PDA

View Full Version : Christians Unite! (Except for You Catholics!)



Zen Curmudgeon
04-22-2005, 10:12 AM
This Sunday, April 24, a televised simulcast titled, "Justice Sunday", will feature high profile right wing Christian evangelicals in a program aimed at ending "filibusters" against "people of faith".

Presumably, religious leaders, including Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Dr. Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, prison ministry preacher Chuck Colson, and Senate Majority leader Dr. Bill Frist, will join hands to rally the Christian troops against the machinations of the minority Democrats
against a small handful of Bush judicial nominees.

But not all the Christians Soldiers should be expected to attend.

Focus On The Family board member Dr. Albert Mohler dismisses the Roman Catholic church as "a false church and it teaches a false gospel.” On his website ( www.albertmohler.com ) he reaffirms his stance, "Well, I stand by my comments, made a few years ago on 'Larry King Live.' My statements reflect nothing more than classic evangelical theology."

But this high Focus official hasn't said anything Catholics should take too seriously. As Focus spokesperson Carrie Gordon Earll says in a Pueblo Chieftain article, "Mohler serves on the board of Focus and is not anti-Catholic."
( http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1114182367/6 )

Gosh, I guess we'll just disregard that "false church" comment, then.

The "not anti-Catholic" Mohler again, "Evangelicals rightly point to the papacy as an unbiblical office that, by its very nature, compromises the integrity of Scripture and invests an unbiblical authority in an earthly ecclesiastical monarch."

So a high FOTF official and prominent Southern Baptist theologian has drawn a clear line in the sand: support "people of faith" so long as they have don't believe a "false gospel" and aren't members of a "false church".

Lest we come to think Dr. Mohler is speaking only for himself, along comes Focus founder Dr. James Dobson. On Fox News Channel's Hannity and Colmes, "he (Dr. James Dobson) defended Mohler's past statements about Catholicism.

'This is not about Catholicism. This is about an effort in the Senate to block people of faith and also people with conservative views. It's not just those with Christian views,' Dobson said. 'It's not a fight against Catholicism.'"

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_3720500,00.html

Oh. My mistake. The "false", "unbiblical" Catholic church that "compromises the integrity of Scripture" doesn't rate the coordinated attack a wordly political issue does.

Apparently, the lesson here is that politics trumps theology, Mammon scores big over God.

As Focus speaker Earll says, "At Focus, we work hand-in-hand with Catholics on many projects. You can have theological differences with people and still partner with them."

Unless they are liberal Democrats, of course. Or Muslims. Or Budhhists, Or Hindus. Or Wiccans. Or (your own nonChristian denomination here).

So, really, what's the difference between these political conservatives and any other special interest groups, such as lobbyist Jack Abramoff or the International Union of Sex Workers? They all seek to mold the political system to better serve their specific goals.

But no one seems to be better than this axis of Christians in justifying the imposition of their own Protestant religious views on everyone around them .

Wonderful what you can do if your version of God is on your side.

large
04-22-2005, 10:43 AM
Yer a troublemaker aren't you? Just throwing salt at the bloody carcass! . . . .

Yeah, but it's got th' Salazar Club up in arms . . . . Th' Dems is gonna convert to Christianity and fight back!

Y'know why . . has nothing to do with Christ, or morals, or even who's right . . IT'S ABOUT VOTES!

Hell To Pay
04-22-2005, 03:26 PM
I disagree that it's just about votes. FOTF has an agenda of morality and family values. Fighting the stinking leftists plan of instituting a krytocracy for you and I certainly is trying to preserve democracy and our constitution and thus preserving their desire to not to have their families controlled by the (commucrat) state.

large
04-22-2005, 03:33 PM
You mean we're gonna have an Islamic theocracy without the islamic and with James Dobson instead?

Damn, those preachers are sooooooo smooth . . . and that REALLY scares me!

MoralCompass
04-22-2005, 11:58 PM
To say that Democrats are going to convert to Christianity goes to the heart of what is wrong with the Republican idea of Democracy. Nowhere in any religious text that I am aware of does the Lord God Almighty declare any political party affiliation, yet, the Republican party has the huberous to declare God is a Republican, by saying that Democrats will reject judges of faith. This is a lie, out and out. President Bush has not nominated ANY judges who have not professed to be Christian, so how do you explain the ninety plus judges that the Democrats have approved?

In fact, if memory serves, I do not think there is a single person in either house Democrat, Republican or Independent who hasn't claimed some sort of belief in God. But, for the sake of argument lets pretend that every single Democrat suddenly declared themselves to be agnostic or wiccan. Does this disqualify them for holding office? Uh, no, at least not according to the constitution which was set up to SEPERATE Church and State, for the VERY reason we see today: the government forcing people to observe religious beliefs that they may not have, even if we find those beliefs, or lack thereof to be offensive.

I think it is obvious that Republicans do not have the corner on the market for moral convictions any more than we can declare that either party is free from corruption and morally bankrupt members. I think what Republicans want is a Theocracy as long as it doesn't include Muslims, Democrats, and is for sale to any large corporation.

Two wrongs do not make a right, and two rights do not correct a wrong. Congress is there for one reason only: to represent the people of their districts and states so that all Americans have a voice. What Republicans want is for the 48 percent of Americans who don't share their narrow views to not even have that voice.

I myself do not approve of Abortion, nor do I approve of any American suggesting that we should "eliminate judges" just because we don't like their decisions. I personnally find Justice Anton Scalia to be the poster child for Judicial acitvism, but I would personnaly throw myself in front of him to shield him from ANYONE who would do him harm.

I think it is un-American to suggest that the fillibuster should be banned just because that is the only tool the minority has to halt the few nominations which are considered likely to use that office for judicial acivism. If the Republican leadership and President Bush didn't think these judicial nominees would indeed become judicial acitivists why have they fought so hard to keep them? Only one answer: they KNOW that these nominees will be judicial acitvists, the very thing that REPUBLICANS are whining about. They can nominate judges who are more likely to make judgements based on the Constitution and the law, who are also morally decent men like the ones already approved by DEMOCRATS.

Zen has hit the nail on the head, and is surely no curmudgeon. Large needs to change his id to: Extra Large Ego, then go read his bible to see what Christ himself had to say about his house and what it is called, what it is for, and finally, stop putting his political beliefs in the guise of Biblical truth: for by doing so, he elevates himself above God and as memory serves, the Greatest commandment is to Love God above all others, then to love all others as he loves himself, including Democrats, Liberals, Queers, Muslims, etc. Then, sell everything he owns and give it to the poor. Once Large does all that, then I will see that his faith has works and is not dead. By the way Large, I did all that years ago, and have never been happier, and I am the wealthiest person I know.

How do you fill a buster? Simple, empty the hatred that has already filled it and fill it with love.

large
04-23-2005, 07:29 AM
OK, lemmee say this once more . . just so you younger idealists understand the Human Condition . .

THERE ARE NO "HONEST" POLITICIANS . .

Only "Honest" Candidates!

Once elected, the "Former Candidate" has to begin to fit in in his/her new enviroment. This requires becoming "Friends" with His/her contemporaries. In order that they would vote for something you want done, you MUST vote for things they want passed, some of which you may not favor. This is called "Compromise". Minor!

However, very, very seldom does a "Former Candidate" wish to spend only one term in their newly found position of power and special favor, thus, he/she must run for re-election. Of this he/she is made painfully aware of about the tenth day in office. Hence one must start laying away Acorns for the upcoming re-election . . . Mr. Moral Compass, or anybody else up here . . How much did you contribute to your favorite candidate last election? Hmmmmm?

Well, if it's a thousand or less, you didn't contrinbute Jack S***! I'd be willing to bet several special intrest groups or Lobbyists (as they're known in th' biz) gave your candidate more than your whole family's income last year!

So, when the legislator is given a voting choice on the floor, vote for principle orrrrr Pocketbook? Betcha "Pocketbook" wins everytime . . Just did in Congress on the energy bill! A Bi-partisan gift to the Oil Companies . . even so good Bush decries it. But he'll sign it . . anyway . . .

Anytime either side of the aisle votes on something, there's an agenda running . . and it's seldom in the interest of the consumer or voter . . The Legislator you think so highly of, wants to keep the job he has, not come back to Pueblo and go back to work doing the old mundane job he had, nor recieving about half of the salary plus perqs he had while in Office . .

Take off the Rose Colored Glasses when you talk of either the Republicans or Democrats . . I been both, just as I have been both a Methodist and an Episcopalian . . and in both cases, I care for neither!

And as I told another Psychological Advisor who chose the same line you have advised . . Get a life, I've done more, been wonderfully sucessful, and left more Bronze Markers around the area than you probably will, as your's will probably just be a tombstone . .

Take first your own advice, live YOUR life, and cease doing what all you Lefties seem to do best . . Telling somebody else how to live theirs, usually at additional expense to them!

Zen Curmudgeon
04-23-2005, 10:37 AM
OK, lemmee say this once more . . just so you younger idealists understand the Human Condition . .

THERE ARE NO "HONEST" POLITICIANS . .

An honest politician is a man who, when he’s bought, stays bought.

Edward M. Stanton, Secretary of War, Lincoln Administration

Perhaps this is the basis for the Christian right's current upset - they don't feel they are getting their money's worth? :)

Take Care -

ZC

large
04-23-2005, 11:18 AM
Yeah, but that was back when the pickin's was slimmer!

Now it's almost a "Bidding" thing!

We elect a candidate, then he puts the offie out to bid! And I supposee it is only Monthly rent!

Hell To Pay
04-23-2005, 04:22 PM
You mean we're gonna have an Islamic theocracy without the islamic and with James Dobson instead?

Damn, those preachers are sooooooo smooth . . . and that REALLY scares me!

What in the world are you talking about? The judicial branch is not supposed to make up their own laws, and conservative judges are far less the activist ones. The nominees the leftists are blocking have very good records in adhering to the principles of the constitution. You sound as if you want to bend over and take whatever the leftist men in black want to give you..

If FOTF supports conservative judges, so what? Big Deal.

large
04-23-2005, 05:36 PM
IT'S ABOUT VOTES!

Leftist Men in Black, Righist men in White . . Don't make no difference . . IT'S ALL ABOUT VOTES AND VOTING BLOCS . . . . I want Judges that make decisions based on the basic Constitution, not what they think or interpret it as, or what some preacher thinks it says . . If it doesn't say anything about the subject put in front of them, then send it back to the Legislature . . . . Make a Law, not some off the wall bulls**T!

I don't want a Judge telling me I can't pray where the Hell I want nor do I want a Judge telling me HOW to pray! Or who to pray to!

Hell To Pay
04-24-2005, 01:09 AM
Just to clarify..... You are saying that Bush's present nominees to these district and appeals courts are going to all of a sudden turn into activist judges making laws to tell you who and how to pray to, just because FOTF endorses their nominations.

Pay no attention to the nice men in the white coats approaching you.

Zen Curmudgeon
04-24-2005, 08:28 AM
Unless you're liberal, Democrat, Catholic, gay, lesbian, an activist judge, a condom manufacturer, a pharmacist who dispenses birth control medications, a member of Planned Parenthood, a feminist, Budhhist, Hindu, Mormom, 7th Day Adventist, Unitarian, agnostic, not an evangelical Christian... you get the idea.

(Whenever the Christian tightie righties get together for one of their rallies, I look around for the "publicans and sinners Jesus used to hang with.)

Take Care -

ZC

large
04-24-2005, 11:16 AM
Hmmmm, lessee . . Judges . . 'n How we get 'em . . . .

Once in a while Orrin Hatch has an idea . . . Once in a while when he's not being himself, Joe Biden comes across almost sensible . . And "Little Boy" Lindsey Graham is worth listening to sometimes . . But for the most part I'd like the Show they put on better if we just took all of the Judiciary Committee out in front of the Washington Monument and Ritually Shot 'em all . . Patrick Leahy first! A lesson for those who follow! Let 'em float in th' Reflecting Pool for a few days and make the rest of the House and Senate walk by everyday on their way to their sessions . . . Betcha there'd be new attitudes displayed in both chambers!

Partisanship has no place when choosing Judges . . . .

Vote 'em up or down on the Senate Floor . . review their rulings every few years, if they wander from the Constitution or start making law from the bench . . Can 'em! Again, Congress' job . . . . That's what we elect those A**holes for . . . . lessee if they'll ask their constituents anything about that!

Zen Curmudgeon
04-24-2005, 10:12 PM
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/0405/25filibuster.html

Frist defends anti-filibuster effort, says judges deserve 'respect, not retaliation'

By DAVID ESPO
AP Special Correspondent
Published on: 04/24/05

(excerpt)
Putting more evangelicals on the court will mean rulings more in tune with the religious convictions of churchgoers, said R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville.

"We are not asking for persons merely to be moral," Mohler said. "We want them to be believers in the Lord Jesus Christ."

Hmmm...

Dr. Mohler has some pretty firm convictions (see post #1 in this thread), some of which relegate Catholics and all non-Christians to the not-believing-the-right-thing group.

At this point maybe the non-Christians or the not-Christian Enoughs should start researching the succesful legal defense strategies used during the Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials.

At worst it's boring detail at a cocktail party, at most it could be most useful trivia.

Take Care -

ZC

Zen Curmudgeon
04-26-2005, 04:28 PM
The fuss over the filibusters "against people of faith" is reaching impressive depths of self-serving myopia, religious discrimination and just plain lies. Focus on the Family head James Dobson, he of SpongeBob-is-part-of-a-radical-gay-agenda fame, orchestrated an event over the weekend that prominently featured Senate Majority leader Bill Frist, who railed against the "unprecedented" use of filibuster to prevent approval of judicial nominees the minority party finds offensive. The Republican leader joined up with Dobson and his spin off political advocacy group, the Family Research Council, to paint the Democratic minority in the darkest possible colors and demand that only Christians be appointed to judgeships.

Well, it turns out there's plenty of precedent, mostly from Republicans themselves, starting most famously in 1968 with the Republican filibuster of Abe Fortas, a nice Jewish boy nominated by President Johnson for the Supreme Court. The filibuster prevailed, and Fortas withdrew from consideration.

That's just politics, though, and we know how short those memories can be. However, when the Christians in this flap get acute amnesia, it's in suspiciously unChristian circumstances, almost as though they truly believe the rhetoric they've been spinning (or lies they've been telling, depending on your point of view). Now calling for the "nuclear option" against any use the of the filibuster, these flatly intolerant bigots have conveniently overlooked their own contribution to the defense of the filibuster.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7640337/

Yesterday the Family Research Council was opposed to filibusters. Seven years ago, it was in favor of them. That‘s when Clinton and a then-Democratic plurality in the Senate wanted a man named James Hormel to become the ambassador to Luxembourg. Hormel, of the Spam and other meats Hormels, was gay, as the Senate minority bottled up Hormel‘s nomination with filibusters and threats of filibusters, minority relative to cloture, to breaking up a filibuster.

They did that for a year and a half. The Family Research Council‘s senior writer, Steven Schwartz, appeared on National Public Radio at the time and explained the value, even the necessity, of the filibuster.

“The Senate,” he said, “is not a majoritarian institution, like the House of Representatives is. It is a deliberative body, and it‘s got a number of checks and balances built into our government. The filibuster is one of those checks in which a majority cannot just sheerly force its will, even if they have a majority of votes in some cases. (emphasis added) That‘s why there are things like filibusters, and other things that give minorities in the Senate some power to slow things up, to hold things up, and let things be aired properly.”

Funny how things change, huh? Can we look forward to the day when SpongeDob goes back to preaching to his choir and leaves the rest of us (the great majority, by the way) alone?

Take Care -

ZC

MoralCompass
04-27-2005, 05:58 AM
What Zen said. I would add a few tidbits to the ol' book burning party. Dr. (and I use that term loosely, since his Doctorate has NOTHING to do with his current position) Dobson also saved American children from Tinky Winky, who as we all know, was second only to Sponge Bob in the "militant gay agenda". And by "militant" I mean using their right to free speech versus the non-militant method used by Eric Rudolf and others at abortion clinics and gay bars using C4 explosives, baseball bats, etc., (which I have YET to hear Dobson speak against).

As proof of his loyalty to CFV (Colorado for Family Values), Dobson was a major proponant of Amendment 2, along with former Senator Bill Armstrong and the well known car dealer, Will Perkins, and then Senate candidate Terry Considine, along with former CU Football coaches. Their "hate the sin, love the sinner" rhetoric had as much substance as the smoke they blew up the skirts of rural voters in Colorado to get their NAZI amendment passed. The same amendment which the US Supreme Court tossed out, which is the same court which seated "W". I think Dobson makes my point for me.

Lets oust the US Supreme Court which seated a President who actually lost the election, you know, that activist Supreme Court which had the gall to overturn the voters of Colorado. Then, lets toss out "W", since his first term wasn't really legitimate, we'll call it a wash. I don't recall Republicans having any problems with the Supreme Court when they handed Bush the oval office on a golden platter. Surely they wouldn't be hypocrites, would they?

I mean after all, lets pause a moment to consider how Dobson treated Dr. Mel White (who really does have a degree in divinity and ghost wrote nearly every single book ever "written" by Billy Ghram, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. A man they all entrusted to write the truth with THEIR name on it, making them all millions of dollars in book sales. Let us examine how Dr. White was treated when he politely asked them to stop the hate speech. White even went so far as to go to Dobson's HQ and was refused entry, even when he fasted. Even when he said that as a Christian he still cares deeply about all the above mentioned men. Not one of them would give him the time of day. So much for "hate the sin, love the sinner".

Back then I told friends and co-workers that much of the agenda of CFV (which is now defunct, but the cause is being championed still by Dobson) was based directly on the NAZI handbook. One of those friends, a fellow Republican, and brother Christian, was greatly offended. He was invited to attend a secret conclave at Glenn Aire with CFV and their minions. When he returned from that conference he told me that not only was I a little bit right, but he handed me phamplet from that conclave. Then, he handed me HIS copy of the Nazi handbook (translated into English) which he had as WW2 history buff. He underlined the words in his book, which were WORD for WORD, Paragraph for Paragraph obviously copied from the exact same English translation of the NAZI handbook.

Now, call Dobson and the rest "NAZI's" sounds awful, but you can call a pile of camel dung "Colorado for Family Values" or "Focus on the Family" but, in the end, what you have is still a pile of steaming NAZI camel dung.

Want proof? Go check out a copy of the Nazi Handbook, and get a stack of FOF literature and then tell me that the NAZI party isn't headquarted in Colorado Springs, Colorado. My dad fought the NAZI's and my uncle became a POW after the Germans shot down his B-17. They did not fight a war just to have Dobson and his storm-troopers call themselves loyal Americans any more than than they would want Hitler himself in the White House.

Hitler took power because apathetic German voters didn't pay attention. He took power with less than 30% of the eligible voters. He convinced the ones who DID vote for him that the problems with Germany were because of Jews, Homo-sexuals, mentally ill and mentally retarded, and "inferior races". He scared the crap out of the Germans and offered his moral method of fixing Germany, and making it the greatest empire on Earth. His rhetoric is the same rhetoric which FOTF uses, the same rhetoric which Fallwell, Fred Phelps, and Tom DeLay use. At what point will people say "enough is enough"? My guess, when we are the new Germany, and I don't see that we are far from that now.