is the US sliding into Fascism? Evidence for and against

Not in the least relevant to the point at hand. But good try. How about lawmakers telling us what we can read based on their Christian morals? Page Not Found: 404 Not Found -

quote:

---

Republican Alabama lawmaker Gerald Allen says homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle. As CBS News Correspondent Mark Strassmann reports, under his bill, public school libraries could no longer buy new copies of plays or books by gay authors, or about gay characters.

​

"I don't look at it as censorship," says State Representative Gerald Allen. "I look at it as protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children."

---

Tell me that's not burgeoning theocracy? Maybe you guys need to be reminded what that word means? You don't seem too clear on the concepts. When lawmakers make laws that have no justification other than the moral precepts of a religion, that's theocracy.Gerald Allen thinks he knows better than you what you should be reading, and what your kids should be reading. Why does he think this? Because the Bible tells him that his morals are right and yours, if they differ from his, are wrong. How is that not theocracy?

Who Bush calls up and asks for advice, tells him things. And Robertson gives advice but I guess that doesn't make him an advisor. I guess, to Republicans, it all depends on what your definition of is is, or somesuch.Back here in America, where we speak the English language, Robertson is a Bush advisor. The funny thing is, when you examine the record of those individuals, you find that they're about as middle-of-the-road as it gets. Dean? Not only did he balk at gay marriage, but he's consistently relaxed Vermont's gun laws. Oh shit! How liberal can you get! John Kerry? Rated one of the least liberal democrats in the Senate. Has a stronger record of bi-partisanship that just about anybody else. Consistently advocated for the military and defense spending. Opposed cuts in military spending advocated by Dick Cheney and other Republicans. Voted for the war in Iraq. Man, what a hippie! Can you think of a single issue where Kerry took a dramatically different position from Bush in the last election? I can't.C'mon. Let's get real. The only reason that you think there's a "left-wing fringe" among Democratic leadership is because talk radio told you there was. You gotta turn that shit off and look at the records. Absolutely incorrect. There are no extreme left wing politicians because there are no extreme left wing politicians. They don't win the votes. Get real. Seriously. These glib lies fool no one. Why aren't you taking this shit seriously?Like, it's universal. Republicans can't take politics seriously. It's a game for you people. Point-counterpoint. As long as you have an answer, no matter how glib, or obviously wrong, or medaciously untruthful, you feel like you're accomplishing something. Well, look. Do us all a favor and stop. Get out of politics. Stop voting. You can't be trusted with it because you refuse to engage the issues. It's all sophistry to you. But you're playing with people's lives here."Fiscal responsibility." Please. Get serious or get out. MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos

quote:

---

DALLAS - Students in a West Texas town will have the opportunity to take a class not offered in most public high schools Bible studies.

​

Tuesday night was not a usual Odessa school board meeting. There was full house, as more than 300 people rallied to voice their support for the proposed Bible class. Outside, the scene was more like a church service than a public meeting as supporters sang and prayed.

​

All but a few people who showed up at the meeting supported the measure, and in the end the Ector County School Board put its stamp of approval on the idea with a unanimous vote. The decision was met with a standing ovation and cheers.

---

But, hey, you know, I'm sure it'll be a totally secular look at the religous document that has so informed out culture's history. After all, look at it's supporters! Could you find a group more devoted to scholarly, non-religious inquiry into the literature and mythology of the Bible than these guys?

quote:

---

Outside, the scene was more like a church service than a public meeting as supporters sang and prayed.

---

No religion here, no sirree! No, of course not. Why would they need to have a conspiracy? I hear they've called a congressional holiday. After all an event that rare and special should be celebrated, don't you think?

How did Gerald Allen get in a position to propose such legislation? I mean, according to you he must have either defrauded his constituency or outright stolen the election. After all, he couldn't have been legitimately elected for his views, right? Because that would be theocracy, and we know that anybody who suggests a thing must be a priori wrong, right? I mean only an idiot would see these goings-on at every level of our elected legislatures and conclude that it was a pattern, right? My assertion? Not so. The assertion of the framers of the constitution of our country. As well as of these gentlemen:

quote:

---

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 ... 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

quote:

---

However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.

---

Just who were these religion-bashing conspiracy theorists? These anti-church kooks? Why, none other than John F Kennedy and Barry Goldwater.That's how far the theocracy has come, Paisano. That's how far they've gotten into your head. 20 years ago, the thought of religious figures dictating public policy was anathema to both parties. And to every American. Now, a politican says "hey, we're all going to do this because the Bible says that God told us to", and you don't even blink an eye. You seriously entertain the thought that this might not be theocracy. I mean, come on! Great. Fabulous. I love when religious principles are put into action.Provided they have a secular justification. Make the Ten Commandments law if you like. But you're forbidden from doing so if the only justification you have for those precepts is "they're written in the Bible." Do you get it, yet? We're well beyond the point where religion is just inspiring secular policy. We're getting to the point where there will be no secular policies. I don't recall Bill Clinton waving a Bible in my face and telling me that he was going to put the full force of law behind the enforcment of its prohibitions. I don't remember Jesse Jackson telling me that, because the Bible says that God hates fags, none of our public libraries could have books by gay writers, or books about gay people.There's no way you can't see the not-so-subtle distinction between people of faith working within the secular government and devil-dodgers trying to turn the Bible into law because God told them to. The only way you're missing this is because you choose to. Well, if a head in the sand could make it go away, we'd be in good shape thanks to you. So? Secular disagreements can be settled. The Founding Fathers observed that there was no settling religious disagreements short of isolation or extermination of one or both sides; that's why they prohibited religious influence of government. There's no compromise among religions; thus, they must be forever excluded from the machiniery of government.

To what? "Bush calls Pat Robertson on Phone?" Not exactly headline news. They talk all the time. It's common knowledge. Bush told Robertson that there would be no casualties in the Iraq war. How do you think he did that? Telepathy? From a "study" well-known to have been mis-represented? Please:

quote:

---

A Republican National Committee ad released Oct. 16 claims that Kerry is "the most liberal man in the Senate." It's true that vote rankings by the politically neutral magazine The National Journal rated Kerry "most liberal" in 2003 and in three earlier years during his first Senate term: 1986, 1988, and 1990. But over his entire career the Journal ranks Kerry the 11th most liberal Senator. And by other rankings he's only a bit left of his party's center.

​

The Journal did rank Kerry the most liberal senator for 2003, but it's also true that Kerry missed 37 of the 62 votes on which the ranking was based due to his campaign schedule. So the Journal assigned Kerry a score only on economic policy for that year -- "a perfect liberal score," in fact. That was based on 19 Kerry votes, though he still missed 13 others on economic policy. The Journal didn't rank Kerry's votes on social issues or foreign policy for 2003 because he cast so few votes on those issues, but noted that he "consistently took the liberal view within the Senate" when he did vote on those issues.

​

...

​

Other analyses put Kerry farther down the list of liberals. Political science professor Keith T. Poole analyzed 379 roll call votes from 2003 (essentially all votes except those that were unanimous or nearly so). Poole rated 21 senators more liberal, and had Kerry tied with six others for the next place. Based on that, Kerry tied for number 24-1/2.

​

Poole has been using his method for years. In an analysis of House and Senate voting from 1937-2002, Kerry ranked 478th most liberal out of 3,320 persons who have served in Congress during that time.

​

Poole concluded that Kerry is "a bit" more liberal than the typical Democratic House or Senate member over the past seven decades, but not an "extreme" liberal.

---

from that right-bashing bastion of leftist extremism, the Annenburg Political Fact Check. Page not found - FactCheck.orgWhere? Who are they? I'm saying that to assert that the Republican opposition to federal funding of stem cell research is motivated by fiscal responsibility is so contrary to obvious fact that you're either being completely disingenuous or you can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Can you substantiate your claim? It would be impossible for you to do so; the opposition to this funding was clearly and obviously fielded from a basis of "human dignity" and "the rights of the unborn" and other religious positions of human value. The idea that we would save money was never advanced, not least of which because the prohibition on federal grants for new stem cell lines didn't reduce the overall research budget. They still spend the same amount on research; it just went to different projects.Fiscal responsibility? Come on. Get serious, already. Hey you said we weren't close to religion in schools, I showed you religion in schools. Keeping up with your rapidly retreating goalposts isn't my responsibility. Oh, I'm so sure that's exactly what it's going to be. After all, isn't that exactly what the supporters lined up outside the school appear to have been interested in? What with their churchlike organization and singing and praying, and all? Nope, no religion there, no sirree! Didn't I just specifically disagree with her that there was a conspiracy? You don't read too good, do you?

Oh? Because Gerald Allen isn't an elected member of his state's legislature, right? Funny, then why did they let him into the room? Don't you think they check for things like that? I guess you're right. After all Gerald Allen isn't an elected member of his state legislature, right? That would be theocracy, and we know that's something we can't even possibly consider might be going on.Hey. never mind that that's just one example of religious lawmaking that wouldn't even have been thinkable twenty years ago. Never mind that we have public schools running Bible studies and laws mandating the recitation of the Pledge of Allegence by schoolchildren. (So much for "opting out.) Never mind we just had Senate Majority leader Bill Frist assert last Sunday that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ had such a keen interest into Senate parlimetary procedure that to oppose the elminiation of the filibuster was to take opposition to people of faith themselves, and to God's Will on Earth. Never mind that we're having this conversation on a discussion board dedicated to discussion of the fact that there's a large and well-funded movement to have religion dictate the science curriculum of our public schools.Never mind all that, right? No pattern at all. No trend. If there was a trend, hey, we might have to consider the possibility that we're moving towards theocracy, and since we know that can't possibly be right, well, it must be our observations that are wrong, right?We're all creationists about something, I guess. Nobody here has taken the position that there are no moderate Republicans. Their existence is not therefore relevant to the discussion.

Except that that's a lie. Republicans denied up-or-down votes for over 60 of Clinton's judicial nominees.

quote:

---

Dozens of District Court nominees from 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 with unanimous "well-qualified" or "qualified" ratings also were blocked by Republican refusal to give them hearings or votes. In all, nearly 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees were defeated through Republican blocking of hearings and votes, despite their ABA ratings. ... While only two of President Bush's judicial nominees have been defeated in open votes, nearly 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees were defeated through secret, anonymous holds and other secretive, non-transparent Republican tactics.

---

Unfairness: GOP Blocked Up or Down Votes on 60 Clinton Judicial NomineesSee, that's the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans will employ any trick they can to block the Democrats; when the same tricks are use to block their radical agenda they whine about "unfairness" and try to change the rules.And not even holding hearings? Say what you like about the filibuster, at least it's a hearing. Not even holding the hearing? That's certainly unconstitutional, but you didn't hear the Democrats whine about it then, now did you? (Of course you didn't, if you had, you would have known that Bill First was lying to you.) I hope you won't mind if I take that as a considerable compliment. The word you're looking for is "moderate." Of course. But when we say "extreme right-wing Republicans", we don't simply mean individuals who are at the rightmost among Republicans in Congress. What we mean is that their positions are so far to the right that they simply don't represent the concerns of even a significant minority of their constituency.That's simply not true on the Democratic side. There simply aren't any Democrats who lean so far left that they don't represent the concerns of the people who voted them into office. Sure, there's some left-wingers in Congress, thank god. And certainly one of them must be the most left-wing; that's a tautology. But that's not what we mean by "extreme" right or left-wing, and you know that; you're just being deliberately disingenuous because neither you nor Paisano, nor Republican defenders in general, actually take any of this seriously. It's just point-counterpoint sophistry for people like you.

The question isn't relevant. Even the most liberal members of Congress represent the views and concerns of their constituents.

Yes, it does. The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that when it happens to Democrats, we don't whine about it and try to change the rules. So, that's how it works? The Republicans are on the moral high ground because they tried the filibuster and failed?You'll pardon me if I don't find that a particularly compelling argument.

Circular reasoning. You only conclude this because you already assume that there must be some extreme leftists for us to be ignoring.That's the proposition, however, that you haven't been able to defend. Who are these leftist extremists? Why is it that you can't tell us who they are?

Representation of their religious views in the state legislature? No, they're not entitled to that; it's unconstitutional. Absolutely. Hence, the current attacks aganist the judiciary. Oh, did you think they were going to just try once and give up? Sorry, guess again. Where did you think all this sudden sentiment against "activist judges" stemmed from? They're removing the last barrier to the enactment of laws like Allen's. He just jumped the gun a bit, is all. It's an example of the sort of ceaseless religious establishment that you repeatedly assert isn't occuring. In other words, it's the single counterexample we need to disprove your position. Indeed. The movement to establish Christianity as the state religion has deep, deep roots. Great. So clean house. Your peers are beginning to wake up to what has happened to your party (and my ex-party, I might add); what's your problem? When are you going to blink the sleep out of your eyes and get busy? What I see in the conservative Christian community is a small minority who wishes to impose Christianity on all the rest of us, and a large majority that refuses to oppose or deal with the people they see as little more than misguided people who are "good at heart." Well, they're not. They're a threat to America, and you need to deal with them. It's time for you to clean your own house.

Naturally. But there are none who are further left than the majority of people they represent. This is not true of Republicans; that's been the point all along and the only thing you have to rebut that is this smokescreen. When are you going to take this argument seriously?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-29-2005 01:34 PM

Most people do. The vast majority of the American people who voted Republican do. Nonetheless, the Republican leadership pushed ahead with it.That's the point. They're extremists because they're much, much farther to the right than the people they claim to represent. Do you get it, yet? The people running your party aren't interested in representing you. They're interested in corporate kickbacks and taking trips on lobbyists' credit cards, and whoring themselves out to the religious right with token support of social positions only a minority of Americans support to cement their political careers.Well, the problem is that the religious right is waking up to that, and they're starting to demand more and more. Hence this recent assault on our civil freedoms. Hence Terri Schaivo. Hence attacking the judiciary that defends our individual freedoms. The religious right wants theocracy, and the problem is, the leadership of the Republican party as put themselves in a situation where they have little choice but to give it to them. Is it? Did you consider the fact that, if a 13-year-old is pregnant, the father is likely to be her own father? Oh, no, you didn't. In your worldview, there's nothing wrong with the idea of forcing a 13-year-old girl to go to her rapist and ask him for permission to abort his child.Didn't even occur to you. Disgusting. Oh, you didn't hear? Congress was apparently too busy to work on the issues you voted them into office for, but the credit card companies paid them a bunch of money, so somehow they found the time to squeeze in this little gem of a bill that makes it next to impossible for an American family - unless they're rich, natch' - to file bankrupcy.Do you know what the leading cause of bankrupcy among American families is? No, it's not flatscreen TV's and lattes at Starbucks. It's unexpected medical expenses. 50% of backrupcies are for medical expenses. Among those, 50% of those are families that had health insurance.How dare an American family weedle their way out of consumer debt and medical expenses? Into the poorhouse with 'em! That's what your Republicans have been working on all this time. Guess you weren't paying attention? Yeah, I guess not.

I'd want to know. But you know what? I wouldn't have a right to know.

This is why, while I admire libertarian thinking, I just can't get on board with libertarians. An unchecked free market has far more potential to rob us of our freedoms than our constitutional government. I'm not nearly as worried about the government taking my freedoms as I am about corporations doing it through monopoly and lobbying.The new threat to democracy is not governments that won't be democratic; it's that business sees no profit in people making their own choices.

We also live in a post-01/01/05 world, a post-1980 world, and in about an hour, a post-5/18 world. I don't see how any of that is a justification for the erosion of our civil liberties.Neither do I see the amendment to the Bill of Rights that says "all this shit stops applying after terrorists kill about as many people at once as die in motorcycle accidents in a year." Could you point that out for me?