A Church Of The State?
http://www.nevadaobserver.com/Opinion.htm A Church Of The State? Centrists, Fundamentalists, Fiscally Responsible; Are These Parties? by Johnny Gunn There have been conservatives and liberals in all our political parties virtually from the beginning of the Union, and in some instances, a party is even described as being conservative or liberal, but things, they are a-changing, across our broad land. Now, from the left, or liberal political parties are the terms humanist and centrist. Within the more conservative or right side of the political spectrum is a separation of conservatives into fiscal conservative and religious right. Discussion and debate are the foundations of politics, and parties are formed by these philosophical thoughts, bringing people of like minds together to present their particular agendas to the body politic as a whole; the citizens of the country. Often, at least in theory, these discussions and thoughts are focused on particular candidates or issues, and we vote as a body for one or the other, may the best thought win. I said theory because this process is sublimated rather easily by vast train loads of currency, and so, the idea of debates of merit sometimes doesn’t happen, and purchases in the media are the closest we get to an understanding of a candidate. Currently the main political parties are Republican (GOP) and Democrat, with the Independent American Party (IAP) and greens. Those registering as independent form the largest block of voters not associated with the GOP or Democrats. What appears to be happening right now is the splintering of both major parties. Democrats are still dominated by the strong liberal voices, with centrists and humanists feeling left out. Interesting the most liberal members of the party are attempting to call themselves centrist, confusing even the centrists. Many actual centrists moving toward considering themselves independent. We saw this in the Clinton White House, with the former president being more centrist than liberal, and his party seemingly more left leaning. Senator Hillary Clinton a democrat representing New York was the leader of the most liberal wing of her party along with Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, but is now trying to pass herself off as a centrist. Remembering her national health plan when Clinton took power is enough to frighten even the most centrist within the Republican Party. There should be GOP fear from these ultra liberals attempting to take over those that are more conservative, but within the GOP there should be even more fear from religious fanatics. On the other side of the spectrum, Republicans are splintered even more by a religious right that demands acceptance as leaders of the conservative movement in the country. They often are referred to as neo-cons. Other conservatives, now referred to as fiscal conservatives, are being forced to become independent. Some are trying to stay within the party, but their voice is becoming weaker and weaker as the religious right forces its will on others. George W. Bush actually performed a bit of a miracle by forging a meeting of the two minds of conservatism but the weld didn't hold. Centrists within the GOP exist, probably make up the majority of the party but the power within the party has shifted to those that wish to force their religion on the nation. The party of Eisenhower and Reagan is not the party of Pat Robertson, and Bush now tends to align himself more and more with the religious right. The stated desire of the religious right is to make law based on the bible. Not just any book of religious philosophy, mind you, but the Christian Bible used by the ultra fanatical sects of the religion. Fundamentalists is the term most often used. Our constitution was written in such a manner that this country would not have a national church, a national religion, but this means nothing to these people. They have stated in emphatic terms that their form of fanatical religion is to be imposed on the nation. It matters not that a very large percentage of those who consider themselves Christian, do not abide by these thoughts. Fundamentalism is not the church of choice for many Christians. It is never discussed that many other millions of Americans are not members or supporters of the Christian religion. Our constitution often calls on God for direction but specifically denies any particular religion from being the religion of the state. As President Bush has attempted to point out, we are at war against terrorists, not a religion, but with nations that are specifically connected to a religion, it's safe to believe that many Americans believe otherwise. Our fight is with those whose philosophy allows for the slaughter of thousands of civilians. All the major religious groups, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist have vehemently criticized the actions of the terrorists on September 11, except for the fundamentalist religious right. They seem to think it was an angry god of some kind getting even because we are a tolerant people, and allow individual freedoms. We have always been free to choose whether or not we wished to belong to a religious group, the same as we choose to belong to a political party, or live on the west coast or the east. Belonging to some religious organization has never been equated with belonging to a political party in this country. At least, not until now. It seems to me it would be in the best interest of the political parties to separate themselves from this religious entanglement. Calling oneself American has never been dependent on being associated with some church or religious group, and it should never be in the future either. For the fundamentalists to vote as a block is their choice, their constitutional right and they must understand it is others' right not to. To use the word properly, it is our fundamental right not to have a church of the state. •••******(from Witch Vox)
Fundamentalist Christians tend to support the following:
1 The reining in of individual rights. They believe that the loss of morality in this nation is directly tied to individual rights; they believe the Bible should be the central document to stop the slide of morals and "get the nation back to God." They have mobilised their membership across the nation enough to train their own political scientists so that they can influence the way our government works, and turn it back to "God". The foremost university in the United States that doesn't get press, but is considered the Yale University of fundamentalist universities that consists of a student body that is 85% home-schooled fundamentalist Christian background is Liberty University, in Lynchburg, VA. Most of their students do internships in ALL branches of government, including the White House. They are very proud of their graduation to hire ratio--most of their graduates get hired to high profile jobs in Washington, D.C., and affect government at ALL levels. See .
2. They are for capital punishment. The reasoning behind this is based on Old Testament law.
3. They are for, interestingly enough, capitalism. Apparently they missed the verse that says you can't worship both God and money, and also the verses in Amos and the New Testament regarding God's vision of social programs for the poor and sick.
4. They are against socialized medicine. They believe that the word "socialized" is akin to "Communism." The people that subscribe to this belief have holdover fears of Communism from the 50's through the end of the Cold War.
5. They are against secular education. This is why most of them homeschool and send their children to fundamentalist universities such as the Assembly of God universities which are located all over the United States.
They believe they are doing God's work--in this they are NO different than the Sept 11th hijackers. This is why they have no problem with what the hijackers did--they understand the mentality. They also understand only that they are NOT good enough for God, which is why they need to be "saved,"--and that they only deserve God's "loving" punishment--and so the attacks were justified because we are a "sinful" nation. Because they believe they are doing God's work, and because they are so powerful now, because they have centred themselves in a faith based lobby, and not a church, they have made their influence "legal," and they are a significant threat to constitutional freedoms. The first -*test*-('") was Dover, Pennsylvania, and they were fully backed by a fundamentalist think tank called the Discovery Institute in trying to overthrow secular scientific education in the public school. Thankfully, they lost that battle. However, most secular text books are printed in Texas, and fundamentalist Christians have a lot of influence in textbook publishing in thousands of textbooks that are distributed across the United States. They will not stop until their objective is won--to "save" America for God--so that Jesus will return sooner, and they can be released from this sinful world to go to heaven. This is their ONLY objective. They don't care about you--you're part of the problem, you see. They see themselves as the ONLY solution.
I hope this information is of help to those who may not be familiar with the intricacies of the religion and their thought processes.
http://www.nevadaobserver.com/Opinion.htm A Church Of The State? Centrists, Fundamentalists, Fiscally Responsible; Are These Parties? by Johnny Gunn There have been conservatives and liberals in all our political parties virtually from the beginning of the Union, and in some instances, a party is even described as being conservative or liberal, but things, they are a-changing, across our broad land. Now, from the left, or liberal political parties are the terms humanist and centrist. Within the more conservative or right side of the political spectrum is a separation of conservatives into fiscal conservative and religious right. Discussion and debate are the foundations of politics, and parties are formed by these philosophical thoughts, bringing people of like minds together to present their particular agendas to the body politic as a whole; the citizens of the country. Often, at least in theory, these discussions and thoughts are focused on particular candidates or issues, and we vote as a body for one or the other, may the best thought win. I said theory because this process is sublimated rather easily by vast train loads of currency, and so, the idea of debates of merit sometimes doesn’t happen, and purchases in the media are the closest we get to an understanding of a candidate. Currently the main political parties are Republican (GOP) and Democrat, with the Independent American Party (IAP) and greens. Those registering as independent form the largest block of voters not associated with the GOP or Democrats. What appears to be happening right now is the splintering of both major parties. Democrats are still dominated by the strong liberal voices, with centrists and humanists feeling left out. Interesting the most liberal members of the party are attempting to call themselves centrist, confusing even the centrists. Many actual centrists moving toward considering themselves independent. We saw this in the Clinton White House, with the former president being more centrist than liberal, and his party seemingly more left leaning. Senator Hillary Clinton a democrat representing New York was the leader of the most liberal wing of her party along with Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, but is now trying to pass herself off as a centrist. Remembering her national health plan when Clinton took power is enough to frighten even the most centrist within the Republican Party. There should be GOP fear from these ultra liberals attempting to take over those that are more conservative, but within the GOP there should be even more fear from religious fanatics. On the other side of the spectrum, Republicans are splintered even more by a religious right that demands acceptance as leaders of the conservative movement in the country. They often are referred to as neo-cons. Other conservatives, now referred to as fiscal conservatives, are being forced to become independent. Some are trying to stay within the party, but their voice is becoming weaker and weaker as the religious right forces its will on others. George W. Bush actually performed a bit of a miracle by forging a meeting of the two minds of conservatism but the weld didn't hold. Centrists within the GOP exist, probably make up the majority of the party but the power within the party has shifted to those that wish to force their religion on the nation. The party of Eisenhower and Reagan is not the party of Pat Robertson, and Bush now tends to align himself more and more with the religious right. The stated desire of the religious right is to make law based on the bible. Not just any book of religious philosophy, mind you, but the Christian Bible used by the ultra fanatical sects of the religion. Fundamentalists is the term most often used. Our constitution was written in such a manner that this country would not have a national church, a national religion, but this means nothing to these people. They have stated in emphatic terms that their form of fanatical religion is to be imposed on the nation. It matters not that a very large percentage of those who consider themselves Christian, do not abide by these thoughts. Fundamentalism is not the church of choice for many Christians. It is never discussed that many other millions of Americans are not members or supporters of the Christian religion. Our constitution often calls on God for direction but specifically denies any particular religion from being the religion of the state. As President Bush has attempted to point out, we are at war against terrorists, not a religion, but with nations that are specifically connected to a religion, it's safe to believe that many Americans believe otherwise. Our fight is with those whose philosophy allows for the slaughter of thousands of civilians. All the major religious groups, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist have vehemently criticized the actions of the terrorists on September 11, except for the fundamentalist religious right. They seem to think it was an angry god of some kind getting even because we are a tolerant people, and allow individual freedoms. We have always been free to choose whether or not we wished to belong to a religious group, the same as we choose to belong to a political party, or live on the west coast or the east. Belonging to some religious organization has never been equated with belonging to a political party in this country. At least, not until now. It seems to me it would be in the best interest of the political parties to separate themselves from this religious entanglement. Calling oneself American has never been dependent on being associated with some church or religious group, and it should never be in the future either. For the fundamentalists to vote as a block is their choice, their constitutional right and they must understand it is others' right not to. To use the word properly, it is our fundamental right not to have a church of the state. •••******