|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/16/2005 : 03:37:54
|
This tripe is worth keeping in mind when they turn around and tell us how loving and compassonate they are.
quote:
Gary Potter (Catholics for Christian Political Action)
"When the Christian majority takes over this country, there will be no satanic churches, no more free distribution of pornography, no more talk of rights for homosexuals. After the Christian majority takes control, pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil."
Kil, you and the rest of them lyin', sec'lar skepticals are in big trouble when the Army of the Righteous takes charge! We gonna send you all to hell, boy! :snarl:
Found it on Buzzflash.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
 Posted - 06/16/2005 : 05:47:10 [Permalink]
|
My fave:
quote:
Better a pink bottom than a black soul.
--Lester Roloff, Texas Homes for Wayward Youth,
|
 |
|
|
Giltwist
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2005 : 09:24:29 [Permalink]
|
*coughs*
The views and opinions expressed by these individuals are not necessarily representative of theologians as a whole. We here at Deus Industries take no responsibilities for any claims made or implied in this article...Christianity, in particular, is a religion which advocates "Judge not, lest ye be judged,"
That said, I'm not sure why James Dobson is in here, his statements are fairly apt.
quote:
"Those who control the access to the minds of children will set the agenda for the future of the nation and the future of the western world."
Nothing religious about that, and I think it's true. Children are our future, as they say.
quote:
"State Universities are breeding grounds, quite literally, for sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV), homosexual behavior, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, alcoholism, and drug abuse."
Again, at least around here, all true statements. The only thing worth noticing here is that homosexuality is listed with a collection of unpleasant thing, thus implying that homosexuality is a bad thing.
I mean these are a far cry from a statement like:
quote:
"We are to make Bible-obeying disciples of anybody that gets in our way."
Especially considering the Biblical doctrine is to lead by example, not by force. Or a statement like:
quote:
"Sex education classes in our public schools are promoting incest."
which is patently false considering what genetics has taught us about the consequences of incest.
*sighs*
G. |
 |
| Edited by - Giltwist on 06/16/2005 09:25:03 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2005 : 10:45:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Giltwist
That said, I'm not sure why James Dobson is in here, his statements are fairly apt.quote:
"Those who control the access to the minds of children will set the agenda for the future of the nation and the future of the western world."
Nothing religious about that, and I think it's true. Children are our future, as they say.
James Dobson? Isn't he the scary fundamentalist head of Focus on the Family, who said the above in the context of "we - the only true Christians - need to control the schools in order to 'set the agenda' and yadayada" (not in so many words, of course)?quote:
quote:
"State Universities are breeding grounds, quite literally, for sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV), homosexual behavior, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, alcoholism, and drug abuse."
Again, at least around here, all true statements. The only thing worth noticing here is that homosexuality is listed with a collection of unpleasant thing, thus implying that homosexuality is a bad thing.
That's not the only thing. It's specific to state universities (allegedly excempting private colleges), homosexual behaviour doesn't "breed" there, alcoholism and drug abuse are likely to be found in younger kids. There appear to be quite a few things wrong with just categorizing just state-run universities in such a way.quote:
I mean these are a far cry from a statement like:
Yes, they're far different statements, but not necessarily less alarming.quote:
quote:
"Sex education classes in our public schools are promoting incest."
which is patently false considering what genetics has taught us about the consequences of incest.
What? The implied claim seems clear: "Sex ed classes early in childhood lead children to experiment with what they learn on their own siblings." Nothing genetics has taught us argues against such a claim. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Giltwist
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2005 : 11:26:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
who said the above in the context of "we - the only true Christians
Ah see, that changes the meaning a lot.
quote:
It's specific to state universities (allegedly excempting private colleges
Wow, that's sneaky...
quote:
What? The implied claim seems clear: "Sex ed classes early in childhood lead children to experiment with what they learn on their own siblings."
Well it wasn't clear to me...I read it as the guy saying that sex ed classes said incest was OK, which they wouldn't because of all the genetic risks of such behavior. |
|
|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2005 : 14:36:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
My fave:
quote:
Better a pink bottom than a black soul.
--Lester Roloff, Texas Homes for Wayward Youth,
  |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2005 : 14:56:10 [Permalink]
|
I'm fairly disturbed at the influence many of these talking heads enjoy. I read a great write-up entitled America's Religious Right - Saints or Subversives? by Steve Weissman. It's a five part series and sheds some light on the origins and motives of America's latest fundamentalist groundswell. We should all fear what these people are trying to accomplish.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2005 : 14:56:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
That said, I'm not sure why James Dobson is in here, his statements are fairly apt.
Might have something to do with the fact that the guy is a hate filled homophobe who justifies his child abuse by citing biblical passages.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Giltwist
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2005 : 19:06:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Might have something to do with the fact that the guy is a hate filled homophobe who justifies his child abuse by citing biblical passages.
See I don't know about any of that. I just saw that his quotes weren't, at least on the surface, in the same class as all the other ones on that page. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/16/2005 : 20:34:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Giltwist
See I don't know about any of that. I just saw that his quotes weren't, at least on the surface, in the same class as all the other ones on that page.
Just gotta dig a little bit to find he's coming from the same bigoted and horrific place the rest of them are. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2005 : 02:35:59 [Permalink]
|
James Dobson:
quote:
The religious right's new kingmaker.
By Michael Crowley
Posted Friday, Nov. 12, 2004, at 12:00 PM PT
Although the notion that the religious right's "moral values" determined the 2004 election has been roundly debunked (for example, here and here), perception is reality in politics—and the indelible perception in Washington is now that George W. Bush owes his evangelical Christian base big-time.
One corollary to this idea is that no one helped Bush win more than Dr. James Dobson. Forget Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who in their dotage have marginalized themselves with gaffes (this week Robertson referred to potential Supreme Court nominee Miguel Estrada as "Erik Estrada"). Forget Ralph Reed, now enriching himself as a lobbyist-operative, leaving the Christian Coalition a shell of its former self. Forget Gary Bauer, now known chiefly as a failed presidential candidate who tumbled off a stage while flipping pancakes. Dobson is now America's most influential evangelical leader, with a following reportedly greater than that of either Falwell or Robertson at his peak.
This is one of the milder articles about him. The guy is a horrid individual, and is currently the nominal leader of the religious right, as stated. His power is immense and he does not hesitate to use it. I'm sure that Rapture Ready loves him.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2005 : 06:33:49 [Permalink]
|
Dobson is what I call the sneaky Christian Dominist. I've listened to quite a few of his radio shows and read quite a few articles on his website. So much of what he says sounds so reasonible and benign. Quite a bit of it, if you ignore his "Bibilical underpinnings" is even quite useful, such as his information on marriage and child rearing.
However behind it all, is a most sinister plan, that is really starting to come to the light now. His org. is behind a lot of the misinformation about homosexuals being circulated around. His org. is now the driving force to "reclaim" America for Christ and destroy the separation of Church & State.
What makes him so dangerous is his ability to sound "sane" and reasonable. His radio voice is calm and even handed, sounding like a wise grandfather. His motives are anything but wise. He doesn't scream and rant like a Robertson or a Falwell, with their fat little faces all squinched up. He doesn't have that deep fake sounding booming voice of a James D. Kennedy and more importantly he stays away from saying the really damning things most of the time.
Scary, freaking scary. |
|
|
|
Giltwist
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2005 : 09:34:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm sure that Rapture Ready loves him.
I've seen a lot of references to these folks. I'm a bit hesitant to go looking them up. I'm not sure I want to know what they get up to.
quote:
and destroy the separation of Church & State.
See, I don't know why people even keep up with that. Honestly, its probably the most misinterpreted policy of which I can think. It was intended to avoid a mandatory religion like the Anglican Church. These days, it seems to be used primarily as a Christianity-bashing device. Granted, I won't deny that the Church-at-Large doesn't deserve a lot of it, but I've never heard anyone using separation of church and state to defame use of a religious symbol like the yin-yang or the star & crescent. This is probably due to the fact that such things don't happen much. I'm just a big fan of the interpretation as the Right to Avert Your Eyes and the Right to Not Believe. If you don't like the penis on David, you can look away or say its pornographic, but you shouldn't try to hide it.
G. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2005 : 10:12:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Giltwist
See, I don't know why people even keep up with that. Honestly, its probably the most misinterpreted policy of which I can think. It was intended to avoid a mandatory religion like the Anglican Church. These days, it seems to be used primarily as a Christianity-bashing device. Granted, I won't deny that the Church-at-Large doesn't deserve a lot of it, but I've never heard anyone using separation of church and state to defame use of a religious symbol like the yin-yang or the star & crescent. This is probably due to the fact that such things don't happen much. I'm just a big fan of the interpretation as the Right to Avert Your Eyes and the Right to Not Believe. If you don't like the penis on David, you can look away or say its pornographic, but you shouldn't try to hide it.
You don't hear a lot of First Amendment issues with the yin-yang symbol or the star-and-crescent because there aren't a lot of Buddists or Muslims in the United States attempting to base the Federal Government upon religious laws.
On the other hand, we do have the Constitutional Party (who are looking to make South Carolina into a Biblical Law state real soon now), and the Christian Reconstructionists (who are eying the Federal Constitution instead of some lowly state). Everyone who thinks that current U.S. law is based upon the Ten Commandments, like Roy Moore, is actually a danger to the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom.
Separation of church and state is an important issue because this country is 80-something percent Christian, and the evangelical, Protestant radical population is growing, while the moderate minority is fading. Many of the far right-wing believe the country would be better off if it were illegal to be something other than their version of "Christian" (Morons and Catholics don't count), and given the way the demographics are going, there's a non-trivial possibility of that occuring.
Giltwist, if the nutcases in the OP get much more power, it's possible that your own, personal version of Christianity would be outlawed, as you don't appear to be nearly strident enough. It might be time for you to pay more attention to these issues. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bloody_peasant
Skeptic Friend
USA
139 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2005 : 11:09:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It was intended to avoid a mandatory religion like the Anglican Church.
This common misconception of the establishment clause is demonstratively false.
First the text of the establishment clause is broadly and generally worded and it clearly prohibits any laws that even respect the establishment of OF religion. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... They didn't just chose these words willy nilly like. They were heavily debated. Some wanted them struck as they saw them hostile to religion, but they lost the debate. Also "respect" and "establishment of religion" meant then, pretty much what we think it means now.
Note this clearly not only prohibits establishing a religion as you stated, but it also clearly prohibits any law that respects an establishment of religion. The OF is important here as it differs quite a bit if its A religion instead. It also generically implies religion, not a national religion, or a mandatory religion, or a specific religion, but just good old generic religion.
Another key part of this is that the free exercise clause points back to the establishment clause for its definition of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, Notice that if the first religion means national religion or mandatory religion, the free exercise clause and its thereof become quite weird in meaning. For example: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of mandatory religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,..." Quite different and quite weird in meaning.
Second one can look at the debates over the writing of the Bill of Rights, and there we find conclusive evidence of their intentions as well.
Original version of the establishment clauses actually were worded to mean national or mandatory religion. However these were all rejected for the more general text. The Senate reached this final version, Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.. The house never even considered a version that would imply your argument is true.
Since the senate and house versions differed, the inter-house committee formed and totally rejected this as Madison led the way by indicating the house "would not be satisfied with merely a ban on preference of one sect or religion over others." Note its critical here to see that at least in the Senate, versions were proposed that indicated a national or mandatory religion was the topic, but they lost. This would amount to looking at the dissenters position in Roe v. Wade and saying their original intents were to not allow abortions.
Third we can look at what some of the framers of the Constitution said and did. For instance Jefferson as President refused to make an official declaration of a day of prayer because he considered the establishment clause prohibited him from doing so. Madison wrote Memorial and Remonstrance to oppose tax support for Christian ministers in Virginia. There is too much good reading in this one text to discuss, so I'll post a link to enjoy if you wish, http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/memorial.htm Note he also won this debate.
Madison argued often that religion and civil government were to remain separate and that men were free of conscious and that to impose otherwise was to impose on this freedom. He would undoubtedly consider our tax exemption for clergy, our national pledge, our national day of prayer, and many other religious facets of our civil government impositions on the free conscious of men (and women) and thus a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Madison, "The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both,..." and "Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative." and "I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of Religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does not trespass on the private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite principle with me; and it was not with my approbation that the deviation from it took place in Congress, when they appointed chaplains, to be paid from the National Treasury."
Jefferson's famous letter to the Danbury Baptists, "Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State"
Finally note that the Christian Dominists, such as Dobson want to do the exact opposite of the intentions of the Constitution Framers. They want to usurp the state and claim America for Christ. By this they do not just merely mean to convert as many as possible, but instead to actually implement Christianity as the national religion, to force things such as the 10 Commandments in court houses, school prayer, outlaw gay marriage and even sodomy, etc.
Note this goes so far now that our President and at least a couple of our Supreme Court Justices (Scalia for sure) have turned the Constitution on its head. Scalia claims that the authority to create laws comes from God, not from the people of our Republic as intended. This leads to a form of tyranny of the people to the whims of those in power who "know" what God wants.
Edited to add:
None of this is Christian bashing as you stated. Christian citizens are free to pray as they want even in public, but the Constitution clearly states that government should not respect their religion just like it shouldn't respect Islam or Bhuddism. Our civil government was intended to draw its authority from the people and to remain a secular institution. |
| Edited by - bloody_peasant on 06/17/2005 11:14:44 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/17/2005 : 11:34:07 [Permalink]
|
Gil my friend, Dave has it right. We believe that we live in an enlightened age, and we do, mostly, but the basic, human beast hasn't changed a hell of a lot over the last eight or so centuries. Should the above-mentioned individuals, et al, gain the power they desire, you might well see your atheist aquaintances on trial for heresy; denounced by a favor-currying neighbor.
Well, perhaps it would be too soon to happen in our lifetimes, mine anyway, but happen it certainly can. Which is why you need to pay attention. Even now, these dogmatists are striving to undermine the Constitution of the United States and will go to any length to accomplish that end. And they are beginning to enjoy some success -- the Patriot Act, for example, might as well have been concieved in Nazi Germany.
The keystone of freedom is vigilance.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
