The Christian right seeks cultural and political domination

originally posted by: BO XIAN
1. How many bosses in how many jobs have you told to take a hike, you know how to run it better?
2. How has that worked out for you?

Anyone who speaks to their supervisor in that manner deserves to be terminated. I have found it to be helpful to lay out a plan for whatever the objective happens to be if I feel I have a better method than the company or my immediate superiors. If they are truly interested in obtaining that objective they will earnestly consider implementing the plan if it makes good business sense.

Your analogy does not work with the metaphysical world as there is no appeal to authority possible to avail yourself.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: beezzer

So you don't want a true compromise.

You want others to compromise in accord of your values.

We ALREADY HAVE a COMPROMISE. I don't want a "true theocracy".

Which brings us back to the original premise of the thread--some people are certain that we are headed for an evil Xtian theocracy but many of us simply don't see it. Progressives and those calling for "social justice" have done more to pick my pocket and tell me what I can or cannot do than Christians.

A bible thumper wants to tell me about Jesus--I say no thanks and they move on.

A progressive wants to tax me more and more for make up for "income inequality" and I say no thanks, they throw out some rabid epithets my way and work to get the government to take it form me by force.

Who is more a danger to your liberty?

a reply to: mOjOm

No what you are talking about is true justice where justice is blind. That is what happened in the Hobby Lobby case. Justice was done. It found that the law was treating a family unjustly by demanding that they dispose of their personal property and possessions in a way that was unduly burdensome in the face of compromises that had been made already for other organizations.

The mandate as applied is social justice, attempting to force all to be perfectly equal by law despite differences.

a reply to: beezzer

I know you're just baiting me, but I'll say this:

The states have a right to implement whatever. If some states want to be theocratic, then they can. I just won't live there. And if my state becomes one, I will move out so they can have it in peace.

I have to stop now - will that tattoo help with the Bible-thumps? They hurt.
(Anyway, I don't have any more forehead room for tattoos - evidently I already have one that says "I'm a good listener, tell me your problems" for some, and "I'm a person who falls for psychos" for others. I just can't see them.)

So - tell you what - call me a hypocrite, turn me into a frog, take away my birthday, stamp NO DESSERT on my forehead. And then just leave me be ..okay?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: BO XIAN

GOD ALMIGHTY RUNNING HIS MULTIVERSE THE WAY HE CHOOSES is FAR different from a group of mortals manipulating another group of mortals.

But, BO! This is what they are DOING! Trying to implement an Evangelical theocracy!

GOD is not running this country, sorry to say. Mortal people are running it (and the world). Into the ground.

But are they? Really? I've seen no law proposed that I have to go to church on Sunday. So Christians don't want to be forced by the state to do things or serve people they disagree with. How is that a theocracy--just wanting to be left alone to do their thing? It seems to me that in a lot of these cases the only people being forced by the state to do anything would be the Christians, not the other way around.

Now, I think it's stupid to not do business with someone because they think their myth tells them to, especially in this economy, but if we are talking about freedom and not being forced to do things, then letting them do their thing is part of that.

I don't think that Christians own the major corporations out there, nor do they control most state or federal legislatures...

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: mOjOm

No what you are talking about is true justice where justice is blind. That is what happened in the Hobby Lobby case. Justice was done. It found that the law was treating a family unjustly by demanding that they dispose of their personal property and possessions in a way that was unduly burdensome in the face of compromises that had been made already for other organizations.

The mandate as applied is social justice, attempting to force all to be perfectly equal by law despite differences.

Not exactly. Applied equally would mean Everyone Individually would also be able to claim Religious Exemptions, not just Fictional Persons called Corporations.

a reply to: ketsuko

But when you say you are working for social justice that means you are asking for all the rest of us to become what you want us to be. Social justice is the idea that all must be made equal by law. That means we must be forced to be equal in whatever way the law deems fit.

Nope!
Go get your Master of Social Work from your local university's School of Social Welfare and then we'll be able to talk as peers ON THAT SUBJECT.
Until then, your "definitions" hold no water.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I've seen no law proposed that I have to go to church on Sunday.

Not yet. Let's keep it that way, eh?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
The states have a right to implement whatever. If some states want to be theocratic, then they can. I just won't live there. And if my state becomes one, I will move out so they can have it in peace.

I think that is where the genius of the United States Constitution steps in. Any move to a theocracy of any type automatically violates the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses and a theocratic government would be found un-Constitutional.

I have to stop now - will that tattoo help with the Bible-thumps? They hurt.
(Anyway, I don't have any more forehead room for tattoos - evidently I already have one that says "I'm a good listener, tell me your problems" for some, and "I'm a person who falls for psychos" for others. I just can't see them.)

So - tell you what - call me a hypocrite, turn me into a frog, take away my birthday, stamp NO DESSERT on my forehead. And then just leave me be ..okay?

Frankly I think most of us on this thread (you included) are fairly close in our stance on freedom. We would like as much as possible without it intruding onto another citizen's un-Constitutionally. Also, we would like other freedoms returned to us that an over-reaching Federal Government has taken away in the names of various causes and events to help 'protect' us.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

lol

Just pointing out that our system does work.

Sometimes the pendulum swings one way, sometimes it swings another.

There are pluses and there are minuses.

Screaming about Corporate Theocracies doesn't wash when faced with the reality that there are checks and balances.

Some days your team wins.
Some days your team loses.

I wouldn't worry about corporate theocracy so much as I would bigger government and a loss of freedoms for everyone.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Oh, claiming that only people with a "degree" are suitable to discuss a thing ...

In other words, you don't want to continue the discussion and are ceding ground to me.

I take my understanding of the competing politic definitions of justice from Thomas Sowell, Ph.D. He wrote a nice little book called The Quest for Cosmic Justice. I highly recommend it. Dr. Sowell started out as a committed leftist progressive like yourself, but the realities of economics, among other things, shaped and changed his opinions over the years. So, he is well-equipped to understand both points of view as he has inhabited them.

a reply to: ketsuko

In other words, you don't want to continue the discussion and are ceding ground to me.

What "discussion"? You were the very first to respond, and it was with an attack!
You don't want a "discussion" - you want me and people like me to shut up!

So, sure. You win. Have at it.
You know more than I do - you convinced me. You know all about everything.

Right?
Okay. Right. I'm out. The podium is yours.

(@ beezzer - there you go! )

Toodles, all!

a reply to: mOjOm

Hobby Lobby is a different entity than most corporations you are thinking of. It is still privately held by one family. At what point is a private family's property so large that they cede their sole control of it and right to dispose of it as they see fit? Where do you propose that line be drawn? Be clear. There a lot of small, family-owned businesses that are incorporated for legal practicality that are waiting breathlessly for your answer because it could essentially strip them of their private property rights.

And keep in mind that when Citizens United was decided, the "corporate" entity in question was a group of private citizens banded together to pool their money for political expression. Where the government effed up in its argument was in telling the SCOTUS that their interpretation of the law would allow them to ban books. Do you want to allow the government to use campaign finance law to abridge your 1st Amendment rights by banning books with political speech it doesn't like? That's what they were angling for, and that argument among others put the court in a bad position.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NavyDoc

I've seen no law proposed that I have to go to church on Sunday.

Not yet. Let's keep it that way, eh?

Certainly. However, I'm not worried about it and I think the possibility of it happening is a bit of hysteric hyperbole from the author cited in the original post--not you, of course, the comment is only directed at the article's author.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

An attack? You are very sensitive.

I told you that when you advocate social justice that's what it means - advantaging some by law at the expense of others in an attempt to enforce equal outcomes for all.

There is no escape for anyone from that. All are forced to participate.

If there was a way I could opt out of that and let you go off and have your social justice utopia all on your own with others who feel that way, I would, but I can't. The only strategy employed is to pass laws that force everyone to comply whether we would or no, and you always tell us it's for the best, for our own good. There is no compromise with that.

a reply to: NavyDoc

However, I'm not worried about it and I think the possibility of it happening is a bit of hysteric hyperbole

And I'm grateful to know that.
That is why I asked what this community makes of the idea.

Thank you - and thanks to everyone else for contributing.
Going outside now, for some badly-needed fresh air, sunshine, and birdsong.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: mOjOm

Hobby Lobby is a different entity than most corporations you are thinking of. It is still privately held by one family. At what point is a private family's property so large that they cede their sole control of it and right to dispose of it as they see fit? Where do you propose that line be drawn? Be clear. There a lot of small, family-owned businesses that are incorporated for legal practicality that are waiting breathlessly for your answer because it could essentially strip them of their private property rights.

Yah, I know what hobby lobby is. There is a hobby lobby about 3 minutes walking distance away from my house. I walk through there sometimes to enjoy their AC when it's hot outside. I know about the different types of Corporations as well. That makes no difference either. It's still a FICTIONAL LEGAL ENTITY not an actual PERSON. If I go to any Corporation and ask it what it Believes it won't give me an answer because IT'S NOT A LIVING THING. I would basically be talking to a building made of Stone and Wood and they don't talk or think. Those families that own it, or people who own it are people and they can speak, think and believe what they want.

Once again, even if you want to see Corporations as People the law is still not being applied Equally however. If it was then People would also be able to claim Religious Exemptions and not just Corporations. But that's what we've done. We have basically ruled that Corporate Persons can have Religious Beliefs that allow them to opt out of certain legal requirements but Real People and their Religious Beliefs aren't allowed to opt out. Not only is that just retarded but it's not equal under the law either.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Nice cherry-pick !!

You ignored the the part about government interference and deflected to suggestions but gave no examples.

let's start over....


a reply to: BuzzyWigs

They are trying to pull off FORCING their religion down everyone else's throat.

Perhaps you are unaware of the SC decision that Corporations can give as much money as they want to political figures' campaigns? Because, you know - corporations are "people."

originally posted by: xuenchen
Where is the "Religion" part ?

I would be more afraid of the "people" in the "non-person" government.

Especially the current "non-person" government corporations who are throwing the first stones.

Can you show some examples of this "pushing" ?


reference the 1st Amendment....

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What do you hard-core Left Wingers NOT GET ABOUT THIS ????

a reply to: BuzzyWigs>>, The OP sounds like the Nazis did when they railed against jews back in the 1930s. Now its Christians that are enemies of the state. And we have more to worry from the left who are more guilty of crimes against society and are getting worse. I think people are beginning to look back towards the right as the lesser of two evils. I can't say that's a pleasant thought, but the left has completely shown themselves to be either idiots or psychopaths.