Comments for Frank Schaeffer: The Real Lesson Of Iran -- Beware America's Republican Mullahs »
Posted By chuck-the-canuck 6 months ago in Political NewsThe Republicans are faulting President Obama for not taking a "strong enough stand" in support of the freedom marchers in Iran. Yet if the Republican/Religious Right/Neoconservative agenda had come to full fruition over the last 35 years the Republicans would have plunged America into our own version of the misbegotten theocracy destroying Iran today. I know. As a former Religious Right leader I worked to make America "safe" for "Christian values" and dangerous to everyone else. Thankfully I, and those like me, failed.
Read Full Story at huffingtonpost.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 144
-
73%
antibrainwasher6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Mullah O'Reily and Mullah Hannity, tools of the grand Ahatolla Murdock, and the loyal lockstepping right wing trailer trash thugs listeners of faux noise, racist to the core, ignorant trash on their knees worshipping authority and the rich, hoping for some warm trickel down for their gaping maws, their call to prayer is the AM Oxy cotton radio and the glowing brainwashing of faux noise on their idiot boxes.
Reply
\
The faithfulo repug terrorist cells await their fatwahs from the murderer and terrorist Mullahs O'Reily and Hannity from Murdock's antiamerican noise.-
-
27%
Endoscopy6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Poor inti forgot to listen to the Ayatollah. He gave a speech and blasted the US just like Obama had trashed him. So it did not matter that Obama sounded meek and mild as far as that speech was concerned. But to the world he was Mr. Milktoast.
Reply
-
-
50%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow... Haven't been around here, but your utter brainwashing and attempts to further your own brainwashing are amazing... Knowing many Christians, I know that most do not want a theocrasy and would have stepped in to stop it.
Reply
"Thankfully I, and those like me, failed." and now freedom of relgion means bans on public prayers. It means any but Christain (or sometimes religions in general, but usually only Christian) displays are prohibited in public.
True freedom and following of the Constitution means the right to do what you say without government inteference. This goes for all aspects of life. Having government prohibit religion can never, in any rationalization, be considered freedom of religion.-
90%
Dionys6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Knowing many Christians, I know that most do not want a theocrasy and would have stepped in to stop it."
Reply
Just like they step in to stop the illegal and immoral proselytizing of US troops by evangelicals within the military on military and government time? Just like they make statements against those who murder doctors based on recent religious dogmatism? Just as they decry statements made by right-wing religious nutters about murdering the president? Just as they speak out about atrocities committed in the name of "holy war" or "crusades" in Iraq and the middle east?
I will agree that the majority of Christians likely don't want a theocracy. I'm not sure the majority would step in to stop one, as the majority of Christians haven't stepped in and stopped the infiltration of fundamentalists and self-proclaimed evangelicals within the Pentagon and other areas of government.-
22%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You take your own perspective and try to paint it onto your oponents.
Reply
They see the freedom of religion, protected under the US constitution, to include the right to prostheletize.
They see abortion as killing babies and so killing the killers as justified since the government will not do what should be done.
I didn't hear much about the threats to Obama, just not much for Bush, etc. In general, I don't hear anyone espousing assassinating government officials... Only the left or those in the Middle East call it a
Holy war although Bush and co screwed up calling it a crusade. Not sure wtf they were thinking... But if you assume the war was either justified in teh begining or that the US is there and needs to win and start with that basis, the war is being prosecuted more humanely than any in history. Excesses occur in war and the accused should be tried in a court of law and, if found guilty, punished.
But your idea of what defines a theocracy is so broad that you consider that if someone disagrees with your opinion that they want to overthrow the US or impose a theocracy. You take differences in opinion and use them to paint your opponents as radicals for simple differences in interpretation.
It also worries me that you suggest that evangelicals and fundamentalists are somehow inherrently or defined as being unaccpetable in the pentagon and other areas of government. Your broad brush certainly suggests that is your point of view.-
87%
Dionys6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"They see the freedom of religion, protected under the US constitution, to include the right to prostheletize."
Reply
Yet they rant and rave about constitutional law, conveniently forgetting the anti-establishment clause and laws set in place to prevent religion within the military? Yet they go on and on about Hitler and nationalism, yet embrace the same tactics?
"They see abortion as killing babies and so killing the killers as justified since the government will not do what should be done."
I understand the dogmatic belief that abortion is 'killing babies' despite Biblical passages to the contrary (Exo 21:22-23, Lev 27:6, Num, Hosea, et cetera). Killing the 'killer' is still murder no matter how you sell it and violates any number of tenets of Christianity and Christ's example.
"Holy war although Bush and co screwed up calling it a crusade. Not sure wtf they were thinking."
They called it a crusade multiple times. Bush said God told him to invade Iraq. Crypto-evangelicals talk about it being a holy war within the ranks all the time.
"But your idea of what defines a theocracy is so broad that you consider that if someone disagrees with your opinion that they want to overthrow the US or impose a theocracy."
Not at all. A Theocracy simply means, for me, that God is considered the supreme civic leader and that God's will is determined by a group of 'priests' of some sort of another and then forced down the throat of the people they rule over. It doesn't matter if it's someone who agrees with my 'opinion' or my tradition -- I don't want any kind of a theocracy.
"You take differences in opinion and use them to paint your opponents as radicals for simple differences in interpretation."
People who justify murder (as you did) through religious dogma ARE radicals, ARE dangerous. People who justify invading a country and then killing hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people because God told them to ARE radicals, ARE dangerous and are likely insane.-
14%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"laws set in place to prevent religion within the military?" Again, quote the Constituional basis for this.
Reply
"Yet they go on and on about Hitler and nationalism, yet embrace the same tactics?" I've missed those gas chambers. Please give links if you want to try to draw such a comparison.
Is it murder to kill someone trying to kill your child? To kill someone invading your country? To kill someone trying to blow up a daycare center or a children's hospital? You see it differently so you all people who think this way freaks or whatever.
Not sure about the "God told me". I'd have to see it in context. But then you bring up killing hundreds and hundreds of thousands. That number included everyone killed by gangs, by insurgents, as well as US soldiers. Your statement implies that the killing was either planned or at least no consideration was paid to keeping it as low as possible.-
90%
Progressive6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Not sure about the 'God told me'. I'd have to see it in context."
Reply
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03.ht... -
100%
Dionys6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
""laws set in place to prevent religion within the military?" Again, quote the Constituional basis for this."
Reply
Again read the anti-establishment clause. Again review the laws of our country upon which our country's reputation and standing in the world is based.
"Is it murder to kill someone trying to kill your child? To kill someone invading your country? To kill someone trying to blow up a daycare center or a children's hospital? You see it differently so you all people who think this way freaks or whatever."
It is murder to kill someone based on religious dogma.-
0%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So, if someone's religious beliefs say "thou shalt not kill" and they kill to prevent a murder (someone breaks into their house and wants to kill their kids) then he am guilty of murder because it agreed with this religious beleif? On the other hand, if you did not have this religious belief it would be justifiable.... Very odd morality you have there...
Reply
You can not take the establishment clause, read it, and honestly come to the conclusion you try to place onto it. Read it, not the lies that have been created around it.
-
-
-
-
-
91%
Dionys6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"It also worries me that you suggest that evangelicals and fundamentalists are somehow inherrently or defined as being unaccpetable in the pentagon and other areas of government. Your broad brush certainly suggests that is your point of view."
Reply
They're welcome wherever they want as long as they're not pushing their agenda, recruiting people by force of position to their cause, basing their decisions on religious dogma rather than law and lawful orders or trying to subvert the government -- which has been a stated goal of many self-proclaimed evangelicals. The same goes for liberal Universal Unitarians. I don't want them pushing their watered-down Christ by another name crapola either.-
14%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How do you subvert the government? It is reasonable to say that the election of Obama has subverted the government of Bush. Any change of government subverts the last government. If they win at the polls, they have upheld the democratic government. It is up to those with a differing philosophy to ensure that they do not win at the polls. There is NO PLACE in a democratic America for restrictions on thought and action (unless violent) and this path is subverting the government of the United States of America as established and agreed upon in the Constitution.
Reply-
100%
Progressive6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
sub·vert Pronunciation (sb-vûrt)
Reply
tr.v. sub·vert·ed, sub·vert·ing, sub·verts
1. To destroy completely; ruin: "schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community" (Alexander Hamilton).
2. To undermine the character, morals, or allegiance of; corrupt.
3. To overthrow completely: "Economic assistance ... must subvert the existing ... feudal or tribal order" (Henry A. Kissinger). See Synonyms at overthrow.-
25%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks, you proved my point very well.
Reply
OK, just re-read. That was a somewhat rhetorical question there. The question really is how, if they win an election, would the subvert the government which they took control of by legal means? This would be equivalent to saying the Barry subverted Bush.-
-
-
100%
Dionys6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But they're not trying to win an election. They're trying to force conversion within the lower ranks of the military from the higher ranks. They're spreading propaganda and lies based on new religious dogma formed out of the 'end of times' fantasy dreamed up in recent times to scare people into doing their will.
Reply-
-
-
-
100%
TheGrunt6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Apparently you don't know the definition of "proselytizing"...go ahead, look it up, I'll wait.
Reply
...
....
......
See?! It's not just saying something religious. Sorry, it's not agreeing to disagree...If you're still in disagreement, then you're disagreeing with the government, who admitted that proselytizing to subordinates is wrong. If you then say the government shouldn't stop them, then you're saying the government supports proselytizing...hence, making it a Theocracy...ergo, you're wrong...period, end of story.-
Neutral
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh, so since "the government' agreed to invade Iraq you're all for it? Don't EVER use "the government says so" as an argument. The number of things "the government" has done throughout history proves that to be a worthless argument.
Reply
pros·e·ly·tize (pr?s'?-l?-t?z')
v. pros·e·ly·tized, pros·e·ly·tiz·ing, pros·e·ly·tiz·es
v. intr.
1. To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.
2. To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.
v. tr.
To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another.
Persude: To lead or move, as to a course of action, by influence or persuasion. See Synonyms at persuade.
Dang! Nothing about forcing people. Talking to someone about religion is proselytizing.-
100%
Progressive6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Talking to someone about religion is proselytizing."
Reply
That's inaccurate. I can tell you that I have no religion and you can tell me that you do. We would be talking about religion, but neither of us would be proselytizing. If I try to get you to stop believing or you try to get me to believe as you do, that would be proselytizing.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is reasonable to say that the election of Obama has subverted the government of Bush.
Reply
The government of Bush no longer exists. The U.S. is now governed by the Obama administration.
It's not subversion, it's replacement, in accordance with the Constitution.
And again, no one is restricting thought or action, except in accordance with the 1st amendment's establishment clause.-
-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's not that Christians would subvert the government by winning elections, it's that those who would promote the Christian religion with the power of the government if they won would be subverting the Constitutional protection against government establishing religion. Not all Christians would do this--only the ones who see no problem with monuments to Christianity on public grounds, prayer in public schools, and other such goals of evangelicals.
Reply-
50%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your idea of freedom of religion differs from the idea that others have about the same topic from the same quote. You have set your opinion as unquestionable. The idea that allowing a nativity scene on public property or voluntary prayer in public schools is the same as establishing a religion is incomprehensible to me. Forcing people to worship at the nativity or forcing them to pray would be using the power of the government to establish a government religion. Allowing freedom of choice wasn't supposed to be the same as forcing that choice on a person, I thought.
Reply-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Everybody's opinion is questionable, in the sense that it can be debated.
Reply
In this case, the courts have backed the interpretation I subscribe to for years--since long before you were born. It is your opinion that is out of the mainstream, and, according to many learned judges whose job it is to protect the Constitution, incorrect.-
0%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
1. How old am I?
Reply
2. Not all "learned judges" agree.
3. "Learned judges" make collective, acknowledged and deliberate rulings that they know to be unconstitutional. Most of the civil rights laws based on the "past history of discrimination" to violate the Constitution. If you support this violation on the part of 7 (I think at the time) white men you have given up any semblance or interest in the Constutition and its supposed protections.-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
1) I don't know exactly how old you are, but I'm 99.99% certain you're not over 150.
Reply
2) Many learned judges agree. Most learned judges agree.
3) You're right--some learned judges make deliberate rulings that they know to be unconstitutional--like the one allowing "In God we trust" to be printed on money.
If you're going to argue strict constructionism, there's no point in debating you. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the judiciary sole authority to judge all cases in law and Equity," and its power to interpret the Constitution was solidified by Marbury v. Madison in 1803.-
0%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You either have strict constructionism or nothing. I couldn't care less about Marbury v Maidson since it is not in the Consitution.
Reply
The Consittuion was essentially a contract between "we the people" and the government. Now the government rewrites the contract at will. Hopefully you will see the awful power you are handing to these people before it is too late....-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I couldn't care less about Marbury v Maidson since it is not in the Consitution."
Reply
Then you clearly don't care about what the Constitution says, since the Constitution gives the courts the right to interpret and to judge cases having to do with the law.
As a strict constructionist, you don't get to pick and choose the parts of the Constitution you feel are acceptable.-
Neutral
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Untrue. They get to interpret, but it would seem obvious they can not take the text and go directly against it. Hmmm. Have to go look again. If you had a contract that said "Company A will fix your roof for $3000" and then they felt like changing it to say "Company A will fix your window for $100,000" and they claimed the right to annul your previous contract and replace it with the new one, you would see a problem. "The people" did not agree to the current interpretations making it not "interpreting" but "rewriting".
Reply
You comment about stict constructionist puts your own opinion and tries to force it on me. An equally as valid statement is that a revisionist (you agree with SCOTUS revising the Constitution at whim) you don't get to pick and choose what they are or are not allowed to revise. This dictates that you have zero protections since SCOTUS can revoke or add anything they like, any time they want. "you don't get to pick and choose the parts of the Constitution you feel are" sacrosanct.-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're right, I don't get to pick and choose anything about the Constitution.
Reply
The courts do. It is their power, according to the Constitution. Interpretations of the language of the Constitution vary, and where there are disputes, the courts decide--on the basis of their interpretation.
In addition, if Congress disagrees with the courts, they can write new legislation, or they can amend the Constitution if the amendment is ratified by enough state legislatures. This is how various branches of government have power over each other. It is explicitly written in the Constitution.
Why is this such a difficult concept for you to grasp?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
95%
TheRealizer6 months ago
-
18%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So, I realize this is current philosophy, but what is it based on? Where in the Constitution does it ACTUALLY say that?
Reply
I pose that it is not in that document and, therefore, does not have force of law. If you want this to be the supreme law of the land, you have the option to follow the procedures specified in that document to amend the constitution.-
91%
Dionys6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I pose that it is not in that document and, therefore, does not have force of law"
Reply
1st amendment prohibits making of laws "respecting the establishment of religion"
http://users.aristotle.net/~hantley/hiedlegl/const...-
29%
KISA452a6 months ago
-
fishifanbComment removed: Spam
-
-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's right, KISA, government should not take a stance.
Reply
That's why allowing religious organizations to use public schools or to allow organized prayer on their grounds, or to place "In God we trust" on money, or to promote religion of any kind on any government land is in violation of the 1st amendment--it amounts to an implicit endorsement of the message on government property.-
0%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Implicit endorsement, vs explict opposition. Government should stay silent. No law should allow or disallow an action based on it being religious if it would otherwise be legal. Groups should be able to place a religious statue if they can place a non-religious statue. They should be able to meet if they could have a non-religious meeting. Religious can not legally be considered as a positive or negative.
Reply-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry. The Constitution does not distinguish between implicit and explicit endorsement. The judicial branch gets to decide what constitutes establishment of religion.
Reply
Non-religious statues are not a statement for or against religion. They don't address religion in any way.
To argue that it's similar to an endorsement of atheism is ridiculous. It's akin to saying that any statement that doesn't say "America is the best nation on Earth" is equivalent to one saying America is not the best nation on Earth.-
-
-
Neutral
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
" implied, rather than expressly stated:" If it is not stated, then you have to make it up, usually called interpreting. But if it is implicit than each person will have a different opinion of what it means, ie they make up their own opinion of what it means.
Reply
They were never given the power to stray from the written word of the Constitution.-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"But if it is implicit than each person will have a different opinion of what it means, ie they make up their own opinion of what it means."
Reply
Disputes about the meaning must be resolved. That's why the courts were given the power to judge what the language of the Constitution means.
-
-
-
-
-
100%
sinophil496 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
KISA - "Groups should be able to place a religious statue if they can place a non-religious statue."
Reply
Are you saying that government officials can have a statue of Buddha in the Capitol rotunda? How about a statue of Shiva on the White House lawn? Or a statue of Odin on the other end of the Reflecting pool from the Lincoln Memorial?
Can you see where this can lead to a multitude of competing demands by different religions? Which ones would be allowed or disallowed?
No. This is not something that the government simply stays "silent." Teligion is a matter that the government should simply NOT get involved in. Period.-
Neutral
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Are you saying that government officials can have a statue of Buddha in the Capitol rotunda? How about a statue of Shiva on the White House lawn? Or a statue of Odin on the other end of the Reflecting pool from the Lincoln Memorial?"
Reply
Yes.
"Can you see where this can lead to a multitude of competing demands by different religions? Which ones would be allowed or disallowed?"
Ah, so it would be complicated so ban it. OK...-
100%
sinophil496 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How would you then satisfy aetheists who deny the existence of ANY God? Putting up any god statue would violate their religious belief. The erecting of a statue by any governmental body or the allowing of it implies endorsement by the government.
Reply
Escaping government endorsed, supported, or imposed religion was the very reason the colonists came across on the Mayflower
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I pose that it is not in that document and, therefore, does not have force of law."
Reply
Traffic laws are also not in the Constitution, but they have the force of law.
In fact, they are laws, created by various governmental entities and given their power by the fact that the Constitution allows Congress and states to enact laws.-
-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
-
0%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you consider legal to be what judges say. I consider legal to be the written law. You give unlimited power to the judges. I say their power should be limited by the written law they are charged with enforcing and have sworn to protect. We simply have different philosophies I guess.
Reply
For tunately I'm not a judge. I would not be able to lie about the law as effectively as you seem to demand and would not have the morals to steal power from "the people" at whim. You seem to be saying that is a pre-requisite.-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution:
Reply
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A3Sec2
What makes you think you can ignore Art. III Sec. 2 of the Constitution, Mr. Strict Constructionist?
Courts are explicitly given the right to judge laws, as stated in the Constitution. Their power is not unlimited, but their power to judge the law as written is.-
-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, the courts judge according to the words of the Constitution. They get to interpret it, in cases where there is a dispute about what the words of the Constitution mean.
Reply
The Constitution was written over 200 years ago, and there is much disagreement (as evidenced here) about what it means. The courts are the final arbiter.
If Congress disagrees, they can write another law. If the people disagree with what the courts say, they can get Congress to write an amendment to the Constitution and state legislatures to ratify that amendment.
This is how the government works. The process was set up by the very Constitution you so ardently defend. -
-
-
-
100%
TheGrunt6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"...For tunately I'm not a judge. I would not be able to lie about the law as effectively as you seem to demand and would not have the morals to steal power from "the people" at whim..."
Reply
1. I agree, and I am thankful.
2. Then how do you explain the excellence you shown in doing it thus far?
3. From what I've read, it looks like you'd do it as easily as taking a breath...but I agree that you wouldn't do it on a whim...it would be intentional.
Sheesh...I've seen black holes that weren't as dense....have you ever noticed light bending in your presence?
Just sayin' -
-
-
-
-
-
-
92%
willottica-246 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Feedom of religion should aiso reciprocate to freedom FROM religion. So does freedom to be ugly mean that the reciprocal freedom to not have to look at ugly people should also exist?
Reply
You're free to be ugly, as long as no one has to look at you?
Freedom of religion means that you should be able to practice your religion, wherever and whenever you want. As long as its personal, you shouldn't be able to push it on others, because that would subvert their own freedom of religion.-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned3 Replies
-
100%
toph19736 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As far as I'm concerned this is where freedom of speech needs to be extended to not only the government but citizens as well. If someone comes to my house to try and convert me to whatever "religion" they are selling, that as an atheist I should have the right to sue that person for a violation of the first amendment. I don't come to the church preaching "there is no god.". I think that it is reprehenseble that people think they have the right to do that.
Reply-
100%
willottica-246 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Really? They knocked on your door! Do you think you should be able to sue the Avon lady or the Fuller Brush girl? How about the boyscouts when they're collecting bottles?
Reply
Don't want to listen, use your peephole and don't open the door to strangers... or don't even bother to go to it when you're not expecting visitors. -
100%
TheRealizer6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hell toph cut them a little slack, they are just there to get you to donate to their gravy train....think of the mass starvation if all tiths were cut off, preachers would actually need to go to work.....I consider preaching the worlds OLDEST profession!
Reply -
100%
smithichie6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
toph, instead of filing a lawsuit, how about explaining your atheism to folks who sell their religion door to door? I have found it to be quite enjoyable to the point I invite them in coffee, on the rare occassions a religious salesperson finds themselves at my door.
Reply
-
-
-
-
25%
dBergeron6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This Schaeffer guy really is a paranoid moron. Talk about hatemongering right wingers, eh? This guy is a classic example of what he is writing against. He just represents the other side. The hate that oozes from the Dems far outweighs the hate that they describe on the right.
Reply
I must say it again. You guys won the election!!!! What's the problem?!? You have the White House. You have Congress. But, still you seethe this hate. Is it because you know that it will not last? Is it because you realize what you have done to this country? What is it?-
-
22%
Endoscopy6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Little chuckie. Just read his article and the illusion in his mind that he tries to paint if things had gone different in elections. That is hate speech. That is the trouble with liberals. They create illusions and then use them to say that is reality.
Reply -
91%
chuck-the-canuck6 months ago
-
-
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned5 Replies
-
-
-
-
89%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
dBergeron:
Reply
"This Schaeffer guy" is a founder of the Religious Right movement. And he knows many of the leaders personally. Maybe you missed this section from the article:
The Religious Right has been awash in anti-democratic (even anti-American) religious ideologues for the better part of 40 years. For instance I knew the founders of the so-called dominionist or "reconstruction" wing of our movement personally, people like the late Reverend Rousas John Rushdoony the father of "Christian Reconstructionism" and the modern Christian home school movement.
Rushdoony (who I met and talked with many times) believed that interracial marriage, which he referred to as "unequal yoking", should be made illegal. He also opposed "enforced integration", referred to Southern slavery as "benevolent", and said that "some people are by nature slaves". Rushdoony was also a Holocaust denier. And yet his home school materials are a mainstay of the evangelical home school movement to this day!
Rushdoony's 1973 opus, The Institutes of Biblical Law, says that fundamentalist Christians must "take control of governments and impose strict biblical law" on America and the world. That would mean the death penalty for "practicing homosexuals."
Many evangelical leaders deny holding Reconstructionist beliefs but Beverly and Tim LaHaye (of Concerned Women for Americaand the "Left Behind" novels that glorify religious violence), Donald Wildmon (American Family Association) and the late D. James Kennedy (Coral Ridge Ministries) -- served alongside Rushdoony on the secretive Coalition for Revival, a group formed in 1981 to "reclaim America for Christ." I went to the early meetings. I first met Tim LaHaye at one such meeting. And what Dobson, Falwell et al were pushing, and what the "tea parties" and Fox News are all about today, is one or another version of the Rushdoony/theocracy version of the Iranian mullahs American-style.-
85%
Dionys6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Rushdoony's 1973 opus, The Institutes of Biblical Law, says that fundamentalist Christians must "take control of governments and impose strict biblical law" on America and the world. That would mean the death penalty for "practicing homosexuals.""
Reply
It sounds like Palin's groups. -
0%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is true that this is parnoia... The idea that not wanting more taxes given to the federal government to promote a specific philosophy (tea parties) is a deliberate attempt to promote the Reconstructionist philosophy is laughable. Fox News generally says Democrats stink and, to a lesser extent, republicans stink. Unfortunately, they are becoming more and more the mouthpiece of the republicans. Ah, for the concept of an independent media...
Reply
Throwing in the names of people and saying "Beverly and Tim LaHaye (of Concerned Women for Americaand the "Left Behind" novels that glorify religious violence), Donald Wildmon (American Family Association) and the late D. James Kennedy (Coral Ridge Ministries) -- served alongside Rushdoony on the secretive Coalition for Revival, a group formed in 1981 to "reclaim America for Christ." I went to the early meetings. I first met Tim LaHaye at one such meeting." gives the obivous impression, without stating it explicitly (maybe it is explicit elsewhere) that they still hold all of the most radical beliefs of that movement.
Truth be told, most Christians are mainstream Americans and will not accept a theocracy. The continual efforts to supress and alienate Christians is the only possible way for the radicals to gain enough converts to seriously affect policy.-
100%
fishifanb6 months ago
-
0%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"If not allowing you to force your beliefs on me is suppression, I'm all for it." Democracy means sometimes "I win" to quote some recent person... Or maybe you feel as strongly against the current adminstration?
Reply
Changing from status quo (or antequo, whatever,lol) to decrease religion is taking government action on the establishment and practice of religion.-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No one is trying to "decrease religion." No one is telling you you can't practice your religion and can't speak about it. All anyone is saying--all we've ever said--is that you can't use government resources and property to promote it. Who's paranoid?
Reply-
0%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Attempts to remove "In God we trust". Attempts (many successful) to keep religious groups out of schools when other groups are allowed. Attempts (in many cases successful) to prevent voluntary prayer. These are just a few examples of decreasing religion. You could argue that they should not have been allowed in the past and you might be right. You can not argue that these actions are not a decrease in religion.
Reply-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"In God we trust" is a clear violation of the establishment clause. It establishes a belief in God as fundamental principle.
Reply
Even the Supreme Court, in allowing that motto on our money, held that it's acceptable only because the motto is essentially meaningless as a religious statement--the Court decided it was more traditional than religious in meaning--a truly contorted justification that in itself should be problematic for religious people.
Voluntary prayer in schools, so long as it's not organized, is permitted. The other groups you speak of are not religious. If they are, they should not be allowed in schools.
None of this is "decreasing religion." You are permitted to exercise your religion, so long as you don't use government resources or property to do so. And the "status quo" you mentioned? For years, before the rise of the religious right, the status quo was to keep public schools and government secular. It was not until the past few dacades that religion was "increased."
Will you be happy when Satanists decide to exercise the 1st amendment right you use to justify your evangelism to organize prayers at schools and displays on government property? Or will you call it "decreasing religion"?-
0%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"a truly contorted justification that in itself should be problematic for religious people." true.
Reply
It used to be allowable religious expression. It no longer is. As I said, you can say allowing it in the past was wrong, you can not argue it did not exist and has now been removed.
"For years, before the rise of the religious right, the status quo was to keep public schools and government secular. It was not until the past few dacades that religion was "increased."" You could even be right, but you have just said that these religious actions were allowable and are now being removed...
"Will you be happy when Satanists decide to exercise the 1st amendment right you use to justify your evangelism to organize prayers at schools and displays on government property? Or will you call it "decreasing religion"?" Will it be constitutional? According to the document, it will be legal.
If you do not like religious freedom, change the Constitution. If you just suppress religion at whim, you have invalidated the Constitution and can never trust it again. The idea of "Constitutionally protected rights" is null and void.-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Again, KISA, "In God we trust" is still allowable relgious expression.
Reply
Just not on money issued by the government.
Regarding your statement about religious actions that were allowable and are being removed--they were made allowable recently, and most would agree, unconstitutionally. That's why they're being removed.
I'm fine with religious freedom. But promotion of religion by the government, even of a non-denominational God, is unconstitutional. The judiciary has the right to review of laws to determine what does and does not violate the Constitution, and the preponderance of legal precedent has held such.-
0%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"and most would agree, unconstitutionally." Not sure at least teh 70 million evangelicals would agree with you...
Reply
So, you pose that saying nothing about a topic is promotion (ie, letting people do what they want. If a non-religious speech can be given then a religious one can be given), but prohibiting religious expresison exclusively (I suspect you don't think that no statues cna be on public grounds, you only have a problem with religious ones) is neutral... Sorry, that is non-sense.-
83%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
70 million? That is not a majority in this country.
Reply
And no, I don't say that government's remaining neutral is promotion. As I said in another comment, government's allowing promotion of religion on its grounds is not remaining neutral--it's an implicit endorsement of that religion.
A non-religious speech is not promoting atheism--it's neutral, saying nothing either way. As you said elsewhere, it's the government shutting up.
The courts agree with me, and always have.-
0%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The courts agree with me, and always have." Good thing "In God we trust" in not on our money, prayer was never required in public school, cngress does not start with prayer, religious imagry has always been banned from the public square...
Reply
Passing a law that says "Anyone can meet here, unless it is for religious purposes" is not neutral to religion.-
100%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're right--not all courts have interpreted the 1st the way I do.
Reply
And as you say, not all courts have been correct in the past. You admitted earlier that you disagree with the way the Supreme Court justified allowing "In God we trust" to appear on currency.-
0%
KISA452a6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"You're right--not all courts have interpreted the 1st the way I do." They also interpreted slavery as legal so don't bother telling me I have to believe something obviously wrong just because some folks in black robes said it. Sounds like religious brainwashing to me...
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
smithichie6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Will you be happy when Satanists decide to exercise the 1st amendment right you use to justify your evangelism to organize prayers at schools and displays on government property? Or will you call it "decreasing religion"?" Will it be constitutional? According to the document, it will be legal".
Reply
Students in public schools are free to organize prayer groups of any sort, the line is crossed when it's teachers, coaches, staff, ie. representatives of the State, doing that organizing.
http://www.adherents.com/misc/fed_guidelines.html-
-
100%
smithichie6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A graduation ceremony is not a prayer group, in most cases. A prayer group is a gathering of folks all wanting to pray, that is not the case for a graduation ceremony.
Reply
Here are some court rulings on the subject, but I didn't see the case you brought up, but there are similar examples the courts have decided on. If you can keep your prayer fairly secular and non-specific, it should be acceptable for the captive audience at a graduation ceremony.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_prae.htm -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
83%
mesodude6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Talk about hatemongering right wingers, eh? This guy is a classic example of what he is writing against. He just represents the other side. The hate that oozes from the Dems far outweighs the hate that they describe on the right."
Reply
--That's your problem right there...Cons *won't* "talk about hatemongering right wingers." All you ever do is claim that the left is just as bad or worse. That's more or less the scope of con arguments in a nutshell. When you're ready to discuss the issue maturely (i.e. by openly and honestly acknowledging what right wing extremists have done), then we'll take you people seriously. Right now, no one does.
"I must say it again. You guys won the election!!!! What's the problem?!? You have the White House. You have Congress. But, still you seethe this hate."
--LOL...You say that as if no one has any idea Limbaugh, Bachmann, Hannity, Gingrich, Beck, Coulter, et al are feeding cons a steady diet of hatred and fear each day. Surely you're not *that* unstable, dBergeron? You need to be asking yourselves. A little over 8 years ago, some sleazy, hypocritical serial adulterer cons (who are now your party's heroes) convinced gullible Americans you were the of family values. Then, largely by engaging in the very behavior over which Iran is currently in turmoil, you stole into the White House, spent 8 years f*cking our country up beyond all recognition and now you're trying to destroy the country even more. You people are greedy, arrogant and delusional and you really need to stop this silly pinhead routine. It's tiresome. Our country is in trouble because criminally irresponsible and dangerously uneducated cons steered us into a ditch. You need to back the hell up and give our President room to clean up this disastrous neocon-sponsored sh*tstorm Bush and Cheney left behind. Stop acting crazy, cons.-
0%
dBergeron6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey Meso, for some reason my reply to you did not post. So, let's try this again, shall we?
Reply
That's your problem right there...Cons *won't* "talk about hatemongering right wingers." All you ever do is claim that the left is just as bad or worse. That's more or less the scope of con arguments in a nutshell. When you're ready to discuss the issue maturely (i.e. by openly and honestly acknowledging what right wing extremists have done), then we'll take you people seriously.
Ok, let's talk maturely about it. The "hatemongering right wingers" do not represent my views. I am not certain as to what you think my association with those people may be. There are plenty of examples of people who have done outrageous things for the sake of their political beliefs. But, the left certainly has their fair share of "hatemongering" going on, too. How about the members of Code Pink? Or perhaps those who rallyed around Cindy Sheehan? Or, maybe Randi Rhodes and her wish on Air America that someone would assasinate Bush? So, no one takes my side seriuosly?
LOL...You say that as if no one has any idea Limbaugh, Bachmann, Hannity, Gingrich, Beck, Coulter, et al are feeding cons a steady diet of hatred and fear each day.
So, comrade, how about the steady diet from the left by the likes of Couric, Williams, Matthews, Rather, Colbert, Stewart, et al? Theirs is a steady stream of just how warm and fuzzy the Dems agenda is and how anyone who may oppose those views are out of step. As for family values, I have heard numerous Dems profess "family values". So, that is shared BS political rhetoric. So, it took Bush 8 year to f*ck our country up beyond all recognition? It seems that your a-hole is going to do it in less than 6 months. If you are so generous, then why don't you go right ahead and pay for someone's health insurance out of your pocket? If you are so humble, then why all the tirades about how awful my opinion may be? If you are so clear of mind, then why has the economy continued to sour regardless of O's stimulus package?
You guys never backed off of Bush. Why should we back off on Obama? Bush left us a real turd, that's for sure. But, your boy is just smearing it around. When just one of his plans proves to be successful, then perhaps I may step back a bit. But, from what I see, Chrysler and GM both failed after the bailout. How many financial institutions failed after their bailouts? Nothing like throwing good money after bad, eh?
This is all going to play itself to your disadvantage and you know it. This is O's mess now. It no longer belongs to Bush/Cheney.-
Neutral
mesodude6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The "hatemongering right wingers" do not represent my views. I am not certain as to what you think my association with those people may be."
Reply
--You can't be serious. You began by labeling Schaeffer a "paranoid moron" and ended the same paragraph with an unsubstantiated claim that Dems are "far" worse hate mongers than right wingers are. From there it went downhill.
"But, the left certainly has their fair share of "hatemongering" going on, too. How about the members of Code Pink? Or perhaps those who rallyed around Cindy Sheehan? Or, maybe Randi Rhodes and her wish on Air America that someone would assasinate Bush? So, no one takes my side seriuosly?"
--You're already backtracking. You clearly suggested that the left was far worse than the right and now you tone it down to "their fair share." What happened? Anyway, again, you cannot possibly be serious. Who on the left has been going into churches and museums with shotguns murdering right wingers? What does the left have that's comparable to Limbaugh and FOX? You named Randi Rhodes. But for every Randi Rhodes, the right has a Michelle Malkin AND an Ann Coulter. Name all the Dems in Congress who are going around saying the despicable things that people like Virginia Foxx and Michele Bachman have been saying. Dems had concerns about John Roberts' racial views. Did they line up in a chorus and say they knew he was a racist because of a single case or one thing he said?FOX is devoted to attacking Obama 24-7 What network attacked Bush 24 hours per day?
"You guys never backed off of Bush. Why should we back off on Obama?"
--That's as far as I needed to read. This is not only an admission that you were disingenuous from the beginning ("oh dear...how could anyone *ever* think *I* am like *those* far right wing hate mongers?! Clutch the pearls!") but this is the epitome of the neocon mentality. This is all a joke and it's all about tit for tat for you people.-
Neutral
dBergeron6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Meso,
Reply
There is no talking "maturely" with you, comrade. I guess that it is people just like you who are going to drag this country into the throws of communism. So, enjoy your majority position for now. It won't last long. Your anger and rage will lul you to sleep each night until you die. I hope that your life goes well for you. You are a narrow minded fool who can only talk in circles that lead back your senseless talking points. You are just as guilty of your own leftist misgivings as many that you criticize on the right. So, you hang out with your liberal crowd and talk about those things that get you off. Don't pollute my days with your hate-filled jabs at the right. I just don't understand why you are so filled with hate. I thought that the libs had warm and fuzzy feelings for everyone. I thought that you were the party that welcomed ideas from both sides of the aisle.
-
-
-
-
-
-
22%
lloydm656 months ago
-
-
87%
willottica-246 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's an interesting take to be posted in a comment filled with grammatical, punctuation, and spelling mistakes.
Reply
My personal take is that if you're a liberal at 30 (or 50, or 70) you've decided that you prefer stupid over evil.
The Liberals certainly have people who do stupid things... they come up with "solutions" that cause more problems than they solve, and tend to be a little too quick to jump on the popular cause (ex: ethanol fuel). On the other hand the Conservatives have a lot of evil people (or if not evil, at least completely self-serving) who will do anything or say anything to stay in power.
If the Conservatives would abandon their oppressive religious conservatism and let people (even minorities!) be themselves, then they would be much easier for many to support. If they would value life enough to stop their unflinching support for war (and the military-industrial complex which it benefits), then I might be able to support them.
Similarly, it would do the liberals some good to be more financially responsible - think things through a little more in terms of the effects of their 'causes celebres' before trying to push them through.-
86%
NoWayMan6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
almost gave you a pos. but kept reading and....no.
Reply
especially that last part. go back, research. you'll see that, historically, the markets and the overall economy perform better under the dems.
and everyone needs to remember that most of the money being thrown around today by our govt was approved by Bush, not Obama.-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned4 Replies
-
-
sonofreasonComment removed: Hard Banned2 Replies
-
-
90%
mesodude6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"My take is if your still liberal at thirty you have a intellect deficiency,to stupid to get a job,and hold it,or you believe the world owes you something."
Reply
---Did anyone else hear scary, horror movie violins playing while reading this? Maybe it sounded something like this?:
http://www.imeem.com/people/ox9yFzz/music/SxEGK7r7... -
92%
NoWayMan6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
is that why most people with advanced degrees over 30 identify as liberals?
Reply
you know lloyd, you could just stay quiet and we wouldn't know if you were smart or stupid. but every time you type stuff like that, you erase all doubt and its very clear to us that you simply ain't the brightest bulb in the bunch. -
-
100%
frctm56 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What I find amusing about this as well is that the cons are always complaining about the liberal elite. It is the right that is passionately anti-intellectual. It is the right that includes among their constituents those who believe the earth is only 6000 years old and that the bible is literally true. It is the right that depends upon gun toting, toothless, red necks for their populist element and for whom they must dumb down and simplify their message to cereal third grade reading level. It is the right that is anti-science and accuses anyone who suggest that the environment is in trouble of being a hippy or a socialist. Intellectuals are characterized as elite, effeminate, and out of touch. In other words, if you have brains, you're a wuss. But only an intellectually challenged con would buy this and buy it they do.
Reply
-
-
94%
fishifanb6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, Bush did tell Palestinian leaders that God told him personally to invade Afganistan and Iraq http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/sto...
Reply
The man hears "voices." Isn't this usually considered a sign of mental illness?
I was also raised within the evangelical movement and know from experience that the author is sincere. There really are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Americans who have gleefully allowed themselves to be indoctrinated to the belief that they, and only they, are God's annointed few. They feel it is their duty to impose their vision of righteousness on the rest of us, by whatever means necessary.
I came away very dissillusioned with religion in general.
Keep your invisible friends to yourself!
I'll take rational thought over blind faith in religious leaders (pastor, mulluh, priest = no difference) any day.-
-
-
DionysComment removed: Spam
-
-
-
-
-
-
90%
Beau78906 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's a little background on "this Frank Schaeffer guy."
Reply
In the late 1970s my evangelical pro-life leader father Francis Schaeffer and Dr. C. Everett Koop (who soon become Surgeon General in the Reagan administration) went on the road with me taking the documentary antiabortion film series I produced and directed ( Whatever Happened to the Human Race?) to the evangelical public. The series and companion book eventually brought millions of heretofore non-political evangelical Americans into the antiabortion crusade. We personally also got people like Jerry Falwell, Ronald Reagan and countless Republican leaders involved in the "issue."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/how-...
He used to be one of you, before he came to his senses. -
-
-
92%
NoWayMan6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
funny to see all the cons spinning spinning spinning.
Reply
truth is, in the situation in Iran, its the far right (cons) who are the problem and who are fixing elections, and its the moderates who want change and who the entire world is rooting for.
more proof this world is sick and tired of extremists, of all stripes, especially the "far right" variety, which is causing most of the problems in the world today.
so go ahead cons, spin.-
0%
Klarissa6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
'ppendix: Leftwing Extremists
Reply
The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines leftwing extremists as
groups or individuals who embrace radical elements of the anarchist, animal rights, or
environmental movements and are often willing to violate the law to achieve their
objectives. Many leftwing extremist groups are not hierarchically ordered with defined
members, leaders, or chain of command structures but operate as loosely-connected
underground movements composed of “lone wolves,” small cells, and splinter groups.
Animal rights and environmental extremists seek to end the perceived
abuse and suffering of animals and the degradation of the natural environment
perpetrated by humans. They use non-violent and violent tactics that, at times,
violate criminal law. Many of these extremists claim they are conducting these
activities on behalf of two of the most active groups, the Animal Liberation Front
and its sister organization, the Earth Liberation Front. Other prominent groups
include Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty; and chapters within the Animal
Defense LeagueUSPER, and Earth First!USPER.
The Anarchist extremists generally embrace a number of radical
philosophical components of anticapitalist, antiglobalization, communist,
socialist, and other movements. Anarchist groups seek abolition of social,
political, and economic hierarchies, including Western-style governments and
large business enterprises, and frequently advocate criminal actions of varying
scale and scope to accomplish their goals. Anarchist extremist groups include
entities within CrimethincUSPER, the Ruckus SocietyUSPER ,and Recreate 68 USPER.-
100%
NoWayMan6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
and?
Reply
nothing you cut and pasted changes anything I said.
the conservative extremists of this world are the big problem. and everybody knows it.
as far as I know, the earth liberation front hasn't hijacked any planes and killed thousands of people. that was done by an ultra-conservative group.
and I've never heard of any of those groups you included at the end who are supposed "anarchist extremist groups." ruckus society? whatever.
but I have heard of...
al qaeda
the neocons
hamas
hezbollah
islamic jihad
etc etc etc
all far right extremist groups. all in the headlines. all a major problem for the rest of us, the vast majority of us, who want to get along, accept the other, and live in peace.
-
-
-
100%
sinophil496 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I find it ironic that so many right-wingers demand that Obama make stronger statements or actions against Iran to condemn the election results and help overturn the results.
Reply
It was precisely the same right-wingers who wailed and gnashed their teeth when the Germans, French, Canadians, many of the Latin American and the Muslim countries made positive comments about Obama during the campaign and against McCain. They said that all these foreign countries and leaders had no right to meddle in American politics and couldn't vote anyway.
Now they want our government to meddle in the internal affairs of another sovereign nation.
Hypocritical. Cynical. Self-serving. Colonialistic. Short-sighted. Arrogant. These are just a few of the adjectives that seem to fit the right-wing mentality. -
Sane4kaComment removed: Hard Banned
loading ...
Submit a Story
Advertisement
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.