Separation of Church & State

[KinkGuy]

Election Results: GOP the Victors; Dems, 'Media Elite' the Vanquished

By Allie Martin and Jody Brown
November 5, 2004

(AgapePress) - The president of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) says President George W. Bush and the Republican Party now have the opportunity to easily approve the president's judicial nominations. And a media watchdog has a surprise: John Kerry was not the only big loser on Election Day.

During the past four years, many of President Bush's judicial nominees were rejected after filibusters led by Democratic senators. One of those leading the charge against the nominees was South Dakota Senator Tom Dashle, whose re-election bid was turned away on Tuesday. Dr. Richard Land, president of the SBC's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, says gains by Republicans in the U.S. Senate -- combined with Dashle's defeat -- has changed the process.


Dr. Richard Land
"It's impossible to overestimate the significance of the defeat of 'Puff the Magic Daschle' in South Dakota," Land says. "He was the chief obstructionist in the United States Senate." And in Land's opinion, the incumbent's absence in Senate chambers constitutes more than just a loss. "The obstructionists have lost their leader; they have lost their commanding general. And with a 55-vote majority in the Senate, the Republicans ... have the votes to change the rules."

Land says the GOP can now change the rules to allow a judicial nominee to be approved with a simple majority, as opposed to the current two-thirds vote now required by the Senate. The SBC spokesman recommends the president start lining up conservative, Bible-believing judicial nominees.

 

[MisterMark]

Originally posted by KinkGuy@Nov 6 2004, 08:14 PM
Land says the GOP can now change the rules to allow a judicial nominee to be approved with a simple majority, as opposed to the current two-thirds vote now required by the Senate. The SBC spokesman recommends the president start lining up conservative, Bible-believing judicial nominees.

[post=262761]Quoted post[/post]​

The U.S. is in for many dark days ahead.

 

[TallHungLB]

I'm moving to Australia. Anyone got a condo down under for rent???

:unsure:

I sincerely hope the world is still alive 4 years from now to see Bush kicked out of the White House for good!

 

[Bluespeedoz]

Hi

I always thought that America was The Land of the Free and A Land of Opportunity. Not any more. It seems that most Americans want to have freedom and freedom of opportunity within american self-limiting values. We bring shame on ourselves for allowing this state of affairs to come to pass. I recall that my rights are enshrined in law and the constitution OVER RIDE so called american values, whatever they are.

As for Church and State our history tells us they do not mix well together. It was because of state and religious issues that our forefathers left Britain for America all those years ago.

Finally, I hope we can return to respecting others both within and outside the US, even when we do not agree with them, in the future.and that I hope that once again America can be The Land of the Free.

 

[mindseye]

Bizarre article.

I hope Land doesn't speak authoritatively for the SBC. The Senate already requires only a majority vote to confirm a Supreme Court justice. Clarence Thomas, for example, was confirmed with only a 52-48 vote in the Senate.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by Bluespeedoz@Nov 7 2004, 06:04 AM
As for Church and State our history tells us they do not mix well together. It was because of state and religious issues that our forefathers left Britain for America all those years ago.

[post=262785]Quoted post[/post]​

Only in New England. In the South, they left to make money. In the Southwest, it's all because Mexico didn't allow slavery. Hawaii, OTOH, was conquered for cheap labor to grow sugar.

And the Great Plains, Midwest, Northwest, and Alaska: An exercise in Lebensraumpolitik at work.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by mindseye@Nov 7 2004, 08:06 AM
Bizarre article.

I hope Land doesn't speak authoritatively for the SBC. The Senate already requires only a majority vote to confirm a Supreme Court justice. Clarence Thomas, for example, was confirmed with only a 52-48 vote in the Senate.

[post=262797]Quoted post[/post]​

Well, the Democrats can still filibuster. If they do their job. Err . . . We're doomed.

 

[hungwitz]

Subject: Reproductive Health At Risk

President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W.
David Hager to head up the Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs
Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more
than two years, during which time its charter lapsed.
As a result, the Bush Administration is tasked with
filling all eleven positions with new members. This
position does not require Congressional approval.

The FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee
makes crucial decisions on matters relating to drugs
used in the practice of obstetrics, gynecology and
related specialties,
including hormone therapy, contraception, treatment
for infertility, and medical alternatives to surgical
procedures for sterilization and pregnancy
termination.

Dr. Hager is the author of "As Jesus Cared for
Women:Restoring Women Then and Now." The book blends
biblical accounts of Christ healing Women with case
studies from Hager's practice. His views of
reproductive health care are far outside the
mainstream for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is a
practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life"
and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried
women.


In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled
"Stress and the Woman's Body," he suggests that women
who suffer from
premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading
the bible and praying. As an editor and contributing
author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian
Appraisal of Sexuality Reproductive Technologies and
the Family," Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the
medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth
control pill is an abortifacient.


I am concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious
beliefs may color his assessment of technologies that
are necessary to protect women's lives or to preserve
and promote women's health. Hager's track record of
using religious beliefs to guide his medical
decision-making makes him a dangerous and
inappropriate candidate to serve as chair of this
committee. Critical drug public policy and research
must not be influenced by antiabortion politics.
Members of this important panel should be appointed on
the basis of science and medicine, rather than
politics and religion. American women deserve no less.

 

[jonb]

Actually, he was appointed already. I think he's one of the ones who wants to practice his love.

 

[madame_zora]

American women are about to take it up the ass, make no mistake. I can't hold anyone accountable other than we ourselves- if only the WOMEN who voted for bush would have considered their own futures, we would not be in this mess. We are heading into four years of archaic opinions being introduced into legislation that will have a deep and longlasting effect on our lives, it will take many years just to get back to where we once were. I can't help but be deeply saddened to see the freedoms I have always held dear being legislated away, along with the hope that tomorrow will be a better day. I was actually starting to see hope for improvement in racial equality issues, the belief that gays would one day (maybe soon) be treated just like people, the issues that pertain to women could be seen as human issues instead of "women's" issues, which are of little importance to real people (men). None of these beliefs will I realistically be able to carry forward for the next four years, and we did it to ourselves.