Democrats against religious fanatics not people of faith

[Toots]

Or something like that. I think we need to go on the offensive immediately about this line of thinking. Republicans are milking their religious connections for all they are worth and we need to put a stop to it. Should we react defensively or go on the offense? In Bush*'s first term Democrats accepted 200 of Bush's nominees and only stopped four. Were those four the only Christians bush* nominated? And for those four, at no time was their religion ever brought up nor discussed. Their history of decisions was the issue. Now they are trying to get the mighty religious machine geared up to trounce the Democrats for doing what they were elected to do. Make the best decisions for their constituents. We need to start branding these people as fanatics and not mainstream and we need to do it yesterday. Reid is off to a good start by calling them radical but we need even stronger terminology. Maybe radical fanatics, anything but the impression they are mainstream values. In all our correspondence we need to change how we refer to them. They have crossed over a line and we need to wake America up to that fact. From now on they are not the religious right but the religious fanatics.

[Tux]

1. Fundies

Whether Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, or Hindu (major fundie movements) must be stopped or they'll tear societies apart. I am against them. As a person of faith (Deistic Buddhist), I find it insulting that these people practically claim to be God and know what is right for everyone. We have to stop fundies of any religion and get the world back on track for peace.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. I think getting out the facts to people

will be more productive than deciding what to call the whackos. For example, you gave me some very good talking points-only a small percentage of Bush's nominees have not been appointed (would be good to compare to percentages for other Presidents), and their religious affiliation was not in question. That's the heart of the matter right there.

[meg]

3. Democrats FOR freedom of religion AND separation of church and state

Religious fanatics have a right to believe and to practice their religion so long as their practice does not infringe upon the rights of others.

I would hope Democrats are FOR freedom of religion but against the proposals of the religious fanatics to restrict others' rights to practice their faiths or lack of faith in a deity.

[mmmbeer]

4. I think talking about fanatics, though deserved, could prove tricky

I think the problem would be that if the dems started to make a point of condemning "fanatics", it wouldn't take long for the repubs and their media allies to start pushing the idea very hard that Democrats regard ALL people of faith as "fanatics"- think ads with lots of images of christians serving soup to a voiceover about how Harry Reid compares them to the Taliban. Personally, I think we might be better off going with the suggestions put forward by a couple of posters above- get the facts out to people and let them themselves realise how fanatical these people are, and make the argument about religios freedom and the seperation of church and state.