Voting: A Christian and Civic Duty

I find the hysteria in this message funny. For years the radical religious right (and I was once one of them) claimed that the US was essentially a God-fearing nation, and that it was the liberals in charge that were acting against the wishes of the majority of the American people.Now the religious right has elected a President for a second term, has elected majorities of both houses of Congress, and are currently in the process of packing the judiciary. Not to mention the state governments in the Midwest and especially the South that have always been under their control.Yet, somehow, they cannot progress in their agenda as fast as they want, and are somehow being completely blocked in certain aspects of it.Eventually the religious right is going to have to come to grips with the fact that the majority of the American people do not actually share their views at all. If they do, then it will be interesting to see how their opinion of democracy changes.

Interesting fact, Tal. Thanks for bringing it up. I found a nice link that discussing this aspect of Byrd's past. It is refreshing to see someone admit to mistakes in his past and discuss them, don't you agree? Hmm. The only significant scandal? So it would appear that this one aspect to Sen. Byrd's past should be judged in the context of his career, don't you think? At any rate, this is a serious charge. What does Sen. Byrd have to say about it? So are we then to use this incident to judge the man today? Aren't people allowed to have mistakes, even serious mistakes, in their pasts?But why would have joined such an organization, anyway? Whoa! It was anti-Communism that led Byrd to join such a disreputable group! By the logic I have seen in other threads, this would seem to indicate that anti-Communism is bad, and that anti-Communism should be suppressed -- perhaps by placing onerous record-keeping requirements on organizations that are anti-Communist!Interesting fact, though -- it does seem that I have heard about this before.At any rate, what does a admitted mistake made by a man whose subsequent record has shown that he has repudiated that mistake have to do with the OP? Or even the post to which you are replying?

I should add there there are more to the allegations of Sen. Byrd being a racist, in particular there are quotes attributed to him indicating racism, and the recent use of a racial epithet. Sen. Byrd has apologized for the latter, and the other quotes mostly seem to date back over 50 years.I would say that since the NAACP has given Sen. Byrd a very high rating for his concerns to issues important to African-Americans and racism, Sen. Byrd has come along way to atone for whatever racist views that he had in the past.Now I will repeat my earlier question:The initial post was about a flyer from a Christian organization trying to get conservative, evangelical organizations to vote in the elections. There is much that is disturbing in that pamphlet, but one of the points is the appearance that this organization is advocating imposing its political, social, and moral views on the entire country regardless of any differences of opinion; certainly there is an air of intolerance to opposing views in that pamphlet. Perhaps I am mistaken in this; this is certainly open to debate and discussion.kjsimons, evidently also picking up on the theme of intolerance, compared this group to the Taliban. Perhaps this is accurate, perhaps it is acceptable hyperbole, perhaos it is inappropriate. Discussion of this, too, is relevant to the OP.What I fail to see is how an accusation of racism of a certain individual in a distant past, when this person has evidence for us to believe that he has moved past this racism, is relevant to the religious intolerance currently being expressed in a recent pamphlet.