01 Jun 15
I googled 'Clinton fatigue' a few minutes ago, because I wasn't entirely sure if it's as relevant today as it was a couple of decades ago.
Literally an eye opener. Got only half way through this article before feeling full, will have to consume the rest of it tomorrow... or tomorrow and the next day.
http://nypost.com/2015/04/11/oh-hill-no-clintons-presidential-plan-is-growing-stale/
01 Jun 15
Originally posted by FMFYou are misrepresenting what I'm saying here.
What do you make of whodey's suggestion [not only on this thread] that a politician expressing or professing Christian beliefs [or religious beliefs in general], or basing their policy formations on them, is "a violation of the separation of church and state"?
Hillary has said that religious folk must change their views on abortion. She also has indicated that she believes Jesus wants us to fork over more money to the state in order to take care of the poor folk. These are two instances where it appears that she believes Jesus wants to dictate political policy.
This is a far cry from believing in a God and not dictating state policies according to your religious beliefs.
Originally posted by lemon limeI believe the term is pandering.
[b]Is she a fundamentalist wacko?
No, she is fundamentally an opportunist. This may not appear wacko to those who support her, because they know supporting her is the most efficient way of achieving their own goals. It's wacko for her to try convincing people she believes something she doesn't actually believe, but nevertheless this can work for he ...[text shortened]... talk show host was encouraging democrats to choose Hillary for the nomination instead of Obama?[/b]
The Prog ideology is really a religion all in itself. It concerns me that statists like Hillary want to subvert church ideology into her own Prog ideology, which to me is a lack of separation between church and state.
The Founders did not want a state run church, which is what the Methodist church will become if Hillary has her way.
Originally posted by whodeyHow is what she believes and wants to do a "violation of the separation church and state"? You haven't made the case on any of the threads where you've mentioned it. Doesn't the First Amendment ~ which you are citing ~ in fact affirm her right to express and act upon her religious beliefs?
You are misrepresenting what I'm saying here.
Hillary has said that religious folk must change their views on abortion. She also has indicated that she believes Jesus wants us to fork over more money to the state in order to take care of the poor folk. These are two instances where it appears that she believes Jesus wants to dictate political policy.
...[text shortened]... ry from believing in a God and not dictating state policies according to your religious beliefs.
01 Jun 15
Originally posted by lemon limeWell Hillary Clinton's professed Christian beliefs clearly don't make her a "fundamentalist whacko", you and I are agreed on that, which means the only salient point remaining in the OP that might warrant discussion is whether her professed Christian beliefs and her stated intention to act upon them when in power constitute a "violation of the separation church and state".
whodey: Is she a fundamentalist wacko?
No, she is fundamentally an opportunist.
It strikes me as a peculiar suggestion when your First Amendment expressly affirms the right to free expression of religious beliefs and seeing as Hillary Clinton has said absolutely nothing about the establishment of a state religion or church.
01 Jun 15
Originally posted by FMFWho cares about the Constitution these days?
How is what she believes and wants to do a "violation of the separation church and state"? You haven't made the case on any of the threads where you've mentioned it. Doesn't the First Amendment ~ which you are citing ~ in fact affirm her right to express and act upon her religious beliefs.
Anyway, Republicans, like "W", had been continually maligned for saying they are a "Christian" and people turning around and accusing him of making policy decisions because God told him to do so. However, when a Dim gets up there and does the same thing, no one says anything about it?
I suppose I just get tired of the mindless hypocrisy. In fact, I don't even like "W".
I suppose what concerns me the most is that people like Hillary are trying to influence church teachings. She can provide various forms of coercion for this to happen, which would be a violation of the Constitution. But then, this sort of coercion would probably be behind the scenes.
Saying that Christians must change their views is threatening terminology to folks like me. Just imagine if she told Muslims that their views must change, all hell would break loose.
01 Jun 15
Originally posted by whodeyCan you explain how Hilary Clinton being influenced by Christian ideology can be said, in any way, to be tantamount to the making of a law "respecting an establishment of religion or impeding the free exercise [of religion]"?
It concerns me that statists like Hillary want to subvert church ideology into her own Prog ideology, which to me is a lack of separation between church and state.
Originally posted by whodeyDo you care about it? You are citing it, are you not, when you talk about the "violation of the separation church and state"? And yet you simply refuse to explain how ~ in your view ~ Hilary Clinton is in violation of your Constitution when it is this same Constitution - and the same Amendment you are citing - that protects her expression of what she believes and proposes.
Who cares about the Constitution these days?
Originally posted by whodeyAnyway, Republicans, like "W", had been continually maligned for saying they are a "Christian" and people turning around and accusing him of making policy decisions because God told him to do so. However, when a Dim gets up there and does the same thing, no one says anything about it?
I suppose I just get tired of the mindless hypocrisy..
Well you didn't malign G.W. Bush on this matter and did not claim that his Christian views and motivations were a "violation of the separation church and state", but now here you are attempting to malign Hillary Clinton on this matter and claiming that her Christian views and motivations are a "violation of the separation church and state".
If there is any "mindless hypocrisy" here, isn't it yours?
01 Jun 15
Originally posted by whodeySo the "violation of the separation church and state" you mentioned in your OP is something in your imagination that hasn't happened?
I suppose what concerns me the most is that people like Hillary are trying to influence church teachings. She can provide various forms of coercion for this to happen, which would be a violation of the Constitution. But then, this sort of coercion would probably be behind the scenes.
Originally posted by whodeyPoliticians and all manner of other commentators and public figures in the West have been lecturing the people in the Muslim world on how they must "change their views" for decades and for the last decade and a half continuously and vociferously.
Saying that Christians must change their views is threatening terminology to folks like me. Just imagine if she told Muslims that their views must change, all hell would break loose.
01 Jun 15
Originally posted by whodeyDo you think that people you disagree with should change their views?
Who cares about the Constitution these days?
Anyway, Republicans, like "W", had been continually maligned for saying they are a "Christian" and people turning around and accusing him of making policy decisions because God told him to do so. However, when a Dim gets up there and does the same thing, no one says anything about it?
I suppose I just get ti ...[text shortened]... me. Just imagine if she told Muslims that their views must change, all hell would break loose.