the ad.

the editorial.

the sponsor.

Underlining.

The first backlash.

""Embracing theocracy isn't just about enshrining into law a particular sect's moral codes, it's also about restoring the notion of the divine right of political leaders. They claim that God's law trumps man's law, that they know what God's law is, and that therefore they are the instruments of God."" ...LA Times....

---

Might as well re-write the constitution and eliminate the separation of church and state

---

I think that pretty much sums up their agenda, stephen.

When they can no longer advance their agenda through executive proclamations and faith based legislation, there's no reason to think they will stop advocating theocracy.

---

> Might as well re-write the constitution.....

If you are not aware of the ''Constitution in Exile,'' movement, you should be.

Most adherents of the Constitution in Exile movement are not especially concerned about states' rights or judicial deference to legislatures; instead, they encourage judges to strike down laws on behalf of rights that don't appear explicitly in the Constitution.


The Constitution in Exile movement has been described as terrifying.

And this ain't no 'fringe' group......

---

> Might as well re-write the constitution and eliminate the separation of church
> and state
>
They're trying real hard.

---

Account frozen...

Did anyone watch the 'hatefest'?

--------------------------------
Putting more evangelicals on the court will mean rulings more in tune with the religious convictions of churchgoers, said R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville.

"We are not asking for persons merely to be moral," Mohler said. "We want them to be believers in the Lord Jesus Christ."
----------------------------------

Is there a problem with loading the bench with judges of only one faith? .....not in a theocracry.

---

> Putting more evangelicals on the court will mean rulings more in tune with
> the religious convictions of churchgoers, said R. Albert Mohler Jr.,
> president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville.
>
> "We are not asking for persons merely to be moral," Mohler said. "We want
> them to be believers in the Lord Jesus Christ."

I read, IMO, an interesting "take" on the christian perspective. It asked why only some lives were worth saving, i.e. those of unborn babies, and why others appeared to be treated as not worth keeping, i.e. members of other faiths, certain/all convicted felons.

The question posed was (and I think it's a good one): surely "right to life" means that for everybody?

The problem is clearly with JudeoRoman religion which never has adhered to nascent Christian values, .....that is to say,.....not adhering to Christianity in it's earliest form.

Nascent Christian morality was based solidly in compassion and universal human rights... freedom from the 'judgement' by their fellows....

Let he who is without sin......., and all that..

Simply not prescribed in today's vengeful interpretations of Christianity by the JudeoRoman religions.

Nascent Christian values and JudeoRoman values are mutually exclusive. One can choose to be vengeful or compassionate, but one simply cannot be both.

---

The question posed was (and I think it's a good one): surely "right to life" means that for everybody?
Only for the rich.

When Joseph Ratzinger and some of his coreligionists have gone through their first pregnancies, their first labour pains, and raised a couple of children on minimum wage in the ghettoes where they will be dodging 9mms until one hits them in the head, are fed through a tube, and end up in corporeal existential limbo, then I'd be interested in what they have to say about abortion, the right to life, and the right to die.

Meanwhile what these snooty self-righteous up and leave me the hell alone.

All Humans have free will, yet the Right to Life-ers I see are slaves to Jesus. What a waste of breath...

---