[NYCFarmboy]

November 10, 2004
Democrats Need To 'Get Religion.' It's Not Scary
By Mort Kondracke

My post-election advice to Democrats is: Go to church. Don't go to "get religion," although it might be good for your soul. Just go, in the first instance, to "get" religion, i.e. understand what goes on in the heads and hearts of those who devoutly believe in God and how it affects their views of the world. It will help you politically.

I have the distinct impression that many secular Democrats believe that hidden away in most Evangelical Protestant churches is a secret room filled with white Klan sheets or maybe even Swastika armbands.

One very smart Jewish friend of mine, reflecting on President Bush's open expression of religious faith, said, "I feel for the first time that I'm a stranger in my own country. I'm scared."

Similarly, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, next to Charles Krauthammer the owner of the highest I.Q. on the nation's op-ed pages, wrote last week that "my problem with the Christian fundamentalists supporting Mr. Bush is not their spiritual energy or the fact that I am of a different faith. It is the way in which he and they have used that religious energy to promote division and intolerance at home and abroad."

It's not just Jews who are convinced that Evangelicals represent bigotry, repression of women and gays, the triumph of faith over science and the abolition of the separation of church and state. I know lots of mainline Protestants, secular humanists and casual Catholics who think the same thing.

Now, it's true, most Evangelicals probably would reverse Roe v. Wade and maybe outlaw abortion. They certainly favor a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Many - but certainly not all - oppose embryonic stem-cell research. Some kooks want to ban evolution from schoolbooks.

I'm not for a minute suggesting that Democrats adopt these views. Nor should they stop being appalled at the likes of Sen.-elect Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who advocated the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions, or Sen.-elect Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), who said gays and women who are pregnant out of wedlock should be barred from teaching school.

What I am saying is that Democrats need to understand where Evangelicals are coming from, what George Bush's faith is all about and stop being either terrified by or (often) bigoted against what they imagine conservative Christians are all about.

A prime example of condescending bigotry was the widely read Oct. 17 New York Times Magazine hatchet-job against Bush, "Without a Doubt," by Ron Suskind, which likened Bush's "faith-based presidency" to the Islamic extremist movement.

If fair-minded secular Democrats went to church - they are open to the public, by the way - here's some of what they'd learn: Lesson No. 1: Far more than abortion, evolution or homosexuality, Evangelical Christianity is about love, redemption, forgiveness, charity, humility, hope and self-sacrifice.

The best Evangelicals I know truly change lives - they turn around people who are addicted to drugs and pornography. They give the despairing and the guilt-ridden reason to persevere. They restore marriages. They transform criminals in prison.

They try to follow Jesus, who, if they studied him a little, no Democrat could possibly be scared of. I think this is what Bush's faith is all about - not arrogance or mindless certitude, but humility and a sense of duty.

Lesson No. 2: Evangelicals are scared, too. They are scared of the fruits of secularism and the deterioration of the culture in which they're trying to raise their children. Of hip-hop lyrics that encourage rape and murder. Of PG-13 movies and "family hour" sitcoms that tell children that if they're not having sex at 16, they're out of it. Of the scuzzy showbiz people who often surround Democrats.

I'd guess that most Evangelicals are "homophobic." Some are so in the bigoted sense, but many more in the sense that what they know of the "gay lifestyle" scares them.And they also are scared (I think, wrongly) that the already-battered institution of marriage will be demolished if committed gay couples are permitted to share in it.

But, let's face it, the issue of gay marriage would not have been on the national agenda this year to help Republicans if Margaret Marshall, chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and three of her colleagues had not tried to overturn centuries of custom and law by judicial fiat.

Americans gradually were becoming more tolerant of gays. In a few years, civil unions would have been no big deal. And in a few decades, I think, "civil marriage" might have become available to gays.

But four arrogant judges in Sen. John Kerry's home state decided to leapfrog the democratic process, and they created a mighty backlash. Along with Kerry's incoherence on the war in Iraq, that killed him.

Lesson No. 3 for Democrats: Respect religion by nominating a presidential candidate who "gets it." Kerry gave the impression of faking it, visiting African-American churches only late in the campaign and, seemingly, for political purposes. Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), an Orthodox Jew, clearly did "get" it.

And a final lesson: Don't worry. Bush is not going to turn this country into a theocracy. He just wants God's help. And we should pray he gets it.

Mort Kondracke is the Executive Editor of Roll Call.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Com..._10_04_MK.html

[NYCFarmboy]

Why religion is a losing issue for today's Democrats
By Jonah Goldberg

CNN's Lou Dobbs asked House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the other night, "I'm just a simple fellow, secular as I can be. Are we going to hear every politician now, because of exit polls, start couching every issue in moral or religious terms?"

She responded, "I believe that you will see more of that, but we have to get to the issues that are the role of government. I think on the values side, the so-called religious-issues side, we have to enlarge that issue, because what we're in danger of now in our country is the blurring of the issue of church and state. Our own Constitution is at stake."

Pelosi's dilemma is instructive. She desperately wants to be more accommodating to "so-called religious issues," but she can't put down her ACLU talking points about how dangerous religion is.

Since Nov. 2, Democrats have been trying to cope with the power of "values voters." More than 1 out of 5 voters cited "moral issues" as their primary reason for voting, and 80% of them chose President Bush.

Now, it's true that much of the media overplayed the values issue at first because it took them by surprise (and because they didn't expect or want Bush to win). Blaming the religious right is a default position for all disappointments, despite the fact that "moral issues" have always been a motivator at the polls.

Democrats in a box

But at the end of the day, Democrats still have a problem. Regular churchgoers, pro-lifers, traditionalists: These folks vote Republican now in staggering proportions. Bush increased his share among Orthodox Jews by huge margins over 2000, capturing 69% of their votes. He also captured a few more blacks and a lot more Hispanics this year by talking about faith and morality.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are in a box. Of course, many Democratic politicians are religious. But politicians comfortable discussing religion are overwhelmingly Republican. Democrats get their money from Hollywood and their shock troops from college campuses. Both constituencies get the heebie-jeebies from God talk. And yet, if the Democrats can't win over churchgoers, they are destined to be a minority party for a long time.

Former Clinton staffer Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., explained to The New York Times, "People aren't going to hear what we say until they know that we don't approach them as Margaret Mead would an anthropological experiment."

Most national Democrats sound silly talking about religion and faith. Like Pelosi, they can't resist offering applause lines to the Alec Baldwin wing of their party. And when they fake piety, it's even worse.

Kerry's faith pitch

In the final presidential debate, John Kerry, a Catholic, did his level-best to talk about his faith. It is, he explained, "why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this Earth. That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith."

But, at the same time, Kerry said he could not "transfer" his faith onto other people by legislating it. This struck many as a political and theological dodge. Why is it OK to brag about imposing the minimum wage and affirmative action � issues his faith is largely silent on � based on God's will, but it's wrong to do the same thing on abortion when his church's views there are clear and ironclad? Kerry wanted it both ways: to claim he was guided by faith on the easy stuff but that he couldn't impose his religion when it wasn't politically advantageous.

The larger problem for the Democrats is that liberalism itself, or what we erroneously call liberalism today, is in a crisis. It recognizes that politics must have an underlying morality to it, but it is antagonistic to traditional morality. This is foolish since our greatest political movements � abolitionism, civil rights, etc. � were religious before they were political. Moreover, attempts to construct new, secular, moralities have been failures, even at the seminar level. At the national level (think feminism, Hillary Clinton's "Politics of Meaning," socialism, etc.), they've been non-starters.

Conservatives, and the GOP, are not without their problems. But they're not embarrassed by traditional authority and religion. Democrats, meanwhile, don't need to get religion, but they do need to "get" religion if they're going to climb out of their hole.

Jonah Goldberg is editor at large of National Review Online, and he is a syndicated columnist.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...ion-edit_x.htm

[BlueSky]

Evangelical Christianity is about love, redemption, forgiveness, charity, humility, hope and self-sacrifice.

And a final lesson: Don't worry. Bush is not going to turn this country into a theocracy. He just wants God's help. And we should pray he gets it.

Gosh gee, I feel SO much better now. Enough of this talk, let's kill more foreigners.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
November 10, 2004
Democrats Need To 'Get Religion.' It's Not Scary
By Mort Kondracke

Americans gradually were becoming more tolerant of gays. In a few years, civil unions would have been no big deal. And in a few decades, I think, "civil marriage" might have become available to gays.

But four arrogant judges in Sen. John Kerry's home state decided to leapfrog the democratic process, and they created a mighty backlash. Along with Kerry's incoherence on the war in Iraq, that killed him.

Mort Kondracke is the Executive Editor of Roll Call.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Com..._10_04_MK.html

Umm, we did the whole civil-rights-takes-time thing already with black citizens. It only took 90 years between the end of the Civil War to the Supreme Court's decision in Brown vs. Board of Education before they got full equality; even longer if you take into account some of the Civil Rights legislation passed in the early 60's. 90 years isn't a long time . . . unless you were black in this country during that time.

I do not want to wait around for "a few decades" until the American people "get it" in regards to full rights for our homosexual citizens. I am not happy with judges legislating policy; I would prefer it if we had activist politicians to tell the citizens that intolerance is not acceptable and they would just have to suck it up and accept the fact that their fellow citizens deserve the same legal rights.

That's what I would like.

<edited for poor grammar and punctuation.>

[IceBreaker]

<snip> never mind..let this thread die.. Democrats just don't get it...and for Republicans thats a good thing.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by IceBreaker:
<snip> never mind..let this thread die.. Democrats just don't get it...and for Republicans thats a good thing.

Amen

[bamburg dunes]

It feels like it's becoming a theocracy. The argument against Muslim countries and religion intermixing, just seems to fall apart now when listening to Bush.

[Luca Rescigno]

Why do so many Christians believe that they must bother us atheists by trying to convert us? I don't think they are promoting intolerance or anything, and I have been to church services on a couple rare occasions. I just don't see how someone can attend every week and really derive some kind of meaning from what they say.

I'm not afraid of religion itself, more of what it has the potential to do. George Bush being religious doesn't bother me, but it does bother me that he has taken an "ends justifies the means" stance towards achieving what he seems to believe is a God-given mandate.

I'm not at all afraid of God or religion, but Bush's use of it to make so many decisions does frighten me.

[Spliffdaddy]

The liberals are quick to suggest that they're open-minded and accepting. Until it comes time to actually act on it.

[CreepingDeth]

Mort and Jonah articles in 1 thread?

The problem is obvious. It's people like Luca on the fringe who does alot of Christian bashing and attacks on transcendent moral values. Also, people like Kerry who claim to be Christians but somehow come out in favor of absolutely immoral social policy are bad for the party. Pro-life Democrat? How many of those are there?
And it is plain and obvious to the average schmuck that the Leftists have embraced this new atheistic, and in some rare cases, occultists, stances. Not necessarily the politicians, but of the core base.

The current spin tells us that the moral factor was the key deciding factor. I disagree, but a large part of peoples' decisions comes from moral issues. And the Democrats will never, ever, ever get those people back.

[bamburg dunes]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
The liberals are quick to suggest that they're open-minded and accepting. Until it comes time to actually act on it.

You can do what you want in your religion,I couldn't give a toss; just please stop handing me leaflets inviting me to join Christ when I am merely trying to cross the road.

ta muchly

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by bamburg dunes:
You can do what you want in your religion,I couldn't give a toss; just please stop handing me leaflets inviting me to join Christ when I am merely trying to cross the road.

ta muchly

I don't have a religion.

But I'm not anti-religious to the point it becomes a religion, either, like you and a lot of the lefties.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:

And it is plain and obvious to the average schmuck that the Leftists have embraced this new atheistic, and in some rare cases, occultists, stances. Not necessarily the politicians, but of the core base.

I think you mean "Cult-like" not "occultist". Some occultists are very devout Theists (like myself ), while others are even completely Christian.

Just an FYI.

[Shaddim]

As for Pro-life Democrats, Gore used to be one until he started hanging out in the Beltway.

[bamburg dunes]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I don't have a religion.

But I'm not anti-religious to the point it becomes a religion, either, like you and a lot of the lefties.

Ah, assumptions. Please point out one place I have said I am anti-religion. Go on, I'll wait. Now, once you've extracted foot from mouth, remember that I talked about people 'invading' my privacy with religion by shoving it in front of me.

Big difference.

I am a tolerant person, even to those who believe n a mythical figure like the Jesus of Nazareth, but it only goes so far. A bit like you and Muslims, I suspect.

[Luca Rescigno]

Boy, so now unless I talk about how great Christians are, I'm a "Christian-basher?" As I said before, I don't have a problem with religion itself but I think it has terrible potential. And I also don't like people bothering me about my religion, but I should point out that I know most Christians don't do that and I am rarely bothered about my religion.

There is simply a fundamental difference between one group of people in this country and another. Although I'm sure there's plenty of intermixing, there's generally the socially conservative group and the socially liberal group. Each side is convinced that they are CORRECT without question.

But most people are somewhere near the middle. Yes, I'd consider myself pro-choice, but I think abortions are still a bad thing to do and they shouldn't be performed unless it's early in the pregnancy or it's really necessary. Abortion as a convenience service is wrong. But who do you hear? Only the people who are polarized on one side of the issue or the other. So while maybe 75% of the country would probably be able to come to a compromise on various issues and work together reasonably, the other 25% are extremists who refuse to yield any ground to the "enemy" side. Well guess what folks, we're Americans, and we can work out our problems. We need compromises to unify people. Right now we have two political parties that I'm not too fond of, but I choose the Democrats since they more closely represent my socially liberal views. Unfortunately, that lumps me in with everyone else who may or may not be reasonable, and it sets me against the Republican party, which may have a few extremists but is still largely made up of moderate, reasonable people.

[bamburg dunes]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I think you mean "Cult-like" not "occultist". Some occultists are very devout Theists (like myself ), while others are even completely Christian.

Just an FYI.

True, Crowley was one misunderstood guy.

[spauldingg]

Sayeth Thomas Jefferson:
"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion."

And John F Kennedy:
"Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end�where all men and all churches are treated as equal�where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice�where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind�and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood."

James Madison
"Religion, or the duty which we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force and violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience."

Sojourner Truth
"Religion without humanity is a poor human stuff."

Bertrand Russell
"The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder�s lack of rational conviction. Opinions in politics and religion are almost always held passionately."

and finally:

Stephen Spender
"Religion stands, the Church blocking the sun."

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I don't have a religion.

But I'm not anti-religious to the point it becomes a religion, either, like you and a lot of the lefties.

I don't have one either. You obviously know very little about "a lot of the lefties." That's just a convenient statement for you to gloss over something you don't know much about. Republicans aren't the only who go to church and who have moral values, although its obvious you'd like to have us think so.

What Republicans need to "get" is that this country isn't just about them and their religious beliefs. We don't need to go to church to know that it's wrong to discriminate against others. Goldberg's, and Kondracke's, articles are full of generalizations that they want to believe, and have no basis in fact. They write what they do simply to make it look like Bush won by a landslide, which is entirely erroneous; he won by just over half the voters, and his attitude since the election shows exactly why this country is going to be divided until he leaves. I'd be willing to bet that most Democrats are no different than most Republicans in that they're centrist than extremists. The probem we have now is that the extremists think they're totally in control and are trying to use the government to ram their religious beliefs down everybody's throats, and that's not going to cut it. If you want to be a Souther Baptist, or Muslim, or Jew, or Catholic, or Protestant, or atheist, or agnostic, or whatever else you believe in, that doesn't bother me one bit. Just don't try to shove your beliefs in my face, or use them to define public policy, or discriminate, and we'll all get along just fine.

[dgs212]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:

What I am saying is that Democrats need to understand where Evangelicals are coming from, what George Bush's faith is all about and stop being either terrified by or (often) bigoted against what they imagine conservative Christians are all about.

Here's a neat trick:

Replace the following words from the passage above with the words indicated to their right...

Democrats ---------------------> Americans
Evangelicals ------------------> Islamic Fundamentalists
George Bush's -----------------> Osama bin Laden's
conservative Christians -------> devout Muslims

In case you're too tired to do so, I've taken the liberty.

What I am saying is that Americans need to understand where Islamic Fundamentalists are coming from, what Osama bin Laden's faith is all about and stop being either terrified by or (often) bigoted against what they imagine devout Muslims are all about.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by bamburg dunes:
True, Crowley was one misunderstood guy.

Largely, yes. He enjoyed electrifying the media with outlandish statements, but in reality he was rather harmless and quite devout (not to mention a tireless scholar). I've talked to many who knew him personally, some of whom I consider friends, and most hold him in high regard.

[Cohiba]

The problems with the democrats lately is that they have taken an activist stance. Their party has been less about what the people want, but more about what extremists want, and forcing that on the majority. For example.

Religion. I am agnostic. But, I understand the 1st amendment just makes it so the government can not create a �Church of America� or send people to jail for not being �American-Christian�. That is it. Now, quick question for those who do not live in Alabama? Did you really care that they had a statue of the 10 commandments in their capital? Probably not. However, some extremists decided to polarize the nation by forcing them to get rid of it. Most people just did not care, as they should not have.

Marriage. If the democrats just wanted Civil Unions, like Bush, everything would have worked out fine. Marriage has a very religious tone to it, and once you get a Civil Union, the only thing with Marriage is a simple name. Yes, I want gays to marry too, but that takes time, it is how democracy works and people need to get over this. Yes people get screwed, but we still have children getting their brains drilled out, so take console that not being able to marry is not that bad. The reason why Bush went for the marriage amendment, is because activists were trying to force churches to marry gays, again this will not get you any brownie points. Some people felt threatened, so they fought back. All people are like dogs, you do not just punch the dog and expect him/her to let you pet �em.

I would also say the democrat party needs to take a better view on abortion. The vast majority wants to have abortion, but wants more restriction. I am currently living in Japan, and know a few Americans who sent in absentee ballots for Bush because of Kerry�s vote on Partial Birth Abortion. I think the Republicans need to lay off on protecting embryos, but the Democrats definitely need focus more on the rights of a fetus. Both need to create a good agreement, as the current precedent gets weaker by the day as more scientific evidence is published about fetuses. I fear now there will be a rebound, and all abortion will be outlawed, along with embryonic research, and it will just catapult to the other side again sooner or later. Lets be honest with ourselves, I am sure that most people who are pro-choice believe a woman should be able to choose, but that she should choose quickly. Eight weeks after conception is more then enough time to make such a decision, that is what our government needs to enforce on both sides.

Also, again, understand that people are spiritual animals. Modern day living is a �me want� lifestyle. The honest truth is that there really is no lifestyle that nurtures the human sole while complementing science. Some people have that hole, and go to Christianity, but by doing so, indeed they block out science. Religion really does make people feel better, as seen by religious people living longer, having less stress, overall better physical health, and just by being happier while having better relationships with family and friends. I do not want to start any contention, but I will also say that all my really good friends, the ones I can truly count on are all very religious (Christian, Jewish, Buddhist/Shinto). Denying this powerful effect is what is killing the democrat party. Christianity is left from the time that people used their intuition, not senses, to rationalize the world around them, creating all the Old Testament ideas of Creationism. The problem is that people are just throwing away the entire religious scheme because of a few �mistakes� with it, creating a backlash.

Living in Japan, I would say Buddhism / Shinto (minus the emperor is god thing) would be very healthy, but most of your American Buddhists are wacky, and have no real idea what Buddhism really is. It complements science very well, and serves the purpose of helping those around you, to value morality while maintaining strong self-discipline, while seeking knowledge and enlightenment. Has an extremely rich culture around it, nurtures that soul that people always talk about, and works with science as using senses to explore the world helps to enlighten you.

The honest truth is that I think America needs to nurture some kind of religion, without dogma or pseudo-scientific explanations, while having some form of culture. Agnosticism is a start, but it lacks the cultural backing that religion has always strengthened from.

I really think it would behoove many Americans to leave their country for a while and travel the world for a bit. Also, both sides should have an open mind, as chances are, when a group becomes this polarized, both sides usually have good ideas that should be taken into account, and name calling does not go to far in creating this middle-ground.

[bamburg dunes]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Largely, yes. He enjoyed electrifying the media with outlandish statements, but in reality he was rather harmless and quite devout (not to mention a tireless scholar). I've talked to many who knew him personally, some of whom I consider friends, and most hold him in high regard.

Indeed, the vast majority of his critics failed to understand the level of his understanding, snd approach to spiritual matters. Often times they would not see beyond the words he wrote, and utterly failed to grasp the meanings of his passages. Within them lies, not condemnation of religion, or extreme extravagence in his thoughts, but a very clear, and concise new way of thinking. It just fkew past many people's heads.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Cohiba:
Denying this powerful effect is what is killing the democrat party. Christianity is left from the time that people used their intuition, not senses, to rationalize the world around them, creating all the Old Testament ideas of Creationism. The problem is that people are just throwing away the entire religious scheme because of a few �mistakes� with it, creating a backlash.

It's more a problem of perception and message. The Democrats don't deny religion -- almost every politician in this country is religious. They just don't talk about it enough, and they're not persuasive. Democrats need to find a way to work faith into their message, and perhaps to expound the fact that their view of faith's role in government is much more attuned to civil libertarianism than the religious right's intolerant view. Faith should inform policy, not dictate it, nor should we deny its significance.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Why religion is a losing issue for today's Democrats

Because it's difficult, if not impossible, for reason to compete against blind devotion.

[BRussell]

The basic problem is that many people, including those who wrote the articles above and many of the posters in this thread, associate conservative ideology with religion. Sorry, but you don't have to favor government prohibition of abortion, you don't have to be opposed to gay marriage, you don't have to be against universal health care, and you don't have to be in favor of the war in Iraq to be religious. You can believe in the separation of church and state, you can believe in a broad interpretation of the constitution, you can believe in a balanced budget, and you can even vote for Democrats and still be religious.

Everyone seems to miss this. There are quite a lot of liberal Christians and Jews out there, they just get ignored because of the noisy Christian right-wingers.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by bamburg dunes:
Indeed, the vast majority of his critics failed to understand the level of his understanding, snd approach to spiritual matters. Often times they would not see beyond the words he wrote, and utterly failed to grasp the meanings of his passages. Within them lies, not condemnation of religion, or extreme extravagence in his thoughts, but a very clear, and concise new way of thinking. It just fkew past many people's heads.

Very well said, and more true than most can realize.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I think you mean "Cult-like" not "occultist". Some occultists are very devout Theists (like myself ), while others are even completely Christian.

Just an FYI.

I stand corrected. What I meant is that the modern Left thing they are the avant-garde because they don't believe in the so-called "ideology of the weak." They spit upon practicing men and women of any faith. That leads them into atheistic and immoral policies. Also a section of the Left is the growing population that engages in Pagan activity. Take some of the Jewish Renewal people. The fringe of that group talks more about nature and mother earth than the Torah and Talmud. That also goes for some of the "New Age Christians," whom I wouldn't consider to be real Christians.

I just don't understand how two parties that were about equally pious and religious just changed. You've got one party that is popular in the Heartland, and one party that is popular in Manhattan.

[Cohiba]

Originally posted by itai195:
religious right's intolerant view.

That is the problem right there. I would not say the religious right is intolerant, but has become very defensive. There are two reasons for this.

First, in rural areas, I can honestly say family is more important then in city areas. People often have more children, do more activities with them, and create a strong bond with other families. These people are often and not more religious. They see their family system as working, and I can attest that it works well. Now, I believe that it can work just as well with a homosexual couple that has adopted children, but people in these areas do not believe homosexual people to be mature and responsible for such a thing (I will explain why next paragraph). To them, changing the family unit, is changing the basic and most fundamental fiber of their being, and will ultimately continue to change America into a decedent nation of twips. I enjoy living in the city, but I would never raise a family there, and the reason why is honestly because of the family bonds that your average city dwellers lack. Are they extenuating circumstances, yes, but I sure would not send my children to a public school in NYC or DC.

Now, where do people get bad ideas of homosexuals. I honestly believe that homosexuals are just as capable of fostering loving relationships with their children and other families as heterosexuals. The problems lie in how homosexuals are perceived. It is not necessarily a religious thing, but a media thing, which creates a very problematic dilemma for homosexuals. I have a few homosexual friends, but you would not know who they are, because they, well, do not act, �homosexual�. That is the key. Many homosexual people are just like everyone else, which is how they should be, as heterosexual people should act just like everyone else. The problem is when the media kicks in and shows off homosexuals as flamboyant types, which only talk about sexual innuendo and living through a promiscuous lifestyle.

Flamboyant behavior, in any sexual preference, is inappropriate, especially in front of children. These people think all homosexuals act this way, as sex-craved, boisterous people who regularly enjoy speaking about their sexual activity. Because you�re common Joe believes that a homosexuals lifestyle revolves around sex, they believe they are unsuitable to be around children, which goes against the principle of the family unit. They do not want their children to be around them, they think they should not have any children, and so there is no reason to get married, except for tax benefits and such (covered by Civil Unions).

What homosexuals need to do is show themselves off as regular guys/women, who want mahoganious relationships, and are �just like everyone else�. They need to ostracize the flamboyant people, say these people are a few extremist people, and to pay no attention to them. They need to show America that only very few homosexuals talk with a lisp, dress in �rainbow colors� and revolve their lifestyle around sexual intercourse. All of my friends detest these flamboyant people just as much as your regular heterosexual does, that is where the problem lies. Of course, the media makes too much money as portraying all homosexuals as such, and for many people, the embodiment of homosexually is as such, which really needs to change.

Now, on the other side of the spectrum are your �Gay Bashers�. They need to go too. I try as hard as I can to discredit these people as there truly is nothing wrong with being homosexual. These people are the �intolerant� people you speak of, but just like flamboyant homosexuals, these hateful people are also the extremists. Once the pro-gay marriage people ostracize the flamboyant types, and the anti-gay marriage people ostracize those hateful of gay people, then I believe the middle mass will congeal rather quickly to care for homosexuals just as much as anyone else.

The problem is that the extremists ALWAYS get all the attention. If you are against homosexual marriage, you �obliviously� beat up gays with driving around in your truck with the confederate flag on the rear windshield. If you are a homosexual, you �obviously� act like the gay guy on South Park. People need to understand where each side is coming from, and nasty comments will not get anyone there. Your �intolerant� view comment shows that you are still focusing on the extremists, which mean you are helping this process take longer. It would behoove you to explain to these people that most homosexuals are just like them, instead of saying they are just �intolerant�, the hate needs to stop on both sides my friend.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by dgs212:
Here's a neat trick:

Replace the following words from the passage above with the words indicated to their right...

Democrats ---------------------> Americans
Evangelicals ------------------> Islamic Fundamentalists
George Bush's -----------------> Osama bin Laden's
conservative Christians -------> devout Muslims

In case you're too tired to do so, I've taken the liberty.

What I am saying is that Americans need to understand where Islamic Fundamentalists are coming from, what Osama bin Laden's faith is all about and stop being either terrified by or (often) bigoted against what they imagine devout Muslims are all about.

Nice comparison!

I don't pretend to know every thing about where Islamic Fundamentalism comes from, but I have no issue with Osama Bin Laden's faith, and am certainly not terrified by, or bigoted by what I imagine devout Muslims are all about.

America is built on Religious freedom..... aren't just about all religions are practiced here (for now anyhow)?

The issue is the Athiest Left has taken it upon themselves to impose their unhappy Godless world on everyone around them.

If it bothers you that a Manger Scene or Menorah or Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer is placed on a townsqure somewhere I think you have way too much time on your hands and need to just relax.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
If it bothers you that a Manger Scene or Menorah or Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer is placed on a townsqure somewhere I think you have way too much time on your hands and need to just relax.

The ACLU.

The American Communist League Unchained.

Even if everyone was allowed to put up they want in celebration of their holiday in a town square, it would still violate the "separation of church and state" crap. But it is obvious the have no problem with a government okaying a Muslim prayer broadcast five or six times a day in Michigan.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
Why do so many Christians believe that they must bother us atheists by trying to convert us? I don't think they are promoting intolerance or anything, and I have been to church services on a couple rare occasions.

Most of the well-meaning ones honestly believe that if they do not, you will suffer for it. When your average born-again talks about "saving people", this is quite literally what they believe themselves to be doing. To them, evangelism is an act of heroism. As they see it, having been saved themselves it is their moral imperative to "go back", as it were, and do the same for others.

There are some evangelical faiths which don't put it in such dramatic terms, but the faiths which identify themselves as "born-again" all believe this, more or less. Whether they're right or wrong is for another debate (one which has been hashed out far too many times here, to the point where I think everyone except benign is sick of it). But you wanted to know why they do it; for most of them, that's why.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Cohiba:
What homosexuals need to do is show themselves off as regular guys/women, who want mahoganious relationships...

I don't know; I'd imagine that wanting to carry on relationships with illegally-imported furniture made from endangered rainforest hardwoods isn't going to endear them very much.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I don't know; I'd imagine that wanting to carry on relationships with illegally-imported furniture made from endangered rainforest hardwoods isn't going to endear them very much.

Damn... I'm sorry, I can't help it. S***, that was funny.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
The ACLU.

The American Communist League Unchained.

Even if everyone was allowed to put up they want in celebration of their holiday in a town square, it would still violate the "separation of church and state" crap. But it is obvious the have no problem with a government okaying a Muslim prayer broadcast five or six times a day in Michigan.

Two entirely different issues. One involves the government sponsoring particular religions, by allowing the placement of religious items on government property. The other involves Muslims being allowed to practice their religion on private property, part of which is includes calling the faithful to services.

You didn't mention that they also went to court for several Bush supporters in Michigan, when the supporters' cities ordered them to take down their Bush signs 30 days before the election, which the court correctly found to be against free speech.

[dgs212]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:

The issue is the Athiest Left has taken it upon themselves to impose their unhappy Godless world on everyone around them.

Actually, my godless world is extremely happy. Do you know how great it is sleeping in on sundays, never having to go to church, never fearing for your mortal soul, never worried about being subject to the whims of supernatural beings? Give it a try. You might like it.

In fact, maybe everyone should try to be an atheist for a day. To be fair, you have to tell all your co-workers, friends, and family that you are now atheist (don't worry; you can tell them it was an experiment or a joke the next day); that way, in addition to reaping the supreme benefit of knowing that you are the master of your own destiny, the very captain of your ship, you also have to put up with the bullsh*t heaped on you by religious folks "concerned for your soul."

[dgs212]

Also, by any and all estimates, atheists are extremely few in number (although growing more numerous by the day). To ascribe to the left atheist leanings is disingenuous, as the vast, vast, vast majority of leftists are, in fact, religious. It's like saying every conservative person in America lives in Tuscon, Arizona. Sure, their are conservative folks who live there (and liberal folks as well), but not all conservatives live there. In fact, the vast majority of conservatives live elsewhere.

Likewise, the vast majority of liberals do not live in Atheist-town. We do have several open units with lovely views of Freedom From Authority Bluffs. Anyone care to move in? The rent is real cheap. No God-ies allowed. Check your narrow political labels at the border.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by dgs212:
Actually, my godless world is extremely happy. Do you know how great it is sleeping in on sundays, never having to go to church, never fearing for your mortal soul, never worried about being subject to the whims of supernatural beings? Give it a try. You might like it.

I would, but they won't leave me alone. As for the sleeping in on Sundays, I do that anyway, I don't attend "church", per se.

Not all religious people have services on Sunday mornings.

[cpt kangarooski]

Cohiba--

Religion. I am agnostic. But, I understand the 1st amendment just makes it so the government can not create a �Church of America� or send people to jail for not being �American-Christian�. That is it.

It does more than that. It permits both free exercise (so that people aren't punished for their religion or told to change it) and prohibits the government legislating respecting establishments of religion so that they are unable to discern or support religions even to very minor degrees.

So basically religions and religious individuals and groups cannot be favored or disfavored, which is a very tricky line to stay on.

Now, quick question for those who do not live in Alabama? Did you really care that they had a statue of the 10 commandments in their capital?

Well, first, it wasn't Alamaba, it was one man acting by himself. Second, it was a courthouse, not their capitol (no one would care if it were merely in the capital). Third, yes, I really cared, because the constitution doesn't just apply to people who live in my neighborhood.

Probably not. However, some extremists decided to polarize the nation by forcing them to get rid of it. Most people just did not care, as they should not have.

It wasn't extremists who sought its removal, buddy. Have you even looked at the Moore case? It's a good read, btw. But the extremist in the situation was Moore himself. Me, I take the whole affair as a good example of why electing judges is dumb.

Marriage. If the democrats just wanted Civil Unions, like Bush, everything would have worked out fine.

Wanna bet?

Marriage has a very religious tone to it, and once you get a Civil Union, the only thing with Marriage is a simple name.

That's enough.

Yes, I want gays to marry too, but that takes time, it is how democracy works and people need to get over this. Yes people get screwed, but we still have children getting their brains drilled out, so take console that not being able to marry is not that bad.

So out of curiosity, since you're saying that blacks should not have gone to court to challenge laws and practices that discriminated against them, how long should they have waited for people at large to finally repeal Jim Crowe laws?

I suspect that if they had not stood up for themselves by every avenue available, we'd still have segregated schools and facilities now. You'd be okay with that? I wouldn't be.

Democracy is great, but it doesn't always work. This is why the guarantees of civil liberties in the constitution are designed to protect minorities; because it was fully expected that the majority would do the wrong thing.

The reason why Bush went for the marriage amendment, is because activists were trying to force churches to marry gays, again this will not get you any brownie points.

No, no one was trying to force churches to do that, and besides which due to the first amendment, no one ever could do so. I mean, think about how idiotic your statement sounds.

Plus of course, lots of churches marry same sex couples _now_. The issue was always about state recognition.

I would also say the democrat party needs to take a better view on abortion. The vast majority wants to have abortion, but wants more restriction.

Again, vast majorities don't get to ignore highly protected civil liberties. So it doesn't really matter what the vast majority wants.

Religion really does make people feel better, as seen by religious people living longer, having less stress, overall better physical health, and just by being happier while having better relationships with family and friends.

Uh, I hate to break it to you but people throughout history have often been extremely religious. It didn't help much, and their life expectancy and health were usually crap. Modern medicine (and other new developments in agriculture, economics, communications, etc., since they're all interrelated) has had thousands of times greater of an effect in keeping people alive and healthy. While it might make a slight difference to be happy and not suffer from stress, if we were to take the most devout guy you can find, and drop him into the middle of Europe during the Black Death, it's a safe bet that he won't last a couple of weeks. Whereas, if we equipped him with a decent suppy of medicine and insecticide and the training for how to effectively use 'em, he could probably get through it.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Cohiba--

It does more than that. It permits both free exercise (so that people aren't punished for their religion or told to change it) and prohibits the government legislating respecting establishments of religion so that they are unable to discern or support religions even to very minor degrees.

Actually, this isn't really the case. The term "establishment of religion" meant something very specific at the time; namely, the idea that a government would create a religion in its own image. In particular it referred to the Church of England, which had made the English government and religion one and the same thing. The US was, according to the Constitution, to develop a policy of disestablishment, which meant that it would cut ties with any religion and not interfere with it, not let itself be interfered with by it, again.

This is where the famous term Antidisestablishmentarianism comes from, as a matter of fact. The corresponding term, disestablishmentarianism, referred to support of this policy. Antidisestablishmentarianists opposed it.

The interpretation of "respecting an establishment of religion" as "pertaining to any religion, or to religion in general" comes from a later time period was not the original intent of the law and therefore cannot honestly be held as part of that law. There is nothing in the Constitution about prohibiting religious displays on public land, so long as these displays are not set up by the government (as this would be establishing religion) and that anyone of any faith is allowed to set up such displays (to do otherwise would be prohibiting free exercise).

This is not to say that I support the entwining of religion and government; indeed, my conviction that this must not happen would probably be considered extreme by both sides. However, if we are to talk about the First Amendment's establishment clause, we need to do so on its own terms, not ours.

[cpt kangarooski]

Millennium--

There is nothing in the Constitution about prohibiting religious displays on public land, so long as these displays are not set up by the government (as this would be establishing religion) and that anyone of any faith is allowed to set up such displays (to do otherwise would be prohibiting free exercise).

You've failed to find the lynchpin: it's obvious that where the government sets up a display that it is an establishment. But where a display is set up by others in such a way that the government seems to endorse it, that's an establishment too. Simply using others as catspaws or lending government imprimatur to religion through association may be clever establishments, as opposed to the more blatant sort, but they're still the same thing in the end, and still unlawful.

Now, it's not a prohibition of free exercise for the government to properly remain within the boundaries of the establishment clause. But as I said, it's not easy to refrain from aiding religion without unlawfully discriminating against religion, and to not discriminate against religion without establishing one. I don't envy those who have to go between this Scylla and Charybdis.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Millennium--


You've failed to find the lynchpin: it's obvious that where the government sets up a display that it is an establishment. But where a display is set up by others in such a way that the government seems to endorse it, that's an establishment too.

That's why you make "seeming to endorse it" impossible, by making the law very clear on the matter. Anyone may set up a display, the only restriction being that no one may remove a display other than the one who placed it, and none of the displays shall be taken to constitute any kind of endorsement on the part of the government, nor shall the absence of any display be taken to constitute discrimination against any faith that such displays might represent.

[cpt kangarooski]

Millennium--

That's why you make "seeming to endorse it" impossible, by making the law very clear on the matter. Anyone may set up a display, the only restriction being that no one may remove a display other than the one who placed it, and none of the displays shall be taken to constitute any kind of endorsement on the part of the government, nor shall the absence of any display be taken to constitute discrimination against any faith that such displays might represent.

However, saying that something is not an establishment doesn't actually mean it is not an establishment. Indeed, that's precisely what people who want an establishment might say in order to get around the constitution. So that's not a solution.

Instead, the actual display and the circumstances surrounding it (particularly the context and location of the display) need to be examined. Some displays will likely not constitute establishments, such as if a religious group holds a rally in a park. Others will, such as in the Allegheny where the display was put up by a religious organization inside a prominent area in a courthouse.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Millennium--


However, saying that something is not an establishment doesn't actually mean it is not an establishment. Indeed, that's precisely what people who want an establishment might say in order to get around the constitution. So that's not a solution.

That's why I didn't say it "is not an establishment"; I said it "shall not be taken as an establishment". The differences may be semantic, but when it comes to law semantics make all the difference. Rather than simply saying that it's not an establishment not, my wording forbids the government from considering it as such. By forbidding the government from treating it as an establishment, you have effectively prevented it from becoming an establishment.

This type of wording is a common theme in the Constitution; rather than granting rights, it treats them as already-granted and forbids the government from encroaching on them. In particular, it shows up in almost all of the amendments to the Constitution, including almost all of the Bill of Rights.