lol. what a stupid conference. i can already imagine the speeches, bunch of people talking about the “history” of how American was started by christians (bullcrap), and how its early statesmen were all christians (cause you know, Tommy Jefferson and George Washington weren’t ever president).
The early American idea was simple…people with diff. religious ideas leave each other the hell alone. it worked well, with a few notable exceptions.
And invariably they’re going to talk about how abortion is murder, and how welfare is evil and poor people should just starve because Jesus hates them. And liberals. and non-christians like us of course.
like y-love says, “this is babylon”

I looked at the links, and saw nothing to indicate anything other than a typical right-leaning Christian conference. I also didn’t see anything that would violate the Establishment Clause, so I don’t see how this conference differs from any other group advocating its ideas. If anyone has additional info about this conference, let me know.
And Shmuel, how do you know the conference is stupid? How do you know that Founding Fathers era history will be distorted? (And by the way, the early American idea was not simple. It was a mixture of Enlightenment ideas and Judeo-Christian morality – yes, even the deists and skeptics held to such morality.)
“And invariably they’re going to talk about how abortion is murder, and how welfare is evil and poor people should just starve because Jesus hates them. And liberals. and non-christians like us of course.”
Talk about crying wolf. If you really believe this, you need to get out of the Lefty ghetto and explore reality.

“The why in the world is the very nature of their name something that reeks of ehtnocentric racism?”
How’s that? Christianity has adherents of all races. I think you’re getting too comfortable with flinging epithets like “racist” around without considering the target. Look, there are certain Christians out there that I would oppose as staunchly as you would. But so far I haven’t seen anything in the post or links that indicate that these people are a problem.
“But a basic premise to bring American back to something is the antethisis of what it always was and was meant to be. ”
Says who? Are you telling me that the American Idea is premised on a permanent state of revolution? (There is a stray remark by Jefferson that supports this, but the overwhelming consensus of thought paints the founding generation as very cautious revolutionaries.)
” But to to declare unilaterally that it was meant to be one way and it should be that way or the highway, is very unamerican and very much the mentality we are forcefully attempting to eradicate everywhere else. ”
First, who says these people are taking a “my way or the highway” stance? And second, your argument is far too broad. What does “one way” mean? Whenever we create a law, we’re going “one way” and not the other. In fact, you yourself could be violating your own rule. Aren’t you arguing that your own view (that “one way” and “my way or the highway” are unacceptable) is correct, and that the opposing view is unacceptable?
Let’s get back to the basics. We probably all agree that in the USA, you can think what you want, and, with reasonable exceptions, say and publish what you want. However, our laws will inevitably go “one way” and not the other. These laws must 1) be created through the democratic process, 2) be supported by arguments rather than be arbitrary or based on the self-interest of certain groups or individuals and 3) not violate the Constitution, which means, as far as I’m concerned, that the Establishment Clause bars the making of laws on a purely religious basis; however, if a secular basis should coincide with a religious one, this is not a problem.
If you can show me that this conference is opposing the principles outlined above, go ahead. If not, all I see are baseless accusations against Christianity and conservatism. Be aware of the role of baseless accusations in our own history.
And I don’t see how you can deny that the mores in America have changed over the years. If you want to argue that today’s behavior is better than that of earlier times, make your argument, but you can’t automatically disqualify people who want the country to return to an earlier moral view.

I believe it was Steve Martin who said (I paraphrase) “I believe America can again be what it once was…an Arctic region covered in ice.” Eh, same diff.

“I wasn’t talking about YOU, J i was referring to the problem I have with the organization/conference and and a congressional official being part of it”
You called these people all kinds of names, and in all this long thread the only basis you’ve shown for this is that you don’t like the idea of “reclaiming” America. If you want to condemn people, you ought to have a reason.
“I wasnt hurling insults, I was amking light of the argument.”
Really? Statements like “And that is why this country is called America, and not the “united christian fundamentalist evangelical ethnocentric xenophobic intolerant self righteous hypocritical republican states” though certain people in our government sadly seem to wis hthat was the case. ” seem pretty damn heavy to me.
“You put on a nice eloquent debate arguing points that were never in play, ”
No, I don’t think so. All my posts were direct responses to what preceded them. I invite anyone still following this to check for yourselves.
“and then take me on for using bullet points, by using the Hannity book of buzzwords.”
Does Hannity call people “ethnocentric xenophobic intolerant self righteous hypocritical ” etc.? I don’t know; I don’t listen to his show or read his books (entry -level stuff). But you do call people that. These aren’t bullet points. They’re just insults and accusations.
“There is no excuse, even a shoulder shrigging of semantics that can defend a premise that attempts promotes its self declare monopoly on morality. ”
You have yet to show that these people have declared a “monopoly” any more than everyone else with an ideology does. Clearly you believe that your own set of beliefs is morally superior to the beliefs of both the Christians and myself. You can – and should – argue your beliefs, but instead you try to disqualify your opponents’ beliefs before the argument starts. That’s the problem.
“If it were an interfaith confrence on ehitcs and morality we’d be having a totally different discussion. And if it was an interfaith conference promoting the idea that a g-dless life is a worthless life we’d be having an entirely different discussion as well. ”
Probably, but I don’t see why a single group having a conference should be viewed as sinister without a good reason.
“Either way, Kathrine Harris is evil. ”
Why do you say that?
“Why do you keep invoking the WWJD idea? How does the conference imply its about what J would approve of? Last I checked it was about what the elders of American Christianity deem appropriate behavior in their own view of what the ydon’t know was that of the founding fathers. ”
I don’t know what the actual Jesus really thought, and I don’t think anyone else does, either. However, I think the right-wingers make a good case for their views of morality being consistent with Christian morality, especially that of early America, especially as compared to today’s Left. As to the Founding Fathers, it’s true that most of them were not traditional pious Christians, but: 1) the population of the country could correctly be described as Christian (and you have to be incredibly elitist to completely discount them); 2) the Founding Fathers were mostly friendly toward religion, particularly as a basis for morality (see Washington’s remarks on this subject, especially); and above all, 3) although the Enlightenment ideas of the Founding Fathers differed from traditional religious ideas in various respects, the foundation of those Enlightenment ideas remained rooted in Judeo-Christian morality. Note that the common law, centuries-old at the time of the founding and highly reflective of religious morality, remained in place. Note that the idea of human sacredness, value and individuality carried over from the religious tradition. Note that love of justice, criticism of might over right, the idea of progress in history, and much more similarly carried over. (In general, the American – and British- Enlightenments, unlike the French Enlightenment, did not so much oppose the traditional religious ideas as modify them in some areas.) So traditional moralists – and not only Christian ones – can legitimately point to the early years as something to reclaim, at least for some purposes.

It might qualify as a joke in certain circles, but to those of us who don’t take it for granted that the population of half this country is vile, it just doesn’t work.

I ama native Texan. This is EVERYday speak here…..you just get used to it and shake your head and say ” oh really?’ hum?
The Baptists hate the Catholics, the Catholics think the Baptists are Bible thumpers, and then the Lutherans get in there too!
They all are into the same guy on the cross, yet all think each other are wrong…weird