Skip to comments.The Problem With The Religious Right: A Zot Leaves a Mark
Posted on 05/03/2007 8:46:24 AM PDT by CharlesS
In what Bill OReilly refers to as the Culture War between Conservatives and Liberals, there are those on both sides of the fence that stray so far to the left or the right, they actually help the enemy. On the left we have Rosie ODonnell with her anti-American rants which give Conservatives ammunition to shoot back at all liberals by associating them with Rosie. On the right, we Conservatives have our own villains which supply ammunition to the enemy. They are commonly referred to as the religious right...
(Excerpt) Read more at constitutionallyright.com ...
So the problem with the religious right is that you disagree with their religious views and don’t think they should voice them in the public square...
As opposed to the atheist left?
I get it. Your problem isn’t that the religious right has their own views, you just don’t like it when they act in accordance with those views or desire to have the freedom to do so.
Is that better?
No thanks. Nothing really prevents you from posting it here.
This guy is behind the times in political correctness speech. Everyone is ‘right’ in their religious belief, thus the former ‘religious right’ is now more commonly known as the ‘morals voters’....
Or so it does not matter if the Hospital objects on moral principles. The government can force hospitals to assist in killing of a conceived child. Doesn't seem to be very much of a "Constitutionally Right" position to me, criminalizing religious positions. As if it being raped makes a difference. The rape position is just to get the foot in the door so they can make it a general policy like several other states have done.
I prefer the ever popular “EXTREMIST” label. It’s comfortable and I wear it like a pair of well worn jeans.
Funny, I thought we all somehow became 'neocons'.
I believe I heard Geraldo say something about the religious right on Bill O’s show last night.
Geraldo said that the reason the Republicans are a minority party is because of the religious right and the way it pushes its views on abortion.
At least that’s what I think I heard. Can anyone help?
Posting excerpts from a personal blog is tacky.
In addition to your valid considerations, I wonder about the criteria for determining whether one has been raped. Does an ambulance have to deliver a battered woman to establish it? Or may a woman simply claim she was raped and get the pill? This becomes a very slippery slope for any institution. Solution: take the woman to another hospital that will provide the pill. Leave conscientious objectors out of it.
Especially tacky when he does not respond, which seems to be most of the time. Trolling for website hits.
Gee...I guess George Washington and Abraham Lincoln wouldn’t fit into the straight jacket of banned religious expression that you would have Christians wear today.
When a political party decides that God doesn’t fit into its platform, that’s the time Christians should disassociate themselves from that godless bunch.
I think just like the way that 'red' got splashed over the conservative counties of this country as opposed to that 'blue' color, the leftist are going to subdue that word 'right' regarding religion and supposed religious voters.
Just does not sound centrists enough to be saying the religious right, so words like purists, or morals voters, serves their need to distinguish themselves from the 'extremists'. After all the majority of the whole world now condemns the idea that anyone can legislate morals.
That is why some segments of the moderate elite centrists can without blinking an eye contrast and compare 'morals voters' with the likes of the Tali-ban. That is just how embarrassing it is to the centrists to be associated with morals voters.
Well now if the story was about Iraq and getting the .ell out of there then it would be the proper term.
..newbie, why don't you lurk for a while before you give in to the urge to post your anti-religion stuff...
..that's what I'm thinking...
Lies followed by leftist bigotry. How nice.
I bit, and gave you a hit. Your blog is pathetic. I know eight years olds who could do better in a technical sense. Your content is lame and ignorant. And, you don’t even know how to spell, much less use spell-check.
I give it a minus two on a scale of one to ten.
They spewed the same crap about abortion, assuring us it would NEVER be used as a "contraceptive gone bad" measure. They lie.
How about some statistics?
The adult pregnancy rate associated with rape is estimated to be 4.7%.
AMERICAN RAPE STATISTICS
This bill is only for 4.7% of the population? How many of them do you think go to a Catholic hospital? You REALLY expect someone to buy that idea? And you want to ignore the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;) in order to unConstitutionally hog tie a group that you dislike. Remember that when you deny others their Constitutional rights, yours are next.
American Facists: The Christian Right and The War on America Chris Hedges...
I am trying to read this but it’s so full of BS...
Here’s a Sample Review...
The Christian Right, like these early fascist movements, does not openly call for dictatorship, nor does it use
physical violence to suppress opposition. In short, the movement is not yet revolutionary. But the ideological architecture of a Christian fascism is being cemented in place. The movement has roused its followers to a fever pitch of despair and fury. All it will take, Hedges writes, is one more national crisis on the order of September 11 for the Christian Right to make a concerted drive to destroy American democracy. The movement awaits a crisis. At that moment they will reveal themselves for what they truly are — the American heirs to fascism. Hedges issues a potent, impassioned warning. We face an imminent threat. His book reminds us of the dangers liberal, democratic societies face when they tolerate the intolerant.”
It’s fearmongering at it’s finest.
Freedom? A rape victim certainly has the freedom to pursue the use of the “day after” pill outside of any government regulation that would require hospitals to “have the pill on-hand”. This is typical of issues....a view that because the Catholic Church voices an objection, then it is an extreme right wing religious wacked out position. On that I disagree, as I certainly believe the larger issue is the eroding of freedom in this country by being required by the government to act in a certain way “for the better good”.
Indeed. If the Catholic hospital, for ethical reasons, does not wish to dispense the pill, there are plenty of other places such medication can be legally obtained without forcing people to violate their own conscience.
Explain, please, why I should increase the hit count to your personal web blog when you’re the author of the piece and can post your article in its entirety here on FR.
No fair trying to get hits to your blog!!!
Calm down now! You might get a little dizzy running in so many circles.
Hmmm, I'm pondering whether you might need to meet the following inhabitant of my abode...
Well, do ya feel lucky? Do ya?
Oh, those mean and evil Christian extremists! Next they will want women wearing burkas!
Never mind the consistent church position that life begins at conception. Never mind that this pill in an abortafacient - the embryo, although conceived, is prevented from attaching to the uterine wall, and/or everything, lining and all, is expelled. Never mind that, logically, this is no different than an abortion, except that it is immediate and is accomplished with drugs rather that instruments.
The author claims the church goes too far, but completely fails to recognize that there is no other logical position for it to take. The author indicates he is an agnostic. I quite agree some of the root meanings of that work fit him nicely:
a-the nullification of the rest of the word, and gnostic- one meaning is to know, as in: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b : to have a practical understanding of.
So then, the author confesses he is missing practical understanding. I agree.
Charles, Charles, Charles. Some of the other posters have a very good point - bumping the hitcount and all... Are you sure there shouldn’t be an “A” and an “S” before that last initial? Because I’m not.
I believe it goes ... “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” ...and my point is, that because the Catholic Church backs a position it is not necessarily related to “the religious right” but possibly to other concerns such as the continual loss of freedom.
“We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with many books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That it seems to me is the attitude of even the most intelligent being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimmly understand those laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations”. (Albert Einstein 1929)
I disagree and I agree. I disagree with the stance on the hospital bill. The hospitals you mention should not be forced to offer the pill in question. They are Catholic hospitals and the pill is obviously against thier religious views.
But I do agree that the religious right does more harm than good to the conservative cause. I do NOT, as many posters on here have suggested, object to the religious right expressing thier views, in private or public. What I object to is the religious right (and the non-religious left) attempting to force thier views on others.
I object to the secular left trying to (and pretty much succeeding in) removing even the mention of religion in the public square (except islam of course). And I also object to the religious right trying to legislate religion into the public (govt) schools.
All Chuckie has been doing since he joined a few days ago is pimp his own blog. Isn’t that against FR rules? If not it should be.
DTG 040325Z MAY 07
T O P S E C R E T VIKINGKITTEN
RE: POST 1
1. PERIMETER SENSORS ALERTED OF SUSPECTED TROLL PRESENCE, THIS DTG, THIS LOCATION.
2. EVIDENCE OF BLOG PIMPING ASSOCIATED WITH THIS EVENT.
3. WATCH NCOIC IS DECLARING CODE VICTOR-KILO AND RECOMMENDING LEVEL TWO SURVEILL NOOB IN FREEP FORUM (S.N.I.F.F.), WITH ADDED PRECAUTIONS FOR PATHETIC INTERNET MULTIPLE PINGS (P.I.M.P).
4. ALL ELEMENTS ARE DIRECTED TO REPORT CONFIRM/DENY TO FREEPNORAD AS AVAILABLE. WATCH NCOIC WILL COORDINATE COMMS WITH FR MOD COMMAND BUNKER.
5. CHALLENGE/PASSWORD: BEEBER-SHOWER.
EOM EOM EOM
Cue the spork weasel!
His posting history is a little dry, but not setting off any alarms for me.
Ooops, just went to the source doc and found out that he wrote this crap. Zot time!
"ACK ACK! ACK ACK!!"
Everything Geraldo says about social issues boils down to “I think with my penis, and you should too!”
It's all good as long as you post it in bloggers, and make it clear it's your blog.
But then, if it's liberal claptrap, that's always a problem...