Posted on 07/16/2004 7:05:35 AM PDT by Kerberos
Forget that, we Libertarians already have enough of those kinds of @$$#ole$.
Ultimately this should be passed completely to the States. I am opposed to the Federal Government being involved in this.
Should be up to the States...and they can decide at that level if a)they want to give out the money and b)what kind of organizations should be dispersing it.
And that goes for education also.
"Should be up to the States...and they can decide at that level if a)they want to give out the money and b)what kind of organizations should be dispersing it.
So are you saying that you are all for socialism but to you it's just a matter of who gets to distribute the confiscated funds?
My point was addressing the issue of a "theocracy" which generally in today's terminology in a political sense is government at a national level.
Well...I don't really want to get side-tracked on this issue as the initial topic was some christians planning to take back their churches from liberalism.
I do think, however, you should be up front with your religion. Not nice to throw stones at others' religion but not allow yourself to be exposed to equal scrutiny.
All the best.
"Not nice to throw stones at others' religion but not allow yourself to be exposed to equal scrutiny."
I am not throwing stones at other people’s religion. If one wants to be a Christian they have my OkeDoky, which due to the fact we have a 1st Amendment in the Constitution they don't need.
My issue is what they plan in terms of the political power they are acquiring. So if one wants to bring their religion, which I do not portend to do, into the political arena, then one needs to be ready to get knocked up side the head. It's the people here who make their religion an issue. I don't really care what anyone’s religion is.
If that doesn't suit one, then don't get in the game.
Have the liberals taken over the Unitarians yet?
ecusa-related ping.
Ping.
You wrote "Interesting article I came across the other day which talks about what the religious right wing of the GOP may have in store for us."
I'm sorry but that analysis is a little short sighted - similar to the article you posted. As a long time member of the VOAC (Vast Orthodox Anglican Conspiracy(tm)- one small subcomponent of the Christian portion of the VRWC) both you and the author have missed one of the unstated foundational building blocks inherent in retaking our various Protestant denominations from the apostate and heretical leadership currently in charge. We don't see this as primarily political at all, although I can understand how, for non-Christians, it would appear so. Rather, to us (and to our cousins among Conservative and Orthodox Judaism) those standards which we seek to reinforce have the same degree of certitude as the law of gravity. We're merely insuring that they are once again recognized as such. Therefore, rather than any particular mainstream political party being something we emulate, we expect that, given time, both will be seeking to emulate us...or they will no longer be 'mainstream'. Simple enough really.
"We don't see this as primarily political at all,"
Oh, perhaps you could elaborate on how Christian fundamentalist, wanting to amend the Constitution to define what marriage is for everyone, is not political.
certainly - all we're doing is a little course correction work on the direction in which our country is headed - it's the old 'rules the same as the law of gravity' bit I mentioned earlier.
It is the courts that have illegally amended the constitution. Not the Christian Fundamentalists.
Since you posted a link to Thocrocywatch.org I took the opportunity to spend some time over their today where I found the following little gem.
Rev. D. James Kennedy, pastor at the 9,000 member Coral Ridge Presbyterian and founder of the Reclaiming America for Christ movement reaches a viewing and listening audience of about 3.5 million people every Sunday morning. He talks about going beyond the destruction of the Berlin Wall to battering down
"the even more diabolical 'wall of separation' that has led to increasing secularization, godlessness, immorality, and corruption in our country."
At least this theocrat is coherent enough to understand that the founders put in place a wall of separation of church and state when they wrote the Constitution, a fact that is completely lost on most fundamentalists.
"It is the courts that have illegally amended the constitution. Not the Christian Fundamentalists."
Oh ok, so where did the courts unlawfully define marriage in the Constitution?
That is a lie. There was no wall of separatation when the constitution was drafted and ratified. Most of the Colonies had already established State Churches that were supported by state taxes (probably not a good idea, but it was not unconsitutional). Additionally churhes were the center of political and social activity until well into the 19th century. There were no rules about churches endorsing candidates (of course there were no income tax laws either).
But if you buy into the myth that the constitution was intended to create a wall of separation between political activity and religious activity, then you don't have any sense of what the consitution is all about.
It's complicated. Lets just say that it has to do with the full faith and credit clause. A marriage that is valid in any state is valid in all states conferring upon that couple all rights and privileges that would be available to any other married couple.
If the state courts start finding some constitutional right to homosexual marriage or incestuous marriage or polygamy, then in order to prevent some state like Massachusetts from imposing its homosexual marriage or polygamy laws or child marriage laws on other states, a constitutional definition of marriage is needed. Thus if Massachusetts suddenly decides that it wants homosexual or polygamous marriage, then New Hampshire doesn't have to recognize that marriage.
Well, don't hold your breath 'til the GOP gets rid of the religious right. If that happened the GOP would be smaller than the libertarians.
So no I am not suggesting that the GOP go against its base, I am demanding that they get rid of their base.
The Christian right has no understand or interest in individulism and freedom which is what America was orginally about.
What America was originally about was freedom of religion.
Christianity formed the basis of our constitution.
"What America was originally about was freedom of religion. "
Yes it was, and that is something the religous right desperatly wants to take away.
And interesting quote from Berry Goldwater, a true conservative.
"Our problem is with ... the religious extremists ... who want to destroy everybody who doesn't agree with them. I see them as betrayers of the fundamental principles of conservatism. A lot of so-called conservatives today don't know what the word means."
"It's complicated. Lets just say that it has to do with the full faith and credit clause"
The full faith and credit clause is not really complicated and you described it well. But the more fundamental question that needs to be asked here, which never is, is why have we let government define what marriage is in the first place.
One can ascribe all kinds of esoteric and religious meaning to marriage but when you cut through the hype marriage is nothing more than a contract, legally speaking that is. So the fact is that no American has a right to marriage, they must seek permission from the state.
That is the issue that should be of concern to all freedom loving Americans.
"But if you buy into the myth that the constitution was intended to create a wall of separation between political activity and religious activity, then you don't have any sense of what the consitution is all about."
Obviously you need a refresher course in American History. Let me suggest a good book for you to start with.
The Founding Fathers and The Place of Religion in America. By Frank Lambert. Printed 2003.
I have always been aware that there were problems within the public education system. But it was not until I started visiting this site that I became fully away of how deep these problems were.
Fortunately I am not a product of that institution.
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.