TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › What is up with John Edwards
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What is up with John Edwards

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
Heard just a snippet so don't know the deal.

He hired two women that are Christian haters that have been spewing some really really bad vile stuff on their blogs or something.

And Edwards, supposedly, stuck up for them. Holy Cow.

What is up with that?

Edwards is finished I think, if the above is true.

It really kills me that SOME of the democrats (not candidates themselves) that profess to be so liberal and tolerant to all, EXCEPT Christians.
I did not read any of the so-called vile stuff these two women had on their blogs but I heard it was REALLY nasty.

Anyone else hear about this?
post #2 of 28
CNN is covering the story:http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/....ap/index.html
post #3 of 28
What they posted was done before they were hired onto his "campaign" and they have, I believe, resigned. One apparently posted about the Duke Rape Case (I can't find much info about that) and the other about Catholics.

It wasn't about Christians in general. The statement, which I read right after the story broke, was about the official stance of Catholics against birth control. Not a surprising stance coming from a self-proclaimed feminist. It wasn't that horrible - I wouldn't call it "vile" and it certainly wasn't against all Christians. Yes, it was insulting to the Catholic stance on birth control, and I understand why they were upset.

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find a quote of what was posted. And I didn't read the Duke Rape commentary.

ETA: Just read the CNN story, which included quotes from the one's blog that were more general about the Virgin Mary, that I hadn't read before. She seems a bit extreme.
post #4 of 28
Thread Starter 
Thank you for the link. Oooh that is bad speculating on "what if Mary, the mother of Jesus had taken an emergency contraceptive" bad taste

and the other saying that Christians would follow or followed Bush are, "wing nut Christ-o-fascists" Not good
post #5 of 28
Whatever happened to good old fashioned freedom of speech?
post #6 of 28
Thread Starter 
They are free to spew whatever they want and others are free to disagree and raise such a ruckus that they are forced to resign.

My question is, whatever happened to good taste or tolerance or respect for other people.
post #7 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
They are free to spew whatever they want and others are free to disagree and raise such a ruckus that they are forced to resign.

My question is, whatever happened to good taste or tolerance or respect for other people.
Tolerance and respect should be mutual. How many religious conservatives would tolerate and respect my pro-choice views, or not condemn my support of birth control, which I feel is essential in view of world overpopulation and the AIDs epidemic?
post #8 of 28
Thread Starter 
I would criticize them if they trashed you for your views. Hey, I am all for birth control and you won't hear me trashing anyone for pro choice views.

Yes, what is good for the goose IS good for the gander.

Just seems to me like many people are tolerant of everything BUT Christians.
post #9 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Just seems to me like many people are tolerant of everything BUT Christians.
Probably because many people don't preface that with "radical", although that's what they mean. It's not whatever confession, per se, that a lot of people find objectionable, but radical whatever denomination, who try to impose their own beliefs on others, who elicit negative responses. Just look at all the moderate Muslims who are suffering discrimination because of 9/11, Madrid, Bali, etc..
post #10 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Heard just a snippet so don't know the deal.

He hired two women that are Christian haters that have been spewing some really really bad vile stuff on their blogs or something.

And Edwards, supposedly, stuck up for them. Holy Cow.

What is up with that?

Edwards is finished I think, if the above is true.

It really kills me that SOME of the democrats (not candidates themselves) that profess to be so liberal and tolerant to all, EXCEPT Christians.
I did not read any of the so-called vile stuff these two women had on their blogs but I heard it was REALLY nasty.

Anyone else hear about this?
I know absolutely NOTHING about any of this but just wanted to congratulate you on reaching Top Cat status with this very post.
post #11 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
Probably because many people don't preface that with "radical", although that's what they mean. It's not whatever confession, per se, that a lot of people find objectionable, but radical whatever denomination, who try to impose their own beliefs on others, who elicit negative responses. Just look at all the moderate Muslims who are suffering discrimination because of 9/11, Madrid, Bali, etc..


But that is all in the individual persons perception of "who try to impose their beliefs on others"

There are people on this very board that feel Bush does that because he says "God Bless America" after every speech and is open about being a Christian. But I do not see that as him trying to impose his belief on others at all.
post #12 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
But that is all in the individual persons perception of "who try to impose their beliefs on others"

There are people on this very board that feel Bush does that because he says "God Bless America" after every speech and is open about being a Christian. But I do not see that as him trying to impose his belief on others at all.
The U.S. guarantees separation of state and church in its Constitution, so it doesn't seem right for the head of state to make "religious statements". Carter was another one who pushed the envelope, and Clinton and Reagan hovered around the line of propriety.
post #13 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
There are people on this very board that feel Bush does that because he says "God Bless America" after every speech and is open about being a Christian. But I do not see that as him trying to impose his belief on others at all.
I can only speak for myself on this statement, but I have no problem with Bush being Christian, or him saying Gos bless America, I have a problem when he says he is doing things for this country in the name of God.... but in general I just can't stand anything Bush says he has got to be the worst public speaker ever! but I digress....

as for Edward, I really don't think this will have any negative effect on his "business" there are far too many people with far too much guilt that want to hear that their loved ones that have passed forgive them their transgressions, and Edward is VERY convincing at what he does, as far as it being real, I don't know bout all that
post #14 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
The U.S. guarantees separation of state and church in its Constitution, so it doesn't seem right for the head of state to make "religious statements". Carter was another one who pushed the envelope, and Clinton and Reagan hovered around the line of propriety.

See, but that is all in one's own perception. God Bless America to me, is not pushing any envelopes and doesn't even scream Christian.

My goodness, don't they pray before the Senate meets and things like that?

We do have seperation between church and state, IMO, no one is broaching that.

And one certainly couldn't accuse Bush of being a "radical" Christian by any means, IMO at least.
post #15 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
See, but that is all in one's own perception. God Bless America to me, is not pushing any envelopes and doesn't even scream Christian.

My goodness, don't they pray before the Senate meets and things like that?

We do have seperation between church and state, IMO, no one is broaching that.

And one certainly couldn't accuse Bush of being a "radical" Christian by any means, IMO at least.
I have to disagee with you there... we don't have seperation of Church and State. It says In God We Trust on our money and "one nation under God" in our Pledge.
post #16 of 28
Thread Starter 
We definitely have different opinions of the meaning of "seperation between church and state" then Lookingglass.
post #17 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post

My goodness, don't they pray before the Senate meets and things like that?

We do have seperation between church and state, IMO, no one is broaching that.
That's something I find objectionable. My views are colored by the fact that I live in Germany, where political views were elevated to a quasi "religious" status during the Third Reich, and where some politicial parties are still connected with certain religions. I really don't think Congress, the White House, or the Supreme Court have any business involving prayer and the like in their agendas.
post #18 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
We definitely have different opinions of the meaning of "seperation between church and state" then Lookingglass.
I guess we do... I simply think that God has no place in govenment what so ever up to and including money and our pledge.
post #19 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
See, but that is all in one's own perception. God Bless America to me, is not pushing any envelopes and doesn't even scream Christian.

My goodness, don't they pray before the Senate meets and things like that?

We do have seperation between church and state, IMO, no one is broaching that.

And one certainly couldn't accuse Bush of being a "radical" Christian by any means, IMO at least.
I have to disgaree with that as well. many of bushes policys seem to be very motivated by his religious affilation.
post #20 of 28
Thread Starter 
So Scamper, you really think Bush is a radical Christian then?

The Senate has prayed before meetings since this country was founded from what I understand so the founding fathers must not have had a problem with it and must not have thought it interfered with the seperation between church and state.
post #21 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
so liberal and tolerant to all, EXCEPT Christians.
I did not read any of the so-called vile stuff these two women had on their blogs but I heard it was REALLY nasty.

Anyone else hear about this?
Yea, but dont you know, , Its all in fashion to blast christians lol
oh by the way "seperation between church and state" is ment so the state does not
start its own version. But as is the normal way people have taken it to far.

as for Edwards does not not have some dead people to channel or something?
how he helps to drive up are medical bills.
forget him he is done before it even starts.

INCOMING NEWS,
BEING CHRISTIAN IS NOT A BAD THING
MORE NEWS AT 11
post #22 of 28
ckblv here are the 2 blogs if you have not seen them already:

http://www.mousewords.blogspot.com/
same person different blog
http://www.pandagon.net/

and the other lady:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/

I have not read the blogs or articles so I can not comment yet.
post #23 of 28
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

http://www.archives.gov/national-arc...of_rights.html

This is the one and only place that "religion" is mentioned in the Constitution and the subsequent amendments. There is no "official" separation of church and state santioned in the Constitution, other than Supreme Court rulings and interpretations.

My point being that the Constitution does not guarantee separation of church and state at all. It is various Supreme Court rulings that have made that interpretation.
post #24 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; .

My point being that the Constitution does not guarantee separation of church and state at all. It is various Supreme Court rulings that have made that interpretation.
That has been seen as meaning, that the establishment of a national religion by Congress is not allowed. Thus a state church. but no where does it say freedom from.
as i said, people as they normaly do take things to far.
post #25 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
So Scamper, you really think Bush is a radical Christian then?

The Senate has prayed before meetings since this country was founded from what I understand so the founding fathers must not have had a problem with it and must not have thought it interfered with the seperation between church and state.
i didnt say i felt he was a radical but i certainly think alot of his policy is made based on relgious belief.
post #26 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Just seems to me like many people are tolerant of everything BUT Christians.
I couldn't agree more. It gets really frusterating / Those women were definitely out of line.
post #27 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
So Scamper, you really think Bush is a radical Christian then?

The Senate has prayed before meetings since this country was founded from what I understand so the founding fathers must not have had a problem with it and must not have thought it interfered with the seperation between church and state.
No, I think that President Bush plays to the Evangelical base, but doesn't respect them. His staff refers to them as "the nuts".

I don't have a problem with Christians at all, but I do have a problem with a President that is willing to exploit them to get what he wants. If I were an Evangelical, I'd be very insulted.
post #28 of 28
Thread Starter 
I do not believe President Bush disrespects Evangelicals and I don't believe he exploits them either.

That is what is great about this forum, is sure is "In MY opinion"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › What is up with John Edwards