View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 25th, 2014, 7:55 pm



Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
 Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday 
Author Message
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12141
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
steensn wrote:
Here is the disconnect I think Wags... you are saying "If POTUS does do anything regarding religion then he MUST do it for all faiths to create unity." I am saying "If we separate church and state then the POTUS's decision to practice his religion should have no bearing on what other think of him." Just because he is POTUS doesn't mean he has to then represent all religions, he just has to protect others rights to practice theirs. If freedom of religion applied to everyone but the POTUS the the constitution should have said so. As well, if the POTUS was supposed to be the religious leader of the country, then the constitution would have bestowed him that power.

I see zero benefit for POTUS in that office to pander to all religions. That view goes against the constitution, POTUS's personal freedoms, and their faith. You said you don't want a pastor as POTUS... that means you do not respect others beliefs and make it part of your decision process for president. Would you call me out if I only voted for Christians? I think clearly you think there is a difference and I clearly say there is not.

Bolded part is wrong again as usual. That is NOT what it means. It means that I don't want someone that is going to use the Bible/Koran/Tora/etc as their basis for running this Country. I want them to use the US Constitution. Is that so difficult to understand & accept? Really? Am I not allowed to have my own personal opinions now? Just because I don't want a preacher as POTUS doesn't mean a preacher couldn't get elected POTUS.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


August 9th, 2011, 2:07 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12141
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
steensn wrote:
When you say the POTUS should not be teaching, leading prayer events, preaching, etc you are limiting the expression of his faith. Did you say "let's make a law to ban him from.." no, but you in fact will no vote for someone who is a strong leader in his/her religion for president which is close enough to the same intention.

And you say you can't vote for someone that is pro-choice, same same, kind sir. We ALL put our own limitations on who/what we will vote for, please don't be disingenuous.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


August 9th, 2011, 2:08 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
Were not talking about whether or not a preacher could or couldn't be elected, we are talking about who in your opinion is not fit for POTUS. If someone who practices their religion by leading fellow believers is an issue, then you ARE saying that they should not, in your opinion, practice their beliefs as they see fit (cuz that is what he is doing and you are saying he shouldn't...).

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


August 9th, 2011, 2:17 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12141
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
WarEr4Christ wrote:
Did I say being a Christian is a bad thing? No. So just what are you trying to accomplish with this post? I'm sorry, but I just don't understand the purpose of it.

Wags,

I apologize if you took offense, for that was not my intended purpose. What I was legitimately trying to ask was whether or not your reason for concern was based upon what he said, and the underlying tenants for the organization.
No offense taken at all. I apologize if my response seemed a bit abrupt, but I just wanted to make it clear that I have no problem with what religion a person is and I wanted to make sure I knew what exactly you were trying to get to before responding further.

WarEr4Christ wrote:
I then tried to correlate a past thread about the moral of beliefs of christians, and how that pertains to character, and would be represent a country if elected. As compared to (current administrative people who may have a "heart in the right place" but haven't demonstrated it.) this administration that is not LISTENING to the will of the people.

I wasn't trying to say anyone had a leg up on the morals market, just trying to understand why a man with a strong set of religious beliefs would not be a good candidate to be the POTUS.

I also tried to illustrate how those who do not support a conservative mindset, are doing dastardly things to keep their position, and I'm sure the reverse is true to some extent, but not near as acidic as the current liberal rags.

Thats all, I wasn't trying to pick a fight.
Gotcha! No worries brother :wink:
Let me try to be clear here: I have no problem with someone having strong convictions/beliefs, in fact I prefer it as I think it speaks volumes about their character. What I do have a problem with is using those beliefs as a tool or under the guise of something else, in this case running for POTUS.
WarEr4Christ wrote:
By the way, have you forgiven me for a miscommunication? Based upon the "tone" of your response it didn't appear so.
Forgiving is the easy part, its the forgetting I am working on. And apologize for the 'tone' it wasn't intended.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


August 9th, 2011, 2:18 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12141
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
TheRealWags wrote:
steensn wrote:
When you say the POTUS should not be teaching, leading prayer events, preaching, etc you are limiting the expression of his faith. Did you say "let's make a law to ban him from.." no, but you in fact will no vote for someone who is a strong leader in his/her religion for president which is close enough to the same intention.

And you say you can't vote for someone that is pro-choice, same same, kind sir. We ALL put our own limitations on who/what we will vote for, please don't be disingenuous.
steensn wrote:
Were not talking about whether or not a preacher could or couldn't be elected, we are talking about who in your opinion is not fit for POTUS. If someone who practices their religion by leading fellow believers is an issue, then you ARE saying that they should not, in your opinion, practice their beliefs as they see fit (cuz that is what he is doing and you are saying he shouldn't...).

So why is it ok for you to refuse to vote for someone that is Pro-choice and its not ok for me to vote for a preacher?

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


August 9th, 2011, 2:20 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
TheRealWags wrote:
steensn wrote:
When you say the POTUS should not be teaching, leading prayer events, preaching, etc you are limiting the expression of his faith. Did you say "let's make a law to ban him from.." no, but you in fact will no vote for someone who is a strong leader in his/her religion for president which is close enough to the same intention.

And you say you can't vote for someone that is pro-choice, same same, kind sir. We ALL put our own limitations on who/what we will vote for, please don't be disingenuous.


I wouldn't call abortion strictly a religious thing... but I absolutely can agree we all put our own limitations on candidates. Problem is, let's just be honest about what our limitations actually mean. You are censoring your vote based on someone expression of their faith. If someone was running and the expression of their faith was to have massive orgies I as well would vote based on censoring his faith AND have no problem saying so. I would say the POTUS should not take part in some "religious" activities if they have an overall negative effect on the gov't. But I will also stand behind that and say I am absolutely limiting the president expression of his faith with my vote... not dancing around it.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


August 9th, 2011, 2:21 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
TheRealWags wrote:
So why is it ok for you to refuse to vote for someone that is Pro-choice and its not ok for me to vote for a preacher?


I'm not saying that, I questioned the implications of your reasoning and the impact it has on the POTUS ability to express his faith. If you just said, "Yeah, I am limiting his ability to express his faith because I think it is bad for the country" instead of saying I am putting words in your mouth then this wouldn't have gotten this far. Through your vote, the implications are that you do not feel the POTUS should have free expression of his religion... and actually neither do I. But I'm not the one denying it and getting upset... it was just a statement in the beginning that I think your limitation actually HURTS the country... that is all.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


August 9th, 2011, 2:24 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12141
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
steensn wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
So why is it ok for you to refuse to vote for someone that is Pro-choice and its not ok for me to vote for a preacher?


I'm not saying that, I questioned the implications of your reasoning and the impact it has on the POTUS ability to express his faith. If you just said, "Yeah, I am limiting his ability to express his faith because I think it is bad for the country" instead of saying I am putting words in your mouth then this wouldn't have gotten this far. Through your vote, the implications are that you do not feel the POTUS should have free expression of his religion... and actually neither do I. But I'm not the one denying it and getting upset... it was just a statement in the beginning that I think your limitation actually HURTS the country... that is all.

Perhaps its just semantics, but I don't think that me not wanting a religious leader as POTUS is not limiting their ability to express their faith in any way, just as I don't view you not voting for a candidate that is pro-choice and limiting their ability to express their faith, it is us just expressing our opinions...and last time I checked, opinions to stop anyone from doing anything.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


August 9th, 2011, 2:32 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
I'm sorry, but I find this entire conversation amusing. As an atheist, I should probably have a bigger issue with this than I do, but I see it as irrelevant. First off, I admire the man for having convictions and principles concerning his religious beliefs. That's much better than someone who will follow whichever way the wind blows. i.e. Obama abandoning Reverend Wright's church after it was disclosed that he was a racist and practiced Black Liberation Theology.

Furthermore, have we ever had a non-christian President? I know some people believe that Jefferson was a deist, but he definitely was a christian earlier in his life. I could also throw out there that Obama is a muslim because he was as a child. According to their beliefs, he will always be one since they are forbidden to change their religion. I know that he doesn't practice it, but he is still a muslim in many of their eyes. Am I missing anyone here?

Finally, if the worst thing you can say about Perry is that he's a devout christian, I'd much rather have that than a libtard/socialist/commie/marxist. Just saying. :D

_________________
Image


August 9th, 2011, 2:43 pm
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3827
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
I can respect both sides of this debate. While i dont personally see an issue with a Prez candidate who has public displays of christianity, I can see Wags's Viewpoint. I personally could never vote for a scientologist...Dude could be great for our country, but due to MY opinions about that particular cult..er..sect of religeon, I couldn't vote for one.

But..even that reply isnt really a fair response to what I interpret Wags as saying. Ok all things being equal, Wags you do have a little bit of an issue with Chritianity. It definetly brings out yer frowny face ( :wink: ). and while I do think that is an underlying reason why this bothers you AS MUCH as it does, I also agree with you when you say you'd rather vote for a candidate who is more interested in gathering a public unity of people and maybe keeping some of the things that cause serperation anxiety out of the spotlight.

I am in no way shape or form saying he should hide his Christianity...but there is a point where Jesus said to keep our relationship with god personal and private. I can see BOTH sides of the debate being disapointed in a public display of christianity if it was used only for political gain or any other form of exploitaion.

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


August 9th, 2011, 5:11 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
There really isn't two sides to this... we both admit to "religious" things effecting our voting... I'm just honest with the fact that means I put restrictions on the president's religious freedoms. I asked Wags directly if he really meant that POTUS shouldn't practice his beliefs with fellow believers and he indicated that "he didn't say that" when in fact that is exactly what he is saying. He won't vote for someone that practices their beliefs in that way for POTUS. It derailed after that yet we are back at the same point again agreeing that that is what he meant and I also fall into same catagory.

About the specifics of it, where we really disagree is whether it is good or bad for the country. I find it exactly against the idea that we are a group of people with different faiths that are not cohabit-able. A president that muddys all religions together IMO sets a standard that what they actually believe doesn't matter. I can agree to disagree on this point... but the first just was silliness.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


August 9th, 2011, 5:23 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
I'm beginning to think that Wags is a libtard. :lol:

You see, libtards always bitch and complain whenever somebody holds an event that they don't like. When conservatives don't like an upcoming event, they simply don't show up. It's just that simple. You can either go or not. It's not like Perry was forcing people to attend the prayer thingy. But, libtards are so evil and hateful that they don't want anyone to attend anything that they don't approve of. Personal decisions are not an option in their worldview. Conformation with their ideals is the only thing that matters to them. While I would never attend something like this, I don't begrudge anyone the opportunity to do so, unlike the libtards. And people wonder why I hate those commie bastards so much. :lol:

_________________
Image


August 9th, 2011, 8:14 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12141
Post Re: Rick Perry to make 2012 intentions clear Saturday
slybri19 wrote:
I'm beginning to think that Wags is a libtard. :lol:

No sly, I think you missed a couple letters, its called Libertarian :wink:

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


August 10th, 2011, 10:03 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.