Comments on: The Reason for the Religious Right http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/05/16/the-reason-for-the-religious-right/ Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day... Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:25:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Amanda Fairweather http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/05/16/the-reason-for-the-religious-right/comment-page-1/#comment-15827 Amanda Fairweather Thu, 17 May 2007 00:42:18 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/05/16/the-reason-for-the-religious-right/#comment-15827 "Thus due to the ever-encroaching role of secularism, often aided and abetted by an activist judiciary, a partisan media, and an anti-religious elite, there was born the religious right, as an attempt to hold on to past victories, and to challenge the moral and religious downward spiral that was gaining momentum in America. It was simply a reaction to a pre-existing secular offensive." Interesting perspective, thanks for noting it. Amanda Fairweather “Thus due to the ever-encroaching role of secularism, often aided and abetted by an activist judiciary, a partisan media, and an anti-religious elite, there was born the religious right, as an attempt to hold on to past victories, and to challenge the moral and religious downward spiral that was gaining momentum in America. It was simply a reaction to a pre-existing secular offensive.”

Interesting perspective, thanks for noting it.

Amanda Fairweather

]]> By: Joe Whitchurch http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/05/16/the-reason-for-the-religious-right/comment-page-1/#comment-15799 Joe Whitchurch Wed, 16 May 2007 15:05:48 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/05/16/the-reason-for-the-religious-right/#comment-15799 The standards for attacking the non secular or the non religious left are so jaded and biased and obvious it probably goes without saying but this recent article by an Asian American columnist reveals another of a similar ilk <a href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2007/05/16/not_all_undercover_journalists_are_equal" rel="nofollow">here.</a> Joe Whitchurch, Indianna, USA The standards for attacking the non secular or the non religious left are so jaded and biased and obvious it probably goes without saying but this recent article by an Asian American columnist reveals another of a similar ilk here.
Joe Whitchurch, Indianna, USA

]]> By: Joe Whitchurch http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/05/16/the-reason-for-the-religious-right/comment-page-1/#comment-15798 Joe Whitchurch Wed, 16 May 2007 15:03:26 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/05/16/the-reason-for-the-religious-right/#comment-15798 Well said Bill. I've never been nor am I now a member of the mis-named (in my view) moral majority but I do recognize basic unfairness in the major media outlet treatment of Falwell while he was alive, and even (and here he is unlike Nixon) in his death. I have a link to one of the first stories on Jerry Falwell's death on UK's Reuters service and if you read it and my short blog response you and your bloggers will immediately notice the thick negative bias of Reuters, even toward a dead man. Check it out <a href="http://www.pgfoot.org" rel="nofollow">by clicking here.</a> Joe Whitchurch, Indianna, USA Well said Bill. I’ve never been nor am I now a member of the mis-named (in my view) moral majority but I do recognize basic unfairness in the major media outlet treatment of Falwell while he was alive, and even (and here he is unlike Nixon) in his death.

I have a link to one of the first stories on Jerry Falwell’s death on UK’s Reuters service and if you read it and my short blog response you and your bloggers will immediately notice the thick negative bias of Reuters, even toward a dead man. Check it out by clicking here.

Joe Whitchurch, Indianna, USA

]]> By: david skinner http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/05/16/the-reason-for-the-religious-right/comment-page-1/#comment-15783 david skinner Wed, 16 May 2007 08:09:22 +0000 http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2007/05/16/the-reason-for-the-religious-right/#comment-15783 Dear Bill, As you know, in Britain the homosexual lobby, Stonewall, have managed to infiltrate government and force through the Sexual Orientation Regulations - without either public awareness or of proper pariliamentary debate. The Joint Council of Human Rights, which is composed of secularists and Ben Summerskill, leader of Stonewall, recently produced this staggering statement, regarding the teaching of sexuality in schools: “In our view there is an important difference between this factual information [about sexual morality] being imparted in a descriptive way as part of a wide-ranging syllabus about different religions, and a curriculum which teaches a particular religion’s doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true. The latter is likely to lead to unjustifiable discrimination” (paragraph 67).” The statement assumes that it is written from an absolutely objective (factual information) position, only normally reserved for God. Not only - as your article says - does it ignore the fact that "humanism is an ideology, world view and religion" but it blatantly and perversely ignores the fact the Sexual Orientation Regulations will indeed lead to the unjustifiable discriminatiion of Christians. If in Australia, you have a Council for Equality and Human Rights, then you too are in deep trouble - that is of course, unless John Howard is on their case! Their Deception is done by the re-packaging of old, familiar and respected moral values, the one’s espoused by our parents and certainly by our grandparents and placing, within them, humanist products. Just because there remains a faint flavour of what "equality" used to mean, the public swallow it. David Skinner, UK Dear Bill, As you know, in Britain the homosexual lobby, Stonewall, have managed to infiltrate government and force through the Sexual Orientation Regulations – without either public awareness or of proper pariliamentary debate. The Joint Council of Human Rights, which is composed of secularists and Ben Summerskill, leader of Stonewall, recently produced this staggering statement, regarding the teaching of sexuality in schools:

“In our view there is an important difference between this factual information [about sexual morality] being imparted in a descriptive way as part of a wide-ranging syllabus about different religions, and a curriculum which teaches a particular religion’s doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true. The latter is likely to lead to unjustifiable discrimination” (paragraph 67).”

The statement assumes that it is written from an absolutely objective (factual information) position, only normally reserved for God. Not only – as your article says – does it ignore the fact that “humanism is an ideology, world view and religion” but it blatantly and perversely ignores the fact the Sexual Orientation Regulations will indeed lead to the unjustifiable discriminatiion of Christians. If in Australia, you have a Council for Equality and Human Rights, then you too are in deep trouble – that is of course, unless John Howard is on their case! Their Deception is done by the re-packaging of old, familiar and respected moral values, the one’s espoused by our parents and certainly by our grandparents and placing, within them, humanist products. Just because there remains a faint flavour of what “equality” used to mean, the public swallow it.

David Skinner, UK

]]>