Prayapolooza in Houston

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catwoman

You quote Paul Begala? Pleeez...The arrogance of the pseudo-intellegentsia in Texas...Let's get real

---

Paul Begala grew up in Stafford, which is right up the road from you, and he can tell some pretty dandy Nueces County stories himself. He went to the University of Texas and is actually the smarter half of Carville and Begala. He’s a local hero around here and rightly so. He’s a good man and he preaches something powerful. It was Begala who told me why I am a Democrat: “Am I my brother’s keeper? Yes!"

You know Rick Perry is a TINO. That is Texan in name only. He is the Texas version of Benedict Arnold. He has sold out handing over our roads to Spanish under the TTC. He has sold out to big Pharmaceutical Corporations trying to force young girls to take a vaccine claiming to immunize against cervical cancer. He sold out the school districts with his comment "The Texas Lege does not hire or fire a single teacher", after pushing to cut 6% of school funding and keep his 9 billion dollar "Slush Fund" for him and his cronies. The list is o and on. He is a genuine arse. And yet you defend him? Really?

Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

Our constitution's first ammendment says:
This simply means that there can be no official church or religion of the United States such as the Church of England. It's important to note the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part because that's what so many people would like to do to all elected officials.

---

The founders wanted separation of church and state. The intent was simply based on the ideology that they had escaped from...the Church of England...they wanted to insure that the government would not dictate a church or religion as ruled by the government to rule man. They believed in the their new ideals and that freedom meant that we as individuals would choose our religion or not. This idea that we are a "Christian Nation" is hogwash. We are a secular nation and will stay that way as long a free-thinking people stand up to the lunacy of religious dogma as it pertains to politics. It is indeed a slippery slope when you have political leaders pandering to one set of religious ideals or morals. The Bible, Koran, Talmud, Tao-te-ching, and Veda, etc. should allbe considered equal in this country and have no place in our government.

Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simplicity

As a Canadian, I probably shouldn't even comment, but....what happened to the separation of church and state? I am all for religion, but I don't think it has a place in politics, or vise versa. This could be a very slippery slope to start on.

---

That slope is done slipped.

The founders did not want a state religion. They had no intention of removing any religion from the nation or prohibiting the free belief in whatever religion a person felt an affinity for.
There is no basis to believe that they would deny religious principles from elected officials or government institutions. That is a modern concept.

If I offended anyone I did not mean to, but back to what I wrote before "We can all find quotes to fit our needs and biblical scholars to back up our beliefs, but isn't all about being a good loving person, honoring our parents, not discriminating, loving our spouses (and being faithful) and children, not stealing and lying, and helping those who are downtrodden and sickly no matter which book you read?"

I have done a lot of reading of religious holy books and history of religions to try to understand but I am a long way from figuring it out. The questions I asked about even the ten commandments no-one tackled. But here is my most interesting observation here. This thread about this event has generated pages of responses. I recently posted a thread in Making a difference about a wonderful book I had read that showed how to really make a difference with your charitable giving to help the poorest of the worlds poor and it got one response.

How many truly "godly" people have you met in your life? People who seem to devote their life not to promoting themselves or gathering material goods but in doing good and living an admirable life? I haven't met many, but the few I have met have had a profound impact on me. One was a Methodist minister who had gathered not only his church but much of the small community we once lived in to start a soup kitchen and food pantry, raise money to dig a well in Africa, then send them all kinds of farming tools and a few bicycles, and solar cookers. He was still going strong 20 years later last I heard and it still doesn't matter to him what religion, race, sexual orientation or economic status you were, if you wanted to be a part of his mission, you were welcome. All the words in the world mean nothing, it is actions that say it all. With all the hot water our politicians seem to get into I don't think many are good examples of being a good Christian as almost anyone would define it.

I have never been a fan of Rick Perry, and while I know that he is doing this for political motives, the condescension (sp?) with which a large gathering of Christians to pray is viewed and the rhetoric surrounding it are , I think, mean-spirited. I also think a call to prayer for our nation, even by this guy, could be a good thing. Some of what I have read here directed toward followers of Jesus could even be considered "hate-speech". Were words with similar tone directed towarded other groups of the population there would be loud screaming and gnashing of teeth coming from the left.

ETA: I know who Paul Begala is - stopped buying Texas Monthly for awhile because of that arrongant, wormy little city boy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catwoman

Some of what I have read here directed toward followers of Jesus could even be considered "hate-speech"... I know who Paul Begala is - stopped buying Texas Monthly for awhile because of that arrogant, wormy little city boy.

---

Priceless.

*** MOD HAT ON ***

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catwoman

Some of what I have read here directed toward followers of Jesus could even be considered "hate-speech". Were words with similar tone directed towarded other groups of the population there would be loud screaming and gnashing of teeth coming from the left.

---

I strongly disagree and, in fact, find that all of the posters here have done an admirable job keeping their posts directed at institutions and/or topics and away from other posters. That is job one of the forum guidelines. I posted an earlier mod comment as a kind of preemptive strike, just a gentle reminder of the guidelines. It probably wasn't necessary, but we've all seen threads that mix religion and politics degrade quickly so maybe I was just a little jumpy.

The opinion of a devout Christian, a Muslim, an atheist or even those of us without any religion whatsoever all carry the same weight and deserve the same respect here in the forums. Threads will not be locked because someone was offended by another poster who offers their opinion without any sign of a personal attack or malicious conduct.

Simply put, there are no sacred cows. To those of you with strong religious beliefs I applaud your ability to accept things I can not. The question is whether or not someone devout in their belief is able to accept that others might hold a different view. If you can accept that then there is a lot to be gained from discussions like this. If that is difficult to accept I suspect there will be a lot of posts that could be considered offensive that are perfectly legitimate and well within forum guidelines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

The founders did not want a state religion. They had no intention of removing any religion from the nation or prohibiting the free belief in whatever religion a person felt an affinity for.
There is no basis to believe that they would deny religious principles from elected officials or government institutions. That is a modern concept.

---

That's a straw man Alan. You know perfectly well no one is advocating taking any one's religion away. The government (which I keep reminding is us) is not trying/wanting to abolish religion. Of course a persons values will direct his/her actions, which has absolutely nothing to do with religion (values I mean) as it has been proven again and again that non religious people hold the same values as religious people. Fiscal policy is not a moral value, it's an ideology. And allowing the republican party to conflate the two is where we have the problem.
There is a huge difference between a politician praying, and one who jumps up to a podium shouting, "Let us pray".

"There is a huge difference between a politician praying, and one who jumps up to a podium shouting, "Let us pray". "

Well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

That's a straw man Alan. You know perfectly well no one is advocating taking any one's religion away.

---

So you don't want to take religion out of the public square? You don't want religion to be a factor in the way people vote or the way that elected officials govern?

Yes, it should be taken from the political arena. I said no one is trying to take any PERSONS RELIGION AWAY. But then, if your religion IS politics..is that what you are saying? That politics is religion and religion is politics? That's getting seriously into Taliban area.

No, religion should definitely NOT be a factor in the way government runs! It should not be a factor in how people vote, although you can't dictate personal actions/prejudice. We CAN dictate to our elected leaders. No religion as factor/cause/reason for any laws. Of course, again, we are NOT talking values. Values like don't steal, don't cheat on your spouse, don't spread vicious rumors, don't kill, etc... are shared by ALL religious and non religious people. Those are values, and despite their belief to the contrary, the republicans have not cornered the market on or invented them. I do expect my leaders to hold and share my values, which I believe the majority of them do. On both sides of the isle.
Religion, on the other hand is, women will cover their heads, everyone will fast on Fridays, little boys will be circumcised, etc...
Ideology falls somewhere else, and this includes fiscal policy.

It just makes me see red when I see how the republicans have, as political strategy, blended values with ideology in that, a vote FOR them is a vote for REAL values, as opposed to voting for liberals, which by implication have no values. Even the so called (what a joke!) liberally biased media calls it the 'values vote' when referring to republicans. What a crock! And what a brilliantly political move for the republicans. And we just let it happen!
A community organizer is a laughable fool? If parents can't feed their little kids then, well, tough? Everyone doesn't really deserve equal education opportunities? Everyone doesn't deserve equal basic health care? These are a reflection of your values? Really? Maybe we don't share the same values. Or maybe you've just let the political strategist convince you that these ideologically driven notions are somehow part and parcel with values.

I have voted republican in the past, but not for a long long time, since they reformed themselves as the 'value vote', then tried to shoehorn their nasty ideology into my values.
I know the difference between values and ideology. I may not agree with the democrats all the time, but the values they try to honor, are the ones I value the most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

So you don't want to take religion out of the public square? You don't want religion to be a factor in the way people vote or the way that elected officials govern?

---

I know there's been a great deal of consternation in this country over these questions in respect to how people in the Middle East may govern themselves, how Islam could shape democracy there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catwoman

I have never been a fan of Rick Perry, and while I know that he is doing this for political motives, the condescension (sp?) with which a large gathering of Christians to pray is viewed and the rhetoric surrounding it are , I think, mean-spirited. I also think a call to prayer for our nation, even by this guy, could be a good thing. Some of what I have read here directed toward followers of Jesus could even be considered "hate-speech". Were words with similar tone directed towarded other groups of the population there would be loud screaming and gnashing of teeth coming from the left.

---

If you could quote specific examples of what you considered to be hate speech it would be helpful for someone like me to learn and avoid being offensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Yes, it should be taken from the political arena. I said no one is trying to take any PERSONS RELIGION AWAY. But then, if your religion IS politics..is that what you are saying? That politics is religion and religion is politics? That's getting seriously into Taliban area.

No, religion should definitely NOT be a factor in the way government runs! It should not be a factor in how people vote, although you can't dictate personal actions/prejudice. We CAN dictate to our elected leaders. No religion as factor/cause/reason for any laws. Of course, again, we are NOT talking values. Values like don't steal, don't cheat on your spouse, don't spread vicious rumors, don't kill, etc... are shared by ALL religious and non religious people. Those are values, and despite their belief to the contrary, the republicans have not cornered the market on or invented them. I do expect my leaders to hold and share my values, which I believe the majority of them do. On both sides of the isle.
Religion, on the other hand is, women will cover their heads, everyone will fast on Fridays, little boys will be circumcised, etc...
Ideology falls somewhere else, and this includes fiscal policy.

It just makes me see red when I see how the republicans have, as political strategy, blended values with ideology in that, a vote FOR them is a vote for REAL values, as opposed to voting for liberals, which by implication have no values. Even the so called (what a joke!) liberally biased media calls it the 'values vote' when referring to republicans. What a crock! And what a brilliantly political move for the republicans. And we just let it happen!
A community organizer is a laughable fool? If parents can't feed their little kids then, well, tough? Everyone doesn't really deserve equal education opportunities? Everyone doesn't deserve equal basic health care? These are a reflection of your values? Really? Maybe we don't share the same values. Or maybe you've just let the political strategist convince you that these ideologically driven notions are somehow part and parcel with values.

I have voted republican in the past, but not for a long long time, since they reformed themselves as the 'value vote', then tried to shoehorn their nasty ideology into my values.
I know the difference between values and ideology. I may not agree with the democrats all the time, but the values they try to honor, are the ones I value the most.

---

Peggy, you've put a lot of words in my mouth, too many to address individually.

I get it that you don't want any religious influence in the public square. I get it that you don't believe religion should play a part in how this country is run and I get it that you don't believe that people of faith should vote for like minded folks or that politicians should be allowed to use their religious beliefs to help shape their duties.

I also get it that many people mistakenly believe that government institutions and elected office holders are barred by the "Separation of Church & State" argument from allowing their religious beliefs to affect their civic duties and responsibilities.

My question to you is, do you also get it that we have a representative system of government and that all of our citizens have the right to vote their conscience as well as their values? Also, should your values take precedence over others values or are all other values simply "nasty ideology"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

Peggy, you've put a lot of words in my mouth, too many to address individually.

I get it that you don't want any religious influence in the public square. I get it that you don't believe religion should play a part in how this country is run and I get it that you don't believe that people of faith should vote for like minded folks or that politicians should be allowed to use their religious beliefs to help shape their duties.

I also get it that many people mistakenly believe that government institutions and elected office holders are barred by the "Separation of Church & State" argument from allowing their religious beliefs to affect their civic duties and responsibilities.

My question to you is, do you also get it that we have a representative system of government and that all of our citizens have the right to vote their conscience as well as their values? Also, should your values take precedence over others values or are all other values simply "nasty ideology"?

---

I think this is another area in which left and right talk past each other. The right seems to look at the establishment clause as a prohibition on government support of any particular church. The left view it more as a general purpose gag order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

I think this is another area in which left and right talk past each other. The right seems to look at the establishment clause as a prohibition on government support of any particular church. The left view it more as a general purpose gag order.

---

I think that most progressives (those that think practices ought to be adjusted as society evolves) think that the establishment clause was intended to ensure that all citizens should have freedom of conscience. We all should be able to choose our own religious path or none without interference from the government. The state should not tell people what to believe, how to believe, or how to practice their beliefs. Also government should be prevented from enforcing anyone’s religious rules on the public.

Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

Peggy, you've put a lot of words in my mouth, too many to address individually.

I get it that you don't want any religious influence in the public square. I get it that you don't believe religion should play a part in how this country is run and I get it that you don't believe that people of faith should vote for like minded folks or that politicians should be allowed to use their religious beliefs to help shape their duties.

I also get it that many people mistakenly believe that government institutions and elected office holders are barred by the "Separation of Church & State" argument from allowing their religious beliefs to affect their civic duties and responsibilities.

My question to you is, do you also get it that we have a representative system of government and that all of our citizens have the right to vote their conscience as well as their values? Also, should your values take precedence over others values or are all other values simply "nasty ideology"?

---

See Alan, now you're putting words in my mouth. Again, you are conflating values with ideology (thank you republican strategist). I said their IDEOLOGY was nasty. I also said i believe we ALL share the same values. At least I hope we do. When I vote independent, I'm voting a values vote. THE values vote, in my opinion.

No, religion should NOT play a part in how this country is run. I ask you, which religion should we pick to play this part? If there is prayer in school, whose prayer do we say? Whose prayer do we compel all the little children to repeat? Whose religion do we follow in making our laws? Do we make it a law that women dress a certain way? Do we eliminate battlefield medical care because some religions don't believe in blood transfusions? Perhaps we mandate all little boys get circumcised. Let's close bars on Sundays, or better yet, shut down all business on this 'day of rest'. This is what happens when we let religion become a consideration in the governance of a nation.

I'll say it again because you seem to keep skipping over this point, I do expect our leaders to be guided by our shared moral values, which have absolutely nothing to do with religion. Pick a successful society, any society, and you will find they have shared moral values. Even the totally secular ones. I realize this is hard for some to wrap their minds around, but it's the truth. You don't have to have religion to have moral values. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand (prison is full of religious people)

Yes, I do expect everyone to vote their conscience, but voting for an ideology is not voting for values, unless your values are reflected in that particular ideology. So, when you vote to defund medicare while giving yet another tax break to the very wealthy, what value is that connecting? I really want to know. Cause when I vote to maybe pay a little more in taxes to be sure the elderly are taken care of, the value I'm voting for is the one that says we will take care of those who can't take care of themselves. Do I know these people? No. Does that make a difference? No. My values are not driven by, or defined by, or dependant on any political party, or ideology.

My values are what guide me each day in how i live my life and treat people, especially those who are less fortunate than i am.
I am good, I am moral, and I'm actually a pretty nice person.
And I think god is a fairy tale.
I don't want my elected leaders governing by their particular religious belief any more than I want them passing laws regarding the tooth fairy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

I said their IDEOLOGY was nasty.

---

You'll have to explain that a little further before I can comment.

Quote:

---

No, religion should NOT play a part in how this country is run. I ask you, which religion should we pick to play this part? If there is prayer in school, whose prayer do we say? Whose prayer do we compel all the little children to repeat? Whose religion do we follow in making our laws? Do we make it a law that women dress a certain way? Do we eliminate battlefield medical care because some religions don't believe in blood transfusions? Perhaps we mandate all little boys get circumcised.

---

I think you're confusing the concept of religion with specific religions. I would agree that no specific religion should be sanctioned by the government, although I also believe that no followers of an established religion should be forbidden from having a voice in or champions within a government.
And by the way, if you haven't heard, San Francisco would like to mandate that no boys be circumcised.

Quote:

---

I'll say it again because you seem to keep skipping over this point, I do expect our leaders to be guided by our shared moral values, which have absolutely nothing to do with religion. Pick a successful society, any society, and you will find they have shared moral values. Even the totally secular ones. I realize this is hard for some to wrap their minds around, but it's the truth. You don't have to have religion to have moral values.

---

I'm not skipping over that point, you're just not recognizing it when you see it. Everyone expects their leaders to be guided by shared moral values, even the religious. You may disagree with the source of their moral viewpoints but that doesn't invalidate their right to express them or for an elected official to represent them.
As a totally secular individual, I completely agree that you don't need religion in order to have moral values, but I don't buy the argument that secular morals are superior to the religious ones. It takes a real ideologue to believe that.

Quote:

---

My values are what guide me each day in how i live my life and treat people, especially those who are less fortunate than i am.
I am good, I am moral, and I'm actually a pretty nice person.
And I think god is a fairy tale.
I don't want my elected leaders governing by their particular religious belief any more than I want them passing laws regarding the tooth fairy.

---

I agree with everything preceding the last line and only quibble with it because you're insisting that you have representation which you would deny to others. Again, I'm not enough of an ideologue to insist upon such a thing.

Quote:

---

Yes, I do expect everyone to vote their conscience, but voting for an ideology is not voting for values, unless your values are reflected in that particular ideology. So, when you vote to defund medicare while giving yet another tax break to the very wealthy, what value is that connecting?

---

I love talking ideology, but you can't mix strawman arguments with it and expect to get anywhere.

@Flowerseverywhere - the initial tone taken by the OP was disdainful, oozed contempt for and frankly, made fun of Chrisitans uniting to pray. Granted, it was toned down but that's what all this fuss is about (on my part). The very title of the thread "Prayerpalooza" is making fun of prayer. Hate Speech? Maybe not ...but what if the tables were turned and someone posted something ugly about say Islam, example, calling Arabs "Ragheads" or saying "they face the East and beat their heads on the ground" that's offensive, no? I think so. Having a whole thread dedicated to bashing Rick Perry is one thing. Having a thread titled "Prayerpalooza" is not funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catwoman

@Flowerseverywhere - the initial tone taken by the OP was disdainful, oozed contempt for and frankly, made fun of Chrisitans uniting to pray. Granted, it was toned down but that's what all this fuss is about (on my part). The very title of the thread "Prayerpalooza" is making fun of prayer. Hate Speech? Maybe not ...but what if the tables were turned and someone posted something ugly about say Islam, example, calling Arabs "Ragheads" or saying "they face the East and beat their heads on the ground" that's offensive, no? I think so. Having a whole thread dedicated to bashing Rick Perry is one thing. Having a thread titled "Prayerpalooza" is not funny.

---

Since I am responsible for the OP I feel obligated to reply (out of remorse and uninvited). Where did you hear those "Raghead" slurs? beat their heads on the ground? Is that kinda like the up and down at your local Catholic Church?

My intent was indeed to make fun of people so naive that they would gather at a football stadium via the coaxing of our beloved Gov. Rick Perry to "pray" for our nation. It should be made fun of. Why not? You said in a earlier post that you agreed that Perry's motives were not anything other political pandering to the religious right.

Reliant Stadium is big enough to hold an indoor deer hunt. Rick is planning on filling it with people to holler at Jesus and to adore Rick Perry. I’m not saying his ego is big, but you could use it to jump-start a nuclear submarine.First off, let me explain that this is a pray and don’t eat all day function. That’s just damn unTexan. In Texas, you can’t have any manner of people gettin’ together without food being involved. Even Juanita knows that every child in Texas learns to eat fried chicken on a blanket on the church grounds. And, most Baptist churches in Texas have a bigger reception hall than sanctuary. Covered dishes are a sacrament in Texas.

So, in order to fill up Reliant Stadium, Rick Perry has had to associate with some odd groups. Like, for odd example, The American Family Association, which is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

AFA insists that the “seculars” pick on them because they are Christians. There is hardly nothing creepier than whiny extremist Christians. Ho Boy, you’d think we were feeding them to the lions daily. They think gay people are gay just to piss them off, and women only want equal pay for equal work because it’s anti-Christian.
So, AFA insists they are normal and all the rest of us are crazy. Not even to mention that hell thing. Rick Perry says that all people of all faiths are invited to his Six Flags Over Jesus event, but maybe not.

But Wildmon, AFA’s president, stressed the Christian nature of the event and said people of other religions were “free to have their own events.” He insisted his group did not hate anyone, but he said that people who do not embrace Christianity were headed for eternal damnation.
“It’s not just Jews or Muslims,” Wildmon said. “It’s anybody that rejects the free gift of salvation through Christ. The Bible teaches there’s heaven and hell. Those who believe go to heaven. Those who don’t go to hell.”

Don’t you think he seems a tad too gleeful about all this going to hell stuff?
But, Rick Perry is running for President so his giveadamner is broken. He’s willing to cahoot with anybody who can get warm bodies to Reliant Stadium.

One other thing: Rick says this event will not be political. The event coordinator is Wayne Hamilton.

Wayne Hamilton is the founding partner of San Jacinto Public Affairs. Hamilton was senior aide to Congressman Joe Barton as well as serving three State Chairmen. He served as Governor Rick Perry’s Executive Director of the 2003 and 2007 Texas Inaugural Committees and currently working with events and consulting for the Governor in Austin, Texas.

Yeah, sure. Not political. Not at all. Nope. Not. political.

- comments from Juanita Jean's Beauty Shop

Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

You'll have to explain that a little further before I can comment.


I think you're confusing the concept of religion with specific religions. I would agree that no specific religion should be sanctioned by the government, although I also believe that no followers of an established religion should be forbidden from having a voice in or champions within a government.
And by the way, if you haven't heard, San Francisco would like to mandate that no boys be circumcised.



I'm not skipping over that point, you're just not recognizing it when you see it. Everyone expects their leaders to be guided by shared moral values, even the religious. You may disagree with the source of their moral viewpoints but that doesn't invalidate their right to express them or for an elected official to represent them.
As a totally secular individual, I completely agree that you don't need religion in order to have moral values, but I don't buy the argument that secular morals are superior to the religious ones. It takes a real ideologue to believe that.


I agree with everything preceding the last line and only quibble with it because you're insisting that you have representation which you would deny to others. Again, I'm not enough of an ideologue to insist upon such a thing.


I love talking ideology, but you can't mix strawman arguments with it and expect to get anywhere.

---

Alan, Alan,Alan...here you go again. You keep twisting my words to demonize me.
This is not a theocracy. THIS IS NOT A THEOCRACY! THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT A THEOCRACY! Sorry to shout, but why are you insisting our elected leaders be allowed to govern/advocate for/ make laws to reflect their particular religion? Any religion?
Show me where I said our leaders couldn't practice their religion. Show me where I said secular values were superior to religious values. Actually, what i said was, WE SHARE THE SAME VALUES. As in, our values are the same, same moral values, values the same....get it! Wow! You are really invested into this whole republican meme.
How is it I have representation you don't? Do you mean representation as in, leaders who REALIZE THIS ISN'T A THEOCRACY? Who don't try to pray their way out of very real and very serious issues?
You haven't answered my question. How exactly do you want religion to figure into our public lives/public leaders? If you were truly secular then you would be offended by all this religion as politics/politics as religion crap. When you call it the 'values vote' then you need to be prepared to know that vote reflects your values. Again, defunding medicare for the elderly while giving a huge tax break to the wealthy reflects what value? Eliminating head start and WIC while giving another gift to the big oil companies reflects which value?
Are these really values, or political ideology?

If you don't really know the difference between political ideology and moral values, well, then, there really isn't any thing else to discuss. And the republican strategist have done their job. I'm sure they're proud! :(

I think the biggest problem with this whole thing is that Perry has invited other governors. If Perry and his followers wished to hold a prayer rally it would be one thing, but this basically pits politics against religion on a broad secular scale. Are you with us or are you against us, American Government??? As a good - strike, as a politically savvy governor, how could anyone actually stand up and say, "this priapalooza is a load of hooey, I'm not participating." He'd be blamed by the faithful for everything from plague to drought. I have a feeling all this is going to be bringing forth in Texas is a lot of claims of hypoglycemia in high places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catwoman

@Flowerseverywhere - the initial tone taken by the OP was disdainful, oozed contempt for and frankly, made fun of Chrisitans uniting to pray. Granted, it was toned down but that's what all this fuss is about (on my part). The very title of the thread "Prayerpalooza" is making fun of prayer. Hate Speech? Maybe not ...but what if the tables were turned and someone posted something ugly about say Islam, example, calling Arabs "Ragheads" or saying "they face the East and beat their heads on the ground" that's offensive, no? I think so. Having a whole thread dedicated to bashing Rick Perry is one thing. Having a thread titled "Prayerpalooza" is not funny.

---

thank you for your explanation. I thought most of the comments were respectful enough not to be offensive, and I think some of my interpretations were different than yours because I am coming from a different perspective. I have no problems if anyone wants to pray or fast, set up tents, go to stadiums, put up billboards etc. I just wish it was separate from the government and I get the feeling from reading about this event it is all a publicity stunt. I also wish they didn't involve organizations like that american family association that is very clear in their agenda of hate.

I have studied a lot about religion and religious beliefs, and attended a lot of churches. I went to a Sikh temple, Jewish synagogue, Roman Catholic Church, several Protestant churches from strict to liberal in my journey. As I met people of different faiths I would ask to attend a service with them and every single one was willing and proud to display their faith. I really wanted to understand and most people are more than willing to explain and share their beliefs to anyone who will listen with an open mind. In all of my reading and my witness of faith practice I never saw any mention of using faith to further your own agenda or spread a message of hate or discrimination. When I read the bible the biggest impression I was left with was the Jesus was accepting and loving of societies outcasts, the prostitutes, beggars, poor and disabled and used his love and example to bring them into the fold. What a wonderful ministry, full of love and joy. Unfortunately I don't think Rick Perry's event has even a sprinkling of the love and goodness of what I can figure out is true Christianity. You are lucky indeed if you have been able to embrace your God and use your faith to make the world a better place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere

thank you for your explanation. I thought most of the comments were respectful enough not to be offensive, and I think some of my interpretations were different than yours because I am coming from a different perspective. I have no problems if anyone wants to pray or fast, set up tents, go to stadiums, put up billboards etc. I just wish it was separate from the government and I get the feeling from reading about this event it is all a publicity stunt. I also wish they didn't involve organizations like that american family association that is very clear in their agenda of hate.

I have studied a lot about religion and religious beliefs, and attended a lot of churches. I went to a Sikh temple, Jewish synagogue, Roman Catholic Church, several Protestant churches from strict to liberal in my journey. As I met people of different faiths I would ask to attend a service with them and every single one was willing and proud to display their faith. I really wanted to understand and most people are more than willing to explain and share their beliefs to anyone who will listen with an open mind. In all of my reading and my witness of faith practice I never saw any mention of using faith to further your own agenda or spread a message of hate or discrimination. When I read the bible the biggest impression I was left with was the Jesus was accepting and loving of societies outcasts, the prostitutes, beggars, poor and disabled and used his love and example to bring them into the fold. What a wonderful ministry, full of love and joy. Unfortunately I don't think Rick Perry's event has even a sprinkling of the love and goodness of what I can figure out is true Christianity. You are lucky indeed if you have been able to embrace your God and use your faith to make the world a better place.

---

Very, VERY well said. Thank you flowerseverywhere.

I was about to reply also, nicely put Flowers. You described the Jesus I know...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catwoman

@Flowerseverywhere - the initial tone taken by the OP was disdainful, oozed contempt for and frankly, made fun of Chrisitans uniting to pray. Granted, it was toned down but that's what all this fuss is about (on my part). The very title of the thread "Prayerpalooza" is making fun of prayer. Hate Speech? Maybe not ...but what if the tables were turned and someone posted something ugly about say Islam, example, calling Arabs "Ragheads" or saying "they face the East and beat their heads on the ground" that's offensive, no? I think so. Having a whole thread dedicated to bashing Rick Perry is one thing. Having a thread titled "Prayerpalooza" is not funny.

---

I can't make the leap from a thread title that mocks an event (that is by all indication a political stage) to saying the title mocks prayer in general simply because the word is used. As a mod I appreciate Zig knocking it down a notch in the name of civility, but as a participant I really didn't think that was necessary. Everything I read was directed toward this event and the political figure leading it, not at Christians in general or the practice of praying. There were certainly no racial slurs.

Rick Perry is apparently gearing up a presidential campaign. If he wants to be the leader of a country that includes a whole lot of people that are NOT devout Christians he is going to get, and deserves, a VERY high level of scrutiny for his actions. The fact that he chose now to stage this event speaks volumes to me. Truth be told the fact that he has anything at all to do with it speaks volumes. I won't question Gov. Perry's faith because I don't know the man, but even if he is a true believer this event wreaks of political grandstanding. Old Governor Perry's Tonic may not come in a bottle, but you can bet he is trying to sell something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Alan, Alan,Alan...here you go again. You keep twisting my words to demonize me.

---

Now now Peggy, I'm not trying to demonize you. Just trying to nudge you out of your box a little.

You keep bringing up, and exaggerating, specific differences between two parties and then imply that it has something to do with religion. You also imply that a person's religious beliefs should have no influence on the manner in which they represent their constituencies.

You're right that this is not a theocracy, and I'm not advocating that, but religion is a major influence in the lives of a very large part of our population and there is no requirement that our politicians not allow it to influence their words, deeds or actions.

Quote:

---

You haven't answered my question. How exactly do you want religion to figure into our public lives/public leaders? If you were truly secular then you would be offended by all this religion as politics/politics as religion crap.

---

In answer, I would prefer that everyone not be required to hide their religious views in order to be accepted. I am secular and secure enough in my beliefs not to be offended or intimidated by others beliefs. Thanks for asking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zigzagman

I think that most progressives (those that think practices ought to be adjusted as society evolves) think that the establishment clause was intended to ensure that all citizens should have freedom of conscience. We all should be able to choose our own religious path or none without interference from the government. The state should not tell people what to believe, how to believe, or how to practice their beliefs. Also government should be prevented from enforcing anyone’s religious rules on the public.

Peace

---

That would explain your shrieking "stop it" in bold caps at the start of this thread. Your concern over free religious expression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catwoman

Having a thread titled "Prayerpalooza" is not funny.

---

I find it hilarious. The whole thing is a freaking joke and deserves to be made fun of.

What a cynical ass this guy is. I hope he goes through with it and only a couple hundred people show up, half of them media. Any idea how it would look for a few hundred people to show up in a massive football stadium?

The only thing I resent about the whole thread is ZagMan saying the Texans aren't good at what they do and comparing them to Rick P. That is downright blasphemous. They are after all the best team in Texas.

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2010/0923...artoon_576.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

That would explain your shrieking "stop it" in bold caps at the start of this thread. Your concern over free religious expression.

---

Which itself is his own free expression.

Just because someone wants it stopped doesn't mean they want to make it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

Now now Peggy, I'm not trying to demonize you. Just trying to nudge you out of your box a little.

You keep bringing up, and exaggerating, specific differences between two parties and then imply that it has something to do with religion. You also imply that a person's religious beliefs should have no influence on the manner in which they represent their constituencies.

You're right that this is not a theocracy, and I'm not advocating that, but religion is a major influence in the lives of a very large part of our population and there is no requirement that our politicians not allow it to influence their words, deeds or actions.



In answer, I would prefer that everyone not be required to hide their religious views in order to be accepted. I am secular and secure enough in my beliefs not to be offended or intimidated by others beliefs. Thanks for asking.

---

No Alan, what I'm trying to show is that it doesn't have anything to do with religion. That's the point. Where ever our leaders want to say they got their values from, they have to acknowledge that non religious people have the exact same values. They got them from somewhere, but not religion, so the right implying that good Christians should vote for them BECAUSE they are the christian/value vote kind of leaves a whole lot of folks out. And so many are convinced of this, faithful vote republican because, well, you know!
This is where I, and a whole lot of others have the problem. It's frightening, and not a little embarrassing to know how many people will maybe now vote for Rick Perry, or change their view of him because of this stunt. And it's so obviously a stunt. he looked around and saw this huge mass of people who can be bought by a few well aimed Amen's. And by inviting other governors, positions himself as THE 'christian value' vote.

Of course all faiths are represented by our members of government, although I do remember the huge outcry when it was 'rumored' that a Muslim member was going to take the oath on the Koran. But if a member stands up and says, 'I'm voting for this legislation because I'm christian', or 'I'm voting to pass this law because I'm Mormon' makes no sense, since religion IS circumcising, dress code and which day of the week you worship on. (god forbid if someone stood up and said 'I'm voting for this because I'm Muslim!)
They ALL share the same values that govern/guide our country. All of them, religious or non religious, so they really don't need to declare their particular practice, unless they are trying to own /hijack some particular value that all the others share anyway.

An example. If a member stands up and says 'I vote to discriminate against gays because I'm christian', well that should be an immediate dis qualifier since we are not a theocracy and this person has declared he/she will fight this based on his/her religion. It's a religious thing, and something we should fight against as a secular nation. Now Rick Perry can get on his knees at night and pray whatever he wants, that's his business. But when he publicly and politically prays to toss all gays into the sea, well, here's a guy who wants to write legislation for us all. Here is a guy who is publicly declaring/warning us that he intends to write legislation based on his religion.
Now just imagine if that Muslim member of congress held a huge Muslim rally to pray that all women wear burkas, then heads back to congress. Just put that scenario in your mind.

I guess the really frightening part of this is that it's so open, and so blatant and so in your face. See, all those governors are going to have to come up with plausible excuses for why they aren't going, when the only real excuse should be "Are you kidding? This isn't a theocracy. I'm not going to a christian political prayer rally!" But I guarantee you not one will have the courage to do so. And that is very very very frightening.

*I just want to add, thank god for spell check!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by peggy

Of course all faiths are represented by our members of government, although I do remember the huge outcry when it was 'rumored' that a Muslim member was going to take the oath on the Koran. But if a member stands up and says, 'I'm voting for this legislation because I'm christian', or 'I'm voting to pass this law because I'm Mormon' makes no sense, since religion IS circumcising, dress code and which day of the week you worship on. (god forbid if someone stood up and said 'I'm voting for this because I'm Muslim!)
They ALL share the same values that govern/guide our country. All of them, religious or non religious, so they really don't need to declare their particular practice, unless they are trying to own /hijack some particular value that all the others share anyway.

---

Since this is the second time you've brought up circumcision in a thread that blends religion with politics, allow me to ask you a question based upon the real world rather than your speculative talking points.

There is currently a ballot initiative in San Francisco to make it illegal to circumcise a male child. If a politician opposes this initiative based upon religious grounds, would that mean that San Francisco is a theocracy? Should that politician be forbidden from expressing the view based upon it's source?

The Houston Chronicle has an interesting piece on Gov. Perry's "prayer" meeting:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...w/7602059.html


AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry's Aug. 6 day of prayer and fasting at Reliant Stadium is generating significant heat nationwide, with critics protesting the exclusively Christian focus of the event and Perry's partnership with the controversial American Family Association, which advocates against gay rights.

Expressing objections on a variety of religious and cultural grounds, some opponents have organized a protest on Facebook, while others are urging the nation's 49 other governors invited by Perry to boycott the event.

To host the Reliant Park event, Perry chose the Mississippi-based American Family Association, a nonprofit that operates a network of 192 radio stations with 2 million followers that has been labeled a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center for what the SPLC calls the dissemination of "known falsehoods" about homosexuality. The AFA also has called for numerous boycotts against companies and entities it says "promote the homosexual agenda."

Critics also accused Perry of using a religious event to boost a possible presidential bid.

"I want to be clear that my criticism of the governor doesn't stem from my lack of appreciation for religion, rather it comes from my deep respect for religion and from not wanting religion to be prostituted for political purposes," said C. Welton Gaddy, a Baptist minister and president of the Washington, D.C.-based Interfaith Alliance. "I think the people of Texas elected him to be the governor of the state, not the pastor of the state."

Gaddy also expressed concern that Perry is organizing an event that "is not just distinctively Christian, but would be exclusionary of non-Christians. What got my attention is the close proximity between him talking about the run for the presidency and the critical condition of our nation all defined in pretty much policy issues."

The website for the event, dubbed "The Response," includes a statement from Perry: "Right now, America is in crisis: we have been besieged by financial debt, terrorism, and a multitude of natural disasters. As a nation, we must come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles, and thank Him for the blessings of freedom we so richly enjoy."

Mustafaa Carroll, of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Houston, said he regretted that the service would be strictly Christian.

"We're down with the prayer part," Carroll said. "I just wish they would join other people in the prayer. It would be more productive to ask the whole community."

Several gay rights organizations also decried Perry's partnership with the AFA.

"Governor Perry's decision to work with such blatantly anti-LGBT groups on an event billed as a day of prayer is disturbing," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization. "Governor Perry has called on governors from all other states to join him in recognizing the day of prayer. HRC is calling on governors across the nation to not support the August 6th event, and take a stand against the hijacking of religious values by those who actively work to suppress LGBT Americans."

'Hate group' label denied
Noel Freeman, head of the Houston GLBT Political Caucus, said his organization did not take offense with "the event itself. If Governor Perry wants to have a prayer event, that's his prerogative. The thing we take exception to is that his primary partner in this is an anti-gay hate group. They are primarily known for that fact. This was not a secret to either Governor Perry or his staff."

Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association, rejected the label of "hate group" and characterized his organization's position on homosexuality as representative "of a lot of people who have traditional values."

"They want somebody to speak for them," he said. "We try to do that. We are reaching the Christian community with the truth about what is going on in our country."

He acknowledged that a stated purpose of the August prayer event initiated by Perry - to pray for an end to the "debasement of our culture" - refers to the increasing acceptance of homosexuality by American society.

Accused of defamation
Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report, said the AFA - through blogs and radio programs - willfully disseminates falsehoods about gays and lesbians.

"This is a group that has repeatedly defamed gay men with the falsehood claiming that gay men molest children at rates far higher than heterosexuals. And this is provably, scientifically false," he said, citing research by the American Pediatric Association and the American Psychiatric Association. "This has been well-known for many, many years. So our feeling, the American Family Association is either consciously lying or has absolutely failed to do any kind of due diligence as it engages in the personal defamation of gay men in this country."

Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for Perry, defended the governor's association with AFA.

"The American Family Association is an organization devoted to faith and strong families," she said. "We are pleased to have them as a sponsor for the event." She also denied that the event was politically motivated, saying Perry simply felt it was important to bring people together in prayer.

Potok said the AFA earned the "hate group" label based largely on the writings and radio program of Bryan Fischer, the AFA's director of issue analysis for government and public policy.

"He claims that gay people are responsible for the Nazi Party's murder of 6 million Jews. This is utterly false," Potok said.

Fischer could not be reached for comment, but in a YouTube video of a radio program discussion of Hitler, he states "virtually all of the brown shirts were male homosexuals" because Hitler found them to be especially vicious warriors.

Fischer also has asserted that gays should not be allowed to hold public office. Eric Bearse, spokesman for the prayer event, said organizers did not take into consideration the fact that Houston Mayor Annise Parker is a lesbian.

Mayor's response
Parker on Wednesday said she was aware of the AFA's anti-gay history, but she declined to criticize the event.

"No, I'm glad to have anybody's dollars coming to the city of Houston. They can come back on a monthly basis if they'd like as long as they spend money," she said. "I'm not responsible for their message. My job is to make sure that anyone who comes and chooses to use Houston as a convention venue has a safe time (and) is able to navigate the city, and we thank them for choosing Houston."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

Since this is the second time you've brought up circumcision in a thread that blends religion with politics, allow me to ask you a question based upon the real world rather than your speculative talking points.

There is currently a ballot initiative in San Francisco to make it illegal to circumcise a male child. If a politician opposes this initiative based upon religious grounds, would that mean that San Francisco is a theocracy? Should that politician be forbidden from expressing the view based upon it's source?

---

No, him opposing it doesn't make them a theocracy, but if they pass it based on religious views, or not pass it based on religious views, then they are skating pretty close, or even breaking the law, in my opinion. Sure someone can say I oppose this because it's against my religion, but he/she had better bring something more to the table than that, because we don't pass laws based on religious dogma. For every religion that opposes this you could find others who think it's fine, or even demand it. They have to say more than, my bible forbids this. Is it dangerous? Is it cruel, or torture? Rule of Law, not rule of god.
Why are they trying to outlaw it? Personally, I think it's between the doctor and the parents, and really circumcision isn't just for Jews you know. In our case, I left the decision for our son up to my husband feeling, as a man, he would have the perspective i didn't. I'm not familiar with this case but perhaps they are just trying to outlaw the Jewish practice cause if done the 'old school way' well, look it up sometime. You'll see why, if that is the intent which I think is maybe the case here. But again, I haven't heard anything about it.

Ok Alan, well I looked it up. I thought perhaps they were trying to ban it because of mezizah, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Apparently this has been brought before legislation in several states before being defeated. There is a school of thought that this is nothing more than male genital mutilation, and should be outlawed. They say female genital circumcision is outlawed so this should be too. I suppose I can see their point.
On the other hand, the WHO says circumcision has been shown to help prevent the spread of AIDS in developing nations, as well as preventing other problems. I guess in the US that isn't a factor as most new cases of AIDS are gay men and circumcision doesn't seem to help in those cases. Anyway it's an interesting case. Religious freedom in this practice should probably win out unless the opposing side can actually prove, at least to the courts satisfaction, that it is in fact torture and harmful. I don't think they have that many doctors on their side really as it's performed with anesthetic in a clean, hospital environment, mostly. This is probably one of those cases that won't make it very far, regardless of religious implications or not.

Loosechickens, is your entire post from the Chronicle or did you take a few liberties? just checkin...sounds a little lopsided for the Chronicle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catwoman

Loosechickens, is your entire post from the Chronicle or did you take a few liberties? just checkin...sounds a little lopsided for the Chronicle

---

You are really trying hard.......

Peace

Its a yes or no question dude

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catwoman

Its a yes or no question dude

---

Well, loosechickens did provide a link to the source so you can compare that to his post if you want the answer....