Random thoughts on what I think is wrong with the country, the Democrats, Republicans, and the world in general. Or whatever else I feel like talking about.
Published on November 10, 2004 By Psikotik In Politics
I posted an article recently about too much religion in politics and the Evangelicals wanting to push their agenda on the American people. The few people who did read it pretty much slammed me. Please check out the following article from the associated press.

Falwell plans for 'evangelical revolution'
11/9/2004, 10:43 p.m. ET
By HANK KURZ Jr.
The Associated Press

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Seeking to take advantage of the momentum from an election where moral values proved important to voters, the Rev. Jerry Falwell announced Tuesday he has formed a new coalition to guide an "evangelical revolution."

Falwell, a religious broadcaster based in Lynchburg, Va., said the Faith and Values Coalition will be a "21st century resurrection of the Moral Majority," the organization he founded in 1979.

Falwell said he would serve as the coalition's national chairman for four years.

He added that the new group's mission would be to lobby for anti-abortion conservatives to fill openings on the Supreme Court and lower courts, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, and the election of another "George Bush-type" conservative in 2008.

"We all, for the first time, began to realize the potential of religious conservatives, particularly evangelicals, when something over 30 million of them went to the polls," he said, noting most supported the president and anti-abortion candidates, and voted to approve 11 initiatives across the country banning gay marriage.

Also, a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court allowing gay marriages "helped energize our people," Falwell said.

And when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom began performing gay marriages, it "really caught the attention of people of faith in this country, and what we have been saying could happen actually happened," he said.

"The timing could not have been better. That, along with the abortion issues and the terrorism issue, helped us to get our people awakened."

While overseeing the coalition, Falwell said he would leave day-to-day operations of Liberty University and Thomas Road Baptist Church — both of which he founded — to his sons Jerry Jr., 42, and Jonathan, 38.

Mathew Staver, founder of the conservative law group Liberty Counsel in Orlando, Fla., will be the coalition's vice chairman; Jonathan Falwell will be its executive director. Theologian Tim LaHaye will be the board chairman.


I am not trying to say they aren't allowed opinions or to express themselves, but if Christian morals start becoming laws, then the religious freedom and tolerance this country was founded on begin to disappear. It will be no different than the Church of England our forefathers came here to escape. I hate to say it, BUT I TOLD YOU SO.

Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Nov 10, 2004

Dr. Guy, I live in Virginia where Falwell and Robertson are both based. They do know how to get things done, and I have seen them change public policy on the local level. Misguided or not, people listen to him. I even know someone who worked on his presidential campaign, if you're old enough to remember that far back.

yep, and remember when Robertson prayed Gloria away?  I live here too, and I can tell you they have as much impact as any special interest group.  Otherwise, how do you explain Robb, Baliles, Wilder and Warner?  Not exactly their cup of tea.  I understand your fear, but think it is a bit overblown.  If they cant even call the shots in their own state (and they sure did not under Allen, Godwin, Dalton or Gilmore), how are they going to do it on a national basis?

Chill.  You are stressing for nothing.  Life is too short to worry about the black helicopter stuff.  Worry about the next Democrat nominee for president.  Since you are OD, any chance in hell that Hillary could win the state?

on Nov 10, 2004

On a local level I'd have to say he might be able to do something. But VA is not the entire US. And there aren't enough nut-jobs that buy into his evangelical BS to make what he's talking about possible.

DR, and you would be wrong.  But only in your assumption of the affecting local stuff.  See reply above.

on Nov 10, 2004
The more I read the article, the less objections I have. So, Jerry Falwell wants to lobby for more conservative justices and judges, and something's wrong with that? Do non-religious groups not try to get the people they want in office?
on Nov 10, 2004
The more I read the article, the less objections I have. So, Jerry Falwell wants to lobby for more conservative justices and judges, and something's wrong with that? Do non-religious groups not try to get the people they want in office?


Only in the Liberal play book. MM and BS and steel tits lobbying for liberal judges is ok. Anyone lobbying for conservative ones, well, they are supressing our rights.
on Nov 10, 2004
Psikotik:

The main message that Falwell sends is that the "political capital" they raised in electing W should be spent on taking the country as close to a theocracy as they can. I know many will not agree with me but once these movements get mobilized bad things happen. Today for example, W appointed a board on Women's Health Issues that is going to be chaired by Dr. W. David Hager who says in one of his books that women should deal with pre-menstruel pain by praying. So the process of the right wing revolution is in full swing.
on Nov 10, 2004

The main message that Falwell sends is that the "political capital" they raised in electing W should be spent on taking the country as close to a theocracy as they can. I know many will not agree with me but once these movements get mobilized bad things happen. Today for example, W appointed a board on Women's Health Issues that is going to be chaired by Dr. W. David Hager who says in one of his books that women should deal with pre-menstruel pain by praying. So the process of the right wing revolution is in full swing.


And the book that Noam chomsky wrote says we must become communist.  So what?  You dont like it, and we will not allow it.  But as long as you think these weird conspiracy theories, you will not get a lot of sleep.


but in truth, I know the right does it as well.  Seeing gremlins behind every tree.  I guess I owe you some thanks.  The whackos of each side will pontificate, but in the end, cooler heads will prevail.  I saw that with Clinton, you will see it now.

on Nov 10, 2004
Worry about the next Democrat nominee for president. Since you are OD, any chance in hell that Hillary could win the state?


She wouldn't stand a snowballs chance in hell. Virginia hasn't gone Dem since LBJ in 1964.

The more I read the article, the less objections I have. So, Jerry Falwell wants to lobby for more conservative justices and judges, and something's wrong with that? Do non-religious groups not try to get the people they want in office?


I am not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to lobby for judges, candidates and etc, as Dr.Guy said liberals do it too. I don't deny that. What I object to is their wanting to legislate their morals into laws.If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one, don't tell someone else they can't. If you don't like gay marriage, no one is going to force you to have a same sex partner. I simply believe in "You do your thing, I'll do mine". If I wanted to live as a conservative Christian I would be one.

And please do not turn this into an argument about abortion or same sex marriages. These are merely two examples of areas of disagreement between liberals and Evangelicals.
on Nov 10, 2004

She wouldn't stand a snowballs chance in hell. Virginia hasn't gone Dem since LBJ in 1964.


yea, I agree.  I dont see her winning any of the south. That puts her at a big disadvantage from the get go.


Side Note:  What did you think of Wilder and the 79%?  WooHOO!  He is one of my favorites!  I got a picture with him.  He is really short, but I am so hopeful he will clean up 'dodge city'!  Then I wont have to be embarrased about where I live!

on Nov 10, 2004

And please do not turn this into an argument about abortion or same sex marriages. These are merely two examples of areas of disagreement between liberals and Evangelicals.And please do not turn this into an argument about abortion or same sex marriages. These are merely two examples of areas of disagreement between liberals and Evangelicals.

yea, lets keep it on topic.  There are several threads relating to those things, so let us kind of stay on topic!

Good to meet you Psi!  Glad you are in the Old dominion!  We have had some great governors, and some real losers!  I dont like Warner just because he bought the election.  As a Governor, he is not bad.  Not great either.

on Nov 10, 2004
I am not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to lobby for judges, candidates and etc, as Dr.Guy said liberals do it too. I don't deny that. What I object to is their wanting to legislate their morals into laws.If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one, don't tell someone else they can't. If you don't like gay marriage, no one is going to force you to have a same sex partner. I simply believe in "You do your thing, I'll do mine". If I wanted to live as a conservative Christian I would be one.


If a judge or justice is overstepping his power, then I'd object to it, as they are there to interpret the law, not to make it, but if it's not all right for representatives and presidents to do what they believe is right (as long as they do not overstep their power) if inspired by religious motives, then does that mean that they shouldn't be fighting for gay marriage or the right to abortion either?

And please do not turn this into an argument about abortion or same sex marriages. These are merely two examples of areas of disagreement between liberals and Evangelicals.


What I find funny though is that you expect the evangelists to accept what liberals fight for and expect evangelists not to fight for they want. What makes a liberal's morals better than an evangelist's?
on Nov 10, 2004
Dr. Guy:

Well, I'm not for communism but what does that have to do with it? Chomsky isn't paid by the government either. Hager on the other hand... Gonzales on the other hand...
on Nov 10, 2004
If a judge or justice is overstepping his power, then I'd object to it, as they are there to interpret the law, not to make it, but if it's not all right for representatives and presidents to do what they believe is right (as long as they do not overstep their power) if inspired by religious motives, then does that mean that they shouldn't be fighting for gay marriage or the right to abortion either?


If the Pres or a Representative is voting or basing their decisions on their religious beliefs, then yes they are overstepping there bounds. The are there to represent ALL PEOPLE, not just those who share the same religious convictions. Every athiest, Buddhist, Muslim, etc., etc. in this country deserves to be represented and have that representation not be based on the Bible and teaching to which they to not subscribe.

And please do not turn this into an argument about abortion or same sex marriages. These are merely two examples of areas of disagreement between liberals and Evangelicals.


What I find funny though is that you expect the evangelists to accept what liberals fight for and expect evangelists not to fight for they want. What makes a liberal's morals better than an evangelist's?


I never said YOU have to accept MY morals, gay marriage or abortion. In the same way YOU should not expect me to accept YOUR morals and beliefs. I'm advocating tolerance of others beliefs, not acceptance of them. There is a difference. And I will ask again, please try to keep on subject. If you wish to debate gay marriage or abortion, direct me to existing threads about them.

Good to meet you Psi! Glad you are in the Old dominion! We have had some great governors, and some real losers! I dont like Warner just because he bought the election. As a Governor, he is not bad. Not great either.


I'd have to say more losers than the great ones ( I kinda liked Wilder). It would be nice if we could get some people who can run a state budget (here, no more car tax....oops can't afford it) So which part of VA are you in? Myself I'm in Newport News. Nice to meet you too
on Nov 10, 2004
If the Pres or a Representative is voting or basing their decisions on their religious beliefs, then yes they are overstepping there bounds. The are there to represent ALL PEOPLE, not just those who share the same religious convictions. Every athiest, Buddhist, Muslim, etc., etc. in this country deserves to be represented and have that representation not be based on the Bible and teaching to which they to not subscribe.


So presidents don't work on what they think is right, but on popular opinion?

I never said YOU have to accept MY morals, gay marriage or abortion. In the same way YOU should not expect me to accept YOUR morals and beliefs. I'm advocating tolerance of others beliefs, not acceptance of them. There is a difference. And I will ask again, please try to keep on subject. If you wish to debate gay marriage or abortion, direct me to existing threads about them.


I'm not debating gay marriage or abortion. I'm wondering whether liberals can legislate their beliefs (i.e. gay marriage is right and should be legal, abortion should be legal, etc.) and evangelists can't (i.e. gay marriage is wrong and should not be legal, abortion should be banned, etc.).
Did you mean that evangelists shouldn't tell others that gay marriage is wrong and liberals shouldn't tell others that gay marriage should be legalized, and neither should fight for or against the legalization of gay marriage?
on Nov 10, 2004

Dr. Guy:

Well, I'm not for communism but what does that have to do with it? Chomsky isn't paid by the government either. Hager on the other hand... Gonzales on the other hand...


it is a demonstration of extremes, and where we dont want to go.  Simply put, this is a good topic, why bastardize it with extremes?

on Nov 10, 2004
If the Pres or a Representative is voting or basing their decisions on their religious beliefs, then yes they are overstepping there bounds. The are there to represent ALL PEOPLE, not just those who share the same religious convictions. Every athiest, Buddhist, Muslim, etc., etc. in this country deserves to be represented and have that representation not be based on the Bible and teaching to which they to not subscribe.


So presidents don't work on what they think is right, but on popular opinion?


There can easily be a difference between "what they think is right" based on their beliefs and what is right for the nation as a whole. Just as an example of why religion and the Presidents religion should be separate, if a Catholic is President (as JFK was), does he owe his allegiance to the Pope as his faith requires, or to the country he was elected to lead? If a Jewish person (such as Lieberman) were elected as President, should the government be shut down on Saturdays because his faith requires no work on Saturdays? You would disagree with these situations because they are different from your beliefs, same as mine are from yours. Therefor the President should leave his faith at the door of the Oval Office and run it in the best interest of ALL it's citizens. Also, it does not necessarily follow that what is right for the country follows popular opinion.

I'm not debating gay marriage or abortion. I'm wondering whether liberals can legislate their beliefs (i.e. gay marriage is right and should be legal, abortion should be legal, etc.) and evangelists can't (i.e. gay marriage is wrong and should not be legal, abortion should be banned, etc.).
Did you mean that evangelists shouldn't tell others that gay marriage is wrong and liberals shouldn't tell others that gay marriage should be legalized, and neither should fight for or against the legalization of gay marriage?


The difference in what I advocate as compared to do (in my opinion) is that I am for a persons freedom and their ability to choose what is right for them (Life, Liberty, and the Pusuit of Happiness), while your position bans what you don't agree with, and takes away a persons ability to decide what is right for them. This country is based on freedom, not restricting it.

You can't legislate morality; We legislate little else. -- Robert Bork (Conservative judge nominated to the Supreme court by Ronald Reagan)

4 Pages1 2 3 4