politicians, would not be a bad idea.
On Dec 20, 9:14 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> William Hamby
> , Atlanta Atheism Examiner
> December 19, 2011
>
> The Republican hyper-emphasis on "Christian Values" recently took a
> sharp turn and landed squarely on fascist police state. Leading
> Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich promised reporters in
> as many words that if elected, he would arrest judges who didn't abide
> by Christian ideals.
>
> In a half-hour phone call with reporters yesterday, GOP presidential
> contender Newt Gingrich warned that as president he would abolish
> courts whose judges make decisions that are out of step with
> fundamentalist Christian views.
>
> Despite an outcry over the remarks, Gingrich reiterated them this
> morning during an appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation," saying the
> president could send federal law enforcement authorities to arrest
> judges who make controversial rulings in order to compel them to
> justify their decisions before Congress.
>
> When host Bob Schieffer asked how he would force federal judges to
> comply with congressional subpoenas, Gingrich said he would send the
> U.S. Capitol Police or U.S. Marshals to arrest the judges and force
> them to testify. (LINK)
>
> What can we say about this? Is there anything a candidate could say
> that would disqualify him from office any more concretely? He has
> personally vowed to ignore the constitution and to enforce his own
> religious views as the law of the land.
>
> In no uncertain terms, Gingrich has made it clear that his respect for
> the American government extends only as far as his loyalty to Jesus.
> The presidential oath is clear: I, <name>, do solemnly swear (or
> affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the
> United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect
> and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution
> explicitly states that there shall be no religious test for public
> office -- including judge.
>
> Just to make sure we're clear on this: The leading Republican
> candidate for the president of the United States has stated loudly and
> clearly, on the record, that as president, he would completely ignore
> the U.S. Constitution in favor of his own religious views.
>
> The Republican Party has gone off the rails. As the extreme nature of
> their position has been consistently exposed through social media like
> Facebook and Reddit, they have become increasingly frenzied in their
> efforts to become "more Christian." To appeal to the increasingly
> hostile Fundamentalist constituency that was instrumental in winning
> the House of Representatives, they've held openly religious meetings
> in the heart of Iowa, where each candidate tried to "out-Christian"
> the others on topics like abortion rights. (LINK)
>
> This is also not the first time that a highly influential Christian
> politician has trampled on the Constitution publicly. Supreme Court
> Justice Antonin Scalia recently proclaimed his own disdain for the
> rule of law:
>
> "The Rule of Law is second only to the Rule of Love. The here and
> now is less important than the hereafter." -- Antonin Scalia, Supreme
> Court Justice. (LINK)
>
> The sanctity of the U.S. government is in perhaps the most peril in
> our history. Without exaggerating, one can begin by pointing to the
> 2004 "irregularities" in voting machines, and the subsequent
> appointment of a Republican Christian candidate to the presidency...
> by the Supreme Court. With the taking of the House in the last
> Congressional elections, the Republican party has embarked on a take-
> no-prisoners campaign to legislate Christian values -- discrimination
> against gays, ending women's rights, and inexplicably, not helping the
> poor at all.
>
> In this election, Christianity has been almost the exclusive focus of
> all the major candidates, whose opinions on abortion are far more
> relevant to voters than their economic records, or their success in
> previous political endeavors. Beginning with the reality show farce
> that was Sarah Palin, the GOP has trotted out one evangelical after
> another, and done nothing to quell the rising tide of ecumenical
> screeching from the political pulpit. With one openly anti-
> Constitutional judge already sitting, and the House controlled by
> zealots, one can only imagine how quickly America would descend into
> Iran-like theocracy with a president whose campaign promises included
> nothing less than ignoring the Constitution in favor of religious
> legislation at all levels of justice!
>
> Let's make sure we understand the gravity of this: On the record,
> with no apologies, the leading Republican presidential candidate has
> vowed to ignore the constitution in favor of his religious beliefs in
> the courts that decide our laws. Newt Gingrich has vowed to break the
> presidential oath. Newt Gingrich has, without question, disqualified
> himself from the office. He is an aspiring traitor. He is anti-
> American. He has voiced his intention to destroy everything that
> America was founded on. In as many words, he would go on the
> offensive against the "steady encroachment of secularism through the
> courts to redefine America as a nonreligious country." (LINK)
>
> This statement goes beyond "zany" or volatile. This goes straight to
> treasonous. Let's make sure we understand: no religious test shall
> ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust
> under the United States. Article VI, paragraph 3, United States
> Constitution. (LINK) There is no reasonable way to interpret
> Gingrich's statement except as a religious qualifier for judgeship in
> the United States. That is blatantly and irreconcilably
> unconstitutional.
>
> Nothing short of withdrawal from the race is suitable. Gingrich has
> disqualified himself, and has no business running for any public
> office until and unless he demonstrates a thorough understanding of
> the separation of church and state, and a consistent record of
> supporting that wall.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment