What if the Christian right ruled?

1. 0

   Sooner28posted 9 years ago

   Well, one thing we know:
   
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/1 … mg00000051
   
   Putin is right!?!?!?  According to Graham, "“In my opinion, Putin is right on these issues. Obviously, he may be wrong about many things, but he has taken a stand to protect his nation’s children from the damaging effects of any gay and lesbian agenda.”
   
   Graham doesn't say much about Uganda.  One wonders exactly how far his views go on the rights of gay people..
   
   The Christian right also takes a very anti-scientific perspective, running every belief through the Bible first, rather than engaging in independent, rational analysis.
   
   Graham adds, "“Our president and his attorney general have turned their backs on God and His standards, and many in the Congress are following the administration’s lead. This is shameful.”
   
   This leads me to believe that Graham doesn't believe in a separation of Church and State.  Does Graham want Christianity to be the only legal religion in the United States?  For all laws to be based on "God and His standards?"  The man seems to try and have it both ways, trying to appear rational and at the same time as a totalitarian theocrat.
   
   The world is changing though, and the Christian right's influence is very much declined.  I don't believe we shouldn't treat these people as rational seekers of truth anymore than we would treat an Imam in Iran who calls for the death of American infidels.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      There is a similarity between the radical intepretation of Islam and Christian Right.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Motown2Chitownposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         There is truth in this statement, but you do realize that Putin is neither?

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Most certainly, I know that Putin is the apparatchik's apparachiK, a ruthless former KGB thug, but that does not excuse Graham for making this kind of statement which  is irrelevant to the issue.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Motown2Chitownposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               I suppose that's true...but do we have a reason to be concerned that Franklin Graham will be running for president anytime soon?  Or that we will be facing a radical Christian right-winger in the White House?  Franklin Graham said what he said as a religious leader. I may disagree with it, but he is in no way a ruler in America, and not likely to seek such distinction.  Just my take on it.

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Motown, I never worried much about the possibility of a hard right take over. I guess Franklin can run as a candidate but he will only attract those on extreme right and that is not enough to win elections. After the pasting the GOP took in November, 2012, a lesson learned is that running a candidate whose ideology is closer to the center will provide a better chance of success.
                  That is what I think anyway......

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Motown2Chitownposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     That's my take on it too. 

                     replyreport
               2. 0

                  Sooner28posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Okay, so if a Muslim cleric claims all women in the United States who leave their homes without their husbands should be beaten, it doesn't matter that much because he will never be president?  I don't understand why that even matters.  The point is that if these Christian right people did have their way, they would turn the United States into the conservative Christian version of Iran or Saudia Arabia.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Motown2Chitownposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     The point is that IF....
                     
                     That's pretty much what I'm saying, Sooner.  A Muslim/Jewish/Christian or whatever cleric can claim, think, suggest, endorse pretty much whatever they want to.  At the end of the day, if they are never in a position to make the LAW they need not answer to you, me, or anyone else.  At least here, in the US, a person must still obey secular law, and there are repercussions if they choose not to do so.  Like has been said already, it's not terribly likely that the Radical Right will ever be in a position to make the laws.  And our right to represent ourselves in the process is what helps to ensure that won't be the case.

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        I wouldn't classify gay marriage bans as secular law...
                        
                        Technically, and required by law, it is secular because of separation of church and state rules, but we all know and understand where that particular bit of legalese comes from.
                        
                        Nor is it alone.  Sunday blue laws are another case in point, as are pornography and prostitution bans.  A great many of our laws stem from religious organizations, and some are far out of date with secular thinking now.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Motown2Chitownposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           Agreed.  But we should be more concerned then, IMO, about changing what is wrong with secular law-especially in terms of what's secular should be JUST that.  For example, a non Catholic is not expected to obey canon law.  A person without faith should not be expected to obey a law that is in place at the behest of religious authorities-to a point. 
                           
                           Sadly, secular law is much like scripture in that it is interpreted literally or liberally...and there's that damn word again-interpretation.

                           replyreport
                           1. 95

                              wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Sharia law is fine, and can be enforced by Muslim "courts" - as long is it does not conflict with the secular laws of the nation.  So it is with "Christian law" as well; let the church enforce their private rules as long as they do not conflict with the laws of the land. 
                              
                              But neither set of beliefs, nor those of any other religious system, should be used to create OR enforce the laws of the land; just as you say, non-believers should not be held to faith based laws.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 Motown2Chitownposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 I don't find a thing in that post to disagree with.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 95

                                    wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    Better not - it was written to agree with you, just expand a little!

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       Motown2Chitownposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       We probably think more alike than we realize.
                                       
                                       Oh no!  Maybe the apocalypse is closer than we know!

                                       report
      2. 88

         GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Regarding real activities, and not Bible vs Qur'an debates - what is the radical similarity you see that is actually occurring?
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Of course there are not Jihads and such, but any group that believes that there should be preeminence of religious principles in a society based on secular law, and that is the religious right, is caue for concern. So listening to Franklin, what did you pick up, as a sterling example of this group, what impression did you get on his and his groups desire to accommodate in a pluralistic society? So, there lies the threat.... I guess for us lefties, intolerance is always where the similarity begins

            replyreport
            1. 60

               tirelesstravelerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Do Christians really believe their religion should be the only religion, or do they believe there is only one way to God, which is available to anyone who will accept it.  Most Christians believe they have something valuable and want to share it.  If you want to substitute "Religious" in place of "Christians"  I will agree far more with you.  Throughout the rest of the world believers are leaving the name Christian behind, because it has a negative American stigma.

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  I hear you, tireless, I concur. There is nothing wrong with Christians and their beliefs and I subscribe to them. I attack those Christians that believe that Christianity should be the dominant faith in America, not allowing for the possibility that other faiths and beliefs could be just as valid, since until Jehovah's return to set it all straight, the atheist has just as much justification as Franklin Graham.
                  
                  As a progressive, for me this is a fundamental truth.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     But there is a fundamental "wrong" with the far right Christians, that being the belief that God has authorized/told them to forcibly evangelize via either the legal or school systems.  Either one is intolerable and give rise to the very thing you indicate you attack.

                     replyreport
                     1. 79

                        Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        I cannot agree more.  I find the attitude arrogant, self righteous, contrary to what true Christianity is supposed to be about.

                        replyreport
                     2. 60

                        tirelesstravelerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Still say the problem is with the far right religious.

                        replyreport
            2. 88

               GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Why does it always take a little poke to get you to say what you really mean?
               
               This response casts a completely different light than your "...There is a similarity between the radical intepretation of Islam and Christian Right." [my emphasis]
               
               ... and is much more accurate also. There definitely is the similarity of intolerance. But that certainly isn't the impression created by using "radical Islam."
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  I never said that they were 'the same'. But seeds of what makes radical islam dangerous is found in radical right Christian belief, I don't see what you are fishing for this time. There is a similarity even if it is not direct and obvious. Compelling people to adhere to their belief systems outside of their choice is a problem. If the rads had their choice would they more offensive  if they could operate in a system other than ours with its checks and balances?  Ain't nothing purple about that, this is pure red.

                  replyreport
                  1. 88

                     GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Not fishing anymore... caught the clarification I was casting for.
                     
                     If it is the religious right you are calling pure red - I'll give you witness. I suspect there is more than a bit of purple in Christianity, but as you said... probably not in the "religious right" seating sections.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 79

                        Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        The thing about it, is that Christianity need not be purple at all. It is possible to be Christian and blue, You just avoid proselytizing and beating people over the head with your beliefs using, instead, your good example to move others to action. Your personal beliefs and values need not be something that you want to impose on others. That's the difference.

                        replyreport
   2. 72

      rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The black and white choices that are presented in Christian Right issues and especially with regards to gay acceptance are less than adequate in their execution. Is it the right of an individual to profess his or her sexuality without fear of retribution by others? Absolutely! Is it fair that it would take place in an inappropriate time and place? Perhaps not! So what is the answer? I was in a Saint Patrick's day parade in Baltimore and a group who were not officially in the parade walked down the street before the parade started and clearly let it be known that they were gay and love is great with placards. I don't know if they were not permitted to march in the parade or not but it was unsettling and confusing that it should take place in this festive occasion. Now just by saying that it sounds good and on the up and up. But I had to wonder how the parents of the small children that were there were explaining this to their children. Is it fair that the sexuality of another has to be explained to another who clearly is too young to comprehend what their message means? Especially up until that point was not a question in the child's life? Once again I am speaking as an uninformed spectator but on an equal level of understanding as many of the parents of young children that were there.

      replyreport
2. 60

   tirelesstravelerposted 9 years ago

   Yesterday I watched a crime committed. Until a couple of years ago it wouldn't' have been a crime. All of you would say,"Really who would call that a crime", then laugh . My point is Christians follow the laws. Few  take laws seriously until it suits their agenda.  A law for you is not always one for me. I suspect this is Mr. Putin's point.  Americans no longer have any unity.  The world is laughing at us.  We have more laws nobody takes seriously, no unity, nothing we really believe is worth fighting for except making sure our favorite group is in power.  Once they are in power. Yahoo! Put the screws on anyone who isn't like us.  Live like royality.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sooner28posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Valid points.

      replyreport