Schiavo debate: Ploy for evangelical vote in 06'?



davidmc said:
. . . Smearing Christian Judges

By Paul Gaston
Saturday, April 23, 2005; Page A19

People calling themselves Christians are gathering once again for a crusade against what they consider to be the secular humanist subversion of Christian values. This time the object of their wrath is the judiciary. In the wake of the fanatical and fruitless assaults against the judicial system for letting Terri Schiavo die, the Family Research Council will convene tomorrow what it calls "Justice Sunday," a live simulcast to pit Christian values against "our out-of-control courts."

The burgeoning assault on the American judicial system by right-wing Christians is an integral part of their attack on "godless" secular humanism. According to them, secular humanists nurture a culture that promotes abortion; encourages gay marriage; prohibits prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance in permissive schools that indoctrinate students with Darwin's "theory" of evolution; preaches moral relativism; and generally threatens to subvert the Christian foundations of the republic.

What these self-avowed Christians do not acknowledge -- and what the American public seems little aware of -- is that the war they are waging is actually against other people calling themselves Christians. To simplify: Right-wing and fundamentalist Christians are really at war with left-wing and mainstream Christians. It is a battle over both the meaning and practice of Christianity as well as over the definition and destiny of the republic. Secular humanism is a bogeyman, a smoke screen obscuring the right-wing Christians' struggle for supremacy.

The assault on the judiciary is especially revealing. The vicious attacks on Judge George Greer, the Florida jurist who presided over the Schiavo case, reveal the bizarre nature of right-wing Christian fantasies. A regular recipient of hate mail and threats against his life that required him to walk to court with an armed marshal, Judge Greer is a lifelong Southern Baptist, a regular in church and a conservative Republican. None of those credentials protected him from the assaults of fellow Christians, including messages saying he would go straight to Hell. What he found "exasperating," he told a journalist, "is that my faith is based on forgiveness because that's what God did. . . . When I see people in my faith being extremely judgmental, it's very disconcerting."

Nearly all of the demonized judges are, in fact, practicing Christians, not secular humanists. Perhaps half of them are Republican appointees, and at least that many regard themselves as conservatives. In addition to Greer, most of the judges of the 11th Circuit who upheld his rulings, as well as most of the Supreme Court justices who declined to intervene, consider themselves Christian. And so it goes around the country, even including many, if not most, of the judges in the California-based 9th Circuit, the regular object of President Bush's ridicule. And, lest we forget, Charles Darwin himself was a serious Christian.

The history of a Christian church divided against itself is a long and bloody one. People calling themselves Christians have stood for war and peace, subjugation and brotherhood, communism and capitalism, privilege and equality, enslavement and liberty, imperialism and isolation.

That is one reason Thomas Jefferson insisted on religious liberty in the new republic. In his Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, he wrote that "millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity."

The present war within the Christian fold is perhaps more threatening to the republic than any of the previous intramural disputes. Right-wing religious zealots, working in partnership with the secularists who have advised President Bush, are a threat to the most fundamental of American principles. The founders of our nation welcomed and planned for spirited debate over public policies, including the role of the judiciary. But as sons of the Enlightenment, they looked to found a republic in which the outcome of those debates would turn on reason and evidence, not on disputed religious dogma. They planned wisely for principles that are now under wide assault.

All Americans, of whatever religious or non-religious persuasion, need to be on the alert to preserve those principles. The burden falls especially heavily on the mainstream Christians who are slowly awakening to the gravity of the challenge facing them. Too long tolerant of their brethren, too much given to forgiveness rather than to confrontation, they need to mount a spirited, nationwide response to what constitutes a dangerous distortion of Christian truths and a frightening threat to the republic they love.

The writer is professor emeritus of southern and civil rights history at the University of Virginia.
Peabody...I ought to roll this up and whack you with it for pissing on this thread :rolleyes:
 
davidmc said:
. . . Smearing Christian Judges

By Paul Gaston
Saturday, April 23, 2005; Page A19

People calling themselves Christians are gathering once again for a crusade against what they consider to be the secular humanist subversion of Christian values. This time the object of their wrath is the judiciary. In the wake of the fanatical and fruitless assaults against the judicial system for letting Terri Schiavo die, the Family Research Council will convene tomorrow what it calls "Justice Sunday," a live simulcast to pit Christian values against "our out-of-control courts."

The burgeoning assault on the American judicial system by right-wing Christians is an integral part of their attack on "godless" secular humanism. According to them, secular humanists nurture a culture that promotes abortion; encourages gay marriage; prohibits prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance in permissive schools that indoctrinate students with Darwin's "theory" of evolution; preaches moral relativism; and generally threatens to subvert the Christian foundations of the republic.

What these self-avowed Christians do not acknowledge -- and what the American public seems little aware of -- is that the war they are waging is actually against other people calling themselves Christians. To simplify: Right-wing and fundamentalist Christians are really at war with left-wing and mainstream Christians. It is a battle over both the meaning and practice of Christianity as well as over the definition and destiny of the republic. Secular humanism is a bogeyman, a smoke screen obscuring the right-wing Christians' struggle for supremacy.

The assault on the judiciary is especially revealing. The vicious attacks on Judge George Greer, the Florida jurist who presided over the Schiavo case, reveal the bizarre nature of right-wing Christian fantasies. A regular recipient of hate mail and threats against his life that required him to walk to court with an armed marshal, Judge Greer is a lifelong Southern Baptist, a regular in church and a conservative Republican. None of those credentials protected him from the assaults of fellow Christians, including messages saying he would go straight to Hell. What he found "exasperating," he told a journalist, "is that my faith is based on forgiveness because that's what God did. . . . When I see people in my faith being extremely judgmental, it's very disconcerting."

Nearly all of the demonized judges are, in fact, practicing Christians, not secular humanists. Perhaps half of them are Republican appointees, and at least that many regard themselves as conservatives. In addition to Greer, most of the judges of the 11th Circuit who upheld his rulings, as well as most of the Supreme Court justices who declined to intervene, consider themselves Christian. And so it goes around the country, even including many, if not most, of the judges in the California-based 9th Circuit, the regular object of President Bush's ridicule. And, lest we forget, Charles Darwin himself was a serious Christian.

The history of a Christian church divided against itself is a long and bloody one. People calling themselves Christians have stood for war and peace, subjugation and brotherhood, communism and capitalism, privilege and equality, enslavement and liberty, imperialism and isolation.

That is one reason Thomas Jefferson insisted on religious liberty in the new republic. In his Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, he wrote that "millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity."

The present war within the Christian fold is perhaps more threatening to the republic than any of the previous intramural disputes. Right-wing religious zealots, working in partnership with the secularists who have advised President Bush, are a threat to the most fundamental of American principles. The founders of our nation welcomed and planned for spirited debate over public policies, including the role of the judiciary. But as sons of the Enlightenment, they looked to found a republic in which the outcome of those debates would turn on reason and evidence, not on disputed religious dogma. They planned wisely for principles that are now under wide assault.

All Americans, of whatever religious or non-religious persuasion, need to be on the alert to preserve those principles. The burden falls especially heavily on the mainstream Christians who are slowly awakening to the gravity of the challenge facing them. Too long tolerant of their brethren, too much given to forgiveness rather than to confrontation, they need to mount a spirited, nationwide response to what constitutes a dangerous distortion of Christian truths and a frightening threat to the republic they love.

The writer is professor emeritus of southern and civil rights history at the University of Virginia.


I've said it before and I'll say it again - Church and State ought to separate.
The US Constitution is clear on this issue.
 
zapper said:
Peabody...I ought to roll this up and whack you with it for pissing on this thread :rolleyes:
Remember, I "set up" this thread so, in a manner of speaking, I am the Thread-Master. You can just call me Dog (Read it backwards :D )
 
limerickman said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again - Church and State ought to separate.
The US Constitution is clear on this issue.
Coming from you, it means alot because I know how strongly/committed you are to your faith. I don't think faith in a higher being is necessarily a destructive phenomenon. Only when its being force-fed to uninterested party's.
 
limerickman said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again - Church and State ought to separate.
The US Constitution is clear on this issue.
Really? Might you direct us to where the words "separation of Church and State" are located in the U.S. Constitution? I shouldn't have to wait long...right?
 
zapper said:
Really? Might you direct us to where the words "separation of Church and State" are located in the U.S. Constitution? I shouldn't have to wait long...right?

Where does it say in the Constitution that God and State are one, in the US Constitution ?
 
zapper said:
Really? Might you direct us to where the words "separation of Church and State" are located in the U.S. Constitution? I shouldn't have to wait long...right?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This ambiguous wording has the left and right forever locked in debate.
 
Colorado Ryder said:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This ambiguous wording has the left and right forever locked in debate.
Thanks alot..I wanted lim to waffle some more....You just spoiled all my fun...
 
Colorado Ryder said:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This ambiguous wording has the left and right forever locked in debate.

CR - yes I was aware of this part of the US Constitution.

Interesting that Zapper made a statement.
Seems he doesn't know his country's constitution !
 
limerickman said:
CR - yes I was aware of this part of the US Constitution.

Interesting that Zapper made a statement.
Seems he doesn't know his country's constitution !
Hey thanks for the waffle...knew you wouldn't let me down and hey..you were quick, I really appreciate your efficiency..

Zapper merely asked YOU where the specific words..."Separation of Church and state" were in the constitution since YOU said they were contained therein...Zapper knew that those specific words were not found in the Constitution thus set you up with the question knowing that you would come back with an incorrect answer or a question i.e. “waffle” ..YOU answered my question with a question(thank you)...so this little waffle makes three this morning...Thanks for starting my day off with a "Breakfast of Champions"....
 
zapper said:
Hey thanks for the waffle...knew you wouldn't let me down and hey..you were quick, I really appreciate your efficiency..

Zapper merely asked YOU where the specific words..."Separation of Church and state" were in the constitution since YOU said they were contained therein...Zapper knew that those specific words were not found in the Constitution thus set you up with the question knowing that you would come back with an incorrect answer or a question i.e. “waffle” ..YOU answered my question with a question(thank you)...so this little waffle makes three this morning...Thanks for starting my day off with a "Breakfast of Champions"....

I never said that the word "separation" of Church and State were stated in your country's constitution.

I said that your country's constitution made it clear that church and state
are separate.
 
limerickman said:
I never said that the word "separation" of Church and State were stated in your country's constitution.

I said that your country's constitution made it clear that church and state
are separate.
In your own words..define the word..."ambiguous " Oh, hell you can look it up if you want to...Oh, and while you are at it look up the word "clear".....come back with a report will you?
 
Colorado Ryder said:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This ambiguous wording has the left and right forever locked in debate.
Thank you Colorado Ryder. Bill of Rights, correct? One of the 1st ten amendments demanded by George Mason et al. before the Costitution was signed. That is why you will not find George Mason's name on the Constitution because the Bill of Rights were not present at the time of the signing of the Constitution. Did I mention that I will, if accepted, be attending George Mason University?
 
limerickman said:
I never said that the word "separation" of Church and State were stated in your country's constitution.

I said that your country's constitution made it clear that church and state
are separate.
I beleive the amendment was based on a letter written to James Madison, then President, from Thom. Jefferson. in which Jefferson maintained that there must be a "wall" so that the two could not mix.
 
davidmc said:
I beleive the amendment was based on a letter written to James Madison, then President, from Thom. Jefferson. in which Jefferson maintained that there must be a "wall" so that the two could not mix.
No..got it all wrong...the amendment was meant to protect the Church, not to disestablish it. But the way it was written leaves much to interpretation...
 
davidmc said:
I beleive the amendment was based on a letter written to James Madison, then President, from Thom. Jefferson. in which Jefferson maintained that there must be a "wall" so that the two could not mix.
Whatever the source, and however implied or explicit the Consitution is on the matter, the fact remains that the Wall has been an influencing force in American lawmaking for centuries, and an acknowledged ideal. While there's no denying the US is schizophrenic on the matter, there's also no denying that it's an important principle. Important, that is, unless you're interested in the prospect of America as a theocracy, or as an enforced atheist state.
 
zapper said:
No..got it all wrong...the amendment was meant to protect the Church, not to disestablish it. But the way it was written leaves much to interpretation...
The amendment was meant to protect all religions. The fathers didn't want a Church of England clone from being created.
 
Colorado Ryder said:
The amendment was meant to protect all religions. The fathers didn't want a Church of England clone from being created.
Sort of...it meant to prohibited the government from setting up a state religion, such as Britain has, but no barriers will be erected against the practice of any religion.