Democratic Party Hijacked by Secularists
September 27th, 2008 at 08:39am Mark Noonan
Which isn’t, strictly speaking, news but it is interesting:
The Democratic Party has been hijacked by elites hostile to religion, said Mark Stricherz, author of the book “Why Democrats are Blue” and a Democrat himself, during the Casey Lecture delivered on Tuesday at the Archdiocese of Denver.
The Casey Series of Lectures was started by the Archdiocese of Denver in 2006 to promote Catholic thinking in political life, inspired by the life and political activism of the late Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey, a devout Catholic and a Democrat.
Stricherz, who has focused his investigation on the historical transition that turned the Democrats from a Catholic-friendly organization to the pro-abortion rights party it is today, explained the decisive role played in American politics by staunch Catholic Democrats like Gov. Casey, Robert Kennedy and David Lawrence.
“These politicians provided a political leadership and a push for human rights based on religious convictions and personal prayer life, thus becoming promoters of Christian Humanist values,” he said.
Explaining an argument he makes in his book, Stricherz said that the Democratic Party created internal rules that favor Secular elites and limit the participation of common people. He mentioned caucuses in Iowa as an example: they are established to run from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., “preventing the participation of common people like third-shifters, military men and women or young mothers.” As a consequence, “56% of those attending the caucuses are pro- choice folks,” he said.
Thus, Secularism and hostility to religion have become the dividing line between the Democratic Party of the past and today’s Democratic leaders.
Asked about how to change the Democratic Party back to its original connection with average Americans, Stricherz said that is was critical to democratize the internal process, but added that, “I just don’t see the constituency, the drive to bring that change… those with college degrees, who tend to be more secular are in control of the party, whereas more religious, working folks are kept out of the loop.”
Almost hate to say it as, if its done, it will cause my conservatism no end of trouble - what some smart Democrat has to figure out is that if the Democrats would ditch the kook left and allow them to become the Social Democrats (ie, communists) they really are, then the residue of the Democratic party can become the Christian Democrats and make a bid for a socially conservative yet economically liberal political party - and such a party would have a lot of appeal, as a lot of conservative Protestants, and even more conservative Catholics, are ill at ease in the Republican party. Hillary could do this - all she has to do is dump the pro-abortion fanaticism, come out against gay marriage and have at it.
Will anyone do this or will the Democrats continue to slide down into socialism until they are completely rejected? Only time will tell.
Entry Filed under: Democrats, Kook Left, Religion
48 Comments
1. liberalD | September 27th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Two things Marco Polo:
(1) secularism simply means a separation between church and state. You know - how our government is founded on.
(2) you do realize the horrible irony of accusing people of being socialists while at the same time your super hero GW is proposing the most massive socialist action the government has taken since FDR by giving 700 Billion in public funds to buy up private debt…
You’ve just been pwnded
2. neocon | September 27th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Al Franken, the Democrat Senate nominee for MN, recently proclaimed that we should take the words “In God We Trust” off of the money and could do away with the the words “under God” in the pledge.
That’s the slope the Dems are headed which is a 180 degree difference from where FDR and JFK were leading that party.
They are a disgrace.
3. CanadianObserver | September 27th, 2008 at 9:21 am
The Democratic Party has it right.
Keep religion, any religion, out of the political arena; like oil and water, they do not mix.
4. neocon | September 27th, 2008 at 9:23 am
And liberalD, the Obama endorsed Bush plan, which does call for 100% public funds, and was endorsed by Obama, will be derailed in favor of McCain’s more responsible, tax payer protected bail out that will shift the onus to the private sector and will stablize the crisis.
5. CanadianObserver | September 27th, 2008 at 9:26 am
That’s the slope the Dems are headed which is a 180 degree difference from where FDR and JFK were leading that party.
2. neocon | September 27th, 2008 at 9:20 am
—————————————
Did FDR or JFK try to legislate their religious beliefs into law , neocon?
6. neocon | September 27th, 2008 at 9:26 am
CO,
So then are you opposing Obama’s plan to contiunue supporting fatih based charities?
Are you then supporting Frankens call for eliminating the words “In God We Trust” off of our currency?
Exactly how far would you like to take this?
7. neocon | September 27th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Did FDR or JFK try to legislate their religious beliefs into law , neocon?
Has Bush? Has Reagan? Has McCain?
What a completely ignorant, moronic, irrelevant question.
Grow up CO.
8. liberalD | September 27th, 2008 at 9:31 am
of course we should remove “in god we trust”
You do realize the history of this nonsense. Probably you don’t actually - a word to the wise this was nothing more than a 50s ploy in the red scare era.
o E Pluribus Unum was the official moto until McCarthy and the rest of them scared up this nonsense..
Take it away - it has nothing to do with politics..
9. neocon | September 27th, 2008 at 9:36 am
liberalD,
Thank you for being honest and please encourage your representatives to run on that platform.
It will serve you well, trust me.
10. CanadianObserver | September 27th, 2008 at 9:49 am
7. neocon | September 27th, 2008 at 9:28 am
————————————–
I guess I was confusing those Christians who want to bring their faith into the public domain, you know, schools and the like with the politicians they support.
If, Palin, that icon of Christian morality, were to assume the office of President, do you think she would feel compelled to instill some of that righteousness into her countrymen, as folk like Jeremiah and his ilk would demand?
11. neocon | September 27th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Does she have a track record of doing that in Alaska?
Look at her record. Incidentally, she does have an 86% approval rating.
12. Offensive To Muslims | September 27th, 2008 at 10:29 am
How many people have to live in fear of your behavior for you to qualify for the title of terrorist?
13. Moosetracks | September 27th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Like Jesus would be a Republican; identifying with the many greedy unregulated Conservative money changers on Wall Street and McCain who would ditch his first wife for one with power and money. It is funnier than ever after what has happened to the Republican Party over the last eight years to still seem them play the morality card.
Mark Stricherz is a one issue anti-choice mouthpiece. He should be encouraging Democratic polices that reduce the number of abortions, instead of enabling the wing nuts, like clock work, to use the issue as nothing more than a wedge issue to scare the people every four years.
Next post from Mark will be one that says Obama will walk in your house and take your guns away.
.
14. gotbrains? | September 27th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Oh, the Democratic party has been hijacked by secularists? Thank God!
It’s about time rational people took control again from the rabid superstitious Christianists who wish to take our country back into the dark ages. Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, Washington, et all would all be proud to see the ideals of the Enlightenment that were their guiding principles in defining this nation reign once again.
That’s not to say that having religious faith is bad. On the contrary. But it’s time to put that back where it belongs: in private, in church, and between you and your God. It has no place in government.
Those who think secularism is somehow a bad thing for democracy would probably feel more at home in some kind of theocracy like Iran or Afghanistan under the Taliban. Go to Iran, and leave us real Americans alone!
15. searp | September 27th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
The Republican party has been hijacked by religious nuts, and Palin is the current standard bearer.
You bet there are a lot of people in this country that think believing every word in the Bible is literally true, witchcraft exists and the end of days/second coming may be upon us momentarily is nutty.
Anyway, I notice even the commenters here tend to say she is only nutty in her private life.
So: on a nuttiness scale, I guess the Republicans take the fruitcake.
16. Sue | September 27th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
The resident liberal commentors here have proven the point of this - that many liberals are hostile to religion and people of faith.
Of course they feel that they are entitled to be hostile because it’s something they don’t agree with or believe. Additionally they know that people of faith will not give in easily to their agenda-because it’s immoral and wrong.
I don’t think that Jesus was/would be a Republican or Democrat. Jesus was focused on the spiritual and man’s relationship with God and their fellow man.
And Moosetracks-if you think Jesus would identify with Democrats who believe in abortion without restrictions, homosexuality and same sex marriage, welfare for those who are capable of working but don’t (the bible says much about a persons responsibility to work for a living-even going so far to say if a man refuses to work then let him starve), and peace at all costs you are ignorant of the bible and just who Jesus is.
17. Sue | September 27th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
And Moosetracks–there’s a big difference in the GOVERNMENT taking one’s money and giving it to another as “welfare”
and
Our responsibility as individuals and the church helping those in need—which is charity.
Jesus talked much about us taking care of those less fortunate as individuals and the church but NEVER said that it was the govt. responsibility to take money by force from one and give it to another.
18. Mark Noonan | September 27th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Sue,
That we see such from Moose is unsurprising - Liberals are all about Christ, but nothing about the Cross. They don’t think they need redemption, and there is the fundamental flaw of their worldview.
19. Mark Noonan | September 27th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Got,
We’ve been on this for a while, and you still don’t grasp it.
The history of the world is not “Rome - Christianity-imposed-Dark-Ages - Enlightenment - Good Times”.
The Dark Ages, so called, were the period of time when the West - under the leadership of the Christian Church - defended itself in a life and death struggle against barbarian and Moslem attacks…after those attacks were defeated, the Church immediately led a revival which brought Christian civilization to a moral, intellectual, artistic and economic zenith far surpassing the best of Greco-Roman civilization. The so called “enlightenment” was really the product of a bunch of self-absorbed, upper-class liberals who disdained what they inherited because, being largely ignorant of the past, they figured if it was new to them it was new, indeed.
We Christians have been fighting a long battle not to hold back reason, but to ensure that reason is preserved against a riot of irrational, liberal thought which, now with this emphasis, now with that, has sought to continuously overturn civilization in favor of the latest crack-pot fad, which is invariably just a rehash of something the Church considered ages before and found lacking in merit.
Here is St. Thomas:
Here is Voltaire:
You may, of course, decide for yourself which formulation is most true in your opinion - but please give up the ignorant, foolish idea that Christianity is at war with reason.
20. extramedium | September 27th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Sue - do you think it’s possible to be secular or atheistic and not be hostile to religion, or do you take those beliefs to be inherently hostile to religion?
I ask, because that’s the sort of atheist and secularist I’d like to be. Can I decline to accept the supernatural and believe in separation of church and state without being considered your enemy? If I support your right to believe whatever you like and to proclaim your faith to whomever cares to listen in the public square, but believe differently myself, can we get along?
21. Mark Noonan | September 27th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Extra,
I can’t speak for Sue, but I will state that atheism cannot but be at war with religion. To a lesser or greater degree, depending on the character of an atheist, he must continuously proclaim his enmity towards faith. I’ve yet to meet an atheist who will not do so - my view, of course, is that atheism is a lie and a lie, most importantly, cannot tolerate the unhindered proclamation of truth.
This does not mean there aren’t any fine characters amongst atheists - Christopher Hitchens being an example of an atheist who is respected by believers…but even he has not been able to avoid warring on the notion of belief. I, as a believer, am far less concerned that you don’t believe than atheists are that I believe. I pray for you to come to belief, but the mere fact of your being a non-believer is not viewed by me as an inherent threat to all I hold dear…and as for your participation in politics, I’ve got absolutely zero problem with it and I’m indifferent to how you develop your ideas, though I will examine them and take issue with them, as appropriate.
On the other hand, atheists are desperate in their opposition to such mild things as “under God” in our Pledge, “in God we trust” on our currency, the depiction of the Ten Commandments on public buildings…one would think that if a person really believes there is no God, then the invocation of same would be viewed, at worst, as a waste of time…but atheists appear to view the mere mention of the Diety as a direct and immediate threat to themselves - as if they fear that we believers are ready to burn them at the stake just as soon as we get the chance (there are some out there worthy of burning, but we also must be merciful towards Broncos fans, no matter how misguided they are).
22. searp | September 27th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
You know, “believer” is a pretty broad term. I see nobody responded directly to my outline of why I consider Sarah Palin a religious nut. There were specifics, you know.
I grew up Episcopalian. I bet I can find any number of Episcopal ministers that would be horrified at Palin’s view of Christianity.
Don’t go throwing your faith in my face without defining it first. It offends me. Once you have defined it, I will tell you my opinion, as I have with Sarah Palin’s belief.
I have many Catholic friends. We get along very well; they seem to share my worldview. It offends me that you can be so self-righteous.
23. ho-hum | September 27th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
So, in the entire multi-paragraph quote Noonan posts above, the only evidence to show that democrats are somehow against religion and “common people” is the fact that caucus’ were held from 7 - 9 PM? That’s it? What time would you have preferred them to be? Why can’t militar people go to events at 7 - 9 PM. What a truly stupid post, even by the standards of this site.
24. Jeremiah | September 27th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Extramedium,
Can I decline to accept the supernatural and believe in separation of church and state without being considered your enemy?
Yes, of course, because my wrestle is not against flesh and blood. So, that you do not believe in God makes you an enemy to God who has the authority to put you in Hell. In other words, you are at enmity with Him and solely Him. Doesn’t make any difference if you believe it or not.
Matthew 10:28 - “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
Which proves Pauls teachings in Ephesians 6:12
‘For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but aganst the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.’
That’s just to illustrate the truth about what we should oppose, which is not to impose with force, but…
The dark spiritual forces of Satan who plants disbelief.
If I support your right to believe whatever you like and to proclaim your faith to whomever cares to listen in the public square, but believe differently myself, can we get along?
Sure. Christianity affords you the right to believe whatever you want to believe. It was in the beginning that God bestowed man with a choice.
So, by definition, you own words condemn your own actions. You wish not to believe, but from your decision to allow others to believe whatever they want to believe, you are giving them a choice…which had it’s beginning with God in Genesis.
So, ask yourself, what would cause you to want to give everybody a choice?…animals don’t give other animals their choices, they have no choice. You are conforming with the spirit that God gave you to have freedom of choice, but want to resist it.
But…even still, you do not do what you say, because you want to the government to enforce the idea that we do not have the right to believe whatever we wish to believe, and therefore, schools may only teach atheism, which does not represent freedom of choice.
God grants choice, and your choices will be one of two - Him; or the world. Which is it going to be?
No society can work on the principle of atheism, because atheism leads to other forms of thought which are contrary to the Truth. Then those who hold atheism as a philosophy tend to want to dominate every facet of thinking in education. Therefore, children grow up with minds full of various perversions, ultimately leading society in a downward spiral toward destruction - In other words, it is a Culture of Death.
25. What? | September 27th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
“He mentioned caucuses in Iowa as an example: they are established to run from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., “preventing the participation of common people like third-shifters, military men and women or young mothers.”
This is unconvincing. Why is this time difficult for young mothers and members of the military? As for third-shifters I don’t see what this guy is asking for. No matter what time of day you put the caucus, some people are going to be working. The caucuses were run at the time most people do not work to encourage participation.
When did the Republicans run their caucus and how was theirs any better?
Also, I hold no hostility toward religion per se. My hostility is towards those who seek to have their religion promoted by the government. Thus, it is not religion I distrust, it is a that portion of the population that wants to hang the ten commandments everywhere and teach creationism in public schools. I consider this to be establishing a national religion.
26. extramedium | September 27th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Mark,
I view separating emblems of Christianity from public property as a completely different matter to challenging your Christian beliefs, but even so I think there should be a test of proportion with regard to such inscriptions and objects already in place. I wouldn’t be a proponent of chiseling long standing plaques out of government buildings.
A question for you - when you hear the word atheist, do you take that to mean somebody who seeks to destroy Christianity? The disbelievers I know don’t disbelieve Christianity any more than they do any other supernatural belief. It sometimes seems to me in your writings that you address non-believers as though they were all lapsed Christians. Is this debate only meant for Americans of Judeo-Christian descent?
In any case, I don’t need to disprove your beliefs in order for me to feel better about mine. There’s a a lot of us out here who feel the same.
One more question - do you hold in higher regard (or view as less of a threat) those people who have other supernatural beliefs (but different from Christianity) over those who have no supernatural beliefs at all? Since you take your belief in Christ to be Truth, all other religions must be exactly as much a lie as atheism is? Wouldn’t the beliefs of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Pagans, etc. be at “war” with Christianity just like you think atheists are?
27. Jeremiah | September 27th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Atheism, by its very definition, is a denial of a belief, not a positive affirmation of belief. Like liberalism, atheism is an anti-worldview, it is not “for” anything, only “against.”
So, where do atheists get their morality?
They weren’t born with it, they had to learn it.
Well, they use all the attributes that comprise Christianity - love, charity, forgiveness, peace, etc, etc.
What’s missing? Belief!
Ok, now, if they want to use all of these attributes that originated with Christianity of the Holy Christian Bible from Genesis to Revelation, yet do not wish to believe their source, what does that do?
It makes their case worthless, and most importantly, puts their soul in jeopardy.
28. extramedium | September 27th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Jeremiah,
The basis of your arguments is rooted in your beliefs, therefore there is little point in arguing with you. You can’t argue with a man’s beliefs.
I am curious about one thing though, as it relates to your beliefs. When you say “The dark spiritual forces of Satan [who] plants disbelief”- by “disbelief”, do you mean disbelief in Christ? Does that mean that the 66% of the world who subscribe to other beliefs are in some way under Satan’s control? Or do you mean that only with regard to American atheists?
29. extramedium | September 27th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Jeremiah,
Do you reckon that Christianity is the only belief system in the world which values and possesses love, charity, forgiveness, peace, etc.? Do you suppose that Buddhists and Hindus do not?
30. Jeremiah | September 27th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Extramedium,
The basis of your arguments is rooted in your beliefs, therefore there is little point in arguing with you.
My beliefs are rooted in the Word of God, because man rely upon something greater. Man is nothing in himself.
do you mean disbelief in Christ?
Yes. Christ was the beginning, the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and through Christ it was all made possible, as all things consist through His Power.
So, yes, 66% of the other religions who believe in a god, are either their own god’s or worship some sort of manmade image, which is idol worship these are the same as disbelief because they are focusing all of their belief in empty promises because these manmade images are going to perish being burned up.
I also forgot to mention that liberalism is being taken by storm with the ideology of PostModernism, which is exact same thing as atheism - it seeks no belief. PostModernism is what is destroying our next generation, and will ultimately destroy the future hope of America - No objectives, No subjectivism no law and order of any kind, and what do you have? Chaos! Confusion, bloody wars, the tumult of America and the world which will usher in the return of Christ!
31. FactCheck | September 27th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I will state that atheism cannot but be at war with religion
That says a lot more about you than it does about atheism.
such mild things as “under God” in our Pledge, “in God we trust” on our currency, the depiction of the Ten Commandments on public buildings
If they’re such mild things, why do you fall into hysterics at the mere notion of not having them and how it’s an “assault on faith” and all your other usual claptrap?
Also, you really need to stop trying to redefine the word “truth.” It just makes you look very uninformed. (Just as a hint, its definition does not involve religion.)
32. JPL | September 27th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Admit it, libs: there’s NOTHING more you’d like than to deny people of faith the right to vote.
How different you are from the Founders.
33. What? | September 28th, 2008 at 1:50 am
JPL,
Dude, you are totally right. I really want to pass a law preventing people of faith from voting. I would love keep my parents from voting. I would also love to keep half of my friends from voting. You probably would too since they are voting for Obama.
It is like you rightwingers can read our Godless liberal minds!
34. Mark Noonan | September 28th, 2008 at 2:13 am
Fact,
Thing is, its our civilization - it is Judeo-Christian; we’re not a bunch of interlopers here trying to change the ground rules. Having reference to our God and our religion in our public life is entirely natural…what is un-natural and un-reasonable are attempts to remove such references.
35. What? | September 28th, 2008 at 2:46 am
So Mark,
What is too far for you? When does the intermingling of Christianity with government become harmful and threaten our freedom?
Note that I am not asking what you think the Constitution permits. I am asking you when, if ever, your religion poses a threat to our freedom.
36. Mark Noonan | September 28th, 2008 at 3:11 am
extra,
There is only one truth and thus amongst the religions of the world there must be one which is closer to the truth than any other. My view is that Christianity is this religion. There is a long argument to be made in favor this view of mine, but we’ll leave that aside for the moment and just acknowledge that it is what I believe.
Given this belief of my, the preference I have is for everyone to follow Christ - and, indeed, I pray for this. Additionally, I am to proclaim the Gospel - I can’t remain silent about it; though I take to heart (and hope one day to genuinely practice) St. Francis’ injunction to preach the Gospel all the time, and use words when necessary. If, however, I cannot by my actions and my prayers induce a non-believer to become Christian, I much prefer it that he believe in some supernatural order - this is the path to reason, the first step of which is to acknowledge one’s limitations. As was once said, the fear isn’t that an atheist will believe nothing, but that he’ll believe any bit of nonsense to come down the pike.
As for whether an atheist wants to destroy religion - well, first off, there aren’t too many genuine atheists out there. Dig down a bit and in most of them you find an agnostic…which is really rather cowardly in my view; pick a side, already. But for those who genuinely and absolutely have been talked into believing the idea that God doesn’t exist…those people, by their nature, war on religion constantly. You’ll find that the arguments don’t usually start with a Christian attack on unbelief but, rather, an unbeliever’s attack on Christianity which is then responded to. Indeed, some of the earliest extant Christian literature is precisely this - defenses of the faith against those who attack it.
If an atheist were to just go about his business not believing in God and only bringing up the subject when asked, then there’d be no problems…but atheists seem impelled to take action against religion. From the Jacobin’s murdering priests to Dawkin’s attack on belief, its all of a piece - people who don’t believe going out of their way to attack those who do.
37. Mark Noonan | September 28th, 2008 at 3:20 am
what,
Christianity is the basis of our freedom - it is the truths of Christianity which gave us such basic concepts as individual rights and the inherent dignity of the human person. Christianity cannot threaten itself, and thus can’t threaten freedom.
The threats to freedom come from those who want to take it away, and those who are too base and cowardly to fight against the usurpers. One wanna-be tyrant might cloak himself in a Christian disguise, but that doesn’t indict Christianity but merely reflects that a sinner will take even the most beautiful things and seek to corrupt them for personal ends.
38. Pain | September 28th, 2008 at 3:57 am
7. neocon | September 27th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Yes Bush has neocon as witnessed in the abstinence only sex education programs he offered to states as a take it or leave it test for them to receive millions in federal grants. Abstinence is a core belief for Bush as an evangelical that is a direct link to the president injecting his own religious worldview into that of the greater society.
By the way We, Ourselves realize as many millions of AMericans do that abstinence only programs lead not only to more teen pregnancy but higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases.
Di lojti strixiûç!
39. Fredrick Schwartz | September 28th, 2008 at 4:03 am
16. Sue | September 27th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
What Liberals are hoastile to is the hijacking of the American democracy by the right wing Theocracy. Imagine an America governed by Biblical rules that apply only to those who don’t wish to live under such an oppressive regime? This wile the rules engage in the worst forms of debauchery and greed living lives of hedonistic pleasures that would send the Common Man to prison for life. That’s the message of the Theocrats; more sins of the flesh for the elites and punishment both on Terra and in Hell for anyone who questions us.
Di lojti strixiûç! Fight the smears against Obama! Sink the Swift Boats in 2008!
40. FmrMarine | September 28th, 2008 at 9:40 am
syrup
>>>I grew up Episcopalian. I bet I can find any number of Episcopal ministers that would be horrified at Palin’s view of Christianity.>>>
Ill bet you can, Ill bet you could find MANY Ministers who are HORRIFIED by episcopal glorification of HOMOSEXUALS!
No wonder you are so terrified of a REAL Christian.
41. FmrMarine | September 28th, 2008 at 9:48 am
schwatzputz
MANY CHRISTIANS have died fighting Naziism
communisim, islam.
ALL three above HATE Jews.
Christianity has NEVER imposed it’s self as a theocracy.
oBOMBa is lined up with hamas, nation of islam, bill ayres and all you worry about is the Christian boogyman under the bed trying to lock up homosexuals.
Freddy ole boy you need to get away from the KOOKNUTS ah hells newspaper and get into the real world.
42. searp | September 28th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Fmr: I am horrified that anyone would consider someone who has Palin’s beliefs as qualified for a job that requires hard-headed realism and competence to further liberty for all, not just the members of her church.
As to the notion that she is a real Christian, I suppose you mean that real Christians must share Palin’s extreme beliefs.
Most Christians of any denomination other than Pentacostal would find your comment stupid and offensive. I find it stupid, although I am not offended.
Sarah Palin is unqualified for any position in the government. She clearly has trouble thinking, is totally unprepared, and seems to think being mediocre, albeit with crazy religious beliefs, is a virtue.
Spare me your nutty, fact-free opinions.
43. FmrMarine | September 28th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
syrup
>>>Most Christians of any denomination other than Pentacostal would find your comment stupid and offensive. I find it stupid, although I am not offended.>>>
That is your opinion MORON.
I could care less what you think.
You do not speak for Christians or any denomination.
Go back to your homo loving laughable “denomination” and stay there ……you truly are a FOOL.
44. FmrMarine | September 28th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
syrup
>>>Rigidity of beliefs:
“We have exchanged Emails with hundreds of visitors to this web site about the Bible and homosexuality. Most fall into one of two groups:
bullet Religious liberals promote homosexual ordinations, same-sex marriage, civil union “ceremonies in the church, equal protection under hate-crime legislation, protection against discrimination in employment, etc. as fundamental human rights issues.
bullet Religious conservatives feel that the Bible teaches that homosexual behavior is always a serious sin. Allowing sexually active gays and lesbians to be ordained, or to have their committed relationships recognized by the church would involve a drastic and unacceptable lowering of church standards. The church would be condoning sin. They also oppose including sexual orientation in hate-crime and anti-discrimination legislation.”
“We have been unable to change the beliefs or actions of any of these hundreds of people on even one point related to homosexuality. Their views appear to be fixed. It is doubtful that much progress towards compromise on homosexual rights can be made by means of dialogue>>>
>>> “Today, there are two religions in the Episcopal Church. One remains faithful to the biblical truth and received teachings of the Church, while the other rejects them.” Concerned Clergy and Laity of the Episcopal Church 1
bullet “There are a growing number of places in the church were lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons are welcomed, affirmed in their ministries >>>
Pentecostalism is a renewalist religious movement within Christianity that places special emphasis on the direct personal experience of God through the baptism of the Holy Spirit.[1]
Pentecostalism is an umbrella term including a wide range of different theological and organizational perspectives. As a result, there is no central organization or church which directs the movement. Within Pentecostalism there are two major groups, Trinitarian Pentecostals and Oneness Pentecostals. However, many Pentecostals also consider themselves part of broader Christian groups. For example, Pentecostals often identify as Evangelicals. Furthermore, many embrace the term Protestant, while others the term Restorationist. Pentecostalism is also theologically and historically close to the Charismatic Movement, and some Pentecostals use the two terms interchangeably.
Examples of Trinitarian Pentecostal denominations include the Church of God in Christ (COGIC) and the Assemblies of God. Examples of Oneness Pentecostal denominations include the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI), Pentecostal Assemblies of the World (P.A.W). It is estmated that of the world’s 2 billion Christians, a quarter are Pentecostals.[1]
45. Jeremiah | September 28th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26, 2003 landmark ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, overturning a state statute banning sodomy, based on the Constitution’s so-called “right to privacy” clause: Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority five with O’Connor concurring in a separate opinion, affirming the ”rights of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct,” as recognized by the European Court of Human Rights and others. Chief Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Thomas and Rehnquist, dissented, saying, ”The views of other nations, however enlightened the justices of this court may think them to be, cannot be imposed upon Americans through the Constitution.” Adding that ”the court’s discussion of these foreign views (ignoring, of course, the many countries that have retained criminal prohibitions on sodomy) is…meaningless dicta. Dangerous dicta, however, since this court should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans.”
http://earstohear.net/
And probably due to one of he worst decisions in United States history…
What followed the Brown decision of 1954:
The Brown decision of 1954, desegregating the schools of 17 states and the District of Columbia, awakened the nation to the court’s new claim to power. Hailed by liberal elites – and finding no resistance from a Democratic Congress or president who spent his afternoons at Burning Tree – Warren’s court went off on a rampage. It invented new rights for criminals and put new restrictions on cops and prosecutors. It reassigned students to schools by race and ordered busing to bring it about, tearing cities apart. It ordered God, prayer and Bible-reading out of classrooms. It said pornography was constitutionally protected, making Larry Flynt and Al Goldstein First Amendment heroes, rather than felons. It ruled naked dancing a protected form of free expression. It declared abortion a constitutional right and sodomy constitutionally protected behavior. It outlawed the death penalty, abolished terms limits on members of Congress voted by state referendums, and told high school coaches to stop praying in locker rooms and students to stop saying prayers at graduation. It ordered the Ten Commandments out of schoolhouses and courthouses. It condoned discrimination against white students in violation of the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. And, two weeks ago, in a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that towns can seize private homes and turn them over to private developers.
And that’s all liberals think about; they wanto impose Stare Decisis as the ultimate form of law, by their own judgment. A multiculturalist society gone horribly wrong, structuring society through our public educational system training children to be pure devils.
When are you going to rise up, America?
We gonna have to put da big squeeze on da left, befoe it too late!
Lay the channel changer down and go tell the ACLU to get out!
46. searp | September 28th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
As I said, nutty. You must have something about homosexuality, I didn’t raise it, but evidently the debate within the Episcopalian church on homosexuality is enough so that you class them all as un-Christian?
Keep going on the Pentacostals, and you will find they are Biblical literalists, meaning they think dinosaurs and humans cavorted together on this earth about 6000 years ago. You will also find out that they believe in the imminence of the Apocalypse. Just the sort I want with the nuclear codes. Or do they believe in nuclear things? I bet those aren’t in the Bible.
Nutty.
47. Jeremiah | September 28th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
The left has ridiculed, slandered, and spread hate of every kind about Sarah Palin for her belief in speaking in tongues.
First of all, tongues is the same as languages.
There are many people who can speak in different tongues, and Newt Gingrich is one of them.
Speaking in different tongues is a wonderful gift of knowledge for those who wish to witness to people in different countries.
The difference in the Biblical account of tongues at Pentecost, and people speaking in different tongues today - At Pentecost, Jesus sent His Holy Spirit upon the Twelves Apostles as a gift of knowledge to them in their travels and in order than people might believe.
Today, we can do the same if we will dedicate ourselves to learning and asking for God’s presence in helping us learn them.
48. What? | September 29th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Okay Mark,
I will disregard some of your erroneous statments and push further.
So, you feel a country run by the Church would be the ideal form of government? If so, what Christians can we trust? Would non-Christians be allowed to vote? What if they voted for non-Christians? Would there be voting? I don’t see how there could be. Everytime we vote we would be voting for a differnet version of Christianity.
If not, what role should Christianity play in government? What roles should other religions play?
Sorry, I also want to press furhter with this comment.
“The threats to freedom come from those who want to take it away, and those who are too base and cowardly to fight against the usurpers. One wanna-be tyrant might cloak himself in a Christian disguise, but that doesn’t indict Christianity but merely reflects that a sinner will take even the most beautiful things and seek to corrupt them for personal ends.”
The first sentence is blindlingly obvious. The second is more troublesome. You are saying basically that Christianity is perfect but those who practice it and might infuse it into government are not.
You also posit that only bad people would misuse Christianity. I don’t really think this is true. Many have misused the Bible with the belief they were doing good. The Salem Witch Trials come to mind.
I also think you and I can both agree that religion is the most powerful rallying cry. It comes before all other consideration to many. Many people have done many stupid, heinous things in the name of religion. Again, the Salem Witch Trials and the Inquisition come to mind.
So here is the problem you present. You want our country’s government to be infused with religion. The only people who could do this are those who practice it. You want this despite the fact it can be easily be misused by these people to manipulate followers into doing terrible things.
I get the feeling you are basically advocating that Christ himself would be the best leader. Should Christ return I don’t think anyone is going to argue that point with you. Until then you are forced to accept leaders who have at best would have a vague understanding of Christianity.
Mark, help me understand what you want. You talk about how we need to restore our nation’s Christian values and bring Christ back into the your understanding of the public square. But you always talk in the vaguest of terms. I want specifics. What can we do to make this nation the Christian nation you think it should be?