It's all a matter of how much you can get away with. Fred Phelps unpopularity may have less to do with is hatred of "fags" and more to do with his protesting outside of soldiers funerals. Not the best way to get the public on your side. Someone else made the observation that the clinic bombings stopped more because of public outcry and less because of restriant on the part of abortion opponents. When people see nurses injured by homemade bombs and dead doctors with children of their own, it creates unwanted sympathy. That having been said, I dont imagine there were a whole lot on the right who were losing sleep over the deaths of Matthew Shepard or those doctors.

The civil rights movement taught a lot of people how not to oppose soemthing. If you admit you hate your opponents then the public tends to tune you out. To their credit, the RR learned from this mistake. The real question is why gays? Why did the religous right choose to go after gays in the first place? This in and of itself is suspicious. It is easy to say today that gay death camps aren't on the horizon, but obviously that's not where it would start. It would start with the return of anti-sodomy laws, something conservatives have already been pushing for, and a religous public, after years of focusing on gays as political villians, insisting on their enforcement. This in and of itself is reason for concern. Where would it go then? It's not outside the realm of possibility that they would have to register as sex offenders and the cycle begins. Now this is a nightmare scenario to be sure, but given the way gays are scapegoated already can you honestly say it wouldn't happen?

Beyond the issue of gays there is also the issue of banning books, movies, TV shows, magazines, and any number of other things the RR finds "immoral". Regardless of whether or not you agree that the RR will go around killing people, no one can deny THIS will happen (all whlie claimng to beleive in "less government" BTW). It is reason enough in my mind to try and stop them.

Uh-huh, and how is ignoring the need to preserve our natural resources similarly supported? Or regulating people's sex lives? I eagerly await your attempts to wiggle your way out of this one.

"If you truly think the religious right in this country even begins to compare with Muslim fundamentalists please ask yourself why you aren't in jail, or why you don't pay special taxes for not being a christian, or why you can look at porn, or why cussing is on TV, or why homosexuals can be openly gay without repercussions from the state, or how we don't see many Christians go off beheading others or blowing themselves up to attack people that do these things."

The operative word here is..."yet". I have no doubt that these things will eventually come to pass if the crowd that Palin appeals to gets their way. The REAL difference between christian and muslim extremists is the fact that the muslims already have the power in their home countries to implement these things. Palin herself may not have done all of the things she is accused of but that is not and never was the point. The point is that she was selected to appeal to those who would and with the republican party becoming less and less tolerant of dissent, it isn't uniikely that if pushed for a ban on giving benefits to gay partners, such as the one she overturned in Alaska, she would do it. Same with banning books (of course one could say the same of McCain).

The definition of a theocracy is making laws for religious reasons. Can anyone deny that that is the ultimate goal of the RR? If not then you can't say the accusation is unfair or incorrect.

Why shouldn't I beleive that's what you would do?

So you don't want the state interfering in people's lives but you do think it should be handing down mandates from God? And you really don't see the contradiction there?

Or at least their voters do. The actual party leaders remain to be seen. I have a question for all the Palin defenders on here? Do you beleive in banning things just because your religion doesn't like them? If the answer is yes, then you cannot say that the accusation is unfair because that is exactly what a theocracy is.

So the only real question is how much of what you are asking for resembles the Mullahs. Do you beleive in criminalizing sexual behavior between consenting adults? If the anser is yes then you cannot say you are different then the Mullahs. Do you beleive in banning books or movies or TV shows or anything else for "obscene" content? If the answer is yes then you cannot say you are any different then the Mullahs. Do you believe in tax payer funded schools teaching religoius origins for life on Earth even if there is no evidence to support these claims? If the answer is yes then you cannot say that you are no different then the Mullahs.

So the only real question remains how long are you going to wait after you get all of these things before you start killing us unbelievers? Because the only way to get your perfect Utopia is to get rid of all of us who won't obey you.

Except when they try and outlaw everything their religion doesn't like. Then they will get you arrested for doing it.