Dear Conservatives: If You Want to Live in a Theocracy, Get the Hell Out of the United States

crossThe word “freedom” is something I don’t think most conservatives understand.  While it can be subjective at times (I wouldn’t recommend yelling “bomb” in an airport, for instance) it’s not really that difficult of a concept to grasp.  Especially when it comes to religion.

See, in this country, religion is meant to be a private matter.  After all, isn’t that much simpler?  Even those who believe that this country was founded on Christianity can’t tell me what denomination we should follow.  Because the fact of the matter is, Catholics and Baptists (while both Christians) practice their faiths very differently.

“Religious freedom,” as conservatives like to call it, means that privately we’re allowed to identify with whatever religion we want to identify with.  That doesn’t mean, however, that we’re allowed to discriminate against people just because we disagree with them.

Our Constitution, as subjective as it might be, presents one undeniable fact – the words Christianity, Christian, God or Jesus Christ appear within its text not even once.

So, if the United States is indeed a “Christian nation,” our Founding Fathers sure as hell forgot to mention that.

But the truth of the matter is, conservatives don’t want to live in a nation based on liberty and freedom – they want to live in a theocracy.  They want a nation and government based on religion.

And if that’s what they want then they need to get the hell out of the United States, because this isn’t a nation based on theocracy.  Our Founding Fathers made that perfectly clear when they wrote our First Amendment.

If they want to practice whatever religion they want, in the privacy of their own homes (or churches), by all means go right ahead. But that doesn’t give them the right to force their narrow-minded religious beliefs on those who don’t agree with them.

I always find it funny how these religious conservative radicals talk about how much they love this country, yet seem to hate the principles on which it was founded.  It’s especially ironic considering a large part of why this nation was founded in the first place was to escape religious persecution from a tyrannical form of government.

But for some reason these people still seem to believe that restricting their “right” to discriminate against others based on their religion is somehow an infringement on their rights.  Basically, their attempts to infringe on another person’s rights are being infringed upon and that’s ticking them off.

So to these people, I say – get the hell out.  If you think a government based on theocracy would be so wonderful, by all means, go check out Iran and Saudi Arabia then come back and tell me how “free” the people of those two nations are.

Because that’s what these people seem unable to understand.  The words “freedom” and “religion” are complete contradictions.  Religion is about control – not freedom.  You can’t say you support freedom, while trying to control people with your religion.  Because that doesn’t make any damn sense.

The following two tabs change content below.
Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on both Twitter and Facebook. Have feedback, inquiries, criticism or hate mail? You can email him as well.


Facebook comments

  • Edgar

    This article doesn’t reflect progressive thinking…it’s an up persuasive rant. Telling people who disagree with you to go away establishes Clifton as the new self-proclaimed king in his own mind, I guess.

    • Loki61089

      Your point being? If you dislike the content of the article, don’t read it. Nobody forced you to read the article you seem to dislike so much to have to try and bash someone for it.

      And I believe you meant “Unpersuasive” not “Up Persuasive”.

      • Allan Greenspan

        Are you suggesting that people who disagree with the authors opinions should ignore them or that they aren’t allowed to express a dissenting idea? That doesn’t sound very open minded to me.

        Also, auto correct. Sometimes it happens. In case you aren’t sure do a google search to find thousands of hilarious examples.

      • Sandy Greer


        How does one know they ‘dislike the content of the article’ PRIOR to reading it?

        Your suggestion seems to indicate there should be no dissent. Or that the only opinions expressed should be by ‘yes men’.

        Lack of dissent and ‘yes men’ are both very dangerous.

        ^^^They are ‘regressive’ in nature, and to be avoided by anybody who calls him/herself a Progressive.

      • Ryan Harvath

        I agree look at how nothing gets done in the House of Representatives because of Yes Men, and the Speaker of the House being the biggest one of those
        Well I suppose he’s more of a NO man
        “No I won’t put forth any Bill that doesn’t agree with the deeply held beliefs of the Corporations/People that donate mass quantities of money to my campaign, nor will I protect the rights and or freedoms of anyone whom, those same Money Men, deem not to be worthy of,
        After all it is equal rights for all, as long as you agree with my religious and or economic view on who should have rights and freedoms”

      • Allan Greenspan

        Ryan, you should make yourself more aware of what goes on at the capital. It may surprise you to know that democrats have equally large donor sources and regularly use the same tactics you described. You’re so young and naive. Now is the age when you should be quiet and learn from those who are wiser than you.

      • Ryan Harvath

        When logic fails you insult my intelligence, truly you posses the moral high ground, I am not all that young I am 38 I have lived in various countries and see the US government for the failed system that it is, perhaps if you made yourself more aware of the whole picture not just the side that serves your views you would be less biased and less likely to attack a persons character without knowing that person, Seriously do you see how professing ones self to be wiser is actually a proof point to the opposite? Wisdom is not gained with age it is gained with experience and with humility, and in humility Sir you yourself have proven yourself lacking
        Also telling me to be quiet?? Really?? Thank you once again for proving my point and negating yours
        That Sir is called oppression

        “Lack of dissent and ‘yes men’ are both very dangerous.”
        Thank you for once again proving that Conservatives when backed against the wall by simple truth, and when they don’t agree with the opposition start to oppress and start to attack the very freedoms they so (hypocritically) pretend to protect
        It is called the 1st Amendment
        So no I will not be quiet and I definitely have learned here Sir, I have learned that everything the article touts as truth you yourself have proved in one simple sentence
        “Now is the age when you should be quiet and learn from those who are wiser than you.”
        Do you not see your own Hypocrisy?

        It is evidentiary that the republican/conservative side is no longer the party it started out to be they ignore the constitution when it suits them (ie throw out the articles that suit their ‘vengeance’ with the Boston Marathon bombers who were protected by the same constitution as all in the US Ann Coulter went as far as to say the wife should have been put in prision just for wearing a Hijab)
        “Since Democrats took control of the Senate in 2006, Republicans have mounted 380 filibusters. This far exceeds anything we’ve seen before in the Senate. By comparison, in Lyndon B. Johnson’s six years as Senate majority leader, he faced just one filibuster.”

      • Sandy Greer

        >”Lack of dissent and ‘yes men’ are both very dangerous.”

        ^^^You quoted me. Then went on to imply only Conservatives do this.

        But *I* was thinking of the author of this article, as much as the person I Replied to. See my OP, where I spoke against what the author said, and why. I admit to being older than 38. 😉

        I agree ‘yes men’ seem more predominant on The Right (tho I note the schism in the GOP between The Right and TeaPugs)

        But I think BOTH Left/Right can be accused of ‘stifling’ dissent, at times. Why I said WHAT I said, in my OP.

        And (aside from personal attacks) I think BOTH Ryan Harvath/Allan Greenspan are right in their arguments. Why I’m able to ‘upvote’ both sides here. But that’s just me, maybe.

      • Ryan Harvath

        Perhaps I only provided a singular example, and yes about the Conservative side, I do feel and think there are examples of the more ‘Liberal’ side being a less like followers and have more freedom to express their dissent, I quoted you to prove a point on Greenspan’s comment
        “You’re so young and naive. Now is the age when you should be quiet and learn from those who are wiser than you.”
        I find that comment so intensely offensive on so many levels as well as resoundingly condescending and wholly pompous not to mention it goes exactly to the heart of this entire article, that conservatives often in ways be it subtle or direct seek to oppress all those who dissent, who don’t agree to their rigid beliefs
        I have evolved over time in my ‘youth’ I have changed and I do listen, I am flexible I just have moved in a direction of conservative to a more liberal stance my political views have dramatically changed after living over 7 years abroad after really being humbled and learning that my point of view is not the only one nor is it the most correct one, however I do accept my errors I am willing to change my view point based on truth and actual experience in life
        I think we are getting a bit further off the topic of the article, the point I see the author trying to make is that religion as created by man is opposite to freedom, and that ‘conservatives’ who base their moral compass on cherry-picked paraphrased verses from their particular interpretation of an archaic book written in a wholly other language and translated so many times into english by men of bias is not nor can be a reliable reference point to freedom
        I want to clarify that while I hold great disdain and openly express my distrust of religion
        I am unwaveringly spiritual and do believe in G-d
        However my belief is ever evolving and ever open to change based on truth, not propaganda of man

      • Allan Greenspan

        I figured you’d be offended by that. I was when it was spoken to me as the new guy at work. But, sometimes you just have to admit you’re view isn’t as expansive or experienced as you’d like to think. Sometimes you’re better off listening for a while and keeping your thoughts to yourself. Balanced views are much more enlightening than broad unsubstantiated claims.

      • Ryan Harvath

        You should take your comments and read them to yourself, because 1 we are not at work and that has nothing to do with this scenario, My views are far more broad based than yours, I have made no claims I can not substantiate that you chose to ignore truth is something I can not control nor can I force you to see the hypocrisy of your words and the utter nonsense you spout as some sort of tea party volcano on steroids
        Every time I have put forth anything proving my point you blatantly ignore it and move to some other banal argument up to an including trying to quiet me as if you are some learned scholar
        You have NO idea of my personal experiences in life yet you what did you say exactly?
        “Hmm, I don’t think it’s a good idea to make assumptions about what people are saying. That’s a pretty slippery slope and leaves you wide open to let your own prejudice interpret what’s being said.”
        Ah but in this case as true with most conservatives of such a closed mind nature, it is perfectly ok for you to make wild assumptions about me without knowing anything other than my name, Please please continue proving my point(s) and regurgitating whatever it is you heard on Faux Nues yesterday, Perhaps you are just an internet conservative troll working for Bill O’reilly and the only thing you can do is insult make digs say lots of important words that actually say nothing and ignore when I catch you in bold face Hypocrisy, perhaps you needed to remain quiet and listen at work because you just don’t catch on too quick, just stating my opinion from what I am seeing here =)

      • Allan Greenspan

        I’m only reading what you wrote. You clearly stated that you have a problem with the political wranglings which conservative politicians engage in. I agree with you that their behavior is very frustrating. However, you neglected to include the liberal politicians and they are guilty of the same behavior. Your stated views are naively one sided and I have continued to explain why. Do you believe that liberal politicians don’t use the same tactics you’re complaining about?

      • Ryan Harvath

        You are only reading what you want to read, I never said it was one sided I gave 1 specific example since you are so keen on them, and that still doesn’t satisfy you, any reason why you keep ignoring other points I make that don’t fit your version of things? and continue to only go at things from one angel and continuing to go after banal points?

      • Allan Greenspan

        Then you should have no problem just agreeing that your statement was too obscure and left too much room for interpretation.

      • Sandy Greer

        Ever come across anybody you didn’t like? Couldn’t stand? How’d you handle that? Tell them to get out of town?

        ^^^I doubt it.

        But that’s what the author did, on a bigger scale. He said people should leave the country. Because he doesn’t like them, or what they say. They should leave the country, or STFU.

        ^^^Not The Right Thing, at all.

        This country belongs to ALL. Not just the ones we like. But even the ones who aren’t ‘just like us’. Even THEY have a right to be here.

        From the Communist witch-hunts & Civil Rights Movements in the 50s, to Vietnam War Moratoriums in the 60s: Most serious dissent in this country has started on the Left. And we’ve always been told: “America. Love It or Leave It. But don’t try to change it.”

        Given that, it is ESPECIALLY important we ‘rise above’. That we not fall prey to the same tyrannous bully tactics used by The Right to maintain Status Quo. We must BE better, because we ARE better.

        You can’t let insults bother you; you won’t last long, posting the internet. But here’s something to consider:

        He who takes offense when offense was not intended is a fool, yet he who takes offense when offense is intended is an even greater fool, for he has succumbed to the will of his adversary.
        ~ Brigham Young

        ^^^Interesting that, rather than tell OTHERS to ‘leave the country’ he went out and found his own. 😉

      • Ryan Harvath

        Sandy interestingly enough I have left the US and live in a socialist society where I am quite content to live =) And you are correct I should not be insulted by someone who is obviously intending to provoke me because while calling for citations on anyone else has yet to post but 1 poll done in 2011 and published in 2012
        Thank you for your support and for teaching me that I must rise above the insults (even though I have just posted one, to Greenspan) and in the future make sure I hold myself stronger to my standards and ignore those that would wish to offend, especially without that individual having any real knowledge of who I am
        You are a gem!

      • Allan Greenspan

        You should probably reread my post. The post I replied to was critical of a politician and his donors while but you ignored the exact same behavior from his counterparts. It’s either always bad or always good. You can’t be critical of an individuals behavior just because they disagree with you but then look the other way when it’s mirrored by people you support.

      • Michael Marowitz

        But shutting down government was a tactic that has been employed only by uncompromising conservatives bent on getting their way. And voting 48 or 49 times in a row in favor of killing Obamacare when Obama would have vetoed it was a tactical demonstration of stubborn petulance unheard of in the history of liberals. There are distinctions between the two groups that are too numerous to mention.

        Suffice it to say that conservatives think that the old ways they’re familiar with, which they label as “traditional,” are always vastly superior to what the future brings, and they believe everyone should subscribe to and act according to what they believe is right. Liberals going back to the days of John Stuart Mill have always encouraged individuals to do their own thing so long as it harms no one else. Conservatives are authoritarian; liberals are not. It is liberals who adore liberty; conservatives just pay lip service to liberty and freedom, using them as jingos to arouse government hatred. And, as someone who has studied our Constitution for years both as a law student and an attorney, I can tell you that the frequency with which conservatives butcher the meaning of constitutional provisions and cases that have interpreted them in the service of their own dogma is far greater than most liberals’ treatment of constitutional law.

        And Allan, it’s time for you to give your ageist pomposity a rest. I see little if any evidence that establishes that your beliefs are “wiser” than Ryan’s–you’re just a lot more self-congratulatory.

    • ziggywiggy

      what the article said was if you don’t like that the USA is not a theocracy leave. Makes sense. It didn’t say because you disagree with me leave. “But the truth of the matter is, conservatives don’t want to live in a nation based on liberty and freedom – they want to live in a theocracy. They want a nation and government based on religion. And if that’s what they want then they need to get the hell out of the United States, because this isn’t a nation based on theocracy. Our Founding Fathers made that perfectly clear when they wrote our First Amendment. “

      • Allan Greenspan

        No, Edgar is right. And you can tell because of the quote you cited. Almost 40% of US citizens identify as conservative while only about 25% identify as liberal according to Gallup polling. Does the author truly believe that all 140,000,000 of those conservatives are against liberty and freedom? Of course not. Even suggesting the idea is idiotic. The author has a childish view of those who disagree with him. Instead of making an effort to understand and empathize with their point of view, he has used it as an excuse to ridicule and insult them. This article is garbage.

      • ziggywiggy

        it did not say every conservative, I believe he is speaking about those who want a theocracy… it just said conservatives and I do not assume they all think alike. “But for some reason these people still seem to believe that restricting their “right” to discriminate against others based on their religion is somehow an infringement on their rights. Basically, their attempts to infringe on another person’s rights are being infringed upon and that’s ticking them off.” “these people” being people who want a theocracy. I’ve heard this argument before and it usually comes from trolls.

      • Allan Greenspan

        You’re in denial ziggy. Read the quote you cited. “But the truth of the matter is, conservatives don’t want to live in a nation based on liberty and freedom.” It’s right there without any qualifiers. The only sentence in which the author attempts to hide his prejudice is the first one when he says he believes “most” conservatives don’t understand the word freedom but even that is an opinion with no citations to back it up. This article is garbage and you shouldn’t have fallen for it. You did, though, which means you aren’t as open minded and unbiased as you thought you were.

      • ziggywiggy

        You can rip on the author or call me in denial all you want but it’s still just an opinion(for all 3 of us), took you a while to figure that out. Guess what mine is different than yours! I do not like conservatives. At least every single one I’ve ever conversed with. Really don’t care if you think I’m biased against the people who wish to control my life based on their interpretation of the bible. That’s not bias that’s self preservation. I don’t like conservatives just because they’re conservatives, I don’t like them based on their actions.

      • Allan Greenspan

        It isn’t an opinion because it’s so obviously untrue. This isn’t about politics. This is about stupidity dragging the conversation into the gutter. I would never agree with someone who made statements like this about liberals. Ever.

      • Ryan Harvath

        You are cherry Picking and that sentence you quoted DOES have qualifiers you chose to ignore
        But the truth of the matter is, conservatives don’t want to live in a nation based on liberty and freedom – they want to live in a theocracy. They want a nation and government based on religion.

      • Allan Greenspan

        I’m curious about where you got those numbers. Can you cite a source for them?

      • Ryan Harvath

        From Gallup same place you got your numbers I just read the ENTIRE article I didn’t just cherry pick out the parts that served MY agenda =)

      • Allan Greenspan

        Whoops, I replied to the wrong post. I was asking about the voting numbers you posted for the Civil Rights act of 1964. I read the information you posted from the Gallup poll but I wasn’t really interested in who’s gaining or losing. Even if the numbers were reversed I was just wondering how many millions of people the author believes don’t want freedom or liberty.

      • Ryan Harvath

        But the conservative advantage is down to 15 percentage points as liberal identification edged up to its highest level since Gallup began regularly measuring ideology in the current format in 1992.
        And he states MOST conservatives and I believe anyone who can logically reason understands the author is talking about the Extremist conservatives not the general masses

      • Allan Greenspan

        Hmm, I don’t think it’s a good idea to make assumptions about what people are saying. That’s a pretty slippery slope and leaves you wide open to let your own prejudice interpret what’s being said. The author has all the time he wants to proofread what he wrote to make his point as clear as possible. I think you’re making assumptions about meaning that isn’t there. The words themselves speak pretty clearly.

      • Ryan Harvath

        Slipery slope??? lol Typical nonsensical conservative double talk
        Your prejudices demark everything you have commented so please don’t point your finger at me, with rhetorical nonsense

      • Allan Greenspan

        Are you saying you disagree with me? That it’s actually okay to be vague and leave things up to interpretation?

      • Ryan Harvath

        Are you continuing to attack nuances and banalities in light of having nothing else to attack?

      • Allan Greenspan

        I’m just looking for clarity. I keep asking questions to get a better understanding of what you’re trying to say. Not sure why that’s such a big deal. Why don’t you answer my last question? Do you believe it’s okay to leave things up to interpretation? Or, in other words, is that preferable to being as clear as possible?

  • Ryan Harvath

    Edgar I will acquiesce to one point that this article doesn’t reflect progressive thinking, it reflects truth.

    It’s a simple and self evident truth, that religion is not congruent with freedom, there are severe limitations in man made religions, they control diet, fashion, speech, and far more.

    Self righteous people want only their specific and self-serving freedoms, beliefs, and moral codes as law. Anything that makes them uncomfortable is not a repression, exclusion, or the blatant crushing of another’s freedoms but an outrage, a blaspheme, an affront to their religion, what makes them uncomfortable based on their specific and biased religious beliefs and is allowed in a civil society all of a sudden makes them the victims.
    It’s the exact opposite of freedom, it’s suppression by the ‘majority’ (which they no longer are, just unable to come to terms with the fact that not all people think like it’s 1850)
    Those are the people that are dangerous to the Constitution to true freedom and to true religious protections fully afforded to all

    • Allan Greenspan

      I couldn’t help but appreciate the irony of your use of the term self righteous. How does one describe an article (or forum post! /wink /wink) which uses ridiculous generalizations (prejudices) while providing no supporting examples?

      • Ryan Harvath

        I can’t help but appreciate the irony of your comment, in that my use of the phrase self righteous is obviously my opinion about the group I am describing therefor not needing any supporting examples (while many exist) and your incorrect use of the word Irony, is well ironic
        “the expression of one’s meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.”
        I think that throughout history there are more than sufficient examples, that I would not need to site any, If you need examples please google Slavery, as that was a very specific religious freedom many many (self righteous) people held as a very dear belief, while starving and raping their and removing freedoms from their slaves
        The Crusades, another self-righteous group going about killing anyone who doesn’t agree with their specific beliefs
        The list is rather extensive, your comment is rather ironic

      • Allan Greenspan

        Slavery and murder are not vices which belong only to people who claim to be righteous. Throughout history people have used all kinds of excuses to get power and oppress others. Are you going to lump Martin Luther King and Mother Theresa in with the group’s you mentioned? Are you aware of which political party most strongly supported the 1964 civil rights act? Are you going to ignore the horrible oppression inflicted upon the world by Atheist governments? Opinions are supposed to be ideas which are formulated through reasoned thought about whatever knowledge and experiences you possess. You have expressed only prejudice. You hear what you want to hear and ignore your responsibility to the facts.

      • Ryan Harvath

        Martin Luther King and Mother Theresa?? What are you talking about, are you completely out of touch with reality?
        Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did.
        Please make sure you site facts that support your case =)
        “In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people.” – James Madison

      • janinec

        More INCORRECT history.

      • Ryan Harvath

        More Statements with no supporting fact. Only blatant ignorance.

      • Volomon

        No offense Greenspan and I don’t mean to rock the boat here, but you’ve clearly not learned your history very well. The Republican party back then (during the civil war) were what is currently the Democratic party. The reason the Republican party changed so much is that in the south the voting majority were white. The minority were black, in order to maintain it’s popularity the Republican party began campaigns of hate to drum up the southern white vote. Which in effect changed the fundamental nature of what the Republican party stood for prior to that time.

        Unfortunately I don’t have the time to explain the entire political evolution, look it up though you’d be amazed.

      • Michael Marowitz

        Yes, Allan, we’re all aware that crackers stopped being Democrats with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Lyndon Johnson predicted it. Of course, crackers found their way to the Tea and Republican Parties, where they continue to whine about Freddie Freeloaders, where racists like Paul Ryan decry inner city culture as lacking “the American work ethic,” where all Latinos are illegal immigrants who’ve penetrated our borders to lay waste on our welfare system.

        I’ve heard of fidelity to facts, but not “responsibility to the facts.” And facts are funny things. More than 97% of climate scientists have concluded that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that presents grave risks to humanity in myriad ways. Many conservatives like you, Allan, dismiss global warming as a scientific hoax that undermines capital ventures and, of course, kills jobs. I think I’ll stick with science, Allan, and you and yours can continue to flog the rest of us with your fictions that you find so easy to mislabel as facts.

      • Jeanette Titov

        Please learn the difference between “site” and “cite”. A site is a place and to cite is to state or quote something. You are not the only one that mixes the two words – I see it in genealogy research all the time! English is a difficult language with so many word sounding alike but having different spellings and meanings. I agree with your post.

      • Andy Kinnard

        You’re grammar Naziing a year old post.

      • Robert Walter Steele

        BAHAHAAH holy shit thats funny stuff right there glad I took the time to read this cite! LMAO I hate grammar nazis and this shows just how petty they are she didnt even bother to look at the time stamp!!!!! Just had to run her mouth and criticize !

      • Ping2

        Yeah ain’t that dumb and dumber?

      • janinec

        Funny coming from a socialist…

      • janinec

        Looks like you know nothing of history, except the revisionist opinion stuff interpreted by “progressive” professors…

      • Ryan Harvath

        You’re one of those the holocaust didn’t happen, special kind of ignoramuses aren’t you?

      • Lori Norman

        When ridiculous generalizations and prejudices describe exactly the acts of a “religious” group they are true. When I see religious groups marching in the streets to support the poor, sick, homeless, naked and hungry that will be the day I will show respect to these unholy “christian” groups that are more concerned with homosexuality and abortion

    • janinec

      Really? Most of our Founders were religious (in one way or another) and believed that man is afforded inalienable rights by his Creator. How can one be free if he has no inalienable rights?

      • Ryan Harvath

        you are making wild connections based on no fact.
        Most of our Founders were religious (in one way or another)=Agreed
        and believed that man is afforded inalienable rights by his Creator.
        no. The best lie is a half truth.
        Most were Diest Freemasons and were very careful to exclude G-D from the constitution, then there is the treaty of Tripoli. And endles quotes from the founding fathers.
        And How can one claim to be free if he is a slave to the Christian G-d who watches him and his thoughts his whole ‘life’ and judges him and then sentences him to his arbitrary (and not totally agreed on sin scale)
        Man has free thought and religion has not been a bearer of rights to most other than to white males, so really you are speaking with great ignorance.

  • John Clark

    I’m trying to remember which historian said that the ghost of Cromwell is in our Bill of Rights, especially the 1st. As a Marylander, we were taught that we were invaded by Virginia during the English Civil War and that Catholics had no rights for 50 years. Jefferson knew this history and wrote the Virginia religious freedom bill which was the model for the non establishment clause. It is this concept of a state based on religious freedom which made us a beacon, and lady liberty is it.

  • John Baker

    The real problem is that these Fundamentalist “Christians” don’t really believe in God the Great I Am that Is All of Existence. No, they believe in a little vindictive “God” who bolsters and supports their belief in themselves and their prejudices.

    • Rusti

      You are right. One thing that amazes me is that I doubt any of them have read the book which they promote so rabidly. If they had, I doubt they would be quite so loud!

  • Mark Howie

    great article

  • capnmike

    I am an American, and quite proud and happy to be one. As were my parents, grandparents, etc. We are NOT Christians. Nor are we interested in anything having to do with Christianity, or even religion in general. And this is as much OUR country as it is YOURS. Shove your Christianity,

    • janinec

      And shove your secular humanism! Ain’t the First Amendment grand?

  • kehehj

    Rather than Iran or Saudi Arabia, go to the Bahamas. It’s written into their constitution that they are a nation based on Christianity. And I hear that the weather is nice there.

  • Sandy Greer

    I remember the Vietnam War protests, and what the Battle Cry was from The Right:

    America. Love It or Leave It.

    They called us Commies, and Draft Dodgers. That’s when they were being polite.

    Lefties should NOT be telling anybody to get out of THEIR country. Leave the Hate for The Right. They’re so much better at it (usually)

    ^^^We are better than that. Or we should be.

    It’s OUR country. Every single one of us. Even the ones we don’t like.

    • terry63

      Vietnam,was fought By Democrats. JFK send in advisors But Johnson (D) expanded it to an all out quagmire. Johnson, loved the poor remember? He sent those poor Black kids and White trash over there as fast as he could. If you had money you could buy your way out. Bush, 43 had connections. The rules of engagement were suicidal. The Vietcong off loaded anti aircraft in plain veiw of American air power, they were off limits, They could see them being trucked in country, they were still off limits. When and only when those sites were functional could a U.S. Bomber hit one. If you were flying a Thunder Cheif, and were shot at, yet lucky enough to survive , It was a court marshall offence to turn around and take it out. We lost so many thunder cheifs and crew, They nick named it the THUD. The Military had to pull pilots from tankers and supply to fill those seats.Johnson loved the poor so much that he sprayed them with agent orange.
      Wallace was a Democrat. Eisenhower (R) passed the first civil rights act . A Republican swing vote would pass the next one. Sen. Bird and Al Gore’s dad were trying to Filibuster it. You remember Bird? The KKK Grand Wizard (D). That’s who people were back then, they didn’t understand why kids were running from their duty. We fully understand now. But, then the blinders were on. Nixon (R) would end that war With Operation Line backer which dealt more distruction to Hanoi in 3 minths than Johnson had in his entire screwed up fiasco over there.

      • terry63

        America, had just come off of WW2 our fathers had fought, then Korea, our Fathers had fought. Now in Vietnam, the nation was dumbfounded by kids running away. I dont think that the Idea of our troops being Double crossed by their own President really hit home Until Tet. khe Sahn and Hamburger hill. The fall of Saigon. Few knew that Johnson was running the entire war from the White House. Johnson once stated ” Those boys cant even bomb an out house with what I dont say so”. Today we get it. We get it again as we watch Al Qaeda retake Fallujah. I buried a freind a couple of years ago. A Ranger, who sufferd a traumatic brain injury there. We Get It! I served in Afghanistan. Army Infantry. The thought of giving that back infuriates me! Its ours, we own it.
        But this President had full Congressional support.Even Hillary was for it, before she was against it.

      • Sandy Greer

        Thanks for the History lesson. You seem to want to ‘armchair general’ every war since WW2. Don’t see the point in that. But IF you’re going to:

        1) Focus your arguments; you’re all over the map.
        2) Paragraphs. ‘Nuff said.

        >Its ours, we own it.

        ^^^No, we do NOT. We don’t OWN a country, simply because we invaded, fought, and died there.

        We don’t OWN France, Germany, and Italy. Don’t OWN Korea; don’t OWN Vietnam. We don’t OWN any of the myriad countries we’ve been in since: Lebanon, Grenada, Iraq (et al) Countries too numerous to count:

        We own NONE of them. What are you, a NeoCon?

      • janinec

        He didn’t say we owned it. He was saying that it is stupid to just drop out when it is still in total conflict after sacrificing so much and so many. We shouldn’t have gone in, but since we did, we are responsible for leaving it in a stable state.

      • Sandy Greer

        And all this has to do with my post (or the article)…WHAT, exactly?

        >Vietnam, was fought by Democrats.

        ALL wars are fought by men and women of ALL stripes: Dems, GOP, Libertarians (et al) ALL races, ALL religions, and some with none. You said you were in Afghanistan. How is it you don’t know armies are diverse? Do you seriously suggest only Republicans went to Afghanistan, a war initiated by Bush?

        John Kerry. John McCain. BOTH Vietnam vets.

        Do you seriously suggest YOU care for the poor and minorities? When you argue against hiking the Minimum Wage? Just SMH at that.

        WRT your insinuation DEMS don’t care:

        How/why is it minorities don’t vote YOUR way? How/why is it they just don’t ‘feel the love’ emanating from the GOP?

        ^^^Bears some thinking on.

      • Bob

        Who the fuck is this terry63 guy? I was in Vietnam and believe me political affiliation never came up! I agree it was a totally political war but there wasn’t and still isn’t any difference in their ethics or morals. Religion And especially Christianity has killed more people under the guise of holy intervention than pure evil has ever accomplished.

      • The Old Hippie


      • Sam Brosenberg

        During the Albeginsian Crusade in Toulouse in 1204, the Papal Legate commanded an army that was sent by the Pope to remove the threat of the Cathars, who were an offshoot sect of Christianity that believed in utter poverty and celibacy, and had a few other ideas that were considered in radical opposition to the church.

        When one of his generals asked the Legate how they should distinguish the Cathars from regular Christians, the Legate replied “Kill them all. God will know his own.”

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        inquisition and ” holy wars” and crusades.
        Lawrence tiller

    • janinec

      But leftists are so good at hate!!

      • Ryan Harvath

        And your comment isn’t just that, hate?
        You are truly a master of the hypocrites!

  • Steve Z

    I have no problems with Christians like Jimmy Carter. He came by his faith honestly and didn’t try to ram it down anybody’s throat, even when he was president. I do have a problem with pseudo-christian hate mongers who think their religion justifies bigotry, hatred, and the kind of religious asshattery that we usually associate with backwards batshit crazy countries.

    • broke50

      Jimmy Carter has lived his belief. He left the Southern Baptist church for a different Baptist denomination when the Southern Baptist leaders decreed that women could not be ministers. He has been asked to mediate disagreements between different parties because he is known as an honorable man. He supports Habitat for Humanity. And don’t forget, while President, he brokered the only treaty in the middle east that has held – that being between Egypt and Israel. His problem was that he was too honest for Washington, D.C politics.

  • Lizard

    The GOPee. America’s Clown Party.

  • Lizard

    In a just world, the conservatives would be forced to live under the conditions they espouse on everyone else.

    • janinec

      Please! It is better than being controlled by the thought police of the left! You people just don’t see how tyrannical you can be. You want to force things down our throats, like redefine marriage (when a simple alternative, the private contract, was already available) or impose more regulations on business, but then say that a simple display of the 10 Commandments in public is offensive and forcing religion on you. Silly!

      • Ryan Harvath

        The only true thought police is G-d
        you toss out the words ‘redefine’ marriage, like it’s something that has not been done a hundred times during the centuries. Unless you are still lobbying for the removal of the right to divorce you are a massive hypocrite.
        No displays of religion have any place on any PUBLIC (government owned) building or space. In the public eye on private properties it most certainly is acceptable, as long as so is a satanic star or any other warm fuzzy religious icon .

  • James Daley

    Nicely said!!!!!…and so true.

  • Gregory Gentry

    Best straw man ever.. gg.

    • Hotspaghetti

      Except for the part where it isn’t…gg indeed.

  • Lewis Morgan

    Not all conservatives espouse these fundamentalist religious beliefs, you know.

    Some of them do believe in the very principles that the “religious right” wants to restrict. This nation was founded on equality – not Christianity – and to a small but growing number of conservatives, that equality is a conservative principle.

    • Sam Brosenberg

      Well than those people should be louder, because when they do nothing to inhabit the cries of the crazies who DO want to impose theocracy on the rest of us, they allow those crazies to define them. I would love to see Conservatives standing up to the TEA Party and to the religious factions. Take back your party.

      However if you refuse to do that then yes, you will be lumped in with them.

  • Rusti

    Point well made!

  • http://www.shrox.com shrox

    The Constitution does mention God. Article VII reads, “done
    in Convention … the Seventeenth Day of September in the year of our Lord
    one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the Independence of
    the United States of America.”

    And then there is “..all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..”

    I know it’s just the way of speaking then…

  • Stushie

    Fourth verse of the National Anthem…

    Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
    Between their loved homes and the war’s desolation!
    Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
    Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
    Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
    And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
    And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
    O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      PH*CK no!

  • wheldon rumproast

    GOP version of “freedom” is their freedom…to impose their standards, and “freedom” to oppose any laws or policies they disagree with. This applies to religion, taxes, gay rights, abortion, racial equality, warmongering (ummm…excuse me: “defense”) rights of workers vs employers, and that lovely “gun control” they love to scream about. Not to mention any others I left out. It’s not about “freedom”…it’s about the insistence to impose their will & opinions on the rest of us.

    • myintx

      Laws impose people’s morals on us ALL THE TIME. They’re called malum in se laws – murder, rape, post-viability abortion laws are just a few examples – people think murder, rape and post-viability abortions are wrong, so we have laws against them.

  • xbj

    What a waste of really excellent architecture.

  • Jennifer Clawson Murray

    I LOVE THIS. Wish more conservatives would understand this.

  • Kristiann Mann

    Its a democracy, idiots. If we want to enshrine the rights of unborn children in the law and we are the majority, who are you to stop us?

    • Rob Bailey

      Yep. Good ‘ol democracy. Gave us slaves, separate water fountains, and took away the right of folks that wanted to get married that didn’t fit the “norm” of white x-tian. Women couldn’t vote, Krissi.
      You clearly make the author’s point. Simply being an underinformed hypocrite that wants to push your sky-gawd agenda on the rest of us means we HAVE to stop you. Flights to Iran are fairly cheap; catch one.

  • JCNow

    There’s a website that talks about a Catholic theocracy, with real live people actually arguing that a Catholic theocracy could be a viable option for this country. As if the Protestant majority would somehow change their mind about the validity of their own religion. And the most amazing thing is that those supporting theocracy really truly believe it would ultimately be peaceful (disregarding, of course, the initial deaths required to “get the point across). The reality is it would be the reincarnation of the monsters known as the Puritans and their behavior codes and witch trials. The clear connection between conservative thought and the desire to control and restrict day-to-day freedoms (while claiming they stand for freedom and liberty) is becoming more clear every day.

  • Pingback: Talkative Tuesday with Karel 030215 | Karel.Media()

  • Cozman57

    Although I agree with the premise of the article telling people to “get the hell out” of our country smacks a little too much like a tea bagger. Otherwise I’m own board.

    • olddog

      Sounds like (D)eserter Obagger (D)rone talk to me..Typical GULLIBLE Choomer cum Guzzlin (D)em-wit speak..

  • Pingback: Dear Conservatives: If You Want to Live in a Theocracy, Get the Hell Out of the United States | Musings of a Free Thinking Rabbi()

  • Terri

    Anyone Christian who wishes to force non-Christians to live as Christians should have to do the same in reverse. Live as non-Christians. It seems only fair.

  • Rick Bagnall

    “The words ‘freedom’ and ‘religion’ are complete contradictions. Religion is about control – not freedom.” I wouldn’t say that, necessarily. A number of mainstream Christian sects have fairly relaxed doctrines. United Methodists, for instance, spend a fair amount of time talking about freedom of conscience and the responsibility of the individual believer to determine what is right for them. Fundamentalism, now…that tends to veer into “do this or else” territory with alarming frequency.