Time: Why Rick Perry’s New Ads Are Wrong on Religion–And Obama

Time ^ | December 9, 2011 | Amy Sullivan

[Cincinatus' Wife]

.....“I’m not ashamed to talk about my faith,” he says in the first spot. “Some liberals say that faith is a sign of weakness. Well, they’re wrong.” In the second ad, titled “Strong,” Perry bravely comes out as a follower of Christ. “I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a Christian,” he says, before vowing that “as President, I’ll end Obama’s war on religion.”

......But most flagrant is Perry’s reference to “Obama’s war on religion” without evidence or explanation. He leaves the strong impression that it is Obama’s administration–instead of Supreme Court decisions from the 1960s–that took school-sanctioned prayer and Bible-reading out of public schools. It is telling that Perry can assume his intended audience in Iowa living rooms will need no elaboration or convincing that there is indeed a war on religion.

Social conservatives have had a hard time providing substance for that charge, however, because many of their most dire predictions about a Democratic presidency simply haven’t come true. Obama hasn’t taken away their guns, he hasn’t started a race war, and–despite mailings distributed by the RNC in the 2004 campaign–godless “liberals” have not banned the Bible....

..It would easy to dismiss Perry’s message as just a typical appeal to social conservatives or the desperate strategy of a candidate who may have slipped out of contention. But this is new. The casualness with which Perry tosses off the charge about “Obama’s war on religion” is at odds with how corrosive the accusation really is. It encourages citizens to turn against one another in a way that conservatives would denounce as class warfare if the subject were economics. That leaves conservatives with a choice: they can denounce Perry’s ads, or explain why they tolerate such divisiveness when the subject is people’s faith.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

God Damn America

New docs show Fast and Furious was going to be used to justify gun control measures ….”"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks."….

Obama’s “identity groups” war:Alabama Slammed --- Obama DOJ uses illegal immigration to smear border states.

Bitter Americans cling to their guns and their bibles audio: Barack Obama's small town guns and religion comments

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Gov. Perry’s latest ads have really hit Obama and the LIBERAL camp where they live.

[DooDahhhh]

Obama makes me want to puke.

[DooDahhhh]

Obama makes me want to puke.

[Lib-Lickers 2]

Good for Perry... everybody knows Obama is much more sympathetic to Islam than to Christianity.. and that’s sugar coating the issue..

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Obama is sympathetic to every anti-American, pro Marxist meme in his push to weaken the foundation of American strength and to denounce the exceptionalism of our Republic.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Obama makes me want to puke.

With his base shrinking he is living in his bunker with radicals and anarchists.

Democrats Unveil the Weapon of the Future -- the liberal superstructure --

...."you have an alternate system made up of outside organizations not subject to governmental oversight, a system populated with self-selected fanatics and true believers, a system poised and ready to march, you can do what was done in Wisconsin. You can turn the superstructure loose to threaten the public peace, smash things up, abuse the electoral process, create a media spectacle, and pressure the state to do things your way. You can use nonpolitical organizations (in the electoral sense) to get a political result.

All the groups involved in the Wisconsin campaign were superstructure groups. The unions, the very core organizations of the superstructure, without which it's no more than a pack of vegetarians and aging hippies. The media, which serves as its propaganda arm. And the judiciary, which is broadly infiltrated by leftist partisans whose allegiance has been awarded to something other than the law.".....

[knarf]

Hey Amy ... your boy king hates Christ, Christianity, Judaism and anything that doesn't lift up muslims.

Look around, you drip head ... your muslim friends want to rape and stone you.

[ronnie raygun]

Time? was that a magazine?

[McGavin999]

Time? was that a magazine?

It was once, but it died a long time ago.

[MestaMachine]

“Obama hasn’t taken away their guns, he hasn’t started a race war, and–despite mailings distributed by the RNC in the 2004 campaign–godless “liberals” have not banned the Bible....”

NOT for lack of trying. It’s only because Americans, for the most part, are decent, G-d-fearing/believing people and we have rejected the bait.

[normy]

The groans and travails for the manifestation of the sons of God. It's time for His sons to start acting like it especially in America.

If anyone wonders why this country is in the condition it's in look no further than your own mirror.

As the "salt of the earth" we, and by we I mean men, have lost our savor. Time to get it back.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Nov. 13, 2011: “Pelosi fires back at ‘60 Minutes’ report on ‘soft corruption’”

“Pelosi and her husband participated in an initial public offering of Visa in 2008, according to CBS. They bought 5,000 shares at the initial price of $44; two days later, shares were trading at $64, CBS said.”.......... Source

Pelosi Bashes Catholics: 'They Have This Conscience Thing'... “After having some of her behind the scenes shenanigans exposed, Nancy Pelosi has turned to her friends in the MSM to help her with damage control. The effect is something akin to watching what scrambles out after you overturn a large rock.

Pelosi sought to defend herself from allegations that she and her husband made millions from insider trading in what the Washington Post calls a wide ranging interview……..

……Pelosi added a startling, if inadvertent, admission. Addressing the effects such [ObamaCare] legislation would have on Catholic health care providers, Pelosi said:

"I'm a devout Catholic and I honor my faith and love it . . . but they have this conscience thing."…….

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Rick Perry on Congressional Insider Trading [:24]

[StonyBurk]

Defending Obama as a Christian is like defending Hitler as
a Christian. The tree is known by its fruit—as it is written.
As for Sullivan in this editorial —and Time — I am reminded
that the world cannot understand the things of the spirit.
Sadly I can recall a time when our politicians were more like
Rick Perry and unashamed of their faith. And their faith could ,more often than not ,be seen as reflecting the Bible record. But the Court erected a divisive and destructive WALL of separation to divide the nation that only in the last decade or two has produced a Government hostile toward Christianity.The same Congress that produced the
Constitutional Convention —first adopted the Northwest Ordinance.The first Congress under our Constitution passed that fundamental law a second time. Religion(as defined then Christianity) Morality ( based upon our Christian faith) and Knowledge( of mans duty first to obey God) was the first national law regarding education and it suggested Religion
and Morality would be part of our national education. How sad we have allowed our Government turn against everything the Founders believed in as necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind. (IMO the Northwest Ordinance was a
directly influenced by a popular sermon preached first in Conn. May.10,1787 Elizur Goodrich ) In closing Isn’t Time run by Reprobates?

[Cincinatus' Wife]

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
VAN ORDEN v. PERRY, in his official capacity as GOVERNOR OF TEXAS and CHAIRMAN, STATE PRESERVATION BOARD, et al.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03—1500.Argued March 2, 2005–Decided June 27, 2005

Among the 21 historical markers and 17 monuments surrounding the Texas State Capitol is a 6-foot-high monolith inscribed with the Ten Commandments. The legislative record illustrates that, after accepting the monument from the Fraternal Order of Eagles–a national social, civic, and patriotic organization–the State selected a site for it based on the recommendation of the state organization that maintains the capitol grounds. Petitioner, an Austin resident who encounters the monument during his frequent visits to those grounds, brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit seeking a declaration that the monument’s placement violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and an injunction requiring its removal. Holding that the monument did not contravene the Clause, the District Court found that the State had a valid secular purpose in recognizing and commending the Eagles for their efforts to reduce juvenile delinquency, and that a reasonable observer, mindful of history, purpose, and context, would not conclude that this passive monument conveyed the message that the State endorsed religion. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.

Held: The judgment is affirmed.

351 F.3d 173, affirmed.

The Chief Justice, joined by Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas, concluded that the Establishment Clause allows the display of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the Texas State Capitol grounds. Reconciling the strong role played by religion and religious traditions throughout our Nation’s history, see School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 212—213, with the principle that governmental intervention in religious matters can itself endanger religious freedom requires that the Court neither abdicate its responsibility to maintain a division between church and state nor evince a hostility to religion, e.g., Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313—314. While the Court has sometimes pointed to Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, for the governing test, Lemon is not useful in dealing with the sort of passive monument that Texas has erected on its capitol grounds. Instead, the analysis should be driven by both the monument’s nature and the Nation’s history. From at least 1789, there has been an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of religion’s role in American life. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 674. Texas’ display of the Commandments on government property is typical of such acknowledgments. Representations of the Commandments appear throughout this Court and its grounds, as well as the Nation’s Capital. Moreover, the Court’s opinions, like its building, have recognized the role the Decalogue plays in America’s heritage. See, e.g., McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 442, 462. While the Commandments are religious, they have an undeniable historical meaning. Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause. See, e.g., Lynch v. Donnelly, supra, at 680, 687. There are, of course, limits to the government’s display of religious messages or symbols. For example, this Court held unconstitutional a Kentucky statute requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in every public schoolroom. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 41—42. However, neither Stone itself nor subsequent opinions have indicated that Stone’s holding would extend beyond the context of public schools to a legislative chamber, see Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, or to capitol grounds. Texas’ placement of the Commandments monument on its capitol grounds is a far more passive use of those texts than was the case in Stone, where the text confronted elementary school students every day. Indeed, petitioner here apparently walked by the monument for years before bringing this suit. Schempp, supra, and Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, distinguished. Texas has treated her capitol grounds monuments as representing several strands in the State’s political and legal history. The inclusion of the Commandments monument in this group has a dual significance, partaking of both religion and government, that cannot be said to violate the Establishment Clause. Pp. 3—12.

Justice Breyer concluded that this is a difficult borderline case where none of the Court’s various tests for evaluating Establishment Clause questions can substitute for the exercise of legal judgment. See, e.g., School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 305 (Goldberg, J., concurring). That judgment is not a personal judgment. Rather, as in all constitutional cases, it must reflect and remain faithful to the underlying purposes of the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses–to assure the fullest possible scope of religious liberty and tolerance for all, to avoid the religious divisiveness that promotes social conflict, and to maintain the separation of church and state. No exact formula can dictate a resolution to fact-intensive cases such as this. Despite the Commandments’ religious message, an inquiry into the context in which the text of the Commandments is used demonstrates that the Commandments also convey a secular moral message about proper standards of social conduct and a message about the historic relation between those standards and the law. The circumstances surrounding the monument’s placement on the capitol grounds and its physical setting provide a strong, but not conclusive, indication that the Commandments’ text as used on this monument conveys a predominantly secular message. The determinative factor here, however, is that 40 years passed in which the monument’s presence, legally speaking, went unchallenged (until the single legal objection raised by petitioner). Those 40 years suggest more strongly than can any set of formulaic tests that few individuals, whatever their belief systems, are likely to have understood the monument as amounting, in any significantly detrimental way, to a government effort to establish religion. See ibid. The public visiting the capitol grounds is more likely to have considered the religious aspect of the tablets’ message as part of what is a broader moral and historical message reflective of a cultural heritage. For these reasons, the Texas display falls on the permissible side of the constitutional line. Pp. 1—8.

Rehnquist, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., and Thomas, J., filed concurring opinions. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. O’Connor, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Souter, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1500.ZS.html

[hocndoc]

And don’t forget the blatant writing of requirements that rule out prolife groups - even for human trafficking
http://freedom2care.blogspot.com/2011/12/abortion-ideology-trumps-aid-for.html

[sodpoodle]

I can’t wait for the Obama campaign ad where he’s riding a horse, wearing a cowboy hat and roping a steer...yelling Allah Akbar!!!

I still respect and admire Rick Perry - HE is an American.

[freeangel]

“Obama makes me want to puke.”

Me, too. Me, too.

[cranked]

I give a s_it what TIME thinks how? =.=