Crusading Against Same-Sex Marriage

Keep Your Church Out of Our Government and We'll Keep Our Government Out of Your Church!!!

And Yes, all of your "holier than thou" types...this document DOES EXIST!!! And Thomas JEfferson wrote it not Satan!

Statute of Religious Freedom
1777
Jefferson first drafted his “Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom” in 1777. Although it was not enacted into law until 1786, it firmly established the principles of religious freedom and the separation of church and state and provided the basis for the First Amendment’s clause on religion.

http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/documents/ih195802.htm

We need to fight against this oppression. We need to organize ourselves to be every bit as forceful as they are.

We need to learn how to take off the "demon" label from gays and put it on corrupted officials instead.

That is what the dcp is about.

http://img8.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img8&image=bush-stole-it.png

This is absolutely incredible. I guess the separation of church and state has been completely blurred and we are no longer even beginning to by into it. This sort of ideology is very dangerous and can lead to incredible controls. This has happened before and we must stop it-we must be sure that we organized and stay focused. This is really scary. I hope many people get the word out.

Hello, everyone - hope your Thanksgiving was a good one, and you are not as bloated as I am. Here is a little snippet from Michael Moore's site:

Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell's office offered contradictory statements this week regarding the request for a statewide recount. First spokesman Carlo LoParo said, "there can't be a recount until the votes have been counted the first time," but strangely, the following day, he said, "the boards are conducting what for all intents and purposes is a recount right now." Sound confusing to you? Us too. Are they conducting a count, or a recount? Give Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell a call to find out exactly what is going on: 877-767-3453

Reach out and touch someone!

Indy,
That is a great link.

The neocons have forgotten our history of democracy and why we have the separation of church and state.

They have forgotten the religious abuses that happened in England and which were the fundamental reason for our forefathers putting that clause into our Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

They also have forgotten the history of (religious) persecution that led ot our forefathers limiting the power of government to "spy" on its people.

Each of our amendments was created to protect our freedoms, yet they try to narrow them down to fit into what they consider to be "moral and justified."

Whether we are gay or know people who are gay, these actions have much farther reaching ramifications. We need to build our base here and now because we are the true defenders of the democracy our forefathers dreamed. (And they are the nightmare!)

Sparrow,

I am not sure I agree--I don't think they have forgotten at all, I think they are using the best of what we have in our country--our ability to organize, free speech, and the right to assemble to impose their garbage. This needs to be countered and exposed--I hope many people bring this up in the December Meet-ups.

Reach out and touch someone!

Posted by: KerryisKing | November 26, 2004 08:55 PM

Did you say "touch" or smack upside the head?

Iraq officials seek delay for elections http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=TNKNN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Hmmmmmm

I saw that Times article as well, and it turned my stomach. And yet Burress' story also gave me great insight into his twisted psyche, and that of people like him, when he described his "obsession" with pornography, and what he did to obtain it - and now what he does to try and prevent others from experiencing it. This is so typical of the kind of the right wing zealot that we are dealing with. They have a problem, and insist that their problem become our problem - rather than devoting the necessary time and focus to exploring, and exorcizing, their own inner demons.

Posted by: KerryisKing | November 26, 2004 08:55 PM

Kik:

Very likely they are recounting while they count: 1 kerry vote for record--3 kerry votes for trash 1 Bush vote for record--3 Bush votes to add.

Frankly--since there is NO transparency, they can call it whatever they want to call it; however, they better not be charging the tax payers for their deceptive actions.

And until both sides have transparency and representation, it's not worth the money they are spending on it.

Looks like some of the neocons are out to go after and "destroy" the ACLU..until they need their services, I'm sure..didn't the ACLU defend Limbaugh and his medical record privacy??

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41564

Chicago man has launched a website to mobilize millions of Americans to consign the American Civil Liberties Union to the "ash heap of history."

The ACLU, says the website StopThe ACLU.org, is "relentlessly and fiercely assaulting America's foundations by feverishly working through activist court systems to impose same-sex marriage and remove all vestiges of the Ten Commandments wherever they may be posted."

His website exists for one purpose, he said, "to mobilize millions of God-fearing, patriotic Americans to stand up to the ACLU agenda and consigning it to the ash heap of history (or export it to Communist regions)."

This is what I was referring to this morning where I didn't have the link - someone had sent it my way. What struck me is that this dude knows nothing about moderation. He went overboard with his porno to the point where he ruined two marriages. Then when he becomes a religious nut he is so fanatical that he doesn't trust Republicans unless they share his exact level of intensity with his bizarre believes. This is one sick fellow!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6374820/

KIEV, Ukraine - Ukraine opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko, defiant and backed by tens of thousands of supporters, on Friday demanded a new presidential election be held to replace last weekend’s widely contested vote.

Hmmm...Ukraine wants legitimate elections. Their press wants legitimate elections.

So why does't our pResident "Thief in OFFICE 2x" demand the legitimate Democratic elections which we deserve! And why doesn't our media demand that we uphold Democracy and eliminate corruption and fraud?

Perhaps, Russia, and the Ukraine, and all the world will laugh at Bush when he tries to bully them.

He can run from his record--our 2 timing thieving President--but he can't hide.

I think that is an incredible insight, hpleft. It is a symptom of a number of personality disorders to project one's own issues on the culture as a whole, or onto one powerful person.

Mr. Burress, like some others we know, chose to overcome an addiction--NOT through insight or reconciliation of inner and outer urges, but by projecting that kind of split thinking onto others.

When I worked as a movement therapist, these patients were the most difficult to treat, because they were invariably quite charming at first, only to reveal a layer of judgement of others, passice agressive rage, and an unwillingness to own their own tantrums.

The only way to address such personality types is through supportive confrontation on the part of a range of people who are important to the person. In other words, intervention, followed by intensive therapy that involves a high degree of self-examination of beliefs.

Anyone else have similar experiences with these types?

There must be ways to pool our knowledge and take appropriate action.

These people are really bright. Stop the ACLU - yeah, right. We just sent $100 to the ACLU. The ACLU even defended the right for some rightwingers of a type I don't want to even mention to march in a parade in Idaho. (hint - they resemble an archaic Germanic cult) What are these people thinking?

They are the same type who are so small-minded & dense that they vote against their own interests - they vote for people to bust their own unions, to make it so they can't sue if they are unjustly harmed, so their children don't have healthcare access. They have low self esteem & identify with their bosses - they believe in the trickle down theory. They are going to have buyer's remorse - I am shocked they hadn't in time for the election, but I suppose the propaganda was too strong.

Speaking of separation of church and state..there was this blurb about military bases, etc.. sponsoring Boy Scout groups.
There is also a thread over at DU about it

http://tinyurl.com/4kn7x

WASHINGTON, Nov. 25 (UPI) -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has spoken out in support of military bases sponsoring Boy Scout troops, the Washington Times said Thursday.

At issue is a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union that claims the government sponsorship violates religious freedoms since the Boy Scouts require members to pledge allegiance to God.

In a partial settlement, the Justice Department, representing the Pentagon, agreed to warn military commanders not to officially sponsor Scout units.

In response to letters of complaint from at least three conservative Republicans, Rumsfeld voiced his support for the sponsorships.

DU thread:
http://tinyurl.com/6stz5

There was a fascinating comment at the end of the 2nd Religion and the Presidency Panel on C-SPAN today. One of the audience members had done some research that had been picked up by the NY Times, and become part of a recent story. The research indicated that people living in decadent, oh so "liberal" Massachusetts were among the least likely to get divorced, a trend that persisted throughout NE, and mid-Atlantic states through NJ. This greater likelihood of remaining married was linked to a superior quality of education.

Posted by: hpleft | November 26, 2004 09:17 PM

They project their fears and shame onto all of us. And they don't hesitate to use fear to motivate people to do what they want.

Many of these people are genuinely good people, but they have learned to let fear and prejudice rule their lives. I hope through the dnc we will be able to learn how to connect to those moderates in the "red states" and teach them about true values, not just expediant values.

Oh, YEAH...meanwhile neon blinking red TEXAS is near the top for divorce, teen pregnancies, and abortions. There were other red states that had ALOT higher percentages in every category than the blue states. I'm sure the stats will be blamed on us blue people trapped in the red states. I'll look for the link.
The other stat was how the blue states tend to have a lot more comprehensive sex ed classes in their school and not JUST abstinence . Can repubs connect the dots here?? Or will they
rearrange the dots to try and prove their case that "teach only abstinence" is the cure all?

Posted by: sparrow | November 26, 2004 09:39 PM

I personally think that it's time to adopt a mental health model in such discussions. We need to bring these kinds of splits, fears and disorders to light - and make them an issue. As a passionate advocate for modernity, I feel that we have been fighting with one hand tied behind our back for too long.

Here ya go..some numbers:

http://tinyurl.com/4dqlm

As of May 1, only 14 states required contraception to be covered in sex education, and 21 states required that abstinence be stressed, according to SIECUS, a nonprofit that promotes education about contraceptives.

The numbers put out by SIECUS indicate that of the 14 states that mandate contraception be covered, nine of the five have teen birth rates that fall below the national average. The national teen birth rate is 45 per 1,000 women ages 15-19. Maine, with one of the most comprehensive sex education programs in the nation, has a birth rate of 27 per 1,000, whereas it is 66 per 1,000 in Texas. Delaware, which mandates that both abstinence and contraceptives be covered if sex education has been taught, has a birth rate of 44 per 1,000.In Maryland, which mandates that sex education cover contraceptives, the birth rate is 38 per 1000 women.

In many ways, I think the problems we face have a lot to do with aggression - who is willing to be the most aggressive?

It always seems that a platform of intolerance attracts the most boldly aggressive people, whether they are trying to suppress the rights of people because of their color, or their sexual orientation, or their gender. When I look back on the history of intolerance in America, I see the lengths people have been willing to go in order to achieve these exclusionary agendas - lynchings, for example. And witch hunts. And gay murders. And there are other legal methods, like the efforts employed by Burress. These are all part of a pattern of bold, highly charged aggressiveness that characterizes movements of intolerance and undermines our society's adherence to egalitarian principles. Things seem to spiral downward until those who are tolerant get equally bold in their efforts to put forward more inclusive doctrines.

It also seems clear to me, from watching my deer, that the aggressors will be as intolerant as the others will allow. I just watched a small yearling take on the queen doe in our yard. I cringed, knowing the doe and fearing the outcome, and watched in amazement as that little one stood her ground and refused to back down. She's not aggressive, far from it, but she had finally had enough of the bullying. My own little Rosa Parks, right here in my yard.

Somewhere, sometime, in some way, we will all have to be Rosa Parkses together - we will all have to refuse to give up our seats, refuse to go to the back of the bus, and stand by our principles of equality and justice, in spite of the consequences. And we will all have to be willing to walk to work, day after day for weeks on end, even if our feet bleed.

Until we do that, until we stop fearing the consequences of our dissent, things will only get worse.

Great words Amy.

There is much we can do together--and with our friends and compatriots.

Rosa Parks was not alone--she knew she had the backing of a group.

No one here is alone either.

Wow - I just read the article in it's entirely, and it's clear this Burress man is one twisted fugg.

A porno addict, twice divorced, attacking what he hates most about himself and projecting it onto others. Sad and scary. Also, the gay marriage issue is beginning to make my blood boil more and more each day as I watch these hateful people bullying and attacking others, and attempting to invade others' personal lives, and take away their rights. It is beyond me how someone can concern themselves so deeply and vehemently with who someone else may or may not marry. There's no good reason for it, other than a deliberate attempt to undermine the happiness and well-being of others by people who clearly hate themselves. No one with a healthy self-image has to oppress someone else to feel good about their own worth.

These neo-cons are wallowing in self-loathing and trying to take everone else down with them.

Is it my imagination or is deep-rooted homophobia likely caused by feelings of shame and fear brought on by homosexual urges that the person does not want to face up to?

"Is it my imagination or is deep-rooted homophobia likely caused by feelings of shame and fear brought on by homosexual urges that the person does not want to face up to? "

Works for me, although I'd personally exchange the word "homosexual" for "bisexual". As a colleague pointed out a few years ago, all human behavior can be described by a bell curve EXCEPT sexuality. Methinks respondents are a little wary of telling the absolute truth on this one...

It's not simply a case of churches opposing gay rights.

Locally there is a liberal church which has made a point of being open to everyone, regardless of sexual preference. Several years ago they were affiliated with the Dutch Reform Church, which is very conservative. (I've never understood why Holland is so liberal, yet the local Dutch are so conservative). They were kicked out of the Dutch Reform Church over such stances.

More recently they've had some signs up noting their position. They also had some pre-election ads which could not officially endorce anyone, but it was obvious (with minimal reading between the lines) that they supported Kerry. The local papers are full with angry villiagers protesting this "evil" church. For example, one person wrote in shock, asking what she is to tell her young son that same sex marriage means! Shocking! (sarcasm).

From the Mission Statement on their web site (with a statment which is shocking to many of the natives):

Christ Community is an alternative to church as usual.

We live together in the awe of worship in the Presence of the Mystery of God Whose inclusive grace moves us to embrace all with unconditional love and gracious acceptance, irrespective of race, gender, economic status, age or sexual orientation,

http://www.christ-community.net/html/mission_statement.html

hpleft -

Yes, that makes sense. Your description is probably quite accurate. I suspect all prejudices are rooted in fear and insecurity.

I highly recommend "Religion and the Presidency: The Early Presidents" on C-SPAN if you get a chance to see one of the repeat showings. I see it is on Monday morning at 4:20! I learned some interesting things about Jefferson and his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists where the term "separation of church and state" is first used. He was most likely reinforcing the concept of federalism - the federal government will stay out of the way of the right of states to make laws about religion (re: first amendment - Congress shall make no laws regarding an establishment of religion - empahsizing Congress here - the federal governmnet). After some digging around on the internet after I saw the show on C-SPAN, it appears most scholarly researchers agree that Jefferson is not putting up that bricks and mortar wall between the federal government and religion that the Supreme Court has interepreted from his writings.

Jefferson himself regularly attended church services in the House of Representatives - yes, in the Capitol Building! Jefferson also approved several other federal buildings for use in Sunday morning church services. A scholar's comment on this was that perhaps because these services were voluntary, he allowed them to happen in federal buildings.

Jefferson won election to the presidency in a cliffhanger after his opponents attacked him relentlessly on religious issues. They painted him as ungodly based on his Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom and for positions taken by the Democratic Party. According to the presentation on C-SPAN, Jefferson demonstrated his personal "piety" or "religion" during his first term as way of counteracting the intensely personal attacks from the campaign and as a political move to assure the American people that he was not godless. His opponents had predicted a Jefferson presidency would cause an increase in the "teaching of "murder robbery, rape, adultery and incest." How Rovian.

Just some more "musings" - with a little different twist - on Jefferson and separation of church and state.

Religous Intolerance in America - http://www.religioustolerance.org/relintol3.htm#na

The Williamsburg Charter. One effort to return to basic principles is the Williamsburg Charter. Drafted by members of America's leading faiths and revised over the course of two years in close consultation with political, academic, educational and religious leaders, the charter was signed in 1988 by former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, two chief justices of the United States, and by nearly 200 leaders of national life. With their signatures, these individuals strongly reaffirmed the principles of religious liberty as essential for developing a common vision for the common good.

The Williamsburg Charter states in part:

"We affirm that a right for one is a right for another and a responsibility for all. A right for a Protestant is a right for an Eastern Orthodox is a right for a Catholic is a right for a Jew is a right for a Humanist is a right for a Mormon is a right for a Muslim is a right for a Buddhist — and for the followers of any other faith within the wide bounds of the republic.

"That rights are universal and responsibilities mutual is both the premise and the promise of democratic pluralism. The First Amendment in this sense, is the epitome of public justice and serves as the golden rule for civic life. Rights are best guarded and responsibilities best exercised when each person and group guards for all others those rights they wish guarded for themselves."

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/history/overview.aspx

This entire page linked above is worth reading!

'I Believe in an America Where the Separation of Church and State is Absolute'
September 12, 1960, address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association

John F. Kennedy



While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida--the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power--the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms--an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.
These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues--for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured--perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again--not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me--but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim--but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end--where all men and all churches are treated as equal--where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice--where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind--and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe--a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so--and neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test--even by indirection--for it. If they disagree with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.
I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none--who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him--and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in--and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."

And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died--when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches--when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom--and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey--but no one knows whether they were Catholic or not. For there was no religious test at the Alamo.

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition--to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress--on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)--instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.

I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts--why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France--and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.

But let me stress again that these are my views--for contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters--and the church does not speak for me.
Whatever issue may come before me as President--on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject--I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come--and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible--when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith--nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency--practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution...so help me God.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/40/story_4080_1.html

Many of these people are genuinely good people, but they have learned to let fear and prejudice rule their lives. I hope through the dnc we will be able to learn how to connect to those moderates in the "red states" and teach them about true values, not just expediant values.

Posted by: sparrow | November 26, 2004 09:39 PM

Hi, sparrow! Speaking a a red-stater, I don't think we need to so much "teach" the moderates as just hone our good message that we already have and make it sound like something reasonable people can understand, latch onto and incorporate into what they hope and dream for their future. I have TONS of friends and acquaintances who are Bush voters and they can be swayed over to our side by different messages (economic, social, etc.) but they all have to strongly and reasonably counter what the Republicans are offering and make a clear, sensible case for the hope, possibilities and promises that our way offers. We need some strong, straight-talking stuff going on with a huge dose of Clintonian hope.

I was flipping through my channels and as I was one of the journalist on CNN said something that caught my attention so I started listening. Then they started about the elections in Ukraine but what really ticked me off the showed a bunch of RW nuts standing outside a coffee shop in Texas holding signs, praising Chimp, and hollaring democracy for Ukraine. I wish these people would shove Chimp so far up there a$$ he would come out their throat and they would choke and die! I'm sitting hollaring back at the TV F**k UKRAINE WHAT ABOUT DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA! I'm telling you this crap is really getting to me and I have been in more arguments with some of these nuts in the past week or so you can't count and what is really bad I almost went to jail the day before Thanksgiving because this one B***H I ran across in a store seen me wearing a Kerry/Edwards shirt and smarted off and said I was a Dumba$$ for supporting a war criminal, faggot lover, and baby killer. Well I didn't think I just knocked the B***h on her A$$. Lucky for me there was a older lady there that heard what she said and told the manager but also she told a little white lie so to speak and told him the woman swung at me first. When she did the B***H I hit went off and started screaming calling the lady a liar anyway the manager called security and had the B***h escorted out of the store and she was barred from the store. That is probally the only thing that kept me from going to jail. When it was all over and the manager told us to enjoy our shopping and left the lady told me she was glad I hit that idoit and not to let it upset me because the idiot deserved it and it it wasn't for lying cheating a$$holes like her Kerry would be president. But I think the reality of all of this is I need to stay home because my anger is getting the best of me right now. And if I don't I'm going to end up in jail or asking directions to the closest mental ward.

Gays Try to Make Sense of `Values' Vote

By Dru Sefton
Religion News Service

The voters have spoken, and many of them said, "Moral values."

What they meant remains the debate among gays, no matter how clear it may be to opponents of same-sex marriage. A ban on those nuptials was approved Nov. 2 in 11 states -- everywhere it appeared on a ballot.
Did Republicans use gay marriage to frighten their evangelical base?

"Oh, they pounced on it, they just loved it," said Phyllis Lyon, who wed her partner of 51 years on Feb. 12 in a San Francisco ceremony later found to have violated California law. "It wouldn't have been an issue if they hadn't hyped it from the rooftops."

If the GOP did that, was it fair?

Of course, said Matt Daniels, author of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. "All parties use all issues all the time to win elections," Daniels said.

Or might "moral values" mean something more than gay marriage?

"The reality is, this is about a larger set of cultural issues, most of which have nothing to do with same-sex marriage," said Christopher Barron, political director of the gay Log Cabin Republicans.

Reactions are as varied as the gay community -- which is, as Warren Arbogast said, "as diverse as the sea is wide."

Arbogast and his longtime partner, Steve Forssell, both 42, were deeply disappointed by the election. The two, born and still living in Washington, D.C., contacted a Canadian attorney and started the application process for permanent residency there.

"We don't want to get married, that's not it," Arbogast said. "But when 11 states have the opportunity to do the right thing, and all 11 in landslide fashion go against a civil rights measure, it calls into question, do we want to be here? And the answer is no."

That doesn't mean, he added, "that we hate the U.S. or are rescinding our citizenship or hate the president. What it means is, we feel like `coloreds' in the '60s: good for TV, fun at a party, but certainly not equal."

Matt, a 35-year-old gay man from Fort Wayne in the conservative "red state" of Indiana, agreed.

"When the civil rights of an entire class of people are put in the hands of a misinformed and ignorant electorate, justice is not served and it is not healthy for our country," said Matt, who asked that his last name not be used. "I've lived here all my life, I know how people react to these issues."

John B. Johnson says some gays' inability to speak freely may have figured in the election's outcome.

"There are people who wanted to speak out against the marriage amendment and couldn't for absolute fear," said Johnson, 35, who works in the office of government relations of the Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C. "In no democracy can a full hearing of an issue be debated when the people most affected by it are afraid to speak out."

But Daniels, president of the Washington-based Alliance for Marriage, says the election proved democracy works. Lawsuits pushing for gay marriage "displayed a contempt for values held by the vast majority of ordinary Americans," he said.

"The American people have this stubborn notion of governing themselves," Daniels said. "They reached for whatever democratic remedies were available to them."

Jonathan D. Katz, a professor of gay history at Yale University, said the politicization of gay issues is "not an unusual tactic."

"The right uses this whenever an external enemy disappears," said Katz, head of Yale's Larry Kramer Initiative for Lesbian and Gay Studies.

"We saw it in 1952, after the end of World War II," Katz said. Back then, Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis., led a purge of homosexuals in the government known as the "lavender scare."

"We saw it in 1989 at the end of the communist era," when Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., fought against federal funding of photographer Robert Mapplethorpe's artwork, Katz said. "And we saw it this time, after the lack of success prosecuting a war against al-Qaida."

Barron of the Log Cabin Republicans disagreed.

"This was much more about the cultural differences between middle America and what many people there view as the `liberal elite,"' he said. "I believe in the goodness of the American people, and I don't believe 59 million of them voted anti-gay."

Rebecca Maestri, president of the Virginia Log Cabin Republicans, was one of the gay "Austin 12" who were warmly received in April 2000 by then-candidate George W. Bush, Texas' governor, who later declared himself a "better person" for having had the meeting. In April 2001, President Bush selected one of the 12, Scott Evertz, to head the Office of National AIDS Policy -- the first gay nominated to an executive branch position by a GOP president.

Now, despite a very different political reality, Maestri remains optimistic.

"We have huge opportunities here," Maestri said. "I view it as a big function of education. We've got to realize it's not always about candidates and elections, but schools and churches. We've got to get out on the same battlefield where the opposition is coming from."

Back in San Francisco, Phyllis Lyon also is upbeat.

Lyon is 80. Her "spouse for life," Del Martin, is 83. The two have seen decades of changes in treatment of gays in their half-century together. "It's been said that this gay marriage is too much too soon," Lyon said. "Well, fiddle-diddle, it's been around a long time.

"Actually it was back in the '70s when gay marriage came up," Lyon said. "But we were more concerned with employment rights, fair housing, basic things like not being considered illegal and immoral and sick.

"We won on all those other things," she said.

"Now, more people need to know who we are, know that we're just like them. We aren't a special breed, we don't have horns and tails.

"We're just people."

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/156/story_15618_1.html

Exit Polls: Comparative Charts
How did the votes of Protestants, Catholics, and Jews in 2004 compare to 2000?

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/155/story_15571_1.html

David Barton & the 'Myth' of Church-State Separation
The Bush campaign has hired a controversial activist who calls the U.S. a 'Christian nation'

By Deborah Caldwell



The Republican National Committee is employing the services of a Texas-based activist who believes the United States is a “Christian nation” and the separation of church and state is “a myth.”

David Barton, the founder of an organization called Wallbuilders, was hired by the RNC as a political consultant and has been traveling the country for a year--speaking at about 300 RNC-sponsored lunches for local evangelical pastors. During the lunches, he presents a slide show of American monuments, discusses his view of America’s Christian heritage -- and tells pastors that they are allowed to endorse political candidates from the pulpit.
Barton, who is also the vice-chairman of the Texas GOP, told Beliefnet this week that the pastors' meetings have been kept “below the radar.... We work our tails off to stay out of the news.” But at this point, he says, with voter registration ended in most states and early voting already under way, staying quiet about the activity “doesn’t matter.”

Barton’s main contention is that the separation of church and state was never intended by the nation’s founders; he says it was created by the Supreme Court in the 20th Century. The back cover of his 1989 book, “The Myth of Separation,” proclaims: “This book proves that separation of church and state is a myth.” Barton is also on the board of advisers of the Providence Foundation, a Christian Reconstructionist group that advocates America as a Christian nation. (Click here for an explanation of Reconstructionism.)

In an appearance on D. James Kennedy’s radio show, "Truths That Transform," Barton says: "Was America ever a Christian nation? Well, according to the eyewitnesses--yes." And he adds: "I would say if 88% call themselves Christians, I would say, yeah, you probably have a fairly good basis to call it a Christian nation."

Read more - http://www.beliefnet.com/story/154/story_15469_1.html

Also see this link - http://www.bjcpa.org/Pages/Resources/Pubs/Critique%20of%20America's%20Godly%20Heritage.html

I always pray that the good core of our human character--which cherishes truth, peace, and freedom--will prevail. - The Dalai Lama

atta girl misty4kerry good for you hope you got her one good. Wish you had got her one for me too.

Kangaroo Brisbane Australia

The more I read about values and religion here, the more I wonder : where has freedom gone?

Ironically, I live in the 17th precinct in Paris where the statue of Liberty was built. To be more precise, it was in the rue de Chazelles, not that far from the Arch of Triumph.

I cannot help from making a striking parallel between what is going on in your country and the situation in France before the revolution. We then had two powers :

- A totalitarian king of divine right, whose power and decisions couldn't be challenged, and who raised the maximum taxes from the poorest. He was surrounded by courtisans closely connected to the court, who all got the good jobs and the money. Of course the press was not free.
Any difference with George II?

- The church and the clergy imposed a very strict religion upon an uneducated crowd, lived in opulence while they were starving.
But that was in the name of God.
Any difference with those wealthy Born Again churches?

Then came the thinkers, who challenged both powers, by stating that each man had the right to think by himself according to more humanistic values. They spread their message through libels and pamphets, that could be the internet and the blogs today. What started revolution was not only the spreading of new ideas, it was the rebellion of the manies against the concentration of money in the hands of too little.
Any difference with the big corporate groups today?

You are today's thinkers, whose values cannot be extinguished because they are the very soul of man.

I read through all the comments in this thread, and got more scared and furious by the minute. I am new here, and apart from fervently wanting Kerry to win, and donating the occasional small amount of money, new also to participating in this kind of discussions. But the election has left me with such an unbelievable taste of ashes in my mouth that I feel the need to actually do something. Just expressing my frustration is not much, I know, but I hope these few words may be a way to start. Please people, give me some advice, what can I do?

Good Op-Ed in the Baltimore Sun.

Validate the vote - by Ian H. Solomon (Associate Dean of Yale Law School)
November 26, 2004

MOST MAINSTREAM newspapers have already dismissed stories of voting fraud and voting rights violations in the November election as baseless or irrelevant. Sen. John Kerry's concession is supposed to demonstrate that there is no story here. Give up, go home, it's all over. But it's not over.

We would like to believe that voting irregularities were identified and corrected, that participants fulfilled their duties appropriately, that the machines performed reliably and that the total discrepancy between voter intention and recorded results was less than the margin of victory in relevant contests. But that conclusion must be reached on the basis of evidence, not blind faith.

Disturbingly, several Web sites have demonstrated the ease of hacking into the AccuVote TS machines made by Diebold Election Systems, the company that for $2.6 million recently settled a lawsuit by California over voting machine problems. Another major manufacturer of electronic voting machines, Election Systems & Software, has also been subject to criticism for machine breakdowns and vulnerability. There is no evidence of fraud, but neither manufacturer has assuaged widespread concerns about inappropriate partisanship and unreliability.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.el...

NO SURRENDER !!!

More political satire about religious hypocrisy, intolerance, and bigotry (to name only three) on the part of the Bush administration.... IMHO, Jefferson was correct!!! (Thanks for posting that, Indy.) Religion and politics must never, but never ever, be combined into one agenda. Never! (That means also canceling the executive order Bush originated and signed that funds faith-based charities... it's a slippery slope from there....)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7371.htm

President Bush, I need some advice regarding God's Laws and how best to follow them

Dear President Bush:

11/26/04 "ICH" -- Congratulations on your election victory and for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. As you said, "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18.22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

However, I do need some advice from you regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how best to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25.44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not to Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21.7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Leviticus15.19-24). The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord. (Leviticus 1.9) The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35.2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus11.10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there degrees of abomination?

7. Leviticus.21.20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus19.27. How should they die?

9. I know from Leviticus 11.6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean. May I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19.19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Leviticus 24.10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, as we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Leviticus 20.14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Yours truly,
An Inquiring Supporter

P.S. I look forward to your answers because there are a number of other issues that I'd like to get settled as soon as you've enlightened me on these ... Thanks again.

Can you say the word CORPORATE ?

Top-Giving Action Groups Favor GOP

Fri Nov 26, 8:58 AM ET

By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The top-giving corporate political action committees didn't hedge their bets in the fall elections despite the narrow division between the GOP and Democrats in Congress. They favored Republican candidates 10-to-1.

Of 268 corporate PACs that donated $100,000 or more to presidential and congressional candidates from January 2003 through the middle of last month, 245 gave the majority of their contributions to GOP hopefuls, according to an analysis released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Political Money Line campaign finance tracking service.

more >

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041126/ap_on_el_pr/pac_giving&cid=694&ncid=2043

NO SURRENDER !!!

Great message from Harvey Fierstein, posted for those who may have missed it over Thanksgiving:

http://www.inthelifetv.org/1402_player.html

This one hits right at the heart of one of the aims of this web site: Media Reform.... (And another astute observation about religious hypocrisy.) American media (who were on a daily feeding frenzy over Clinton's infidelity, which should have been handled by him and his wife) has abandoned their First Amendment rights under the Bush administration, genuflecting before Bush and his minions as though they are lesser gods who can do no harm. NOW is when American media should be on a feeding frenzy over the injustices perpetrated against our own people, and the injustices perpetrated against innocent people in foreign countries..... Where, oh where, are the journalists with integrity who are willing to stand up against Bush and his administration?!?!? Where, oh where, are journalists in mainstream media who are willing to speak truth to power in mainstream media where everyone can hear about the cruelties perpetrated in our names, and see the evil Bush and his administration are doing to innocent children, women, and men?!?!? In this season of traditional thanksgiving, peace, and good will, do the good Christians of this nation really approve of what's being done in their names?!?!?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7370.htm

Stinky And The Vulcans

By Sheila Samples

11/26/04 "ICH" -- The kid and I were chatting happily last week about really really important things such as this country's top movie, Spongebob Squarepants, when, suddenly, she pointed at the TV screen behind me. Then, as her face contorted in anger, she said ominously -- "He's e-e-e-e-v-u-l..."

Startled by the look on her face, I turned to the TV, expecting to see the Red Skull with his boot on the neck of Captain America -- but it was only George Bush, smirking and chortling and kissing members of his cabinet on the lips. "No, honey," I said, "that's only the president. That's George Bush."

"Well, okay," she said, with a shudder. Then, squenching her eyes shut and pursing her lips, she muttered -- "But I'm gonna call him Stinky."

I don't know which is more appalling -- that millions of comatose adults flock to theaters to pay homage to Spongebob Squarepants while the world goes to hell around them, or that a single 8-year-old, familiar with the stark, good-versus-evil battles waged by Spiderman, Captain Marvel and the entire battalion of Ninja Rangers could take one look at George Bush and instantly recognize a villian.

I hope she never sees Paul Wolfowitz, Condi Rice, Richard Perle and the rest of the Vulcans when they take their second-term circus act on the road. Wow. What a gig. Think about it. Stinky and the Vulcans -- The Greatest Show on Earth --coming soon to a midway near you...

They never seem to tire; their contortions grow more grotesque as they parade before the world with bells and whistles, high-wire acts, sword-swallowing feats, freak shows...one act bumping into another, faster and faster...now you see it, now you don't...grinning barkers motioning from the racuous celebration whirling beneath the big tent...tanks and gun-ships, bombs and blood...

I am dumbfounded as people in this country clamor for tickets to the obscene, pornographic performance of this hideous group. I cannot understand why leaders of other nations stand by, enthralled -- with neither the courage nor the decency to yank the curtain before this murderous bunch shows up with their next act and brings the entire international house down.

Later, when the stench of bloated corpses can no longer be ignored, they'll say they didn't know. But they knew. We all knew. Dick Cheney, Vulcans' production manager and Paul Wolfowitz, dance director, published the show's program in 1992 with their "Defense Planning Guidance," wherein they called for "preemptive" military action against friend and foe alike, to establish and maintain the U.S. as the sole global superpower.

Fortunately, this act flopped. But the Vulcans didn't go away. They merely backed off and waited in the wings while refining their little program http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf for world domination and looking for a lead singer for their group.

In addition to an "event on the scale of Pearl Harbor" to jump-start their strategy, they needed a front man -- an arrogant Nazi "Overman" doppleganger so shallow and eaten up with hubris that he could easily be convinced of his God-like superiority, and would have no qualms about the genocide necessary to reduce the world population and to achieve their goal of a new world order in which no nation dared challenge U.S. dominance.

They needed an Orwellian fool, one willing to debase himself -- unable to discern reality from fantasy. But more important, they needed one who could successfully captivate a gullible populace by cloaking acts of inhuman brutishness in words like "freedom," "democracy," "liberation," "God," and "compassion."

That man was George W. Bush. And he hit the stage in a dead run -- a rapper, a moon-walker, a whirling dirvish of death. He's on a killing rampage, and any American with the perception of an 8-year-old knows he must be stopped. Sooner rather than later. That's why we have a Constitution, a Congress -- a watchdog media. It's time for the madness to stop -- before the terrorism and evil we are spreading in the name of freedom metastisizes further, and we are drawn onto massive global killing fields from which there is no escape.

Later, some will say, "We didn't know what they were doing to our children...we were just supporting our troops...If only the media had told us -- had shown us what was going on -- we would have done something to stop it."

But they will know in their hearts that the time to have stopped it was before it started -- the instant the first big lie was told. They will know that on Nov. 2, when they bought tickets for four more years of madness, more than 1,200 Americans had already been brutally slaughtered, more than 9,000 Americans injured or maimed for life, and more than 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children destroyed. And all for lies. For greed. For power.

The media has been literally yelling about what we are doing in Iraq -- just not the U.S. media. We have no excuse for not knowing about the atrocities of Guantanamo Bay, the torture and murders of Abu Gharib, the mass killings of civilians in Fallujah and countless other Iraqi towns and cities. We cannot help but know that most people in this stricken country have no electricity, no water, no food, no medicine -- that our troops have been ordered to shoot on sight any male between the ages of 15 and 50 whether or not he is armed -- that hospitals and clinics were first on the list of targets and that aid groups and ambulances were stopped at checkpoints.

I cannot judge if Bush, or even the Vulcans, are evil. However, although they refuse to be held accountable, evil is being perpetrated in Bush's name, and under his watch. As Rana Kabbani wrote http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5069215-103677,00.html in Britain's Guardian newspaper last week, "...the graves of Falluja speak for themselves."

Kabbani reported that, "Iraqis watch as their homes and mosques are desecrated by soldiers who shoot injured men in the stomach in pre-emptive lunacy that mirrors that of their leader. (Emphasis added) They and a billion Muslims watched as Americans forbade families from burying their dead, and allowed stray dogs to gnaw the corpses of pregnant women and toddlers on the mean streets of what was once Falluja, during Id al-Fitr, Islam's Holy Feast. No one is taken in by the lies and arrogance and greed of this racist war."

It is a mystery to me why Americans would vote for four more years of war crimes against humanity. However, while watching a C-Span program on the subject shortly after the election, I was struck by the answer given by a sweet-sounding woman from Missouri -- "I had no choice but to vote for Bush," she said almost regretfully. "I was obliged to vote for him because he was endorsed by God..."

Has there ever been a more glaring example of the chasm that grows wider every day under this administration between "religion" and "Christianity"? Religious "believers" who cast their votes were instructed by their leaders to cast a "vote for God" or for a man who would "ban" the Bible, support not only gay marriage, but drive-through abortions and killing babies for stem cell research. Verily, this deeply religious woman, and millions like her, had no choice but to vote for Bush.

Perhaps that is why so many Christians are weeping...

So, as Stinky and the Vulcans head for that fantastical midway and begin rehearsing for their next number entitled, "To Iran -- and Beyond!" just remember even an 8-year-old knows instinctively that the coming attraction transcends comic-book horror. It's the real thing. And it's e-e-e-e-v-u-l...

Later, we cannot say we didn't know.

Sheila Samples is an Oklahoma freelance writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. She is a regular contributor for a variety of Internet sites. Contact her at rsamples@sirinet.net

2004 Sheila Samples

Everyone, what we must do is educate these people who want to tell themselves and their neighbors that it's okay to let religion get intwined with law.

As HPleft said, a study was done that linked better education to less abortion, teen pregnancy, and divorce. And that is what we must do. We need a mechanism to attract conservatives across the country to meetings where they can be educated about why the separation between church and state exists, and why it must always exist. We must tell them that in their own household, in their own communities, not by way of law, they can encourage whatever they want - but their views are not the views of others. And that is why they must not tell others what to do based on their religious views.

If we value freedom in this country, we do not value religion and politics. This year one of my french teachers, a native from Oklahoma, went back to her mother for Fall break. She reported seeing signs everywhere that said 'Vote God's Way'. When we bring this much religion into our political agendas, we risk the fall of the American way. As much as many of us loath France, do any of you know why they ban religious symbols in educational institutions? It is because before the democracy, the Church, the riteous and noble church that knew everything, sided with the oppresive Monarchy that was killing its subjects via starvation, torture, and the terrible guillotine. The same church that wants to legislate itself today, came down on the wrong side of the issue - why? Here's the best part, because the king had a direct connection to god. Sound like somebody we all know and hate?

Anyhow, please e-mail me at gabe@civil-values.org if you have any ideas for separation education. We've got a blog up at http://blog.civil-values.org/blog that needs some posts, and we may very well shift our focus to this vital education that is so badly needed.

-Gabe

That's right.. you lefties keep pushing the gay rights and gay marriage agenda. We'll keep on laughing all the way to the election booths. You guys just don't get it. President Bush said it perfectly in the second debate. On the question of if he believes being gay is a choice. His response was along the lines of - I don't know.. I honestly don't know, but I do know that we have a responsibility in this country to respect each other and treat each other with compassion.

This is exactly how most non-liberals feel. We don't care! We honestly don't care! Yet liberals such as yourselves feel compelled to call us homophobes and to speak unfairly, and even at times, very nasty toward us. You keep this up, and you will lose every election outside the city limits of San Francisco.

Gays DO have rights. The same rights as every other red-blooded American Citizen.

Looking forward to the mid-terms... Are you guys preparing a NEW agenda? I hope not! ;)

Dubya

Posted by: Dubya | November 27, 2004 11:36 AM

W, like you, i dont have much of an opinion on gay rights. I DO have an 'agenda' though, and it involves 2 issues...first and foremost of which is media reform. If people like you are not informed of the real, serious issues in this world today...how can we expect you to vote in your own interest, instead of against them.

Secondly, how can we expect to have a legitimate vote (even if the people ARE informed)when we allow such corruption and fraud in our electorial process that it rivals the Ukraine!?

Yes, we 'lefties' have and agenda, and it won't be derailed by 'hot button' issues that you 'misinformationist' like to spread. And THAT my friend is what you NeoFascist are up against;)

Gee, Dubya, I wonder if GWB ever did bother to ask his vice president's campaign manager whether or not it was a choice for her. What about you -- did you ever ask your gay acquaintenances if it was a choice or whether they felt that they have equal rights and protection under the law?

Posted by: Dubya | November 27, 2004 11:36 AM

Boy did you give the right answer, YOU DON'T CARE.

Well there are millions of us out there that do CARE.

Yes we have an agenda, and it is to educate you simple minded people that vote for someone who DOESN'T REALLY KNOW a thing about true DEMOCRACY.

NO SURRENDER !!!

The title of the thread included "Crusading Against .." - that makes a "live & let live" attitude fairly difficult to pull off re bigots.

Dear Dubya,
The gay agenda, as you say, as in the story at the top of this thread is something being described by supporters of GWB.

Live and let live would be a good mantra, were it carried out. It is not. Gay people do not have the rights of everyone else, and that is tragic in a democracy.

But please tell all your friends to come over here, because we really have an agenda here to address the kind of limited thinking that you profess.

We need the practice. It's been WEEKS.

Hey Dubya,

Are you gay? Have you ever asked a gay person whether it's a choice or not?

Facts that Prove why it's not a choice:
1. Throughout the world, there is the same ratio of straight to gay people - IN EVERY COMMUNITY
2. This same ratio exists in animals

I mean, it's pretty damned hard to argue with nature and say it's a choice. But if someone can do it, I'm sure Bush can.

-Gabe

Dubya:

I don't understand how you can speak of compassion and yet show absolutely no compassion.

The bible tells us to not judge others and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Yet you come over here bashing gays, in a very "un-christianlike" way.

Jesus asked us to not judge others, that the judgement will be come later, yet you come over here and judge us and gays both.

We over here are trying to follow the teaching of the bible. And nowhere in the bible does it endorse hate and discrimination.

We would have a much better world if we could learn to accept others and to accept responsibility for our own actions, instead of trying to coherse a hate filled and discriminatory approach on all

Likewise, we hear stand for TRUE DEMOCRACY! We don't like that the President and his representatives chose to stiffle democracy by yanking the chains on the press and our election process.

It is his party who stole votes, suppressed black voters, and provided machines that don't count ballots properly.

Shame on you and anyone who thinks fair elections occured here. We have LOST our democracy to people who pride themselves on HATE and DISCRIMINATION.

Dubya, you said, "Gays DO have rights. The same rights as every other red-blooded American Citizen."

Given that statement, I can only conclude you think gay people have the right to marry.

We'll need a fresh pot of coffee right about now. ;-)

Dubya:

You need a refresher course in the history of our democracy and of your party. Though republicans often had some good ideas, they have never been known to be an inclusive party.

They have never completely supported minorities, gays, and even women. You speak about everybody having rights in a democracy, but your party has intentionally taken away the rights of black people and gays.

We don't want to divide the nation any further, but it appears that you do! Why is that? Is the goal of keeping republican's in office more inportant then the idea of democracy which our forefathers (and mothers) fought for and which more importantly our military is currently fighting other wars in the name of!

So instead of coming in hear and sticking your tongue out at us, why don't you come in here and say, "Let's build a true democracy! Let's make the election process everything our nation stands for. Let's give equal rights to all."

After all, it was George Bush's attorneys who stood before the Supreme Court of the U.S. and who argued under the 14th ammendment of "Equal Protection to all" but now has suddenly decided equal protection for the few is better. So is equal protection for all just one of those quasi rules (lip service), "Only when it helps me" or is it "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA..."

I chose to be inspired--that all of us can stand together UNIFIED for DEMOCRACY for all.

Waouh, you answered!

I think, I stayed about 20mn in front of that screen before pcdoc entered. I couldn't say a word, I'm a foreigner, on top I'm French.
Too good preys for Bushies!

Just like you I noticed the "I DON'T CARE".

What I don't understand about those caring, God worshiping people is their hatred. Something doesn't work here, and if you go further, nothing works at all. They are living on a hell of contradictions. Use it, over and over, against them....

Another word raises my interest : EDUCATE?
For having been working for years and years with foreigners, mostly Americans, I noticed that most of them had little scholar education. They only referred to clichés. This is exactly what is going on with the Dubyas & Co....

Educating is fair, but I think you have much more to play on the social and economical issues. That's where people are going to be hit in their everyday life... Unfortunately.

Yesterday, we had a conversation over dinner, about Hawthorne and his "Scarlett Letter". You're back to it, on top today the letter is "blue".

As Indy woud say "Vive la Révolution"

Posted by: Irina | November 27, 2004 09:24 AM

I have shared your frustration. And I believe that there is something that every Democrat can do, and it is this:

Keep on top of what's going on, and have a Democratic response to anyone when the topic comes up. Bush does X, Y, or Z. And then you say something like, "well, the Democrats would do this:" and then outline Democratic policy and ideology to them. One voter at a time, we can educate people as to what the Democratic party stands for and believes in. We should not just shrink back and cower until the next election cycle. We can point out the weakness and failures of Republican policies and point out constantly how they are hurting average Americans. I feel it is our duty to do this, if we love our country.

Eventually people will get sick and tired of the Republican agenda, poking their noses into personal lives and parading their "values". That, plus Bush's inevitable failures will turn the tide back to a Democrat in the White House. At state and local levels, Dems have been winning like crazy, especially in Western states. So there is definitely cause to be really hopeful for next time.
I think the main problem with this election was simply that they ran a more organized campaign. It wasn't that the people agree more with them or that our candidate and our policies were out of touch. We just needed to get the message out better--which was made really difficult by the right-favoring media and people's pre-conceived stereotypes about Democrats.

Some news on the Unofficial Kerry Blog:

ENVIRONMENTAL WATCH: The Dirty Big Secret About US Energy Production

Coal's global goal
November 27, 2004

THE DIRTY big secret about US energy production is that coal is about to play an even larger role. Already more than 50 percent of US electricity comes from plants burning coal, the fossil fuel that emits the greatest amount of the most common greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Coal's share in the power picture is projected to spike upward in coming years as utilities turn to coal as an alternative to increasingly scarce natural gas.

http://kerryblog.blogspot.com/2004/11/environmental-watch-dirty-big-secret.html

Kennedy Investigating More Effective Talk About Religious Issues From Democrats

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, is investigating how Democrats can talk more effectively about religious issues in the run-up to the midterm elections, when the party of an incumbent president traditionally loses seats in Congress.

http://kerryblog.blogspot.com/2004/11/kennedy-investigating-more-effective.html

Posted by: Andrée - France | November 27, 2004 01:27 PM

Andree,

It's interesting that you bring up Hawthorne and The Scarlett Letter.

I grew up about 20 miles north of Salem, MA and I have felt for quite a while now that this religious right wing fervor has parallels to that terrible time in our history, let alone worse the Burning Times in Europe.

Perhaps one step in educating people about the dangers of overlooking separation of church and state is to remind them of the horrors of the Salem With Trials, the Burning Times and the Inquistion.

Pamela aka Kerrygoddess

Pamela,

Quoting Hawthorne, is little, if you get back to Southern States Litterature (that was my PhD-, it gets even more obvious since its four touchstones are:
- The civil war
- The sense of guilt
- THE IMPORTANCE OF RELIGION
- The position of woman in society

Just try to analyze those four topics in what Dubya's policies are today, and you'll find out he is perfectly in the line.
The Biblic Belt has been imposing its mores and thinking all over the administration in Washington.

Posted by: Andrée - France | November 27, 2004 02:03 PM

But it's completely ironic in that those who support this philosophy are often the same ones who have strayed more in their personal lives than the average person ever did!

And they use fear and demonizing to capitalize on their own personal goals and to 'appease" their own personal demons.

Sparrow,

You're right. These people are living and thinking upon a hell of contradictions... except that Rove (Machiavel) marketed the whole thing by turning it into over simplified but effective slogans!

Sorry,

I forgot...

I wanted to say slogans and values......

If they may be quoted "values", any sound mind doesn't buy the thing.

There is a rather skewed women's organization that promotes bringing "Biblical principles into all levels of public policy" - http://www.cwfa.org/about.asp

Their links page gives a further idea about what these women are about - http://www.cwfa.org/links.asp

Interestingly the death penalty is missing from their agenda.

What I find most curious is that the Christians decry that homosexuality is natural, though it has existed since the dawn of man.

Didn't vote, couldn't vote,,but sure care

As an outside observer, I have been struck that those that preach the MOST about the importance of God's influence on their values, DEMONSTRATE the least evidence of God's values in their treatment of anyone not identical to themselves.

The very practice of their religious beliefs have made them 'victim' to Bush's machine.

Bush &Co worship $$$$. In order to get elected so they could control the world by their greed, they had to devise a plan to get people to elect them. Running on a platform of greed just wouldn't attract many voters! Watch how Rove's plan has always been 'take what Kerry/Dems think as their positive and turn it against them' (ie Kerry's Vietnam record)

Well, the Christian community has fallen victim to Rove's plan. 'Take their desire to be "followers", pepper in just the right amount of religious-speak, by someone we mascarade as 'one of their kind', and the masses will not question, just follow. To question is viewed as being an unbeliever. Therefore: believers will believe even Bush.

Now, 'patriatism'. Greed for control of Middle East oil was the reason to go to war in Iraq. Won't get voted for if we say that so, let's send the troops in first and then send a smoke screen of excuses. Questioning the President during times of war, and speaking against a war in progress is not supporting the troops! The American history supports the belief that a sitting President is not defeated during times of war, and that Americans would rather be known to have bravely suffered the loss of their sons and daughters, than to ever question the validity of the war they were sent to fight.

So add it up. It was not "values" that caused putting Bush in the WH again, it was 'Belief'.

Value can be defined as an ideal accepted by some individual or group
Believing is a mental act, condition or habit of placing trust or confidence in a person or thing. Mental acceptance of or conviction in the truth or actuality of something.

Rove and Bush deliberatly manipulated those gullible red state voters, so desirous of and so practiced at being 'believers in Christ' to become 'believers of Bush' and take the action of voting "as if they valued" the beliefs they were being fed as 'truths'.

The Dems have a big job, but must start back right at the beginning. They will actually have to take what Rove and Bush prize and turn that on them....in order for their followers (the red state fundies) to see the truth. Not easy, but what is a stake is DEMOCRACY. The target is not those who voted for Bush as they who don't want to be educated, and can't hear it anyway.

The only route to reach those voters is by having the 'truth' as Bush promised be laid out. So I hope this process is swift, because it will be painful. You never get a person to change their mind/their beliefs by arguing with them. The belief gets changed fastest and best, when the person holding it WANTS something else..

OK Dems: find, frame and voice "that something else".

Thomas Paine spoke these words in 1776...they rang out as clear and true then as they do of our struggles today:

“These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as Freedom should not be highly rated"

When the going gets tough...Americans get going!!!

Posted by: Andrée - France | November 27, 2004 02:03 PM

Andree,

The Fundamentalists actually draw their doctrines from the early Puritans of America:

Fundamentalists trace their roots back to the N.T., but fundamentalism really arises at the end of the 19th century. They see themselves as "keepers of both the Christian heritage of the first century and the American heritage of the Puritans and the Founding Fathers," though, the sense of religious mission associated with the Puritans disappeared even before the American Revolution. They will quote Puritans this and that as the foundation of America, but the Puritans founded some backwater English colonies, not the United States of America.

In fact Protestantism had been undergoing massive changes prior to the American Revolution and continues to change to this day. The majority in Americans in 1776 (if we exclude Indians and Catholics) were Protestant, forming a "Protestant empire." The first and second "Great Awakenings" seemed to insure the role of Evangelism in America. Those days are what fundamentalists long for. Yet even before the American Revolution, the European Enlightenment had made inroads into Protestantism.

Fundamentalists have a loathing of democracy. One bitter fundamentalist had this to say, "democracy is the cause of all world problems...humans are under the law of God, and thus they CANNOT do anything they want or speak anything they wish to speak...democracy ultimately started with satan...we can't rule ourselves. God must rule us...those who actually set up America, and drew up the laws were people who did not favor Christianity. Christians living during that time disagreed with those in power or rather the founding fathers. They saw them as ultra liberals, and of course, they were."

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/

What I find most curious is that the Christians decry that homosexuality is natural, though it has existed since the dawn of man.

Pamela,

Homosexuality not only existed but was an achievement under the Greeks and the Romans, who are seen as major civilizations. They had the cult of ideas and bodies in perfect harmony.

Christianity introduced guilt and the notion of fearing God. But when you think of Jesus, he was a hell of a rebel. It's men and later the clergy who alterated his words.

There is a Greek quote by Diogene of Nanda (not the one in the barrel) that I like a lot and that says : "The biggest courage in life consists in looking for happiness"

thank you all--- for great sites to go to so that i may "educate" my "red" neighbors in a most delicate way so as not to offend.....
;-)

Interesting article about the role of religion...getting ready for Bush's visit to Canada....offers chance for you to 'sound off'...follow the links

http://www.canada.com/national/globalsunday/index.html

Okay this is funny as they both appear in the same Newspaper the Washington Post. I believe you will all recognize the Irony.

Ukraine Parliament Declares Vote Invalid

Resolution says vote failed to reflect voters' intentions; non-binding vote comes as talks continue. – Reuters
• World Is Watching Dispute, Bush Says

End Results
Surveying the Damage
Exit Polls Can't Always Predict Winners, So Don't Expect Them To
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64906-2004Nov20.html

Happy Belated Thanksgiving all. I hope you all had great holidays with your families and friends. :)

Posted by: Andrée - France | November 27, 2004 02:55 PM

Andree

Jesus was a hell of a rebel and man wrote the bible! The average Christian, especially the Fundamentalists don't buy that however.

I've been a student of A Course In Miracles for about 12 years now. It's basic premise th