Richard,
A few paragraphs in response to a few paragraphs:
>I apologise if the routine of "yeah - but what about the >last lot" grates, but why do the Christian right (by >deduction) somehow seem to be less deserving of a voice >when individuals such as Messers Rich, Spielberg and >McCaffrey can seemingly buy themselves into the same >political circles.
Since when is filmmaker the same political circles as Attorney General??? If any of the above-mentioned Messers were nominated to be the head enforcer of all law in the United States, I'd be just as pissed as with Ashcroft.
>I know that people of more liberal leaning want to get >away from the fact that the country was founded by >Christian fanatics, so unless that foundation can be >destroyed (which I can't see happening)...I don't see this >`problem` going away.
The founders were Christian fanatics who were sick of having a religion in which they didn't believe shoved down their throats by the British government, so they came to America to escape persecution. Unless that foundation (of rebelling against the government telling you what religious beliefs you should have) is destroyed (which I hope will never happen)... we should be okay. Unfortunately, there are already quite a few Christian beliefs insinuating themselves into the government (the statement that Jesus is America's god at W's inauguration, Ashcroft...).
>I agree that extremists from any background shouldn't have >major `power` but if you do away with Christians because >they offend your `moral code` then I would have to say >that we should do away with all religions from the >national stage. Why the heck should faith `A` have >preference over faith `B?
The point that I've now made twice and that (unless I misunderstood him) David has made as well is that the only faith getting any preference these days is Christianity. Yes, there are very devout Jews, Muslims, atheists, and others who speak about politics, but none of them have been nominated for any office as powerful as attorney general, none of them have had their god exalted at an inauguration ceremony (could you picture W praising Allah to the nation?), none of them except Christianity have visible national campaigns to overturn laws because of religious beliefs... I could go on and on. You seem to seize upon visible figures with non-Christian beliefs (Spielberg, etc.) as being proof that politics favors these folks. But while certain politicians no doubt like these people, they're not national players on a scale anywhere NEAR John Ashcroft. Spielberg makes entertainment. Ashcroft makes the laws for our entire nation.
Oh well, I wrote more than I intended. Sorry... and I hope that this doesn't get out of hand again. I just can't stop myself from responding to something against which I react so strongly.
-Scott
quick response.... really this time
Scott
location: Canada
listening to: Brooks Williams
registered: 2009.07.04
posts: 89
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
S
Scott
(view)
Richard,
A few paragraphs in response to a few paragraphs:
>I apologise if the routine of "yeah - but what about the >last lot" grates, but why do the Christian right (by >deduction) somehow seem to be less deserving of a voice >when individuals such as Messers Rich, Spielberg and >McCaffrey can seemingly buy themselves into the same >political circles.
Since when is filmmaker the same political circles as Attorney General??? If any of the above-mentioned Messers were nominated to be the head enforcer of all law in the United States, I'd be just as pissed as with Ashcroft.
>I know that people of more liberal leaning want to get >away from the fact that the country was founded by >Christian fanatics, so unless that foundation can be >destroyed (which I can't see happening)...I don't see this >`problem` going away.
The founders were Christian fanatics who were sick of having a religion in which they didn't believe shoved down their throats by the British government, so they came to America to escape persecution. Unless that foundation (of rebelling against the government telling you what religious beliefs you should have) is destroyed (which I hope will never happen)... we should be okay. Unfortunately, there are already quite a few Christian beliefs insinuating themselves into the government (the statement that Jesus is America's god at W's inauguration, Ashcroft...).
>I agree that extremists from any background shouldn't have >major `power` but if you do away with Christians because >they offend your `moral code` then I would have to say >that we should do away with all religions from the >national stage. Why the heck should faith `A` have >preference over faith `B?
The point that I've now made twice and that (unless I misunderstood him) David has made as well is that the only faith getting any preference these days is Christianity. Yes, there are very devout Jews, Muslims, atheists, and others who speak about politics, but none of them have been nominated for any office as powerful as attorney general, none of them have had their god exalted at an inauguration ceremony (could you picture W praising Allah to the nation?), none of them except Christianity have visible national campaigns to overturn laws because of religious beliefs... I could go on and on. You seem to seize upon visible figures with non-Christian beliefs (Spielberg, etc.) as being proof that politics favors these folks. But while certain politicians no doubt like these people, they're not national players on a scale anywhere NEAR John Ashcroft. Spielberg makes entertainment. Ashcroft makes the laws for our entire nation.
Oh well, I wrote more than I intended. Sorry... and I hope that this doesn't get out of hand again. I just can't stop myself from responding to something against which I react so strongly.
-Scott
A few paragraphs in response to a few paragraphs:
>I apologise if the routine of "yeah - but what about the >last lot" grates, but why do the Christian right (by >deduction) somehow seem to be less deserving of a voice >when individuals such as Messers Rich, Spielberg and >McCaffrey can seemingly buy themselves into the same >political circles.
Since when is filmmaker the same political circles as Attorney General??? If any of the above-mentioned Messers were nominated to be the head enforcer of all law in the United States, I'd be just as pissed as with Ashcroft.
>I know that people of more liberal leaning want to get >away from the fact that the country was founded by >Christian fanatics, so unless that foundation can be >destroyed (which I can't see happening)...I don't see this >`problem` going away.
The founders were Christian fanatics who were sick of having a religion in which they didn't believe shoved down their throats by the British government, so they came to America to escape persecution. Unless that foundation (of rebelling against the government telling you what religious beliefs you should have) is destroyed (which I hope will never happen)... we should be okay. Unfortunately, there are already quite a few Christian beliefs insinuating themselves into the government (the statement that Jesus is America's god at W's inauguration, Ashcroft...).
>I agree that extremists from any background shouldn't have >major `power` but if you do away with Christians because >they offend your `moral code` then I would have to say >that we should do away with all religions from the >national stage. Why the heck should faith `A` have >preference over faith `B?
The point that I've now made twice and that (unless I misunderstood him) David has made as well is that the only faith getting any preference these days is Christianity. Yes, there are very devout Jews, Muslims, atheists, and others who speak about politics, but none of them have been nominated for any office as powerful as attorney general, none of them have had their god exalted at an inauguration ceremony (could you picture W praising Allah to the nation?), none of them except Christianity have visible national campaigns to overturn laws because of religious beliefs... I could go on and on. You seem to seize upon visible figures with non-Christian beliefs (Spielberg, etc.) as being proof that politics favors these folks. But while certain politicians no doubt like these people, they're not national players on a scale anywhere NEAR John Ashcroft. Spielberg makes entertainment. Ashcroft makes the laws for our entire nation.
Oh well, I wrote more than I intended. Sorry... and I hope that this doesn't get out of hand again. I just can't stop myself from responding to something against which I react so strongly.
-Scott
