It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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...
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:
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.
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)
"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.
Read more at www.brainyquote.com...