Harriet Miers Is An Evangelical Christian

She is a fundamentalist.

This woman is a far worse pick than Roberts.

She is predisposed by her religious belief system to be a bigot.

Many American families will be in grave danger because of her.

You seem predisposed by your own beliefs to cast judgment on others.

and their war on gay and lesbians?

You want to shut that discussion down eh?

Hmmmm

Your response to the OP was, well, weird.

Dems should know better than this.

What evidence do you have that Miers is an "evangelical" besides her church, and how is this not true of many liberals like Martin Luther King and Jimmy Carter.

Miers has also said she supports civil rights for gays and lesbians and that orientation should not be an issue in employment. Projecting preconceptions you may have about "evangelicals" is a complete misnomoner regarding her judicial beliefs.

It's a lot like red-baiting and gay-baiting.

is your claim that she backs civil rights for gays and lesbians. What she said in a questionnaire back in 1989 was that she feels they should have the "same" rights as straight people. This is code, to anyone who has fought this fight, that she buys the canard about "special rights." Furthermore she never said that orientation shouldn't be an issue in employment. Read it again. What she said was that employers should be able to take every relevant factor into consideration. She in no way said they should not be allowed to discriminate against gays. She additionally said she was opposed to overturning sodomy statutes. That's three strikes. She's out. Why any Democrat would support her is beyond me. Unless of course they don't care about the rights of their gay brothers and sisters.

If she's harboring a stealth agenda to revoke gay rights and inforce Southern Baptist principles on the nation, why would she have bothered with this advocacy group?

You better get used to Democrats supporting her, 'cause I guarantee you she'll be confirmed in force.

but it doesn't mean that I won't continue to speak out about it.

So Miers isn't anti-gay because she answered a questionnaire by a gay advocacy group? And her answer was basically "I'll support AIDS funding, but as for the rest of your so-called civil rights, screw you queers?"

This whole "Miers Supported GLBT rights" is an OUT AND OUT misrepresentation of her response. Frankly, I find the repetition of this meme HIGHLY DISTURBING. Her response was basically about as supportive as 'love the sinner, not the sin.' In fact, that IS the policy of her church according to its website.

LTS,NTS translates into: hate my love for my partner and our relationship, hate the fact that my partner is butch, yet we will be welcome to join their church if we only dissolve our relationship, repent, and wear flowered dresses.

With that kind of support, I'll take my enemies, thanks.

Won't that look just fabulous on her black robe?

She's a WOMAN LAWYER, for crissakes. That alone excludes her from most fundy church teaparties.

Nor have I stated that I had such knowledge. I was simply perplexed by your response to the OP.

Unlike red-baiting or gay-baiting, evangelicals really do have an agenda and they will be the first to tell you that it is their mission to spread their message into all aspects of our culture.

Please. It is insulting to have the evangelical agenda being confused with gay-baiting or red-baiting.


If you are an evangelical and are upset by the OP, then please, just say so.

"Evangelical Christian" denotes anyone who considers themself a true believer and witnesses to others. The term has been hijacked by some very misguided people over the last generation, but it is still held in veneration by a lot of people who are not bible-thumping or vindictive. Many of the other gay people I have met consider themselves Christian (though I am not).

I don't care for generalizations against people of certain religious beliefs.

On that subject, it's impossible to say that Miers is a fundamentalist just b/c of the church she attends.

It is my perception that evangelicals believe in proselytizing. It is my perception that evangelicals believe that their life revolves around getting others to believe what they believe. Examples of this would be people who go into a certain line of work--like pharmacists--just to be able to extend their will over the enlightened people.

I am a "christian" who is becoming less tolerant of so-called christians whom are doing great harm to humanity. My christianity has taught me that everything that I need to overcome and learn all come from within--not from projecting onto others. In other words, if I don't believe in abortion, I shouldn't have one. I should concern myself with the plank within my own eye, and not concern myself with the splinter in the eye of my neighbor. Love my neighbor as myself.

Evangelicals do grind against everything that I hold holy. There is no greater evil than wrapping oneself in the cloth of the lamb when one is a wolf.

I was watching Pat Robertson's 700 Club one fine day (the Navy Lodge in Norfolk offers it on their in-room televisions because it's local programming there, and it's damn fine entertainment) and he was screaming about how he wasn't a fundamentalist. Only Muslims can be fundamentalists, sez Pat, and so he's an Evangelical.

The fundies followed his lead, and now they're all evangelicals.

There's precedent for that on our side...Ronald Reagan hijacked the word liberal, and now we're all progressives.

in my book . . . one of the definitions of "evangelize" is "to convert to Christianity" . . . what gives evangelical Christians the right to try to convert ANYBODY to their religious beliefs? . . . and, by implication, to look down on those who don't believe as they do? . . . how DARE they?!? . . .

people's religious beliefs are their own business, but when your religion starts trying to convert ME because your beliefs are "superior" to mine, that's crossing WAY over the line . . .

evangelism has been responsible for untold horrors visited primarily upon indigenous peoples and the poor . . . just ask the Native Americans . . .

'cause that seems to be what you're advocating.

"evangelism has been responsible for untold horrors visited primarily upon indigenous peoples and the poor . . . just ask the Native Americans . . ."

Does that include the Native Americans and poor who are evangelical Christians themselves, including Civil Rights leaders, reformers, and Democrats?

What about gay evangelicals?

www.rainbowbaptists.org

That aside, how do you know that Miers is an evangelical?

self-aggrandizing and bigoted . . . the reason many Muslims hate westerners is the attempts by evangelicals to denigrate their centuries-old religious tradition and "bring them to Christ" . . . again, they have no ethical or moral right to do this, regardless of how strongly they believe in whatever they believe in . . .

when your religion impinges, unwanted, on my religious space, you are crossing the line of civilized behavior . . .

There are evangelicals that get that. Just because they believe they are right and hope others can be made to see they are right does not mean all of them believe they have the right to force their belief on others.

Would you have opposed the Civil Rights movement b/c of its links to evangelical Christianity? What about humanitarian programs? Linking evangelism w/bigotry and intollerance exudes a very limited understanding of what evangelicals believe and work to accomplish.

philosophy. They would not be accepted in many evangelica/fundamentalist christian churches today because they would be seen as too liberal. The goal of evangelical/fundamentalist christians is to get into the highest echelons of society and enact THEIR and ONLY their biblical worldview. They don't think all religions are equal in the eyes of god. They think ONLY christianity is the one true faith and all need to come to it or perish.

Over the last 40 years evangelical/fundamentalist christianity has become less tolerant and more militant.

I have no right to try to proselytize other folks to my religion (or lack thereof) or politics. The facts are out there.

LH

The Protestant establishment of this country made all kinds of generalizations about Catholics and they would have said the same thing back in the early 20th century or 19th century. You can't make generalizations just from what religious affiliation someone has.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

so if one dislikes hate and prejudice, that makes one a bigot?

By your logic, every one who worked for the civil rights movement and opposed segregation was a bigot.

Jews who hated Hitler were bigots.

Children killed by Stalin were bigots.

Women murdered by the Taliban are bigots. They hated the Taliban and the poor misunderstood Taliban were only exercising their religious beliefs, right?

What a crock.

Sure there are a large number of Fundamentalist Christians that behave as you suggest. But that does not mean all of them believe in that manner. Coming from the camp she comes from though we may suspect more of her particular leanings. But just knowing that she is an Evangelical Christian is insufficient information to make such a broad claim.

he touted her membership in a conservative Fundamentalist church as one of the reasons he was supporting her. He knows the church, the pastor and their mission.

That is more evidence than just the singular label. It would be foolish to not recognise the threat the religious right represents. But you have to be careful if you choose to champion an inclusive society to not sweep away those who happen to share a particular religious view but not a particular political position.

my problem is that she belongs to a fundamentalist, evangelical sect of Christianity that seeks to destroy gays and lesbians and their families.

I have no issue with Christians, I have an issue with rightwing fundamentalists.

Particularly when discussing subjects as emotionally loaded as politics and religion.

Not all evangelicals share the views you describe. It may be likely in many cases but to make presumptions may hurt allies you have here fighting the good fight with us. When you wish to draw attention to a particular view that is religiously motivated be as specific as possible.

Paint with too broad a brush stroke and you lose control of the discussion. It becomes an internal struggle with people you should be working with rather than a discussion of the issue you meant to focus on.

that fundamentalist evangelicals don't support gays and lesbians, by and large.

I was very specific in identifying who she is and what kind of Christian she is.

And what the rightwing does is to call us "anti Christian" for opposing the hate agenda of the fundamentalists.

As if they represented all Christians, which they don't.

Calling fundamentalists on the carpet for their bigotry is in no way indicting Christianity. Many Christians are appalled by the rightwing fundamentalist mindset.

Your use of the phrase rightwing fundamentalist rises to a sufficient level of detail that it is unlikely to spark an argument concerning the target of disdain.

Do not get me wrong. I believe them to be a very great danger to us. But our side falls in on itself so often fighting because we step on each other's toes. The only reason I offer this caution is to help you focus on the problem rather than getting bogged down in an emotional argument from which nothing good can come.

And the evangelicals on this site need not be lumped in with others uou apparently despise.

Look strictly speaking I am probably a fundie...In the Biblical sense anyway.....but there is a Grand Canyon's worth of difference between Christian Fundamentlsis and the SOcial Fundamentalisthing that who spew hatred and revile anything that does not march in lockstep to their view.

Jesus would call these folks Pharisees...Having a strong belief in God...but wanting to use the levers of government to change the country rather then dropping to their knees and praying for genuine Revivial.

Those folks who in their zeal for political and social power have pushed people away from God in droves and they will pay a price for their arrogance and there "form of Godliness: beyond anything you or I coan possibly imagine.

If thes folks would spend more time in silent prayer than in protesting everything from Harry Potter to the Panama Canal treaty, we would all be better off.

All I am saying is that they are awful representations of a life that is Christ-centered and if you are going to rail against them be my guest. Just don't bandy about terms when referring to them that offends Christians of every other stripe.

She must be a fundie asshole. These people will not make decisions based on precendent but rather to advance their bigoted, so-called Christian agenda.

Roberts, I have no doubt will work overtime to give more rights to the plutocrats, and Miers, if she is a wing-nut, will work to enforce a theocracy.

In either case, both would be (if our educated assumptions are correct) working to trash our Constitution. Both/either is equally devastating to our nation.

Bush really doesn't believe in a jesus so were not a theorocracy what we have is I dont know. What is a government built on croonieism. :D
How are you tonight Zola? :hugs:

she does not deserve to be a JANITOR.

Its a question of whether she can keep her religious views seperate from her position in the court. Now for some this might be possible. But in the form of a Bush nominee I highly doubt that she has any intention of respecting the secular nature of our society.

1) she adores W

2) she has no "official" records from her past (we know, what she
did for W in case of his Duty and not serving his time!!!!

3) W knows exactly whom he called for this!!!!
she was never married, no children, absolutely devoted to her job!
and graduated from a very traditional University!!!!

That must not be a bad sign, but it's like catholic priests
preaching about family planning and not using condoms, without
never being in bed with a woman.

How in the world can a lawyer interpreted the law of the land (for LIFETIME!!!!!)without experience on the bench for some time, or live a life in the way, where the average American have to go trough their entire life???

Isn't she a person who interprets situations only from a theoretical point of view(Please excuse my English, I'm German!)


Please read, what Pat Buchanan wrote (!!!!!!)



http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=9444

See my posts above. Of course we should be worried about her. Its the entire set of circumstances about her. But to just say she is an evangelical Christian so we should shun her puts a lot of individuals in a precarious position. And yes there are evangelical Christians that believe in Church/State seperation.

"How in the world can a lawyer interpreted the law of the land (for LIFETIME!!!!!)without experience on the bench for some time, or live a life in the way, where the average American have to go trough their entire life???"

You are suggesting that she's disqualified because she never got married? Because she didn't "live her live in the way" average Americans live?

I suppose you'd oppose a gay justice too.

Think.

onenote

There's a difference.

Jimmy Carter, by the way, is an evangelical Christian.

she would be Evangelical and Fundamentalist, but not of the strident headcase variety. Their statement of beliefs is benign boilerplate Protestantism. This part of the preamble seems to be pretty conciliatory:

We try not to be dogmatic about matters on which believers hold divergent views. Our core beliefs are centered in Christ and His message as supported by Scripture. More obscure doctrine, as well as controversial issues about which the Bible is silent, are left to believers to sort out on their own. On these issues we take no official/dogmatic position. What follows is a summary of what we believe.

and what she does at her job.

It, in and of itself, is not enough.

I've known of some Fundamentalist Christians who were convinced that GWB was the anti-Christ.

I don't care if she's a Christian. I don't care if she's a Lesbian. I only care how she carries out her job. Will she be an activist? Or will she have restraint?

:scared:

Gee, are we sure she's not a Lutheran? We're noted for our mad coffee makin' skills.

Are you in the progressive Fair Trade coffee sect, or are you a conservative Folgerist? Personally, I believe Lutheranism can't survive without Folgers....

Maybe Harriet will run for President on the democratic ticket one of these days!

She shouldn't be judged because of her religion.

I have no idea what to think of her since we really don't know much about her yet.

scares the hell out of me!

I have long thought that thing was a tad....macabre.

I mean come on. You take a bunch of kindergarten age children out on a Sunday morning, then stick em in a room with a giant sculpted man nailed to a freakin cross. You think that isn't gonna damage some psyches?

I don't believe the same things Christians do but hey, if it comforts them in some way to believe those things I say go for it. What some of them do to their children though really should be against the law.

for all the talk of "peace" and "love", and the agreed upon symbol of representation being so bizarre.

Worshiping a man being tortured to death because of something "you've" done.

If that ain't a "you owe us one" type of salesmanship, than I don't know what is.

Most Protestants prefer a tasteful empty cross.

I'm afraid of any "biblical literalist" -- Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.

I don't care what they call themselves, but the idea that the entire bible is the inerrant word of G-d creates an entire slew of problems regarding objectivity, religious tolerence, etc. Just (supposedly simple things) like what should be taught in our science classes are ransacked by literalists in the Calvinist tradition (which has spread to other faiths).

"Fundamentalism" means basing your religion on certain Fundamentals; for Christians, this would be the Bible. (The Amish & Mennonites are Fundamentalists.) Historically, Fundamentalists avoided political entanglements since their histories often include opposition from Established Churches. The Southern Baptists were the first group to embrace politics; this happened in Texas, when the Republican Party made a hard Right turn.

"Evangelism" is the desire to preach your faith to others. Some denominations are considered Evangelical, but members of "mainline" churches may practice Evangelism. This is their right. If you don't want to answer the door when the come calling, don't. If you find them annoying on TV, change the channel.

Christian Reconstructionism and Dominionism are more serious. These beliefs hold that America should be ruled by Old Testament law--as interpreted by them. These folks are behind the politicization of religion & are gaining power. Most Fundamentalists and/or Evangelicals do NOT have the same agenda.

Has Ms Meiers identified herself with the Dominionists? Please, let us know. What church does she attend?

I am more concerned about her lack of real achievement & her closeness to Bush than any religious "problem."

www.theocracywatch.org/introduction2.htm