Why is it that religion is an issue that Republicans have to defend? Nobody ever questions Democrats over their faith or lack of faith. Liberals live in this fantasy world where conservatives are dangerous only because of their religion. “Dingy” Harry is a mormon. How comes his mormonism is less of a problem than Mitt Romni’s mormonism?
No matter how many times God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, liberals are trying to erase this bit of history. What’s funny is that the sole reason the US came into being is because of religious freedom. Now liberals are trying to rewrite this bit of history by creating religious intolerence.
To prove my point, one teacher is indoctrinating his students in Athism. He continuously berates the Christian faiths in his classes and nobody is willing to tell him no. The principal is pulling a slick willie by only promising to look into it.
Another point is that Congress had a vote to recognize muslim holidays and shot down a vote to recognize Christmas. What? Look I don’t have the creativity to make this stuff up. I have the creativity to write music and that’s it.
Liberals believe that a conservative’s faith will somehow interfere with conservatives ability to hold public office. It’s assinine! The same danger applies to democrats but they overlook that fine point. Liberalism is all about hypocracy. To prove this point, let’s revisit Bill Clinton’s statement “I smoked Marijuana but I didn’t inhale” and compare it to Hillary’s smear tactic about Obama’s cocaine use 30 years ago. To Liberals, Bill’s use of the drug was a growing experimental thing and Obama get’s accused of dealing drugs. What? This was never a well kept secret. Obama included that in his book that he’d written about himself.
December 19, 2007
lonniewalker
Lonnie Walker's Blog 
17 responses to “Liberals and Religion”
baptizedbyice
December 19th, 2007 at 17:59
Not all liberals believe what you have said. For those that do however, the issue with the presence of religion that the conservative base is trying to make more popular is that the separation of church and state is falling into the background. Recently, as we have seen in the media, the voice of evangelical Christians has risen substantially and they have brought to the front lines abortion and other religious topics. Many liberals have a problem with the idea of a candidate who makes his decisions on these topics based on his religious beliefs rather than making those decisions based on the rights of American citizens
absent of religious ideas.
Many of the conservative candidates openly state their conclusions on gay marriage, abortion and other topics are based on their faith. Many liberals do not want a candidate who bases decisions that affect millions of Americans on his religious beliefs. Also, the democratic candidates have had their faith questioned. Each candidate in this election has been required by the public to acknowledge it. As a matter of fact, Obama is under scrutiny by many people for his faith.
The problem comes down to the fact that America was founded by people who sought to escape religious persecution. The Constitution was made by religious founders who sought to create religious freedom. Many people believe that the overbearing religious zealots who back these candidates will hurt the separation of church and state and bring us back to what our founders tried to escape from.
lonniewalker
December 19th, 2007 at 19:00
I understand the principle of seperation between church and state. However, I haven’t seen many liberal candidates having to defend their religious beliefs. Is it automatically assumed that democratic politicians are imune from trying to blur the lines between church and state? Obama’s religion is being questioned due to the controversial pastor. However I haven’t seen many democrats have to give speaches on their religion and how their religion will not play a part in their government decisions. That’s where I was going with this.
Lonnie
baptizedbyice
December 19th, 2007 at 19:10
Okay, I see your point more clearly now. I guess the situation (with Mitt Romney especially) is something that isn’t happening with Democrats in general. I guess the situation may be a new version of what Kennedy had to deal with when his Catholicism was questioned. As I see it, the question of religion is, in general coming from concern of what will happen to government. Evangelicals are a growing part of the conservative base and many liberals are not particularly in agreement (faith wise) with this group, so it seems that they want to question the candidates who this group strongly supports.
lonniewalker
December 19th, 2007 at 19:59
Well I guess I’m not your normal conservative then. I’m not a bible thumper but I believe in a small government. I can’t see any good coming out of more government because most of the ideals coming out of more government verges on the edge of socialism. If socialism is soo good then why did the soviet union go down in flames and fail?
My beliefs are a combination of beliefs. I have some liberal ideas in that I could care less if 2 guys want to get together as long as I’m not involved in it. Hehehe and don’t even ask my thoughts on 2 women. I am a guy after all.
Ok, now I got to get my mind out of the gutter. Anyways, I think if we start bandwagoning people by their party we’re always going to be wrong on some levels. In many cases we’re in the parties based on our overal beliefs. Most of mine fit into the Conservative party but I do have beliefs that do not fit in with what the party believes overall.
I’m not governed by religion but right and wrong. Wealth redistribution is wrong on many levels. Hitting the wealthy hard in taxes is going to hurt the lower and middle classes. It will take food off our tables due to the fact employment positions will disappear. Instead of free health care, I’m all for allowing Americans to pay for insurance in a way where the money for payment is taken out of the persons check before taxes are taken out and allowing tax credit at the end of the year.
Lonnie
princemegajedi
December 19th, 2007 at 20:13
I am a Bible Thumper (some would say) And I truley will refuse to call a non-CHRISTian president. So trust me there have not been many Presidents in the U.S. in my opinion. GOD told us we are to follow HIM and not the world. As the world and all in it will die away but HE never will.
lonniewalker
December 19th, 2007 at 20:39
I’d be the last person to say there is anything wrong with religion. I work a swing shift Tuesday through Saturday and well when Sunday comes around, I’m ready to sleep instead of waking up early to go to church. The Dyess AFB church services start at 8am and I’m dead to the world at that particular time. There is 1 church for several denominations of religion on the base.
Lonnie
baptizedbyice
December 19th, 2007 at 20:39
Lonnie
I agree that we cannot start labeling others intentions and beliefs based solely on their party. Even though this was not my intention, I can see how my words may have give off that point of view. I agree though and respect that you say
“I’m not governed by religion but right and wrong.” I am also the same way, although most of my views are in the liberal category, while some linger into the conservative area. Oh well, we can’t all agree.
I think in today’s world, in both parties and in all methods of thinking, many people are not governed solely by their perception of right and wrong, but by what their religion, party, etc tell them to believe. It’s funny though, coming into this discussion, I thought that our views were very different. Although it is clear we differ on certain ideas, our desire to act based on what we believe to be right remains connected. Thanks for your insight and posting this.
Your words only gave more validity to the statement Buddha made (I don’t mean to get all philosophical and such on you.
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”
lonniewalker
December 19th, 2007 at 21:12
baptizedbyice,
Your welcome and thank you because you’ve proved my point that I’ve been making for a while. There is no stopping congress if and when they decide to work together through issues and stop the name calling and accusations. They need to start adding some common courtesies to the way their doing business and in the decisions they make.
Absolutely nothing is more hypcritical than the democratic congress criticizing the Iraqi government for not getting things done when they themselves aren’t exactly burning up the vote. They should be setting an example for the Iraqi government to emulate.
More name calling creates a lot of discontent people. What happens is both sides refuse to work together. Instead of working with each other in a respectful manner and compromising ideas, the name calling makes progress come to a complete hault.
Of course me and you can agree on some things. We may not agree on the solutions and sometimes the solution can be as controverial as the problem.
While some say that religion matters, let’s look at the just of religion. Religion tells us how we should treat each other. Religion gives us a basic guideline on how to live a just life. Religion also gives everyone a basic idea of what’s right and wrong. Even if a democrat is governing by right and wrong they are still using principles endorsed by the bible.
Lonnie
josejump
December 20th, 2007 at 00:00
The way I see it is that the Liberals (in general) feel threatened more by the thought of the institution of religion having too big of a say in politics… i guess I can kinda see the point. However the whole notion of “Separation of church and State” is a complete farce. This is not a constutitional phrase.
We have the freedom of speech, and the freedom to assemble, and the freedom of religion. Nowhere did it say that there was no inclusion of church in the politics of the country. The Jefferson quote that everyone loves to use was not an official document, and the intention of the comment is to insure that we never have another situation like we did in England, where you had the “Church of England.”
In other words, we can’t have the Government “declare” a national Church, and the spirit of the statement would be that no one religion would dictate the nation’s policies.
That was the fear people had with Kennedy. That somehow the Pope would have his fingers in the running of the country. This shoudl be avoided at all costs.
This however does not mean, that the judeo-christain values our country was founded on (they even opened the proceedings of debate on all of our documents with prayer) should be ignored, or even banned.
In fact the Founding Fathers had a full understanding of the need that we as a nation have to rely on God and his mercies. They understood where those unalienable rights came from.
The US is a Christain nation, and the basic tennents that all the religions under that come under that shoudl be supported in our governments decision.
Things that we can all agree on as Christians are… God had a hand in bringing our ancestors to this country for a reason. Killing is bad, stealing is bad (unless you are a government official), We should have charity, and we shoudl treat each other with kindness. Of course Christians don’t hold the corner on the values and Morals department, but they come from somewhere, right? they are contrary to our natural drive. Even if you don;t believe in a God, the civilities that you function under are influenced most heavily by the judeo-christian values that the majority of the country espouses.
I in fact have a problem with them driving religion out of the government. I have questions as to how you run a society without religion. For instance… if you are an inner city kid, and all you have around you is an endless fountain of death, poverty, destruction, and crime… who do you have to look up to to help you to pick yourself up out of the gutter? Sometimes you need a little push from a higher power.
I have no issue with someone with principals and values in the office, if they happen to be religious, that is fine with me. If not, that is ok too, as long as they realize they better work within the confines of the values I carry myself.
lonniewalker
December 20th, 2007 at 04:17
Hey well put Josejump. BTW, welcome to my little site. Good to have you!
Lonnie
baptizedbyice
December 20th, 2007 at 04:42
And answer to both of your comments
Many liberals, as I’m sure you know, have religious/Christian values. I do not think most of them want government leaders to make decisions without some of the morals they have been taught. The issue I have though, even as a Christian, is that religion does not necessarily dictate morality and some of the beliefs religous people have in this country are very scary. In addition, there are many atheists and people of ther denominations whose morals you probably agree with more than some Christians in the country.
I personally believe that the president I elect needs to know that he or she is not in control of everything. I want him or her to know that there is a “higher power” who can be there in difficult times of decision making and who is in control of many things in this world that humans can not understand or change.
It may be true that the US is a Christian nation today, but as the United States we constantly project our country as a melting pot for cultures. Why not back that up by not forcing our religous beliefs on other people.
From the “liberals” (I’m tired of the labels, sorry) that I know, including myself, none of us would mind a religious president who takes his values and morals from religion and truly uses his power and faith to do the best he or she can in any give situation as long as it does not infringe upon the freedoms of other citizens. As I said earlier, abortion, gay marriage, etc in a place absent of religious influence would be treated differently if someone whose church tells him that they are wrong were in office. Liberals want to avoid it.
It’s this simple for liberals as far as I’m concerned, religion is fine for a candidate as long as he or she does try to make me follow the rules of his or her church.
lonniewalker
December 20th, 2007 at 05:05
I see and understand your point. I don’t necessarily agree with it in whole. My whole point encompassed the fact that nobody and I mean nobody on the Democrat side of the house questions other democrats religion. They only question Conservatives religious preference and use that to cry foul. Obama’s preacher is a controversial figure but he’s the only candidate I remember ever having to answer to the democrats over his religion. Nobody ever questioned slick willie over his religious faith. They questioned him over “I smoked Marijuana but I didn’t inhale,” Whitewater, Monica Lewenski, etc.
To go further, I don’t think we ever had a president that was accused of letting his faith rule the country. If a president went into office and then decided he/she wanted to get rid of all religions other than catholic, I’m sure the congress would relieve him/her of their duties and send them away. They do have that power. In my view, it’s making a big issue out of nothing. The seperation between church and state does not mean that the members of the government can’t believe in religion. It means that the president should not be swayed by his/her pastor as an advisor because we are a melting pot of different faiths. All who have the freedom to practice any faith they want as long as the church does not incite criminal acts. This is where some muslim religious members cross the line.
Lonnie
josejump
December 20th, 2007 at 22:24
Your points are well taken, however…
“It may be true that the US is a Christian nation today, but as the United States we constantly project our country as a melting pot for cultures. Why not back that up by not forcing our religous beliefs on other people.”
Can you qualify you view on exactly how you feel we are “forcing our religious beliefs on other people?”
Other than that… I think we are in agreement.
baptizedbyice
December 21st, 2007 at 23:36
Forcing religious beliefs: I do not mean it in the sense you described as the Pope being in control through a Catholic president (the American people would not let that happen). If I put myself in the position of an atheist and a Christian president runs for office, my main concerns would be that his personal religious beliefs, such as those I have state earlier pertaining to abortion, gay marraige, the death penalty, etc may get in the way of my beliefs.
Pushing our Christian beliefs on other people means that in government rule, a Christian president, Congress member, etc. would make decisions based only on his or her Christianity that infringe upon the rights of people who are not Christian. As you said, most people have the same moral views as far as crime, justice and other parts of the government, but some of the topics being addressed today are brought up or protested against solely by religious groups.
The rights of Americans should be based on justice regardless of what religion says. Rights in America should be based on what is just for the protection, preservation and equality of every American.
Basically, no candidate should end his answer to a question of government “because my Christianity tells me that this is right.” If he or she ends a statement that way, then it seems their probability of infriging on the rights of non-Christians is high.
jason ei
January 5th, 2008 at 16:36
Yeah Lonnie,
One contradiction between Bill and Obama’s drug use does not prove as an absolute that “liberalism is all about hypocracy”. What a myopic statement. Says alot about you and your black and white world.
If that condradition says so much about liberalism then this must also be true. “Neo-Conservatism is all about hypocracy. To prove my point, George Bush ran on NO NATION BUILDING and as soon as he got elected he started setting up to invade Iraq, even BEFORE 9/11”
You were probably one of those toolish dolts that thought Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
You are doing conservative a dis-service by representing them. You sound dumb.
lonniewalker
January 5th, 2008 at 19:13
Jason,
I feel bad when I have to tell you to pull your head out of your backside! I really do. I was in the military and I know there was more to the story than you can possibly understand. I’m not quite sure you’re able to understand things I know about Iraq.
1) Sadaam was not held to the fire over UN Sanctions. The UN is an old organization that literally serves no purpose other than it’s own. Slick Willie did not force Sadaam to comply, hell the UN didn’t force him to comply because the UN was on the take and getting bribes from Sadaam.
2) Sadaam was actively declaring war by locking weapons on to our planes in the no-fly zone. According to a tool like you, this is no problem. Let them lock their weapons on us it’s their right.
As far as my black and white world, I knew 9/11 had nothing to do with the Iraq war. *POP* No need to be alarmed that’s just that bubble your living in bursting.
The drug thing was small do you really want me to pull out more examples? The rush smear letter was an example of hypocracy and outright idiocy in which Rush owned your hero Harry Reid. If you need me to, I can explain how that is hypocracy in action but I’m guessing your intelligent enough to know where I’m going to go with that argument.
The only person sounding dumb right now is you. Your a tool for the liberal party and glady drink the kool aid their serving. As far as me dis’ing the republican party, I don’t believe that. As far as me sounding dumb, I’ve got guys sicking their college professors on me because they’re not smart enough to dissect what I’ve said. That is the liberal MO though. I’ll make a cheap plug here, you really should go buy the book “If Democrats Had Brains, They’d Be Republicans.” Available at all fine book stores nation-wide. Don’t worry, the female cashiers at these places will probably wink at you when you go to pay for the book. It might even improve your social life!
Lonnie
princemegajedi
January 8th, 2008 at 20:25
I have all of her book’s. She writes with something Liberals do not understand. FACTS!!!