Bush Had Open Door For The American Taliban
Tweet
CREW crunched the numbers. Pretty sick the way the religious right defiled our White House during the Bush years.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Government (CREW) has just released a report tallying visits to the Bush White House by major Religious Right players. CREW filed a request for visitor records that coughed up the information.
According to a Sept. 4 CREW press release, the count looks something like this:
* For the period April 2001 through June 2006, Focus on the Family Founder and Chairman Emeritus James Dobson visited the White House 24 times; 10 of those visits were to President Bush.
* Andrea Sheldon Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, made an astonishing 50 visits to the White House starting on Feb. 1, 2001, and continuing through March 16, 2008. Six of those visits were to President Bush.
* Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, made 43 visits to the White House between May 2001 and August 2006. Four of those visits were to President Bush.
* Gary Bauer, president of American Values, made 10 visits to the White House, starting with a Jan. 6, 2003, visit to Vice President Cheney and ending with a July 20, 2006, visit to President Bush.
* The late Jerry Falwell, of Jerry Falwell Ministries, made eight visits to the White House between May 2001 and September 2004. Three of those visits were to President Bush.
* Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, visited the White House 14 times between February 2001 and June 2006, including two visits to President Bush.
* The Rev. Louis Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, made 19 visits to the White House between March 2001 and September 2006, including two visits to President Bush.
* The late Paul Weyrich, founder of Free Congress Foundation, made 17 visits to the White House between May 2001 and July 2005, including six visits to President Bush and one to Karl Rove.
* The Rev. Donald Wildmon, founder of the American Family Association, made three visits to the White House between July 2001 and March 2003, including one visit to President Bush.
98 Responses to “Bush Had Open Door For The American Taliban”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Whatevs. A gay male prostitute* ( and self proclaimed “Hot Military Stud”) spent several nights at the White House during the George Bush, Jr. Era.
*A key aspect since the Bush, Jr. Administration and their American Taliban supporters were and are adamantly opposed to the very notion of homosexuality and prostitution–at least they say they are on the record.
Yes, these people are just like those that murder women for sport, don’t allow women over the age of 8 to be educated, don’t allow women to work, didn’t allow women to be treated by doctors unless there was a male chaperone, and had women flogged or publicly executed for violating Taliban laws.
Can you explain to me why a person such as yourself, who is obviously intelligent, can write something so mind-numbingly stupid?
Really. I’d like to know what gets into your head at these times.
Shorter Jay: The Religious Right Rules! Faggot Pagans drools!
Jay: the religious right doesn’t believe women are equal to men, believe they should have the final say in people’s health care and if they had their way would probably be flogging people. The big diff between them and the Taliban is we have separation of church and state.
2 of the 9 visitors are now dead. COINCIDENCE?!?!? I THINK NOT!!!!!!!!!!
I’m sure another round of Obama-ites talking about “bitter clingers” will bring his poll numbers around. It sure worked the last time…
the religious right doesn’t believe women are equal to men
Actually, they do. You should come to my church because at first glance, you’d probably compare my Pastor to the Taliban but then when you actually listen to what he has to say, you’d be surprised. Women are equal? Yes. Women and men are the same? No. Equality does not equal sameness. It’s funny because my wife and many of my friends wives would get a nice chuckle out of your accusation.
believe they should have the final say in people’s health care
You mean they’re pro-life. Abortion is NOT health care and desiring a fetus to grow into a baby and actually be born is not something I am ashamed of.
and if they had their way would probably be flogging people.
Sure. I say all the time how I want to flog people.
Wow.
Jay you keep doing this. Your local church is probably just fine, the kind of church my mom goes to. But these people – the Falwells, the Robertsons, etc. preach a brand of “religion” that isn’t anywhere in the actual bible.
For instance, Dobson discusses how to treat a child like a dog.
Oliver, you’ve strayed too far off the talking points. Does Obama REALLY want to get into a war about what’s said at churches?
Nobody said anything about Obama, but decent try at LookOverHere.
Cons love using Godtalk as the window dressing for regressive economic policies
SaveFarris:
Thanks for the link. I knew that Jeremiah Wright served our nation as a Marine; I did not realize that he already had such a distinguished academic and military record, before he even began his nationally recognized community work. What a pity he had problems coordinating thought with speech. We can hope that Republicans seek to emulate the good he did, and begin to nominate candidates like him, as opposed to niminating the drug damaged draft dodging deserter child of rich, powerful, and unprincipled parents.
Your local church is probably just fine, the kind of church my mom goes to. But these people – the Falwells, the Robertsons, etc. preach a brand of “religion” that isn’t anywhere in the actual bible.
Well, you’d be surprised Oliver. The problem is when guys like Falwell, Robertson, Dobson et al get political. And on that front, I agree strongly with your viewpoints on how they intertwine their beliefs with their politics because it certainly does not eschew the concept of grace as Christ taught. That being said, the biblical teachings in Falwell’s church are pretty much the same as you’ll find in Andy Stanley’s church or even my own.
Now if you don’t agree with that straight-forward biblical teaching, fine. But comparing it to the horrors of what the Taliban does to women and their other practices is really out of line.
As for Dobson’s illustration, he said nothing about treating a child like a dog. All he was doing was making the point that a child is going to challenge the authority of a parent (And boy was he right about that) and that if you don’t, as a parent, grab hold of that authority, you’ll see problems down the road. There is a parallel with pets in that they challenge authority as well, but again he was merely using it as an illustration. he was not saying, “Hey, just treat your kids like you would the dog.” There is a context to these things. You can’t just read a paragraph or two from a book and declare whatever it is you like.
It used to be that ministers either had to devote their lives to the church (as with Catholicism), or be college graduates with additional years of education and certification from an accredited seminary. They would then preach at established churches which had strong traditions and respect for the teachings of Jesus – with a high regard for “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”. Spirituality and materialistic politics were kept separate, the latter usually out of the church.
Enter the modern nondenominational superchurch. No historic traditions. A loose interpretation of Christs teachings. Many run by uneducated yahoos – some are even quite wealthy. Politics, such as anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, forced family values, unequivocal support for George Bush… are far more common in these ‘Wal-Mart churches’.
Didn’t the Taliban follow a similar course? Bastardizing the parent religion by including things material and giving unrestricted power to humans who claim to be doing God’s will?
freD where are these churches exactly?
Who would they be? Andy Stanley? James MacDonald? Chuck Swindoll? Mark Driscoll? John Piper? Rick Warren? Ed Young Jr? Steven Furtick? Craig Groeschel?
Just what “superchurches” are you specifically referring to that have “uneducated yahoos” running them? I’m interested in hearing what you have to say.
glen beck is an American Taliban.
The Seattle and Portland area. Lived in LA too. I have family in the biz. My uncle was despondant over his denomination’s losing out, even closing doors, to these large independent suburban churches. At the time, I shrugged “it’s the WalMart-ization of America.” But I’m now thinking there are other issues at work here.
Outside of the abortion issue, I’ve never met anybody who attended an established church who was really ‘wingnutty’, but many from these megachurches. One guy I know is intent on quitting his HS guard job to start his own church in Chicagoland. He’s convinced he can do this without any substantial education. Anecdotal evidence, I know.
I did live in Savannah for a time, but this was during the early Clinton years. I didn’t see this down there. Ministers were ‘professionals’, just like attorneys.
Enter the modern nondenominational superchurch. No historic traditions. A loose interpretation of Christs teachings. … Politics, such as anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, forced family values
Right. Because for 2000 years, the Church was all pro-abortion, pro-gay, and pro-adultry.
Which history book did you dig THAT up in?
Wow, classifying the Religious Right as “the American Taliban”, no, Oliver you are wrong on many levels, I am curious as to your thought process on this matter. So Churches like the First AME are not ‘the American Taliban” or are they? What of others that vote republican, are they Taliban too? I am confused, are all Baptists part of the American Taliban, or how about the Pope and the Catholics, was the American Taliban sending aid to the real Taliban? Were they protesting the war against the Taliban, there must be some relation between them.
Really I am not clear on your concept, respectfully asking for the definition of “the American Taliban.
Thanking you in advance,
Impaler
Okay, I volated my own policy on research, I did a little google search, is John Walker Lindh, leading this movement from prison? If so we must stop these people. They sound dangerous.
So Sayeth the Impaler!
freD, there’s nothing in the Bible that says people need to have a a seminary education in order to Pastor a church, though in all honesty it does help. But I am still interested in hearing about one of these supposed mega-churches you’re talking about. Specifically please. Just name one.
As for Seattle, the largest non-denominational church in that area is Mark Driscoll’s church Mars Hill and he doesn’t fit your stereotype.
I’ve never met anybody who attended an established church who was really ‘wingnutty’, but many from these megachurches.
At this point, I get the feeling you’re engaging in stereotyping for the purpose of just doing so. Maybe to get a rise out of people or maybe to try and convince yourself that what you’re saying is true, but I doubt it.
As I have said many times before, when ministers. priests and nuns were backing the Left (close the School for the Americas, stop the war in Vietnam, no nukes and, of course, civil rights) they couldn’t get enough of candle light processions, and politics from the pulpit. No mention of separation of Church and State then, no sir. A Catholic priest was elected to Congress in Massachusetts.
But when the conservative clergy speak up to defend their denominations against what they perceive as governmental intrusion ( no prayer in schools, legalized abortion, no religious content in any governmental institutions), then you whip out that letter from Jefferson to the Connecticut ministers, and pretend it means that the Founding Fathers weren’t Christians [this just in from 1776 - they all were],
and the government was meant to be secular.
I’m not sure hypocrisy covers what you are doing. Total, unadulterated bull sh*t — yeah, that’s the ticket!
When the religious left opposed the Vietnam War and fought for civil rights, they were in opposition to the state and its then-conservative positions.
they all were
Every pol was “Christian” for political necessity then. The question is if they were practicing Christians as we see it. And the answer is? Not everyone.
what they perceive as governmental intrusion ( no prayer in schools, legalized abortion, no religious content in any governmental institutions)
Think carefully, Frank. Where is the “government intrusion” in any of the examples you gave?
I agree strongly with your viewpoints on how they intertwine their beliefs with their politics because it certainly does not eschew the concept of grace as Christ taught
So then why the hell are you arguing with me?
The simple solution to this is school vouchers, I as a parent should not be forced to forfeit the taxes I pay because I want my child to have a private education, religious or otherwise, my child, and all children deserve a balanced education and the freedom of choice as to what that education is.
By doing this simple step, you can take the religious and anti-religious lobbyist money out of Washington D.C.
“when ministers. priests and nuns were backing the Left”
You mean when they were supporting things that improved America like civil rights for non-whites?
That’s why the GOP is doomed. You guys can’t see through your own failed politics and bigotry.
“The simple solution to this is school vouchers”
Who would pay for these vouchers?
“Legalized abortion” is an example of “government intrusion!!?? This should be obvious, but the only time the government “intrudes” when it comes to the issue of abortion is when the former CRIMINALIZES the latter, not legalizes it.
How are school vouchers not an example of the dreaded “redistribution of wealth?”
SaveFarris – “Which history book did you dig THAT up in?”
The books that include the Vatican 2. Conservatives fail because they don’t understand that societies move forward and history is a story with an unwritten ending. That is your greatest failure. That’s why you don’t believe in real freedom, but a fetishistic version of the real thing. Package, export and sell it, but never use it. Sad.
Alright Jay,
there’s nothing in the Bible that says people need to have a a seminary education in order to Pastor a church, though in all honesty it does help.
Agreed, but the Jim Jones thing sure was a drag, wasn’t it?
At this point, I get the feeling you’re engaging in stereotyping for the purpose of just doing so. Maybe to get a rise out of people or maybe to try and convince yourself that what you’re saying is true, but I doubt it.
Okay, you’re half right with both. I try to get a rise out of people to learn more about the truth. I have nothing against mega-churches per se, and that “superchurch” paragraph which inspired you is obviously not true for every single one of these outfits. But after this: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004020898_webmarshill18m.html
and all this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_evangelist_scandals
and watching some friends make bizarre transformations from easy going political apathetics to almost militantly anti-liberal and Bush authoritarians after joining evangelical churches such as The City Church (when it was the Overlake Christian Church), and Alderwood Community Church (gotta be up to several thousand members from what I’ve seen), I began to have reservations. And yes I’m aware that established churches have their problems too. My wife knows one of the guys who blew open the child molestation case against Father Cornelius. Hope that didn’t blow my stereotype.
daniel rotter, “How are school vouchers not an example of the dreaded “redistribution of wealth?”” this is an easy one, property tax is collected, other taxes are collected by the Fed, the Fed pays money to public schools (our tax dollars) based on attendance, so instead of giving it to a school my daughter is forced to go to, let me have the freedom of choice to determine the best education for her. Sure the poor will get a little more money, but in the end the children of poor families having the freedom to go to a better school, and get a better education, means the kid will likely be more successful than the parents and therefore pay more in taxes.
So we rape existing schools to finance new ones that aren’t under government control, thereby allowing for graft, corruption, and zero accountability to the tax-payers?
Brilliant!
“so instead of giving it to a school my daughter is forced to go to”
Where in America is a parent “forced” to send a child to a particular school? You can homeschool your child or send her to a private school. No force involved.
Think carefully, Frank. Where is the “government intrusion” in any of the examples you gave?
Think carefully? It’s obvious: One day you’re saying a simple prayer in school for success during the day, the next day it’s illegal.
One day, abortions are against the law, so you’re daughter can’t run off and have one without you knowing it. The next day, while your parents’ permission is required to get your ears pierced, you can get a baby ripped from your womb when you’re 279 days pregnant, and neither your parents, or the father, have any say in it.
One day, there’s a nativity scene in front of City Hall, with a Menorah and a Kwanzaa candles added for interdenominationalism.
The next day, they are gone , because the Supreme Court says you are “imposing your religious beliefs on others.”
Perhaps you don’t see these as “governmental intrusions” ? Think carefully.
‘Actually, they do. You should come to my church…’
If you’re any indication of the kind of individual that would be welcomed there, no thanks.
‘You mean they’re pro-life. Abortion is NOT health care…’
No, it’s just a legal, medical procedure (and we all know that medical procedures have nothing whatsoever to do with health) that Pro-Lifers want to ban because it conflicts with their morally contradictory view of life; aborting an embryo is intrinsically evil, while killing children in war or adults via capital punishment is just good old fashioned Conservatism at its best.
‘Now if you don’t agree with that straight-forward biblical teaching, fine. But comparing it to the horrors of what the Taliban does to women and their other practices is really out of line.’
What you’re really talking about are degrees of fanaticism.
‘There is a context to these things. You can’t just read a paragraph or two from a book and declare whatever it is you like.’
Unlike say, the Bible?
So we rape existing schools to finance new ones that aren’t under government control
If the existing schools were doing their jobs properly, parents wouldn’t be wanting to yank their kids out of there.
And believe me, as someone who works in the educational field, private schools are still subject to massive governmental regulation.
And people are perfectly free to send their kids to private schools if they wish. But why should tax payers have to fund it?
Believe me, I’m all for educational reform. But vouchers aren’t the answer.
JR: abortion has only been “legal” since the Supreme Court said it was; when they did, they nullified 38 state laws forbidding it. Just like when they allowed Dred Scott to be returned to his owner, and decided that “separate, but equal” was fine.
And by “medical”, I suppose you mean it is done by greedy doctors, who have no concept of the Hippocratic Oath, the first line of which is “First, do no harm.”
JR, nice job of quoting your favorite blog, though.
What are you talking about Frank?
‘abortion has only been “legal” since the Supreme Court said it was’
Um…right; that’s what MAKES it legal. Sort of like how they ruled Bush was elected president.
Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court ruling on abortion is akin to the Dred Scott decision, in which Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, an avowed supporter of slavery, stated definitively that all blacks — slaves as well as free, were not and could never become citizens of the United States?
Are you saying BOTH decisions are equally wrong in your opinion?
Are you suggesting abortion is a non-medical procedure conducted by ‘greedy doctors, who have no concept of the Hippocratic Oath?’
And what fucking blog am I quoting from?
Are you saying BOTH decisions are equally wrong in your opinion?
Yep, I am …
Are you suggesting abortion is a non-medical procedure conducted by ‘greedy doctors, who have no concept of the Hippocratic Oath?’
I am not suggesting it; I am asserting it outright.
And what fucking blog am I quoting from?
I have no idea — but to call abortion a “legal, medical procedure” totally detaches abortion from any moral, psychological or emotional significance. And that sounds like a blogger’s trick – not an honest personally held belief.
Eviction is legal – does that make it pleasant?
Jaim, School Vouchers do work, they where very successful in Washington D.C. until President Obama cancelled the program once he took office to satisfy the Unions, who helped elect him. I to find it humorous that you think our schools are currently free of fraud and corruption. And let us not forget this is not the Governments monies but the taxpayers, to be used for their families educational benefit.
Forced may have been a poor choice of words, but here in California, the Democrats have made home schooling illegal (this is on appeal in the courts and currently stayed) unless you are a teacher. And two, yes I can afford to send my Child to a private school and will do so, but when I bought my house, I paid 20,000 to the school district in property taxes, but what of the economically disadvantaged? If i did not have the money for private school, the Public school system here would giver a choice of One school she could attend, this is not Choice, nor freedom. So why if I paid the taxes for education, should I be punished economically for wanting choice? Please enlighten me oh liberal one.
I’m confused, is Impaler now making a decent case for the Public Option in Health Care Reform all the kids are talking about? Because he’s right: There really should be public schools for people who cannot afford private ones. I’m glad we do that in the U.S. Public defenders are a good idea too. And a Public Option for Health Care. Thanks Impaler, you sold me.
If you’re any indication of the kind of individual that would be welcomed there, no thanks.
Yeah well, the point is, anybody is welcome there.
Even you.
Your taxes support the schools. They are NOT tuition, however. Good schools support property values and boost the general welfare of the community. You are no more entitled to a rebate so that you can send your children to a private school than I am because I don’t have kids in school.
Enlightened Liberal – you are wrong, taxes support students not schools, if my child does not attend a public school or if she is attending but stays home the school does not get paid that money for that period, it is attendance based, at least here in California this is the system. So why should the student only be subsidized for public schools?
Indeed – Nice spin, but schools are Intrastate controlled institutions, the Federal government only subsidizes the Student, not the school, the 10th amendment is intact in this case. If Obama passed a School plan where the Federal Government controlled the schools, Or added a Federal option, to make schools more competitive, then it would be the same fight, and I suspect Governors would file suite to stop this act under the 10th amendment.
You are no more entitled to a rebate so that you can send your children to a private school than I am because I don’t have kids in school.
Wrong again.
Where I live, senior citizens get reduced taxes not because they are elderly, but because they have no children in school.
Pretty sick the way the religious right defiled our White House during the Bush years.
First of all, I don’t remember the White House being “yours” when Pres Bush was in it.
Second, a remark like the one above is incredibly bigoted: Want to substitute “blacks” or “Jews” for the “religious right”.
Of course, on the left, you can’t go wrong bashing Christians – they’re not real people, anyway, right?
Second, a remark like the one above is incredibly bigoted: Want to substitute “blacks” or “Jews” for the “religious right”.
Of course, on the left, you can’t go wrong bashing Christians – they’re not real people, anyway, right?
So all Christians are part of the Religious Right. You can’t be a Christian unless you want to criminalize condoms and homosexuality? O…k…
JR: abortion has only been “legal” since the Supreme Court said it was; when they did, they nullified 38 state laws forbidding it. Just like when they allowed Dred Scott to be returned to his owner, and decided that “separate, but equal” was fine.
Or Brown v. Board of Education where they criminalized segregation. Or Lawrence v. Texas where they criminalized anti-sodomy laws. Wait…
And by “medical”, I suppose you mean it is done by greedy doctors, who have no concept of the Hippocratic Oath, the first line of which is “First, do no harm.”
First off, most doctors who provide abortions do other things. Secondly, if they were truly “greedy”, I think they’re in the wrong business. Thirdly, are you really saying, like John McCain, that medical procedures done on women aren’t “medical”?
Think carefully? It’s obvious: One day you’re saying a simple prayer in school for success during the day, the next day it’s illegal.
Frank, you idiot, the students can still pray. Prayer just can’t be part of the school curriculum.
One day, abortions are against the law, so you’re daughter can’t run off and have one without you knowing it. The next day, while your parents’ permission is required to get your ears pierced, you can get a baby ripped from your womb when you’re 279 days pregnant, and neither your parents, or the father, have any say in it.
Firstly, it really speaks volumes about you that you think the girl has no say in what goes on with her body. Also, when it would come time to put the girl on death row for having an abortion, along with the other 50 million Americans who have had one, you’d be changing your tune really quickly.
Second, a remark like the one above is incredibly bigoted: Want to substitute “blacks” or “Jews” for the “religious right”.
Is it equally bigoted to substitute “Christians” for “the religious right”?
Of course, on the left, you can’t go wrong bashing Christians – they’re not real people, anyway, right?
Yeah, we liberals are just a bunch of secularists. There are no religious people on the left.
We bash conservative right-wing “christians” because they try to fuck up America.
Oliver, if it is any consolation, the Democratic religious nuts get their turn at the door I suspect, that is if Rev. Wright is allowed in anymore. LOL
Dr. King probably couldn’t get a permit to speak in public anymore — separation of church and state and all.
Zython, I have only one thing to say to you: If you think girls who have had abortions (illegally) should be on death row, you are entitled to your opinion. I don’t remember anyone on this blog ever suggesting such a thing but you.
Why do you hate women and children?
Zython, I have only one thing to say to you: If you think girls who have had abortions (illegally) should be on death row, you are entitled to your opinion. I don’t remember anyone on this blog ever suggesting such a thing but you.
If you believe abortion is murder, then putting women on death row for abortion is the only logically consistent position.
Why do you hate women and children?
Hey, I’m not the one who considers children to be pets.
Frank, Bashing INDIVIDUAL Christians who say and/or do things that merit bashing is NOT the same thing as bashing Christians in general. Not all Christians would be accurately characterized as belonging to “the religious right.”
“Dr. King probably couldn’t get a permit to speak in public anymore-separation of church and state.”
That sentence has a weird premise. Since when does a person need a permit to speak in public?
Jesus would vote Democrat.
‘Are you saying BOTH decisions are equally wrong in your opinion?
Yep, I am’
Well that’s just sad.
‘Are you suggesting abortion is a non-medical procedure conducted by ‘greedy doctors, who have no concept of the Hippocratic Oath?’
I am not suggesting it; I am asserting it outright. ‘
That is plainly insane.
‘I have no idea — but to call abortion a “legal, medical procedure” totally detaches abortion from any moral, psychological or emotional significance. ‘
According to you.
‘And that sounds like a blogger’s trick – not an honest personally held belief’
Again, according to YOU.
‘Eviction is legal – does that make it pleasant?’
Holy semantics Batman; so if you refuse, are incapable or cannot pay your rent, the landlord should have no LEGAL recourse to remove you from the property?
And this is relevant to abortion HOW exactly?
‘Yeah well, the point is, anybody is welcome there.
Even you.’
Unlike you, I don’t need ANYONE to tell me right from wrong, but have at it.
It’s your right to worship any way you want, as it is mine to not do so.
Satan is a neocon?
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/chickenhawks.html
‘Yeah well, the point is, anybody is welcome there. Even you.’
I’d bet that if during the sermon I shouted out: You lie! I wouldn’t.
“Perhaps you don’t see these as “governmental intrusions” ? Think carefully.”
No, it’s the gubermint protecting more/other people’s right and not just your own tribes’. It’s actually expanding peoples’ rights, which I know is a scary thing … . Plurality sucks!!
There’s a big difference between the religious right and religion. Do you defend the Islamic religious right with the same fervor? Basically, if it’s religion and it’s on the right, it’s neither religious or right.
You are all entitled to your opinions, however benighted they might be. There are many people on the “Christian Right” who are not crazy, or hypocrites, or viciously partisan. You have smeared them all.
Even the ministers named above have congregations, held services, and preached and ministered to many, just as the (real) Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. did. Not so the reigning clerics of the Left: Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (do they even go to Church?).
When you have practiced the same things with government protection for nearly two hundred years, and then those practices are forbidden by a Supreme Court — not an elected Legislative body or elected President — which has simply acceded to political pressure, I call that a “government intrusion”. I am not interested in what you pretend it is.
And, Zython, abortion is death (or, more accurately, the termination of a pregnancy by artificial means), therefore, it does not logically follow that women who have illegal abortions belong on death row.
On the other hand, all the babies, even those born alive are put to death. They are on “death row” for a few minutes. I’m sure that satisfies your liberal desire for justice for the disadvantaged.
There are many people on the “Christian Right” who are not crazy, or hypocrites or viciously partisan.
You’re absolutely right. They are crazy AND hypocrites AND viciously partisan.
Rotter, your logic is absurdly wrong. If X is neither A nor B nor C, than it can not possible be A and B and C.
But you knew that, didn’t you?
And, Zython, abortion is death (or, more accurately, the termination of a pregnancy by artificial means), therefore, it does not logically follow that women who have illegal abortions belong on death row.
What the hell are you talking about? If abortion is death, then that means the woman “killed” it with said intent. This is murder 1, which carries the death penalty in most states. Now, if you’re OPPOSED to socialized vengeance altogether, we could change the scenario to life imprisonment.
Even the ministers named above have congregations, held services, and preached and ministered to many, just as the (real) Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. did. Not so the reigning clerics of the Left: Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (do they even go to Church?).
You’re comparing ministers who have called for the execution of homosexuals to Rev. King? That…wow…
Also, while my opinion of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton could be better, I can say with great certainty that they are far more righteous than their right-wing counterparts.
When you have practiced the same things with government protection for nearly two hundred years, and then those practices are forbidden by a Supreme Court — not an elected Legislative body or elected President — which has simply acceded to political pressure, I call that a “government intrusion”. I am not interested in what you pretend it is.
First off, this is a textbook case of an appeal to tradition. Secondly, I’m sorry if you want to beat up gays that badly, but it’s illegal now. Deal with it.
I call that a “government intrusion”. I am not interested in what you pretend it is.
Not interested? Then you’re here just to preach at us?
The Supreme Court ruled that the government can’t tell people when to pray and who to pray to. So what you’re saying is the government has intruded upon the government?
Tell you what, Frank. If you think it’s cool for a teacher or a school administrator to demand that all students in a classroom or a school perform Muslim prayer five times a day, then I’ll go along with your bizarre interpretation of what is or isn’t a “government intrusion.”
I’m starting to think that Frankie is a member of the Opus Dei cult?
There are places where Muslims are getting time to pray. What would you think if that happened here?
Zython, I leave you to play in the fields of ignorance.
Hey Frankie, where’s “there” and where’s “here”? Tell us please how you divide your mind up; what are the sections?
There are places where Muslims are getting time to pray.
No, you may not move the goal posts.
What you call a “government intrusion” is actually a ruling that says the government cannot tell you or me when to pray and what prayer to pray.
Down is not up.
A “government intrusion” is when the government rules that you must do something you have never done , or you must stop doing something you have always done. It might be painful, but necessary, when done by elected officials or the President. It is particularly loathsome when done by unelected Supreme Court justices , or Washington bureaucrats.
Frankie – A “government intrusion” is when the government rules that you must do something you have never done … .”
Like??
“… or you must stop doing something you have always done.”
Like??
Forget it C B — see the posts above – we have been over this already …
…your logic is absurdly wrong…”
You’re right, I guess I got confused by your bad grammar in the “There are many people in the…” (the “not” in that sentence should have been a “neither”, and “nor” should have replaced “or” in both instances in which you use the latter word in the same sentence). My actual sentiment (that there are many in the “Christian Right” who are crazy and hypocritical and viciously partisan) still stands, though.
Jaim, “Jesus would vote Democrat.” No he wouldn’t, because he knows the Democrat Administration would invade his religious property, trap and burn him and his followers alive, then cover it up.” I am just saying it could happen.
“If the real Jesus Christ were to stand up today. He’d be gunned down cold by the CIA – Dead Kennedys
“… or you must stop doing something you have always done.”
Like??
Like segregation.
“We bash conservative right-wing “christians” because they try to fuck up America.”
LOL,
Nothing like wearing your prejudice on your sleeve.
Frank DiSalle…
It amazes me that you (or anyone else) would believe that every woman who chooses to have an abortion must consider the variables that you deem important and mandatory. Since you live a uterus free life, maybe you should let this idea go?
As much as you would wish it to be true, it’s not the role of you, Dobson, Wildmon and others to determine health options for women they don’t know.
Shocking to consider that millions of uteruses have nothing to do with you, right?
And yes there are wonderful people of all political persuasions who love Christ and truly live by Christian principles. But the people who are on the list in this post aren’t those people. From my readings (source: http://frank-schaeffer.blogspot.com/), I’ve found
the people on the list say and do mean things in the name of Christ. And one quality I would never associate Christianity with is meanness.
Zython, I agree with you I am still ashamed of FDR for his racist practices, as well as the rest of the Democratic party, thank G_D Republicans joined, Pres. Johnson, and defeated the Democratic filibuster against the 1964 Civil rights act, just as I know, we are all proud of Pres. Nixon, for reducing the number of blacks in the south attending Segregated Schools from nearly 70% to 9% in his first 5 years in office. These two are true heroes, and Civil Rights Champions.
So drinketh the Impaler!
Jesus wouldn’t condone torture. Jesus wouldn’t condone violence in the name of American occupation. Jesus wouldn’t condone tax cuts for the rich.
Have you even read the Bible?
“Have you even read the Bible?”
The Bible is as much a book of ancient history as it is a religious text. You are evidently as unfamiliar with the actual text of the Bible, as you are with American history, critical thought, Constitutional content etc. etc. etc.
Iamnotstarjones,iamspartacus, this is a tired argument, “I am female, you are male, so if I want to kill my baby it’s my choice” isn’t this a shorter post. My sister is a member of the NOW group, and she is an attorney, I have heard all the arguments, and this is the worst. Why, you may ask, “ZYTHON listen up here”, In California if a pregnant woman is injured or killed, Drunk driver, rapist, murder, etc. California can seek murder charges in the death of the unborn, thereby granting the “fetus” legal status as a person; this law does not change, even if the lady had the incident on the way to the abortion clinic.
In summary, involuntary (not of the mothers choosing) abortion has been deemed a serious crime. But in California if the mother chooses to kill the unborn baby, (whom otherwise has legal status) it is not murder. This is why I love Democrats, only they could have crafted this one.
So Sayeth the Impaler!
Jaim, In the Army, they called me Preacher, and I am close to, and walk with G_D. Jaim, you have questions that seem to allude you, please read and study Matthew, then ask me a question and I will do my best to answer it.
So Sayeth the Impaler!
“This is why I love Democrats, only they could have crafted this one.”
Intellectual honesty is not a hallmark of Democrat policy, nor important to Democrats in general.
“This is why I love Democrats, only they could have crafted this one.”
Actually, Democrats, generally speaking, tend to oppose the laws that you are talking about, Impaler (they tend to argue, not unreasonably in my view, that such laws could be seen as a backdoor effort to criminalize abortion). I would seriously doubt that they “crafted” the California law you mention, but if you have evidence to the contrary, bring it on.
Oh, and the word “sentence” should have followed the ellipsis in my 1:17 a.m. post.
Since you live a uterus free life, maybe you should let this idea go?
What in the world is a “uterus free life”?
How does it differ from any other life?
How about if I propose this, then: Since women have this Supreme Court – given right to absolute sovereignty over their own bodies, that “uterus free” beings do not possess, then why not give female fetuses with fully formed uteruses the right to determine what happens to their bodies, before their lives are taken by uterus free abortionists?
BTW, how many “uterus free” Supreme Court Justices gave women the right to kill their own babies, regardless of whether their health was at stake, whether they were minors, or whether the fetuses were partially developed of actually viable?
Finally, please point me in the direction of any scientific, legal, or philosophical basis for declaring men to be classified as “uterus free”.
Notice how I left religion, ethics and morals out of it, so it would would jibe with the pro-abortion stance.
So drinketh the Impaler!
At least you got SOMETHING right in that post.
Jaim, In the Army, they called me Preacher, and I am close to, and walk with G_D.
I have no way to verify that one way or the other.
But in California if the mother chooses to kill the unborn baby, (whom otherwise has legal status) it is not murder. This is why I love Democrats, only they could have crafted this one.
I agree that it’s a stupid law. There should be a fine at worst (just like in the Bible). When you declare a fetus a human-being, you create a whole mess of legal loopholes and uncertainties. Such as, but not limited to:
- Can a pregnant woman drive in the HOV lane?
- If so, would officers have to carry pregnancy tests for these cases?
- Can fetuses be declared dependents on tax returns?
- If so, what’s stopping me from having 100 frozen embryos in my home and declaring them?
How does it differ from any other life?
This is why proper sex education is so important.
How about if I propose this, then: Since women have this Supreme Court – given right to absolute sovereignty over their own bodies, that “uterus free” beings do not possess, then why not give female fetuses with fully formed uteruses the right to determine what happens to their bodies, before their lives are taken by uterus free abortionists?
First off, that would probably only make 3rd trimester abortions illegal, which is already the case in most states. Secondly, there are also female “abortionators”, you know.
Zython, :
First off, that would probably only make 3rd trimester abortions illegal, which is already the case in most states.
So, in some states, it is illegal to kill a woman with a fully formed uterus, against her will; in some states, it is not.
Have you informed the Department of Justice about this flagrant violation of Federal Law?
Secondly, there are also female “abortionators”, you know.
So women with fully formed uteruses are permitted to kill other women with fully formed uteruses in some states. What if a female abortionist (the correct term for a person who performs an abortion) has had her womb removed as a result of a hysterectomy? Can she still perform abortions? After all, she is now “uterus – free”.
That doesn’t sound like the “Equal justice under Law” that I grew up with, but, hey, the Obamassiah is President now…
Impaler, please explain the Sermon on the Mount to me in light of your support for torture.
Please, I’m eager to hear you butcher a sacred religious text.
(the correct term for a person who performs an abortion)
uh…no.
So, in some states, it is illegal to kill a woman with a fully formed uterus, against her will; in some states, it is not.
Have you informed the Department of Justice about this flagrant violation of Federal Law?
Since when is a fetus a woman? I think you’re skipping a few steps there.
(the correct term for a person who performs an abortion)
uh…no.
Uh … yes
yes
yes
and
oh, yes
Jaim, who are you, or your party lecture anyone on torture, you think, no your “dear leader” tells you to think, that second hand smoke, sleep deprivation, and water boarding (three people, In 5 years) is torture, this from the same party that supported institutional slavery, and Lynching. BTW, Read all of my posts in this thread. Oh, and I said you could ask me a question, not a request for an explanation.
So Sayeth the Impaler! (Jaim, this is not the slogan you are looking for)
Zython, “Secondly, there are also female “abortionators”, you know.” LMAO seriously I see a movie here….you made my night, thanks.
Jaim, I am curious: What relevance could the Sermon on the Mount have to torture?
Does it forbid torture?
Does it even mention torture?
Surely “water boarding” doesn’t appear in the King James version…