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

[armchair]

We have a vice president who is a religious zealot. Religious zealots should not be involved in politics or in policy-making roles because their (often wacky) religious views influence their policies--and of course we see this in many areas. Religious crackers should stay out of politics. But there is also the problem of politicians who aren't religious but pander to the religious crowd--see Trump, for starters. We've had many public officials around the country--religious zealots--try to promote the teaching in creationism in public schools. Oh, my: fortunately, the courts have typically put an end to their craziness. It's an indication of how backward America really is--it's like we're getting more backward with each passing year instead of less so. The phenomenon of old rural people--but it's not just rural, of course. Look at Republican efforts to have birth control pills removed from basic employer-provided health insurance policies. Just medieval insanity.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

A simple reading of the 1st amendment.

A simple reading doesn't get you there.

 

[hog88]

A simple reading doesn't get you there.

It's quite clear. And was for over a century.

 

[Madscientistvol]

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.

What should a Christian/Muslim/Hindu/whatever religious candidate use as their guiding principle if not their religious morality? Constitutionally they can't mandate their religion be the religion of the land, but there is nothing legally binding them from supporting and passing laws inspired by and drawn upon their religious beliefs.

It is open season on them as they've divested what their guiding principle is an can be critiqued by and against it. Also if it runs against their constituents wishes they will not have much success. I do want to know where the moral principles of my representatives are grounded in though.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

It's quite clear. And was for over a century.

Explain why the constitutional clause in question prohibits only the federal government from adopting an official religion but not the state from doing the same and yet applies equally to prohibiting a religion.

 

[volinbham]

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.

Actually the law says there can be no religious test so even if a nominee for position speaks publicly about their faith that cannot be used as a reason to prevent them from the job.

Can you tell me what writing an article about faith related issues for a religious school has to do with your ability to be Deputy Budget Director? Further why a Senator is justified in saying you are a bigoted because you believe in the pathway to salvation represented in your religion and therefore he deems you unqualified for said job?

It's an absolute violation of the religious test tenet.

 

[Carl Pickens]

We have a vice president who is a religious zealot. Religious zealots should not be involved in politics or in policy-making roles because their (often wacky) religious views influence their policies--and of course we see this in many areas. Religious crackers should stay out of politics. But there is also the problem of politicians who aren't religious but pander to the religious crowd--see Trump, for starters. We've had many public officials around the country--religious zealots--try to promote the teaching in creationism in public schools. Oh, my: fortunately, the courts have typically put an end to their craziness. It's an indication of how backward America really is--it's like we're getting more backward with each passing year instead of less so. The phenomenon of old rural people--but it's not just rural, of course. Look at Republican efforts to have birth control pills removed from basic employer-provided health insurance policies. Just medieval insanity.

racist pig....

 

[LouderVol]

hey armchair. what do you think of the Amish, Mennonites and the like?

 

[hog88]

Explain why the constitutional clause in question prohibits only the federal government from adopting an official religion but not the state from doing the same and yet applies equally to prohibiting a religion.

Because it specifically names congress. If it was meant for every level of government it would have said "no law" shall be passed.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Because it specifically names congress. If it was meant for every level of government it would have said "no law" shall be passed.

Then why are, in your opinion, states not allowed to prohibit a religion when you just acknowledged that it named Congress.

 

[Godfatha]

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.

Same could be said for the left bub.

 

[Godfatha]

We have a vice president who is a religious zealot. Religious zealots should not be involved in politics or in policy-making roles because their (often wacky) religious views influence their policies--and of course we see this in many areas. Religious crackers should stay out of politics. But there is also the problem of politicians who aren't religious but pander to the religious crowd--see Trump, for starters. We've had many public officials around the country--religious zealots--try to promote the teaching in creationism in public schools. Oh, my: fortunately, the courts have typically put an end to their craziness. It's an indication of how backward America really is--it's like we're getting more backward with each passing year instead of less so. The phenomenon of old rural people--but it's not just rural, of course. Look at Republican efforts to have birth control pills removed from basic employer-provided health insurance policies. Just medieval insanity.

If you take the left wing nut jobs out of politics, then we can talk. You're frightened by anyone with a viewpoint other than your own, eh?

 

[hog88]

Then why are, in your opinion, states not allowed to prohibit a religion when you just acknowledged that it named Congress.

How many times to I have to answer the question?

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 punctuation is there for a reason, just like the second they separate the statements. Further prohibiting a religion would fly in the face of free speech and assembly which are individual rights granted in the document.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

How many times to I have to answer the question?



The punctuation is there for a reason, just like the second they separate the statements. Further prohibiting a religion would fly in the face of free speech and assembly which are individual rights granted in the document.

English is not your strong suit.

 

[hog88]

English is not your strong suit.

Talked it all my life.

But still, please point to the separation clause. Where in the constitution is that language?

 

[Godfatha]

I'm all for removal no all extremist idiots from the left or right. I would be happy with people who can govern well intelligently.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Talked it all my life.

But still, please point to the separation clause. Where in the constitution is that language?

The 1A, if restricted to the words within 1A, says Congress shall make no laws regarding 6 enumerated activities. However, if you look at intent which is one of the cannons of interpretation then you begin to see that framers considered the issue more broadly than that and if you take a look at the federalist papers the separation of church and state is mentioned.

Now, if only looking at the text of 1A then you must agree that adopting a federal religion neither establishes a religion nor prohibits a religion. It simply says that of the religions out there, we like this one best. However such a law would certainly have a chilling effect on whether an individual felt comfortable worshipping according to tenets of a different religion. Courts have chosen to interpret the constitution that way. Religious displays on public land has been similarly viewed. Your argument that for 100 years such displays were fine isn't indicative of constitutional muster.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Yall know this dude is a private citizen right?

And always remember public position/private position:

 

[hog88]

The 1A, if restricted to the words within 1A, says Congress shall make no laws regarding 6 enumerated activities. However, if you look at intent which is one of the cannons of interpretation then you begin to see that framers considered the issue more broadly than that and if you take a look at the federalist papers the separation of church and state is mentioned.

Now, if only looking at the text of 1A then you must agree that adopting a federal religion neither establishes a religion nor prohibits a religion. It simply says that of the religions out there, we like this one best. However such a law would certainly have a chilling effect on whether an individual felt comfortable worshipping according to tenets of a different religion. Courts have chosen to interpret the constitution that way. Religious displays on public land has been similarly viewed. Your argument that for 100 years such displays were fine isn't indicative of constitutional muster.

Also I'm not a lawyer that twists and turns everything until its unrecognizable.

 

[midnight orange]

Explain why the constitutional clause in question prohibits only the federal government from adopting an official religion but not the state from doing the same and yet applies equally to prohibiting a religion.

Because the Bill of Rights didn't originally apply to the states. The bill of rights only said that the Federal government (not the states) can not infringe on these rights. That changed with the 14th amendment and subsequent Supreme Court decisions. The states were considered separate sovereign states with the union acting as an agent for the specifically mentioned powers in the Constitution.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Why is that important?

I started not to answer this because the answer started some crap that got the God thread killed......

But.......


I think the hypocrisy of baptist saying that G-d allowed us to be punished because of our sin is humerus.
Baptist (mostly) believe that Jesus saved them from G-Ds law. One of their favorite things to say is "the law is dead". If the law is dead then there is no definition of what G-d calls sin. In the absence of the law they pick and choose what they think sin is.
They have plenty in their life but always want to go after homosexuality. It's as if homosexuality is the worst sin......usually because it's not an issue in their life and if you're pointing out others issues and make them worse than yours then you can feel better about yourself.
It's as if they have "freedom in Christ" because they are "believers" but you don't because you're not a "believer".


So in review I find the judgmental hypocrisy humerus

 

[MercyPercy]

What a lovely thing to say. Should be a shoe in for the great state of Alabama.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Because the Bill of Rights didn't originally apply to the states. The bill of rights only said that the Federal government (not the states) can not infringe on these rights. That changed with the 14th amendment and subsequent Supreme Court decisions. The states were considered separate sovereign states with the union acting as an agent for the specifically mentioned powers in the Constitution.

I wasn't going into to that on purpose. I was just trying to make him see that even his interpretation of a single sentence within the constitution contained internal inconsistencies.

 

[Vol8188]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/14/politics/kfile-roy-moore-9-11/index.html

This is why people like me are suspicious of, and sometimes even afraid of, religious GOP conservatives.

How's this different than those on the left blaming white people for everything?

 

[Vol8188]

I'm all for removal no all extremist idiots from the left or right. I would be happy with people who can govern well intelligently.

If you want to forcibly remove people, I would really, really hope that you are considered an extremist