11/15/2004

Government Preacher

The radical cleric, Dr. Bob Jones III, President of Bob Jones University, Gave President bush a rousing call to arms last week.

In your re-election, God has graciously granted America—though she doesn't deserve it—a reprieve from the agenda of paganism.

and

Don't equivocate. Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ. Honor the Lord, and He will honor you.

and

Undoubtedly, you will have opportunity to appoint many conservative judges and exercise forceful leadership with the Congress in passing legislation that is defined by biblical norm regarding the family, sexuality, sanctity of life, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and limited government. You have four years—a brief time only—to leave an imprint for righteousness upon this nation that brings with it the blessings of Almighty God.

In a similar vein, another radical cleric, James Dobson, of Focus on the Family has been making the media rounds offering his own interpretation of God's Design for the US of A:

Dr. Dobson said he told the caller that many Christians believed the country "on the verge of self-destruction" as it abandoned traditional family roles. He argued that "through prayer and the involvement of millions of evangelicals, and mainline Protestants and Catholics, God has given us a reprieve.

But I believe it is a short reprieve," he continued, adding that conservatives now had four years to pass an amendment banning same-sex marriage, to stop abortion and embryonic stem-cell research, and most of all to remake the Supreme Court. "I believe that the Bush administration now needs to be more aggressive in pursuing those values, and if they don't do it I believe they will pay a price in four years," he said.

Apocalypitic hyperbole is nothing new. But do Democrats really hate Christ? Has God really given us a "reprieve" from "self-destruction" or a "pagan agenda." Whether or not the average Republican believes it, the notion that Democrats are anti-religion is now a central propaganda point for the Republican party. It is a media narrative, particularly now that "values" are supposedly so important to the average voter.

They do this for a reason. In order to advance some of their most radical ideas - using biblical arguments to support amending the US constitution to ban gay marriage, for example - they must first sell the idea that society is under attack. Under attack from whom? The liberals. Mangy haired, heathen Democrats looking to slice the baby right out of your womb because they are pro-abortion. Godless, soul-sucking pariahs who literally spit on the baby jesus as they get undressed for their orgies. Men and women and their children who live in sin, watch nothing but the trash produced by the Hollywood elite, whose lives are living apostasies.

Ultra-Religious Republicans first create the false aura of a nation under siege by the lawless and godless, then respond to it by placing stalwart Christians at every available post. This is done, not as a matter of faith, but as a way to consolidate power. These people believe the separation of Church and State is a myth. As Dr. Jones states above, their goal is to govern by biblical law. Their reach is enormous and real.

There is only one proper Democratic response to this kind of aggressive effort to transform the United States from a liberal, secular republic to a conservative, theocratic republic. That response is to begin to discuss measures ensuring the separation of church and state in terms of full Faith Protection.

The day some government preacher walks into your kid's classroom is the day religious liberty is dead in this country.

17 Comments:

At 11:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once again..tumbleweeds blowin' between young ears.

"Mangy haired, heathen Democrats looking to slice the baby right out of your womb because they are pro-abortion."

Let's start with well coiffed, heathen Democratic politicians working tirelessly to protect the "right" of a doctor to pull a living baby out of the womb to the crown of it's head and then stick a trocor into it's skull and evacuate it's brain.

Until the left can admit this most blatent barbarism for what it is no conversation is possible.

"Godless, soul-sucking pariahs who literally spit on the baby jesus as they get undressed for their orgies."

Christ was 33 when he took leave of the planet. But not to be denied, we have Godless, soul-sucking pariahs instead painting effegies of the subjects of their scorn, upon which they spread feces.

"Men and women and their children who live in sin, watch nothing but the trash produced by the Hollywood elite, whose lives are living apostasies."

Well well, proving once again that even the blind squirrel sometimes finds the nut, you're getting warm.

"Ultra-Religious Republicans first create the false aura of a nation under siege by the lawless and godless.."

This must be a front group for those ultra-religious bigots eh? Out there spreading false aura's left and right.

"These people believe the separation of Church and State is a myth."

Actually, I think you'd find that most Christian's are quite well aware of the origins of the "seperation" doctrine, despite the left's attempts to persuade the guiless into believeing it is part of the Constitution, which it is not.

Most of the practising Christians I know are upset not with the seperation of Church and State but with the left's use of the state to seperate the Church from the people.

"Their reach is enormous and real."

And every time the left champions public displays such as this, they increase the power of the evangelicals and the likely-hood of the theocracy they fear.

Ever hear of "tact"? How about "restraint"? "Self-dicipline"?

Look 'em up..good stuff.

"The day some government preacher walks into your kid's classroom is the day religious liberty is dead in this country."

Perhaps if you wish to avoid that, it might be wise to keep this sort of thing from the classroom, or this, or this.

You are your own worst enemies.

 
At 2:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice post Swiftee, I read all the links and now I don't have to wonder why these knuckleheads haven't responded. Maybe if you'all spent your time doing something about the problems concerning you instead of telling everyone else how dumb they are you may actually acclomplish something with your life and wouldn't have to feel so inept.

 
At 4:19 PM, Blogger Mark D. said...

Well at least now we know Swiftee's not a libertarian!

Anonymous: we are all activists outside of what we write here at the blog, so this "do something" business just makes you look a fool. And none of us feel "inept", though I do feel sometimes feel sympathy for anonymous posters of inept comments.

 
At 5:02 PM, Blogger Chris Dykstra said...

Swiftee (and anonymous):

I always appreciate your perspective. Without contrast, no truth can be known, I guess. Perhaps both of us are so locked into our respective understandings of the the American Ideal that change is impossible. I know that I, for one, do not understand your idea of liberty in any way, shape, or form. I guage from your post that you are uncomfortable with freedom.

In my original post, I argued that religious Republicans painted the 48% of the electorate that voted Democratic as "Pagans" and "Christ haters." I pointed out that they were advancing the belief that Bush's win came from God, as opposed to voters. Their reason for doing so is to provide public justification for building an "ideologically correct" infrustructure into our government through the appointment of Christian officials, and to use biblical arguments in support of legislation. I argue that that is a violation of the constitutional ideal of freedom of religion. In support of my arguments I refer to leaders speaking to tens of millions of people using budgets of hundreds of millions of dollars.

You respond by further demonizing Democrats and "liberals" by painting them with the same overly broad brush. I use the actions and words of people with real power, you use the actions and words of one professor, nine gay, comedic nuns, a team of researchers, etc. None of these people are organizationally connected, none have real power. I could spend all day digging up the excesses of the fringe right: The Aryan Nation, the guys that kill abortion doctors, etc. But that wouldn't really be on target would it? What I am talking about is the excesses of the people who have power.

Apparently, you seem to be ok with the idea that the correct response to perceived moral excesses is the establishment of a Federal Religion. You seem to suggest with your last line that if the left wants to avoid this outcome, we had better change our ways:

Perhaps if you wish to avoid that, it might be wise to keep this sort of thing from the classroom, or this, or this.That outcome, as I suggest in the original post, would be the death knell not only for religious liberty, but liberty period. Swiftee, that seems to be the sword you and the moral police currently in power want to hold over the country's head.

If that's the case, I've got just one question for you: Why are you anti-freedom, Swiftee? I really want to know.

 
At 6:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"In my original post, I argued that religious Republicans painted the 48% of the electorate that voted Democratic as "Pagans" and "Christ haters."

Your argument doesn’t hold water because it’s not true.

Republicans painted the majority of Democratic candidates as being supporters of paganism, secular humanism and hedonism, which they are. I don’t believe that the misguided 48% “hate Christ”, but I do believe that some portion of the 48 hate Christian theology and a still smaller portion hate people who identify themselves as Christians.

“I pointed out that they were advancing the belief that Bush's win came from God, as opposed to voters. Their reason for doing so is to provide public justification for building an "ideologically correct" infrastructure into our government through the appointment of Christian officials, and to use biblical arguments in support of legislation. I argue that that is a violation of the constitutional ideal of freedom of religion.”

Cheeze, where to begin. Despite the left’s chafing discomfort at the fact, the “theologically correct infrastructure” (which is what you meant to say) was put in place by the founders.

You know as well as I do that our legislation was founded upon biblical constructs, what you’re afraid of is a return to those constructs.

What you’re arguing is not a “violation of the constitutional ideal of freedom of religion”, but your right to a freedom from religion; and you do have such a right. But don't complain because your secular humanism is rejected just as freely by the majority of Americans.

“I use the actions and words of people with real power, you use the actions and words of one professor, nine gay, comedic nuns, a team of researchers, etc. None of these people are organizationally connected, none have real power.”

This is why the left is doomed to the minor leagues.

First of all, you may find amusement but here’s news: millions of Catholics don’t see a damn thing funny about a pack o’ perverts parading down San Francisco streets every year debauching the clerical garb of their religious orders.

But the SF Chronicle dutifully plasters three page pictorials of them none-the-less. The organization they and their ilk belong to is known as the Democratic party, and you are too modest by half; they had the power to put Kerry’s campaign right down the tubes.

All the money on the planet couldn’t buy that kind of promotion for the GOP.

“I could spend all day digging up the excesses of the fringe right: The Aryan Nation, the guys that kill abortion doctors, etc. But that wouldn't really be on target would it?”

This may be the first thing you’ve written that makes sense.

You missed the target by ignoring the fact that no one is making excuses for the Aryan Nation or abortion clinic killings. No Republican candidate shows up at AN rally’s or refuses to condemn murder out-of-hand and in no uncertain terms.

Lefty politicians have no such compunction about marching with the Catholic bashers, enviro-terrorists, anarchists, poverty pimps and the morally (and mentally) bereft Hollywood clique. They are firm believers that a vote is a vote.

“Apparently, you seem to be ok with the idea that the correct response to perceived moral excesses is the establishment of a Federal Religion. You seem to suggest with your last line that if the left wants to avoid this outcome, we had better change our ways.”

There is and has been no discussion of a Federal Religion. You weren’t paying attention to my lessons on rhetoric where you..or at the least you skipped over the section dealing with hyperbole.

Freedom you say? You are all free as the wind! The punks of perpetual perversion are welcome to parade as they wish. Party on!

Just don’t cry because no one takes your politics or politicians seriously.

 
At 6:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, and by the way; can you find something else to lean on instead of the "when did you stop beating you're wife" lines?

They weren't clever 80 years ago and haven't gotten any better with age.

 
At 7:54 PM, Blogger Mark D. said...

You know as well as I do that our legislation was founded upon biblical constructs, what you’re afraid of is a return to those constructs.Swiftee, can you expand upon this? What "legislation" are your referring to? Which "biblical constructs"? I think you're being deliberately muddle-headed here.

Me, I'd be more than happy to see a national return to a little Biblical "construct" called the Eight Beatitudes...

 
At 7:57 PM, Blogger Chris Dykstra said...

In quote after quote, letter after letter, the founders stake the future of our country on the idea that it is better for religion and better for government that the two remain inviolately separate. It is why the word "God" does not appear in the constitution. It is why the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, unanimously ratified by congress and published globally in 1796-97, unequivocally states that ""[T]he government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." It is why Thomas Jefferson rather acidly remarked in his Notes on the State of Virginia, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."( Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on the State of Virginia," 1782; from Merrill D. Peterson, ed., Thomas Jefferson: Writings, New York: Library of America, 1984, p. 285. )

You can't return to something that never was. There is no real biblical construct, Swiftee. There is only a perfectly neutral constitution that provides the system in which each and every one of us is free to worship as we choose.

Do you agree that the US government is absolutely neutral with regards to religion?

Do you agree that the US constitution is a secular document?

 
At 3:57 AM, Blogger Chuck Olsen said...

The Elephant Poop Defense. Classic.

Are you just now discovering gay nuns in San Francisco, Swiftee? Wonderful what these internets can bring to our doorstep. I'm afraid perverts have been parading the streets of SanFran for a few decades now. Even (especially?) during Republican administrations.

It's not exactly fair to compare gays to a radical fringe group like the Aryan nation. Openly gay people are elected in our local, state, and national government. Gays are our relatives, our coworkers, our friends. Yes, some are even Republicans - although Bush's evangelical extremism has alienated them.

Should Dems be vamping it up alongside gay nuns? If running for office in SanFran - hell yes. Beyond that...proceed with caution. We're in a period of cultural transition. Many people aren't comfortable with homosexuality, but they're getting used to seeing and hearing about it, and even (gasp) tolerating or welcoming it in their lives as they discover gay people in their social/family fabric.

Gay people are Americans too. They deserve equal rights, protection and liberty. On this, we can never surrender. How we go about doing it is another matter - I agree that incremental is probably better. Writing off the far-right evangelicals, we have to not make people feel "icky" about homosexuality. We have to appeal to their goodness and virtue, their sense of justice.

Here's a terrific article from Matthew Yglesias (courtesy of Dystrka).
Stiffing the Base: It's not the Democrats who disrespect faith-based voters. It's the Republicans.

 
At 8:47 AM, Blogger Chris Dykstra said...

Of course, it's not only Democrats courting the gay vote. There is a little thing called the Log Cabin republicans.

Not that that has anything at all to do with the attempts by the religion right to insert the Bible in the center of government.

 
At 11:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yow, you goofballs have ADD or what?

Go back and follow the thread of the conversation, then if you think you can keep up with it rejoin by all means.
=======================================================

Yes, the Constitution is a secular document. And yes it was based upon Christian theology. Why do you think that the constitution expressly forbids titles? Think about it..we judge others by their behavior, not by their lineage..why?

Our legislation and morality is clearly Christian in origin.

You need proof? Sure, happy to oblige.

According to the bible, God said: Thou shalt not kill.

Our legal system says the same thing, although we have made an accomodation for self defense and the defense of others.

There are plenty of civilations where killing is to this day condoned if not outright accepted. For instance, in India they still allow Sati.

The bible quotes God: "Thou shalt not steal"

Our legal system took that in as well.

But there have been and still are civilizations and cultures, like our own Indian nations, that find the artful theft of anothers property to be a skill that is coveted.

The same holds true for 99% of our laws. Our sense of morality did not fall from the sky nor did we aquire it via osmosis, photosysthesis or ingestion. We followed the bible's example.

I don't want to live in a theocracy any more than any other American; and I don't expect to.

The country has simply had enough of the left's tolerance of the absurd. We are making an adjustment that needs to be checked before it swings morality back too far, and if history is any judge it will be checked.

What I'm saying is that you moonbats are free to "celebrate" any lifestyle you choose. Go ahead and demand that society tolerate any behavior no matter how absurd but you are dooming yourselves and your party to the lunatic fringe.

Don't forget that states that voted for Kerry this time around also voted overwhelmingly to ban homo-marriage.

Bush was a particularly weak candidate, but he won a majority. Combine the left's current "anything goes" platform with a strong GOP candidate and we have the recepie for a genuine Republican rout.

 
At 1:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jonathan you are a piece..of..work.

"So you hate gays. Whoop-dee-doo."

You forgot to throw the obligatory "bigot" into your obfuscation kiddo. Get with the program.


"You can call it absurd, but tolerance is indeed a virtue"

Sure it is. But tolerating behavior that is intrinsically perverse falls into the "aiding and abetting" catagory.

You might have heard something about (and lived with) having a mind so open your brain falls out? Same-O.

"As I've said before, no one is forcing churches to marry gays, they are merely expecting the same rights that any other committed couple is granted by our government."

No, they already have the same rights that any other committed couple has. They want to redefine what a couple is and then apply the existing standard to the new definition.

That's why this has nothing to do with civil rights; but there's nothing stopping them from asking....

Survey says....Ehh. No cigar.

Committed couple as defined by civil law is one human male and one human female of any race, creed, color or national origin; no two men, no two women, no man and duck, no women and gerbil. Boring, I know, but them's the rules.

"How does that damage your lifestyle? How does that make your neighborhood less safe?"

If I have to explain something so basic, you are not capable of understanding. Check back with me in about ten years, we'll talk.

"You're free to feel uncomfortable, but don't impose your discomfort on the rest of us."

Heh, right back at ya sport!

 
At 1:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This isn't quite right:

"Sure it is. But tolerating behavior that is intrinsically perverse falls into the "aiding and abetting" catagory."

Tolerating perverse or anti-social behavior is not aiding and abetting. Accepting perverse or anti-social behavior as normal is.

The mind that is so open the brain falls out cannot grasp the difference between the two concepts.

The majority of Americans are already willing to tolerate homosexuals, but they won't ever accept homo-sex as normal.

 
At 1:15 PM, Blogger Luke Francl said...

"Committed couple as defined by civil law is one human male and one human female of any race, creed, color or national origin; no two men, no two women, no man and duck, no women and gerbil. Boring, I know, but them's the rules."

Until the 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia "committed couple" was defined by civil law as "one human male and one human female of the same race." These standards change with time. More and more people are realizing that being gay is just like being black or white. It's a trait your born with and it's not something you can do anything about.

Since homosexuality, like hetrosexuality, is an intristic quality of the individual, discrimination against gays is morally wrong, just like discrimination against other minorities.

America may not be ready for gay marriage yet, but a majority of the people -- including President Bush -- support civil unions to give gay couples rights like inheritence and hospital visitation.

Why do you want to stop people from visiting their loving partner in the hospital Swiftee?

 
At 4:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"More and more people are realizing that being gay is just like being black or white. It's a trait your born with and it's not something you can do anything about."

Can a Mexican choose not to be brown? Can an African choose not to be black? Can a Chinese choose not to be yellow? Can a dashing Irishman such as myself choose not to be white in winter and red in summer?

Can any of these people choose to have sex with a member of the same sex as they?

Can they also choose not too?

================================

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that can lead to the conclusion you state as fact, none, nada, zip, zilch.

You're opinions not withstanding, the most compelling arguements being made by researchers suggest that a penchant for sex with members of the same sex is the result of biological and environmental inputs.

Further, your optomistic forcast regarding societies' level of acceptance flies in the face of the recent election.

To the contrary, it seems that the more this issue rubbed in the public's face, the less tolerant they become.

Case Closed....This is too easy.

ps for Jonathon: Homosexual behavior can be learned, but don't get your hopes up slick. I'm really happy with the wife I have.

You'll have to continue to confine yourself to satisfying your Swiftee fantasies in the privacy of Mom and Dad's bathroom.

Don't forget to turn the faucet on!

 
At 7:14 PM, Blogger Luke Francl said...

"Can any of these people choose to have sex with a member of the same sex as they?

Can they also choose not too?"

Yes, the same way you can choose not to have sex with women.

Humans are unique among the species in being able to resist the sex drive. But unlike the pleasure-denying hypocrites on the right, liberals believe that people should be free to pursue their own happiness as long as it doesn't hurt others. You haven't shown homosexuality to be harmful to you in any way.

The evidence for a biological basis for homosexuality is, at this point, totally overwhelming. Even you admit it plays some role. Homosexual behavior has been observed in dozens of animal species. Are you going to argue that they're sinning too?

Open-minded young people like myself are the future. We're just waiting for enough of you anti-gay bigots to die off.

 
At 7:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, come on now Jonathan. Mullets are HOT! Or at least they were in 1986.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home