XPost: ny.politics, nyc.general, nyc.politics 
 XPost: alt.california 
 From: pervert12@spambad.yahoo.com 
  
 "Ramone Garcia"  wrote in message 
 news:ea39fac7.0311022246.64362db4@posting.google.com... 
 > The Hate-Religion Party... except Radical Islam 
  
 > A new study proves: The secular Democrats despise people of faith. 
  
 This secular Republican believes in the Separation of Church and State.  And 
 I absolutely do not trust those who would seek to impose religion in the 
 works of government.  It's unconstitutional and thoroughly un-American.  The 
 fundamentalists on the political right are not so different than radical 
 Islamists in the Midle East.  Personally, I don't think that's such a good 
 thing. 
  
 > The Hate-Religion Party 
 > By Lowell Ponte 
 > October 27, 2003 
 > 
  
 > America, according to the ACLU, is a "secular country" in which the 
 > government equally protects the rights of all religions but does not use 
 its 
 > power or expenditures to promote any one of them. This, of course, is not 
 > what is happening. 
  
 In this case,  the ACLU is absolutely correct.  It's bound to happen once in 
 a while. 
  
 > The Culture War is also a religious war, and leftists are using government 
 > to promote and advance their own cults - from the pseudo-science called 
 > Marxism to a host of pagan and anti-Judeo-Christian movements - to alter 
 > America's culture. 
  
 America can have whatever culture it wants.  However the government is 
 enjoined from promoting any particular religion.  What problems do you have 
 with the Constitution anyway? 
  
 > The two dominant political parties, Republican and Democrat, each attract 
 a 
 > wide variety of supporters. But they too, researchers have found, tend to 
 > divide not only ideologically but also along religious lines. This has 
 gone 
 > far beyond past tendencies for Roman Catholics and Jews to vote 
 Democratic, 
 > two old patterns now reversing as members of both groups vote increasingly 
 > Republican with each election. 
  
 > These secular values are reflected in leftist Democratic positions on a 
 host 
 > of issues, they observe, from abortion to education to sexual mores. And 
 > they are reflected in both fear of and active hostility towards 
 evangelical 
 > Christians, one of whom is President George W. Bush. 
  
 Great commentary on the Democrats, at least on this issue. 
  
 > "If the GOP can be labeled the party of religious conservatives," wrote 
 > Professors Bolce and De Maio in the journal The Public Interest, "the 
 > Democrats, with equal validity, can be called the secularist party." 
  
 Damn.  Another good argument for the Democrats... at least on this issue. 
  
 > But when these scholars compared coverage of such issues in the New York 
 > Times and Washington Post, they were struck by the almost complete 
 absence, 
 > the "paucity of news stories and commentaries that identify secularists or 
 > the secularist outlook with the Democratic party, particularly when 
 > contrasted to the large number of stories and editorials in both papers 
 > about the Republican party's relationship with evangelical and 
 > fundamentalist Christians (43 and 682 stories respectively)." 
  
 For once, I have to applaud and support the New York Times and the 
 Washington post for this editorial decision.  Their job is to report the 
 news, not slant their reporting on the basis of religious bias. 
  
 > In this area as in others, those controlling the news media share the 
 ruling 
 > Democratic mindset. Robert Lichter and his associates in their study The 
 > Media Elite identified one of the prime characteristics of this elite as 
 > "its secular outlook." 
  
 And a proper outlook it is, too.  Sad that the Republican party is eroding 
 its own political base (and credibility) with its support of the financially 
 lucrative Religious Right. 
  
 > This can be evident even when not declared, note Bolce and De Maio. 
 "People 
 > for the American Way, for example," they write, "is most often 
 characterized 
 > in press accounts as a civil liberties and civil rights group, rarely as a 
 > secularist organization.  But a visit to the organization's website shows 
 > that its culture agenda is the mirror opposite of the Christian Coalition' 
 > s." 
  
 I left the People for the American Way because it is, in fact, a fairly left 
 leaning organization.  But on this point, the characterization is absolutely 
 on the mark. 
  
 > In his fine book Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against 
 > Christianity, David Limbaugh lays out a lawyerly case showing that the 
 Left 
 > is systematically trying to purge Christianity and religious Judaism from 
 > public schools and everyplace else in the public square. 
  
 Good.  While the freedom of religion is secure and never has been 
 challenged,  except perhaps by the Religious Right attempt to impose its 
 religious perspective on the government and the American People. 
 Christianity and Judaism have no preferred place in public schools any more 
 than atheism has a preferred place.  Where Mr. Limbaugh is wrong is that 
 there is not now, nor has here ever been, an attempt to purge religion, no 
 matter how crackpot that religion may be, from public squares... so long as 
 that crackpot religion is not given support by the government as the 
 Religious Right seeks. The Religious Right is dead wrong. 
  
 Also seems to me that iof the Religious Right really had the courage of 
 their convictions, and belief in their faith, they wouldn't need to try and 
 shove it down the throats of the American people.  That's the kind of crap 
 Islamic Fundamentalists resort to.  I would hope for better from Americans. 
  
 > The leftist aim is not to leave those schools and young minds devoid of 
 > faith. 
  
 That, of course, is a lie.  One would hope that a good Christian would 
 adhere to the "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness" notion.  Maybe the write 
 isn't such a good Christian as he would have people believe. 
  
 > More than a century ago, when the new white-robed priesthood of science 
 > began challenging the literal statements of the Bible, those who lost 
 their 
 > old faiths were easily seduced by new ones.  Foremost of these 
 > pseudo-scientific cults was Marxism, which claimed to be scientific in its 
 > methods, to have deep understanding of invisible forces controlling 
 history, 
 > and to be able to usher in a heaven on earth and the emergence of the 
 > "crystal man" evolved beyond greed, war and individuality. 
  
 One migth think that if a person's faith has reasonable basis, a little 
 science wouldn't be so intimidating.  The logical conclusion, then, is that 
 science (and other ideas that invite scrutiny, challenge and discussion) 
 have more validity than the stories told by Christians, who seem to have 
 difficulty with, and blatant hostility toward, anybody who dares not buy 
 those stories... which seems to fly in the face of many tenet allegedly held 
 dear by alleged Christians (not to mention Americans). 
  
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)