Sabine Grant

[QUOTE]Originally posted by galiel:
[QB]

How do you get from my post "to having a hard time sympathizing with claims that freedom is restricted in America??"

Galiel, The fact that you brought up in that previous post that millions around the world would die to get here. That fact in itself seemed to point that you were aware that America is not such a bad place for "those millions". I did not realize that you might have been sarcastic.

So no need to be so offended over the fact that I did not grasp the nuance there. I thought you were making an honest statement.

Mine remains still honest though.

When I compare what I have experienced with what Americans benefit of, I cannot take seriously claims that freedom is even in jeopardy.

From what I understand, your concern is the reoccuring breaches in the Separation of Church and State promoted by an overall conservatist government which involves several christians and how they may use their position to impose christian ideology. Please correct me if my perception is misled.

Before I comment more,I await your clarification.

SanDiegoAtheist

"several Christians" is a bit of an understatement Sabine.

The entire executive branch administration (at least at the senior level) as well as the entire majority leadership on both house & senate (now anyway), and the Republican party leadership as a whole are composed EXCLUSIVELY of conservative Christians - some are more fundamentalist than others, but it's clear that they do not even come close to a spectrum which would encompass the majority of Americans.

This is what most of us are worried about - the fact that all the political controls outside the judiciary (currently anyway) are in the hands of people that represent perhaps 20-30% of the total population (unfortunately, the religious right is VERY good at getting out the vote, thus giving them a rather disproportionate say in the election of Republican candidates - witness Simon in CA - if Riordan had won the party nomination, he'dve taken California easily....but the religious right in CA couldn't stand the fact that he didn't toe the party line with respect to social issues like abortion and gay rights...ergo, Simon won because he DID toe those lines...and his ONE attempt in the general campaign to attempt to broaden his appeal (at least to gays) was met with a 2x4 smack to the head by the religious right leaders.

There has been no attempt at all by the current administration to be anything like 'inclusive' - and it seems to me that it is pretty justifiable to worry about what may happen considering that they appear to be no more interested in being 'inclusive' in their legislation and acts.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

Jagged

To me the logical choice is Britain. It's where we came from historically in the first place. And it's a lovely country. How do you Brits feel about having a bunch of raucous irreverant liberal infidels move to your neighborhood.

galiel

I was most certainly NOT being sarcastic. And, like you, I greatly appreciate the freedoms we have. I made a conscious, adult decision to live here and raise my children here. However, I didn't want that ot imply that I dismiss or diminish the real impending dangers to our freedoms presented by our current socio-political circumstances.

The problem is that "some" freedom is rarely adequate. Not that it compares to the horrors of "no" freedom, but, for example, no one here would want to return to the days of racial segregation--even though America was still "the" place to be at the time.

I think your do somewhat misunderstand my concerns and Buffmans as well, if I may presume to say so. Christians and conservatives have *always* been part of the American body politic. Jimmy Carter was an evangelical, born-again Christian, for crying out loud.

That is not the issue.

The difference is that there are three specific groups of ideologues who have combined to form a particularly dangerous force, and they are acting at a time when a confluence of circumstances make them potentially extremely effective.

Without repeating here what has been exhaustingly discussed elsewhere, I will just name them:

A) Christian Reconstructionists who literally wish to impose a Biblical theocracy on the U.S.

B) Literal evanglical believers in the Rapture prophesies.

(I contend that there is a significant strain of Christianity that has combined these two and that is actively seeking to gain appointed positions of power within the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary branches of the U.S. government, but whether they are two groups cooperating for similar ends or a single group doesn't really matter)

C) the so-called "ultra-hawks".

As I have explained elsewhere, appointed representatives of these groups (from Ashcroft to Clarence Thomas to Mike Gerson to Paul Wolfowitz to Tommy Thompson etc, etc, as named on other threads), share a common interest in engineering a major war sweeping through the Middle East as well as sharing an interest in the practical, if not formal, elimination of the traditional separation between church and state in the U.S.

The ultra-hawks want to impose a Pax Americana on the Middle East, liberating Iraq, Iran and Syria from their authoritarian governments and then imposing a settlement on the Palestinians. One of them recently, publicly, compared this to the Roman Empire (citation has bee nposted previously). This fits in with those seeking to fulfill the End Days prophesies which involve a major war ending in the Jews controlling all of the biblical land of Israel (after which, the Jews will be conveniently wiped out post-Rapture--but for now the Christian evangelical right is falling all over itself to support the right-wing government of Israel). The theocrats, meanwhile, have aligned with the same folks, since a theocratic, less democratic and more "moral" U.S. fits into the End Days dogma as well, besides being easier to manipulate. (I assert that this whole bizarre theonomy has been further twisted so that a theocracy in the U.S. becomes part of the necessary conditions for hastening the Rapture, and that it is USian Christians who will supposedly be the ones to ascend.[/qb][/QUOTE]

I do realize, believe me, that this whole thing sound like a farfetched extreme conspiracy madness worthy of the X-Files.

Unfortunately, these people, wacko as they may be, really exist, they are really politically active, they really are being appointed to government positions in unprecedented numbers, they really do permeate the White House and the Justic Department, and they do (at least the Reconstructionists) actually want to end our federal republic form of government and replace it with a system governed by Biblical law.

With both houses of Congess AND the White House in the hands of the Republican Party, which has been virtually taken over by these people, and with the events of 9/11, soon to be exacerbated by the war on Iraq, making our citizenry more willing than ever to sacrifice certain freedoms and give the government unprecedented powers, this is a very dangerous time.

I don't really think they will succeed with their wacko plot, but in the process of trying, they may leave us with a tattered Wall of Separation and a legacy of relinquished freedoms that will be extremely hard to recover--not to mention life-time appointments of federal judges, including, probably a Supreme Court Justice or two, who may make Reinquist look like Jesse Jackson by comparison.

Therefore, I wish to spread information about this situation and urge people to wake up and fight it.

Even though I feel rather silly even suggesting there is such a confluence of interests and events at work.

Pitshade

This is far too serious a discussion for RRP.

Primordial Groove

Buffman and galiel

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />


Very insightful.

question:

How do you fight lifetime appointments?

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: Primordial Groove ]</p>

Gregg

galiel, I think I love you. The voice of pure sweet reason.

Gregg

Gregg

How do you fight lifetime appointments?

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: Primordial Groove ][/QB][/QUOTE]

1. Judges die eventually.
2. Judges' views can change over time. There have been a few Supreme Court justices who were appointed by Presidents who thought they'd put a puppet on the bench, only to see the judges follow their own minds and refuse to be the Executive Branch's bitch.

Gregg

Liquidrage

There's another aspect to the ideal and the strength of America.
And that is how it was formed.

What we think of as America (the ideal more then the land) wasn't formed by indigenous people fighting for their rights.
It was formed by people that left from somewhere else in hopes of having those rights.

In many ways I would consider moving to a place like Holland to be the best thing I could do to make a stand.

What bigger stand is there then packing up and moving to someplace else?
If I hypothetically left for a hypothetical Holland, I wouldn't be forgetting my ideals. I would be doing so in an affirmation of those ideals because those ideals are so important to me that I would be willing to leave my "homeland" for them.

A good analogy I believe is when you a not satisfied with a store, be it for service or the quality/cost of a product. My wife is the type that will complain, and rather vocally I might add, until her complaint is properly handled. I on the other hand, will say my peace and leave and not do business with the store in the future.
I don't know if either way is better then the other and not all cases are exactly the same. However, I have my way of dealing with things and it works for me.

I'd much rather go someplace that is already tolerant of infidels then to try and fight to get where I already am to be tolerant of infidels.

If knew I'd get a job (hint: Software Engineer, ask for resume) there, I'd go. For those that wouldn't go, thats fine. But I in no way feel inferior or that I would be doing any less compared to those that would stay.

NFLP

GALIEL : thank you for clarifying. I am short of time to give you today a thought over response. The subject at hand is very interesting and deserves some pondering.Will get back with you in a couple of days.