Author Topic: What seperation of Church & State?  (Read 5658 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: What seperation of Church & State?
« Reply #30 on: May 13, 2010, 01:06:48 AM »
Quote
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.


sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What seperation of Church & State?
« Reply #31 on: May 15, 2010, 04:27:31 AM »
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
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: What seperation of Church & State?
« Reply #32 on: May 15, 2010, 10:10:11 AM »
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?

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What seperation of Church & State?
« Reply #33 on: May 15, 2010, 11:19:38 AM »
Her and the Dems, yea....for performing that, which they'd be going apoplectic if this were a Republican doing the same
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: What seperation of Church & State?
« Reply #34 on: May 15, 2010, 01:24:30 PM »
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?

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What seperation of Church & State?
« Reply #35 on: May 15, 2010, 01:37:45 PM »
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?
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: What seperation of Church & State?
« Reply #36 on: May 15, 2010, 04:01:11 PM »
Quote
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.




sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What seperation of Church & State?
« Reply #37 on: May 15, 2010, 04:11:22 PM »
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
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: What seperation of Church & State?
« Reply #38 on: May 15, 2010, 04:20:16 PM »
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?

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What seperation of Church & State?
« Reply #39 on: May 15, 2010, 04:28:37 PM »
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
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: What seperation of Church & State?
« Reply #40 on: May 15, 2010, 05:02:14 PM »
Quote
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.


sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What seperation of Church & State?
« Reply #41 on: May 15, 2010, 05:13:51 PM »
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
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: What seperation of Church & State?
« Reply #42 on: May 15, 2010, 05:22:10 PM »
Quote
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?

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What seperation of Church & State?
« Reply #43 on: May 15, 2010, 05:48:25 PM »
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
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16143
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: What seperation of Church & State?
« Reply #44 on: May 15, 2010, 06:06:07 PM »
Quote
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.

Quote
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.