NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sure that another argument of "separation of church and state" is very likely to have bearing on this line ...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002813174_gopchurch18.html


North Carolina GOP request for church directories spurs complaints
By Alan Cooperman
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON — The North Carolina Republican Party asked its members this week to send their church directories to the party, drawing protests from local and national religious leaders.

"Such a request is completely beyond the pale of what is acceptable," said the Rev. Richard Land, head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

During the 2004 presidential race, the Bush-Cheney campaign sent a similar request to Republican activists across the country. It asked churchgoers to furnish church directories to the campaign and to use their churches as a base for political organizing.

The tactic was condemned by religious leaders across the political spectrum. Ten professors of ethics at major seminaries and universities wrote to President Bush in August 2004 asking him to "repudiate the actions of your re-election campaign" and calling on both parties to "respect the integrity of all houses of worship."

Officials of the Republican National Committee said the tactic did not violate federal tax laws that prohibit churches from endorsing or opposing candidates for office, and they never formally renounced it.

On Friday, the Greensboro, N.C., News & Record reported that the state Republican Party was collecting church directories, and it quoted two local pastors objecting. The Rev. Richard Byrd Jr. of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Greensboro said anyone who sent in a directory "would be betraying the trust of the membership," and the Rev. Ken Massey of the city's First Baptist Church said the request was "encroaching on sacred territory."

Chris Mears, state party political director, made the request in a Feb. 15 memo titled "The pew and the ballot box" sent by e-mail to "Registered Republicans in North Carolina."

Mears said the "Republican National Committee has completed a study on grassroots activity that reveals that people who regularly attend church usually vote Republican ... it is imperative that we register, educate and get these potential voters from the pew to the ballot box."

William Peaslee, the party's chief of staff, told the Greensboro newspaper that Republicans also gather lists of gun owners and military families. "In doing voter registration, you always go to where your base is," he said.
---
There's a few issues regarding the 2004 election that this smacks quite familiar of.

Ehh. What else were we supposed to expect?

Ehh. What else were we supposed to expect?
You know what's funny? The more posts i have, the more common that response becomes.
Funny not in the "ha-ha" sense.
I think it's a little f*d up that four guys arguing about Star Wars and Star Trek can go ON AND ON but when something *actually* happens, it doesn't seem to matter. :(

You know what's funny? The more posts i have, the more common that response becomes.
Funny not in the "ha-ha" sense.
I think it's a little f*d up that four guys arguing about Star Wars and Star Trek can go ON AND ON but when something *actually* happens, it doesn't seem to matter. :(

Pretty sad, but I think you have to take this into consideration: Most people know that Bush, inc. are slimy and will use any tactics necessary to gain power. Something like this hardly comes as a surprise.

You know what's funny? The more posts i have, the more common that response becomes.
Funny not in the "ha-ha" sense.
I think it's a little f*d up that four guys arguing about Star Wars and Star Trek can go ON AND ON but when something *actually* happens, it doesn't seem to matter. :(

Sad, but true.

I'm sure that another argument of "separation of church and state" is very likely to have bearing on this line ...
Sounds like an appeal to Repewblicans? :rolleyes:

You know what's funny? The more posts i have, the more common that response becomes.
Funny not in the "ha-ha" sense.
I think it's a little f*d up that four guys arguing about Star Wars and Star Trek can go ON AND ON but when something *actually* happens, it doesn't seem to matter. :(


Meh, I'm already expect them to try and get more time to turn America into a theocracy anyways

Sounds like an appeal to Repewblicans? :rolleyes:
:D

There needs to be more publicized polls of these people being in agreement with Pat Robertson and his ilk. Very publicized.
Reason being, Deep "International Poster of Mystery" Kimchi was talking about the potential schism between far left and more moderate Democrats being a quick and forceful issue before the next big election, which, though diminishing numbers, would strengthen eithers' respective integrity.
I see a similar line of thinking very clearly needs to be applied to this group, clearly and openly, so that the people who are needed to qualify some farcicle "values" base have to also explain their more fanatical beliefs of subversion of constitutional integrity for way of theocratic rule AS well as the bizarre nature of some of their ascriptions as to the nature of the KNOWN (to say nothing of the UNKNOWN) universe. :rolleyes:

Meh, I'm already expect them to try and get more time to turn America into a theocracy anyways
Agreed.
And to further the point, i should post this:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9178374/gods_senator

The article is QUITE large but also QUITE informative.
Sam Brownback - another one to watch. :(

Pretty sad, but I think you have to take this into consideration: Most people know that Bush, inc. are slimy and will use any tactics necessary to gain power. Something like this hardly comes as a surprise.
Coupled with that fact that this tactic is of the "fish-in-a-barrel" persuasion ... they're already gullible AND devout and apparently don't discriminate their loyalties well enough.

Oh yes, the Democrats never, ever do such things. Why they're just as pure as the new-fallen snow. :rolleyes:

Oh yes, the Democrats never, ever do such things. Why they're just as pure as the new-fallen snow. :rolleyes:
You know, instead of rolling your eyes like a twelve year old, you could provide, you know, an example of something like this being done by the Democrats. It shouldn't be all that difficult, if it's in the slightest bit common, as you seem to imply with that little eye-rolling stunt.

Oh yes, the Democrats never, ever do such things. Why they're just as pure as the new-fallen snow. :rolleyes:

Meh, I'd assume Democrats have done something, go fid the article and post it here so I can read it.

Seems like the above posters got yer #, Eutr.
And i also question the integrity of your post, seeing as how you never qualified your "knee-jerk reaction" post that i asked you about.
Go ahead and put up.
You know what to do, you know when to do it ... *beep*

Agreed.
And to further the point, i should post this:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9178374/gods_senator

The article is QUITE large but also QUITE informative.
Sam Brownback - another one to watch. :(Here at NSG, people ask the questions "Why do group/nation/race X hate America" & "Why are group X anti-American".

The above link & article are two of the most pressing reasons right now. Take it from me, because I truely loathe what America is becomming. It scares the shit out of me, and makes me doubt what we'll be leaving the comming generations.

You Americans are the most powerful force in history. And these last few generations, where your abilities & impact on your surroundings have really mattered, you have been a force of ignorant, random destruction.
You're like an A-Bomb in a china shop.

Your nation fill me with deep, hopeless sense of dread. You rain destruction in the name of your religious values with Orwellian zeal, not even your own peoples are exempt from suspicion, scorn & discrimination. Please stop. Look at what you're becomming.

As one of my friends would put it: This planet's full. Go home.

Here at NSG, people ask the questions "Why do group/nation/race X hate America" & "Why are group X anti-American".

The above link & article are two of the most pressing reasons right now. Take it from me, because I truely loathe what America is becomming. It scares the shit out of me, and makes me doubt what we'll be leaving the comming generations.

You Americans are the most powerful force in history. And these last few generations, where your abilities & impact on your surroundings have really mattered, you have been a force of ignorant, random destruction.
You're like an A-Bomb in a china shop.

Your nation fill me with deep, hopeless sense of dread. You rain destruction in the name of your religious values with Orwellian zeal, not even your own peoples are exempt from suspicion, scorn & discrimination. Please stop. Look at what you're becomming.

As one of my friends would put it: This planet's full. Go home.
If i may say,
F*CK YEAH.
Contender. Definitely. *bows*

It's refreshing but it's not surprising.

The Baptists have tended to lead the fight on the seperation of church and state.

I have always liked to quote the Baptist precher John Leland.

" . . .Heaven forbids the bans of marriage between church and state; their embraces therefore, must be unlawful. Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. Let honesty, talents and quick despatch, characterise the men of your choice. Such men will have a sympathy with their constituents, and will be willing to come to the light, that their deeds may be examined. . . . "

Geez, this is an old, back page news article that ended about the same time it became news.

I never did hear a church that went along with this stunt.

Oh yes, the Democrats never, ever do such things. Why they're just as pure as the new-fallen snow. :rolleyes:
You're the first poster here to mention the Democrats. Are you saying that because they do it, then the Republicans also should?

You're the first poster here to mention the Democrats. Are you saying that because they do it, then the Republicans also should?
You can read, can you not? :rolleyes:

Geez, this is an old, back page news article that ended about the same time it became news.

I never did hear a church that went along with this stunt.

Some actually do. The last election had a few instances of politics from the pulpit.

Both parties do it but the Repubs do it the most.....

Some actually do. The last election had a few instances of politics from the pulpit.

Both parties do it but the Repubs do it the most.....

There's a whole fascinating debate that can be had over why most religious types tend to be in the republican party, and if the democrats were smart in ignoring them in pursuit of their goals in party building. I'll also skip mentioning the fact that BushCo have ignored totally the help their Evangelical allies gave them, and indeed the entire Patriot Act is a slap in their face.

But we'll skip that. :)

Here at NSG, people ask the questions "Why do group/nation/race X hate America" & "Why are group X anti-American".

The above link & article are two of the most pressing reasons right now. Take it from me, because I truely loathe what America is becomming. It scares the shit out of me, and makes me doubt what we'll be leaving the comming generations.
*snip*


I would not be abandoning the planet just yet. There is many reasons why group x hates america. Some of it is envy as shown by the revision attempts of history.

Being scared of us? Why? You forget there were 59 million of us that voted against BushCo.

Part of the problems with the democrats is that they don't have a unified message. They don't stand for something even if it's unpopular. Some do but the majority to a psuedo stance inorder to not piss people off.

The recent failures are what the Party needs. It will make them rethink their stances. It will make them decide to be something rather then being Republican-Lite.

You have to remember the American political spectrum is like a pendulem. It swings both ways but most of the time its somewhere in the middle.

Time will tell of course.

The tell tale sign will be when we shrubby haters disappear from the Net. ;)

Oh and F you Gonzales. I know you are watching!

:D

I would not be abandoning the planet just yet. There is many reasons why group x hates america. Some of it is envy as shown by the revision attempts of history.

Being scared of us? Why? You forget there were 59 million of us that voted against BushCo.

Part of the problems with the democrats is that they don't have a unified message. They don't stand for something even if it's unpopular. Some do but the majority to a psuedo stance inorder to not piss people off.

The Democrats are not an opposition. They have not had a good, admirable president since FDR. Two generations ago.

Agreed.
And to further the point, i should post this:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9178374/gods_senator

The article is QUITE large but also QUITE informative.
Sam Brownback - another one to watch. :(
It's really a very belated response to the Enlightenment. In Europe in the 16th century we believed that kings ruled by divine providence, rather than to serve their people. Just replace "king" with "president" and you have this guy.

Still, I don't think that a radical conservative Christian can possibly win the US presidency.

I notice that this guy likes to surf religions. Wouldn't it be really funny if he became president and suddenly converted to fundamentalist Islam?

The Democrats are not an opposition. They have not had a good, admirable president since FDR. Two generations ago.

Well a "good" president is open to debate.

Ol' Clinton would have destroyed the Shrub if they ran together. Can you imagine the debates between the two?

The Demos will change. They have no choice.

You can read, can you not? :rolleyes:
Gonna dodge all those challenges from the page prior?

Gonna dodge all those challenges from the page prior?

Since he won't. I will for the heck of it.

Gore did some stumping at Chruches. ;)

Since he won't. I will for the heck of it.

Gore did some stumping at Chruches. ;)
Stumping at churches is S.O.P. for any politician. But that's not what's being talked about in the original post, and not what, presumably, Eutrusca was talking about when he made the claim that everyone does it.

Stumping at churches is S.O.P. for any politician. But that's not what's being talked about in the original post, and not what, presumably, Eutrusca was talking about when he made the claim that everyone does it.

Oh I know. I was playing Republican-Lite ;)

But you are correct as I don't recall ever reading about a democrat asking for church registers.....

Geez, this is an old, back page news article that ended about the same time it became news.

I never did hear a church that went along with this stunt.
Try again at the date part. Before declaring things, make sure that you actually have your facts right.

Saturday, February 18, 2006 - Page updated at 12:00 AM

and

Saturday, February 18, 2006

Anything else?

You know, instead of rolling your eyes like a twelve year old, you could provide, you know, an example of something like this being done by the Democrats. It shouldn't be all that difficult, if it's in the slightest bit common, as you seem to imply with that little eye-rolling stunt.

Wasn't there that thing with Al Gore and the Buddhist temple? I don't know but I think that was similar...maybe not. Anyways, it doesn't really natter; the Republicans' corruption tends to target their base while Democrats' corruption targets their own, so the fact that the GOP is going after churches for votes doesn't really surprise me.

Still, I don't think that a radical conservative Christian can possibly win the US presidency.I don't think that the figurehead is their target - consider my post of authority that Cheney got recently regarding classification/declassification .... of course Bush is the target, and anyone who reads up on him comes to the conclusion he's a ... here's a quote from Mad ...
"ineffectual no-account sissypants"
But seriously, the guy crashes almost everything he gets his precious f*cking delicate brush-clearing fingers on.

I notice that this guy likes to surf religions. Wouldn't it be really funny if he became president and suddenly converted to fundamentalist Islam?You know what, upon first reading of that, i was actually pleasantly refreshed by the idea. To be fair i don't know enough about that religion to be per- or dis-suasive. I still have to say, unequivocally, though that his religion should and must remain COMPLETELY independent of his function as the President of the United States.


EDIT: Also, per Dem presidents ... i'm curious as to how you aren't mentioning Kennedy ... and also, to whom Clinton was or wasn't a good president for.
You might be saying this for bias/affiliation reasons, but you might not, and if not, i'm curious what exactly your discernment would be.

Since he won't. I will for the heck of it.

Gore did some stumping at Chruches. ;)
Oh!
Eutr, The Black Forrest pwned you! How could you let that happen? Are you reading other threads :eek:

Wasn't there that thing with Al Gore and the Buddhist temple? I don't know but I think that was similar...maybe not. Anyways, it doesn't really natter; the Republicans' corruption tends to target their base while Democrats' corruption targets their own, so the fact that the GOP is going after churches for votes doesn't really surprise me.

Actually, I thought he was hitting them up for money....

Actually, I thought he was hitting them up for money....

Yeah, I think it was kind of the same idea, but I don't know for sure. What was that, about 6 or 7 years ago?

Oh!
Eutr, The Black Forrest pwned you! How could you let that happen? Are you reading other threads :eek:
Umm he is getting pwned a lot today....but he is ignoring it. :)

Umm he is getting pwned a lot today....but he is ignoring it. :)
Kind of like fishing ... he needs to give a little more play, IMhO ;)

Also, this needs to be mentioned, to qualify how potentially serious the topic is, in certain circumstance ...
And my apologies to those of you who already bothered to read the link.


*ahem*
(excerpts / highlights)

*********Over the last six decades, Bredesen has prayed with so many
presidents and prime ministers and kings that he can barely remember their
names. He's the spiritual father of Pat Robertson, the man behind the
preacher's vast media empire. He was one of three pastors who laid hands on
Ronald Reagan in 1970 and heard the Pasadena Prophecy: the moment when God
told Reagan that he would one day occupy the White House. And he recently
dispatched one of his proteges to remind George W. Bush of the divine will
-- and evangelical power -- behind his presidency.

Tonight, Bredesen has come to breathe that power into Brownback's
presidential campaign. After little more than a decade in Washington,
Brownback has managed to position himself at the very center of the
Christian conservative uprising that is transforming American politics. Just
six years ago, winning the evangelical vote required only a veneer of bland
normalcy, nothing more than George Bush's vague assurance that Jesus was his
favorite philosopher. Now, Brownback seeks something far more radical: not
faith-based politics but faith in place of politics. In his dream America,
the one he believes both the Bible and the Constitution promise, the state
will simply wither away. In its place will be a country so suffused with God
and the free market that the social fabric of the last hundred years --
schools, Social Security, welfare -- will be privatized or simply done away
with. There will be no abortions; sex will be confined to heterosexual
marriage. Men will lead families, mothers will tend children, and big
business and the church will take care of all.********

********He tells a story about a chaplain who challenged a group of senators
to reconsider their conception of democracy. "How many constituents do you
have?" the chaplain asked. The senators answered: 4 million, 9 million, 12
million. "May I suggest," the chaplain replied, "that you have only one
constituent?"

Brownback pauses. That moment, he declares, changed his life. "This" --
being senator, running for president, waving the flag of a Christian nation
-- "is about serving one constituent." He raises a hand and points above
him.********

*****Brownback is not part of the GOP leadership, and he doesn't want to be.
He once told a group of businessmen he wanted to be the next Jesse Helms --
"Senator No," who operated as a one-man demolition unit against godlessness,
independent of his party. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a man with
presidential ambitions of his own, gave Brownback a plum position on the
Judiciary Committee, perhaps hoping that Brownback would provide a
counterbalance to Arlen Specter, a moderate Republican who threatened to
make trouble for Bush's appointees. Instead, taking a page from Helms,
Brownback turned the position into a platform for a high-profile war against
gay marriage, porn and abortion. Casting Bush and the Republican leadership
as soft and muddled, he regularly turns sleepy hearings into platforms for
his vision of America, inviting a parade of angry witnesses to denounce the
"homosexual agenda," "bestiality" and "murder."*****

******Alito was in the Senate hearing room that day largely because of
Brownback's efforts. Last October, after Bush named his personal lawyer,
Harriet Miers, to the Supreme Court, Brownback politely but thoroughly
demolished her nomination -- on the grounds that she was insufficiently
opposed to abortion. The day Miers withdrew her name, Sen. John McCain
surprised the mob of reporters clamoring around Brownback outside the Senate
chamber by grabbing his colleague's shoulders. "Here's the man who did it!"
McCain shouted in admiration, a big smile on his face.*****

*****The nation's leading evangelicals have already lined up behind
Brownback, a feat in itself. A decade ago, evangelical support for a
Catholic would have been unthinkable. Many evangelicals viewed the Pope as
the Antichrist and the Roman Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon. But
Brownback is the beneficiary of a strategy known as co-belligerency -- a
united front between conservative Catholics and evangelicals in the culture
war. Pat Robertson has tapped the "outstanding senator from Kansas" as his
man for president. David Barton, the Christian right's all-but-official
presidential historian, calls Brownback "uncompromising" -- the highest
praise in a movement that considers intransigence next to godliness. And
James Dobson, the movement's strongest chieftain, can find no fault in
Brownback. "He has fulfilled every expectation," Dobson says. Even Jesse
Helms, now in retirement in North Carolina, recognizes a kindred spirit.
"The most effective senators are those who are truest to themselves," Helms
says. "Senator Brownback is becoming known as that sort of
individual."******

*****But in Washington, in the midst of the Gingrich Revolution, Brownback
didn't just tack right -- he unzipped his quiet Kansan costume and stepped
out as the leader of the New Federalists, the small but potent faction of
freshmen determined to get rid of government almost entirely. When he
discovered that the Republican leadership wasn't really interested in
derailing its own gravy train, Brownback began spending more time with his
Bible. He began to suspect that the problem with government wasn't just too
many taxes; it was not enough God.*******

*****Brownback got involved in the Fellowship in 1979, as a summer intern
for Bob Dole, when he lived in a residence the group had organized in a
sorority house at the University of Maryland. Four years later, fresh out of
law school and looking for a political role model, Brownback sought out
Frank Carlson, a former Republican senator from Kansas. It was Carlson who,
at a 1955 meeting of the Fellowship, had declared the group's mission to be
"Worldwide Spiritual Offensive," a vision of manly Christianity dedicated to
the expansion of American power as a means of spreading the gospel.

Over the years, Brownback became increasingly active in the Fellowship. But
he wasn't invited to join a cell until 1994, when he went to Washington. "I
had been working with them for a number of years, so when I went into
Congress I knew I wanted to get back into that," he says. "Washington --
power -- is very difficult to handle. I knew I needed people to keep me
accountable in that system."*****

.***** Brownback even lived with other cell members in a million-dollar,
red-brick former convent at 133 C Street that was subsidized and operated by
the Fellowship. Monthly rent was $600 per man -- enough of a deal by Hill
standards that some said it bordered on an ethical violation, but no charges
were ever brought.******

*****In 1999, Brownback worked with Rep. Joe Pitts, a Fellowship brother, to
pass the Silk Road Strategy Act, designed to block the growth of Islam in
Central Asian nations by bribing them with lucrative trade deals. That same
year, he teamed up with two Fellowship associates -- former Sen. Don Nickles
and the late Sen. Strom Thurmond -- to demand a criminal investigation of a
liberal group called Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Last year, several Fellowship brothers, including Sen. John Ensign, another
resident of the C Street house, supported Brownback's broadcast decency
bill. And Pitts and Coburn joined Brownback in stumping for the Houses of
Worship Act to allow tax-free churches to endorse candidates.

The most bluntly theocratic effort, however, is the Constitution Restoration
Act, which Brownback co-sponsored with Jim DeMint, another former C Streeter
who was then a congressman from South Carolina. If passed, it will strip the
Supreme Court of the ability to even hear cases in which citizens protest
faith-based abuses of power. Say the mayor of your town decides to declare
Jesus lord and fire anyone who refuses to do so; or the principal of your
local high school decides to read a fundamentalist prayer over the PA every
morning; or the president declares the United States a Christian nation.
Under the Constitution Restoration Act, that'll all be just fine.

Brownback points to his friend Ed Meese, who served as attorney general
under Reagan, as an example of a man who wields power through backroom
Fellowship connections. Meese has not held a government job for nearly two
decades, but through the Fellowship he's more influential than ever,
credited with brokering the recent nomination of John Roberts to head the
Supreme Court.******

*****Every Tuesday, before his evening meeting with his prayer brothers,
Brownback chairs another small cell -- one explicitly dedicated to altering
public policy. It is called the Values Action Team, and it is composed of
representatives from leading organizations on the religious right. James
Dobson's Focus on the Family sends an emissary, as does the Family Research
Council, the Eagle Forum, the Christian Coalition, the Traditional Values
Coalition, Concerned Women for America and many more. Like the Fellowship
prayer cell, everything that is said is strictly off the record, and even
the groups themselves are forbidden from discussing the proceedings. It's a
little "cloak-and-dagger," says a Brownback press secretary. The VAT is a
war council, and the enemy, says one participant, is "secularism."

The VAT coordinates the efforts of fundamentalist pressure groups, unifying
their message and arming congressional staffers with the data and language
they need to pass legislation. Working almost entirely in secret, the group
has directed the fights against gay marriage and for school vouchers,
against hate-crime legislation and for "abstinence only" education. The VAT
helped win passage of Brownback's broadcast decency bill and made the
president's tax cuts a top priority. When it comes to "impacting policy,"
says Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, "day to day, the VAT is
instrumental."

As chairman of the Helsinki Commission, the most important U.S. human rights
agency, Brownback has also stamped much of U.S. foreign policy with VAT's
agenda. One victory for the group was Brownback's North Korea Human Rights
Act, which establishes a confrontational stance toward the dictatorial
regime and shifts funds for humanitarian aid from the United Nations to
Christian organizations. Sean Woo -- Brownback's former general counsel and
now the chief of staff of the Helsinki Commission -- calls this a process of
"privatizing democracy." A dapper man with a soothing voice, Woo is perhaps
the brightest thinker in Brownback's circle, a savvy internationalist with a
deep knowledge of Cold War history. Yet when I ask him for an example of the
kind of project the human-rights act might fund, he tells me about a German
doctor who releases balloons over North Korea with bubble-wrapped radios
tied to them. North Koreans are supposed to find the balloons when they run
out of helium and use the radios to tune into Voice of America or a South
Korean Christian station.

Since Brownback took over leadership of the VAT in 2002, he has used it to
consolidate his position in the Christian right -- and his influence in the
Senate. If senators -- even leaders like Bill Frist or Rick Santorum -- want
to ask for backing from the group, they must talk to Brownback's chief of
staff, Robert Wasinger, who clears attendees with his boss. Wasinger is from
Hays, Kansas, but he speaks with a Harvard drawl, and he is still remembered
in Cambridge twelve years after graduation for a fight he led to get gay
faculty booted. He was particularly concerned about the welfare of gay men;
or rather, as he wrote in a campus magazine funded by the Heritage
Foundation, that of their innocent sperm, forced to "swim into feces." As
gatekeeper of the VAT, he's a key strategist in the conservative movement.
He makes sure the religious leaders who attend VAT understand that Brownback
is the boss -- and that other senators realize that every time Brownback
speaks, he has the money and membership of the VAT behind him.

VAT is like a closed communication circuit with Brownback at the switch: The
power flows through him. Every Wednesday at noon, he trots upstairs from his
office to a radio studio maintained by the Republican leadership to rally
support from Christian America for VAT's agenda. One participant in the
broadcast, Salem Radio Network News, reaches more than 1,500 Christian
stations nationwide, and Focus on the Family offers access to an audience of
1.5 million. During a recent broadcast Brownback explains that with the help
of the VAT, he's working to defeat a measure that would stiffen penalties
for violent attacks on gays and lesbians. Members of VAT help by mobilizing
their flocks: An e-mail sent out by the Family Research Council warned that
the hate-crime bill would lead, inexorably, to the criminalization of
Christianity.

Brownback recently muscled through the Judiciary Committee a proposed
amendment to the Constitution to make not just gay marriage but even civil
unions nearly impossible. "I don't see where the compromise point would be
on marriage," he says. The amendment has no chance of passing, but it's not
designed to. It's a time bomb, scheduled to detonate sometime during the
2006 electoral cycle. The intended victims aren't Democrats but other
Republicans. GOP moderates will be forced to vote for or against "marriage,"
which -- in the language of the VAT communications network -- is another way
of saying for or against the "homosexual agenda." It's a typical VAT
strategy: a tool with which to purify the ranks of the Republican
Party.******


****Once, Brownback says, he hated Hillary Clinton. Hated her so much it
hurt him. But he reached in and scooped that hatred out like a cancer. Now,
he loves her. She, too, is a beautiful child of the living God.****


__
I think i needed to end all that unpleasantness with a happy note. :D

Dude...I'd always sorta felt like a bit of a conspiracy theorist talking about becoming a theocracy....but sheesh...

:D

That smiley face indead was the only happy note.

And Christians wonder why atheists and agnostics are upset.

Dude...I'd always sorta felt like a bit of a conspiracy theorist talking about becoming a theocracy....but sheesh...
We're WAAAAAAAAY past the water-cooler chat aspect of this topic. This is very much a serious problem.
I do know this kind of sh*t has come up before, and it wasn't good then either. But this is getting into the dire realm ... AND there's TIME TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

We're WAAAAAAAAY past the water-cooler chat aspect of this topic. This is very much a serious problem.
I do know this kind of sh*t has come up before, and it wasn't good then either. But this is getting into the dire realm ... AND there's TIME TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
Well said. I'm not suggesting all of you start a revolution (don't let me hold you back though), but please. Those of you who do have the opportunity to get involved in politics & opinion-making, do it. If not for your own society, then for the rest of us.

When the intellectual elite don't react, no-one does - and I know at least a handfull of you fall in that category.

Well said. I'm not suggesting all of you start a revolution (don't let me hold you back though), but please. Those of you who do have the opportunity to get involved in politics & opinion-making, do it. If not for your own society, then for the rest of us.

When the intellectual elite don't react, no-one does - and I know at least a handfull of you fall in that category.
Agreed. *bows*
And as well, it is generally an extremely bad sign when a group of people's calling integrity is "anti-intellectual" ... i don't mean boorishness or snobbery, i mean people that ACTUALLY EDUCATE THEMSELVES. If the people who are educated on a topic are under attack from a group of people who not only REFUSE to educate themselves on the topic but ACTUALLY are PROUD to neglect to inform them, the last places they should be is in a position of authorizing policy and consequences for other people.

EDIT:
"People who harbor strong convictions without evidence belong at the margins of our societies, not in our halls of power."
-Sam Harris

As appears to be the case every few days, something comes up that qualifies the problem ever the littlest bit more ...

*ahem*

Robertson Cancels Speech at Convention
Move Comes Amid Fellow Religious Conservatives' Concern Over Recent Remarks

By Sonja Barisic
Associated Press
Sunday, February 19, 2006; Page A11

NORFOLK, Feb. 18 -- Fellow conservative religious leaders have expressed concern over and open criticism of Pat Robertson's habit of shooting from the lip on his daily religious news-and-talk television program, "The 700 Club."

The Christian Coalition founder and former GOP presidential candidate has said U.S. agents should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine retribution for the Israeli pullout from the Gaza Strip.
Some observers say Robertson, who will be 76 next month, courts controversy as a strategy to remain in the public eye and to keep his followers mobilized. Others say that he is important to the evangelical movement that he helped create when he established the Virginia Beach-based Christian Broadcasting Network in 1960, but that he needs to stop damaging it with his words.

He canceled a speech planned for Tuesday at the closing banquet of the National Religious Broadcasters convention in Dallas after NRB leaders said they were worried that his appearance could detract from the event.

"He is in a very visible leadership position, and comments such as recent ones related to Mr. Sharon and so many others are misinformed and presumptuous and border on arrogance," said David S. Dockery, president of Union University, a private college affiliated with the Tennessee Baptist Convention. "It puts the evangelical movement in a bad light."

Robertson, through a spokesman, declined to be interviewed.

He apologized after facing swift condemnation for his Jan. 5 statement that Sharon was punished for "dividing God's land."

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's ethics and religious liberty commission, has said he was "appalled that Pat Robertson would claim to know the mind of God concerning whether particular tragic events . . . were the judgments of God."

Barry Hankins, professor of history and church-state studies at Baylor University, said Robertson tries to interpret contemporary events as "being part of the drama of God's activity in the world."

Brian Britt, director of the religious studies program at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, said Robertson's remarks are not just "off-the-wall" but part of a strategy that earns him headlines.

When people attack Robertson, he wins sympathy for appearing to be an underdog, Britt said. "It reinforces an image of Christianity as a persecuted religion, a religion that is being hounded by the secularists," he said.

Pat Robertson makes such an easy target if they won't keep him we will just need to find others.

Pat Robertson makes such an easy target if they won't keep him we will just need to find others.
Oh, they make themselves known, alright .... about as quick as saying,
"Spongebob Squarepants is gay!"
:rolleyes:
You know those kind of statements/sentiments right there pretty much disqualify the integrity of "authority" the person stating them likes to think they have.
That, of course, would be James Dobson.

Oh, they make themselves known, alright .... about as quick as saying,
"Spongebob Squarepants is gay!"
:rolleyes:
You know those kind of statements/sentiments right there pretty much disqualify the integrity of "authority" the person stating them likes to think they have.
That, of course, would be James Dobson.

They are idiots! Everybody knows Squidward is gay!

They are idiots! Everybody knows Squidward is gay!
If i had to consider either a squid or a sponge for sexual purposes (again?!?) i think you know what i'd pick. Well, i'd pick one first and the other second. *nods*

And since i'm a guy ... hey, am i brandishing dangerous logic here? It doesn't seem to belong ... as some posters might imply.

You know what, upon first reading of that, i was actually pleasantly refreshed by the idea. To be fair i don't know enough about that religion to be per- or dis-suasive. I still have to say, unequivocally, though that his religion should and must remain COMPLETELY independent of his function as the President of the United States.
You know that it's fundamentalist Muslims who like to attack America, right? In any case, I wouldn't trust Brownback to keep his religion out of his politics.

EDIT: Also, per Dem presidents ... i'm curious as to how you aren't mentioning Kennedy ... and also, to whom Clinton was or wasn't a good president for.
You might be saying this for bias/affiliation reasons, but you might not, and if not, i'm curious what exactly your discernment would be.
John F Kennedy: Vietnam, Cuban embargo, anti-Cuban terrorism, Bay of Pigs, but did a good job with the missile crisis.

Clinton: governed on behalf of big business. I don't need to say any more than that.

You know that it's fundamentalist Muslims who like to attack America, right? In any case, I wouldn't trust Brownback to keep his religion out of his politics.

Two things:
I didn't say "EXTREMIST Muslim". Perhaps you know the discernment of which aspect of Islam encompasses all of the traits involved in being "EXTREMIST NOT FUNDAMENTALIST Muslims -Sunni, Wahabi, Shiite? Otherwise maybe you shouldn't make it sound like you're twisting my words - that smacks of right wing alarmist bs, and i recall many posts that i appreciated from you that seemed above that.
Also, you (anybody concerned for their "democratic involvement in their society, actually) should be a smidge more concerned about issues of political activism of ANY specifically theocratically-oriented group or being, regardless of "christianity" or "muslim" or "baha'i" or "mormon" or whatever group delusion they subscribe to. Brownback is still going to get there, or pretty friggin' close, even if his current status would strike a layperson as being unlikely to be as successful.

John F Kennedy: Vietnam, Cuban embargo, anti-Cuban terrorism, Bay of Pigs, but did a good job with the missile crisis.

Clinton: governed on behalf of big business. I don't need to say any more than that.It would imply you're missing many of the other aspects of presidency. For example, there's quite a bit of good that came around in Clinton's reign, and there was a measurable amount of good out of Reagan's. If you want to use exclusively the crises as the measure for how a presidency is, then quite clearly, we're all f*cked due our current arsehole-in-chief.

In the nature of noting what things should be respectively seperate, i thought it pertinent to post this current (Monday, February 20, 2006) issue.

*ahem*

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsevol0221,0,7204235.story?coll=ny-leadhealthnews-headlines

Science panel aims at evolution
BRYN NELSON
STAFF CORRESPONDENT

February 20, 2006, 3:37 PM EST


ST. LOUIS -- Emboldened by recent successes, researchers, clergy and teachers assembled at a national science conference said they're taking the offensive in the pitched battle over teaching evolution in American classrooms.

At the annual conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science here, panelists described how the anti-evolution Intelligent Design movement has changed its tactics in response to recent legal defeats as more than 140 educators from the St. Louis area gathered for an interactive forum on defending and expanding evolution instruction in the classroom.
Intelligent Design holds that life in all its forms is too complicated to have arisen by chance and thus requires the intervention of an unnamed supernatural designer.

On Sunday, Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-Mo.) told the assembled K-12 science teachers that attacking evolution in the classroom "risks the validity of science across the board," and announced three new legislative initiatives to promote research and science education, while the teachers received kits to help them with their classroom instruction.

Organizers of the new Alliance for Science separately announced their goal of bringing together teachers, scientists and clergy "to heighten public understanding and support for science and to preserve the distinctions between science and religion in the public sphere," while coordinators of the Clergy Letter Project announced their success in gathering signatures from 10,000 clergy for an open letter in support of teaching evolution.

"Science is absolutely neutral with regard to religion," said the Rev. George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory. The Clergy Letter Project, though, hopes to send the message that science and religion are far from incompatible.

AAAS also released a statement denouncing the anti-evolution bills pending in 14 states, including New York's Assembly Bill 8036, which explicitly calls for K-12 students to receive instruction "in both theories of ID and evolution."

Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, said other bills contain more coded language arising largely from the anti-evolution movement's legal defeat in Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District, in which District Court Judge John E. Jones III ruled in a strongly worded 139-page decision in December that the Pennsylvania school board's pro-Intelligent Design stance promoted religion and was therefore unconstitutional.

"As a legal strategy, Intelligent Design is dead," Scott said. "That does not mean that Intelligent Design is dead as a very popular social movement."

On Monday, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture Discovery Institute -- a Seattle-based Intelligent Design think tank -- hit back with a new release announcing that more than 500 scientists have publicly expressed their doubts over Darwinian evolution.

"From our point of view, Intelligent Design is not a legal strategy, it's a scientific theory," said center spokesman Robert Crowther in a telephone interview. "It's a robust theory and we're getting more and more interest in it all the time."

In the past, Scott said, anti-evolutionists proffered the argument that balancing evolution with Intelligent Design was only fair. Now, she said, the movement's arguments are de-emphasizing their own alternative -- with its implicit understanding that a supernatural designer must be involved -- and tending toward euphemisms such as "sudden emergence," or "creative evolution," and focusing on the "flaws," "controversy," or "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution.

By attacking evolution's credibility, Scott said, opponents hope to raise enough doubt in the minds of students that they will embrace Intelligent Design as a viable alternative on their own.

At a Stony Brook University lecture earlier this month as part of the university's Darwin Day observance, Scott said Intelligent Design's concept undermines science because it subverts the agreed-upon scientific method.

"How do you put God in a test tube or keep him out of one?" she asked.

Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University in Providence, R.I., said in an interview that the best way to counter Intelligent Design is to show what's behind the "scientifically bogus" concept.

Those opposed to teaching evolution, he said, would like to portray the fight as a controversy between liberals and conservatives. But the strong legal decision by Jones, a life-long Republican recommended by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), has undermined that strategy, Miller said.

Even so, teachers gathered in St. Louis said they often feel uncomfortable when teaching evolutionary concepts in public school classrooms. A survey commissioned by the National Science Teachers Association found that nearly one-third of 1,000 respondents said they felt pressured to include creationism, Intelligent Design or other non-scientific alternatives to evolution in classroom instruction.

Jennifer Miller, a biology teacher from Dover, Pa., said she and other teachers at the high school banded together in the face of enormous pressure from the school board at the height of the controversy there.

"It was really the first time I had felt uncomfortable in my own classroom," she said in an interview. Later, in a video presentation for the assembled teachers, she concluded, "I couldn't live with myself if I didn't stand up."
--
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c91ff92a-a233-11da-9096-0000779e2340.html
AAAS denounces ‘anti-evolution’ legislation
By Clive Cookson in St Louis
Published: February 20 2006 17:32 | Last updated: February 20 2006 17:32

US scientific leaders have launched a new assault on political attempts to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, supported by 30 other scientific and educational organisations, adopted a declaration denouncing “anti-evolution” legislation that is pending in 14 states.

The bills varied in language and strategy but “all would weaken science education”, said AAAS president Gilbert Omenn, professor of medicine at the University of Michigan. “They threaten not just the teaching of evolution, but students’ understanding of the biological, physical, and geological sciences.”

Some of the bills would require schools to emphasise “flaws” in the theory of evolution or “disagreements” within the scientific community, the AAAS said. Others would encourage teachers to explore intelligent design and other alternatives to evolution. But the declaration, released at the AAAS annual meeting, said: “There is no significant controversy within the scientific community about the validity of evolution.”

Eugenie Scott, director of the National Centre for Science Education, said the anti-evolution movement had suffered a “stunning defeat” in December, when a federal court ruled that the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, could not mandate the teaching of intelligent design (ID), because it was a disguised way to introduce religion into the science curriculum.

“ID may be dead as a legal strategy but that does not mean it is dead as a popular social movement,” Ms Scott added. She predicted that creationists would find other ways to undermine the teaching of evolution, as well as the standard cosmological view of the universe and its history.

“The ultimate solution is better scientific literacy among the American people,” she said. “But we’d like the mainstream religions to do a better job making clear that evolution is consistent with their theology.”

One step in that direction is the Clergy Letter Project, run by Michael Zimmerman at the University of Wisconsin, which has gathered signatures from 10,000 Christian clergy in favour of teaching evolution. “All the fundamentalists seem to have ‘science envy’,” Prof Zimmerman said. “The clergy who have signed the letter are so much more confident in their religious beliefs.”

A leading Catholic scientist, George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory, took the opportunity to attack creationism. “The ID movement belittles God, making him seem too small and paltry,” he said. “God is not an engineer who designed the universe. He did not design me – He loves me.”

Prof Coyne conceded that the Catholic Church was divided on the issue. But he expected Pope Benedict to stick with the declaration made by his predecessor John Paul II that “the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis”.



--
Gives a little more creedence to Evolution Sunday.