"I don't think he's a Christian"

[TexasTiger 12,950]

Dobson Offers Insight on 2008 Republican Hopefuls

Focus on Family Founder Snubs Thompson, Praises Gingrich

By Dan Gilgoff

Posted 3/28/07

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson appeared to throw cold water on a possible presidential bid by former Sen. Fred Thompson while praising former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is also weighing a presidential run, in a phone interview Tuesday.

"Everyone knows he's conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for," Dobson said of Thompson. "[but] I don't think he's a Christian; at least that's my impression," Dobson added, saying that such an impression would make it difficult for Thompson to connect with the Republican Party's conservative Christian base and win the GOP nomination.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles...28/28dobson.htm

[otterinbham 0]

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Yet another argument for the separation of church and state. Dobson, who is about as dangerous a moonbat as possible, is now offering up his narrow definition of what a Christian should say and do. According to Dobson, Catholics aren't Christian, which should be news to them. Exactly what do candidates have to do to pass his peculiar litmus test on what a Christian is or isn't?

Once again, faith and politics do not mix. I'm really surprised that Republicans of faith haven't told Dobson to jump in the lake, because the guy makes both conservatism and Christianity look bad at the same time.

[DKW 86 7,426]

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Yet another argument for the separation of church and state. Dobson, who is about as dangerous a moonbat as possible, is now offering up his narrow definition of what a Christian should say and do. According to Dobson, Catholics aren't Christian, which should be news to them. Exactly what do candidates have to do to pass his peculiar litmus test on what a Christian is or isn't?

Once again, faith and politics do not mix. I'm really surprised that Republicans of faith haven't told Dobson to jump in the lake, because the guy makes both conservatism and Christianity look bad at the same time.

Dobson is an aged old man now. His foolish statement about Thompson was just that.

"In his conversation with Mr. Gilgoff, Dr. Dobson was attempting to highlight that to the best of his knowledge, Sen. Thompson hadn't clearly communicated his religious faith, and many evangelical Christians might find this a barrier to supporting him. Dr. Dobson told Mr. Gilgoff he had never met Sen. Thompson and wasn't certain that his understanding of the

former senator's religious convictions was accurate. Unfortunately, these qualifiers weren't reported by Mr. Gilgoff. We were, however, pleased to learn from his spokesperson that Sen. Thompson professes to be a believer.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/20...thompson_j.html

[aumd03 2]

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Yet another argument for the separation of church and state. Dobson, who is about as dangerous a moonbat as possible, is now offering up his narrow definition of what a Christian should say and do. According to Dobson, Catholics aren't Christian, which should be news to them. Exactly what do candidates have to do to pass his peculiar litmus test on what a Christian is or isn't?

Once again, faith and politics do not mix. I'm really surprised that Republicans of faith haven't told Dobson to jump in the lake, because the guy makes both conservatism and Christianity look bad at the same time.

Dobson is an aged old man now. His foolish statement about Thompson was just that.

"In his conversation with Mr. Gilgoff, Dr. Dobson was attempting to highlight that to the best of his knowledge, Sen. Thompson hadn't clearly communicated his religious faith, and many evangelical Christians might find this a barrier to supporting him. Dr. Dobson told Mr. Gilgoff he had never met Sen. Thompson and wasn't certain that his understanding of the

former senator's religious convictions was accurate. Unfortunately, these qualifiers weren't reported by Mr. Gilgoff. We were, however, pleased to learn from his spokesperson that Sen. Thompson professes to be a believer.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/20...thompson_j.html

I happen to have read a couple of Dobson's books and I think he is a stand up guy. Someone came and asked him his opinion, and he gave it. It'd be like asking me if some of the posters here were Christians based on profession of faith in posts. I applaud him for giving parents and familys solid advice for psycho-social issues with a Christian foundation. I also didn't realize that one man's opinion, "poured cold water" on a candidates chances. You are entitled to think they are a bunch of yahoo's but there are many people who put significant weight in the fact that Bush claims to be a Christian and his association with Franklin Grahm.

[otterinbham 0]

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Yet another argument for the separation of church and state. Dobson, who is about as dangerous a moonbat as possible, is now offering up his narrow definition of what a Christian should say and do. According to Dobson, Catholics aren't Christian, which should be news to them. Exactly what do candidates have to do to pass his peculiar litmus test on what a Christian is or isn't?

Once again, faith and politics do not mix. I'm really surprised that Republicans of faith haven't told Dobson to jump in the lake, because the guy makes both conservatism and Christianity look bad at the same time.

Dobson is an aged old man now. His foolish statement about Thompson was just that.

"In his conversation with Mr. Gilgoff, Dr. Dobson was attempting to highlight that to the best of his knowledge, Sen. Thompson hadn't clearly communicated his religious faith, and many evangelical Christians might find this a barrier to supporting him. Dr. Dobson told Mr. Gilgoff he had never met Sen. Thompson and wasn't certain that his understanding of the

former senator's religious convictions was accurate. Unfortunately, these qualifiers weren't reported by Mr. Gilgoff. We were, however, pleased to learn from his spokesperson that Sen. Thompson professes to be a believer.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/20...thompson_j.html

I happen to have read a couple of Dobson's books and I think he is a stand up guy. Someone came and asked him his opinion, and he gave it. It'd be like asking me if some of the posters here were Christians based on profession of faith in posts. I applaud him for giving parents and familys solid advice for psycho-social issues with a Christian foundation. I also didn't realize that one man's opinion, "poured cold water" on a candidates chances. You are entitled to think they are a bunch of yahoo's but there are many people who put significant weight in the fact that Bush claims to be a Christian and his association with Franklin Grahm.

See, I have to respectfully disagree. As I said earlier, Dobson doesn't even consider Catholics to be Christians, a fact that he has publicly stated. And, quite frankly, I don't understand where one Christian can really assess the heart of another and make a blanket statement like that. After all, conscientious Christians knowledgeable about Scripture can have utterly different views on any given subject, from how best to practice one's faith to how best to put Christian principles into action. For Dobson to basically belittle Thompson's approach to the faith is wrong.

I don't have an opinion on Fred Thompson one way or another, but I think there are plenty of other ways to assess the man's fitness for the Oval Office aside from whether or not he has paid lip service to Dobson. Quite frankly, probably the most devout Christian to sit in the Oval Office over the past half century has been Jimmy Carter, and look what a disaster he was.

I also think it is disingenuous to say it's just one man's opinion. He has a carefully orchestrated political machine, and is willing to use millions of his supporters as a club with which to pummel candidates that don't play ball with him--And to me, that's nothing more than the naked pursuit of power. In my mind that makes him no better than a Rose O'Donnnell or a Susan Sarandon.

[80Tiger 899]

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Yet another argument for the separation of church and state. Dobson, who is about as dangerous a moonbat as possible, is now offering up his narrow definition of what a Christian should say and do. According to Dobson, Catholics aren't Christian, which should be news to them. Exactly what do candidates have to do to pass his peculiar litmus test on what a Christian is or isn't?

Once again, faith and politics do not mix. I'm really surprised that Republicans of faith haven't told Dobson to jump in the lake, because the guy makes both conservatism and Christianity look bad at the same time.

Dobson is an aged old man now. His foolish statement about Thompson was just that.

"In his conversation with Mr. Gilgoff, Dr. Dobson was attempting to highlight that to the best of his knowledge, Sen. Thompson hadn't clearly communicated his religious faith, and many evangelical Christians might find this a barrier to supporting him. Dr. Dobson told Mr. Gilgoff he had never met Sen. Thompson and wasn't certain that his understanding of the

former senator's religious convictions was accurate. Unfortunately, these qualifiers weren't reported by Mr. Gilgoff. We were, however, pleased to learn from his spokesperson that Sen. Thompson professes to be a believer.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/20...thompson_j.html

I happen to have read a couple of Dobson's books and I think he is a stand up guy. Someone came and asked him his opinion, and he gave it. It'd be like asking me if some of the posters here were Christians based on profession of faith in posts. I applaud him for giving parents and familys solid advice for psycho-social issues with a Christian foundation. I also didn't realize that one man's opinion, "poured cold water" on a candidates chances. You are entitled to think they are a bunch of yahoo's but there are many people who put significant weight in the fact that Bush claims to be a Christian and his association with Franklin Grahm.

See, I have to respectfully disagree. As I said earlier, Dobson doesn't even consider Catholics to be Christians, a fact that he has publicly stated. And, quite frankly, I don't understand where one Christian can really assess the heart of another and make a blanket statement like that. After all, conscientious Christians knowledgeable about Scripture can have utterly different views on any given subject, from how best to practice one's faith to how best to put Christian principles into action. For Dobson to basically belittle Thompson's approach to the faith is wrong.

I don't have an opinion on Fred Thompson one way or another, but I think there are plenty of other ways to assess the man's fitness for the Oval Office aside from whether or not he has paid lip service to Dobson. Quite frankly, probably the most devout Christian to sit in the Oval Office over the past half century has been Jimmy Carter, and look what a disaster he was.

I also think it is disingenuous to say it's just one man's opinion. He has a carefully orchestrated political machine, and is willing to use millions of his supporters as a club with which to pummel candidates that don't play ball with him--And to me, that's nothing more than the naked pursuit of power. In my mind that makes him no better than a Rose O'Donnnell or a Susan Sarandon.

Not trying to make this a forum on what is a Christian, but there is one particluar litmus test. It is whether one has accepted Jesus as their Saviour for dying on the cross. That being said, no man know the heart of another just as Otter said. Only the individual and God knows the status of his own heart. And in my opionion Dobson should not have said it in any context. But as a private citizen he can say what he wants no matter whatever private organization he leads. It has nothing to do with separation of church and state. But it did reek of Dobson trying to influence voters away from Thompson. I don't know enough about Thompson yet on whether he could be a viable candidate, but this should not keep him from moving forward.

[otterinbham 0]

"Not trying to make this a forum on what is a Christian, but there is one particluar litmus test. It is whether one has accepted Jesus as their Saviour for dying on the cross. That being said, no man know the heart of another just as Otter said. Only the individual and God knows the status of his own heart. And in my opionion Dobson should not have said it in any context. But as a private citizen he can say what he wants no matter whatever private organization he leads. It has nothing to do with separation of church and state. But it did reek of Dobson trying to influence voters away from Thompson. I don't know enough about Thompson yet on whether he could be a viable candidate, but this should not keep him from moving forward."

I think 'reek' is a good word for it.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

See, I have to respectfully disagree. As I said earlier, Dobson doesn't even consider Catholics to be Christians, a fact that he has publicly stated. And, quite frankly, I don't understand where one Christian can really assess the heart of another and make a blanket statement like that. After all, conscientious Christians knowledgeable about Scripture can have utterly different views on any given subject, from how best to practice one's faith to how best to put Christian principles into action. For Dobson to basically belittle Thompson's approach to the faith is wrong.

I don't have an opinion on Fred Thompson one way or another, but I think there are plenty of other ways to assess the man's fitness for the Oval Office aside from whether or not he has paid lip service to Dobson. Quite frankly, probably the most devout Christian to sit in the Oval Office over the past half century has been Jimmy Carter, and look what a disaster he was.

I also think it is disingenuous to say it's just one man's opinion. He has a carefully orchestrated political machine, and is willing to use millions of his supporters as a club with which to pummel candidates that don't play ball with him--And to me, that's nothing more than the naked pursuit of power. In my mind that makes him no better than a Rose O'Donnnell or a Susan Sarandon.

Actually, according to well-respected Catholic theologian and apologist, Mark Shea, Dobson is in fact NOT anti-Catholic:

So Catholics naturally asked, "Isn't he [Dobson] implying that Catholics are not Christian?"

In fact, the answer to this question is "No." But it requires us Catholics to learn a bit of Evangelicalese in order to understand why.

Dobson is actually among the more Catholic-friendly Evangelicals out there. Indeed, among some of the more Neanderthal Fundamentalist sects Dobson is a favorite target for his allegedly sinister coziness with "Romanism." He is attacked by Way of Life Ministries, for instance, for "abominations" like putting Mother Teresa on the cover of Focus on the Family's Clubhouse magazine and for various crimes such as allowing a Catholic priest to speak at Focus on the Family conferences and for speaking respectfully of Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI. In fact, he horrified and appalled some truly anti-Catholic Fundies when he "praised the Catholic church for its efforts to protect the family and said that while he has some theological differences with the Roman Catholic Church, he often agrees more with the Roman Catholic Church than with other Evangelicals on issues such as abortion, premarital sex and homosexuality" (http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/dobsonrome.htm). So Dobson doesn't do the anti-Catholic thing of declaring all Catholics to be "not real Christians".

http://www.mark-shea.com/101.html

[Tigermike 3,036]

Now there is a wrench thrown into the cogs of someones argument.

[otterinbham 0]

Yes, indeed. I stand corrected on that particular point. However, the key thrust of my original posting remains unchanged, namely that deciding whether or not Fred Thompson is a Christian or not is an affront.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Yes, indeed. I stand corrected on that particular point. However, the key thrust of my original posting remains unchanged, namely that deciding whether or not Fred Thompson is a Christian or not is an affront.

I would tend to agree, however I have read today that Dobson stated he wasn't commenting on Thompson's heart but rather that to his knowledge, he had never professed to be a Christian.

Frankly, I don't have a dog in this hunt so I don't care. I'm neither a Dobson fan nor a Dobson hater.

[aumd03 2]

Yes, indeed. I stand corrected on that particular point. However, the key thrust of my original posting remains unchanged, namely that deciding whether or not Fred Thompson is a Christian or not is an affront.

I would tend to agree, however I have read today that Dobson stated he wasn't commenting on Thompson's heart but rather that to his knowledge, he had never professed to be a Christian.

Frankly, I don't have a dog in this hunt so I don't care. I'm neither a Dobson fan nor a Dobson hater.

This is my point. Otter, I am fully against seperation of Church and state. I think Roy Moore is a hack and I don't support prayer in school. I however, think that private groups can support someone for whatever reason they choose, religious organization or not. I was trying to make the point that Titan did that Dobson simply thought that Thompson never made his faith public. His interest is religion. He will support a candidate based simply on that criteria. While you or I may think that is bad criteria to judge a candidate, many people base decisions on one issue. People will judge candidates on pro-con abortion, pro-con war in iraq, pro-con religious beliefs. While these single issues have so little to do with everyday administration, they are hotbed issues. I don't really understand your statement how this supports seperation of church and state. The govt isn't establishing or endorsing a religion. Neither does a candidate have to be agnostic to qualify.

[DKW 86 7,426]

Why should any of us care one wit what Dobson says? FT is a member of the Church of Christ. PERIOD. Dobson spoke out of ignorance and would do well to get on the plane and get FT's forgiveness for speaking ill of him for no particular reason. That IS what the bible says you should do if you offend a brother in Christ. Wait and see if he does it.

I respected Dobson before this. I think he is just an old coot now. He should learn to not tear down another believer. Especially before the non-Beleiving press.

I cant stand the Christians that shoot at one another. I just cant abide it.

[AURaptor 1,125]

I frankly don't give two flips what Dobson thinks. I suppose since he's been buddy buddy w/ W and all, he has an inflated view of his own opinion, and how others should react to what he says or thinks.

I've never much cared for Dobson myself. He should stick to fleecing the dumb masses of their $$ and stay out of politics.

[GalensGhost 0]

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Yet another argument for the separation of church and state. Dobson, who is about as dangerous a moonbat as possible, is now offering up his narrow definition of what a Christian should say and do. According to Dobson, Catholics aren't Christian, which should be news to them. Exactly what do candidates have to do to pass his peculiar litmus test on what a Christian is or isn't?

Once again, faith and politics do not mix. I'm really surprised that Republicans of faith haven't told Dobson to jump in the lake, because the guy makes both conservatism and Christianity look bad at the same time.

Dobson dangerous? I think not.

What's wrong with him expressing his opinion or that of the group he represents?

[Tiger Al 0]

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Yet another argument for the separation of church and state. Dobson, who is about as dangerous a moonbat as possible, is now offering up his narrow definition of what a Christian should say and do. According to Dobson, Catholics aren't Christian, which should be news to them. Exactly what do candidates have to do to pass his peculiar litmus test on what a Christian is or isn't?

Once again, faith and politics do not mix. I'm really surprised that Republicans of faith haven't told Dobson to jump in the lake, because the guy makes both conservatism and Christianity look bad at the same time.

Dobson dangerous? I think not.

What's wrong with him expressing his opinion or that of the group he represents?

Other than it being a wholly un-American opinion...nothing.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

I frankly don't give two flips what Dobson thinks. I suppose since he's been buddy buddy w/ W and all, he has an inflated view of his own opinion, and how others should react to what he says or thinks.

I've never much cared for Dobson myself. He should stick to fleecing the dumb masses of their $$ and stay out of politics.

Then how about one flip? He's not fleecing me. No one is fleecing me, not even the banking/credit industry.

[Tigermike 3,036]

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Yet another argument for the separation of church and state. Dobson, who is about as dangerous a moonbat as possible, is now offering up his narrow definition of what a Christian should say and do. According to Dobson, Catholics aren't Christian, which should be news to them. Exactly what do candidates have to do to pass his peculiar litmus test on what a Christian is or isn't?

Once again, faith and politics do not mix. I'm really surprised that Republicans of faith haven't told Dobson to jump in the lake, because the guy makes both conservatism and Christianity look bad at the same time.

Dobson dangerous? I think not.

What's wrong with him expressing his opinion or that of the group he represents?

Other than it being a wholly un-American opinion...nothing.

How is that wholly un-American?

[Tiger Al 0]

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Yet another argument for the separation of church and state. Dobson, who is about as dangerous a moonbat as possible, is now offering up his narrow definition of what a Christian should say and do. According to Dobson, Catholics aren't Christian, which should be news to them. Exactly what do candidates have to do to pass his peculiar litmus test on what a Christian is or isn't?

Once again, faith and politics do not mix. I'm really surprised that Republicans of faith haven't told Dobson to jump in the lake, because the guy makes both conservatism and Christianity look bad at the same time.

Dobson dangerous? I think not.

What's wrong with him expressing his opinion or that of the group he represents?

Other than it being a wholly un-American opinion...nothing.

How is that wholly un-American?

Read Article VI of the Constitution.

[Tigermike 3,036]

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Yet another argument for the separation of church and state. Dobson, who is about as dangerous a moonbat as possible, is now offering up his narrow definition of what a Christian should say and do. According to Dobson, Catholics aren't Christian, which should be news to them. Exactly what do candidates have to do to pass his peculiar litmus test on what a Christian is or isn't?

Once again, faith and politics do not mix. I'm really surprised that Republicans of faith haven't told Dobson to jump in the lake, because the guy makes both conservatism and Christianity look bad at the same time.

Dobson dangerous? I think not.

What's wrong with him expressing his opinion or that of the group he represents?

Other than it being a wholly un-American opinion...nothing.

How is that wholly un-American?

Read Article VI of the Constitution.

I’ve read the Constitution and you are stretching here and you know it. Which is not unusual for you or dems in general.

Are you ready to condemn every tree hugging, anti war democrat fanatic who require as a qualification to any office or public trust that all adhere to their religion as being wholly un-American?

[Tiger Al 0]

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Yet another argument for the separation of church and state. Dobson, who is about as dangerous a moonbat as possible, is now offering up his narrow definition of what a Christian should say and do. According to Dobson, Catholics aren't Christian, which should be news to them. Exactly what do candidates have to do to pass his peculiar litmus test on what a Christian is or isn't?

Once again, faith and politics do not mix. I'm really surprised that Republicans of faith haven't told Dobson to jump in the lake, because the guy makes both conservatism and Christianity look bad at the same time.

Dobson dangerous? I think not.

What's wrong with him expressing his opinion or that of the group he represents?

Other than it being a wholly un-American opinion...nothing.

How is that wholly un-American?

Read Article VI of the Constitution.

I’ve read the Constitution and you are stretching here and you know it. Which is not unusual for you or dems in general.

Great! Then you know that the writers of the constitution believed that a religious test was a bad idea. If it was good enough for them then it should be good enough for Dobson and other like-minded folk.

Are you ready to condemn every tree hugging, anti war democrat fanatic who require as a qualification to any office or public trust that all adhere to their religion as being wholly un-American?

I didn't realize that hugging trees, opposing war or belonging to a political party were considered religions. I think you're fabricating here.

It's very simple, TM. I agree with Article VI of the US Constitution that says no person seeking public office should have to pass any religious tests. Don't you agree with Article VI?

[Tigermike 3,036]

I didn't realize that hugging trees, opposing war or belonging to a political party were considered religions. I think you're fabricating here.

It's very simple, TM. I agree with Article VI of the US Constitution that says no person seeking public office should have to pass any religious tests. Don't you agree with Article VI?

I think you are trying to deflect here.

You know as well as anyone that the environmentalists view their agenda just as fervently as the Muslims and even more than the Baptists or the Catholics. So you are saying the founding fathers ONLY meant organized religion? They would be OK with the litmus test that the environmental religious nuts and the anti war religious nuts demand be placed on candidates?

"Environmentalism as Religion"

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/...es_quote05.html

If it seems absurd that environmentalism is a religion that has inculcated itself into much of everyday life in America – nay – the developed world, then chances are you are ignoring the reality around you.

link

It seems environmentalism has become a "secular religion." Which should appeal to you don’t you think?

Environmentalism - Religion for Progressives

Modern environmentalism has the fundamental characteristics of an animist religion.

More...

Earth is Sacred; Man is Evil

A number of leading environmentalists have, in the past, stated that it would be better if a plague/war/whatever greatly reduced the population of mankind (or eliminated man). Although this is rarely stated outside of environmental councils, the viewpoint is consistent with the actions of the more extreme environmentalists, and again shows an obeisance to the earth as a religious object.

Hierarchy of Worshipped Icons

Within the range of natural objects to be worshipped is a hierarchy. For example, fur bearing animals are worshipped and protected more vigorously than mosquitos. Dolphins are more protected than sharks. An environmental extremist recently murdered a dutch political leader in the name of this worship.

Ritual Activities

Ritual activities are thought to bring benefits. For example, the eating of "organic" foods is expected to reduce disease, and is defended with the vigor of a religious fanatic rather than with science.

Perversion of Science

Science is perverted to the aims of the religion. The anti-chlorine movement is no more scientific than is "scientific creationism." It is a grossly exaggerated belief that "non-natural" chemicals are somehow evil compared to "natural" ones.

Tokens of Evil

Some objects are invested with the mantle of evil. For example, much of the environmental movement *believes* that nuclear power is evil, even though rational analysis shows that nuclear power actually could be a major weapon against environmentalism's current biggest demon: global warming. "Chemicals" are *evil*. Large automobiles are *evil* (as are their drivers).

Centralized Immortal Organizations

Many environmental organizations have taken on a life of their own (see Laws of Bureaucracy). They must continually discover and exaggerate environmental fears in order to maintain their power and get funding. Is this any different from some Americal television ministries?

Regressive and Nativist

As is typical with many fundamentalist religions, environmentalism is regressive. Its adherents want a return to a more simplistic lifestyle. They imagine that man would be better of without technology, and in the most extreme, advocate a return to the type of existence which lead to the extinction of most large mammals in the northern hemisphere at the end of the last ice age: hunter-gatherer "in tune with nature."

Environmentalism is NOT Conservationism

Environmentalist goals cannot be clearly stated in terms of benefit to man, but rather are constantly articulated in terms of "protecting the environment" or not "despoiling the earth" and similar terms.

It differs from conservationism in this regard. Conservationism seeks to preserve some natural environment in order to make it available to future generations of man. But the modern environmental movement obstructs all human material progress in the name of honoring its gods.

Environmental Spiritualism

Environmentalism is spiritual. Its worshippers experience spiritual "cleansing" by engaging in its activities. It is emotional, as indicated by the large amount of energy they devote to it and the irrationality of many of their positions. With its attendant lifestyle promises of extended and better life, and its spirituality, community and emotional relief, it replaces religion for its mostly "non religious" followers.

http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000009.html

[Tiger Al 0]

I didn't realize that hugging trees, opposing war or belonging to a political party were considered religions. I think you're fabricating here.

It's very simple, TM. I agree with Article VI of the US Constitution that says no person seeking public office should have to pass any religious tests. Don't you agree with Article VI?

I think you are trying to deflect here.

You know as well as anyone that the environmentalists view their agenda just as fervently as the Muslims and even more than the Baptists or the Catholics.

You do love to force square pegs into round holes, don't you? If "religion" is determined by how fervently one views his "agenda," then anything can be called a "religion." You seem to be pretty fervent about football. How does that square with your other religion's First Commandment? Are you fervent about your wife? Your kids? Your other family members? Your job? Your home? Your credit score? If so, then, by your strained definition, these become "religions."

So you are saying the founding fathers ONLY meant organized religion? They would be OK with the litmus test that the environmental religious nuts and the anti war religious nuts demand be placed on candidates?

I'm saying the constitution says, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." I have to assume they knew the meaning of the word "religious." You seem to be forcing the word "religion" to cover any and every topic you want.

I think that we can both agree that Christianity is considered a religion and Dobson wants to make sure the candidate he endorses is a "Christian." That's his prerogative, I suppose. But, it's still un-American.

Don't you agree with Article VI of the Constitution?

[aumd03 2]

I didn't realize that hugging trees, opposing war or belonging to a political party were considered religions. I think you're fabricating here.

It's very simple, TM. I agree with Article VI of the US Constitution that says no person seeking public office should have to pass any religious tests. Don't you agree with Article VI?

I think you are trying to deflect here.

You know as well as anyone that the environmentalists view their agenda just as fervently as the Muslims and even more than the Baptists or the Catholics.

You do love to force square pegs into round holes, don't you? If "religion" is determined by how fervently one views his "agenda," then anything can be called a "religion." You seem to be pretty fervent about football. How does that square with your other religion's First Commandment? Are you fervent about your wife? Your kids? Your other family members? Your job? Your home? Your credit score? If so, then, by your strained definition, these become "religions."

So you are saying the founding fathers ONLY meant organized religion? They would be OK with the litmus test that the environmental religious nuts and the anti war religious nuts demand be placed on candidates?

I'm saying the constitution says, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." I have to assume they knew the meaning of the word "religious." You seem to be forcing the word "religion" to cover any and every topic you want.

I think that we can both agree that Christianity is considered a religion and Dobson wants to make sure the candidate he endorses is a "Christian." That's his prerogative, I suppose. But, it's still un-American.

Don't you agree with Article VI of the Constitution?

I agree with Article VI, but it only states that the govt not require a religious test as a qualification. It says nothing about which voters use as qualifications. So don't try to throw your red herring out here and use a one way street to support a two way argument. You'd make a great bench legislator. You ever thought about running for a judge's position? You'd fit right in with current judges stretching the constitution to apply where it has no say.

So is any criteria un-american? Or is it only religion? Religion seems rather aribitrary in my opinion. Is selecting based on financial policy or social policy less arbitrary?

[Tigermike 3,036]

I didn't realize that hugging trees, opposing war or belonging to a political party were considered religions. I think you're fabricating here.

It's very simple, TM. I agree with Article VI of the US Constitution that says no person seeking public office should have to pass any religious tests. Don't you agree with Article VI?

I think you are trying to deflect here.

You know as well as anyone that the environmentalists view their agenda just as fervently as the Muslims and even more than the Baptists or the Catholics.

You do love to force square pegs into round holes, don't you? If "religion" is determined by how fervently one views his "agenda," then anything can be called a "religion." You seem to be pretty fervent about football. How does that square with your other religion's First Commandment? Are you fervent about your wife? Your kids? Your other family members? Your job? Your home? Your credit score? If so, then, by your strained definition, these become "religions."

So you are saying the founding fathers ONLY meant organized religion? They would be OK with the litmus test that the environmental religious nuts and the anti war religious nuts demand be placed on candidates?

I'm saying the constitution says, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." I have to assume they knew the meaning of the word "religious." You seem to be forcing the word "religion" to cover any and every topic you want.

I think that we can both agree that Christianity is considered a religion and Dobson wants to make sure the candidate he endorses is a "Christian." That's his prerogative, I suppose. But, it's still un-American.

Don't you agree with Article VI of the Constitution?

And you to be limiting the word religion to mean only organized religion. Or is it only one denomination you want to limit? Now that is un-American.

I think it’s distinctly un-American for you to use such a narrow view in order to limit and restrict people from having an opinion. That is all Dobson has done is voice an opinion.

Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Show me where it says that an individual or a minister can’t have an opinion and base their vote on any criteria they wish to? Show me where that is un-American. Your environmental socialists, antiwar democrats have opinions and have distinct litmus test for voting. But that is OK isn’t it?