Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God'
This nation was founded under the principles of separation of Church and state. No Government decisions are to be made on religious grounds. This is a secular government.
To think if McCain passes in office that we would leave us with a religious leader asking God to make the decision. Forget rational thinking. This is very scary.
Posted on: September 03, 2008, 07:56:41 PM
http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/republican-party/22380/palin-iraq-war-a-task-that-is-from-god/ (http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/republican-party/22380/palin-iraq-war-a-task-that-is-from-god/)
If she'd said it was a task from Xenu, we'd think she was insane.
Why vote for the lesser evil?
Vote Chthulu!
Another User Friendly (http://www.userfriendly.org/) reader, I see.
Lisa, I'm not picking on you, I'm really not but you keep hitting my Political Science major buttons.
Quote from: lisagurl on September 03, 2008, 08:01:12 PM
This nation was founded under the principles of separation of Church and state. No Government decisions are to be made on religious grounds. This is a secular government.
No it wasn't. Article One of the Bill of Rights reads:
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.The first known actual mention of the phrase "separation of church and state" was in an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to a group called the Danbury Baptists in which he wrote:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." After that it wasn't until 1878 that the phrase was first used by the U.S. Supreme Court.
So basically separation of church and state simply mean that the U.S. Government cannot tell you that you cannot go to church on whatever day your church deems the day to worship, they cannot establish a "state sponsored" religion that you are required to believe in and finally they cannot mandate that you attend church at all. Nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights says that decisions cannot be made according to an individuals personal beliefs. In fact, it happens all the time in Congress. Liberals vote in one way according to their own belief system and conservatives vote another way according to their belief system. It still boils down to personal values.
Class dismissed and I'll shut up now. :icon_blahblah:
Beverly
Then there was Thomas Paine sort of left out of Political Science major textbooks.
Robert Ingersoll- The framers of the Constitution deliberately omitting any mention of God from the nation's founding document and instead acknowledging "We the People" as the supreme governmental authority. This did away forever with the theological idea of government.
The only freethinkers who have received their due in American history are Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, in spite of the fact that they were denigrated by their Calvinist contemporaries as atheists, heretics. and infidels.
Read 'Freethinkers' A history of American Secularism.
The fact remains that the founders and early presidents were in favor of a secular state. Look at Article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams in 1796:
Quote
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
No one had a problem with this language at the time.
Posted on: September 04, 2008, 04:16:55 PM
Besides, the founders are dead, the Constitution is just a piece of paper, and the rule of law... well, that's right out. It's not like the system we have is the one established in the 1700s.
Yes, but Lisa, you said she should read the Constitution. Not that she should read Paine or Ingersoll. The Treaty of Tripoli aside, nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it say decisions must be made on a secular basis.
All of that aside, what I want to know about any candidate for any office is which aides do they turn to for advice and where do those aides get their information. Those are the people who ultimately influence the decisions that are made. A former member of this board and I were discussing this earlier today. She wrote the transcription program that CNN uses for it's talk shows and if those transcripts aren't online very early Mondays, they start getting calls from Congressional offices because they can't prepare their briefings for their Congressperson or Senator. Now that's really scary that they are depending on CNN for knowledge of the nation and world.
:icon_help:
Maebh, you still got any of that J. D. I brought you? I need a drink.
Beverly
Yes the destruction of independent press has shot American freedom in the foot. We no longer can depend on impartial reporting. My spouse worked for UPI before they went bankrupt. The average citizen cares very little about thinking about facts and how they effect our lives, they just want to be entertained and they put their money in that pot.
I don't think anybody can miss the fact that the GOP candidates seem to be driven by their religious beliefs. That fact scares the hell out of me. But that's just my opinion. I want to see this country's reaction to a Muslim VP candidate who says it is the will of Allah to raise taxes. That candidate is entitled to make decisions based on their beliefs, but I know they would be deeply criticized by all Republicans. It's my opinion that Republicans are capable of a double standard when it comes to religion.
It's ironic, don't you think? All across this great country our citizens are voting to ban prayer in public schools, but they vote for our supreme commander because God told them to go to war. "God, help us, please!"
Quote from: lisagurl on September 04, 2008, 07:02:12 PM
The average citizen cares very little about thinking about facts and how they effect our lives, they just want to be entertained and they put their money in that pot.
Sad, but true... at least for the crowd I watched during the Republican Convention last night. How shameful and sad to watch speaker after speaker actually *mocking* a presidential candidate. Not critiquing his solutions, not tearing apart his policies, but instead using nasty sarcasm and mean-spirited "humor" to demean and make fun of a respectable man (whether you agree with his policies or not) running for the highest office in the land. And all to the chants of USA! USA! as if we're watching a football game... except that football teams actually have a sense of honor and respect for their opponents.
But hey, everyone had a good time demeaning and laughing at their opponents, right?
~ Katie Marie ~
She is promoting an establishment of religion, just like Bush did. It's wrong.
Quote from: tekla on September 04, 2008, 08:56:01 PM
She is promoting an establishment of religion, just like Bush did. It's wrong.
No, it's all good - she's got the Jeebus Seal of Approval.
Yeah, I know, her invisible friend is the real invisible friend, and everyone's else's invisible friend is just make believe. Right.
QuoteIt's ironic, don't you think? All across this great country our citizens are voting to ban prayer in public schools, but they vote for our supreme commander because God told them to go to war. "God, help us, please!"
Well not the exact truth. Even if the majority wanted school prayer the wall between church and state will not allow tax money to fund those schools. But the government elected officials have allowed the phrase "Under God" be in the Pledge of Allegiance, and In God we Trust on the money both a violation of the Constitution but allowed by the religious leaning Supreme Court.
Everyone has the right to express their beliefs, even if we disagree with what is said. Religion was a part of the founding of this country. It is also the reason that many people came here from elsewhere: so they could worship the way they please. If a person chooses not to worship, they have that right.
Gov. Palin is expressing her belief. I'm not so sure about what she said but she has a right to say what she thinks.
Gennee
Quote from: lisagurl on September 05, 2008, 08:17:49 AMEven if the majority wanted school prayer the wall between church and state will not allow tax money to fund those schools. But the government elected officials have allowed the phrase "Under God" be in the Pledge of Allegiance, and In God we Trust on the money both a violation of the Constitution but allowed by the religious leaning Supreme Court.
It wasn't a matter if "the wall" not allowing it. Public schools for years all said the lord's prayer in the morning, at least the one's I knew of did. It wasn't till the past ten years that schools have one by one been banned from continuing prayer in school.
Yeah, school prayer was a given back in the day. Also, don't forget that children performed the Nazi (Roman) salute when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
the real problem isnt that that she is religious, its that she is lying about which religion she practices. the one she was referring to states ... thou shalt not commit murder, thou shalt not bare false witness, thou shalt not steal, thou SHALL LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THY SELF!
none of those apply to the current regime, their religion or the war in Iraq.
"christians" give Christ a bad name. Christ is really cool actually.
But not every Christian believes what you do. I'm sure there are lots of bits in the Bible that you'd have issues with, and other Christians single out different bits to like or hate. You may believe in loving your neighbor as yourself, but someone who believes in putting people to the sword, young and old, men and women - they've got support in the Good Book too. What makes one more Christian than another?
i do so like to pick and chose... this is one of my favs.. :)
Matthew 22:34-40 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain
[A Public Domain Bible] [KJV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]
34But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.
35Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
36Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38This is the first and great commandment.
39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
QuoteEveryone has the right to express their beliefs, even if we disagree with what is said
Yes this country is great because it allows everyone to practice their own religion and have their beliefs. Religion gives people happiness and allows them to have reason. However Government does not endorse any religion and decisions are made in a rational way based on fact. If a leader makes a decision based on their religion then they are not honoring all the other religions of the country. Therefore decisions should be based on the material world of rational thought not what a god tells the leader to do. Now religion makes for a great positive force to keep people going when the emotions are down that is great but the actions one tales needs to be rational and taken all peoples rights into consideration.
Quote from: lisagurl on September 06, 2008, 08:07:51 AM
If a leader makes a decision based on their religion then they are not honoring all the other religions of the country. Therefore decisions should be based on the material world of rational thought not what a god tells the leader to do.
The problem for many "true believer" types is that their religion casts the world into this Manichaean conflict between Good and Evil, the Deity and the Adversary. For those kind of believers, NOTHING trumps God's will. If they have political power, they're
literally obligated to wield it in the service of their religion - it's nothing less than a betrayal of God for them to run a secular state. Further, accepting the validity of other religions is tantamount to promoting paganism. I don't think you realize what you're asking of them. The things they do when they have power - for them, that's the
practice of their religion. Asking them to make decisions on reason and secular principles is literally asking them to give up their religion.
Quote from: lisagurl on September 06, 2008, 08:07:51 AM
Yes this country is great because it allows everyone to practice their own religion and have their beliefs. Religion gives people happiness and allows them to have reason.
I don't mean to pick, but I take issue with this. I'm an atheist - does that mean I'm irrational?
Posted on: September 06, 2008, 12:10:52 PM
Quote from: bethzerosix on September 06, 2008, 01:28:13 AM
36Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38This is the first and great commandment.
39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
This seems clear and straightforward to you, because you approach it with a bias towards a secular, humanistic conception of "love thy neighbour". i.e. beatings, rape, torture, and murder are bad things, not expressions of love. You wouldn't want any of them to happen to you.
However, if you're talking about a fundamentalist, then all bets are off. If the ultimate fate of a human soul is either bliss eternal or writhing damnation, and you're supposed to love other people as yourself, then shouldn't you make sure that people are saved? Isn't anything you do towards that end an expression of love for your neighbor, regardless of how harsh it seems? If loving thy neighbor requires you to save her from damnation (as it should), then there is absolutely no harm or oppression you can inflict on her that isn't justified by your ends.
QuoteYes this country is great because it allows everyone to practice their own religion and have their beliefs. Religion gives people happiness and allows them to have reason.
I don't mean to pick, but I take issue with this. I'm an atheist - does that mean I'm irrational?
I did not say religious people are irrational I said to use beliefs to make decisions is irrational. Beliefs include believing in no God or any dogma. There are no facts to prove it either way.
QuoteAsking them to make decisions on reason and secular principles is literally asking them to give up their religion.
No that is not true. Kennedy said he does not speak for his church and his church does not speak for him. He went to church every Sunday and many reforms such as legal abortion happened during his term.
It is asking them to keep there religious beliefs to their personal lives and carry out leadership duties without the influence of beliefs. There are many religions and non believers in this country which have the right to believe what they wish as long as it does not violate the law or other peoples rights. A leader can not decide an issue on religious terms without violating the rights of people that do not share his or hers beliefs.
Quote from: lisagurl on September 06, 2008, 12:09:43 PM
I did not say religious people are irrational I said to use beliefs to make decisions is irrational. Beliefs include believing in no God or any dogma. There are no facts to prove it either way.
I disagree, but that's an argument for another time.
Quote from: lisagurl on September 06, 2008, 12:09:43 PM
QuoteAsking them to make decisions on reason and secular principles is literally asking them to give up their religion.
No that is not true. Kennedy said he does not speak for his church and his church does not speak for him. He went to church every Sunday and many reforms such as legal abortion happened during his term.
It is asking them to keep there religious beliefs to their personal lives and carry out leadership duties without the influence of beliefs.
But what you're asking is a sinful betrayal of God for many believers - not everyone wants a secular common ground.
Your belief that people should keep
their beliefs within their personal lives is abhorrent to these folks. It's like demanding that they stop going to church. Wielding temporal power in the name of God is an OBLIGATION of their faith. You ARE asking them to give up their religion. This isn't a division that can be reconciled.
Since I'm not religious myself, and I don't feel anyone's belief is automatically worthy of respect, I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade.
QuoteBut what you're asking is a sinful betrayal of God for many believers
I said nothing of that kind. I said that the Constitution (law of the land) calls for a separation of Church and State. That means there will be no national religion. It forces the leaders to not favor any one or all religions or non religious dogma.
Can you not conduct a government without dogma and respect all people's rights to believe what they please? Government laws are different than personal morals. I think you might be having difficulty understanding this concept.
Quote from: lisagurl on September 06, 2008, 01:54:25 PM
Can you not conduct a government without dogma and respect all people's rights to believe what they please? Government laws are different than personal morals. I think you might be having difficulty understanding this concept.
Actually, I understand the concept very well, and endorse it wholeheartedly. What I'm saying is that not only are there people who
don't accept that idea, but people whose "personal morals" are the source of that rejection.
Let's put it this way... an honest theocrat believes it's her
personal, religiously inspired duty to be a theocrat. It's a very recent, and very Western conceit that you can separate your personal code and your actions as a public official. On a deeper level, that idea is nothing more than a stipulation IN your personal code that the common ground of government should be secular. There are people whose personal codes don't have or respect that proviso. You can't appeal to a sensibility they don't have.
I'd also like to be clear that I'm not issuing a blanket condemnation of religious people, as much as I dislike religion itself. I'm just pointing out that radically religious people often don't think the way you or I do about the division of church and state, and I don't think you understand their perspective.
Then those people do not need to hold Government office or government jobs that require upholding the law.
See the title of this thread (Palin needs to study the Constitution) She needs to seriously probe her conscious to question the fact " Can she uphold the Constitution?"
Agreed, but the separation of church and state is not written into the Constitution or any other federal law. The closest thing to it is the First Amendment, which is irrelevant to the executive branch, and thus Sara Palin.
Honestly? There's no law at all protecting Americans from a theocratic executive - nor even any legal grounds for impeaching the theocrat.
Agreed, but the separation of church and state is not written into the Constitution or any other federal law. The closest thing to it is the First Amendment, which is irrelevant to the executive branch, and thus Sara Palin.
That is an incorrect reading of the Constitution, of American History, and of the law.
That's a literal reading of the Constitution - "Congress shall make no law". Although America has a history of church/state separation, it's NOT a part of federal law. If I'm wrong, I'd love for you to provide specific evidence.
When they wrote "Congress shall make no law" they thought that only Congress would write law in the first place. To put it in that way, they were expressly forbidding the federal government - and all state governments also - from either advocating a religion, or prohibiting anyone from practicing religion. The establishment refers not only to a state church, but also the preference of one religion over another.
And, its not the only mention either, try Article 4, Section 3.
That may be original intent, but with both the executive and the judiciary having
de facto law making power now, the only check is the interpretation of the Supremes. Ergo, not law.
Article IV, section 3:
Quote
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
Maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but I just don't see the relevance.
Sorry, its 6/3 not 4/3, I've been working too much lately. Its about the only thing that is out-right prohibited.
Article VI:
Quote
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
All that means is that you can't use religion as a basis for denying someone a government job. It doesn't forbid exercising state power on behalf of a religion.
The State acting on behalf of a single belief (or, more to the point, a make believe) system is what the Founding Fathers called 'establishment.' And you find very little of this nonsense before the 1960s. Although Congress doing the Kowtow to the Knights of Columbus and putting "under god" into the Pledge, was an early starting point, what was that, early fifties, '54 or so.
QuoteAlthough Congress doing the Kowtow to the Knights of Columbus and putting "under god" into the Pledge, was an early starting point, what was that, early fifties, '54 or so.
It was to stand against Russia and atheist communism.
Yes, its a bit more complex than that, everytime the Gov gives the religious types something, its a trade for something bigger they want - in this case a nuclear weapons based military industrial complex, which many Catholics opposed.
It does not change the fact that 'under god' was not in the original pledge, does not belong there, and ought to be removed. Good Americans do not say that part, skipping it and going from "one nation" straight to 'with liberty.'
If it were to be changed it ought to read "one nation, striving for liberty and justice for all.'