The Christian right seeks cultural and political domination

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NavyDoc

Doc, I am feeling quite frustrated by your posts.

I have AGREED that the title was overblown - a clear hyperbolic exaggeration.
The person who COMPOSED the title was not me. Since page 1, we members have discussed the FACT that these people WANT TO CREATE A theocracy. That they are in government already.

Many of you dismiss it as a pipe-dream of their's that will never happen. Fine - I hope you are all correct.
You HELPED me to realize it was exaggerated "doom porn". And now I'm being ridiculed for bringing it up?

THESE PEOPLE EXIST. THAT is the point - not the stupid, poorly worded, sensationalist title.

? I don't think I said anything mean to you. I happen to like you personally.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

I'd be slightly impatient as well if a thread had lasted for 24 pages and still demonstrated a significant lack of comprehension regarding what a theocracy actually is.

GODDAMN IT!
I KNOW WHAT A BLASTED THEOCRACY IS!
I KNOW WE ARE NOT ONE!

I DOUBT WE WILL EVER BECOME ONE!
BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE ACTIVELY TRYING TO MAKE IT HAPPEN!

My solution is to EXPOSE them and be active about ensuring they do NOT get into positions of even more power!!

a reply to: NavyDoc

Then please acknowledge that I am AWARE that the title was a mistake!
PLEASE.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: AfterInfinity

I'd be slightly impatient as well if a thread had lasted for 24 pages and still demonstrated a significant lack of comprehension regarding what a theocracy actually is.

GODDAMN IT!
I KNOW WHAT A BLASTED THEOCRACY IS!
I KNOW WE ARE NOT ONE!

I DOUBT WE WILL EVER BECOME ONE!
BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE ACTIVELY TRYING TO MAKE IT HAPPEN!

My solution is to EXPOSE them and be active about ensuring they do NOT get into positions of even more power!!

And your solution is to begin such a campaign on a conspiracy forum? *tongue in cheek*

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NavyDoc

Then please acknowledge that I am AWARE that the title was a mistake!
PLEASE.

I think the problem here is that every post you've made in this thread suggests you believe that fundies are trying to hijack America...and succeeding. This is where I disagree.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Only a progressive thinks that someone else not forced into providing them with free stuff is an infringement on their rights.

It's all about free stuff?

Really?!?!

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Is this a place meant to deny ignorance or is it NOT?

Gha.
They ARE conspiring - they admit it. And there ARE lots of people who don't KNOW that (are ignorant of the fact that) they are conspiring. And those people might not want to put wanna-be theocrats into power.

My point in bringing it to the community was to show that a (still small-time but REAL) threat exists that has managed to remain "under the radar" and been overlooked. Politicians LIE. To get elected. Attempting to show citizens who vote the true motives of these people seems to me to be a helpful thing.
And then they get into office and do whatever the hell they want! Are you saying this is untrue?


sigh.
whatever. I guess I'm too cranky and sensitive today -

meh

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

I think the problem here is that every post you've made in this thread suggests you believe that fundies are trying to hijack America...and succeeding. This is where I disagree.

It's about control.

Using theocracy.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

you believe that fundies are trying to hijack America...and succeeding. This is where I disagree.

They ARE trying to hijack America. SOME OF THEM have succeeded in GETTING INTO OFFICE. THAT is my worry.

I didn't say they are succeeding at their larger scheme - but a scheme it is. And they are succeeding in getting into positions of power. You don't think so? Okay. Just remember, Perry and Brownback are governors, Palin WAS. They are also card-carrying members of this NRA/SMD. Romney could be considered as one of them as well -

We see Obama signing executive orders, effectlively overriding Congress and the people's wishes - with frequency - you think if someone like Palin or Brownback or Perry got into the Executive office they wouldn't do the same?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

They ARE trying to hijack America. SOME OF THEM have succeeded in GETTING INTO OFFICE. THAT is my worry.

Again, not allowing them into office is the same as rejecting an atheist from getting into office.

I didn't say they are succeeding at their larger scheme - but a scheme it is. And they are succeeding in getting into positions of power. You don't think so? Okay. Just remember, Perry and Brownback are governors, Palin WAS. They are also card-carrying members of this NRA/SMD. Romney could be considered as one of them as well -

I think the constitution applies to everyone, not just those whom you personally deem to be less of a threat to the America you comprehend and appreciate.

We see Obama signing executive orders, effectlively overriding Congress and the people's wishes - with frequency - you think if someone like Palin or Brownback or Perry got into the Executive office they wouldn't do the same?

I don't see what that has to do with a theocracy.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

I think the problem here is that every post you've made in this thread suggests you believe that fundies are trying to hijack America...and succeeding. This is where I disagree.

It's about control.

Using theocracy.

Anyone with half a brain and an eye on history will understand and appreciate that using any one tool exclusively is the same as relying on the same trick to entertain an audience for several months consecutively. Don't just rely on theocracy. Don't just rely on economy. Don't just rely on psychology or politics or education or media or tactical delinquency. Use them all, and use them together. Coordination and anticipation. Know what you want, what you're looking for, and what to do about it.

BuzzyWigs is going bananas over one head of a seething hydra. There's a dozen other heads that are far more dangerous and active that she's missing completely.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Only a progressive thinks that someone else not forced into providing them with free stuff is an infringement on their rights.

It's all about free stuff?

Really?!?!

Actually yes, in a way. When one is deluded to the extent that they believe that unless something is provided for them by someone else for free then the right to that thing is violated, then yes, "free stuff" is an aspect.

You have the right to free speech and you use it as evidenced by posting on this forum. However, if your employer does not want to buy you that computer to post on this internet forum and you have to buy one yourself, your right to free speech is not violated.

By not paying for someone else's birth control on their insurance plan, HL does not violate anyone's right to birth control. Lack of subsidy is NOT a violation of a right.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

BuzzyWigs is going bananas over one head of a seething hydra. There's a dozen other heads that are far more dangerous and active that she's missing completely.

I am? Such as? What am I unaware of - missing completely, exactly?

Am I expected to go after ALL of the dozen other hydra-heads as well? Sorry - I can only fight one drooling head at a time. Pickin' my fights, you know.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Personally, I don't really think a Theocracy is possible in this day and age, in the USA. Religion has been marginalized, quite honestly, whatever you believe. I can't see one religion fully taking over, people are way too independent, thankfully. They do promote their agendas, just like big oil companies, and pharma death factories do...just like any other corporation. We allow that, even though it's not right, to influence political actions and laws...right?

Any agenda, or personal bias, shouldn't be allowed to influence our political leaders. It should be about what is right, just, and what makes sense. That is what politicians should care about. Oh my, I just made myself laugh.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Again, not allowing them into office is the same as rejecting an atheist from getting into office.

I'm suggesting that they not be VOTED IN. And if they are already in, to VOTE THEM OUT.

I didn't say anything about preventing them from running. - it's about making people aware of motives that they won't necessarily articulate in debates...and won't hold up in their "platforms" for all to see.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: AfterInfinity

BuzzyWigs is going bananas over one head of a seething hydra. There's a dozen other heads that are far more dangerous and active that she's missing completely.

I am? Such as? What am I unaware of - missing completely, exactly?

Google could give you far more complete information than I am able to at this time. Not to mention that it would be off topic.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: AfterInfinity

Again, not allowing them into office is the same as rejecting an atheist from getting into office.

I'm suggesting that they not be VOTED IN. And if they are already in, to VOTE THEM OUT.

I didn't say anything about preventing them from running. - it's about making people aware of motives that they won't necessarily articulate in debates...and won't hold up in their "platforms" for all to see.

Is it their religiosity?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

I think the problem here is that every post you've made in this thread suggests you believe that fundies are trying to hijack America...and succeeding. This is where I disagree.

It's about control.

Using theocracy.

So control would be okay as long as it's not a theocracy?

Here's been my point all along--you should want less government with less power and less intrusiveness. Those who worry about a theocracy should recognize the salient fact that the threat of a theocracy is much less if the government has the least amount of power practicable. If you give it the power to "keep those evil (Christians, businesses, gun owners, fill in the blank of people you hate) at bay," then you give it power over YOU as well.

The HL decision is actually one that is against a theocratic government because it was one that limited governmental power to mandate things. You may dislike it because you wanted government to mandate to evil Christians, but the precedent that it sets is one where evil Christians in government can't mandate to you either.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity
There's a dozen other heads that are far more dangerous and active that she's missing completely.

Agreed.

This particular topic, I would say, is probably one of the least concerning. There are very, very serious "heads" that are feasting while certain types of people latch on to one decoy, or another, but never multiple. The heart of the beast is where we have to focus, not where the "magic hand" waves. It is usually easily discerned through how much it is driven by emotion and division, or how much it is driven by logic and cooperation. I think its obvious on this topic and many others, but it still seems to successfully divide and conquer plenty. If people are too busy fighting generalizations and nebulous entities, then its about as successful as throwing a coin into a wishing well. The corporate part is probably accurate in a lot of ways, not so much for theocracy.

That said, it is ever so human to go after generalized groups in an attempt to reciprocate times in the past where we have felt wronged. And this is used against all of us, all of the time.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: AfterInfinity

Again, not allowing them into office is the same as rejecting an atheist from getting into office.

I'm suggesting that they not be VOTED IN. And if they are already in, to VOTE THEM OUT.

I didn't say anything about preventing them from running. - it's about making people aware of motives that they won't necessarily articulate in debates...and won't hold up in their "platforms" for all to see.

But wouldn't a religious litmus test for not holding office be just as wrong as one for holding office.

I get it, vote someone out because you don't like his policies, but something strikes me uncomfortable about thought police activities. If someone said to get Obama out of office because he is certain that black people want to "take over" would you agree or disagree with his reasoning? I'm certain we can find plenty of African American leaders and politicians that say some things just as vitriolic and hateful and aggressive about "taking over" as the bible thumpers. Should we take the same position about them?