Politics

More Political Talk / Views


Every belief that citizens try to express politically is rooted in some philosophy or religion or some set of assumptions about society and its
well-being. They do not come from out of nowhere. Religiously-based convictions about society and morality are as legitimate as those that spring from non-religious philosophies. Hence, Christians, Muslims, or Jews may seek to get laws passed that are rooted in their religious convictions. Such laws are appropriate as long as they have a secular purpose and do not constitute an establishment of religion.

Whether these laws are wise or worthy of enactment must be judged by whether they promote the common good as judged by national values not by the fact that they are or are not rooted in the religious faith of those who support them.

A religious foundation is neither required not forbidden. Neither secular humanism nor religious faith is privileged in this regard. Ideally and in principle, religious believers should not seek to get laws passed on religious grounds but because they express the values of the secular society. These norms and goals are defined by the founding documents and cultural traditions as they have come to be embedded in the common life. For example, if people of faith want to crusade for universal health coverage, e. g., they should argue for the policy not because the Bible or the Pope authorizes it or because God wills it but because it promotes “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and because Congress is constitutionally permitted to spend money to provide for the “general welfare.”

Likewise, religious groups that seek to outlaw racial or gender discrimination should make their case on the claim that it would be good for society as a whole not on the fact that it is authorized by their religious faith.  In practical terms, however, if believers feel that distinguishing between the religious
basis and the political implications of their faith is an intolerable splitting of a unitary set of beliefs, then let them act accordingly. If  people actually
convince other voters to support legislation because the Bible, the Pope, Buddhist teachings, the Koran, or church doctrine mandates it, not much can be done about it except to make an effort to persuade them that there is a better way.

TRUST ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We cannot determine or control the reasons why people vote or support the policies they do or prevent them from convincing others to do the same. In the voting booth citizens are a law unto themselves. They can vote for whatever or whoever they want for any reason that motivates them. It is pointless to demand purity of principle on this matter. Voters act out of prejudice, self-interest, racial identity, ignorance, and for all sorts of other good and bad reasons, including their religious beliefs, philosophical commitments, and a devotion to justice based on American principles. Let us be realists about the matter.

 

Democracy is an untidy, often VERY messy,  matter…..IF you do not believe me… look at AMERCIA! Ugghhhhh……

The people can do what they want restrained only by Constitutional mandates. But it is better when acting politically in the public arena for believers to translate  religiously-based beliefs into the traditions, language, and values of the secular order. This is called for as a matter of principle. It is advisable pragmatically as well, since the tying of policy or voting explicitly to the tenets of a particular
religion, denomination, or sect may repel  large number of voters and hinder rather than further the cause.

I love Politics AND History……………

Advertisements
Politics

Do Your Civic Duty Today –


Shut up and just go VOTE ….. 1 woman made a complaint and started a movement and got legislation passed to get PRAYER taken out of schools…. You hear me???? The opinion of 1 woman!! I wonder why she wants God name on the money that she spends everyday….. UGGHH

Politics

Obama cashed in “again”


Image

President Obama will raise $716,000 for the 2012 campaign this afternoon during an exclusive fundraiser at the Jefferson Hotel in Washington, D.C.

After a midday news conference aimed at stealing some of the Super Tuesday spotlight, Obama will hobnob privately with 20 benefactors who each cut checks for $35,800, a campaign official told ABC News. That’s the legal maximum combined contribution to the Obama Campaign and Democratic National Committee.

The closed-press event blocks from the White House is Obama’s seventh at the Jefferson this year, part of a series of roundtable meetings with donors where, aides say, he doesn’t make formal remarks.

Obama has set an aggressive fundraising pace during the first part of the year, raising at least $6 million for the Obama Victory Fund in the first week of March alone.

Today’s fundraiser was Obama’s 34th of the year and 101st since he announced a bid for re-election last April.

 People can’t seem to find a job but he can raise that much money for marketing and public relations when there are TONS of homeless people “laying at the gate” at the WHITE HOUSE!
 
#DISGUSTED – AGAIN
Politics

hmmm…….HERMAN


Just wondering if Herman Cain would have won the Republican Presidential nomination if he did not have ” too too many ” skeletons in his closet. I said too too many because EVERYONE has something to hide to a certain degree OR in better words – have done things that they are not proud of and would NOT like anyone to know about it.

If Herman handled his business affairs “of al kinds” a little better, I do feel that he may have pulled an upset over The President Obama Marathon!