The Religious Right wants to take away your Rights!

[SanHeChuan]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/feb/23/republicans-religion-secular-america

"The first one is this: God's in charge. God is in charge ... In the Declaration of Independence it says we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. It doesn't say we're endowed by Washington, DC, or endowed by the bureaucrats or endowed by state government. It's by our creator that we are given these rights."


http://www.theocracywatch.org/taking_over.htm

Until last spring, Jo Martin was a relatively non*political Houston housewife. Today she's on the front lines of a religious war that has fractured the Republican Party. Martin, a 52-year-old mother of three, and her husband David, a stockbroker, are lifelong Republicans but hadn't been active in party politics for many years until they happened to attend a local GOP meeting last spring.

They were appalled by what they found. The party apparatus had been taken over by religious activists intent on bringing "biblical principles" to government: outlawing abortion, ostracizing ****sexuals and teaching creationism in public schools, among other things. "We honest to goodness felt like we had fallen through a time warp into a Nazi brown-shirt meeting," Martin said.



http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/ChristianRight_AmerFascism.html

"What convinces masses are not facts," Hannah Arendt wrote in Origins of Totalitarianism, "and not even invented facts, but only the consistency of the system which they are presumably part. Repetition, somewhat overrated in importance because of the common belief in the "masses" inferior capacity to grasp and remember, is important because it convinces them of consistency in time." (p.351)

Fiscal and social conservatives beware. While battling to KEEP your MONEY you may LOSE your FREEDOM. ;)

[1bad65]

"In the Declaration of Independence it says we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights. It doesn't say we're endowed by Washington, DC, or endowed by the bureaucrats or endowed by state government. It's by our creator that we are given these rights."

Which part of that is untrue?

[David Jamieson]

Fiscal and social conservatives beware. While battling to KEEP your MONEY you may LOSE your FREEDOM. ;)

cherry picking the declaration, and in fact, doing so incorrectly never sat well with me.

Here's a couple fo things.

George was pretty much into his insanity when the colonies declared independence.

Now, except for the rant against george that makes up a huge portion of the text, here is the pre-amble and what it says.

Study it well my American counsins, so few of you actually do know and understand this document:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

emphasis is mine.

also, the ff never had to abolish themselves and re-institute a new government. That took place after the Civil war. Well, actually, it took place before, during and after the civil war. :)

you don't have a monarchy. You have an elected government. IE: the populace has given consent to be governed. also, there is always impeachment as well and that has been carried out as well. the most recent call being teh one to impeach Bush and Cheney that never got anywhere and prior to that the call to impeach Clinton which worked out to be a censuring of him.

would you prefer a monarch?

In my opinion, the problem is myopic and frankly stupid politicians who are looking for short term gains on both sides of the inadequate 2 party system that the USA has been stuck in for a looooong time which in essence is the real barrier to true representative democracy in that nation.

whining, blaming and finger pointing while bleating and foot stamping in Glenn Beck style is not how one goes about reforming government don't cha know. lol

Speaking of drek, I had to laugh when he made the statement about going to a library after ranting about socialism. In this library he learned about it for FREE!

amazing that eh? a free library, well golly who had any idea that Libraries were free?

Good thing Stewart called him on it and painted the picture of the real Glenn Beck.

IE: chortling idiot doing his master rupert's bidding. lol

[SanHeChuan]

"In the Declaration of Independence it says we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights. It doesn't say we're endowed by Washington, DC, or endowed by the bureaucrats or endowed by state government. It's by our creator that we are given these rights."

Which part of that is untrue?

The intent with which it is being interpreted. It was meant to declare all people equal, not to give special rights to religious people.

The evidence for this is

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution


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.

Article Six of the United States Constitution


...

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

With typical Christian arrogance whenever you hear the words god or creator you always assume it's your own Christian god. And with typical Christian hypocrisy you’re all for forcing your views on others, and think giving other people the freedom you enjoy somehow takes away your rights. :rolleyes:
What if the scientologist were to come into power and declared the creator xenu? :p