Charles C. Haynes v Adam's blog

Charles C. Haynes is a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center. Sometimes he gets republished in the Spokesman-Review. He wrote a very decent editorial that should give "movement" religious activists pause when it comes to choosing a president or anyone at all to public office. Should such a person conform to the special agendas of such activists? Quite frankly, I would say, no. Because no one group should impose their will on others. When it comes to abortion, gays, etc. churches should feel free to spell out to their congregations what they don't like biblically about such "sins." But, as we don't believe the same way, and those of us not Christian will indeed have a different view about abortion or even homosexuality than those who are; is not our religious freedom infringed on when "movement" activists demand that government pass laws that align closely with their canons or creeds? Such a line should be drawn. Because the U.S. Constitution does argue freedom of religion. It is correct that it does not say freedom from religion. But it does say in Article 6 "no religious tests" as Mr. Haynes reminded the Spokesman-Review readership. And it also says in the first clause of the first amendment that Congress shall make no law establishing religion... which would include nor prohibiting its free exercise. Well, as a Druid, it is my free exercise of religion to be pro-choice on abortion and to remain fairly neutral on the gay rights/gay marriage issue. They are American, they do have the same constitutional rights as does the rest of us. My moral views would certainly be to never vote for a candidate who caters to "movement" religious activists. And given the state of the Idaho state legislature that refuses to regulate daycare centers out of "concern" for parental rights. Shouldn't parents who must use such facilities have the right to know if Johnny or Susie won't be molested? Or a law that would facilitate the tracking of unexpected child deaths but died upon being returned to committee. Isn't that an argument that parents will not have to be held accountable if because of abuse or neglect, this is how a child dies? The "moral agenda" that opposes abortion through legislative act also biblically obligates those who push such an agenda through government to also see to the welfare of the children. Haynes makes clear that people are going to make certain moral judgments about those they want as leaders. But there is a hell of a difference between the personal values of individuals and the radical think that doesn't look deeply at what sort of morals should surely guide this nation.

If it is a House Speaker Denney who picks fights with the news media over the fact that they did not "pledge allegiance." Is a "loyalty test" more important than fixing Idaho's roads? On Adam's blog that seems to be the case. If a religious group points to the bible as to why they don't pledge allegiance; can that really make them "anti-American?" On Adam's blog, that seems to be the case. Someone forgot to remind Adam that religious freedom doesn't only apply to you, your ilk and those who 100% agree with you. The Jehovah's Witnesses have the religious freedom to not pledge allegiance--make no false oaths. Not salute the flag--make no graven images. Nor serve in the U.S. Armed Forces--blessed are the peacemakers? Anti-Americanism is to dispute what makes this nation a beacon to the rest of the world; it's democratic principles. And democratic principles are exactly the arguments that Mr. Haynes makes. You can't very well keep such principles if you fight with your fellow American over how he believes, what he believes and to what use he makes of his belief.

Quite frankly, it wouldn't bother me if Barack Hussein Obama were in fact a Muslim. If he showed compassion as a member of government toward those who hurt, out of compassion--because of the moral compass called charity. But it does bother me that compassion and yes, charity doesn't exist among "Christians." One can not be considered "charitable" if one uses a blog to attack a stereotype of a "liberal." As did Adam's blog. Well now, if "Adam" has heartburn over environmentalists; I should take him on a guided tour up by Kellogg and the environmental disaster that sits there as a result of past mining practices. Would you want to drink the water that killed off fish and plant life along the streams and rivers that rush through the mine tailings? I didn't think so. How about skinny dipping in that river Adam? I dare you. No? Someone who is truly conservative doesn't ignore those realities. What no conservative will ever do is jump overboard or go off the deep end before thinking through how to effectively deal with this latest predicament. Whereas, radicals routinely do. The time that Adam confuses conservatives with radicals, he is surely in trouble.