Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Democrats and Jesus 30

Journal by pudge

All who read these words o' mine are well aware that the Democrats have a concerted effort going to inject religion more into their speeches and such, to try to woo back religious voters.

John Kerry said the other day, "There is not anywhere in the three-year ministry of Jesus Christ ... that says you ought to cut children's health care or take money from the poorest people in our nation to give it to the wealthiest people in our nation."

I don't know what children's health care he is referring to, but I do know there is not one example anywhere of money being taken from poor people to give to wealthy people. Jesus did say to not lie, Senator.

But worse, Jesus did say we ought to cut children's health care, and other social programs. Jesus said to follow the law, and it is clearly unconstitutional for the federal government to spend money on those programs.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Democrats and Jesus More

Democrats and Jesus

Comments Filter:

  • WWJD? (Score:2)

    by sulli ( 195030 )
    Nice troll pudge.

    Jesus said to follow the law

    Is this "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"? I don't see any discussion of constitutional law or the Commerce Clause here. And, of course, in the US the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutionality, and it has upheld federal antipoverty programs as constitutional, so he would presumably agree that Caesar (as in Chief Justice Roberts?) may be followed in this case.

    • I don't see any discussion of constitutional law or the Commerce Clause here.

      In the Bible you mean? No, it just says to submit to the authorities, which includes the laws.

      And, of course, in the US the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutionality

      If you mean by this that whatever they say is final, no, it's not. That's why we've many times seen them say one thing was Constitutional and later change their minds. And even if they don't change their minds, that doesn't mean they are correct.

      For exa
    • Same thought here. As the law stands social programs ARE clearly lawful, as the final arbiter of the law says so, and have yet to be overthrown (with nothing in sight to attempt to do it either... other than the tax cuts and over spending of the administration that is strangling our national budget).

      Good luck getting an constitutional ammendment passed that would abolish the practice...

      • Same thought here. As the law stands social programs ARE clearly lawful, as the final arbiter of the law says so

        I disagree, but you can read my thoughts on this in the other comment. However, I wanted to highlight this, which I also addressed above, but it's very important:

        and have yet to be overthrown (with nothing in sight to attempt to do it either... other than the tax cuts and over spending of the administration that is strangling our national budget).

        Ignoring your political assessment of what the adm

      • ammendment is spelled amendment

    • in the US the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutionality

      So you're OK with Kelo, then? You would've been OK with Dred Scott if you had been around at the time? If you believe in judicial infallibility, those are the conclusions that could be inferred about you.

      • No, I don't think the USSC is always right, by any means. That's not what pudge cited Jesus as saying. If you believe that Jesus commands you to follow ALL LAWS via the Caesar quote (and I don't), then you can't pick and choose what the law is.

        Now whether or not you think you are commanded to follow the law, you can oppose unjust laws, work to change them, or even engage in civil disobedience. But you can't decide for yourself, if you claim to be acting on divine authority, what the law of the land is.

        • But you can't decide for yourself, if you claim to be acting on divine authority, what the law of the land is.

          But neither does the Supreme Court get to decide for me. That's the point here. The Court can say that as far as they are concerned that something is legal. And that means that there's no legal consequences for doing it. But that doesn't mean that you are following the law if you do it. Again, Justice Frankfurter said, "the ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself an
  • Let's ignore the fact that to question if the sitting government is acting in accordance with our religious and secular morality is all but a duty of the minority, and skip right to your rebuttal.

    But worse, Jesus did say we ought to cut children's health care, and other social programs. Jesus said to follow the law, and it is clearly unconstitutional for the federal government to spend money on those programs.

    Jesus said to give unto Ceasar's what is Ceasar's. And to translate the principle into this countr
    • we should give respect to the law--and that means all parts of the law, not simply those parts that you or I might agree with.

      I am in no way disregarding any law or authority. I am not saying we should do something the Supreme Court says is illegal; but just because the Supreme Court says it is legal, doesn't mean that it is OK to do it.

      If the Supreme Court says it is not unconstitutional for Congress to retroactively increase copyright protections, I'll still say that any Congressman who votes to do so is
      • And it is in my view quite un-Christ-like to act in a way that violates the law.

        It is, but the law is not the Constitution. Oh, it's supposed to be, and we expect the government to be bound by the Constitution. But the law is what SCOTUS, POTUS, and Congress agree upon.

        The law is uncaring, at times ammoral, and very often markedly un-Christian. It is so today and it was so in Ceaser's day. Christ commanded us to obey the law, and so we do, even when it's wrong. Which, of course, nicely illustrates the
        • It is, but the law is not the Constitution.

          The Constitution is the law.

          • The Constitution is the law.

            To a government official, the Constitution is the highest law, above even the will of the electorate save for the amendment process.

            However, we were discussing religion, not the vagarities of American law. Christ didn't command us to obey and tithe to a wicked man because Ceasar was somehow worthy of it; we were told to obey Ceaser and give him his due because it contributes to a just and orderly world, in which the hand of God and the message of the gospel are freer to work.

            In
            • However, we were discussing religion, not the vagarities of American law.

              It's not vague. It's the law. And it is against my religious beliefs to so violate the law. This is not a difficult point. :-)
              • Here's a vagarity for you:

                There are, at current, almost no parts of the Constitution that apply to you or I as private citizens. I think the only part that does is the requirement for us not to own slaves.

                Almost all the laws that we have to follow are passed by Congress or the several states. ;)
                • Um, except that in this case, we're talking about an elected official in Congress and whether he should act to violate the law, and the Constitution certainly does talk a great deal that applies to him.
                  • Um, except that in this case, we're talking about an elected official in Congress and whether he should act to violate the law, and the Constitution certainly does talk a great deal that applies to him.

                    Ah. I was speaking more in generalities.

                    Creating a welfare state, socalized medicine, or various other economic factors are rather solidly Constitutional -- they're all covered under II(8)(1) ("general Welfare of the United States"), II(8)(3) ("To regulate commerce ... among the several states"), II(8)(4) ("
                    • Creating a welfare state, socalized medicine, or various other economic factors are rather solidly Constitutional

                      No. On the contrary, they are solidly UNconstitutional.

                      they're all covered under II(8)(1) ("general Welfare of the United States"), II(8)(3) ("To regulate commerce ... among the several states"), II(8)(4) ("To establish a uniform rule ... on the subject of bankruptices"), II(8)(5) ("To coin Money"), Amendment XIII ("involuntary servitude" includes economic slavery), and the "Law of Nations" that
                    • No. On the contrary, they are solidly UNconstitutional.

                      The unconstitutionality of federal programs never envisioned by the founding fathers is anything but solid. It's at most "properly", altough the adjective I would place them in is either "alleged" or "theoretical", depending on my mood at the time of speaking.

                      In any case:

                      The point of the welfare laws are not to regulate commerce; that's foolish.

                      Government-sponsored Social Welfare programs are a necessary adjustment made due to modern commerce and indsu
                    • The unconstitutionality of federal programs never envisioned by the founding fathers is anything but solid.

                      Tell it to Madison. He was entirely clear.

                      Government-sponsored Social Welfare programs are a necessary adjustment made due to modern commerce and indsutry.

                      Wank wank wank wank.

                      They are most firmly rooted in the commerce clause, but the powers to regulate bankruptcy and issue non-paper coin also logically imply the power to create such.

                      Yes, and they also logically imply the power to give everyone a pony
                    • Sheesh. Pudge, how about we just agree to disagree on this one?

                      You can argue until you're blue in the face, but acts of congress to promote the general social welfare of this counry have been tried before the Supreme Court at least twice, and they're not going anywhere for anything short of a Constitutional amendment.

                      The law is what it is, not what you wish it were or think it should be.
                    • You can argue until you're blue in the face, but acts of congress to promote the general social welfare of this counry have been tried before the Supreme Court at least twice, and they're not going anywhere for anything short of a Constitutional amendment.

                      An act of Congress which is supported in the Constitution only by an appeal to "general welfare" is clearly, unqeuivocally, unconstitutional. No honest and knwoledgable person could possibly think otherwise, unless they believe that the Constitution shoul
                    • An act of Congress which is supported in the Constitution only by an appeal to "general welfare" is clearly, unqeuivocally, unconstitutional.

                      It could be, but the extant social welfare programs are supported by more than the summary statement that you nicely argued isn't substantive. The enumerated powers to regulate bankruptices, interstate commerce, the coinage of money, and, heck, even regulating the militia all contribute to Congress's ability to provide for social welfare.

                      No, you see, that's *my* argum
                    • It could be, but the extant social welfare programs are supported by more than the summary statement that you nicely argued isn't substantive.

                      No, they aren't.

                      The enumerated powers to regulate bankruptices

                      This would be true only if the welfare provisions only applied to those who have filed for bankruptcy, or to help people avoid such filing, and would not apply to people who were not eligible for bankruptcy.

                      interstate commerce

                      Again, only applicable if it has something to actually do with interstate commerce
                    • You are arguing what the Supreme Court and Congress says it is, which is clearly different from what it actually is.

                      You're bordering on Clintonesque parsing of language. You read the Constitution, examine a circumstance, and come to a conclusion about that circumstance. The whole federal government reads the Constitution, examines that same circumstance, and comes to a different conclusion.

                      In every way save for possibly academic, what they say is how it is. You don't like it, and that's fine--but the way
                    • You're bordering on Clintonesque parsing of language.

                      That only shows you don't actually understand the issues involved, since there's nothing extraordinary or odd about what I am saying.

                      You read the Constitution, examine a circumstance, and come to a conclusion about that circumstance. The whole federal government reads the Constitution, examines that same circumstance, and comes to a different conclusion.

                      You're obviously wrong. Many in the federal government agree with me, not the least of which is Justic
                    • So if they all agreed to make me a Prince, then that would be Constitutional, according to you.

                      No, that would be the law, up until it was declared unconstitutional.

                      I'm not arguing Constitutionality. I'm arguing law. Laws that are against the Constitution SHOULD be judicially nullified, vetoed, or repealed by Cognress; but until they are, they are still law.
                    • that would be the law, up until it was declared unconstitutional.

                      They *are* unconstitutional. Read the Constitution.

                      I'm not arguing Constitutionality.

                      You've said over and over that something is not unconstitutional unless the Court says so. You certainly are arguing constitutionality.

                      Laws that are against the Constitution SHOULD be judicially nullified, vetoed, or repealed by Cognress; but until they are, they are still law.

                      I never said they are not law. I said they are unconstitutional, which is true,
                    • They *are* unconstitutional. Read the Constitution.

                      Now I will argue constitutionality.

                      They are not unconstitutional. The Federalist Papers are not a binding legal document. Anything and everything Madison said to get the Constitution sold is irrelevent, unless you're trying to convince SCOTUS what part of the Constitution means.

                      You say that you want a rule of law? Then you need to let the law be a law, and not try and make it into holy scripture. Every law ever passed in the history of the world means n
                    • They are not unconstitutional.

                      You're obviously wrong.

                      The Federalist Papers are not a binding legal document.

                      I never said they were.

                      Anything and everything Madison said to get the Constitution sold is irrelevent

                      That could not be more false. The Constitution means what it was intended to mean by the people who wrote and ratified it.

                      The Constitution was never intended to be some document on high that only a select few ordained into a priesthood could interpret. It was a document that everyone could use to ho

Slashdot Top Deals

"Given the choice between accomplishing something and just lying around, I'd rather lie around. No contest." -- Eric Clapton

Close