Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

mesquite wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I couldn't find a quote where you questioned her mental balance, so I did misread the emotional balance thng as mental balance.

Foxfyre wrote:
But to say it is irrational on the face of it and suggests any kind of pathology or mental or emotion imbalance, whatever it was you were attempting to communicate, just doesn't hold up on the face of it.

You can't even manage to get through one post without resorting to distortion.

Foxfyre wrote:
If she is wrong to be prejudiced against Atheists, then the Atheist is wrong to be prejudiced against her professed Christian beliefs.

She did not mention athiests. She said that if you are not electing Christians, you are legislating sin. Last I checked "not Christians" is a much broader brush than "Athiests".

You can nitpick the words or the way they are phrased to your heart's content, Mesquite, and continue to make this a personal vendetta. I apologized for assumptions of a particular statment that were not actually made.

Or you can actually discuss the other's obvious intent related to the topic and your thoughts, opinions, conclusions re the topic itself.

The latter choice would make the interchanges so much more pleasant. You can easily substitute non-Christian for "Atheist" and the sentence works just as well.

But do you and Blatham see yourselves as non-Christians? Or as Atheists?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Miller wrote:
Quote:
Ain't American christian values grand?

Yes, they are and too bad, you're blind to this fact.

Actually miller, the person you are quoting and speaking to is a practicing Catholic.

Hi stradee. Nice to see you again.

Hi ya Bernie

Miller, too bad most people of faith adhere to political 'christian' values.

If people truly believed in the power of a higher being or intelligence, they would certainly question any candidate proclaiming God speaks directly through them. Or only those with a 'christian' background are worthy to hold political office. The heighth of arrogance, imo.

Citizens have the absolute right to believe what they choose - but for the good of the nation, the Constitution set specific guidelines that seem to change and grow as the nation evolves. It is after all, a living document. As is the Bible, if any Christian cares to read its history and understand its content.

It is understandable then, that people that do not believe in a spiritual being, question every word uttered from the pulpit - given the state of the union today - they as well as christians should be asking the hard questions - and not giving the responsibility for a governments undeniable errors - to God.

Fox, Blatham may not have been born in America, but he has a grasp for what our forefathers intended when drafting and signing, the Constitution.
Unfortunately for America, the current administration does not.

0 Replies

Stradee wrote:

blatham wrote:
Miller wrote:
Quote:
Ain't American christian values grand?

Yes, they are and too bad, you're blind to this fact.

Actually miller, the person you are quoting and speaking to is a practicing Catholic.

Hi stradee. Nice to see you again.

Hi ya Bernie

Miller, too bad most people of faith adhere to political 'christian' values.

If people truly believed in the power of a higher being or intelligence, they would certainly question any candidate proclaiming God speaks directly through them. Or only those with a 'christian' background are worthy to hold political office. The heighth of arrogance, imo.

Citizens have the absolute right to believe what they choose - but for the good of the nation, the Constitution set specific guidelines that seem to change and grow as the nation evolves. It is after all, a living document. As is the Bible, if any Christian cares to read its history and understand its content.

It is understandable then, that people that do not believe in a spiritual being, question every word uttered from the pulpit - given the state of the union today - they as well as christians should be asking the hard questions - and not giving the responsibility for a governments undeniable errors - to God.

Fox, Blatham may not have been born in America, but he has a grasp for what our forefathers intended when drafting and signing, the Constitution.
Unfortunately for America, the current administration does not.

The Constitution is indeed a living document but one that is grounded in specific principles that the wise do not presume to mess with. It certainly is not a 'living document' in the sense that most liberals want it to be which is elastic and flexible to conform to whatever is the fashionable ideology this year. And yes, some conservatives have attempted to use the Constitution in that way too, but it is more common for Conservatives to be originalists when it comes to the Constitution.

My opinion is that the current administration has made errors in judgment and has been wrong in some policy. But they do not grasp what our forefathers intended when drafting and signing the Constitution? They most certainly do far better than the more liberal of our leaders seem to understand that.

Blatham seems to think that the First Amendment was to prevent any notion of the divine right of kings. Yet even a cursory reading of the Federalist papers shows that our founders were largely men of faith that were determined to have no king and were determined that government would have no power to impose any manner of religious doctrine on the people. That allows those within government to be as religious as they wish and profess whatever they please.

To want the principles embodied in a religious faith to be represented in govenrment is in no way the same as saying that government advocates any particular religious faith. The two things are separate. To approve of anybody being able to lobby or be advocate for any other social doctrine be it taxes or abortion or welfare or gay rights or a cleaner environment etc. etc. etc. and disapprove of people lobbying for values embodied in their religious faith flies in the face of what the First Amendment was intended to protect.

0 Replies

Foxfyre, in my opinion you have a very balanced assessment of reality, as applies to the constitution, freedom of expression, including religion, and the right of religious people to hold office.

Blatham, Stradee, Mesquite, etc., there are for sure cases of people that misuse religion, religious hustlers I would call them, that use it to further their own cause, and it is conceivable that certain people might be deluded into their own self importance and subscribe such importance and power to their own self perceived religious faith, which might be mostly hypocrisy. I would not deny that. However, such danger is no worse in my opinion than those people at the other end of the spectrum that think they are destined to hold power over people because of other reasons. Dictators in communist countries provide ample examples of this. Such people are just as unbalanced and unfit to hold office in my opinion. So bottom line, it is up to the voters, and voters can be naive and fooled, but so far in this country the voters and the system in place provide checks and balances to prevent such people from weilding undue power.

Personally, I can remember how shocked I was on election night to find out the voters had actually elected Bill Clinton. I could hardly believe it because despite the polls, I believed the people would actually come to their senses before they pulled the lever or marked the box, but I guess we survived the 8 years.

Anyway, religious people have a right to express their views and run for office, and you have a right to vote against them, and if their views are too far out, they will very likely not be elected. If society becomes very screwed up, it will likely elect screwed up people, if not, we don't need to worry too much, but if it happens, there isn't much we can do about it because the people pretty much get what they deserve.

And I agree with Katherine Harris inasmuch that we need moral people in government, moral on a personal level, and true heartfelt, unhypocritical, religious faith usually assists people to be moral.

As for Katherine Harris, I do not know that much about her as I do not live in Florida, so I don't know for sure whether I could support her or not, but admittedly there are some red flags that would need to be examined first. But I support her right to speak her beliefs and her right to hold office and not be disqualified because of her religious beliefs.

0 Replies

.......and slaves would still be picking cotton..........

The Constitution is in fact a living document for ALL American citizens. and should not be 'messed with'.

That includes a president of the United States declaring "The Constitution is only a piece of paper". Now there's a 'grasp' if i've ever heard one.

And yes - he has the right to say whatever the hell he wants - the same as you or I.

I don't see the connection btwn liberal or conservative causes when dealing with a womans right to choose, or gay rights. People have rights granted to them by the constitution, so the political issues are moot, imo - although the courts ultimately decide.

The enviornment is neither a conservative or liberal issue either - the land is where we live and certainly should be protected. No religious issues there.

Causes become Constitutionally political when there is danger of one party or the other taking away the rights of citizens to protest, or actively placing the nation and its citizens in harms way. They become religious issues when the government proclaims they are speaking and acting for God.

0 Replies

Stradee wrote:

.......and slaves would still be picking cotton..........

The Constitution is in fact a living document for ALL American citizens. and should not be 'messed with'.

That includes a president of the United States declaring "The Constitution is only a piece of paper". Now there's a 'grasp' if i've ever heard one.

And yes - he has the right to say whatever the hell he wants - the same as you or I.

I don't see the connection btwn liberal or conservative causes when dealing with a womans right to choose, or gay rights. People have rights granted to them by the constitution, so the political issues are moot, imo - although the courts ultimately decide.

The enviornment is neither a conservative or liberal issue either - the land is where we live and certainly should be protected. No religious issues there.

Causes become Constitutionally political when there is danger of one party or the other taking away the rights of citizens to protest, or actively placing the nation and its citizens in harms way. They become religious issues when the government proclaims they are speaking and acting for God.

You're missing the point which is that all things we care about have values attached to them, and the religious have as much right to lobby for their values as anybody else has the right to lobby for his or her values. Religion is not a liberal or conservative issue either, nor are Christian values or any other religious values.

To the best of my knowledge, nobody in the U.S. government has claimed to be speaking or acting for God. There is a huge difference between Katherine Harris expressing a belief about God and claiming to speak or act for God. Nor when the President speaks of God does he presume to be speaking or acting for God.

And if I were you, I would look to sources other than radical leftwing hate Bush internet sites for legitimate quotes from our President.

0 Replies

Fox, for starters, you're not me - and i do not subscribe to hate sites.

I have never once asked you to validate your values - nor have i allowed religion to dictate how i vote on any issue - so what's your point?

I do however have a deep faith in what's correct in people, and as i've stated in the past, justice will prevail.

Okie, you need to talk to your religioius advisor before calling me or anyone else on the forum 'hypocrite'. Shocking

0 Replies

Stradee wrote:

Fox, for starters, you're not me - and i do not subscribe to hate sites.

I have never once asked you to validate your values - nor have i allowed religion to dictate how i vote on any issue - so what's your point?

I do however have a deep faith in what's correct in people, and as i've stated in the past, justice will prevail.

Okie, you need to talk to your religioius advisor before calling me or anyone else on the forum 'hypocrite'. Shocking

For starters, I don't think you can find that "The Constitution is just a piece of paper" line anywhere but on leftwing hate sites or put there by some denizon of those sites. At least when I checked it out awhile ago, that's all that came up for that.

Second, I never asked you to validate your values nor did I suggest you had anything whatsoever to do with religion.

Justice doesn't always prevail however unless we keep speaking out when people are wrongly characterized and represented. All I did was do my best to respond to your post.

Okie called you a hypocrite? I didn't see that. That isn't like Okie at all, however.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I couldn't find a quote where you questioned her mental balance, so I did misread the emotional balance thng as mental balance.

But going back to the arguments made in her defense:

1) If she is a Bible literalist, she believes what the Bible says about God choosing who will be rulers.
2) This view is not shared by all Christians but it is shared by at least hundreds of thousands if not millions of Christians.
3) Most of these do not presume to question the mind of God, so who he allows to be in power is not their concern and not for them to say.
4) Most do believe Christian values to be far superior to any others, and therefore Christian legislators are their preference. Many believe that many of our problems are a direct result of abandoning Christian values.

Now you can disagree with this, think it's all a lot of hooey, think it's wrong, evil, or whatever you wish to think.

But to say it is irrational on the face of it and suggests any kind of pathology or mental or emotion imbalance, whatever it was you were attempting to communicate, just doesn't hold up on the face of it.

If she is wrong to be prejudiced against Atheists, then the Atheist is wrong to be prejudiced against her professed Christian beliefs.

Quote:

If she is wrong to be prejudiced against Atheists, then the Atheist is wrong to be prejudiced against her professed Christian beliefs.

In Scientology doctrine, Xenu (also Xemu) is an alien ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of people to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to wreak chaos and havoc today. [wikipedia] I suppose it might be true. There are, after all, millions who believe it to be true.

Some people in Islam believe that if they martyr themselves, they will procede to heaven and a busload of virgins. Millions of them seem to hold this belief.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus returned last century. Their publications have carried the following belief, "The Watchtower is not the instrument of any man or any set of men, nor is it published according to the whims of men". It is, in short, inerrant.

Hundreds of thousands, though perhaps millions of people (by polling, if we take Canada and the US) believe that their old age will be provided for with proceeds from lottery winnings. When the statistical realities are provided for them, a common reply is, "Well, someone has to win".

That demonstrates the worth of belief and agreement. We can acknowledge that millions agree in each of these cases but the fact of agreement tells us nothing else than that such agreement and belief is in place. It certainly doesn't tell us about what is true or not, and it clearly doesn't tell us whether these folks have tossed rationality overboard after tying it to an anchor.

The first three are beliefs occuring within religious communities. I don't think that gives them special dispensation to be excluded from criticism, if they are involving themselves in the community's politics. Would you?

And what if they voiced the notion, while campaigning for office, that if citizens don't vote only for Scientologists of JWs or Muslim fundamentalists those citizens will be forwarding sin and evil? Might you think to mention that though such a requirement for office ("muslims only") is what they want and believe, they cannot get what they want and believe and still maintain the intent and jurisprudence of the constitution?

And if a scientology candidate said that Xenu the Good and Mighty takes each Tuesday evening to survey the world's political leaders, even down to American congressmen and Senators, and he is the one who actually determines which individuals gain power, and therefore it is to forward sin whenever folks vote in anyone like the sitting governor who isn't a scientologist, might you possibly suggest that this person's logic is faulty (you know, what with Xenu making the picks but Xenu picking lots and lots of other types than Xenu fans)??

Quote:

If she is wrong to be prejudiced against Atheists, then the Atheist is wrong to be prejudiced against her professed Christian beliefs.

Far too messy and indiscriminate in thinking.

I didn't criticize her "Christian" beliefs. Unless you want to say that anything an individual in a particular christian sect believes (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses) represents "Christian" belief, of course. Her notion that, say, jesus was resurrected is a different sort of idea than her belief that only christians (of a particular sort) ought to hold office. The first is a private matter but the second is a public matter. An atheist who believes there is no god ought not to gain remark from you for his private notions but surely would were he to suggest in a candidate speech that christians ought to be kept out of office. I doubt your criticism would be diminshed if he made such a statement to a group of atheists.

Or perhaps you want to maintain that criticizing one or several elements of a sects' beliefs means you are criticizing all of the beliefs held by that group.

Or maybe you wish to say that Christian beliefs (of your sort, or any sort so long as christian) are to be given a special and superior status to other faiths.

0 Replies

Fox, i'm posting the article because of the Writers Note. Could not find an article printed by the mainstream media for that occurance.

From Capitol Hill Blue

The Rant
Bush on the Constitution: "Just a goddamned piece of paper"
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 9, 2005

(WRITER'S NOTE: When this story was written, three sources told me they personally heard President Bush call the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper." I have since learned that two of the sources were not present for the meeting and were, in fact, passing on second-hand information. The third now refuses to either confirm or deny the report. That leaves us with a decision. Do we kill the story or add this explanation? I originally killed the story but decided later to restore it to the database because there is still enough information floating around that suggests the President of the United States did make the statement. His actions through warrantless wiretapping, abuse of "signing statements" and attacks on civil liberties suggest such a statement reflects how he feels about the document that is supposed to define our country. I leave it to the reader to decide. At this point, two of the story's sources say they are repeating what they heard happened. It may be true. It may not. But we feel is worth consideration as part of the national debate. I have edited the column to reflect what the sources now claim.)

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I've heard from two White House sources who claim they heard from others present in the meeting that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."

The record shows the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the **** that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn't matter if you are a Democratic, Republican or Independent. It doesn't matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine - in the end - if something is legal or right.

Every federal official - including the President - who takes an oath of office swears to "uphold and defend" the Constitution of the United States.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a "living document."

""Oh, how I hate the phrase we have-a 'living document,'" Scalia says. "We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake."

As a judge, Scalia says, "I don't have to prove that it's perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else."

President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years - a record for any modern President, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a "union between a man and woman." Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.

Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights.

"We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones," Scalia warns. "Don't think that it's a one-way street."

And don't buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.

But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just "a goddamned piece of paper."

(Updated July 29, 2006)

0 Replies

Yes, that's one that came up on my search too. I didn't find it in any way credible. You can be darn sure if the President had said anything whatsoever like that, every Democrat who could find a camera and/or microphone would have been making hay with it and it would have been the lead story on every newscast and the lead story on every front page.

0 Replies

Stradee wrote:

Okie, you need to talk to your religioius advisor before calling me or anyone else on the forum 'hypocrite'. Shocking

Where did I do that? Please explain.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I couldn't find a quote where you questioned her mental balance, so I did misread the emotional balance thng as mental balance.

But going back to the arguments made in her defense:

1) If she is a Bible literalist, she believes what the Bible says about God choosing who will be rulers.
2) This view is not shared by all Christians but it is shared by at least hundreds of thousands if not millions of Christians.
3) Most of these do not presume to question the mind of God, so who he allows to be in power is not their concern and not for them to say.
4) Most do believe Christian values to be far superior to any others, and therefore Christian legislators are their preference. Many believe that many of our problems are a direct result of abandoning Christian values.

Now you can disagree with this, think it's all a lot of hooey, think it's wrong, evil, or whatever you wish to think.

But to say it is irrational on the face of it and suggests any kind of pathology or mental or emotion imbalance, whatever it was you were attempting to communicate, just doesn't hold up on the face of it.

If she is wrong to be prejudiced against Atheists, then the Atheist is wrong to be prejudiced against her professed Christian beliefs.

Quote:
If she is wrong to be prejudiced against Atheists, then the Atheist is wrong to be prejudiced against her professed Christian beliefs.

In Scientology doctrine, Xenu (also Xemu) is an alien ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy" who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of people to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to wreak chaos and havoc today. [wikipedia] I suppose it might be true. There are, after all, millions who believe it to be true..

I don't think you'll find many, if any, Scientologists who subscribe to this particular fable. I'm pretty sure this is a pretty blatant Wikipedia distortion. They also distorted Hubbard's concept of Theta or Thetan and describe that particular Scientology theory very clumsily and incorrectly.

Quote:

Some people in Islam believe that if they martyr themselves, they will procede to heaven and a busload of virgins. Millions of them seem to hold this belief.

Very true. Apparently the old men don't believe it, however, as you don't seem them strapping on exposives and driving into market places or blowing themselves up on a bus. But they feed the line to the young men who still have raging hormones and send them in with the explosives. To me, this suggests something quite different than religious faith.

Quote:

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus returned last century. Their publications have carried the following belief, "The Watchtower is not the instrument of any man or any set of men, nor is it published according to the whims of men". It is, in short, inerrant.

A few years ago we lived on a relatively isolated mountain top and, being a social creature, I would get tired of the solitude. So I invited the Jehovah Witnesses in. They are all in all quite nice, personable, normal people with some pretty fundamentalist views of Scripture, God, and religion in general. Your analysis of the the Watchtower is closer to the reality than I think is your analysis of Scientology. Mostly the Witnesses are to keep themselves from syncretism with the rest of the world and thus the Watchtower is the method that the leaders use to communicate Jehovah's words to them and they are to trust no other modern communications.

Quote:

Hundreds of thousands, though perhaps millions of people (by polling, if we take Canada and the US) believe that their old age will be provided for with proceeds from lottery winnings. When the statistical realities are provided for them, a common reply is, "Well, someone has to win".

Do you really believe this? It doesn't sound like a really serious delusion and probably a couple of sessions with a competent therapist could clear it up for you.

Quote:

That demonstrates the worth of belief and agreement. We can acknowledge that millions agree in each of these cases but the fact of agreement tells us nothing else than that such agreement and belief is in place. It certainly doesn't tell us about what is true or not, and it clearly doesn't tell us whether these folks have tossed rationality overboard after tying it to an anchor.

The first three are beliefs occuring within religious communities. I don't think that gives them special dispensation to be excluded from criticism, if they are involving themselves in the community's politics. Would you?

And what if they voiced the notion, while campaigning for office, that if citizens don't vote only for Scientologists of JWs or Muslim fundamentalists those citizens will be forwarding sin and evil? Might you think to mention that though such a requirement for office ("muslims only") is what they want and believe, they cannot get what they want and believe and still maintain the intent and jurisprudence of the constitution?

And if a scientology candidate said that Xenu the Good and Mighty takes each Tuesday evening to survey the world's political leaders, even down to American congressmen and Senators, and he is the one who actually determines which individuals gain power, and therefore it is to forward sin whenever folks vote in anyone like the sitting governor who isn't a scientologist, might you possibly suggest that this person's logic is faulty (you know, what with Xenu making the picks but Xenu picking lots and lots of other types than Xenu fans)??

Quote:
If she is wrong to be prejudiced against Atheists, then the Atheist is wrong to be prejudiced against her professed Christian beliefs.

Far too messy and indiscriminate in thinking.

I didn't criticize her "Christian" beliefs. Unless you want to say that anything an individual in a particular christian sect believes (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses) represents "Christian" belief, of course. Her notion that, say, jesus was resurrected is a different sort of idea than her belief that only christians (of a particular sort) ought to hold office. The first is a private matter but the second is a public matter. An atheist who believes there is no god ought not to gain remark from you for his private notions but surely would were he to suggest in a candidate speech that christians ought to be kept out of office. I doubt your criticism would be diminshed if he made such a statement to a group of atheists.

Or perhaps you want to maintain that criticizing one or several elements of a sects' beliefs means you are criticizing all of the beliefs held by that group.

Or maybe you wish to say that Christian beliefs (of your sort, or any sort so long as christian) are to be given a special and superior status to other faiths.

Santa Fe NM is the "City of Holy Faith" and its nickname is the "City Different". It also seems to collect some of the nation's most interesting--okay weird--people. A few years ago they had a huge field running for mayor and it had to be the most eclectic far out group of people who ever filled an alection ballot. One claimed to be channeling the spirit of a dead artist and if she was elected, it would not be her but the artist who would govern. And she wasn't even the strangest one running. And she got votes! She wasn't elected though. Instead they elected another lady who filled all the appointed position with her own relatives who had absolutely no experience for the jobs they were appointed. But I digress.

Would that channeling lady have made a crappy mayor? Sure. Would she have been worse than the one who was elected? Not the way I see it.

Now I know something about Scientology and Jehovah Witnesses and Islam and fundamentalist Christians and I don't believe as they believe which is why I am not one of them. Not one is likely to be elected president because none would be able to appear sufficiently mainstream, but would their off the wall beliefs make them lousy candidates for any office? Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on whether they understood and stood ready to defend the Constitution of the United States. Actually the Jehovah Witness couldn't be elected because s/he would not be allowed to take the oath of office.

Islam would present a problem unless the person could be sufficiently convincing that his allegiance to Allah would not interfere with his loyalty to the Constitution and the law of the land. If he could do that, though, I see no reason why he could not hold public office.

Chances are there are already some Scientologists serving in government and it is a certainty that there are Christian fundamentalists serving in government and the odds are excellent that several of these believe most things that Katherine Harris believes.

My whole point re the large numbers of people who may share a belief that I don't share is that a large number of people can of course share a belief that is wrong, but it is hard to say that they're all crazy or whatever because they hold the belief. We ALL hold beliefs that may very well be proved wrong at some point.

That Katherine Harris believes God puts rulers in place that he wants to be rulers is a fundamenalist belief shared by hundreds of thousands. I don't share it in the same way she does, but I sure don't think all those hundreds of thousands of people who do share it are all nuts or are unfit for public service.

That Katherine Harris believes electing Christians to public office will produce a more moral and ethical environment is a belief shared by millions, not just hundreds of thousands. It is one I share to a point though I am fully aware that many Christians have feet of clay and that other faiths can also produce people of great moral character. But thinking that electing Christians is the way to go puts her in the politically incorrect but not crazy category.

She was not suggesting any law or policy for only Christians in government. She was not suggesting any tactics to bar non-Christians for running. She was simply saying that it was important to elect Christians. Not a religious test. A personal preference.

It is exactly the same thing as Moveon.org pushing for people to elect pro-choice candidates or liberal Democrats and suggesting that a vote for a pro lifer or Republican is a vote for trampling on human rights. Or for environmentalist groups lobbying for election of environmental friendly candidates and claiming that a vote for a former industrial executive is a vote for global warming, polluted air and water etc. Totally absurd claims, but not in the nuts or trashing the Constitution category either.

And yes, I can see an Atheist candidate speaking to Atheists of America telling them that they need to elect more of their members to keep America from becoming a theocracy.

And the voter can evaluate each point of view, decide which fits more with their beliefs and values, and can cast their vote accordingly on election day.

My only observation/objection in this whole discussion is a notion that it is somehow only inappropriate for a Christian candidate to push Christian values while everybody else can push whatever they wish. If a candidate is a total scoundrel, idiot, or flake, hopefully the voter will see that and not vote for him or her Katherine Harris may be all of that, but she was neither illegal nor unconstitutional in her remarks about her religious beliefs and wishes for more Christians in government.

0 Replies

Foxfyre, Okie--A great article on the ACLU. Of special interest is the quote from Madison:

ACLU Continues its Disdain for the US Constitution
The ACLU once again finds an very accommodating federal judge who found no problem in destroying the only absolute sovereignty for which this nation rests upon: the people.
U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley granted a temporary restraining order sought by a student who didn't want prayer to be part of the graduation exercises from a south-central Kentucky school some 110 miles southeast of Louisville.

This didn't stop the principal at the beginning of the graduation ceremony from reciting the Lord's Prayer, prompting a standing ovation from a standing-room only crowd at the Russell County High School gymnasium. We can all be proud of this principle for standing up to the ACLU and federal judge in their attempts to deny the people of KY as the "only legitimate fountain of power."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky filed suit on behalf of the unidentified student on Tuesday. ACLU attorney Lili Lutgens said she was pleased with the judge's order and "very proud of my client for standing up for the Constitution." Lutgens said prayer would be unconstitutional because it would endorse a specific religion and religious views.

I have some bad news for this quack ACLU lawyer and federal judge: This federal order does not stand-up for anything that can be explicitly found or liberally interpreted under any amendments that exists today in the US Constitution. I think instead what the ACLU is really "proud of" is the fact how easily they can manipulate and build false court precedent that supports their twisted ideology of how society should be governed through federal courts.

What this ACLU sponsored ruling achieves is to strip every citizen of this nation their guarantee privileges and immunities to choose for themselves how their own affaires are to be conducted both in private and publicly. This is a solemn right of all free people of this nation that boggles the mind when one considers how easy the federal judiciary finds it to violate this guarantee right of all free citizens of the United States under any false pretense they care to dream up.
What drives the ACLU nuts, and a few justices, is the fact the sovereignty and absolute legitimate power of this nation is found in the people and they simply do not like it because it deflates the power of the judiciary over individual conduct within the domain of the States. So they resort to comical precedent to circumvent this realty of our form of government.

While I am on my soapbox over this incomprehensible nonsense, I want to give the ACLU and this federal judge a lesson in constitutional history that is beyond argument. Let me begin by reaffirming what our republican form of government is all about in the words of Madison from Federalist #45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Liberal Supreme Court justices will tend to bite their upper lip whenever they are reminded of this, and like the ACLU, will go into great lengths of denial to disclaim the fact the federal government was never empowered over the affairs of the people of the States. Instead, they will faithfully try and find comfort in the 14th amendment to continue their pathetic ideology of an all powerful judiciary that is only limited by how creative justices are in inventing new powers and rights in empowering federal courts over everyone and everything.
This School prayer is not the result of an unconstitutional State enactment, which is the only avenue for the 14th amendment can come into play. There is no way to liberally make this a 14th amendment issue either, as the author of the first section, John Bingham, slams the door on any attempt to liberally read more into his amendment then the text and history allows:

The great want of the citizens and stranger; protection by national law from unconstitutional State enactment's, is supplied by the first section of this [14th] amendment. That is the extent it hath, no more.

Since there is no unconstitutional State enactment involved here, the federal court is powerless to intervene. Oh, I know the ACLU will claim the Supreme Court has ruled the first amendment establishment clause was magically made a limitation upon the States by the fourteenth amendment. But this is junk jurisprudence of the lowest denominator where no support from 39th Congress who debated the amendment or Bingham himself can be found.
As I have written in my draft of A Dummies Guide to Understanding the Fourteenth Amendment, the State of New Hampshire ratified the fourteenth amendment on July 6, 1866. Five months later the NH Supreme Court ruled on a State Constitutional provision that authorized the "support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers" declaring that matters of State and religion were still "left exclusively to the State governments." Obviously then, the States did not ratify the fourteenth amendment under the illusion they were making the entire Bill of Rights a direct limitation upon themselves that includes the 1st amendment's establishment clause.

Bingham himself called the ruling by the Supreme Court of his home state of Ohio as "just and proper" when it ruled in 1871 that the "privileges or immunities under the Fourteenth Amendment are those recognized by the US Constitution and belonging to US Citizens, and not those privileges or immunities that are the result of a State Constitution and laws belonging to citizens of a State." (Garnes v. McCan, et al. (21 Ohio State Reports))

And what happens when citizens of a State exercise their guarantee to a republican form of government, elect through the ballot box to encourage school prayer? Would this be unconstitutional? No, the reason is because Bingham made it clear the 14th amendment did not change the "letter and sprit of the US Constitution," and it is only through the people that any legitimate power can be exercised.

The 14th amendment protects people not from themselves under their liberty to govern themselves, but from oppressive State enactment by State officials -- which was the case of President Andrew Johnson and his oppressive puppet governments he formed following the civil war. This is what makes it is so obscene for federal courts to strike down voter approved initiatives.

Will be a bright and sunny day when the courts finally begin rendering decisions based upon the actual letter and spirit of the US Constitution and not what clueless liberal justices of the court "think" might be proper. The federal judiciary needs to get back to protecting citizens of this nation in their right to a republican form of government.

end of quote

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Stradee wrote:

Okie, you need to talk to your religioius advisor before calling me or anyone else on the forum 'hypocrite'. Shocking

Where did I do that? Please explain.

'Blatham, Stradee, Mesquite, etc., there are for sure cases of people that misuse religion, religious hustlers I would call them, that use it to further their own cause, and it is conceivable that certain people might be deluded into their own self importance and subscribe such importance and power to their own self perceived religious faith, which might be mostly hypocrisy.'

0 Replies

No link Barnard? They'll want a link.

The following link is to a site that collects objectionable ACLU cases. All the links seem to go to the same ACLU watch group, and I cannot vouch for the objectivity of either site or the accuracy of the protrayals of the cases. But it is a starting place to explore the cases.

http://test.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/ACLU/StoryArchives.asp

It is cases like these that have created so much angst and opposition against the ACLU by Americans who do value all our Constitutionally protected liberties, not just those that the ACLU decides we should have.

0 Replies

Stradee wrote:

okie wrote:
Stradee wrote:

Okie, you need to talk to your religioius advisor before calling me or anyone else on the forum 'hypocrite'. Shocking

Where did I do that? Please explain.

'Blatham, Stradee, Mesquite, etc., there are for sure cases of people that misuse religion, religious hustlers I would call them, that use it to further their own cause, and it is conceivable that certain people might be deluded into their own self importance and subscribe such importance and power to their own self perceived religious faith, which might be mostly hypocrisy.'

And you see this as Okie calling you a hypocrite? I suggest you read it again much more carefully. Of course if you consider yourself to be deluded with your own self importance and subscribe such importance and power to your own perceived religious faith, this might have hit a nerve. But Okie certainly did not assign that description to you or anybody else. And I think an apology from you to him is in order.

0 Replies

Oh fgs, i misread the quote! <duh>

My apologies, Okie.

0 Replies

Stradee wrote:

Oh fgs, i misread the quote! <duh>

My apologies, Okie.

I thought that was likely the case.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

No link Barnard? They'll want a link.

The following link is to a site that collects objectionable ACLU cases. All the links seem to go to the same ACLU watch group, and I cannot vouch for the objectivity of either site or the accuracy of the protrayals of the cases. But it is a starting place to explore the cases.

http://test.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/ACLU/StoryArchives.asp

It is cases like these that have created so much angst and opposition against the ACLU by Americans who do value all our Constitutionally protected liberties, not just those that the ACLU decides we should have.

Thanks for the link Foxfyre. I just scanned the top four listings and didn't see anything there that seemed objectionable to me. Do you see one or more that you find to be objectionable?

0 Replies

Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know