Replies

"The reason I asked you what faith you were is to find out if you were part of the more liberal wing of a christian denomination.
Or are you agnostic?"

It really is not pertinent to the discussion in that the position that I am advocating is the threat to individual freedoms, and the possible development of a theocratic type political structure within our country, which has always resulted in oppression of the people, posed by the religious right. And of their infiltration and hijacking of the Republic Party which poses a threat to the political process..

You must evaluate my statements based on evidence as being true or false. Whether I am atheistic, agnostic, Christian or Hindu does not change the validity of my statements. I am an advocate of political discussions based on principles not personalities particularly in regards to this site.

And I do not mean to sound as if I take offense to your question, I don't, it is just a policy that I have found necessary to implement.

Whatever.

However, we are far from a situation where we have a theocracy. If we approach that, I'd be the first one to compaign against it.

I find it unfortunate that you feel free to post negative comments about christians, yet seem afraid to be honest about your religious persuation, presumably from fear about being bashed for it. Seems like some sort of double standard.

I am advocating is the threat to individual freedoms, and the possible development of a theocratic type political structure within our country, which has always resulted in oppression of the people, posed by the religious right. And of their infiltration and hijacking of the Republic Party which poses a threat to the political process..

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?