private institutions such as the Boy Scouts, dear to the hearts of social conservatives (the breeders, after all, as Santayana named us)who are stuck with the responsibility of bringing up male children in a difficult culture.

Now, for the libel--Do you try to address the issues, or do you simply apply your formulaic "Christains attempting to impose a theocracy on us beleaguered urban elites of obvious superior intellect." To insinuate that we're not to be taken seriously because we're incipient tyrants is a lame excuse for an "argument"--though fallacies are known to carry weight. Such "arguments" do serve as a sure marker of an expression of personal distaste.

To close, you then reiterate how much we are disliked. You speak from simple parochial inclination, and don't have much of an intellectual argument to venture.

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.