Religious Manifesto warns of coming civil disobedience

Finest American tradition on display there.

".......if it comes to the point where our religious liberty is at risk, I’d not only participate but would encourage people to resist.”

Any American that can't agree with that, probably has problems with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

....Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.......

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Well,  I have not spoken out against this;  I told their site I felt it was required to square with the James Madisonian idea of "ambition will counteract ambition".

Abortions, except for late term abortions in some states, are legal.  Pro-choice individuals are not forcing their views on the opposition. Their freedom to not have an abortion is just as sacred as a woman's right to chose.  The implied meaning in this manifesto is to rally support for having any governement funded abortions excluded in the public option part of the Senate health care reform bill; hence, the timing of presentation of this treatise. 

Gay marriage:  Seriously, its only a matter of time before this will be legal in all states, and if they believe they can turn back the hands of time to the 19th century, they should visit a college campus or even talk to people in their 20s to see they will not get the support they seek. 

Religious Freedom:  The U.S. has probably one of the most diverse populations in ethnicity and religion.  I have not read anywhere that Catholics, Protestants, Jews,  Muslims, or Buddhists are prevented from practicing their religion, or even cults for that matter.  People can worship trees if it pleases them, and some do!  The saber rattling for religious freedom is based on what? 

The implied meaning here is an effort to control the lives of those who do not share their beliefs, and if people or laws do not coincide with their religious tenets, its a clarion call to revolt.  The question is will they bow to the will of the majority of the people in a representative democracy?

Interesting but hardly surprising . . . .  I've said it before and I say it again: More and more Americans see the Obama Administration as way out there on the fringe left--to put it mildly. And in relative U.S. terms, the Obama Administration is indeed out there on the fringe left.

What has been described in the above story is just a minor and tepid reaction on the part of various religious leaders to what they see as a full frontal assault by the Obama Administration on many of the principles and precepts that they hold near and dear. 

A minor and tepid reaction that doesn't come close to how the hard-core American Right views the Obama Administration.

There's a war a brewing in America over which direction the country should head--left or right. The trend is now (undeniably) toward the right--and only ten months into Obama's presidency. If Obama chooses to go down the same road, for the next three years, the country is going to move so far to the right that it will take decades for it to come back to the center.

The 2010 elections will tell all . . . .

Well,  we have just been through 25 years of the right brewing and stewing and poised for a real takeover,  but what A says about "a clarion call to revolt" is true and   is not exactly going to sit with democracy.  I think Pat Buchannan was correct:  It's about '"first things",  and if you have a divide this big,  democracy is going to be trampled at some point.  

Also,  when A says they want to "turn back the hands of time to the 19th century",  the scary thing is,  many do indeed want this,  in all ways.  The question is,  why have they not had a revolt yet?  this has been going on for 20 years now,  & all continues as before.  here are the headlines:

Conservative Christian leaders unveiled a declaration Friday calling on Christians not to comply with rules and laws forcing them to accept abortion, same-sex marriage and other ideals that go against their religious doctrines.

Catholics, evangelicals pledge to ignore LGBT and abortion rights laws

  Democracy is progressive,  so that would have to be done away with.  Do they really want to attempt that?

Funny how our lenses have a way of filtering things.

I re-read the article, again. Wanted to be certain i wasn't missing something. Followed the link. Read that entire missive.

Where, o, where, does anyone say anything about overturning laws, turning back the clock, or doing away with anything? Where? 

It is about the signers of the manifesto being unwilling to be compromise, and allow themselves to be forced into positions that would compromise their beliefs.

Should it be wrong to force someone that belongs to PETA to work in a packinghouse?  Should a doctor opposed to the death penalty be forced to administer a lethal injection for a convicted murderer?

No one would argue with those convictions.

Catholics, Orthodox, and Evangelicals came together and made a statement. They will refuse to compromise on their convictions.

A pharmacist may lose his job if he refuses to dispense an abortifacient. A Judge will resign because he refuses to marry homosexuals. People take to the streets when government restricts their religious liberties. 

If that isn't in keeping with American values, what is? 

Well,   it seems as though they are calling to Christians to not recognize laws passed:  I read the language,  and they say they will not recognize gay marriage "or the equivalent "  which is domestic partnerships, and they are calling on "Christians everywhere"  so that could have implications in the workplace,  if any of these Christians they are calling to out there are bosses,  yes?   Or doctors,  in certain cases,  or administrators, as they make it clear that these things are not their own private resolve,  but that they are calling on all Christians  -   It says more than one may think unless one follows through with the implications.  I am remaining neutral,  I just think there could be trouble down the line.  

Do you see the concerns,  Hugh? In terms of some that they are calling out to being principals and business owners and executives ,  etc. ?

Yes,  I do see.  And yes,  there will be trouble.  A nation cannot be this divided on core issues without trouble,  and I never said I would have anyone go against conscience.  There is just a storm brewing here,  I think.  

The president of the Family Research Council (FRC), Tony Perkins, and those with whom he and his organization affiliates, have been featured in my piece here at NowPublic, Religious Extremism and U.S. Politics: Often an Ominous Pairing.

The Family Research Council (FRC) is the political lobbying arm of Focus on the Family.

http://my.nowpublic.com/world/religious-extremism-and-u-s-politics-often-ominous-pairing

Thanks,  Karen:  Yes,  I do recall your fine piece.  Thanks for linking it here!

Extremist?

To whom, their opponents?

They blown up any buildings? Engaged in voter fraud? Shot any policemen, killed any abortionists? Hijacked any planes? Advocated the overthrow of he US Government?

If Perkins views are extremist, then there are at least a 100 million extremist in this country - which would mean that his views hardly fit the definition of extreme.

Of course, the Catholics are likely to be extreme, especially with all those hospitals they run. And those Orthodox folks surely look radical enough.

Extremism is relative to the democratic progression of cultural and legal changes.    I have huge problems as an essentialist philosopher,  knowing where to draw the line;  hence,  my seeming duplicity on some issues.   One could say that each side has grown more severe.  I think it could have been avoided, and was not. 

Gay reaction to Manhattan Declaration:http://instaputz.blogspot.com/2009/11/company-you-keep.html"If you only read The Times, you'd think the supporters of the Manhattan Manifesto were a bunch of "moderates", like Robert George.

No.

Here, unmentioned in the article, are some of the signatories:

Most Rev. Peter J. Akinola
James Dobson
William Donohue
Dinesh D’Souza
Maggie Gallagher
Jerry Jenkins
Marvin Olasky
Tony Perkins
      
That's a lot of crazy for one room.

You all know the charming Ms. Gallagher, the execrable Mr. Donohue, and the nasty Mr. D'Souza, whose favorite hobby at Dartmouth was outing gay students.

I want to draw your attention, then, to Mr. Akinola, the Archbishop and Primate of Church of Nigeria Anglican Communion. He's a cut above the rest. He believes that "Homosexuality or lesbianism or bestiality is to us a form of slavery." Worse, he supported a proposed (but never passed) 2006 bill thatcalled for five years imprisonment for anyone who "performs, witnesses, aids, or abets" a same-sex marriage, and anyone who engaged in public advocacy or associations supporting the rights of lesbian and gay people.

Said the Reverend: "The Church commends the law-makers for their prompt reaction to outlaw same-sex relationships in Nigeria and calls for the bill to be passed since the idea expressed in the bill is the moral position of Nigerians regarding human sexuality."

Rule of thumb: When Rod Dreher proclaims something like this "great news," you know it's a) extreme and b) gay people are going to suffer."
Also,  the Manhattan Declaration may be an attempt to politically separate from progressive religion, as in this piece of early Nov.:  http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/catholic_church_goes_after_straight_allies_of_marriage_equality

Marvin Olasky is an extremist?  Dobson?

That is laughable on the face of it.

Scary, if one considers how far into la-la land one has to be to consider those folks extremists.

Dobson's columns appear in 500+ newspapers - oooh, that is hardcore stuff. Doesn't he have a spot on CBS radio also?

Marvin Olasky was a syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate, and appeared in newspapers around the country. He is also a Professor of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin (there's a real bastion of radical conservative thought), and a provost at The King's College in New York.  He is really underground - WOW.

Yes,  this was a gay blogger's reaction;  I do not know who Dobson is ,  really.  These conservatives seem extreme to those surrounded by liberals:  and vice versa,  Kevin Jennings seems radical to those surrounded by conservatives.  the gulf grows wider and deeper,  this cannot continue on as it has....something must change..........

As Thomas Jefferson said succinctly  the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creates a "wall of separation" between church and state.

The religious right can push themselves into oblivion pursuing a path that attempts to inject their faith where it does not belong.

Yes,  that separation is what they seek to tear down.....