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

#52
#52
ClearwaterVol said:
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?
Click to expand...

1. It's pretty clear to me, CONGRESS cannot shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.. So congress should pass no laws in benefit or disparagement of any religion.

2. The constitution supersedes state law. So a state cannot outlaw a religion since the constitution guarantees the freedom to practice a religion.
 
#53
#53
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...

The only time it is relevant is when a SCOTUS nominee show a bias towards a religious reason for siding with one side or another of a particular issue rather than a legal reason.

Ex. Abortion. Nominee says, abortion is morally wrong according to my religion and I will always strike down laws allowing abortion. Then you have a relevant inquiry. Otherwise, it should be limited to "Can you faithfully interpret the laws and constitution irrespective of your religious beliefs?
 
#54
#54
LouderVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

Myself, I want a politician running for office to let me know he believes this. Narrows my choices.
 
#55
#55
ClearwaterVol said:
The only time it is relevant is when a SCOTUS nominee show a bias towards a religious reason for siding with one side or another of a particular issue rather than a legal reason.

Ex. Abortion. Nominee says, abortion is morally wrong according to my religion and I will always strike down laws allowing abortion. Then you have a relevant inquiry. Otherwise, it should be limited to "Can you faithfully interpret the laws and constitution irrespective of your religious beliefs?
Click to expand...

Tell it to the folks I listed above. Pretty shameful how they insinuated all sorts of things about these nominees but it was okay because they were all Christian. Same line of "questioning" aimed at a Muslim? Holy hell can you imagine the fall out.
 
#56
#56
hog88 said:
1. It's pretty clear to me, CONGRESS cannot shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.. So congress should pass no laws in benefit or disparagement of any religion.

2. The constitution supersedes state law. So a state cannot outlaw a religion since the constitution guarantees the freedom to practice a religion.
Click to expand...

Okay, so having religious displays on federal grounds, that until recently, were exclusively Christian do not convey the appearance that Christianity is favored over other religions?

As to your second point, according to your reading, only "CONGRESS" shall make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Therefore, according to your reading states are free to pass any laws they want with respect to religion. Again, how do you distinguish the two situations?
 
#57
#57
The hold of people like Roy Moore over the party ended about 10-15 years ago. It lasted from the 80s until the early 2000s, and it was purely because of demographics.

Voters who hold a candidate's religious views, or their opinion on abortion or gay marriage, as the most important factor in supporting a candidate are literally dying off. Having said that, Roy Moore can absolutely win a special election in a state like Alabama, especially when turnout is likely to be low. He has a good-sized and consistent lead across all of the polling.
 
Last edited:
#58
#58
ClearwaterVol said:
Okay, so having religious displays on federal grounds, that until recently, were exclusively Christian do not convey the appearance that Christianity is favored over other religions?

As to your second point, according to your reading, only "CONGRESS" shall make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Therefore, according to your reading states are free to pass any laws they want with respect to religion. Again, how do you distinguish the two situations?
Click to expand...

No, not to me. But again, I don't have a problem with them being removed from federal facilities.

Because if congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of, neither can a state. That whole supersedes thing.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Click to expand...
 
#59
#59
hog88 said:
No, not to me. But again, I don't have a problem with them being removed from federal facilities.

Because if congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of, neither can a state. That whole supersedes thing.
Click to expand...

Then that would mean if federal government can not adopt an official religion, then neither can the states. Again, I am just trying to figure out your reading.
 
#60
#60
ClearwaterVol said:
Then that would mean if federal government can not adopt an official religion, then neither can the states. Again, I am just trying to figure out your reading.
Click to expand...

The wording was a consolation to the Pennsylvania Quakers. In fact it wasn't until 1947 that the SCOTUS decided it prevented a state from establishing an official religion.
 
#61
#61
ClearwaterVol said:
Okay, so having religious displays on federal grounds, that until recently, were exclusively Christian do not convey the appearance that Christianity is favored over other religions?
Click to expand...

My take on this again using the Mt. Soledad case as example.

It's not as if all the public lands and facilities has crosses, it was one. Hard to say the Feds, or the state or the municipality is favoring a religion if it a memorial that was erected over 100 years ago in one location (a cemetery).

The removal of all religious symbols from the public square could equally send a message that religion itself is not favored by the government.

I can see not adding them if they weren't there before but removing them sends a message too.

Also the context matters - a big ass cross over a courtroom is different than one in a cemetery or a park.
 
#62
#62
hog88 said:
Myself, I want a politician running for office to let me know he believes this. Narrows my choices.
Click to expand...

and I am about raising the bar, having politicians that don't believe that crap; vs lowering the bar and knowing about the idiots. us knowing or not they are still idiots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#63
#63
LouderVol said:
and I am about raising the bar, having politicians that don't believe that crap; vs lowering the bar and knowing about the idiots. us knowing or not they are still idiots.
Click to expand...

We can't bar people like that from running for office and I don't want them hiding crazy beliefs like Roy's until after they are elected.
 
#64
#64
hog88 said:
The wording was a consolation to the Pennsylvania Quakers. In fact it wasn't until 1947 that the SCOTUS decided it prevented a state from establishing an official religion.
Click to expand...

Again, I was attempting to discern the source of your belief that adopting a state religion was acceptable while a federal religion was not when compared to your belief that neither state nor fed could prohibit a certain religion.
 
#65
#65
hog88 said:
We can't bar people like that from running for office and I don't want them hiding crazy beliefs like Roy's until after they are elected.
Click to expand...

in this day and age you can't hide that belief. too much interconnection.
 
#66
#66
ClearwaterVol said:
Again, I was attempting to discern the source of your belief that adopting a state religion was acceptable while a federal religion was not when compared to your belief that neither state nor fed could prohibit a certain religion.
Click to expand...

A simple reading of the 1st amendment.
 
#68
#68
hog88 said:
Sure you can.
Click to expand...

Obama was a secret Muslim?

I guess it kinda ties in to that other thread of what exactly is religious. if its belonging to a group and operating per their assertions you aren't going to be able to hide that. if its just working to an end goal I don't see how that will impact their candidacy.
 
#69
#69
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...

If a candidate openly uses faith or belief in a deity as a guiding principal of his or her politics - it should be open season.

Given that Moore has openly defied the law (more than once) I have no problem with it being a point of discussion on anyone who professes allegiance to a deity over the laws they are sworn to uphold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#70
#70
LouderVol said:
Obama was a secret Muslim?

I guess it kinda ties in to that other thread of what exactly is religious. if its belonging to a group and operating per their assertions you aren't going to be able to hide that. if its just working to an end goal I don't see how that will impact their candidacy.
Click to expand...

Don't go all LG. I don't think he was a muslim nor do I care, he was/is a POS and that's all that mattered.
 
#71
#71
Septic said:
If a candidate openly uses faith or belief in a deity as a guiding principal of his or her politics - it should be open season.

Given that Moore has openly defied the law (more than once) I have no problem with it being a point of discussion on anyone who professes allegiance to a deity over the laws they are sworn to uphold.
Click to expand...

And I want to know if they feel that way and will govern that way. Again we can't bar these people from running so I want them talking about what they believe.
 
#72
#72
hog88 said:
And I want to know if they feel that way and will govern that way. Again we can't bar these people from running so I want them talking about what they believe.
Click to expand...

Let's be honest - these people don't all "believe" what they are saying - it's pandering to a voting bloc to get a job.
 
#74
#74
Septic said:
If a candidate openly uses faith or belief in a deity as a guiding principal of his or her politics - it should be open season.

Given that Moore has openly defied the law (more than once) I have no problem with it being a point of discussion on anyone who professes allegiance to a deity over the laws they are sworn to uphold.
Click to expand...

Not relevant to the cases I referred to. Hell, Sanders grilled a guy about his religious views who was a nominee for Deputy Budget Director and voted no because of his religious beliefs.
 
#75
#75
volinbham said:
Not relevant to the cases I referred to. Hell, Sanders grilled a guy about his religious views who was a nominee for Deputy Budget Director and voted no because of his religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

I didn't see where you referred to specific cases, just sanders feinstein and durbin.

At any rate, speaking in generalities - what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If candidates are openly using faith as leverage to get a job, they shouldn't be upset when an equal and opposite force is applied.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top