It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


I tend to think it's a publicity grab...trying to keep his name in the headlines so far before the next election. And, if he happens to grab a few potential voters easily swayed by a wedge issue such as religion, it's a two-fer.

While on the one hand someone in Wisconsin should challenge his use of government communications to disseminate religious views..it would just make him a martyr to the religious right and gain him more publicity/votes.




posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 

All the 'players' for 2016 are positioning themselves. And Gov. Walker IS being talked about for 2016. So yeah, I can see him becoming a 'martyr' type for the far right over this. Positioning. That could very well be.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Can't we just separate church and state for once? LOL

But back to 2016 big article on Yahoo...Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton discuss their views on Education. My guess is that's the way it will roll. Either way we lose, in my opinion.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Not a problem at all. It was a philosophical point. I can't see how anyone but a winy idiot found it "threatening."



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   

amazing
Can't we just separate church and state for once? LOL

But back to 2016 big article on Yahoo...Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton discuss their views on Education. My guess is that's the way it will roll. Either way we lose, in my opinion.


So you would be FOR restrictions on free speech?

Just askin' . . . .



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   

beezzer

amazing
Can't we just separate church and state for once? LOL

But back to 2016 big article on Yahoo...Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton discuss their views on Education. My guess is that's the way it will roll. Either way we lose, in my opinion.


So you would be FOR restrictions on free speech?

Just askin' . . . .


"Progressives" only like free speech if they agree with it.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
"I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." Phil 4:13 (NKJV)

Christ helps me through my daily life.

Christ gives me strength when I feel weak.

Christ gives me strength when my work is hard to do.

Christ helps me in my relationships with people who hate me and abuse me.

In everything that I do, I lean on Christ who is my strength.


Walker is not making a threat, he is stating that his strength comes from God through Christ. It is his and my testimony. Atheists take it as a threat because they fear God, don't want God, and want to rid society of God. It is the God of Walker that is a threat to Atheists not Walker's faith.

They really need to chill out a bit. They are becoming way to extreme even for themselves.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
I can see some employees under Walker (and I'm sure there are MANY Wisconsin public employees who might take issue) filing a complaint with EEOC over this comment. They could probably sue Walker personally and his campaign fund too.

How do you think this would make a state employee who is Jew, atheist, or Muslim feel?

By the way, most State agencies have VERY strict guidelines on using State equipment for personal use. People have been fired for doing things like talking on a State phone about their real estate business. At the minimum he probably broke a few State ethics guidelines.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Daughter2
How do you think this would make a state employee who is Jew, atheist, or Muslim feel?


This is why I can see both sides of this ....

- Obviously it's not a threat so the atheist group went a bit too far in claiming it was.
- But at the same time, I wouldn't want to see my governor putting on an official twitter site .. Qu'ran verses about women being subservient to men or 'God doesn't exist' atheist statements or satanic praises or _______. (fill in the blank with religion of choice)

Yes - free speech.
Yes - freedom of religion
Yes - twitter is free so they aren't using state funds on it.

BUT ??? - who posted it? A paid gov't worker or Gov Walker himself?
If it's him .. fine. If it's a paid worker .. that's a no-no.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   

buster2010

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.


please don't use that kinda crap argument. it says in God , not in the gods, or gods if your a atheist you don't believe in any god, not just the Judeo-Christian God.
also don't act like you don't know that the majority see the U.S. as a Christian nation, from the beginning on. even though we allow anyone to follow what ever god they choose.

and just so you know there are plenty of people that have taken the the phrase to court through the years.
there have been at least seven direct court challenges since 1996 , and just last year, a federal court judge threw out a challenge.



"While Plaintiffs may be inconvenienced or offended by the appearance of the motto on currency, these burdens are a far cry from the coercion, penalty, or denial of benefits required under the 'substantial burden' standard," Judge Harold Baer Jr. wrote.
'In God We Trust' suit dismissed by court



Those who advocate the separation of church and state have questioned the legality of this motto, asserting that it violates United States Constitution which forbids the government from passing any law respecting the establishment of religion.[33] Religious accommodationists state that this entrenched practice has not historically presented any constitutional difficulty, is not coercive, and does not prefer one religious denomination over another.[33] The motto was first challenged in Aronow v. United States in 1970, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled: "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise."[34] The decision was cited in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, a 2004 case on the Pledge of Allegiance. These acts of "ceremonial deism" are "protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content."[35] In Zorach v. Clauson (1952), the Supreme Court also held that the nation's "institutions presuppose a Supreme Being" and that government recognition of God does not constitute the establishment of a state church as the Constitution's authors intended to prohibit.[36] Outside of constitutional objections, President Theodore Roosevelt took issue with placing the motto on coinage as he considered it sacrilegious to put the name of God on money.[37]
In God We Trust


again bone up on history.
edit on 25-3-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Walker IS a paid State employee.

The twitter account is tied to his STATE email and it's title is the "OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF GOV. WALKER"
edit on March 25th 2014 by Daughter2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Daughter2
 



it's title is the "OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF GOV. WALKER"

Who cares?

Is the account owned by the state of Wisconsin? When Walker leaves office, does he leave the account with the state, or does he take it with him, as his personal property?

If it isn't owned by the state of Wisconsin, then it's not the account of the Governor of Wisconsin, it's the personal account of Scott Walker, who currently happens to be the Governor of Wisconsin.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Daughter2
Walker IS a paid State employee.

If he's doing it on his own time .. then no $$ is being spent on the account.
If he's doing it on official time .. then there could be an issue.

The twitter account is tied to his STATE email and it's title is the "OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF GOV. WALKER"

If it's a state email that the state is paying for, and that's the email for his Twitter account, then there could be an issue.

IMHO



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   

adjensen
If it isn't owned by the state of Wisconsin, then it's not the account of the Governor of Wisconsin, it's the personal account of Scott Walker, who currently happens to be the Governor of Wisconsin.


There are two accounts ... one personal and one official.
That's what the TV says. I could only find the official one.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   

beezzer

amazing
Can't we just separate church and state for once? LOL

But back to 2016 big article on Yahoo...Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton discuss their views on Education. My guess is that's the way it will roll. Either way we lose, in my opinion.


So you would be FOR restrictions on free speech?

Just askin' . . . .


Free speech is a must, I'm just asking for a conservative leader that doesn't throw Christianity in my face. Does that exist?



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Fromabove

Walker is not making a threat, he is stating that his strength comes from God through Christ. It is his and my testimony. Atheists take it as a threat because they fear God, don't want God, and want to rid society of God. It is the God of Walker that is a threat to Atheists not Walker's faith.

They really need to chill out a bit. They are becoming way to extreme even for themselves.


Clearly you know nothing about atheists. I'm a Deist now, but I used to be an atheist.

Atheists do not fear God. Most don't care if others worship. They have a live and let live attitude.

The only thing atheists want is to stop having religion shoved down their throats.

As for the radicals of either side, we could do without both.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   

amazing

beezzer

amazing
Can't we just separate church and state for once? LOL

But back to 2016 big article on Yahoo...Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton discuss their views on Education. My guess is that's the way it will roll. Either way we lose, in my opinion.


So you would be FOR restrictions on free speech?

Just askin' . . . .


Free speech is a must, I'm just asking for a conservative leader that doesn't throw Christianity in my face. Does that exist?


Not listening is always another option.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   

beezzer

amazing

beezzer

amazing
Can't we just separate church and state for once? LOL

But back to 2016 big article on Yahoo...Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton discuss their views on Education. My guess is that's the way it will roll. Either way we lose, in my opinion.


So you would be FOR restrictions on free speech?

Just askin' . . . .


Free speech is a must, I'm just asking for a conservative leader that doesn't throw Christianity in my face. Does that exist?


Not listening is always another option.


They're so loud though. And what am I supposed to do next year when the presidential campaigns kick off again! blah. I may listen to you and ignore all political threads, kill my radio and give up my cable but. I'm sure some of it will sneak through!



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Restricted
 



The only thing atheists want is to stop having religion shoved down their throats.

We don't live in a theocracy, no one is "having religion shoved down their throats".

These people are not content to simply not believe in God, they are activists and evangelists who won't be happy until they succeed in banning public discussion of anything that they don't agree with.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   

FlyersFan

Daughter2
Walker IS a paid State employee.

If he's doing it on his own time .. then no $$ is being spent on the account.
If he's doing it on official time .. then there could be an issue.

The twitter account is tied to his STATE email and it's title is the "OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF GOV. WALKER"

If it's a state email that the state is paying for, and that's the email for his Twitter account, then there could be an issue.

IMHO


The governor is paid a salary and does not have official hours of duty. He may be required to take action on any number of duties that are within his purview.

There is no question of "official time."




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join