Doesn't matter. Wants and constitutionality are not the same thing. Trying to use the Constitution as a basis for removing something from the public just because someone might not like it is illegitimate, especially when the "constitutional" basis evoked is entirely fictitious.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Huckabee
- Thread starter Frank screwyourednecks
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Doesn't matter. Wants and constitutionality are not the same thing. Trying to use the Constitution as a basis for removing something from the public just because someone might not like it is illegitimate, especially when the "constitutional" basis evoked is entirely fictitious.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Once again, Hugh gets it.
The so-called seperation clause of the Constitution really doesn't exist, though legally there are precedent and interpretations of the Constitution making it essentially so.
As written, it says "shall pass no laws", "establishing", or "infringing."
A plaque on a courthouse, for example, is not a law.
TJR
The so-called seperation clause of the Constitution really doesn't exist, though legally there are precedent and interpretations of the Constitution making it essentially so.
As written, it says "shall pass no laws", "establishing", or "infringing."
A plaque on a courthouse, for example, is not a law.
TJR
Les
Well-Known Member
When I think "my business, my rules", or "my house, my rules", (for example) I think implicitely what I can legally do.
Stop thinking, I'm talking reality.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Les,
Please, I'm always thinking, LOL.
Your original reply came off as defending the business owner and stating that they can make their own rules, even if not smart ones. There was really know other way to read it, IMHO. That's why I commented as I did. Essentially it read as if you were saying: "Hey, it's their business, they can do what they want, even if its stupid!"
Then, by your followup, it was clear that what you meant to say was that "business owners can do whatever they want as long as they are willing to pay the consequences."
That statement I would agree with.
Its kind of like saying:
1. It is illegal to murder people and there are laws against it, and if convicted you will be punished.
2. Everyone is their own person and gets to make up their own rules about murder, even if those personal rules that aren't smart or are ill-advised.
Well, clearly if taken together, 1 and 2 above are at odds with each other. 1 states that people are not free to make their own rules about murder. Murder is illegal, period. The rules are already defined. Granted, a person can CHOOSE to break the laws (rules) regarding murder, but that's not really making ones own rules. That's simply ignoring and not abiding by the rules (laws) that are made for you by others that have authority over you.
The same is true for business owners. They can make their own decisions, and can decide to not follow certain laws and rules with those decisions. But the rules for what they should and shouldn't do are defined by laws, in many cases, by some authority. Therefore, by definition, those are not "their rules", the rules are defined for them by said authority and the laws passed.
I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying, per se, just trying to explain how what you are saying and what I am saying, is different, and why I would for this situation never use and object to hearing the phrase "their business, their rules." For the scenario described, the rules in questions are NOT the businesses rules. They are defined by governmental laws.
TJR
Please, I'm always thinking, LOL.
Your original reply came off as defending the business owner and stating that they can make their own rules, even if not smart ones. There was really know other way to read it, IMHO. That's why I commented as I did. Essentially it read as if you were saying: "Hey, it's their business, they can do what they want, even if its stupid!"
Then, by your followup, it was clear that what you meant to say was that "business owners can do whatever they want as long as they are willing to pay the consequences."
That statement I would agree with.
Its kind of like saying:
1. It is illegal to murder people and there are laws against it, and if convicted you will be punished.
2. Everyone is their own person and gets to make up their own rules about murder, even if those personal rules that aren't smart or are ill-advised.
Well, clearly if taken together, 1 and 2 above are at odds with each other. 1 states that people are not free to make their own rules about murder. Murder is illegal, period. The rules are already defined. Granted, a person can CHOOSE to break the laws (rules) regarding murder, but that's not really making ones own rules. That's simply ignoring and not abiding by the rules (laws) that are made for you by others that have authority over you.
The same is true for business owners. They can make their own decisions, and can decide to not follow certain laws and rules with those decisions. But the rules for what they should and shouldn't do are defined by laws, in many cases, by some authority. Therefore, by definition, those are not "their rules", the rules are defined for them by said authority and the laws passed.
I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying, per se, just trying to explain how what you are saying and what I am saying, is different, and why I would for this situation never use and object to hearing the phrase "their business, their rules." For the scenario described, the rules in questions are NOT the businesses rules. They are defined by governmental laws.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Bill V
Well-Known Member
Really? How many lawsuits have been filed by or on behalf of Atheists to remove displays of the 10 Commandments from public venues?
You're confusing "extremist" atheists with "common" atheists. Most atheists have no concerns with at least the last seven of the ten commandments. (I think that's the quantity which aren't necessarily tied to religion--right? If I'm wrong, adjust accordingly.)
Saying that Atheists, in general, are opposed to the commandments because a few of them file lawsuits to get them removed is a bit like saying that Baptists, in general, think the US is going to hell due to gays in the military, based on a few Westboro Baptists saying so. Neither is true.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bill V gets it.
It's all about the extremist of any religion, or even extremist Atheists. Its also about those who use religion as a tool or weapon against others to get them to submit to their will. If they are Christians we call them Evangelists. If they are Muslims, we call them Terrorists.
...Rich
It's all about the extremist of any religion, or even extremist Atheists. Its also about those who use religion as a tool or weapon against others to get them to submit to their will. If they are Christians we call them Evangelists. If they are Muslims, we call them Terrorists.
...Rich
How do you think the president could use religion as a "tool or weapon against others to get them to submit to their will?" Name a specific executive power that would in any way allow Mike Huckabee (if he were elected) to evangelize a single citizen.
The fear is absolutely unfounded and based entirely in disregard (neglect or ignorance) of the Constitution. I don't fear an atheist president because I know exactly what the powers of the office of the president include. If you want to fear any branch of your government, it should be the legislative.
The fear is absolutely unfounded and based entirely in disregard (neglect or ignorance) of the Constitution. I don't fear an atheist president because I know exactly what the powers of the office of the president include. If you want to fear any branch of your government, it should be the legislative.
Willie Anglin
Active Member
TJR,
I know it is useless to comunicate with you if you feel morals are better today.
I know it is useless to comunicate with you if you feel morals are better today.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hugh,
I never said Huckabee would use his religion as a tool or weapon....I am only saying that there are religious extremist who have used religion as a tool/weapon. It has happened in the past, and and continues today. The "Separation of Church and State" is an attempt to prevent Politicians from doing that in America...That does not mean it could not happen...and you certainly cannot assume that we should not be cautious of an extremists.
There are already too many extremists in politics now. Not religious extremists, but extreme librals and extreme conservatives. For the most part, over 80% of Americans are moderates. Politicians know that, so when they run for office they become very moderate in their campaign. Once they get elected, they revert to their extremist ideologies and are unwilling to compromise.
I do not completely trust anyone who uses extreme religious beliefs as a stepping stone to political power.
...Rich
I never said Huckabee would use his religion as a tool or weapon....I am only saying that there are religious extremist who have used religion as a tool/weapon. It has happened in the past, and and continues today. The "Separation of Church and State" is an attempt to prevent Politicians from doing that in America...That does not mean it could not happen...and you certainly cannot assume that we should not be cautious of an extremists.
There are already too many extremists in politics now. Not religious extremists, but extreme librals and extreme conservatives. For the most part, over 80% of Americans are moderates. Politicians know that, so when they run for office they become very moderate in their campaign. Once they get elected, they revert to their extremist ideologies and are unwilling to compromise.
I do not completely trust anyone who uses extreme religious beliefs as a stepping stone to political power.
...Rich
I only meant to use your words to ask that question in general, not specifically to you. It's more of a question of why this thread even exists: why would anyone fear Mike Huckabee? What does anyone think he would be able to do to press his Christianity on the country?
I know we've seen how swept up in a frenzy a great portion of this country can get from a president reading teleprompters, but does anyone really think Huckabee would use public addresses to preach a sermon?
And then, I will submit, if he did preach sermons in public addresses, what is the worst outcome?
I know we've seen how swept up in a frenzy a great portion of this country can get from a president reading teleprompters, but does anyone really think Huckabee would use public addresses to preach a sermon?
And then, I will submit, if he did preach sermons in public addresses, what is the worst outcome?
Frank screwyourednecks
Well-Known Member
Hugh my boy,
Read the Sharlet book. Huck a bee is not alone. His "Base" is what I fear. They discount scientific FACTS. I know its tough to swallow, but I want leaders who see the world in a realistic sense. The "Family" of politicians see the Democrats, and anyone else who doesn't espouse thier religious fervor as "infidels" dude. It is NOT the American way. I know the political landscape is cyclical, but I may still be alive next time the religious right is in the drivers seat. And NOBODY wants a repeat of what happened to America in the last dozen years. NO-BO-DY! - You know what I am saying is true.
Dont label me either. I was raised Catholic... I am not crusading for Athiesm. Its just that you CAN be a "good" Christian, without letting it BLIND your decision making process.
If you, ar anyone else on this board thinks that religion and politics should in ANY way cross paths, then you need to move back to whatever country your ancestors came from and rapturize there. This is America baby!!! Home of the free. Where you can worship a pair of shoes if you want. FREEDOM for all! LONG LIVE THE MELTING POT!!!!!
Take that!
Read the Sharlet book. Huck a bee is not alone. His "Base" is what I fear. They discount scientific FACTS. I know its tough to swallow, but I want leaders who see the world in a realistic sense. The "Family" of politicians see the Democrats, and anyone else who doesn't espouse thier religious fervor as "infidels" dude. It is NOT the American way. I know the political landscape is cyclical, but I may still be alive next time the religious right is in the drivers seat. And NOBODY wants a repeat of what happened to America in the last dozen years. NO-BO-DY! - You know what I am saying is true.
Dont label me either. I was raised Catholic... I am not crusading for Athiesm. Its just that you CAN be a "good" Christian, without letting it BLIND your decision making process.
If you, ar anyone else on this board thinks that religion and politics should in ANY way cross paths, then you need to move back to whatever country your ancestors came from and rapturize there. This is America baby!!! Home of the free. Where you can worship a pair of shoes if you want. FREEDOM for all! LONG LIVE THE MELTING POT!!!!!
Take that!
Hugh,
The President inserting religious beliefs in a public speach are the least of our worries and would only insult some people, and send the media into a furry, as it does when any politician or celebrity makes a verbal blunder. No, that is not my concern.
My concern is that the President is also the Commander in Chief of the US armed forces. He has the ultimate authority to order the military to do what he deems necessary. That is a tremendous amount of power for one person to hold even under the best conditions, let alone someone who might have some very extreme ideology.
This was a concern when Richard Nixon was in his final days as President before he resigned...He was willing to lie and cover up a lot of issue under the cloak of "National Security" or "Executive Priviledge" and it became a concern that he could be mentally unstable and had unrestricted control of our military and nuclear arsenals. He was not called "Tricky Dick" for nothing....he has his dark side.
I certainly don't think Huckabee would be that extreme, but it's just that people who are extreme...anything, are not the kind of people I want controlling the most powerful military in the world.
...Rich
The President inserting religious beliefs in a public speach are the least of our worries and would only insult some people, and send the media into a furry, as it does when any politician or celebrity makes a verbal blunder. No, that is not my concern.
My concern is that the President is also the Commander in Chief of the US armed forces. He has the ultimate authority to order the military to do what he deems necessary. That is a tremendous amount of power for one person to hold even under the best conditions, let alone someone who might have some very extreme ideology.
This was a concern when Richard Nixon was in his final days as President before he resigned...He was willing to lie and cover up a lot of issue under the cloak of "National Security" or "Executive Priviledge" and it became a concern that he could be mentally unstable and had unrestricted control of our military and nuclear arsenals. He was not called "Tricky Dick" for nothing....he has his dark side.
I certainly don't think Huckabee would be that extreme, but it's just that people who are extreme...anything, are not the kind of people I want controlling the most powerful military in the world.
...Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
Richard, that is a worst case scenario. I don't see a correlation between Christianity and a greater risk of abusing military power. You have to admit that was a bit of a stretch. You know better than that.
Hugh,
No I don't think it is a stretch. It is a very possible scenario as remote as it may seem.
Look what happens when when we've let our security down. 911 happened, the shoe bomber happened, the underwear bomber happened. Remember that the President is only an elected position that does not require any background check, security clearance or even mental competancy test. Once elected President he gets all the marbles handed to him
Many Democrats feel that GW Bush fabricated Sadam's WMD's just to invade Iraq?? Maybe he did?? Who's to say that some President might not decide to invade or nuke Iran, or North Korea :grin: I want a President that I can trust 100%
Of course I don't think that would happen with any elected President because I think we tend to weed out the extremist and loose nuts in the primaries, but that does not mean one might not slip through.
If Huckabee runs again, I will certainly give him a fair shake and listen to him before I make up my mind. But, I wonder if you would feel the same way if Huckabee was a Muslim rather than a Christian? Remember how so many skeptics were saying that Obama was a Muslim, or not a US citizen?
Just food for thought.
...Rich
No I don't think it is a stretch. It is a very possible scenario as remote as it may seem.
Look what happens when when we've let our security down. 911 happened, the shoe bomber happened, the underwear bomber happened. Remember that the President is only an elected position that does not require any background check, security clearance or even mental competancy test. Once elected President he gets all the marbles handed to him
Many Democrats feel that GW Bush fabricated Sadam's WMD's just to invade Iraq?? Maybe he did?? Who's to say that some President might not decide to invade or nuke Iran, or North Korea :grin: I want a President that I can trust 100%
Of course I don't think that would happen with any elected President because I think we tend to weed out the extremist and loose nuts in the primaries, but that does not mean one might not slip through.
If Huckabee runs again, I will certainly give him a fair shake and listen to him before I make up my mind. But, I wonder if you would feel the same way if Huckabee was a Muslim rather than a Christian? Remember how so many skeptics were saying that Obama was a Muslim, or not a US citizen?
Just food for thought.
...Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
Many Democrats feel that GW Bush fabricated Sadam's WMD's just to invade Iraq?? Maybe he did?? Who's to say that some President might not decide to invade or nuke Iran, or North Korea I want a President that I can trust 100%
Many feel Obama wasn't born in the U.S. Do these feelings have merit just because they're widespread? Bush didn't fabricate a grand scheme to invade Iraq. People call him an idiot and a brilliant genius in the same sentence and never think twice.
Of course I don't think that would happen with any elected President because I think we tend to weed out the extremist and loose nuts in the primaries, but that does not mean one might not slip through.
See 2008.
If Huckabee runs again, I will certainly give him a fair shake and listen to him before I make up my mind. But, I wonder if you would feel the same way if Huckabee was a Muslim rather than a Christian?
Honestly, probably not. I'm just being completely honest. I do not have a similar worldview as Muslims. It would not be in my own interests. Nobody should ever pretend they would vote outside their own interests, just to appear "open-minded", "tolerant", "progressive" or any other number of useless catchphrases, but I expect all the insults I will now receive for having the stones to be more honest than most. Votes are always a reflection of personal interests.
And let me clarify that a little more. If the only difference in Huckabee was his religion and he still held all the other views he has, especially on economics, then yeah, I'd probably vote for him...IFF his opponent didn't hold those similar views and had a more similar worldview. If Candidate A and Candidate B were exactly the same and I liked all their positions equally, but Candidate A was Christian and Candidate B was Muslim, I'd naturally choose Candidate A.
"Should we expect that a religious person in an elected position can really make decisions that are 100% free from any consideration of their religious beliefs?
Yes I do. I am very conservative in my personal life. I mean ultra conservative.
When it comes to my political views and views of society, I am very liberal.
You don't like unions? Don't join one. Whatever you do, don't try to ban it for those that want them or need them.
Against abortion? Don't have one. Don't blow up abortion clinics and try to ban abortions.
Against prostitution? Don't pay for a prostitute. I want to go one step further. I want prostitution legalised in all 50 states. Making it illegal isn't going to stop it. Lets make it into a business. Give the girls a safe place to do it. Lets tax them. Lets give them health insurance, a retirement plan, 401(k), etc. Test them for diseases, etc.
See where I am going? Anyone, if they really care about the country they represent, then they will do what is right, even if they do not like it.
I do not think abortion is right, but it will happen anyways, legal or not. So, we have a choice, a woman goes into a clinic to have the procedure, or her body is found behind a dumpster with a coat hanger still inside of her.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen,
I don't believe you understand the basis of the question. The way I look at it, religion is like any other edoctrination and "brainwashing" (I use that term, even though it has negatives).
For example, you are a union proponent because of the fact that is what you know, what you have been exposed to, and what you are endoctrinated into.
Due to these facts, I don't think you can think objectively about unions, or consider or make decisions on issues like worker's rights, etc, without the pulling from your union endoctrination. You may think you can. I don't think you can.
When I say that, it is no reflection on you. I am speaking of what I believe about all humans. I believe that we each create these lenses through which we view the world, through which we form our opinions, and through when we decide our actions.
A makeup and the lense of Huckabee is formed by his religion. I don't think he or anyone can truly, 100%, turn that off, anymore than one can totally domesticate a wild animal.
There are forces that go on, within our minds, even at a subconcious level that we cannot control because we are not aware of.
That is why I do not think any leader can 100% divorce their upbringing (religious or otherwise) when it comes to leading.
TJR
I don't believe you understand the basis of the question. The way I look at it, religion is like any other edoctrination and "brainwashing" (I use that term, even though it has negatives).
For example, you are a union proponent because of the fact that is what you know, what you have been exposed to, and what you are endoctrinated into.
Due to these facts, I don't think you can think objectively about unions, or consider or make decisions on issues like worker's rights, etc, without the pulling from your union endoctrination. You may think you can. I don't think you can.
When I say that, it is no reflection on you. I am speaking of what I believe about all humans. I believe that we each create these lenses through which we view the world, through which we form our opinions, and through when we decide our actions.
A makeup and the lense of Huckabee is formed by his religion. I don't think he or anyone can truly, 100%, turn that off, anymore than one can totally domesticate a wild animal.
There are forces that go on, within our minds, even at a subconcious level that we cannot control because we are not aware of.
That is why I do not think any leader can 100% divorce their upbringing (religious or otherwise) when it comes to leading.
TJR
Due to these facts, I don't think you can think objectively about unions, or consider or make decisions on issues like worker's rights, etc, without the pulling from your union endoctrination. You may think you can. I don't think you can.
Yes I can. Point being that I left the union and I am in a salary position that has no union protection. I can see that some industries and businesses need to have union representation while others, it isn't needed.
I still support those that want to organise, and I respect those that do not want it. I will never talk anyone into busting a union, nor will I talk someone in to organising a union if they do not need one.
The issue with you, TJR, is that you really don't know me like you think you do.
You have no idea of my religious upbringing. I know what my faith says, but I also know that it is faith and not fact. Anyone with an open eye can prove that religion is pretty much bunk. I still hold true to my faith, but accept that it is only faith and not fact.
Tom
