“Religious freedom is one thing,” says Joan Bokaer, director of TheocracyWatch, a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics, and Social Policy (CRESP) at Cornell University. “But religious extremism is something completely different. What people aren’t aware of is just how deeply the radical religious right has penetrated our government—in all three branches. We really are very close to becoming a theocracy. People have reason to be worried.”

Give these VIDEOS & the website a very good going over ...

http://www.theocracywatch.org/audio-video.htm

Thanks for this. It's really scary.

I think the Left is giving them too much credit. This is a natural reaction to those that feel that the country has become to secular over the years. The country will "center" over time.

VIETNAMVET WROTE: "Give these VIDEOS & the website a very good going over ...

http://www.theocracywatch.org/audio-video.htm "


This is FRIGHTENING!!!

Yet ANOTHER characteristic of fascism RIGHT UNDER OUR NOSES.

Here's the link: http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=1644862

MONTGOMERY, Ala. – Feb. 13, 2004 – Alabama’s Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Haleyville) join with former Chief Justice Roy S. Moore in introducing the Constitution Restoration Act 2004 to restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court and all lower federal courts to that jurisdiction permitted them by the Constitution of the United States.

Q. What is the purpose of this bill?

A. The purpose of the CRA is to restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court and all lower federal courts to that jurisdiction permitted them by the Constitution of the United States. The acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, and government is contained within the Declaration of Independence which is cited as the “organic law” of our Country by United States Code Annotated. The constitution of every state of the Union acknowledges God and His sovereignty, as do three branches of the federal government. The acknowledgment of God is not a legitimate subject of review by federal courts. The CRA also protects and preserves the Constitution of the United States by restricting federal courts from recognizing the laws of foreign jurisdictions and international law as the supreme law of our land.

Q. Does this bill reverse Supreme Court precedent?

A. To the extent that any decision of the United States Supreme Court or that of any federal district court made prior to or after the effective date of the Act prohibits the acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government, such precedent would not be binding on state courts.

Q. Does this bill intrude into the constitutional powers of the federal judiciary?

A. No. Use by Congress of Article III regulation of the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court and other federal courts is provided by the Constitution as a check on the Judicial Branch when it exceeds its jurisdiction. When federal courts prohibit the acknowledgment of God they deny the very source of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness which our founding fathers specifically recognized in the Declaration of Independence as unalienable rights given by God. To prohibit a state official from recognizing God is a violation of the Tenth Amendment as well as the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. If Congress cannot make a law restricting states from the acknowledgment of God under the First Amendment, how can the Supreme Court enforce a law which Congress cannot make? The CRA would restore the balance of power among the various branches of government and restore the fundamental precepts upon which our Constitution and government is based.

Q. Does the CRA promote an establishment of religion?

A. No. The right to acknowledge God is not and never has been the establishment of religion. According to the United States Congress, in the 1954 legislation placing “Under God” in the Pledge: “A distinction must be made between the existence of religion as an institution and a belief in the sovereignty of God.” The actions of state and federal officials from the adoption and implementation of the First Amendment illustrate that the acknowledgment of God was never intended to be prohibited by the First Amendment. Even the First Congress (which agreed on the words of the First Amendment) on September 25, 1789, adopted a resolution on that very day asking President Washington to declare a day of thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God for the peaceful manner in which the Constitution was formed. From that time to the present, both state and federal officials have continuously acknowledged God in oaths, prayers, and official ceremonies. Eight days after Congress requested the president to declare a day of thanksgiving and prayer, President Washington did exactly that on October 3, 1789, in his first Presidential Proclamation, stating, “Whereas, it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor . . ..”

Q. Does the CRA deny other faiths in America?

A. No. The freedom of conscience and right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience are the very objects guaranteed by the First Amendment. Justice Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution regarding the First Amendment stated: “The rights of conscience are indeed beyond the reach of human power, they are given by God and cannot be encroached upon by any human authority without a criminal disobedience of the precepts of natural as well as of revealed religion.”

Q. What are the practical effects of CRA on pending legislation?

A. This bill would cover all present bills before Congress regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, Ten Commandments, National Motto “In God We Trust,” and all other acknowledgments of God. Furthermore, this bill would preserve freedom of conscience and equal treatment under law guaranteed by the Constitution by restricting federal intrusion into our right to acknowledge God. People are never to be judged on their thoughts in a court of law and the right to believe as one chooses is a right given by God, not by government.

Q. Does the CRA affect the religious test provisions of Article VI?

A. No. The right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of one’s conscience should never be used as a test or standard for people to seek or hold public office.

Q. What would prevent the United States Supreme Court from declaring the CRA unconstitutional?

A. The authority of Congress under Article III is specifically enumerated and cannot be questioned by another branch of government. Should the Supreme Court resort to the law of foreign nations or the European Court of Human Rights for authority, impeachment and removal from office are appropriate remedies. Conflict between the various branches of government is not without historic precedent. The control of funding and power of impeachment are traditional controls over the Judiciary by Congress. Separation of powers is a critical part of our Constitution; nevertheless, something more egregious happens when a branch of government intrudes its powers into the freedom of conscience to acknowledge God secured by the First Amendment. James Madison spoke of such an intrusion when he stated in the Memorial and Remonstrance: “The preservation of a free government requires not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power may be invariably maintained, but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people. The rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment exceed the commission from which they derive their authority and are tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them and are slaves.” Thomas Jefferson also spoke of such an intrusion in his Bill for Religious Freedom when he stated: “That to suffer the Civil Magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and restrain the profession or propagation of opinions on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty.” This portion of Jefferson’s Bill for religious freedom was, in fact, quoted by the United States Supreme Court in 1878 in United States v. Reynolds as a violation of what properly belonged to the church and not the state.

Q. What is the strength of the CRA?

A. The CRA will be supported by all those who oppose judicial tyranny as well as all those who respect individual rights and the right of every state to acknowledge God. This is not restricted to a political party or persuasion.

Q. Why is the English common law not excluded from consideration of federal courts in interpreting and applying the Constitution?

A. The common law is incorporated by reference into the United States Constitution, in the 7th Amendment and remains a foundation of American jurisprudence and an integral part of the organic law of the land. Our American common law is largely derived from the more than millennia-long tradition of English common law and constitutionalism, including the Magna Carta.

Q. What is the meaning of “acknowledgment of God” in the CRA?

A. The public recognition of God by state and federal authorities exists today in oaths, mottos , documents, prayers, monuments, and various other medium. Even in our “organic law,” the Declaration of Independence, according to the United States Code Annotated, God is the very source of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and government authority. The CRA would preserve and restore the Godly basis of our law and government.

Q. What does the right to acknowledge God have to do with foreign law?

A. The acknowledgment of God and absolute standards distinguishes us from other nations and political systems. The source of American law cannot be replaced by laws of foreign jurisdictions which base their authority on secular principles.

Q. How does the CRA affect each and every individual?

A. In 1952, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Zorach v. Clauson that, “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a belief in a Supreme Being.” During the last fifty years, federal courts have excluded prayers in public schools, Ten Commandments in public buildings, manger scenes at Christmas, and even the Pledge of Allegiance in school classrooms. Even as late as 1984, the United States Supreme Court struck down a state statute in Alabama which allowed a moment of silence “or voluntary prayer.” These examples have one thing in common: “the acknowledgment of God.” The CRA would restore our right to acknowledge God and stop the ACLU and other liberal groups from bringing frivolous suits simply because they are “offended” because there is a God and a higher law. Our children would be free to pray before eating lunch in their schools, public officials would be free to acknowledge the God upon Whom they take their oath, and the moral basis of our law regarding marriage could not be altered by judicial activism.

Well, if the Republicans state that the religious right is an important constituent and that they have shared goals and then spend twenty-five years working toward those goals, then is the "Left" giving them too much credit or are the Republicans trying to disavow the monster that they have created?

This site gives me hope: http://www.au.org/site/PageServer

The Religious Right...Moral Majority...what ever you wish to call them has been around for years. As have the Loony Left. I'm not concerned with either. They are fringe elements of our diverse society.

You didn't watch the videos linked or read other articles posted here, did you?

By not looking at evidence or acknowledging it, one can honestly dispute it, however one may be seen as quite backward and wrongminded as well.

Not only does this poster try to deny 25 years of outspoken Republican pandering to the extreme religious right, as described best by the Texas Republican Party, but the poster then proceeds to label the left as "looney."

This behavior has nothing to do with seeking common ground, but instead is modus operandi of those who would like to stifle objective reality from being discussed and acted on by a group of members such as those in this forum, and to supplant that objective or moderate discussion with right or far right to center diatribe without facts or factual basis or even any links to supporting facts or supporting basis. It is strictly a hit and run effort to subvert this forum and the good people who have chosen to make this forum home to their discourse on politics and issues of the day.

Yesterday, I objected to this very same type of behavior by this group of bottom feeding members in this forum.

Their express purpose appears to be to try to "redirect" the political direction of this forum by assailing any members and their posts and data that do not conform to either the right or far right of center in the political spectrum.

These same individuals are constantly complaining that their rights are subverted in this forum, that they are abiding by the rules, and that they are the victims of unfair and disrespectful name calling by what they describe as members of the extreme left.

To these members, I say you will not allow common ground, because you deny that anything to the left of center can be moderate. You do so by your actions, and your post histories exemplify your tactics that are clearly not civil.

Please refrain from name calling, and appologize to anyone that may have been offended by the label: "looney."

Actually we're turning into more of a

Theohypocricy

Ditto to comments by The Judged . The purpose of this forum, this thread, and these comments, is to debate the condition of our Republic. We are discussing things with a liberal but none the less open mind; one must have an open mind to participate. There are, I'm sure, red writers in this blog, but they are part of a dialogue, not a diatribe; their comments are welcome- in fact, necessary. We know, however, what the neocons and the Christian Talaban have to say- their closed minds haven't voiced a new thought since The Salem Witchhunts...

Exactly! These people are not real christians... It is just a facade!

<_< Well, at best they're pre-Christ Christians- most of their theology comes from the Old Testament. I still prefer the term Christian Talaban; given the opportunity to control a government, that is what our nation would become.

Theohypocrisy! Indeed! BUT--those hypocrites seem to be in control of our government! If they're just a passing phase, they'll sure do some serious damage while they're just passing! (My youngest daughter has now fallen in line with these theohypocrites belief in creationism. They've got her all stirred up about it, and her mother and I cannot speak anything of evolution in her house. What's next? Those bastards are causing some serious problems in our society--just like fundamentalist Muslims are in the Islamic world.)

:o Their control is an illusion; they are puppets. The real control is the strings being pulled by the neoconservatives who are trying to gut our social networks. I don't know what to tell you about your daughter- I assume, because of your avatar, that you're a Viet vet, so your kids are late 20's, early 30's. They have choices they need to make, and sometimes they'll make the wrong choices. Has she gone to a liberal arts college? <_< That's the best cure for fundamentalism- reality!

And how many wicked ones would brag to be 'Satan cloaked in white'? Very disturbingly true.

I know I am repeating myself, but it bears repeating.

During the Spanish Inquisition, you were tortured to death if you were not a Christian, especially their brand of Christian.

Hitler was killing Jews.

It would appear that history repeats itself as usual.

The bloodiest wars, and worst inhumanity to man, has always been in the name of, or lack of, a particular religion.

Anybody else get the willies when that guy from the Catholic League started blaming the "secular Jews in Hollywood" for everything? Sieg heil, sieg heil!

Hey, at least he limited his blame to the ones in Hollywood - usually they blame all of us

Non-Christians were also slaughtered during the Crusades.

:o

well according to Ann Coulter, that was a good thing

What? Anti-Semitism among American Catholics? Perish the thought!

The Cheney-Rove oil/big business cronies faction thinks it controls our government.
The end-of-the-world evangelical neocon faction thinks it controls our government.

I don't know which faction actually does control our government, but the end-of-the-worlders may have their way if we don't get pResident GWB out a there. The doom people are busy preparing for the end in their church services and meetings. A relative of mine in AZ told me about the preparations. Seems her son, previously half-normal and not a churchgoer, has gone over the edge and is ready for the end, telling all who will listen about it. He's joined some oddball church. And I've been told by another relative they're building churches in CA with federal money. I can only imagine what goes on in those churches. CA has had some killer cults in the past, and they're probably involved.

GWB must go. I think it's the only way to save the world. I think someone is influencing him to begin a nuclear war, and then there will be the retaliation, and then that's all she wrote.

John Kerry won this election, fair and square. He's our true president and he can save the world.

I don't know quite where to start.

Neocons are the puppetiers and the fundamentalists are the puppets- don't get the two confused and certainly never combine them together as one theoretical construct. <_<

John Kerry is a great man who lost the election, but he is no Messiah. The world will change for the worse over the next 4 years, but it will not end.

GWB is here for the duration, and thank god it is only for another 4 years, 21 day, 14 hours, 11 minutes, and 27.12327 seconds- but who's counting, huh? If GWB goes now, look who takes over- and he could run for another term! We have to do everything in the world to make sure Dubya serves out his second term...

You talk about a relative going off the deep end- Revelations Armeggedon 4 Horseman Apocalypse stuff- make certain you are not holding his hand when he jumps. And don't worry about CA; it went blue and we keep the fringe looneys pinned up between the mountain ranges so they can't get to us on the coast.

The neocons think the fundamentalists are the puppets, but the fundamentalists have their own agenda that the neocons ignore. Those fundamentalists don't announce their plans outside of their own "covens," you know. The relative in AZ has become a loose cannon, but no one pays much attention to him now.

It's not an illusion: the neocons are in control. Bush and Rowe have already abandoned the Gay Marriage amendment, and you can expect other fundamentalist causes to fall by the wayside.

If the Christian Talaban don't announce their plan to anyone except those in their covens, then there is no way they can control anything outside of those covens.

The Christian Talaban can be defeated, but not through panic and paranoia. I notice that you are relatively new to CGCS, so I hope you will see a reasoned, rational response in the posts. It is this thoughtful approach which will allow us to return sanity to our nation and its government.

Uh....so we have to go thru Theocratic Fascism First????? I think NOT.

I find it interesting the degree of denial by mainstream Christians to this.....could it be they "agree", but just don't wanna be "seen on the dias" with the rightwingnuts? Or, they just won't admit it IS a PROBLEM with CHRISTIANS...not just fundamentalist MUSLIMS?

Standing on the sidelines - watching ORGANIZED Religion go by.....

*Christians- did you denounce KORESH and the ARMY OF GOD?
*Good Catholics....do you denounce OPUS DEI?
*Christians - do you believe in the views of the UNIFICATION CHURCH?
*Christians - do you believe in the MORMON practice of taking children as brides in the name of GOD?
*Christians - do you denounce Falwell and Pat Robertson as spokesman for your religion?

Organized Religion creates veeeryyy strange bedfellows.

We have to go through Theocratic Fascism because we are already in it!

And you are correct about strange bedfellows- it's a beasiality of sorts. I don't think the fundamentalists realize they are being screwed by a chimp!