Tea Party Is Much Like the Religious Right -- Only More So, Survey Finds

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nts-single-women-gays-public-school-teachers/

The beard and the sabbath closings and praying were examples of what other religious political leaders would want to do if they had a bloc as powerful as the religious right and ruled by their religions.

 

It really doesn't sound that crazy to me when the alternative is some loser who got booted out of the Army and harrasses the coeds with his porno. Teachers are role models to a whole lot of kids who don't have role models at home. If holding teachers to incredibly high standards is the worst thing Demint stands for I say more power to him.

 

You dont think a homo can be a good teacher? And that teachers are role models to those who dont have any crap doesnt fly. I saw more than a few teachers who werent very nice or very good teachers for that matter.

 

That is where we differ. Once you start sacrificing freedoms - yours or other people's - for a politician's religious rule, it is a danger.

 

One only needs to look at the countries around this planet that do mix politics and religion to see what kind of freedoms we could expect to lose if that ever came about in this country. To many, Christianity seems pretty tame but given it's own past history and the current state of religion based governments, the whole idea of putting the power of this country in the hands of true believers should scare the hell out of more than the people of this country, it should scare everyone on the planet. These people cry out for the Armageddon as if it were a good thing. How long would it be before a religion based society blew us all up so that the righteous could get their just reward? One shudders to think.

 

How about those infamous totalitarian regimes that banned religion expression? I'm thinking Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

 

Banning religious expression is another freedom issue. I do not support banning religious expression either.

And, as an aside, if a Liberal candidate stood up and said that they did not want Christians (or Muslims or Jews) to be teachers, I would be every bit as against that as I am DeMint's views.

 

Youre just not gonna answer my questions, huh? Dont you accuse other in here of evasion? And I'm sure that Germans in Germany in the 30's and 40's celebrated Chritmas which had just a little bit of religion associated with it

 

In the end it is not the elimination of religious expression that makes those types of authoritarian regimes evil. It is the state elimination of personal freedoms and individual liberties, of which religious expression is one of many, that make them evil. Just as it is not his moral beliefs that make DeMint a threat, it is his desire to bring them into government rule that makes him a threat.

 

Every elected official will bring their own set of beliefs with them regardless. Why do you single out those with religious convictions? To me, religion-based beliefs are the mildest of all the idelogies out there. So what if Demint isn't fond of gay teachers? Who really cares? Do you really think he can get anything done about it?

 

When someone wants to legislate their beliefs, religious or otherwise, with the effect of negatively impacting personal liberties, I am opposed to that. The religious right just happens to be the most organized and visible of those who would seek to legislate morality at the expense of other people's personal freedoms.

As far as 'getting anything done about it', I never would have guessed that something like the Patriot Act would get passed, let alone kept in force through 2 different administrations. So yes, with enough like minded people elected, he absolutely could 'get something done about it'.

I know, it is just them fags and sluts he is trying to impact so we shouldn't worry. They really don't deserve to be able to do what we can do anyway. As long as he isn't impacting our liberties...he's a regular Yankee Doodle Dandy.

 

Not fond of is one thing. If one isnt fond of spinach one doesnt try to keep farmers from growing it.

 

Nah...they only do that with corn.

 

Hitlers Germany never Banned relgion David with the exception of the Jewish faith other faiths were allowed to worship openly, he did however authorise the persecution of those other relgions starting with any priest or pastor who opposed him and his views, he also encouraged the youth of Germany to move away from religious organizations Even the muslim faith was permited as after all one of his pals was the Grand muffti of jerusalem and there was even a Muslim SS division. It is entierly possible that if he had won then he would have realy cracked down on them.
The communists on the other hand made no bones about trying to eradicate religion and openly confiscated land and persecuted any person of faith but even they were unable to manage to get rid of it in the period between 1922 and 1926 some 1000+ priests and Bishops were murderd by the state but the populace continued to worship regardless. The Russian Orthodox Church, the Georgian Orthodox Church both functioned openly and were tollerated by the state to a degree, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church was banned in 1946 but the Roman catholic church was not, many of the protestant faiths were not only persecuted but activly sent to mental institutions or prisons and property confiscated.

 

This doesn't sound like a ban to you? Banning Judaism...persecuting leaders who opposed his views...encouraging youth to move away from religion? Rememebr it's Hitler we are talking about here, "persecuting" & "encouraging" were pretty strong weapons he & his hit men used to control the country.

 

No David it does not now I quote what you said "How about those infamous totalitarian regimes that banned religion expression? I'm thinking Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union" Hitler never banned religiouse expression even within the Jewish community they had to wear the Star of David and he banned the use of the synagog and open worship by the Jewish community, now as obnoxiouse as that was the religion itself was not banned
There is a difference between banning something and opressing it but if you would like to have a discourse on the finer semantix of what a ban actual is I am happy to oblige. If you had picked Albania, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge or China under Mao and of course much closer to you (geographicly) the Presidency of Plutarco Elías Calles in Mexico 1926/28 and his continuing control behind the sence until 1935 then I would have agreed with you, they did ban religions

 

Right wing totalitarian regimes like the Nazis that did use the Catholic church, the issue of religion to persecute the Jews, and even used Muslims when they found it convenient, will take religion and twist it to achieve their goals because they know that by co-opting any religion, they have access to an army of followers that will do their bidding in the name of God. Religion itself isn't necessarily a bad thing but how it is used to achieve some pretty earthly evil, as history has so often demonstrated, is the reason that we need to keep politics and religion separate form each other. Followers of any religion do not ask for logic or reason to act, they simply act on faith until everything is in ruins, then they question their beliefs.

 

It's funny how so many dems & dem candidates are now bring up their religious beliefs (if you listen to the people here, religion is a right wing wacko thing) on the campaign trail. Jack Conway in KY, Joe Manshion in WV & Chris Coons in DE come to mind immediately but I have also heard BO, Pelosi and some of the others discuss their deeply held religious beliefs as well.

 

I am of the opinion that the majority of politicians do believe that God is exclusivly on there side LOL