Separation of Church and State? Only when it's convenient for Nazi Pelosi

In her comments at the Catholic Community Conference on Capitol Hill on May 6"

“I would hope that there’s one thing that we can do working together as we go forward that speaks to what the Bible tells us about the dignity and worth of every person -- and that is on the subject of immigration,” Pelosi said in her remarks. “Because I think the Church is going to have to play a very major role in how we, in how people are treated.”

““The cardinals, the archbishops, the bishops that come to me and say, ‘We want you to pass immigration reform,’” disclosed Pelosi. “And I say, ‘But I want you to speak about it from the pulpit.'

““‘I want you to instruct your,‘ whatever the communication is -- the people, some of them, oppose immigration reform are sitting in those pews and‘ you have to tell them‘ that this is a ‘manifestation of our living the gospels,’” said Pelosi. “Our patron saint of San Francisco, St. Francis of Assisi, he said, ‘preach the gospel --sometimes use words.’ We need the words to be said because it isn’t being picked up automatically.”

Sounds a bit like someone from the government telling Catholics what to preach to me - not asking mind you - TELLING, with words like "I want you to", "you have to"...

Apparently that separation is only important when it's convenient...

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Imagine the scene if it were Trent Lott saying anything like this 8 years ago.

You can always tell on Swampbubbles when the reality of the hypocritical ProgLibs like Pelosi are exposed. Certain people on this blog don't comment....because there is no reasonable argument.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.-Ben Franklin

Separation of church and state? Yep, all for it--in ALL circumstances, regardless of who the politician is or what letter is behind their name. (I'm guessing that tombrown is the type that picks and chooses)

Pink Slip

The First Amendment never intended to separate Christian principles from government yet today we so often hear the First Amendment coupled with the phrase "separation of church and state." The First Amendment simply states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

I believe that the statement more accurately reflects a desire to promote religious freedom by banning any mandates which would allow the Government to promote one religion over another. It was not intended to ban such religious exhibits on public property or remove all reference from of it from the personal opinions of politicos. While the wall of the First Amendment would protect the church from government control—there always would be open and free religious expression of all orthodox religious practices. Yet by today's interpretation, it stifles the expression it was intended to protect. It does not separate Church and State but rather censors religion. The complete opposite of its intended objective.

If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

Christian principles? How many times does the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence mention Jesus Christ?

There are three sections which reference God but the citations were incomplete. God is actually named by some title or other FOUR times. Also, it might interest you to know WHO put those references in, since not all were in Jefferson's original draft.

1.) (Opening paragraph) ". . . the equal and independent station to which the laws of nature and of NATURE'S GOD entitle them"
-THIS was in Jefferson's original draft.
2.) (Second paragraph) "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
-CONGRESS added "endowed by their CREATOR" - so strengthening the RELIGIOUS reference.
3) (Conclusion)""We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, APPEALING TO THE SUPREME JUDGE OF THE WORLD for the rectitude of our intentions . . . And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the PROTECTION OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
-CONGRESS here added explicit religious references at the beginning and end.

If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

"God" does not equal Christ. "Creator" doesn't equal Christ. You claim "The First Amendment never intended to separate Christian principles from government", yet our founding fathers carefully and purposeful avoided making any reference to Christ in the above document.

Well Pelosi is invoking "living the gospels". Now I DEFINATELY know Pelosi is about the furthest thing from our founding fathers there is, but you still haven't addressed the Government (Pelosi) invoking not God but the Gospels? Can you imagine if a Republican Speaker of the House did this?

What about it senG?

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.-Ben Franklin

Two different things... Politicians talk about the bible, god and Jesus all the time. She’s not saying pass the law because the bible/god/Jesus says so, she’s asking for help from fellow Christians because helping the less fortunate and poor because it’s the right thing to do. Politics 101…

"It was not intended to ban such religious exhibits on public property"

KrazyKat, I suggest you read more of James Madison. Witness his letter to Edward Everett (speaking of public universities):

"A University with sectarian professorships becomes, of course, a sectarian monopoly: with professorships of rival sects, it would be an arena of Theological Gladiators. Without any such professorships, it may incur, for a time at least, the imputation of irreligious tendencies, if not designs. The last difficulty was thought more manageable than either of the others."

Notice that Madison prefers neutrality between believers and non-believers, rather than neutrality between religions–all the while acknowledging the removal of religion from the public square

Pink Slip

most American churches have left their fundamental roots for political correctness and the gospel of social justice rather than the gospel of Jesus Christ. The new American social justice movement that has become our american "churches" are the type of churches Pelosi is talking about. She is not talking about good ol' fashioned God fearing, gospel of Jesus Christ preaching churches. The churches who speak the gospel of Jesus Christ are the ones she and her ilk are trying to silence. That is why Barak Obama demanded all religious references and symbols be covered up at Georgetown University before he would go do a speech there.

Religious references were made in the content of the speech itself, and iconography was present around the hall. It is the norm to have a simple backdrop behind presidential speeches.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/obama-at-georgetown/

CNSNews.com noted that while the "IHS" behind the president’s podium wasn’t visible, "the letters ‘IHS’ are posted elsewhere around the hall approximately 26 times" and that Obama mentioned Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount in his remarks. There are also religious paintings visible high above Obama’s head in MSNBC’s video of the

Not just the first part, the entire 1st Amendment. Most people just read the 1st part that says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

Now read the ENTIRE amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It is simple to me. If Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion and Congress cannot prohibit the freedom to display and/or talk about religion under freedom of speech, why does the Supreme Court think that they can prohibit religion and the freedom to talk about religion?

Granted, I am NOT religious. I do not believe in God. But I totally and completely support the 1st Amendment because that guarantees me that I will never be forced by Government to face Mecca and pray 5 times a day or to tithe 10% of my income to the Pope. I am guaranteed not to have to attend Church every Sunday.

So I TOTALLY support peoples right to worship and, using their OTHER guaranteed right to free speech, to display their religion because supporting freedom of religion for others guarantees my right NOT to be forced into religion.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

can blow me.

She should put into practice this statement, the Bible tells us about the dignity and worth of every person.

She knows what I'm talking about.

...you say in one sentence, "the Bible tells us about the dignity and worth of every person."

And you lead with Pelosi can blow me.

interesting I mean.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.