Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue

“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do — to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.” ~ Mike Huckabee

If McCain’s campaign falls apart again, as it easily could, the fanatical Mike Huckabee becomes the Republican’s main squeeze. How scary is that? And now that Nader has limped into the race again (do you believe this guy?) which will cost Obama a few votes, the threat of a Huck actually making it into the White House cannot be ignored.

On top of all this, the Catholic Church has come out and condemned the Dems for their pro-abortion stance and said that a vote for Obama is a vote for the devil. They compare the Dems to The Nazis. They seem to have forgotten that 5 of the 7 justices who voted for Roe vs Wade were appointed by Republican administrations.

“In our country we have, for the most part, allowed the party of death and the court system it has produced to eliminate, since 1973, upwards of 40 million of our fellow citizens without allowing them to see the light of day,” wrote Rockford, Ill., Bishop Thomas Doran in 2006.

“No doubt, we shall soon outstrip the Nazis in doing (sic) human beings to death.” He continued, “We know . . . that adherents of one political party would place us squarely on the road to suicide as a people.”  

If that statement is not ridiculous and obscene then it is also not ridiculous and obscene to believe that one reason the church is so saddened by the loss of these little citizens, is because it reduces the potential pool of fresh meat for their perverted and abusive priests. And if the church is so willing to get directly involved in national politics, why aren’t they paying national taxes?

drinan.jpgI agree with Huck on one thing. I think the Constitution needs to be changed. I think it ought to clearly define and mandate the separation of church and state. I think that part of that mandate should include federal penalties and loss of tax exempt status in any instance where the church or its clergy takes a public stance on any political issue, whether it affects the church or not, or supports any candidate or any party. And yes, that would mean that a pastor, priest, reverend or clergy of any kind could not hold any political office including President.

The founding fathers included the separation clause in the Constitution not just to protect the church from interference from the state. The intention was to also protect the state from the church and it is time to start doing exactly that. 

Explore posts in the same categories: America, Indecency, Politics, religion

12 Comments on “Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue”

  1. eeyore Says:

    Don’t worry,huck ain’t gonna make it……

    ‘sides,you’re in singalong……

    no skin off ur butt

  2. Buffalo Says:

    I’m not overly worried about religion’s influence in politics. Unless there is some sort of evangelical revival that sweeps the nation they will make noise, but not have that big of an affect on the world.

    When the secular starts pounding them too hard they develop a martyr complex and that is going to draw converts. Martyrs and victims feel important.

  3. You said punished should be defined something like “loss of tax exempt status in any instance where the church or its clergy takes a public stance on any political issue”

    Would that have included the push by clergy during our earlier history to abolish slavery? It certainly was a political issue.

  4. expatbrian Says:

    Yes, it absolutely would include that. There cannot be provisions for a subjective decision on what constitutes good interference and bad interference and the founding fathers did not address it. You are right, slavery was a political issue, not a RELIGIOUS one and the church should not have taken a PUBLIC stance on the issue.

    Simply because there is a moral element to a political issue, like is the case with abortion, does not give the tax exempt church the right to enter the political arena to lobby for one side or the other, especially when their stance is in violation of existing law.

  5. Buffalo Says:

    Brian, that was well said. I’d never thought about it in that light, but you are absolutely correct.

  6. eeyore Says:

    R U sure U want Obama in there……

    March 3, 2008 — TOLEDO, Ohio – Barack Obama yesterday lashed out at political enemies who are spreading false rumors that he’s a closet Muslim as he proclaimed, “I pray to Jesus every night.”

    “I am a devout Christian,” he told voters in this key state.

    “I pray to Jesus every night and try to go to church as much as I can.”

  7. expatbrian Says:

    I’m quite positive, given the alternatives, that I want Obama in there. His Christianity does not change that. All the candidates say they are good Christians and all the candidates lie about it equally. Lets see what happens when he gets in the White House.

  8. eeyore Says:

    rotsa ruck, joe….

  9. eeyore Says:

    So what his profession of faith makes him is a dupe,a fool or something worse…..
    according to you;
    “All religions believe theirs is the one true religion. Why is Christianity, with its bloody history, any different? Frankly, I think it’s all mythical hogwash that people cling to simply because they cannot accept their own frightening mortality.”

    ” I’m uneasy with the idea that Christianity is sound even though Christian man is fukd up. I get the concept but I don’t see how you can have one without the other. And I will never buy the arguement that, if you are wrong – so what.”

    “I think it matters that we not live our lives under false pretenses.”

    You’re saying Obama’s Christianity doesn’t matter, but Huck’s does?

  10. uranidiot Says:

    yeah,that’s what I thought…..

  11. expatbrian Says:

    I don’t understand uranidiots comment but will answer yours, eeyore. The difference between Obama and Huck when it comes to their faith is the level at which each will be influenced by it politically. Huckabee has made it clear time and again that his actions would be DRIVEN by his faith, and that is not only against the spirit if not the text of the constitution, it is just dangerous.

    Obama has made no such statement. Realistically, each and every candidate has to profess his or her Christianity because to do anything else would cut their own political throat. But in actual practice, to have a president whose faith comes first and whose decisions are primarily influenced by it, its just a nightmare waiting to happen.

    Huck is a fanatic. It showed so strongly that even the repubs couldn’t handle it and he is out of the race. America doesn’t want another bible thumper like Bush (who rarely goes to church and is an enormous pseudo-christian hypocrite) and they are showing that at the polls.

    The bottom line is that it is an extraordinarily complex world politically, and for a major player like the US to introduce religion into the mix as a major influential force is a huge mistake. Its not only hypocritical, because the world is just not going to conform to the ten commandments, it is constitutionally illegal.

  12. eeyore Says:

    it is too late for you…..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: