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.
I agree, but the big difference here is that religion has no place in law making.
Please don't be as simplistic as you reactionary friends. On many issues you cannot divorce an underpinning moral philosophy (see religion in this case) from the decision making of individual lawmakers where those laws have some relationship to there underlying personal philosophy. The test lies in when a underlying moral philosophy intrudes upon the secular parameters of the Constitution. We cannot exclude an individual lawmaker's motivation for voting for or against a particular bill or law based upon their personal philosophical foundation, nor should we. That was never in the minds of the Framers of the Constitution.
Please don't be as simplistic as you reactionary friends. On many issues you cannot divorce an underpinning moral philosophy (see religion in this case) from the decision making of individual lawmakers where those laws have some relationship to there underlying personal philosophy. The test lies in when a underlying moral philosophy intrudes upon the secular parameters of the Constitution. We cannot exclude an individual lawmaker's motivation for voting for or against a particular bill or law based upon their personal philosophical foundation, nor should we. That was never in the minds of the Framers of the Constitution.
Which is exactly why religious leadership of any kind has no place in the state. Reason and rationality are the keys to objectivity - the highest form when one can remove "belief" and focus on fact and reality. You are giving this whole situation a pass because this Pope is pretty progressive as far as popes go, and may well align to your own personal beliefs (I am pretty liberal and like the Pope).
But, at the end of the day, he is still completely unqualified to discuss political issues or policy in the United States. He is not an elected member of Congress nor is he the President. He is not in the cabinet nor is he an expert on immigration policy, what to do about climate change or economic policy. He does however, believe in talking snakes, that Jesus rose from the dead and that 5,000 people were fed with one fish.
Don't let the theatrics around the Pope let you be fooled in thinking that he is anything than just a man in a silly robe, appointed by those who sit at the Vatican thinking they are more than people who's only study is that of a 2,000 year old book of here-say.
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?
Kim Davis was elected by the people of Rowan County, Kentucky.
Kentucky had a DOMA before the USSC once again wiped five of their collective ***es with the Constitution.
The only thing that has changed is five justices wiped their ***es with the Constitution.
You just had a thread on this topic and got defeated. I hate to see you go 0-2 but...
Here's the difference: Kim Davis is directly breaking the law and violating her obligation under it as a government employee.
The Pope is a visiting non-citizen making general suggestions to improve society and our nation, the implementation of which does not inherently violate the law.
You are willing to circumvent the 1A? If laws are passed based upon religion it is as we are erasing this....
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Kim Davis broke the law on her own accord and no harm done; just a breach of silly PC.
Passing law based upon Catholic or Jewish religions would be treason as it means respecting a religion.
But, at the end of the day, he is still completely unqualified to discuss political issues or policy in the United States.
If qualification were required to discuss political issues or policy then we could dispense with the majority of Congress, most newspaper editorialist and 99.9% of C-D members. The Congress has the right and power to invite anyone they choose to speak about issues that the Congress decides is worth discussing. The 1st Amendment does not prohibit the speech of religious persons before the government nor does it prohibit the Congress or any department of the government from being influenced by their views. Using your logic Lincoln could not invoke god in his 2nd Inaugural Address any more than the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. could invoke his god when calling for equal rights of Afro Americans.
You are willing to circumvent the 1A? If laws are passed based upon religion it is as we are erasing this....
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Kim Davis broke the law on her own accord and no harm done; just a breach of silly PC.
Passing law based upon Catholic or Jewish religions would be treason as it means respecting a religion.
Why is this confusing to you all?
The motivations of why someone wants a law passed are myriad, from scientific evidence to deeply held spiritual values. That was never forbidden by law, nor should be. That's just human nature and the marketplace of ideas.
The U.S. has an entire party - Republican - that pushes laws based on one fundamentalist interpretation of one religion amid the myriad that practice in our country. Your argument would make the whole party illegal.
But we have checks and balances to make sure those motivations don't oppress others as they move into law, and if they do they don't make it past personal values..
And you are really abusing the concept of P.C. You all on the extreme edge of ideology really need to stop hiding behind that.
Kim Davis is an employee responsible for upholding the laws of our nation. She failed to do that and made herself a criminal.
The Pope is a foreign visitor throwing some ideas around. By your logic, we should never listen to a philosopher either. It makes no sense.
Kim Davis was elected by the people of Rowan County, Kentucky.
Kentucky had a DOMA before the USSC once again wiped five of their collective ***es with the Constitution.
The only thing that has changed is five justices wiped their ***es with the Constitution.
Actually, the equal protection clause in the Constitution makes it quite clear we were in violation for many years until marriage equality was legalized. The Justices got it right from a legal perspective. One can't offer benefits to one group and not another.
The county is part of the U.S. laws. Just like people can't own slaves anymore or deny people service based on skin color, despite many states not wanting to go down that path, they had to because they're part of the United States.
It amazes me that a conservative started a thread about hypocracy. The party of Christian values, but now the POPE (I'll say that again, the POPE) wants to address congress, but even the POPE (the POPE) has progressed more than these people.
So they spend 15 pages defending why they think he should not even be allowed to address congress, and 15 pages defending why even though Kim D. broke the law, they support her, because their skewed views of Christianity which the POPE (THE POPE) doesn't even agree with are more important that both the teachings of Jesus Christ, and of law of our land, the CONSTITUTION.
And these people are going on for 15 pages, still calling everyone else hypocrits. Do they even know what that word means? It appears not. SMFH
Kim Davis was elected by the people of Rowan County, Kentucky.
Kentucky had a DOMA before the USSC once again wiped five of their collective ***es with the Constitution.
The only thing that has changed is five justices wiped their ***es with the Constitution.
Exactly how did the SCOTUS "wipe their ***es with the Constitution"??? They interpreted a law to be unconstitutional. That's their job.
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.
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.
