The Alternate Universe of America's Religious Right

The Alternate Universe of America's Religious Right (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Fightdirecto -> The Alternate Universe of America's Religious Right (11/22/2011 7:49:36 AM)
Alternative Universe: Iowa Presidential Forum Exposes Religious Right Disconnect From Reality quote: I spent two hours Saturday evening in front of my computer watching the Religious Right's "Thanksgiving Family Forum." The event, which took place at First Federated Church, a large fundamentalist congregation in Des Moines, featured six of the leading Republican presidential candidates - U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, former U.S senator Rick Santorum, Gov. Rick Perry, businessman Herman Cain and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. (Mitt Romney begged off.)... I sat through the whole thing, and my takeaway is this: I continue to be amazed at how Religious Right activists and their political allies simply make stuff up. Facts to them are pliable things that need not be acknowledged if inconvenient or unpleasant. They live in their own reality... I did take a few notes and want today to explain a few basic things to the Religious Right: Thomas Jefferson and James Madison don't agree with you. You hate the separation of church and state; Jefferson and Madison loved it. Jefferson and Madison worked together to end the government-established church in Virginia and guarantee religious liberty for all. Jefferson coined the metaphor of a "wall of separation between church and state." Madison spoke of the "total separation of the church from the state." Neither favored an officially Christian government. They are not on your side; stop invoking them. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are two different documents designed to do different things. There's no doubt that the Declaration of Independence is an important historical document. It was a bold statement of our nation's desire to be free from British control. But it does not list our rights. The rights of Americans are outlined in the Constitution, not the Declaration. I realize that it bothers you that the Constitution is secular and that you place great stock in the fact that the Declaration contains a deistic reference to the "Creator," but that does not change this simple fact: The foundational governing document of the nation is the Constitution - and it does not state that we are an official Christian nation. We have three co-equal branches of government. It's discouraging to hear you cheer when candidates vow to stop the courts from handing down decisions that you don't like. Our system grants the president no such powers - and for good reason. We're not a dictatorship, after all. An independent judiciary is essential to the maintenance of a free society. When you applaud a man who promises to fire, harass and intimidate judges and turn the courts into a rubber-stamp body, you are advocating for autocracy... When you advocate denying public office to people on the basis of what they believe (or don't believe) about God, you are being bigots. Article VI of the Constitution states that there shall be no religious test for federal office... We would have no difficulty labeling a person who says that a Jew is unfit for the presidency an anti-Semite. Likewise, a person who says that an atheist is unfit for that office should be called what he or she is: a bigot. It's not something to be proud of. You cannot simultaneously argue that decisions are best left to states and localities and demand federal control when states and localities do something you don't like. Several candidates attacked Washington, D.C., policy-makers and asserted that states and local governments should have more control, much to the delight of the audience. They talked about how people have the freedom to make decisions on the local level. But apparently that freedom does not extend to making decisions that the Religious Right does not like. Moments later, many of these same candidates vowed to stop states from legalizing same-sex marriage or civil unions and demanded to criminalize abortion in all 50 states by federal writ. When you promote this type of intellectual disconnect, you expose yourself as the giant hypocrites that you are. [image]local://upfiles/42188/6883716F9FC548E990DE441F5BDD9587.jpg[/image]

Iamsemisweet -> RE: The Alternate Universe of America's Religious Right (11/22/2011 8:24:37 AM)
This has some great points. Christian fundamentalists are among the first screaming for less government and more freedom. Unless, of course, they want something they don't like stopped, like abortion or gay marriage. Then they are the first to cry for more legislation or judges legislAting from the bench.

LaTigresse -> RE: The Alternate Universe of America's Religious Right (11/22/2011 8:27:49 AM)
Indeed. They want religioun involved when they agree with the religioun and it's values. But look out if it's not THEIR religioun or THEIR values and morals. Then it's eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllll and must be banished.

tazzygirl -> RE: The Alternate Universe of America's Religious Right (11/22/2011 10:30:32 AM)
Whats funny to me is the number of atheists who are also republicans.

GotSteel -> RE: The Alternate Universe of America's Religious Right (11/22/2011 8:01:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto We have three co-equal branches of government. It's discouraging to hear you cheer when candidates vow to stop the courts from handing down decisions that you don't like. Our system grants the president no such powers - and for good reason. We're not a dictatorship, after all. An independent judiciary is essential to the maintenance of a free society. When you applaud a man who promises to fire, harass and intimidate judges and turn the courts into a rubber-stamp body, you are advocating for autocracy... At the same time there's a line somewhere, beyond which applauding Judges for creating laws is advocating for oligarchy.

Fightdirecto -> RE: The Alternate Universe of America's Religious Right (11/22/2011 8:07:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Whats funny to me is the number of atheists who are also republicans. Modern day Republicans who are atheists have to stay in the closet to be accepted by their fellow Republicans. Otherwise they will be marginalized as "RINOs".

Fightdirecto -> RE: The Alternate Universe of America's Religious Right (11/22/2011 8:15:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto We have three co-equal branches of government. It's discouraging to hear you cheer when candidates vow to stop the courts from handing down decisions that you don't like. Our system grants the president no such powers - and for good reason. We're not a dictatorship, after all. An independent judiciary is essential to the maintenance of a free society. When you applaud a man who promises to fire, harass and intimidate judges and turn the courts into a rubber-stamp body, you are advocating for autocracy... At the same time there's a line somewhere, beyond which applauding Judges for creating laws is advocating for oligarchy. Always remember - one man's activist judge is another man's strict constructionist. Some people still believe that the judges that overturned racially segregated schools in Brown were activist judges who "created laws", while others think the same thing of the judges who ruled in favor of corporations in the Citizens United case.

YSG -> RE: The Alternate Universe of America's Religious Right (11/22/2011 8:16:16 PM)
As a Christian, I find the religious right abhorrent. They are the reason the rest of us are looked at as lunatic neandrathals. I put them on the same level as Muslim terrorists and the IRA, a bunch of whacks who use their beleif in God as an excuse to hate people that are different from them.

MrRodgers -> RE: The Alternate Universe of America's Religious Right (11/23/2011 4:57:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto We have three co-equal branches of government. It's discouraging to hear you cheer when candidates vow to stop the courts from handing down decisions that you don't like. Our system grants the president no such powers - and for good reason. We're not a dictatorship, after all. An independent judiciary is essential to the maintenance of a free society. When you applaud a man who promises to fire, harass and intimidate judges and turn the courts into a rubber-stamp body, you are advocating for autocracy... At the same time there's a line somewhere, beyond which applauding Judges for creating laws is advocating for oligarchy. While I have always argued that the refuse of any new tyranny resides in the courts, terminologically, this is incorrect. An oligarchy or autocracy is affected by an executive branch simply first...given legal pass by a court. Our courts for the first time have allowed that your constitutional rights...end at the shoreline, not to mention our creed of inalienably rights that were until now...endowed by our creator. Now they are endowed by the courts. For example, once out of the country, you or any person, Americans included or from another country, can now be arrested, jailed and held indefinitely off-shore...without trial or specific charges. Some shot from the air. Anybody ever wonder why Khalid Sheikh Mohammed still...still after 10 years...has not gone on trial ? Now he too will be tried off-shore. That trial will require almost complete censorship because of course...he knows way too much.

GotSteel -> RE: The Alternate Universe of America's Religious Right (11/23/2011 8:01:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto Always remember - one man's activist judge is another man's strict constructionist. Some people still believe that the judges that overturned racially segregated schools in Brown were activist judges who "created laws", while others think the same thing of the judges who ruled in favor of corporations in the Citizens United case. I'm not claiming that the line is easy to see or that we'll agree on where it is but asking what the other two branches of government are supposed to do when they think that the judicial branch has crossed it.

Fightdirecto -> RE: The Alternate Universe of America's Religious Right (11/23/2011 9:17:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto Always remember - one man's activist judge is another man's strict constructionist. Some people still believe that the judges that overturned racially segregated schools in Brown were activist judges who "created laws", while others think the same thing of the judges who ruled in favor of corporations in the Citizens United case. I'm not claiming that the line is easy to see or that we'll agree on where it is but asking what the other two branches of government are supposed to do when they think that the judicial branch has crossed it. I'll take the "strict constructionalist" position - the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution the duties and responsibilities of the judicial branch - and what to do if one or more of them committed an impeachable offense. They didn't give them term limits or allow for a voter referendum to overturn their decisions (both of which are proposals made by Rick Perry). If you object to Brown vs. Board of Education or Roe vs Wade or Citizens United or Loving vs. Virginia - you're stuck with it until a later SCOTUS overturns the previous ruling (as happened in the Dred Scott and Plessy vs Ferguson decisions) - that's the rules the Founding Fathers wrote out for all of us to live by.

GotSteel -> RE: The Alternate Universe of America's Religious Right (11/23/2011 6:23:15 PM)
OK, so we can agree that the judicial branch isn't supposed to be completely independent. There is supposed to be a check that balances their power. What should a politician do who thinks that check is horribly broken? P.S. I think Rick Perry is a douche.

DomKen -> RE: The Alternate Universe of America's Religious Right (11/24/2011 5:56:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto Always remember - one man's activist judge is another man's strict constructionist. Some people still believe that the judges that overturned racially segregated schools in Brown were activist judges who "created laws", while others think the same thing of the judges who ruled in favor of corporations in the Citizens United case. I'm not claiming that the line is easy to see or that we'll agree on where it is but asking what the other two branches of government are supposed to do when they think that the judicial branch has crossed it. Pass a new law that is inside the bounds or in the most extreme cases pass a constitutional amendment making legal what the courts have ruled unconstitutional. See for instance the 16th amendment.

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Alternate Universe of America's Religious Right (11/24/2011 6:42:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto Alternative Universe: Iowa Presidential Forum Exposes Religious Right Disconnect From Reality quote: I spent two hours Saturday evening in front of my computer watching the Religious Right's "Thanksgiving Family Forum." .... When you promote this type of intellectual disconnect, you expose yourself as the giant hypocrites that you are. I'm glad you gave us your own, personal view, based on your personal observation and analysis. [8D] That little snark aside, of course the above quoted "stuff" is strictly from the viewpoint of a writer who has his own very particular point of view. This is part of the guidelines of the site you took it from: Statement of Purpose Talk to Action is a platform for reporting on, learning about, and analyzing and discussing the religious right -- and what to do about it. ... We are prochoice, and we support gay and lesbian civil rights -- including marriage equality. Therefore, debates about the validity of abortion and gay rights are off topic. We understand that some people who share our general concern about the politics of the Christian Right may not agree on all of these matters. That's fine. Anyone who agrees with the purpose of this site is welcome to participate -- but bearing this in mind. It is our intention to take the conversation forward, and not let it be held back by debating what, in our view are or should be, settled matters of human, civil and constitutional rights. There is nothing wrong with that, other than the fact that you wish to project that your source is somehow "the final word", when in reality it has an agenda, and a bias all it's own. I often find misrepresentations of what Christian's believe, and say, or the failure to understand the particular logic and the special nuances of the words of religious believers in such sites and people. In other words, your source - and you - are just as likely (if not more so) to have mis-understood and "mis-quoted" things that were said and things that are believed, than the "religious right" is to have said or believed the things you impute to them. Tellingly, there are not direct quotes in your above screed, from any of the candidates. Bottom line, an ignorant, biased sources gives you something that reinforces your own biases, and you take neither the time nor effort to determine anything factual about any of its claims, and you then use it to spew more of your bigoted beliefs across the 'net, inviting others to your own little "amen corner". Par for course from you, though. Firm

StrangerThan -> RE: The Alternate Universe of America's Religious Right (11/24/2011 6:59:50 AM)
Thanks for taking the time to write that post, Firm.

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Alternate Universe of America's Religious Right (11/24/2011 8:43:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan Thanks for taking the time to write that post, Firm. NP, Stranger, Fightdirecto has a particular breed of ubermensch mentality that irritates me. He would have anyone who disagrees with him in the camps in a heart-beat if he could, the entire time claiming it was "for their own good". BTW, Treasure and I plan moving back to Kentucky in a month or so, giving up "the high life" here in the decadent metro-urban civilization of Hotlanta, and trading it in for a small rural life along the darkly "religious right" region on Kentucky/Tennessee border near Nashville. What part of the state are you from? Firm

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Alternate Universe of America's Religious Right (11/24/2011 9:09:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Whats funny to me is the number of atheists who are also republicans. Modern day Republicans who are atheists have to stay in the closet to be accepted by their fellow Republicans. Otherwise they will be marginalized as "RINOs". Yeah, I hide in the corner at OCGOP meetings. Idiot.

popeye1250 -> RE: The Alternate Universe of America's Religious Right (11/24/2011 11:30:46 PM)
And I think it's funny that the holy rollers don't consider Mitt Romney, "one of us" because he's a mormon! But,.....if he gets the nomination they'll be voting for Mitt not for President Pantload. "Hey there St. Jude, who'd you vote for?"

xssve -> RE: The Alternate Universe of America's Religious Right (11/24/2011 11:37:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: YSG As a Christian, I find the religious right abhorrent. They are the reason the rest of us are looked at as lunatic neandrathals. I put them on the same level as Muslim terrorists and the IRA, a bunch of whacks who use their beleif in God as an excuse to hate people that are different from them. Most of the current fundamentalism isn't actually Christianity , it's Calvinism which is in many ways the polar opposite and a complete inversion of Christianity.

Kirata -> RE: The Alternate Universe of America's Religious Right (11/25/2011 10:53:54 PM)
Your comments notwithstanding, there are growing numbers of nominal "Christians" who not only live in a fucking alternate universe but who are determined to make it the only universe there is. Spiritual Mapping and Spiritual Warfare K.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875