 Author
|
Topic: We may have a whole new group here (Read 8613 times)
|
|
SandyPrice
|
It seems as if the Christians want to back out of the Republican Party due to a non action to rid the country of abortions. There will be many Republicans who might want to join up with the FSP if their party is demonished. Read this, it is a killer, triggered by Senator Santorum's gay bashing the other day. This is exactly why I am no longer a Republican Conservative. --------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Right Talks of Bolting GOP in 2004 Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com Tuesday, May 6, 2003 Leaders of the Christian right are thinking of bolting the Republican Party in 2004. Such a move would deal a severe blow to President Bush’s re-election effort. Though Christian voters played a pivotal role in electing Bush in his razor-thin victory over Al Gore, NewsMax has learned that major figures in the evangelical movement, including James Dobson, are talking about withholding support from the Republican Party. Conservative religious activists cite the latest insult: the Republican Party’s failure to rally behind Sen. Rick Santorum, whose comments about the upcoming Supreme Court case on consensual homosexual acts triggered a national firestorm. With the left mounting a major battle to redefine marriage, pro-family leaders are worried that the White House and Beltway Republicans care little about this issue and other social issues. "If Republican leaders cannot mount a vigorous defense of marriage, then pro-family voters perhaps should begin to reconsider their loyalty to the party," warned Ken Connors, president of Family Research Council and a close affiliate of Dobson’s Focus on the Family. Along with other leaders of the politically powerful pro-family movement, Connors was appalled at the "muted defense" of Santorum, R-Pa., who has been under attack by the gay rights lobby and its liberal allies in the media and the Democrat party. That failure, Connors said ominously, raises the question whether the GOP is the best vehicle for resisting the Democrats' radical political agenda. Connors recently wrote a scathing memo attacking the Republican leadership to pro-family leaders. "Beyond a few tepid statements of personal support for Santorum, no prominent national GOP leader seems willing or able to mount a spirited, principled defense of marriage and family. “The question naturally arises: have Republicans been so intimidated by the smear tactics of the homosexual lobby and its Democratic attack dogs that they are cowering in silence," he wrote. Dobson: 'Where Are the Republicans?' Dobson echoed these sentiments during a joint broadcast with Connors on his Focus on the Family radio broadcast. "Where are the Republicans on this?" he fumed. "I’ve heard very, very little coming from Mark Racicot, the Republican national chairman, or from the White House or from anybody else." Dobson chastised the Republicans for getting too cozy with the gay lobby. He complained that Racicot met secretly with the homosexual group Human Rights Campaign but failed to disagree with it on the major issues. Connors said that Racicot didn’t utter one word in defense of marriage and failed to make the case that the Republican platform makes – that marriage should be limited to one man and one woman – he simply went with the message of so-called tolerance and inclusion. Tolerance and inclusion aren’t the issues here – the issue is whether or not we’re going to radically redefine marriage, according to Connors. Connors has written that HRC, "which desperately wants to marginalize pro-family Republicans, is exploiting the meeting to suggest the GOP is open to its political agenda. Surely someone as savvy as Mark Racicot, a former governor who was seriously considered as President Bush's running mate, was aware of the propaganda value in his meeting with HRC." The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon of Traditional Values Coalition was also angered by Racicot's meeting with HRC. He warned that "this has caused concern among conservatives that Republican leaders are going to sell out on the issue of homosexuality." Dobson worries that the Santorum controversy indicates the Republican Party’s weak commitment to social issues. He said: "And now that one of the most articulate defenders of family values in the Congress is under attack, Republicans are hiding under a bush somewhere. The lack of courage is amazing." Ready to Stay Home in '04 How much does the GOP's increasing timidity on family issues threaten the party's future? Mike Farris, chairman and general counsel of Home School Legal Defense Association and one of the leading pro-family activists on Capitol Hill, told NewsMax.com: "Nobody who cares about these issues is going to go the Democrat party … this is a question of enthusiasm versus inactivity. Enthusiasm is going to wane if there’s not solid support for the fundamental principles that this nation was founded on." It is only "smart politics to always remember to take care of your base. You don’t ever want to alienate your base,†said Farris, an ordained minister and father of 10 who is is president and professor of government at Patrick Henry College. Farris, who has close ties to the White House, blamed the problem on GOP stupidity. “We’ve been doing a lot of things smart as Republicans, but ignoring Rick Santorum when he needs public reaffirmation is just stupid politics and it will hurt,†he said. Schlafly Upset Famed and influential activist Phyllis Schlafly, who single-handedly took down the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s, told NewsMax.com she was disturbed by the Republicans' failure to rally around Santorum. She called the administration’s defense of the Pennsylvania Republican "pretty limp" and "most cowardly.†"There’s no reason for Santorum to apologize or back off. What he said was almost word for word what Justice Byron White said in his Supreme Court opinion in the previous gay rights case a number of years ago,†Schlafly said. “I think the party and the administration’s statements are pretty generally recognized as weak-kneed and that they’re not backing up the constituency that elected George Bush. I think they’ll pay a price for that." http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art.../6/110046.shtml |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
maestro
|
I tend to agree with Reaper on this one. These people aren't your friendly everyday christians. These are the ones who fully intend to legislate morality according to their particular doctrine.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 09, 2003, 12:40:09 pm by maestro »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reaper
|
ROFL.
Well you could agree with me if I weren't being censored out of existance that is.
"Hi,
Your post has been deleted.
Your statement indicated that all religious folks want to control the lives of others.
This would escalate.
Regards,
Doug H"
Actually, I felt it was just an accurate summary of the original post.
It is quite clear from the copied text of the original post that the religous persons (being discussed therein) are disappointed with the Republican party for not agreeing to put their religous laws into US law. They therefore are abandoning or threatening to abandon the Republican party. The religous persons (being discussed therein) are clearly social fascists and I do not see how they could be of any help to the FSP.
In fact, freed of that influence the Republican party could be of more help to the FSP.
It's amazing that this story can be posted here but if I summarize it, accurately, I'm deleted.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Reaper
Proud member of the FSP's lunatic fringe!
"If we turn from battle because there is little hope of victory, where then would valor be? Let it ever be the goal that stirs us, not the odds."
|
|
|
|
SandyPrice
|
No one wants to deny membership to any religious person. That was not the intention of posting the article.
The people who want to leave the GOP (Weyrich, and his fundamentalists) simply want more control over the GOP. There are millions of Christians who simply want less government control and will be offended by this action.
My point was to try to locate the GOP that wants to return to the original core of the party to consider reading more about the FSP. We might just find more support with this group. Remember the original platform for the GOP was smaller, less intrusive authority from the Feds.
I was very much a part of the old fiscal conservative GOP until 1992. The fundamentalists started to move in on the party and submitted many changes in the GOP platform. Many of us didn't like this plan at all and we joined up with either Perot or the LP.
The count of Republicans who did not vote for GOP candidatres in 1992 was 7 million. I was one of them. It was as much the fear of the Fundamentalists as it was Bush's plan for a one world order. Anyway we left! I want those 7 million disgruntled Republicans to know about the FSP!
I will start soon after Weyrich's formal announcement to write letters to the editor in every newpaper I can contact in the west to introduce them to the "Liberty in our lifetime" project.
I don't believe Weyrich has the balls to continue with his criticism of Bush's lack of actions within the house and senate. He is using this tactic to blackmail Bush by threadening to pull the Fundamentalist Christian support. Personally I don't care! It seems to prove what many of us have feared.
Only once before have we seen so much back lash from a president openly discussing his faith in front of America. John Adams wanted a theocracy and Jefferson took him down! Even Kennedy was questioned about this Catholic roots and possibly influencing the Legislation. Now it's Bush!
Christian Fundamentalists have a long history of trying to influence the country of their choice with social corrections over and above the Constitution and everyone in the house and senate knows it! Bush made a mistake openly telling the world that he was born again and it has come back to kick him!
I am not the one who put the fear of this man's choices in front of the house and senate, he did it himself. Weyrich is playing the same game that Jesse Jackson has been pulling, using his influence to destroy.
They are missionaries and nothing else! Let them have the freedoms to gather followers but not in the Federal or State Governments.
The Separation of Church and State is absolutely necessary for any nation to stay free!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reaper
|
The Republicans would be a much more viable vehicle to ahieve liberty absent those who would legislate private morality. I can't argue with you there.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Reaper
Proud member of the FSP's lunatic fringe!
"If we turn from battle because there is little hope of victory, where then would valor be? Let it ever be the goal that stirs us, not the odds."
|
|
|
|
Herself
|
The essential issue remains, as ever, the willingness of individuals to leave other individuals alone. Neither wing of the Boot-On-Your-Neck party has much knack for it.
Many of the "defense-of-marriage (ex?)Republicans" (some of whom may be motivated by religious belief, others perhaps in the hope that if homosexual practices are made sufficiently illegal they may be able to kick the habit themselves....) are entirely unable to refrain from attempting to impose their vision of moral sexual and affectional behavior and thought upon others. These are hardly libertarians by any measure; instead, they are the worst sort of Statists, and pure poison for any liberty-oriented group.
I don't care what my polyamorous, polygamous, polyandrous bisexual neighbors are up to, just as long as they're not initiating force and don't get too loud when I am trying to sleep. While it's entirely possible some of their practices might be repugnant to me, I don't have to watch. (And I shan't. There are better things on The Science Channel).
The true perverts are the folks obsessed about all the naughty, awful things them there homos and whatevers might be up to; like makin' lifetime commitments. Ewww, ick.
Get the State out of the wedlock biz altogether; then it's not an issue. If you don't want your own church to marry groups or same-sex couples or such, all you'd have to do would be to find one that doesn't, and that doesn't look to be too difficult.
As for new recruits, let's skim the cream off the Republicans, not the scum!
Okay, censors, go to it! (Spellcheck me while you're at it).
The renascent....
--Herself
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Civilization in the United States ended by 1913.
|
|
|
Zack Bass
Guest
|
Remember the original platform for the GOP was smaller, less intrusive authority from the Feds.
Oh. Somebody once told me Lincoln was a Republican. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MajesticLeo
|
"The Separation of Church and State is absolutely necessary for any nation to stay free!" re: SandyPrice
You know I have read through the constitution several times and never have I found anything which says there must be "separation of church and state" other than that the federal government may not make any laws regarding religion. I fail to see how that means the President (whomever it may be) cannot say he supports some religion or that a state capitol cannot display the 10 commandments or the Code of Hammarabi for that matter. If fact, for the federal government to say those things cannot be done would seem to be a violation of the constitution in itself, since it involves make "a law regarding religion".
Who cares if you are a worshiper of Schmoos, as long as you don't tell everyone they have to do so too? Since the republic in which we live was founded on religious principles (10 commandments, and the concept of "God given Rights", for instance) how can there ever be "separation of Church and State"?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I'm off to be the Wizard!!!!
|
|
|
Zack Bass
Guest
|
You know I have read through the constitution several times and never have I found anything which says there must be "separation of church and state" other than that the federal government may not make any laws regarding religion. I fail to see how that means the President (whomever it may be) cannot say he supports some religion or that a state capitol cannot display the 10 commandments or the Code of Hammarabi for that matter.
What they want to do is give their particular delusion the cachet of Government Approval. That amounts to is taking Tax money by Force and using it to promote one viewpoint. I don't think anyone feels that a Government Official must never express an opinion on a religious matter. But he must not do so from a Government podium. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Herself
|
I must preface my remarks by noting the subject to be addressed is a particularly inflammatory one. I will cite factual sources, easily verified, and shall attempt to avoid inciting the direr passions. You know I have read through the constitution several times and never have I found anything which says there must be "separation of church and state" other than that the federal government may not make any laws regarding religion. Amendment 1 states "Congress shall make no law respecting an institution of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof...."[emphasis mine]. Article VI says, in part, "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Other than those mentions, the U.S. Constitution is, uniquely for its time, Godless and non-religious, something unfavorably commented upon by contemporary theologians. In addition, the Treaty of Tripoli (read aloud to and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1797) says "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion." There was no debate. As for the standing of treaties (with the supreme law of the land,) see Article VI, para. 2. Still, you're right about: I fail to see how that means the President (whomever it may be) cannot say he supports some religion... The President is as free an individual as any, and must be allowed to follow his own conscience in matters of personal belief; but he's President, not Pope or Bishop, and can no more declare a "National Day of Prayer" than crown himself Emperor. But you're incorrect about: or that a state capitol cannot display the 10 commandments To do so would constitute an Establishment of Religion under all State constitutions with which I am familiar. (Didn't used to be that way -- Mass. had a State Religion until 1833, for example). The Code of Hamnarabi, we'd better look it up, and see if it's religious or not... [...]. If fact, for the federal government to say those things cannot be done would seem to be a violation of the constitution in itself, since it involves make "a law regarding religion". It is not for them to "say those things cannot be done," but rather their duty to both refrain from doing them and refrain from preventing individuals and entities outside government from doing them. The Joint Baptist Council has a nice article on separation of church and State and how it helps both, to which I will try to post a link. (It is longish and they require it be quoted in full). Who cares if you are a worshiper of Schmoos, as long as you don't tell everyone they have to do so too? Indeed! But then you add: Since the republic in which we live was founded on religious principles (10 commandments, and the concept of "God given Rights", for instance) how can there ever be "separation of Church and State"? and this is mistaken, as explained above. Neither "God-given rights" nor the Ten Commandments are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution or laws. The Rights of Man are by implication taken as inherent in man in the Constitution. You may be thinking of the Declaration of Independence, drafted by a Deist and, while a lovely and historic document, not a part of the law. Herself |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Civilization in the United States ended by 1913.
|
|
|
|
MajesticLeo
|
To Herself.
Thank you for your cogent and well though out corrections, although I still cannot see how demanding that a person change the words to a song so as to replace the word God with the word he, can be a proper exercise of the principle of Separation of Church and State, (which I still maintain should be restricted to not mandating a state religion or preventing the free exercise of one's personal choice.)
This happened this week at a public school in regard to a song a student wanted to sing at a school function. Falls right in there with now allowing the word "God" to be in textbooks.
But I will not impose my views of this subject on anyone here further. Thanks for the opportunity.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I'm off to be the Wizard!!!!
|
|
|
|
Herself
|
For Leo: (I'm going to reshuffle the order of things in your posting a bit, as the last item calls for immediate response, I think). But I will not impose my views of this subject on anyone here further. Thanks for the opportunity. It's the FSP's forum, not mine; thank the shoulder-to-the-wheel folks who keep it running! More saliently, posting your beliefs here does not "impose" them on anyone! It's a good place to say what you believe in -- and for all of us to learn that not everyone headed in more-or-less the same direction as ourselves shares all of our very individual beliefs. I am in the habit of making very positive statements, backing them up with as much logic, evidence and/or precedent as I can find. But you should not be daunted by this, especially on those matters not provable by verifiable evidence. There are plenty of things I believe on the basis of logic and probability with which others do not agree. --Sure, I have the same sneaking feeling as anyone else, that this would be a perfect world if only everyone shared my outlook about everything; but let's be real: it's not a perfect world and can't be (whew!). As adults, we come to realize that even our best pals will not agree with us about everything! Enough of my diatribe. I think it is vital to freedom to grasp that we are free to view our fellows as hopelessly eccentric -- and to leave them be, just as long as they refrain from initiating force against us. Much progress is made by the whackos, freaks and goofballs, and if we will simply let Tom Edison be even though he's a sleep-deprived atheist with wild notions about imponderables, he'll sell us electric light. Guess who gets the better end of that deal? Now, your specific example: [...] I still cannot see how demanding that a person change the words to a song so as to replace the word God with the word he, can be a proper exercise of the principle of Separation of Church and State, (which I still maintain should be restricted to not mandating a state religion or preventing the free exercise of one's personal choice.)
This happened this week at a public school in regard to a song a student wanted to sing at a school function. Falls right in there with now [did you mean "not?" --H] allowing the word "God" to be in textbooks. If you ask me, the last paragraph answers the question raised in the first: the real issue is, ought the Government be in the school business, or would you be better off with that tax money still in your pocket, free to choose whatever sort of school you can pay for -- secular, religious, or in-between? (And there's a topic elsewhere for just that, too). It is a bit of "straining at gnats" to bar mention of any deity in an artistic performance. The underlying principle is clear enough, that positive promotion of any one religious view by a Government entity implies official support, but it is often applied trivially; another example of the shortcomings of letting Governments do more than the bare minimum. Given the manner in which any Government makes the simple complex and distorted, were I religious I'd be terrified of letting elected officials, bureaucrats and public-trough hired hands anywhere near my beliefs, but it's possible I've some blind spot in that respect. --Herself |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Civilization in the United States ended by 1913.
|
|
|
|
freemeplease
|
This has spun off of government legistating morality into a debate over separation of church and state.
I wanted to explain something about the morality issue. It will probably cause it's own firestorm.
I could use the homosexual issue, but I'll try to use a more blatant example.
Abortion.
I understand that the libertarian party accepts this barbaric practice. If the fetus is not a life, then I guess that's fine. The problem is that most of us Christians believe that it is. Fortunately for those who are on the side of abortion rights, most of christianity is becoming more and more liberal so it will become increasingly easier and easier to deal with.
But for the time being, some of us believe that it is in fact murder and that we have some sort of responsibility to defend the defensless. We believe the Bible when it says:
Deu 19:10 That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance, and [so] blood be upon thee.
The Bible says that God will speak vengance on those who shed innocent blood. Now the verse above is just an example as it was for the Jews, but the principal remains. We know that a fetus is an innocent life, or it is alive at least, and abortions are about the bloodiest massacare around. So Christians, fearing the wrath of God on their country, feel it is their duty to their country and countrymen to put a stop to it.
Even if it isn't murder, it is one of the most foolish, unintelligent acts ever. It is an admission that one is too stupid to realize the hundreds of different options regarding birth control.
Well what about rape or incest you say. Yawn... Is that any reason to terminate a life? Give the baby up for adoption. Give it a chance at freedom. Your mother chose life.
Anyways, Christians, at times, feel as though legislating morality is necessary for the preservation of freedom. This is why they are so adamant about it. We believe that Sodom and Gomorrah were literally destroyed. We believe that most of the great civilizations to fall did so at a time of corruption. So therefore we feel it is necessary that there be a positive moral culture for society to prosper.
We also believe that, as in other discussions, publicly displayed offensive material is a affront to our freedom. There will always be public areas such as the wilderness, beaches, etc. These are for all to enjoy. They should not be owned by the government but by the people. And nobody should be able to offend others (beyond reason, some people are offended by anything) just because they want to practice their freedom.
An example is some of the on-air language standards. Does this limit free speech. No. There are only a dozen words or so that can not be used. If somebody wants to get a point across and can't figure out how to do it without using these words, maybe they aren't bright enough to be heard anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ps. 119:45: And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.
2 Cor. 3:17: Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
Ga:5:1: Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
|
|
|
Zack Bass
Guest
|
An example is some of the on-air language standards. Does this limit free speech. No. There are only a dozen words or so that can not be used. If somebody wants to get a point across and can't figure out how to do it without using these words, maybe they aren't bright enough to be heard anyways.
And if you weren't allowed to use the words "God" and "Bible" you'd be as speechless as an Italian with his hands tied to his sides. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SteveA
|
Get the State out of the wedlock biz altogether; then it's not an issue. Bingo! I'll *ditto* that comment. Marriage is a social issue and can be handled by society quite fine, thank you. Government need not apply |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Fruitless, born a thousand times, lies barren. Unguided inspiration, yields random motion, circumscribed in destination, going nowhere. Guidance uninspired, always true in facing, stands immobile. But fixed upon that destination firmly and with inspiration lofted; beget your dreams."
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
