Protestantism

» Brother_Jones - Republic

In response to Republic posted by BrianTubbs:

Yet, somehow, I'm getting the feel (particularly from Pink and, to some extent, from Migisi and PaperTurtle as well) that there needs to be some special or extraordinary limitation placed on Christian conservatives.

I haven't seen anyone mention limiting their rights as of yet.

What you all are doing is saying that religious leaders or groups (Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, etc) who organize and/or lobby and/or speak out to influence the political process should be held SUSPECT and should be eyed very carefully.

I think you would also agree with this statement of yours.

That they should be given not quite the same amount of latitude as other special interest groups who seek to engage the political process.

This is the most carefully worded thought in your post, I think. How do you propose that certain groups be opposed in American society? Taking names, public protest, and marching with signs seems to have worked all these years. I means it does seem to be what helps when conservative groups get too full of themselves, and some others help to pull them back to reason by way of strong protest.

i am just an oldtimer for the Lord.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

» pink101 - What fun!? In The Sandbox!

In response to What fun!? posted by Migisi:
.
Career Soldiers and Marines call it "Playing in the Sandbox". Some senior Non-coms enjoy the fun of being there and getting combat pay.
War does terrible things to the human psyche. Ask anyone who has been there. Look for honest men.
.
When they get called up to go to Iraq or Afghanistan, they say, "I'm going back to play in the sand box. YooHaH!" Did you know that SandBox is code for the Middle East?
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Requiem

In response to Republic posted by BrianTubbs:

.
I am 100% supportive of the First Amendment's establishment clause.
.
We can talk all day long about the Founder's intentions, the stated and implied Constitutional guarantees and the Bill of Rights. But we'd have to talk in past tense. They don't exist anymore, thanks to Bush's Patriot Act of 2001, and all the other so-called 'terrorist' and 'national security' bills passed since.
.
(Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, etc) who organize and/or lobby and/or speak out to influence the political process should be held SUSPECT and should be eyed very carefully.
.
Well, yeah! ANY religious fanatic who has the ear of the President and counsels him should indeed be held suspect and watched carefully.
.
Here's an old article (2001) and some snippets well worth reading, IMO, to help you understand the concerns:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn...
.
Religious Right Finds Its Center in Oval Office -
Bush Emerges as Movement's Leader After Robertson Leaves Christian Coalition
.
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 24, 2001; Page A02
.
Pat Robertson's resignation this month as president of the Christian Coalition confirmed the ascendance of a new leader of the religious right in America: George W. Bush.
.
For the first time since religious conservatives became a modern political movement, the president of the United States has become the movement's de facto leader -- a status even Ronald Reagan, though admired by religious conservatives, never earned. Christian publications, radio and television shower Bush with praise, while preachers from the pulpit treat his leadership as an act of providence. A procession of religious leaders who have met with him testify to his faith, while Web sites encourage people to fast and pray for the president..."
.
Read the rest for some rather worrisome quotes by Christian conservative leaders making Bush out to be a divine answer to all problems.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Requiem

In response to Requiem posted by Migisi:
.
Not so much the requiem; but, just about the same thing.
.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush.
.
This is the way we change the Constitution, change the Constitution, change the Constitution so early in the morning. Get five strong Evangelical Christians on the court and see how long it takes to change the laws under which we now relate with each other. Gee. Do you think I mean they could possibly do that?
.
What we do is to get someone in the White House who thinks along certain lines--especially when there are impending openings in the Surpreme Court.
.
Electing a president for long time effect is all about who will be appointed to sit on the Supreme Court of the land. Those Justices--who ever they are--are the ones who interpret the U.S. Constitution. And, if we get a majority of dedicated Muslim justices on the court, they will make their choices based on their mind set. YOU absolutely KNOW how Gonzales will vote if he gets to be one of our Justices.
.
All talk aside about what the Founders believed, it is ALL ABOUT what those Nine Justices think.
.
Period. Who is to over ride ANY decision they ever make? They are the only ones who can over ride any decision they ever make.
.
That's all she wrote.
.
Stupid people who don't realize the importance of the Court. Talk about "Activist Judges". Give me a break!!
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brother_Jones - Falwell

In response to Falwell posted by pink101:

You know how to use vulgarity as a way of expressing your manliness in your talk;

I will try to keep a watch on myself. In the case of Billy Graham, I think it is obvious that one of yours went way over the moral and ethical boundaries to smear an opponent and such behavior is common to that poster. It does your argument little good when it happpens. You can continue to write on me whatever criticism you deem best. I was attempting to bring a little humor into an area that is rife with a mean spirit.

i am just an oldtimer for the Lord.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

» pink101 - Billy Grtaham

In response to Falwell posted by Brother_Jones:
.
I don't get your point, Jones.
.
Billy Graham is not--repeat NOT--held in high esteem among the most devout Fundamentalist Christians.
.
So, what's your point in trying to protect his image?
.
You seem to forget that I have insider connections; albeit,.some of my relatives treat me as though I were no longer living.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Broccoli

Paper Turtle,

Your broccoli illustration caused me to recall former President George H.W. Bush's famous saying (when he was in the White House): "I'm the President of the United States, and I'm not going to eat any broccoli."

» Brian Tubbs - Values

To All: People generally vote their values - whether they are evangelical Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, agnostics, or (as PT offers) broccoli-worshipers. People vote their values.

The COURTS are different in that they are SUPPOSED to not vote their values, but rather apply the laws of the land.

The principal lawmaking branch of our government is supposed to be and - for the most part, still is - the legislative branch. The people elect their representatives to make laws. The legislative branch will, by and large, reflect the majority will of the populace - although there are checks and balances in place to protect minorities.

My point in all this is....Evangelical, conservative Christians have as much right as anyone else to speak out, lobby, organize, and vote to impact the lawmaking and policymaking process as any other group. Does everyone agree with that?

What I'm hearing from you is....No. They have the right to vote and take part in their society, but they should leave check parts of their religion at the door of public society. Keep their religion to their homes, churches, synagogues, etc. and only vote, speak out, lobby, organize, etc. in a way that is reflective of the overall diversity of society. That's what I'm hearing from you.

» Brian Tubbs - Huh?

In response to Huh? posted by pink101:

Huh? What part of NO LAW is so difficult for you to understand that you have to try to put the focus on some letter Jefferson wrote to a Baptist congregation?

Pink, you're either showing your ignorance here or you worded this badly. It is the Supreme Court - not me! - that has pointed to this letter Mr. Jefferson wrote the Danbarry Baptists! Since the late 1800s, the High Court has felt that, in interpreting the First Amendment establishment clause, the best phrase from the founding era was Jefferson's "wall of separation" reference in this letter. My point is that, since the mid-20th century, the Court has taken that phrase OUT OF CONTEXT. Jefferson didn't mean it in the way that the Court has recently interpeted it.

As to your queestion: "What part of 'no law' do I not understand?" With all due respect, this is a really odd question to ask me. The First Amendment is not limited to the words "no law." If you're going to ask me about text, ask me about it in the proper context and in proper relation to the other words in that amendment. Okay?

» Brother_Jones - Billy Grtaham

In response to Billy Grtaham posted by pink101:

Billy Graham is not--repeat NOT--held in high esteem among the most devout Fundamentalist Christians.

What does that have to do with slander and libel? If we allow you to be slandered and libeled, the next person might be me. What difference does it make whether we are talking about Graham or we are talking about Spong? You seem to be a little on the foggy side today. You are having trouble spelling and making much if any sense. Are you okay?

i am just an oldtimer for the Lord.

-- posted by Brother_Jones