Posted on 07/16/2004 7:05:35 AM PDT by Kerberos
Nice effort but Kerberos is eurotrash. No sense pursuing rational discourse with such as he/she/it. Hasn't had a rational thought since some fascist told him Christianity is evil. Time to invoke the "don't waste your breath" rule.
The article is about religious conservatives trying to take power in their denominations. Do you object to that, Kerberos?
No American has a right to have their marriage recognized by the state. For instance if you are homosexual there is nothing stopping you from getting "married". But for purposes of determining rights and obligations in regard to property and child custody and taxes, the state has the right to define what is or is not a "valid" marriage. Every state has laws prohibiting polygamy and incest and many states have instituted laws prohibiting marriage between members of the same sex (it was more or less presumed for the last 10,000 years). But the courts have been undermining the right of the people to define marriage and have usurped the power to redefine what is a valid marriage, which is the perogative of the legislatures.
Now that the threat exists that the courts are going to find some constitutional right to make the states recognize illegal marriages or invalid marriages and then force that right on other states, it appears that the only way to prevent such a travesty is a constitutional amendment.
The Constitution was designed to be amended for just such a purpose. Polygamy and Homosexuality should not be "official sanctioned". They are unhealthy lifestyles that are both physically and emotionally harmful and put unnatural burdens on children that should not be encouraged or ratified by the government.
Boy, you're full of lies tonight aren't you? Are you a DU graduate?
"Boy, you're full of lies tonight aren't you? Are you a DU graduate?"
A what graduate?
It appears what the article objects to isn't so much just that we're taking back our denominations, but the fact that we refuse to live in little ghettos ruled over by the sort of cultural 'elites' (using both terms loosely) typified by john f. kerry and the like. To the extent that what kerberos is seeing is the fact that our social (and political)activism extends outside the limits of the sorts of social ghettos the remnants of European Christianity have been forced to accept - he/she/it/ is entirely correct...what he/she/it needs to get past is the fact, unlike Europe, here in the USA we are a vital and growing force in our society. Oh well, I guess you have to live here to understand it, eh?
Ronald Reagan said you can get a lot done if you don't care who gets credit.
I suspect the left's problem is that all their organizations are very turf oriented.
NAACP claims to speak for all black people and attacks anyone who challenges that.
NOW speaks for all women and stomps any left wing group tha would challenge them.
(the alphabet media ridicule the new media)
You must evaluate my statements based on evidence as being true or false.
Alright. So where is your evidence?
Fact #1: There has never been a (Federal) theocratic political structure in this country, nor any threat of one. There is, however, a strong atheistic political structure which has been usurping our freedom for decades.
Fact #2: The expansion of political franchise and “human rights” has come only after the work (and blood) of those Christians (and other religious people) whom you feel so free to disparage. Abolitionists were primarily Christian; the women's suffrage movement was supported by Christians; and the civil rights' movement couldn't have happened without the support of churches.
Fact #3: No increase in the powers of the Federal government can be attributed to (Christian) religious influence. The obverse is unfortunately the norm: atheistic restrictions on speech, imposition of draconian laws specifically against Christian organizations, and illegal (ir)religious tests for Federal appointments.
I know of no prominent individual Christian or Christian organization that advocates civil law based solely on faith. Yet, they do want laws that allow them to practice their faith. At times, that means they will work for, or against, particular legislation.
However, correlation does not equal causality. You cannot outlaw everything that happens to coincide with any religion, nor can you prohibit public discourse or action because a particular subject may include elements of both civil and spiritual relevance.
The question has never really been whether we will have morality imposed on us; it is whose morality. Unfortunately, that answer isn’t being decided by the people, is it?
"It seems that not only has Kerberos missed the point entirely, so has everyone else, including my elect brothers."
No I did not miss the point that the article is about how fundamentalist are reclaiming power within their churches. And you are correct the discussion quickly got away from that as a topic.
However, as one who has studied the rise of fundamentalism in America for some time now it is a given that the end result is directed towards the acquisition of political power, and the implementation of the America as a Christian nation myth, as a legal reality.
If it were just about redefining their churches as a redefinition of their personal theistic beliefs, this article would have not gotten a second glace from me. After all we do have freedom of religion in this country. For the time being anyway.
Perhaps we need a court case to establish the seperation of Atheism and state.
We DO need such a court case. Atheism itself is a particular religion, considering how fanatically its proponents defend it and demand that it become the established state religion and law of the land, or the Procrustean bed on which all laws are to be made. Defend the religious freedom of ATHEISTS! They have higher IQ's, didn't you all know? (sarcasm)
Fact #1: There has never been a (Federal) theocratic political structure in this country, nor any threat of one.
You are correct there has never been such a structure as men of reason have seen that there has not been one since the founding of our country.
“There is, however, a strong atheistic political structure which has been usurping our freedom for decades.”
And where is this strong atheistic political structure.
“Abolitionists were primarily Christian”
As were slaveholders, however the abolitionists have a very short history compared to the slaveholders.
“the women's suffrage movement was supported by Christians;”
Socialist Christians who also brought about the insane debacle known as prohibition, which they have now reincarnated in the current day war on drugs. A plan I might add that didn’t work for prohibition and doesn’t work for drugs. However both were very successful in increasing the size and power of the federal government.
“and the civil rights' movement couldn't have happened without the support of churches.”
Predominantly black churches. Southern Christians were more than willing to kill to thwart the civil rights movement, which is why Johnson had to call out the National Guard
“No increase in the powers of the Federal government can be attributed to (Christian) religious influence.”
Already refuted above.
“The obverse is unfortunately the norm: atheistic restrictions on speech, imposition of draconian laws specifically against Christian organizations, and illegal (ir)religious tests for Federal appointments.”
And which laws are you talking about. Certainly you aren’t talking about the laws we have, which uphold the Constitution, preventing Christians from forcing others to practice their religion in public schools and on taxpayer owned property. Were there some laws passed that prohibited Christians from attending a church of their choice or from practicing their faith in their daily lives that I missed.
“I know of no prominent individual Christian or Christian organization that advocates civil law based solely on faith.”
Nor do I, they advocate civil law based on biblical law, a system that is currently in place by many Muslim country in the world. (Of course based on Islamic law)
“The question has never really been whether we will have morality imposed on us; it is whose morality.”
Am I to gather from this response that you have decided that someone or something will dictate to you your own personal morality and that you have no say in the matter. That’s too bad, however I am not willing to accept that.
Your tag line says everything anyone ever needs to know about you. People without convictions see everything is shades of gray; a constantly mobile set of moral values. Totally at odds with "conservatism" by its very definition; and a philosphy that eventually leads to one of the "isms."
S/B "one of the OTHER "isms."
Nothing that isn't wrong with them when the liberals employ them.
Are they not members of the Church? Are they not responsible to God for their actions? Are they in any way acting in an immorally? Do they not have a right to participate in the leadership of their institutions, and lead according to the values and beliefs?
Their church is not the republic.
You own first comment was about "what they have in store for us". The discussion was never about the main topic.
However, as one who has studied the rise of fundamentalism in America for some time now it is a given that the end result is directed towards the acquisition of political power, and the implementation of the America as a Christian nation myth, as a legal reality.
I get the impression that if I told you I just bought a car you'd think it was a step toward sinister theocracy.
After all we do have freedom of religion in this country. For the time being anyway.
You meant this, I don't doubt, as a warning about what we're up to. But it sure sounds like a threat.
very nice work. isn't it interesting that a liberal thinks they are not joined at the hip via programs like NOW, DNC, Sierra Club etc. He argues that the right is better connected. Wish it was true.
"You meant this, I don't doubt, as a warning about what we're up to. But it sure sounds like a threat"
Your first impression is correct I don’t make threats. For all the good intentions that the religious right might have, you know what the bible says about good intentions, they are still advocating a form of socialism, same as the Democrats, just a theocratic version.
The Christian right has no understand or interest in individulism and freedom which is what America was orginally about.
Actually that statement shows an igorance of the dominant world view at the time of the framers and a lack of understanding of orthodix Christian theology.
First, let's start with the Declaration of Indepencence. Recall the source of human rights posited by the Framers? Individual rights are not granted by the state but are inalienable rights endowed by our Creator. This view follows directly from the dominant biblical view at the time of man as an image bearer, created by God to glorify God.
Next, let's look at the anti-establishment clause of the Constitution. At the time of the framing of the Constitution, several states had state churches. As I recall, the state church in Virginia was Presbyterian; the state church in Massachusetts was Congregational. The purpose of the anti-establishment clause was not to exclude religion from public life, but rather to avoid a national church.
I would also point out that public education was started in the colonies to train people in the Scriptures. I suggest you look up "the olde deluder law".
In short, the dominant view in the US has been that the individual was responsible to seek out religous truth for themselves and to worship God as their concience dictated. The result was true individual freedom and responsibility, not a license for libertine behavior.
Indeed, what you call "the religious right" is, for the most part, the philosophical and theological heir of the founders of this nation.
As to the strong atheistic structure; I can see why you would refuse to answer. Let's start with a socialist, activist judiciary that imposes its godless beliefs on an unwilling public. Then let's add the ACLU, the American Bar Association and the myriad of Alphabet Agencies that operate completely outside of Constitutional review.
Oh my, not PROHIBITION! That straw man hasn't existed in our lifetimes. And as to its progeny, the infamous WOD, you might be surprised to find how many Christians oppose government's handling of the mess.
As to your crass and senseless response to abolition:
…abolitionists have a very short history compared to the slaveholders
Unfortunately, you are correct. Christians spent much of their history as slaves before they began work on abolition for others. I would suggest you read Philemon where Paul pleads for a slave to be accepted back into a household as a brother. Christian doctrine preached equality long before it became fashionable…
Predominantly black churches. Southern Christians were more than willing to kill to thwart the civil rights movement, which is why Johnson had to call out the National Guard
Your selective ignorance of Christianity is apparently only matched by your ignorance of history. Where does Christ preach racism? Which commandment would that fulfill? Which denomination was that calling for the killing of civil rights’ workers? Which Christian church did Johnson’s National Guard attack?
Certainly you aren’t talking about the laws we have, which uphold the Constitution, preventing Christians from forcing others to practice their religion in public schools and on taxpayer owned property. Were there some laws passed that prohibited Christians from attending a church of their choice or from practicing their faith in their daily lives that I missed.
I don’t support public education at all. I support limited government and the separation of GOVERNMENT from religion (that little First Amendment thing). When homosexual marriage becomes law, it will shortly become impossible to read Scripture or to counsel someone from a Biblical perspective. This has already occurred in other countries thanks to your socialist, atheistic brethren. I support a Federal government that performs only within the limits of its Constitutionally expressed powers.
… they advocate civil law based on biblical law, a system that is currently in place by many Muslim country in the world. (Of course based on Islamic law)
You are an outright liar. Show me one major Christian organization that supports a theocratic state. There is not one single such organization on this continent. Your complete dishonesty is abhorrent to reason…
Am I to gather from this response that you have decided that someone or something will dictate to you your own personal morality
No, you can understand that I will not let law be incongruent with morality. You argue for a law divorced from morality. That is impossible, except you have immoral laws.
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.