Christians, Romney and the "establishment" - Page 2
Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 128

Thread: Christians, Romney and the "establishment"

  1. Doesn't voting based on religion fly in the face of the separation of church and state doctrine?

    Especially in the context of all you self-ascribed constitutionals? How do you reconcile this obvious contradiction in your devout, yet constitutionally strict minds?

    Christians, Romney and the "establishment"-separationchurchstate.jpg

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    SC Lowcountry
    Posts
    1,547
    Quote Originally Posted by Nadir Point View Post
    Doesn't voting based on religion fly in the face of the separation of church and state doctrine?
    Not at all. If a citizen wants to use religion as one of the criteria for making a choice among candidates there's nothing unconstitutional about that.

    Voters use all kinds of criteria in their selections. It could be religion, race, sex, age, appearance, horoscope, throw of the dice, which college they attended, military service, political offices held, good vibes, whatever.

    Especially in the context of all you self-ascribed constitutionals? How do you reconcile this obvious contradiction in your devout, yet constitutionally strict minds?
    There is no contradiction between the Constitution and a person's individual vote. It would only be a contradiction if the government forced a religious requirement on candidates.

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,819
    Quote Originally Posted by Reba View Post
    ....There is no contradiction between the Constitution and a person's individual vote. It would only be a contradiction if the government forced a religious requirement on candidates.
    Or if the government imposed restrictions of the kind that Nadir Point and others around here would like to see upon the free exercise(s) by the citizenry.
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Reba View Post
    Not at all. If a citizen wants to use religion as one of the criteria for making a choice among candidates there's nothing unconstitutional about that.
    Technically no - not at face value. But it's also obvious it is done with the implication you anticipate your candidate, if elected, will support church-friendly policies and so forth in your favor.

  6. Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Or if the government imposed restrictions of the kind that Nadir Point and others around here would like to see upon the free exercise(s) by the citizenry.
    Will you please either link to an example of where I said that sort of thing on this forum or retract your statement?

  7. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Nadir Point View Post
    Doesn't voting based on religion fly in the face of the separation of church and state doctrine?
    or common sense. Some of the most corrupt and unethical people refer to themselves as 'christians', a meaningless term for 90%+ of those that so label themselves.
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  8. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Nadir Point View Post
    Technically no - not at face value. But it's also obvious it is done with the implication you anticipate your candidate, if elected, will support church-friendly policies and so forth in your favor.
    "Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion." Cornell Univ. School of Law.

    When voting for a candidate, for any office, it stands to reason that one would vote for the person who has similar values as the voter. Otherwise, what would be the incentive to vote for the person? There is nothing wrong in desiring a candidate to hold religious beliefs, along with other traits and characteristics, with which you agree. After all, elections boil down to the same thing, a popularity contest between candidates. No person in their right mind will vote for a candidate who is opposed to everything they stand for. To require otherwise by government fiat would be unconstitutional. Really, there is no problem here.

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,361
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    That might've been true before he announced, but it definitely ain't true now. Trump has flipped on very nearly every issue one can conceive of, and in some cases he's flopped back to his previous position within the same speech, Planned Parenthood funding being the prime example of that.
    That's still very true in the eyes of those supporting him. Many of them don't know of the flip-flops, don't care, or accept his explanations for them. And as I said, due to the fact that he isn't a politician that stuff just doesn't affect his popularity among the people supporting him. He is well deserving of the label, 'anger candidate', with the word "anger" describing the mood of the people voting for him.
    .
    Everybody can legitimately be said to have the metaphorical type of baggage once they pack up their real baggage and hit the road for a national campaign.
    I think you and I agree on this, but we aren't those people supporting Trump. They are blind to so many things. Otherwise most of them wouldn't be supporting him.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,361
    Quote Originally Posted by Nadir Point View Post
    Technically no - not at face value. But it's also obvious it is done with the implication you anticipate your candidate, if elected, will support church-friendly policies and so forth in your favor.
    Non sequitur. Theoretically, practically any policy would have the support of at least SOME religion or religious group somewhere, so your attempt at connection here would fall flat even if it were applicable to the government rather than to voters, which it obviously isn't.
    ,
    I don't believe I've had the pleasure of a discussion with you before. Since you apparently have difficulty understanding at least some of the basic principles behind the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, should I assume that you're an immigrant to the United States and still learning how this country works?
    ,
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40scinNC View Post
    or common sense. Some of the most corrupt and unethical people refer to themselves as 'christians', a meaningless term for 90%+ of those that so label themselves.
    And all of them claim to be human. So according to your logic we should demonize all humans. Which of course shows your logic to have absolutely no logic at all. Or common sense for that matter. Hate much?
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  11. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,361
    Quote Originally Posted by Nadir Point View Post
    Christians, Romney and the "establishment"-separationchurchstate.jpg
    That graphic is incorrect by the way. Adams never said that. Those words were in the treaty, but the words after the ... will demonstrate that they do not mean what you apparently think they do. You should study the history of the Barbary Pirates and our conflicts with them. Those words are in there because those Muslim pirates insisted that they be in there, and they were put there simply for the expediency of protecting our shipping in the Mediterranean.
    .
    Countdown host says Founding Father reached out to Muslims | PolitiFact
    .
    There are plenty of other links. Just use Google.
    .
    Using treaty language to support a 'non-religious America' claim might not be a good idea.
    .
    The Treaty of Paris of 1783, which is a formal recognition of our independence from Great Britain, which was negotiated by Ben Franklin and John Adams. Its first words are, “In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.”
    https://w3nws.wordpress.com/2012/06/...-not-say-this/
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast