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?

[WinePusher]

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

How come nobody is upset about this?

I believe this was also when Pelosi said the Catholic Church needs to preach immigration support from their pulpit.

When the liberal speaker violates the boundry of church and state nobody crys and complains, but when the right does it is horrible. It's just another example of the liberal hypocracy found in America

[Wyvern]

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

How come nobody is upset about this?

Probably because this is nothing more than an example of a public speaker doing what every public speaker does which is to tailor their message to the audience they are speaking to. Plus of course that none of the major news services covered this minor speech.

[chris_brown207]

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

How come nobody is upset about this?

I can see your inferences... because she is Democrat, many of us (who you yourself have termed "liberals") are supposed to close our eyes, and cover for her (similar to how many Republicans will make every excuse for "their guy" when he is in office).

However, I not beholden to any party. I am no more fond of Pelosi, than any other politician. I care more for policy, than people.

That being said, I don't agree with ANY politician who says they use their religion to write policy. The First Amendment strictly forbids government from writing policy based on religion.

However, after reviewing the video - I can see that this is nothing but a touchy-feely speech, and not her actually trying to pass legislation based on religion. This is not on the same level as a a policy maker attempting to pass Intelligent Design legislation, or a policy maker trying to block stem cell research through legislation.

[chris_brown207]

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

How come nobody is upset about this?

I can see where you are going with this... because she is a Democrat, many of us (who you have termed "liberals") are supposed to close our eyes, and cover for her (similar to how many Republicans will make every excuse for "their guy" when he is in office).

However, I am not beholden to any party. I am no more fond of Pelosi, than any other politician. I care more for policy, than people.

That being said, I don't agree with ANY politician who says they use their religion to write policy. The First Amendment strictly forbids government from writing policy based solely on religion.

However, after reviewing the video - I can see that this is nothing but a touchy-feely speech, and not her actually trying to pass legislation based on religion. This is nowhere near on the same level as a a policy maker attempting to push through Intelligent Design legislation, or a representative trying to block stem cell research because of their religious beliefs.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

"Pelosi Says Her Policies Guided by the Values of Jesus"
How come nobody is upset about this?

Business as usual.

The Dems have seen how well the GOP uses religion to garner votes, and has co-opted the practice.

[East of Eden]

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

How come nobody is upset about this?

I can see your inferences... because she is Democrat, many of us (who you yourself have termed "liberals") are supposed to close our eyes, and cover for her (similar to how many Republicans will make every excuse for "their guy" when he is in office).

However, I not beholden to any party. I am no more fond of Pelosi, than any other politician. I care more for policy, than people.

That being said, I don't agree with ANY politician who says they use their religion to write policy. The First Amendment strictly forbids government from writing policy based on religion.

However, after reviewing the video - I can see that this is nothing but a touchy-feely speech, and not her actually trying to pass legislation based on religion. This is not on the same level as a a policy maker attempting to pass Intelligent Design legislation, or a policy maker trying to block stem cell research through legislation.

I think she has mentioned health-care in relation to this. Where are the complaints of separation of church and state, etc.?

[chris_brown207]

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

How come nobody is upset about this?

I can see your inferences... because she is Democrat, many of us (who you yourself have termed "liberals") are supposed to close our eyes, and cover for her (similar to how many Republicans will make every excuse for "their guy" when he is in office).

However, I not beholden to any party. I am no more fond of Pelosi, than any other politician. I care more for policy, than people.

That being said, I don't agree with ANY politician who says they use their religion to write policy. The First Amendment strictly forbids government from writing policy based on religion.

However, after reviewing the video - I can see that this is nothing but a touchy-feely speech, and not her actually trying to pass legislation based on religion. This is not on the same level as a a policy maker attempting to pass Intelligent Design legislation, or a policy maker trying to block stem cell research through legislation.

I think she has mentioned health-care in relation to this. Where are the complaints of separation of church and state, etc.?

Again, I don't agree with anyone passing legislation based on religion (and I think I edited the above entry to say "solely" based on religion). However, if there are other reasons which would support passing such legislation - such as statistical and scientific evidence - then I may not like the personal justifications, but I would be fine with the legislation.

I can pull up many studies to show the statistical and scientific evidence that would support universal health care - the quickest of those being the studies which show a link to lack of health care and increasing infant mortality and decreasing life expectancy.

[micatala]

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

How come nobody is upset about this?

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.



Generally I think we need to differentiate between religious speech on the part of public officials, and the institution of policies by those public officials. I do not believe having a religious view disqualifies one from making pronouncements on public policy or working to enact policies that are in accord with ones views as long as the policy has a legitimate, secular, societal purpose.

[WinePusher]

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.