"Religious Liberals Gain New Visibility" - The Washington Post - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-22-2006, 01:22 AM   #16
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 10:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Is Theocracy Watch a principle, or a political statement?
It might depend on if they are digging their way out of a hole, or digging the hole...
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 05-22-2006, 04:56 AM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

[q]The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque. Not all Islamists are violent. Only a tiny few are terrorists. And I should underline that the term Christianist is in no way designed to label people on the religious right as favoring any violence at all. I mean merely by the term Christianist the view that religious faith is so important that it must also have a precise political agenda. It is the belief that religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.
[/q]
In Islam proper there is no distinction so the division seems to be more one of literalism and adherence verus soft blasphemy.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 05-22-2006, 09:01 AM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Harry Vest
Too little too late.
Calvinists have been some of the most liberal, forward-thinking Christians since the 1500s!

I like how the media JUST NOW discovered that normal people DO in fact exist in this country.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 05-22-2006, 09:49 AM   #19
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Is Theocracy Watch a principle, or a political statement?

i reject the two choices you've presented.

Theocracy Watch is a vigilant organization dedicated to finding examples of the intrusion of the church onto state.

i take your question to be a mask for another question, so what would that be?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-22-2006, 11:37 AM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i reject the two choices you've presented.

Theocracy Watch is a vigilant organization dedicated to finding examples of the intrusion of the church onto state.

i take your question to be a mask for another question, so what would that be?
No mask, just plain and simple. Is all intrusion of church into state worthy of "theocracy watch" (principle) or are some intrusions deemed acceptable (not worthy of "theocracy watch") when the intrusion is in line with political beliefs (political statement)?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 05-22-2006, 11:41 AM   #21
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


No mask, just plain and simple. Is all intrusion of church into state worthy of "theocracy watch" (principle) or are some intrusions deemed acceptable (not worthy of "theocracy watch") when the intrusion is in line with political beliefs (political statement)?


yes, i thought this is what you were getting at, as you've brought this up before.

to my knowledge, there is no one on the "christian left" with the power to approve or veto potential SCOTUS nominees or administration social policy or even the science of sexual education in the way that the "christian right" is currently able to within the bush administration. the day that Howard Dean starts to sound like a left-wing version of Tom DeLay or when John Kerry starts talking about how God told him to run for office and that he's certain that God is on our side is the day that i will start calling out leftist religious intrusion.

it has nothing to do with the political belief itself, but the manner in which specific religious groups have coordinated themselves with certain politicians.

i have no problems with Christians in politics. have problems with Christianity/Christianism in politics.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-22-2006, 12:13 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
yes, i thought this is what you were getting at, as you've brought this up before.

to my knowledge, there is no one on the "christian left" with the power to approve or veto potential SCOTUS nominees or administration social policy or even the science of sexual education in the way that the "christian right" is currently able to within the bush administration. the day that Howard Dean starts to sound like a left-wing version of Tom DeLay or when John Kerry starts talking about how God told him to run for office and that he's certain that God is on our side is the day that i will start calling out leftist religious intrusion.

it has nothing to do with the political belief itself, but the manner in which specific religious groups have coordinated themselves with certain politicians.

i have no problems with Christians in politics. have problems with Christianity/Christianism in politics.
Yes, we've gone around this one before.

The "approval or veto potential SCOTUS nominees" is a gross mischaracterization of the Harriet Miers nomination - but one on which we will continue to disagree. The point of contention does not seem to be the existence of religious influence in politics (however that is measured), but the effectiveness of such influence.

I would expect an equally vigilant response to any Christian based "solutions" to poverty, health care or the environment.

Having a problem with Christianity in politics is rarely consistently applied.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 05-22-2006, 12:37 PM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Yes, we've gone around this one before.

The "approval or veto potential SCOTUS nominees" is a gross mischaracterization of the Harriet Miers nomination - but one on which we will continue to disagree. The point of contention does not seem to be the existence of religious influence in politics (however that is measured), but the effectiveness of such influence.

I would expect an equally vigilant response to any Christian based "solutions" to poverty, health care or the environment.

Having a problem with Christianity in politics is rarely consistently applied.


we can continue to agree to disagree, though i'm a little worried that the breaking down of church and state is understood as little more than one stripe of Christianity being more "effective" than another -- it's as if the walls are viewed as mere obstacles to circumvent rather than principles to uphold.

and, yes, i would argue for the removal of the tax-exept status of any church that told it's congregation to vote for a particular candidate in 2008 the way that churches in Ohio were able to swing 59,000 votes for George W. Bush.

why don't you take this upon yourself -- when you see the theocratic intrusion of left-wing Christianity breaching the walls between church and state, why don't you call it out for us? i've done the best job i know how with the right wing stuff, since that's the most obvious given the fact that all branches of the government are controlled by Republicans and that most politically organized Christian institutions have chosen to align themselves with the Republicans. hence, there are simply more examples to choose from.

understanding what is and what isn't a "problem" with Christianity is often a matter of what is most convenient for the observer.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-22-2006, 12:44 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
why don't you take this upon yourself -- when you see the theocratic intrusion of left-wing Christianity breaching the walls between church and state, why don't you call it out for us? i've done the best job i know how with the right wing stuff, since that's the most obvious given the fact that all branches of the government are controlled by Republicans and that most politically organized Christian institutions have chosen to align themselves with the Republicans. hence, there are simply more examples to choose from.
Principly, I don't see it as a problem from a political viewpoint. There are many influences on politics - to try and bar one voice from the debate is inappropriate.

Overall, I will highlight inconsistencies from a theological viewpoint, and I will engage in the political debate.

When I see the government trying to establish religion (such as proscribing what prayers should be said in school), then the wall, as described by the Constitution, has been breached.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 05-22-2006, 02:12 PM   #25
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
When I see the government trying to establish religion (such as proscribing what prayers should be said in school), then the wall, as described by the Constitution, has been breached.


would you describe the requirement that a SCOTUS nominee be a Christian and pro-life to be an establishment of a specific religion?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-22-2006, 02:26 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:36 PM
If such requirements existed, I'm not sure either violate the Establishment Clause.

As a political position, "pro-life" may influence such appointments, just as "pro-choice" affects the appointments. The public is well aware of such litmus tests and they are frequently used as short-hand for reaching various voter groups.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 05-22-2006, 02:31 PM   #27
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
If such requirements existed, I'm not sure either violate the Establishment Clause.

As a political position, "pro-life" may influence such appointments, just as "pro-choice" affects the appointments. The public is well aware of such litmus tests and they are frequently used as short-hand for reaching various voter groups.


it was a two-pronged requirement -- Christian and pro-life.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-30-2006, 11:47 AM   #28
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

The "approval or veto potential SCOTUS nominees" is a gross mischaracterization of the Harriet Miers nomination - but one on which we will continue to disagree. The point of contention does not seem to be the existence of religious influence in politics (however that is measured), but the effectiveness of such influence.


and as it turns out a Texas Supreme Court judge gave over 120 interviews on the down-low to leading Christianists reassuring them of Harriet Miers' evangelical credentials:

[q]Texas Supreme Court justice admonished
By CHUCK LINDELL
Cox News Service
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
AUSTIN, Texas — Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht crossed an ethical line last year when he quietly assured conservative leaders about high court nominee Harriet Miers' views on religion and abortion, a judicial review panel concluded.

Hecht also erred in coordinating his advocacy of Miers, a controversial and ultimately unsuccessful nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, with the White House — providing daily reports of his media contacts and allowing administration officials to send reporters his way, according to a public admonition by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

[...]

When asked by an unnamed White House adviser, Hecht also agreed to speak to James Dobson — an influential social conservative, radio host and head of the organization Focus on the Family — about Miers' views on religion and abortion, the [State Commission on Judicial Conduct's] admonition says.

Sworn into office in 1989, Hecht is the most-senior member of the Texas Supreme Court, the state's highest civil court. His reputation as one of the body's most conservative justices also lent credence to his views.

As many conservatives rebelled against Bush's nominee, Dobson became one of Miers' most vocal supporters, cryptically hinting on his radio program that "when you know some of the things that I know, that I probably shouldn't know, you will understand why ... I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice."

http://www.pulsejournal.com/sports/c..._0524_COX.html

[/q]



in sum: Rove got Hecht to persuade Dobson that Miers was theologically acceptable. not just Christian, but a very specific kind of Christian.

Theocracy Watch marches on ...
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-30-2006, 12:03 PM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:36 PM
One question: When did post-nomination marketing become pre-nomination approval?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 05-30-2006, 12:19 PM   #30
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
One question: When did post-nomination marketing become pre-nomination approval?

one does have to go through Congressional hearings, no?

it speaks to the power and influence Dobson has over the Republican party that his disapproval might have derailed her if said politicians had felt that their constituents might not have approved of her nomination. the Republican Party lives in fear of upsetting it's "base" -- the "base" that won Bush the election by 59,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 and the same "base" that threatens to sit home and not vote if they get no payback on their issues (abortion, bash-the-gays, etc.) and remember that "payback" for Bush's election was supposed to come in the form of an acceptable SCOTUS nominee.

i also can't believe that you'd see that as the issue, rather than the down-low politicking and the clear evidence of a religious litmus test.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com