With the "Church and State" topic closed for discusion for some reason, I feel it is necessary to start another topic on this issue.
Elsehwere I expressed my discontent with the ways both sides political spectrum have usurped Christianity for it's own political purposes. Basically, the Republicans drive it toward legalism, while the next emerging movement on the Left drives it toward antinominism.
I've also have previously expressed my concerns about being branded a "homophobe" for stating homosexuality is a sin.
Then is a definte movement in America to brand all Christians as "intolerant" and ACLU has made MILLIONS of dollars attempting removing any form of Christian expression from the public square.
One of my major concerns with the candidate selcted by Unity08 is that, whomever it is, their values system is consistent with Judeo-Christian values, and that they ensure these attacks on Christianity in America will stop.
So I guess off the top that will exclude John Edwards who feels its OK to have bloggers who call Catholics M*****F***er's.
Anyone else wants to comment, feel free.
And just to start off this topic, I think Obama would be a possible choice, based on his speech today.
That is if the Hillary Clinton spin machine doesn't chew him up and spit him out.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
I actually agree with most of what you say there Kris! Most politicains would pass that litmus test I'm sure. Some wear it on their sleeves and some don't. May your way be as pleasant! Edwards is a great guy (would not vote for him though in all likelihood) and you know how hard it is to control the ol' blogosphere!
I'm not calling for a "litmus test" (another overused trope). What I'm saying is want a canddidate whose values are consistent with Judeo-Christian values. Edwards has already shown his are NOT.
And Hillary has no values, except those that serve herself.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
What do you consider "Judeo-Christian values"? Please kindly detail them. I'm looking for more inclusive language, and I feel that the values you may be talking about are shared by other faiths.
Judeo Christian values are those found in the Tenach and the New Testamnet. They are the same values on which America was founded.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
That the Second Commandment of Jesus (Love your neighbor as yourself) is found, in various wordings, in all the major religions. It is really the basis of the concept of justice, if you think about it. And it is from this point that we can find unity in different streams of faith.
For it is important to note that the Founding Fathers of our nation felt it vital that no one particular spiritual path should be favored over others; and in crafting the First Amendment, they allowed the flourishing of all spiritual paths.
We need to be sure that any platform we craft here at Unity08 be inclusive, and not exclusive, of all faiths. We start by finding common ground. I have shown one place on which all faiths agree. What are some values we need to carefully examine so that we can find unity in the diversity of beliefs?
Well, when people are branded "homophobes" for saying Homosexuality is a sin, it seems people of faith are being excluded in favor of secularists.
The huge amount of bloviation in favor of gay marriage also suggests many members are of the far-left and are trying to push a radical agenda.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
What's yours? You've made it clear that you're upset about being branded a homophobe for saying that homosexuality is a sin. At the ame time, you don't seem too keen on gay marriage. Are you implying that they're right to call you a homophobe, whether their reasoning is or not? Or are you implying that only those who are without sin are worthy of the sanctity of marriage? Or are you implying that your god doesn't forgive the homos? Or are you just surprised that people react negatively to your moral judgment of the lifestyle of an entire segment of the populace?
You're also pretty hardlined on this whole idea of the separation of church and state (I'm only making this assumption because this is the third consecutive different thread I've read where you're on the exact same soap box). "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." What about this is getting your goat? Christianity was the religion of the people who FOUNDED this country. The freedom to practice it as they saw fit without being compelled to do so was what this country was FOUNDED ON. No ties between state & federal funds and any specific religion is exactly what the intention originally was. What evidence do you have to the contrary?
Here's something else to marinate on. We're lucky that Justice Black worded it exactly as he did. Otherwise, for every dollar of taxpayer money spent in any denomination of christian church, a dollar would have to be spent in a radical Muslim church (I don't know how many of those there are in this country, but supposing for a moment that there is one). THEN what? Until the day your god opens the doors and walks out onto the senate floor, just go ahead and assume that he wants no place in politics. You have no evidence to the contrary until then (In case you're wondering, my "evidence" that he wants nothing to do with legislature and politics is that god is "all-powerful," not to mention that his alleged legislature was written almost two thousand years ago. Our founding fathers were familiar with that legislation, but opted to write their own instead, which means that they apparently deemed god's legislation as being insufficient for governing a nation).
Understand this: I don't care what your religious beliefs are. They're personal unto you, and should be kept as such. If you feel so inclined to discuss your religious beliefs with your friends, that's your decision. DO NOT, however, attempt to seek legislation that actively sanctions your specific religion, as I see many moral flaws in christianity that I don't want my government espousing. They espouse it anyway. It's nothing short of obtuse, but I'll tolerate it so long as it's only in their rhetoric (even the occasional invasion of a sovereignty for no legitimate reason is really pushing it), and not in their legislation. The overwhelming majority of our government shares the same broad religious category as you do. Take that consolation prize, leave my constitution alone, and be satisfied sir. If it's state-sponsored religion you want, move to Italy. I hear they have a pope.
Regarding the "Secularists," as you put it, what makes you so sure they're secularists, and not simply people who keep their religious beliefs where they belong? People of YOUR faith ARE being excluded (in legislation anyway) in favor of the equal treatment of people of ALL faiths or no faith whatsoever, because that group does outnumber yours. Such is democracy. I, for one, am an atheist. I'd love nothing more than to see an atheist president elected JUST ONCE (if only for a four-year break from the religious rhetoric). I know that won't happen, but you're right... your religious views are the only ones being excluded in politics. Pray more, post less.
It boggles my mind that the people raising the biggest stink about the separation of church and state are the people who are of the same religious beliefs as every president in the history of our country (the president, by the way, is responsible for nominating Supreme Court appointees, such as Justice Black). Please... either shut up and go to church, or provide a solid legal argument supporting your allegation that Everson v. Board of Education was a distortion of our constitution.
One last thing. For this, we'll briefly suspend the laws of our language... just for you (wouldn't want you to feel excluded or anything). To make it read, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or irreligion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," as you suggested earlier would create a direct logical contradiction, making it an impossibility, and therefore accomplishing exactly nothing (nice try... and "irreligion" is NOT a word, no matter how much you think it should be. I'm excluding you again, sorry). From what I gather, this political issue is the one and only issue that you're passionate about (maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's the only constitutional issue you're passionate about). Coincidentally, it's about the most polarizing issue there is between the democrats and the republicans. As I understand it, this website isn't for you, because it's for those who are dissatisfied with only having one or the other of the aforementioned parties as choices for president & vice president. Fortunately for you, my understanding bears no authority, as I have no control over this website. Go ahead and thank god for that.
Steve Barry,
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for yourself."
-Ayn Rand
For my "agenda" simply read why I joined Unity08.
What exactly are "pygmypolice" BTW????
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
"What exactly are "pygmypolice" BTW????"
It's a screen name that I find amusing, now would you care to stay on topic long enough to reply to anything other than the first sentence? There's a little more there, in case you hadn't noticed. In fact, the first sentence was pretty much a rhetorical question.
Steve
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for yourself."
-Ayn Rand
I found the post "rambling" and "non-sensical", so I didn't bother to read much past the first sentence.
Since I'm not paid by the taxpayers, like say...A Superior Court Judge or Clerk or Prothonotary, I have no moral or ethical obligation to do so.
However looking back at it now. it reads like a pedophile...oooopps sorry.... lawyer ( I keep getting them mixed up) trying to twist someone's words to use them against them.
You don't happen to know a Leo Ciaramitaro or Gregg T. Norton, do you?
Your posts use their same techniques as their writtings.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
I think the biggest problem is who ever is in power, will make decisions based on their religious beliefs. Like abortions or same sex marrige. Seperation will never take place untill America gets someone as President that will let the people decide what they want by doing what we should all be doing....THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTING ON WHAT WE WANT. Not 1 man or the senate and congress making decisions for the people of this great Country. "WE THE PEOPLE" Remember this?
WWW.Tee4President.US
"Lets take care of "U.S." first"
U.S. = United States
"The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no election." - Justice Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
Arguably the most important principle embraced by the U.S. Constitution is protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Our founding fathers had seen such ugly tyranny, so they made the Constitutional amendment process especially difficult. If there is an issue you want the American people to decide by popular vote, it cannot be one impinging on any right contained within the Bill of Rights. You must resort to the Constitutional amendment process.
The most heinous of tyrants is the will of the majority.
Any law that causes an injustice to just one person is an unjust law.
Democracy will fail when the masses learn they can vote themselves largess from the public purse.
Author(s) Unknown but written at the dawn of democracy.
These unknown authors had already seen the flaws in "true democracy" and the founders of the U.S.A. wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights in an attempt to prevent these misuses of democracy. Unfortunately the U.S. education system has failed miserably in the task of teaching about the reasons our founders specifically wanted to avoid a "true democracy" and guarantee absolute freedom of and from religion.
http://www.blankballot.us/
Seperation was not intended in the constitution according to the Federalist Papers. Amendment one simply was to get government out of religion not vice versa.
I agree. Please let me expand the point and bring it into context.
Freedom of religion and freedom of expression should not be mutually exclusive and should be the right of every citizen of this country. Whether that person is a government official or not they should have the right, the protected right, to utter words based on their personal beliefs at any time. To force relgious belief out of the discourse would be a fatal mistake for any nation or party.
I would not want candidates to 'have' to express Christian or Jewish beliefs, but I could not join a party that would do anything to diminish those faiths or muzzle the views held by their followers.
"I found the post "rambling" and "non-sensical", so I didn't bother to read much past the first sentence."
Really? Then how do you know it was "rambling" and "non-sensical"?
"Since I'm not paid by the taxpayers, like say...A Superior Court Judge or Clerk or Prothonotary, I have no moral or ethical obligation to do so."
Moral, perhaps. Ethical, yes! You want to post your own arguments you have an ethical obligation to respond to counter arguments. Otherwise, it proves you are only interested in imposing your views on the rest of us.
"However looking back at it now. it reads like a pedophile...oooopps sorry.... lawyer ( I keep getting them mixed up) trying to twist someone's words to use them against them."
This is so typical and why I have no patience with people like you. If someone disagrees with you they are "pedophiles". Very Christian -- not! This type of policy argument highlights why we need to keep church and state totally separate.
The distinction, pedophiles work for the church and lawyers are only crooks.
Browncoats Unite!
Get off of your soap box PygmyPolice ... Wow!!!
Kris, I have had the same problem with your attention span and inability to read what a person says before commenting. Maybe you should take some of that input to heart.
Where IS it in Allegheny County you live "GEA?
And why haven't you answered that question?????
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
GEA...you didn't answer me here either.
You seem to be an ally of "ThePygmyPolice".
I think you are a troll....just like him.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
I am sure sir that some of the athiest creed are fine people. You may be. I don't know you. However, I have been shocked by the level of bigotry aimed at me personaly by secularists who do not even know me. Secularists make no easily misconstrued statments. They hate our guts and are often rude enough to be open about it. I even heared one on the radio last week advocating killing us all. That isn't leveling that's bad old KKK style hate.
For the record I refuse to hate such people back.
Karl Heinitz
Please, Some one tell me how many people in the world have been KILLED in the name of God? This is one commandment that no one follows. It's a sad way to preach the way of God, "Do as I say, not as I do".
Oh yeah KrisW How many years did you spend behind bars??
Tee
"Lets take care of "U.S." first"
U.S. = United States
Well, troll (and until you answer these questions
http://unity08.com/node/790#comment-14346
...I'll continue to call you that.)
The Bible also says "Thou shall not bear false witness".
Yet, DA's and judges have "absolute immunity" to do so according to Federal Judge Arthur j. Schwab (see 0415cv2006, Third FEDERAL Circuit, civil)
If elected President, what would YOU do about THAT??????
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
This is nonsense.
Tolerance, freedom, leaving people alone to work their own way back to God, are these the 'Judeo-Christian' values you're talking about?
Or do you mean intolerance, religious fascism, hammering folks into roles that you think they ought to fit?
The whole idea of 'Judeo-Christian values' betrays a naivety on your part: Judaism and Christianity do not share values except in the sense of 'Human values' like refraining from murder and theft. These tend to be shared by most religions and philosophical movements, with some notable exceptions.
The other values that you're trying to appropriate into your religious world-view are 'American' values outlined by our Founding Fathers, most of whom did not consider themselves to be Christians and spoke out loudly about the place of religion in politics.
When the religious right begins to appreciate that the right to burn a flag or marry the partner of your choice is the same right to worship as you see fit, perhaps the conversation can begin in earnest.
JR
I see where this weekend, some Republicans are courting the "Religious Right"
Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and Pat Robertson have been dubbed the "Three Kingamkers"
I don't think I'll be voting for anyone those three endorse.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
This is one of the biggest debates of Religion and State in America. The bible talks about "AN EYE FOR AN EYE" But yet 1,000's of inmates sit on death row. Some for over 25 years! WHY? these people were sentenced to "DIE" for the crime they committed. Yet the bible thumpers so "NO" to killing these people. They suck up our money by keeping them alive. The last one to die from leathal injection, remember that one? The Doctor swabed the area with a sterile swab. Like he would have gotten an infection from the needle. So stupid! I believe these people were sent to death row, not by being a great American. I think we need to CARRY OUT ALL SENCTECING NOW!
Tee
"Lets take care of "U.S." first"
U.S. = United States
I'm against Capital Punishment as well. Not on any Biblical basis, but because the justice system made a mockery of the motto "Equal justice under law".
Until that abomination is corrected, no one should be executed.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Every human is the product of his/her genes and developmental environment, so one or the other is ultimately responsible for the heinous crime carrying the death penalty. A measure of accountability is necessary to maintain civil order and provide learning pathways for civil behavior, but the criminal is not responsible for his acts to the point of our demanding his/her death. Contra-causal free will is a false belief.
if they are found guilty by a jury of their piers and have had two
appeals with an attorney they accepted , and failed, then carry out the sentence within ten days of the last appeal .period !
Maybe I misunderstood you..
Most Christians are Republicans. Anti Abortion, anti gay marrige???
George Bush is a self proclaimed Christian and believes in capitall punishment.
There should be a litmus test for candidates regarding the separation of church and state.
First, any candidate for public office should state which Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions he/she thinks are wrong and what's wrong with them (or how he/she would have decided them). Most arguments (they're seldom debates) for or against the separation of church and state... as delineated by Supreme Court decisions fail to be specific. If you support the constitution, you also support every single SCOTUS decision... or fight to have them overturned by either Constitutional amendment or SCOTUS reversal. Both of these are made intentionally difficult so we don't blow in the breeze of currently popular sentiments.
For instance, many argue that SCOTUS overstepped its bounds in applying the Religion Clauses to the states, but they fail to address the 14th Amendment at all. If they want states to decide Religion Clause disputes then they must want to overturn Cantwell v. Connecticut (310 U.S. 296; 1940), which recognized that the 14th Amendment applied the First Amendment to the states.
Secondly, every candidate should be asked to either support or reject Joseph Story's 1833 statement regarding Article VI, section 3 (see Commentaries on the Constitution). He said, "The . . . clause declares, that 'no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any office or public trust, under the United States.' This clause had a higher object; to cut off for ever every pretence of any alliance between church and state in the national government. The framers of the constitution were fully sensible of the dangers from this source, marked out in the history of other ages and countries; and not wholly unknown to our own. They knew that bigotry was unceasingly vigilant . . . and that intolerance was ever ready to arm itself with all the terrors of the civil power to exterminate those, who doubted its dogmas, or resisted its infallibility."
Most who are familiar with Joseph Story tout his famous statement that "the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state . . ." But it is the former quote regarding the federal government that is germane to the point of the Religion Clauses... since they now apply to all levels of government.
I cannot support any candidate who does make clear his support of the U.S. Constitution... as determined by SCOTUS, and that he/she will seek a Constitutional amendment as the sole means of overturning a SCOTUS decision.
No litmus tests.
And if you concerned about government officals (quite a few of them elected) "upholding the Constitution", I have a whole list of them that DO NOT.
See 0415cv2006 and 0914cv2006, Third Circuit Federal Court
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
No need to provide your list of politicians who do not uphold the Constitution. I'm painfully aware of them... beginning with George Bush! His faith-based effort is an agregious violation of the U.S. Constitution and in the next few years SCOTUS will put an end to George Bush's scorched earth Christian crusade against his own countrymen.
Judges have "absolute imuunity" to break the law.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
You're right, Sonny.
Who knows what Bush believes? If he's a Christian, as he alleges, how can he suck up to the Moonies? How can he lie? ("Rumsfeld will stay" for just one example).
He manipulates Christians with homophobia.
Religion has no place in politics.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
I'm more concerned about JUDGES and LAWYERS who violate the Constitution then hid behind the cloak of immunity.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
a legal citizen , native born , who is a member of a GOD based
faith organization , of sound mind , non criminal .a leader in his
community , who has served in the military ,would be a good start .
would that God based organization include:
Hindus
Lakota (Native American spirituality)
Muslims
Jews
And what about
Buddhists (we have two Buddhists serving in the House now, I believe; however Buddhism doesn't recognize a God figure)
Anyone who professes to "believe" in god should be immediately barred from holding public office; exactly the same as if they profess "belief" in fairies, trolls, elves or any other imaginary beings. Perhaps if we would elect leaders that based their values and actions on science and empirical data instead of myths we would see a little progress in this world.
NO Litmus tests......But I'm ALWAYS interested in a candidates spiritual beliefs considering how rampant moral ambiguity has be come.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Richard S. Poleet Jr.
I would say no to a litmus test on the separation of church and state. Just if a politician agrees. That the government should not force religious practice. Or the adoption of Federal or State endorsed Religion. Although maybe I would agree to it for the Constitution as a whole. That is as written.
I think we should only apply this as to how it pertains to the establishment clause in the Constitution. Meaning the government should not establish any one religion. Or any of the various religions. As the religion of the United States of America.
If we do as some suggest. This would virtually eliminate a politicians rights to the First Amendment and all the rights contained with in that amendment. Just because they are elected. Does not mean they can not express the various religious views. Just not force you to practice them.
The establishment clause was created so the government would not follow in the footsteps of the English monarchey. Meaning a Federal or State enforcing one religion on all Americans. Or forcing you to worship the religions they view as right.
I believe the church separation of state view has gotten way out of control. To the point we penalize individuals for there religious views or beliefs. Partly do to political correctness. Also do to our lack of understanding of the establishment clause. The history behind it. We know for a fact that most of our forefather's were religious to varying degrees. If we applied this test to them. They never would have been involved in government. As far a the Judicial Branch of government is concerned. They flip flop all the time. Some interpreting the constitution as written. While others legislate from the bench. Creating new law, as it pertains to the separation of church and state. Which has further clouded the issue. If not an abuse of the bench it self. We seem to be repeating the persecution the Monarchy imposed on select religions. Except we want to do it to all the various religions. One of the reasons this great republic was founded. Not all of the reasons. Definitely one of them. People over analyze this clause. Instead of using common sense approach. Not to mention historical references. Being a direct descendant of our forefathers/fore bearers. I can tell religion was important reason they came to this land. Again not the only reason. But an important one none the less. The establishment clause was created so we did not follow the mistakes of the Monarchy. Although persecution wise it seems we have.
Peace!!! Love!!! Long live the Federal Republic of these United States. All those who reside within her borders and serve her.
i think that the real issue here is, that the constitution clearly
states that we are (one nation formed under GOD ).that in itself defines that any religon ( christian ) ( jewish ) that believes in
GOD is acceptable. any thing past this point just becomes an expression of self indulgence .until we as a people choose to change the constitution we are bound by it .
Bobd42 needs to restudy the U.S. Constitution because the word "God" is never mentioned. And the only mention of religion comes in Article VI, Section 3, which prohibits a "religious test" for qualification to any "Office or public trust." Religion was not even broached as a subject during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and only mentioned in ratifying state conventions in the context of ensuring that the newly-formed national government was impeccably secular, that it was to have absolutely, unequivically nothing to do with religion!
It is shameful how many people distort history in order to return us to the days when the American colonies and many states were virtual theocracies... and Catholics were tarred and feathered while Quakers were hung!
Get the indisputable facts here: www.clarencewilliams.net/americachristianoriginssecularfuture.pdf
"The Creator" is mentioned several times in the Declaration of Independence. And the most referenced document in the first 60 or so years of America (by far) was ...........the Bible.
And please don't trot out that old canard that the founders were "deists".
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Am I allowed to mention that Jefferson tore out the pages from his Bible that depicted Jesus performing miracles?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/jefferson.html
it somehow does not surprise me.
One Voice Among Many
Here is the Jefferson Bible....
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/
Jefferson made the same mistake MANY "modern" Christians hold. He held that Christ was history's greatest moral teacher. This is why he REQUIRED the Bible be tought in SCHOOLS (funny how the ACLU never mentions that FACT in Separation of Church and State cases).
It's worth noting though, that Jefferson's Bible ends before the Resurrection, and doesn't include the Book of Romans.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Our school children should be required to complete a course in comparative religion. England has such a requirement... and is probably why so few Britains attend church.