Palin mixing religion with policy

MattyJoe

Religion often directly influences people's personal beliefs. To say that someone can't bring their religion into their political ideology is ignorant. It's our choice whether or not to vote for that person. if we disagree with them, we don't vote for them. What difference does it make if they talk about their beliefs in religious terms? They don't HAVE to be elected.

know1

catch22 wrote:

this isn't about what christians should believe. your point about what the republicans have done about gay marriage is exactly it. these voters either wouldn't care, or might look at whole issues. but instead, the republicans get pastors to preach fire and brimstone and damnation and the decline of america and literally put the fear of god into people... if they don't vote against homosexuality, their souls are in jeopardy. it was enough to sway the results of the 04 election. and i think it's disgusting the way the republicans exploit this kind of thing whenever they are in trouble because they can't win on the issues. not only that, it's bad for the country, which ends up with policies that are disastrous (as dubya's term has proven to be).

for the record, i find it equally detestable when the democrats do the same thing and try to scare minority voters into thinking they have to vote for dems because otherwise the republicans will get the kkk going again. it's just dirty politics. and this kind of fear-mongering should have no place in a robust and reasoned democracy.

I was willing to give you some of the benefit of the doubt, but if you really believe the republican party is out somehow convincing all Christian pastors to preach against homosexuality then you probably need to stock up on some tinfoil for your windows.

MattyJoe

know1 wrote:

I was willing to give you some of the benefit of the doubt, but if you really believe the republican party is out somehow convincing all Christian pastors to preach against homosexuality then you probably need to stock up on some tinfoil for your windows.

You're absolutely right. Not just this comment but all your other ones in this thread.

cubbieblue82

know1 wrote:

I was willing to give you some of the benefit of the doubt, but if you really believe the republican party is out somehow convincing all Christian pastors to preach against homosexuality then you probably need to stock up on some tinfoil for your windows.

You seem like a reasonable person. And certainly pastors don't need encouraging to come out and preach against homosexuality, I'm sure that occurs in some churches regardless.

However, putting these referendum against gay marriage on the ballots of key states is definitely designed to bring out the evangelical vote where it may have been more passive in the past.

Do you really think that the issue of gay marriage should determine an election in these times? It's not like electing Bush got anyone closer to banning gay marriage or abortions as I'm sure some had hoped. In fact, I'm not convinced that the Republicans wouldn't like to keep both legal so that they will always have something guttural to appeal to so-called "values" voters.

I really don't think it is disputable the Rove and the Republicans have used the evangelical vote, quite effectively I might add, to their advantage in the past 2 elections.

I just wish this country could have a reasoned debate on the things that matter. Things like Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, the Economy, Education, etc... If that were the case and the Republican's still won, than fine. This base appeal to peoples instincts is despicable. :mad:

Cosmo

MattyJoe wrote:

Religion often directly influences people's personal beliefs. To say that someone can't bring their religion into their political ideology is ignorant. It's our choice whether or not to vote for that person. if we disagree with them, we don't vote for them. What difference does it make if they talk about their beliefs in religious terms? They don't HAVE to be elected.

...
And THERE'S the catch... Elected.
Religion directs personal belief... brought into political ideology... no harm, no foul.
But, if ELECTED and placed in a position of power to decide for the populous... in which case, you cannot disagree with them... FOUL.

fuck

MattyJoe wrote:

Religion often directly influences people's personal beliefs. To say that someone can't bring their religion into their political ideology is ignorant. It's our choice whether or not to vote for that person. if we disagree with them, we don't vote for them. What difference does it make if they talk about their beliefs in religious terms? They don't HAVE to be elected.

ever heard of separation of church and state?

fuck

"New revelations about Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin continue to raise questions about how her religious views might affect her decisions on public policy. Much of the scrutiny has focused on Palin’s church, the Wassila Assembly of God. This past a week a video emerged of Palin telling students there that the US invasion of Iraq is a task from God."

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/9/sarah_palin_and_the_wasila_church

...

so, anyone wanna ask how religion affects her policies?

MattyJoe

Cosmo wrote:

...
And THERE'S the catch... Elected.
Religion directs personal belief... brought into political ideology... no harm, no foul.
But, if ELECTED and placed in a position of power to decide for the populous... in which case, you cannot disagree with them... FOUL.

But it's up to the people to decide. I don't see your point. That's true for any candidate that's elected regarding their personal beliefs, whether they're religious or not. If the public sees something negative about a candidate, they don't vote for him/her.

If you're talking about a candidate possibly forcing their religion onto the people, well that's a different issue. 1st Amendment clearly states freedom of religion. If there was some crazy way that legislation regarding a national religion or something like that was passed, the Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional if it came to them in a case, which it surely would considering the outrage people would be feeling. Our government is designed to check the efforts of politicians from every possible angle.

In any case, I do not know a single religious person who believes that their religion should be instituted as a state religion. Despite the fact that they obviously believe that their beliefs are the truth, they still have respect for other people's rights to practice whatever religion they want.

catch22

know1 wrote:

I was willing to give you some of the benefit of the doubt, but if you really believe the republican party is out somehow convincing all Christian pastors to preach against homosexuality then you probably need to stock up on some tinfoil for your windows.

no, i don't "believe" all republican are convincing every christian pastor to preach against homosexuality.

but i do KNOW for a fact that in ohio last election, karl rove and the republicans maneuvered a gay marriage ban onto the ballot and then joined with various megachurches and pastors to do massive picketing, protests, pamphleteering, and so on and so forth in order to tout the huge threat of homosexuality and to exhort people into voting against kerry.

i'm aware this isn't everyone. hell, our local catholic priest tore into the congregation for flyering cars in the lot about this during a church and lambasted these people for obscuring the issues and pointed out that war and poverty are every bit as much moral issues as homosexuality or abortion. but that does not mean that the republicans have not made a practice of exploiting hot button religious issues to corral votes whenever they feel they won't win. the democrats do it with minority issues too.

there is no tin foil hat here. you're well aware that this is happening and are just digging in because you're feeling defensive. perhaps if more of you and your brethren took the path of our parish priest and became as willing to call bullshit on your own as you are of us "liberal tin foil" folks, this wouldn't be such a problem.

MattyJoe

_outlaw wrote:

so, anyone wanna ask how religion affects her policies?

I'm not asking that. I'm saying that it doesn't make a difference where her beliefs come from, people either agree or disagree, and vote accordingly.

MattyJoe

_outlaw wrote:

ever heard of separation of church and state?

That does not mean that politicians are not allowed to practice and have their beliefs influenced by religion. It means that the state itself can not be directly influenced by a religion. For instance, if Congress were to suddenly orient the entire government towards Christian principles, and make Christianity a national religion.

catch22

MattyJoe wrote:

I'm not asking that. I'm saying that it doesn't make a difference where her beliefs come from, people either agree or disagree, and vote accordingly.

it does if, as the article seems to indicate, they are very carefully trying to hide the fact that she holds views that are unacceptable to most of america and might eventually influence her policy decisions.

Solat13

_outlaw wrote:

ever heard of separation of church and state?

Yep, too bad it's not in the constitution.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987191/posts

fuck

MattyJoe wrote:

That does not mean that politicians are not allowed to practice and have their beliefs influenced by religion. It means that the state itself can not be directly influenced by a religion. For instance, if Congress were to suddenly orient the entire government towards Christian principles, and make Christianity a national religion.

what the hell are you talking about? no one here is even suggesting she wants to make us all christian. The whole point is that her religious beliefs DOES affect us because if she were to be setting policies in this country that have religious intent, then it is unconstitutional. and, as I and the OP just showed you, her religion does affect her policies.

no argument here.

MattyJoe

catch22 wrote:

it does if, as the article seems to indicate, they are very carefully trying to hide the fact that she holds views that are unacceptable to most of america and might eventually influence her policy decisions.

You're right. But that's politics. The same thing has happened with Obama, with the media portraying him as the right candidate, and overlooking some of his flaws. The framers of the Constitution did not foresee what an incredibly manipulative role the media would eventually play in politics. I smell a possible Amendment in the future.

MattyJoe

_outlaw wrote:

what the hell are you talking about? no one here is even suggesting she wants to make us all christian. The whole point is that her religious beliefs DOES affect us because if she were to be setting policies in this country that have religious intent, then it is unconstitutional. and, as I and the OP just showed you, her religion does affect her policies.

The intent behind someone's views does not make a bird shit of difference. It's the views themselves that are under scrutiny. Someone could be pro-life if they're religious or not. It doesn't make a difference.

fuck

Solat13 wrote:

Yep, too bad it's not in the constitution.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987191/posts

never said it was.

even wikipedia explains its origin.

"The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept."

"Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights, who often wrote of "total separation of the church from the state."[9] "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote,[10] and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."[11] In a letter to Edward Livingston Madison further expanded, "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt." [12] This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Thomas Jefferson, but championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination.

In that letter, Jefferson wrote:
The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." [8]"

"Under the United States Constitution, the treatment of religion by the government is broken into two clauses: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. While both are discussed in the context of the separation of church and state, it is more often discussed in regard to whether certain state actions would amount to an impermissible government establishment of religion.

The phrase was also mentioned in an eloquent letter written by President John Tyler on July 10, 1843.[citation needed]

The United States Supreme Court has referenced the separation of church and state metaphor more than 25 times, first in 1878. In Reynolds, the Court denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory who claimed polygamy was an aspect of their religious freedom. The Court used the phrase again by Justice Hugo Black in 1947 in Everson. The term was used and defended heavily by the Court until the early 1970s. In Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference-- a view which diminished the strong separation views of the Court. Justice Scalia has criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.[14]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

Cosmo

MattyJoe wrote:

But it's up to the people to decide. I don't see your point. That's true for any candidate that's elected regarding their personal beliefs, whether they're religious or not. If the public sees something negative about a candidate, they don't vote for him/her.

If you're talking about a candidate possibly forcing their religion onto the people, well that's a different issue. 1st Amendment clearly states freedom of religion. If there was some crazy way that legislation regarding a national religion or something like that was passed, the Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional if it came to them in a case, which it surely would considering the outrage people would be feeling. Our government is designed to check the efforts of politicians from every possible angle.

In any case, I do not know a single religious person who believes that their religion should be instituted as a state religion. Despite the fact that they obviously believe that their beliefs are the truth, they still have respect for other people's rights to practice whatever religion they want.

...
Have you ever heard of 'Government Policy'? Yeah... that is driven by our leaders. Leaders who get voted into position by people. Government policy driven by religious beliefs... like, possibly... consulting his 'Higher Father' on going to War... instead of his biological father who successfully waged war in that same region... with that same adversary. Sound familiar? And guess what? THAT was not a Law.
And you say, 'Don't vote for them'. Okay I won't. But, who's choice is it to make for the person who WILL vote for him based upon his Religious affiliation. You can't honestly tell me that it does not come into play... can you?
And how about a leader appointing a Supreme Court Justice based upon his/her religious belief? Not dangerous? If you are in favor of their belief system... no.
Regarding This:
"In any case, I do not know a single religious person who believes that their religion should be instituted as a state religion. "
Yeah... you may not personally know these people who want to have morning prayer in our publicly funded schools... or erect 'Ten Commandments' in out public Courthouses... but, they are out there.
...
ADD: And Bush's 27% Approval? My guess... it's the same 27% that believe Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to Church on Sunday* and voted for him based on his evangelical religion.
...
(*thanx, Tiina Fey)

MattyJoe

_outlaw wrote:

never said it was.

even wikipedia explains its origin.

So therefore you were wrong in saying that Palin's views being influenced by religion is unconstitutional.

Solat13

_outlaw wrote:

never said it was.

even wikipedia explains its origin.

"The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept."

"Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights, who often wrote of "total separation of the church from the state."[9] "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States," Madison wrote,[10] and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."[11] In a letter to Edward Livingston Madison further expanded, "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt." [12] This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Thomas Jefferson, but championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination.

In that letter, Jefferson wrote:
The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." [8]"

"Under the United States Constitution, the treatment of religion by the government is broken into two clauses: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. While both are discussed in the context of the separation of church and state, it is more often discussed in regard to whether certain state actions would amount to an impermissible government establishment of religion.

The phrase was also mentioned in an eloquent letter written by President John Tyler on July 10, 1843.[citation needed]

The United States Supreme Court has referenced the separation of church and state metaphor more than 25 times, first in 1878. In Reynolds, the Court denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory who claimed polygamy was an aspect of their religious freedom. The Court used the phrase again by Justice Hugo Black in 1947 in Everson. The term was used and defended heavily by the Court until the early 1970s. In Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference-- a view which diminished the strong separation views of the Court. Justice Scalia has criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.[14]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

I just like how the country has taken the words from a letter written by a brilliant man over the intentions of the Constitution and the Supreme Court.

Our Founding Fathers set this great nation of ours upon the twin towers of religion and morality. Our first president, George Washington, said that anyone who would attack these twin towers could not possibly consider themselves to be a loyal American. Not only did they set us up as a nation under God, but a nation founded upon the Judaic-Christian principles summarized in the words, "The laws of nature and the laws of nature’s God," words that we find in the Declaration of Independence.

The First Amendment never intended to separate Christian principles from government. yet today we so often heart the First Amendment couples with the phrase "separation of church and state." The First Amendment simply states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Obviously, the words "separation," "church," or "state" are not found in the First Amendment; furthermore, that phrase appears in no founding document.

While most recognize the phrase "separation of church and state," few know its source; but it is important to understand the origins of that phrase. What is the history of the First Amendment?

The process of drafting the First Amendment made the intent of the Founders abundantly clear; for before they approved the final wording, the First Amendment went through nearly a dozen different iterations and extensive discussions.

Those discussions—recorded in the Congressional Records from June 7 through September 25 of 1789—make clear their intent for the First Amendment. By it, the Founders were saying: "We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain: we don’t want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We do want God’s principles, but we don’t want one denomination running the nation."

This intent was well understood, as evidenced by court rulings after the First Amendment. For example, a 1799 court declared:

"By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."