Politics: Meet the Dominionists (be afraid)

[Planogirl]

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.

The Dutch are well known for being extremely tolerant and that tolerance is all that they expect. If members of government are religious, that doesn't matter as long as they don't try to ram their religious beliefs down other people's throats. As I see it, being religious in any manner is fine just allow for other beliefs.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

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.

As do many other groups that exercise real influence. But let's not get up in arms over those groups -- just a group or groups that are religious.

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

Maybe you would care to list the SC rulings he has written as a majority member that establish the right of individual states to establish a religion.

As for "looney" ideas making the mainstream (and my apologies for disgressing way OT here), I wonder if it would surprise anyone to learn that a current Supreme Court Justice:

(1) Expressed strong sympathy for the position that there is a constitutional right to prostitution as well as a constitutional right to polygamy.
(2) Attacked the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts as organizations that perpetuate stereotyped sex roles and proposed abolishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day and replacing them with a single androgynous Parent’s Day.
(3) Called for an end to single-sex prisons on the theory that if male prisoners are going to return to a community in which men and women function as equal partners, prison is just the place for them to get prepared to deal with women. (4) Believes that a manifest imbalance in the racial composition of an employer’s work force justifies court-ordered quotas even in the absence of any intentional discrimination on the part of the employer.
(5) Operated their own office for over a decade in a city that was majority-black, but never had never had a single black person among more than 50 employees.

This Associate Justice is none other than Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

(The source for the information in items 1 through 4 is “Report of Columbia Law School Equal Rights Advocacy Project: The Legal Status of Women under Federal Law,” co-authored by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Brenda Feigen Fasteau in September 1974. The information in the fifth item can be found in the transcript of Ginsburg’s confirmation hearing.)

 

[Charade]

The other "source" for that was Rush. I heard him read that on his show last week.

 

[chadfromdallas]

Nativity scenes and other religious symbols have been around for many, many years. Are they not part of our culture?

Interesting! That is the same argument old southerners use to use in favor of slavery

 

[DawnCt1]

While I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, lets remember that the left has often been known to expound on thier political beliefs from the pulpit. Speeches from Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson come to mind immediately. Last week speakers at an inner city Baptist Church were decrying Social Security reform. The Christian Right doesn't have a voice from every pulpit but it seems that the Democrats over look that.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

While I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, lets remember that the left has often been known to expound on thier political beliefs from the pulpit. Speeches from Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson come to mind immediately. Last week speakers at an inner city Baptist Church were decrying Social Security reform. The Christian Right doesn't have a voice from every pulpit but it seems that the Democrats over look that.

This is too true, but those on the "left" seem to have an intense, burning desire to silence the Christian right at all costs. With all the cries for respect and tolerance, I have reason to wonder why Christians are required to show respect and tolerance for everything else, but so little respect and tolerance is shown to Christians? When did it become a one-way street? When did it become wrong for Christians to "freely exercise" their faith?

 

[chobie]

[

When did it become wrong for Christians to "freely exercise" their faith?

It never did. Trying to legislate your so-called Christian values and cram your religion down every American's throat is what is wrong. Freely exercising your faith would mean keeping your faith in your churches, organizations, and homes.

 

[Charade]

[
It never did. Trying to legislate your so-called Christian values and cram your religion down every American's throat is what is wrong. Freely exercising your faith would mean keeping your faith in your churches, organizations, and homes.

Hmm.. Where do I sign up for the state sponsored religion?

Oh wait, I don't have to, I'm legally (by some law somewhere) required to abandon my religion and participate in the state run church.

All hail Bush...

 

[Charade]

[

It never did. Trying to legislate your so-called Christian values and cram your religion down every American's throat is what is wrong. Freely exercising your faith would mean keeping your faith in your churches, organizations, and homes.

Really?

I can't wear a cross at work (if I work for the government)?

I can't say a prayer before my lunch at the Pentagon cafeteria?

Personal freedom (and expression) of religion is a right that's just limited to certain places that *you* feel is appropriate.

 

[DisDuck]

A politician or candidate running for office and making an appearance and speech at a church or synagogue(why in these discussions are only church's mentioned???) is not mixing state and religion. If a preacher during a sermon or other religious rite advocates a political point of view or recommends voting/endorsing a candidate then that is mixing.

Someone previous mentioned that Channukah symbols and 'songs', etc. and Kwanzaa stuff, etc. are mentioned/used but not Christian items in 'holiday' programs. Where do you live? Because that is not the case in my town. This past December no Menorah was lit in front of the Municipal Building but there was a tree lighting ceremony. The rabbi's in our town were even willing to foot the bill but turned down. Also, my youngest daughter was involved with chorus for 9 years (4 grade thru HS senior) and at the holiday concerts there were be only 1 sometimes 2 Channukah songs versus 5-6 Season songs and the concert would always end with Handel's Halleluya(sic) chorus. How evenly balanced was this.

Whether you are Roman Catholic or Prostetant, the 'religion' based on JC is the majority so those of us in the minority tend to be a bit sensitive on issues like this because of events in the past. Remember it wasn't until Vatican II that Jews were absolved of blame for JC's death like 'we' should have been held responsible in the first place. I bet that you can still find people in the world who believe the old rumors of Jews using Christian baby blood for rituals.

On top of all this there are select differences in values between Jews and Christians. Certain values considered 'sinful' by Christians are acceptable to Jews so when a member of congress or the president proposes legislation based on 'their' value based on 'their' religious precepts it might be in conflict with someone else's value and therefore can be considered 'forcing' one's belief on another.

I have stated before and repeat again groups like this are a danger even with our Constitutional safeguards because if like minded people are appointed to positions of influence (like the Supreme Court) then the 'wall' can be crossed.

 

[Cheap-n-Dale]

wvrevy you just gotta have Faith...err make that faith.

Faith in the knowledge that at the end of the day the Constitution is absolute.

Since the beginning of time evangelical Christians have been preaching, witnessing, crusading, or as Chad would say, "shoving it down peoples throats" It is only natural, in fact predictable, that at this point in history, they would be at the point of trying to effect (or would it be affect) government with legislation. Someone who believes as you do, should be proud of that, as they are exercising their own constitutional rights. Will they be successful? Who knows, but like I said at the end of the day the Constitution is absolute.

I am a Catholic, who has a STONG belief, in my religion. I have an equally STRONG belief in the separation of church and State. In fact, I am one of those kooks that think that yes, Gays should have civil unions. I also think heterosexuals should only have civil unions under the eye of the government. Marriage is a religious institution, and every reference from the tax code to healthcare is a violation of separation of church and state ( like I said, I’m a kook) I struggle with some of the laws of this land, I will admit. But I also respect how these laws came to pass, and I will live with them. If I feel strongly, I will work to change them. The way things are supposed to be done.

Something else to have faith in... With each passing generation, there are more people like you, who choose to live a life without religious belief, and live the founding tenants of this nation. Have you ever thought that maybe that is why you are seeing your opposition become so voiceful? Do you think that today's president could alter the pledge to include "under God"? I don't

And if there comes a sad day when your fears are realized remember....

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.:

 

[chobie]

I just wanted to point out to the "persecuted Christians" here that Christmas is national holiday. Can you think of a non-Christian Holy day that is also a national holiday?

 

[septbride2002]

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.

That is not how I vote, it is not how any of my friends voted either. And the fact that religion is even discussed during election is something to be disturbed by. Religion should not control this county. If you want it to - then move to Iran.

~Amanda

 

[septbride2002]

This is too true, but those on the "left" seem to have an intense, burning desire to silence the Christian right at all costs. With all the cries for respect and tolerance, I have reason to wonder why Christians are required to show respect and tolerance for everything else, but so little respect and tolerance is shown to Christians? When did it become a one-way street? When did it become wrong for Christians to "freely exercise" their faith?

How are you not free to exercise it? The only thing I ask you to do is not display your faith on government buildings and within public schools (except for praying silently). You are mad because things have changed and your religion is no longer being plastered all over the place, not because you feel you are not being give respect or tolerance.

~Amanda

 

[septbride2002]

Really?

I can't wear a cross at work (if I work for the government)?

I can't say a prayer before my lunch at the Pentagon cafeteria?

Personal freedom (and expression) of religion is a right that's just limited to certain places that *you* feel is appropriate.

Not sure about the cross wearing thing - but I would think you could pray before lunch. Just do it silently - God will hear you. You may not however lead a group prayer.

Why not wear a cross and put it under your shirt if it is that important to you? But somehow I doubt it is and you are just wanting to stir the pot.

~Amanda

 

[sodaseller]

Not sure about the cross wearing thing - but I would think you could pray before lunch. Just do it silently - God will hear you. You may not however lead a group prayer.

Why not wear a cross and put it under your shirt if it is that important to you? But somehow I doubt it is and you are just wanting to stir the pot.

~Amanda

Not only will you be heard, but that model of prayer is far more consistent with what Jesus commanded. Public displays of piety are altready justified by their public nature

 

[chobie]

Not only will you be heard, but that model of prayer is far more consistent with what Jesus commanded. Public displays of piety are altready justified by their public nature

Here's the quote -- Mathew 6:5

5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. but when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen.

I cannot understand why the Christians complain about not being able to hold prayers in public places when it is not WWJD.

 

[wvrevy]

wvrevy you just gotta have Faith...err make that faith.

Faith in the knowledge that at the end of the day the Constitution is absolute.

Ah, but if only that were the case. The fourth amendment has taken a severe beating as this president uses fear to beat back attacks on his ideology. The first has also taken quite a beating, with more than one person in very public ways saying that if you don't support the president then you are unamerican, among other things.

Simply put, if it weren't for the fact that our courts are mostly bound by precedent and that the Supreme Court is still controlled by moderates instead of a corrupt thug like Antonin Scalia, we would be a lot further down that rather frightening path than we already are. Indeed, that is why it was so important that the minority not lose one of it's only tools to defend against the brute force tactics of the majority during the recent senate battle over fillibusters.

In short...I do have faith in the system that our forefathers created in this country. But that system will not work if one party decides to ignore or change any rules that they don't agree with, and nobody stands up to stop them. That's exactly what those on the extreme right (including those in the original article) are trying to do.

 

[sodaseller]

Here's the quote -- Mathew 6:5



I cannot understand why the Christians complain about not being able to hold prayers in public places when it is not WWJD.

You must be one of those heathen liberals that believes Christians should emulate Christ. Real Christians understand that he didn't mean what he said, esp. that stuff about the poor and powerless. Their model is Republican Jesus

 

[Tigger_Magic]

You are mad because things have changed and your religion is no longer being plastered all over the place, not because you feel you are not being give respect or tolerance.

~Amanda

I could not care less if Christian symbols are or are not "being plastered all over the place." My faith is not grounded on symbols and is not dependent on either the abundance or lack of their display in public or in private. I could live the remainder of my life without regret never again seeing a cross, nativity, stained glass, statues of saints, or any other symbol of Christianity. Symbols of faith are not important; it is the substance of my faith that is vital.

However, you are correct that I am concerned about all the talk of respect and tolerance. I wouldn't characterize my emotions as "mad"; more perplexed at the irony and (JMO) hypocrisy of the demands that more and more often appear to be rather one-sided.