Jump to content

Evangelical Christians run G.O.P


Recommended Posts

Falwell says evangelical Christians now in control of Republican party

The Rev. Jerry Falwell boasted Friday that evangelical Christians, after nearly 25 years of increasing political activism, now control the Republican Party and the fate of President Bush in the November election.

"The Republican Party does not have the head count to elect a president without the support of religious conservatives," Falwell said at an election training conference of the Christian Coalition.

Falwell said evangelical Christians are now "by far the largest constituency" within the Republican Party, their route to dominance beginning in 1979 with his founding of the Moral Majority, a precursor to the Christian Coalition.

The degree to which religious interests affect the political process in the U.S. is frightening. This article shows that Americans have a real choice: on the one hand, the Democrats are inclusive and support individual rights, while the Republicans are willing to use the power of the state to enforce a narrow, religious-based view on the majority. A Bush win this November will lead to further erosion of the seperation of Church and state and the slow slide towards a Taliban-esque religious state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was Tolstoy who said that the Church ceased to be Christian when it became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire. Since that point, organised Christianity has generally indulged in thoroughly anti-Christian behaviour, such as pursuit of earthly wealth and power, incitement to and even perpetration of violence, idol-worship, blasphemy, claims to intercede between man and God, evangelism and loud public worship, and so forth.

What you have mentioned, Blackdog, is more of the same: people who call themselves Christians as they reject the teachings of Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Black Dog, I must disagree with you strongly on this. Falwell can say what he wants, but the GOP is nowhere near installing a Talibanesque religious state on the USA.

IS your argument based on the fact that they seekl to protect the right to life of the unborn at the expense of the self-indulgent "right" to dispose of a life because it is the "inconvenient" result of one's own actions?

Are you telling me that only people of faith believe in the right to life? What about accountability for one's actions?

This sick "right to abortion" nonsense is a disgusting symptom of the "throwaway society". Disposable lighters, disposable cameras, disposable diapers, disposable babies!

And now the public debate moves into the realm of euthanasia where it is becoming fashionable to talk about "mercy killing" those who by virtue of age or disability are either no longer productive cogs in the world machine, or "burdens.

It's adangerous trend, and if the Christain lobby wants tonstand up to protest, it is their right, is it not?

It sounds to me as if you are arguing that everybody has the right to participate fully in the political process, except conservative Christians.

Granted it is your right to disdain them as it is mine to hold the Michael moore/howard Dean crowd in contempt as they attempt to impose their left wing militant secularist "religion" on the country.

Hugo is correct, when he points out the fact that many unchristian acts were committed when there were established churches. We see it every day in Islam. Party politics, being what it is, causes good men to go bad, and bad men to get worse in most cases.

However, Hugo, I fear you may be playing into the radical secularists hands with such a coment if you are not careful.

Frankly, Black Dog is tossing out a red herring here. There is a conmstitution that says that there shall nbe no established state church, and nothing is ever going to change that.

The Democratic party is NOT an inclusive organization (But then again, to the left, words like "inclusiveness" and "diversity" are usually used in connection with gay rights and to justify trampling on the rights of those who don't think that special priveleges should be accorded based on sexual behaviour.)

There is a great deal of hostility in the Democratic Party toward anyone who does not agree with abortion rights and gay rights.

We must also remember that the COURTS, which are stacked with left-leaningjudges, are imposing restrictions on how Christians may express their faith publicly. In a free society, the only restriction on anyone's freedom of sppeech should be where it crosses thelines of civility and incites violence, or where one group decides that their freedom of expression is to stifle someone else's view (read preople who obstruct public speeches with chants of "Hey hey, ho ho )fill in the balnk) has got to go" or the ubiquitous "Racist sexist, anti-gay").

I don't have a problem with a Chanukah display, or some kind of honoring of a Muslim of Sikh holiday. Why should nativity scenes be trashed?

The basis of western law is nfound in the 10 commandments. Whay should these not be on public display? The fairest system thusfar devised by man stemmed from these, and it is these that protect the bsic rights we all cherish. People come from all over the world to live under such a system.

Could it be because the commandment "thou shalt not kill" gets in the way of the desire to be able to rid oneself of an inconvenient child?

Could it be because the commandments proscribe adultery and fornication, that gets in the way of hedons?

Could it be that property rights are enshrined (#10) (to the chagrin of the socialists)?

Nobody is ever going to establish a state religion. Get over it.

However, the left is trying to circumvent the constitution by RESTRICTING freedom of religion at least the public expression of it, by enforcing militant secularism (their version of it)through an activist judiciary.

At the end of the day it is up to the voters to decide. they will say to the Republicans "this far and no further, at the ballot box. They told the Democrats where to go in the recent congressional elections, with their agenda. However the Dems are just imposing their views by proxy through the judiciary, often AGAINST the will of the people.

case in point: Louisiana votes 78% for an amendment banning gay "marriage" . A liberal judge overrules the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, Hugo, I fear you may be playing into the radical secularists hands with such a coment if you are not careful.

That sounds like more of the problem to me. I can't see Jesus saying, "I really disagree with what the Pharisees are doing, but if I complain too loudly I might play into the Romans' hands." Basically, it is a continuance of the same politics-as-religion problem. So-called Christianity that is profoundly anti-Christian is not worth defending against "radical secularists", in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IS your argument based on the fact that they seekl to protect the right to life of the unborn at the expense of the self-indulgent "right" to dispose of a life because it is the "inconvenient" result of one's own actions?

No the argument is based on maintaing a seperation between church and state.

It's adangerous trend, and if the Christain lobby wants tonstand up to protest, it is their right, is it not?

I'm not interested in getting into a conversation about abortion.

Individuals, regardless of their religious creed, have the right to stand up for whatever it is they believe. But, whether you choose to see it or not, ther'e a historic seperation between religion, which is a private, personal matter and the runnning of the state.

It sounds to me as if you are arguing that everybody has the right to participate fully in the political process, except conservative Christians.

Nope.

Frankly, Black Dog is tossing out a red herring here. There is a conmstitution that says that there shall nbe no established state church, and nothing is ever going to change that.

Speaking of red herrings, you've just tossed out another one. The issue is about organizations like the C.C. who's stated goal is to blur the line between church and state.

The rest of your rant is so played out as to degenirate into cliche (though I especially love the bit about "leftist judges", by which you must be referring to Anthony Scalia, Clarence Thomas or William Rehnquist.:lol: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No the argument is based on maintaing a seperation between church and state.

The rest of your rant is so played out as to degenirate into cliche (though I especially love the bit about "leftist judges", by which you must be referring to Anthony Scalia, Clarence Thomas or William Rehnquist.:lol: )

Separation of Church and sate is, very simply, that there shall be no established state religion. That's it, that's all.

actually, no, I'm referring to the others on SCOTUS such as O'Connor, Breyer, Kenney and Bader-Ginsberg. Not to mention the circuit courts all over the country that are tsacked with liberals.

Look how the democrats scotched ever Bush appointee because they were pro-life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Separation of Church and sate is, very simply, that there shall be no established state religion. That's it, that's all.

It's understood that the provisions of the Constitution regarding religion prohibit the adoption of a particular religion as official, but also requires government to avoid any involvement in religion. (Jefferson's wall of seperation.) You made a lot of hysterical claims of "activist judges" using the state to suppress religious speech, but haven't really provided any evidence to show such a thing exists.

And you can rant on about "militant secularism", but the fact is, the U.S. was founded as a secular state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US was founded as a country where there was no state religion/denomination. NOT as a secular state in the sense that the liberal left is trying to establish today.

Well, I think the forcible removal of the 10 commandments from schools and courtrooms is one good example. I could point to hundreds of others as well.

I think that if you scratch the surface, the whole thing comes down to the most atrocious and irresponsible decision ever rendered : Roe V. Wade.

I was surprised to learn that more US servicemen were killed in the US Civil war than in WWI or WWII. almost half a million in each conflict.

However since 1973, over 40 million people have been legally murdered by abortionists in the US alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US was founded as a country where there was no state religion/denomination. NOT as a secular state in the sense that the liberal left is trying to establish today.

Well, I think the forcible removal of the 10 commandments from schools and courtrooms is one good example. I could point to hundreds of others as well.

Those types of decisions are entirely consistent with the principles of the First Amendment, as such displays send teh message that the state is endorsing a specific religious viewpoint. The display of religious symbols and the spread of religious messages belongs to the churches.

I was surprised to learn that more US servicemen were killed in the US Civil war than in WWI or WWII. almost half a million in each conflict.

However since 1973, over 40 million people have been legally murdered by abortionists in the US alone.

And let's not forget the bigest abortionist of all: God. Every year millions of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort or fail to implant on the uterine walls. These loss of these potential lives is the result of the machinations of a liberal activist Supreme Being. Protest abortion: picket a church.

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And let's not forget the bigest abortionist of all: God. Every year millions of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort or fail to implant on the uterine walls. These loss of these potential lives is the result of the machinations of a liberal activist Supreme Being. Protest abortion: picket a church.

Thanx BD, nearly lost my coffee on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was Tolstoy who said that the Church ceased to be Christian when it became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire. Since that point, organised Christianity has generally indulged in thoroughly anti-Christian behaviour, such as pursuit of earthly wealth and power, incitement to and even perpetration of violence, idol-worship, blasphemy, claims to intercede between man and God, evangelism and loud public worship, and so forth.

What you have mentioned, Blackdog, is more of the same: people who call themselves Christians as they reject the teachings of Christ.

Would you say the same for Islam? Or is that too "touchy" for you? Wouldn't want to offend any Muslims in Canada, now would we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you say the same for Islam? Or is that too "touchy" for you?

Funnily enough, dissatisfaction with Islam and a view that it has been "corrupted" are as prevalent in that religion as in Christianity, starting with the Kharijites in the 7th Century and, crucially, the reforms of Muhammed ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

However, the roots of Islam are the distortions of the Judeo-Christian religious foundations by a warlord named Muhammed, who sought to harness religious fanaticism to fuel his ambitions of war and conquest.

There have been a few attempts at reconciling Islam with the parent religion and pacifying it, most notably by Muhammed Abduh, Sayyid Ahmad Khan and Muhammed Iqbal. None of these have become widespread, and the Bahai movement became a religion in its own right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However since 1973, over 40 million people have been legally murdered by abortionists in the US alone.

Those are 40 million unwanted little teeny globs of protein. Had Roe v. Wade not been around, a significant portion of those 40 million would have ended up as unwanted and abused children. A significant portion of those would have ended up as criminals and would now be draining society as either active criminals, or as prison inmates.

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/990812/abortion.shtml

We've got enough people on this planet, period. We've finally found a good way to keep more people from getting on this planet. Just because some folks choose to follow the teachings of a 2000 year old book of fiction doesn't mean that it's in any way just or correct. And just because that 2000 year old book is interpreted by those in power to make abortion "morally wrong" doesn't mean that others couldn't spin other passages a completely different way.

In fact, I would submit that many other religions would possibly condone abortion on the grounds that it would be stopping one life before it starts in order to save tens or hundreds of thousands of other lives. Other non-Judeo Christian religions don't make the distinction of "humans are superior to animals, so feel free to kill whatever you want for whatever reason you want." Taking any life, be it human or animal is wrong.

Let me explain: a common rule of thumb is that human carnivores consume approximately 90 animals per year. We won't even count collateral damage of destroyed habitat, roadkill, added pollution, hunting, etc. I'm not sure that anyone has even quantified the amount of fresh water, energy and natural resources a human being consumes. Over the course of a typical lifetime, every extra human being will directly take the lives of 6000+ animals for food alone. From this standpoint, doesn't it make sense to stop one being before it can end the life of thousands?

Personally if I had the choice between aborting a fetus or not, I'd rather have a few more acres of green space and a bunch more furry creatures than another future jackass SUV driver any day.

Let's face it, abortion is an issue because the evangelical Christians (and particularly the Catholics) are making it an issue. The Catholics have been against birth control from the very beginning because it cuts into their business. Fewer babies mean fewer Catholics mean less money flowing into the church coffers. Abortion is simply an extention of this philosophy of "growing the business" for the church.

One other interesting point (that has nothing to do with abortion) regarding the Catholic church and politics. The Catholic church talks in the same breath about abortion, the death penalty and war. At least I give them points for being consistent (and learning from the crusades) in that killing is wrong. Why is it that (according to the right) "killing" small fertilized lumps of protein is wrong, but killing prison inmates and many innocent foreign citizens is just ducky?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally if I had the choice between aborting a fetus or not, I'd rather have a few more acres of green space and a bunch more furry creatures than another future jackass SUV driver any day.

Yikes, you're kinda heartless. What if we terminate you right now instead? Then we'd have a few more acres of green, less CO2 emissions, less poop coming from you etc. Perhaps you should make yourself a sacrifice for the environment. (just kidding please don't) The abortion debate will never be resolved but as far as I'm concerned, I don't see the difference between a baby in the womb and out. You try to make it a religious debate but for me it is about logic. What I find interesting is that the libs in California can legalize abortion yet charge Scott Peterson with murder for killing his "fetus".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The abortion debate will never be resolved but as far as I'm concerned, I don't see the difference between a baby in the womb and out. You try to make it a religious debate but for me it is about logic.

How about a new born baby and a cluster of tissue? A fertilized embryo?

What I find interesting is that the libs in California can legalize abortion yet charge Scott Peterson with murder for killing his "fetus".

"Laci's Law" as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is known, is a federal law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about a new born baby and a cluster of tissue? A fertilized embryo?
I don't know, that's the whole question, when does life begin? I'm open minded.
"Laci's Law" as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is known, is a federal law.
Didn't they charge him with murder before laci's law? Anyway, what's your feeling, do you think he should've been charged with murder? I'm not so sure he should have if abortion is legal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't they charge him with murder before laci's law? Anyway, what's your feeling, do you think he should've been charged with murder? I'm not so sure he should have if abortion is leagal.

You're correct, he was charged under California's "fetal homicide" statutes, which can be used if the fetus is older than seven weeks, but which also exempt legal abortions.

Personally, I don't think he should have been charged with the fetuses' murder. I think fetal hopmicide laws are being used as a wedge to reopen Roe v. Wade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the difference between a baby in the womb and out.
I don't know, that's the whole question, when does life begin? I'm open minded.

IMR, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but aren't these ideas somewhat contradictory?

BD, I'm with you. The fetal homicide laws serve two purposes: one, to open the Roe v. Wade argument up and two, to placate the fundamentalist segment of the voting public.

Everyone on the left talks of the doom of Roe v. Wade being overturned, but I'm not so sure. And I'm not so sure that the right really wants Roe v. Wade to go away, as it's such a nice windmill to tilt against. What do you think might happen if Roe v. Wade went away in the US?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abortion is a very touchy issue....

Some like me think that it absolutely should not be a form of birth control. (Religious or not religious...it's just wrong) And I think this way because I have a 3 yo daughter. Before my wife became pregnant, abortion did not bother me one bit. And it was easy for me to say that, not personally knowing the value of life at the time. On the other hand, it should not be illegal but controlled. I am for abortion if someone is raped or molested, and should be a personal choice.

As for Yoyodyn... His argument is sort of a form of population control. In which we should leave that up to the tobacco/alcohol industry or to the main illnesses plaguing the world (cancer, aids, heart disease) Or "natural selection"

But he's right, along with BD that the govt. "politiczes" it to gain or take away votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,745
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    historyradio.org
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • User went up a rank
      Experienced
    • exPS went up a rank
      Contributor
    • DUI_Offender earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • exPS went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Fluffypants went up a rank
      Rising Star
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...