Posted on 02/28/2007 3:58:50 PM PST by wagglebee
The "radical religious right" would be people who actually believe in God.
And some 'free speech' is more equal than others.
And from what I've been told here lately, the remaining 87% of us should be ashamed of ourselves for not adopting the same attitude.
Over the top silliness from religion haters.
Some of their suggestions are already law or just common sense. Of course the church can't, while being tax exempt, directly endorse a candidate. Of course the state shouldn't be funding discriminatory organizations (even if they are churches), or providing funding solely for one denomination (*any* denomination).
But the idea that an idea should be banned from the public square simply because its roots are religious?
That's an outrageous infringement on freedom.
What is he going to do, kick the Christians out of the country. Cronkite is the same old leftist bastard he always has been.
Why am I not surprised that a Stalinist like Cronkite is against religion.
b'shem Yah'shua
He's not only against religion, he is against America in general.
Cronkite may be stupid, senile or both, but just remember that he is godlike and iconic to large numbers of wealthy (because hypocritical) liberals, and they will channel their ill-gotten gains into his nefarious anti-Christian campaign and thus arm his awful views with REAL TEETH that can hurt real people who disagree with him.
Cronkite has been and still is a dangerous man.
Wow - Damn - Holy Cow - Gee Wizz
28 years old and you have this much wisdom?
Shoot - when I was 28 I was living in Huntington Beach CA.,
surfing way to much, smoking weed, making money all the wrong ways,
and failing to see the world in front of my face.
You post leads me to believe that you have a future.
Damn - I bow to you and your parents, if I may.
WOW, damn, shoot,,,,, Spock - send me back in time, PLEASE
It is in response to what they see as a threat, and it will, as per usual, become a tit for tat social battle to add to the rest of the Apolitical distractions. Most all lawyers, who are our representatives as well, have a liberal view of the Constitution as it regards religion. They believe the freedom from religion argument and will support this nonsense if forced to.
The only way this stops dead, is for both sides to cease and desist.
This relates to what we were talking about before Jim, and I appreciate the ping.
As a political tactic, social issues like gays and abortion that go beyond incremental-ism and become a Constitutional amendment battle will always bring a lot more participants to the party.
There is no question that if this escalates further, it will become a broad social war involving the major religions and social groups, who will always come down on the side of improving the human condition and wherever this leads them. Anyone arguing against improving the human condition (whatever this may mean) will be framed as a bad person, group or politician. When this happens, the arguments will all be lost to the opposition. The American public is now becoming so weary of this constant churn, that they will support the end of it by any reasonable compromise or statement of feelings on the matter and ignore the substance of it..
Since they own the national media, I think you know who will lose in the end.
This escalated social infighting will bring us a European version of human freedoms much sooner than later and I do not see this as being very productive for retaining our unique American identity.
A identity that we alone have in this world, at the present time.
I don't think so. It's all about money. They could care less about gay rights if it didn't mean money. We're in the preelection period when liberal candidates must out-liberal eachother to gain party hardliner/radical donations. This is the period when candidates gather funds indirectly through shadowy advocacy groups they can later disassociate themselves from. But now the various liberal leaders have to court their nutty base to get cash they won't be able to get from these single issue people like gay rights activists AFTER the primary because their chosen candidate- if he wins the primary- will have to run to the right to get elected. He'll - or she'll have to distance themselves from these people after the primary.
This group will fade after the primary and its keep actors will create and join 'moderate' groups to play the middle ground voters and get the donors they need at that time.
Aw, the hypocritical left comes marching in again! It sounds to me that the State is becoming involved in the Church and not the other way around. People in America have a right to believe in and endorse whomever they choose to support those beliefs. A Church and group of people with collective beliefs can speak openly, and people can decide whether or not to listen. It seems as though the liberals are scared of the Christians knocking their agenda. They wouldn't want that now, would they? Such is the liberal mentality, stuff anyone who disagrees with them. Bunch of Commmunists!
It's all about protecting gay "rights."
-
Looks like we got us a head-on collision in the Episcopal church ..
---
Episcopal head seeks gay compromise (asks members to roll back their support for gays, for now)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1792992/posts
NEW YORK - Appearing on a live webcast, the Episcopal Church's presiding bishop began the painful task Wednesday of persuading members to roll back their support for gays — at least for now — so the denomination can keep its place in the world Anglican fellowship.
The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, who personally supports ordaining partnered gays, told a studio audience, callers and those who submitted questions by e-mail that they should make concessions that Anglican leaders are seeking to buy time for reconciliation.
--
not everyone agrees with this tactic..
--
The Episcopal Church, which represents Anglicanism in the United States, caused an uproar in 2003 by consecrating its first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson. The decision put the liberal Christian focus on social justice directly at odds with the traditional biblical view of sexuality.
On Tuesday, Robinson made his first public comments on Anglican demands, saying the church should reject the ultimatum and instead "get on with the work of the Gospel" no matter how communion leaders react. Several other Episcopal bishops have issued similar statements.
Most of the calls and questions submitted during the webcast were equally fraught.
Whoever his handlers are they need to know it's been some time since he was the "most trusted man in America".
Whatever happened to don't trust anyone over 30? Cronkite and Ramsey Clark are both 3 times that age.
F'in leftist bastard - he should have been left in the Killing Fields.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.