GOP Senate candidate says 9/11 was God's punishment

#27
#27
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/31/politics/kfile-roy-moore-trump-base/index.html
Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore said Thursday that President Donald Trump will lose his credibility with his populist base if he continues to support his establishment-backed opponent in the Republican primary runoff election.Moore finished ahead of incumbent Sen. Luther Strange, who received Trump's endorsement in the Republican primary, with 39% of the vote. The runoff election is set for September 26.
Appearing on the Laura Ingraham's radio show Thursday, the former Alabama chief justice was asked if Trump is "disconnected from the populist conservative base."
"I think that he may be. And I think he'll find it hard way if he comes or if he doesn't come down," Moore answered. "As long as he stays with the candidate that's going to lose, he's going to lose credibility. And I think that he's being badly advised out of the White House."
Click to expand...


IMO, Trump should wear that as a badge of honor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#28
#28
ClearwaterVol said:
Not even close to accurate.
Click to expand...

Absolutely accurate.

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.
Click to expand...

Want to point out the "separation of church and state"?
 
#30
#30
armchair said:
There are 10,000 Roy Moore's in this country. Religious leaders and religious people say stupid things constantly. They are very bad for the country because they spread nonsense. There are right-wing/religious radio networks all over the country that spread ignorance and conspiracy and general nonsense 24/7--and low-information folk all over rural America believe their nonsense. The idea of America being an "advanced" country is a complete myth. Yes, we're advanced at the top--our elite are the best at what they do, but below the elite we have a backward country. Crazy religious leaders can say crazy, stupid things in their churches, if they wish--but when they go around publicly spouting nonsense, it's a problem.
Click to expand...

And you're a perfect example of why.
 
#31
#31
LouderVol said:
This is why we have separation of church and state. this type of stuff doesn't need to come out of anyone's mouth. yet alone an elected official. dumb dumb dumb.
Click to expand...

Not sure what this has to do with separation of Church and State, but are you suggesting that none of our elected officials should have any religious beliefs? I think the guy is looney as ****, but just because you are an elected official, shouldn't mean you should have no religious beliefs or be able to speak about them in the confines of your religious place of worship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#32
#32
hog88 said:
Absolutely accurate.



Want to point out the "separation of church and state"?
Click to expand...

It was the invention of the founding fathers, not a "few judges."

So, that being said, I will pick the easy target du jour... Religious displays at a Federal Courthouse...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Can you see how a Christian display at a federal courthouse gives the appearance that federal courts place a higher value on Christianity rather than other religions?

Can you not also see that since the federal government is not supposed to make laws respecting the creation of a religion or prohibit the free exercise of a religion, this "picking a winner" does just that? It would appear that to get a fair shake in that court one might need to abandon his religion at the courthouse steps and come into conformity with that court's christian preference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#33
#33
FLVOL_79 said:
Because he isn't doing that from his work office..thats why.
Click to expand...

So, the fact that he holds an opinion that just about all Americans find abhorrent is not relevant if he articulated that opinion in a non-work environment? What about a grade school teacher that expresses his belief that sexual activity between children and adults is normal in non-work setting?
 
#34
#34
ClearwaterVol said:
It was the invention of the founding fathers, not a "few judges."

So, that being said, I will pick the easy target du jour... Religious displays at a Federal Courthouse...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Can you see how a Christian display at a federal courthouse gives the appearance that federal courts place a higher value on Christianity rather than other religions?

Can you not also see that since the federal government is not supposed to make laws respecting the creation of a religion or prohibit the free exercise of a religion, this "picking a winner" does just that? It would appear that to get a fair shake in that court one might need to abandon his religion at the courthouse steps and come into conformity with that court's christian preference.
Click to expand...

The first amendment was meant to only apply to the federal government and not the states and the founding fathers never intended a complete separation of church and state. They just granted the right to practice a religion of choice without state (federal) intervention.

No I don't see how that would be promoting a religion over others. However I do not have a problem with not having religious plaques or "symbols" in federal buildings. Outside of that the decision should have been left up to the states per the constitution.
 
#35
#35
ClearwaterVol said:
So, the fact that he holds an opinion that just about all Americans find abhorrent is not relevant if he articulated that opinion in a non-work environment? What about a grade school teacher that expresses his belief that sexual activity between children and adults is normal in non-work setting?
Click to expand...

He is a candidate so his comments will be judged by the voters in AL.
 
#36
#36
The biggest problem with Roy Moore is not that he's religious or a conservative.

It's is because as judge he twice disobeyed the law (10 Commandments in the court house and gay marriage). He has demonstrated that he doesn't answer to the system in which he seeks election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#37
#37
volinbham said:
The biggest problem with Roy Moore is not that he's religious or a conservative.

It's is because as judge he twice disobeyed the law (10 Commandments in the court house and gay marriage). He has demonstrated that he doesn't answer to the system in which he seeks election.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Although IMO the SC overstepped.
 
#38
#38
hog88 said:
He is a candidate so his comments will be judged by the voters in AL.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately they are judging him to be the best candidate. Him winning the primary either means this idiot will be one of 100 Senators or Alabama will be sending a D Senator to the Senate for the first time in a long time.

If he wins the primary I'm sitting this one out. Can't vote for him but hate to change the balance in the Senate.
 
#39
#39
hog88 said:
The first amendment was meant to only apply to the federal government and not the states and the founding fathers never intended a complete separation of church and state. They just granted the right to practice a religion of choice without state (federal) intervention.

No I don't see how that would be promoting a religion over others. However I do not have a problem with not having religious plaques or "symbols" in federal buildings. Outside of that the decision should have been left up to the states per the constitution.
Click to expand...

Then adopting an official religion of the Federal Government is constitutionally acceptable?

Also, do you believe that states are free make laws prohibiting specific religions?
 
#41
#41
volinbham said:
Unfortunately they are judging him to be the best candidate. Him winning the primary either means this idiot will be one of 100 Senators or Alabama will be sending a D Senator to the Senate for the first time in a long time.

If he wins the primary I'm sitting this one out. Can't vote for him but hate to change the balance in the Senate.
Click to expand...

I don't blame you. I couldn't vote for him either.
 
#42
#42
ClearwaterVol said:
Then adopting an official religion of the Federal Government is constitutionally acceptable?

Also, do you believe that states are free make laws prohibiting specific religions?
Click to expand...

No, where the hell did you get that? The first amendment specifically prevents that.

No, again the 1st amendment prevents that. However it doesn't prevent a state from adopting an official religion.
 
#43
#43
Madscientistvol said:
I agree this is absolutely ridiculous and I hope he pays for it the next time his constituents go to the polls, but what does this have to do with separation of church and state?
Click to expand...

elected officials shouldn't be bringing God into any debate. God loves me or hates (dislikes) my enemies. We need politicians than can actually debate their points or not rely on their false invocations of God's name.
 
#45
#45
LouderVol said:
elected officials shouldn't be bringing God into any debate. God loves me or hates (dislikes) my enemies. We need politicians than can actually debate their points or not rely on their false invocations of God's name.
Click to expand...

I disagree, if they feel so strongly about their beliefs I want to know before election day.
 
#46
#46
ClearwaterVol said:
Then adopting an official religion of the Federal Government is constitutionally acceptable?

Also, do you believe that states are free make laws prohibiting specific religions?
Click to expand...

No and no.

However I do believe the application of the separations clause has been overly broad. Things like the Mt. Soledad case like over reach. Fortunately it got worked out with a deal to buy the cross and a tiny piece of land in the larger area owned by DoD.

I seriously question that type situation is what the Founders were concerned about
 
#47
#47
BearCat204 said:
Not sure what this has to do with separation of Church and State, but are you suggesting that none of our elected officials should have any religious beliefs? I think the guy is looney as ****, but just because you are an elected official, shouldn't mean you should have no religious beliefs or be able to speak about them in the confines of your religious place of worship.
Click to expand...

no, I have no problem with them having beliefs or even speaking about them. This is not the case. He was using God to make a political statement. We had been judged by God for our wrong doings (probably listed a bunch of liberal nonsense) and said this was our judgement. thats crap. both as a Christian and politically it was wrong.

I have no problem with him getting up there and talking about his love for God, baptizing, reading preaching or whatever. but leave politics out of it.
 
#48
#48
hog88 said:
No, where the hell did you get that? The first amendment specifically prevents that.

No, again the 1st amendment prevents that. However it doesn't prevent a state from adopting an official religion.
Click to expand...

I have a couple of questions...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

How does a literal reading of the First Amendment prevent an endorsement of an already established religion?

Secondly, how does the Constitution prevent a state from making a law outlawing a religion, but allow a state to adopt an official religion square with your view that the Constitution prohibits an official religion for the federal government?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#49
#49
LouderVol said:
elected officials shouldn't be bringing God into any debate. God loves me or hates (dislikes) my enemies. We need politicians than can actually debate their points or not rely on their false invocations of God's name.
Click to expand...

Likewise Senators (cough cough Feinstein, Sanders, Durbin) shouldn't be grilling nominees on their religious beliefs and suggesting they question their ability to do the job as a result.
 
#50
#50
volinbham said:
Likewise Senators (cough cough Feinstein, Sanders, Durbin) shouldn't be grilling nominees on their religious beliefs and suggesting they question their ability to do the job as a result.
Click to expand...

exactly. Faith, religion, whatever, should be just a relevant as how many scoops of ice cream they eat. people have a right to know, if the candidate wants to share it. but ultimately it shouldn't be points for or against someone.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top