hey....keep your religion

[scottw]

out of our politics...

Charlie Rangel Says Some
Republicans 'Believe That Slavery
Isn't Over'

COLIN CAMPBELL
OCT. 30, 2014,

Veteran Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) had some
harsh words for the Republican Party during a
Thursday campaign rally for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D).

As he has done repeatedly before, Rangel compared
some members of the GOP to confederates from
the Civil War era. But at the Thursday evening
event, he added that they "believe that slavery isn't
over."

"We have to win. We have to be able to send a national message with Andrew Cuomo. And the thing is: Everything we believe in — everything we believe in — they hate. They don't disagree — they hate!

They think if you didn't come from Europe 30 years ago, you didn't even make it. Some of them believe that slavery isn't over and they and think they won the Civil War!" Rangel shouted.

In contrast, Rangel said the Democratic Party is doing "God's work" on issues important to the American people."And so what we have to do is send a collective voice," he said of the upcoming midterms. Some Republicans 'Believe That Slavery Isn't Over' "Everything we're doing is God's work: education, healthcare, affordable housing, [protecting against] discrimination, paying people the minimum wage."



Hey Eben....since you explained to us that when Hillary said “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.”...she actually "meant" something completely different and unrelated.....can/should we just assume that Charlie meant something other than what he actually said?

would it be acceptable to say that "most" people who think or believe like Charlie gravitate to his party and therefore is there some unsavory label (lunatic maybe) that we might assign that party as a result of what he like-minded might think or believe?....

...Charlie isn't some dope that crawled out from under a rock to join a protest with an offensive sign or comments....Charlie is a very long standing, high ranking member of that party...as is Hillary re. her comment


before you say..."ohhh, that's just old Charlie" read all of this http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...lack-vo/print/

[Nebe]

Hey. He's from New York. Let's not forget that in the good ol days the rich plantation owners were actually democrats.

But yes. Let's keep religion out of politics. It's in the constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

I think they were called "blue dog democrats" or something like that. ( I haven't had my coffee yet.)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

But yes. Let's keep religion out of politics. It's in the constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If we must follow the Constitution on politics and religion, should we not then follow it on matters of "education, healthcare, affordable housing, [protecting against] discrimination, paying people the minimum wage." Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government should be involved in those things? Shouldn't we keep the Federal Government out of those things as well as out of religion?

[Nebe]

Sure. I'm all for that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

[QUOTE]=scottw;10554

"Everything we're doing is God's work: education, healthcare, affordable housing, [protecting against] discrimination, paying people the minimum wage."

QUOTE]


Charlie is a fox, you can't help but laugh when he talks, he always
looks like he's just ready to get caught with his finger in the pie.
I wonder if God was guiding him not to report $75,000 in taxable
rental income and that fiasco in Harlem? Typical lib, great empathy as
long as somebody else is paying for it.

[Jim in CT]

[QUOTE=justplugit;1055454]

=scottw;10554

"Everything we're doing is God's work: education, healthcare, affordable housing, [protecting against] discrimination, paying people the minimum wage."

QUOTE]


Charlie is a fox, you can't help but laugh when he talks, he always
looks like he's just ready to get caught with his finger in the pie.
I wonder if God was guiding him not to report $75,000 in taxable
rental income and that fiasco in Harlem? Typical lib, great empathy as
long as somebody else is paying for it.

Right, when Charlie dodges taxes, it's OK. If a white investment banker does it, it's a capital offense. Always remember and protect The Narrative.

[Fishpart]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If we must follow the Constitution on politics and religion, should we not then follow it on matters of "education, healthcare, affordable housing, [protecting against] discrimination, paying people the minimum wage." Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government should be involved in those things? Shouldn't we keep the Federal Government out of those things as well as out of religion?

Have we forgotten the 10th Amendment?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Hey.

But yes. Let's keep religion out of politics. It's in the constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

actually..it's not in the Constitution...I'm pretty sure the word "politics" never appears in the Constitution....maybe you hadn't had your coffee yet on that one either...or may be you haven't read the Constitution?

I cited Charlie as a wonderful example of the hypocrisy we see from the progressives today who will pillory anyone on the right who mentions God in the political arena as being unfit for public service yet feel comfortable using God as a politicking tool when convenient. And of course, the rest of what he said was just as low as you can crawl.

I don't have a problem with Charlie feeling he's "doing God's work"...he's perfectly within his right to do so..that's actually in the Constitution re. religion and speech

the Constitution, as written, doesn't ban religion from politics, or ban religious minded from being guided by their religious principles when involved in politics.. or religious-minded from trying to influence politics and their Government.... which is what you have made clear you would like to see or believe it says

not only does the Constitution restrict congress from making laws "respecting(with reference or regard to) an establishment of religion"...it also guarantees the Individual free exercise(which most certainly includes "POLITICS") that's what's actually "in the Constitution"

if you read the whole thing including the Bill of Rights, you'll notice a theme where Government is restricted in what it may do...... and the Individual's Rights are are "guaranteed"(protected) in what they may do

Religion is an individual right, unlike many other "rights" these days..it's actually in the Constitution, religion is a "belief" or set of beliefs...suggesting "Let's keep religion out of politics" is saying one must leave their beliefs at the door when entering the political arena...since we're all equal under the law...I'd suggest that you must also leave your beliefs, where ever they're derived from, at the door when discussing political issues or entering the political arena....it a simple way to exclude those that you may disagree with from the process...which may be why the Framers mention it first


Amendment I

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.


this is great...if you go to the Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) Charlie Rangel scores 100% by the AU on church-state separation

I wonder if they're aware that Charlie, as a long time elected "State" official(in Congress since since 1971) and leader is doing "God's work" through all of the "State" programs and policies that he's helped create and maintain, expand and fund....

[Raven]

Originally Posted by Nebe

( I haven't had my coffee yet.)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

heh heh.....

this works Bettah

[spence]

Funny, the POTUS says God bless America quite a bit and nobody seems to get upset. I thought "doing God's work" was akin to saying you were working for the people?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Funny, the POTUS says God bless America quite a bit and nobody seems to get upset. I thought "doing God's work" was akin to saying you were working for the people?

Which God is he asking for the blessing? I am not familiar with a God who blesses those who promote so many of the policies that Obama and his political minions do, unless he is referring to the progressive God--Government. And it is the God Government who uniquely considers Its blessing as working for the people. Most other Gods require the people to work for them, and through that working for God the people are rewarded with God's blessing. Most other religions would consider working for the people rather than working for God a rejection of God.

You seem to have a socialistic view of God. Which very much aligns with the belief that Government is God.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I think they were called "blue dog democrats" or something like that. ( I haven't had my coffee yet.)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That would be incorrect (just finished my coffee - time to build a siege engine):

Blue Dog Democrat Philosophy

A Blue Dog Democrat is one who views himself as being in the middle of the partisan spectrum and as an advocate for fiscal restraint at the federal level.

The preamble to the Blue Dog Caucus in the House describes its members as being "dedicated to the financial stability and national security of the country, notwithstanding partisan political positions

The proponents of the southern position prior to Civil War were Democrats. Some (all?) of the northern Democrats backed the Republican position of anti-slavery. The Republican party mainly developed as a response to curb the expansion of slavery north and west of where it existed at the time.

[rphud]

I think it's "separation of church and state" and "one nation, under God" if memory serves.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by rphud

I think it's "separation of church and state" and "one nation, under God" if memory serves.

is it?...neither of your quotes appears in any or our founding documents nor any of our laws that I'm aware of..."separation of church and state" is described as a "metaphorical description" and a "concept"....and "one nation, under God" was adopted in the early 1950's as part of the Pledge of Allegiance...

[rphud]

so the long version is

"Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly used by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper.

and the documents part is

The Declaration of Independence, the signing of which we commemorate July 4th, alone has five references to God—two in the first paragraph, one in the middle, and two in the last.

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

The third reference to God is the word “creator” found in the second paragraph. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Creator with the capital "C")

“We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown…”

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

[scottw]

Originally Posted by rphud

so the long version is

”

so what you are saying is that none of your 'quotes' are found in any of our founding documents or laws

"Separation of church and state" is a phrase used by "some" to restate what "they" believe, expressing "their" understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause (you need to read what Jefferson actually wrote and why he wrote it)....

God, Creator, Nature's god, Gaia


I'm just pointing out that stating "it's ............" when it's really not, is like stating "........","it's in the Constitution"..when it's really not.....or..."doing God's work" was akin to saying you were working for the people? ....when it's really not

[rphud]

said quotes can be taken as the common language of the day I suppose.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by rphud

said quotes can be taken as the common language of the day I suppose.

what's wrong with the actual wording in the actual documents?.....it's pretty clear and simple wording.....written so even someone with an 18th century education could understand?

doesn't it seem odd, when discussing the first 10 simple words of our 1st Amendment, to refer to some quote or phrase that no one really knows the origin of ?

[rphud]

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.

Nothing wrong with these words, then or now. Seems very straight forward to me. Interpretations by many courts and individuals since then, well that can be very different story.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by rphud

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.

Nothing wrong with these words, then or now. Seems very straight forward to me. Interpretations by many courts and individuals since then, well that can be very different story.

right...so how do you get from those simple and straightforward words to "separation of church and state" ....or "Let's keep religion out of politics. It's in the constitution."

you mentioned the Supreme Court..do you know that in 1958, in a case called Baer v. Kolmorgen, one of the judges grew so tired of hearing the phrase that he wrote a dissent warning that if the court did not stop repeating the phrase "separation of church and state," people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution?

this was what he said...he agrees with you on the language of the constitution

"Much has been written in recent years concerning Thomas Jefferson's reference in 1802 to "a wall of separation between church and State." It is upon that "wall" that plaintiffs seek to build their case. Jefferson's figure of speech has received so much attention that one would almost think at times that it is to be found somewhere in our Constitution. Courts and authors have devoted numerous pages to its interpretation. This court has no intention of engaging in a dispute among
[14 Misc.2d 1020]
historians as to the meaning of a metaphor. The only language which we are called upon to interpret and apply is the plain language quoted above from the Federal and State Constitutions."

the problem is that the "let's keep religion out of politics crowd" would like very much to exclude folks with religious beliefs from influencing politics, government or government policy on the basis of those beliefs because they happen to disagree, we see it all the time.....that is how they interpret "separation of church and state" which they have supplanted for the simple and straightforward words you provided above. There is an enormous difference between limiting Congress from making laws regarding an establishment of religion and guaranteeing the free exercise of ....and "separation" of the two where you must leave your religion at the door when you enter the political arena or politics(at least for one half of the political spectrum) as Spence pointed out...

[rphud]

To my reading the specific language of the constitution protects religions from the government and says nothing about "protecting" the government from religion or the influence of religious beliefs.

Most days I long for "The only language which we are called upon to interpret and apply is the plain language quoted above from the Federal and State Constitutions."

[scottw]

Originally Posted by rphud

Most days I long for "The only language which we are called upon to interpret and apply is the plain language quoted above from the Federal and State Constitutions."

AMEN!...heh..heh



OCTOBER 30, 2014 12:00 AM
Our Make-It-Up World
Facts now pale in comparison with the higher truths of progressivism.
By Victor Davis Hanson


"Language is useful for inventing new realities.

Progressives believed that because traditional protocols, language, and standards were usually created by stuffy old establishment types, the rules no longer necessarily should apply. Instead, particular narratives and euphemisms that promoted perceived social justice became truthful. Bothersome facts were discarded.

So far, political mythmaking has been confined to popular culture and politics, and has not affected the ironclad facts and non-negotiable rules of jetliner maintenance, heart surgery, or nuclear-plant operation. Yet the Ebola scare has taught us that even the erroneous news releases and fluid policies of the CDC can be as likely based on politics as hard science.

If that is a vision of more relativist things to come, then we are doomed."

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/391404/print

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by JohnR

(just finished my coffee - time to build a siege engine):

We built ours last weekend....