PDA

View Full Version : Democrats hate christians, huh?....


Qdrop
04-15-2005, 09:32 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/politics/15judges.html?hp&ex=1113624000&en=0b42a55582cd9ab5&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Frist Set to Use Religious Stage on Judicial Issue
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

Published: April 15, 2005

WASHINGTON, April 14 - As the Senate heads toward a showdown over the rules governing judicial confirmations, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, has agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a telecast portraying Democrats as "against people of faith" for blocking President Bush's nominees.

Fliers for the telecast, organized by the Family Research Council and scheduled to originate at a Kentucky megachurch the evening of April 24, call the day "Justice Sunday" and depict a young man holding a Bible in one hand and a gavel in the other. The flier does not name participants, but under the heading "the filibuster against people of faith," it reads: "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith."

Organizers say they hope to reach more than a million people by distributing the telecast to churches around the country, over the Internet and over Christian television and radio networks and stations.

Dr. Frist's spokesman said the senator's speech in the telecast would reflect his previous remarks on judicial appointments. In the past he has consistently balanced a determination "not to yield" on the president's nominees with appeals to the Democrats for compromise. He has distanced himself from the statements of others like the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, who have attacked the courts, saying they are too liberal, "run amok" or are hostile to Christianity.

The telecast, however, will put Dr. Frist in a very different context. Asked about Dr. Frist's participation in an event describing the filibuster "as against people of faith," his spokesman, Bob Stevenson, did not answer the question directly.

"Senator Frist is doing everything he can to ensure judicial nominees are treated fairly and that every senator has the opportunity to give the president their advice and consent through an up or down vote," Mr. Stevenson said, adding, "He has spoken to groups all across the nation to press that point, and as long as a minority of Democrats continue to block a vote, he will continue to do so."

Some of the nation's most influential evangelical Protestants are participating in the teleconference in Louisville, including Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; Chuck Colson, the born-again Watergate figure and founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries; and Dr. Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

The event is taking place as Democrats and Republicans alike are escalating their public relations campaigns in anticipation of an imminent confrontation. The Democratic minority has blocked confirmation of 10 of President Bush's judicial nominees by preventing Republicans from gaining the 60 votes needed to close debate, using the filibuster tactic often used by political minorities and most notoriously employed by opponents of civil rights.

Dr. Frist has threatened that the Republican majority might change the rules to require only a majority vote on nominees, and Democrats have vowed to bring Senate business to a standstill if he does.

On Thursday, one wavering Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona, told a television interviewer, Chris Matthews, that he would vote against the change.

"By the way, when Bill Clinton was president, we, effectively, in the Judiciary Committee blocked a number of his nominees," Mr. McCain said.

On Thursday the Judiciary Committee sent the nomination of Thomas B. Griffith for an appellate court post to the Senate floor. Democrats say they do not intend to block Mr. Griffith's nomination.

That cleared the way for the committee to approve several previously blocked judicial appointees in the next two weeks.

The telecast also signals an escalation of the campaign for the rule change by Christian conservatives who see the current court battle as the climax of a 30-year culture war, a chance to reverse decades of legal decisions about abortion, religion in public life, gay rights and marriage.

"As the liberal, anti-Christian dogma of the left has been repudiated in almost every recent election, the courts have become the last great bastion for liberalism," Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and organizer of the telecast, wrote in a message on the group's Web site. "For years activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups like the A.C.L.U., have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms."

Democrats accused Dr. Frist of exploiting religious faith for political ends by joining the telecast. "No party has a monopoly on faith, and for Senator Frist to participate in this kind of telecast just throws more oil on the partisan flames," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York.

But Mr. Perkins stood by the characterization of Democrats as hostile to faith. "What they have done is, they have targeted people for reasons of their faith or moral position," he said, referring to Democratic criticisms of nominees over their views of cases about abortion rights or public religious expressions.

"The issue of the judiciary is really something that has been veiled by this 'judicial mystique' so our folks don't really understand it, but they are beginning to connect the dots," Mr. Perkins said in an interview, reciting a string of court decisions about prayer or displays of religion.

"They were all brought about by the courts," he said.

Democrats, for their part, are already stepping up their efforts to link Dr. Frist and the rule change with conservatives statements about unaccountable judges hostile to faith.

On Thursday, Mr. Schumer released an open letter calling on Dr. Frist to denounce such attacks. "The last thing we need is inflammatory rhetoric which on its face encourages violence against judges," he wrote.

----------------
take head, people....
"...the climax of a 30-year culture war, a chance to reverse decades of legal decisions about abortion, religion in public life, gay rights and marriage.

this if fuckin huge....

Echewta
04-15-2005, 09:41 AM
The Dem. Senate minority leader talks in Newsweek about standing back and watching the Republican party take itself out. He's right in some ways.

checkyourprez
04-15-2005, 11:36 AM
i dont get where conservatives and evangelocalists (sp?) get off with this shit. our country was founded on the fact that religion should have no part in anything.

it needs to be made clear to these people their bibles should be checked at the door.

Jasonik
04-15-2005, 12:43 PM
our country was founded on the fact that religion should have no part in anything. (emphasis added)

:confused: What country was founded in opposition to the existence of religion?

racer5.0stang
04-15-2005, 01:26 PM
i dont get where conservatives and evangelocalists (sp?) get off with this shit. our country was founded on the fact that religion should have no part in anything.

it needs to be made clear to these people their bibles should be checked at the door.

This country (U.S.A) was founded as a country that was not controlled by the church.

Just because the President is open about his beliefs is neither here nor there.

Why shouldn't politicians be able to voice their own personal beliefs? They have as much right to do so as the common man. Or is it because his or her beliefs do not agree with yours so he or she should keep silent?

Ace42
04-15-2005, 01:30 PM
Why shouldn't politicians be able to voice their own personal beliefs?

Straw man. Voicing their beliefs is one thing, legislating them is quite another.

By your argument, in a politician thought that 12 year old girls are kinda hot, he would be totally entitled to push through lowering the age of consent by any means he deems necessary.

racer5.0stang
04-15-2005, 01:35 PM
Straw man. Voicing their beliefs is one thing, legislating them is quite another.

By your argument, in a politician thought that 12 year old girls are kinda hot, he would be totally entitled to push through lowering the age of consent by any means he deems necessary.

Everyone has their own agenda.

Besides that wouldn't happen anyways, T.V. shows like Maury wouldn't have anything to talk about.

I totally agree though (that makes two times), just because the President is a Christian, he should not force everyone else to be.

It is a choice.

catatonic
04-15-2005, 01:48 PM
good one.

I'm just grateful as punch that Democrats can do something about this, threaten to bring Congress to a standstill.

Democrats already lost Congress, as I've mentioned, to Tom Delay illegally getting elected and then changing the boundary of Texas to get all 6 of the gained seats in that state. But what can you do if someone gets illegally elected? They never do anything because it's so common for there to be dirty politcs. IMO, the 1984 and 2004 elections were won by filthy politics and the 2000 election wasn't won. The Bible codes for Al Gore even said, "Maybe he'll win" if you believe those (they did a great show about them on the history channel). Now they want to steal he judicial system too? "Those who want total control, always lose control." That's my rambling.

I guess the Bible codes aren't legitimate scientifically, but it sure is fun to see everything predicted in them.

Qdrop
04-15-2005, 01:58 PM
I guess the Bible codes aren't legitimate scientifically, but it sure is fun to see everything predicted in them.

you see what you want to see.....

just like "cold reading" with hacks like John Edwards and the lot....

EN[i]GMA
04-15-2005, 02:07 PM
http://www.independentnation.org/

Qdrop
04-15-2005, 02:15 PM
GMA']http://www.independentnation.org/

yeah, i ordered this book already.
i have like 5 books to read ahead of it, though.

catatonic
04-15-2005, 02:27 PM
Yes I see what you mean about John Edwards.
http://www.re-quest.net/entertainment/movies-and-tv/tv/john-edward/

I don't really understand the Bible codes, although they seem to be a horse of a different color in my experience. Shakespeare, has next to his name the improbable "Hamlet" and "Othello". All the major names and events seem to have similar stories or even much better. All the Rabbis have their dates next to them. They tried using it to predict the future sucessfully. A rabbi had "assassin will assassinate" and so they put extra body guards by him, and he was assassinated anyway. But they're not scientific.

I'm just grateful Democrats have a means to threaten against the nuclear option.

D_Raay
04-15-2005, 02:33 PM
This country (U.S.A) was founded as a country that was not controlled by the church.

Just because the President is open about his beliefs is neither here nor there.

Why shouldn't politicians be able to voice their own personal beliefs? They have as much right to do so as the common man. Or is it because his or her beliefs do not agree with yours so he or she should keep silent?
You can't be serious. I'll tell you. Because he was elected as the leader of this WHOLE country, not just the christians. He has a responsibility to take every individual into account. We don't elect politicians to tell us what their personal religuous beliefs may be. This country was founded on the idea of separation of church and state. There is no debating that. What's happening now is reminscent of Nazi Germany.

EN[i]GMA
04-15-2005, 02:39 PM
yeah, i ordered this book already.
i have like 5 books to read ahead of it, though.

I think it's a pretty good book.

If we had anyone like the people he layed out, to vote for, I would vote for them.

catatonic
04-15-2005, 02:46 PM
I think politicians have the right to speak out about their religious beliefs. Bill Clinton said Democrats should share their convictions more. It's when they legislate about one particular Church or synagogue that it's against separation of Church and State, that's my understanding.

Schmeltz
04-15-2005, 03:35 PM
I think that politicians should have no right to voice their personal beliefs or implement personal agendas in their legislation. These people were elected to represent the voters, not as a means of pushing their personal opinions - to speak with the voices of their constituents, not with their own voices. When politicians take office, they sacrifice their personal rights in the name of those of the comman man, and they should do their jobs while looking over their shouders at the people, deathly afraid of doing something to piss them off, not pushing this Dark Age fanaticism on the public.

Ah well. Enjoy your regressive, illiberal theocracy.

P.S. the Bible Code is stupid bullshit, so don't worry about understanding it.

Echewta
04-15-2005, 04:43 PM
The Bible Code :rolleyes:

yeahwho
04-15-2005, 05:20 PM
Since the judiciary is the only branch of government constitutionally committed to the exercise of reason, I can understand why the "faith-based," pharisaical con men in Congress and the White House find the courts so offensive.

Reason. Reason. Reason.

catatonic
04-15-2005, 11:44 PM
Some of you have kind of showed by your remarks that Democrats are intolerant to Christians, even if many Christians are Democrat. I went to Christianforums.com and it seems like half of those Christians who bothered to say what they were were Democrats, so why do you want to disassociate from your own base?

checkyourprez
04-16-2005, 12:08 AM
Some of you have kind of showed by your remarks that Democrats are intolerant to Christians, even if many Christians are Democrat. I went to Christianforums.com and it seems like half of those Christians who bothered to say what they were were Democrats, so why do you want to disassociate from your own base?


because they recognize the need for it to be disassociated. do whatever you want in private where it only affects yourself and family. but in a setting where it affects the whole country or parts of it they do no have the right to bring their personal beliefs on faith into the equation. just because it should not be in their doesnt make them anti christian or religion. there are no laws banning certain religions or things of that nature. its a 2 way street in that regaurd.

yeahwho
04-16-2005, 12:43 AM
Some of you have kind of showed by your remarks that Democrats are intolerant to Christians, even if many Christians are Democrat. I went to Christianforums.com and it seems like half of those Christians who bothered to say what they were were Democrats, so why do you want to disassociate from your own base?

You know I sometimes wonder if me saying if I'm a Christian or not would make any difference to how I act as a human? I don't need a politician to coddle my ass and say shit like "I'm a Bible reading maniac", "I'm an upstanding member of my church", WTF is that going to do for my taxes? Are we fighting Satan or was that an opposition group which very much opposes military bases from our country on their soil? Is there a war against gay marriage and abortion, are we helpless?

There are certain boundaries that GWB's so called "Political Capital" should come to an abrupt halt....one of these for certain is the appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court of the USA. This is the land of the free, not of the Christian Fundalmentalists ideals..which are far from being honest and open-minded. The Court is an independent body of these assclowns and should always be. I've already written along with everyone I know to stop Frist and his agenda.

BTW, I am the Christian the Devil warned you about.

Not a one of these sick fucks gives a shit about Native American Spiritualism. Anti-Christian my ass.

catatonic
04-16-2005, 12:08 PM
I e-mailed Senator Frist.

I also care about Native American Spirituality and think the Christians who don't are selfish and immature. I like how they care for the earth and believe Cherokee religion is very similar to and probably is Mormonism (turn the sound off http://ldscherokeefamily.homestead.com/ ).

Maybe you want to take away freedom of speech for religious politicians because you feel threatened. I say don't worry about just the speech, because there are plenty of misguided Christian speakers who lead people away from Christianity just like some atheists detract from their view. Anyway it's a first ammendment right so there's really nothing you can do.

Good news for you - the Constitution says there can be no religious test to appoint judges or anyone else in the government.

But trying to get gays married is absolutely futile. I can't think of a dumber way for a Democrat to use their free speech than to say anything past civil unions. America is so polarized against gay marriage that if any Democrat tries to convert almost any Republican and talks about gay marriage he will immediately lose the point. Gay marriage and abortion lost us the last election (as well as the swift boat ads). The fact is we can't have gay marriage and we can't fund abortions because if we try we will be guaranteed to lose the election. We should choose our battles a lot more carefully than that.

And just as I can't shut up Democrats about gay marriage and funding abortions, which will cost them every election until they do learn to shut up about it, you can't do anything to shut up Christians about talking about their faith, and if they say something dumb it hurts them.

But judges- the constitution says there can be no religious test for judges, so this will just make them look dumb.

yeahwho
04-16-2005, 01:41 PM
I e-mailed Senator Frist.

Maybe you want to take away freedom of speech for religious politicians because you feel threatened.

But judges- the constitution says there can be no religious test for judges, so this will just make them look dumb.

catatonic, that is so cool that you actually e-mailed Frist. (y)

I do not want to take away free speech or religious freedom. GWB is exploiting what is already there for Christians as if he invented it. Democrats Al Gore and Bill Bradley also indicated support for faith-based initiatives in their unsuccessful 2000 presidential bids.

Bush has pushed the issue steadfastly. "Compassionate conservatism" was a key theme of his 2000 presidential campaign. Just nine days after assuming the presidency he issued an executive order creating his White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. In 2001, he gave seven speeches on the faith-based theme in 17 days. He's given dozen of addresses on the topic; he's mentioned it in every State of the Union address.

In a major speech March 1, 2005, Bush reiterated his commitment and urged Congress to pass legislation allowing religious charities to hire and fire based on religious beliefs even while receiving federal funding.

But diversion of funding to faith-based efforts automatically raises suspicions of penalizing sectarian groups already doing a good job. It may even co-opt churches that get funded, silencing criticism of the administration.

I am much more into exposing what I see as a wrong by this administration than promote a Democratic candidate, Bush is the worst President we've ever had as far as I and millions of other citizens are concerned. Let the democrats do whatever they want to do, I'll probably not go back unless they find a candidate that can make the rubber hit the road. The fact that Swiftboats was a lie and became a National Bestseller tells me the Democratic Party is fucked, royally!

I believe Bush is promoting "Empire Religion" which uses God to justify political policies and maintain power, an idolatry of power in the name of Jesus that is destructive of everything Jesus was about.

But even if one respects the president's motives, the faith-based initiative has one huge flaw: it's likely to end up as tactic, not goal, in a rigidly conservative administration that just, "loves the poor and downtrodden"
it co-opt's churches that get funded, silencing criticism of the administration. It is a political ploy of the lowest form if you ask me.

This administration has quietly dumped its proposed $85 billion tax break to stimulate charitable giving, once a linchpin of its compassionate conservative agenda.

catatonic, I'm not arguing with you...I understand the 1st amendment and how judges are appointed. I also understand manipulation and how trying to stop the filibusters during this process is hurting our Country. That is the case I present.

SobaViolence
04-16-2005, 06:56 PM
United States of America: Christianity's answer to Saudi Arabia.

honestly, blue states should seceed.

ASsman
04-16-2005, 07:02 PM
(n)

catatonic
04-16-2005, 09:49 PM
I actually completely agree with you, yeahwho, except that the Democrats are in severe trouble. I've seen quite a few handy victories by Democrats in 2005, often requiring the utmost creativity.

United States of America: Christianity's answer to Saudi Arabia.

honestly, blue states should seceed.

According to John Titor the self-proclaimed time traveler, there will be a civil war starting this year; my guess is if they try to invade Iran in June this will happen.

D_Raay
04-17-2005, 03:19 AM
"Compassionate conservatism"
I don't know what that is... Volvo with a gun rack?

yeahwho
04-17-2005, 02:10 PM
That term, "Compassionate conservatism" was coined by none other than Michael Savage (http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/mikeinfo.html) of Savage Nation.........his bio states,

In show, books and speeches, Michael Savage electrifies and galvanizes his audiences. If you’re looking for someone with an opinion-- who isn’t afraid to tell it like it is-- he’s your man.

This is the kind alturistic fellow who came up with that term. He's a real charmer.