Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Do Religious Right's Beliefs Pose Threat to U.S.?

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Do Religious Right's Beliefs Pose Threat to U.S.? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/83400-do-religious-rights-beliefs-pose-threat-u-s.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

By your definition, it takes a majority. Here's your majority:

Excuse the bad formatting, original poll on link. Great deal + Moderate=43. Not much+not at all = 53. A majority.

By your reasoning, there can be no proof of anything's impact on society. By your logic, showing statistics for the genocide of Jews during Nazi Germany is not proof of that society's evil, because some people might not feel that killing Jews is bad.

I would assume the majority of society agrees that NAMBLA is bad, the other cases are more judgement based. If my opinion of a better society IS a better society, then the ACLU is harmful. Again, using your reasoning we can make NO judgement basis about the effects of anything on anything dealing with society, because nobody knows for certain.

Here is a quote of yours from a different thread:

You have no proof for any of that, by your very reasoning. You are discussing what YOU think is society's beliefs. YOU state that hate is displeasing. YOU state that killing someone because they are gay/black/white/etc is a displeasing motivation.

I did that above. Your whole premise seems to be that people cannot state any society judgements because they are individuals, and not self-contained societies. You might be correct, but your assumption is worthless, because it eliminates any potential for debate. Or, if we use your earlier definition of society (a majority of people) there should be opinion polls on every subject to discuss it's relevance. And any opinion that isn't backed up by a majority opinion is worthless.

You are disproved by legal precedent, inciting riots is not protected speech. Also, Charles Manson is serving a lengthy criminal sentence for murder, yet he just told others to kill-he killed nobody. It is you who seem to lack understanding of constitutional law, as avocation of certain illegal acts IS limited. All you stated after in relation to that assumption is invalid.

alansmithee, I know that your comments quoted above were directed at Manx, who originally jumped in to counter some points that you had made in an exchange of posts with me.

I want to point out that ignorance or incomplete understanding of the restrictions put on government as to it's power to restrict freedom of speech and expression, as stated in the U.S. Constitution and in it's initial amendments, (the Bill of Rights), are just that......a shortcoming in the opinions of many people living in the U.S. today.

alansmithee, here's a <a href="http://www.aclu-mass.org/legal/docket_2002-2003.asp">link</a> to the issues list that the ACLU Massachusetts chapter was involved in from 7/2002 to 6/2003, including "Curley v. Nambla".

The ACLU is in a place in time now that may have a lot in common with the place that Abu Ghraib whistleblower Josep M. Darby finds himself in. His community is polarized in it's reaction to his act of conscience. How would you treat him if he came home to your town? Your opinion of the ACLU FOIA efforts seems ripe for revision. It seems un-American. If you disagree, what do you see our military "fighting for" in Iraq ? What principles do we stand for, and expect our troops to stand for ? How do we postpone investigating the possible torture and abuse of prisoners, and the possible illegal acts of the Bush administration, and still maintain and display our American values and integrity to our enlisted ranks in the military, to the Iraqi people, and to a world that is watching intently to see whether we are a fair and benevolent superpower, or something else ?

Since you have yet to propose an immediate replacement for the ACLU, and you stated that U.S. war crimes do not fall into a category of our timely "right to know", I won't be surprised if you don't take the time to examine the list and post comments about it. I thought of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam when I read your justification for postponing the people's oversight of government's prosecution of war. You make statments that help to persuade me that you are a blinded by a misplaced patriotic sense that it is not possible for you federal government's leaders to be war criminals and perpetrators of an illegal war of aggression, and.....more alarming.....that the assertion by the ACLU of all of our legal rights, in the use of the federal courts to compel the government to disclose the paper record of what it is involved in as far as the prosecution of that possibly illegal war, somehow "undermines" our military, so those inquiries should be postponed until "later"?

Mull over the possibility, however remote it may be to your way of thinking, that nothing undermines our military more signifigantly than the waging of illegal war of aggression and the torture and abuse of those detained by our military in the course of waging this war, and the destruction of evidence by the military of the commission of war crimes, and the failure to investigate reports of these crimes in a timely and honest way. Here is what can happen when the military and the citizens are not committed to the principles set forth by Justice Robert Jackson at Nuremberg in 1946:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32048-2004May16?language=printer">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32048-2004May16?language=printer</a>
When Joseph Comes Marching Home
In a Western Maryland Town, Ambivalence About the Son Who Blew the Whistle at Abu Ghraib

By Hanna Rosin

Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 17, 2004; Page C01

CORRIGANVILLE, Md.

On TV, Spec. Joseph Darby's neighbors here in the Allegheny Mountains have heard him called a hero, a brave soldier who tipped off superiors to the abuses at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison. And given the way small towns usually honor their soldiers, you might expect preparations for a proper homecoming, maybe even an impromptu parade.

But at the bar in the community center just down the road from Darby's house, near the trailer where his mother and younger brother live, none of the handful of patrons is in a parade kind of mood.

"If I were [Darby], I'd be sneaking in through the back door at midnight," says Janette Jones, who lives just across the border in Pennsylvania and stopped here at midday with her daughter for a Pepsi and a smoke.

What captures their attention this day is not Darby but the ubiquitous photo of another young man, Nicholas Berg, handcuffed and stooped in his orange jumpsuit, moments before he is beheaded by Islamic militants who claimed to be avenging the humiliations suffered by Iraqis at Abu Ghraib.

"Maybe if [Darby] hadn't turned them in, that boy would still be alive," Jones says.

"Come on, Mom, you can't blame him," says her daughter Janice, giving a friendly shove. "They'd hate us no matter what."

Janette Jones's husband was in the service, and so was her son-in-law. The Joneses live not far from Spec. Jeremy Sivits, a military police officer involved in the prison scandal who will face a special court-martial Wednesday. They knew Sivits, 24, growing up: He was a "nice guy, a quiet guy," says the elder Jones. She remembers he once helped her with the barbecue when the coals wouldn't light.

"Who knows what those boys were going through out there," she says. "The Iraqis did to us worse than we did to them."

In this mountain range where three states meet -- Maryland, Pennsylvania and West Virginia -- everyone seems to have a brother or uncle or grandfather in the armed services, especially since the coal and steel industries collapsed. Every small town has a war memorial honoring local fallen soldiers. Veterans Day is a serious affair.

Wives used to trade stories about finding someone to talk to in Korea or the right chocolate bars in Germany. Lately they talk about the latest funeral. The shame brought on by the prison scandal centered on the 372nd Military Police Company, based one town over in Cresaptown, has only made them cling to each other more.

In Washington, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld praised Darby for his "honorable actions." But Washington is a universe away. "They can call him what they want," says Mike Simico, a veteran visiting relatives in Cresaptown. "I call him a rat."

The sentiment is so deeply felt that even those who praise him do so only anonymously, or with many reservations.

"That boy's got a lot of courage," says Alan St. Clair, who lives down the road from Darby's high school home. "But when you go against your fellow man like that, I don't know. Some people won't like it."

The feeling is starting to bubble up elsewhere, too, among people who feel that what Darby did was unpatriotic, un-American, even faintly treasonous. "Hero A Two-Timing Rat," reads a headline from last week's New York Post. The story is about his personal life, but the metaphor lingers.

The Army says it's considering giving Darby a medal, although Army spokesman Dov Schwartz said it can't say when. It took the Army 30 years and the intervention of a dogged professor to give a medal to Hugh Thompson, who reported to his commanders what came to be known as the My Lai massacre.

In the meantime, members of Darby's family find themselves in a situation not unlike the Sivitses' -- refusing interviews, hiding from neighbors and strangers alike. Events have shoved them into history but not yet sorted out their individual fates.

Darby's mother, Margaret Blank, has had cancer and diabetes, and lost one eye. Her husband died a few years back. She now lives in a cramped trailer steps from a railroad track, at the edge of a line of trim clapboard houses.

"I'm proud of -- " Blank yells out her car window at a reporter as she pulls onto the grass by her trailer, having just picked up Montana, her younger son, from school.

Then abruptly she changes her mind "Get the [expletive] off my property. Now. Before I call the police."

"He said that he could not stand the atrocities that he had stumbled upon," Blank told ABC News on May 6. "He said he kept thinking, what if it was my mom, my grandmother, my brother or my wife."

For the family, however, pride is tainted with fear. His sister-in-law, Maxine Carroll, who's served as the family spokeswoman for the last couple of weeks, told reporters she's "worried about his safety," about "repercussions." "It scares you a little," she told the Associated Press, when asked if some might consider him a traitor. On May 8, she and her husband slipped away from their housing complex in Windber, Pa., to an undisclosed location.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01/31/students.amendment.ap/">http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01/31/students.amendment.ap/</a>Freedom of what?
First Amendment no big deal, students say

Monday, January 31, 2005 Posted: 4:09 PM EST (2109 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The way many high school students see it, government censorship of newspapers may not be a bad thing, and flag burning is hardly protected free speech.

It turns out the First Amendment is a second-rate issue to many of those nearing their own adult independence, according to a study of high school attitudes released Monday.

The original amendment to the Constitution is the cornerstone of the way of life in the United States, promising citizens the freedoms of religion, speech, press and assembly.

Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.

"These results are not only disturbing; they are dangerous," said Hodding Carter III, president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, which sponsored the $1 million study. "Ignorance about the basics of this free society is a danger to our nation's future."

The students are even more restrictive in their views than their elders, the study says.

When asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views, 97 percent of teachers and 99 percent of school principals said yes. Only 83 percent of students did.

The results reflected indifference, with almost three in four students saying they took the First Amendment for granted or didn't know how they felt about it. It was also clear that many students do not understand what is protected by the bedrock of the Bill of Rights.

Three in four students said flag burning is illegal. It's not. About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't.

"Schools don't do enough to teach the First Amendment. Students often don't know the rights it protects," Linda Puntney, executive director of the Journalism Education Association, said in the report. "This all comes at a time when there is decreasing passion for much of anything. And, you have to be passionate about the First Amendment."

The partners in the project, including organizations of newspaper editors and radio and television news directors, share a clear advocacy for First Amendment issues............

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

alansmithee -

You have made far too many claims on what I have said when I have not said that which you claim. Then further, you tried to bring a post I made in another thread into this discussion to make a point. I can't imagine what point you think you made.

It would be quite impossible for me to continue discussing this with you. The illogic is far too advanced now.

You made faulty assumptions, provided no facts, were proven wrong, and now try to label me illogical. How...liberal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I personally think that Abu Ghraib was very overblown. Comparing it to the My Lai massacre is like comparing a high school hazing to the Columbine school shootings. Sure, they both happened in school settings, but the degree is very difference. If I saw him, I would respect his service but disagree with his actions. I don't think him or his family should be harassed, though.

As for what our military is fighting for, I really have no idea anymore. But IMO the military has no reason to show integrity, or nobility, or anything along those lines; it's job is to kill people as efficiently as possible. Anything that impedes the military from doing it's job with as little loss as possible is bad. The military should have no other considerations while in active conflict. After the conflict you can go back and challenge what took place during, but not before. To use a metaphor, if someone sets your house on fire, you don't start the trial while the house is still on fire. You put the fire out, then see what caused it, what motives were involved, etc.

Quote:

Since you have yet to propose an immediate replacement for the ACLU, and you stated that U.S. war crimes do not fall into a category of our timely "right to know", I won't be surprised if you don't take the time to examine the list and post comments about it.

I wasn't going to check this link initially, as I read the ACLU's main homepage, but I saw that comments might be in order, so here's a brief overview of the section I read. There were some points I disagreed with the ACLU's position (Curley v. NAMBLA, Commonwealth v. Kundrot, Demarest v. Athol/Orange Community Television, Inc, Ridley v. MBTA, Change the Climate v. MBTA) but for the most part I think they were serving the best intrests of society. There were a couple I actually found humerous (Five Unnamed Students v. Montachusett Regional Technical High School, and also the religious case where Falwell's legal staff refused to work with the ACLU). I had some misconceptions about the ACLU before I made my initial comments (which I found after looking on their website for my posts above). But I didn't bother posting them, because they didn't seem fitting in the spirit of this thread.

Quote:

I thought of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam when I read your justification for postponing the people's oversight of government's prosecution of war. You make statments that help to persuade me that you are a blinded by a misplaced patriotic sense that it is not possible for you federal government's leaders to be war criminals and perpetrators of an illegal war of aggression, and.....more alarming.....that the assertion by the ACLU of all of our legal rights, in the use of the federal courts to compel the government to disclose the paper record of what it is involved in as far as the prosecution of that possibly illegal war, somehow "undermines" our military, so those inquiries should be postponed until "later"?

I think it would take alot more than what has currently occured to raise our government to the level of war criminals, or of waging an illegal war. I don't think that if the government were really war criminals it COULD be hidden, therefore you can't expose it. That is why the inquiries should be postponed until the end of conflict-they do nothing to put an acceptable end on the conflict, and can only exacerbate a bad situation.

Quote:

Mull over the possibility, however remote it may be to your way of thinking, that nothing undermines our military more signifigantly than the waging of illegal war of aggression and the torture and abuse of those detained by our military in the course of waging this war, and the destruction of evidence by the military of the commission of war crimes, and the failure to investigate reports of these crimes in a timely and honest way. Here is what can happen when the military and the citizens are not committed to the principles set forth by Justice Robert Jackson at Nuremberg in 1946:

The only thing that can undermine the military is something that hurts the swift performance of their task, which boils down to systematically killing people designated as the enemy. If energy is focused while in the middle of conflict on anything but the conflict, the military is harmed. There should be investigation into alleged crimes, but it should happen in the aftermath of the war, not during it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

You made faulty assumptions, provided no facts, were proven wrong, and now try to label me illogical. How...liberal.

I think a good new rule for this forum, and a good rule of thumb for life is that calling someone a liberal, or conservative as an insult is the same as calling them a prick, asshole, shithead. What have you. That isn't allowed here.

This forum should adopt a policy of anyone using the blanket term Liberal or Conservative as an insult is a violation of the terms of agreement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Well Host those Christians inciting to invade and kill Muslims is no different then what the Mullahs are doing in the mosque's.

Hot damn, i never thought i'd live to see the day that one of TFP's resident conservatives would make those two equal. Mojo? Are you feeling alright? :)

And yeah, "how liberal" is not cool. Can we have a resolution only to use dead political parties as insults? Name calling is so "Bull Moose" of people. (No offense to Teddy intended...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

You made faulty assumptions, provided no facts, were proven wrong, and now try to label me illogical. How...liberal.

Don't be ridiculous. You last response was so far off the wall, I couldn't even determine where to begin. Just look at the first words you wrote "By your definition, it takes a majority" - really? Where exactly did I make that my definition? I didn't. You made that up.

And your post only went downhill from there.

Here are the remarlks of majority leader of the house of representatives of the United States. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this man shilling for himself, Schiavo, and God in the same sentence? Can even some of you who support Bush and his alliance in congress recognize that supporting Tom Delay and his activist religiously themed base may be working against your own best interests ?

Quote:

<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/03/24/national/w003542S13.DTL">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/03/24/national/w003542S13.DTL</a>
Schiavo Tragedy Taking on Political Tone

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

Thursday, March 24, 2005

(03-24) 04:49 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

Terri Schiavo's personal tragedy is taking on a more political tone in Congress, where House Majority Leader Tom DeLay likens the struggle over her fate to attacks on himself, and a Democratic critic accuses Republicans of opportunism.

"I find it shameful that Mr. DeLay and Republicans have used Ms. Schiavo as their political pawn to kowtow to their conservative base," Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., said Wednesday as House GOP leaders filed court papers in an increasingly desperate attempt to keep the brain-damaged Florida woman alive.

"It's unfortunate that he thinks his situation is like Terri Schiavo's," added Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic campaign committee. "That's a distorted view."

For his part, DeLay cast the debate over Schiavo in religious and political terms at the same time.

"One thing that God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo to elevate the visibility of what is going on in America, that Americans would be so barbaric as to pull a feeding tube out of a person that is lucid and starve them to death," he said in remarks Friday to a conservative group and made public Wednesday.

"This is exactly the issue that is going on in America, of attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against many others," added DeLay, lately at the center of a controversy concerning his overseas travel.

DeLay's remarks were made public by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a liberal group. The developments occurred as polls continued to show the public takes a dim view of congressional moves to step into Schiavo's case..............

Quote:

1. How are the Dems who are oppossed to Delay working in my best intrests when they are advocating death for the disabled?

2. Do you have a problem with Barney Frank and his crude comments about "playing God on C-Span"? Also, if this woman were a lesbian and her Christian parents wanted to pull the tube, would he still be supporting his platform?

3. If you would be totally honest, would you admit that you enjoy seeing the Christian right getting their asses handed to them on this issue?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

3. If you would be totally honest, would you admit that you enjoy seeing the Christian right getting their asses handed to them on this issue?

It doesn'teven take any special goading:

I thoroughly enjoy seeing the Christian right getting their asses handed to them on this issue. Long overdue.

If there is any positive aspect of the years long struggle to fulfill Terri Schiavo's wishes, maybe it will be the recognition by voters that the Christian right, and by automatic extension the GOP, need to be shut down when it comes to government.

But I doubt we'll be that fortunate.

NCB, I wish you could see that the political influence and agenda of religious zealots, overwhelmingly, in terms of political clout and observed accomplishments, southern and midwestern Christian fundamentalists who purport to accurately and literally interpret their bible, and thus, to know what God's plan is for them and for the U.S. and for the world, is too ominous a threat to the security of our country to trifle with at the level of oneupsmanship, when we actually see American "mullahs" in congress and at the white house carrying out their God's wishes on the rest of us. This week, they did their work on a weekend midnight. We deperately need to make sure that this marks that high watermark of their collective, faith induced, insanity. Even the citizens of Salem came to their senses when the witchcraft trial execution count rose into the teens. Madness then, like now.

I have been negatively criticized for the title and the tenor of this thread. This recent quote from a Republican Congressman, one of only five who voted against what the LA Times is calling the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-schiavo21mar21,0,2140071.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials">"Midnight Coup"</a>, encourages me to put even more emphasis on my efforts to publicize the disturbing political trend of "faith Based" initiatives intruding ever more in Republican politics.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/politics/23repubs.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/politics/23repubs.html</a>
......................My party is demonstrating that they are for states' rights unless they don't like what states are doing," said Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut, one of five House Republicans who voted against the bill. "This couldn't be a more classic case of a state responsibility."
<b>
"This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy," Mr. Shays said. </b>"There are going to be repercussions from this vote. There are a number of people who feel that the government is getting involved in their personal lives in a way that scares them."..............................

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

1. How are the Dems who are oppossed to Delay working in my best intrests when they are advocating death for the disabled?

Democrats are promoting the inappropriateness of Congress' attention to this case. Democrats are questioning the judgement of a powerful, law-making man who makes significant medical diagnoses from a distance. Democrats are agruing for an appropriate mutual respect of church and state, and well as their separation in legislative government. Democats are advocating for the individual civil rights which 20 courts have now affirmed are squarely and properly in the hands of Terri's spouse. This last one really gets under my skin -- the party with the steady moan about "defending marriage" (in all 50 states and Congress) casually and conveniently rips and tears at the marriage of Michael and Terri, clearly viewing it as inconsequntial or flawed, as if that could ever be their right to judge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

2. Do you have a problem with Barney Frank and his crude comments about "playing God on C-Span"? Also, if this woman were a lesbian and her Christian parents wanted to pull the tube, would he still be supporting his platform??

I don't know Barney Frank's remarks at all. I can't see at all how anyone's sexual orientation could play a role here -- it's irrelevant to any argument I see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

3. If you would be totally honest, would you admit that you enjoy seeing the Christian right getting their asses handed to them on this issue?

I enjoy seeing that the American populace disapproves of Congress' intervention. If there is a price to pay for the issue, the Christian right certainly hasn't had to pay it yet. If anything, their power to pass midnight federal legislation is breathtaking in and of itself. There isn't a winner here.

Here's the only piece of evidence that I found about this Christian right trying to play politics over this...

GOP Memo: Schiavo Was Recruited to Win Pro-Life Vote
by Scott Ott

(2005-03-24) -- A secret unsigned talking points memo circulated to all Republican Senators and leaked to The Washington Post reveals that the GOP recruited Terri Schiavo to become "a poster child for our Christian conservative right-wing pro-life base so we can sweep Congressional elections in 2006."

Although Post reporter Mike Allen obtained the memo from an "unimpeachable" source, he denies that source was former President Bill Clinton, who survived an impeachment attempt.

An excerpt from the memo reveals that Terri Schiavo is a "blood red Republican so committed to the cause that she's willing to give her own life to boost the political fortunes of the party. That's why we recruited her for this important work."

Despite the fact that the memo is unsigned, and appears on plain white paper, Mr. Allen says "there's no chance that it was forged in a fashion reminiscent of Dan Rather's Bush National Guard memo."

The anonymous Republican author of the memo exhorts all of his colleagues -- from conservative Rick Santorum, R-PA, to liberal Olympia Snowe, R-ME -- to "ride the tide of Schiavo sympathy to a pro-life victory in '06."

"America is hungry for leadership on the life issue," according to the unnamed Republican author. "The little people thirst for leaders who will take a stand. You need to feed these red-meat talking points to the media in your state and milk this for everything it's worth."

The memo concludes with an ominous warning that "if Terri Schiavo is starved to death, pro-life Christian conservatives will blame Republicans and will probably vote Democrat next time."

satire

I honestly don't care what someone believes...as long as they dont' act on that belief in a way that is going to affect me/the world in some negative way....