Candidates and Religion

[Wakie]

Dean is just pandering to try to get votes in the south.

This is no different from how George Bush has used religion to gain political momentum.

[Wakie]

The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

To "respect" something is to hold it in a high or special regard.  Therefore, I read the first amendment as saying that Congress shall make no law which either holds down religion or places it on pedastool.

Also, jravnsbo, did you mean William Pryor?  I've not heard of a Mark Pryor from Alabama.  None the less, the groups standing against his nomination include the American Association of People with Disabilities, The Interfaith Alliance, and Log Cabin Republicans.  Bill Pryor has talked about wanting to weaken the wall between church and state which Jefferson talked about in those letters you mentioned.  Pryor believes that the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Violence Against Women Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and even Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act are unconstitutional.  I'm Catholic.  I don't feel that it is Pryor's religion which is preventing his nomination.

[Wakie]

I think the complaint about Pryor isn't that he is Catholic, that is incidental.  The complaint is about his stance on several issues.

*Under Pryor's leadership, Alabama was the only state to challenge the constitutionality of a provision of the Violence Against Women Act (United States v. Morrison).  Pryor also argued that the Supreme Court should cut back on the protections of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Clean Water Act.

*Pryor has urged Congress to consider getting rid of a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, which protects the right to vote for African-Americans.  While testifying before a Congressional Committee, Pryor urged the Committee to "consider seriously...the repeal or amendment of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which [he labeled an] affront to federalism and an expansive burden that has far outlived its usefulness."

*In 2002, Pryor filed an anti-gay brief in Lawrence v. Texas on behalf of Alabama urging the Supreme Court to uphold Texas' law banning same-sex sodomy.  Pryor argued that a "constitutional right that protects `the choice of one's partner' and `whether and how to connect sexually' must logically extend to activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia."  Sorry, but I don't follow his logic there.

*Pryor has also defended a state judge's sponsorship of Christian prayers before jury assemblies.

Pryor's positions border on the level of extreme and that is what the hold-up is on him.  If I had to accept one of the big 3 nominees though I would take him.  Pickering leaves a special bad taste in my mouth and I don't know how anyone, in good conscience, could approve Owens.

[Wakie]

In my opinion a candidate's religion isn't much of an issue, unless they're a crazy zealot like Pat Robertson.

If a zealot in your opinion is someone who holds steadfast in their Faith. Then I am proud to be one. True Faith does not change. GOD NEVER CHANGES, so a person who is diligent in their Faith and walks uprightly is a nut? You need to re-evaluate your thinking.

This is possibly the wrong time of year to have this sort of debate, but I must defend myself there. You've either misinterpreted what I said, or twisted my words around before adding some hasty personal judgement (I'm sorry but I find it quite laughable that you think you can paraphrase my value- and belief system from one sentence I've written). Either way, what you've outlined is not my definition of a "zealot". My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How precisely is this guy not a nutcase?

What is wrong with statements like that? They're all true. This man is not a nutcase.

Oh ... please tell me you are joking.  Do you really believe that feminism is about practicing witchcraft?

[Wakie]

In my opinion a candidate's religion isn't much of an issue, unless they're a crazy zealot like Pat Robertson.

If a zealot in your opinion is someone who holds steadfast in their Faith. Then I am proud to be one. True Faith does not change. GOD NEVER CHANGES, so a person who is diligent in their Faith and walks uprightly is a nut? You need to re-evaluate your thinking.

This is possibly the wrong time of year to have this sort of debate, but I must defend myself there. You've either misinterpreted what I said, or twisted my words around before adding some hasty personal judgement (I'm sorry but I find it quite laughable that you think you can paraphrase my value- and belief system from one sentence I've written). Either way, what you've outlined is not my definition of a "zealot". My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How precisely is this guy not a nutcase?

What is wrong with statements like that? They're all true. This man is not a nutcase.

Oh ... please tell me you are joking.  Do you really believe that feminism is about practicing witchcraft?

Well, I don't know about the witchcraft part. It certainly could be true. Everyhing else he said is true, though.

It certainly could be?  Geez, if he said the Green Party candidates were actually a veiled reference to being space invaders bent on intergalactic domination would you consider that as possibly being true?!?!

Pat Robertson is nuts!  Not for his religious beliefs ... but because he makes ridiculous statements like "feminism = witchcraft".

[Wakie]

And on another note, Robertson is wrong regarding his "every society which has embraced homosexuality .... has gone down in flames."

First off, the ancient Greeks accepted homosexuality and I wouldn't exactly say they "went down in flames".

Secondly, most of Europe today accepts homosexuality.  Oddly enough, they haven't gone down in flames.  This leads to someone saying "but they will".  To this I make the ridiculous statement, every society which has accepted the consumption of shellfish has gone down in flames and those which haven't yet, will.