Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Very simple. The Conservatives want to turn this country into a Christian version of Iran (i.e. ruled by clerics, following religious law), and they can use democracy to do it too since they're in the majority (at least in many parts of the country). When the courts strike down there obviously-unconsitutional laws, they're obviously being anti-religious! It's essentially like a mugger complaining when you fight back that you're infringing on his right to make a decent living.
Don't let the fact that this country is immune to tyranny simply because it's a democracy. Democracies suffer from tyranny of the majority at the expense of the minorities. G.W. keeps claiming that if we can spread democracy around the world, then all problems will be solved. Which is very odd, since Iran (part of the axis of evil) IS a democracy, and Ahmadinejad was democratically elected as President over the previously moderate Khatami. Even Hitler himself was democratically elected.
The only saving grace in this country that helps prevent the tyranny of the majority is that we have a constitution. Unfortunately, the conservatives have managed to fill judicial positions with people willing to interpret the constitution any way they wish (including Alberto Gonzales who claims that the constitution doesn't even grant habeas corpus, or Scalia who voted that it wasn't a breach of privacy for the police when they used infra-red cameras to spy into homes)
Pardon me if I'm rehashing but I'm just reading this topic now.
I agree that there is a staunch segment of Conservatives that denounces the Muslim theocracies prevalent in much of the Middle East... and yet promotes the idea of a Christian theocracy here in the US. Some would say that the neo-Conservative dream would be to spread so-called "Christian democracy" throughout the world. Obviously Newt Gingrich shares in this dream. Unfortunately for him and his supporters, I believe that any such chance of Middle Eastern countries readily agreeing to any sort of democracy was stunted by how the Bush administration handled the war in Iraq.
I would have to disagree, however, on your assessment of Iran. That country is essentially controlled by ayatollahs who approve every political candidate, not unlike what happens in China or Cuba. Basically, it's like choosing between plain vanilla and French vanilla; it's still vanilla.
I'll just add to your statement that the Muslim faith is the fastest growing faith in the world, not the Christian faith. And among the Christian sub-groups, the Catholics appear to be losing more members than others.
Hardly a recipe for conversion to the Christian Conservative vision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tone509
Pardon me if I'm rehashing but I'm just reading this topic now.
I agree that there is a staunch segment of Conservatives that denounces the Muslim theocracies prevalent in much of the Middle East... and yet promotes the idea of a Christian theocracy here in the US. Some would say that the neo-Conservative dream would be to spread so-called "Christian democracy" throughout the world. Obviously Newt Gingrich shares in this dream. Unfortunately for him and his supporters, I believe that any such chance of Middle Eastern countries readily agreeing to any sort of democracy was stunted by how the Bush administration handled the war in Iraq.
I would have to disagree, however, on your assessment of Iran. That country is essentially controlled by ayatollahs who approve every political candidate, not unlike what happens in China or Cuba. Basically, it's like choosing between plain vanilla and French vanilla; it's still vanilla.
I would have to disagree, however, on your assessment of Iran. That country is essentially controlled by ayatollahs who approve every political candidate, not unlike what happens in China or Cuba. Basically, it's like choosing between plain vanilla and French vanilla; it's still vanilla.
While that may be true, the country is still a democracy. What would have been the outcome if more liberal candidates would have been allowed to run? Probably nothing, because given a choice between the moderate candidate and the radical candidate, the people chose the radical candidate.
And the U.S. is by far a model of democracy either. I still don't comprehend how voting is an inalienable right, yet ex-felons aren't allowed to vote (seems pretty alienable to me!). Since African-Americans are so much more likely to go to jail than Caucasions, and African-Americans tend to vote Democratic, taking away the voting rights of felons gives an unfair advantage to Republicans. And the leaders in the Republican party are well aware of this, which is one reason why they tend to be tough on crime.
And while the candidates in Iran must be approved by the ayatollas, the candidates here must be approved by big business (which includes the media). Otherwise, a candidate will simply not have any exposure whatsoever.
Location: land of quail, bunnies, and red tail hawks
1,513 posts, read 3,388,427 times
Reputation: 3540
Why don't you tell me exactly how many Christians have killed abortion doctors and bombed abortion clinics. Then compare that number to the number who have spoken vehemently against those actions. Then try to extrapolate that number to the many average Christians that don't have a public platform but have spoken out against it among themselves, on public message boards, and whenever else given the chance. A few lunatic "Christians" don't speak for the rest!!!
Now, go find the public Christians that are calling for death and destruction. Other than the Phelps group, I don't know of any; I don't know of any Christians who support them.
I challenge you to compare death threats from Christian pundits to death threats from the pundits of any of the other groups I've mentioned. I daresay it will be difficult to come up with ones from Christians, but you shouldn't have problems finding them from other groups! Anyone has to be blindly and/or willingly ignorant to state otherwise!!
Location: land of quail, bunnies, and red tail hawks
1,513 posts, read 3,388,427 times
Reputation: 3540
Quote:
Originally Posted by irishmom
No one cared about the pledge of allegiance until a parent had to bring a lawsuit against a public school so their child didn't have to say it in school because they disagreed with it. If the Christian conservatives at the school would have just accepted that this child (I think it was a Jehovah Witness if my memory is correct) was not going to say it, it would have gone away.
The father was an atheist. The child lived with her mother; both were Christians and neither child nor mother had an objection to the pledge and the "under God" part of it. The school didn't mind if she didn't say the pledge or omitted "under God"; children can opt out. The father didn't want his daughter subjected to the pledge; he wanted to force everyone else to comply with the very simple minority. The Christian conservatives didn't push this; the father did!
Furthermore, there have been many, many similar situations (especially high school graduations) where the courts attempted to keep God out of the celebration; the students have rebelled en masse many times and performed spontaneous "under Gods" and "Lord's Prayers" or other stands of religious observance. You can't convince me that every one of these students, not to mention their parents, are Christians conservatives. However, these people have a loosely common ethical code that is tired of the extreme minority pushing their agendas down everyone else's throats!
Location: land of quail, bunnies, and red tail hawks
1,513 posts, read 3,388,427 times
Reputation: 3540
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhouse2001
Fundamentalists ... argue that we are a Christian nation but conveniently ignore the history of our founding fathers who ran from religious tyranny to create a nation removed from that influence.
The founding fathers ran from tyranny of all kinds, not just religious, hence the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment! Liberals conveniently ignore the fact that the founding fathers said we need Christian thought and influence in the public sphere and in the public debate!!
Quote:
If Christians really wanted to do the right thing, they'd work on themselves first and leave the country and government to find its own solutions. America isn't asking for their approval and it sure doesn't need it.
I agree that Christians have to work on themselves first; most have, but it's an ongoing process!
It seems that you want to silence Christians from the public debate. Who else do you want to silence? Why does it appear that everyone but Christians is offered a place at your table? Are you going to silence Muslims? They have called for the death of infidels; despite the politically correct nonsense regarding "religion of peace", this is a tenet of their religion. Are you going to silence the blacks? Many of them have called for the death of the white man. Are you going to silence the Mexican immigrants? They have called for the death of all Americans so they can reclaim "their" country. Or are you only going to silence Christians?
What part of Freedom of Speech don't you understand?
What part are you willing to give up for yourself?
The founding fathers ran from tyranny of all kinds, not just religious, hence the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment! Liberals conveniently ignore the fact that the founding fathers said we need Christian thought and influence in the public sphere and in the public debate!!
I agree that Christians have to work on themselves first; most have, but it's an ongoing process!
It seems that you want to silence Christians from the public debate. Who else do you want to silence? Why does it appear that everyone but Christians is offered a place at your table? Are you going to silence Muslims? They have called for the death of infidels; despite the politically correct nonsense regarding "religion of peace", this is a tenet of their religion. Are you going to silence the blacks? Many of them have called for the death of the white man. Are you going to silence the Mexican immigrants? They have called for the death of all Americans so they can reclaim "their" country. Or are you only going to silence Christians?
What part of Freedom of Speech don't you understand?
What part are you willing to give up for yourself?
All I want is religion out of politics (separation of church and state) for that is the American ideal. I never expressed the intent of silencing anyone. Talk all you want, nothing is stopping you. I also made no limitation on which religion so you can apply my belief to any other. But don't force your religion on me and don't force it on laws which govern me.
If you wish to view this as an attack on Christianity, then yes it is, when it wraps itself up in the flag and then crosses the line intended by that flag as a way to run a free nation. Any country that mixes the two either ends up totalitarian or goes down in war, because the passion of religion almost always overwhelms the fervor of nationalism.
Why don't you tell me exactly how many Christians have killed abortion doctors and bombed abortion clinics. Then compare that number to the number who have spoken vehemently against those actions. Then try to extrapolate that number to the many average Christians that don't have a public platform but have spoken out against it among themselves, on public message boards, and whenever else given the chance. A few lunatic "Christians" don't speak for the rest!!!
Now, go find the public Christians that are calling for death and destruction. Other than the Phelps group, I don't know of any; I don't know of any Christians who support them.
I challenge you to compare death threats from Christian pundits to death threats from the pundits of any of the other groups I've mentioned. I daresay it will be difficult to come up with ones from Christians, but you shouldn't have problems finding them from other groups! Anyone has to be blindly and/or willingly ignorant to state otherwise!!
Here's a couple of links that will give you examples:
and my point was that Christians can be just as violent and destructive in their quest to spread their faith as any other group. To say they aren't is just ignorance to not only history but to contemporary times as well.
Everything on topic. I see no reason to close this thread.
s.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
