Danforth decries religious influence on GOP

the constitutional separation of church and state. Just by refusing to knuckle under to the Evangelical brigade who want religion in every part of American Life they are accused of being secular humanists with a malign agenda (I've seen Falwell and Pat Robertson say as much on TV). Their only agenda is to conduct their lives as they see fit without constant harrassment from people whose every move is dictated not by the bible but by who their pastor/minister is and what he told them from the pulpit on Sunday or from the TV screen everyday.

Rob Boyter

... why you voluntarily call yourself a member of the Catholic Church?

If we can't legislate against free will then why have laws at all Dave? Someone is writing those laws that legalize taking property from some Americans and giving it to others. That's by force. If you don't give over your property you get fined and even imprisoned. Assuming that anything that can have a religious component is legislating religion has gone way too far in squelching freedom of religion. You can find a church that has a position on many social issues ... and indeed you do rely on Christianity to tell others how the Christian thing to do is to support every manner of social welfare programs.

Evie

the url got cut off... its just to my post a few lines above this

http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-6142-0.html?forumID=50&threadID=96634&messageID=1108158

Add to these the stealing of free newspapers by all sorts of secular based groups on college campuses, simply due to the publishing of an article they disagree with. Denial of someone else's ability to speak in a public forum is another method to impose your beliefs...you're muzzling the competition.
And, as Evie has said, a lot of the issues painted as "Religious based" are not necessarily based upon religious views. I've had friends who were agnostics and athiests who were pro-life, yet every time someone confronted them about their beliefs they would call them religious zealots and such.

If I may, You are right there are people on both sides of everything that may act in a manner not considered normal but like the example you gave of Cornell, those people probably acted out like that because no one would pay any attention to their needs. They did not have the attention of the House of Representatives like the family of the Schiavo woman had, the congress would not make a special law or even listen to them. As silly as you and I(yes me to, I'm with you on that) think it is to protest the disection of animals for study. That group did not probably could not take it to the Supreme Court of the United States, so they did what they could to make their point. Is it right for some people to do that kind of stuff like steal newspapers, commit armed kaos, or stop you from going to your biology class? NO but none of those things get to the level of the Congress going into special session for them. I think that is the point of this post, it is pointing out that some secular groups are getting a disproportionate amount of power in this country, that disproportion comes from the congress and president favoring one side over the others because they throw their faith into their governing. The artical points to Conservative Christians as that secular group. It is not saying that other groups don't do stupid things to draw attention to the situation, or advance their cause. It is just saying that the other groups don't have anywhere near the amount of government to back them up.
I'm sure you are right about people automatically thinking "if you are pro-life it must be a religious conviction". I am at fault with those people, I would think that about a pro-life person simple because I have never met a religious person that wasn't pro-life, not one exception. I have never thought of it like an athiest that would be pro-life, of the athiests you know, are any of them fanatics, would they stand along a highway with a sign for their pro-life belief?

I don't remember the last time that Christian protesters vandalized an entire city, but I do remember environmentalists and others doing the same a couple times over the past 10 years.
Could you clarify this for me, I have never heard of this before?

The environmentalist comment... thats based upon multiple occurences of riots and damages done in cities hosting the World Trade Organization meetings over the past years. Primarily, the protesters were either environmentalists or anti-business. Smashed windows, looted buildings, assaults against the police, and general obnoxious behavior.
As for a pro-choice religious person, I am, with some exceptions. While I don't support the actual choice of aborting a fetus in the first 6 months, I do support the ability to choose.
As for cases going to the Supreme Court vs violent or stupid demonstrations, plenty of secular beliefs have been taken to the Supreme Court and/or Congress. Abortion, discrimination/affirmative action, the death penalty, all of these have been taken to the government by both sides in the past. I'd even say that attempting to act through the government, which was established to settle disputes and problems among citizens, is a more reasonable attempt than to overtly act oneself. Which is more arrogant... attempting to get a law changed (without any guarantee), or physically and violently imposing your beliefs on someone? I'm not saying that Christians haven't done that, but I am saying that they have not done it any more than any other group, religious or secular.

"I am at fault with those people, I would think that about a pro-life person simple because I have never met a religious person that wasn't pro-life, not one exception"

He states emphatically that he is a Christian and yet he supporst abortion. Think again, I would say DK is not alone in his beliefs.

My neighbor insists that you are not Christian unless you are born again. For instance he thinks that Catholics aren't Christian. I have never met a born again Christian that is pro-choice.
I should have stated that different, I'm sorry. I don't know if I can properly express what I mean when I say "A Religious Person", as a matter of fact I should probably quite using the phrase because no one knows what I mean. They take it to mean whatever their definition of a Christian is. For one, I believe that a Christian is a person that believes that God put Jesus, his only son, down on this earth to die on the cross, wash away our sins, raise again and show us the way to heaven. In my definition just believing that makes you a Christian. Unlike my neighbor, who thinks you have to go through the whole born again thing.
For two, using my definition of a Christian, you can be a Christian without being a "Religious" person. For example I consider myself a Christian, but not a "Religious person", my sister on the other hand IS a religious person, why is she different than me? Because she goes to church all the time, 2 or 3 times a week or more, Jesus or God comes up in half her conversations with you, she will not listen to or sing a song unless it is religious, all of her friends are from her church and they are more her family than her family is, she believes everything word for word that is preached to her by her pastor, she home schools her children because she thinks public schools aren't religious enough, her children make fun of other kids that they believe aren't Christian, she would not hesitate to stand beside a busy highway with her little kids at her side to protest abortion. She would go out of her way to do business with a person that is her definition of a Christian even if the "Non Christian" would give her a better deal. She would vote for someone because she thinks they are a Christian. If for some awful reason her daughter would become pregnant before marriage the first thing she would do is take her down to the Church to talk to the Elders about it. She would not hesitate to advance her religious cause through using local, state and federal government.
This is what I mean when I say "Religious", there are plenty of more examples I could give but you are probably a sleep already. Ok I have to tell you one more. My neighbors kids and their church friends numbered about 8 or 10 all summer long. They were calling my son a devil worshipper saying that if he wasn't with them he was against them. Putting him down because he didn't know(or so they thought) the 10 commandments. All because he didn't go to their church, he was 6 years old, he just wanted to play, he didn't even know what a devil worshipper was. He came in several times crying about the kids making fun of him. Finally my wife had enough and called the dad over to our driveway and told him about it, she was so mad she was crying, what did he say? He said "All the kids said to your son was that your son should read the bible more" then he said "We all should read the Bible more". I thought this man is very presumptious in thinking that he knows how much I read the bible or if I even read it at all, and what gives him the right to stand there and tell me that I should do anything religiously. Well he thinks he has that right because his church teaches him to go out and spread the word. The ends justify the means, it doesn't matter who's feelings you hurt as long as your turn them born again in the end.
My neighbor fits all the same criteria as my sister for being a religious person by my definition. But you know what, several months later he got thrown in jail for child abuse on his adopted child. What does he think about it? He thinks he's a martyr, because he thinks the bible tells him he should hit a child, she was a six year old little girl and he was a 6 foot 1 inch, 280 pound man and he thought he had the right to take a board to her because spare the rod spoil the child. Well she ended up with marks on her body and someone turned him in. This man professes to be a born again Christian and a very religious man. He believes that it doesn't matter what he does as long as he thinks he's going by his interpretation of the Bible. If it's for the good of the cause you do what you have to do whether it be discipline a child, tell your neighbor what to do or pass a law to outlaw abortion, if I have in my head that this will do Gods will then I should do it. No matter if other people like it or not.
My definition of a religious person includes my neighbor, Not that he's right but that he thinks he's right and that he thinks the bible tells him so. He will do what it takes, because he sincerely believes he has devine knowledge because he is interpreting the bible that way, and he sincerely believes that every person on earth should believe that way.
My neighbor and my sister are two very different people but they have a common thread, they think, no, they know that their religious beliefs are the only real beliefs, that anyone who believes something different than they do, even in a very small way, like Catholic's praying the Hail Mary, are totally wrong. There is no possible chance that people who have different views than them could be right because the "bible says so". This is my definition of the word "religious" it might not match your definition of the word and it for sure would not match my sisters or neighbors definition but it's what I mean when I say "A Religious Person".
So I stand by my statement when I say that I have never met a religious person that was pro-choice.
I can't speak for Dave K. as I don't know him, but I'm just guessing and he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that he is a Christian but he does not meet my definition of a "Religious Person".
If you have gotten to the end of this, thank you for staying awake that long. It's the only way I could define what I mean. I don't think anyone else should feel this way it's just how I feel and I didn't type it out to convince anyone to feel the way I do about "religious people", I just thought it might help people understand how come I feel this way. Thanks for listening.

There are people that are Christians and people that claim to be. What I believe is that not only do you have to believe that Christ died for your sins, but you have to accept his gift. Any one can believe what the Bible says but it is different to invite Christ into your heart. A Christian is not perfect, Just forgiven.

Your definition of a "Christian" is different than mine. Dave K. might be a "Christian" by his or my definition but not by yours. I'm not disputing that or calling you wrong, just saying we'll find out when our lifes are at an end, we don't KNOW now, we BELIEVE now.

As you say "I believe", and that's all we have is our faith. I respect that you have it as much as I have mine. That's what America is all about is being tolerent of people of different faith, that's kind of what the original post is about. But 9/10 of my post to which you replied was a reply to you about my definition of "religious people" who don't know the difference between KNOW and BELIEVE or KNOWING and HAVING FAITH IN.

That was a long one paragraph post.

Could you please put a blank line between paragraphs to make it easier to read? Sorry, but I stopped reading after a while.

DE

don't know if I will be posting here again. I will be leaving soon. Have a good life, remember to always keep your mind open.

OK, first off, I am a born-again Christian and I am pro-choice. I also know a lot of others.

Now a definition of born-again. Catholics can be born-again but they don't call it that. It comes from Jesus' reply to Nicodemus in John 3:3 In reply Jesus declared, ?I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.

What this means is informed consent. A baby cannot make this informed consent. A person must consent to not just believe in God and Jesus (even Satan does that), this person must accept both in his/her heart and try to follow Christ. This means that Catholics can decide to follow Christ but they don't get a special dispensation by being sprinkled when they are babies.

Now as to your religious people. Remember that Jesus deplored the Pharisees who thought they were so holy. He called them tombs - whitewashed on the outside and filled with dead men's bones.

Self-righteous people don't impress me either. I go to church as much as possible - at least once a week and as much as three times (haven't been able to do that lately because of work). I go because I like the people and I love to learn about the Bible and that time in history. I don't always agree with the preacher and we've had some interesting debates.

My kids weren't home-schooled but they both are bright and have questioning minds (which didn't always sit well with their teachers). I've always said that I wanted to teach them a healty scepticism. I think they have that.

I think you have taken the stereotype of the strict Christian and painted all Christians that go to church on a regular basis with this broad brush. It isn't true.

Jesus did say that Christians should gather together to encourage one another. You might have to look for the group of Christians that will know all your warts and love you anyway.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

I thought all the republican thought that the democrats were the devils concubines. Don't they?

we've been talking about here. Certainly that is what Danforths column is about, and Karl Rove is the architect of that blending of Religious Conservatism and Republicanism. I thought it fairly obvious.

Rob Boyter