Skip to main content

View Diary: RedState Morning B.S.: June 10, 2009 (40 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Do you want to win elections? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Red Pen

    80% of the population is Christian. Talk to them in their own language, or lose some of the to the GOP. Elections matter.

    Swallow hard and get used to it. I repeat - the Left needs to reclaim God for our side. The guy who talked about feeding the poor and acting justly. If we can get the nutters thinking about something other than abortion when they go into the voting booth, it is good for everyone in America.

    Searching for intelligent life on the Internet. Please post a URL.

    by blue aardvark on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:15:07 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Like I said Whatever (0+ / 0-)

      I reject your viewpoint and I am not wrong for it making me uncomfortable.

      I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut if 100 percent is Xtian.

      Repubs - the people in power are not secretly plotting against you. They don't need to. They already beat you in public. (Bill Maher)

      by Sychotic1 on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:16:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So you'd rather (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The Red Pen

        elect people who will shove religion down your throat by force of law, than hear Obama and other Democrats say the name "Jesus"?

        That does not seem rational to me.

        Searching for intelligent life on the Internet. Please post a URL.

        by blue aardvark on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:19:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe you are wrong (0+ / 0-)

        Just because you are uncomfortable does not mean that your rights are being infringed.

        To provide an easy example, if black people make me uncomfortable, that's my problem, not black people's.

        Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody watch news tonight. — Wang & Connie Chung

        by The Red Pen on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 12:19:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not a good analogy (0+ / 0-)

          The purpose behind the Establishment Clause is to not make minority religious views feel like they are less valuable members of society.  So, yeah, there is arguably some Constitutional protection against being uncomfortable with religious speech the government.

          •  That's inaccurate (0+ / 0-)

            The purpose behind the Establishment Clause is to not make minority religious views feel like they are less valuable members of society.

            I'm sure that the Founders were as interested in promoting other people's self esteem as much as any other decent people, but the Establishment Clause has nothing to do with instilling feelings, but rights.

            People have the right to hold minority opinions.  Nobody is required to make them feel good about themselves for doing so.

            blue aardvark is exactly right.  The feelings of various constituents is purely a political issue and politics is about getting the most votes.  The number of people who would actually refuse to vote for Obama because he talks about his faith is infinitesimal.

            Obama has expressed respect for people of all faiths and people with no faith.  Seriously, how much more can you ask for?

            Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody watch news tonight. — Wang & Connie Chung

            by The Red Pen on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:18:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Semantics (0+ / 0-)

              You can dice it up how you want, but the whole point to prohibiting the establishment of religion is to preclude people of a minority faith (or lack of faith) from being told that they are not equal members of American society.  For example, Justice Blackmun's opinion in County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 US 573 summed it up in a couple places:

              Whether the key word is "endorsement," "favoritism," or "promotion," the essential principle remains the same. The Establishment Clause, at the very least, prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or from "making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. at 687 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring). (Emphasis added).

              And:

              Thus, in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), the Court gave this often-repeated summary:

              The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will, or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.

              Now, you can say that this is a matter of rights and not feelings and be technically correct but it's a difference without distinction.  So, it's disconcerting when presidents routinely invoke "Jesus" or "God" in their speeches and when someone feels "uncomfortable," it's completely wrong to dismiss that out of hand because they don't express that in terms of their constitutional rights.

              •  Obama is the President... (0+ / 0-)

                ...not the government.

                You can say, that's "a difference without distinction," all you want but you're wrong.  I mean, good luck with that claim in a discrimination suit.

                Obama has never ever stated that a preference for the Christian religion is part of our government's policy, in fact he has stated the opposite.

                There's no "there" there.

                Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody watch news tonight. — Wang & Connie Chung

                by The Red Pen on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:03:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Whatever (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm not sure why you are so defensive on this point; you came up with a bad analogy and now you're just getting ridiculous.  The government, of which Obama is the chief executive, is supposed to stay out of religion.  Those uncomfortable with references to "God" and "Jesus" have a legitimate beef based on the First Amendment and it has no relation whatsoever to racial animus.  

                  By constrast, putting Obama's statements in context is certainly fair, so I don't know why you don't just stick to that and leave the racist analogy out of the discussion.

                  •  No, you don't understand the law (0+ / 0-)

                    Those uncomfortable with references to "God" and "Jesus" have a legitimate beef based on the First Amendment...

                    No.  Not now, not ever.  You are inventing an aspect of the First Amendment that simply does not exist, nor has it every existed.

                    The reason why this upsets me is that we are supposed to be the people who actually understand the Constitution.  Not only are you fabricating the import of the 1st Amendment, you are being willfully ignorant about how and when it applies.

                    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody watch news tonight. — Wang & Connie Chung

                    by The Red Pen on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:11:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Ok, let's take this from the top (0+ / 0-)

                      You started out with this gem:

                      The article does bring up the fact that the left loudly freaks out about religion in public life.  It's really just a minority, but a vocal one.

                      Followed by this one:

                      Just because you are uncomfortable does not mean that your rights are being infringed. To provide an easy example, if black people make me uncomfortable, that's my problem, not black people's.

                      And this:

                      I'm sure that the Founders were as interested in promoting other people's self esteem as much as any other decent people, but the Establishment Clause has nothing to do with instilling feelings, but rights.

                      The fact that you haven't bothered to refute is that the purpose of the Establishment Clause is to prevent the government from giving the impression that it favors one religion over another, or religion over "nonreligon":

                      The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the "First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." [citations omitted] ...  By showing a purpose to favor religion, the government "sends the ... message to ... nonadherents 'that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members... .' "

                       McCreary County, Kentucky v. ACLU of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (emphasis added).

                      Now, if you wanted to say that Obama wasn't doing anything to further the establishment of religion, we'd agree, but when you make it out that it's just nutty to be uncomfortable with presidential expressions about religion, you are just whistling out of your ass.  Among others, at least Justice Souter agrees that the purpose of the Establishment Clause is to not make non-believers (for example) feel like outsiders, or put another way, uncomfortable.

                      Next time you get your nose bent out of shape and start throwing around terms like "willful ignorance," have the decency to do a little research or at least give me something more than your beliefs about what the law is.

                      •  The Establishment Clause (0+ / 0-)

                        ...only restricts public policy.  It does not limit the personal expression of elected officials.

                        Nothing you have cited says anything different.  Here:

                        The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the "First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." [citations omitted] ...  By showing a purpose to favor religion, the government "sends the ... message to ... nonadherents 'that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members... .' "

                        These words mean something very specific.  The Decidership is over, Obama does not rule the country by fiat.  His personal belief system is not government policy, therefore he can say what he wants about religion and not violate a single person's 1st Amendment rights no matter how badly their feelings are hurt.

                        I don't know how much clearer I could make it.

                        Your self-esteem problems are not a Constitutional issue.

                        Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody watch news tonight. — Wang & Connie Chung

                        by The Red Pen on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 08:31:29 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Not about me (0+ / 0-)

                          As insulting as you have repeatedly tried to be, it's really not about my self-esteem at all.

                          And, it's pretty clear that you have a unique view of our government, that somehow the President operates outside of it.  You're certainly welcome to your view, but don't pretend that it's the only view out there.

                          •  It's not a "view" (0+ / 0-)

                            It's just the way things are.  I'm very impressed that you know how to use Teh Google, but you obviously didn't do much actual research because you are completely wrong.

                            Please be my guest and try to get the ACLU to file a class action lawsuit against Obama for saying "Jesus" and violating your first Amendment rights.  I await the headlines.

                            And you've been insulting, too.

                            Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody watch news tonight. — Wang & Connie Chung

                            by The Red Pen on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 06:22:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Still missing the point (0+ / 0-)

                            This was never about suing Obama - although, nice try to keep diverting the discussion - but the opinion, expressed by the commenter above, that s/he was "uncomfortable" at Obama's statements about religion.  You tried to make it out that this was the commenter's problem with some "right" of Obama to say what he wants.

                            Now, because you can't dispute case law about the purpose of the Establishment Clause, you want to make it that the Executive Branch is somehow untethered to any restriction by the Establishment Clause.  That's certainly a interesting view, and you're entitled to push it, but again, please don't act like you are the final arbiter of the Constitution.  

                            And, while your legal skills may be limited to "Teh Google," other people may have a few more legal research tools available.

                          •  Find the case law (0+ / 0-)

                            You haven't cited any case law that says that an official expressing his or her personal belief is a violation of the Establishment Clause.

                            There is no case law to dispute.

                            You tried to make it out that this was the commenter's problem with some "right" of Obama to say what he wants.

                            He can say what he wants.  That is actually something that the 1st Amendment guarantees.  What he can't do is make his religious beliefs a component of public policy and you haven't shown where he has done that.

                            please don't act like you are the final arbiter of the Constitution.

                            That would be the Supreme Court.  Please find a Supreme Court case where an elected official was found to be in violation of the Establishment Clause because he or she made a reference to a religious belief.

                            And, while your legal skills may be limited to "Teh Google," other people may have a few more legal research tools available.

                            Fancy.

                            I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet that whatever mysterious "legal research tools" you are using, Obama understands Constitutional law a hell of a lot better than you do.

                            Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody watch news tonight. — Wang & Connie Chung

                            by The Red Pen on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 08:45:08 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  PS (0+ / 0-)

                            I see from your comment history that this issue is a particular sore spot for you, so I'll leave you to your convictions.

                          •  OK (0+ / 0-)

                            Now you're just creepin' me out.

                            Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody watch news tonight. — Wang & Connie Chung

                            by The Red Pen on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 08:46:44 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                            You creep out easily then.  It's not like a quick look at your hiddens (for example) is hard to do around here - it doesn't even require "Teh Google" - and I sometimes find it helpful to try to understand someone else's point of view.  If you're creeped out by that, you can always stop posting in a public forum.

                          •  Wait (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Darmok

                            Don't I have a Constitutional right not to feel uncomfortable?

                            Help!  I'm bein' repressed!  Come see the violence inherent in the system!

                            Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody watch news tonight. — Wang & Connie Chung

                            by The Red Pen on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 09:06:52 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ok (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            The Red Pen

                            Anyone intimately familiar with Monty Python can't be all bad.  And I'm going to on my way before you have a chance to say "Nee" or tell me that my mother smelled of elderberries.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site