|
Religous extremists in America? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Virus |
| quote: | Originally posted by LouisLaBelle
Well there some paganism in America such as Micheal Moore promoting the Hindu religion and teens getting pregnant everywere. Also the amount of aids in America's inner city communities. I can agree though the paganism in America is not as bad as it is in Canada, Sweden and England. |
Eeeh. Paganism is not big at all in Sweden. Im very curious how you got that idea. |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...1737EDT0668.DTL
| quote: |
AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they'd pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?
SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.
AP: The right to privacy lifestyle?
SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle.
AP: What's the alternative?
SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.
AP: Well, what would you do?
SANTORUM: What would I do with what?
AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative?
SANTORUM: First off, I don't believe _
AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?
SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.
AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?
SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality _
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.
SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.
AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy -- you don't agree with it?
SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.
|
|
|
|
| DigiNut |
So he's vile and hateful because he doesn't offer his support to homosexuals? I'm sorry Dave, I don't agree with his sentiments either, but you seem to want to totally tear into anyone who even remotely opposes homosexual relationships - he's entitled to his opinion and you're entitled to yours, but just because you differ doesn't mean that he's "spewing hate".
His argument is not hate-filled or irrational; it may be incorrect, but that's another issue entirely. I'm not really familiar with the other things he's said, but the particular one you showed us doesn't seem to justify personal attacks. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
Frankly it's a bit shocking he could come to power from a state like Pennsylvania, but it's really more of a reflection of voter apathy I guess.
|
That really is the core of the problem. Most moderate and liberal people aren't very strong on their views when it comes to voting or social activity. That's why sometimes a vocal minority can really outweight the silent majority. Just take serbian elections for example. The whole nation is exhausted from war and nobody really wants another one. People have been so dissatisfied with the government that the voting turnout was less than 20% in major cities. The big cities, however, are the source of liberal and tolerant ideas, while reactionary ideas usually come from the countryside. The countryside voting turnout there was much higher because rural people over there are pretty nationalistic. So what happened is that the "Serbian Radical Party" won 35% of the votes. And some of their prime objectives is to again declare war on Croatia, as well as to bring Kosovo under a tight government control! But on every poll that's made in Serbia, less than 10% of the people support the radical party's views. Luckily, the party failed by several seats to make the ruling coalition in the parliament. But the current government is pretty unstable and will likely fall. The only thing to blame for such a situation is voter apathy. If more voters were to vote on the elections, the government would be stable and the radical party would be a marginal political power. Now, if this government fails, which it likely will, the result will be even more voter apathy and a likely win for the radical party - although their policies are supported by a pretty weak minority.
Now, if we take that analogy and compare it with the american fundamentalists, we can see that they are a dangerous force. Just remember what sort of upheval they caused when the 10 commandments were removed from one school's front enterance. On the other hand, we have several states teaching creationism as a valid scientific theory, and noone is complaining! If secular people were to take that issue to the court, they would most likely win on the bases of religious freedom and schools teaching single religion's ideals. Yet they are neither as organized nor as strong in their beliefs as the fundamentalists are, and that's where the danger lurks. It's rarely the majority of the population that causes changes. Changes are caused by a strong minority that is able to influence the opinions of a weak minded majority which then follows that minority without much thinking. |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
So he's vile and hateful because he doesn't offer his support to homosexuals? I'm sorry Dave, I don't agree with his sentiments either, but you seem to want to totally tear into anyone who even remotely opposes homosexual relationships - he's entitled to his opinion and you're entitled to yours, but just because you differ doesn't mean that he's "spewing hate".
His argument is not hate-filled or irrational; it may be incorrect, but that's another issue entirely. I'm not really familiar with the other things he's said, but the particular one you showed us doesn't seem to justify personal attacks. |
Perhaps it's because I associate social authoritarianism with intolerance and bigotry.
Now is that a false corollary? Perhaps in some individual cases, but based on history, I find that for the most part it is a logically derived corollary.
I see little difference between, for example, Kim Jong Ill using the state to oppress those that practice their own chosen religion deemed a threat to his hold on power, and a lawmaker using his or her position of authority to oppress those with non-traditional relationships that the lawmaker somehow deems a threat. That's exactly the practice that Santorum is defending. He’s saying that it was right for the state to arrest two homosexual men, (without being too graphic) simply for being two homosexual men in the privacy of their own home.
Honestly, I consider that to be one of the ultimate abuses of power.
In striking down that law the court clearly made the correct decision. |
|
|
| borron |
Actually i wanted to start a topic about religion a few times, but i'm so lazy :)
Let me explain the situation in my country.
We are and always were considered one of the most religious countries in europe, especially in the middle ages (we had our own inquisition and we spread christianism all over africa, brasil, india and japan).
Our catholic rate is 95% of the population, one of the highest in the world.
Most people are baptized as newborns (just like me).
I came from a very religious family and i've been educated up to 6th grade in a catholic school, had 8 years of catholic education and i used to go to church every sunday until i was 13.
However i rejected all this. As soon i was able to think for myself in a coherent way (let's say 12) i started to reject it. And most of my friends too, although the large majority of them didn't have a fraction of my religious education.
Nowadays i go to church every easter day to make my very religious grandfathers happy, and what i see in church is that most people are in their 50+...
There are a few kids within the age range of my brother (14) which are also religious, but they are a minority, just like my own generation (i'm 20). With my cousins, the one who's 24 also rejected religion and the one who's almost 30 is religious.
I would say that the practising catholic population among young people (0-25 years) is VERY reduced nowadays, maybe between 10 and 15%. Comparing this to the 70%+ of religious people in their fifties, i see there is something wrong. Out of lots of people i know in my age range, there are maybe 4 or 5 who are religious.
However, simply by walking down a street in a normal city, you are bombarded with religious messages and christian symbols - they are everywhere, omnipresent. Religious messages also come from every type of media. I can only imagine how a muslim feels in such a society - maybe that's why there are only a handful of them (there are 2 mosques in the country).
What i want to ask is that if in your countries the same is happening: are youngsters rejecting religion? Is this a reflection of a modernised, highly developed, technologically advanced society?
(keep in mind all statistics here are not real, just a representation of what i THINK and know, based on observations i made in recent years) |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
That really is the core of the problem. Most moderate and liberal people aren't very strong on their views when it comes to voting or social activity. That's why sometimes a vocal minority can really outweight the silent majority. Just take serbian elections for example. The whole nation is exhausted from war and nobody really wants another one. People have been so dissatisfied with the government that the voting turnout was less than 20% in major cities. The big cities, however, are the source of liberal and tolerant ideas, while reactionary ideas usually come from the countryside. The countryside voting turnout there was much higher because rural people over there are pretty nationalistic. So what happened is that the "Serbian Radical Party" won 35% of the votes. And some of their prime objectives is to again declare war on Croatia, as well as to bring Kosovo under a tight government control! But on every poll that's made in Serbia, less than 10% of the people support the radical party's views. Luckily, the party failed by several seats to make the ruling coalition in the parliament. But the current government is pretty unstable and will likely fall. The only thing to blame for such a situation is voter apathy. If more voters were to vote on the elections, the government would be stable and the radical party would be a marginal political power. Now, if this government fails, which it likely will, the result will be even more voter apathy and a likely win for the radical party - although their policies are supported by a pretty weak minority.
Now, if we take that analogy and compare it with the american fundamentalists, we can see that they are a dangerous force. Just remember what sort of upheval they caused when the 10 commandments were removed from one school's front enterance. On the other hand, we have several states teaching creationism as a valid scientific theory, and noone is complaining! If secular people were to take that issue to the court, they would most likely win on the bases of religious freedom and schools teaching single religion's ideals. Yet they are neither as organized nor as strong in their beliefs as the fundamentalists are, and that's where the danger lurks. It's rarely the majority of the population that causes changes. Changes are caused by a strong minority that is able to influence the opinions of a weak minded majority which then follows that minority without much thinking. |
That's an excellent analogy, and I agree with you 100%.
In America we have this beautifully written constitution, but it's really only as relevant as the lawmakers and judges who interpret it. The people play an important part in the process, and if they become apathetic and lose interest, the system is destined to fail. Most politicians of all persuasions are such corrupt liars that the apathy on the part of the public doesn’t really surprise me, but I think many people don’t realize the magnitude of influence that their elected officials have over their lives.
In the Republican Party there is a very real war going on between the fundamentalists, and the more moderate corporatists. The fundamentalists are clearly winning at this point, and have near complete control of the party even though they are a small minority in terms of numbers within the party. Their eventual goal is to establish a theocracy favoring their authoritarian, extremist view of Christianity using the political and court systems. They also wish to eviscerate or make irrelevant the First Amendment (which protects freedom of religion). Obviously this is bad news for everyone, and not just for the more moderate Republicans trying to save their party.
Unfortunately I fear the more moderate forces and their efforts are already too late. I can recall a quote in that flash movie I posted in which GWB claims God told him to strike at Saddam and Al Queda. I'm actually hoping that was a fabrication, because that's clearly a terrifying implication for the world if true.
Another important point you mentioned was about the non-fundamentalists going to court over creationism in public schools. At the local level you have judges that are elected, or appointed by perhaps the governor of a particular state. In the federal courts, the President appoints the judges and the Senate confirms them. You can see what I’m getting at here. If the fundamentalists can get control of the courts, they will be in complete control to establish their agenda. The top prize is the US Supreme Court, and every single American who values their right to practice their personal religion (or no religion), should feel threatened by the Fundamentalist efforts.
On the other hand, big business has also begun to corrupt the Democratic Party within the last few decades. One of the main reasons for this is because of the tremendous amount of money needed to run television ads that are crucial to election wins. The amount of influence that big money has over the two main US political parties is nothing short of legalized bribery. John Kerry for example has taken large sums of money from “special interests,” and so have the other main democratic contenders. Howard Dean has a former telecom lobbyist running his campaign. Basically they are just hypocrites telling the public what they want to hear, but I'm sure they would still be less abusive in governing than the Bush Administration. They really set a high water mark in special interest corporate welfare givaways lol.
Anyone who says money doesn't buy votes is wrong; dead wrong.
Here is a good article about lobbyists:
| quote: |
Lobbyists Upset by Campaigning Barbs
February 03, 2004
Associated Press
by Sharon Theimer
Washington, DC -
One group watching Democratic presidential candidates criticize each other for taking lobbyist donations wants them to stop portraying lobbying as a dirty word.
The American League of Lobbyists sent the Democratic candidates letters Tuesday defending the profession and asking them to "accurately describe this necessary and essential part of the public policy process" when talking about it on the campaign trail.
Lobbying is protected by the First Amendment "and one of the major ways that politicians are held accountable to the people," league president Deanna Gelak wrote. "Lobbyists represent all points of view on the major issues that confront the country.
Candidates Howard Dean and John Edwards have criticized front-runner John Kerry for accepting campaign contributions from lobbyists, calling him a friend to special interests.
An analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics in Washington found that Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, accepted the most campaign money from lobbyists over the past 15 years of anyone in the Senate: about $638,000.
However, an Associated Press review of the candidates' 2003 presidential campaign finance reports found Dean and Edwards among those who accepted lobbyist contributions.
Dean received at least $8,300 from donors identifying themselves as lobbyists; Edwards, at least $6,200; and Kerry, at least $4,500.
Among other Democrats in the race, Joe Lieberman's presidential campaign raised at least $40,200 from lobbyists. Wesley Clark, a former lobbyist, collected at least $6,100.
The lone Republican candidate, President Bush, raised at least $294,000 from lobbyists, his reports show.
The nonpartisan league isn't endorsing any candidate. It is commenting because "we feel it's our responsibility to promote the reputation and professional ethics of government affairs professionals," Gelak, a lobbyist, said in an interview.
The Washington-based league represents more than 500 lobbyists, including those who work for trade associations, corporations, public-interest groups, labor unions and law and lobby firms.
|
|
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
I wish I could agree with you, but I don't think many realize how powerful the fundies are within the political system even though they only represent perhaps 15% of the US popultaion. Pat Robertson is a very wealthy man, and uses his wealth to buy votes and influence. By the early 90's the Fundies had taken working control of the Republican Party.
http://www.4religious-right.info/index.html
United States Sentate Republican Leadership:
Bill Frist, TN
Mitch McConnell, KY
Rick Santorum, PA
Bob Bennet, UT
Kay Bailey Hutchinson, TX
Jon Kyle, AZ
George Allen, VA
|
Now, now, no need to be overly melodramatic ... this must be the liberal version of the war on terror ;) ... the religious right has seized control of power! There are over 434 congressmen in the house of representatives, of which, only 229 are republicans. There are 100 senators of course, of which, 51 are republicans. Even assuming that all republicans are fundy gay-haters, the likelihood of a pro-fundamentalist agenda passing 2/3rds vote in both the house and the senate is unlikely. Assuming this fundamentalist agenda transcends party lines and affects all of those with religious backgrounds, then Catholics represent 27% of congress therefore it seems to me equally unlikely especially since virtually nothing transcends party lines with the exception of a 9/11 event. In the unlikely event of something like this occurring, then it still has to stand up to the supreme court.
| quote: |
Now, if we take that analogy and compare it with the american fundamentalists, we can see that they are a dangerous force. Just remember what sort of upheval they caused when the 10 commandments were removed from one school's front enterance. On the other hand, we have several states teaching creationism as a valid scientific theory, and noone is complaining! If secular people were to take that issue to the court, they would most likely win on the bases of religious freedom and schools teaching single religion's ideals. Yet they are neither as organized nor as strong in their beliefs as the fundamentalists are, and that's where the danger lurks. It's rarely the majority of the population that causes changes. Changes are caused by a strong minority that is able to influence the opinions of a weak minded majority which then follows that minority without much thinking.
|
Whaaa? This is exactly what I’m talking about … many look at media reports of fundies and loco states acting up to characterize the entire nation. First of all people need to understand that states have limited autonomy to set their own laws to govern themselves as they please. Therefore, if the majority of a state population who may be 99.99% religious would like to tweak their laws to their beliefs then that’s fine by so long as they do not violate limits set by the constitution. I am states rights first and foremost and anti-religious second. That doesn’t mean that I would want creationism taught in schools because that violates the principles of the constitutional separation from church and state. Now from my understanding of the entire debate, and correct me if I’m wrong Opus, Kansas or ANY other state for that matter cannot teach creationism. According to Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), the Supreme Court held unambiguously that it is unconstitutional to restrict a public school teacher's right to teach evolution. Secondly, in Aguillard v. Edwards, 482 U.S. 595 (1987), the high court decisively held that it is unconstitutional to require educators who teach evolution to also teach creationism. Therefore, what Kansas did was to not switch to creationism but to drop teachings of both creationism and evolution to “let the student decide” or some crap like that.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/03/08/cr...m.vs.evolution/
To clarify what Georgia recently did was that they simply changed the name of “evolution” to “biological changes over time.” Now can people PLEASE stop overreacting to the media hype and creating a “fundy scare” similar to the likes of the “terrorist scare”? I’ve previously discussed the British state’s affiliation with the church and its faith based schools so one cannot help but wonder where all the uproar and concern was especially when you take into consideration that creationism IS taught in some british schools :rolleyes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/...ion/1896164.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/...ear/2981663.stm |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
The fundies have taken over Eckerds.
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/d...y.79625125.html
| quote: |
Pharmacy's refusal to fill prescription protested
08:40 AM CST on Tuesday, February 3, 2004
By BRAD HAWKINS / WFAA-TV
Protesters said a Denton pharmacist crossed a line when he refused to fill a prescription based on his personal beliefs.
The pharmacist, who worked at an Eckerd drugstore on University Drive, withheld a so-called "morning-after" pill from a rape victim. More than two dozen protesters spent time out in front of the store Monday, expressing their displeasure with the decision.
"Pharmacists aren't supposed to play God," said protester Gloria Benavides. "If you need the medicine, they should give it to you."
The State Board of Pharmacy in Austin said pharmacists can refuse to fill a prescription but only on medical grounds, not over moral concerns. This woman's rape was medically confirmed by a doctor, who prescribed the pill.
It wasn't the victim's first stop; several other drugstores in town don't stock the drug. She eventually had the prescription filled across the street at a Walgreen's, but only after waiting 20 minutes at Eckerd.
A friend said the pharmacist told the woman that "this medication is designed to end life, and I cannot abide by that."
"After being raped and assaulted, to come into a pharmacy to get a prescription that is stocked there - an FDA-approved drug - and to be shut down, that's a second assault," said protester Stephanie Besier.
"To be faced with a pharmacist who moralizes to her, we find outrageous," said Kathryn Allen of Planned Parenthood of Texas. "This is not a chemical abortion; this is a large dose of birth control pills to prevent an unwanted pregnancy."
A spokeswoman for Florida-based Eckerd would not get specific in this case, but did say it had been reviewed and addressed. The chain's policy states it would not support any pharmacist's right to refuse to fill a prescription based on political, moral or religious convictions.
Still, some gathered Monday said they plan to take their business elsewhere.
"I pulled all my prescriptions from here, and will no longer use Eckerd," Besier said.
|
Damn they piss me off. This woman has been through enough without the fundie attack. |
|
|
| occrider |
LoL it's the actions of one pharmacist ... not the chain store ;) |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| I know, it was a joke. :) |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
I know, it was a joke. :) |
Hehe actually if you think about it, all the fundies are probably quaking in their boots. There have been so many anti-fundy rulings in all the courts lately from nearly every angle ..
http://www.thewgalchannel.com/news/2812747/detail.html
It pleases me that they have the fear of God in them :) |
|
|
|
|
