http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1383229/posts

This is theocracy in the making.  The religious right and their bottomless self-pity complex have determined "people" of faith are being singled out for filibuster. They are clouding the issue once again. 
It is not the "faith" of Bush's nominees for judgeships and for administrative posts that is ever in doubt.  The question is are they willing to do things like uphold the 14th Amendment and not inspire the other nations of the world to hate us.  It is on these questions folks such as Judge Janince Rogers Brown and John Bolton fall flat on their faces!
The want to turn everything into a fight over who believes in God.  That's pretty low!

Yes, with the Repubs holding the majority in congress, beholden to th religious right, we are in danger of secoming a theocracy.  There is hope, however, that this round of the cultural war will not go to the fanatics.  And there is another election (scheduled) for 2006.  If it doesn't happen. I will buy the  biggest gun I can find, and as much ammunition as I can afford.  In that case, let the revolution begin.

That's just the first phase of the coup.  The heathens are only the first against the wall.  The heretics are next.  Of course, those heretics who are helping round up the heathens don't know they're the heretics... yet.  Sadly, by the time they find out they are not among the "chosen few," it will be too late.  The heathens, who would have added to their strength and numbers by standing side by side with them on the front lines, will be gone and they'll be pitted against one another, divided in strenght and number by denomination and sect, each standing alone, each fighting for survival and each doomed before the battles begin.   




First the Nazis came for the Communists; and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews; and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. When they came for the trade unionists I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a trade unionist. And when they came for the Catholics I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me... and by that time there was no one left to speak for anyone.

-Attributed to Pastor Martin Niemoeller




Cat

First the Nazis came for the Communists; and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews; and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. When they came for the trade unionists I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a trade unionist. And when they came for the Catholics I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me... and by that time there was no one left to speak for anyone.

-Attributed to Pastor Martin Niemoeller




Cat


And in the modern version, yet to play out:

First they came for the independent judiciary....

And in the modern version, yet to play out:

First they came for the independent judiciary....


Then they cam for the indfependant press...

Then they cam for the indfependant press...


Independent press? You mean they still exist?




Cat

Independent press? You mean they still exist?




Cat


Well...sort of, but I get your point.  So, let the revolution begin.

Makes me wonder... is there a truly secular nation anywhere to which I can emigrate? One that doesn't bar people from having their own faiths, but actively prohibits any form of organized religion?

Assuming a democratic framework, I'm not sure it would really matter all that much to me, since any person elected to govern will have his/her own beliefs, whether they be 'secular' ones or 'religious' ones, and those beliefs can't help but shape their views of how the society should function.  And I'll either agree or disagree with their views on each subject. 

If an atheist has views that are at odds with mine, I'll feel no more or less 'oppressed' by those views than if they were the views of a religious person.  To me, a person's perspective is his or her perspective, whether it's dictated by their faith, political ideology, economic background, gender, social class, sexual orientation, ethnic background, intellectual bent, type of education or whatever else.  Either I'll agree with them, or I'll disagree.  I don't think I'd invalidate someone's idea simply on the basis of it being 'religious' in origin; each idea should be evaluated on its own merits.

Assuming a democratic framework
I don't think I'd invalidate someone's idea simply on the basis of it being 'religious' in origin; each idea should be evaluated on its own merits.


For sure!  That's the intellectual marketplace.  But that is not what we are seeing.  We are seeing a whole s..tload of cowtowing to the fundamenatalists who would impose their Calvinist Christianity on the rest of us. 

For sure!  That's the intellectual marketplace.  But that is not what we are seeing.  We are seeing a whole s..tload of cowtowing to the fundamenatalists who would impose their Calvinist Christianity on the rest of us. 


Well, my point was that everyone natually lobbies to have their perspective represented -- I wouldn't have it any other way.  Well, of course, to be honest, I'd love it if everyone just agreed with me, and if the world operated according to my own perspective, but I realize that that's just arrogant.  To my mind, its not corrupt or invalid for some group to lobby to have their principles represented simply because the principles are rooted in Calvinist Christianity vs. atheistic liberalism or atheistic conservatism or athetistic moderatism, or whatever else.  I may disagree with their ideas, but that doesn't mean I feel it's somehow corrupt for them to lobby for them. 

I don't see how secular morality and principles are any more or less valid that those based on 'faith'.  Many abolitionists were people of faith who viewed slavery as a violation of the fundamental laws of a divine being.  Many others abolitionists were atheists/secularists, who viewed slavery as a violation of basic 'human rights' or 'democratic principles' or however they might put it.  You could certainly say that they were 'imposing' their will on those who felt otherwise.  But I'm not sure how else it's supposed to work.

Well, my point was that everyone natually lobbies to have their perspective represented -- I wouldn't have it any other way.  Well, of course, to be honest, I'd love it if everyone just agreed with me, and if the world operated according to my own perspective, but I realize that that's just arrogant.  To my mind, its not corrupt or invalid for some group to lobby to have their principles represented simply because the principles are rooted in Calvinist Christianity vs. atheistic liberalism or atheistic conservatism or athetistic moderatism, or whatever else.  I may disagree with their ideas, but that doesn't mean I feel it's somehow corrupt for them to lobby for them. 

I don't see how secular morality and principles are any more or less valid that those based on 'faith'.  Many abolitionists were people of faith who viewed slavery as a violation of the fundamental laws of a divine being.  Many others abolitionists were atheists/secularists, who viewed slavery as a violation of basic 'human rights' or 'democratic principles' or however they might put it.  You could certainly say that they were 'imposing' their will on those who felt otherwise.  But I'm not sure how else it's supposed to work.

If it was truly by the will of the people, that would be one thing.  However, there is no evidence that the theocratic American Fascist Party (Republican) won the last two Presidential elections by any method other than administrative flim-flam.

Leo, you're completely missing the point.   Of course faith is one of the many things that might influence someone's perspective & feelings about an issue.  Nobody has taken issue with that.  In fact, this is about wanting to PROTECT that!  

Persons of faith, including the vast majority of Christians, stand to lose every bit as much as those who are not of faith.... because beliefs vary among persons of faith,  as evidenced by the number of religions, sects, denominations, off-shoots, etc. in existence.   As I've stated already, they've already divided the faithful from the heathens, when they've successfully conquered the heathens, they'll divide and conquer the heretics.

The problem we are discussing is the blatant attempt in progress to do away with separation of church and state and with our freedom of religious choice to establish a theocracy in which ONLY the beliefs of one very specific subsect of one very specific larger body of faith has any validity, at all, in matters of either church or state.   If they are successful, you will lose your right to put forth ideas or perspectives that are influenced by any portion of your faith (or anything else) that is not in 100% agreement with the state's one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter religion.  You will have no hope of ever seeing those ideas come to bear as policy.  Your personal faith and relationship with God will be considered subversive, anti-American and heretical, at best.  
     

Leo, you're completely missing the point.  Of course faith is one of the many things that might influence someone's perspective & feelings about an issue.  Nobody has taken issue with that.  In fact, this is about wanting to PROTECT that! 

Persons of faith, including the vast majority of Christians, stand to lose every bit as much as those who are not of faith.... because beliefs vary among persons of faith,  as evidenced by the number of religions, sects, denominations, off-shoots, etc. in existence.  As I've stated already, they've already divided the faithful from the heathens, when they've successfully conquered the heathens, they'll divide and conquer the heretics.

The problem we are discussing is the blatant attempt in progress to do away with separation of church and state and with our freedom of religious choice to establish a theocracy in which ONLY the beliefs of one very specific subsect of one very specific larger body of faith has any validity, at all, in matters of either church or state.  If they are successful, you will lose your right to put forth ideas or perspectives that are influenced by any portion of your faith (or anything else) that is not in 100% agreement with the state's one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter religion.  You will have no hope of ever seeing those ideas come to bear as policy.  Your personal faith and relationship with God will be considered subversive, anti-American and heretical, at best. 
     






You hit the nail on the head. 

Leo, you're completely missing the point.   Of course faith is one of the many things that might influence someone's perspective & feelings about an issue.  Nobody has taken issue with that.  In fact, this is about wanting to PROTECT that!  

Persons of faith, including the vast majority of Christians, stand to lose every bit as much as those who are not of faith.... because beliefs vary among persons of faith,  as evidenced by the number of religions, sects, denominations, off-shoots, etc. in existence.   As I've stated already, they've already divided the faithful from the heathens, when they've successfully conquered the heathens, they'll divide and conquer the heretics.

The problem we are discussing is the blatant attempt in progress to do away with separation of church and state and with our freedom of religious choice to establish a theocracy in which ONLY the beliefs of one very specific subsect of one very specific larger body of faith has any validity, at all, in matters of either church or state.   If they are successful, you will lose your right to put forth ideas or perspectives that are influenced by any portion of your faith (or anything else) that is not in 100% agreement with the state's one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter religion.  You will have no hope of ever seeing those ideas come to bear as policy.  Your personal faith and relationship with God will be considered subversive, anti-American and heretical, at best.  
     


I'm not sure whose point I'm supposed to be missing -- I'm not arguing with or debating anyone, just clarifying my own perspective based on Carlos' reponse.

I am, however, a bit puzzed by your reference to my "personal faith and relationship with God."  ???

Or did you must mean "your faith" in the sense of "one's faith"?

I'm not sure whose point I'm supposed to be missing -- I'm not arguing with or debating anyone, just clarifying my own perspective based on Carlos' reponse.

I am, however, a bit puzzed by your reference to my "personal faith and relationship with God."  ???

Or did you must mean "your faith" in the sense of "one's faith"?


Oh, OK.   I thought you were addressing the main point with counterpoint and had misinterpreted the main point.   Scratch the part about missing the point.  :)



On the second question -- I apologise in advance for boring you to tears and making you wish you hadn't asked:

I did not mean "one."  "One" is passive voice and active voice was required to make this particular point, effectively.     

I was addressing you, the reader, directly (active voice.)  Whether that's you, Leo or you, some reader other than Leo... the point was that it affects YOU, not just some unknown someONE else (passive voice.) 

I chose to switch to passive voice with "faith" and "relationship with God,"  because active-voice specifics -- whether you're Methodist, Lutheran, Church of Christ, Hindu, pagan, atheist, etc. -- have no bearing on the point.   I did consider, for a brief instant, whether to be even more passive there, though  "... faith (or lack thereof) and your personal relationship with a deity or deities, if any" but I felt the wordiness weakened the point too much -- always a danger with passive voice -- and that while not an ideal wording, "God" would suffice, since it's the word used by those who are pushing for union of church and state.   

Oh, ok.  I thought you were assuming some particular faith orientation on my part.

Oh, ok.  I thought you were assuming some particular faith orientation on my part.


Couldn't begin to guess if I wanted to... and I don't want to because I don't consider it my business.  (Unless you worship at the temple of me, in which case I'm glad you could come this evening, my child, many blessings upon you, yada yada yada...I hope you'll be generous when I pass the collection plate... a false-idol's gotta front with the bling, you know! ;D  )

 

Well, we ALL worship at the Temple of Mehli.  ;)

Well, my point was that everyone natually lobbies to have their perspective represented -- I wouldn't have it any other way.  Well, of course, to be honest, I'd love it if everyone just agreed with me, and if the world operated according to my own perspective, but I realize that that's just arrogant.  To my mind, its not corrupt or invalid for some group to lobby to have their principles represented simply because the principles are rooted in Calvinist Christianity vs. atheistic liberalism or atheistic conservatism or athetistic moderatism, or whatever else.  I may disagree with their ideas, but that doesn't mean I feel it's somehow corrupt for them to lobby for them. 

I don't see how secular morality and principles are any more or less valid that those based on 'faith'.  Many abolitionists were people of faith who viewed slavery as a violation of the fundamental laws of a divine being.  Many others abolitionists were atheists/secularists, who viewed slavery as a violation of basic 'human rights' or 'democratic principles' or however they might put it.  You could certainly say that they were 'imposing' their will on those who felt otherwise.  But I'm not sure how else it's supposed to work.


You raise an interesting point.  The problem IO have with it is that it doesn't distingush between advocating  for your beliefs and forcing them on others.  If you oppose abortion, for example, DON'T have one, but don't try to prevent others, who believe differently from availing themselves of now safe but long used options to end pregnancy, and don't encourage ignorance by trying to deny people access to info about reproduction and sexuality.

What I'm saying is that restrictive laws based on the beliefs of one or another religious sect have no place in our secular society.  Suppose Catholics lobbied to make monthy confession and  communion mandatory?  Or athiests lobbied to close all churches or end their TAX EXEMPT status (I don't get why churches should be tax exempt, but just might want to explore that issue with my tax guy).  Seems to me that the state should be neutral when it comes to religion, neither encouraging, nor discouraging it, and should enact only those laws that forward the greater good of society, regardless of their philosophical origin.  That's why I have said, on numerous occasions and on many threads, KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF OUR LAWS.