|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 4 hours, 20 minutes
|
Democratic Hypocrisy
#7910651 - 01/21/08 05:15 PM (16 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Some Democrat, please tell me the importance of separation of church and State.
Next, tell me why every one of your fucking candidates campaigns in churches. And I'm not talking about kissing Johnny on the cheek after baptism, but grabbing the Mic, and literally standing in the pulpit.
(Fucking puke)
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
psycho.reactive
Stranger

Registered: 01/15/08
Posts: 53
Last seen: 15 years, 11 months
|
Re: Democratic Hypocrisy [Re: SirTripAlot]
#7910771 - 01/21/08 05:39 PM (16 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
because their trying to get the religious vote. evangelical Christians make up 25% of the voting population and vote republican for the most part. Now tell me why your aiming this just at Democrats and not everyone? (im not a democrat btw)
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 4 hours, 20 minutes
|
|
For the most part, people on the left, advocate "separation of church and State" at every infraction,like a puchline from a bad flick.
At least the Republicains (I am not one)are at least honest with who their cohorts are.
Yet these same people are silent when Clinton or Obama make an intentionial, conserted effort to make this a spring board for their platform.
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
Edited by SirTripAlot (01/21/08 07:53 PM)
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 4 hours, 20 minutes
|
Re: Democratic Hypocrisy [Re: SirTripAlot]
#7911655 - 01/21/08 07:52 PM (16 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
deranger


Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 6,840
Loc: off the wall
|
Re: Democratic Hypocrisy [Re: SirTripAlot]
#7911843 - 01/21/08 08:19 PM (16 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
watch and listen to bush chew his food -
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.


Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: Democratic Hypocrisy [Re: SirTripAlot]
#7911902 - 01/21/08 08:28 PM (16 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Obama in South Carolina
"I've been to the same church _ the same Christian church _ for almost 20 years," Obama said, stressing the word Christian and drawing cheers from the faithful in reply. "I was sworn in with my hand on the family Bible."
""I believe in the power of prayer.and will be guided by my Christian faith" .....
What a political salesman OBAMA is.....
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?



Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: Democratic Hypocrisy [Re: SirTripAlot]
#7912291 - 01/21/08 09:27 PM (16 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
spot on.
-------------------- All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
Madtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers



Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
|
Re: Democratic Hypocrisy [Re: SirTripAlot]
#7912681 - 01/21/08 10:33 PM (16 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
I have no problem with a politician espousing a belief in god, as illogical as I find such a stance.
I don't care one whit that Barack Obama is a White-Hating Afro-Christian. I don't care that Mike Huckabee is a Evolution-Denying Baptist. Hell, I don't even care that Mitt Romney is a crazy-ass, goggle-wearing, tablet-reading, plural-wife-having Mormon.
What I *DO* care about is when those people use those same religious beliefs to try to make ME do something I don't want to do.
Going to church doesn't have one lick of significance to the separation of church & State. There is nothing wrong with going to a place where people congregate, even if it is a church, to ask them for their vote.
What *DOES* have significance to the issue is laws formulated FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS. I don't hear B-Rock telling me I can't have an abortion because "Jesus said to protect the most vulnerable among us, our unborn" as Mitt Romney does.
I don't hear Hillary telling me that the state should use MY MONEY to teach children that the world was created in 6 days and is only 6,000 years old, as Mike Huckabee does.
THAT is a conflict between church & State, not a guy going to church on Sunday and hanging with the choir.
I'm not against our politicians being religious, I'm against our politics being religious. If you can't see the difference there, I don't know how to help you.
-------------------- After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action. If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it. - Ernest Hemingway If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it. In the law courts, in business, in government. There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent. -Cormac MacCarthy He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 4 hours, 20 minutes
|
|
Really?
Separation of church and state, as you well know, is not in the Constitution. Although I agree with the premise of the INTERPRETATION of the establishment clause in the 1st Amendment........
That being said, I also agree with the right of the candidates and a congregation to open their doors, sit in the pews, and get barked at by not only their minister, but the likes of Clinton and Obama.
What I am simply saying, is that without a doubt, the very party that espouses a strict border between government and religion...CAMPAIGN in the very institution they SAY should be separate.
If this is not hypocrisy please fill me in.
I will be selling Zippo lighters to arsonists, while wearing a fireproof jacket.
(and you are right, Hilary would not tell you that, she would just tell you that she will be taking your money for other people's health care)
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
Edited by SirTripAlot (01/22/08 11:03 AM)
|
gluke bastid
Stinky Bum



Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
|
Re: Democratic Hypocrisy [Re: SirTripAlot]
#7914346 - 01/22/08 11:43 AM (16 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
The separation of church and state is explicit within the first amendement, and if you don't know what I am talking about, read it again.
The founding fathers of this country and every president, with the exception of Lincoln, were churchgoing christians. However the founding fathers also saw an opportunity in America for a society that had never existed in Europe...a society in which the government does not persecute or enforce anyone based on religious grounds. It should be essential to anyone who believes in liberty, regardless of what religious belief they hold, to insist that the government do not write any god or religion into the constitution or any other legal document.
Now the question as to democrats being hypocritical for attending church and talking about their religion:
I understand your concern. There has always been a tension between the 1st amendment and the religious reality of our leaders. I don't see any hypocrosy, ultimately, unless a politician who says they embrace the separation of church and state attempts to make America better for one religion over another (and I include atheism in my definition). If Barack Obama said he wants his church to be powerful or influential, and that he will use his political position to do so, he should be impeached on grounds of violation of the first amendment. I don't really see how he is being a hypocrite by being open about his church of choice and saying things that pander to christian voters. The separation of church and state is not meant to provide a body of politicians who aren't religious. It is meant to keep the competition and, oftentimes, the corruption of churches and their dogmas out of any official position of political power. It is therefore not a politicians' rhetoric that violates church and state but what he signs into power.
George Bush openly oppossing stem cell research on the grounds that it violates his church's definition of life is much more hypocritical. And I'm not trying to defend the democrats, because I think they suck. But pro-life politicians who take their conclusions from their ministers are a threat to the first amendment.
--------------------
Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
|
Quote:
The separation of church and state is explicit within the first amendement, and if you don't know what I am talking about, read it again.
You are wrong. Read it again.
Phred
--------------------
|
gluke bastid
Stinky Bum



Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
|
Re: Democratic Hypocrisy [Re: Phred]
#7914428 - 01/22/08 12:09 PM (16 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said:
Quote:
The separation of church and state is explicit within the first amendement, and if you don't know what I am talking about, read it again.
You are wrong. Read it again.
Ok.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Yup, right there. The first clause. Try as they may with smoke and mirrors, fundamentalist neo-conservatives will never be able to rewrite such an elegantly phrased clause. I need make no argument to anyone who can read at even a first grade level what the first amendment means.
--------------------
Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
|
Read it again.
It does not explicitly (your word) claim there is to be a "separation of church and state". Just what does that mean, anyway -- "separation of church and state"? The phrase in and of itself is vague enough to be interpreted several ways.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights, however, suffer from no such vagueness. The precision of language is remarkable. The first amendment merely states that Congress can't interfere in the establishment by any individual or group of individuals of a new religion, nor can Congress itself establish a religion, nor can Congress prevent anyone from following whichever religion they choose. This is why Mormonism and Scientology (to name just two) were established and gained prominence in the United States with no hindrance from the US government. When it comes to establishing new religions or following existing ones, Congress is powerless.
It is silent on the issue of Congress using religious principles as a basis for writing new legislation, for example. And it is silent on the issue of Congress using religious principles as a basis for revoking existing legislation. It is also silent on the question of whether members of Congress or the Executive or the Supreme Court must be religious or atheist.
All it says is that if gluke bastid wants to start up a new religion, and Phred wants to follow it, Congress can't do squat about it.
Phred
--------------------
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.


Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
|
"The separation of church and state is explicit within the first amendment"
"separation"
"church"
"state"
where are those words in the first amendment?
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
gluke bastid
Stinky Bum



Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
|
Re: Democratic Hypocrisy [Re: Phred]
#7914673 - 01/22/08 01:21 PM (16 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: Read it again.
It does not explicitly (your word) claim there is to be a "separation of church and state". Just what does that mean, anyway -- "separation of church and state"? The phrase in and of itself is vague enough to be interpreted several ways.
"Separation of church and state" is indeed quite vague. Way more vague than the language of the first amendment. So yes I refer back to the notion that the amendment speaks for itself. "Separation of church and state" is a broad category to file the first amendment under.
Quote:
The first amendment merely states that Congress can't interfere in the establishment by any individual or group of individuals of a new religion, nor can Congress itself establish a religion, nor can Congress prevent anyone from following whichever religion they choose. This is why Mormonism and Scientology (to name just two) were established and gained prominence in the United States with no hindrance from the US government. When it comes to establishing new religions or following existing ones, Congress is powerless.
It is silent on the issue of Congress using religious principles as a basis for writing new legislation, for example. And it is silent on the issue of Congress using religious principles as a basis for revoking existing legislation. It is also silent on the question of whether members of Congress or the Executive or the Supreme Court must be religious or atheist.
This "silence" that you refer to is the meat and potatoes of the separation itself. I don't think you've thought about this very deeply.
Quote:
All it says is that if gluke bastid wants to start up a new religion, and Phred wants to follow it, Congress can't do squat about it.
it also says that it can't grant any political power to my church.
Are you honestly telling me that the phrase "no law respecting an establishment of religion" to you means simply that Congress can't start or prevent from starting a new church? Were a president to declare that Zoroastranism is the official church of the united states, the first amendment would be used to stop him. If a president made it illegal to go to a mosque, the first amendment would be used to stop him. If congress tried to pass a bill making church attendance mandatory, the first amendment would be used to stop them.
"no law respecting an establishment of religon" = no law respecting any church. "establishment of religon" = "church," noun. Or "ideas of a church", plural noun. Or "creation of a church," action.
Now I agree with you that lines between church and non-church get blurry in the realm of ideas. "Thou shalt not steal" is a commandment and yet it is also a law. I am sorry for the sake of my argument that one can't make a distinction between a religious idea, a moral intuition, a logical notion, or a desire for freedom. However I am not sorry that the founding fathers didn't try to write an amendment against ideas! Imagine the mess we would be in if it there were a law against political action inspired by spiritual experience. Can you say thought police? All of a sudden you have ended up back with the Spanish Inquisition and the very type of dogma you were trying to escape.
No, it was with amazing forsight that the first amendment was written solely against the church as an institution. The ideas of ministers and such may effect the thinking of politicians but when you can prove that the church is being handed power the first amendment steps up and regulates. This fact is backed by over 200 years of, for the most part, complete success. There is still no official church. State sponsored religious persecution has been prevented for the duration of the United States.
If Bush decided tommorow that his religion is the only true one and tried to declare that only evangelicals could be elected president, congress and the supreme court would stop him with the first amendment. Even more than that, however, the american people, including those who don't know what the first amendment is and have never read the constitution, would think "whoah, he can't do that, can he?" That is because the first amendment is not only a cornerstone of legal practice, it is a cornerstone of american identity and ideology as well. It has become a gut instinct of liberty.
If you want to deny that man walked on the moon, or that the holocaust never happened, because you didn't "see them happen," fine. The first amendment protects your right to do so. I just think that when you pretend the separation of church and state doesn't exist and exercise your first amendment right to believe so you are biting the hand that feeds you. If you don't see in the words of the first amendment the tools that are required to prevent an official marriage of church of state, than that is just your deal, I guess. But I hope that most serious thinkers disagree.
--------------------
Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
|
Madtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers



Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
|
Re: Democratic Hypocrisy [Re: SirTripAlot]
#7914683 - 01/22/08 01:25 PM (16 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SirTripAlot said:
That being said, I also agree with the right of the candidates and a congregation to open their doors, sit in the pews, and get barked at by not only their minister, but the likes of Clinton and Obama.
What I am simply saying, is that without a doubt, the very party that espouses a strict border between government and religion...CAMPAIGN in the very institution they SAY should be separate.
If this is not hypocrisy please fill me in.
I don't see how it is, at all.
The candidates are not in there to bring about some theocratic government, as most on the right would care to do. They are in those churches campaigning because there are people there.
I'm sure you could find Hillary at a slaughterhouse if there were enough people there who would listen to her spiel. Are you really saying that churches should be an "off-limits" area for a Democratic candidate?
This makes no sense at all.
Again, there is a VAST gulf between going to a church to ask someone for their vote and passing laws in Congress that prohibit someone from doing something because of YOUR beliefs.
One is politics, the other is tyranny.
Its not a hard concept to understand at all.
-------------------- After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action. If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it. - Ernest Hemingway If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it. In the law courts, in business, in government. There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent. -Cormac MacCarthy He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus
|
gluke bastid
Stinky Bum



Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
lonestar2004 said: "The separation of church and state is explicit within the first amendment"
"separation"
"church"
"state"
where are those words in the first amendment?
Did you play a lot of hooky in middle school? Here's a free lesson from Wikipedia!
Quote:
Synonyms as ancient Greek, συν ("syn") = plus and όνομα ("onoma") = name) are different words with identical or at least similar meanings. Words that are synonyms are said to be synonymous, and the state of being a synonym is called synonymy.
An example of synonyms is the words car and automobile. Similarly, if we talk about a long time or an extended time, long and extended become synonyms. In the figurative sense, two words are often said to be synonymous if they have the same connotation:
"a widespread impression that … Hollywood was synonymous with immorality" (Doris Kearns Goodwin) Synonyms can be any part of speech (e.g. nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs or prepositions), as long as both members of the pair are the same part of speech. More examples of English synonyms are:
baby and infant (noun) student and pupil (noun) buy and purchase (verb) pretty and attractive (adjective) sick and ill (adjective) quickly and speedily (adverb) on and upon (preposition) freedom and liberty (noun) dead and deceased (adjective)
Knowledge is power!
--------------------
Society in every form is a blessing, but government at its best is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine
|
lonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.


Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
|
Explicit: very specific, clear, or detailed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explicit
-------------------- America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure" We have "reckless fiscal policies" America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better Barack Obama
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 4 hours, 20 minutes
|
|
Well,rather get into a semantics argument with you....., do you find it OK, the taxpayer's money is used when Hilary makes her traditional stop at the local black church? Shouldn't she only be limited to non religious, public places?
(referring to the Secret Service she requires)
If Clinton were to mix religion with her message, .....would her message would be any more wrong, if she were to pitch her socialized medicine plan using biblical references?
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?



Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: Democratic Hypocrisy [Re: SirTripAlot]
#7917551 - 01/22/08 09:55 PM (16 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
wait, are you arguing that the secret service should not be operating on church property due to the establishment clause?
-------------------- All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
|