Isherwood vs. Pat Boone

[Jack]

In a recent WorldNetDaily article, Pat Boone (yes, that Pat Boone) said,

Think about it a minute. Compare the concept of democracy – where individuals may speak and act and express their faith according to their own understandings – with theocracy, where an elite few dictate what all individuals can and cannot say, do or express concerning their beliefs. Think Iran. Think Ahmadinejad and his coterie of Islamist extremists, exercising total control over the oil giant nation, funding and arming Hezbollah, orchestrating much of the inhuman violence in Iraq, promoting and supporting Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida and terrorist murder around the world, actively and defiantly preparing nuclear capability while at the same time maintaining an absolute dictatorship over the religious practices – even expressed public opinions – of Iran's millions of citizens. Not a pretty picture, is it? Now think ACLU. Think a relatively small, but highly organized group of lawyers, rather extravagantly funded by ultraliberal donors, overtly defending and promoting activities and "progressive" judges' rulings that are very offensive to the majority of Americans. Think of a little group who portray themselves as "defenders" of civil liberties, who increasingly and arrogantly intimidate elected officials into defying the expressed wishes of the majority and thereby deprive them of civil liberties! Think an elitist coterie who twist and redefine the expressed intentions of the framers of the Constitution in order to defend anarchists, pedophiles, sworn enemies of our nation, aberrant sexual practices, blasphemies of all kinds and attacks on our hallowed institutions – and who at the same time proceed against every kind of public expression of faith or religion, always misappropriating a phrase not even in our Constitution, "separation of church and state." Think an unregulated, self-appointed group who openly intend to control and dictate not only what individual citizens can do and say, whenever they choose, but who infiltrate our courts so they can legislate from the judicial bench – and even tell our democratically elected representatives what they must do! Think a renegade group openly hostile, not only to Christianity in particular, but to long cherished Judeo-Christian principles in general, unarguably principles on which our society was founded. Think a group determined to erase any and every reference to God, the Bible or Christian teaching – even voluntary public prayer in any non-church venue – from American life! Think theocratic dictatorship.

Well, I just had to reply to him via email,

I beg to differ, Pat. When I read your words on the WorldNetDaily, "Think an unregulated, self-appointed group who openly intend to control and dictate not only what individual citizens can do and say, whenever they choose, but who infiltrate our courts so they can legislate from the judicial bench – and even tell our democratically elected representatives what they must do! Think a renegade group openly hostile, not only to Christianity in particular, but to long cherished Judeo-Christian principles in general, unarguably principles on which our society was founded. Think a group determined to erase any and every reference to God, the Bible or Christian teaching – even voluntary public prayer in any non-church venue – from American life! Think theocratic dictatorship." I think of all the fundamentalist Christian groups who constitute "an unregulated, self-appointed group who openly intend to control and dictate not only what individual citizens can do and say, whenever they choose, but who infiltrate our courts so they can legislate from the judicial bench – and even tell our democratically elected representatives what they must do!" The founding fathers were deists, and not at all enthusiastic about religious influence on society. It was to be a private matter between a person and their concept of god. Modern political theists like Falwell and Robertson would have us become a theocratic nation, differing from Iran only in the god we worship. The ACLU defends the Constitution, which this republic (not democracy) was founded on. Recently they even defended Rev. Phelps, a disgusting example of what a religious zealot can be, from having his right to free speech constrained. At least the activities of the ACLU are subject to judicial review. Churches are exempt from that. Politics should stay out of religion, and religion should avoid politics. I agree with Barry Goldwater; In a 1994 interview with the Washington Post the retired Senator said, "When you say 'radical right' today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye." He said about Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority, "I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the a**." He also said, "However, on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C," and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism." -- From the Congressional Record, September 16, 1981 So you can paint the ACLU in any color you wish, it does not erase my concern with the influence fundamental Christianity is attempting to exercise over the future of our free republic.

So what do you think? Are we theocracy bound?

[Fleamo]

Your reply was almost exactly as I would have said it. Well written.

We are not theocracy bound, by the way, not matter how the extremists would have it. They are a vocal minority, thankfully.

[Osborn F Enready]

Well said Ish.

[Scribbler1]

No. I feel Americans are religious when it suits them. Even the most devout people I have met have been known to bend their practice of religion when it bumps up against their daily lives.

Picture an entire office building having to stop work to accommodate the faithful, like facing Mecca or some such thing. Better yet, a stadium full of worshipers who have to lay out a prayer blanket at the same time. Or an airline in mid flight and the pilots needed to meditate or something.
Even with a somewhat benign religion like Christianity there surely must be some things that are inconvenient. Bearing false witness, for one thing. I don't think the Bible makes any distinction between lying to your boss about where that report is or telling your Wife you had to work late and so on.

[PatrickHenry]

Ya shoulda asked ol' Pat about the royalties for his covers of Little Richard's tunes...

Since he's such a good christian he would never cheat anybody. But somehow Richard, a christian brother, never got paid for the songs ol' Pat swiped...

[Scribbler1]

Maybe L.R. heard those hideous Boone covers and chose to not tell anyone he had anything to do with them.
Actually, I think Little Richard once said Pat Boone made him rich. Boone made a good living by "sanitizing" early Rock n Roll for a middle-class whitebread audience.

Has anyone heard the king of the cover song's metal album?

[Jack]

Has anyone heard the king of the cover song's metal album?

I'm very sorry to say, yes, I have. When it was released we played it in-store at my Sam Goody store. It wasn't even much good for a laugh. It reeked of his desperation for find a new audience.
When it comes to parody, give me Bob Rivers or Weird Al any day. I'm not sure what Pat thought he was doing or who told him that was a good idea.

[leftcider]

You have truly pwnd him. Let us know when he writes back!!!!!!!!!11 Perhaps you two can take the argument 2 volconvo????????//

[RickSp]

Wow. The ACLU will lead us to "theocratic dictatorship". Yours was a excellent response, doubly so because the original premise was so mind-numbingly bizarre.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Isherwood Isherwood vs. Pat Boone In a recent WorldNetDaily article So what do you think? Are we theocracy bound?

I followed the link and read that article.
The P. Boone's submitted article over Internet-related channel, it is not going to change and/or influence my life much (in any form). His business is to present his view, while others may or may not share it.

Whatever " - - - cracy" we stand on, (it) is the one that satisfies inhabitants of American soil. We call it whatever onomastics is being applied and commonly taken as understandable and/or acceptable. I care less for terminology, since it tends to be fluid and/or flexible and changes with accordance to an environment, respectively.

[Jack]

I care less for terminology

That's fine. Some of us do, though. The concepts represented by the terms democracy and republic are quite distinct. The lack of understanding the difference lead to Mr. Boone's mis-stating the role of the government and courts in America.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Isherwood That's fine. Some of us do, though. The concepts represented by the terms democracy and republic are quite distinct. The lack of understanding the difference lead to Mr. Boone's mis-stating the role of the government and courts in America.

I think P. Boone went emmotional and over-reacted a little.

The only matter I do not quite understand (within his article) is his concept for a "small, not elected by any means and extremely influencial group of people" (not quotted). I understand his theory, but I can not see it materializes in the world we live-in, unless he means political platforms like Communism, Dictatorship, ect.

[Jack]

He was referring to the ACLU specifically.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Isherwood He was referring to the ACLU specifically.

I took it as a parallel, and only.

Unless P. Boone is in a possession of some undisclosed informations on some participating (actively or passively) ACLU's bodies, members, ect. , such comparison is not quite a wise approach he could come up with.
Any ACLU reaction to that article ?