>>The founders were Christian fanatics who were sick of >>having a religion in which they didn't believe shoved down >>their throats by the British government
As far as I understand it, they were more extreme than the Brits could tolerate. So, they had to leave the country so they could go as far as they wanted. They were of the same belief, but the goverment wanted a more moderate line from the Puritans. (Seem familiar!)
>>Unfortunately, there are already quite a few Christian >>beliefs insinuating themselves into the government (the >>statement that Jesus is America's god at W's inauguration, >>Ashcroft...).
The government obviously see fit to let the ball keep on that the founding fathers started rolling. Now I'll agree that there needs to be a more pluralistic approach when it comes to the embrace of religion for the nation, but at the start Jesus was America's God.
If we can say for arguments sake that wars are began for more than religion (more often for land) and that the religious right (Falwell and Robertson) have as much credibility as Jackson and Sharpton, what in *principle* is so unfortunate about having Christian influences on the law?
The whole legal system and Constitution is partially based on Christian ethics...has anyone drafted an alternate legal framework and constitution that gets rid of Christianity and is anymore constructive?
>>The point that I've now made twice is that the only faith >>getting any preference these days is Christianity.
The only brand of Christianity I see getting favouritism is that of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. The brand that talks about how disgusted it is about everything and how white-male Christians dare to even get out of bed in the morning. The Christianity of the PTL crowd is mocked, scorned and marginalized. The reason why Ashcroft is in is because he has a political track-record. If he went the way of Sharpton he wouldn't get off the blocks, likewise if Sharpton was a serious politician he wouldn't get off the blocks either.
>>none of them except Christianity have visible national
>>campaigns to overturn laws because of religious beliefs... >>I could go on and on.
But the victimized-left and the trendy-left have got people in public life who carry more clout than Pat Robertson. Do you think the majority of people who didn't vote this year will pay attention to Jerry Falwell or the know-nothing political witterings of Sharon Stone or Alec Baldwin? If Al Gore can stand in a black church and say all he did, surely the left-wing has enough of a voice to temper whatever comes from the religious right. On the subject of `visible national campaigns` the Christians have to get their laws past a gridlocked house...Louis Farrakhan has influence by mob-rule.
>>Spielberg makes entertainment. Ashcroft makes the laws for >>our entire nation.
As I've said "let me write the songs of a nation - I don't care who writes the law"
Richard
Re: quick response.... really this time
A
anonymous
(view)
>>The founders were Christian fanatics who were sick of >>having a religion in which they didn't believe shoved down >>their throats by the British government
As far as I understand it, they were more extreme than the Brits could tolerate. So, they had to leave the country so they could go as far as they wanted. They were of the same belief, but the goverment wanted a more moderate line from the Puritans. (Seem familiar!)
>>Unfortunately, there are already quite a few Christian >>beliefs insinuating themselves into the government (the >>statement that Jesus is America's god at W's inauguration, >>Ashcroft...).
The government obviously see fit to let the ball keep on that the founding fathers started rolling. Now I'll agree that there needs to be a more pluralistic approach when it comes to the embrace of religion for the nation, but at the start Jesus was America's God.
If we can say for arguments sake that wars are began for more than religion (more often for land) and that the religious right (Falwell and Robertson) have as much credibility as Jackson and Sharpton, what in *principle* is so unfortunate about having Christian influences on the law?
The whole legal system and Constitution is partially based on Christian ethics...has anyone drafted an alternate legal framework and constitution that gets rid of Christianity and is anymore constructive?
>>The point that I've now made twice is that the only faith >>getting any preference these days is Christianity.
The only brand of Christianity I see getting favouritism is that of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. The brand that talks about how disgusted it is about everything and how white-male Christians dare to even get out of bed in the morning. The Christianity of the PTL crowd is mocked, scorned and marginalized. The reason why Ashcroft is in is because he has a political track-record. If he went the way of Sharpton he wouldn't get off the blocks, likewise if Sharpton was a serious politician he wouldn't get off the blocks either.
>>none of them except Christianity have visible national
>>campaigns to overturn laws because of religious beliefs... >>I could go on and on.
But the victimized-left and the trendy-left have got people in public life who carry more clout than Pat Robertson. Do you think the majority of people who didn't vote this year will pay attention to Jerry Falwell or the know-nothing political witterings of Sharon Stone or Alec Baldwin? If Al Gore can stand in a black church and say all he did, surely the left-wing has enough of a voice to temper whatever comes from the religious right. On the subject of `visible national campaigns` the Christians have to get their laws past a gridlocked house...Louis Farrakhan has influence by mob-rule.
>>Spielberg makes entertainment. Ashcroft makes the laws for >>our entire nation.
As I've said "let me write the songs of a nation - I don't care who writes the law"
Richard
As far as I understand it, they were more extreme than the Brits could tolerate. So, they had to leave the country so they could go as far as they wanted. They were of the same belief, but the goverment wanted a more moderate line from the Puritans. (Seem familiar!)
>>Unfortunately, there are already quite a few Christian >>beliefs insinuating themselves into the government (the >>statement that Jesus is America's god at W's inauguration, >>Ashcroft...).
The government obviously see fit to let the ball keep on that the founding fathers started rolling. Now I'll agree that there needs to be a more pluralistic approach when it comes to the embrace of religion for the nation, but at the start Jesus was America's God.
If we can say for arguments sake that wars are began for more than religion (more often for land) and that the religious right (Falwell and Robertson) have as much credibility as Jackson and Sharpton, what in *principle* is so unfortunate about having Christian influences on the law?
The whole legal system and Constitution is partially based on Christian ethics...has anyone drafted an alternate legal framework and constitution that gets rid of Christianity and is anymore constructive?
>>The point that I've now made twice is that the only faith >>getting any preference these days is Christianity.
The only brand of Christianity I see getting favouritism is that of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. The brand that talks about how disgusted it is about everything and how white-male Christians dare to even get out of bed in the morning. The Christianity of the PTL crowd is mocked, scorned and marginalized. The reason why Ashcroft is in is because he has a political track-record. If he went the way of Sharpton he wouldn't get off the blocks, likewise if Sharpton was a serious politician he wouldn't get off the blocks either.
>>none of them except Christianity have visible national
>>campaigns to overturn laws because of religious beliefs... >>I could go on and on.
But the victimized-left and the trendy-left have got people in public life who carry more clout than Pat Robertson. Do you think the majority of people who didn't vote this year will pay attention to Jerry Falwell or the know-nothing political witterings of Sharon Stone or Alec Baldwin? If Al Gore can stand in a black church and say all he did, surely the left-wing has enough of a voice to temper whatever comes from the religious right. On the subject of `visible national campaigns` the Christians have to get their laws past a gridlocked house...Louis Farrakhan has influence by mob-rule.
>>Spielberg makes entertainment. Ashcroft makes the laws for >>our entire nation.
As I've said "let me write the songs of a nation - I don't care who writes the law"
Richard
