The Danger Of The Religious Voice In Politics

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I see what you are saying. As with many things, to the liberal mind, it is only interjecting religion into politics when conservatives do it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You can go even further. It is only wrong/bad/bigoted/racist if the other guy does it but when a liberal does it it was done all with the correct intent. After all the intent is what really matters, not the result.

[thesometimesaint]

I see what you are saying. As with many things, to the liberal mind, it is only interjecting religion into politics when conservatives do it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I'm moderately conservative liberal. Just because you can legally do something doesn't mean you should.

 

See Articles of Faith # 11

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

[thesometimesaint]

You can go even further. It is only wrong/bad/bigoted/racist if the other guy does it but when a liberal does it it was done all with the correct intent. After all the intent is what really matters, not the result.

 

CFR

[Stone holm]

So if you "Articulate a secular basis, even if your choice is religiously motivated," that would be a good way inform the voters about your intentions of whether or not to get a little power and exercise unrighteous dominion?

This is a very political discussion because I'm not getting any straight-forward answers to my simple question.

 

Not really following the logic here.  Yes, if we force everyone to articulate a secular basis that curbs the tendency to establish your own beliefs as law, and opens the political forum to actual dialogue rather than merely the exchange of religious ultimatums.  Most of the religious dictums which are essential to a society that among other freedoms protects religious freedom can be cast in secular terms.  Unfortunately, if we get lazy and out of practice, then you have eruptions where you wind up paying a religious crusader law firm $2 million for a legal defense and they can't seem to come up with a sound secular basis for banning SSM because they are too used to saying, "Well God told me so."

[wenglund]

Just because you can legally do something doesn't mean you should.

 

In a way, that was one of the points that Elder Anderson made in his Conference talk.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

In a way, that was one of the points that Elder Anderson made in his Conference talk.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Yep.

[wenglund]

CFR

 

For starters, see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

if we force everyone to articulate a secular basis that curbs the tendency to establish your own beliefs as law

That is actually a good way to establish your own beliefs as law: simply articulate in the most popular terms (whether that be secular or religious).

 

But I'm not sure how popular it would be to force people to articuate in one particular way... maybe about as popular as hobo-flavored mouthwash?

[USU78]

Not really following the logic here.  Yes, if we force everyone to articulate a secular basis that curbs the tendency to establish your own beliefs as law, and opens the political forum to actual dialogue rather than merely the exchange of religious ultimatums.  Most of the religious dictums which are essential to a society that among other freedoms protects religious freedom can be cast in secular terms.  Unfortunately, if we get lazy and out of practice, then you have eruptions where you wind up paying a religious crusader law firm $2 million for a legal defense and they can't seem to come up with a sound secular basis for banning SSM because they are too used to saying, "Well God told me so."

 

I think you are saying here that the Prop 8 defense outfit that, upon default of the State of CA's involvement, tried to fight the fight, whereupon the sitting judge dictated that, since the Prop 8 proponents were (quoth he) religiously motivated, he could strike down the initiative solely on that basis [i am paraphrasing, of course], they had only themselves to blame, since no religiously motivated law is constitutionally cognizable.

 

Yes?

[thesometimesaint]

For starters, see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

For finishers 

 

SEE

 

http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=114

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/07/14/753491/-Empathy-The-Myth-of-Compassionate-Conservatism#

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-buzz/post/rush-limbaugh-calls-georgetown-student-sandra-fluke-a-slut-for-advocating-contraception/2012/03/02/gIQAvjfSmR_blog.html

 

I have Parkinson's disease and this Conservative is mocking me.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

CFR

I am not sure this is the appropriate venue. But I give you Harry Reid and his "Negro Dialect" comments. He was basically let off the hook for it nothing happened to him. He really isn't racist because he is a good liberal and tows the party line. If a conservative or republican said the same thing he would have been run out of town.

 

Anyway this is all I will say on it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

For finishers 

 

SEE

 

http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=114

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/07/14/753491/-Empathy-The-Myth-of-Compassionate-Conservatism#

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-buzz/post/rush-limbaugh-calls-georgetown-student-sandra-fluke-a-slut-for-advocating-contraception/2012/03/02/gIQAvjfSmR_blog.html

 

I have Parkinson's disease and this Conservative is mocking me.

Actually Saint if you acutally bothered to listen to the source you would never post your ridiculous "I have Parkinson's disease and this Conservative is mocking me".

 

I will point out that you actually supplied a nice case of a conservative being raked over the coals for what he "allegedly" said. If Harry Reid said the same thing he would have gotten a pass.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[thesometimesaint]

I am not sure this is the appropriate venue. But I give you Harry Reid and his "Negro Dialect" comments. He was basically let off the hook for it nothing happened to him. He really isn't racist because he is a good liberal and tows the party line. If a conservative or republican said the same thing he would have been run out of town.

 

Anyway this is all I will say on it.

 

For which he quickly apologized. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/09/harry-reid-negro-comment-_n_417406.html

 

When is Richard Cheney going to apologize for torture? http://thinkprogress.org/security/2008/12/18/33880/cheney-morality-of-torture/

[thesometimesaint]

Actually Saint if you acutally bothered to listen to the source you would never post your ridiculous "I have Parkinson's disease and this Conservative is mocking me".

 

I will point out that you actually supplied a nice case of a conservative being raked over the coals for what he "allegedly" said. If Harry Reid said the same thing he would have gotten a pass.

 

Rush Limbaugh has yet to apologize for his actual contemptible slander of Mr. Fox in particular and to all Parkinson's disease sufferers in general. There is NOTHING alleged about it. It is his own show Mr. Limbaugh makes the slanderous stupid claim, mocking the effects of the medicine, that Mr. Fox deliberately stopped taking medicine to make a Democratic political point. Mr. Limbaugh further doubled down on that obscene comment. Mr. Limbaugh completely ignored Mr. Fox when Mr. Fox made the same pitch for a Republican politician

 

Mr. Reid didn't get a pass. He quickly apologized for that claim.

[Stone holm]

 

I think you are saying here that the Prop 8 defense outfit that, upon default of the State of CA's involvement, tried to fight the fight, whereupon the sitting judge dictated that, since the Prop 8 proponents were (quoth he) religiously motivated, he could strike down the initiative solely on that basis [i am paraphrasing, of course], they had only themselves to blame, since no religiously motivated law is constitutionally cognizable.

 

Yes?

 

If the only basis of a law is religious belief, yes it violates the Establishment Clause.  However, the Prop 8 case was not decided on the merits at the SCOTUS level because the parties bringing the appeal lacked standing to bring the appeal under Federal law.  The couples who were denied marriage licenses had standing to challenge the law, but the religious organizations that brought the appeal lacked standing because the State of California itself did not appeal.  The irony was that they would have had standing under California law, but not under Federal law which is stricter as to standing.

[wenglund]

For finishers 

 

SEE

 

http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=114

 

I get that certain liberals figure that once they have spoken, the debate or discussion is "finished," But for those of us not so closed minded, here is an added perspective on the issue of liberal media:

 

The Politics of Denial

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/07/14/753491/-Empathy-The-Myth-of-Compassionate-Conservatism#

 

Conservatives and Liberals are equally generous.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-buzz/post/rush-limbaugh-calls-georgetown-student-sandra-fluke-a-slut-for-advocating-contraception/2012/03/02/gIQAvjfSmR_blog.html

 

I have Parkinson's disease and this Conservative is mocking me.

 

Both are unfortunate, but hardly indicative of generalized traits among conservatives, though fodder for wrongful stereotyping (Study: Liberals Stereotype More)...

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 16, 2014 by wenglund

[Chronos]

This discussion is done.

 

~Chronos