Since the thread at http://www.republicanoperative.com/forums/f22/federal-court-u-s-supreme-court-ruling-atheism-religion-41026/ is about the atheism being called a “religion”, and, like RwNj I could care less about that and it doesn’t matter to me one way or the other, I have started a new thread. Since my intent is to discuss CJ’s issue with so-cons, I have decided to start a new thread rather than hijack that one.
However, CJ’s comments in that thread have prompted this . . . I just didn’t want to contribute to more thread-drift there.
Also, I have no intention of discussing beliefs in Christianity versus beliefs in atheism. That topic is a non-starter, with the atheists digging their heels in and some even attacking Christians personally. It has been “debated” here ad nauseam and usually devolves into insults and sarcasm and the thread goes south. I would rather have a lively but civil discussion here confined to CJ’s view of so-cons.
Don’t misunderstand. I solicit EVERY ONE’S comments. It’s just that I have specific questions and comments for CJ in this OP.
CJ seems to be obsessed with so-cons and the significance he places on their political views (morbid fear? “danger”?) CJ’s stated fear:
And the so-con obsession, which seems to be related to the above quotes:
[quote="Cactus Jack]How is that different from saying so cons are bigots?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Cactus Jack]However, I’ve seen Cam get admonished for calling so cons “bigots”[/QUOTE]
[quote=“Cactus_Jack, post:53, topic:31001”]
The only intellectual laziness and dishonesty here is yours Pete, but intellectual dishonesty seems to be a way of life around here with the religious so-cons so it’s hardly surprising
[/quote]So you would put Pete not only in the category of a liar, but also in the category of a so-con who threatens your liberty?
[quote="Cactus Jack]And So cons wonder why they’re losing relevance. Amazing.[/QUOTE]This seems to be contradictory. On the one hand you are wringing your hands over the possibility of so-con control, yet in this quote you seem to be saying that so-cons are not worth worrying about. Which is it? So-cons are a threat or they’re not. You can’t have it both ways, unless of course you want to stamp out every last vestige of social conservative thought.
[QUOTE=Cactus Jack, post:29, topic:36112"]
So-cons will never win over moderates and centrists because they are jack boot right wing
[/quote]Same question as above.
And in the same vein:
[quote=“Cactus_Jack, post:72, topic:39741”]
Yes, I’m very happy to see the pendulum swinging in the direction of personal liberty. It’s a good thing.
OK . . . so let’s take some examples from the REAL WORLD, not some imagined threat.
First we have the Reagan presidency . . . Ronald Reagan being the so-con hero, and with good cause.
Reagan was in power for eight years. During that time, did we see legislation passed reversing Roe v Wade? Did we see legislation passed compelling display of the nativity scene on public property? Did we see legislation passed compelling any specific prayer being recited in schools? Did we see legislation passed compelling ANY Christian actions?
So much for that so-con having the “legislative agenda of evangelical types.”
But Reagan and his so-con ideas didn’t control the legislative branch you say.
OK . . . so let’s take the 104th Congress, the one controlled by so-cons and their “Contract with America”. During that time, did we see legislation passed reversing Roe v Wade? Did we see legislation passed compelling display of the nativity scene on public property? Did we see legislation passed compelling any specific prayer being recited in schools? Did we see legislation passed compelling ANY Christian actions?
So much for that so-con Congress having the “legislative agenda of evangelical types.”
But, you say, that’s the feds . . . the states are a different animal.
OK . . . so let’s take the Republican governor of Ohio, John Kasich. Kasich was sworn in as the governor of Ohio on January 10th, 2011.
Though Kasich has held positions contrary to some gun rights activists, and is on the NRA “enemies list”, he is nevertheless a “born-again Christian” and actually was raised in the Roman Catholic faith in his youth (he left the Catholic church and is now a non-denominational Christian.) He was a member of the 104th Congress “Contract with America” crowd. It’s fair to call him a so-con, albeit maybe a soft one.
During Kasich’s time and up to the present, did we see Ohio legislation passed reversing Roe v Wade? Did we see Ohio legislation passed compelling display of the nativity scene on public property? Did we see Ohio legislation passed compelling any specific prayer being recited in schools? Did we see legislation passed compelling ANY Christian actions?
So much for that so-con state governor having the “legislative agenda of evangelical types.”
And Jack H., a so-con if there ever was one, pointed out to you:
And here’s another quote of yours that has me baffled:
[quote=“Cactus_Jack, post:72, topic:39741”]
RET is an extremist with a black and white view of the world. I don’t think anything terrifies me more than those who see the world in black and white. Everyone is either good or evil, white hats or black hats, with you or against you. Just can’t fathom that kind of thinking. So limiting.
[/quote]You seem to have a black and white view of so-cons. Apparently then you CAN “fathom that kind of thinking.”
So why are you so concerned about so-cons, especially considering that in the REAL WORLD they have passed no “evangelical legislation” as detailed above, and also considering Jack H’s stated position? And what about the contradictions that I see? I am not claiming that they are contradictions in fact, just that I see them that way.
Finally, an issue totally unrelated to this so-con stuff, but one that has always remained a question in my mind. So maybe you can answer this for me.
Atheists always want to get rid of any reference to the name “God” in public places and pledges. Now a lot of the national monuments in Washington, D.C., have the word “God” inscribed . . . the Jefferson Memorial having inscribed, “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” and the Lincoln Memorial having his Gettysburg address inscribed with this phrase included, “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom . . .”.
These monuments are viewed by gazillions of school age children every year. Atheists clearly don’t like the idea of children being “indoctrinated” and introduced to “God” in public places. And wouldn’t viewing an inscription with the word “God” in it sometimes be akin to young minds learning “dogma”, which as I understand it, you’re dead set against?
So what do atheists propose to do here? Sandblast the word “God” out of the stone or forbid their children from viewing certain national monuments?