Politics: Meet the Dominionists (be afraid)

[Missy1961]

Include me in this as well. As a Christian I am able to seperate myself from my religion and politics. As a Christian I am not offended that a nativity scene is missing from out side City Hall, and am curious as to why other Christians are offended. As a a Christian I want to educate myself to other religions beliefs so that I may be respectful of them.

I think one of the greatest things Pope John Paul II did was speak of peace and acceptance among religions.

~Amanda

Count me in too. I agree with Amanda 100%.

 

[Planogirl]

Also, I believe all people should have a voice in government. Folks on here sometimes think differently, but that is the way it is. Yes, Christians should have tehir voice in government as well. If we remove faith (wheter yours or mine) from the public forum then we basically are the Netherlands.

As one who has lived and has a lot of family there, I must take issue with your comment. Are you just trying to insult people today?

 

[wvrevy]

1 - I would consider anyone that wants to destroy the constitution in order to save "America" as being not quite right in the head. "Freaks" is about the least offensive name I could think of. Sorry if it offended.

2 - You are free to practice your religion anywhere you choose, including in school. If you want to pray, knock yourself out. Nobody is stopping you from doing so. However, forcing others to do so (by either having a "prayer time" or by some other government endorsement of one religion over another) is unconstitutional. Kids have to be there, so making them pray (and yes, the "under God" in the pledge - inserted by Eisenhower years after the pledge became popular - qualifies, in my opinion) is against the law.

3 - If you don't think rights have begun to atrophy under the Bush regime and under the current Republican "leadership" in congress, then you haven't been paying attention. I would simply refer you to two documents: the incorrectly named 'Patriot Act' and the currently pending legislation allowing preachers to politic from the pulpit. No two pieces of legislation could illustrate my point more fully than those.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Include me in this as well. As a Christian I am able to seperate myself from my religion and politics. As a Christian I am not offended that a nativity scene is missing from out side City Hall, and am curious as to why other Christians are offended. As a a Christian I want to educate myself to other religions beliefs so that I may be respectful of them.

I think one of the greatest things Pope John Paul II did was speak of peace and acceptance among religions.

~Amanda

I am not offended if there is no Nativity scene in our city hall, parks, etc. However, I do wonder why others are offended if there is one displayed, especially if they claim not to believe that such a thing existed? I am not offended by the mixing of other religious and secular displays in December, or if a city has a cross in their seal or if someone says or doesn't say "under God" while reciting the Pledge. What makes me curious is why others are offended by these things and spend so much time and effort to expunge them.

I have a great deal of respect for other's religions. I just don't understand why that is required to be a one-way street.

In 1947 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a wall of separation exists between the church and the state. But even after the Supreme Court rules and clearly states that this wall exists, there continue to be people like Mr. Moser who want to incite fear/terror in the American people that somehow these "religious zealots" are working to tear down this mighty wall. We must be terribly afraid that this wall separating church and state will fall like the Berlin Wall did.

So, even though this wall still stands, someone has to jump over it and stop the "religious right" as though there are pictures of these individuals with hammers and chisels trying to take down this sacred wall. So they react out of fear. I just wonder what causes that fear. They have their wall; they have the Constitution; they have the Bill of Rights; they have hundreds of years of tradition... but still we get articles like Mr. Moser's.

To paraphrase a great American president, they have nothing to fear but fear itself.

 

[wvrevy]

Oh, and here is yet another sterling example of this kind of fruitcake:
-----------------
From the Durham (NC) Herald Sun:

N.C. pastor stands by sign saying Quran should be flushed


May 24, 2005 : 10:25 am ET

FOREST CITY, N.C. -- A Baptist minister refuses to apologize for a church sign saying the Muslim holy book should be flushed.

"I believe that it is a statement supporting the word of God and that it (the Bible) is above all and that any other religious book that does not teach Christ as savior and lord as the 66 books of the Bible teaches it, is wrong," said the Rev. Creighton Lovelace of Danieltown Baptist Church. "I knew that whenever we decided to put that sign up that there would be people who wouldn't agree with it, and there would be some that would, and so we just have to stand up for what's right."

Seema Riley, a Muslim born in Pakistan and reared in New York, said she moved to Rutherford County, about 60 miles west of Charlotte, for the "small-town friendly" atmosphere.

The church sign reading, "The Koran needs to be flushed," angered her and made her feel threatened, she said.

"We need a certain degree of tolerance," Riley said. "That sign doesn't really reflect what I think this county is about."

The sign is an apparent reference to a recent Newsweek magazine article that said U.S. investigators found evidence that U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay placed copies of Islam's holy book in washrooms and had flushed one down the toilet to get inmates to talk.

The account has been blamed for protests in Afghanistan, where more than a dozen people died and scores were injured in rioting earlier this month, and demonstrations elsewhere in the Muslim world.

Lovelace said he expected the sign in front of his 55-member church to also stir anger in some people.

"If we stand for what is right and for God's word and for Christianity then the world is going to condemn us and so right away when I got a complaint I said, 'Well somebody's mad, somebody's offended, so we must be doing something right,'" Lovelace said.

Danieltown Baptist Church belongs to the Sandy Run Baptist Association. Each church in the association is autonomous, said the Rev. Jim Diehl, the group's director of missions.

"Each church can develop a stance on doctrinal issues and can develop its own stance on moral issues," he said.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

1 - I would consider anyone that wants to destroy the constitution in order to save "America" as being not quite right in the head. "Freaks" is about the least offensive name I could think of. Sorry if it offended.

Why the need to resort to name-calling at all? It does nothing to enhance the debate and only detracts from your arguments. Having said that, I've been called worse.

2 - You are free to practice your religion anywhere you choose, including in school. If you want to pray, knock yourself out. Nobody is stopping you from doing so. However, forcing others to do so (by either having a "prayer time" or by some other government endorsement of one religion over another) is unconstitutional. Kids have to be there, so making them pray (and yes, the "under God" in the pledge - inserted by Eisenhower years after the pledge became popular - qualifies, in my opinion) is against the law.

You might be surprised to find that I agree with you on most of this point. I do not and have not ever supported prayer in public school, any more than I would support teaching creationism or intelligent design in science/biology class. I don't even support the lame "time of private meditation", which is a thinly disguised sham to weasel prayer into public schools.

You are correct... students can (and often do, especially during final exams) pray whenever they wish. No one is or can stop them. As for the "under God"... I grew up with that and am kinda attached. But if the USSC said it was unconstitutional, I'd learn to live with it. It's not that big a deal. Nice to have, but nothing to go to war over.

3 - If you don't think rights have begun to atrophy under the Bush regime and under the current Republican "leadership" in congress, then you haven't been paying attention. I would simply refer you to two documents: the incorrectly named 'Patriot Act' and the currently pending legislation allowing preachers to politic from the pulpit. No two pieces of legislation could illustrate my point more fully than those.

Please do provide evidence where any constitutional rights have atrophied or been removed for any U.S. citizen by the Patriot Act. As for the pending legislation you mentioned, like Mr. Moser you are getting a little carried away if you think this has a snowball's chance in you-know-where of passing Congress. Even if it does, it would not be long for the books as I am sure before it ink dried on it there would be numerous challenges to its constitutionality before the Supreme Court. I believe in both cases here you are really stretching way too far in a vain attempt to prove a point that cannot stand on its own.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Oh, and here is yet another sterling example of this kind of fruitcake (snip)

So, freedom of speech is a right only if you are not religious or not a Christian or not a pastor?

Add: I am not in any way, shape or form defending what this individual posted on this sign. I read the story and was horrified that the church -- any church -- would put such a reprehensible sign up on a public highway.

That said, I will defend his right to express his opinions, just as I would defend the right of someone to post a sign that said The Bible should be flushed down a toilet. To me that's what free speech is all about: the right to express one's opinions within reasonable limits.

 

[septbride2002]

I am not offended if there is no Nativity scene in our city hall, parks, etc. However, I do wonder why others are offended if there is one displayed, especially if they claim not to believe that such a thing existed? I am not offended by the mixing of other religious and secular displays in December, or if a city has a cross in their seal or if someone says or doesn't say "under God" while reciting the Pledge. What makes me curious is why others are offended by these things and spend so much time and effort to expunge them.

I have a great deal of respect for other's religions. I just don't understand why that is required to be a one-way street.

In 1947 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a wall of separation exists between the church and the state. But even after the Supreme Court rules and clearly states that this wall exists, there continue to be people like Mr. Moser who want to incite fear/terror in the American people that somehow these "religious zealots" are working to tear down this mighty wall. We must be terribly afraid that this wall separating church and state will fall like the Berlin Wall did.

So, even though this wall still stands, someone has to jump over it and stop the "religious right" as though there are pictures of these individuals with hammers and chisels trying to take down this sacred wall. So they react out of fear. I just wonder what causes that fear. They have their wall; they have the Constitution; they have the Bill of Rights; they have hundreds of years of tradition... but still we get articles like Mr. Moser's.

To paraphrase a great American president, they have nothing to fear but fear itself.

People of other religions are offended because it looks like our government is commending Christianity. As much as I love Christmas the Nativity scene has nothing to do with government. I put myself in their shoes, I'm a Christian if suddenly there is a huge satanic star (which by the way for pagans means something ENTIRELY different) out front of my city hall I would be offended. Therefore I can easily relate to someone offended by a Cross outside at Easter.

I am able to seperate my religion and my politics enough to realize that one has no place with the other. Therefore I would rather my government show no support of any religion, then to show support of one religion. So instead of saying, "Who is forcing what on whom?" We should really accept that we have religious freedom in this country and that religion does not belong in politics since we then impose our religion onto others.

Yes the religious right worries me. They seem to believe they are right, the rest are wrong and that they are going to "save" this nation. Are there things I want to change in our nation - you bet. But I don't think religion is the way to go about it. If anything using Religion in the way it is used currently will not strengthen this country, but divide it.

~Amanda

 

[Disney Doll]

So, freedom of speech is a right only if you are not religious or not a Christian or not a pastor?

Apparently.

 

[Bichon Barb]

For those of you who support judges posting the Ten Commandments in courthouses, would you feel the same if a Muslim judge wanted to post the Five Pillars? Or how about a Wiccan judge who wished to put up statues of his/her gods and goddesses?

And what about judges who wish to use the Ten Commandments to guide them in their court decisions--why else would they want to put up the Ten Commandments? I guess then you wouldn't mind if the Muslim and Wiccan judges to use their religious beliefs in deciding cases?

IMO, religion, unfortunately, can make people extremely self righteous. So self righteous that it has been the cause of many wars. I don't think that Church and State should be mixed.

 

[jgmklmhem]

People of other religions are offended because it looks like our government is commending Christianity. As much as I love Christmas the Nativity scene has nothing to do with government. I put myself in their shoes, I'm a Christian if suddenly there is a huge satanic star (which by the way for pagans means something ENTIRELY different) out front of my city hall I would be offended. Therefore I can easily relate to someone offended by a Cross outside at Easter.

I am able to seperate my religion and my politics enough to realize that one has no place with the other. Therefore I would rather my government show no support of any religion, then to show support of one religion. So instead of saying, "Who is forcing what on whom?" We should really accept that we have religious freedom in this country and that religion does not belong in politics since we then impose our religion onto others.

Yes the religious right worries me. They seem to believe they are right, the rest are wrong and that they are going to "save" this nation. Are there things I want to change in our nation - you bet. But I don't think religion is the way to go about it. If anything using Religion in the way it is used currently will not strengthen this country, but divide it.

~Amanda

My only problem is when other religions are included in public displays or in the school and the Christian religion is not. Many examples of Ramadan and Chanukkah are represented in publc displays (govt funded)...parades...etc and Christmas is excluded.

As for the supposed coming theocracy....I see it is as very far fetched. For one not all Christians believe the same things. The only denomination that would stand a chance is Roman Catholic due to it being the largest and it being heavily favored in our Latin American immigrant population (which at some point will rival caucasian). As for preachers being political from the pulpit.....why are they a problem but John Kerry having campaign speeches at a pulpit in a church is not a problem. One more issue is that do you believe judges who want but cannot have the 10 commandments posted still won't base their judgements on them. If you are a non-believer and feel that a judge who does not share your non-belief will judge you fairly wouldn't it be better to know (for example the 10 commandments posted) then to be in the dark. At least then you would know what you were dealing with.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

As one who has lived and has a lot of family there, I must take issue with your comment. Are you just trying to insult people today?

I apologize if I offended you or any other people with Netherlands ties. I THOUGHT I was making a nonjudgmental, rational comparison to a European state where it is fairly well known that faith has no place in the political arena. Does religion have a great influence on politics in the Netherlands? Am I mistaken? Is the "religious right" shaping the government and culture of the Netherlands? I am quite anxious to hear all about that.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Nativity scenes and other religious symbols have been around for many, many years. Are they not part of our culture? If I went to another country that displayed relgious symbols in public as part of a long-time custom, I would not be offended (e.g statues of Budha in an oriental country.)

I think people are too easily offended.

Secondly, and more important:
Of course everyone wants people in government that share their beliefs and values. That's how most people vote. Beliefs or values based on God are just as legitimate as those that are not.

 

[Charade]

What's "fictional" about it ? Point to one inaccuracy in that entire article.

Well, the only inaccuracy that I can see is that somehow the left thinks the right is made up of an entire group of these kooks.

 

[sodaseller]

BTW, these people have real influence - they are consulted on judicial nominations, for one, which is how you get people like Pryor on the bench. And for those who think looney ideas do not make the mainstream, Justice Thomas has stated that he thinks the establishment Clause was not incorporated to the states via the 14th amendment, meaning that he believes it is constitutional for an individual state to establish a religion

 

[Charade]

BTW, these people have real influence - they are consulted on judicial nominations, for one, which is how you get people like Pryor on the bench. And for those who think looney ideas do not make the mainstream, Justice Thomas has stated that he thinks the establishment Clause was not incorporated to the states via the 14th amendment, meaning that he believes it is constitutional for an individual state to establish a religion

Don't think that the groups with opposite ideals influences the left?

 

[Puffy2]

Well, the only inaccuracy that I can see is that somehow the left thinks the right is made up of an entire group of these kooks.

Not entirely. John McCain is a fine American. Just hope he can hold on to his integrity.

 

[Charade]

They are forcing you to be respectful of others who do not believe as you do. You are still free to practice your religion in your home and church. You are not free to practice it in city hall, at a public school graduation, or in a public park. You (meaning all Christians not just Tigger_magic) need to learn there is a time and place for your religious beliefs and that forcing them on the public is no longer acceptable.

~Amanda

Whoa!

If you or I wanted to have a church group meeting while sitting on the grass in Central Park, we(and you) have the right to do so.

Or if I wanted to say a prayer during my speech at graduation, I can certainly do so.

Or if I wanted to wear a cross while at work at the courthouse, I'm free to do so.

Suppressing that right is what the government *cannot* do.

 

[Belle for President]

Well, the only inaccuracy that I can see is that somehow the left thinks the right is made up of an entire group of these kooks.

You're right, they are kooks, but the rest of this is just silly . Of couse people know that these people don't represent the majority of Republicans. I'm surrounded by Republicans day in and day out and while I usually disagree with them, I don't think their kooks (at least I wouldn't say that to their face . You wouldn't want to make the same mistake in generalizing the left would you?

 

[disneyworldgirl]

Count me in as another Christian who is very concerned about this group.

I have trouble referring to these people as "Christians". Christianity is based upon the teachings of Jesus (love, compassion, understanding, patience, and charity). The people mentioned in that article exhibit none of those traits; instead, they seem to espouse prejudice and hatred.

Personally, I think D. James Kennedy may be one of the false prophets that the Bible warns us about; and every true, decent Christian should avoid following him at all costs.

Okay, sermon's over.