Pelosi Says Her Policies Guided by the Values of Jesus

[East of Eden]

http://cnsnews.com/cnsnewstv/v/XdqGnzIrSU

How come nobody is upset about this?

[East of Eden]

I have no objection to politicians, left or right, discussing their own religious views or even espousing on how their religious views affect their political views or their support or opposition to certain public policy proposals.

Where I do get upset is if politicians or others attempt to enact public policies which have the sole purpose or effect of promoting or enforcing a religious view.

However, in my view it is OK to use religious rhetoric or allude to religious motivations to promote public policies if those policies have a legitimate, secular, societal purpose.

You mentioned health care in a post subsequent to the one I am quoting. Health care reform is a public policy that definitely has a secular purpose. It is not sectarian in nature nor does it promote a particular religious view. It fits into the legitimate role of government because it "promotes the general welfare."

What is upsetting about the pelosi comment, is that if a republican or a conservative said their policies were guided by Jesus, the media would flip out and failing mainstream media would create a contreversy.

Look at how bad the media reacted to Bush, when they realized he was a hardcore christian or how they demonized the Palin emails for expressing a faith in Christ.

Now, what is ironic and humorous about Pelosi's speech is that she also said that she wants to Catholic Church to preach from their pulpits support for her immigration policies. What ever happened to the seperation of church and state, does it not apply to the left?

The role of the government is foster and promote the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Tell me, are their people "dying in the streets" as allegedly claimed by the democrat party? No, because the doctors of this country are bound to the hypocratic oath which is the foundation for all medical ethics, and the government subsidizes Emergency Rooms. America does not allow its citizens to "die in the streets" due to lack of healthcare. Universal healthcare already existed in America before the passage of Obamcare.

Obamacare isn't (promoting the general welfare) it is socialized healthcare. It was a grab for more government power.

Tell me, why, even with a super majority dems in the house and senate was Obama faced with so much discontent in the democrat party. If socialized healthcare is so good for america, you would think that the moderate wing of the democrat party would support this instead of just the radical leftists. But you have over 30 moderates in the house, and 4 moderates in the senate who opposed this.

You have a disapproval rating of over 57%, and over 50% of Americans want this repealed. Does the government know what is best for the American people? Are these senators and representatives not their to represent our views? Is not this country based off of popular sovernity? Yet they shoved this down our throats aganist our will.

I find this quite interesting

60% of Americans, 70% of Arizonans support the Law in Arizona
-Obama opposes it
57% oppose Obamacare
-Obama Supports it

He seems to be going aganist the will of the American people time and time again.

Hang on til November. You don't thumb your nose at the American people and get away with it forever.

[East of Eden]

I have no objection to politicians, left or right, discussing their own religious views or even espousing on how their religious views affect their political views or their support or opposition to certain public policy proposals.

Where I do get upset is if politicians or others attempt to enact public policies which have the sole purpose or effect of promoting or enforcing a religious view.

However, in my view it is OK to use religious rhetoric or allude to religious motivations to promote public policies if those policies have a legitimate, secular, societal purpose.

You mentioned health care in a post subsequent to the one I am quoting. Health care reform is a public policy that definitely has a secular purpose. It is not sectarian in nature nor does it promote a particular religious view. It fits into the legitimate role of government because it "promotes the general welfare."

Civil rights is another example where many, prominently Martin Luther King, used religious rhetoric and reasoning in promotion of the cause. However, civil rights for blacks could be and was supported by many without religious views or without reference to religious language. A secular case could be made for it, and it did not have the sole purpose or effect of promoting a religious view.

Bans on gay marriage, however, seem to me to clearly to have no other purpose than to promote a religious view. Although lip service is given to the notion that allowing gay marriage would be bad for society, the arguments given are typically specious or apply criteria to gay marriage that, if applied to other behaviors (like single parenting), would also result in society banning those other behaviors.

I have nothing to back this up, but I'd bet 30-50% of the votes against gay marriage in CA were cast by people for whom religion is an insignificant part of their lives. CA just isn't a hotbed of religious fervor.

[Slopeshoulder]

Anybody who was a grown up before Reagan, or has read recent history, will know that for about 20 years prior the left owned the christian values discourse (anti-poverty, inclusion, equality, fairness, forgiveness, etc etc), as they did in the '30's and in earlier periods (anti-slavery, etc). Then the right took it back in '80 by playing the fear card and getting in bed with the born-again beast.

But even so, during the Regan era, internationally, european christian democrats and latin american churches leaned left. Now the American left is wising up, listening to Jim Wallis, and trying to get it back again. Even many young evangelicals are getting on board (environment, anti-war, gay rights, anti-hate, etc).
The pendulum swings.

Pelosi is right and shrewd to work to wrestle the discourse back. She's a pol. She's just playing by the rules lee atwater established when he got in bed with falwell and robertson. How's that whole hell thing workin' out for ya lee?

The idea that Jesus preached and God favors capitalism and the right wing agenda is both false and idolatrous. Even the arch conservative Pope gets that, bless him.

Personally, I think it belongs in the center. The center of ann coulter's adams apple that is.

[Slopeshoulder]

I have nothing to back this up, but I'd bet 30-50% of the votes against gay marriage in CA were cast by people for whom religion is an insignificant part of their lives. CA just isn't a hotbed of religious fervor.

WWWHHHUUUTTT??? WRONG!!! Orange county is, outside of colorado springs, ground zero for rght wing politicized christianism. With San Diego, Riverside and various central valley counties close behind. The left is in LA, SF, central coast, and Marin. The right out there is extreme, as can be the left. God Bless Ahhnuld for trying to keep the center in that crowd.

[chris_brown207]

I have nothing to back this up, but I'd bet 30-50% of the votes against gay marriage in CA were cast by people for whom religion is an insignificant part of their lives. CA just isn't a hotbed of religious fervor.

I agree completely......... that you have nothing to back this up.

Matter of fact, the driving force for this legislation and the paid advertisement was the Church of the LDS, the Catholic Church, and groups like the Knights of Columbus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... anizations

About 45% of out of state funding for Prop 8 came from Utah and the LDS.

[WinePusher]

WWWHHHUUUTTT??? WRONG!!! Orange county is, outside of colorado springs, ground zero for rght wing politicized christianism. With San Diego, Riverside and various central valley counties close behind. The left is in LA, SF, central coast, and Marin. The right out there is extreme, as can be the left. God Bless Ahhnuld for trying to keep the center in that crowd.

Where did EoE bring up the the issue of Orange County and Riverside.

Now, since I live in Southern California, I am familiar with these palces you speak of.

California is probably the most liberal state in America, it voted for Obama it gives us the two worst senators in America (Boxer, Feinstein) and it is home to the hollywood culture of liberals.

Yet, we californians vote to ban gay marriage in a very liberal state. Now that says something.!

[Slopeshoulder]

WWWHHHUUUTTT??? WRONG!!! Orange county is, outside of colorado springs, ground zero for rght wing politicized christianism. With San Diego, Riverside and various central valley counties close behind. The left is in LA, SF, central coast, and Marin. The right out there is extreme, as can be the left. God Bless Ahhnuld for trying to keep the center in that crowd.

Where did EoE bring up the the issue of Orange County and Riverside.

Now, since I live in Southern California, I am familiar with these palces you speak of.

California is probably the most liberal state in America, it voted for Obama it gives us the two worst senators in America (Boxer, Feinstein) and it is home to the hollywood culture of liberals.

Yet, we californians vote to ban gay marriage in a very liberal state. Now that says something.!

Wrong again.
CA, as I said, has strong, even extremes, of both right and left. Yes, Liberals outnumber usually. I've lived there twice, and I remember pols from the places I mentioned openly referring to gays as "sodomites."
Hollywood is one town. More than balanced by Orange, in terms of local and national influence. Do you dispute what I said about Orange county (you'd be wrong)? do you dispute the general voter make up of riverside, san diego and assortd central valley counties? have you ever seen the movie Milk (some great tender gay love scenes BTW)?
Did your post have a point? That, with outside activists pouring in the spread lies among the paranoid right, they mnaged to win one?


Funny, my Christianity makes me support gay marriage just like it made me support civil rights in the 60's. I don't trust Pelosi as far as I can throw her (into bed?), but at least she's on the side of Jesus' true teachings.

I'm lovin' Boxer and Feinstein only because they stand up against the rightist crazies. I'd vote for Mr. Ed against te hateful right (although I admit that when I lived in SF and Mill Valley the liberals could be pretty squishy headed at times, easy to make fun of).

Obama is the second coming. God Bless CA and the many other states that voted for him.

[micatala]

I have no objection to politicians, left or right, discussing their own religious views or even espousing on how their religious views affect their political views or their support or opposition to certain public policy proposals.

Where I do get upset is if politicians or others attempt to enact public policies which have the sole purpose or effect of promoting or enforcing a religious view.

However, in my view it is OK to use religious rhetoric or allude to religious motivations to promote public policies if those policies have a legitimate, secular, societal purpose.

You mentioned health care in a post subsequent to the one I am quoting. Health care reform is a public policy that definitely has a secular purpose. It is not sectarian in nature nor does it promote a particular religious view. It fits into the legitimate role of government because it "promotes the general welfare."

What is upsetting about the pelosi comment, is that if a republican or a conservative said their policies were guided by Jesus, the media would flip out and failing mainstream media would create a contreversy.

You may be right, but I think there is a difference between Pelosi and, for example, Palin and other Republicans. The principle thing Palin and others get criticized for is hypocrisy. Being family values espousers and then acting contrary to those values (see Mark Souder of Indiana, the former gov of SC, etc.). I also note that some dems most definitely do get nailed by the media. Look at John Edwards.

Secondly, the dems typically do not expect whatever religious rhetoric they use to blatanlty politcal ends or in a demagogic way (if that is a word).

Thirdly, the dems typically do not try to enact religious views into law, like many republicans do.

Look at how bad the media reacted to Bush, when they realized he was a hardcore christian or how they demonized the Palin emails for expressing a faith in Christ.

Well, again, Bush tried to enact laws that were blatantly sectarian. Now, I agree, some members of the media sometimes criticize people inappropriately. However, you need to keep in mind some of that reaction is justified by what the people are proposing. You could say it is fear-mongering from the left, but when people epouse, for example, "end of world" theology that could lead to bad public policy, or feel they are endowed by God to be rulers and thus don't have to consider the rights of those who disagree with their theology, you can't blame them for being upset.

Extremes on both the left and the right can be hypersensitive to perceived violations of their rights. The right goes over the top, in my view, in viewing health care reform as some sort of government power grab. Some also get overly worked up about gun regulations. Some on the left are hypersensitive to church state issues, abortion, etc.

In both cases, some of the fear is entirely unjustified. However, when people's actual rights are violated, especially when there is no real societal justification for the limitations on liberty (as there is with health care), then we have a problem, in my view.

Now, what is ironic and humorous about Pelosi's speech is that she also said that she wants to Catholic Church to preach from their pulpits support for her immigration policies. What ever happened to the seperation of church and state, does it not apply to the left?

Separation of church and state does not apply to individual expressions concerning religion. Separation of church and state applies to government actions. Pelosi expressing her religious views is not a violation of the first amendment. Pelosi seeking to impose these views on others through policies which have no other purpose or effect than to impose that view would be against the first amendment. You paint with too broad a brush.

The role of the government is foster and promote the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Agreed. I will note that health care reform seeks to serve the first and third of these ends, and arguably the second as well. A person hostage to medical bills or debt certainly is less free than someone who is not.

Tell me, are their people "dying in the streets" as allegedly claimed by the democrat party? No, because the doctors of this country are bound to the hypocratic oath which is the foundation for all medical ethics, and the government subsidizes Emergency Rooms. America does not allow its citizens to "die in the streets" due to lack of healthcare. Universal healthcare already existed in America before the passage of Obamcare.

That stats don't back this up. People do die for lack of health insurance. Yes, many people receive free medical care, but that does not mean everyone who needs care is getting. The suggestion that universal health care existed prior to passage of the bill this past spring is laughable.

Obamacare isn't (promoting the general welfare) it is socialized healthcare. It was a grab for more government power.

Baloney. The accusation that Obama is motivated simply to get more power for the government is unsubstantiated. You are making a false assertion about his motivation.

Tell me, why, even with a super majority dems in the house and senate was Obama faced with so much discontent in the democrat party. If socialized healthcare is so good for america, you would think that the moderate wing of the democrat party would support this instead of just the radical leftists. But you have over 30 moderates in the house, and 4 moderates in the senate who opposed this

False premise. The bill that was passed is not socialized medicine.

You have a disapproval rating of over 57%, and over 50% of Americans want this repealed. Does the government know what is best for the American people? Are these senators and representatives not their to represent our views? Is not this country based off of popular sovernity? Yet they shoved this down our throats aganist our will.

The polls I have seen do not indicate this. A small majority opposed the bill before its passage. Afterwards, a slight plurality supported it.

Secondly, I will ask if you think that polls should decide all issues. In that case, we would not have passed civil rights and would not have repealed laws banning interracial marriage. Majorities, at least in many places, opposed these as well. You seem only willing to go with the argument from popularity when it suits your views.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 12:

I have nothing to back this up...

Ruh-roh...

but I'd bet 30-50% of the votes against gay marriage in CA were cast by people for whom religion is an insignificant part of their lives.

88.97% of stats are made up on the spot.

Speculation is among the weakest forms of "evidence", if it's that at all.

CA just isn't a hotbed of religious fervor.

Until religious folks from other states enter it in an attempt to influence opinion.

[East of Eden]

WWWHHHUUUTTT??? WRONG!!! Orange county is, outside of colorado springs, ground zero for rght wing politicized christianism. With San Diego, Riverside and various central valley counties close behind. The left is in LA, SF, central coast, and Marin. The right out there is extreme, as can be the left. God Bless Ahhnuld for trying to keep the center in that crowd.

Where did EoE bring up the the issue of Orange County and Riverside.

Now, since I live in Southern California, I am familiar with these palces you speak of.

California is probably the most liberal state in America, it voted for Obama it gives us the two worst senators in America (Boxer, Feinstein) and it is home to the hollywood culture of liberals.

Yet, we californians vote to ban gay marriage in a very liberal state. Now that says something.!

Wrong again.
CA, as I said, has strong, even extremes, of both right and left. Yes, Liberals outnumber usually. I've lived there twice, and I remember pols from the places I mentioned openly referring to gays as "sodomites."
Hollywood is one town. More than balanced by Orange, in terms of local and national influence. Do you dispute what I said about Orange county (you'd be wrong)? do you dispute the general voter make up of riverside, san diego and assortd central valley counties? have you ever seen the movie Milk (some great tender gay love scenes BTW)?
Did your post have a point? That, with outside activists pouring in the spread lies among the paranoid right, they mnaged to win one?


Funny, my Christianity makes me support gay marriage just like it made me support civil rights in the 60's. I don't trust Pelosi as far as I can throw her (into bed?), but at least she's on the side of Jesus' true teachings.

Good, than you'll have no problem with Christians whose faith makes them oppose gay marriage.

I'm lovin' Boxer and Feinstein only because they stand up against the rightist crazies. I'd vote for Mr. Ed against te hateful right (although I admit that when I lived in SF and Mill Valley the liberals could be pretty squishy headed at times, easy to make fun of).

Obama is the second coming.

.....of Satan maybe.