Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Justice v. Jesus 05

Yes, I swiped that title from Jon Stewart. I'm not going to go into detail on this because you can just go and read it here or here for yourselves, but I did want to comment and seeing as how I have a blog, I can comment if I want to.

So religious leaders are taking their stand. But, why did they have to go and prove that too many religious leaders are shamelessly pushing the far right agenda, which incidentally stands for more bad than good? Not only that, but they're using crappy lines like "Those people on the secular left, they say, 'We think you're a threat, You know what? They're right."

Admittedly, I didn't see the airing of Justice Sunday, so my comment will be short. I also plead ignorance on most things political (although I don't waller around in my ignorance). All I can really say is that I'm uncomfortable with the idea that these people, who are well respected by many people in their own sects (and I grew up listening to on the radio), are religious leaders parading around as honorary politicians.

By the way, I actually had a poster on my door in college that said, "Dobson is my hero."

1 Comments:

At 5:24 AM , Blogger mkfreeberg said...

Maybe I'm missing something here, but this practice of reading motives in on what your political opponents are doing seems to be getting awfully one-sided. It would appear the secular left thinks it has an exclusive license to do this.

Why is it okay for them to say the conference "clearly argues that people of one viewpoint have God on their side and all others are faithless" but it's not okay for the organizers to "accuse Democrats' tactics of being 'against people of faith'"? They're both speculation, and I would expect they are both in-bounds or both out-of-bounds.

Perhaps one of these has much sturdier foundation in fact than the other, which is something I wouldn't know about because like you, I didn't see the show. But it bothers me to see assemblies, petitions & speeches of any kind bad-mouthed and invalidated in the name of the First Amendment, which, when I read it, seems to be all about encourating assemblies, petitions and speeches.

Are Schumer and Neas complaining about the tax status of the church? They don't come out & say so in what I read.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home