Democrat wants to silence Christians
We read:
"Still lamenting the overwhelming defeat that she and her pro-abortion cohorts suffered in the House when the Stupak-Pitts amendment was attached to the health care bill, Rep. DeGette is now calling for religiously-affiliated groups to be shut out of the public policy process as the bill goes to the Senate.
“Last I heard, we had separation of church and state in this country,” she said. “I’ve got to say that I think the Catholic bishops and all of the other groups shouldn’t have input.”
In other words if a group of people who are in association with one another because of their Christian faith, they should not have a collective voice in the crafting of public policy. What she is asserting is that if your ideas and actions are a product of your faith, you’re a second class citizen and your voice should not be heard.
This is a far cry from what the Founders believed. Several months after the British surrender at Yorktown, George Washington, in a letter to the Reformed German Congregation of New York, wrote, “The establishment of civil and religious liberty was the motive which induced me to the field (of combat).” Sadly, Diana DeGette seems eager to smother these precious freedoms, neither of which can exist without the other.
Source
20 comments:
It is the natural instinct of the politician to try to silence their opposition no matter where they come from.
Whether it's allowed to happen or prevented is the difference between tyranny and freedom.
DeGette, and many others elected to Congress, forget the difference between what limited powers the Constitution delegates to Congress and the unalienable rights people have.
I think for a person to be able to vote in America you should have to have tax bill in your hand that is marked paid. If you don't pay any taxes then you don't vote.
Then perhaps we shouldn't have a holiday for REVEREND Martin Luther King, Jr. I doubt Rep. DeGette minds religion when it's about issues she supports, like gun control and envirofascism.
It appears that DeGette was misquoted. However, even with the correction, it still seems she thinks there's supposed to be a "wall of separation between church and state".
This phrase does not appear in the Constitution, nor any of its amendments. It appears in the Humanist Manifesto, a virulently anti-religious document. Furthermore, even the very idea of religion not being permitted to influence the government is not in the Constitution. The First Amendment does not allow the Federal Government to influence or restrict religion, but there is no restriction on religion influencing government.
In fact, most of the very men who wrote the First Amendment insisted that religion was necessary for our government to function correctly. They are the ones that instituted prayer at the opening of Congress. They said the Bible should be taught in schools. They looked into printing Bibles but abandoned the idea only because it was too costly.
For example, check out this portion of George Washington's farewell address:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
"It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"
Translation: Without religion, morality is not possible. Without private morality, freedom cannot last.
Why is it that liberals can carry their convictions into the voting booth, but Christians cannot? All citizens of the United States have a voice in the running of this once great country.
Resist Obama's war on success!
Anon 2:13AM - "I think for a person to be able to vote in America..."
Unfortunately, even the most destitute still pay some sort of taxes, in the form of sales taxes, if they engage in any economic activity.
What you are proposing is more akin to an "oligarchy," rule by the economically successful. It is the nature of our form of government that the uninformed, unwashed masses may still vote.
Stan,
I think Anon's point was that the people footing the bill have a superior right to have a say in how their money is used. The goal is to avoid the problem described by this quotation (usually ascribed to Alexander Tytler, but the actual source is unknown):
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
Or to put it more simply:
Cartoon
Why do americans always quote the "Founding Fathers" as though they were Moses and the prophets? They were 18th century guys with 18th century views, which at least were somewhat better than the Bronze Age prophets from the middle-east, and more influenced by the European Enlightenment with its democratic, anticlerical views.
FRC Issues Correction: Diana DeGette Says Allow Input of Religious Groups But Accuses Groups of Violating 'Separation of Church and State'
Washington, D.C. - Family Research Council yesterday responded to a quote attributed to U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) by The Hill to the effect that Catholic Bishops and other conservative Christians should not have input in public policy debates. The Hill now reports that it inaccurately quoted the Congresswoman's ABC News interview and that she said Christian groups should have input.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:
"We are pleased by this clarification and gratified that Rep. DeGette is not opposed to people of faith participating in the political process.
"However, Rep. DeGette accused the Catholic Bishops of controlling the outcome of the health care legislation and also accused them and other conservative Christians of violating the 'wall of separation' between church and state.
"Rep. DeGette is frustrated that her efforts to have the federal government pay for or at least subsidize abortion were thwarted by the Stupak-Pitts amendment. Anyone who has ever suffered legislative setbacks, as the pro-life movement has many times, understands this frustration. But what is unacceptable is the targeting by her of religious groups.
"Moreover, according to Zogby International, more than 70 percent of the American people have expressed their opposition to federal funding of abortion. That includes both religious and non-religious Americans, something advocates of federal financing of abortion on demand should find sobering.
"As to the substance of Rep. DeGette's criticisms, neither the Bishops, the Catholic Church generally nor Evangelical Protestants are breaching any 'wall.' They are not controlling anything nor are they asking any American to accept a specific doctrinal statement. They are not asking for the federal government to endorse their denominations. They are simply participating in the American political process, employing their rights of free speech and religion as our Founders envisioned.
"One of the signers of our Declaration of Independence was Charles Carroll, a Catholic Marylander who believed deeply in both the American Republic and the religious liberty it ensures. In 1827, near the end of his long life, he wrote, 'To obtain religious and civil liberty, I entered zealously into the Revolution ... God grant that this religious liberty ... be preserved to the end of time.'
"We at the Family Research Council respectfully would ask Rep. DeGette to ponder Charles Carroll's wise words, and reflect on her aggravation with people of faith in the public square. We're not going away, and as this reality settles in perhaps her aggravation, and public hostility, will become less pronounced."
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Alexis de Tocqueville
"Why do americans always quote the "Founding Fathers" as though they were Moses and the prophets?"
Please ignore what Bobby wrote. It's not helpful.
There are two basic reasons we quote the Founding Fathers.
First, The Constitution trumps all other laws in this country by design. The whole point of a Constitution is that some things need to be off limits from ordinary politics. (Yes, The Constitution can be changed if it's discovered that part of it isn't working right. But it has to be clear that such a change is necessary. That's why it's hard to change it.)
Because The Constitution is the supreme law of this country, it's important to make sure we understand it correctly and prevent distortions of it from becoming acceptable. And of course, when you're looking at the intent of a law, the best source for determining that intent is to look at what the author of the law had to say about it, as well as the debate over the whys and wherefores, pros and cons of the law before it was passed.
Second, history has shown that the Founding Fathers were largely correct. This country became the most powerful, and more importantly, the freest country in the world because of the system of government they designed; one which was designed the insulate the exercise of Power from the known failings of human nature.
By contrast, the French Revolution followed what we would now call leftist ideas, and the results speak for themselves.
I love how the leftist have tagged abortion as a 'religious' issue in an attempt to 'separate' it.
The two may well follow each other, but I know many non-religious people who view abortion in the same light as the devout.
You'll notice that they've done the same with gay marriage.
~darko
I love how the leftist have tagged abortion as a 'religious' issue in an attempt to 'separate' it.
The two may well follow each other, but I know many non-religious people who view abortion in the same light as the devout.
You'll notice that they've done the same with gay marriage.
~darko
I'll bet they'll never, ever shut out a Muslim group. Christians? Sure, claim separation of state. Muslims? Must show tolerance.
The Founding Fathers also had a keen knowledge of human nature and reverence for truth that has been to a large extent forgotten and abandoned, and way too many today seem to shun and deny. But as John has said on a few posts, "If your theory is wrong, you will not get the results you expect." The American Republic worked superbly for the first 125 years under the Constitution, becoming the greatest nation in the world ever built by man. Then starting with Woodrow Wilson, the first of those who called themselves "Progressives", started tinkering, thinking they could improve what was already working great and perfect man, ignoring human nature. Other leftist ideologies like socialism, fascism, and communism also ignored human nature, expecting human beings under their systems to become nothing more than machines. When their subjects' human nature found ways around the attempts at control and dehumanizing, those leftists systems went to war against their own people, and eventually collapsed. Meanwhile societies that obeyed human nature survived and thrived. Now Obama, either out of ignorance or malice, and with all the examples of history so notorious ignorance would not seem very credible, is doing the same things as the leftist regimes that made war against their own people...
"Please ignore what Bobby wrote. It's not helpful."
---How elitist of you, Luke. I'd wonder how you feel about Sarah Pallin?
---How elitist of you, Luke. I'd wonder how you feel about Sarah Pallin?
Of course, no one was talking about Sarah Palin so once again, the statement of Please ignore what Bobby wrote. It's not helpful." is accurate.
"Of course, no one was talking about Sarah Palin so once again, the statement of Please ignore what Bobby wrote. It's not helpful." is accurate."
---I mention Palin because there are republicans who hate her due to the fact that she's too honest, authentic, and connects better with the people than the usual Washington bastards. Moving on, if you don't like something I said, you can debate that, but it's really elitist when you tell people to ignore me.
Moving on, if you don't like something I said, you can debate that, but it's really elitist when you tell people to ignore me.
It's not elitist to point out that your comment had nothing to do with the topic being discussed or that your comment did not add anything to the discussion.
The truth is never elitist.
Post a Comment