Does this rub anyone else the wrong way? Apparently Nanci Pelosi has been advocating that priests in the catholic church preach to their congregations about "comprehensive immigration reform". to me this seems like a clear violation of church and state.

unfortunatly the only link i could find was "foxnation" www.thefoxnation.com

and just for the record, yes i would feel the same if it was a republican.

I think that you're confused about the concept of separation of church & state. I would suggest reading the 1st amendment, the establishment clause & the free exercise claus. You may not like what she's doing/saying but it doesn't violate the separation of church & state in any way.

...& since you'd also be upset if she were a Republican, I'll be looking forward to your thread regarding the fundamentalist movement in this country (led by Conservatives/Republicans) to rewrite history, to usurp government & to remove the wall of separation between church & state.

Heard about it yesterday. While this is not a violation of the First Ammendment, it is disturbing. A senior government official pressuring the church to advocate radical administration policy is the type of things libs would have freaked over if a conservative were guilty of. This is one of the reasons Glenn Beck was very outspoken that people should run like hell from their churches if they're advocating "social justice".

I agree with Wookie on this one.

Yeah, if you want to find someone that's really against the separation of church & state, Glenn Beck & his Christian historical revisionist buddy, David Barton, are your guys. I don't think that Pelosi is much of a threat on that front (she's Catholic by the way).

Except she is the Speaker of the House. Besides, your implication that Beck supports integration of church and state is incorrect. He believes the First Amendment protects the church from the state.

If you want to worry about the constitutionality of something, Arizona's new immigration law would be a better place to start.

Correct, but completely unrelated.

Not true. Only tangentially related.

Your right, I guess I should have used the term complete conflict of interest.


actually I don't think I need to start a new thread to address this. I think that the framers of the constitution put it better than ever could. Basically, keep govenment out of the church (with some obvious exceptions) and keep the church out of government. The attempts by the religious right to remake the history of this countries origions into some super Christian coalition is at best flat out wrong, and possibly even dangerous to our future as a county that does have seperation of church and state. However I am not too worried about it since the "left" has done a pretty decent job of combating that mindset.

touché

Unless she's putting legal pressure on the church I don't see a problem

More to the point, I think it's worth looking at the context of these remarks. Pelosi was invited to speak at the conference. She was responding specifically to Catholic leaders who have come to her in the past, asking her to pass immigration reform. I don't think telling people who already want immigration reform how they can help make it happen is out of line.

This should be fun. Where do I start...



I'll go with the Founders themselves to start.

[QUOTE=George Washington]"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."

"In such a state of things it is in an especial manner our duty as a people, with devout reverence and affectionate gratitude, to acknowledge our many and great obligations to Almighty God and to implore Him to continue and confirm the blessings we experience. Deeply penetrated with this sentiment, I, George Washington, President of the United States, do recommend to all religious societies and denominations, and to all persons whomsoever, within the United States to set apart and observe Thursday, the 19th day of February next as a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, and on that day to meet together and render their sincere and hearty thanks to the Great Ruler of Nations for the manifold and signal mercies which distinguish our lot as a nation..."[/QUOTE]


[QUOTE=John Adams]"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." [/QUOTE]


[QUOTE=Thomas Jefferson]"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event."[/QUOTE]


[QUOTE=Benjamin Franklin]"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.

That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them."[/QUOTE]

There is an evangelical and fundamentalist movement, but there's not any attempt to rewrite history. History's already been rewritten.

I'm not sure what you mean by "usurp government".

The wall between separation of church and state means the state is not controlled by a church and the church is protected from the state. In nations like China, separation of church and state does not exist.

What do you think should be done to stop this fundamentalist movement?

I always find it amusing that of all the people on Massassi with all the viewpoints, you'd EXPECT me and Wookie and a few others to be the most :tinfoil:, and yet, in a strange twist, Mentat, whose views are like adding a "not" in front of everything I believe in, is by far the most of anyone I've met. Well, except for the professor who yelled at me for checking to see if his parking permit was stolen, accusing me of "inventorying cars" and "tracking him" while accusing me of a being a "****ing pig".

Sorry, just thought I'd share, move along.

your mom is

Hi. I'm Freelancer. It's nice to meet you.

Arizona doesn't any immigration law. Immigration law, with respect to the US, is federal.

If I remember correctly, Arizona decided to enforce the federal immigration law that the federal government isn't enforcing.

RACIST!

I don't like NASCAR at all.

This thread is a disaster.

Everyone's aware that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has spoken out in support of immigration reform numerous times, right?

Including during the Health Care debate where they spoke out against the exclusion of undocumented immigrants, but most articles kind of ignored that in favor of the abortion angle.

Which would be fantastic if 1) the federal government wasn't enforcing its immigration laws to the tune of 350,000 deportations in 2008, and 2) it was legal for Arizona to do so.

But I've sidetracked Alran's thread. Maybe an admin can split these posts off if the side conversation is going to continue?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_and_religion
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams#Religious_views
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_religion
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#Virtue.2C_religion.2C_and_personal_beliefs

I've seen those pages.

Religion is a powerful tool, and it's dangerous to assume that some historical figure believed it merely because they used it.

Furthermore, that quote from Benjamin Franklin is dripping in deism. He does not anywhere in it say which God he believes in, then he says that the belief in heaven is the basis of all 'sound' religion, and that he respects the belief of any sect (any religion) that he finds sound; in short, he supports ALL the major religious traditions.

It's pretty well documented that deism was the fashionable belief system of American land owners at the time; and it's supported by the fact that all the founding fathers were free masons, too.

I don't believe the gotcha liberal media.

Let's put it this way then. What would it take to get you guys to believe that these people were Deists & that they were very much for the separation of church & state? What type of evidence would you require? Their private & public letters as well as their statutes are obviously not satisfactory. The consensus amongst historians obviously isn't good enough either. The only thing that you don't have at your disposal is a ****ing time machine.

But they have out of context quotes!! Those make all the difference!

I never said some weren't Deists, or that they weren't for separation of church and state.
I was arguing for the fact that some of the Founders were Christians. What's so frightening about religion?

I still don't have the answer for what the meaning of "usurp government" is, or what should be done to stop the fundamentalist movement.

Deism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think that anyone here is really arguing that the founders of the country were Jesus freak pentacostal Christians riding around with NOTW branded onto their horses. But some of them were Christian, just as some were deist. Regardless most of the people that we refer to when we say "founding fathers" did fall under the umbrella of a person of faith. Having said that most of them also recogenized the importance of keeping the church out of the government.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Could you explain?

Jefferson Bible.

I think you're generally on the right track but I think they preferred to keep government out of church.

No it was pretty much a two way street. Government out of Church and Church out of Government.

That seems to be the progressive interpretation.

It really seems to be the interpretation that would cause the fewest problems...

I guess if you want a litmus test to make sure politicians have no religious beliefs.