Sunday, November 22, 2009

Manhattan Declaration, a Christian Bilderberg Pact?

I often hear, in my mind, the last words of the American Declaration of Independence:
And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
Last Friday a bunch of right wing clerics signed a religious document to further the fight in the cultural wars in this country against the secular beliefs of the majority.

This declaration deals with three issues – sacredness of life – definition of marriage (for you stupid people out there) – and protection against attacks on Religious Freedom.

I respect the right to life. I will not impose my ethical standards on strangers, and in particular women, on how to manage their life and bodies.

I have defined marriage as union between two loving people taking vows to be faithful to one another.

I don’t for the life of me understand Religious Freedom beyond what has been practiced for two centuries in this country.

The first two I won’t talk about. The Religious Freedom to impose religious dogma onto the secular world is an abuse of Religious Freedom. If you cannot control the hearts and minds of your members inside your church building, do not try to abort my secular rights in favor of your slanted superstitious view of the world.

I keep hearing Sarah Palin testing the waters on this issue of attacks on “Christians” which fits into her myopic paranoid wingnut thing. No doubt we will be hearing that phrase or something like it en masse in the coming days of Health Care Reform debate and into the 2010 and 2012 elections. Michael Steele will no doubt be handing out to Fox News a daily talking point memo from the RNC to the Media and authored directly by this Christian Bilderberg group.

Be prepared to be asked to sign your secular rights away in the days and months going forward against separation of church and state and in favor of theocracy.

This “Manhattan Declaration” was not nailed to the door of a cathedral. It was “launched” at the National Press Club with Chuck Colson, a Nixon crook, leading the charge. This PR campaign is headed I am told by the DeMoss PR group which handled Mitt Romney’s PR problem with being a Mormon during his campaign. (Mormon money here backing this thing?)

The document is signed by a lot of right wing Catholic types, a genuine clique within the USCCB most of whom are waiting and wondering where their red hats have gotten to.

There are four signing Episcopalian Bishops who have broken with that group over women's and gay rights.

There are of course some evangelicals James Dobson and the like.

This, another money laundering, non-profit hate group will no doubt last a few years or at least until the 2012 Presidential election and the crowning of Romney or Huckabee as our next “Christian” (white) President?

Keep your powder dry in the days, weeks and months ahead. The far right religious wingnuts now officially join the ranks of the far right politcos hoping and praying to steal their country back from America.

Who’s Who and What’s Up with the Manhattan Declaration

The Right's New Manhattan Project

Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience

9 comments:

Infidel753 said...

I don’t for the life of me understand Religious Freedom beyond what has been practiced for two centuries in this country.

No, no, no. What they mean by "freedom" is their freedom to force everyone else to obey their taboos. If you don't do submit to their will, you're violating their religious liberty. Get it?

I think George Orwell had these guys pretty well figured out.

Dave said...

Strange bedfellows if you ask me. Something smells here and I have my shoes on! These people frighten me.

Debra Harris-Johnson said...

It is all so frightening how hate and fear work hand and hand.

Peter said...

What, do the religious have no right to debate in the public square?
This notion of keeping one's religious views "private" is ridiculous. Are the secularists keeping their views private. Are those who believe in abortion on demand to keep their views private. Are those who are promoting homosexual marriage to keep there views private. No, it's absurd. They have every right to promote those views I strongly disagree with.

This is just another case of the much of the left's intolerance of any views contrary to their own as they cry "Tolerance, Tolerance!". A shallow and empty intolerance. There is as much bigoted speech on this site as any of the right-wingnuts sites (which I also can't stand).

Dave said...

Tolerance is not just a word..it is a way of life! What about the cherished seperation of church and state? Do we throw that aside? Where does it end? Judgement without mercy is tyranny and I want none of that!

Peter said...

Dave,

What exactly is seperation of Church and state in your opinion?
The Constitution makes no mention of "seperation of Church and state". That is simply a common term applied to Article 1 of the US Constitution which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . ."

What that means is the federal government can not set up a "state Church", can not establish a state "religion". It also clearly states that the government can not prohibit the free exercise of religion. The free exercise of religion also includes promoting ones views and values in the political sphere. It is a nonsensical notion that the Constitution outlaws religious expression to merely the private realm. So again, what do you mean by seperation of Church and state?

Peter said...

And what about the judgementalism spewed forth on this site? Can you not see the lack of tolerance? There is little civil discourse here, only fomenting at the mouth and the demonization of others who hold to a contrarian view.

Mike McShea said...

I judge it as I see it. When a bunch of pot bellied pigs in cassocks want more power that their religious office entitles them to - I say F.U. - when a drunk like Dolan leads the premier archdiocese in America and wants to shove his drunk theology down my throat - I ain't no altar boy - and I ain't bending over for him or any other half assed cleric or CEO of Fundie Religion INC.

Infidel753 said...

What, do the religious have no right to debate in the public square?

Who's saying they can't? Criticism and rebuttal are not censorship.