Yes, this is what it’s come down to folks. In order to justify their changing of fillibuster rules so disent is removed from Congress, the Republican leadership is going to start casting the debate as a “Democrats are against God”.
“Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, has agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a telecast portraying Democrats as “against people of faith” for blocking President Bush’s nominees.”
How totally “Christian” is it to exploit your faith for political gains?!!
I live in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI with my wife Jen, our daughter Emerson, and son Carter.
How totally “Christian” is it to exploit your faith for political gains?!!
It might not be ‘Christian’, but it sure is ‘politics’ (on both sides).
Anyway, yeah, this is nothing new. More culture war. More conservative wins. More liberals losing because they’re too afraid to deviate from conservative ideals.
I’m still waiting for my atheist Democratic presidential candidate.
Um, by that I mean a candidate that admits (s)he is an atheist. To be clear.
How totally “Christian” is it to exploit your faith for political gains?!!
Instead of exploiting his faith, wouldn’t this be classified as trying to protect it? Also, how is this exploiting his faith?
I’m still waiting for my atheist Democratic presidential candidate.
Why?
Instead of exploiting his faith, wouldn’t this be classified as trying to protect it? Also, how is this exploiting his faith?
No it wouldn’t be classified as ‘protecting’ it, because frankly, Bill Frist doesn’t have a lock on ‘Christian’ values so it isn’t his to ‘protect’. But rah-rah for the “we’re victims” water bucket.
That aside, the fillibuster has absolutely nothing to do with religous values, the GOP is simply casting it that way to get their religous right base fired up.
The fact is that 9 of 200 of Bush’s Judicial nominee’s haven’t been approved and in the ‘majority take all’ mentality of the Republicans so far this year, that’s reason enough to change the rules, block disent, and try to alter public opinion by claiming that religon has something to do with those 9 nominees being blocked.
When you thrust a touchy issue like religon into a totally non-related issue like judicial nominees for your own benefit, that’s exploitation.
It’s a catch 22. If someone says they’re a believer, they get ridiculed for playing politics, as Matt pointed out. However, when over 90% of Americans say they believe in God, it would be foolish for someone running for public office, Democrat OR Republican, to publicly admit they’re an atheist, wouldn’t it?
The 9 out of 200 number you are throwing around includes trial court judges, which aren’t the issue. Democrats blocked 10 of Bush’s first-term appeals court nominations through filibuster threats while allowing the confirmation of 34.
That aside, the fillibuster has absolutely nothing to do with religous values
Right, right. William Pryor anyone?!?!
it would be foolish for someone running for public office, Democrat OR Republican, to publicly admit they’re an atheist, wouldn’t it?
How about being honest?! The intent of running for office should be to serve the voting public. How is misleading voters by pretending to be something your not good for “the people”?
Um… exactly. Every U.S. district court is a federal ‘trial’ court. ?
Or are you saying only U.S. Court of Appeals judges are the issue? And if so, why?
About the 10 that weren’t approved in the first term, so what? You’re bringing that up like they did something illegal or immoral or something.
Judges get turned down all the time, especially when they’re radicals who think gay men and lesbians should be locked up in prison, as I’ve pointed out in the past.
“Hi, my name is John Doe. I’m an atheist. My beliefs are the direct opposite of 9 out of 10 voters in this country, and not some minor issue like funding a local school’s swimming pool or something. I’m talking about deep, fundamental beliefs that transcend the scope of politics. Can I have your vote, please?”
Doesn’t exactly work, does it?
We’re in a republic. Our leaders are supposed to represent the agendas of their constituents. Good luck trying to get into office after telling the vast majority of the voters you think their beliefs are irrational.
Doesn’t exactly work, does it?
I’m not saying your wrong … I don’t mean to sound like I’m attacking you. What I mean, though is that a candidate’s beliefs should put his/her beliefs on the table and if s/he gets elected great, but at least the person wasn’t misleading the public.
Our leaders are supposed to represent the agendas of their constituents
Right … that’s my point. So, why should an athiest, whose beliefs are “opposite of 9 out of 10 voters in this country” be elected by the population?
So, why should an athiest, whose beliefs are “opposite of 9 out of 10 voters in this country”
Because sometimes a persons religous disposition doesn’t matter? I don’t know if you were asking a hypothetical question there or what :)
And Les, there’s a difference between telling voters their beliefs (religous in this case) are irrational and telling voters that while you understand and respect their beliefs, you just don’t share them.
Yeah Boy, because there’s supposed to be a separation of church and state. They shouldn’t intermingle. Unfortunately, there’s not a separation between church and politics.
Religion shouldn’t be a part of secular government. I believe in God, but I don’t want to see God in government. That’s why an atheist can still represent my beliefs–my SECULAR beliefs! The problem is, he’s not going to get elected. So we have to play this silly little game of “Who loves God more?”
It’s stupid, but it’s the rules. Don’t hate the playa’, hate the game.
Don’t hate the playa’, hate the game.
LOL … :)
I do hate the game and that’s what I’m questioning. Not a politicians un/willingness to discuss his/her religious beliefs. I’m not articulating myself very well here.
That’s why an atheist can still represent my beliefs–my SECULAR beliefs!
For the record an athiest can still represent your religious beliefs. Laws rooted in religious morals aren’t inherently bad.
Yeah Boy, because there’s supposed to be a separation of church and state
Where is this written? Not that I don’t agree with it, but I’ve never read this anywhere. hmm.
Because sometimes a persons religous disposition doesn’t matter?
Read Les’ comments and my rebuttal. I’m not saying a person’s religious disposition matters … his beliefs do, though.
Right, but religous beliefs aren’t inherantly tied to ‘morals’, thats the point I’m making. You can be a ‘moral’ person, and still not believe in God, a god, or any God – billions of people manage to be both moral and non-Christian at the same time after all.
FWIW, ‘Seperation of Church and State’ isn’t so much a piece of written law as it is an interpretation of law. Specifically, the First Amendment which states, “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Church and State are kept seperate so there is no official or implied endorsment of a particular religous belief in a Country that was founded on the very freedom to practice those beliefs, or lack thereof, publically.
But his lack of faith matters to too many voters. Maybe not you or I, but it matters. Hence the dilemna.
I don’t think laws rooted in religious morals are necessarily bad either, unless they compromise the rights of certain people.
The separation of church and state is what I believe is the so-called “spirit” of the law, not the letter of it.
ok, so we agree on the separation of church and state – good. Now what were we initially arguing about?!?! ;)
I have a couple of comments. The seperation of church and state was supposed to keep government out of church business as it had been in Europe. In certain documents they specifically mention that America would not remain without the prescence of almighty God. It was not designed for individuals to make it illegal to pray in schools or to teach a theory based on one man’s interpretation of how the universe was created. That takes away my freedom to have my children think for themselves and decide FOR THEMSELVES how the universe was made instead of how educators beleive it was made. Education is to teach how to think and not what to think. Why can my children not bring a bible into school yet any other book on any other subject is okay to bring. That jtakes away my freedom of expression