Full Version: Religion in politics
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243
There can't be life on other planets. We aren't getting any tax revenue from them. Everybody knows that if there exists a person, democrats would find a way to tax them.
QUOTE(davis¹³ @ Jan 29 2005, 07:40 PM)
Most certainly.
Can you imagine the number of stars in the universe?
Surely a number of those would have planets. And of those, would any be capable of supporting life?
That is something that has always intrigued me.
As Carl said many a time ... billions and billions....
[right][snapback]45052[/snapback][/right]
Can you imagine the number of stars in the universe?
Surely a number of those would have planets. And of those, would any be capable of supporting life?
That is something that has always intrigued me.
As Carl said many a time ... billions and billions....
[right][snapback]45052[/snapback][/right]
Interesting article on this Pope, prophecy, and Communism. Not to mention that deal about assassination. I can understand why they would have wanted to keep that one quiet.
QUOTE
What Happened at Fatima
From the March 7, 2005 issue: John Paul II, Lucia dos Santos, and the end of communism.
by Joseph Bottum
03/07/2005, Volume 010, Issue 23
HERE'S A CURIOUS THOUGHT. Maybe the single most important person in the 20th century's long struggle against communism wasn't Ronald Reagan. Maybe it wasn't Karol Wojtyla or Margaret Thatcher, Lech Walesa or Václav Havel, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn or Mikhail Gorbachev. Maybe it wasn't anyone whose name might leap to a cold warrior's mind--for the most important figure in that long, dark struggle might have been a 10-year-old girl named Lucia dos Santos.
You remember her, of course. It was Lucia who went out one day in 1917 with her cousins Francisco and Jacinta Martos to tend the family's sheep--and ended up having a talk about Godless Russia with the Blessed Virgin Mary near a little place in northern Portugal called Fatima.
Or do you remember her? Lucia dos Santos died on Sunday, February 13, at age 97. And for much of her life, cloistered in her Carmelite convent in Portugal, she seemed, well, what? An embarrassment, perhaps: an open invitation for mockery from nonbelievers, a creaky medievalism, a throwback to the kind of peasant superstition modern Catholics hoped would no longer be held against them.
There were certainly waves of enthusiasm about Fatima in Europe and the United States in the years following World War I. But gradually after World War II, and increasingly after the modernizing changes of Vatican II, the cult of Fatima seemed to have lived on too long, like mold in an abandoned crypt--a final catacomb for the bitter and the disaffected: the orphaned throne-and-altar royalists, the bypassed ultramontanists, the rejecters
of Vatican II, and all the dark, unhappy people who thought the Catholic church had abandoned them, in one way or another, for a mess of pottage at the modern world's table.
Fatima's continued existence was annoying, more or less, for educated American Catholics, who believed they had made a good-faith effort to reconcile their religion and the twentieth century. This was their grandmothers' Catholicism, which they thought they had escaped. It was an embarrassing spirituality of scapulars and rosaries, miracles and visions--an outdated religion of pilgrimages and prayers for the conversion of Russia, of hushed speculation about the "third secret of Fatima" and angry disputation about whether or not the pope had actually dedicated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as Our Lady demanded of those three little children in Portugal.
Worse, there was something not just premodern, but consciously antimodern about all of it. A day in which you can pack up your Polaroid and fly to Europe in a jumbo jet to see a visitation of the Blessed Virgin--surely that's supposed to be a day in which we don't have visitations of the Blessed Virgin anymore.
AND THEN THERE WAS the anticommunism of Fatima. "Russia will spread its errors throughout the world, raising up wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and various nations will be annihilated," the Blessed Virgin warned in 1917. The world was going to suffer "by means of war, hunger, and persecution," and Russia was the "instrument of chastisement."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...05/284douan.asp
From the March 7, 2005 issue: John Paul II, Lucia dos Santos, and the end of communism.
by Joseph Bottum
03/07/2005, Volume 010, Issue 23
HERE'S A CURIOUS THOUGHT. Maybe the single most important person in the 20th century's long struggle against communism wasn't Ronald Reagan. Maybe it wasn't Karol Wojtyla or Margaret Thatcher, Lech Walesa or Václav Havel, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn or Mikhail Gorbachev. Maybe it wasn't anyone whose name might leap to a cold warrior's mind--for the most important figure in that long, dark struggle might have been a 10-year-old girl named Lucia dos Santos.
You remember her, of course. It was Lucia who went out one day in 1917 with her cousins Francisco and Jacinta Martos to tend the family's sheep--and ended up having a talk about Godless Russia with the Blessed Virgin Mary near a little place in northern Portugal called Fatima.
Or do you remember her? Lucia dos Santos died on Sunday, February 13, at age 97. And for much of her life, cloistered in her Carmelite convent in Portugal, she seemed, well, what? An embarrassment, perhaps: an open invitation for mockery from nonbelievers, a creaky medievalism, a throwback to the kind of peasant superstition modern Catholics hoped would no longer be held against them.
There were certainly waves of enthusiasm about Fatima in Europe and the United States in the years following World War I. But gradually after World War II, and increasingly after the modernizing changes of Vatican II, the cult of Fatima seemed to have lived on too long, like mold in an abandoned crypt--a final catacomb for the bitter and the disaffected: the orphaned throne-and-altar royalists, the bypassed ultramontanists, the rejecters
of Vatican II, and all the dark, unhappy people who thought the Catholic church had abandoned them, in one way or another, for a mess of pottage at the modern world's table.
Fatima's continued existence was annoying, more or less, for educated American Catholics, who believed they had made a good-faith effort to reconcile their religion and the twentieth century. This was their grandmothers' Catholicism, which they thought they had escaped. It was an embarrassing spirituality of scapulars and rosaries, miracles and visions--an outdated religion of pilgrimages and prayers for the conversion of Russia, of hushed speculation about the "third secret of Fatima" and angry disputation about whether or not the pope had actually dedicated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as Our Lady demanded of those three little children in Portugal.
Worse, there was something not just premodern, but consciously antimodern about all of it. A day in which you can pack up your Polaroid and fly to Europe in a jumbo jet to see a visitation of the Blessed Virgin--surely that's supposed to be a day in which we don't have visitations of the Blessed Virgin anymore.
AND THEN THERE WAS the anticommunism of Fatima. "Russia will spread its errors throughout the world, raising up wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and various nations will be annihilated," the Blessed Virgin warned in 1917. The world was going to suffer "by means of war, hunger, and persecution," and Russia was the "instrument of chastisement."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...05/284douan.asp
Interesting. Not much about Fatima, but I suppose space is always limited.
What's Secretly Wrong With Kansas
Published: February 28, 2005
In a shocking abuse of office, the attorney general of Kansas is conducting a stealth campaign to violate the privacy of about 90 women who obtained late-term abortions, offering the flimsy claim that he's looking for evidence of crime.
Protected by a sweeping gag order from a local judge, Attorney General Phill Kline has been demanding the women's records from two clinics that have been unable to even warn clients that their intimate histories are being sought. When the inquiry finally came to light through a court brief, Mr. Kline maintained that he needed all the women's records - including their identities, sexual histories, clinical profiles and birth control methods - to prosecute statutory rape and other suspected sexual crimes.
Kansans deserve a full explanation of this gross intrusion into medical confidences that are supposed to be carefully protected by law. But Mr. Kline, a fervid anti-abortion campaigner throughout his career as a Republican politician, would not answer reporters' questions about his investigation. "Clinics should not act to protect the secrecy of the predator," he insisted in a statement, offering a blanket smear in lieu of a proper explanation.
Mr. Kline's campaign echoes a similar salvo last year by Attorney General John Ashcroft. Federal judges eventually cited privacy laws to stop his attempt to forage through hundreds of records at a half-dozen hospitals. Two years ago, Mr. Kline called on health-care providers to report underage sexual activity, but a federal judge ruled him out of line. Mr. Kline deserves another rebuff, beginning with the suspension of the gag order.
The targeted clinics say they have observed state requirements to report possible crimes. They have filed an appeal to the State Supreme Court, complaining that Mr. Kline is conducting a fishing expedition, not a case-specific inquiry. The clinics have suggested a compromise - that the identities of the women be blacked out with the option for more information from any whose records might yield evidence of crimes like statutory rape.
It's not at all clear how that crime is linked in particular to late-term abortions, which just happen to be the current target of Republican anti-abortion activists across the country. Late-term abortions - beyond 22 weeks of gestation - are illegal in Kansas, except when they are done to protect a woman's health. But Mr. Kline offers no evidence to suggest he has any legal ground to justify pawing through the confidential records of the 90 women he has targeted for his mission of harassment. As for predatory abuse of girls under the age of sexual consent, they could have obtained abortions earlier than 22 weeks.
There is no disputing that Mr. Kline has the duty and power to uphold the law. No one wishes child abusers to walk free. But Mr. Kline also has privacy laws to uphold. His demand for the clinics' records is not only insupportable legally; it smacks of an ideological dragnet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/28/opinion/28mon2.html
What you bet this guy wholeheartedly supports the energy industry and doesn't bring up the subjects of "foetus", "mercury poisoning" or "birth defects" when they hand him that huge bribe? Where the hell would I find that kind of info? Who gave what?
These scumbags will throw women in prison for having a late-term abortion yet advocate policies that result in birth defects, autism, severe health problems for ALL people especially children and the elderly.
There is the REAL, GENUINE Republican "morals" and "values" for you.
Published: February 28, 2005
In a shocking abuse of office, the attorney general of Kansas is conducting a stealth campaign to violate the privacy of about 90 women who obtained late-term abortions, offering the flimsy claim that he's looking for evidence of crime.
Protected by a sweeping gag order from a local judge, Attorney General Phill Kline has been demanding the women's records from two clinics that have been unable to even warn clients that their intimate histories are being sought. When the inquiry finally came to light through a court brief, Mr. Kline maintained that he needed all the women's records - including their identities, sexual histories, clinical profiles and birth control methods - to prosecute statutory rape and other suspected sexual crimes.
Kansans deserve a full explanation of this gross intrusion into medical confidences that are supposed to be carefully protected by law. But Mr. Kline, a fervid anti-abortion campaigner throughout his career as a Republican politician, would not answer reporters' questions about his investigation. "Clinics should not act to protect the secrecy of the predator," he insisted in a statement, offering a blanket smear in lieu of a proper explanation.
Mr. Kline's campaign echoes a similar salvo last year by Attorney General John Ashcroft. Federal judges eventually cited privacy laws to stop his attempt to forage through hundreds of records at a half-dozen hospitals. Two years ago, Mr. Kline called on health-care providers to report underage sexual activity, but a federal judge ruled him out of line. Mr. Kline deserves another rebuff, beginning with the suspension of the gag order.
The targeted clinics say they have observed state requirements to report possible crimes. They have filed an appeal to the State Supreme Court, complaining that Mr. Kline is conducting a fishing expedition, not a case-specific inquiry. The clinics have suggested a compromise - that the identities of the women be blacked out with the option for more information from any whose records might yield evidence of crimes like statutory rape.
It's not at all clear how that crime is linked in particular to late-term abortions, which just happen to be the current target of Republican anti-abortion activists across the country. Late-term abortions - beyond 22 weeks of gestation - are illegal in Kansas, except when they are done to protect a woman's health. But Mr. Kline offers no evidence to suggest he has any legal ground to justify pawing through the confidential records of the 90 women he has targeted for his mission of harassment. As for predatory abuse of girls under the age of sexual consent, they could have obtained abortions earlier than 22 weeks.
There is no disputing that Mr. Kline has the duty and power to uphold the law. No one wishes child abusers to walk free. But Mr. Kline also has privacy laws to uphold. His demand for the clinics' records is not only insupportable legally; it smacks of an ideological dragnet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/28/opinion/28mon2.html
What you bet this guy wholeheartedly supports the energy industry and doesn't bring up the subjects of "foetus", "mercury poisoning" or "birth defects" when they hand him that huge bribe? Where the hell would I find that kind of info? Who gave what?
These scumbags will throw women in prison for having a late-term abortion yet advocate policies that result in birth defects, autism, severe health problems for ALL people especially children and the elderly.
There is the REAL, GENUINE Republican "morals" and "values" for you.
[center]
[/center]
[center]Mixing politics, religion an unethical move[/center]
By Robert Iafolla
Published: Monday, November 15, 2004
By now you've heard plenty about the two Americas, red and blue. There are many differences between Bush voters and Kerry voters, including their genders, their races, where they live, how much they make and so on. Journalist Thomas Friedman called the vote "station identification" - do you watch FOX News or read The New York Times?
But, the most telling demographics that defined a Bush or Kerry supporter are religion and church attendance.
Polls show that Bush got 78 percent of the White evangelical/born-again vote, which made up 23 percent of the electorate. Moreover, this religious advantage extended to church attendance across multiple faiths.
The data is stunning. The more you go to church, the more likely you were to vote Bush. The president grabbed 64 percent of those who worship more than weekly; 58 percent of the weekly worshipers; half the monthly worshippers; 45 percent of those who go a few times a year; and only 36 percent of those that don't go to church.
Twenty-two percent of voters said "moral values" was the most important issue, in front of all others: economy/jobs, Iraq, terrorism, health care, education or taxes. Bush got 80 percent of these "values voters."
Now, these results are not a coincidence. They are the fruits of an unethical marriage between religion and politics designed to deliver a Bush victory.
Karl Rove, the genius who serves as Bush's chief domestic policy architect and political strategist, made no secret about the importance of the evangelical vote: To win, he said, Bush needed to bring out 4 million more evangelicals to the voting booths than he did in 2000. Toward this goal, Rove tailored a party platform, taking a hard-line position on gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion and other social issues, suited especially for evangelical Protestants and other "people of faith."
In addition, Rove forged tight working relationships with the leaders of the religious right with weekly conferences and open lines of communication to the White House. "I'd send him an e-mail at 5 o'clock Sunday morning and would have an answer by 7:30," Paul Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Foundation, told The New York Times. "He never failed to respond, even when he was on Air Force One. I got swifter answers from him than I do from my own staff."
The Free Congress Foundation, like many other religious right groups (Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, etc.), is dedicated to winning the "culture war" by championing Christian values in public policy.
From the FCF Web site: "Will America return to the culture that made it great, our traditional, Judeo-Christian, Western culture? Or will we continue the long slide into the cultural and moral decay of political correctness? If we do, America, once the greatest nation on earth, will become no less than a third world country."
The Bush campaign took measures to court religious voters that were so extreme they even offended one religious right leader. In June, the campaign asked a group of congregations for their church directories and to run a voter registration drive and distribute campaign literature at the church, according to the Baptist Press. Richard Land, director of the conservative evangelical Southern Baptist Convention, said he was "appalled" by this effort.
But, most organizations didn't share Land's reservations. The Christian Coalition's National Field Director, Bill Thomson, outlined his organization's electioneering strategy at a September rally in Washington, D.C. He instructed Christian Coalition organizers to call registered voters and determine their politics by asking them which presidential candidate they voted for in 2000 and if they oppose abortion. Election Day, organizers were to call only those voters who would cast a ballot in step with the Christian Coalition.
At the same rally, Thomson touted the Christian Coalition's voter guide as "our greatest weapon ... our B-2 bomber." They distributed 30 million of these guides to 80,000 churches. They list where the presidential candidates stand on culture war issues, as framed by the Christian Coalition, including "unrestricted abortion on demand," "adoption of children by homosexuals" and, the mother of all 2004 wedge issues, "passage of a federal marriage protection amendment."
The religious right was relentless on gay marriage during the run up to the election, inflaming many with homophobic rhetoric to get out the vote. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family (and USC alumnus) had this to say at an October rally in Oklahoma: "Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the earth."
The impact of the gay marriage issue in the 2004 election cannot be understated. It warrants mentioning here that Kerry's home state of Massachusetts is where the controversy took wing, after the state's Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriages one year ago.
Eleven states had ballot initiatives to ban same-sex marriages, and they passed in all 11. In Ohio, the measure passed by 1.2 million votes. Bush won the Buckeye State - and thus the presidency - by a slim 140,000 margin.
Now, religious right leaders, such as Land and Weyrich, are saying God was responsible for Bush's re-election. This is a two-way street, as televangelist Jerry Fallwell has boasted that the religious right controls the Republican Party. God's will doesn't come cheap, and some evangelical leaders have already demanded political red meat in exchange for delivering those divine election results.
With all this religion in the Bush re-election campaign, one might ask: What happened to the separation of church and state?
The Founding Fathers enshrined that separation in the First Amendment of the Constitution, to protect religion from government and also to protect government from divisive, sectarian religion.
A fully functioning democracy needs debate and compromise, so we can work together in the public square to reach a common ground. On the other hand, some religions, particularly Christian fundamentalism, are all about absolutes and non-negotiable issues.
Moreover, democracy requires us to learn about the issues and make our own choices. If somebody's pastor, the individual who facilitates that person's relationship with God, hands the parishioner a partisan voter guide, what choice does that person have?
God bless America indeed.
http://www.dailytrojan.com/news/2004/11/15...ve-804378.shtml
[/center][center]Mixing politics, religion an unethical move[/center]
By Robert Iafolla
Published: Monday, November 15, 2004
By now you've heard plenty about the two Americas, red and blue. There are many differences between Bush voters and Kerry voters, including their genders, their races, where they live, how much they make and so on. Journalist Thomas Friedman called the vote "station identification" - do you watch FOX News or read The New York Times?
But, the most telling demographics that defined a Bush or Kerry supporter are religion and church attendance.
Polls show that Bush got 78 percent of the White evangelical/born-again vote, which made up 23 percent of the electorate. Moreover, this religious advantage extended to church attendance across multiple faiths.
The data is stunning. The more you go to church, the more likely you were to vote Bush. The president grabbed 64 percent of those who worship more than weekly; 58 percent of the weekly worshipers; half the monthly worshippers; 45 percent of those who go a few times a year; and only 36 percent of those that don't go to church.
Twenty-two percent of voters said "moral values" was the most important issue, in front of all others: economy/jobs, Iraq, terrorism, health care, education or taxes. Bush got 80 percent of these "values voters."
Now, these results are not a coincidence. They are the fruits of an unethical marriage between religion and politics designed to deliver a Bush victory.
Karl Rove, the genius who serves as Bush's chief domestic policy architect and political strategist, made no secret about the importance of the evangelical vote: To win, he said, Bush needed to bring out 4 million more evangelicals to the voting booths than he did in 2000. Toward this goal, Rove tailored a party platform, taking a hard-line position on gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion and other social issues, suited especially for evangelical Protestants and other "people of faith."
In addition, Rove forged tight working relationships with the leaders of the religious right with weekly conferences and open lines of communication to the White House. "I'd send him an e-mail at 5 o'clock Sunday morning and would have an answer by 7:30," Paul Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Foundation, told The New York Times. "He never failed to respond, even when he was on Air Force One. I got swifter answers from him than I do from my own staff."
The Free Congress Foundation, like many other religious right groups (Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, etc.), is dedicated to winning the "culture war" by championing Christian values in public policy.
From the FCF Web site: "Will America return to the culture that made it great, our traditional, Judeo-Christian, Western culture? Or will we continue the long slide into the cultural and moral decay of political correctness? If we do, America, once the greatest nation on earth, will become no less than a third world country."
The Bush campaign took measures to court religious voters that were so extreme they even offended one religious right leader. In June, the campaign asked a group of congregations for their church directories and to run a voter registration drive and distribute campaign literature at the church, according to the Baptist Press. Richard Land, director of the conservative evangelical Southern Baptist Convention, said he was "appalled" by this effort.
But, most organizations didn't share Land's reservations. The Christian Coalition's National Field Director, Bill Thomson, outlined his organization's electioneering strategy at a September rally in Washington, D.C. He instructed Christian Coalition organizers to call registered voters and determine their politics by asking them which presidential candidate they voted for in 2000 and if they oppose abortion. Election Day, organizers were to call only those voters who would cast a ballot in step with the Christian Coalition.
At the same rally, Thomson touted the Christian Coalition's voter guide as "our greatest weapon ... our B-2 bomber." They distributed 30 million of these guides to 80,000 churches. They list where the presidential candidates stand on culture war issues, as framed by the Christian Coalition, including "unrestricted abortion on demand," "adoption of children by homosexuals" and, the mother of all 2004 wedge issues, "passage of a federal marriage protection amendment."
The religious right was relentless on gay marriage during the run up to the election, inflaming many with homophobic rhetoric to get out the vote. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family (and USC alumnus) had this to say at an October rally in Oklahoma: "Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the earth."
The impact of the gay marriage issue in the 2004 election cannot be understated. It warrants mentioning here that Kerry's home state of Massachusetts is where the controversy took wing, after the state's Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriages one year ago.
Eleven states had ballot initiatives to ban same-sex marriages, and they passed in all 11. In Ohio, the measure passed by 1.2 million votes. Bush won the Buckeye State - and thus the presidency - by a slim 140,000 margin.
Now, religious right leaders, such as Land and Weyrich, are saying God was responsible for Bush's re-election. This is a two-way street, as televangelist Jerry Fallwell has boasted that the religious right controls the Republican Party. God's will doesn't come cheap, and some evangelical leaders have already demanded political red meat in exchange for delivering those divine election results.
With all this religion in the Bush re-election campaign, one might ask: What happened to the separation of church and state?
The Founding Fathers enshrined that separation in the First Amendment of the Constitution, to protect religion from government and also to protect government from divisive, sectarian religion.
A fully functioning democracy needs debate and compromise, so we can work together in the public square to reach a common ground. On the other hand, some religions, particularly Christian fundamentalism, are all about absolutes and non-negotiable issues.
Moreover, democracy requires us to learn about the issues and make our own choices. If somebody's pastor, the individual who facilitates that person's relationship with God, hands the parishioner a partisan voter guide, what choice does that person have?
God bless America indeed.
http://www.dailytrojan.com/news/2004/11/15...ve-804378.shtml
QUOTE(davis¹³ @ Feb 28 2005, 08:49 AM)
Mr. Kline's campaign echoes a similar salvo last year by Attorney General John Ashcroft. Federal judges eventually cited privacy laws to stop his attempt to forage through hundreds of records at a half-dozen hospitals. Two years ago, Mr. Kline called on health-care providers to report underage sexual activity, but a federal judge ruled him out of line. Mr. Kline deserves another rebuff, beginning with the suspension of the gag order.
[right][snapback]58565[/snapback][/right]
If it is such a "moral" thing to do, then why the secrecy?
Perhaps this "moral" individual needs to examine why it is he can't do what he wants to do in the light of day.
You'd think that would give him a clue as to the "morality" of his actions.
QUOTE(Grigorii @ Feb 28 2005, 09:05 AM)
On the other hand, some religions, particularly Christian fundamentalism, are all about absolutes and non-negotiable issues.
Moreover, democracy requires us to learn about the issues and make our own choices. If somebody's pastor, the individual who facilitates that person's relationship with God, hands the parishioner a partisan voter guide, what choice does that person have?
God bless America indeed.
http://www.dailytrojan.com/news/2004/11/15...ve-804378.shtml
[right][snapback]58572[/snapback][/right]
Moreover, democracy requires us to learn about the issues and make our own choices. If somebody's pastor, the individual who facilitates that person's relationship with God, hands the parishioner a partisan voter guide, what choice does that person have?
God bless America indeed.
http://www.dailytrojan.com/news/2004/11/15...ve-804378.shtml
[right][snapback]58572[/snapback][/right]
God gave us free will. I guess these "moral absolutists" think they are wiser than Him.
QUOTE
A fully functioning democracy needs debate and compromise, so we can work together in the public square to reach a common ground. On the other hand, some religions, particularly Christian fundamentalism, are all about absolutes and non-negotiable issues.
This is very true. My first church was a Fundamental Independent Baptist. Sword of the Lord newspaper.
But even then I wouldn't have never, EVER advocated torture or assassinations.
The evangelical movement that I was involved in is not what exists today. It has been poisoned by huge amounts of money and power. You cannot get around it. It has been corrupted.
It amazes me how a large percentage of them have been taken in by these corporate wolves in sheeps clothing.
ho hum
the usual lefty morning spam
the usual lefty morning spam
QUOTE(Grigorii @ Feb 28 2005, 06:05 AM)
[center][/center]
[center]Mixing politics, religion an unethical move[/center]
By Robert Iafolla
Published: Monday, November 15, 2004
By now you've heard plenty about the two Americas, red and blue. There are many differences between Bush voters and Kerry voters, including their genders, their races, where they live, how much they make and so on. Journalist Thomas Friedman called the vote "station identification" - do you watch FOX News or read The New York Times?
But, the most telling demographics that defined a Bush or Kerry supporter are religion and church attendance.
Polls show that Bush got 78 percent of the White evangelical/born-again vote, which made up 23 percent of the electorate. Moreover, this religious advantage extended to church attendance across multiple faiths.
The data is stunning. The more you go to church, the more likely you were to vote Bush. The president grabbed 64 percent of those who worship more than weekly; 58 percent of the weekly worshipers; half the monthly worshippers; 45 percent of those who go a few times a year; and only 36 percent of those that don't go to church.
Twenty-two percent of voters said "moral values" was the most important issue, in front of all others: economy/jobs, Iraq, terrorism, health care, education or taxes. Bush got 80 percent of these "values voters."
Now, these results are not a coincidence. They are the fruits of an unethical marriage between religion and politics designed to deliver a Bush victory.
Karl Rove, the genius who serves as Bush's chief domestic policy architect and political strategist, made no secret about the importance of the evangelical vote: To win, he said, Bush needed to bring out 4 million more evangelicals to the voting booths than he did in 2000. Toward this goal, Rove tailored a party platform, taking a hard-line position on gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion and other social issues, suited especially for evangelical Protestants and other "people of faith."
In addition, Rove forged tight working relationships with the leaders of the religious right with weekly conferences and open lines of communication to the White House. "I'd send him an e-mail at 5 o'clock Sunday morning and would have an answer by 7:30," Paul Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Foundation, told The New York Times. "He never failed to respond, even when he was on Air Force One. I got swifter answers from him than I do from my own staff."
The Free Congress Foundation, like many other religious right groups (Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, etc.), is dedicated to winning the "culture war" by championing Christian values in public policy.
From the FCF Web site: "Will America return to the culture that made it great, our traditional, Judeo-Christian, Western culture? Or will we continue the long slide into the cultural and moral decay of political correctness? If we do, America, once the greatest nation on earth, will become no less than a third world country."
The Bush campaign took measures to court religious voters that were so extreme they even offended one religious right leader. In June, the campaign asked a group of congregations for their church directories and to run a voter registration drive and distribute campaign literature at the church, according to the Baptist Press. Richard Land, director of the conservative evangelical Southern Baptist Convention, said he was "appalled" by this effort.
But, most organizations didn't share Land's reservations. The Christian Coalition's National Field Director, Bill Thomson, outlined his organization's electioneering strategy at a September rally in Washington, D.C. He instructed Christian Coalition organizers to call registered voters and determine their politics by asking them which presidential candidate they voted for in 2000 and if they oppose abortion. Election Day, organizers were to call only those voters who would cast a ballot in step with the Christian Coalition.
At the same rally, Thomson touted the Christian Coalition's voter guide as "our greatest weapon ... our B-2 bomber." They distributed 30 million of these guides to 80,000 churches. They list where the presidential candidates stand on culture war issues, as framed by the Christian Coalition, including "unrestricted abortion on demand," "adoption of children by homosexuals" and, the mother of all 2004 wedge issues, "passage of a federal marriage protection amendment."
The religious right was relentless on gay marriage during the run up to the election, inflaming many with homophobic rhetoric to get out the vote. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family (and USC alumnus) had this to say at an October rally in Oklahoma: "Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the earth."
The impact of the gay marriage issue in the 2004 election cannot be understated. It warrants mentioning here that Kerry's home state of Massachusetts is where the controversy took wing, after the state's Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriages one year ago.
Eleven states had ballot initiatives to ban same-sex marriages, and they passed in all 11. In Ohio, the measure passed by 1.2 million votes. Bush won the Buckeye State - and thus the presidency - by a slim 140,000 margin.
Now, religious right leaders, such as Land and Weyrich, are saying God was responsible for Bush's re-election. This is a two-way street, as televangelist Jerry Fallwell has boasted that the religious right controls the Republican Party. God's will doesn't come cheap, and some evangelical leaders have already demanded political red meat in exchange for delivering those divine election results.
With all this religion in the Bush re-election campaign, one might ask: What happened to the separation of church and state?
The Founding Fathers enshrined that separation in the First Amendment of the Constitution, to protect religion from government and also to protect government from divisive, sectarian religion.
A fully functioning democracy needs debate and compromise, so we can work together in the public square to reach a common ground. On the other hand, some religions, particularly Christian fundamentalism, are all about absolutes and non-negotiable issues.
Moreover, democracy requires us to learn about the issues and make our own choices. If somebody's pastor, the individual who facilitates that person's relationship with God, hands the parishioner a partisan voter guide, what choice does that person have?
God bless America indeed.
http://www.dailytrojan.com/news/2004/11/15...ve-804378.shtml
[right][snapback]58572[/snapback][/right]
[/center][center]Mixing politics, religion an unethical move[/center]
By Robert Iafolla
Published: Monday, November 15, 2004
By now you've heard plenty about the two Americas, red and blue. There are many differences between Bush voters and Kerry voters, including their genders, their races, where they live, how much they make and so on. Journalist Thomas Friedman called the vote "station identification" - do you watch FOX News or read The New York Times?
But, the most telling demographics that defined a Bush or Kerry supporter are religion and church attendance.
Polls show that Bush got 78 percent of the White evangelical/born-again vote, which made up 23 percent of the electorate. Moreover, this religious advantage extended to church attendance across multiple faiths.
The data is stunning. The more you go to church, the more likely you were to vote Bush. The president grabbed 64 percent of those who worship more than weekly; 58 percent of the weekly worshipers; half the monthly worshippers; 45 percent of those who go a few times a year; and only 36 percent of those that don't go to church.
Twenty-two percent of voters said "moral values" was the most important issue, in front of all others: economy/jobs, Iraq, terrorism, health care, education or taxes. Bush got 80 percent of these "values voters."
Now, these results are not a coincidence. They are the fruits of an unethical marriage between religion and politics designed to deliver a Bush victory.
Karl Rove, the genius who serves as Bush's chief domestic policy architect and political strategist, made no secret about the importance of the evangelical vote: To win, he said, Bush needed to bring out 4 million more evangelicals to the voting booths than he did in 2000. Toward this goal, Rove tailored a party platform, taking a hard-line position on gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion and other social issues, suited especially for evangelical Protestants and other "people of faith."
In addition, Rove forged tight working relationships with the leaders of the religious right with weekly conferences and open lines of communication to the White House. "I'd send him an e-mail at 5 o'clock Sunday morning and would have an answer by 7:30," Paul Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Foundation, told The New York Times. "He never failed to respond, even when he was on Air Force One. I got swifter answers from him than I do from my own staff."
The Free Congress Foundation, like many other religious right groups (Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, etc.), is dedicated to winning the "culture war" by championing Christian values in public policy.
From the FCF Web site: "Will America return to the culture that made it great, our traditional, Judeo-Christian, Western culture? Or will we continue the long slide into the cultural and moral decay of political correctness? If we do, America, once the greatest nation on earth, will become no less than a third world country."
The Bush campaign took measures to court religious voters that were so extreme they even offended one religious right leader. In June, the campaign asked a group of congregations for their church directories and to run a voter registration drive and distribute campaign literature at the church, according to the Baptist Press. Richard Land, director of the conservative evangelical Southern Baptist Convention, said he was "appalled" by this effort.
But, most organizations didn't share Land's reservations. The Christian Coalition's National Field Director, Bill Thomson, outlined his organization's electioneering strategy at a September rally in Washington, D.C. He instructed Christian Coalition organizers to call registered voters and determine their politics by asking them which presidential candidate they voted for in 2000 and if they oppose abortion. Election Day, organizers were to call only those voters who would cast a ballot in step with the Christian Coalition.
At the same rally, Thomson touted the Christian Coalition's voter guide as "our greatest weapon ... our B-2 bomber." They distributed 30 million of these guides to 80,000 churches. They list where the presidential candidates stand on culture war issues, as framed by the Christian Coalition, including "unrestricted abortion on demand," "adoption of children by homosexuals" and, the mother of all 2004 wedge issues, "passage of a federal marriage protection amendment."
The religious right was relentless on gay marriage during the run up to the election, inflaming many with homophobic rhetoric to get out the vote. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family (and USC alumnus) had this to say at an October rally in Oklahoma: "Homosexuals are not monogamous. They want to destroy the institution of marriage. It will destroy marriage. It will destroy the earth."
The impact of the gay marriage issue in the 2004 election cannot be understated. It warrants mentioning here that Kerry's home state of Massachusetts is where the controversy took wing, after the state's Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriages one year ago.
Eleven states had ballot initiatives to ban same-sex marriages, and they passed in all 11. In Ohio, the measure passed by 1.2 million votes. Bush won the Buckeye State - and thus the presidency - by a slim 140,000 margin.
Now, religious right leaders, such as Land and Weyrich, are saying God was responsible for Bush's re-election. This is a two-way street, as televangelist Jerry Fallwell has boasted that the religious right controls the Republican Party. God's will doesn't come cheap, and some evangelical leaders have already demanded political red meat in exchange for delivering those divine election results.
With all this religion in the Bush re-election campaign, one might ask: What happened to the separation of church and state?
The Founding Fathers enshrined that separation in the First Amendment of the Constitution, to protect religion from government and also to protect government from divisive, sectarian religion.
A fully functioning democracy needs debate and compromise, so we can work together in the public square to reach a common ground. On the other hand, some religions, particularly Christian fundamentalism, are all about absolutes and non-negotiable issues.
Moreover, democracy requires us to learn about the issues and make our own choices. If somebody's pastor, the individual who facilitates that person's relationship with God, hands the parishioner a partisan voter guide, what choice does that person have?
God bless America indeed.
http://www.dailytrojan.com/news/2004/11/15...ve-804378.shtml
[right][snapback]58572[/snapback][/right]
Good piece. Like they say, "payback's a b*tch." I'm sure I'm not the only one who fears religion-sanctimonified (sic) government anywhere. Christian or Islam, here or abroad. I think I was one of the first and loudest to speak against the also super-sanctimonious "gay marriage" pronouncements issuing out of Massachusetts, San Francisco and Portland.
I was there in Portland, and I've never felt sanctimony more oozing than that.
As far as I am concerned, both personally from those I have known and politically from reading the papers, San Franciscans* may as well be the Republican's biggest booster club, or not for lack of trying.
*Using the term as deliberate generalization.
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Feb 28 2005, 06:36 AM)
ho hum
the usual lefty morning spam
[right][snapback]58594[/snapback][/right]
the usual lefty morning spam
[right][snapback]58594[/snapback][/right]
Whadya want, fakon & eggs?
QUOTE(lil bart @ Feb 28 2005, 12:17 PM)
Good piece. Like they say, "payback's a b*tch." I'm sure I'm not the only one who fears religion-sanctimonified (sic) government anywhere. Christian or Islam, here or abroad. I think I was one of the first and loudest to speak against the also super-sanctimonious "gay marriage" pronouncements issuing out of Massachusetts, San Francisco and Portland.
I was there in Portland, and I've never felt sanctimony more oozing than that.
As far as I am concerned, both personally from those I have known and politically from reading the papers, San Franciscans* may as well be the Republican's biggest booster club, or not for lack of trying.
*Using the term as deliberate generalization.
[right][snapback]58718[/snapback][/right]
I was there in Portland, and I've never felt sanctimony more oozing than that.
As far as I am concerned, both personally from those I have known and politically from reading the papers, San Franciscans* may as well be the Republican's biggest booster club, or not for lack of trying.
*Using the term as deliberate generalization.
[right][snapback]58718[/snapback][/right]
You are correct.
But the mayor still insists gay marriage was not a deciding factor in the election. I say he's an idiot. Now they'll get nothing. Not even civil unions. The next Supreme Court justice will put the sledge hammer to all their work over the decades. I hope Mr. mayor is satisfied. He played the media game and lost everything for all of them.
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Feb 28 2005, 02:36 PM)
ho hum
the usual lefty morning spam
[right][snapback]58594[/snapback][/right]
the usual lefty morning spam
[right][snapback]58594[/snapback][/right]
Are you sure you're allowed to think like that?
QUOTE(Repub_Bub @ Feb 28 2005, 01:59 PM)
Are you sure you're allowed to think like that?
[right][snapback]58753[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]58753[/snapback][/right]
If'n ya don't ya get picked up by th' m'ral'ty poe-leece.
QUOTE(Repub_Bub @ Feb 28 2005, 01:59 PM)
Are you sure you're allowed to think like that?
[right][snapback]58753[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]58753[/snapback][/right]
No, not at all sure. But I'll try.
Religion in politics
Speaking of..
Hear h(ins)annity on the way home and he ws talking to that piece of sh_t former judge roy (rebel) moore.
rebel moore is going to be on h(ins)annity and Colmes tonight. Wish I got fux news cause I would love to listen to that piece of sh_t lie his way through the broadcast.
Speaking of..
Hear h(ins)annity on the way home and he ws talking to that piece of sh_t former judge roy (rebel) moore.
rebel moore is going to be on h(ins)annity and Colmes tonight. Wish I got fux news cause I would love to listen to that piece of sh_t lie his way through the broadcast.
QUOTE
UN Poster Boy Maurice Strong and former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who have decreed that their Earth Charter has already all but replaced the Ten Commandments of Moses, must have overlooked the Guidestones.
In any case, Georgia Guidestone Commandment Numero Uno is "Maintain humanity under 500,000,000, in perpetual balance with nature." (There’s no explanation how the other nine-tenths of the world’s population would be disposed of). But Strong and Gorbachev, both ardent advocates of population control would agree with the Guidestone’s first commandment.
Yoko Ono, the widow of John Lennon, knows about the guidestones, but then again Yoko is not most people.
"I want people to know about the stones…We’re headed toward a world where we might blow ourselves up and maybe the globe will not exist…it’s a nice time to reaffirm ourselves, knowing all the beautiful things that are in this country and the Georgia Stones symbolize that," she said.
When she was readying herself for a recent comeback as a standup comedienne, Roseanne Barr said pretty much the same thing.
"Why are they allowed to stand?" asks an Internet reactor.
Oh, come now. They do, afterall make a convenient peeing post for the meandering cats, dogs and lost souls of bucolic Elbert County.
And it was R.C. Christian himself, afterall who ordered the unwashed masses in Guidestone Commandment Number 10: "Be not a cancer on the earth; Leave room for nature."
Georgia Guidestones - "America’s Stonehenge"
http://www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com/stones.htm
http://www.radioliberty.com/stones.htm
In any case, Georgia Guidestone Commandment Numero Uno is "Maintain humanity under 500,000,000, in perpetual balance with nature." (There’s no explanation how the other nine-tenths of the world’s population would be disposed of). But Strong and Gorbachev, both ardent advocates of population control would agree with the Guidestone’s first commandment.
Yoko Ono, the widow of John Lennon, knows about the guidestones, but then again Yoko is not most people.
"I want people to know about the stones…We’re headed toward a world where we might blow ourselves up and maybe the globe will not exist…it’s a nice time to reaffirm ourselves, knowing all the beautiful things that are in this country and the Georgia Stones symbolize that," she said.
When she was readying herself for a recent comeback as a standup comedienne, Roseanne Barr said pretty much the same thing.
"Why are they allowed to stand?" asks an Internet reactor.
Oh, come now. They do, afterall make a convenient peeing post for the meandering cats, dogs and lost souls of bucolic Elbert County.
And it was R.C. Christian himself, afterall who ordered the unwashed masses in Guidestone Commandment Number 10: "Be not a cancer on the earth; Leave room for nature."
Georgia Guidestones - "America’s Stonehenge"
http://www.thegeorgiaguidestones.com/stones.htm
http://www.radioliberty.com/stones.htm
QUOTE(Bart Katz @ Feb 28 2005, 05:15 PM)
[right][snapback]58852[/snapback][/right]
I suspect RC Christian is/was rime example and representative for a troop great apes unable to control their instincts, more ravenous that the T-rex and a willing servant of the angle of light, Lucifer. Some men always need a god or anti-god to justify their hideous crimes.
QUOTE(Grigorii @ Mar 1 2005, 07:00 AM)
I suspect RC Christian is/was rime example and representative for a troop great apes unable to control their instincts, more ravenous that the T-rex and a willing servant of the angle of light, Lucifer. Some men always need a god or anti-god to justify their hideous crimes.
[right][snapback]59042[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]59042[/snapback][/right]
I thought maybe it was Jimmy Carter. Maybe one day I'll roll over to Ga and have a look at this monument.
We have a lot of indian mounds and such in my area. Illinois is an indian word. How about Alabama?
QUOTE(davis¹³ @ Mar 1 2005, 07:51 AM)
We have a lot of indian mounds and such in my area. Illinois is an indian word. How about Alabama?
[right][snapback]59061[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]59061[/snapback][/right]
Cherokees lived here, and many still do. One chief formed a written language, the only one known to Indians. There are some caves here that were inhabited by Indians.
In southern Ohio are lots of mounds., Serpent mound, and Mound City come to mind.
Cahokia is in southern Illinois. Biiiiiig place.
I love the new computer simulations based on archaeological digs. They may fill in areas they aren't quite sure about but it kind of gives you an idea of the scope of some of these large early American cities. Really cool stuff.
They did some graphics of Roman and Greek ruins the same way.
I love the new computer simulations based on archaeological digs. They may fill in areas they aren't quite sure about but it kind of gives you an idea of the scope of some of these large early American cities. Really cool stuff.
They did some graphics of Roman and Greek ruins the same way.
QUOTE
Putting up displays of the Ten Commandments in government buildings has become a popular way to test the limits of the First Amendment. The displays' backers, who will argue their case before the Supreme Court today, say they are not challenging the separation of church and state, just acknowledging God's authority in a way the founding fathers would have appreciated. They're wrong, and the court should order the displays removed.
The cases involve Texas, where there has been a six-foot-tall Ten Commandments monument between the Capitol and the State Supreme Court since 1961, and Kentucky, where McCreary and Pulaski Counties posted the Ten Commandments in their county courthouses in 1999. In both cases, the backers of the Ten Commandments' displays are arguing that any religious message they may send is diluted by their surroundings. After the American Civil Liberties Union sued, the Kentucky counties also posted other documents, like the Declaration of Independence and the lyrics of "The Star-Spangled Banner." Texas argues that secular monuments are also on the Capitol grounds. But those monuments are all a significant distance away from the Ten Commandments monument, which is topped by the phrase "I am the Lord thy God" in large letters.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion," and the Supreme Court has long held that the same rule must be applied to the states. The Ten Commandments represent specifically Judeo-Christian beliefs. Even within the Judeo-Christian tradition, there are significantly different versions of the commandments. Kentucky and Texas have chosen to display the Protestant Ten Commandments, rather than the Catholic or Jewish versions.
Accepting the separation of church and state does not mean that all references to religion must be excised from public life. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the government can display a religious symbol, provided it is part of a clearly secular display. The courtroom in which the Ten Commandments case will be argued has an image of Moses' accepting the tablets as part of a montage of lawgivers throughout history. But the Kentucky and Texas displays fall far short of that standard.
Adding the national anthem to the Kentucky displays or pointing to other statues in the distance in Texas cannot undo the displays' clear motivation: tying the legal system to Protestantism. The wall between church and state dates proudly to the earliest days of the republic. The founders may not have anticipated a country with many Hindu and Buddhist Americans, but they were wise enough to write a document that protects their rights. Our increasingly diverse nation must not appear to prefer some religions, and some citizens, over others.
The cases involve Texas, where there has been a six-foot-tall Ten Commandments monument between the Capitol and the State Supreme Court since 1961, and Kentucky, where McCreary and Pulaski Counties posted the Ten Commandments in their county courthouses in 1999. In both cases, the backers of the Ten Commandments' displays are arguing that any religious message they may send is diluted by their surroundings. After the American Civil Liberties Union sued, the Kentucky counties also posted other documents, like the Declaration of Independence and the lyrics of "The Star-Spangled Banner." Texas argues that secular monuments are also on the Capitol grounds. But those monuments are all a significant distance away from the Ten Commandments monument, which is topped by the phrase "I am the Lord thy God" in large letters.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion," and the Supreme Court has long held that the same rule must be applied to the states. The Ten Commandments represent specifically Judeo-Christian beliefs. Even within the Judeo-Christian tradition, there are significantly different versions of the commandments. Kentucky and Texas have chosen to display the Protestant Ten Commandments, rather than the Catholic or Jewish versions.
Accepting the separation of church and state does not mean that all references to religion must be excised from public life. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the government can display a religious symbol, provided it is part of a clearly secular display. The courtroom in which the Ten Commandments case will be argued has an image of Moses' accepting the tablets as part of a montage of lawgivers throughout history. But the Kentucky and Texas displays fall far short of that standard.
Adding the national anthem to the Kentucky displays or pointing to other statues in the distance in Texas cannot undo the displays' clear motivation: tying the legal system to Protestantism. The wall between church and state dates proudly to the earliest days of the republic. The founders may not have anticipated a country with many Hindu and Buddhist Americans, but they were wise enough to write a document that protects their rights. Our increasingly diverse nation must not appear to prefer some religions, and some citizens, over others.
NYTimes Editorial 03-02
Maybe the SCOTUS will base their opinon on some obscure Russo/Latvian law. 
1st step. Only evangelical Christians need apply.
House OKs Bill on Faith-Based Jobs
By Justin Dickerson, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — The House on Wednesday approved a job-training bill that would allow faith-based organizations receiving federal funds to consider a person's religious beliefs in making employment decisions.
Under current law, religious groups that receive federal money for job-training programs must obey civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in hiring or firing.
Passage of the bill, on a largely party-line vote of 224-200, came a day after President Bush told a group of religious leaders that he would attempt to institute the faith-based employment policies through an executive order if Congress did not approve them this year.
In a statement Wednesday supporting the bill, the White House said, "Receipt of federal funds should not be conditioned on a faith-based organization's giving up a part of its religious identity and mission."
The legislation, which now goes to the Senate, reauthorizes the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. It provides funds for training and vocational rehabilitation programs for adults and dislocated workers, as well as activities for low-income youth.
Its prospects are uncertain in the Senate, where Democrats are objecting to cuts in some programs and the religious discrimination provision.
The California delegation split along party lines, with all Republicans voting in favor of the bill's passage and all Democrats opposed — with the exception of Reps. Juanita Millender-McDonald (Carson), Grace F. Napolitano (Norwalk) and Nancy Pelosi (San Francisco), who did not vote.
Administration officials contended that some faith-based charities were discouraged from seeking federal grants because they feared the ban on discriminatory hiring would cause them to lose their religious identities.
But opponents alleged that allowing organizations to use such considerations in employment decisions amounted to government-sponsored discrimination.
Joe Conn, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the group was very disappointed with the results of Wednesday's vote but nonetheless hopeful.
"We are confident that the Senate will not go along with this, and ultimately it will not become law," Conn said. "President Bush has pushed this faith-based initiative for years now, but he hasn't been able to get it through Congress due to concerns over civil rights."
Earlier Wednesday, the House rejected, 186-239, an amendment sponsored by Rep. Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) that would have removed the religious-based employment language from the bill.
During debate on the amendment, Rep. James P. McGovern (D-Mass.) said the provision allowing consideration of religious beliefs was equivalent to "turning the clock back on civil rights."
"Faith-based institutions should be required to adhere to basic civil rights laws," McGovern said.
"This provision is offensive, it is ugly, it is wrong, and beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is unconstitutional. It is important that we oppose discrimination at every turn," he said.
But Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said the amendment would deny faith-based institutions their rights under the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act, which allows religious organizations to take religion into account in hiring practices. The Supreme Court upheld these rights for faith-based institutions in 1987, he said.
The California delegation split along party lines on this vote as well, with all Republicans opposing the amendment and all Democrats — except for Millender-McDonald and Napolitano, who did not vote — supporting it.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...eadlines-nation
House OKs Bill on Faith-Based Jobs
By Justin Dickerson, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — The House on Wednesday approved a job-training bill that would allow faith-based organizations receiving federal funds to consider a person's religious beliefs in making employment decisions.
Under current law, religious groups that receive federal money for job-training programs must obey civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in hiring or firing.
Passage of the bill, on a largely party-line vote of 224-200, came a day after President Bush told a group of religious leaders that he would attempt to institute the faith-based employment policies through an executive order if Congress did not approve them this year.
In a statement Wednesday supporting the bill, the White House said, "Receipt of federal funds should not be conditioned on a faith-based organization's giving up a part of its religious identity and mission."
The legislation, which now goes to the Senate, reauthorizes the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. It provides funds for training and vocational rehabilitation programs for adults and dislocated workers, as well as activities for low-income youth.
Its prospects are uncertain in the Senate, where Democrats are objecting to cuts in some programs and the religious discrimination provision.
The California delegation split along party lines, with all Republicans voting in favor of the bill's passage and all Democrats opposed — with the exception of Reps. Juanita Millender-McDonald (Carson), Grace F. Napolitano (Norwalk) and Nancy Pelosi (San Francisco), who did not vote.
Administration officials contended that some faith-based charities were discouraged from seeking federal grants because they feared the ban on discriminatory hiring would cause them to lose their religious identities.
But opponents alleged that allowing organizations to use such considerations in employment decisions amounted to government-sponsored discrimination.
Joe Conn, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the group was very disappointed with the results of Wednesday's vote but nonetheless hopeful.
"We are confident that the Senate will not go along with this, and ultimately it will not become law," Conn said. "President Bush has pushed this faith-based initiative for years now, but he hasn't been able to get it through Congress due to concerns over civil rights."
Earlier Wednesday, the House rejected, 186-239, an amendment sponsored by Rep. Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) that would have removed the religious-based employment language from the bill.
During debate on the amendment, Rep. James P. McGovern (D-Mass.) said the provision allowing consideration of religious beliefs was equivalent to "turning the clock back on civil rights."
"Faith-based institutions should be required to adhere to basic civil rights laws," McGovern said.
"This provision is offensive, it is ugly, it is wrong, and beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is unconstitutional. It is important that we oppose discrimination at every turn," he said.
But Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said the amendment would deny faith-based institutions their rights under the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act, which allows religious organizations to take religion into account in hiring practices. The Supreme Court upheld these rights for faith-based institutions in 1987, he said.
The California delegation split along party lines on this vote as well, with all Republicans opposing the amendment and all Democrats — except for Millender-McDonald and Napolitano, who did not vote — supporting it.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...eadlines-nation
" The Supreme Court upheld these rights for faith-based institutions in 1987, he said. "
Then perhaps the SCOTUS should get another shot at it.
Then perhaps the SCOTUS should get another shot at it.
Hey, Celt. Greetings, to yourself and others.
xxx
I’ve kept it in long enough. Charlie Ray Fetty iii is right.
My new name is an old one: Loose.
xxx
I’m just appreciating the importance of the quality of justice, and the conduct of law, to the quality of democracy. To reach the ideal, each man (sic), each vote, each decision important to the citizenry of a just jurisprudence.
Seems the ideal of that would enable consideration and reconsideration of untended and intended consequences. The law-making process appears, at least, stultified by the political processes. Not just the rightness, but the recognition of true priority.
No group shall stand in the stead of the individual, if justicew will be served directly. Innocent bystanders, random of causality. No party but the AllAmericans.
xxx
I’ve kept it in long enough. Charlie Ray Fetty iii is right.
My new name is an old one: Loose.
xxx
I’m just appreciating the importance of the quality of justice, and the conduct of law, to the quality of democracy. To reach the ideal, each man (sic), each vote, each decision important to the citizenry of a just jurisprudence.
Seems the ideal of that would enable consideration and reconsideration of untended and intended consequences. The law-making process appears, at least, stultified by the political processes. Not just the rightness, but the recognition of true priority.
No group shall stand in the stead of the individual, if justicew will be served directly. Innocent bystanders, random of causality. No party but the AllAmericans.
The question arises from the thought of the quality of Muslim-dominated democracy: does a true Muslim ever suborn his personal, familial, tribal, pan-national interests to a cause for altruistic freedom for all, regardless of religion?
Can sharia-code give justice with freedom?
Xxx
Maybe we have got something (that is Not perfect, but maybe it has strengths I don’t see) that is an advantage vis-à-vis more primitive rulers of societies:
The ability to unite masses of people in common cause. That I see, in the name of morality.
I care not how many yokels endanger my highway experience: they are My fellow yokels. The question is the quality of morality, not in it’s trend.
Half of ‘em would help me on the side of the road, at least I know that angel will be there. He was there once when I needed him. Fixed the points with a rubber band. And hitchin’ rides. We live to rise above.
Adverse to strategic Muslim-think: oh, well, lotsa us have gotten killed, or were never born because of Them, so it’s okay to kill randomly.
That’s a point of view which would not fit in my democracy.
And you Mofo, you think you can do that, and not raise these people in arms? Just because we eschew using weapons does not mean we have no will.
Can sharia-code give justice with freedom?
Xxx
Maybe we have got something (that is Not perfect, but maybe it has strengths I don’t see) that is an advantage vis-à-vis more primitive rulers of societies:
The ability to unite masses of people in common cause. That I see, in the name of morality.
I care not how many yokels endanger my highway experience: they are My fellow yokels. The question is the quality of morality, not in it’s trend.
Half of ‘em would help me on the side of the road, at least I know that angel will be there. He was there once when I needed him. Fixed the points with a rubber band. And hitchin’ rides. We live to rise above.
Adverse to strategic Muslim-think: oh, well, lotsa us have gotten killed, or were never born because of Them, so it’s okay to kill randomly.
That’s a point of view which would not fit in my democracy.
And you Mofo, you think you can do that, and not raise these people in arms? Just because we eschew using weapons does not mean we have no will.
Jas. Zogby (Arab-American League, Hardball): not right to appeal to one side, and incite to street protest. If 20% can kill like they do in Iraq, better to focus on overtly inclusive explicit philosophy of the democratic state as a peaceful sharing of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. “One man, one vote.” A vote for the good of all. Groups are irrelevant when there is justice to meet.
Chris Matthews: democracy or (unassailable) nationalism.
Xxx
I’d love to entertain responses, spanners. Today or tomorrow.
Chris Matthews: democracy or (unassailable) nationalism.
Xxx
I’d love to entertain responses, spanners. Today or tomorrow.
QUOTE
Can sharia-code give justice with freedom?
No. Certainly not for women and if half the population doesn't count? The answer is no.
In that, we can agree, at least, considering the individual, not the group.
The west had a decision tree that was not wholly included in it's variety of Christianity although the smae sorts of governance can be found in the philosophies of all three of Abrahm's religions.
shrub at the War College today could not have been more wrong when he stated that liberty is the natural state of man and will out no matter how long suppressed.
It has not been suppressed in the ME .
It has never been there in any definition by western philosophies.
They went from tyranny under Mithraism/Christianity to Sharia law and stayed there quite voluntarily for centuries and would happily still be doing so if it hadn't been for the oil beneath the sand.
We are not going to convert these guys to our secular governance, and certainly not with our government ever more in the hands of our fundamentalists.
It is the secular nature of our Western-European based philosophies and political systems that is the basis of our liberty and tolerance. Quite unimaginable to those in the ME.
shrub at the War College today could not have been more wrong when he stated that liberty is the natural state of man and will out no matter how long suppressed.
It has not been suppressed in the ME .
It has never been there in any definition by western philosophies.
They went from tyranny under Mithraism/Christianity to Sharia law and stayed there quite voluntarily for centuries and would happily still be doing so if it hadn't been for the oil beneath the sand.
We are not going to convert these guys to our secular governance, and certainly not with our government ever more in the hands of our fundamentalists.
It is the secular nature of our Western-European based philosophies and political systems that is the basis of our liberty and tolerance. Quite unimaginable to those in the ME.
QUOTE(celtcahill @ Mar 8 2005, 10:29 PM)
The west had a decision tree that was not wholly included in it's variety of Christianity although the smae sorts of governance can be found in the philosophies of all three of Abrahm's religions.
shrub at the War College today could not have been more wrong when he stated that liberty is the natural state of man and will out no matter how long suppressed.
It has not been suppressed in the ME .
It has never been there in any definition by western philosophies.
They went from tyranny under Mithraism/Christianity to Sharia law and stayed there quite voluntarily for centuries and would happily still be doing so if it hadn't been for the oil beneath the sand.
We are not going to convert these guys to our secular governance, and certainly not with our government ever more in the hands of our fundamentalists.
It is the secular nature of our Western-European based philosophies and political systems that is the basis of our liberty and tolerance. Quite unimaginable to those in the ME.
[right][snapback]62344[/snapback][/right]
shrub at the War College today could not have been more wrong when he stated that liberty is the natural state of man and will out no matter how long suppressed.
It has not been suppressed in the ME .
It has never been there in any definition by western philosophies.
They went from tyranny under Mithraism/Christianity to Sharia law and stayed there quite voluntarily for centuries and would happily still be doing so if it hadn't been for the oil beneath the sand.
We are not going to convert these guys to our secular governance, and certainly not with our government ever more in the hands of our fundamentalists.
It is the secular nature of our Western-European based philosophies and political systems that is the basis of our liberty and tolerance. Quite unimaginable to those in the ME.
[right][snapback]62344[/snapback][/right]
Just so.
But not to all in the Middle East.
I am hoping for the best.
"shrub at the War College today could not have been more wrong when he stated that liberty is the natural state of man and will out no matter how long suppressed.
It has not been suppressed in the ME .
It has never been there in any definition by western philosophies. "
Celt, the question is, have they ever had the ability to choose and fight for community, rather than overlord? And if not, would they now? trust their neighbors?
It has not been suppressed in the ME .
It has never been there in any definition by western philosophies. "
Celt, the question is, have they ever had the ability to choose and fight for community, rather than overlord? And if not, would they now? trust their neighbors?
I have read a good deal - not all, not enough - but I see no evidence of any desire to have done so in terms comparable to any Western European-American thinker or revolutionary. To include central and easter European and Russian either.
I cannot imagine an Islamic version of MTV, The CBS, NBC, ABC, CNNFOXNewsTainment, shows, or Sunday morning issues shows, nor PBS, NPR, Schools of our sort or any similiar sort, nor any other essential institution of our freedoms: Independant judiciary, honest unbribable police and law enforcement, public or private tolerance of even the kind that gives this country over three thousand sects of just christianity let alone all other faiths. Free and open elections and political parties in parliamentary or representative democracy terms, nor banking nor buisness nor regulation of those, nor public works nor secondary education, nor research and developement.
It isn't just the isolation brought on by western trading around the middle east instead of through them it is the developement - lack of developement of these institutions within these countries independantly much less under any outside influence to which they have been immutable.
I recall the president of the Organizatin Islamic Nations a year or so ago when he resigned was widely quoted for his statements re: Israel and far less widely quoted in his stated concerns for his culture not understanding nor trying to understand why these other developements are so far behind nor why the remain so. He was right. They really need to look a that and come to some kind of understanding.
They still execute women for being rape victims even in Turkey, the most open and tolerant among them.
I cannot imagine an Islamic version of MTV, The CBS, NBC, ABC, CNNFOXNewsTainment, shows, or Sunday morning issues shows, nor PBS, NPR, Schools of our sort or any similiar sort, nor any other essential institution of our freedoms: Independant judiciary, honest unbribable police and law enforcement, public or private tolerance of even the kind that gives this country over three thousand sects of just christianity let alone all other faiths. Free and open elections and political parties in parliamentary or representative democracy terms, nor banking nor buisness nor regulation of those, nor public works nor secondary education, nor research and developement.
It isn't just the isolation brought on by western trading around the middle east instead of through them it is the developement - lack of developement of these institutions within these countries independantly much less under any outside influence to which they have been immutable.
I recall the president of the Organizatin Islamic Nations a year or so ago when he resigned was widely quoted for his statements re: Israel and far less widely quoted in his stated concerns for his culture not understanding nor trying to understand why these other developements are so far behind nor why the remain so. He was right. They really need to look a that and come to some kind of understanding.
They still execute women for being rape victims even in Turkey, the most open and tolerant among them.
QUOTE
We are not going to convert these guys to our secular governance, and certainly not with our government ever more in the hands of our fundamentalists.
It is the secular nature of our Western-European based philosophies and political systems that is the basis of our liberty and tolerance. Quite unimaginable to those in the ME.
It is the secular nature of our Western-European based philosophies and political systems that is the basis of our liberty and tolerance. Quite unimaginable to those in the ME.
Great posts, Celtie, this one & the next. Wardlet is gonna squirt petunias.
QUOTE(lil bart @ Mar 8 2005, 10:26 PM)
Great posts, Celtie, this one & the next. Wardlet is gonna squirt petunias.
[right][snapback]62422[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]62422[/snapback][/right]
Yup.
Now we're gonna take on the IRA.
This president is all about distraction. Leave a trail of destruction and create more to distract from what he's already screwed up. Like the terror alerts. Use everything politically. I trust nothing Bush does. He could be against leprosy and I'd want to know what his angle was. Let's get into a war between Catholics and Protestants. Think Bush will calm it down? I don't. Whatever the man touches bleeds. I expect a bombing or killing of Brits by either the IRA or the CIA.
Hey, I bet this is one of those fear, scare techniques the Republicans are so god damned good at to help Tony Blair get re-elected. Well of course. Take advantage of a domestic situation to detract from Iraq. Sound familiar? It's got to be a scam of some kind.
I hope the Brits are smarter than US citizens were.
IRA Must Go, Demand Britain and U.S.
Wed Mar 9, 2005 08:26 AM ET
By Alex Richardson
BELFAST, Northern Ireland (Reuters) - Outraged by an IRA offer to shoot a group of suspected murderers, Britain and the United States demanded Wednesday that the guerrillas disband and take the gun out of Northern Irish politics.
Prime Minister Tony Blair said the offer defied description while a U.S. envoy added: "it's time for the IRA to go out of business."
Their condemnation came as police said they had arrested a man over the crime which has unleashed a wave of fury against both the IRA and its political ally in the republican movement, Sinn Fein.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=7851559
This president is all about distraction. Leave a trail of destruction and create more to distract from what he's already screwed up. Like the terror alerts. Use everything politically. I trust nothing Bush does. He could be against leprosy and I'd want to know what his angle was. Let's get into a war between Catholics and Protestants. Think Bush will calm it down? I don't. Whatever the man touches bleeds. I expect a bombing or killing of Brits by either the IRA or the CIA.
Hey, I bet this is one of those fear, scare techniques the Republicans are so god damned good at to help Tony Blair get re-elected. Well of course. Take advantage of a domestic situation to detract from Iraq. Sound familiar? It's got to be a scam of some kind.
I hope the Brits are smarter than US citizens were.
IRA Must Go, Demand Britain and U.S.
Wed Mar 9, 2005 08:26 AM ET
By Alex Richardson
BELFAST, Northern Ireland (Reuters) - Outraged by an IRA offer to shoot a group of suspected murderers, Britain and the United States demanded Wednesday that the guerrillas disband and take the gun out of Northern Irish politics.
Prime Minister Tony Blair said the offer defied description while a U.S. envoy added: "it's time for the IRA to go out of business."
Their condemnation came as police said they had arrested a man over the crime which has unleashed a wave of fury against both the IRA and its political ally in the republican movement, Sinn Fein.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=7851559
Listen to this shiit. Hey Blair, hey Bush! How about you apply these standards to your own unethical, illegal actions. Forkin jerks.
Tuesday's demands from Blair and U.S. special envoy to the British province Mitchell Reiss are yet more blows to its democratic credentials.
"It's time for Sinn Fein to be able to say explicitly, without ambiguity, without ambivalence, that criminality will not be tolerated," Reiss told BBC radio. "You can't sign up for the rule of law a la carte."
Tuesday's demands from Blair and U.S. special envoy to the British province Mitchell Reiss are yet more blows to its democratic credentials.
"It's time for Sinn Fein to be able to say explicitly, without ambiguity, without ambivalence, that criminality will not be tolerated," Reiss told BBC radio. "You can't sign up for the rule of law a la carte."
It's time for George Bush and the Republicans to be able to say explicitly, without ambiguity, without ambivalence, that criminality will not be tolerated, you can't sign up for the rule of law a la carte.
Davis, you swing hard. But are the present and prior Irish prime ministers complicit in this infamy? I heard the previous PM, now some EU official, back the idea that the IRA should be history.
celtcahill
post Yesterday, 10:59 PM
Post #843
…
I cannot imagine an Islamic version of MTV, (I think they got a weakness for belly dancers)
The CBS, NBC, ABC, (sitcoms with the stupid American pigs overfeeding and belching, probably)
CNNFOXNewsTainment, shows, or Sunday morning issues shows, (Al Jezeera, et al)
nor PBS, NPR,
Schools of our sort or any similiar sort, nor any other essential institution of our freedoms:
(hell, those guys love to argue. Could make it a fulltime occupation. They’d love their cspan.)
Independant judiciary,
honest unbribable police and law enforcement,
(yeah, that’s what I was thinking)
public or private tolerance of even the kind that gives this country over three thousand sects of just christianity let alone all other faiths.
Free and open elections and political parties in parliamentary or representative democracy terms,
nor banking nor buisness nor regulation of those, nor public works nor secondary education, nor research and developement.
(good thoughts, too)
…They really need to look a that and come to some kind of understanding.
(yeah, but they have the fervor for a justice-gaining change, explosivve fervor. We can’t convert outright, but hopefully we could help them redirect it, in the face of determined opposition -- what they need are imagined alternatives, credible.)
They still execute women for being rape victims even in Turkey, the most open and tolerant among them. (what?)
post Yesterday, 10:59 PM
Post #843
…
I cannot imagine an Islamic version of MTV, (I think they got a weakness for belly dancers)
The CBS, NBC, ABC, (sitcoms with the stupid American pigs overfeeding and belching, probably)
CNNFOXNewsTainment, shows, or Sunday morning issues shows, (Al Jezeera, et al)
nor PBS, NPR,
Schools of our sort or any similiar sort, nor any other essential institution of our freedoms:
(hell, those guys love to argue. Could make it a fulltime occupation. They’d love their cspan.)
Independant judiciary,
honest unbribable police and law enforcement,
(yeah, that’s what I was thinking)
public or private tolerance of even the kind that gives this country over three thousand sects of just christianity let alone all other faiths.
Free and open elections and political parties in parliamentary or representative democracy terms,
nor banking nor buisness nor regulation of those, nor public works nor secondary education, nor research and developement.
(good thoughts, too)
…They really need to look a that and come to some kind of understanding.
(yeah, but they have the fervor for a justice-gaining change, explosivve fervor. We can’t convert outright, but hopefully we could help them redirect it, in the face of determined opposition -- what they need are imagined alternatives, credible.)
They still execute women for being rape victims even in Turkey, the most open and tolerant among them. (what?)
Actually, before old Joe Cahill died last spring, the IRA put it's own disolution on the table. Sinn Fein put into the conversation.
Now that he's dead controls are looser.
The administratiion is being clumsy on this issue too.
Not. perhaps too clumsy to have a real impact, but perhaps clumsy enough to take some heat later. They are beginning to look like they have a 'side' if they aren't careful.
Now that he's dead controls are looser.
The administratiion is being clumsy on this issue too.
Not. perhaps too clumsy to have a real impact, but perhaps clumsy enough to take some heat later. They are beginning to look like they have a 'side' if they aren't careful.
QUOTE
Not. perhaps too clumsy to have a real impact, but perhaps clumsy enough to take some heat later. They are beginning to look like they have a 'side' if they aren't careful.
Bush looked into Tony Blairs soul.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.