home

The Filibuster and People of Faith

By TChris, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 08:03:29 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Republican pandering to religious extremists may be endangering the filibuster, but it may also endanger Republican support from religious people who understand the need to keep church and state apart.

As the Senate battle over judicial confirmations became increasingly entwined with religious themes, officials of several major Protestant denominations on Thursday accused the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, of violating the principles of his own Presbyterian church and urged him to drop out of a Sunday telecast that depicts Democrats as "against people of faith."

[Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, a top official of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A.,] said Dr. Frist's participation in the telecast undermined "the historical commitment in our nation and our church to an understanding of the First Amendment that elected officials should not be portraying public policies as being for or against people of faith."

Tony Perkins, organizer of the telecast, claims that “people of faith … see a connection between the filibuster and judicial activism.” But polls show that more Americans support than oppose the filibuster, and Republican senators may be starting to realize that “extremists of faith” aren’t supported by mainstream “people of faith.”

A confrontation had been expected as early as next week, but it now appears that the showdown may be delayed.

Republicans are beginning to notice that the arrogant attempts of religious extremists to impose their will on the country aren't sitting well with religious people who don't share those extreme views.

Religious groups, including the National Council of Churches and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, plan to conduct a conference call with journalists on Friday to criticize Senator Frist's participation in the telecast.

The National Council of Churches is asking members to organize news conferences denouncing Dr. Frist.

In addition, 406 clergy members signed a petition prepared by the Interfaith Alliance urging Frist “to defend the nation from efforts utilizing deception and fear-mongering to manipulate Americans of faith.”

< Juror Lies, Murder Conviction Tossed | Death Sentence Vacated >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Filibuster and People of Faith | 119 comments (119 topical)
    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 08:24:36 AM EST
    “extremists of faith” aren’t supported by mainstream “people of faith.”
    I may have pointed that out a few times around here

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#2)
    by DonS on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 08:25:26 AM EST
    Moderate religious people and groups may be finding a voice, finally. It seems a shame when its necessary for those who abhor the idea of religious intervention in public life to enter the fray. But, as with extreme Islamists, or any other fundamentalist movement, those who stand for moderation must stand up against it or be crushed under the presumption of right and righteousness that fundamentalists routinely claim.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 08:37:24 AM EST
    Time for the removal of tax exemptions for these outfits.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 08:47:31 AM EST
    I vote we begin an effort for a Two Million Citizen March on Washington for seperation of church an state. There is a real threat to america here and is far greater than the cold war ever was! I am disabled and wheel chair bound, but If needed I'll gladly tie myself to an old ford pick and tow myself do D.C. P A S S I T O N ! !

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 08:51:22 AM EST
    "the historical commitment in our nation and our church to an understanding of the First Amendment that elected officials should not be portraying public policies as being for or against people of faith."
    I like this comment.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 08:51:39 AM EST
    In all cases Religious ideals are always used to do evil acts against the people by the government. This fight over the filibuster is just a show to keep your minds off of what is happening all over the world. stop and listen to the fools in your government if you can still hear?. your government is not your government but is now owned by evil people.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 08:56:43 AM EST
    It seems a shame when its necessary for those who abhor the idea of religious intervention in public life to enter the fray
    It becomes even more interesting in that people of my faith are hesitant to criticize someone else's act of faith (them doing what God leads them to do).

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 09:12:49 AM EST
    I've noticed a lot of talk on TL about "religious extremists", yet no one has offered an explanation as to what this term means or, specifically, who these "extremists" are. I'm not so sure they even exist. Like the proverbial boogeyman, this term is hauled out and bandied about to incite fear. Something not going your way? Not your fault - blame someone else; the scapegoat du jour happens to be the opaque, undefined "religious extremists". If there is a finer point to be made here, it is lost (mostly) on the lemming-like Liberals, who will use the term to attack Religion in all forms. My prediction: The short-term gratification of slandering people of Faith will become fleeting on election day, when people of Faith respond to the charge of "extremist" by telling the Dems where to stick it (ala election 2004).

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 09:27:39 AM EST
    For a brief but disturbing history of how the Right learned to love the nuclear option, see: "The Conservative Theory of Evolution"

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 09:33:15 AM EST
    Just to second The Horse with No Brain: I've noticed a lot of talk on TL about "activist judges", yet no one has offered an explanation as to what this term means or, sepcifically, who these "activists" are. I'm not so sure they even exist. Like the proverbial boogyman, this term is hauled out and bandied about to incite fear. Something not going your way? Not your fault - blame someone else; the scapegoat du jour happens to be the opaque, undefined "activist judges". If there is a finer point to be made here, it is lost (mostly) on the lemming-like social conservatives, who will use the term to attack the Constitutional independence of the judiciary in all forms. My prediction: The short-term gratification of slandering judges will become fleeting on election day, when people who believe in separation of powers respond to the charge of "activist" by telling the Reps where to stick it (unlike the 2004 election that primarily hinged on national security, with a smaller percentage voting on "moral values" than the 1996 or 2000 elections).

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 09:34:23 AM EST
    And, yes, "sepcifically" is a perfectly cromulent word.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 09:41:25 AM EST
    mds Thanks for proving my point. Glad you liked it; feel free to cut and paste as pleases you.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 09:57:10 AM EST
    I'll venture to say that (hold on to your hats, everyone) there has been studies done that demonstrate a biological propensity for "religiosity" that has to do with specific parts of the brain being activated (i.e. stimulated by neuro-electrical activity) when praying, etc. My thesis is that about 10% of all humans have an added propensity for this religiosity. Some of them just go to church all the time, but combined with certain less desirable character traits (anger, violence) can lead to standing in front of the Subway with a "Jesus is coming you're all going to hell" sign. Or to radical fundamentalism of the Christian or non-Christian kind. I never liked proseletyzing - think "St." Saul/Paul got it wrong.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:05:06 AM EST
    Horse Interesting, but if your prime example of a US (we are talking about the US here) "religious extremist" is a person "standing in front of the Subway with a "'Jesus is coming you're all going to hell' sign".. Well, you just need thicker skin.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#15)
    by Joe Bob on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:09:38 AM EST
    The debate is moving in the right direction when the media starts to report that 'people of faith' have wildly varying opinions on judicial nominations and the filibuster. The animosity currently directed at the judiciary is entirely a product of Republican ideology, regardless of whether or not it's expressed by 'people of faith.' Note that I said 'Republican' and not 'conservative' ideology. That's because in terms of respect for the Constitution and the history of this country, these people are revolutionaries. There's nothing conservative about them. Why call them extremists? Because their views are anti-pluralistic, sectarian and authoritarian in their rigidity. This all brings to mind the adage, "Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done." Even if so-called religious conservatives were able to wield the power necessary to reshape the government to their liking, for them to do it would mean the end of this country as we know it.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:24:42 AM EST
    For an understanding of the charges being leveled by moderates and 'liberal' people of faith against their more...'enthusiatic'...co-religionists, this Google search string might help: Christian Reconstructionism from the first article we learn: Its most common form, Dominionism, represents one of the most extreme forms of Fundamentalist Christianity thought. Its followers, called Dominionists, are attempting to peacefully convert the laws of United States so that they match those of the Hebrew Scriptures. They intend to achieve this by using the freedom of religion in the US to train a generation of children in private Christian religious schools. Later, their graduates will be charged with the responsibility of creating a new Bible-based political, religious and social order. One of the first tasks of this order will be to eliminate religious choice and freedom. Their eventual goal is to achieve the "Kingdom of God" in which much of the world is converted to Christianity. They feel that the power of God's word will bring about this conversion. No armed force or insurrection will be needed; in fact, they believe that there will be little opposition to their plan. People will willingly accept it. All that needs to be done is to properly explain it to them. All religious organizations, congregations etc. other than strictly Fundamentalist Christianity would be suppressed. Nonconforming Evangelical, main line and liberal Christian religious institutions would no longer be allowed to hold services, organize, proselytize, etc. Society would revert to the laws and punishments of the Hebrew Scriptures. Any person who advocated or practiced other religious beliefs outside of their home would be tried for idolatry and executed. Blasphemy, adultery and homosexual behavior would be criminalized; those found guilty would also be executed. At that time that this essay was originally written, this was the only religious movement in North America of which we were aware which advocates genocide for followers of minority religions and non-conforming members of their own religion. Since then, we have learned of two conservative Christian pastors in Texas who have advocated the execution of all Wiccans. Ralph Reed, the executive director of the conservative public policy group the Christian Coalition has criticized Reconstructionism as "an authoritarian ideology that threatens the most basic civil liberties of a free and democratic society." 'Extremism'? You tell me...

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:25:43 AM EST
    Sorry; link crapped out. But use the same term and you'll achieve the same results.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:32:25 AM EST
    Horse with No Brain: You're welcome. Now, is the point of yours that I apparently proved with my substitutions: (a) that "activist judges" are just as made-up as "religious extremists," in which case Mr. DeLay, Senator Frist, and Reverend Mohler are lying to the American people, or (b) that your post was sarcastic, too, since "religious extremists" obviously exist, because otherwise what is the point of this "people of faith" conference that the Presbyterian Church, the ADL, and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism have such a problem with? Or are they just attacking Religion in all forms?

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:44:39 AM EST
    nemo Interesting. But do you know any Reconstructionists? I don't, but I'm sure they exist. Of course, so do Cannibals, but I don't fear them much either. dsm The point you proved was that you cannot define a "religious extremist" (because if you tried, we'd see they don't exist - or at least not in the numbers you'd like to believe). Instead, you'd rather it be a murky, undefined term you can use to excite your anti-religion base (and its there, for everyone to see). As to (b); those groups are planning a teleconference with journalists to criticize Frist - not "religious extremists". Although I can see how you made the mistake, given the wording of our host's "interpetation".

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:45:26 AM EST
    I think I will shamelessly copy some quotes from over at Matthew Yglesias:
    Church and state should be separate. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends.
    These are from the 2000 Faith & Message of the Southern Baptist Convention. Might I tentatively suggest that if you act like you don't believe in these precepts, you might be creeping towards extremism?

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:53:53 AM EST
    mds writes - "since "religious extremists" obviously exist, because otherwise what is the point of this "people of faith" conference that the Presbyterian Church, the ADL, and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism have such a problem with? Or are they just attacking Religion in all forms?" You left out the National Council of Churches. No, what they are attacking is religions that do not match up to their belief system that supports Left wing agendas. So if you are main stream protestant, they see you as a extremist. This is an obvious attempt to define the terms of the discussion. Something the Left is extremely good at, since the MSM will always pitch in and help. nemo - How many members of the Dominionism movement do you think there are in the US?

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:55:05 AM EST
    That was me NoNameHorse, posting as horse above. You have to consider I'm in Harvard Square. The "going to hell" guy and quakers singing and handing out pamphlets in little Puritan outfits are about the most extreme we get here.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:55:06 AM EST
    WACO UP!

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:02:16 AM EST
    Horse, There are religious extremists (I would tend to use the word demagogues). They try to excite the same knee jerk reactions in the christian community that other demagogues excite in the left, or the right. Are christian demagogues any worse than those on the political left or right- NO. If Christians had any real political commonality we could be dangerous - but we dont. That is just anti-christian demagogues getting another set of knees jerking. There IS a general revival across the christian community to make a faith a daily, center-of-life thang - not just a Sunday event. So we DO have a very large number of believers (still growing) with a common moral/ethical view on some core values; and the desire to put that into effect in all parts of their lives - including the political. The Democratic Party needs to re-think some of its core platforms and philosophys, or continue to lose close elections because of the views of this group. Also, the Republicans cannot take this group for granted.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:10:06 AM EST
    Instead, you'd rather it be a murky, undefined term you can use to excite your anti-religion base (and its there, for everyone to see).
    The unintended irony of this sentence is breathtaking. So, "we" have no evidence of religious extremists whatsoever, but we're exciting our "anti-religion base" (including those Reform Jews), which is irrefutably there for all to see? Um, Horse with No Brain, and PPJ, I know you seem to have a hard time using Google, but try looking up R. J. Rushdoony, a major spiritual influence on D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries. Dr. Kennedy himself believes that America was founded as a Christian nation, and that Old Testament law should be the basis for American law. He also believes that Jesus will return only after "real" Christians have conquered the world and crushed the unbelievers beneath their boot heels. Is this actually mainstream belief? Because, you know, my old Southern Baptist church never brought this up. Hal Lindsey, whom you have probably never heard of, and in fact probably doesn't exist, can hardly let a broadcast go by without intoning direly about "the Antichrist of Rome" in order to impugn Roman Catholicism as a pagan faith. Meanwhile, he uses soothsaying, including Nostradamus, to make End Times assertions found nowhere in Scripture. He is carried most nights on the Angel Network, the "evangelical" satellite service. Is any of this extremist yet? The Left Behind series pushes the doctrine of the Rapture, a term which appears nowhere in the Bible, let alone the Book of Revelation, and is a nineteenth-century invention in which C. S. Lewis did not believe. Reverend LaHaye has admitted that the Bible does not explicitly mention the Rapture (as opposed to the Second Coming), but says that it doesn't explicitly deny it either, which is not exactly a compelling appeal to authority. Can frenzied devotion to a system of End Times eschatology not supported by the Bible be considered extremist? Would anything meet your definition of Christian religious extremism?

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:12:55 AM EST
    JCH I agree. My point, which you have restated eloquently, is that the Dems will continue to drive away most of the christian community with slanders such as "religious extremists" dsm Again, you prove my point - you are referencing someone that nobody has ever heard of.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:15:40 AM EST
    My thesis is that about 10% of all humans have an added propensity for this religiosity
    Well, whatever this means the number of people who consider themselves secular, non-religious, atheist, agnostic, and humanist, all put together, in the US is less than 15% of the population. Maybe this 15% should have a little more respect for the 85%

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:21:22 AM EST
    As to (b); those groups are planning a teleconference with journalists to criticize Frist - not "religious extremists".
    No, what they are attacking is religions that do not match up to their belief system that supports Left wing agendas. So if you are main stream protestant, they see you as a extremist.
    Maybe you folks need to work out the talking points a little better... are the mentioned organizations attacking perceived "religious extremists", or not? So, anyway, Horse with No Name, would someone who thinks that neither the Presbyterian Church USA nor Reform Judaism are mainstream religions, but groups that love attacking religions that don't toe the left wing line, qualify as a religious extremist?

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:24:02 AM EST
    Deists do not believe in 'revealed religion'. Pope? What Pope? Deists don't need no stinking Pope.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:28:06 AM EST
    dsm Again, you prove my point - you are referencing someone that nobody has ever heard of.
    Really? Nobody has ever heard of Tim LaHaye? Nobody has ever heard of the Left Behind series? This is the use of "nobody" that means "I", apparently. So, you're actually completely uninformed about fundamentalist Christian culture in this country, and figure anything you haven't heard of doesn't exist. That's convenient, I suppose.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:32:26 AM EST
    mds It is possible to be a group that attacks certain religions for not 'towing the Left Wing line' and be a group that attacks Frist. The two are not mutually exclusive. Democrats, for example. The Left Behind series is a made-for-tv movie event, a Hollywood creation. If you find it offensive, then you need to learn how to change the channel.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:33:56 AM EST
    ...and if you're relying on Left Behind to learn Christian culture, you are seriously uninformed.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:41:36 AM EST
    LOL, maybe Left Behind is a series of books, and the tv show was something else.. In any event, my point remains the same.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:48:15 AM EST
    ...and if you're relying on Left Behind to learn Christian culture, you are seriously uninformed.
    I agree with you about that part. However, you were apparently unaware until a few minutes ago that the Left Behind series is indeed first and foremost a series of books, co-written by the Reverend Tim LaHaye, which formed the basis for the supposedly Christian movie. They were published by Tyndale House, a major Christian publisher (and yes, I can easily believe that you have never heard of Tyndale House, either). There is a movement that hands these books out in place of the Bible, to scare people into conversion. The authors have been lauded by writers in Decision magazine, which is published by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. (I have a subscription to it, and was very disappointed to find them talking up LaHaye and Jenkins.) Billy Graham... that name vaguely rings a bell... Nope, can't place it. So forgive me if I'm skeptical about your abilities to accurately detect religious extremism. Next you're going to tell me you don't know who Jack Chick is.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:54:48 AM EST
    mds I would think that most Christians read the bible, not the Left Behind series. Left Behind is a book. Don't like it? Don't read it. No one is forcing you to. If handing out books is extremism to you, then you are to easily offended.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:14:14 PM EST
    The Horse with No Name, I must admit that you are an inspired one-trick pony. Handing out books is indeed not extremism to me. However, if you bothered to pay attention to, well, yourself, you were asserting that religious extremists don't even exist. When it's pointed out that people with extreme religious views exist, you've never heard of them. When it's pointed out that the influence of people with extreme religious views is pervasive, you throw out the entire argument and say that some vaguely related generalization is not extremism. Fine. Still wondering, though:
    No, what they are attacking is religions that do not match up to their belief system that supports Left wing agendas. So if you are main stream protestant, they see you as a extremist.
    Would someone who asserts that neither the Presbyterian Church USA nor Reform Judaism are mainstream religions, but are groups that love attacking religions that don't toe the left wing line, qualify as a religious extremist? Oh, wait, if using the letter "b" is extremist, I am thin-skinned and too easily offended.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:21:51 PM EST
    To answer several similar questions, I don't know (as in associate with) any Reconstructionists...that I am aware of. If any of my friends and associates harbor such beliefs, they have kept them to themselves, and the issues raised by Reconstructionist principles have never entered conversation. On the other hand, my lack of contact with such folks does not mean that such beliefs are not entertained by those seeking the political power, based upon their beliefs, to enforce their particular sectarian form of Christianity upon those not sharing it. It's obvious from the actions of some churchmen that they do harbor such beliefs. I still recall in 1979 watching Jerry Falwell lovingly roll the word "The-oc-ra-cy" off his tongue as if he had just discovered it, claiming this is the way the US should go. And, unlike the aforementioned cannibals, such people are in close enough proximity geographically to cause mischief. And evidently are, with their insistence upon re-ordering the political landscape by attempting to remove a bulwark against de facto theocratic governance. And just for the record, I distrust anyone who doesn't know me who claims superior knowledge about what's best for me...and how I ought to accede to their demands to follow their advice. Short of Yahweh, Hisself blasting Mapquest directions to Heaven in my ears, whenever I hear these kinds of people talk (and Socialists are just as prone to this kind proselytizing as any Bible thumper) I'll just recall the old maxim about opinions being like a certain portion of the anatomy prone to effluvia. Conservative, liberal, pink-with-purple-polka-dots, I don't care. "For your own good" has been the prime justification which has historically led to all kinds of misery and death in the long run. And many of those doing the killing claimed God as their authorizing agent. And if Americans don't watch out, that same lesson other nations have learned to their sorrow will be visited upon us here.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:25:26 PM EST
    MDS, Lets see - have read all Left Behind books - great read. Read the Harry Potter series (witchcraft not good, story great) and Lord of the Rings Trilogy (Tolkien was a christian theologist who included 3 types of Christ in the trilogy - can you name them?) as well. CS Lewis is perhaps the greatest christian apologist of this century - Mere Christianity is a work of art. rapture: if you want the scripture look here Hal Lindsey? Gives me a headache for same reason. Now I have also read Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Engels, Trotsky, Bakunin, Che, and quite a few others - now there are some extremeists there - wow perhaps the Left should make sure to renounce these guys often. Jack Chick - didnt know who he was until I googled him and realized its all those funny little cartoon tracts. I personally cannot read them - too painful You think Billy is an extremist? I think this is all demagogery on the part of people who throw up the edges to slander the middle (I do not know your motives so do not take this personally unless it applies). The central point of H.W.N.N. is if you keep this up you wont win the middle.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:26:20 PM EST
    To: The Horse with no name, will you help to build camps for the Heretic's? can I go? and will we have gas-chambers/fences and lookout towers at the camps? What about Reeducation camps for any who stand in the way of the New Taliban government, called the new ideals of our lord Bush? This is not about God or the Messiah or Christ or the savior its about power and control over billions of people, and the making of this nation into a third world idea; for the real deal of really bad people who will use you like a "jew in a death camp in the end".

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:27:38 PM EST
    I would think that most Christians read the bible, not the Left Behind series.
    By the definition of actual Christianity that I identify with, I would agree. But a great many people out there, not being extremist, just railing against the "homosexual agenda" (Hey, there's another one to cut and paste!), appear to have read one verse in Leviticus and one in Romans, and then put the book away. And Reverend Mohler, as the new head of the Southern Baptist Seminary, has purged those who espouse "the priesthood of all believers" in favor of Biblical wisdom revealed by church leaders. The priesthood of all believers is a longstanding Southern Baptist doctrine that advocates reading the Bible for oneself. And now this is inappropriate according to Reverend Mohler, who is also violating the Faith & Message of his church by seeking influence over civil authorities. Reverend Mohler is chummy with Dr. Kennedy (see above), and is a fellow predestinationist. So when a high-ranking member of my family's church joins with an organization that rejects the separation of church and state in contravention of his own church's tenets as well as Constitutional jurisprudence, and pushes the notion that rank-and-file Christians should not try to interpret the Bible for themselves, I start using the term "extremist." I'm sorry that you don't agree.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:29:40 PM EST
    mds When it's pointed out that the influence of people with extreme religious views is pervasive No one has proved this, or even argued that it is true. All you have done is reference a series of books, which may or may not be popular among certain groups of people. nemo All fine and dandy, but then you say with their insistence upon re-ordering the political landscape by attempting to remove a bulwark against de facto theocratic governance. Who is doing this? What have they done? I'd like to hear specific names, and specific events. I can't think of any.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:37:36 PM EST
    JCH The central point of H.W.N.N. is if you keep this up you wont win the middle. Exactly. The Left screams "extremism" but can't define it, can't point to examples, can't make a case for it. So it looks more like bigotry to Ma and Pa Mainstream. Have a great weekend, all.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:42:27 PM EST
    Now I have also read Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Engels, Trotsky, Bakunin, Che, and quite a few others - now there are some extremeists there - wow perhaps the Left should make sure to renounce these guys often.
    Well, I've never advocated them, and I'm fairly sure that many on the "Left" would concur. Or do you still think liberal == communist? Any agreement on my part is purely accidental, through means of Jesus' stated concern for the poor, or the Levitical doctrine of government being obligated to look out for the less fortunate. And I don't think the guys you mentioned really believed in those things.
    rapture: if you want the scripture look here
    There could be some confusion, based on the co-opting of the word "rapture" by premillenial dispensationalists. C.S. Lewis, for instance, clearly believed in the Second Coming, just not that believers would be yanked out before seven years of tribulation.
    You think Billy is an extremist?
    Not at all. I have abiding respect for Reverend Graham, including his concerns about nuclear war; but he is not his entire organization, especially as his health requires him to move more into the background. His son Franklin is more of an ambiguous figure, though he also asserted on Hannity & Colmes that "God is not a Democrat or a Republican" and was ridiculed by anti-religion leftist Sean Hannity for it.
    The central point of H.W.N.N. is if you keep this up you wont win the middle.
    No, the central point of H.W.N.N. is that the demagogues of one side don't exist, and that anyone who believes that they do, and worries about their influence over the political process, is anti-religion.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:44:29 PM EST
    will you help to build camps for the Heretic's? can I go? and will we have gas-chambers/fences and lookout towers at the camps?
    No my paranoid friend, we will be the British evangelists that forced the political changes that outlawed the slave trade in 1807; and then used the British military to force it down everyone else's throat. We will be the christians who were the backbone of the underground railroads for jews in wwII and blacks before the civil war. We will be the christians who stood in front of fire hoses in the civil rights struggle. Its hard to talk to people with no sense on history

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:47:39 PM EST
    Who is doing this? What have they done? I'd like to hear specific names, and specific events. I can't think of any.
    Okay, are you actually ignorant, or willfully mendacious? Permanent vegetative state doesn't ring a bell? The existence of a conference of religious leaders who want to influence the government to eliminate the filibuster because Democrats are "against people of faith," meaning very specific kinds of faith, is the entire reason for this blog entry.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:54:08 PM EST
    MDS, I've done my best - get your eyes off the edges and put them on the middle (because we in the middle really dont have our eyes on the edges). And it really does look a general anti-christianity when you keep talking about it. Oh, and as to your dean - what can I say. Access of the laity to the Bible and our responsibility to understand it for ourselves is the bedrock of Protestantism. He may need to become a Catholic priest (oh wait, they dont believe that anymore either). Just one of those edges again. One Christian extremist you missed: John Brown at Harper's Ferry - there was a crazy man for you.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 12:59:18 PM EST
    Horse, I've already gave you one name and example: Jerry Falwell, for his statement about how much more preferable (for he and his ilk) a theocracy would be to the present form of government we have. By his access to millions of people via his 'ministry' and the weight given to his 'leadership' it can be safely posited that when he speaks glowingly of 'The-oc-ra-cy" he is in essence politicking for precisely that. It requires little effort to research further and learn of the various groups and associations (Christian Coalition, for one) which has been engaged in political efforts on behalf of its' members to bring about the very kind of governance that such as Falwell seeks to implement. If you plug in the words "Christian Reconstructionism" into any search engine and do the research into the various articles pro-and-con you will be rewarded with the names and organizations of those who favor CR...such as Greg Bahnson, (the late) Rousas John Rushdooney, Gary North, Howard Ahmanson, etc. From there you can investigate the actual writings - and political activism - of these gentlemen yourself.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:00:47 PM EST
    " "
    Well, I've never advocated them, and I'm fairly sure that many on the "Left" would concur. Or do you still think liberal == communist?
    Exactly!!!!! do you want me attacking liberalism by constantly bringing up Stalin as an example of what you are trying to achieve.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:01:32 PM EST
    Oh, and as to your dean - what can I say. Access of the laity to the Bible and our responsibility to understand it for ourselves is the bedrock of Protestantism.
    I concur. But then the views of the president of the Southern Baptist Seminary aren't Protestant? One of the top people in the Southern Baptist church, who will be setting most of the doctrine for the entire convention for some time to come, doesn't believe in a bedrock principle of Protestantism? Does that make his views extremist? If so, he's involved in a shindig this weekend with the majority leader of the United States Senate.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:25:17 PM EST
    nemo, the Horse with No Name has never heard of Jerry Falwell. No one has, and he's never held any political influence whatsoever. Since you mention the Christian Coalition, Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson wrote a book, Blinded by Might, about their disenchantment with the Christian Coalition as it became more and more preoccupied with seizing political power, and less with genuinely winning souls to Christ. Given former director Ralph Reed's move into the RNC apparatus, and his links to Jack Abramoff, I can understand their disenchantment. For his pains, Cal was uninvited from a conference run by Dr. Kennedy. I guess he was an early Voinovich. JCHFleetguy:
    Exactly!!!!! do you want me attacking liberalism by constantly bringing up Stalin as an example of what you are trying to achieve.
    That is a fair point. The thing is, I'm not attacking conservatism. I'm attacking what I honestly perceive as the attempted hijacking of conservatism by a particular subset of social conservatives. I am not suggesting that conservative == extremist. I am not suggesting that Christian == extremist. (And tangentially, note that I refuse to concede that Christian == conservative.) Consider that Senator McCain is a conservative, yet by supporting retention of the filibuster, he is "against people of faith" by the axioms of this conference. And if Senator Reid were going to appear via video at a Marxist conference this weekend, I guarantee I'd have sharp words for him, too. Because that would suggest that the extremist wing of the left was exercising undue influence. So meeting in the middle is a good way to go, but make sure you aren't just criticizing the mote in the Left's eye.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:34:26 PM EST
    religious extremist -- any one of any religion who wants to meld their religious beliefs/theology with my Constitution so that there is no longer any distinction between them. eg: god says homosexuality is immoral, therefore the Constitution must say so too.. activist judges -- go ask DeLay, Conryn, et al what an activist judge is. They made up the term to characterize ANY judge who makes a ruling that conflicts with Extremist, anti-American agenda the religious right and Republicans have for this country. -- a person of great faith, sick of reading that my religious beliefs are tantamount to 'unamerican" because they aren't Christian, that liberals can't love God and are anti-Religion. May you all ahve a kosher Pesach.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:35:43 PM EST
    Glanton, Our compass direction is God and righteousness; as revealed in his word - the Bible. I am to do what is right. We are also told to obey civil authority. It is an interesting dialectic (see told you I read Marx) If extremists like John Brown hadn't taken on slavery - what? The anti-slavery (almost all "faith based") movement took on the Constitution and slavery - boy were they extreme? The "faith-based" (primarily) civil rights movement took on federal law (plesy v ferguson) and state law to bring civil rights. Extremists one and all. We tried Nazi's at Nuremburg because we believed that political structures do not relieve one of moral responsibility. Extreme. The American revolution fought the "Constitution" of England because we had inalienable rights from God. Real extreme. We are obligated as human beings to act in conscience. So stop whining and do your political work based on your conscience - and if the examples above did not give you some thought that ceding the christian middle to the right is sorta, well, dumb - then I do not know what to say. MDS, It makes his view wrong in my mind - I dont know what extreme means in this case. I would like to sit down with a Bible and have him show me where he got that. Every political, religious, and social movement is plagued by people with wrong doctrine.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:43:20 PM EST
    MDS, Could care less about the conference - the nice thing about the extremes is while they drive change - they usually do not take power; and they usually self-destruct (this conference perhaps a good example)

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#55)
    by glanton on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:54:52 PM EST
    JCH: That was an excellent post and you know, I've often thought about the examples you give. They're good ones all. But I hope you're not suggesting a parallel between abolitionists or the Revolutionaries and those trying to reignite the Scopes Trials, for example. Hopefully you're not comparing George Washington or John Brown to Eric Rudolph or Tom Coburn, are you? Santorum has lamented the legality of non-hetero expressions of sexuality many times, and he has quoted scipture in doing so. Is he a Jeffersonian figure in your mind? As for ceding the Christian middle, my friend, it is not I who have done this. It is the media and the fact that every time you turn on the damned news there's Falwell or Dobson or Robertson spouting off. No venue whatever for the live and let live Christian, none. There is no William Lloyd Garrison among us today, not even a Theodore Parker. Sorry. What you call whining, finally, seems better to fall under the rubric of ANSWERING A QUESTION. Some on this thread have stupidly suggested that religious extremists do not exist. I only pointed out the stupidity. That it was even necessary hopefully amuses you as much as it does me.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:58:21 PM EST
    Well said, JCHFleetguy, but as far as history goes, the british used black for over 300 years before we now call the USA, and it was my greatgrand father in the 30th mass, inf, 1861-1865, who stopped slavery, its how you look at history, and we all look at history as a tool and not for facts. the people of Faith are not evil but can be used to do evil, as we have all known to have happened in the religious wars in the 9 and 10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17th, centuries, and back in 1929-1941 Faith based did not work at all did it? that is the reason FDR Did what he did.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 02:15:36 PM EST
    Glanton, As a brother in Christ - there is NO "live and let live" christianity. We are told to hate sin and love sinners - another interesting dialectic. And impossible outside "Christ living in me". After I became a christian I had to cross my fingers over evolution - but I can be just as strong now that there is good science supporting intelligent design. There has to be - after all there is a creator. My brother-in-law was a Catholic gay who died of aids. My sister is a lesbian non-believer. I love them both, think my brother-in-law is in heaven right now, gay or not; and my sister is in trouble, gay or not. That said, right now I am opposed to gay marriage. Here now is not the place; but convince me, in scripture, im wrong - and I promise to take the battle to my church. I do not think it is yet defended by the Constitution - but that is for the Supreme Court to decide not me. Jefferson drafted a Virginia law making the penalty for homosexuality castration. Santorium is probably more liberal than that. We are such a media driven world we seem to have lost the ability to go to "the masses" and make our case - mano a mano. The battle for hearts and minds right now is at the PTA, baseball leagues, churches, etc. And yes, I will make the comparison: I kinda love people who, acting out of conscience, take it to the wall. I may oppose them, but I respect their belief and the willingness to fight, and die, for it.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 02:26:55 PM EST
    Fred, Exactly! We are all so capable of being used for evil. A little historical adjustment: Britain ended the slave trade in their ships in 1807 and pushed for the next 20 years to end the atlantic trade for Portugal, spain, brazil, etc. - up to using force of arms against other nations to press their opinion. They ended slavery in the British empire in 1836; France ended slavery in its empire in 1840 something; the United States 3rd in 1865 after fighting a war over it.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#59)
    by glanton on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 02:38:07 PM EST
    1) I'm sorry, truly very sorry that you respect Eric Rudolph. That ought to tell you something about where you are. Shall you next denote respect for Bin Laden--didn't his boys 'take it to the wall' on 9/11? Or are we only talking about admiring Crhistian murderers, here? 2)Jefferson's inane law was anti-Jeffersonian, and anti every other person who drafted a Consitution dedicated to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And as for your claim that Santorum is more liberal than the law Jefferson drafted, I have heard him speak on the subject on numerouis occasions, before and since he was elected (in two years by the way he'll be gone from Washington), and I disagree with you emphatically. The hatred he feels radiates his countenance, and Coburn's and Falwell's etcetera, though they do not quite have the balls to vocalize it in its pure form. I'm very sorry for your brother-in-law but that really has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Neither does gay marriage, actually. I have rpeatedly drawn a sharp distinction between the gay marriage issue, about which I really care very little as long as gay couples get all the same rights as heterosexual ones, including hospital visitation, adoption, tax breaks, and especially heakth insurance--a sharp distinction between that issue and the issue forced by those drooling idiots who want to criminalize homosexuality outright. Sadly, you seem on target with the claim that there are no 'live and let live' Christians. So I suppose that means I ought to consider you mine mortal enemy, if you have no intentions of letting me live in peace? Please clarify why what I or anyone else does in their private lives is any of your business, in this nation? This is not a theocracy, not yet, and we ought to be very thankful for that. Witness what theocracy has done to the Middle East; witness what it did to us when we were very young and burning "witches." Those who want to take us back there are going to need to kill outright an awful lot of people to pull it off. But hey, as long as these fools are at one with their consciences, their Lord, or whatever.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 02:50:24 PM EST
    No, i said (since you said you were a "live and let live" christian) that there is no "live and let live" christianity - huge difference. My point is that you are called as a Christian to act on your world in your faith - not just let sin go on around you. If you believe that your fellow christians are sinning in their beliefs on homosexuality - you are not supposed to just let them live in that sin. go to work

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 02:58:17 PM EST
    "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin" is what JCH is saying. When you love the sinner, you work with them to change the sin, because you care about their soul's final destination.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#62)
    by glanton on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 03:13:36 PM EST
    Now, seriously, now, please go find where I said I was a Christian. If my sloppy syntax led you to believe that I was one, I am terribly sorry. Anyway, please address my post--we all know that you don't believe in 'live and let live,' and it appears the case that most Christians follow you in this (or else they're damned quiet and don't care trhat their religion has been hijacked), and it's no surprise to me whatever that you find this consistent with Scripture. Perhaps it is consistent. I don't care. I'd still appreciate it if you'd leave me and others alone: if you refuse to leave us alone, out of "concern for our souls" or whatever, does that make mortal enemies of those millions of us who refuse to be ministered to? If we slam the door in your faces shall you lobby legislators to force that door open? How far are you willing to go? And please address my question about 9/11. Put your money where your mouth is, I'd freakin love to see it. As you yourself have intimated, if you're gonna make a biug claim you might as well "take it to the wall."

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 03:40:08 PM EST
    Glanton, Pardon me I screwed up. The answer for me is I am a relationship evangelist - you can see it here. Do I insult? Do I accuse? Do I use bad names or accuse people of bad motives even if they disagree with me? No. Do I believe I can change you by law or judicial decree? No. Do I desire to? No. Do I believe in or want a "theocracy"? No. I'll give you an extra terrible example to go with 9/11. Do I believe that if Adolf Hitler, after the atrocities of WWII, sincerely accepted Christ and renounced his sin on his death bed he would have gone to heaven? Yes Now to 9/11: I understand deeply the feeling of fundamentalist Muslims about the decadence and depravity being introduced into their culture and children by the west. We do afterall share a common God, if not a common belief in Him. I fear it for my daughter. I can see their frustration and how we have become the great Satan in their minds. Would I react that way? No (I have the advantage of Christ, and that love the sinner thang). Do I respect that they believe so strongly that they will do what it takes to protect their culture and beliefs from evil? Yes. Will I protect my culture and beliefs from them? Absolutely. Respect and agreement are different things entirely. You must respect and understand your enemy - not agree with them. Bring on the hounds and the rope.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 03:51:54 PM EST
    JCH Fleetguy: "Do I believe that if Adolf Hitler, after the atrocities of WWII, sincerely accepted Christ and renounced his sin on his death bed he would have gone to heaven? Yes" Godwin's Law. You lose, and this conversation has run its course.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 03:56:53 PM EST
    "When you love the sinner, you work with them to change the sin, because you care about their soul's final destination." Heh, I love this. You know this is like the bigot saying, "Some of my best friends are (insert appropriate ethnic group)."

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#67)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 03:57:34 PM EST
    glanton I would daresay that most Christians I know would feel charged (duty-bound) to bring the "good word" to the people. However, whether you choose to accept it or not is, and always has been, a personal decision. There can be no other way. Tristero The fact that you feel the need to add your wanton inanities to an otherwise excellent conversation is proof positive of your ignorance in matters of civil discourse. Do us all a favor and save the Bandwidth - the page takes a couple extra nanoSeconds to load because of you, and your 'contributions' are simply not worth it.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 04:01:16 PM EST
    " " No, it really isnt - but if you do not feel it you will not understand it. Glanton, Thank you, I do not discuss issues with those who I do not respect.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#69)
    by glanton on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 04:07:09 PM EST
    Horse: I'm one of those guys that, if you try to witness to me in the middle of a boardroom presentation I'll talk to you anyway. Somebody wants to talk about ideas, that's great, let's trade some ideas. I love to invite JW's in for coffee and banter with them. It beats talking about whose turn it is to take out the trash or balancing my check book, anyway. "All" I am objecting to here is to Christians (in America) who attempt to use law and/or violence to enforce their doctrines: which is made even more interesting by the fact that even all the Christians don't agree amongst themselves on most of these hotbutton matters, like criminalizing abortion, re-starting the Scopes Trials, jailing homosexuals, etcetera. Shall the Falwells and Coburns and Delays among them forever speak in all their names? Talk about it with me over coffee or on a blog or whatever, but don't bring it into the legislative office, don't force it onto my body or my money. Not much to demand, and I demand it.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 04:13:53 PM EST
    Glanton Horse and I keep saying: who really gives a s__t about falwell et al. If he and I do not who should? The only reason the media clusters around them is they are making noise. Should I go what I am doing - talking to people personally; or waste my time arguing with people who are fringe elements? I may respect the taliban, and falwell for that matter, but do not expect I can change either of them or have them not speak what they believe.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#71)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 04:17:47 PM EST
    glanton Then we have no disagreement on the matter. "All" I am objecting to here is to Christians (in America) who attempt to use law and/or violence to enforce their doctrines I have no objection to your objection. My point here has been that most Christians are not as you describe. The fact that the Left would so callously paint an entire religion (that constitutes 85% of the population!) as "extremist" - targeting people like Dobson (who is ALWAYS trying to do the right thing) and Graham (who I have NEVER seen do the wrong thing); even the Pope!! - is going to work against them, in a big way. 85%. They are called the "Silent Majority" for a reason. They are Silent, yet they are the Majority.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 04:20:15 PM EST
    ""All" I am objecting to here is to Christians (in America) who attempt to use law and/or violence to enforce their doctrines" Which of these Christian doctrines would you like to see not enforced by law? Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 04:34:03 PM EST
    I prefer to see no Christian doctrines enforced by law. Just as I prefer that no Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, etc doctrines enforced by law. That is exactly the point. The laws of this country reflect something other than one religion. They reflect discussion amongst the people, represented by Congress, President, judges, etc. that is not bound by religious oaths or adherence to ANY one doctrine, Christian or otherwise. That is what makes it unique, imho. That is why it is hard to just "create" democracy. That is why this "faith-based" agenda is so insidious.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#74)
    by glanton on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 04:39:33 PM EST
    sarcastic: As I'm sure you know, neither Christians nor Jews for that matter have the market cornered on banning those things. They are part of any healthy social contract. Now, I am very grateful that we don't have a Congressional Committee devoted to deciding who among us is honoring our fathers and mothers, or whether we're looking too closely at our neighbor's wives, or even doing it with our neighbors' wives. Surely you don't think that before Christianity came along cultures looked the other way at murder, theft, lying? The Greek myths talk about all those things, as does the literature of all peoples I've ever read. Horse: None of the liberals I know, or see posting on this thread, have it out for Christians or 'people of faith.' But as you say, the nonaggressive types are silent: in their silence they have allowed their religioun to be hijacked, at least in terms of the public square. Dobson "Always tries to do the right thing," huh? It's the right thing to object to a children's story that tells kids there's nothing wrong with gay people? Better to indoctrinate children in a culture of hate, I suppose. Perhaps by that logic Dobson should be proud that my local high school just had a huge scandal over some guys beating up a gay kid in front of a teacher, now fired. Yeah, I know, he wouldn't publically call for such, but he's sure behind the sentiment, isn't he? Sponge Bob. Give me a break.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#75)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 04:54:36 PM EST
    Horse, You have yet to answer my questions. What are you, chicken?

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#76)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 04:56:40 PM EST
    glanton One thing I will not allow you to object to is Dobson (or anyone else) holding an opinion. I think you would agree with me. In the eyes of many Parents, an outside party (such as a school system) that attempts to force their children to enter into a contract which with they do not agree... it is no better than the "Thought Police" that you lefties are so afraid of. For those people, Dobson is a saint. None of the liberals I ... see posting on this thread, have it out for Christians or 'people of faith.' Not on this thread. But yes on so many other threads. And targeting people like the Pope, Graham, even Dobson is telling. or waste my time arguing with people who are fringe elements Its more of a hobby, really. Sometimes capable of providing intellectual stimulation - More oftentimes nothing more than an objective waste of time ;-) Tristero STFU :O

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#77)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 05:01:31 PM EST
    Horse, you chicken. Answer my questions.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#78)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 05:11:30 PM EST
    mds - A few names dropped and a few words written doesn't define extremism. I repeat. All this is is the Left using their allies in the NCC, etc., to attack anyone who doesn't toe the line about the various cultural issues in play at this time.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#79)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 05:12:38 PM EST
    "As I'm sure you know, neither Christians nor Jews for that matter have the market cornered on banning those things. They are part of any healthy social contract." I'm sure you can think of a few things in some other cultures which are considered part of their "healthy social contract" that are not established in our culture and that you would not like to see in our culture. If you are saying that there are no Judeo-Christian doctrines embodied in our laws, or that those that are are no good, we will have a hard tome understanding each other. but, since you brought it up, as marriage is often a contract and authorized, or whatever, by the state, maybe there should - in logic -be a lawful state penalty for breaking the contract. Ah well, it's of little matter overall really. Have a good weekend.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#80)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 05:15:18 PM EST
    "Which of these Christian doctrines would you like to see not enforced by law?" Oh, I think the doctrines - derived from Deuteronomy - that caused people to get burned at the stake for blasphemy, heresy, or witchcraft should not be enforced by law. Also, I see no reason for any law to enforce belief in the Catholic doctrines of transubstantiation, the Trinity, and so on. Likewise, I see no reason for any law to enforce sexual correctness according to Cotton Mather's doctrines of the right way to copulate. But let's not discriminate. There is no law that should enforce the orthodox Jewish doctrine against eating a ham and cheese sandwich. And there is no law that should require all citizens to make a pilgrimage to Mecca a la Islamic doctrines. If not murdering others was, in fact, a genuine Christian doctrine, Christianity wouldn't have such a bloody history. Seems like there's a lot of relativism when it comes to that Commandment. (Insert boilerplate here to the effect that numerous non-Christian ethnic and religious groups have been majorly bloodthirsty at one time or another.)

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#81)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 05:16:19 PM EST
    Glanton, It has been a pleasure

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#82)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 05:18:24 PM EST
    "I'm sure you can think of a few things in some other cultures which are considered part of their "healthy social contract" that are not established in our culture and that you would not like to see in our culture." Go thou and do vice versa, sarcastic. There are a few things in other cultures that we would be wise to incorporate into ours.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#83)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 05:21:17 PM EST
    Tristero, Did someone ask that any of that be enacted in law? Know your enemy.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#84)
    by glanton on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 05:28:44 PM EST
    JCH: same. May we live to spar another day! :-)

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#85)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 05:32:20 PM EST
    Tristero, There is no culture on the planet that values murder (one of the proofs of God according to CS Lewis, and me); and every culture on the planet has been majorly bloodthirsty at times. So. Human beings know the difference between right and wrong, try to do right, and do wrong instead - consistantly - regardless of their religious views and their attempts to carry them out. Welcome to the human race.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#86)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 05:32:28 PM EST
    "If you are saying that there are no Judeo-Christian doctrines embodied in our laws" Tee hee. Lots of scarecrows here. There are American laws that do not contradict certain beliefs by all religions. And there are American laws that do contradict doctrines of one or another faith. The Founders were a bunch of Deists, agnostics, and religiously observant men. Their philosophy of government was formed by a combination of their enlightenment philosophy and their experience. The latter made it quite clear, even to the most devout, that it would be detrimental for all citizens if the US government were to privilege any religious doctrine over any other. They had many reasons for this. Their original intentions were as clear as a bell. More importantly, today there are even more reasons to keep church and state utterly separate and, when in doubt, to err on the side of separation. One of many reasons: the obscenely immoral agenda publicly on display in the writings of James Dobson which, if taken seriously so that they became the law of the land, would destroy this country.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#87)
    by glanton on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 05:37:38 PM EST
    scar: There are ten commandments, obviously. Now we agree that murder ought to be illegal, you seem open to throwing people in jail for doing their neighbors' spouses. Next...what about the Committee For Enforcing The Noring of Thy Father And Mother? What about me pressing charges against the guy in the bar last weekend who was clearly checking out my wife? Well, anyway, some of the laws that are in the bible we in our Constitution have deemed good for the social contract, others we have, quite sanely I might add, ignored. But murder aint against the law because it's in the Bible, my friend. And like in every culture's religious doctrines that has ever existed, there's a helluva lot in our good ole Bible that ought never to see the legislative light of day. Obviously. PPJ: Keep dreaming that there isn't a push by those in power to roll back civil liberties. Enjoy the tax cuts, stay alert, stay with Fox. :-O

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#88)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 05:42:26 PM EST
    JCH Fleetguy, Of course people have asked these doctrines to be enacted into law. Read your European and American history. Read about the current struggles going on in Israel with the nutjobs in the settlements. Most importantly, read what Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, and all the other Christianists actually say they want for this country. Re: Murder. Exactly my point. Laws against killing others don't come from the Judeo/Christian tradition. They are universal. But both Christians and Jews have been spectacularly successful at spilling oceans of blood, as have other traditions. I like CS Lewis, btw, but the existence of a law against murder in all cultures is no proof of God for many reasons. The reason I like the most right now is that human proofs are far too trivial to encompass the notion of God. We have to take the existence of God on faith (or not, as the case might be).

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#89)
    by glanton on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 05:52:45 PM EST
    Horse: Tha fact is, homosexuals are persecuted in this nation and that's a shame because they are doing nothing wrong. They have every right to be what they are. I fully support any effort on the part of our public institutions to try and teach children to respect the civil liberties of their fellow citizens. Dobson would rather have the myth perpetuated, that there is something terrible, something apocalyptic, about what the homosexual does. That makes him a bigot as far as I'm concerned, I don't care how nice he is or how much he smiles. Respect for your neighbor begins in the classroom. You don't think that the racism in this country leading up to the civil rights movement, you don't think that racism was rampantly perpetuated by teachers and principals in public school systems all over the nation? But eventually they were forced to cut that b.s. out, schools began to strive to be places that fostered the idea that there is nothing inferior about people who aren't white. History is against Dobson. Already a vast majority of Americans don't care what people do in their bedrooms. Eventually people will find out that the GOP is out for blood, and they will rebel.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#91)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 06:08:39 PM EST
    Everybody (you, me,etc) brings their "theology" or personal beliefs about right and wrong to the table when looking at our governence. That's how it should be. If it makes you feel any less threatened: If they could come up with a test to prove whether you really believed in Christ; and then had only christians re-write the laws of the country - we would never agree. Nothing would change.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#92)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 06:14:38 PM EST
    Ever wonder who the people are depicted in the freize over the Supreme Court Building? Re the filibuster, it is now the last straw of Dem power in America. It is the only glimmer of control they have as their party slips into oblivion. The Constitution was not designed to make judges subject to anything other than a simple majority, but the Dems cannot allow an up-or-down vote on the judges because their last vestige of influence in America will be gone. Ironic that their last act before they expire is to subvert the Constitution.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#93)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 06:48:06 PM EST
    glanton There it is, in black and white. You support State indoctrination of our children. The movie '1984', it would seem, was made about You. And so it is, the birth of the 'Thought Police' - brought by, ironically, people who claim tolerance for all. Silly Libs! The 'Thought Police' aren't Christians! They're PC Liberals!! duh! Enjoy the weekend, all.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#94)
    by glanton on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 07:59:20 PM EST
    Horse, at the bottom of all this you seem to be maintaining--is it possible?--that the statement "gays are bad" actually represents a valid point of view. Be disabused. It's no more of a point of view is the statement, "black people are bad," or "Jews are bad," etcetera. You well know we're not talking about brainwashing or 'indoctrination' here; even Dobson knew that. He, after all, wouldn't complain if a teacher told fourth graders that racism was bad.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#95)
    by glanton on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 08:08:53 PM EST
    Or again, if you were a fourth grade teacher, and a student declared, "trees are bad," you'd say 'no, don't be silly." Wouldn't you? Just because a prejudice endures doesn't make it right, you can say the sky isn't there, you can say gays are bad, you can think you're living on Mars. Maybe it would be better though if kids grew up in a place called reality. What's that coming? History, eventually to wash away the homophobic bigotry Dobson so nicely emblemizes--already we're quite different as a race than, say, 100 or even 50 years ago.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#96)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 08:09:20 PM EST
    glanton at the bottom of all this you seem to be maintaining--is it possible?--that the statement "gays are bad" actually represents a valid point of view. NO! I am maintaining that children should not be forced to sign anything - be it a "tolerance manifesto" or a DARE pledge - against the will of their parents. Parents are, afterall, the ones charged with teaching their children Right from Wrong. If you believe in the seperation of church and state, then you believe that the State has no business teaching or legislating morality. Stop being a "Thought Cop" and let people believe what they want, regardless of your own opinion.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#97)
    by glanton on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 08:13:17 PM EST
    The State teaches you cannot discriminate in hiring practices, it teaches you cannot discriminate in terms of school segregation, it teaches that every citizen can vote, that women can be whatever men can be. It teaches these things, there are laws behind them. Gay people, too, can operate freely in society, this is a Factual Truth to be taught and celebrated.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#98)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 08:20:30 PM EST
    glanton YES - And that has nothing to do with forcing children to sign ANYTHING, which you know is wrong. And that is what Dobson was upset about. And if you don't think there is anything wrong with FORCING children to sign something, against the will of their parents, then you truely are the 'Thought Police'.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#100)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 09:15:47 PM EST
    glanton Dobson complained that children were being compelled to sign something against the will of their parents. And you know what? The law agreed with him, as did most reasonable Americans, as even you yourself do. And the children were not forced to sign anything. A victory for free thought. And furthermore, children go to PUBLIC school to learn that 2+2=4; NOT to recieve moral instruction. Laws - Yes. Morality - No.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#101)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 09:16:40 PM EST
    Glanton, I even hate entering this discussion - but my views on homosexuality are not so simple - back to that dialectic. Its wrapped up in civil rights and respect for humanity; and sexual sin and the need to not pursue it. My 12 year old daughter will learn to respect all people and honor their humanity and life; but mourn over their sin and pray for their redemption. I do not believe a public school teacher can handle this job - nor do I want my daughter to believe that choosing to be gay would be just a choice for her, free from moral consequences. This is what she will learn from me and her spiritual leaders - will I have to fight the state - which you want separate from religion? Let's be clear - there is no basis in scripture for racism, or a bunch of other ism's - but homosexuality is a issue of faith and belief. Should the schools be telling my daughter I am a bigot on this one? Is that separation of church and state?

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#102)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 09:19:09 PM EST
    Exactly, JCH

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#103)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 07:37:59 AM EST
    Glanton, perhaps it's time to take John Maynard Keynes' advice when the facts conflicted with his ideas. He said: "I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?"

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#104)
    by glanton on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 08:16:12 AM EST
    JCH + Horse: I am not endorsing forcing children to sign or even say anything. Interestingly, I think once we got onto Dobson we started talking past one another for a while, instead of to one another. Clearly all of us posting here believe in separation of church and state. And of course, religion and morality are nowhere near the same thing. JCH: do you really think people "choose to be gay," as you put it? Tell me, did you choose to be attracted to women? I'll bet you all PPJ's money that you made no such choice. It's not like deciding whether to wear the blue or the red socks: it's simply a matter of a person recognizing who and what he or she is.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#105)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 08:22:51 AM EST
    JCHFleetguy: My 8 year old daughter has already learned, from the example set by some of her teachers as well as some of her parents' friends and neighbors, that there is nothing sinful or shameful about two people who love each other. She has also learned that there are some very weird people in this country (her words, not mine) who want to prevent people who love each other from having the same right to marriage as everyone else merely because they are the same gender. I am sorry that your 12 year old daughter will hear otherwise from you. It will certainly be confusing for her to hear, especially as she has almost certainly already encountered many perfectly happy gay people whose utterly banal normalcy contradicts your bigoted opinion that these are "sinners." And I am certain that because your daughter is surely very bright she will conlude from her own continued experience with gay friends, teachers, and future co-workers that you are completely wrong to be so intolerant and that your interpretation of what the Bible says is just one of many. And if by chance our two daughters fall in love and marry, I will proudly welcome her into our family. And I promise I always will be polite to you, despite your screwball conservatism.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#106)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 08:23:38 AM EST
    Good Hailie H. Salasie, JCH and Horse with No Brain are boring and obnoxious. I can't believe anyone would give these nimrods the time of day. I don't care if I am stepping on their religious toes because there have been many a Christian in my life that have stepped on mine. Any person who defends a pro-hate bigot like Dobson is someone I don't feel the need to listen to, so Horse with No Brain your constant "I just stand behind him not thinking any child should sign anything blah blah blah" is played out and still doesn't justify Dobson's anti-gay rhetoric. It is amazing to me that you and JCH feel that men like Falwell, Pat Robertson, and other mega-church evangelists are irrelevant. They get the millions to run their universities, media empires from somewhere, don't they? Or does Jebus provide all they need? Intelligent design offers no explanation for the mechanisms of life in our universe(physics, biology, you know that science stuff)other than "Well, that's how Zeus(or any other imaginary cloud being) wants it to be". That doesn't hold up to any amount of scientific scrutiny. So JCH I do believe it is yours and any other persons right to believe in anything they want, but I don't have to buy into just because you say so and you feel most passionately that there is a G_D. Just because you believe it don't mean it's true. Look at how many people believe in Alien Abduction and ESP. And to me you and every other Christian,Agnostic,Jew,Hindu,Muslim,Taoist,etc. are just a bunch of rubes that make me laugh. Oh yeah JCH, Kant and other European philosophers were studying all the various types of dialectics. Your use and abuse of the word don't impress me. Give a chimp a few years with a typewriter and he'll be writing Hamlet. "BOB" commands that I ridicule you lousy Humans as much as I can, and then take your money, but I think Pat Robertson and James Dobson have a pretty good headstart on me, wouldn't you say so, Horsey?

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#107)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 08:31:40 AM EST
    Ubermensch is a jerk.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#108)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 09:02:12 AM EST
    "I always will be polite to you, despite your screwball conservatism." So be polite, Tris. Just keel your closed-minded ignorance out of our children's education. Ubermensch is the perfect example of vicious leftist intolerance (or is making a pathetic attempt at sarcasm).

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#109)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 09:02:43 AM EST
    Above is mine.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#110)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 09:24:04 AM EST
    I am not the close-minded one, JCH. You are. You're the one who has the gall to blasphemously misrepresent the Bible to justify your bigotry, not me. You insult the beliefs of genuine people of faith by pretending the Bible actually supports your prejudices while prohibiting the rest of us from being tolerant.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#111)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 09:25:34 AM EST
    The comments immediately abouve should have been directed at Dr. Ace, not JCH.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#112)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 09:26:29 AM EST
    Of course the bad guy Ubermensch has to be one of the "Left", otherwise how can people like Doctor Ace impugn the convictions of his fellow Americans that would dare to think in a way he doesn't condone. Please, Doc, let's not fall to the level of Ubermensch by making blanket statements that don't have a foundation in reality. I try to remain civil with most people, but when I am confronted by folks like Uber or PPJ I react to stupidity the same way, by getting upset. Natural of most thoughtful,reflective people, of which I think you count yourself, Doc Ace. But to openly court more inane ruminations by someone like Uber is to make yourself look as petty and small minded as he obviously is. Try to stick to the topic, Doc, and you'll get more people to listen than tearing down your fellow citizens beliefs with your invectives about the "Left".

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#113)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 10:03:18 AM EST
    Glanton, I do not know where I stand on "choice to be gay" - and it frankly wouldn't change my theology. My 12 year olds FAVORITE uncle was the gay one - she still wakes up in the middle of the night 5 years after his death missing him. She just attended the baby shower of her gay cousin whos same sex marriage was declared illegal by the Oregon Marriage Act. The tension in my life over my belief that homosexuality is sin, and that I must hate it while loving its practitioners, is beyond what you can grasp. Tristero: I understand your perspective - really I do. Understand that in the grand scheme of the country it is your beliefs that are in the minority - and are relatively new (last 20 years). The new moral kid on the block, so to speak. I know you believe you have the new improved model of morality (not my ancient, bigoted, worn out version); and that therefore it is ok to replace my tired old machine with your spiffy new one. This view of yours is your science of God (or lack of him), or your theology (world view if that word makes you cringe). It is the believer's in this new improved world view who are using the state, courts, schools to impose the new model on all of us dinosaurs. Is that separation of church and state? I am fine with everything until the point where my daughter is taught that her religion is wrong by her school - in no way is this separation. The religion doctrine in the Constitution was based on Jefferson's Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom. I will quote this here:
    that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order
    I would present that it is your shiny new morality machine which is doing this - and my old sputtering wreck is responding - ferociously. Now if you are going to replace my wreck, Jefferson points out the magistrate (the courts) are the last ones to do it; because one judge's (or a few after appeals) moral view reigns. If you want to teach my daughter that her religion is wrong (and I believe you do indeed want that said to her) - shouldn't some legislative process rule. Quoting one of those two Bush judges:
    when “fundamentally moral and philosophical issues are involved and the questions are fairly debatable (my emphasis), the judgment call belongs to the Legislature - Janice Rogers Brown
    Ubermensch: Marxism was based on Hegel - the german philosopher you didnt mention. And if you believe a chimp could ever write, not type, Hamlet ..... well whatever.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#114)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 10:27:51 AM EST
    Oh and Tristero If you are a believer in Christ - it is your responsibility to read and follow the Bible as the Holy Spirit leads you. I would not begin to tell you what to believe - and I would hope you would follow the same Biblical teaching. I would not say your interpretation is blasphemy. You did however call mine that.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#115)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 10:37:47 AM EST
    Sherman - Given that Ubermensch is attacking the "religious," and given that the whole thread has been talking about the "religious right," I don't think it a stretch to understand that he is from the Left, although I do understand your need to try and disassociate from him. Unfortunately, he is well represnted within your ranks. As to your reactions when confronted by someone who disagrees with you, may I suggest a large dose of "grow up medicene," and quitting making comments about them when they haven't attacked you. In the slim chance you are responding to my point, let me repeat it. This is about blacks and females daring to leave the Left's Reservation. I mean, how can they have views contrary to the ones given to them? Heck. How are you going to keep'em in line after they discover there is other political parties?

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#116)
    by glanton on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:12:56 AM EST
    "I do understand your need to try and disassociate from him. Unfortunately, he is well represnted within your ranks." Spoken like someone whose entire worldview is at the mercy of political pundits and other MSM spinners of thw world. Actual life, PPJ, transcends American politics, too bad you've lived all this time and don't see that. Though maybe you treat people differently offline.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#117)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 11:56:01 AM EST
    JCH, "This view of yours is your science of God (or lack of him), or your theology (world view if that word makes you cringe)." With all due respect, you have no idea what my possible faith (or lack of same) might be because I never make it public. However, what is a matter of considerable public record is my committment to tolerance of all religions. It is for that reason I am utterly opposed to any attempt to undermine the wall of separation between church and state which is more vital at this time than it was in Jefferson's. It is the height of sophistry to pretend that either my tolerance of gay people and my repulsion at your desire to see intolerance taught in schools somehow contradicts Jefferson. It is nevertheless striking that you feel you need to resort to a classic liberal argument of church/state separation. You must be desperate. Regarding my comment about blasphemy, I think it is outrageous to use the Bible to justify bigotry of any sort. And I think it's blasphemous to do so. Don't like it? Read your Bible a bit closer. All of it. And stop pretending you can use the Bible as a shield to deflect criticism of your prejudices. The Bible teaches no bigotry when you read all of it and not cherrypick what fits your bigotry. No one's trying to teach your daughter her religion's wrong (if they are, you better be able to prove it with a tape of what was said to her). However, it may be the case that what she knows is an interpretation that may very well be quite misguided, especially if that interpretation insists that the Bible tolerates intolerance and obsesses about the putative sins of her neighbors.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#118)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 12:02:53 PM EST
    your desire to see intolerance taught in schools somehow
    Where have I advocated this? I would want ALL MORAL opinions about homosexuality removed from the schools - mine and yours. That is the separation of church and state.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#119)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 12:04:49 PM EST
    PPJ, I would take you seriously if you could spell(medicine, not medicene) and if you had any sense of grammar. You are a joke, PPJ. Myself and others have read your hate filled invectives over the "Left", your belittling of minorities for recognizing, correctly btw, that the Republican party is the last stronghold of White, racist bigots, and the dribble that you think are valid,voracious arguements but are more obfuscations and not really delivering any facts. And if you think my comments about you and all of the other wingnuts that post here, why do you continue to reply to me? A truly mature and "grown up" person would have been ignoring me a long time ago. My attempt at trying to keep the civility going so folks like JCH,Tristero,Horse,Glanton,et al. that are actually carrying on an intelligent, stimulating exchange won't be interrupted by hateful ideologues like you and Ubermensch. My point was that Uber is automatically a member of the Left, Right or sideways just because of the crap he chooses to spew. Vilifying the left because of what a few people say is your bread and butter, but when the same is done to you and your "side" you always start whining that it is the MSM doing their job of belittling all patriotic americans. You really can had out the crap but you can't take it can you PPJ? Now you tell me is that a sign of maturity or not, Jim? Let the good kids here keep on going with their debate without the further interference by the hatred that you and your brother in spirit Ubermensch have for the free exchange of ideas. Sorry to take up so much space, I really am enjoying the debate going on in this thread.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#120)
    by glanton on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 05:50:58 PM EST
    Doctor Ace: I have been a lot more interested in the discussion of this thread than on its capacity for attack. Uber's post was not mine, PPJ's response to it, and yours too, could be directed at him and that would be fine. Did I ever say there weren't extremists on the left? Of course I didn't. And it is far from extremist to point out that there's nothing 'wrong' with homosexuals, that they deserve bettwer than the persecution they receive, and the general obsession over them that some in this country harbor. One day, in the near future, people are going to look back on 2005 and say wow, were they really having to point out that gay people deserved the same rights as everyone else? Did it really take them that long to figure out "gays are bad" is not a valid opinion to which one ought be open? Metaphysically speaking, I must say that the knuckle draggers make death and time seem a lot more benevolent, these days.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#121)
    by glanton on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 06:02:46 PM EST
    That is not to say, of course, that I haven't used overheated rhetoric before, and generalized and insulted and all that. I regret those moments, and though I'm sure they'll crop up again in my life, they're the worst of me. And with the exception of maybe mfox and one or two others, show me a regular who hasn't posted far beneath themselves on this very website? But we all know it's bad to do it, and the labeling game you and PPJ are playing on this thread has contributed exactly nothing to discussing the issues at play here.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#122)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 07:25:04 PM EST
    Glanton, I regretted entering the discussion on gays because I like you; and enjoy your company in this setting. I hope I have shown enough of my heart so you know I do not speak from intolerance or bigotry - and know if God rates sin high or low (I do not think he does - I think all sin is equal in his eyes) I have committed higher sexual sins than homosexuality - adultery for one. If you have taken offense, I am truly sorry - and did not mean it.

    Re: The Filibuster and People of Faith (none / 0) (#123)
    by glanton on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 07:54:10 PM EST
    JCH: No, this conversation has been great, I very much look forward to continuing to talk to you on other threads.

    The Filibuster and People of Faith | 119 comments (119 topical)