14 May 15
Originally posted by FMFAs I've said, it depends on how she goes about it.
You have not made any case that Mrs Clinton's seeking to change people's minds is "a violation of separation of church and state".
Judging from how Obama just throws around his power in the Oval Office, I have no confidence that Hillary will not do the same in terms of "changing minds".
We all know these people engage in propaganda, and the press is all but in their back pockets. Will she stoop even lower by abusing her power even more, just like Obama? My guess is yes.
Originally posted by whodeyBut you haven't made the case at all. In what way would she have to "go about it" if her seeking to change people's minds is to be deemed "a violation of separation of church and state"? You need to actually make your case.
As I've said, it depends on how she goes about it.
14 May 15
Originally posted by whodeyHow have Obama's efforts to change minds been "a violation of separation of church and state?
Judging from how Obama just throws around his power in the Oval Office, I have no confidence that Hillary will not do the same in terms of "changing minds".
14 May 15
Originally posted by whodeyHow are politicians you disagree with, engaging in what you call propaganda, engaged in a "violation of separation of church and state"? You need to make some sort of case about the "separation of church and state" claim you are making.
We all know these people engage in propaganda, and the press is all but in their back pockets. Will she stoop even lower by abusing her power even more, just like Obama? My guess is yes.
14 May 15
Originally posted by FMFU.S. Plummets in Global Press Freedom Rankings
How are politicians you disagree with, engaging in what you call propaganda, engaged in a "violation of separation of church and state"? You need to make some sort of case about the "separation of church and state" claim you are making.
Josh Stearns
| February 11, 2014
SurveillancePress Freedom
According to a new report from Reporters Without Borders, there was a profound erosion of press freedom in the United States in 2013.
After a year of attacks on whistleblowers and digital journalists and revelations about mass surveillance, the United States plunged 13 spots in the group’s global press freedom rankings to number 46.
Reporters Without Borders writes that the U.S. faced “one of the most significant declines” in the world last year. Even the United Kingdom, whose sustained campaign to criminalize the Guardian’s reporters and intimidate journalists has made headlines around the world, dropped only three spots, to number 33.* The U.S. fell as many spots as Paraguay, where “the pressure on journalists to censor themselves keeps on mounting.” (It's worth reading Max Fisher's post on why it's hard to make absolute statements about the relative data collected by Reporters Without Borders.)
Citing the Justice Department’s aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers, including its secret seizure of Associated Press phone records, the authors write that “freedom of information is too often sacrificed to an overly broad and abusive interpretation of national security needs, marking a disturbing retreat from democratic practices. Investigative journalism often suffers as a result.”
The threats facing newsgathering in the U.S. are felt by both longstanding journalists like New York Times national security reporter James Risen, who may serve jail time for refusing to reveal a source, and non-traditional digital journalists like Barrett Brown.
Brown is a freelance journalist who has reported extensively on private intelligence firms and government contractors. He now faces more than 100 years in jail for linking to stolen documents as part of his reporting, even though he had no involvement in the actual theft.
The United States’ new press freedom ranking comes on the heels of a new and dangerous campaign against Glenn Greenwald and other journalists who have reported on the documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
In recent weeks, high-ranking members of the intelligence community and members of Congress have called NSA journalists “accomplices” to Snowden’s leaks, and accused them of trafficking in stolen goods. And as Trevor Timm of the Freedom of the Press Foundation points out, these comments are only the most recent in a long line of attacks.
In 2012, after a series of high-profile journalist arrests at Occupy protests, the United States dropped 27 places in Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index, landing in 47th place. The following year saw some progress as the U.S. climbed back up to 33rd place, but the last year has erased those gains.
The Reporters Without Borders study makes it clear that the struggles for freedom of expression and freedom of the press are global in scope, and deeply connected across borders. “Countries that pride themselves on being democracies and respecting the rule of law have not set an example,” the authors write.
Our press freedom ranking is important not just as a measure of the democratic health of our press, but also because hostility toward the press at home can legitimize threats to journalists abroad. We have to work in our communities and in Washington to fight for policies that protect all acts of journalism.
*It’s worth noting, as many have on Twitter, that the ranking of the U.S. versus the U.K. raises some questions. The threats to journalists and the intimidation of sources in the U.S. are deeply troubling, as is the impact of mass surveillance on press freedom.
However, the U.K.’s surveillance efforts mirror those of the U.S. and the U.K. government’s response to the Guardian’s reporting on these issues has been far more aggressive.
Since publishing the first reports on Edward Snowden’s leaks, British authorities have placed the Guardian under immense pressure, forcing it to move its NSA reporting almost entirely to its U.S. headquarters. Under threat of legal action, Guardian journalists were forced to destroy computers containing the Snowden documents. Using an anti-terrorism statute, authorities detained journalist Glenn Greenwald’s partner and seized his electronics at Heathrow Airport. And Parliament dragged Guardian Editor Alan Rusbridger in to testify on his patriotism and love of country.
We should be concerned about press freedom in both the U.S. and the U.K. regardless of what the numbers say, and understand how intertwined anti-press freedom efforts are in both countries.
14 May 15
Originally posted by whodeyThe question I am asking you is about the "separation of church and state" claim you are making.
U.S. Plummets in Global Press Freedom Rankings
Josh Stearns
| February 11, 2014
SurveillancePress Freedom
According to a new report from Reporters Without Borders, there was a profound erosion of press freedom in the United States in 2013.
After a year of attacks on whistleblowers and digital journalists and revelations about mass ...[text shortened]... he numbers say, and understand how intertwined anti-press freedom efforts are in both countries.
14 May 15
Originally posted by FMFOh, so you were not asking about the loss of the freedom of the press in the US that has virtually gone unchallenged due to the coercive and tight clinched grip the Obama administration has on the press, my bad.
The question I am asking you is about the "separation of church and state" claim you are making.
I'm sure Hillary won't try to coerce the press into printing stories that cast her theological views on abortion on us all.
Originally posted by whodeyClearly, what I am asking you about is your claim about the "separation of church and state" and what you claim is its violation. Does it rely on your contention that her stances on abortion are "theological views"? If so, why not just make the case?
Oh, so you were not asking about the loss of the freedom of the press in the US that has virtually gone unchallenged due to the coercive and tight clinched grip the Obama administration has on the press, my bad.
I'm sure Hillary won't try to coerce the press into printing stories that cast her theological views on abortion on us all.
14 May 15
Originally posted by FMFCHRISTIAN PURGE – The Obama Factor (Part One)
I am asking you is about your claim about the "separation of church and state" violation. Does it rely on your contention that her stances on abortion are "theological views"? If so, why not just make the case?
by Sharon Sebastian on May 19, 2010
It’s afoot. The target: Christianity. Hijack, overthrow, or purge, the Obama government is making its move. True Christianity consists of people of biblical faith who are tolerant and giving while adhering to the Judeo-Christian teachings of Jesus Christ. Rabbi Daniel Lapin of the American Alliance of Christians and Jews has witnessed the blessings of living in a Christian nation: “It is not an accident that America has provided the most tranquil level of prosperity that Jews have enjoyed for 2000 years and that is because America is a Christian nation. …I think always of America’s Bible Belt as Judaism’s safety belt.” (See page 110 – Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, www.DarwinsRacists.com.) History records that true Christianity benefits nations.
Though over 75% of Americans profess to be Christian, Washington’s Liberal-Progressive leaders hold particular disdain for conservative Christian voters who steadfastly obey the biblical teachings of Jesus Christ. And, there’s the rub. True Christians always put faith before politics. To both circumvent or purge Christianity or ridicule Christians who question the left’s agenda, political instigators have three choices. The government can discredit the faith and its pastors, they can enact laws that prohibit specific Christian scripture, or they can, via Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky, infiltrate and falsely lay claim to the faith of Jesus Christ through the power of government by manipulating and counterfeiting it into something it is not, and still call it by its name – Christianity. All three strategies are currently in play. The first uses strong-arm tactics of denunciation. The public slap-down of Rev. Franklin Graham was a warning for voicing his opinion on Islam, abruptly followed by the tactic of a Presidential visit to his ailing, elderly father in his home for a photo-op. Rev. Graham expects to be arrested some day for preaching segments of the Bible. Federal laws are winding their way through a Democrat-controlled Congress, such as ENDA, that will shackle people of faith who dare to stand for their values and beliefs.
The left abhors mixing faith with politics unless it serves their agenda. Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi lays bare a blatant double standard as she now openly calls on clergy to support the Democrats’ immigration agenda. The hypocrisy is that everyone knows (including illegal immigrants) that the issue is not about faith, but about the vote in 2012 when Democrats need immigrant-amnesty to secure an additional 20+ million votes to keep Barack Obama in office. Ironically, immigrants stand to lose religious rights along with everyone else. Christianity is not a political tool. Christians’ allegiance is to Christ.
Headlines are filled with policies aimed at breaking down the family, implementing abortions as just another form of birth control, the teaching of homosexual acts to school children, and so on – all gratis of Obama and his handpicked officials. The very act of “redistributing wealth,” that Obama desires with such avarice, goes against the “10th Commandment of God” that declares we are not to covet our neighbor’s property or goods that are earned by the labor of our neighbor’s efforts. God’s word literally instructs against Socialism. Obama’s “wealth redistribution” teaches covetousness to the masses.
The President reportedly claimed Christianity through the prism of Black Liberation Theology’s politically infused doctrine of “social justice” which many call the “faith of liberal activism.” In 2008, Obama told Newsweek Magazine that he had “found Christ.” He then reportedly said, “But, I leave open the possibility that I’m entirely wrong.” I have said before that Obama’s faith is between him and His Creator. In this country, voters elect a president, not a Pope. Though religion may not factor into presidential qualifications, restraint against undermining the very faith upon which this great nation was founded does.
Mr. President and Madame Speaker, Christianity is not a call to street activism or Socialism (social justice), Christianity is a call to the Cross. Coercing or manipulating the faith towards anything else is egregious to Biblical doctrine. The Obama administration would be wise to understand that administrations come and go, but no matter how doggedly they wage war against it – the Christian faith based on salvation by Jesus Christ – does not.
14 May 15
Originally posted by whodeyMore spam bombing in the face of an on-topic, point blank question. You have still to make any case whatsoever that Mrs Clinton seeking to change people's minds is "a violation of separation of church and state".
CHRISTIAN PURGE – The Obama Factor (Part One)
by Sharon Sebastian on May 19, 2010
It’s afoot. The target: Christianity. Hijack, overthrow, or purge, the Obama government is making its move. True Christianity consists of people of biblical faith who are tolerant and giving while adhering to the Judeo-Christian teachings of Jesus Christ. Rabbi Daniel La ...[text shortened]... ly they wage war against it – the Christian faith based on salvation by Jesus Christ – does not.
14 May 15
Originally posted by FMFMy point here is that Obama goes virtually unchallenged in everything he does, no matter how illegal or unconstitutional it is.
More spam bombing in the face of an on-topic, point blank question. You have still to make any case whatsoever that Mrs Clinton seeking to change people's minds is "a violation of separation of church and state".
What are we then to look forward to other than worse abuses to come?
14 May 15
Originally posted by whodeyWe are talking about Mrs Clinton ~ not Mr Obama ~ and her seeking to change people's minds. It's the thread title. It's the topic. It's the OP. You have repeated the claim several times. How can Mrs Clinton's political objectives be described as "a violation of separation of church and state"?
My point here is that Obama goes virtually unchallenged in everything he does, no matter how illegal or unconstitutional it is.
What are we then to look forward to other than worse abuses to come?
14 May 15
Originally posted by whodeyYour The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." How can you characterize Hillary's stance on abortion as being "illegal" or "unconstitutional"? Is it ~ or is it not ~ the First Amendment you are referring to when you talk about "separation of the church and state"?
My point here is that Obama goes virtually unchallenged in everything he does, no matter how illegal or unconstitutional it is.
14 May 15
Originally posted by FMFPart of that amendment is the freedom of speech. So as I see it Hillary Clinton is free to speak here mind as a politician. Proselytizing for or against religious views or attempting to get congress to make laws prohibing the free exercise of religion is not the job of a government official. That is the idea of separation of church and state as I understand it.
Your The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." How can you characterize Hillary's stance on abortion as being "illegal" or "unconstitutional"? Is it ~ or is it not ~ the First Amendment you are referring to when you talk about "separation of the church and state"?