The issue comes to play, when liberal and often lunatic judges attempt to re-write the constitution via what they often refer to as an “Interpretation” to suit their biased and often politically driven agendas to support Gay Marriage/rights.

In fact our left/right political houses are split on this issue considerably, and yes most of christian faith reject homosexual rights. Our constitution does not offer them any in fact unless some wacko judge try’s to twist what our for-fathers wrote when our country was formed with it’s independence from the English. I challenge anyone that can demonstrate they gave any special consideration of marriage to same sex couples. It did and does not. That is why in fact after these low level and medium level judges always get shot down by their respective state supreme courts. Not one, ever has been successful.

Finally, if you don’t like the laws then it is up to our legislatures to amend the laws and our constitution — it’s never the job of a single judge to make that call on a law from any state, that can have an over reaching impact of the greater part of the nation. It is our elected laws officials that must change the laws regarding Gay marriage if it is ever to be accepted. It’s just not likely going to happen since the majority of American’s support marriage as being the union between one man and one woman.

Let’s face it, it’s only an issue with Gay’s because they want the same employee rights of marriage as married men and women get. I say , if that’s true they “the gays” would be best off seeking laws that provide them with similar benefits as married couples but under the terms and conditions of a civil union…

If that happens though, watch out. It open a pandora box of all kinds of people that will claim if like for like marriage is allowed, then a man with 77 wives is and should be ok too… It could create cases where man wants to marry beast — you know horses, cows, dogs, you name it…

I say it’s simple… Marriage is something that should be reserved between men and women. It is sacred and that is the only real reasons liberal lunatics and gays are chasing after it. They like to point the fingers at the evil christians while they ignore and reject their nazi like tactics for attention.

Really? Where? Here?

You clearly do not understand what that phrase means if you think it prevents voters from pushing legislation banning abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty, or any number of other values-based issues based on biblical interpretation.

Which part says your statement had nothing to do with church and state?

Let me tell you: none. There is nothing in your reply that even hints at the meaning you imagine.

I have no more time to chat with your imaginary friends.

I just heard him say the same thing when I went to lunch. Credit where credit is due.

much like another idiot on the radio, Michael Medved

I happened to hear Medved support Ellison’s use of the Koran on the radio on the way home this afternoon.

Where has Sullivan said that it applies only to Republican viewpoints?

All of his uses have been in reference to Republicans who oppose gay marriage. When others have brought up the logical implications of his “Christianist” definitions, he has dismissed those arguments. I have no problem with the term as long as it is used to represent everyone who uses the bible to frame (no pun intended) his or her legislative agendas.

Prager is arguing that Ellison should submit his faith, in this instance, to the authority of the Christian Bible because of the supposed role that the Bible played in the shaping of the Constitution and this country.

Not only is the role of the Bible in influencing the revolutionary period, born of the Enlightenment, a subject of consdierable debate and dubious validity, Prager’s position is totally contradicts the principles and articles of the oath of office itself. According the oath, Ellison must submit his faith and evertyhing else, to the authority of the Constitution, not any other document. But according to Prager, it is the Bible, not the Constitution itself playing the active role in the ceremony. Without the Bible, it’s a meaningless oath, in his mind, which is utter, unconstitutional horseshit.

It is easy to surmise form that this position that Prager must consider his own faith as secondary to Christian faiths in America, because America is, in his mind, a Christian nation. It is easy to see that Prager considers himself, as a Jewish American, still only a tolerated guest in this Christian country.

That’s seriously fucked up and seriously Christianist.

Where has Sullivan said that it applies only to Republican viewpoints?

He himself is a religious conservative who is opposed to torture, for instance, but does he base that opposition on constitutional grounds or biblical grounds? I’ll wager constitutional grounds. if a liberal priest protested the death penality because of Biblical teachings, I don’t how Sullivan would describe that person but I bet he’d put them in the Christianist camp. Unless I missed something somewhere.

I did know that and it doesn’t matter. He, much like another idiot on the radio, Michael Medved, spends the vast majority of his energy pushing a clearly Christianist, conservative agenda.

If you spend any time listening to either of them, they are so deeply ingratiating to Christians and Evangelicals, going out of their way to defend even the nuttiest of shit, it’s like deep down inside they are still grovelling not to be thown in an oven or something.

I know that sounds harsh but these guys are really weird when it comes to defending Evangelicals and pusing their agenda. They are Christianists for all intents and purposes probably because someone way back when called them a name and now all they want to do is be liked by their Christian betters.

To go further, if you are opposed to the death penalty

Sullivan only uses the term to label Republican viewpoints. That has been the major point of my argument with his definition. Evidentally, you and I agree with how the term should be used.

Prager is a Christianist

You understand that Prager is Jewish, right? He denies the Christ?

Maybe everyone should take their oath on the Constitution itself.

I agree with this.

If you are opposed to them because God is opposed to them because God says they are wrong, you’re a Christianist.

And no one who reads written English would ever suspect I have said that.

Again, you have no freaking idea what the words you write actually mean, do you?

You QUOTE my statement about citizens voting for enforcement of ideals based on religion and accuse me of “puzzling” over the separation of church and state.

I reply that my statement has nothing to do with church/state separation, and then you claim you DIDN’T say it did?

Do you have any clue as to what you are writing? You can’t be that freaking stupid, can you? Are there two Quakers posting here?

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so — not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

If you think swearing an oath office on the Koran undermines American civilization you’re a Christianist and an idiot.

My test of a Christianist is a simple question:

“If you had to choose one, which document is best suited to governing the affairs of American society, The US Constitution or the Christian Bible?”

Prager would obviously choose the Bible over the Constitution. As he writes:

When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization.

Prager believes the Bible trumps the COnsitution because, essentially, “it came first” and it came from God.

Should Ellison be allowed to take his oath using the Koran? I don’t know. Maybe everyone should take their oath on the Constitution itself. I would be for that. But should Ellison be refused because Americans have chosen to revere the Bible because it is, as Prager writes, “what America holds as its holiest book?” FUCK NO.

Prager is a Christianist and the real threat to American society.

And no one who reads written English would ever suspect I have said that.

Your excuse?

Still puzzling at “separation of church and state” JWG?

You clearly do not understand what that phrase means if you think it prevents voters from pushing legislation banning abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty, or any number of other values-based issues based on biblical interpretation.

Still puzzling at “separation of church and state” JWG?

As before, I believe you’re pretending. If your words reveal your true density, light does not escape your orbit.

It was not me, but you who was declaring who was or was not a Christianist

You seriously cannot follow your own thinking process.

I asked a question about using the term for those who advocate religious mandates on the Left, and YOU countered with a more specific definition of “Christianist” because you said I was misreading Sullivan (I wasn’t, and you admit you don’t keep up with what he writes). You said:

But when you begin to say that only true believers should serve as leaders, that only laws that conform to the written authority should prevail, and that only citizens who live in accordance with the revealed truth should enjoy full rights, that’s when you earn the “-ist” after your name.

Maybe you were drunk at the time and forgot? Anyway, I challenged your definition to fit the way in which Sullivan and others are actually using it. You repeatedly failed to back up your claim and now you’re running in circles and claiming I can’t nail down your words.

In short, citizens can get their beliefs anywhere they choose. The state can get its laws only from its citizens.

And if the majority of citizens get their ideas for laws from religion and vote to have them enforced we have come full circle. Your statement means nothing.

I’d go a little farther than that, Joshua.

If I, as a citizen, participate in the democratic process, voting and urging my representatives to end capital punishment, the source of my belief isn’t relevant to anyone but me. It could be religious belief, moral upbringing, or something I read on a T-shirt.

Where I draw the line is when someone advocates that government should be constrained in its decision making or that citizens should be included or excluded from participation in the process based on religious doctrine.

In short, citizens can get their beliefs anywhere they choose. The state can get its laws only from its citizens.

We owe our allegiance to the Constitution and classical liberal values. That is what this country is based on. Any attempt to make policy based on religious values is contrary to democracy. Even if that includes the death penalty, sodomy laws, and laws against working on Sunday. If you want to argue that the death penalty is applied unfairly, cruel and unusual, or whatever, you can do that. But don’t tell that me it should be banned because you think that God finds it distasteful. That opens up a Pandora’s Box where something as exterme as Dominionism can flourish.

In the meantime, if you want to declare people as “Christianist” without providing evidence to support your own definitions, then don’t get upset when you get called on it.

It was not me, but you who was declaring who was or was not a Christianist, and at the risk of boring us both to death, here it is once again:

How about Christian opposition to the death penalty? Wouldn’t pushing for laws banning the death penalty based on Christian principles make one a “Christianist”?

Goodbye.

Because. You. Asked.