View Full Version : R Right and republican candidates
12-03-2007, 03:42 AM
more on the right:http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_religiousright
Americans United for separation fo church and state website .More on this website:http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues
All the more reason NOT TO VOTE REPUBLICAN. Theocracy anyone..? For me personally this is an insult to me as an American that anyone would vote for a party that has no respect for our constitutional rights and has no respect for separation of church and state and that supports a religious agenda that is UN-American, anti-democratic,pro -big business and lacking in principle and common sense and decency.
12-03-2007, 05:10 AM
I wonder how large the Americans United group is, and how large of an online following the news site is.
One of there newer entries on the site is about how the Texas Education Agency has fired the director for the state's science curriculum for having sent an email discussing a book that is critical of the intelligent design movement. (NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/us/03evolution.html) (Blog: http://blog.au.org/2007/11/30/unintelligent-decision-texas-education-official-forced-out-for-supporting-sound-science/http://blog.au.org/2007/11/30/unintelligent-decision-texas-education-official-forced-out-for-supporting-sound-science/).
The basis for all this contention is that Texas is approaching a time (see NYT article) in which the Education Agency will have to review its science curriculum, so there will likely be a showdown between evolution and the creationist version of evolution concerning what to teach in public schools. (I believe words are powerful, so I think it would be best to not refer to creationist's science by the name of ID).
Isn't Texas also the state that has an abstinence (until [heterosexual] marriage) only sex [lack of] education? Maybe next the state's boundaries will be redrawn into the shape of a cross or better yet perhaps a sword and shield. (:laughing: Yes, I do realize have a bit (ton?) of negative sentiments built up.)
Oh, and here's the book that was discussed in the e-mail that has created [intelligently, lol,] all this contention. It's called the Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (http://www.amazon.com/Creationisms-Trojan-Horse-Intelligent-Design/dp/0195319737/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196435716&sr=1-1). Supposedly, it's a good read. :reading:
12-03-2007, 05:16 AM
I live in texas. But here is something on the state on the republican party.
http://www.theocracywatch.org/texas_gop.htm (ok I'm prejudiced against my own state here, but I have lived here for 26 years and I don't like "redneck politics") And frankly I'm super pissed off that people here can be so ignorant to support these yahoos. Here is the 2006 republican platform in texas on homosexuality:Homosexuality - We believe that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values. Also:Child Support and Visitation - We support improvement and equity between responsible parents in child support, custody, and visitation, as well as the strengthening of laws designed to protect children from abuse. No parent/grandparent should be denied court ordered visitation, because of jurisdictional disputes between states. We also P-16
believe that no homosexual or any individual convicted of child abuse or molestation should have the right to custody or adoption of a minor child, and that visitation with minor children by such persons should be prohibited but if ordered by the court limited to supervised periods.
Adoption –We support reducing the time, bureaucratic interference with and cost of adoption in Texas. We support a law that assures the mother a choice of selecting a traditional home for her child at the time of terminating her rights for the purpose of adoption. We support private adoption agencies recruiting and training prospective adoptive parents and placing for adoption all children in the foster care system of Texas who are legally free for adoption. We oppose mandatory open adoption and adoption of children by homosexuals.(Notice homosexuals are lumped in with child molesters and abusers)
Frankly I'm tired of the right blaming failing marriages, divorces and diseases on homosexuals.Heterosexuals need to take responsibility for their own problems and contributions to the failure of their marriages and divorces. And heterosexuals get and can spread STDS and aids too.Homosexuals do not cause failed marriages, divorces and infidelity or heterosexual family problems.Sorry but that is a cop out. This flies in the face of reason and personal responsibility for one's own actions.While aids and other sexually transmitted diseases are a legitimate concern , what about the larger picture, of it being a concern for both str8's and gays. It's everyone's problem and not just a problem that is unique to LGBT people.Marriage is also not a guarantee of being safe from contracting sexual diseases , especially when another partner is not faithful to the marriage.
Marriage cannot force fidelity either. No one can make their partners be faithful.Also their definition of marriage is a narrow one and crude at best, marriage is not just about sex or having sex with someone else ,it is a partnership with shared responsibilities, anyone who would define marriage soley on the basis of having sex, doesn't have much an idea of what it should be or how interpersonal relationships need to work, there are wives who I have heard about who feel objectified by their husbands or have been sexually abused by their husbands.They have also reduced the idea of manliness to something of a brute, one who dominates others, and someone who has no emotional connection with others while women are supposed to be submissive and docile.
Texas Sodomy Statutes - We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.
Also orgs like defcon and pfaw say basically thing as American United does about the religious right, Defcon has especially done in depth research on the right and is a watch dog of the right.
None of these organizations is anti-religion, but they argue that the right is trying to impose their ideology on the rest of us, while these orgs support religious freedom and the first amendment.
Here is what American United says about religion:http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues For example:"As tax-exempt entities, houses of worship may not intervene in partisan politics by endorsing or opposing candidates. Pulpit-based electioneering not only violates federal law, many believe it corrupts the true mission of our faith communities." And "The so-called “faith-based” initiative is a euphemism for taxpayer-supported religion. The initiative funnels taxpayer dollars to religious social service providers without adequate safeguards to prevent proselytism. In addition, these groups seek to discriminate in hiring based on religion even though their programs are publicly funded.""
And "Federal courts are often our last line of defense to protect our constitutional rights. Federal judges should respect our Constitution and appreciate the important role that church-state separation has played in safeguarding religious liberty."
And:"The right to practice your chosen faith is cherished by the American people. A division between church and state ensures this right by freeing religion from obtrusive government interference. Government must show a compelling interest before restricting religious exercise."
"The Constitution bars government from meddling in religion. Government should be neutral on theological matters and not seek to sponsor, promote or further faith."
And:"Americans have the right to support only the religious groups of their choosing. Vouchers and other forms of government aid to religious schools usurp this privilege by forcing all taxpayers to subsidize indoctrination. Religious organizations are free to sponsor schools, but they should be responsible for their upkeep."
All elected officials are sworn in to uphold and defend the constitution of the US, that does not mean they can impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us. Call me biased, but I am not into gun totin', nuke lovin', anti environmental, pro-corporation,anti worker rights, Pro-rich,anti-poor, anti-constitution and anti- separation of church and state , and rascist, and homophobic religious - based bible belt politiks (deliberately mispelled) Redneck as I said earlier. Just what we need more bombs and guns and less edukashen.(education, see I can spell) Here are some statistics on where Texas ranks in education, poverty,environmentally, taxation-wise, healthcare wise, and it ain't good.http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2006/02/28/StateLocal/Texas.Public.Education.Rank.Moves.Up.2.Spots-1640731.shtml
http://shapleigh.org/system/reporting_document/file/3/focus_documents3.pdf Well enough of my rant on texas politics..
12-03-2007, 08:53 PM
lady you rock, i am becoming a fan of yours.
down with the religious right! "the religious right is neither"
12-04-2007, 09:29 AM
They are deplorable when it comes to the environment, they think man has every right to subdue it and do with it what he wishes, The same people who were going to allow sewage into our water supply(Until people raised heck about it) RE:
Allowing Dumping of Raw Sewage - EPA May Allow the Discharge of Partially Treated Sewage. Guidelines That Are Near Release Would Permit Blended Waste, Washington Post, December 8, 2004
But they don't even believe in protecting endangered species(Proabably because they'd rather shoot at some helpless animal and put it on their wall as a trophy)
Here is their platform on gun control: Opposes all forms of gun control including law suits against gun manufacturers.
"We reject the establishment of any mechanism to process, license, record, register or monitor the ownership of guns."
Yeah now I guess a felon can get a gun and go trigger happy on the town. Or shoot at a police officer with a assault weapon. So much for protecting our police officers I guess.I support gun legislation like licensing amd registering because any responsible citizen who has not broken any laws should not have a problem with it, and although not fool proof, it would help keep guns from falling into the wrong hands, as it is I think, because of lack of regulation, this will make it harder for law enforcement to do their jobs and protect the public.
Here is something on Bush's policies:The Washington Post has published a three-part series analyzing the devastating impact of Bush administration deregulatory policies on the environment and public health. The first article from the Post is called Bush Forces a Shift In Regulatory Thrust, OSHA Made More Business-Friendly, August 15, 2004. The second article, August 16, 'Data Quality' Law Is Nemesis Of Regulation talks about the health threat of a law to deregulate chemicals. The third article, August 17, Appalachia Is Paying Price for White House Rule Change explains how Bush administration rule changes are devastating the environment.White House, GOP Leaders Plan All-Out Assault on Federal Protections,
Greenwatch Today, June 23, 2006
Their stand on the environment?p.2 #10: "We oppose conservation easements on our natural resources administered by organizations unaccountable to tax payers and voters." (That means land trusts and conservation groups would be declared unconstitutional.)
p. 2 #18: "We oppose the Endangered Species Act."
p.2 #7: "We believe that groundwater is an absolute, vested right of the landowner."
P. 2 #13: "We oppose passage of any international treaty that overrides United States sovereignty including the Kyoto agreement and Biodiversity Treaty."
I personally believe we are to be stewards to our planet not to subdue or to use the environment at our pleasure but to preserve and conserve for future generations. Do they even think about safety, clean water and air and pollution? Or perservation? What we leave to future generations will say alot about our morals. And wildlife should be protected ,as it is too many species are going extinct. They want to rape and rob the earth of it's resources I guess, so future generations will find it harder to sustain life in the future, as it is the earth's human population has already made it difficult for the earth to sustain life on it now.
Do these people ever think about cause and effect of their actions or the consequences?
They want deregulation for big business interests thinking they can police themselves or will be responsible when it comes to our environment which is often not the case and why we need certain regulations to protect the public and environment.
They talk about championing human life, but the future and welfare of this planet and it's citizens hinges on what we do to our environment in many cases.
Regardless of what these yahoos think ,all living things have value, God created them so they must be on the earth for a reason. It is also a fact that many civilizations in the past came to naught because of the squandering of their resources.
If the people of Texas knew that they were voting for a bunch of right wing fanatics ,would they vote for these people? I'd say proabably not,at least I would hope not.
12-04-2007, 09:32 AM
Yet the scary thing is they preach their lack of "values" in the name of Jesus Christ, and people buy into their perverted message.
12-04-2007, 09:53 AM
Not only perverted, but delusional. If they weren't so "senseless" it would be comical ,as it is ,it's tragic. "treehugger" and green are dirty words in their vocabulary , can you believe that? They don't support multculturalism but declare the US a Christian nation. Our forefathers never said the US was a Christian nation, many of them were deist, not Christian.Our nation may have predominately Christian people, but there are other religions (Judaism, buddhism, Hinduism, Molsem etc) as well. If they had their way they would replace the US flag with a Christian flag.
I support the first amendment and freedom of religion,or even freedom from religion. But to impose a theocracy, no way!!!!!! The religious right as it is, is corrupt, and inept and we want people like that running our country?(well actually they do right now and look what they got us in?) I wouldn't trust the future of my dog with them, not that they are even trustworthy as leaders.I will move to Europe if it happens.
And people might get the impression that because I call the religious right nuke lovin' that I am against our troops or military. Wrong,But I don't believe our country should go to war unless as a last resort and in a clear and present danger and only in self defense, that is if our country is being attacked by another country,or poses a serious threat to our security and freedom, but the right seem to be at war with everything and everyone and first response with them when it comes to another country we don't like, is nuke 'em. I will say as a mom, I hope my child will never have to go to war.
But our country is at war with another country at least every 25 years, and sad to say our politicians are all too happy to send our troops in harms way over a ideological dispute,(our troops fight to protect and defend our country, not to promote political interests or religious ideologies and not to help protect corporate interests overseas)they say they are promoting democracy, but democracy is not something we can force down someone else's throats or by force.They talk about the sacrifices we as Americans need to make but name one politician who would be willing to make the same sacrifices or send their loved ones into harms way, you will find them to be very few indeed. They'll protect their political butts and own careers before they think about any soldier or the consequences of their policies and actions.The ones who want to speak out and deal with the problems often are "censored" and called unpatriotric" . Lambasted by right wing pundits of course. Blind support or submission to those in power does not make for patriotism.They are leaders of our country , yes, but they need to be held accountable for their actions as every American citizen should be. And they are still beholden to the American people not vice versa.
Our fore fathers gave this warning.. The Con Government, like the Con Man, is ever trying to "restore confidence" in himself, but never trying to actually become worthy of confidence.
This is why the Founders never talked about "restoring confidence." They talked about keeping faith with the people, about earning respect. The onus was on them to be honest, not just be thought honest.
They never talked about trying to create some kind of trust in government among the people. The Founders, in fact, mistrusted all governments and all men. They believed the biblical proposition (even those who were not Bible believers per se that human beings are inherently corrupt and corruptible.Jefferson was known to say, "Let us hear no more of confidence in men, but bind them down with chains of the Constitution."
Like Jefferson, the other Founders believed that enforcing the laws and Constitution - not some public relations trick to "restore confidence" - was the answer.
The reason the Founders had a Revolution in the first place, was because governments of men were deemed automatically to be suspect - King George being the exemplar of that proposition. The reason the Founders divided government into competing power blocks (balanced powers) was to help insure that no one of them would have the power to enforce tyranny. People in power, by nature, were not trustworthy enough for sovereign power.
There is nothing wrong with promoting the idea of democracy, but if we are going to promote the idea we need to live by example ,when our politicians support despotic regimes and oust democratic regimes to support our so-called "interests" or because we want another countries resources under our control for example , it is easy why the rest of the world might look on us as hypocrites
12-04-2007, 08:39 PM
Has it ever occurred to these nuts that not all gays practice sodomy (some don't like anal sex), and that some heterosexuals do practice it?
If I remember right, Mel White's book RGB mentions the horrendously high rate of hate crimes in TX. Bigotry & violence go hand in hand.
12-04-2007, 09:26 PM
I know, and I have to live here, but it does say alot about this state when Texans support the RR and their nonsense.Believe it or not Texas was once a beautiful state, so much for the environment, I guess. I also wonder how many gays in this state recognize their stand on homosexuality?
12-04-2007, 10:19 PM
12-04-2007, 10:47 PM
http://www.theocracywatch.org/bush2.htm Sadly I think as a president Bush is more misguided than anything.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.