Let's Paint The Picture
I received this response from one of my previous posts.
I would be interested in some examples of how our religious freedoms are being stolen, and in just what fashion the republicans have begun a "religious war". This sounds so much like all the other things I see from both sides of the political aisle. Lots of emotionalized accusations without a single "for instance" included.
First I apologize for thinking this was obvious to any one paying attention. Let's take a rational, systematic look at this. First let's start with one of the definitions of war from the Websters dictionary: state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end.
Is there any denial that there is outright hostility by the religious right towards anyone that doesn't share their view? Not disagreement but belief that others are absolutely wrong and as such are banished to hell. It's a fundamental principal of fundies. Their belief is that America is a "Christian" nation. This is quite debatable and many instances can be shown to not be the case, nor intended to be. The fundies however insist this with no doubt. This, in a land once know as a land of religious freedom. Those opposed to this view, such as I, refuse to go lay down and let them turn America into something it is not intended to be. Not intended to be for good reason. This is a struggle or competition between opposing forces for a particular end.
Anyone against the presidents judicial nominees are now being called "against people of faith". This is a weapon in a rhetorical religious war. I would suggest that all people voting on both sides are "people of faith" themselves. As it should be, many different "faiths"(Faith:belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion. Once again, is there any doubt that they are trying to portray these people as unspiritual, unamerican and antigod? When they include religious banter this blatantly in politics is that not a bold attempt to mix church and state? When the government involves it's self in a personal, family situation like the Schiavo case with much religious banter are they not trying to mix church and state and involve the government in our personal rights? Isn't them telling Mr. Schiavo by government action that their religious standard should prevail a diminshment of our rights as citizens? Our religious freedoms are being stolen. I guess, although the reasons for this seem obvious also, I should explain. Lets say they convince(or overpower) everyone that they are the religion that should be followed in the United States. Now they decide that, for example, gambling is a sin that should not be allowed. One personal freedom goes down the drain. Now let's say the religion decides you shouldn't be able to have an abortion, or carry a deadly weapon or dance or drive large vehicles...the list is endless and that is exactly what they are trying to accomplish. They believe they have the only religion that has currency. One accepted religion means everyone elses religious freedom is stolen. They want theirs to be the law of the land. American Taliban. That is why they are demonizing judges. It is the only thing standing in their way from bending the entire society to their will. They hate the idea of a pluralist society. For clarity, Pluralist: a theory that there are more than one or more than two kinds of ultimate reality b : a theory that reality is composed of a plurality of entities4 a : a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in and development of their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization b : a concept, doctrine, or policy advocating this state. This goal should be clear from their rhetoric. No pluralist society. I thought that was the foundation of our democracy? How this would affect our freedom, religious and otherwise, and liberty is self evident. I apologize for thinking what is obvious to me is obvious to all. Would you have further questions, debate? Anything that needs more clarification? Thanks for your comment. Hope you will keep them coming.
posted by Ron at 9:51 PM
5 Comments:
Well said. Thank you.
"the communists and democrats are one and the same because some of the people registered as democrats hold totalitarian socialist beliefs?"
I have to say that at the very least, I take exception to this statement. See this post for more...
In fact, Democrats/Democracy stands for anything *but* "communism", and is, in fact, what our country was founded upon (at least the true beliefs thereof).
If you'd like the REAL definition to "democrat", "democracy", etc., a completely unbiased, rational one that you don't hear from the conservative propaganda, see: Dictionary.com (or better yet, read a hard copy of the dictionary, Webster's or any other, and actually read it).
Per an email that I've sent out previously:
"I don't know if anyone has ever thought of it this way, but I'm wondering how and why it has become, that "Democrat" is now such a naughty word? Doesn't it stem from the root word of what our country was supposedly founded on, that being "Democracy"???
Think about this for a while, seriously. How many words that are supposed to have to do with our country, which begin with "Democra" are now dirty words?
Here, lemme help you out.
de·moc·ra·cyPronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
[French démocratie, from Late Latin dmocratia, from Greek dmokrati : dmos, people; see d- in Indo-European Roots + -krati, -cracy.]
Now here.
dem·o·crat Pronunciation Key (dm-krt)
n.
1. An advocate of democracy.
2. Democrat A member of the Democratic Party.
[French démocrate, back-formation from démocratie, democracy. See democracy.]
One more time.
dem·o·crat·ic - Pronunciation Key (dm-krtk) (say it again, pal!)
adj.
1. Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy: democratic government; a democratic union.
2. Of or for the people in general; popular: a democratic movement; democratic art forms.
3. Believing in or practicing social equality: “a proper democratic scorn for bloated dukes and lords” (George du Maurier).
4. Democratic Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party.
demo·crati·cal·ly adv.
When did "Liberal" become a dirty word?
According to Quia - Root word Quiz 6
"democratic" has a root that means people.
What's so naughty about that?"
I also ask you now, what is so "communistic" about that??????? And, I would also like to know why the Democrats have to take labels such as this, when our country is more dominated by communistic tendencies NOW, than it ever has in its whole history? Who's the pRez, anyway? And, what party does he belong to? What beliefs does he himself state that he adheres to? Have you seen one single DEMOCRAT try to take away YOUR religious, or any other rights, given to you in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights? I'd also like to ask why our country is dominated NOW more than ever, by Christian beliefs than it ever has in its whole history, in commercials, in politics, in literally everything? (Again, I direct you to who the pRez is???)
I'd die to have Clinton back, even though I am actually a registered Independent.
I need read no further than your first paragraph, which is already out and out blatantly wrong?
And what is this about no one should have a vote one way or the other on abortion unless they are capable of getting pregnant? It's the pregnant children who are creating more babies that put even more of a strain on our society, and who are going to be running OUR country in the future! I want a say-so in who does this! Talk about a ludicrous statement.
You know as well as I do that the Judicial nominations are there to further the Christian/GWB agenda. There is NO denying this.
If you wanted a rise out of someone dewd, you got one.
Let me tell you the truth, there was at one time a Radio Station here in Roswell named KNIF 1020, it allowed all kinds of views as along as civil. Then one day "Swan Song" was uttered it was taken off the air. the excuses were many, the disc jockey even said it would come back, the e-mails and letters poured in but to no avail. The reality, behind all the callers and others who listen the snake owner sold out to Fox. Now we all know who Fox is the proproganda arm of the republician party. The Disc Jockey cited econmic reasons for staying and that he was at heart a populist. Bull the Disc Jockey has no integrity and stand for nothing, because the best he could do was lied to all of the loyal listeners and callers, a show that should of been considered public domain, was yanked so the ugly head of the republicans could establish yet another beach head KBIM wasn't enough, we have switched to 1430 KCRX at least the truth is still there, good luck cheaters just like the Bushies, signed the Maniac
Re: the definitions of Democrat/Democracy/Liberal, etc.-all that's there for anyone to look up, so why do the Bushies accept Rush Limbaugh's, etc. definitions instead? The reason Democrats are considered Communists/Socialists is that we don't support RUTHLESS CAPITALISM and because FDR/LBJ enacted and expanded Social Security and a safety net for the poor. I read in Kitty Kelley's book that the Bush family hated FDR. "W"'s Economic professor at Harvard said that "W" didn't understand the difference between Socialism and Communism and he considered Social Security to be Socialism. These people (neo-cons) don't want to save Social Security. They want to get rid of it, and what better way than to help their rich friends by having retirees invest in the stock market. Not many people want to do that after Enron (Ken Lay-"W"'s biggest campaign contributor), etc. That just goes to show how arrogant the Bush League has become. Senior citizens represent a huge voting block in the U.S. and they aren't going to like anyone who threatens their financial security and Medicare. The more "W" talks about this, the deeper the hole he's digging for himself gets.
Re: judicial nominations-if Bush would nominate MODERATES instead of trying to pack the court with ultra-conservatives Congress would probably approve them. This is just a way of appeasing the Religious Wrong who, given the opportunity, will decide how all Americans (and the world) will worship, what they will read, watch, listen to, say, etc.
I don't like abortion, either, but I don't feel that I have the right to tell another woman whether or not she must bear a child. I would like to see it restricted following the first trimester so it will only be performed in cases of extenuating circumstances, and discouraged as much as possible in the first trimester. Making it illegal isn't the answer. Advocating better birth control, abstinance, adoption, etc. is the answer and it's working. The more the extremists at either end of an issue fight and the moderate majority remains silent, the less will be accomplished.
Also, ultra-conservative judges can impact society in other ways because they are reactionary. All the progress on civil rights for minorities, women, gays, the disabled, the environment, etc. can and probably will be reversed because many of Bush's strongest supporters are racists/anti-gay, think women should be subservient to men, war hawks, and are pro-business above everything else. It's like these so called good Christians fail to understand the teachings of Christ (The Prince of Peace)-love your neighbor,give to the poor (not the rich), etc. They are Anti-Christians and hypocrites. God forbid, these folks should have control of the country-think of the oppression, censorship, etc. we'd be living under-not what our forefathers intended at all.
I do agree about the school prayer, etc. If students want to pray, say God in the Pledge of Allegience, etc., that is their right. It should be optional. The atheists are in the minority. Most people believe in some kind of higher power, regardless of whatever name they call Him/Her. They aren't the ones complaining about The 10 Commandments plaques and the nativity scenes. No one is telling atheists they have to believe, but they don't need to have more rights than anyone else.
bewitchingwizard: Unfortunately, you know that FOX would ruin a wet dream, much less anything else.
You can't fault the d.j.s though -- unfortunately, they can only do what they're told to do. They get the information from their higher-ups, and have to do what's told to handle these types of things. It's called their jobs.
And, to add to that, one of the hardest jobs to do these days just for this reason, is a media job.
You have to kiss the ass of whatever/whomever comes in and decides to do what they're going to on the station you work for. It all comes from the higher-ups. The disc-jockeys just do their jobs, whether they're enjoying the agenda or not.
Post a Comment
<< Home