|
Bush officially says he picked Miers because of religion
|
View this Thread in Original format
| St_Andrew |
No suprise really.
The theocracy is spreading to new government instances... |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| it's the effort to take religion out of where it has always been that makes it appear theocracy is spreading to new government instances. |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
it's the effort to take religion out of where it has always been that makes it appear theocracy is spreading to new government instances. |
you are very wrong... even 10 years ago this country was nowhere like what it is today.. religion has always been important here but not witch-hunt-style-exhibitionist as it is now |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
you are very wrong... even 10 years ago this country was nowhere like what it is today.. religion has always been important here but not witch-hunt-style-exhibitionist as it is now |
Very wrong? Or, not right?:conf: I'm sure there are plenty of points to be made on either side of the coin. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
you are very wrong... even 10 years ago this country was nowhere like what it is today.. religion has always been important here but not witch-hunt-style-exhibitionist as it is now |
very wrong? can you tell me how many fundamental atheist hold public office in this country today then? how about 25 yrs.ago? should i refer you to Art. VI sec. 3 of a little document i call the U.S. Constitution? which witch-hunt are you referring to exactly?
besides the point though, really.
the article is purposely misleading. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
No suprise really.
The theocracy is spreading to new government instances... |
Maybe it never really left... |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
very wrong? can you tell me how many fundamental atheist hold public office in this country today then? how about 25 yrs.ago? should i refer you to Art. VI sec. 3 of a little document i call the U.S. Constitution? which witch-hunt are you referring to exactly?
besides the point though, really.
the article is purposely misleading. |
It does not matter whether a person in position is a christian or an atheist or whatever, what matters is why that person is put into position. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
and what i'm saying is that up until 15 years ago it was never a question whether or not someone was nominated given religion or it's particular's as a consideration (unless you were a Jew. something altogether non sequitur).
atheist, Lutheran, i could care. i see Christians in public office as being under attack from multiple fronts, annd by nature, will wear theie religion on their sleeves with respect for defending what has always been in one way or another. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| And when they elected Kennedy, people were worried that the pope would control the country. Now God just talks to Bush instead. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
and what i'm saying is that up until 15 years ago it was never a question whether or not someone was nominated given religion or it's particular's as a consideration (unless you were a Jew. something altogether non sequitur).
atheist, Lutheran, i could care. i see Christians in public office as being under attack from multiple fronts, annd by nature, will wear theie religion on their sleeves with respect for defending what has always been in one way or another. |
If those so-called "Christians" are being attacked in office, it is usually the result of their attempts to instill their particular religious beliefs into the government in some way, shape, or form, which more often than not they know damn well that they have no legal means to do so. Other times, such as Ashcroft covering up ing boobs on a statue, are just outright laughable and ridiculous on the face.
Aside of that, give me some more instances in which Christians are being "attacked" in some way in public office. Make sure they are not attempting to effectively break the separation of church and state in their actions in your instances.
P.S. In regards to Miers and her religion, honestly it should be a ing nonissue for either side. The fact that Bush chose her as a result of her religious beliefs, at least announcing so publicly is not only slightly disturbing but should not be included in her abilities to correctly interpret and uphold current law. That should be mandated by her past experience (none) and knowledge of the law itself (which we don't really know much about). Unless, of course, the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions somehow are part of the Evangelical Bible somewhere.
But let's not play coy here, we all know damn well why this issue came to front and center. Bush's base is pissed with his decision. Christ, there's reports that Cheney himself was pissed off with the decision (left wing site, so take it with a grain of salt):
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Report_Cheneys_office_opposed_Miers_nomination_1013.html
This was a means to reassure his base, which he is increasingly losing (some 15 points according to the latest WSJ poll I believe).
But if you don't believe that, then believe some Republican staffers:
| quote: |
As the White House seeks to rally senators behind the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers, lawyers for the Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee are expressing dissatisfaction with the choice and pushing back against her, aides to 6 of the 10 Republican committee members said yesterday.
"Everybody is hoping that something will happen on Miers, either that the president would withdraw her or she would realize she is not up to it and pull out while she has some dignity intact," a lawyer to a Republican committee member said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/12/politics/politicsspecial1/12confirm.html?ex=1286769600&en=2a7f07d442957636&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss |
Or believe your WSJ White House bitch, John Fund:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007398
And now you've got everything from threats coming outa Pat Roberts to the GOP who don't support Miers:
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=19453
To the White House itself making threats to its GOP Delay style:
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=61725
I must say this really is fun as watching this GOP meltdown. I haven't seen so much eating their own since the movie Alive! I don't know if Miers will even make it to the hearings, and I had my doubts when Reid initially came out and supported her. Now it seems like he just outmaneuvered the GOP once again. Jesus, with this going on, more bogus terror alerts, bull Q&A sessions with the troops by Bush, Bush's numbers tanking to new lows, Delay goin' down, Frist being investigated, Rove and Libby in the hot seat, Abramoff connections stretching far and wide, and the GOP punchin' each other out,
Jesus I need another bag of popcorn. |
|
|
| Gmoney part II |
| The article didn't say that Bush picked her because of her religion. It said that "religion is one of the reasons he picked her". So stop your hysteria. Another reason he could have picked her is because she drives a silver Honda. But since that wouldn't cause any kind of media frenzy, it isn't worth mentioning. |
|
|
|
|
