Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-24-2015, 03:13 PM
 
Location: Florida
33,571 posts, read 18,161,091 times
Reputation: 15546

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAMS14 View Post
Here's the difference, AeroGuy, though I have to say it's kind of sad that something so elementary has to be explained to you.

Kim Davis, when she is doing her job, represents the U.S. government. That means that she must adhere to the laws of the government she represents and not to her own personal religious views.

The Pope represents the Catholic Church, who, the last time I checked, has no power in the U.S. government to create laws.

Now maybe there are some Democrats who agree with his words and would like to implement some of those ideas into laws, but that's no different than the Republicans wanting to incorporate Netanyahu's beliefs into laws or policies as well.

Two different heads of state stated their personal beliefs to Congress, but you only seem upset about one of them. Why is that?
The Pope can influence the people by his teachings .

He says we should have opened arms to Syrian refugees, yet he has armed guards around him for his own safety. What about the safety of everyday people? with God there is no respecter of persons.

The Pope must recognize the evil in the world for all people. Even Jesus avoided the stone throwers . We must be wise to the evils of this world and recognize terrorism is real.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-24-2015, 03:13 PM
 
Location: Home is Where You Park It
23,856 posts, read 13,746,928 times
Reputation: 15482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Terrier View Post
Agree.

I'll even throw in another word for this thread's original post: incoherent.
Not just incoherent, but incoherent about an imaginary situation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2015, 03:14 PM
 
11,155 posts, read 15,706,419 times
Reputation: 4209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Nobody does.

The Pope - and anyone else - can use any foundation whatsoever to form his views, argue for those views and - if the arguments win favor - see those views enshrined in law. If the law passes constitutional muster, it is 100% irrelevant on which basis the underlying views were formed.

Kim Davis can do the exact same - argue her fervently held viewpoints and try to influence legislation. What she cannot do, as a county clerk, is pick and choose what secular law she wishes to follow, for whatever reason - religion, personal taste, laziness or a deepheld dislike of the citizen standing in front of her.

This isn't hard at all.
Thank you for explaining it so clearly. It's scary to think we have citizens who don't grasp this distinction.

Definitely need better civics education in our schools.

The thread can end now. The OP was answered clearly and refuted with the objective truth. No further discussion needed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2015, 06:14 PM
 
Location: The Silver State (from the UK)
4,664 posts, read 8,242,225 times
Reputation: 2862
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Huckabee is an ordained Baptist minister. So are you disqualifying him from holding office in the federal government?

You really don't see the difference between someone holding religious beliefs and running for a political position, and a person who is a religious leader addressing lawmakers (that are supposed to uphold a Constitution with a clear separation)??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2015, 06:17 PM
 
Location: The Silver State (from the UK)
4,664 posts, read 8,242,225 times
Reputation: 2862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Nobody does.

The Pope - and anyone else - can use any foundation whatsoever to form his views, argue for those views and - if the arguments win favor - see those views enshrined in law. If the law passes constitutional muster, it is 100% irrelevant on which basis the underlying views were formed.

Kim Davis can do the exact same - argue her fervently held viewpoints and try to influence legislation. What she cannot do, as a county clerk, is pick and choose what secular law she wishes to follow, for whatever reason - religion, personal taste, laziness or a deepheld dislike of the citizen standing in front of her.

This isn't hard at all.

I agree, but the big difference here is that religion has no place in law making. The reason that the founding fathers wrote the constitution with a clear separation is that "beliefs" cloud rationality. That is why the pope is more than entitled to his opinions, and more than entitled to share them, but absolutely not to the US Congress.

I'd be interested to see the reaction if a prominent Islamic leader were invited to address congress. Half the country's heads would explode!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2015, 06:23 PM
 
Location: The Silver State (from the UK)
4,664 posts, read 8,242,225 times
Reputation: 2862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1 View Post
OP should be quite upset with Boehner as he has been trying to get a Pope to visit for the past 20 years and he finally got one but apparently not one that the conservatives like. Oh well.



Sure he does. He's also a head of state. Do we have to do everything he says? Nope. Can we listen and hear? Sure we can.


Is this a state visit? No. Is the "Pope" visiting as a head of state? No. He is addressing Congress wearing his robe, hat and crucifix. Hey, its not that I don't like the guy, but a religious leader should not be addressing congress. Visit the US by all means, but do it in a purely religious capacity.

If there is one wall we should really be talking about, it isn't the silly wall Trump wants to build. It is the one between church and state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2015, 06:29 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
14,317 posts, read 22,385,663 times
Reputation: 18436
Default Her views are shared by the most ignorant

The Pope is not an ignorant bigot or a person who has been a cancer on this society since its founding. He's not a person whose views align themselves with that of the Klan or that of Slaveowners or that of the most ignorant and backwards people in this country.

Her views are...and don't you forget it either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2015, 06:50 PM
 
Location: Home is Where You Park It
23,856 posts, read 13,746,928 times
Reputation: 15482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mag3.14 View Post
Is this a state visit? No. Is the "Pope" visiting as a head of state? No. He is addressing Congress wearing his robe, hat and crucifix. Hey, its not that I don't like the guy, but a religious leader should not be addressing congress. Visit the US by all means, but do it in a purely religious capacity.
Well, Congress *did* invite him.

"House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, both Catholics, extended the speaking invitation to Francis, who will become the first pontiff ever to address a joint session of Congress."

The Pope vs. the GOP - CNNPolitics.com

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mag3.14 View Post
If there is one wall we should really be talking about, it isn't the silly wall Trump wants to build. It is the one between church and state.
I am a big fan of the wall between church and state. But I don't see how asking a major world figure to speak to Congress is a problem.

The real problem is when US lawmakers thunder about god's will when they are legislating.

Also, the hypocrisy of those who have done some of that thundering themselves but object to the pope merely speaking is duly noted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2015, 07:43 PM
 
28,667 posts, read 18,784,602 times
Reputation: 30959
The Pope is not a "liberal." He's staunchly opposed to homosexual marriage and abortion. What's "liberal" about that?

He's in favor of proper stewardship of God's earth; that's not liberal, that's scriptural.

He's in favor of allowing repentent sinners back into communion; that's not liberal, that's scriptural.

He's in favor of caring for the poor; that's not liberal, that's scriptural.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2015, 08:06 PM
 
6,790 posts, read 8,198,821 times
Reputation: 6998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly View Post
Thank you for explaining it so clearly. It's scary to think we have citizens who don't grasp this distinction.

Definitely need better civics education in our schools.

The thread can end now. The OP was answered clearly and refuted with the objective truth. No further discussion needed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top