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.
HOW is suggesting the US and Cuba improve relations a RELIGIOUS doctrine?
HOW is talking about MAN affecting the environment RELIGIOYUS doctrine?
I believe the OP is a baseless accusation of hypocrisy and just another one of your 'liberal this' and liberal that' whines and you're now trying to distance yourself from it.
So I'll ask: Just HOW is a speech given by a visiting head of state remotely comparable to a government employee refusing to do her job?
Please answer THAT specific question without continual attempts at deflection.
Burdell, it's you, not me who is straying from the point.
1) Kim Davis has a closely held religious belief. She went to jail for not complying with a government mandate (not a law, but high court ruling). Her refusal was based on her religion, and liberals went ape sh*t about it.
2) The Pope comes along and cites "moral authority" to enact certain social policies. The Pope, the leader of billions of Catholics, uses this bully pulpit to influence social policy in America, which is carried out by laws and regulations.
3) The Pope can push his religion to influence social policy, but Kim Davis can't cite religion as a reason to NOT comply with social policy?
I agree to some extent. I think that both Kim Davis is flat out 100% wrong (which she is), and that the Pope has no place addressing congress (which is how I would feel about any religious leader).
The only difference is that Kim Davis is a law breaking ignorant douche bag. The Pope is actually an appointed leader of the church of a billion people. However, he still has no place addressing the US congress.
he was invited- and he is world leader- of sorts- so don't get your panties in a wad- he will leave and business as usual. those money hungry bubble heads will go on - doing the same self servings things as before.
By the bye, the Pope is the head of state of Vatican City a sovereign city-state.
So, you're straying from the liberal perspective that the Pope is in the United States to espouse a RELIGIOUS message instead of a POLITICAL one? Is that your holding?
Burdell, it's you, not me who is straying from the point.
1) Kim Davis has a closely held religious belief. She went to jail for not complying with a government mandate (not a law, but high court ruling). Her refusal was based on her religion, and liberals went ape sh*t about it.
2) The Pope comes along and cites "moral authority" to enact certain social policies. The Pope, the leader of billions of Catholics, uses this bully pulpit to influence social policy in America, which is carried out by laws and regulations.
3) The Pope can push his religion to influence social policy, but Kim Davis can't cite religion as a reason to NOT comply with social policy?
You don't see the problem with this?
1) The Conservatives were quiet about this? Kim Davis was/is a government official denying people their constitutional rights.
2) The pope has no legal authority here. He enacted nothing. He gave his opinion.
3) The pope can push whatever he wants here. He is a guest in our country and we have freedom of speech. Kim Davis can SAY anything she wants. Her free speech rights are equal to the pope. However she is a government official and cannot deny the constitutional rights of others and call it speech.
Your arguments are usually much better thought out than this. This is specious at best.
Wait...hold up. Are you saying that the Pope is expressing POLITICAL views instead of RELIGIOUS views? That's not what your fellow liberals are saying!
Nevertheless, you're yet another liberal who can't argue the point without bringing Israel into the discussion. That's a problem that you guys need work out on your own. I'm not going to hold your hand while you deflect.
It always amazes me. The party of Christian Moral Values.... That is, until the #1 authority on Christian Values says something they don't like, then they are the party of "Capitalism trumps Christian Values".
Look at all of your responses in this tread alone. You are grasping for anything, and resort to name calling, and pretty much projecting everything YOU do on anyone who responds.
Bottom line, the Pope, like any other religious OR political leader is entitled to promote his views to anyone who will listen, politician or not. Kim Davis is NOT entitled to deny civil liberties that have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Regardless of whether you agree with the SCOTUS decision, it is the law of the land and Kim Davis was in contempt of that decision, and in contempt of the lower court that uphelp the decision. Why do you people try to cr@p all over the constitution every time it doesn't fit your moral agenda?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
Burdell, it's you, not me who is straying from the point.
1) Kim Davis has a closely held religious belief. She went to jail for not complying with a government mandate (not a law, but high court ruling). Her refusal was based on her religion, and liberals went ape sh*t about it.
2) The Pope comes along and cites "moral authority" to enact certain social policies. The Pope, the leader of billions of Catholics, uses this bully pulpit to influence social policy in America, which is carried out by laws and regulations.
3) The Pope can push his religion to influence social policy, but Kim Davis can't cite religion as a reason to NOT comply with social policy?
You don't see the problem with this?
What I see is your inability to tell us just how the actions of the Pope and Kim Davis are remotely comparable, the basis of the OP.
Until you do I'll say again, thread fail
And NO, it's you, not me
I didn't start a thread and then refuse to attempt explaining its (il)logic.
1) The Conservatives were quiet about this? Kim Davis was/is a government official denying people their constitutional rights.
2) The pope has no legal authority here. He enacted nothing. He gave his opinion.
3) The pope can push whatever he wants here. He is a guest in our country and we have freedom of speech. Kim Davis can SAY anything she wants. Her free speech rights are equal to the pope. However she is a government official and cannot deny the constitutional rights of others and call it speech.
Your arguments are usually much better thought out than this. This is specious at best.
I'm merely pointing out the flimsy and whimsical nature of liberal ideology. One lady in Podunk USA refuses to bow to the alter of homosexual marriage because it is contrary to her religion, and liberals go ape shat crazy. One old white man who allegedly speaks for God comes along and pushes a moral authority to enact religion-backed social policies that he believes conforms to God's will and liberals can't get enough of him.
Burdell, it's you, not me who is straying from the point.
1) Kim Davis has a closely held religious belief. She went to jail for not complying with a government mandate (not a law, but high court ruling). Her refusal was based on her religion, and liberals went ape sh*t about it.
2) The Pope comes along and cites "moral authority" to enact certain social policies. The Pope, the leader of billions of Catholics, uses this bully pulpit to influence social policy in America, which is carried out by laws and regulations.
3) The Pope can push his religion to influence social policy, but Kim Davis can't cite religion as a reason to NOT comply with social policy?
You don't see the problem with this?
What social policies is the Pope using his 'moral authority" to enact?
It always amazes me. The party of Christian Moral Values.... That is, until the #1 authority on Christian Values says something they don't like, then they are the party of "Capitalism trumps Christian Values".
Look at all of your responses in this tread alone. You are grasping for anything, and resort to name calling, and pretty much projecting everything YOU do on anyone who responds.
Bottom line, the Pope, like any other religious OR political leader is entitled to promote his views to anyone who will listen, politician or not. Kim Davis is NOT entitled to deny civil liberties that have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Regardless of whether you agree with the SCOTUS decision, it is the law of the land and Kim Davis was in contempt of that decision, and in contempt of the lower court that uphelp the decision. Why do you people try to cr@p all over the constitution every time it doesn't fit your moral agenda?
What name calling? Show me even a single example. Unless of course you believe "liberal" is derogatory, in which case I will absolutely agree.
Under what premise does the leader of a church have to speak to Congress....using "moral authority" as his guide no less....the entity for which laws are made in the secular United States of America?
Are you of the opinion that such positions taken by the Pope, which not-so-ironically are being co-opted by Democrats, should be elevated to be a part of the pubic debate? If so, when did liberals start to fuzzy the lines between church and state?
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.
