Posted on 01/01/2002 10:09:02 PM PST by Doctor Raoul
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:50:22 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Democrats, in the name of tolerance, plan to demonize conservative Christians as being like the Taliban, according to an article in Newsweek.
Democrats "are planning a daring assault on the most critical turf in politics: the cultural mainstream," political correspondent Howard Fineman writes.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
And every symbol that they use is not their exclusive property. When a rainbow appears, does that mean God endorses homosexuality?
Not in these parts.
I thought this trend changed nationwide in 1980 (with the election of Ronald Reagan).
Boy, did you ever get a strong reaction for so few words! It must have sting the hypocrites to the core.
The death of Judeo-Christian morality will mean the death of this country. All one has to do is to proclaim that truth and the godless as well as the false and Laodicean Christians begin to howl. They don't know how blind they are.
Please note that I said all one has to do is to proclaim that truth--take a vocal stand on it--and one becomes the target of vile invective. Merely proclaiming the truth brings on the accusations that the speaker is "trying to impose his morality on the rest of us", is a "Pharisee", or is "unchristian."
They are at war with the Word and don't even realize it. They will ultimately win too, in the short term. When they find themselves contending with an even more powerful nanny state they will flail and cast about looking for someone to blame. They will be unable to justly fix blame on the those of us that they accuse of being the "American Taliban" because we will not have contributed to the creation of godless, amoral, sodomy-celebrating political regime that will govern them.
They will either unjustly fix the blame on us (as Nero did) or they will begin to fight among themselves. But they will never fix the blame where it belongs: squarely on themselves and their allies on the political left.
It will be a sorry spectacle to see them rage and self-immolate. But I will remain tranquil to the core.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." -John Adams
How exactly is this any different from the White House purported plan to "demonize" the Dems over the faltering economy for not giving Bush free rein to use 9/11 to push more tax cuts for the rich? The implication that the Republicans are "above" politics is laughable. Nobody's going to buy it, no matter how high Shrub's approval rating is these days.
To: WileyCoyote22 I really liked the thread yesterday where a_contender kept going on about the pope, the antichrist, and Roman Catholics being cookie eating idolators. I complained and the thread got deleted, but the poster did not get banned like he should have. I also like threads where the religious hyperright bait posters into arguments, and when they are confronted, they engineer a banning for the person who either caught them in a lie or fought back.
169 posted on 12/26/01 8:36 PM Central by one_particular_harbour
To: one_particular_harbour
I have read this thread through and noticed that lots of "religions" are freely talked about with all kinds of disdain. As a member of Free Republic, I thought we have free speech. As Americans I thought we have free speech. Why would you want me banned? I never cussed or used vulgar language. I never called any person a foul name. I talked about an "institution" that my bible warns me about. Am I not as free as you to talk about my convictions? You want me banned for quoting bible scriptures and applying them to the 21st century? Are you really for freedoms? You want my freedom of speech taken away? It doesn't "offend" me when freepers tell me the bible is "toilet paper". I don't run to webmaster and complain and try to get them banned. My skin is not that thin. I believe in freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom to associate. Why are not you that tolerant?
And "engeneering a ban"? Isn't that what the "liberals" do?
There is no acknowledgement of any doctrinal similarity and both are largely statments acknowledging Islam's monotheism and that truly devout Muslims who seek God and are ignorant of the Gospel may receive salvation.
There are, I am sure, those who would disagree -- even within the Catholic church's hierarchy, but this in no way embraces the "Mohammedan" religion as Pope Paul VI so interestingly put it. (BTW, notice that he uses "Muslims" in the later document. Guess he got a memo.)
It also differs from Dante's view (medieval Catholic poet) that his hero Virgil is forced to reside in Hell and was not permitted to enter heaven.
And, frankly, it sure beats "death to the infidels".
I hear Bugs in the distance ... What a buncha maroons.
Why indeed? LOL!
I stood firm against o_p_h's attempt to shout people down and shut them up in a grotesque and wobbly goblin vanity he excreted last week. He soon lost it and exploded in a spray of foul four-letter words and the whole sorry thread got deleted by the clean-up crew. I am confident he blames me, but I had nothing to do with his thread's getting flushed. I don't use the abuse button. Never have and never will.
BTTT
They didn't tolerate witches either.....whoops!, she drowned, our mistake, she wasn't a witch. There is a distinction between being a conservative Christian remaining faithful to one's beliefs and someone who considers themselves to so morally superior they are qualified to sit in judgement of the rest of the human race.
What the dems want to do is equate the two. So even though they are correct in saying not all Muslims are terrorists, they do not hesitate to equate anything Chrsitian with fanaticism.
BTW, Barry Lynn, the ex-ACLU head, never hesitates to inject into a conversation that he is a Christian and an ordained minister at that. [Doing what he accuses other Christians of doing....forcing his religion beliefs (or non-beliefs) on the rest of us]. But I never hear a denomination being named. Does anyone know the answer to that one? My guess is Unitarian, but it is just a guess.
Perhaps a majority, but the "Catholic vote" is not reliably Democrat by any means. In fact, it may be said that the Catholic church's staunch pro-life stance has given Republicans a lot of key voters.
Here is a short and interesting article about Kellyanne Fitzpatrick and a focus group she did. I know that Italians in New York trend Republican but there are other factors. Case in point: Here in Pittsburgh it is solidly Democratic. The Republicans didn't even run a Congressional candidate last time around. Yet the area is probably more conservative than many areas that vote Republican -- pro-life, pro-gun, etc.
Rick Santorum is a Catholic from this area. The main reason the Dems hold on, though, is unions. The city is filled with former steel workers who are retired and aren't going to move. They voted with the union (Democrat) and they won't stop now. The population is dwindling and getting older. It may be that Pittsburgh becomes one of the most Republican mid-sized cities in the region in a generation.
Bottom line is that Catholicism is not a good indicator of voting patters, there are other factors. For example, like Protestants, church attendance trends with Republicanism.
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.