Obama winning religious votes tougher than before

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Obama winning religious vote could be tougher now than in '08
Read more: www.foxnews.com...



The Democratic National Committee is promising a repeat performance in 2012. But some religious leaders and scholars who backed Obama in 2008 are skeptical. They say the Democrats have, through neglect and lack of focus, squandered the substantial gains they made with religious moderates and worry it will hurt Obama in a tight race against Republican Mitt Romney.

The DNC's faith outreach director, the Rev. Derrick Harkins, said the party has strong relationships with religious groups. But as evidence of their concerns, critics point to the public debate that followed Obama's endorsement of gay marriage, a decision the president said was based in part on his Christian faith.

No prominent clergyperson was sent out as a surrogate by the administration to explain the religious argument in favor of same-sex relationships. Instead, the main religious voices connected to Obama in the public sphere were the ministers who serve as his personal spiritual advisers and generally oppose gay marriage. Those ministers who were willing to comment -- many weren't -- said they were struggling with Obama's decision.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...



Well...

Breaking: 43 Catholic institutions file suits over HHS mandate
hotair.com...




Today’s Roman Catholic calendar lists May 21st as the feast day of St. Christopher Magallanes, a martyr killed for celebrating Mass during the Cristero War in Mexico. Perhaps Catholics today may want to recall St. Thomas More — the patron saint of lawyers, who was executed for refusing to agree to a mandate that gave Henry VIII the prerogative of defining religious expression in England. Dozens of Catholic institutions filed lawsuits today against the Department of Health and Human Services over its mandate and its narrow definition of religious practice:


Then to address the same sex marriage...

Does this not boil down to a state issue?

The government should not even recognize the marriage of two individuals in the first place, so yeah... it's a lose - lose argument anyways.... isn't marriage an religious ceremony? I don't care to outline this right now, for it's not the aim of the thread, but if someone wants to debate this... I'm game.

Regardless... Obama is going to further push himself away from the pew votes. It's unfortunate that this is even relevant, but then again... it's the nature of the beast.

I have a feeling that Obama will pull some kind of stunt to try and pick up a few points with this crowd... what that stunt is, no idea... don't want to give him any ideas lol.

Vote Ron Paul










posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
He'd be better off running on a Muslim ticket....he's a mixed bag when it comes to religions. He's pretty much pissed off most of the mainstream ones.

Des



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
The way I see it it should be a non-issue. There should be no laws for or against gay marriage at the state or federal level. The state and federal should have no laws forbidding civil unions even. It comes down to the whole freedom versus security thing IMHO. I would happily give gay couples the freedom and right for civil unions in exchange for whatever security is lost by those who want to legally abuse the system. As for the religious angle. No laws that are derived from religious belief or doctrine, at the state or federal level, should ever be allowed period. I don't care if the state is 100% "Christian" - religion should NEVER EVER be the basis for any law - separation of church and state should ALWAYS prevail in every circumstance. Any form of government who's laws are derived from religion are doomed to the same fate as the Roman Empire.

The people who claim allowing gay marriage at a civil union level leaves too many doors open for legal abuse are just as homophobic as birthers are racist.
edit on 6/4/2012 by Terrormaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone
He'd be better off running on a Muslim ticket....he's a mixed bag when it comes to religions. He's pretty much pissed off most of the mainstream ones.

Des



I'm not sure as to the population percentage of Muslim Americans, but I doubt he'd be better of running as such.

Obama loves to use scripture at opportune moments, I bet he figures a way to get back the pews... It's going to be tough, because the reality of his extending the reach of the Federal Government is going to trump anything he says.

I hope...



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terrormaster
The way I see it it should be a non-issue. There should be no laws for or against gay marriage at the state or federal level. The state and federal should have no laws forbidding civil unions even. It comes down to the whole freedom versus security thing IMHO. I would happily give gay couples the freedom and right for civil unions in exchange for whatever security is lost by those who want to legally abuse the system. As for the religious angle. No laws that are derived from religious belief or doctrine, at the state or federal level, should ever be allowed period. I don't care if the state is 100% "Christian" - religion should NEVER EVER be the basis for any law - separation of church and state should ALWAYS prevail in every circumstance. Any form of government who's laws are derived from religion are doomed to the same fate as the Roman Empire.

The people who claim allowing gay marriage at a civil union level leaves too many doors open for legal abuse are just as homophobic as birthers are racist.
edit on 6/4/2012 by Terrormaster because: (no reason given)


1. Religion should be a non-issue...
But that only goes so far, for what better 'label' that is self proclaimed can better be used to describes ones allegiances, morals and ethical standards.

2. The separation between church and state should NEVER EVER be the basis for any law. This is something that very few truly understand the depth in which this addresses the constitution and regarding the freedoms that we have been granted. Religion is just another liberty, much of so is it's expression. It's about the protection of beliefs and the freedom to express them in pursuits of happiness. The federal or state government is not there to protect people from themselves. Which then gets into dangerous territory once the rights of a peaceful assembly organized to discuss grievances.

Some interesting quotes...




"From the standpoint of freedom of speech and the press,
it is enough to point out that the state has no legitimate interest
in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them...
It is not the business of government to suppress
real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine."
Justice Tom C. Clark
(1899-1977) U. S. Supreme Court Justice
Source: Burstyn v. Wilson, 1952





"The makers of our constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable
to the pursuit of happiness... They sought to protect Americans in their
beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They
conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone, the most
comprehensive of the rights and the right most valued by civilized men."
Justice Louis D. Brandeis
(1856-1941) US Supreme Court Justice
Source: Olmstead v. United States, 1928





Our national media refuses to report that even the Supreme Court did not say marriage was a human right in all cases nor did it say that the heterosexual definition violated anyone's right or that the heterosexual definition of marriage was unconstitutional.
Stockwell Day
Read more at www.brainyquote.com...



Can anybody point to where it says that we in the US have the right to marriage?

We need to get rid of the Defense of Marriage act, and dissolve the recognition of civil unions. That simple...



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS
 


1. It SHOULD be a non-issue, doesn't mean it IS a non-issue. But it SHOULD be. One does not need to be part of any specific belief system or special allegiances one or group to actually be a person of good morals or told what good morals are. Humans are quite capable of making moral choices on their own (mind you, not that we always do).

2. Religion and faith is indeed a liberty we are granted in this country by the constitution. But at the same time the constitution does not entitle those of faith to enforce their beliefs upon others by making and enforcing laws that stem from said religion and faith. Laws based on Christian beliefs apply to say atheist no more so than Islamic Sharia laws apply to Christians. Most Christians would go ballistic if any laws that were Islamic based got passed. This country is culturally and idealistically diverse. Because of that, even if the majority is Christian, does not mean we cater to one specific faith here. The only way to truly be fair and tolerant is to completely separate faith from politics and law. Why do I say this? Because in this specific instance 99% of the people who have spoken out against gay marriage have done so by playing the bible card. Those in gay relationship might not even prescribe to Christianity. So why should those of Christian faith be able to tell those not of Christian faith what they can and can't do based on Christianity?

In the end laws should not be made because something one group of people does offends the sensibilities of another. You don't get to tell me what do because the bible says it's wrong because I'm not a member of your religion and therefore your religious rules do not apply to me.
edit on 6/4/2012 by Terrormaster because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
3

log in

join