Pat Robertson quote / Church kicks out all Democrats
 

Watching Meet the Press, and apparently- Pat Robertson said that the "judiciary is a greater thread to America than a few bearded terrorists." Stupidity personified- that's mr Robertson.

Elsewhere, an East Waynesville Baptist Church excommunicates all Democratic members. CNN has a video on the issue, but they don't have an article.

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/

There's a discussion on it over at OOTP with links to the Daily Kos, and people who were in the church. There may well be more to this, but if this church doesnt lose its tax exempt status now....

http://ootpdevelopments.com/board/sh...ad.php?t=97780

Pat Robertson is a tool.

Yup, I hate the fact that Pat Robertson is associated with the Republican party.

Ive always felt Robertson was the embodiment of a neocon... how is his ideal any different than the one driving the Bush administration?

Robertson is one of the GOP's golden boys, if you cant stand him, i cant see how you could be a republican? Not flaming here, just curious.

What do you mean by "neocon"?


He's far too right-wing for my tastes. I'm a Republican because I believe in personal responsibility, that the government can't take care of everybody, and fiscal responsibility. While the Republican party has not been as good at those things as I'd like them to be, they've been far better than the Dems. Robertson is a bit farther right-wing than I'd like, mostly because he brings too much religion to politics, and politics in religion is one of the reasons I have such a hard time finding a good religion to follow. Religion shouldn't be about political power, but has been for far too long in human history.

Hmm... nice to see a righty arguing that something he doesn't like is "a bigger threat than the terrorists", and the lefties feigning outrage over it. It's nice to switch things up every now and then.

Those extreme right wingers want to turn this nation into the next Iran.

neocon = neo-conservative. If I'm not mistaken, it's more PR term is "compassionate conservative". (But I rarely follow politics anymore (pisses me off to much ;) ) so I could be wrong there).

Actually, they're two very different things. I think that the original post may have been referring to "compassionate" conversatism, and Pat Robertson and his ilk don't have much in common with neoconservatism.

Yeah, he is the extreme right. I don't think because he is a religious right-wing doesn't mean he is the "status quote" of the party. I with him on my beliefs, and I don't like orgaized religion.

Pat Robertson is a private citizen that has every right to voice his personal opinion on any and all topics, in particular politics. The fact that he is so upfront and direct in his comments makes him good kick-me material for liberals and secular humanists and he must know that or he wouldn't keep putting himself front and center.

The far more frightening and sinister individual to keep track of is George Soros. A Greek billionaire that works behind the scenes thru venues like Air America, Soros thru stealth seeks to undermine and overthrow the very Judeo-Christian foundations of this country. Most don't even know who he is, Paula Abdul and Simon Cowell are more well known.

Soros doews sound very dangerous too. Possible candidate for Emperor Palpatine.

Appearantly right wingers like gstelmack have the same issues with him. Also, no one is questioning his right to voice his opinions. I just find it disgusting a guy like this is a invaluable member of the GOP.


Wow Bubba, time to make a new tin foil hat. How do you come up with such complete nonsense? Soros is liberal, anti neocon...end of story, has nothing to do with destroying your religion.

I just want to know this.... why cant the Republicans win a political race without trying to section off the religious vote? Why dont honest Republicans care that one of the GOPs' main PR drives is to make sure they (GOP) become synonymous with Christianity?

Each party has their hard core voting groups.

So that's all you think that George Soros is about, huh? Soros operates in the shadows and that seems to work pretty well in fooling your type based on your 'description' of him...liberal, anti-neocon...end of story? Amazing :eek:

Glad you agree, Bubba. If you disagreed, I'm sure you would have posted some independent, verifiable facts to back up your assertions. But since you didn't...glad you're being much more rational and objective now. :)

I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see that Mr. Soros actually has quite a fan-club amongst the anti-faith-based crowd.

What about Clear Channel's support of the Right radio? have a problem with too? you should if youre not hypocritical and ready to flush your statements down the toilet.

kinda pointless to get into this withBW since as a trend now even the Right's supporters on here view his statements as tunnelled and fanatical (maybe mine too - but at least I can admit when the right is right)

Its amazing how youre completely ignorant to the brainwashing the GOP has put on you. Ive never ever ever EVER have been anti faith, in any way.

NO LIBERAL IS ANTI FAITH, IN ANY WAY.

Thats a core liberal belief.

But since the GOP machine has been hard at work telling you that we are, then i guess we are, huh?

Do you know why they tell you were out to destroy your religion?? The same reason I just posted, they want to make damn well sure anyone who is christian votes republican. end of story. again.

Wake up man, and just think for yourself. Ive never once said anything that makes me look like a anti christian bigot. Thats where Libs and NeoCons differ.. we want everyone to do as they please, you want everyone to do what pleases you.

Edit: Never mind. The Malleus Dei of FOF returns.

Well, if anybody had cared to check you would have gotten me on one fact: George Soros is actually Hungarian, not Greek as I originally stated.

And Arnold Schwarzennegger is Austrian. Is your point that rich immigrants from Central Europe shouldn't have a place in American politics?

I think most people on here have much better things to do than fact check you, they most likely just assume you are pulling shit out of thin air again. I doubt anyone could care less if Soros was from greece, or hungary, or new jersey.

Bubba: What about Richard Scaife? He gives a ton of money to right wing organizations, has a right wing newspaper and refuses to do any interviews about anything? He must scare you.

Or maybe the guy, sorry the name escapes me, who single-handedly provided the money to setup the Cato Institute. Boy, you must not be able to sleep because of that guy.

Or what about Rev. Moon. He's a billionaire with his own media empire, including a US newspaper and an entire wire service. He's called for the end of individualism and democracy while also being crowned at the Senate Office building by a Rep. of the US House. Of course Bush1 and guys like Bill Bennett give speeches for him and Bush2 has appointed Moon's followers to high-level government office. He must have you crapping in your pants.

Arnold made his money in this country pursuing the 'American dream', Soros made his money as 'the man who broke the bank of England' among other endevours including suspected 'insider trading' with a French bank and called by one critic a 'soft-money Marxist'...

Who is attempting to use his fortune to remake U.S. society in his image thru Air America, Move-on.org and others while remaining in the background. A driving force behind the campaign 'reform bill' that many would conclude is blatently anti-free speech and unconstitutional that makes the problems of special interest money in politics even worse (and allows himself, Soros, even more influence what a big surprise)

No, I really don't see anything in common between the two other than being born somewhat close to each other outside the U.S.

You just prove my point, Chubby...if I had stated that Simon Cowell is from France I bet I would have gotten corrected instantly. Nobody knows enough about Mr. Soros in general to know where he is from. They do now though.

What's the less PR term for Liberals? So I can call them that. :p

Also, I'm guessing Republicans are called "neocons" as to relate them somehow to "neonazis"? That seems pretty harsh.

The activities of Soros are widely known, and have been widely reported, and he's not doing anything that isn't being done by wealthy individuals on the other side.

And Rev. Moon has been convicted of tax evasion in the US. So we have a "suspected" criminal(in France? I thought we couldn't trust France.) versus a real live criminal.



Excluding the Supreme Court of course. "Many" would also say it doesn't go far enought to limit the influence of big money.

And getting back to the subject of the thread, what about "Reverand" Robertson and the Christian Coalition? Here's a guy that has been caught using charity funds to pay for mining equipment, has been caught stealing mining rights from other Americans and has cozied up to some of Africa's worst dictators in order to make money. He also has a daily television broadcast that promotes right-wing views and has spent years trashing Democrats. Oh the horror.

Dutch: No, neo-con was a term created by a small group of people who believed in a kind of "national greatness" foriegn policy. Many were former Democrats, including Wolfowitz. A lot had connections to Scoop Jackson.

The neo-nazi thing is a figment of your imagination.

Speaking of Robertson again, wasn't he the guy who called Charles Taylor a good Christian, and blasted the Bush Administration for not supporting that butcher?

That is the same. He also had ties to Mobutu. Robertson is a vile individual. He makes a fortune off his followers and pours much of it into his business ventures. Its sad that so many well-intentioned Christians support his corrupt organization.

When used in connection with Robertson, I thought it meant neo-conartist.

No, please read. Nobody pays attention to your "facts".

Actually, the "neo-conservative" movement is a real movement within the Republican party, which as other posters have pointed out in this thread, differs markedly from the Christian-conservative and traditional fiscal conservative wings of the party.

They tend to be from more intellectual/academic backgrounds than the other wings. The "neo" comes from the fact that many of the founders of the movement, being from an academic environment, were former liberals. I've heard that these founders were disillusioned with the social liberal movement and politically became more conservative, but their approach--that society's problems can be solved via theory and ideas--is still a defining hallmark of the movement. This approach could be seen in the geopolitical assumptions made in the administration's strategic planning in the Middle East. Anyway, it has been said that neo-cons are very similar to traditional liberal policy wonks save for political ideology--while politically dissimilar, both believe that application of theory will make the world a better place.

Neo-cons differ from many traditional "fiscal" conservatives who are more pragmatic/less theoretical and who don't believe that it is necessarily our place and mission to make the world a better place, and neo-cons differ from the Christian right in that the academic background of neo-cons engenders a view of the world that is influenced by social-scientific theory and humanist philosophy, and not based on judeo-christian religion.

It is interesting to see how influential the neo-con movement has become so quickly, since they are an intellectual movement and have no grassroots organizational support (aka the religious conservatives)--few people have heard of many of these people before 2000...

:rolleyes: Stupidest. Comment. Ever.

Thanks. Of course, this (BW) is someone who has totally misunderstood his own faith.


LMAO!!

Actually, I think Malleus may be more intelligent than BW. Scary, no?

Maybe so, but they are both able to turn a dead thread into multiple pages with their ignorant, inciteful comments. They then complain that nobody attacks their stupid arguments but only them...wash, rinse, repeat.

While I hesitate to get into this thread, as it has already followed its very predictable arc into pure partisan bullshit...


It does strike me that there is a certain logic to this argument.

IF you believe that aborion is essentialy murder, as I have no doubt Mr. Robertson does, then certainly you would be compelled to agree that the legal procedure of abortion has caused more deaths in this country than terrorism over any meaningful recent period of time.

Therefore, if using "deaths caused" is a reasonable metric for how serious a problem is (and I don't think that's whilly unreasonable) you could very fairly conclude that aborion is a bigger threat/problem than is terrorism.

And, if you conclude that the judiciary is the element in the governmental system that is single-handedly maintaining the current legality of abortion (another argument I wouldn't really quarel with), then you could very soundly conclude that the American judiciary is itself, by its actions, a greater danger to our society (or however you might seek to phrase it) than terrorists of any sort.


It's not a wholly pointless argument. Of course... very few people care to give any real thought to that kind of speech, and instead will simply march to their pre-ordained side in each and every political argument.

Abortion is an awfully tough issue if you are a believer in logical consistency. Just ask the countless Americans who will simultaneously agree that (1) abortion is murder, and (2) abortion should be okay in cases of rape or incest. Or rather, don't ask them -- it will cause them to use parts of their brain that they prefer to leave dormant, and just be told what to think about things.

Minor point of correction here: Protestant churches do not recognize the authority to "excommunicate" in the traditional sense. There is no supposition in any of the numerous Protestant creeds that failing to give fealty to that set of beliefs automatically denies someone the hope of heaven. In the Protestant creeds (or at least all the ones I've seen), the only thing that disqualifies someone from the hope of heaven is the failure to believe that Jesus died for your sins. And really, if you're not willing to believe that, you're probably not wanting to attend church in the first place.

At the same time, however, kicking people out of your church because of their political beliefs is asinine (and the article up at CNN today if you follow the link above seems to indicate that the pastor has either realized he overstepped his bounds or has been severely chastened by the church's board). People go to church to worship God, not a particular political agenda.

It's not a wholly pointless argument. It's very well constructed and it's logical. Of course, that doesn't mean it's right, legal or even moral - but that's a whole other discussion.

I think abortion is an awfully tough issue BECAUSE many of the Pro-choice groups are believers in logical consistency. That most anti-choicers can't logically put forth their arguments without either bringing religion into the discussion and/or having the kind of illogical exceptions like the one you presented above makes it such a polarizing issue. You essentially have two groups that cannot relate to each other to find any common ground.

Update: The Pastor of the church who kicked out the "non-believers" now insists that there was a great misunderstanding.

I think one important point that is not made by your argument is that Robertson does not say "the judiciary presents a greater threat to loss of life than the terrorists." The full version of his quotes corroborates that he didn't intend to make that argument.

Instead, Robertson is saying the judiciary represents a greater threat to America. I think that argument is much harder to defend. After all, abortion has been legal for over 30 years and the threat to "America" as a concept is minimal. The worst effect is the status quo. Terrorists, on the other hand, are a much greater threat (if Robertson and the neocons are to be believed).

And none of this mentions the positive role the judiciary plays in formulating "America." You have to evaluate the "good" with the "bad" to make Robertson's argument.

All of this is pretty academic, though, since Robertson is a tool.

Well, I may not always be right and I'll admit that; but the one thing I am never presumptious enough to do is pretend that I speak for everybody on any subject...so I'll just leave that to you since you seem to think we and I are pretty interchangible regarding your personal opinions ;)

Then again, maybe you really do speak for most folks around here...that's a thought

Im still lovin' the fact you didnt comment on the funders who fund only the right. Thats awesome how you blacked that out of your brain.

however they use the death penalty at a rampant pace.

My original point to posting here I thought was pretty obvious...Robertson is the media's boogeyman regarding Christian Conservatives so they like to 'trot him out' whenever they can get an embarrassing comment from him and then they try to apply it to the Christian conservatives in general "...see! They are trying to take us down a path of a theocracy! They want a Taliban ruling the U.S.! The sky is falling!"

Robertson isn't shy about making comments and doesn't duck the spotlight, so the results are probably inevitable and I don't defend him...just wondering with a guy like Soros operating with 11 billion dollars behind the scenes using front organizations and never really allowing the spotlight on himself who is really allowing themselves to be misled and manipulated?

I don't think it's as easy as that. I suspect there are a fair number of the rabid pro-life activists who wouldn't support abortion even for rape and incest (i.e. who are logically consistent). It's the greater public who tends to be conflicted, opposing abortion in general, but accepting it in certain circumstances.

Nor is it a huge problem to bring religion into it, insofar as some people's moral views are affected by their religious beliefs. This is an issue that hinges mostly on individual moral viewpoints, and people are informed in their viewpoints from many sources. I don't have a problem with someone saying I oppose abortion because of my religious belief.

What makes abortion difficult, I think, is that we all have a strong sense that human life should be protected, but only a vague sense of what human life is (see also Terry Schiavo and the right to die debate, and the death penalty debate). The religious right decided to draw a line in the sand. It's not necessarily dictated by their religion (I don't think it actually says in the bible that human life begins at conception), but they made a determination and adhere strictly to it..

If you're not willing to draw such a bright line, as is the case for much of the public, it's not inconsistent to oppose abortion generally, but allow it in some cases. Since you don't know exactly where you need to start protecting life it makes sense to protect it as default, but make allowances when there are compelling reasons.

As others have above, I disagree that Robertson is a neocon. Klingerware's excellent post points out the different camps, and Robertson falls pretty clearly in the religious right camp. Who knows, maybe he agrees with Jerry Falwell that 9/11 was some sort of righteous reprisal against the seculars, feminists, gays, and abortionists who are apparently ruining America. In that view abortion really is a greater threat than the terrorists...

Well, the Bible does say to not fear man, who can only kill you...but to fear God, who has the power to cast you into hell once you are dead.

I'm sorry, but it's the Republican Party that gave him legitimacy and to call him a media boogeyman is false. Pat ran for the Presidency and got a not-insubstantial amount of support and money. He's been given substantial exposure and airtime as a speaker at the Republican National Convention.

As for Soros, post some independent, factual information regarding his agenda to "undermine and overthrow the very Judeo-Christian foundations of this country" or stfu. You posted it...now back it up or back out.

Moveon.org and Air America are both blatantly anti-Christian conservative in nature and push radical agendas hostile to Judeo-Christian ethics and values on a daily basis. Soros funds both. If you choose to ignore that, then that's just what your doing. I don't need to document it, its obvious and there for all to see. Where is your documentation regarding Robertson? Think we've been down this road before in another thread and even there unbiased third parties stated you just did not want to see the 'facts' so don't see the point going round with your responses. That's just my opinion.

I keep forgetting - opposing your theocratic crap is anti-Christian ? Opposing the idea of Christianity being the sole basis of inane laws is anti-Christian ? Shit Bubba, who isn't anti-Christian in your world ? It must be hard- white christians are so damn persecuted... :D

Bubba, I love to watch you backpeddle. By the way, your original claim was that Soros HIMSELF wants to "undermine and overthrow the very Judeo-Christian foundations of this country". As an aside, which foundations should we use? Jewish? Or Christian? Because they can be very different.

Oh, as for documentation regarding Pat Robertson...how about his own website? The 1992 speech can be found here:

hxxp://www.patrobertson.com/Speeches/

The full text of his 1988 speech can be found here:

hxxp://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0166_Robertson_speech_198.html

Is that enough proof that he ran for President and spoke at the RNC? Or do you need videotape (which you can get from the RNC)? :)

As for Soros, you can't provide proof because you don't have any. Your opinion is just as valid as if I said the "Earth is flat because I say so" or "I am 12 feet tall because I say so". Simply put, you should refrain from debates as you're simply incapable of validating your position by finding supporting facts. That doesn't mean the rest of us are drinking your kool-aid.

Me thinks Bubba needs to use his free time more efficiently.

Methinks Bubba needs to graduate from High School before passing judgment on the rest of the world.

I was trying to be nice. :)

First things first. I don't believe that Pat Robertson can be considered a neo-con. He is a full time representative of the far right of the Religious Right. His views don't even carry water with the vast majority of the folks who vote Republican.

He is a Republican and an asshat. Dems have their own fair share of asshats as well. Even those as narrow minded and shallow thinking as Robertson. People whose thoughts are controlled by their principles rather than the other way around.

Glen, agreed 100% EXCEPT with your last statement. I think all of our thoughts are based from our principals...but perhaps I don't fully understand what you're saying there.

i must be on BW's ignore list. He wont fess up to the hypocrisy that he cuts slack on the right supporters that are the polar opposite.

what about the death penalty?

Well I was rushing off for a meeting I had forgotten about as I typed that. So Principles was probably the wrong word. Essentially I was saying that his priciples/view of the world/values focus on religion or at least his particular dogma, and I believe he, and others like him, constrain themselves to only thinking within those boundries.

I've reread that and believe that I still communicated it poorly, so I'll freely allow someone to substitute QS's point that many people here allow their political persuasion determine their position on a topic, rather than an independant evaluation of the facts.

That's true for many...but what about those of us who have no political persuasion?

Well I'm not BW, but in my opinion the Death Penalty is a punishment. Typically, but not always, a well deserved punishment. Abortion is not. Abortion is often, not always, an alternative to individual responsibility. I don't mean to hijack the thread, but my thought on abortion is that we should be able to arrive at some middle ground because I believe it is just as ludicrous to say that two cells constitute a life, as it is to say that a full term unborn child doesn't. Part of me wishes the religious right would get out of the Abortion debate, because not only will they refuse to compromise, but they are a big reason their opposition is so committed.

------
As for the comments on Roberston's assertion about the judiciary. I see where he is coming from, but I don't think he has arrived at the right conclusion. He sees the judiciary essentially legislating Gay Marriage in Massachussetts and siding with a murderer in the Schiavo case in Florida. Note: his views not mine.

-------
I do think the Chinaski is over simplifying matters when he says that NO liberal is anti-faith, and even that that is a core liberal belief. Many of us on the right see organizations like the ACLU leading the fight to remove any semblance of "faith" from any extension of the government. To us they are both liberal and exceedingly anti-faith. I realize this is probably because my relatively narrow interpretation of the establishment clause as opposed to the interpretation of others. In any case, I don't think your statement can be applied as an absolute.

Who are you kidding? You're a pinko commie and you know it!!

I'm not really on the right (I see myself as a centrist) but this is one of my deepest disagreements with many on the left, and I think the biggest single reason they are out of power today.

You are correct in some respect - i was being general. Im speaking from personal experience, I dont know a single person who would ever support diminishing the right to worship. But, that also includes Air America, Moveon.org and any other organization for that matter.

I dont see how any person or any group could ever change the way Americans pursue their faith? What is the ACLU going to do? To believe in a higher power is a birth right, no group ive ever seen is outright set to destroy it. I think that idea is presented far to often in politics, its just a way to get the religious to the ballot box and identify with a party. Theyre gonna ban your bible! Vote for me!

If we didnt have the ACLU, what is another organization that can keep tabs on the accountant, so to speak?

The problem is when Air America etc. mock the faith of mainstream Republican politicians like, for example, Bush.

I used to consider myself a centrist as well. I still do actually, but here, on this board, I doubt many on the left consider me to be anywhere near the center.

I'm still a registered democrat. I voted for Perot in '92, and went to the ballot box torn between Perot and Clinton in '96. I think McCain was far and away the best candidate in 2000, as was Lieberman in 2004. I agree with CT Whitman...."Its my party too". Well actually it isn't, but I have a problem registering with a party whose first two planks in their presidential platform were vows to ratify amendments banning Abortion and Gay Marriage. I rarely vote Democrat anymore, so I am really am pretty much a Republican, but I am torn as to whether I hate the Teacher's Unions or the NRA the most.

The more I say it the more I'm certain I'm a moderate, it is just around here, if you try and stand up to those who automatically accuse/abuse the Bush Administration of all things evil, you become painted as a Right Wing partisan. So that is me, until a Democrat gets in office, I'm a Righty. Once a Democrat does win the presidency, I'm guessing those on the right will consider me a commie.

I'm sure there are liberals who are anti-faith, just as there are conservatives who fall under the same category. As for the ACLU, I find it odd that when someone posts a story about them defending the right-wing or faith, it's largely ignored. When someone posts a story about them guarding the gates against a Church State, the ACLU is castigated as the evil organization.

For example, we don't hear about cases like this:

hxxp://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142

Of course, it's entirely neglected that it's not the ACLU that makes the court rulings that so anger the Religious Right. It's the court system - of which the majority have been appointed by Republican Presidents - that makes the final decision. So who's to blame? The ACLU is just asking the courts to enforce the law as they interpret it...and often, the courts agree that the actions in question are unconstitutional. Somehow this is the fault of the ACLU.

In fact, this is taken directly from the ACLU website:

Q: IS IT EVER OK TO PRAY IN SCHOOL?

A: Sure. Individual students have the right to pray whenever they want to, as long as they don't disrupt classroom instruction or other educational activities – or try to force others to pray along with them. If a school official has told you that you can't pray at all during the school day, your right to exercise your religion is being violated. Contact your local ACLU for help.

(rant on and NOT directed at Glen)

Of course, most of this board has no idea what it's like to be in a school function, work function or something else where a prayer is implemented and led by a teacher, manager or some other "authority" figure and you're not of that religion. They have no idea how much of an outsider you feel like when your teacher is leading a prayer to the "father, son and holy ghost" or "in Jesus' name we pray" if you're not Christian. They have no idea the social ramifications of not praying and the harassment it can cause. Or the anger it brings in being placed in a situation like that.

"Oh, but it's not a big deal, it takes just a second" is often an excuse. But when you hear it over and over - every day - it'll get on your last nerve fast. Then again, no one thinks about that.

Just keep the damned prayer where it belongs - between YOU AND GOD. It doesn't need to be any place else.

(rant off)

Actually, you and I aren't far apart on issues. Welcome to the pinko commie club. ;)

Glen: Well since we are posting our beliefs.

I consider myself an FDR Democrat. I'm fairly hawkish on foriegn policy, but I also believe that corporations need to be regulated and a social safety net has to be in place if we are going to protect the middle class. I value the small business owner, but I also value the guy that can't get benefits at Wal-Mart. I don't hate the rich, but I do hate those that use their money to buy off our government. I'm fiercely patriotic and have spent many hours working to keep the story of the Korean War vets alive. I believe most of our representatives are corrupt and that regardless of party, the corrupt must be kicked out of the government. I almost always vote Democratic because most of the time my belifs fall closer to the Democratic candidate, but I respect a number of Republicans Hagel, McCain, Dole and even Lindsay Graham among them. I'm willing to argue policy pretty much any time, but I try to refrain from personal attacks. I believe in split government and that the country is best served when both parties are strong and vibrant.

I don't feel the ACLU is all bad. There was a thread the other day, where it was discussed. I do realize that the ACLU comes to the aid of those whose rights are being stepped on, often even if those are the rights of the religious. I recognize that. They also lead the charge to do things like force the County of Los Angeles to modify their County Seal because there was a church depicted on it. My problem is that they target Faith in their fight to force their vision of the first amendment on, lets face it, the majority of society. Not to mention, as someone pointed out in the ACLU thread, that they don't really expend a lot of resources on the second amendment. Sorry for going on about the ACLU.

As for prayer in school. I happen to sort of agree with you. Kids shouldn't be forced to pray at school. I don't think prayer at say a graduation ceremony should be banned however. It really doesn't harm anyone, and I'll go so far as to say that if it bothers you, your skin may be too thin. I've sat through a number of Catholic masses for weddings and funerals. I've been to other events where short periods of time have been set aside for religious words or events, and I sit/stand quietly and respectfully. It shouldn't be difficult to tolerate something like a prayer, even if it is spoken in a language you don't understand or represents a faith you don't share.

I just saw this at the bottom after I had typed almost all of my reply, and you are correct. We aren't that far apart, yet somehow I managed to focus on our differences. C'est la Vie

I feel the same way.

being Jewish I can tell you many times in my life I have been frowned upon because I don't pray when the teacher of my private school growing up decided to lead prayers. I took it but it stuck with me long after the "few seconds" were up and while the prayer was going on instead of reflecting (maybe I shouldve been) I was waiting until they said something along the lines of "In Jesus' name, we pray." and BOOM I was no longer being included, and I could feel the eyes on me.

THAT is why it Cannot be allowed in public school's UNLESS you have a country of one religion and those who do not espouse it are taken away on a boat.

The ACLU will stand up for whomever is downtrodden including the "faith based" people BUT when the "faith based" people, or anyone for that matter try to impose their beliefs on other's you should be equally thankful as the times when they stood up for your right to be Christian or whatever it is you want to be.

That Is why we live in the Good Ol' YOU ESS of AYY!!! and why our boys fought since the creation of our states....when anyone, BW, ST., or anyone else try to impose their will on others, that bullying is, in my mind, equivalent to spitting on the pillars of our great society that we now want other countries to strive for.

Stand up for the meek, fight for the poor, be loyal to what you believe and hold your beliefs close to your heart....to YOUR heart and do not interpret your strength to be a mandate to impose your religious belief's, molded from a book that not everyone does or should be forced to follow, on others.

Just an aside, and I know I'm a little late on this, but Robertson is probably not a neo-conservative. Neo-conservatism is a foriegn policy theory that says the US should aggressively push for democracy around the world and use force if need be. I don't know Robertson's view on spreading democracy.

This is getting a bit off topic here, but I can't resist...

Flasch while I have sensitivity to your situation, that was a private school. And in terms of public schools, there is no reason whatsoever why religion should be kept out. The idea of a separation of church and state is a myth in our country - all of our public institutions presuppose the existence of God. The Bill of Rights prohibits the establishment (or promotion) of a particular religion, so the example you described should not be permitted in school; but had Jesus' name been substituted with God, or the language had been in some other way made inclusive, there is no reason why anybody should take exception.

I just want to reiterate a point that I've made before. Separation of Church and State isn't just an athiest issue. I am very religious and I don't want the government to have a damn thing to do with religion. There is a definite pressue in the country, where if you are not Christian, then something is wrong with you. It's not faith if someone feels forced into it. This was never more clearly stated than when George Bush Sr. basically said athiests shouldn't be considered citizens. Statements like that, and the constant mean-spiritedness of people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell do more to hurt Christianity than anything the ACLu could ever hope to accomplish.

I'm a secular humanist. How do you make the language, when referring to God, all-inclusive for me?

Glen (proud member of the pinko commie club ;) ), you'd be right - sitting though a prayer isn't difficult to tolerate. Of course, your examples are in places where you have to expect to hear prayer from that religion!! Heck, I've been in Methodist Churches, Catholic, Baptist, Episcipalian (sp), Pentacostal, Jewish, Islam, Buddist and Wiccan and only God knows what else. If I'm in those places, I have to expect to hear prayers to the (various) deities.

Try sitting through that prayer every day, every business meeting, every morning on the school bus or any number of other situations. Try sitting through that prayer knowing that your religious beliefs will never be accommodated - that you'll never get to hear a prayer that actually means something to you - but that you have to accommodate everyone else every day. And the reprocussions for not participating can be severe and the social ramifications aren't much fun either. If you want to look at one occurence, it doesn't seem like much. Add 'em up and it's a whole ton.

Thin skin? No. If you think so, you haven't thought it through.

I understand thats why i didnt fight it BUT I was making a point that i have first hand knowledge of the power of exclusion during prayer and it should not be allowed in Public School's....for offending atheists as well they should not have prayer in school. Atheists deserve their right not to have prayer in an atmosphere that isn't exclusive as well. To Presuppose that an atheist has less rights than a faithful person is exclusionary as well, and when you say, "Well, theyre just an atheist. It wont matter to them." It the same thing as feeling worthless to them...like me in my private school.

In a private school they can do whatever they want...in a public school OR for that matter in government places ithe rules should be the same...America it is;

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breath free.
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Doesnt mention that you have to let us know what religion you are before you come...and we certainly dont send out pamphlets letting them know that if they cant tolerate the religious superiority of the Christians then they shouldn't come (for that matter they can also cross the sieve of a border through in Mexico)

If you don't believe in God then how do you justify using US currency? Our institutions all derive their authority from God.

What?

From the declaration of independence:

There's really no escaping the existence of God in any US institution (except schools, where it's dangerous to even TEACH religion).

While I'd tend to agree with you (even though I self-identify as a Christian), I'd hesitate to go this far, mainly because much the same thing could be said about things like homosexuality (and has been for years, in fact). One can't say on the one hand that the gay community can come out loud and proud while people of faith are supposed to keep it in the closet because their lifestyle might offend some individuals of delicate spiritual sensibility.

Then again, I'd identify "delicate sensibilities" as a bigger threat to America than both the judiciary and terrorism. :)

Actually, I agree with this when it comes to private schools. I went to a catholic school in India, and I damn well learned the "Our Farther who art in heaven..." prayer and a few hymns- and I recognize it as a bargain I(or my parents) made. The problem is in the public avenue, where there is some deal of ostracization.

In general, I'd say I'm fairly close to Glen, if not more to the right (leaning libertarian, as it were). I've lost my faith in the Republican party over gay marriage, simply because the very thing that drew me towards it (the support for the individual) is being blanketed by a religous right hell bent on imposing some sort of Biblical test over all social policy. At this place, I find that way too many oppose gay marriage for all because of bigotry (comparing it to bestiality, sick and what not) - and that tends to push me more to the left than I am. Socially, I don't believe people's religous beliefs provide a dictum for all across the board. It seems to me that the Republican Party is being consumed by its Religous Right Wing over its Rockefeller Republican wing.

St. this is just silly. I use stuff all the time for intentions that aren't spelled out in the instruction manual...a pen to unlock a door, etc. doesnt mean i own stock in the company. Just because a picture of Washington is on a bill doesnt mean Im praying to him, and simply because "God" is on it doesnt mean mean when someone buys a dime bag of pot that theyre praying to him (yet)....There is a difference between "tradition" and "religion". Im certain that you can even grasp that right?

I follow what you are saying but it doesn't speak to my point which was that our country encourages religious expression pretty much everywhere, and in ways that do not violate the Bill of Rights.

You cant march down the street in a parade celebrating Jesus? Really, i hadnt heard that. I also didn't know that Christians had to keep their religion in the closet...I thought for sure that they could just about go and do anything they want exept push their religion on others in inappropriate places. How foolish of me to think that the only reason Ill be able to go out today and go look at stores and stuff is because the "Faith based" folks are being held at bay by social barriers. What would I have to deal with if those social barriers didn't exist? When I leave the house the "faith-ies" would be all over the streets and sidewalks, prosthelizing(sp?) to me....woo, glad thats not the case, Its only homosexuals that I have to look out for and their prosthelizin(sp?) to me on the beauty of a gay relationship.

True, everywhere except government institutions, public schools, private buildings that have verbage against it, my house, etc. you can express your religion, and I encourage you to do so, as long as it isn't in one of those places and the like, and as long as it doesnt encourage your or others to hurt others or dictate others behavior (law,based on a social contract, should do that)

Before we go too far down the path of the "USA was founded as a Christian nation" debate (you can see it going there, can't you?--by the way, it's pretty easy to summarize. In the late 1800's, the Supreme Court wholeheartedly supported this proposition, but by the late 1900's, the Supreme Court wholeheartedly rejected it. The rest of the argument is simply a matter of which historical viewpoint you want to scream is more "enlightened" than the other.), I'd like to go back to Robertson's point.

Now, I'm no supporter of Robertson or the organizational leadership of the Religious Right (though, I'm religious...though I'm a political conservative...), but I think Robertson has a legitimate point. Of course, as usual, Robertson is so locked into his dogmatic world he has no idea how to communicate to others of a different viewpoint (like far too many of my Christian brethren), and he failed in this soundbyte to recognize how muddied his point would be.

For a supporter of the "original intent" vs. "living document" view of Constitutional interpretation, the Supreme Court of the 1960's through today and the appellate courts of late have been truly terrifying. For such a supporter, the Constitutional basis of our nation and way of life is being threatened by activist judges.

True, the terrorists kill. Many. But 9-11 showed us that their attacks don't destroy our way of life or the foundation of our society. You could point to the aftermath of 9-11 and say it strengthened us, unified us, or some such point. If you wanted to speechify, you could say "The terrorists may kill our sons and daughters, but they will never kill what the US stands for!" I think what Robertson was trying (and failing) to say, was that by undermining the Constitution, activist judges ARE killing what the US stands for.

:rolleyes:

Government institutions was what I was talking about man! The US dollar; courthouses; our House of Representatives all PRESUME the existence of God and include various religious expressions.

And your house and private buildings, well, that's as irrelevant as I can imagine. And what got us started was talking about schools, which my point is it's insane that religious expression should be as chilled in schools as it is.

I skimmed through this thread for the first time and noticed this bit of word doctoring. If you're going for logical consistency and you refer to one side as anti-choice, does that mean the other side is called anti-life?

Don't be a tool. If you really think that was what I was suggesting, you obviously didn't read my post and merely reacted from your PC instinct.

For the record, "push their religion on others in inappropriate places" includes doing anything religious on anything considered public land. Since a street is public property, it wouldn't surprise me if the answer to your first question turned out to be "yes", or if there weren't at least some legal challenges to the right to do so, given the fights over nativity scenes and the like. Might be an interesting google search...

you ignore atheists again? So a person who is not Christian cannot be a representative? If at the Legislature they stand up and say a prayer in Jesus' name, I should be Ok with this? I want to know. Is that what you are asking? Because if it is it solidifies my accusation that you and a lot of others would hope to have this be a Christian Country and if youre not Christian than you will be treated and should accept being second class. I ask for your answer.

you said that faith based people have to endure a society that pressures them into being scared to expose their faith. That they are under constant attack to give up their religion.

This was my interpretation of your statement and you drew the comparison to homosexuals. am I wrong?

im ok with them praying in public places as long as its not disruptive or exclusionary in that, at a public school, its not like the jewish kid can just leave, etc. If they want to march on st. patty's day good for them.

I'm pro-choice and pro-life. That means that I disagree with abortion and wouldn't want (we're speaking in general terms here) my wife to have one. Therefore, I'm pro-life. But I support the right for a woman to determine what happens with her body over the "rights" of a fetus and therefore I'm pro-choice.

The other side is anti-choice and pro-life. They disagree with abortion and wouldn't want their loved ones to have one (or have one themselves, in the case of a woman). But they don't support the right for a woman to determine what happens with her body over the "rights" of a fetus and therefore they are anti-choice.

One side is for personal choice on the issue = pro-choice. One side is not for personal choice on the issue = anti-choice. So that's a fair representation of the issue.

Drake, I interpreted your post exactly the same way as Flasch. Perhaps you'd like to clarify it?

That's your opinion. But courts are ruling much stricter than that. For example, the nativity displays I mentioned in my post. The Ten Commandments on display in a courthouse are neither disruptive nor exclusionary, either.

Actually, I made the comment that taking a position that someone's homosexuality/faith/values/interests are more appropriately kept between themselves and God (or themselves and their partners or whatever) is a bad idea in my opinion, because it only encourages intolerance. I was faulting the tendency of people to get offended and demand that people who hold views that don't approve of be silenced in the public arena.

And yes, I would go so far as to say that making the comment that prayer should be kept between "yourself and God" is just as bigoted as saying that gays should "keep their sexuality to themselves". (For the record, I don't think this is what Blackadar was saying. He was speaking, if I understood him correctly, about institutional speech. My point is that we have to be careful how we state such things lest we brush stroke too broadly and implicate public speech along with institutional speech.)