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

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker used his official twitter site to post a simple bible verse reference - 'Philippians 4:13". Nothing more was said except the chapter and verse reference. For those unfamiliar with scripture, the referenced verse reads - "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.". An atheist group has called this a 'Threat' and that it sounds like it came from a 'theocratic dictator'.

I went to the twitter site and didn't see the post.
The TV news is reporting that he's not removing it.
I didn't see it still up ... but perhaps I missed it.

So the questions ...

1 - Is it okay for the Governor of a state to use his official twitter account to post something religious?

2 - Is posting "Philippians 4:13" a threat? Is there some kind of covert conspiracy going on to incorporate religious rule of law and/or is Gov Walker a part of it? Is the tweet a threat of any kind?

3 - Gov Walker is obviously one of the GOPs potential candidates for 2016. So is all this fuss because the atheist left wing group is trying to tear Walker down before he announces his run? Or is it because they really believe what they are preaching? Or a bit of both?

4 - Walker is a religious man ... but do you think he was sincere when he posted this or is he trying to stroke the far right conservative base for a 2016 run?

5 - Bottom line ... His 'Philippians 4:13' twitter post. Problem or not?

CHristian Post - Atheist Group Demands that Gov Scott Walker Delete Religious Tweet

A Wisconsin-based atheist organization has demanded that that Governor Scott Walker remove a posting on the social media website Twitter that is religious in nature.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation stated Tuesday that they took exception to Walker's official account, including a tweet posted Sunday that simply read, "Philippians 4:13."

As rendered by the New King James Version, Philippians 4:13 states, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."

The Freedom From Religion Foundation

Letter to Scott Walker from Freedom From Religion Foundation

On March 16, 2014, you posted on your official Facebook and Twitter accounts the words "Philipians 4:13", a verse which reads, "I can do all things through Christ Who strengthens me". The braggadocio verse coming from a public official is rather disturbing. To say "I can do all things through Christ Who strengthens me", seems more like a threat, or an utterance from a theocratic dictator, than of a duly elected civil servant.

]

Scott Walker Twitter
I'm not seeing the 'Philippians 4:13" post.

All this hoopla because an atheist group was offended? This is what is wrong with America.

That's no more a threat than "Food gives me energy". I myself don't know if there is a God, but I'm not offended by anyone's show of Faith and in my opinion, some core values are being upheld better by those who do believe. It seems there is a movement to get God out of everything and hide religion under the rug. The Atheists are trying to deny believers the religious freedom they themselves enjoy so loudly.

Last time I checked the USA had the 1st Amendment so as far as I'm concerned he could of posted heil Hitler or I love the KKK or Allah Akbar or I love Twinkies.

If people don't like the tweets? Then don't vote him in office next election. Simple as that.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Jesus wept. From laughter.

Anywho, I think the Dems would be thrilled if Scott Walker were handed the nomination in '016, he'd be one of the easiest to defeat. The atheist organization, on the other hand, has to lighten up and "come back" with another bible verse in response. This would make as much news while not portraying themselves as so touchy. I'll be surprised if Walker is elected governor again, which will knock out his presidential bid before it starts.

I'm sorry, but how is that quote even remotely offensive?

Its no different than saying because Batman did it, so can I. Man, the atheists need to take a chill pill and calm down lol. They are acting as stupid as these Asian people who called me racist once because I couldn't find a sale item from the latest catalogue for them to buy.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Its not a constitutional problem.

crazyewok
Last time I checked the USA had the 1st Amendment so as far as I'm concerned he could of posted heil Hitler or I love the KKK or Allah Akbar or I love Twinkies.

If people don't like the tweets? Then don't vote him in office next election. Simple as that.

That is it in a nutshell!

The 1st Amendment protects freedom of expression.

It doesn't protect from "butt-hurt".

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.

Presidents have quoted the bible in official speeches,

Holding a personal religious view, philosophy, or ideology,

Is something we all do as Humans.

In the seeking of "separation" from we must ensure never to hinder the rights of people to believe what they will and express it as they will.

As long as he up holds the oath of office while doing so there is no problem.

I think it comes down to this -

Who pays for his official twitter account?

Do the taxpayers pay for it? If so ... no religion should be on it.
Does he pay for it? If so .. he can say whatever he wants.
Is it free? If so .. wouldn't it be a nonissue?

If he has people on his staff - paid for by the government - posting on his official twitter site, then there should be no religious references. Because technically it would mean that the taxpayer was paying people to put the religion on the internet site.

If he is doing it himself, or if he has unpaid volunteers posting, then there is no problem.


Oh .... and the quote itself .... it's not a threat, IMHO.
It looks to be inspirational.
Like the 'little train that could' repeating "i think I can, I think I can'.
Nothing threatening.

Behind the charade of "tolerance" and feeling butthurt and offended about perfectly common, even boring tweets, the totalitarian control freak keeps rearing his ugly head, seeking to thought-police the world. Once people start waking up to this in a few decades, it`ll be too late.

reply to post by FlyersFan



Totally agree, if it's an official gov Twitter account, he should not be posting religious stuff.

Genesis 4:9

8Cain told Abel his brother. And it came about when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. 9Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" And he said, "I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?" 10He said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to Me from the ground.…

Someone better tell Obama to quit quoting bible verses as well!

Oh wait, only republicans and conservatives aren't allowed. . . . my bad. . . . .

beezzer
Someone better tell Obama to quit quoting bible verses as well!

Yep. They all do it. And it's only the Republicans that get in trouble when it's done.

TECHNICALLY none of them should be doing it, if it involves anyone getting paid by taxpayers to do it. That's why I asked .. who pays for the twitter account? I'm thinking Twitter is free, right?

reply to post by FlyersFan


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

It isn't against the Constitution.

He is not endorsing a state religion.

He is expressing his personal beliefs and using a bible verse to articulate his beliefs.

He can quote from the biggest fairy tale book all he wants. Even Christ himself couldn't fix the problems of this country. And the outlook isn't any brighter so far looking to what 2016 has to offer. We're screwed.

FlyersFan

beezzer
Someone better tell Obama to quit quoting bible verses as well!

Yep. They all do it. And it's only the Republicans that get in trouble when it's done.

TECHNICALLY none of them should be doing it, if it involves anyone getting paid by taxpayers to do it. That's why I asked .. who pays for the twitter account? I'm thinking Twitter is free, right?

Ill let a wise man counter.

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues--for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured--perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again--not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me--but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

JFK.

Separation means not forcing it on others, NOT EXPRESSING A THOUGHT.

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.

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.

Is he establishing a state religion?

No.

Is he expressing a thought?

Yes.

It is not unconstitutional.

Pelosi brings up her "catholic" faith all the time.

Obama cites his "faith" all the time.

It's only an issue when conservatives do it.