The Hollywood Liberal

8 Responses to “Monica Goodling: Another Member of The Religious Rights Attempts to Take Over Government”

1. INTELLECT Says:
   April 16th, 2007 at 12:35 am

   I HAVE SEEN MORE ARTICLES ABOUT THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT’S PREMEDITATION TO “INFILTRATE” VIA “STEALTH” THE EXISTING ORDER, WITH AN EXPRESSED AGENDA TO “IMPOSE” RELIGIOUS AGENDA…. IVE SEEN MORE ARTICLES ABOUT THIS SUBJECT IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS THAN IN MY ENTIRE LIFE.
   SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS A FOUNDING PRINCIPLE OF OUR NATION.
   STILL, I HEAR THE NON-RELIGIOUS LEFT SAYING, REPEATEDLY, ‘OH ITS JUST A SLIVER OF THE RIGHT THAT FEELS THIS WAY”. LATELY IVE READ ARTICLES SAYING THIS IS A DELUSIONAL AND DANGEROUS FALSEHOOD, THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS NOT NOT NOT A TINY FRACTION, WHEN THAT FRACTION RUNS THE SHOW, TO THE EXCLUSION OF NON CHRISTIAN IDEOLOGUES.
   EVEN LIBERALS LIKE KENNEDY DIDNT ESPOUSE THE ATTITUDE THAT INTOLERANTS LIKE WALLACE AND DAVID DUKE HAD NO RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN GOVERNMENT.
   WHAT WE NEED IS A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD THAT INCLUDES ALL POINTS OF VIEW, AND THIS IS THE VERY REASON WHY WE SEPARATE CHURCH FROM STATE.
   KEEP RELIGION OUT OF GOVERNANCE…. GOVERNANCE IS ABOUT GOVERNING THE SECULAR STATE, AND RELIGION BELONGS IN CHURCH.
   SEPARATE MEANS SEPARATE, IT DOESNT MEAN ONE FUNDAMENTAL GROUP HIJACKING THE HOUSES OF POWER TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHERS.
   THEN I FIND MYSELF WONDERING IF THERE IS A SINGLE CHRISTIAN IN GOVERNMENT, OR JUST A BUNCH OF CORPORATE LIARS WHO’VE CLEVERLY TRICKED THE RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES IN A GROSS HISTORICALLY UNFORGIVABLE WAY. NO CHRISTIAN I EVER MET THINKS ITS OK FOR THE PRESIDENT TO TORTURE ANYONE. BUT THEN IVE READ ABOUT THE ‘LEFT BEHIND’ CROWD, IN AN ARTICLE ABOUT JUST HOW VERY REAL THIS MOB IS, AND JUST HOW INCREASING THEIR INFLUENCE IS….
   THESE PEOPLE, WHO BELIEVE THAT THE DEATHS OF ALL NON BELIEVERS IS A RIGHTEOUS THING, SOUND, VERBATIM, JUST LIKE OSAMA BIN LADEN, AND THAT INDEED TERRORISES ME. A DAY DOES NOT GO BY THAT I DONT FEAR THE ASCENTION OF THIS KIND OF THINKING IN THE HALLS OF POWER. YET THEIR POWER GROWS, WHILE OTHERS THINK ITS POLITICALLY INCORRECT TO CRITICISE ANYONE OF ANY PARTICULAR RELIGION. AGAIN THIS IS ANOTHER REASON TO KEEP RELIGIOUS VIEWS OUT OF STATE AFFAIRS, AND STATE OFFICES.
   THE BOTTOM LINE, ITS ABOUT TIME THE LIBERAL SECULAR LEFT BEGINS TO DIALOGUE WITH THESE ‘BELIEVERS’ FOR IF WE DONT RECOGNISE AND RESPOND, WE SHALL FIND OURSELVES OVER A BARREL…. AND HOPEFULLY NOT IN ‘NON BELIEVER’ STATE SPONSORED DETENTION CENTERS, ACCORDING TO STATE SPONSORED ENACTMENTS OF GOD’S WILL, OR WHATEVER THEY WILL CALL IT.
   THIS IS ALL VERY REAL.
   THIS IS ALL VERY MUCH YOUR LIFETIME.
   THIS IS ALL VERY SERIOUS AND THE ROOTS OF RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE ARE ALREADY WELL WATERED.

2. Bill Says:
   April 16th, 2007 at 10:21 am

   INTELLECT, would you be so kind and tell me please were in the Constitution it says a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. If you are talking about the First Amendment than you need to go back and read it again because it doesn’t say a thing about seperation of church and state.

3. anon Says:
   April 16th, 2007 at 3:29 pm

   It says Congress shall make no law establishing a religion.

4. HL Says:
   April 17th, 2007 at 8:22 am

   Congress (state) shall make no law establishing a religion (church)

   Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine which states that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent of one another. Primarily discussed in the context of United States law and politics, the term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.[1]

   The prevalence of the term “separation of church and state” is generally said to derive from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as creating a “wall of separation” between church and state. The phrase was then quoted and endorsed by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947…..

   So Bill Where did you go to law school???

5. Bill Says:
   April 17th, 2007 at 4:25 pm

   I went to school were the First Amendment was taken for what it says not how it is interpreted. Which is the samr thing that the Supreme Court should still be doing. Taking it for what it says not how it is interpreted. Oh and HL why didn’t you post the rest of what that paragraph said.

   This led to popular and political discussion of the concept, as well as criticism that the phrase overstates the limits created under the Constitution.
   And people say that it says separation of church and state and compalin about it and yet no ones says a thing about the Senate stating with a prayer. The Supreme Court starts with a prayer so tell me agian HL were does it say separation of church and state because the Senate and the Supreme Court don’t follow it and no one says a thing about it. Oh yeah and the Superme Court building has the ten camandments on the building and no one has bitched about that. So once again people are interpreting what it say for their needs not taking it for what it says.

6. Bill Says:
   April 17th, 2007 at 4:28 pm

   Oh and as far as my Law school HL I never went but the Superme Court has to deal in the LAW and guess what they say a prayer and have the ten commandments on the building. And they are the highest court in this country and you want to tell me they are wrong.

7. anon Says:
   April 18th, 2007 at 7:39 am

   Bill, you are just proving that Republicans have a religious agenda and want to infuse our government with their personal religious beliefs, with no regard for what may actually be best for the country or with no ability to think logically and critically. Because we have all seen how well governments based on religion work (see, e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq).

8. Bill Says:
   April 18th, 2007 at 5:30 pm

   anon.. Since when does taking the Constitution for what it says not what someone thinks it says proving a religious agenda?
   The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
   Now tell me were in there it says “seperation of church and state”. People like HL and others have said that the First Amendment means seperation of church and state but it doesn’t. HL even tried to use a letter that Jefferson wrote to a church as proof and yet they still say that seperation of church and state is what it means. If that is the case than tell me why is it that the Senate starts every session with a prayer from a Catholic preast paid for buy the tax payers and why is it the the Supreme Court starts with a prayer.
   My point is not a Republican religious agenda it is the fact that this country was founded by a group of people that were religious and believed in God and the “non religious” demand to have things their way. The majority of this country is religious and yet things have gotten turned around to were it is not the majority it is the minority that rules and this country is paying for it.
   As for using Afghanistan as an example that is fine but this country has never let a religion control it. It has had an influence on things but for the most part it doesn’t rule this country.