Sullivan on Scarborough
Nothing to add to this.
"Whether the debate centers around a Presidential election, the right to die movement, the gay agenda, prayer in school, or simply letting our children recite the Pledge of Alligence, the teachings of Jesus Christ always seems to thwart the agenda of America's left wing elites. Forget what you heard in the 1960s. God is not dead. In fact, he is very much alive and beating liberal elites on one political issue after another. Maybe that is why so many of them hate the Prince of Peace." - Joe Scarborough.
Is Scarborough honestly saying that Jesus Christ had a position in the last presidential election, that only Republican voters were true Christians? Is he
saying that criticism of a Pope's style or record is somehow identical to "hatred" of the Gospels? Did a Jesus who never mentioned homosexuality take a position on gay politics in the 21st century? The complete conflation of politics and religion among today's Republicans just gets deeper and deeper. And dumber and dumber.
posted by Abe at 4/13/2005 03:57:00 PM
6 Comments:
dumber and dumber, but it works.....
Gee- I guess you liberals are getting beat by a bunch of dummies then, huh? I doubt God would support the enforced secularism that you liberals worship.
For the record, Andrew Sullivan (who wrote the above) is hardly a liberal. He is just among the vast majority of Americans who prefer democracy to theocracy, and who are sick and tired of having radical right-wing "Christianity" shoved down our throats in the name of patriotism. Rocky, you're in the other camp, apparently. Noted.
"[E]nforced secularlism"? There is such a concept as separation of Church and State. In fact, need I remind you, Rock, that the concept was conceived by our founding fathers to not only protect the state, but MORE importantly to protect religion.
The original colonists themselves fled religious intolerance and bigotry from the strong, authoritarian regimes of their homeland.
From a practical level, think about it, the more one allows the master in the kitchen (the state), the more the master will want to have a hand in the cookin'.
In the first place, I'd love for you to show me where separation of church and state appears in the Constitution. I guess I missed it.
Secondly, I believe the entire concept of separation has been bastardized. I am fully against a "State religion". This would be a religion adopted by the government as the accepted and promoted religion. I believe this is what the entire concept was created to prevent. If that is all that became of it, I'd be a huge supporter of it. Unfortunately, it has been changed over the years by zealous secularists. It isn't enough for them that the state doesn't adopt or promote a specific religion. Now any mention of religion in the public arena is verboten.
This is my point- The concept of "Separation of Church and State" is to prevent a State religion. It is not intended to stifle religion completely in the public arena. Government should not be promoting religion and it should not be suppressing it either. I don't care if the atheists are offended by it. Their rights don't supercede my own. I'm not "shoving Christianity down your throat" but I have a right (which I can cite from the Constitution) to practice my religion freely. That might include spreading the word of God in a public place. Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, secularists and all other lines of thought and religion should have the same access to this public forum.
In the end, I just think you're ticked off that conservative christians got people you don't like elected. Too bad for you.
What fascinates me about Mr. Scarborough's comments is that I have no idea to what teachings of Jesus he is referring. I know there are many versions of the Bible, but apparently, there is one very different from any I have ever seen because right wing fundamentalists continue to amaze me with the things they attribute to Christ. As Sullivan pointed out, Jesus never mentions homosexuality. He scolds the pharisees for praying obnoxiously in public and I have a hard time believing he would pledge allegiance to the flag of America. I will admit that I struggle over where he would stand on the right to die issue, but I hardly think you can attribute any particular position on that to "liberals" and I certainly don't think you can accuse those who support the right to die of hating "the Prince of Peace."
Ironically, what Jesus does speak about are the things that Republicans fight hard to keep the government from spending their money on - like feeding the poor or taking care of the widows and the helpless. I seem to remember him talking much more about "the least of these" than about gay people.
What I find ironic about the party which most conservative Christians associate themselves is that it fights so hard to keep the government out of people's pockets, but invites intervention in the personal lives of others - not of themselves because they already live "holy lives."
And by the way, wasn't the Prince of Peace a liberal in his time?
Post a Comment
<< Home