One reason why moderates fear the neo-cons

[DrunkMonkey 0]

http://www.theocracywatch.org/

Quote

Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.

It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less... Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. (pp. 50-51)

Edited to add:

Quote

Christians are mandated to gradually occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns.

"Our aim," according to Pat Robertson at a banquet in 1984, "is to gain dominion over society." The path to dominion was made clear when Robertson told the Denver Post in 1992 that his goal was to "take working control of the Republican Party."

http://www.theocracywatch.org/introduction2.htm#Dominion

How dare you try to turn my country, one founded on freedom, into a Authoritarian Christian Theocracy reminiscent of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan?

I'm not looking to get into a shit-flinging match, but where do some get the idea that de facto governance by the christian church is anything but a recipe(sp?) for religious based facism?

[narcimund 0]

Edit: [deleted]

Sorry. That was unnecessarily bitter.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[kmcguffee 0]

Just like every dem is not a ultra left elite Boston type socialist, every Republican Christian does not share Pat Robertson's views.

Quote

but where do some get the idea that de facto governance by the christian church is anything but a recipe(sp?) for religious based facism?

When referring to the "Christian Church" do you mean the Catholic Church? There is not a Protestant "Church" in the singular form. Most Protestants, with exceptions, believe in the autonomy of local churches. Therefore, there can be no de facto governance by the christian church unless you are talking about Catholics. They already have a country.

The belief, which I hold, that Christians should work to ensure that as many Christians as possible hold public office is not fascist. We are trying to elect people that hold our same belief systems and values that guide their daily lives and decisions. If they start trying to make laws respecting an establishment of religion then I disagree with them. If they start making certain segments of society a higher class than other segments then they are fascist. The fact that they make decisions in office based on their religious beliefs is not fascist in and of itself.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[Tink1717 2]

Quote

The belief, which I hold, that Christians should work to ensure that as many Christians as possible hold public office is not fascist. We are trying to elect people that hold our same belief systems and values that guide their daily lives and decisions.

Yes it is. The state must be secular in its application. That's what the first amendment is all about. You may not legislate your religion into the secular government. The Supreme Court decided this years ago in the Lemon v Curlett case. They stated that any laws passed and enacted must meet the following criteria:
1. They must be secular in nature.
2. They must not entangle the state in religion.
3. They must not favor(or advance) one religion over another.

Like it or not, you can't use the state to force your religion on anyone else. This applies whether or not we have a fundementalist x-tian in the White House.

Let the shitblizzard begin.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[Frenchy68 0]

The fact that people, including law makers, make decision based on their faith is something inherent to human nature. We reason and act according to our experience, beliefs, convictions, etc... As long as it remains a personal action that does not affect the greater masses, I have no problem with it.
However, I would find extremely dangerous someone making decision on behalf of the masses, and justifying decision on religious grounds.

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Yes it is. The state must be secular in its application. That's what the first amendment is all about. You may not legislate your religion into the secular government. The Supreme Court decided this years ago in the Lemon v Curlett case. They stated that any laws passed and enacted must meet the following criteria:
1. They must be secular in nature.
2. They must not entangle the state in religion.
3. They must not favor(or advance) one religion over another.

Like it or not, you can't use the state to force your religion on anyone else. This applies whether or not we have a fundementalist x-tian in the White House.

How does the fact that we are trying to elect Christians to office equal fascism? The Supreme Court ruled on passing laws not electing individuals. The first ammendment only limits the congress when passing laws not voters or politician's religious beliefs. Nor does it limit the state to being secular in its application beyond the passage of laws by congress. You need to read it again:

Quote

Amendment I

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.

Now, where in that does it say that a politican can not be guided in his daily life by religious principles? Or that I can't vote for someone based on their religious beliefs?

BTW, it's the Lemon vs Kurtzman case that brought about the Lemon test. The test is

(1) must have a secular purpose; (2) must have a primary purpose that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) must not result in or promote excessive entanglement between government and religion

Murray v. Curlett determined that forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer is unconstitutional.

Lastly, it is spelled Christian not x-tian.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin