DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on May 11, 2010, 12:29:19 PM
-
"The cardinals, the archbishops, the bishops that come to me and say, 'We want you to pass immigration reform,' and I said, 'I want you to speak about it from the pulpit. I want you to instruct your' -- whatever the communication is. The people, some (who) oppose immigration reform, are sitting in those pews, and you have to tell them that this is a manifestation of our living the gospels."
- Nancy Pelosi at the Nation's Catholic Community conference
Where's the outrage?? Where's the MSM?? Where's even the slightest hint of condemnation for an acting legislator, and leader of the House of Representatives, advocating the need of the church to push specific legislative policy??
Can you imagine the 24/7 MSM howling if this were John Boehner advocating a similar stance in pusing the church to support enforcing current immigration law??
-
Hate to be argumentative but she is playing the game the way it should be played. She is putting the responsibility back on those who want action to get the groundswell of support she needs to affect change.
Not really different than how the abortion issue and or gay marriage issue is being played.
-
Hate to be a realist, but this would be 24/7 headline condemnations, from both the MSM & Dems like Pelosi, if this were a Republican lawmaker pushing legislative policy thru the church
Perhaps you can correct me, but no Republicans I'm aware of are pushing specific legislation thru the church, much less specific policy aimed at abortion or gay marriage. Controversial topics discussed in church doesn't equal legislators advocating specific policy thru the church. The latter is a CLEAR violation of the so-called seperation of Church & State. Or shall we rename it Church & Stage?
-
Hate to be a realist, but this would be 24/7 headline condemnations, from both the MSM & Dems like Pelosi, if this were a Republican lawmaker pushing legislative policy thru the church
I guess you have forgotten about the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition.
-
Not at all. One again, "Controversial topics discussed and advocated in a church setting doesn't equal actual legislators advocating specific policy thru the church"
-
http://www.politicalvideo.org/george-bush-addresses-southern-baptist-convention-annual-meeting (http://www.politicalvideo.org/george-bush-addresses-southern-baptist-convention-annual-meeting)
-
Was he ADVOCATING that the Ministers/Referends/Pastors need to push their parishners in supporting specific legislation, pending congress. Or was he simply speaking, like any other guest speaker?
-
I believe he was talking about shared values, same as Pelosi. Remember the bishops came to her seeking immigration reform.
-
No, NOT the same as Pelosi. Not even close. Talking about "shared values" is NOT talking to and practically "commanding" church leaders/pastors to push specific legislation support, because doing so "is a manifestation of our living the gospels"
See the difference yet? I believe you do, I just think you're trying to be particularly arguementative, for some reason. That's neither a compliant nor criticism of you, merely an observation
-
"is a manifestation of our living the gospels"
Sounds like shared values to me. She was agreeing with the Bishops.
-
*snicker*......yea, practically interchangable, that of pushing specific DC legislation vs speaking about common goals in life. ;)
-
Because faith-based groups should never have to forfeit their religious liberty to get federal dollars -- and that's an important concept -- we want your help, we want your love, but at the same time, you do not have to forget the mission of faith or ignore the mission of faith that calls you to action in the first place. And that's why the executive order I signed should be codified into federal law. Congress needs to pass charitable choice legislation to forever guarantee equal treatment for our faith-based organizations when they compete for federal funds.
-
So, you'll now point out the specific legislation being referred to, and the push by Bush of Minsisters to help "educate their masses" to support said legislation.
-
If Congress is to pass legislation the people want, whether it be immigration reform, or faith based initiatives, then congress needs to know the peoples thoughts on the matter. Pelosi urged the Bishops to organize their flock just as Bush as the SBC to get the word out to their flocks.
I really don't see a big difference nor do i think it is any violation of the first by either party.
So what do we have left but a plaintiff wail about how unfair the MSM is because they aren't making a big deal about it but we are sure they would if it were the GOP.
And i say who cares what the MSM says.
-
I guess I should be glad at the official endorsement of liveing the gosphel .
-
Touche'
Just imagine the howling had Bush made such a comment. Grounds for impeachment, I would imagine
-
Bush talked about his faith all the time.
-
Talking about one's faith is not commanding ministers to push specific legislation pending the legislature, in the name of God ::)
-
You don't think Bush conjoined freedom, liberty and God in his war on terror?
-
I know for a fact he never commanded pastors to preach to their congregations the holy need to support or not specific legislation, pending congress
-
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/baldwin2.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/baldwin2.html)
-
You don't think Bush conjoined freedom, liberty and God in his war on terror?
Have a quote?
-
"I believe that God wants everybody to be free. That's what I believe. And that's part of my foreign policy. In Afghanistan, I believe that the freedom there is a gift from the Almighty."
2004 October Presidential Debate
-
Yep, still no command to pastors to educate their flocks. Just merely a belief of his. A good one at that
-
Yep, still no command to pastors to educate their flocks. Just merely a belief of his. A good one at that
You apparently just skim posts.
A startling television news report from Shreveport, Louisiana has revealed a sinister plot hatched deep inside the diabolical brain cells of the Bush administration to use America's pulpits as promoters of tyranny. That is a strong statement, I know. But it is true.
According to KSLA television in Shreveport, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intends to use America's preachers to help pave the way for martial law in the event of another terrorist attack upon the United States.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/baldwin2.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/baldwin2.html)
-
Or more so, I apparently I stick to relevent facts...like actual words uttered from actual folks, be it Bush, Pelosi, or Kagan
-
The relevant fact is the government formed partnerships with the clergy under Bush.
I await your wailing and gnashing of teeth now that you are aware of that horrible breach of the wall.
-
My wailing will commence at the point you can demonstrate Bush, in his words, pushing pastors to tell their congregations to support x legislation. Not merely opining his belief system
-
What part of "Clergy Response Team" formed by Bush's Department of Homeland Security doesn't meet your requirement. The response team was official policy, Pelosi's breach was just talk.
-
Where, anywhere, in this "Clergy Response Team", is there a mandate by Bush that pastors are to push x legislation??
You know Bt, I think you may be getting my POV completely upside down. You probably are under the belief that I'm claiming what Pelosi did was horrible, was demonstrably below any and every ethical/constitutional belt
Go back to the original post. It's a demonstration of the horrible double standard in the MSM. I have no problem with leaders who have a religious foundation. I even have no problem with politicians encouraging other believers to support x legislation.
I DO have a problem when the MSM paint Bush and company merely expressing their beliefs & hopes, as over the line, like with his Faith Based Initiative efforts, but Pelosi, CLEARLY pushing pastors to educate their congregations to support or denounce x, gives an absolute pass
-
It's a demonstration of the horrible double standard in the MSM.
Apparently the Clergy Response Team flew under the MSM radar, though LewRockwell.com picked up on it, mainly because the Clergy Response Team was first used to help disarm the citizens of New Orleans.
-
Despite global warming, hell might be freezing over, because the very liberal Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is apparently encouraging the Catholic clergy to campaign for immigration reform from the pulpit during Sunday mass. Wow.
Speaking at the Catholic Community Conference in Washington, Pelosi said: "Cardinals, the Archbishops, the Bishops come to me and say we want you to pass immigration reform. But I say I want you to speak about it from the pulpit. ... I want you to instruct ... the people (who) oppose immigration reform and are sitting in those pews ... that this is a manifestation of our living the Gospels."
Amen?
For decades, liberal Americans have been hammering conservatives about the alleged "wall of separation" between church and state. Many on the left fervently believe that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wanted no exposure of spirituality in the public arena and no political discourse disguised as religious instruction. If a church does that, it could lose its tax-exempt status.
But now, apparently, everything has changed, and it's "say amen, say hallelujah" to a new immigration law. Building on the speaker's newfound strategy, I guess we can expect preachers to be commenting on government spending, drilling for oil and a value added tax, as well. I, for one, am looking forward to this. Father Smith's mustard seed sermon is used up, and I can't wait for the good padre to tackle cap and trade.
But the most stunning thing about Pelosi's point of view on political sermons is that it's coming from Pelosi. Remember, she's a Catholic who is stridently pro-choice. In fact, if the speaker lived in Rhode Island, she might have been told what Congressman Patrick Kennedy was told by the Archbishop: You can't receive the sacraments until you obey church teaching on abortion.
The group Americans United for Separation of Church and State says the speaker is "fundamentally misguided." They put forth that the clergy should not be politicizing church services, at least not on the tax-free dime.
But Pelosi does not seem to be swayed. Emboldened by Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, who has made "humane" treatment for illegal immigrants his signature issue, the speaker is hell-bent on converting the Sunday faithful to her side, separation or no separation.
Of course, the church-state issue has been greatly distorted in this country. The Constitution is crystal clear: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Therefore, cultural signs of spirituality such as crosses and stars of David are perfectly permissible in public places as long as authorities don't force Americans to believe what they stand for. Also, there are plenty of issues that cross political and moral boundaries, such as abortion and, yes, how to treat illegal immigrants. Certainly, religious leaders have a right to address them in moral terms.
So Pelosi is partially correct. Moral issues should be addressed by the clergy, and if they are relevant to current legislation, so be it. But you can't cherry pick your issue, Madame Speaker, and the Gospels are quite clear about the sanctity of life. Are they not?
The Gospel According to Nancy (http://townhall.com/columnists/BillOReilly/2010/05/15/the_gospel_according_to_nancy)
-
Unless Pelosi herself has come out against using the pulpit for social change in the past, i don't see where she is being hypocritical about using it for immigration.
And isn't what this is all about? Calling her a hypocrit?
-
Her and the Dems, yea....for performing that, which they'd be going apoplectic if this were a Republican doing the same
-
Again, to show that Pelosi is a hypocrit for urging the clergy to advocate a political position they asked her to implement, wouldn't it be fair to show where she had condemned others for doing the same thing?
-
Democrats were doing it in knee jerk fasion, practically every time Bush was referencing God or his faith. They were going apesnot with his Faith Based Initiative plans. Or don't you recall?
-
Or don't you recall?
I don't recall ever to subscribing to either group guilt or group hypocrisy.
In order to be a hypocrit, you must be hypocritical, not your neighbor, not your brother, not your party, but you.
-
As the leader of the democrat party, and no indication ever of her denouncing such, I have no problem with applying the label to her specifically. If I have the time, I'll endeavor to google any quotes that may be applicable
-
As the leader of the democrat party, and no indication ever of her denouncing such, I have no problem with applying the label to her specifically. If I have the time, I'll endeavor to google any quotes that may be applicable
That would be nice. But just to be a pain in the butt, where is it written that she is required to respond, acknowledge, agree or disagree with what another member of her party says or does. Where is this requirement for conformity written?
-
As leader of her party, it'd be an obligation, not a mandate, to denounce garbage being pushed by multiple party members, that she supposedly oversees. Their actions extend on her position as their leader. Not to be confused with simply disagreeing with other members in your party
As Coach of my Tennis team, players that were out of line, made me look bad, for failure to keep my players in line
-
As leader of her party, it'd be an obligation, not a mandate, to denounce garbage being pushed by multiple party members, that she supposedly oversees.
Does she have the authority to purge members she may or may not agree with, because to be held accountable for the actions of others she must have the authority to do something about it.
-
denounce and purge are 2 entirely different tactics. I referenced the former. I wouldn't support the latter, unless there was some major ethical, moral, or legal breech
Denouncing is a perfectly acceptable tactic to try and bring others in line. There were a few times, very few thankfully, where I had to straighten out some of my players
-
There were a few times, very few thankfully, where I had to straighten out some of my players
You had the authority to do that.
I don't see why she should be required to denounce anyone. That is all aart of the group guilt group think problem in this country.
If memory serves you don't have a problem with civil unions, should conservatives who think civil unions and gay marriage are one and the same, be required to denounce you?
-
I don't see why she should be required to denounce anyone.
Never said she was mandated too. It just makes her look bad, if indeed she never used similar rhetoric, and as leader of her party, it would fall to being an obligation, if she didn't want her party and herself looking so hypocritical.
Kinda like when the GOP would denounce some of the garbage that David Duke was pushing
That is all aart of the group guilt group think problem in this country.
Notice I'm picking on the leaders, such as Pelosi, not "group", as in all Democrats
If memory serves you don't have a problem with civil unions, should conservatives who think civil unions and gay marriage are one and the same, be required to denounce you?
If they think it makes them look bad. I don't see how compromise does that, but not my call. Usually its the extreme that facilitates the denouncing, not the middle
-
It just makes her look bad, if indeed she never used similar rhetoric, and as leader of her party, it would fall to being an obligation, if she didn't want her party and herself looking so hypocritical.
I don't see how the actions of others reflects on her, and i don't see where she is obligated to denounce those in her party she disagrees with. And as Speaker of the House it really isn't her job to do so. Sure she can withhold plum committee assignments and chairmanships, but herding the cats is more the party whips purview.
Kinda like when the GOP would denounce some of the garbage that David Duke was pushing
Never saw the need for that. He ran as a Republican, he didn't represent the Republican party.
-
It just makes her look bad, if indeed she never used similar rhetoric, and as leader of her party, it would fall to being an obligation, if she didn't want her party and herself looking so hypocritical.
I don't see how the actions of others reflects on her
I wouldn't either, IF whe were not the leader of the House Democrat party
and i don't see where she is obligated to denounce those in her party she disagrees with.
I already made it cyrstal clear that this isn't about some simple disagreement. This is in reference to overt hypocrisy, on a level referencing the so-called seperation of church & state
And as Speaker of the House it really isn't her job to do so.
Sure, .... if she doens't care about looking bad, by not
Kinda like when the GOP would denounce some of the garbage that David Duke was pushing
Never saw the need for that. He ran as a Republican, he didn't represent the Republican party.
I did, as he did appear to make the GOP party leadership look bad
-
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23510.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23510.html)
Obamas religous nature.
-
I did, as he did appear to make the GOP party leadership look bad
I thought you were an independent.
-
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23510.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23510.html)
Obamas religous nature.
And Kagan supports faith based initiatives.
-
I did, as he did appear to make the GOP party leadership look bad
I thought you were an independent.
I have to be a member of the GOP to make a claim that they looked bad? Then apparently I'm not allowed to make claims to the looks of the Democrat party either, being I'm not a member
Damn, this is going to make the inventory of what I'm allowed to opine on pretty narrow :-\
-
I have to be a member of the GOP to make a claim that they looked bad?
Which was not the reason you gave for Pelosi having to denounce hypocritical members of her party, that she should because they made her look bad. Even if the hypocrisy was not hers.
So did Duke make you look bad?
-
No, he made the GOP leadership look bad. I supported their denouncing him
-
No, he made the GOP leadership look bad.
Because?
-
::)
-
Are you a subscriber to the group guilt mindset?
-
As my answers have consistently demonstrated, I'm a subscriber to the responsible leadership mindset
-
Seems to me responsible leadership is about focusing on people and events that you have control over.
-
http://www.speroforum.com/a/15970/Nancy-Pelosi-opines-on-Catholic-Church--abortion (http://www.speroforum.com/a/15970/Nancy-Pelosi-opines-on-Catholic-Church--abortion)
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) was asked to comment on when life begins. Democrat Pelosi said “I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition.”
http://www.speroforum.com/a/32922/The-Gospel-According-to-Nancy-Pelosi (http://www.speroforum.com/a/32922/The-Gospel-According-to-Nancy-Pelosi)
Of course, the church-state issue has been greatly distorted in this country. The Constitution is crystal clear: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Therefore, cultural signs of spirituality such as crosses and stars of David are perfectly permissible in public places as long as authorities don't force Americans to believe what they stand for. Also, there are plenty of issues that cross political and moral boundaries, such as abortion and, yes, how to treat illegal immigrants. Certainly, religious leaders have a right to address them in moral terms.
So Pelosi is partially correct. Moral issues should be addressed by the clergy, and if they are relevant to current legislation, so be it. But you can't cherry pick your issue, Madame Speaker, and the Gospels are quite clear about the sanctity of life. Are they not?
-
Seems to me responsible leadership is about focusing on people and events that you have control over.
Leadership is leadership, be it a University Tennis Coach or the Speaker of the House, of the U.S.....often leading by example, but just as often helping to guide those who you represent, and when necessary, scold those who don't act appropriate.
-
I guess two things need to be considered by your "leader".
One whether the behavior actually is inappropriate or simply different.
And two, if necessary, is this scolding done publicly or privately.
-
Our Great Leaders
Did they just give what we wanted?
Did they simply lay dowen the law?
Did they persuede us that we could do great things and lead us into sacrifice and acheivement?