The "Religious Right"

[Rowdy]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Originally posted by Rowdy

What's funny about all those people who put down Christians for being judgemental is doing the same thing they abhor. Lumping all Christians together isn't any different than others accusing Christians of acting "holier than thou".

Except I'm not claiming to do so at the bequest of god.  Nor do I adhere to judge not lest ye be judged.  So if nothing else, when I do it, at least I'm not a hypocrite.

Still, you are lumping Christians together.  Want to know why?  I'm a Christian and I am no better than you or anyone else on this earth.  I have a different belief than you or someone else might, but that doesn't make me or someone else better.

[Porky]

Can we now talk about the Religious Left?

[jdb]

Seem to recall 4 out 5 Christians prefer Owasso.

I may have those stats askew, anyone got a link?


jdb

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Cubs

Wow ... I had no idea you all had such hatred for people of faith.

I assure you, very few people of faith I've met subscribe to the teachings of Jerry Falwell... the religious right and the overwhelming majority of "people of faith" don't have a lot in common... no matter what the politicians in your party say...

but keep playing the victim... bet it's fun.  [:O]

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Porky

Can we now talk about the Religious Left?

Sure.  But they're not nearly as fun as the folks who give us unvarnished truths about Tinky Winky...

http://www.sojo.net/

http://www.faithfulamerica.org/

[Porky]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:Originally posted by Porky

Can we now talk about the Religious Left?

Sure.  But they're not nearly as fun as the folks who give us unvarnished truths about Tinky Winky...

They both give me nose bleeds but to each their own! []

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:Originally posted by Cubs

Wow ... I had no idea you all had such hatred for people of faith.

I assure you, very few people of faith I've met subscribe to the teachings of Jerry Falwell... the religious right and the overwhelming majority of "people of faith" don't have a lot in common... no matter what the politicians in your party say...

but keep playing the victim... bet it's fun.  [:O]

While that may be true, christians who register republican get a "RR" brand automatically. I've seen complaints about people miscategorizing "liberals" as if it was a one-sided problem.

It goes like this a lot:
All democrats hate christianity, love homosexuals, love abortion, think trees are more important than people, and have no interest in holding down a "real job."

All republicans hate everyone who isn't christian, want to kill abortionists and homosexuals, hate the environment, own multiple guns and want to end all government assistance.

These same stereotypes are perpetrated here on the board quite often.

[TulsaFan-inTexas]

Please define "religious right." I'm a right-winger, or at least I consider myself right leaning, and I'm a Christian. So you lump everyone who is right-leaning politically and of the Christian faith into one big group? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me and just another left-wing attack on religion. Oh, but wait, not all religion, just Christianity.

[Rowdy]

quote:Originally posted by TulsaFan-inTexas

Please define "religious right." I'm a right-winger, or at least I consider myself right leaning, and I'm a Christian. So you lump everyone who is right-leaning politically and of the Christian faith into one big group? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me and just another left-wing attack on religion. Oh, but wait, not all religion, just Christianity.

Exactly.  And for Cubs to comment about the hate people have for Christians and then the attack back is a perfect example.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

I assure you, very few people of faith I've met subscribe to the teachings of Jerry Falwell...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw


For the record, I dont have anything against people of faith.  I have something against the actions they may take that prohibits others from acting as they so please and those that feel the need to express how very wrong everyone else is.

To define religious right:

One who is on the conservative, or historically the right hand side of parliament, that holds and justifies that position by virtue of their religious beliefs.
(just my definition, but I think it works)

[iplaw]

I still think the whole discussion about the religious right is rediculous in the first place.  Everyone wants their particular brand of morality enforced, whether it be laze-faire, theocratic, or utilitarian.  Those who want abortion to be illegal have axioms that they hold to, and those who want abortions to be legal want the opposite axioms held to.  Either way, both sides make judgments about the situation based upon what they think is right or wrong and impose their will on the masses when they have the majority to vote in those who can impose their will.

And what's the danger of them expressing how they feel about moral issues they feel are important?  The free exchange of ideas is not scary, and it's no more annoying for you to have to listen to a religious person tell you that something is wrong because "God said so" than it is for them to endure you telling them not to do something because "this particular group of people" say it's wrong.  

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Cubs

Wow ... I had no idea you all had such hatred for people of faith.

I am a man of faith, yet I have believed for years that there is far more influence from the pulpit these days than the founding fathers intended for our country.  

Interpretation of Christianity has become more liberal in the last 100 years with man trying to bend God to man's will.  IMO, the churches are resorting to trying to legislate obedience to God's will since it's not happening within their walls.  The RR is trying to reign in people who don't march to their strict ethical code by trying to influence legislation.  That's wrong, IMO.

Where it gets especially nauseating for me is when you have an RR candidate like Anna Falling, who ran for county commissioner, that was spouting off about being pro-life and against same-sex marriage.  That was trying to buy votes with an "endorsement from God" and were totally irrelevant views in relation to the job she was running for and did nothing to help me determine how she would perform her duties if elected.

[cannon_fodder]

IPLAW:

The side arguing for greater freedom is not requiring the religous right to give anything up.  I dont believe I have heard an abortion advocate argue that religous person should be forced to abort a fetus for the health of the mother.  One side seeks to stop an activity they do not like, the other side seeks to keep the activity legal for those that so choose while NOT requiring those opposed to partake. In my view, it is not the same.

Enforcement of my views may indeed preclude the enforcement of yours, but will not impede your actions on moral grounds nor attempt to tell you the right way to think.  Merely prohibit you from impeding the actions of others on moral grounds.  I believe there is a difference, and it is more than a fine distinction.

[Rowdy]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

I still think the whole discussion about the religious right is rediculous in the first place.  Everyone wants their particular brand of morality enforced, whether it be laze-faire, theocratic, or utilitarian.  Those who want abortion to be illegal have axioms that they hold to, and those who want abortions to be legal want the opposite axioms held to.  Either way, both sides make judgments about the situation based upon what they think is right or wrong and impose their will on the masses when they have the majority to vote in those who can impose their will.

And what's the danger of them expressing how they feel about moral issues they feel are important?  The free exchange of ideas is not scary, and it's no more annoying for you to have to listen to a religious person tell you that something is wrong because "God said so" than it is for them to endure you telling them not to do something because "this particular group of people" say it's wrong.  

Couldn't have said it better.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

IPLAW:

The side arguing for greater freedom is not requiring the religous right to give anything up.  I dont believe I have heard an abortion advocate argue that religous person should be forced to abort a fetus for the health of the mother.  One side seeks to stop an activity they do not like, the other side seeks to keep the activity legal for those that so choose while NOT requiring those opposed to partake. In my view, it is not the same.

Enforcement of my views may indeed preclude the enforcement of yours, but will not impede your actions on moral grounds nor attempt to tell you the right way to think.  Merely prohibit you from impeding the actions of others on moral grounds.  I believe there is a difference, and it is more than a fine distinction.

The side that allows an action isn't necessarily the correct one simply because they do so under the guise of expanding "freedom."  There are groups that advocate the sexualization of kids which argue on the grounds that it expands the individual's "freedoms."  I know this point is a bit ethereal, so I digress.  I think we've discussed this before.  Hell, you may have been in my Jurisprudence class and heard me ranting before.[]

Call it what you want, it's still nothing more than your version of morality and how you see things.  The fact that the majority agrees with you makes it convenient to say that it's nothing more than societal consensus.  The fact is, your morality just happens to be en vogue now.  The right place at the right time, socially, so to speak...