Is the Tweet of "Philippians 4:13" by Gov Walker a 'Threat'?

reply to post by beezzer

I understand. I see the point you are making.
I just think that using gov't money on this stuff is a gray area.

I have no problem with what he posted.
But I can see how people would say ... tax payer money used to promote a religion I disagree with.

I can see it both ways. That's all I'm saying.

FlyersFan
reply to post by beezzer

 

I understand. I see the point you are making.
I just think that using gov't money on this stuff is a gray area.

I have no problem with what he posted.
But I can see how people would say ... tax payer money used to promote a religion I disagree with.

I can see it both ways. That's all I'm saying.

He's not promoting a religion, though.

He is simply expressing a thought using a religious quote.

FlyersFan
reply to post by beezzer

 

I understand. I see the point you are making.
I just think that using gov't money on this stuff is a gray area.

I have no problem with what he posted.
But I can see how people would say ... tax payer money used to promote a religion I disagree with.

I can see it both ways. That's all I'm saying.

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence

I would argue, this Atheist orgs stance (not all athiest, just this group, Ive met the most reasonable and open minded atheist in my life, that have no problem with expressions of belief) , that their view is correct, and that No religion should even be mentioned is a train of thought, that could eventually lead back to the same circular logic to say that Their view is a form of Religious one.

You have to allow for freedom of expression separate from the division of ENFORCED STATE CHURCH, as this "reaching" for more, is just silly.

stargatetravels
Separation of church and state.
No it's not a threat and I don't see how it can be interpreted as one
But the governor should not be tweeting religious crap on his official Twitter account either.
Just a stupid story all round.

The establishment of religion is an official establishment. Nowhere in the constitution is there means to separate a person from public office for their personal religious beliefs or not or beliefs about anything. Personal world view beliefs are not grounds for an official establishment debate....save for Marxist liberals that don't hide their personal political philosophies and so have been churning them into official laws and policy for decades now.

reply to post by Logarock


Agreed.

I see "separation of church and state" so bandied about and misused.

It's not even in the Constitution.

beezzer
reply to post by Logarock

 

Agreed.

I see "separation of church and state" so bandied about and misused.

It's not even in the Constitution.

It also could be argued that the concept of "separation of church and state" relates directly to the enforcement of a STATE religion over a none state one.

In order to protect the freedom to believe the less popular view, it instead has been hijacked to attack ALL religion.

Where instead YES it should be used to allow Atheist and Theist, to both practice their views, and express them freely with out fear of backlash from the STATE, or Baring them from participation IN the state.

reply to post by FlyersFan


He is simply insuring that no one in their right mind will vote for him.

If it truly is his official Twitter account, he keep his religious stuff out of it. Keep it secular. Then the rest of this all becomes a non-issue.

This is exactly why we need the separation, so that someone or another isn't offended every two seconds. And I'm pretty sure that's how it and why it was designed the way it was.

And if he is incapable of keeping it separate, he might want to consider another line of work.

DJW001
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

He is simply insuring that no one in their right mind will vote for him.

As is their right, to express freely and clearly their disdain for his ideology at the ballot box.

not at the hand of Censorship.

beezzer
reply to post by Logarock

 

Agreed.

I see "separation of church and state" so bandied about and misused.

It's not even in the Constitution.

Yes and the atheists have taken the no establishment clause and ran with it claiming, in effect, that because of it we are an atheist nation of sorts. That its open season on the very shade of religion being expressed by persons holding public office. Claiming that any religious communications or edifices of any kind, christian mostly, on public property or by a public official is a promotion of same without ever considering that the lack thereof should be construed as a promotion of atheism by their own reckoning.

FlyersFan

beezzer
Yes, Twitter is free. And why can't he quote bible verses?

If it's an official (FREE) twitter site .... no problem. If he's doing his own tweeting .. no problem. If volunteers are doing the tweeting .. no problem. But if someone is being paid with gov't money to be posting religious verses ... it could be a problem. It's using gov't money to express religious beliefs. Some could argue it's using tax payer money to further a religion. That's not an 'establishment of official religion' ... so it's not unconstitutional. But it's a grey area, IMHO.

I wouldn't want my tax money to pay for people to be posting Jack Chickisms.
I wouldn't want my tax money to pay for people to be posting their opinion that there is no God.
I wouldn't want my tax money to pay for people to be posting their Qu'ran quotes.

See what I'm getting at? Tax money used to promote religious things I disagree with ... irksome.
So I can understand others not wanting tax money used to promote religious things they disagree with.

As long as the twitter account is free (it is) and Walker is doing the posting himself (??)... no problem.
And no, the quote isn't a 'threat'. That's absurd. It's just inspirational.

why is that a problem, the currency of the U.S. government has in God we trust on it.
is that not the same thing.

is your tax money not paying for the money borrowed from the fed.

What a lot of nitpicking going on here.....get a life you people......much more pertinent things happening these days....

The US government promotes a religion every single day with millions of tax-payer money going to the support of the so-called Jewish state that is currently illegally occupying Palestine.
I think that the outcry for not only violating the constitutional intent, but international law, should be where people are actually being tortured and killed and driven off their land and having their homes demolished to build illegal settlements for people of a specific state-blessed religion.

I think he can post whatever scripture he wants, but I know because of his position that is debatable.

As to whether or not its a threat - give me a break.

Here is the Tweet in Question, along with a plethora of whiners, who appear to be in favour of the suppression of free speech (well, suppression of speech that they disagree with -- I'm sure if some politician proclaimed that "There is no god", they'd be all in favour of that. Turns out, in fact, they were, lol.)

Posting scripture to someone's personal Twitter feed is not the "establishment of religion." People need to get over themselves and deal with the fact that others, even "people in power," have different opinions, which they are just as entitled to have.

Much ado about nothing. This is not news. Who cares? Nobody but the Democrats.

hounddoghowlie

FlyersFan

beezzer
Yes, Twitter is free. And why can't he quote bible verses?

If it's an official (FREE) twitter site .... no problem. If he's doing his own tweeting .. no problem. If volunteers are doing the tweeting .. no problem. But if someone is being paid with gov't money to be posting religious verses ... it could be a problem. It's using gov't money to express religious beliefs. Some could argue it's using tax payer money to further a religion. That's not an 'establishment of official religion' ... so it's not unconstitutional. But it's a grey area, IMHO.

I wouldn't want my tax money to pay for people to be posting Jack Chickisms.
I wouldn't want my tax money to pay for people to be posting their opinion that there is no God.
I wouldn't want my tax money to pay for people to be posting their Qu'ran quotes.

See what I'm getting at? Tax money used to promote religious things I disagree with ... irksome.
So I can understand others not wanting tax money used to promote religious things they disagree with.

As long as the twitter account is free (it is) and Walker is doing the posting himself (??)... no problem.
And no, the quote isn't a 'threat'. That's absurd. It's just inspirational.

why is that a problem, the currency of the U.S. government has in God we trust on it.
is that not the same thing.

is your tax money not paying for the money borrowed from the fed.

The word God doesn't automatically apply to just one religion because many faiths refer to a God. The words in God we trust was put on coins in 1865 and on paper money in 1957. People would have a problem with what he posted because it is a verse from a specific faith and they would say it violates the establishment clause in the Constitution.

"I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."

Try as I may, but I cannot for the life of me twist those words into any kind of threat..... Sounds like a lot of bitching over nothing to me.

I don't have much love for organized religion, but I am not going to be one of those asshats that think that being in a government office requires you to give up whatever faith you have, and become an autonomous athiest robot.

stirling
What a lot of nitpicking going on here.....get a life you people......much more pertinent things happening these days....

Get a life? Really? This is a discussion forum. So we will discuss whatever we want to.
You may not think this is an important issue, but it is to many people.

Free speech rights. Freedom of religion rights. Freedom from religion. Proper use of tax money.
Tolerance. Intolerance. Lots to talk about.

Well ... it's obviously not a threat. That's really absurd to claim it is.
And obviously Gov Walker isn't a 'theocratic dictator'. Thats beyond silly.
The only question ... is it okay for him to put a scripture reference on an official Twitter site?