Posted by James on 8/28/2007, 1:43 pm, in reply to "Re: --I dunno--Can God lose a lawsuit?" Multiple Christian right groups and leaders have defended the actions of those three who interrupted the invocation of the Hindu in the Senate. Multiple. Not one. Not just the extreme nut jobs. They even have Roy Moore as their advocate. The point of all this is that when the Christian right groups and leaders speak out for the allowance of religion in public arenas, that what they really mean is that they want the allowance of Christianity in public arenas. All other religions need not apply. Normal and reasonable people call this a double standard or hypocrisy. I contend that such actions and double standards show a willingness at the least (or even an overt attempt at the most) to create a theocracy on American soil. If the majority of the Christian right everyday people do not agree with the actions of their groups and leaders, then why do they tolerate allowing these people to take these actions and make these statements? Why do not just toss the bums out and replace them with people more in line with their ideologies? That they have not done this tells me that they are either incapable or unwilling. And I don't buy for a minute that they are incapable. It simply requires boycotting those leaders and groups. Now, in a defense of these actions by the Christian right groups and leaders, I do not want to see an attack on another group, because two sets of wrongs do not in any way, shape, or form make a right. If you wish to defend them, then find some bloody merits for your case. Do not sling mud at other groups. This is what politicians do to distract the masses. This is what those Christian right groups do as well. The problem is that this tactic fails to address the problem at hand. Now, would you kindly address the problem at hand instead of pointing the finger at others? Or is that simply too difficult?
199.80.67.240
Even in this exchange while I am absent, you still do not defend your case. You insist on attacking liberals. Their faults and follies were not a part of the original discussion I entered, nor do they have any relevance to the point I am making.
