Psikotik Psikotik

Told You So

Told You So

I posted an article recently about too much religion in politics and the Evangelicals wanting to push their agenda on the American people. The few people who did read it pretty much slammed me. Please check out the following article from the associated press.

Falwell plans for 'evangelical revolution'
11/9/2004, 10:43 p.m. ET
By HANK KURZ Jr.
The Associated Press

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Seeking to take advantage of the momentum from an election where moral values proved important to voters, the Rev. Jerry Falwell announced Tuesday he has formed a new coalition to guide an "evangelical revolution."

Falwell, a religious broadcaster based in Lynchburg, Va., said the Faith and Values Coalition will be a "21st century resurrection of the Moral Majority," the organization he founded in 1979.

Falwell said he would serve as the coalition's national chairman for four years.

He added that the new group's mission would be to lobby for anti-abortion conservatives to fill openings on the Supreme Court and lower courts, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and the election of another "George Bush-type" conservative in 2008.

"We all, for the first time, began to realize the potential of religious conservatives, particularly evangelicals, when something over 30 million of them went to the polls," he said, noting most supported the president and anti-abortion candidates, and voted to approve 11 initiatives across the country banning gay marriage.

Also, a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court allowing gay marriages "helped energize our people," Falwell said.

And when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom began performing gay marriages, it "really caught the attention of people of faith in this country, and what we have been saying could happen actually happened," he said.

"The timing could not have been better. That, along with the abortion issues and the terrorism issue, helped us to get our people awakened."

While overseeing the coalition, Falwell said he would leave day-to-day operations of Liberty University and Thomas Road Baptist Church — both of which he founded — to his sons Jerry Jr., 42, and Jonathan, 38.

Mathew Staver, founder of the conservative law group Liberty Counsel in Orlando, Fla., will be the coalition's vice chairman; Jonathan Falwell will be its executive director. Theologian Tim LaHaye will be the board chairman.


I am not trying to say they aren't allowed opinions or to express themselves, but if Christian morals start becoming laws, then the religious freedom and tolerance this country was founded on begin to disappear. It will be no different than the Church of England our forefathers came here to escape. I hate to say it, BUT I TOLD YOU SO.
24,629 views 49 replies
Reply #26 Top
Dr. Guy:

Well, I'm not for communism but what does that have to do with it? Chomsky isn't paid by the government either. Hager on the other hand... Gonzales on the other hand...
Reply #27 Top
If a judge or justice is overstepping his power, then I'd object to it, as they are there to interpret the law, not to make it, but if it's not all right for representatives and presidents to do what they believe is right (as long as they do not overstep their power) if inspired by religious motives, then does that mean that they shouldn't be fighting for gay marriage or the right to abortion either?


If the Pres or a Representative is voting or basing their decisions on their religious beliefs, then yes they are overstepping there bounds. The are there to represent ALL PEOPLE, not just those who share the same religious convictions. Every athiest, Buddhist, Muslim, etc., etc. in this country deserves to be represented and have that representation not be based on the Bible and teaching to which they to not subscribe.

And please do not turn this into an argument about abortion or same sex marriages. These are merely two examples of areas of disagreement between liberals and Evangelicals.


What I find funny though is that you expect the evangelists to accept what liberals fight for and expect evangelists not to fight for they want. What makes a liberal's morals better than an evangelist's?


I never said YOU have to accept MY morals, gay marriage or abortion. In the same way YOU should not expect me to accept YOUR morals and beliefs. I'm advocating tolerance of others beliefs, not acceptance of them. There is a difference. And I will ask again, please try to keep on subject. If you wish to debate gay marriage or abortion, direct me to existing threads about them.

Good to meet you Psi! Glad you are in the Old dominion! We have had some great governors, and some real losers! I dont like Warner just because he bought the election. As a Governor, he is not bad. Not great either.


I'd have to say more losers than the great ones ( I kinda liked Wilder). It would be nice if we could get some people who can run a state budget (here, no more car tax....oops can't afford it) So which part of VA are you in? Myself I'm in Newport News. Nice to meet you too
Reply #28 Top
If the Pres or a Representative is voting or basing their decisions on their religious beliefs, then yes they are overstepping there bounds. The are there to represent ALL PEOPLE, not just those who share the same religious convictions. Every athiest, Buddhist, Muslim, etc., etc. in this country deserves to be represented and have that representation not be based on the Bible and teaching to which they to not subscribe.


So presidents don't work on what they think is right, but on popular opinion?

I never said YOU have to accept MY morals, gay marriage or abortion. In the same way YOU should not expect me to accept YOUR morals and beliefs. I'm advocating tolerance of others beliefs, not acceptance of them. There is a difference. And I will ask again, please try to keep on subject. If you wish to debate gay marriage or abortion, direct me to existing threads about them.


I'm not debating gay marriage or abortion. I'm wondering whether liberals can legislate their beliefs (i.e. gay marriage is right and should be legal, abortion should be legal, etc.) and evangelists can't (i.e. gay marriage is wrong and should not be legal, abortion should be banned, etc.).
Did you mean that evangelists shouldn't tell others that gay marriage is wrong and liberals shouldn't tell others that gay marriage should be legalized, and neither should fight for or against the legalization of gay marriage?
Reply #29 Top

Dr. Guy:

Well, I'm not for communism but what does that have to do with it? Chomsky isn't paid by the government either. Hager on the other hand... Gonzales on the other hand...


it is a demonstration of extremes, and where we dont want to go.  Simply put, this is a good topic, why bastardize it with extremes?

Reply #30 Top
If the Pres or a Representative is voting or basing their decisions on their religious beliefs, then yes they are overstepping there bounds. The are there to represent ALL PEOPLE, not just those who share the same religious convictions. Every athiest, Buddhist, Muslim, etc., etc. in this country deserves to be represented and have that representation not be based on the Bible and teaching to which they to not subscribe.


So presidents don't work on what they think is right, but on popular opinion?


There can easily be a difference between "what they think is right" based on their beliefs and what is right for the nation as a whole. Just as an example of why religion and the Presidents religion should be separate, if a Catholic is President (as JFK was), does he owe his allegiance to the Pope as his faith requires, or to the country he was elected to lead? If a Jewish person (such as Lieberman) were elected as President, should the government be shut down on Saturdays because his faith requires no work on Saturdays? You would disagree with these situations because they are different from your beliefs, same as mine are from yours. Therefor the President should leave his faith at the door of the Oval Office and run it in the best interest of ALL it's citizens. Also, it does not necessarily follow that what is right for the country follows popular opinion.

I'm not debating gay marriage or abortion. I'm wondering whether liberals can legislate their beliefs (i.e. gay marriage is right and should be legal, abortion should be legal, etc.) and evangelists can't (i.e. gay marriage is wrong and should not be legal, abortion should be banned, etc.).
Did you mean that evangelists shouldn't tell others that gay marriage is wrong and liberals shouldn't tell others that gay marriage should be legalized, and neither should fight for or against the legalization of gay marriage?


The difference in what I advocate as compared to do (in my opinion) is that I am for a persons freedom and their ability to choose what is right for them (Life, Liberty, and the Pusuit of Happiness), while your position bans what you don't agree with, and takes away a persons ability to decide what is right for them. This country is based on freedom, not restricting it.

You can't legislate morality; We legislate little else. -- Robert Bork (Conservative judge nominated to the Supreme court by Ronald Reagan)

Reply #31 Top
I tink I needs to werk a little voo-doo on da mon!!

You remind me of the babe!
What Babe?
The babe with the power!
What power?
The power of voodoo!
Who do?
You do!
Do what?
Remind me of the babe!

Dance Magic Plinko!!
Reply #32 Top
Haven't a clue what the hell you're talking about Grim but it was so out there it made me laugh
Reply #33 Top
There can easily be a difference between "what they think is right" based on their beliefs and what is right for the nation as a whole. Just as an example of why religion and the Presidents religion should be separate, if a Catholic is President (as JFK was), does he owe his allegiance to the Pope as his faith requires, or to the country he was elected to lead? If a Jewish person (such as Lieberman) were elected as President, should the government be shut down on Saturdays because his faith requires no work on Saturdays? You would disagree with these situations because they are different from your beliefs, same as mine are from yours. Therefor the President should leave his faith at the door of the Oval Office and run it in the best interest of ALL it's citizens. Also, it does not necessarily follow that what is right for the country follows popular opinion.


It's possible that what a president thinks is right religiously is right for the nation to him. After all, religious belief and other belief aren't mutually exclusive.
Also, just because religion heavily influences a person does not mean that the person wants to turn the nation into a theocracy. Does being a homosexual who supports gay marriage mean that the homosexual wants to make the nation gay?

The difference in what I advocate as compared to do (in my opinion) is that I am for a persons freedom and their ability to choose what is right for them (Life, Liberty, and the Pusuit of Happiness), while your position bans what you don't agree with, and takes away a persons ability to decide what is right for them. This country is based on freedom, not restricting it.


So, for example, it'd be right to fight for the right of polygamists to marry, or for the right of adults to have sex with minors, but it'd be wrong to speak out against either of those, because those will lead to more freedom? Or does it only apply to what you believe is right?
Reply #34 Top
It's possible that what a president thinks is right religiously is right for the nation to him. After all, religious belief and other belief aren't mutually exclusive.
Also, just because religion heavily influences a person does not mean that the person wants to turn the nation into a theocracy. Does being a homosexual who supports gay marriage mean that the homosexual wants to make the nation gay?


But what is right religiously to him and what is right for the nation are also not mutually inclusive. I do not believe I used the word theocracy in the article ( though I did mention it in another article, which I don't know if you read), I spoke of legislative one's own personal beliefs. As another example for you, In Texas from when Bush was Gov and in Florida where Jeb Bush is Gov, they run a faith based prison for people who are 12-24 months (I believe) from release. They recieve Bible study, Bible related anger management and the environment is much better than an actual prison. These programs are CHRISTIAN through and through, which 1) prohibits those of other faiths from benefitting from the program (unless they are born-again) and 2) this amounts to the state endorsing a religion(unconstitutional) because they ARE choosing one over others.Read the following quotes:
"Since America's founding, prayer has reassured us that the hand of God is guiding the affairs of this nation." -- Address to National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast, 16 May 2002
"What I found interesting is the Baptist form of church government was a model of democracy even before the founding of America." -- Remarks Via Satellite to the Southern Baptist Convention 2002 Annual Meeting, 11 June 2002

Do you think a person who says these things is not basing a large part of what he thinks on his beliefs?

So, for example, it'd be right to fight for the right of polygamists to marry, or for the right of adults to have sex with minors, but it'd be wrong to speak out against either of those, because those will lead to more freedom? Or does it only apply to what you believe is right?


No it doesn't apply only to what I believe is right. But there is a difference. It is the accepted (majority) view in the scientific community that people are born gay, where as polygamy is a choice. As for pedophilia, the child doesn't have the capacity to consent to sex, just as we say they don't have the capacity to drive, vote, enter contracts, etc. We protect the mentally handicapped in the same way if they are unable to understand their actions. That is different than regulating what goes on between two consenting adults.
Reply #35 Top

Reply #31 By: Grim Xiozan - 11/10/2004 9:12:29 PM
I tink I needs to werk a little voo-doo on da mon!!

You remind me of the babe!
What Babe?
The babe with the power!
What power?
The power of voodoo!
Who do?
You do!
Do what?
Remind me of the babe!


You been watching David Bowie again ain't you?
Reply #36 Top
You been watching David Bowie again ain't you?


Jump magic, jump (jump magic, jump)
Jump magic, jump
Put that magic jump on me
Slap that baby

MAKE HIM FREE!!!

Nothing wrong with David Bowie, I have been a listener of his since I first heard his records dating back to Ziggy Stardust and even til today where he is very capable of still making good Bowie songs. One of the few old singers I listen to, another was Johnny Cash, should I start talking how about I walk the line in a ring of fire when the water is six feet high and rising at Folsom Prison?

Just because I am young does not mean I cannot enjoy music from people and times before my birth.

So, what I am trying to say Miler, damn it Miler, let's do the TIME WARP AGAIN!!

- Grim, the Liberty-Giving Baby-Slapping Ziggy Ira Hayes (respectful Plinko to Ira Hayes sp?)
Reply #37 Top

But what is right religiously to him and what is right for the nation are also not mutually inclusive. I do not believe I used the word theocracy in the article ( though I did mention it in another article, which I don't know if you read), I spoke of legislative one's own personal beliefs.


Neither is what one thinks is right for himself, so people shouldn't rely on what they think is right to take action. They shouldn't rely on popular opinion either, 'cause the majority isn't always right. So, what should they rely on?


No it doesn't apply only to what I believe is right. But there is a difference. It is the accepted (majority) view in the scientific community that people are born gay, where as polygamy is a choice. As for pedophilia, the child doesn't have the capacity to consent to sex, just as we say they don't have the capacity to drive, vote, enter contracts, etc. We protect the mentally handicapped in the same way if they are unable to understand their actions. That is different than regulating what goes on between two consenting adults.


The scientific community says homosexuality is natural and polygamy isn't? So, science actually has evidence that homosexuality is all natural (and such evidence that cannot be used to prove polygamy is natural, which means you can't say "Oh it's found in animals, so it's natural" since some animals practice polygamy)? I'd like to see this evidence.

Reply #38 Top

No it doesn't apply only to what I believe is right. But there is a difference. It is the accepted (majority) view in the scientific community that people are born gay, where as polygamy is a choice. As for pedophilia, the child doesn't have the capacity to consent to sex, just as we say they don't have the capacity to drive, vote, enter contracts, etc. We protect the mentally handicapped in the same way if they are unable to understand their actions. That is different than regulating what goes on between two consenting adults.


That sounds more libertarian than liberal.  But I will agree with you on the difference (between legislating morality and not making things illegal).  There does have to be some limits in the end.  Where do you draw the line?  Poligamy?  bestiality? When it comes right down to it, eventually, as a society, we must legislate some morals in order to remain a society.  The question is where.  I am no bible thumper and dont really care what 2 consenting adults do in their home.  I know many conservative christians do object based upon their beliefs.  But this is an issue that can be compromised on, and as a society we have. and will.  We will not, however, be dictated to, by either side.  I think we have shown that. 


So while you worry about Falwell and Robertson, I dont. The Religious right is to republicans, as greens are to democrats.  They can be taken for granted for the most part, because where else are they gonna go politically? 3rd parties?  Not after 2000.


BTW:  Richmond Va, just up the road from you.

Reply #39 Top
The scientific community says homosexuality is natural and polygamy isn't? So, science actually has evidence that homosexuality is all natural (and such evidence that cannot be used to prove polygamy is natural, which means you can't say "Oh it's found in animals, so it's natural" since some animals practice polygamy)? I'd like to see this evidence.


Messy, there is a difference in comparing the pack instsinct of animals such as wolves and lions who's entire social structure is built around the pack mentality and comparing that to other animals which chose an individual mate. And if you want to get technical, polygamy was banned for moral reasons, not out of any harm to society (Utah wasn't allowed to become a state until it banned polygamy). I am providing example to support my position and you are giving me generalities. Back up your argument. "Oh it's found in animals, so it must be natural" isn't an argument. So is cannabalism, but I would like to think that you would have the sense to not equate homosexuality and cannabalism because they both occur in nature.

That sounds more libertarian than liberal.


Yes I have a mix of Libertarian in with my liberal ideas. Mostly I believe in mostly small government (some social programs do serve a good purpose) and the government staying out of peoples lives as much as possible. And just to make myself clear, this article was written about Evangelicals because I saw the article about Falwell. I have just as much contempt for the tree huggers who spike trees and injure loggers, nutcases like PETA, those ignorant "anti-globalization" nuts who riot at World Bank meetings and destroy Starbuck's and "so-called" Anarchists. There are idiots on both sides of the fence, neither side has a monopoly on that.
Reply #40 Top

Yes I have a mix of Libertarian in with my liberal ideas. Mostly I believe in mostly small government (some social programs do serve a good purpose) and the government staying out of peoples lives as much as possible. And just to make myself clear, this article was written about Evangelicals because I saw the article about Falwell. I have just as much contempt for the tree huggers who spike trees and injure loggers, nutcases like PETA, those ignorant "anti-globalization" nuts who riot at World Bank meetings and destroy Starbuck's and "so-called" Anarchists. There are idiots on both sides of the fence, neither side has a monopoly on that.

Guess we are 2 sides of the same pod.  I am socially liberal, and fiscally conservative.  And I agree with you.  And you did write the article objectively.  I guess I am just saying dont worry.  They may pontificate and proclaim, but it aint going to happen. There are a lot of conservatives, like me, that wont let it.  besides, I dont fit in their tent.  I am catholic.  Yep!  Against the death penalty too!

hard to pigeon hole people usually.  However Falwell and Robertson can be. (pigeon holed).  And that is why I am not afraid of them.

Reply #41 Top

Reply #36 By: Grim Xiozan - 11/11/2004 12:29:04 AM
You been watching David Bowie again ain't you?


Jump magic, jump (jump magic, jump)
Jump magic, jump
Put that magic jump on me
Slap that baby

MAKE HIM FREE!!!

Nothing wrong with David Bowie, I have been a listener of his since I first heard his records dating back to Ziggy Stardust and even til today where he is very capable of still making good Bowie songs. One of the few old singers I listen to, another was Johnny Cash, should I start talking how about I walk the line in a ring of fire when the water is six feet high and rising at Folsom Prison?

Just because I am young does not mean I cannot enjoy music from people and times before my birth.

So, what I am trying to say Miler, damn it Miler, let's do the TIME WARP AGAIN!!

- Grim, the Liberty-Giving Baby-Slapping Ziggy Ira Hayes (respectful Plinko to Ira Hayes sp?)


Never said there was anything wrong with listening to Bowie now did I? I have Labrynth on tape and recognized the passage. I was listening to Bowie when Bowie was Bowie and still new!
Diamond Dogs, really OK.
Reply #42 Top

Yes I have a mix of Libertarian in with my liberal ideas. Mostly I believe in mostly small government (some social programs do serve a good purpose) and the government staying out of peoples lives as much as possible. And just to make myself clear, this article was written about Evangelicals because I saw the article about Falwell. I have just as much contempt for the tree huggers who spike trees and injure loggers, nutcases like PETA, those ignorant "anti-globalization" nuts who riot at World Bank meetings and destroy Starbuck's and "so-called" Anarchists. There are idiots on both sides of the fence, neither side has a monopoly on that.


Psikotic, I figured that out already (your persuasion).  And I will not debate you on it.  Should (in a hypothetical sense) they start to gain control, I will be with you in fighting them. But I am part of the 52%, and there are many more like me.  So dont worry about the Evangelicals.  lets fight the monsters that are there now.  Not that want to be.  We dont need to fight communist as it is dead and dying.  While Falwell may not be dead, he is not controlling either.

Reply #43 Top

Messy, there is a difference in comparing the pack instsinct of animals such as wolves and lions who's entire social structure is built around the pack mentality and comparing that to other animals which chose an individual mate. And if you want to get technical, polygamy was banned for moral reasons, not out of any harm to society (Utah wasn't allowed to become a state until it banned polygamy). I am providing example to support my position and you are giving me generalities. Back up your argument. "Oh it's found in animals, so it must be natural" isn't an argument. So is cannabalism, but I would like to think that you would have the sense to not equate homosexuality and cannabalism because they both occur in nature.


No. There are actually animals that have multiple mates. And if the "Oh it's found in animals, so it's natural" isn't proof that polygamy is natural, then don't you dare use it to prove that homosexuality is natural in humans, all right? And how the hell can you compare polygamy to cannibalism? There's a freaking difference between love between consenting adults and eating somebody against their will.

It's all about self-interest, isn't it?

Reply #44 Top
Messy, I didn't compare cannabalism to homosexuality, I said I would hope you wouldn't based on your statement of "if it's found in animals, it must be natural". There is a complete difference, it was a sarcastic remark that didn't fly I guess. I've just seen too many people on JU comparing homosexuality to bestiality and other less savory things. I am sorry for the insult, you didn't say this and it was uncalled for. I humbly apologize.
If you read earlier posts in this thread, I never said polygamy wasn't natural, I said it was a choice. In prehistoric times polygamy was the law of the land. The strongest mated and passed on there genes, women were attracted to those with more power Societtal morals and the ability of man to more control his environment made servival of the fittest less important. I mention nature in terms of homosexuality. I tell you what, let's call it a draw for now, I'll do some research, do a post on the science of homosexuality and then we can pick it up again from there. Truce
Reply #45 Top
Dr. Guy and others, I'm not losing sleep over this, this is just sounding an alarm to be on the lookout. "The Moral Majority is coming, The Moral Majority is coming"
And Dr. Guy I had figured out your political bent from other posts too, but I won't hold it against you.
Reply #46 Top

Messy, I didn't compare cannabalism to homosexuality, I said I would hope you wouldn't based on your statement of "if it's found in animals, it must be natural". There is a complete difference, it was a sarcastic remark that didn't fly I guess. I've just seen too many people on JU comparing homosexuality to bestiality and other less savory things. I am sorry for the insult, you didn't say this and it was uncalled for. I humbly apologize.


I understand what you mean, and I agree that just because cannibalism and homosexuality are found in animals does not mean that they can be compared as similar acts.


If you read earlier posts in this thread, I never said polygamy wasn't natural, I said it was a choice. In prehistoric times polygamy was the law of the land. The strongest mated and passed on there genes, women were attracted to those with more power Societtal morals and the ability of man to more control his environment made servival of the fittest less important. I mention nature in terms of homosexuality. I tell you what, let's call it a draw for now, I'll do some research, do a post on the science of homosexuality and then we can pick it up again from there. Truce


So, something could be natural, but also a choice? So, homosexuality could be natural, but also a choice?

Reply #47 Top

Dr. Guy and others, I'm not losing sleep over this, this is just sounding an alarm to be on the lookout. "The Moral Majority is coming, The Moral Majority is coming"
And Dr. Guy I had figured out your political bent from other posts too, but I won't hold it against you.


Psikotik, I hope we can come to some agreements, I also hope we dont have to fight on the same side against Falwell and Robertson.  Not because I wont, I just hope that I am in the majority of the conservatives, and not their minority.


I still think you are a libertarian!  Have you checked out Badnarik?

Reply #48 Top
I still think you are a libertarian! Have you checked out Badnarik?


Yes, I have checked out Badnarick and the Libertarian page just to see they're platform. Some of their stances are good - privacy, internet, drug-legalization, freedom of speech and the environment. But others are just nuts - ending ALL public assistance program (welare, food stamps, WIC, ADFC, subsidized housing, etc.), they're stance on social security, the military cuts they seem to propose and their tax programs. The government has a responsibility to help those who can't help themselves. There is no way everyone can have a job and "family, churches and others" can't support the less fortunate as they suggest should be done. That is just ludicrous.

Now before you think I'm nuts on the drug legalization, let me explain. I simply believe the war on drugs is a failure and costs to much for the limited success. The end user goes to jail (for far too long generally) far more often than the pusher and that the focus should be more on treatment.
Reply #49 Top
In case it helps those among you who fear a coming "evangelical revolution," I feel comfortable reassuring you that a large proportion of the conservative right turns a deaf ear to the Robertsons & Falwells when they get cranking about what they intend to do or opine about the meaning and significance of what the rest of us have done. They tend to pretend they're driving the train when they're lucky to be in the club car having tea.

Rest easy.

Cheers,
Daiwa