By the way–when did 18-to-25-year-olds become “kids”?

They are kids. Sociologists now regard adolescence as extending until at least the age of thirty. Judging by most of the young people I meet today, I agree completely.

why does reading about this group disturb me so much…?

Could it be her smug, condescending expression as she stares off prophetically into the horizon? The idea that at 23, she thinks she has it all figured out?

Nixon also gave us the Southern Strategy, and therefore probably also gave us the Religious Right and the polarization we have today.

Nixon was bigoted and delusional, but the roots of the tragedy that is the South go back to the founding of this nation. There has always been a North/South, urban/rural, industrial/agrarian rivalry. The Civil War and, especially, Reconstruction made it much worse. And, ironically, LBJ largely sealed the deal with civil rights legislation. As he signed one bill into law, he said (supposedly, but I think Bill Moyers claims to have been present) “We’ve just handed the South to the Republican Party for the foreseeable future.”

We’re completely screwed – and we deserve to be. I don’t hold out much hope for the future of civilization, but, in any case, America is finished as a world power. Start learning Chinese, boys and girls.

It really breaks my heart that such beauty is wasted on faith.

“Yeah, they want to claim they are the “silent majority” and an oppressed minority at the same time. If you were looking for an easy example of doublethink…”

When they are being persecuted, they are a minority. When a law gets passed they pushed for, they are a majority. Which is it?

Groups like this scare me. A lot.

Reclaiming the word “family” from these wackaloons should be a priority action item. I know this may come as a surprise to some, but non-Christians have families too.

I thought the same thing when I read this. They say they’re pro-life and pro-family as if they have a monopoly on such things. I know by pro-life they really mean they take a hard-line stance against abortion for everyone, but to me I can’t help but think that the only difference between them and me is that I don’t opt to shove my personal ethics down everyone elses throat. It’s as if by virtue of my lack of faith I’m automatically gay, unable to commit, a sex maniac, a murderer, and an anarchist.

For example:

She was part of a pro-life student group at Trinity that published an alternative brochure for women facing an unplanned pregnancy. The brochures put out by the liberal women’s center on campus made no mention of adoption or post-abortion counseling services, both of which she viewed as grave omissions.

If accurate, I’d say they’re in the right here (that other options should be mentioned; not that their options are the ‘best’ ones). Interestingly enough, their pamphlet seems to talk about post-abortion issues and so apparently discusses options which the group itself may disagree with (unless they’re doing it in a poisoning-the-well “if you have an abortion, you’ll need to see a shrink” kind of way), for which I wholeheartedly congratulate them.

As for the larger issues, they’re going to lose politically no matter what their group does and we can always hope that they’ll grow out of their bigotry as they grow older. Another plus is that forming a group like that would force them to continually put their tacit positions into words, which will surely help some percentage of their member base to realize how terrible these beliefs are.

Desert Son, Catholics don’t give a damn about mixed fabrics.

I know. I was trying, not very well, to make the point you elucidated, about relative prevalence of scripture prohibitions and subsequent adoptions, or lack thereof, by scripture supporters. The comment was meant to convey the commentary.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification.

No kings,

Robert

Orcinus has a good post on the sort of things he likes to talk about.

I think the name’s wrong. I’d like to change it to the “international Family Union for Christian Knowledge.” I bet it’d get a lot more college-age members. Especially with Leah at the head … I mean on top … I mean …

I was just watching Ron Paul’s speech from this last weekend and he talks about the separation of church and state and how ones religion is irrelevant to defending the Constitution.

By combining fundamentalist christian beliefs with an America that is already upset with the current GOP administration, they are setting themselves up for failure. (Thank god)

Separation of Church and State, Separation of Powers…Go Ron Paul! Go Bob Barr! Go LP!

Ron Paul tailors his message to whomever happens to be listening. When he’s pandering to the reconstructionists posing as libertarians over at Lew Rockwell’s joint, he completely changes his stance on separation of church and state. Here he is mindlessly parroting all the lies and distorted talking points the religious right has been spreading for years:

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Note the completely and utterly ludicrous lie that the Constitution is “replete with references to God”—God is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. And from his House of Representatives Website:

Congressman Ron Paul today condemned a federal appeals court ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance cannot be recited in schools because it contains the phrase “one nation under God.”

“The judges who made this unfortunate ruling simply do not understand the First amendment,” Paul stated. “It does not bar religious expression in public settings or anywhere else. In fact, it expressly prohibits federal interference in the free expression of religion. Far from mandating strict secularism in schools, it instead bars the federal government from prohibiting the Pledge of Allegiance, school prayer, or any other religious expression. The politicians and judges pushing the removal of religion from public life are violating the First amendment, not upholding it.”

“The tired assertion of a separation of church and state has no historical or constitutional basis,” Paul continued. “Neither the language of the Constitution itself nor the legislative history reveals any mention of such separation. In fact, the authors of the First amendment- Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry- and the rest of the founders routinely referred to “Almighty God” in our founding documents. It is only in the last 50 years that the federal courts have perverted the meaning of the amendment and sought to unlawfully restrict religious expression. We cannot continue to permit our Constitution and our rich religious institutions to be degraded by profound misinterpretations of the Bill of Rights.”

Paul previously introduced “The First Amendment Restoration Act” to reassert true First amendment religious freedoms and end the kind of judicial overreach exhibited today. The bill becomes especially timely now, as it clarifies that federal courts have no jurisdiction whatsoever over matters of religious freedom. It also restores real religious freedom by making it clear that the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, the Ten Commandments, or reference to God in both public and private life.

Paul also supports teaching creationism in schools. I’d give a link to that but then this comment will be held up in moderation.