Seeing as how they are on the recieving end of said "activism" then yes, yes it does. That's the problem with right wing christian activism, it is primarily focused on shoving said christianinty down the throats of non-believers. When Dobson and his dittoheads stop trying to stop gays from getting married then you might have an argument. Why else would we care what Sarah Palin's faith is in the first place unless it actually affected us.

No, they'll just wait until they get into power and then they'll stick them all on trains and ship them off to the gas chambers.

P.S. I'm not being sarcastic.

I love how cons use the word "tradition" as though it's supposed to be some sort of debate stopper. BTW: I wasn't aware killing people for being different was what the right was talking about when talked about "traditional values". This girl is going into the fasion industry, does she not know anything about it at all? The one profession that has the highest proportion of gay men. Unbelievable.

that whenever these christians want to lecture society about "immorality" it's always about sex?

What's the cut-off age for getting into Heaven without being babtised? 9? 10? Is there a cut-off age or does EVERYONE have to be babtised regardless of age? Do babies that get killed get sent to Hell if they weren't babtised?

is the fact that in America we have never had to deal with a REAL theocracy. Europe has. The Middle East has. Even a good chunk of Asia has. America has always lived by "christian" principles. But theocracy by the technical definition? No, not quite. Most of these people, I suspect, don't really understand what they are asking for. I real theocracy would suspress all forms of dissent against government becuase it is based on the idea that the state is an instrument of God. That means that if those filthy "dems" raise taxes, guess what? You have to live with it.

It would also mean the supression of alcohol, tobacco, not just porn but those car magazines with women in bikinis, almost every popular TV show, and the suppression of music. Most Americans who either look at the religious right as a harmless fringe group of crazies or actually believe they are fighting for "preserving a christian heritage" would probably take issue with a good chunk of what they are actually trying to do. But of course telling the public that half their video collection would be illegal is no way to get them on your side.

The MSM would be the most affected by the kind of America that the republican base wants to live in. We need to remind them that for their own survival they need to confront this kind of pandering and they need ot tell the rest of America, no matter how much scrutiny they come under. Most Americans don't know how much freedom they will lose if these people get their way.

Looks like we may be onto something then. Before you all write off her beliefs as being trivial, keep in mind that she inquired into the banning of books at her local library. This is certainly enough of a red flag for me. Palin alone is not the issue, it is the mentality her nomination is designed to pander to. So the religious right is not the same as the muslim extremists. The question is, for how long?

Pat Robertson, for all of his influence, is no Mullah. The federal government doesn't have to get his approval before allowing something. That could change if the people who Palin is designed to win over get their way. Even if she herself doesn't institute these changes, the very idea that people who would have to be appeased in order to win elections is enough of a threat to freedom.

Are the religous right trying to ban everything their religion doesn't like? If the answer to that is "yes", and I don't know anyone on either side of the aisle that denies that it is, then that in and of itself is already a step towards theocracy. Today it is constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, in ten years it could be box cars filled with gays headed to gas chambers. Don't think so? What would stop it? The religious right themselves? What incentive would they have not to? They already think they are the majority and that means they can do whatever they want to whoever they want, right? To some of us, it's about more then the freedom to keep dirty magazines under our beds (something that is none of your business anyway), it is about survival.

Way to completely avoid my question. BTW: Nothing stopped the Nazis from kiling them, that's the point.