Left-liberal...can shoot, too

[Roswell 1847]

Why else would Mitt Romney have to defend not his policy but his exact theological beliefs as to the nature of the Jesus Christ to the Republican faithful? His theology was what was under fire!

The Founding Fathers knew fully the practice of religious tests as a pre-requisite for public office. They were requited in England at the time. They detested that practice, and gave us a 1st Amendment to prevent such tests. But the theocrats have managed to re-impose that test.

Another exageration.
People vote for whoever they wish to and they don't vote for some due to personel prejudice but there is no religious test in government employment. If Rommney were elected there is no law or regulation which would prevent him from serving.

The closest thing to a religious test is the prevention of teachers from displaying the symbols of their faith, something forced on the public by the ACLU.

Seems like alot of what you claim is a-backwards to the facts.

Freedom of Speech includes freedom to speak about your religious beliefs. Theres always room in the public square for people to discuss the religion and or philosophy that shapes their moral code and the way they go about their day to day lives.

PS
Thats article VI section 3

 

[ArmedBear]

taken over by theocrats who are determined to savage the Constitution and force a particular theology as the only one acceptable in the public sphere. Why else would Mitt Romney have to defend not his policy but his exact theological beliefs as to the nature of the Jesus Christ to the Republican faithful? His theology was what was under fire!

Translation: I know nothing but what I hear on Air America, where the hosts are too uneducated to know anything about JFK other than that he was shot.

I'm neither a faithful Republican, nor religious, and frankly, his religion doesn't play well with me. I'm an agnostic or something; I think there's probably more to life than meets the eye, but each religion's just-so stories seem as silly as the next. But this speech was little different from what JFK said about being Catholic in the 1960 campaign.

Protestantism sort of fades into the background in America. Barak Obama claims some sort of protestant belief, as do the Clintons, and most candidates over the years, and nobody pays much attention to it either way.

Huckabee is starting to get a lot of negative attention for being a Baptist before an American, too, if you haven't been keeping up with the news.

Personally, I like Thompson and Guiliani vis-a-vis religion. The rest, whether we're talking about Clinton, Obama, Huckabee or Romney, give me the creeps.

That said, Romney's speech wasn't bad; it wasn't to appease the "theocrats" as much as it was to say that Romney doesn't intend to be one, without unduly offending evangelical types. Just like JFK in 1960.

 

[MakAttak]

Incidentally, the problem with Mitt Romney is not that he is a mormon. The problem is that he is not trustworthy as it appears he shifted his views in order to fit whatever he is running for. The media just wants to play that it's because "he's a mormon."

Look at Louisiana- the Democrats tried to scare protestants by telling them their new governor is a catholic... and the protestants effectively said, "Why, yes he is" and voted him in.

You're just contributing to the polarization.

Try talking with some christians. We aren't interested in coming into your house and making sure your bedroom activities are proper. We aren't interested in making sure someone with a gun is forcing you to church.

We will be interested in the fate of your immortal soul, but I can't save that by the force of a gun either.

Incidentally, I can't bring myself to vote for any candidates right now. Huckabee may be a "christian leader" but he's far too interested in socialism. Guliani is at least honest, but I disagree with many of his positions. Romney looks too much like he's saying whatever he thinks will get him elected.... and pretty much anyone else seems unlikely to have a chance.

 

[jlbraun]

Watching Mitt Romney forced to define his theology about the nature of Jesus Christ in order to be eligible for the Republican nomination really creeped me out.

Me too. The ongoing theocratic/Dominionist tilt of the Republican Party worries me.

 

[MakAttak]

Me too. The ongoing theocratic/Dominionist tilt of the Republican Party worries me.

Honestly, read the posts.

I have no idea why those questions were asked. If he's a mormon, I already know what his views on Jesus Christ are.

If I can consider supporting Guliani, who is a best a nominal catholic judging by his life (Catholic Church tends to frown on divorce(s)) then I could support Romney who appears to be a sincere mormon. I just don't trust him because his positions have shifted (apparently) to become more palatable to the conservative base.

 

[Roswell 1847]

At the same time we hear Liberals screeching like banshees everytime a Republican mentions his Christian faith, and urging that Democrats do whatever than can to prevent those with strong religious beliefs from coming to office.

 

[ArmedBear]

WRT Huckabee, I wouldn't vote for a Baptist preacher for President.

But I think this whole "theocracy" thing is really overblown, and it's being done to make people fear Republicans enough to vote for Democrats with whom they disagree 85% of the time.

Both sides do it. However, when gun rights people, libertarians, and others of a similar bent, vote for overt authoritarian socialists who favor draconian gun bans because they're afraid of "theocracy" for which there is little real evidence in any legislation, I think we need to check ourselves in a SERIOUS way.

That doesn't mean I'm cheering for the GOP. It just means that I think we can all be influenced by trumped-up fears of threats that are not serious.

Sure, "theocracy" could be a threat, and we need to guard against it. However, one must evaluate real threats, and their seriousness right now, as opposed to "threats" that involve a lot of talk but little action. If I thought that the anti-gun politicians just wanted to blab, but weren't actually going to do anything, I wouldn't take THAT very seriously either. But I believe they intend to act, and they have been acting, on their words, a lot more than the "theocrats" have.

Sometimes I think the greatest threat comes from the "centrists" who want power, but have no ideology (i.e. moral compass) whatsoever.

 

[Technosavant]

Ridiculous. The vast majority of liberals are also people of faith.

Reread my post. I wasn't saying that was the honest position of liberals more than all conservatives hate liberals. I was pointing out that there are those on the extremes who take those positions, and it tends to get painted onto the rest. In fact, I am beginning to see more religion-hating going on from folks who claim libertarianism (you could make a point that libertarianism finds a fertile field in folks who are generally anti-authoritarian, be it human or supernaturally imposed authority).

Folks need to put down their paintbrushes. Like I said, expecting the whole of a political viewpoint to hold strictly to the beliefs of the most extreme is intellectually dishonest. Some see the Democrats as all being like Pelosi. Others see all Republicans as Rush Limbaugh. Then it's easier to sit back and toss invective without having to actually think and discern.

 

[RPCVYemen]

If Romney were elected there is no law or regulation which would prevent him from serving.

Yeah, we can count on the people who impose a theological test as a pre-requisite for the Republican nomination would never think of imposing a theological test for public office.

hosts are too uneducated to know anything about JFK other than that he was shot.

I'm actually old enough to remember Kennedy. I'm thinking maybe you need to actually read Kennedy's speech where he answered those who objected to a Catholic president. He declared his beliefs private and shut up. he didn't feel compelled to discuss the virginity of Mary or the exact nature of the Church's teachings on Purgatory - or any other theological matters. He understood and supported the 1st (and by the way the 2nd) Amendment. He sounds like one of the Founding Fathers:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute ...where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him ...

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom.

Zoom ahead to the present day.

Romney said his beliefs were private. Sounds like Kennedy.

But he faced the theocrats, he had to make sure that he passed the theological test. If he did not specify theological beliefs that closely matched those of the theocrats, he would be deemed by them unqualified to hold public office. Why the heck else did he have to discuss his theology?

If he had said, "I do not believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God", his campaign would have been over. If he had said "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference", he would have had to buy his one bus ticket home. Can anyone doubt that?

The poor sad joke on Romney is that it still wasn't enough. Being a Christian is not sufficient. The theocrats are hell bent on imposing on us not a Christian Theocracy, but specifically a Baptist Theocracy. Witness the rise of Mike Huckabee.

Kennedy was a supporter of the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I am pretty sure he was a life member of the NRA (but I could be wrong about that). If I am wrong about that, I am sure that someone will correct me.

Let's be clear about this. The Bill of Rights all work together. If we elect people who shred every amendment except for the 2nd, the 2nd will eventually go as well.

Mike

 

[Limeyfellow]

There been so many scandels in the Christian community over the past several years they lost most of their power anyway. Even the closest advisors to Bush like Ted Haggard are gone now. We had the likes of Falwell, Robertson and Graham influencing foreign policy towards committing war and who to side with all the way back to Vietnam.

I personally perfer to keep religion and politics seperate. They mixed them in the early days of Puritan rule in the US and it was a disaster. They mixed them in Europe and it led to centuries of death and destruction. They mixed it in the Middle East and gave us Iran and Taliban ruled Afghanistan.

I think Jim Wallis said it best. Mixing religion and politics is like mixing icecream with excrement. No matter how good the icecream is, it will always be ruined.

 

[MakAttak]

Wow, people are more nuts than I thought. You honestly believe baptists want to take over the country and force everyone to go to their church?


And I thought I was being paranoid when I think the Democrats are merely pushing for communism incrementally....

Edit: Also, back to the topic- how can we try to STOP POLARIZING those supporting gun rights?

 

[RPCVYemen]

You honestly believe baptists want to take over the country and force everyone to go to their church?

Not at all.

All Baptists are not theocrats. I wish more would speak clearly about the separation between church and state (as per Kennedy's speech).

Some Baptists are theocrats - those are the ones that scare me (or really it's their influence in the Republican Party that scares me).

Mike

 

[ArmedBear]

BTW the left has some substantive criticisms of the right, to be sure.

I just find this whole "theocracy" thing to be a lot of hot air and emotion, not something of substance.

AFAIK Ruth Bader Ginsburg remains staunchly pro-choice, but also believes, as a jurist, that Roe v. Wade was bad jurisprudence. People on both left and right need to understand the difference between "rulings I agree with or like" and "rulings that apply the Constitution rigorously." There IS a difference.

Worst case, if Roe is overturned, some states could ban abortion. Most large states would not. No American would be that far from a clinic. I personally favor abortion up to the 50th trimester, and capital punishment after that if warranted, but this is not as ominous, to me, as limits on political speech or gun rights are.

So the idea of "conservative justices" does not necessarily mean "justices who agree with current right-wing political ideology," any more than "liberal justices" means "justices who agree with current left-wing political ideology." Ruth Ginsburg voted with the majority in Kelo, championing the ability of real estate developers and large corporations to seize property from homeowners, so they can profit from that property.

Anyway, if the "theocrats" are fighting for, say, something as silly as allowing silent prayer time in schools, I'm not exactly shaking in my boots here. Certainly, I'm not scared enough to vote away the 1st Amendment (Democrats are the ones pushing the "fairness doctrine", or government arbitration of political speech on the air), the 2nd Amendment, the 4th and 5th (both parties are guilty here; case-by-case thought is required).

And I'd like to see the 9th and 10th resurrected.

 

[MakAttak]

Not at all.

All Baptists are not theocrats. I wish more would speak clearly about the separation between church and state (as per Kennedy's speech).

Some Baptists are theocrats - those are the ones that scare me (or really it's their influence in the Republican Party that scares me).

Mike

Then you would probably label me a theocrat.

I think there should be moral training in schools. Children should be taught morality, not just any morality, but specifically Judeo-Christian. This is because despite what the liberals try to feed us, they are teaching their own morals in school. They just claim it's "not religious." I don't know about you but most such crusaders are more "religious" about their beliefs than anyone else I know.

Of course, I also think the government shouldn't be schooling children anyway so you can judge for yourself whether I am a "theocrat"

But again, this is off topic. How do we bridge the divide and realize we actually DO have common ground, even if you think I'm nuts and I think you're nuts.

 

[RPCVYemen]

I think there should be moral training in schools. Children should be taught morality, not just any morality, but specifically Judeo-Christian. This is because despite what the liberals try to feed us, they are teaching their own morals in school. They just claim it's "not religious."

I am a liberal who sends my daughter to private religious school. I'd fight like hell any government mandate to remove religion from that school.

The key word is private. As in "no public funding". To my mind, that's the 1st Amendment.

As strongly as I believe in my daughter's right to attend such a school - a belief backed by money I can ill afford - just that strongly I believe that no government money should ever go to religious schools.

So I am not at all opposed to religious schools - but I am very opposed to spending public tax money on religious schools.

Also, back to the topic- how can we try to STOP POLARIZING those supporting gun rights?

I was very, very happy to see pro-gun Democrats elected. I think that sent a powerful message to the Democratic leadership. I think that I recall that it was Howard "Screaming" Dean who orchestrated the recruitment of pro-RKBA Democratic candidates. I'd like to see more of that.

Mike

 

[USAFNoDAk]

Armedbear wrote:

Both sides do it. However, when gun rights people, libertarians, and others of a similar bent, vote for overt authoritarian socialists who favor draconian gun bans because they're afraid of "theocracy" for which there is little real evidence in any legislation, I think we need to check ourselves in a SERIOUS way.


As a prime example, there has never been a US federal law banning any form of religion, with the exception of banning a religious practice that would include human sacrifice.

However, we have on several occasions seen the federal government ban certain forms of firearms, such as select fire firearms which were manufactured or imported after 1986, and semi automatic firearms with certain cosmetic features and detachable magazines holding more than 10 rounds, which were made after 1994.

I'd say that even with a strong arm of the Republican party being more "religous", we have more to worry about attacks on the 2nd A. than we have to worry about attacks on the separation of church and state regarding the 1st A.

We should be vigilant for attacks on all the amendments in the B of R, but I'd say we've had more damage done to the 2nd A. than we've had done to the first at the federal level. If you include the state level, then it gets even worse, especially looking at California, Mass., NY, Illinois, Maryland, and other more left leaning states.

I'm no religion fanatic, but I worry lots less about our federal govt. forcing a one religion policy down our throats than I worry about them forcing a "you can only have the guns we approve of" policy down our throats. The latter is closer to reality than the former, in my opinion.

 

[ArmedBear]

I'm no religion fanatic, but I worry lots less about our federal govt. forcing a one religion policy down our throats than I worry about them forcing a "you can only have the guns we approve of" policy down our throats. The latter is closer to reality than the former, in my opinion.

Exactly.

And if, in fact, we were facing a clear and present danger of a theocratic government (do any of you on the left have a CLUE what a theocracy looks like?), and gun rights were secure and subject only to some talk show prattle about "preserving our heritage", but no legal threat, I'd be on the other side of this.

If the 2nd Amendment were enforced to the fullest possible extent by all courts, but the 1st Amendment had been ignored and explained away as a "collective right", I'd be WAY on the other side.

But in REALITY, in 2007, there's no threat of theocracy in the near term. There is a clear and present threat to our gun rights, as demonstrated by 20,000+ gun laws across the country, NONE of which have an analogue in the area of religion. Religious organizations get tax breaks; guns are taxed. Religious freedom is protected even in the workplace through anti-discrimination laws. People are fired for hunting after work and leaving a muzzleloader locked in the car, and the courts are 100% fine with it.

Get real, people. Any "threat" of theocracy is just reckless radio rhetoric; gun restrictions and laws preventing self-defense are REAL.

 

[MakAttak]

Incidentally, you'll note I believe all schools should be private too.

I was very, very happy to see pro-gun Democrats elected. I think that sent a powerful message to the Democratic leadership. I think that I recall that it was Howard "Screaming" Dean who orchestrated the recruitment of pro-RKBA Democratic candidates. I'd like to see more of that.

I'm not happy, in general when Democrats get elected because I so often see even pro-RKBA cowed by their leadership.

However, here in VA, we had a pro-gun control Republican (Jeneatte Develittes-Davis or something like that) going against a Pro-RKBA Democrat (Chap Peterson). I was never so happy to see the republicans lose. Maybe they will get the message too.

 

[Foosinho]

Kennedy was a supporter of the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I am pretty sure he was a life member of the NRA (but I could be wrong about that). If I am wrong about that, I am sure that someone will correct me.

He was: http://www.nracentral.com/jfk-nra-life-membership.php

And I agree - Kennedy's religion speech was substatively different than Romney's (unfortunately for Romney).

[I had a heck of a lot more here about theocracy, Christian Reconstructionism, and how people of my religious beliefs are being squeezed out, but in the end it's pointless. Deleted.]

But again, to keep this marginally on-topic - the way forward is to STOP tying RKBA to a specific political ideology, and to STOP insisting that non-conservatives are defacto "antis" because some (most?) Democratic politicians are pro-gun-control.

And to understand that cities are very different places than the country (having lived in both), and that they inform different attitudes towards gun control. People who live in areas with urban violence should not be denigrated for wanting to find ways to make it harder for criminals to acquire guns, and for guns to make it on to a cheap black market.

 

[ArmedBear]

The best thing to do, really, would be to get some Democrats who are pro-RKBA into leadership positions.

Pelosi, Feinstein, Kerry, Reid, Schumer, Kennedy -- the ranking Democrats are a who's-who of anti-gun politicians.

And the fact is, as long as you have these people in positions of leadership, a vote for a Democrat majority in Congress is a vote against gun rights, plain and simple.

The real question is, how do we make it not so?

There are Republicans who need to be kicked to the curb, or maybe off the political cliff, even into prison. Ted Stevens, for example. We need to make it so that we aren't choosing between people like Stevens and people like Boxer.

 

[MakAttak]

There are Republicans who need to be kicked to the curb, or maybe off the political cliff, even into prison. Ted Stevens, for example. We need to make it so that we aren't choosing between people like Stevens and people like Boxer.

Amen to that. The question is, how? Suggest to the Democrats to try running a "blue dog" Democrat in those places?

 

[RPCVYemen]

Do any of you on the left have a CLUE what a theocracy looks like?

Those of us who lived in North Yemen from 1984-1986 do.

Actually, it was technically not a theocracy - but there was a state religion, and you could not hold office unless your were a Moslem. That was close enough.

Living in North Yemen (now Yemen) and Mogadishu gave me a great deal of respect for the Bill of Rights. All of them.

Incidentally, they had a very strong RKBA. Most of my (male) students carried pistols, and almost all adult Yemeni males carried AK-47s outside the three major cities.

Mike

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Mod Note

I'm gettin' all misty-eyed here.

Here we are on page 4 of a thread I was sure would not survive page 2.

Y'all have done a splendid job of keeping it on the rails.

It's about bridging the [artificial] divide and de-polarizing people of good will who value our freedoms.

We can all agree that politicians universally "promise [them] anything, but give [them] Arpège." Except that Arpège is frequently spelled e-x-c-r-e-m-e-n-t.

And your neighbor, who believed the promise, is not the boogieman.

One of the hardest things to do is admit a mistake.

I bought a car once, and spent a lot of effort reassuring skeptics and my choice was a good one. I had a whole bag of reasons I used to that end.

The car was crap, the salesman lied, and I'll never buy another one of those or buy anything else from that dealer.

Admitting that, however, was tough. Nobody wants to say, "yup, he played me for a fool, and a fool I was, too."

Politicians routinely play us for fools. Realizing you've been had is hard. Admitting it is harder.

Harder still is really understanding the world well enough that you don't get suckered in the first place.

And the only thing harder than that is helping someone else -- convinced he bought a great car -- understand the world, too.

That requires a gentle touch.

Anyway.

Carry on.

 

[jabotinsky]

Another liberal. I'd vote for any Democrat before any Republican, except maybe McCain. He's got major onions.

 

[MakAttak]

Another liberal. I'd vote for any Democrat before any Republican, except maybe McCain. He's got major onions.

>.< I won't even make the reverse statement and I HATE the national Democratic party. This kind of goes back to the "How can you support a party which has a major platform of taking away your guns?"

There are a lot of Democrats I'd support before people like Bloomberg (I know he's not a Republican now, but he was)