THEOCRACY WATCH! Republicans believe government must "protect our souls"

[verte76]

... this is not about homosexuality, it's about theocracy ... this is not just about homosexuality it's about theocracy ... this is not a gay issue it's an issue about being able to live the life you want ... it's about the government telling you what you can and cannot read ... this is not just a gay issue ... i'm trying not to gaze at my own navel ... this will affect everyone ... this is not just a gay issue ...

I agree. My stupid state is crawling with idiots who want to tell me how to run my life. They treat their constituents like idiots.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Exactly, pax. I'd always understood Republicans wanted the government to stay out of our personal lives as much as possible. Well, then, let's try sticking to that philosophy, shall we?

Thanks, Deep. I'm swiping your picture of the billboard for this week's computer wallpaper.

Idea suppression, thought suppression is a scary deal. We live under the illusion we live in a free society, but the impact of what we do sometimes is no different from what is done in some of the most oppressive societies. And both sides do it. I remember an uproar some years back about Huckleberry Finn. Liberal though I may be, I do not find any essential difference there.

The fundamentalists--or those that are beholden to them--are in power now. To see the power they are trying to wield in personal lives and private decisions is more than troubling. Dreadsox started a thread about extreme fundamentalists, quoting Bono about the hypocrisy, worrying about personal "sins" that don't seem to hurt anyone but affect delicate sensibilities (Victorian swoon here) and have no concern about the bigger actions that affect millions.

I have plenty of problems with the other side. I think they interfere. I think political correctness is a form of thought suppression. I think for all intents and purposes they espouse a philosophy that places personal freedom way above personal responsibility (unless it is the cause de jour) when there should be a balance.

Neither side has any respect whatsoever for the ideas of the other and will silence them however they can, which is the very definition of thought suppression. I am uncomfortable with both sides.

Here's to the moderates, who lean a little either way.

. Very good post-I agree wholeheartedly with every word of this.

Also...

. Yes.

Angela

 

[all_i_want]

hey, everyone is responsible for their own soul. thats the capitalism i believe

 

[shrmn8rpoptart]

Salazar Vs. FOTF

Salazar lets fly
Focus on Family aims to create theocracy in U.S., senator says

By M.E. Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News
April 22, 2005

WASHINGTON - Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., intensified his war of words with Focus on the Family on Thursday, accusing its evangelical Christian leaders of trying to turn the United States into a theocracy.

"I think that the way Focus on the Family and the conservative right wing is attempting to take the country will threaten the basic cornerstone of our freedom," Salazar said in an interview.
The back and forth between the state's new senator and one of the nation's most powerful evangelical groups was touched off by the fight over President Bush's judicial nominations.

But it has escalated into a brawl in which the sides are trading shots over whether the U.S. Senate is anti-Christian and whether Focus on the Family is anti-Catholic.

A political arm of the Colorado Springs-based ministry has mounted an aggressive ad campaign against Salazar and senators from 15 states. It is pressuring them to scrap filibuster rules that have allowed Democrats to block a handful of controversial judicial nominations.

Salazar, a Democrat and lifelong Catholic, blasted the ads on Wednesday, saying Focus on the Family was "hijacking" Christianity and becoming an appendage of the Republican Party. The ministry reaches millions of evangelical Christians through the leadership of its founder, James Dobson.

"I think the kind of attack that is being used against (Democratic senators) and against me has the potential of moving our country to abandoning the freedom of worship which we enjoy in this country, and moving toward the creation of a theocracy," Salazar said.

After his first verbal barrage on Wednesday, a Focus on the Family spokesman said Salazar was aligning himself with Democratic senators who allegedly showed an anti-Catholic bias in rejecting one of the appeals court nominees, former Alabama attorney general William Pryor.

Salazar responded Thursday with a terse letter to Dobson. In it, he defended Senate colleagues of various faiths, and he called on Dobson to repudiate a Focus board member who once referred to Catholicism as "a false church."

The board member, R. Albert Mohler Jr., said Thursday he stands by the comments he made in March 2000 on the cable news show Larry King Live.

"I believe that the Roman church is a false church and it teaches a false gospel," Mohler said at the time. "And indeed, I believe that the pope himself holds a false and unbiblical office."

Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminar in Louisville, Ky., said he was shocked by Salazar's letter to Dobson.

"It's either a demonstration of the most grotesque form of manipulation or evidence of absolute ignorance," he said. "Anyone who is shocked that evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics disagree on fundamental theological doctrines is simply unaware of four centuries plus of church history."

"This is really an effort to divert attention from the fact that there is an anti-Christian bias, an anti-Catholic bias, that is evident in this debate over judges," Mohler said.

Dobson was not available for comment Thursday. In an appearance on Fox News' Hannity and Colmes show late Thursday, he defended Mohler's past statements about Catholicism.

"This is not about Catholicism. This is about an effort in the Senate to block people of faith and also people with conservative views. It's not just those with Christian views," Dobson said. "It's not a fight against Catholicism.

"Senator Salazar is the one who's trying to change the subject," Dobson said, because he abandoned a campaign promise to give all judicial nominees an up-or-down vote in the Senate.

Judicial appointments have been a key issue for evangelical Christian groups. They blame judges for not enforcing decency standards, denying public displays of the Ten Commandments and refusing to reinsert the feeding tube of Florida hospice patient Terri Schiavo.

Mohler and Dobson are scheduled to appear together Sunday on a nationwide simulcast intended to rally support for ending Senate filibuster rules. The "Justice Sunday" event also will feature Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship and a videotape appearance by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

Heated rhetoric about judicial appointments has dominated Capitol Hill this week. Republicans, working with evangelical Christian groups, are threatening to seek rule changes giving all judicial nominees a right to an up-or-down vote in the Senate. Under existing rules, a minority party can use filibuster procedures to delay an appointment indefinitely unless there are 60 votes to proceed.

Ten of President Bush's more controversial judicial nominees stalled during his first term, and he recently renominated seven of them. Salazar, who took office in January, said the traditional filibuster helps ensure that nominees have at least some bipartisan support before winning lifetime appointments.

"I may never participate in a filibuster. I may support some or all of these judges," Salazar said. "But that's not the question that's being debated today. It really is a question about breaking the rules in the middle of the game, and an abuse of power on the part of one party that holds all the keys to the kingdom."

Focus on the Family's Carrie Gordon Earll said Salazar was the one using religious division as a distraction.

"Focus has worked alongside Catholics for years on very key social issues, and we expect that to continue," Earll said. "The letter from Sen. Salazar to Dr. Dobson is a religious rabbit trail getting us away from the real issue here, which is, 'Will Salazar give these qualified nominees an up-or-down vote or is he going to be part of the obstruction?' And I think the answer to that is becoming painfully clear."

Salazar's Senate offices fielded a flood of phone calls on both sides of the issue Thursday, as observers debated the pros and cons of a new senator attacking one of the best-known religious groups in his state.

Catholic senator, board member go head to head

• "I think that the way Focus on the Family and the conservative right wing is attempting to take the country will threaten the basic cornerstone of our freedom."

- Sen. Ken Salazar, who says evangelical Christian leaders are trying to turn the U.S. into a theocracy

• "This is not about Catholicism. This is about an effort in the Senate to block people of faith and also people with conservative views. It's not just those with Christian views."

- R. Albert Mohler Jr., Focus on the Family board member on Salazar's criticism of the group

i couldn't find the quote, but at one point salazar called fotm the antichrist i laughed quite a bit, and half believed it to be true.

the church needs to pull its head out and realize that its job is to preach the gospel, and to care for people's souls. the church is not there to influence political policy! if the church wants to hold to a true biblical doctrine, then they would acknowledge that we have the leaders we do because they were placed there by God to keep society in order, not to save our souls.

they would know this if they would take the time to read machiavelli, luther, or even the Bible.

fotm is run by a bunch of megalomaniacs, and it makes me glad that i have denver in between myself and colorado springs. though it seems like in colorado as oppsosed to alabama, we have senators (well, one at least) willing to protect the government from nut jub ideologists

 

[Do Miss America]

51% of the country doesn't live in Alabama...

This is just one example, this is happening everywhere, open your eyes. As soon as you guys voted for Bush and started to put gay marriage as a "moral" and on the ballot it brought out all this type of shit.

 

[pax]

This is just one example, this is happening everywhere, open your eyes. As soon as you guys voted for Bush and started to put gay marriage as a "moral" and on the ballot it brought out all this type of shit.

No one on this board knows exactly how anyone else on this board voted, and even those who did cast certain votes may not agree with everything a candidate stands for. Please avoid making generalizations like this.

Thank you.

 

[Do Miss America]

No one on this board knows exactly how anyone else on this board voted, and even those who did cast certain votes may not agree with everything a candidate stands for. Please avoid making generalizations like this.

Thank you. [/B]

But I've seen him boldly claim that he voted for Bush and that he doesn't stand for gay marriage because it endorses such "behavior". I never claimed he stood for this, but I do think this type of voting open the doors for this type of thing that's happening in Alabama and many other places.

 

[pax]

Yes, but in your original post you referred to "you guys," and from such usage, I (and many others) would assume you mean everyone who voted for Bush. My dad is a great example of a Bush voter who nevertheless believes the government has no place in people's marriages or bedrooms, and doesn't much care who marries who. Likewise, although I voted for Kerry, I was uncomfortable with his position on the Iraq war. Just because you vote for a candidate, that doesn't mean you agree with every word he or she says.

We've been on a kick lately in FYM with which I'm really uncomfortable; namely, all sides of arguments have decided it's okay to start making unfair and untrue generalizations. And the defense is always, "Well, they make certain other generalizations, so it's okay for me." And it's not. Everyone here knows the frustration and hurt of being lumped into a group that's been stereotyped, and I think it's in the best interest of everyone here to keep that kind of talk out of FYM.

Thanks.

 

[Do Miss America]

Gotcha, I'm sorry.

 

[pax]

No problem.

 

[deep]

No one on this board knows exactly how anyone else on this board voted, and even those who did cast certain votes may not agree with everything a candidate stands for. Please avoid making generalizations like this.

Thank you. [/B]

I'll say anyone that voted for Republicans in Congress, Senate and the Presidential election is partly responsible and should think twice about supporting the GOP as long as the extremist control the direction they are going.
Unless you support their mean-spirited agenda.

Bill Clinton had the guts to go against the extremists on the left and do what was best for the country, he took a lot of heat from them, too.
Even with his personal failings, a majority of the American people always supported him.

Has Bush ever had the guts to go against the extremists in his party?
I do not believe HE is as personally extreme as the agenda he supports, just gutless.

 

[Irvine511]

I'll say anyone that voted for Republicans in Congress, Senate and the Presidential election is partly responsible and should think twice about supporting the GOP as long as the extremist control the direction they are going.
Unless you support their mean-spirited agenda.

Bill Clinton had the guts to go against the extremists on the left and do what was best for the country, he took a lot of heat from them, too.
Even with his personal failings, a majority of the American people always supported him.

Has Bush ever had the guts to go against the extremists in his party?
I do not believe HE is as personally extreme as the agenda he supports, just gutless.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I'll second that, Irvine .

Angela

 

[pax]

I'll say anyone that voted for Republicans in Congress, Senate and the Presidential election is partly responsible and should think twice about supporting the GOP as long as the extremist control the direction they are going.

I'm not saying that people aren't responsible for how they vote, but what I am saying is that it's not fair to generalize an entire group of people on the basis of one single vote. I have no doubt that a great many people who voted for Bush are small-minded arseholes. I also have no doubt that a great many people who voted for Kerry could be characterized similarly.

Unless you support their mean-spirited agenda.

I'll assume you meant that "you" editorially there.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

This is just one example, this is happening everywhere, open your eyes. As soon as you guys voted for Bush and started to put gay marriage as a "moral" and on the ballot it brought out all this type of shit.

As I said earlier, I find this Mr. Allen character a tad over the top. You blaming 51% of the voting population for this is ridiculous. You'll always find your political goons.

 

[deep]

i did not mean to give you personal attention, I leave that to E man

I'll assume you meant that "you" editorially there.

I did not mean

you - specific

i meant

you - general
(i have to include myself, and therefore, you,too)

 

[verte76]

I'll just say that I'm a little uneasy that Bush doesn't seem to be able to say "no" to the far right wing of the Republican Party. I'm no political scientist, but I think most of the American electorate is a little more centrist and also more pragmatic--less doctrinaire than either the far right or the far left. Plenty of people who voted for Bush are more fiscally conservative and less socially conservative than he is. I was uneasy about John Kerry's position on Iraq, but I voted for him.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm not saying that people aren't responsible for how they vote, but what I am saying is that it's not fair to generalize an entire group of people on the basis of one single vote. I have no doubt that a great many people who voted for Bush are small-minded arseholes. I also have no doubt that a great many people who voted for Kerry could be characterized similarly.

i agree about not characterizing the people, but isn't it also true that no matter the reasons for their vote, the result of their vote was the empowerment of the extremists they may or may not agree with?

my beef is that i have several friends who are libertarian republicans -- strong defense (or, lovers of invasions, however you look at it), low taxes, free market, and pretty much anything goes when it comes to social issues, so long as no one gets hurt.

a vote for the Republican party in 2004 is not a vote for any of these things, and people are fooling themselves if they think the party is, currently, anything more than an apparatus of a very specific kind of social viewpoint.

 

[pax]

i agree about not characterizing the people, but isn't it also true that no matter the reasons for their vote, the result of their vote was the empowerment of the extremists they may or may not agree with?

my beef is that i have several friends who are libertarian republicans -- strong defense (or, lovers of invasions, however you look at it), low taxes, free market, and pretty much anything goes when it comes to social issues, so long as no one gets hurt.

a vote for the Republican party in 2004 is not a vote for any of these things, and people are fooling themselves if they think the party is, currently, anything more than an apparatus of a very specific kind of social viewpoint.

All good points.

 

[Harry Vest]

Again, for a detailed look at the so called "Religious Right" and what they are up to please visit www.yuricareport.com
and for a far stranger and possibly "out there" theory check out www.antipasministries.com
Strange stuff but makes me think!!!

 

[U2Bama]

The bill died before it came to vote due to lack of quorum.

~U2Alabama

 

[martha]

I think this is more of an issue with religious minded folk than it is of conservatives.

Most of your "religious minded folk" happen to be conservatives. At least the "religious minded folk" who think that my sex life is somehow their business anyway.

 

[indra]

Most of your "religious minded folk" happen to be conservatives. At least the "religious minded folk" who think that my sex life is somehow their business anyway.

I think we all are using the wrong word to describe "religious minded folk" who think someone else's sex life is their business. They're not conservatives, they're perverts.

 

[martha]

I think we all are using the wrong word to describe "religious minded folk" who think someone else's sex life is their business. They're not conservatives, they're perverts.

Then we've got a pervert for a president, most of Congress are perverts, and there's a pervert convention in the Texas capitol.

 

[verte76]

The bill died before it came to vote due to lack of quorum.

~U2Alabama

Good riddance.

 

[Scarletwine]

Thank God. This admin is the most corrupt in history.

Martha - I'd given up on religion until I met the preacher at my mom's church. He lives it, he's a protastant minister that believes like many catholics in non-violence and even started a "Center for Non-Violence at the most Repubican private University in Ohio, Karl Rove was here last week. Ashland university.

So now I'm at odds.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Most of your "religious minded folk" happen to be conservatives. At least the "religious minded folk" who think that my sex life is somehow their business anyway.

And I think that by trying to get government involved in peoples lives is the exact opposite of the core principles of conservatism which is libertarianism. These tools are against individuality, against freedom of choice and usually pro-censorship ~ while they may consider themselves social conservatives their ideas about the role of government and the rights of the individual are quite different, very big on regulation and big government.

 

[indra]

Then we've got a pervert for a president, most of Congress are perverts, and there's a pervert convention in the Texas capitol.

Well...yeah. Creepy, isn't it?

 

[martha]

while they may consider themselves social conservatives their ideas about the role of government and the rights of the individual are quite different, very big on regulation and big government.

No shit. Try telling them that though.

 

[Irvine511]

And I think that by trying to get government involved in peoples lives is the exact opposite of the core principles of conservatism which is libertarianism. These tools are against individuality, against freedom of choice and usually pro-censorship ~ while they may consider themselves social conservatives their ideas about the role of government and the rights of the individual are quite different, very big on regulation and big government.

which is precisely why no libertarian should have voted for W. in 2004.

i feel bad for all my libertarian friends who were soundly duped by the administration.

actually, i don't feel bad -- they should have known better.