Palin mixing religion with policy

123468

Comments

  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    MattyJoe wrote:
    So therefore you were wrong in saying that Palin's views being influenced by religion is unconstitutional.
    clearly you did not read what I posted.
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    Solat13 wrote:
    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.
    over the intentions of the Supreme Court? the same supreme court which held 'separation of church and state' many times?

    jesus, you people need reading comprehension classes or something.
  • MattyJoe
    MattyJoe Posts: 1,424
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    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.

    But, as you just pointed out in your Wikipedia post, this is not unconstitutional. And, in my opinion, it doesn't matter because someone could support a war anyway without the "approval of the Father."

    And about the prayer in public schools, I am also against that. It goes against the first amendment. And that's why it was dealt with.
    I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
    -Reagan
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    Solat13 wrote:

    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."

    Playing devil's adovcate; there's no doubt that God and religion were on the mind of the framers, and it guided their decision making process. But wouldn't you consider a government strictly based upon and guided by the 'Judeo-Christian ideology' as you put it to be a violation of the 1st? A government that cares for, counsels and guides itself by the tenets of one religion at the exclusion of other religions is a violation of the Amendment at a legislative level.
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    MattyJoe wrote:
    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.
    you're changing the subject now into something completely unrelated. I'm not talking about "someone", I'm talking about Gov. Palin who is clearly combining her religious beliefs into forming her government policies, something which makes her unqualified and hypocritical.
  • MattyJoe
    MattyJoe Posts: 1,424
    _outlaw wrote:
    clearly you did not read what I posted.

    What is it that I am missing? That phrase is not in the constitution, it is in a document written by Thomas Jefferson. Therefore, it is not unconstitutional like you claimed:
    _outlaw wrote:
    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.
    I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
    -Reagan
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    MattyJoe wrote:
    But, as you just pointed out in your Wikipedia post, this is not unconstitutional. And, in my opinion, it doesn't matter because someone could support a war anyway without the "approval of the Father."
    it was my post, and you didn't even read it, unfortunately, or else you'd see why you make no sense.
    and it DOES matter why someone like a possible VP supports the war, and any future war.
    And about the prayer in public schools, I am also against that. It goes against the first amendment. And that's why it was dealt with.
    how does that go against the first amendment, but forming govt policies with religion doesn't?
  • MattyJoe
    MattyJoe Posts: 1,424
    _outlaw wrote:
    you're changing the subject now into something completely unrelated. I'm not talking about "someone", I'm talking about Gov. Palin who is clearly combining her religious beliefs into forming her government policies, something which makes her unqualified and hypocritical.

    Ok, then, Gov. Palin. It doesn't matter where her beliefs come from, her intention behind them. What matters is the beliefs themselves, because others can share the same beliefs as her and not be religious at all.
    I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
    -Reagan
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    MattyJoe wrote:
    What is it that I am missing? That phrase is not in the constitution, it is in a document written by Thomas Jefferson. Therefore, it is not unconstitutional like you claimed:
    it was upheld by the Supreme Court over 25 times, and James Madison, the man who drafted the Bill of Rights.

    learn to read.

    please.
  • catch22
    catch22 Posts: 1,081
    Solat13 wrote:
    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."

    flat out wrong. the letter was an expression of unity written to a church that was advocating strongly against religion involvement in politics... because it felt that would taint the religion. and it has. it had nothing to do with the nation of god crap you just spouted.

    also, those founding fathers thought blacks were not human and it was acceptable to treat them as pieces of property or farm animals. they also felt women should have no say in government. they were wrong about a thing or two.
    and like that... he's gone.
  • MattyJoe
    MattyJoe Posts: 1,424
    _outlaw wrote:
    how does that go against the first amendment, but forming govt policies with religion doesn't?

    Because those policies are not forcing you to practice a certain religion.
    I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
    -Reagan
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    MattyJoe wrote:
    Ok, then, Gov. Palin. It doesn't matter where her beliefs come from, her intention behind them. What matters is the beliefs themselves, because others can share the same beliefs as her and not be religious at all.
    so people who aren't religious can believe that the war in Iraq is a task from God?

    do you even know what you're talking about?
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    MattyJoe wrote:
    Because those policies are not forcing you to practice a certain religion.
    No, but they're forcing your country's policies to act in accordance with a certain religion.
  • LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun
    LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun Posts: 6,097
    separation of church and state is about not using the state to promote a religion. you can form policy from whatever you want, as long as you arent officially promoting a religion using the government.
  • MattyJoe
    MattyJoe Posts: 1,424
    _outlaw wrote:
    it was upheld by the Supreme Court over 25 times, and James Madison, the man who drafted the Bill of Rights.

    Under what circumstances? Did the Supreme Court "uphold" that with regard to someone's personal beliefs being influenced by religion?
    I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
    -Reagan
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    MattyJoe wrote:
    Under what circumstances? Did the Supreme Court "uphold" that with regard to someone's personal beliefs being influenced by religion?
    read the motherfucking article.
  • MattyJoe
    MattyJoe Posts: 1,424
    MrSmith wrote:
    separation of church and state is about not using the state to promote a religion. you can form policy from whatever you want, as long as you arent officially promoting a religion using the government.

    EXACTLY.
    I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
    -Reagan
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    MattyJoe wrote:
    But, as you just pointed out in your Wikipedia post, this is not unconstitutional. And, in my opinion, it doesn't matter because someone could support a war anyway without the "approval of the Father."

    And about the prayer in public schools, I am also against that. It goes against the first amendment. And that's why it was dealt with.
    ...
    Yes... yes... yes... YOU are against it. does that mean that EVERY ONE is against it? No.
    The fact is... people will vote for candidates who *claim* to be of the same Religion. that is WHY people like Bush and Palin will toss their religion out there.. to pander to the 27% hard-core, Pat Robertson/Jimmy Falwell Evangelical voters who believe thaty will appoint that decisive Supreme Court Seat that will overturn Roe v. Wade or restore morning prayers in public schools or whatever they want the rest of us to believe.
    You cannot honestly tell me that you believe those voters do not exist.. can you?
    ...
    P.S. WHAT Wikipedia post? I NEVER reference Wikipedia.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • MattyJoe
    MattyJoe Posts: 1,424
    catch22 wrote:
    also, those founding fathers thought blacks were not human and it was acceptable to treat them as pieces of property or farm animals. they also felt women should have no say in government. they were wrong about a thing or two.

    That's pretty ignorant to say. Maybe they did believe that, but that was over 200 years ago. Times change. That's what Amendments are for.
    I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
    -Reagan
  • fuck
    fuck Posts: 4,069
    MrSmith wrote:
    separation of church and state is about not using the state to promote a religion. you can form policy from whatever you want, as long as you arent officially promoting a religion using the government.
    wrong.
    "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."
    they weren't promoting the religion here, they were forming policies with their religion, and were denied.

Categories