| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
27 Jul 2005 10:39:19 AM |
| Object: |
Some of the goals of the Radical Religious Right |
SOME OF THE GOALS OF THE RADICAL RELIGIOUS RIGHT
SCIENCE
restrict or ban outright the use of public resources to advance stem
cell research and development
********************************************************************************\
MARRIAGE
Define and codify marriage in their religious terms only
********************************************************************************\
RIGHTS FOR ALL
Keep the status quo, with regards to discrimination against homosexuals
and/or turn back some gains that have been made
Turn back their preceived femminist agenda
********************************************************************************\
ABORTION & BIRTH CONTROL
ban the dispensing of the so-called morning-after
birth control pill by public institutions
[such bills] would force even victims of rape to bear children.
allow pharmacists to decline on religious grounds to fill birth
control prescriptions.
Overturn Roe v Wade
AG: High Court Not Bound by Roe V. Wade
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050727/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gonzales_\
ap_interview
[excerpts]
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Wed Jul 27, 3:44 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Talking about the landmark court decision legalizing
abortion, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said a Supreme Court
justice does not have to follow a previous ruling "if you believe it's
wrong."
In an interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday, Gonzales said
the legal right to abortion is settled for lower courts but not the
Supreme Court, suggesting high-court nominee John Roberts would not be
bound by his past statement that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision settled
the issue.
[snip]
Gonzales said circumstances had changed since Roberts commented on Roe
v. Wade during his 2003 confirmation hearing for the seat he now holds
on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
"If you're asking a circuit court judge, like Judge Roberts was asked,
yes, it is settled law because you're bound by the precedent,"
Gonzales said.
"If you're a Supreme Court justice, that's a different question
because a Supreme Court justice is not obliged to follow precedent if
you believe it's wrong," Gonzales said.
While abortion foes fret about Roberts' statement two years ago,
abortion rights groups are concerned by a legal brief Roberts helped
write for a Supreme Court case while serving as deputy solicitor
general in the administration of President George H.W. Bush.
The brief argued that the landmark abortion decision "was wrongly
decided and should be overruled." Bush officials have said that the
brief reflected administration policy and Roberts was one of nine
lawyers who signed it.
Gonzales said deciding when to overturn an earlier ruling "is one of
the most difficult questions any Supreme Court justice has to answer."
Among the factors to consider is how old is the precedent, he said.
Gonzales said he has a "preliminary judgment" about whether the
Constitution affords the right to an abortion, but he declined to
reveal it.
[snip]
[end excerpts]
********************************************************************************\
PUBLIC EDUCATION
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:d3_WDPRi7UgJ:www.theocracywatch.org/schools\
2.htm+radical+religious+right+goals++public+education&hl=en
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?O56F2218B
"Children in the Christian schools of America are the Army that is
going to take the future."
Joseph Morecraft, Christian educator, 1987
Abolish The U.S. Department of Education?
Good News Clubs
Religion in the Classroom
Vouchers and Government Funded Religious Education
Evolution
Intelligent Design
School Prayer
Abstinence-Only Sex Education
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/shb/suarez_14_2.html
Comment
by John M. Suarez, M.D.
The following article is from the Secular Humanist Bulletin, Volume
14, Number 2.
School Vouchers - Yesterday, Today and Forever
Public Education has been the main target of the Radical Religious
Right from the beginning. This is understandable because a viable and
efficient system of Public Education is incompatible with the
establishment of a theocracy. The Radical Religious Right has
concluded that it is necessary to malign Public Education as a step
toward the goal of attrition through denial of funding. School
vouchers, despite inherent constitutional flaws and perennial absence
of popular support, continue to be promoted in a variety of settings
and in different packages.
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2258
Right Wing Attacks On Education
Over recent decades, Right Wing forces have engaged in a comprehensive
assault on our nation's public schools. From attacks on specific
curricular choices in individual schools, to challenging state and
national reform efforts, to diversionary schemes such as vouchers and
tuition tax credits, to imposing school prayer, to challenging the
very notion of a free public education for all Americans, the Far
Right has aggressively sought to discredit and undermine public education.
********************************************************************************\
UNITED STATES
Create A theocracy
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
********************************************************************************\
TO END:
http://www.atheistalliance.org/Orlando/modisett.html
It was estimated that since 1947[2], the Supreme Court has rendered
over 75 decisions in this area [church state]. The Radical Religious
Right, which I call the Religious Wrong, could not and can not accept
the principle of the religiously neutral public school system. They
want America to be "a Christian Nation." And the next fifty years will
likely continue this struggle. It does not take an Einstein to predict
that state governments will continue to play games with the First and
Fourteenth Amendment and with the Constitutional stipulation that
there be no religious test for office. And while this school prayer
struggle is continuing, there will be other battles just as important:
a woman's right to chose an abortion, a person's right to choose a
dignified death as painless as possible, a student's right to a
thorough and meaningful education, and the elimination of racial
injustice.
I do not think that this continuing conflict will be a
straight-forward religious or philosophical argument. The Nazis did
not have an open public discussion on persecuting the Jews. They just
did it. Our continuing conflict will not be simply an intellectual
discussion of the issues. Priests and pastors will not invite atheists
and humanists into their pulpit to present another point of view. Nor
will priests and pastors be willing to appear on our turf, though we
would welcome a public discussion. The Radical Religious Right does
not now engage us in intellectual discussions. Their basic response is
name-calling. They crowd around the entrances of abortion clinics,
blocking them with their bodies, shouting--sometimes with loud
electronic speakers--"baby killers!" "baby killers!" They call all
humanists, atheists, agnostics and freethinkers "anti-Christs" and
"servants of Satan." We are labelled as prejudiced against Christians
and biased against Catholics. Their technique for relating to us is
name-calling.
Prayer in the public schools is a "club" with which to beat us over
the heads. Engle v. Vitale, which first excluded public prayers,
finding them unconstitutional in 1962, is cited as the beginning of
the downfall of the public schools and the moral collapse of our
nation. The lack of prayer and Bible reading in the public schools is
touted as the basic reason why public schools are no good. Pat
Robertson said on television on the 700 club[2]: "The breakdown of the
morality in the schools is the result of a Supreme Court decision,"
(By this he meant Engle v. Vitale.) "Public School teachers don't care
if children can read or not. They just want to take them away from
traditional Christian morality." Can you imagine a man saying that
over television? Robertson claimed that school teachers didn't care if
children read or not. How did he know that? On what data is that
based? And the answer, of course, is that he has no data, no
information, no evidence. His opinions and the rest of the Religious
Right are based on his own imaginary theology. The fact that public
schools do not have regularly-scheduled, spoken prayers as part of
their daily curriculum is why the public schools and the teachers are
no good. They are godless. Pat Robertson and the other members of the
religious right use prayer as a club to take over the public schools
and the whole country. He and the Vatican want to get the government
out of the business of educating kids.[3]
**************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and the discussion group for the above site listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
For people in Hampton Roads you are also invited to join
NORFOLK/VA. B. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEETUP GROUP
http://churchandstate.meetup.com/47/
Virginia Chapter Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://au-va.org/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
Now including a re-publication of Tom Peters
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HOME PAGE
and
Audio links to Supreme Court oral arguments and
Speech by civil rights/constitutional lawyer and others.
This site is a member of the following web rings:
Freethought Ring--&--Freethought, Religion & Beliefs Ring
The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
American History WebRing--&--The History Ring
Let Freedom Ring--&--Religious Freedom Ring
Law Issues Ring--&--Legal Research Ring
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Some of the goals of the Radical Religious Right |
27 Jul 2005 10:57:18 AM |
|
|
In article <hkafe11m0aobfh5nhsbcv3dee0oe3n6pnt@4ax.com> writes:
SOME OF THE GOALS OF THE RADICAL RELIGIOUS RIGHT
SCIENCE
restrict or ban outright the use of public resources to advance stem
cell research and development
And of course the Wedgies, led by Phillip Johnson, have a much wider
goal -- to re-introduce supernaturalism into all scientific teaching.
They are quite specific about this -- getting creationism taught
in biology classes is simply the first step; the larger goal is
to unseat what they see as the "philosophical naturalism" pervading
all of science.
Of course they ignore the fact that many centuries of allowing
"goddidit" as an explanation had the effect of rendering science
still-born.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Some of the goals of the Radical Religious Right |
27 Jul 2005 10:09:27 PM |
|
|
While I am *not* a member of the so-called religious right, I
nevertheless would like to take issue with some of your points.
Honestly, you sound every bit as radical as the purported radicals you
denounce, except that you are radical in the other direction. But
anyhow, in the spirit of discourse, here goes.
buckeyeelo@nospam.net wrote:
SOME OF THE GOALS OF THE RADICAL RELIGIOUS RIGHT
SCIENCE
restrict or ban outright the use of public resources to advance stem
cell research and development
********************************************************************************\
No one is arguing against doing *adult* stem cell research. What is
debated is the use of *embryonic* stem cells, presumably obtained from
fertility clinics. What people won't mention is that it turns out adult
stem cells often are more stable, and easier to work with. But that's
actually beside the point. The point is that many people find embryonic
stem cell research that destroys embryos morally repugnant, on a level
akin to killing people in medical experiments. Sure, we can argue about
whether the embryos are human or not til the cows come home, but
honestly, it's unfair to characterize this principled position as
either "radical" or "loony."
MARRIAGE
Define and codify marriage in their religious terms only
********************************************************************************\
You're right on this one. Generally, religous folks believe that
marriage is *not* merely a civil function, but something forged
divinely. Devil's advocate questions for all... the Libertarian Party
has floated the suggestion that government get out of marriage all
together, and people can consider people married or not married as they
see fit, to whoever or whatever they want, including plural marriage.
If we don't adopt that idea because of (insert your reason here), then
how do we justify the restrictions we place on marriage *outside* of
some sort of societal/religious mandate?
RIGHTS FOR ALL
Keep the status quo, with regards to discrimination against homosexuals
and/or turn back some gains that have been made
True. Segments of the religous right do believe this. Where "equal
rights" become "special rights" can be hard to pin down though.
Turn back their preceived femminist agenda
Which is? Nowadays, what passes as a "feminist agenda" isn't always
clear.
********************************************************************************\
ABORTION & BIRTH CONTROL
ban the dispensing of the so-called morning-after
birth control pill by public institutions
[such bills] would force even victims of rape to bear children.
Some people are pushing for that. I doubt it would get anywhere.
allow pharmacists to decline on religious grounds to fill birth
control prescriptions.
And what's wrong with that? Funny how people feel oh so free to ignore
others' religious freedom in the pursuit of one's own agenda. Would you
like to force a Jewish or Muslim butcher to offer pork, or a Buddhist
grocery to offer meat?
Overturn Roe v Wade
Which should of happened decades ago, IMO. Purely on legal grounds. As
we are supposed to be a "democracy," massive issues of public policy
ought to be decided through the political process, not by judicial
fiat. Where oh where is it stated or even implied in the Constitution
that abortion is somehow a right? Come on, "pro-choicers," if you're so
sure you're right, why can't you simply have the *elected*
legislatures pass laws legalizing "choice" to your heart's content? As
one of my professors rhetorically opined,"To what extent are we really
a democracy, if our most important decisions are made by unelected
judges?"
AG: High Court Not Bound by Roe V. Wade
[snip article on AG Gonzales]
And IMO he's correct. Certain court monstrocities can and ought to be
overruled. Otherwise, we'd have things like Plessy, Lochner, and so
forth controlling us forever. And for those on the liberal end, let's
not forget Lawrence v Texas, which overruled Bowers v Hardwick. What's
good for the goose is good for the gander. Either precedent is always
sacred and untoughable, or it isn't. Can't have it both ways.
PUBLIC EDUCATION
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:d3_WDPRi7UgJ:www.theocracywatch.org/schools\
2.htm+radical+religious+right+goals++public+education&hl=en
Your shorter link is: http://makeashorterlink.com/?O56F2218B
"Children in the Christian schools of America are the Army that is
going to take the future."
Joseph Morecraft, Christian educator, 1987
Never heard of the guy. Don't know what context he said that in. A
*minority* believes in sending their kids to Christian schools. May I
ask what exactly is wrong with the proposition?
Abolish The U.S. Department of Education?
Advocated by a fringe. Also supported by various advocates of
federalism and states rights.
Good News Clubs
Freedom of speech includes religious speech. To do otherwise is a
specific hostility toward a *message,* which is censorship.
Religion in the Classroom
Opinions vary. There is a fine line b/t turning the classroom into a
pulpit, and going so far as to banish religious discussion from the
classroom. Like it or not, having at least a familiarity with the
world's religious is a requisite part of a complete education.
Vouchers and Government Funded Religious Education
Opinions vary here as well. Some wonder if this means the government is
"endorsing" religion. Others counter that it simply gives people more
*choices*. Hey, I thought choice is supposed to be a good thing!
Evolution
Intelligent Design
IMO it's quite fair to discuss the limits of science, and the
beginnings of philosophy. Alas, there have been so many straw men on
all sides that it's hard to have a rational discourse over these
topics. My HS biology teacher put it this way. (Paraphrasing) "I (He)
have a right to make sure that you (the student) knows what's really
being claimed, what's controversial, and what isn't."
School Prayer
I'll take the liberal position and say that it too easily coercive.
IMO, the conservatives claiming that this is the root of all problems
have it backwards. It's only a symptom of the (alleged) problem.
Abstinence-Only Sex Education
Which could be a laudable goal. Some can argue it's poor public policy
though. OTOH, my guess is that anyone with a brain can find out the
info they desire without much difficulty.
[snip atheist article]
As a philosophical aside, how does an atheist justify the inherent
human dignity in anyone and everyone? One does not have to be a
"rightist" to be "religious," and there are numerous worthy causes that
"religious" people support as part of their religious duty. There is,
IMO, a false dichotomy between atheist/hate all religion and
religious/foam at the mouth destroy the earth kill everybody
right-winger.
Later,
Nelson Chen
__o Same road Boycott Wal-Mart, union-buster.
_`\<,_ Same rights
(_)/ (_) Same rules
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
