Carter had the advantage of being more honestly religious than Ford or Reagan. I’d suspect that someone whose religious credentials were bulletproof might get away with it better than someone else.
I agree. I was originally going to add that to my post, but just decided to concentrate on the natioinal issue. BTW, MA is already there.
Not on your life. It won’t be until a majority of states have SSM that this even becomes a possibility. And we’re a long, long way from that.
That’s a statement that is both impossible to prove, and largely besides the point. What many people want is simply an activist judge who rules in their favor. While I definitely believe there is such a thing as an activist judge, most people don’t really know what that means. Including Bush. Note that he keeps saying he’ll nominate (what he calls) strict constructionists. And notice how many justices he nominates describe themselves thusly-- about 0. He called Roberts a “strict constructionist” during his press conference and I’m sure Roberts cringed.
Well the Court recently overturned Bowers so I think its safe to say that they take a dim view of the State’s interest in homosexual behavior. At this point though the argument is moot becuase in 10 years at least two of those that voted to overturn in that case will be gone (O’Connor is retiring and Stevens is 85). Even still I would be suprised if a Court ruled in the future that “defending” marriage counts as valid public policy. If it does then we might as well delete the Full Faith and Credit Clause from the constitution becuase it will be meaningless.
Most of my differences with the Religious Right is more degrees of policy, than substance of policy.
I want to emphasize regulating/discouraging abortion & encouraging adoption, more than banning it.
I believe the Constitution at least implies a right to privacy & a free market for birth control- I do not believe that right extends to abortion.
I definitely do not want to criminalize homosexuality, any more than I want Gov’t policy to normalize it. I have little-to-no problem with gay civil unions.
Other than child & bestiality & rape porn, I don’t think the Gov’t (especially Fed) has much business going after porn.
Oh- and I think Pat Robertson should go to Venezuela, apologize to Hugo Chavez & try to assure him that the evangelical/missionary groups there should not be blamed for his asshattery.
(That said, I think the US should also keep a close eye on HC just in case.)
Truthfully, it would be easier if you named the policy & I responded.
I think Ford made a serious policy gaffe regarding Poland and its Solidarity movement in an interview or debate or something and that seriously hurt also.
I think Pat Robertson should face stinging rebuke from our government, as political assassination is not U.S. policy. Evangelical/Missionary groups certainly can be blamed for his asshattery as long as he remains a recognized leader of their movement.
Hugo Chavez makes several serious and pointed criticisms of U.S. foreign policy that aren’t always evenly reported here. He has also made genuine offers of support for the poor of this country, especially in the wake of Katrina. He rightly identifies the DEA as a spy agency and I am pleased he has ended cooperation with them.
Why is it he needs to be watched? Because Pat Robertson says so? ^_*
Am I the only one who finds coming out against religious participation in politics to be of the same cloth as religious fundamentalists clamouring for a theocracy?
Erek
Cuz he’s a commie gawduggit!
No way! We totally beat the commies!
I think the term needs to be carefully and precisely defined and understood. I think you were in the other thread where the Aussie bloke seemed to insist that secularism was trying to discount the opinions and feelings of anyone with religious beliefs. That’s not the point.
To me the religious participation that should be protested is that which tries to enforce or impose a law based solely on some religious belief.
Such as “Gay marriage is immoral because God said so in the Bible.” If you want to argue the pluses and minuses of a law then fine, but what a 2000 year old book says in one or two passages shouldn’t have any weight in the arguement.
Especially considering others who read the same book don’t agree.
People with religious backgrounds are equal citizens and as such have equal rights. Thier vote counts as much as anyone elses. They do need to understand that being in the majority doesn’t give you the right to do whatever you want. In this country there is a moral obligation to defend the rights of the minority.
a kind of “Whatever you do unto the least of these you do unto yourself” principle. Ironic huh?
Sorry, I wasn’t aware that Evangelical/Missionary groups were a monolithic movement of which Pat was an official leader.
Oh- and maybe I was imagining the resounding denunciations of Pat’s call for icing Chavez from all many of U.S. Evangelical groups & Venezuelan missionaries.
And gee, maybe I hallucinated the footage of Hugo meeting & speaking supportingly of Castro & various Islamist officials, and also his gradual stifling of dissent on Venezuelan broadcasting & political opposition.
Stifling of dissent! Why that should make him the ally of our administration not the enemy! I think they have more in common than they might realize if they’d just sit down and talk to one another.
Erek
The irony I find most often is that American colloquial morality is VERY christian based. I’m tired of seeing the invective fired off at all christians based on Pat Robertson and co… who in my opinion is getting it flat out wrong.
You might be able to find some specious biblical quote to support an idea of sin, but the thing about Jesus was that he hung out with the sinners, he was buddies with them, he had a message where he said one should help a sinner up from their lowly place. Regardless of whether or not that bigotry can be biblically justified, the way they act is in direct contradiction to Christ’s teachings, and it’s important that people understand that.
Erek
Not that I’m saying all world leaders shouldn’t be watched, but the vilification of Chavez just because he criticizes us is really disappointing.
I never implied the Evangelical/Missionary movement was a rigid top-down structure with Robertson as autarch. However, lots of people watch his show and take him seriously. They look up to him and his views are respected within that community. And he has used this pulpit to spread hate. Whether he gives an apology as demanded or not, he let the cat out of the bag.
The U.S. official denunciations for Pat’s statement were rather weak and did not come from anywhere near enough to the top of government. If I recall they basically said “Killing leaders is not our policy and Robertson does not represent the wishes or desires of this administration.” That’s a bit different from a true denunciation.
I don’t see what’s so significant about his meeting with Castro or Islamist officials. The U.S. stance on Cuba is not shared by the world and the amount of military materiel Castro stole during the revolution pales in comparison to what other kleptocrats internationally and stateside have done to us. The amount of damage our internationally protested embargo has done is also in excess of what Castro “did to us.”
Everybody engages in the dissent of political opposition. Everybody. Even the White House.
The idea of labeling certain countries or their leaders as “evil” or as “enemies” is completely assinine. The only thing more assinine is refusing to talk to them.
errr… stifling of political opposition.
No, theocracies wish to impose their religion and beliefs on everyone while generally those that want religion out of government want that for the purpose of allowing everyone to live as they please. Of course that is a gross oversimplification but as a rule theocracies seek to elminate freedoms while secularists don’t.
I disagree that it is not an appropriate denunciation of Robertson. For one thing, it hurts Robertson’s power base to have an administration spokesman say straight up that he’s not the country’s representative. When the world is the world that revolves directly around you, then a denunciation by the whitehouse at any level if pretty heavy. Also, you don’t know if someone called him up personally and asked him to shut his fucking yap. They wanted to chastise him, not alienate him. Also, it’s not the government’s job to go around apologizing for every fool that says something extreme. I would never expect a Democratic president to apologize for something Michael Moore said. And last, I think people seriously overestimate the power of the religious right in this country. They are a very powerful lobbying group, there are a lot of members who can vote, but they don’t decide policy.
Erek
Considering that the vast majority of people in this country ARE religious, how would you go about removing them from the political process without alienating them? I mean in a way that allows everyone to live as they please of course.
Erek
Well, the way I see it is, the world at large sees Bush as being in the thrall of his religious base. Events like the Miers withdrawal [subsequent to the damage this base did to the nomination itself] only go to support this view.
The administration said something axiomatic in saying Robertson isn’t one of them. He is publicly known to be a private citizen but his influence is still considerable. His vilification of Chavez was left to stand and it can be said the administration did not take adequate steps to ameliorate the damage done.
Consider this exerpt from the Washington Times:
Being religious does not make a person a theocrat. Irrespective of that point since the vast majority of people are religious I harbor no illusions that religion will ever be removed from government action. That certainly does not make the confluence of religion and government in this country right but it is the fact of life in America.