ADVERTISEMENT

POLL: Should PENCE Be Impeached for Violating Separation of Church and State? (Now with Poll)

Should Pence be impeached for this?


  • Total voters
    33
Nov 28, 2010
84,894
38,848
113
Maryland
A new ProPublica investigation reveals how Vice President Mike Pence’s office interfered with foreign aid programs in order to reroute the money to Christian groups abroad, particularly in Iraq. The investigation reveals how longtime officials worried that the White House interference in USAID funding programs could be unconstitutional because it favored one religion — Christianity — over others. The officials also worried that perceptions that the U.S. was favoring some religious groups could worsen sectarian divisions in Iraq.

https://www.democracynow.org/
 
As long as it's not here, no problem is there? Except for someone who want to create one
 
There's no such thing as separation of church and state there never has been anything about church and state never in the history of America
 
There's no such thing as separation of church and state there never has been anything about church and state never in the history of America
giphy.gif
 
The U.S.Constitution prohibits the federal government
from establishing an official religion for our nation.
In other words the federal government cannot make the
Roman Catholic denomination or the Baptist denomination
the official religion for our citizens.
 
I wonder how many of our politicians - of either party - would have the guts to toss a sitting Vice President for supporting Christianity, no matter how clearly his actions violated the constitution?
 
I wonder how many of our politicians - of either party - would have the guts to toss a sitting Vice President for supporting Christianity, no matter how clearly his actions violated the constitution?
Pretty clear cut to me. Pence used US taxpayer funds to establish Christianity over any other religion. I don't know how this isn't a direct violation of the Constitution and his promise to uphold it.
 
The U.S.Constitution prohibits the federal government
from establishing an official religion for our nation.
In other words the federal government cannot make the
Roman Catholic denomination or the Baptist denomination
the official religion for our citizens.
It doesn't stop there.

The US government cannot favor religion in general, or any religion in particular.

That's how it's supposed to work.

Of course the constitution could have been more clear about that. But apparently they were paying by the word and were running low on money.
 
The U.S.Constitution prohibits the federal government
from establishing an official religion for our nation.
In other words the federal government cannot make the
Roman Catholic denomination or the Baptist denomination
the official religion for our citizens.
The First Amendment prevents the US govt from favoring one religion over another. Doing so IS an establishment of religion.
 
Clue: Congress passed no law....
I'm sure Congress did pass a law - to fund the foreign aid that Pence abused his authority to use for religion. The law presumably did not authorize using US funds to support religion because, you know, that would be wrong.

So . . . either Pence violated the constitution or violated the law or abused his authority, or any combination of those.

He should be toast.
 
So your theory is that the executive branch can not only establish religion but that it can kill free speech?
Darn. If Obama had realized that's how things worked, the executive branch could have confiscated all guns. And shut down FOX and Rush.

Maybe Trad and the right are correct. Maybe we should give up on democracy and just try to pick the best king, and give him absolute powers.
 
Not sure this rises to the level of a constitutional crisis although i am absolutely positive politicians and the media will act like he killed babies

What were were groups doing in Iraq and what others could have done similar work at the same level? The reason Christian groups tend to be the recipients is because they are good at organizing and delivering humanitarian aid and are willing to do so in dangerous areas
 
I wonder how many of our politicians - of either party - would have the guts to toss a sitting Vice President for supporting Christianity, no matter how clearly his actions violated the constitution?

Did Kennedy get impeached for his program of spreading Jesus along with clean water when the Peace Corps met at churches before they left for overseas?
 
Not sure this rises to the level of a constitutional crisis although i am absolutely positive politicians and the media will act like he killed babies

What were were groups doing in Iraq and what others could have done similar work at the same level? The reason Christian groups tend to be the recipients is because they are good at organizing and delivering humanitarian aid and are willing to do so in dangerous areas
Basically you are making the same argument that supporters of Planned Parenthood and ACORN used to make. If they qualify for the funding, there's no problem with them getting the funding.

I'm inclined to agree on that general principle. But the suggestion here is that Pence pushed to favor Christian recipients, not that they merely qualified and competed for the funding on a level playing field.

If what we're looking at is religion-based favoritism being pushed by the VP of the US, that crosses the line.
 
Basically you are making the same argument that supporters of Planned Parenthood and ACORN used to make. If they qualify for the funding, there's no problem with them getting the funding.

I'm inclined to agree on that general principle. But the suggestion here is that Pence pushed to favor Christian recipients, not that they merely qualified and competed for the funding on a level playing field.

If what we're looking at is religion-based favoritism being pushed by the VP of the US, that crosses the line.

I'm not saying this is the case but...

What if it was on the basis of not wanting to do business with groups who, as a tenet of their religion, don't extend humanitarian rights to women. I mean if one group was sacrificing puppies to their God, I'd be OK with us not doing business with them as a point of not dealing with those we deem to be irrational. Our government picks winners and losers all the time based on beliefs and ideals.

Remember Obama withheld federal funding from North Carolina based on their bathroom law. How is that much different?
 
I'm not saying this is the case but...

What if it was on the basis of not wanting to do business with groups who, as a tenet of their religion, don't extend humanitarian rights to women. I mean if one group was sacrificing puppies to their God, I'd be OK with us not doing business with them as a point of not dealing with those we deem to be irrational. Our government picks winners and losers all the time based on beliefs and ideals.

Remember Obama withheld federal funding from North Carolina based on their bathroom law. How is that much different?
Wait. Are you saying Christianity doesn't discriminate against women?

In the scenario you outline, I tend to agree with you. But even if Pence claimed that justification, would you believe him? I wouldn't. He has a track record - both on Christianity, and on women.
 
Wait. Are you saying Christianity doesn't discriminate against women?

In the scenario you outline, I tend to agree with you. But even if Pence claimed that justification, would you believe him? I wouldn't. He has a track record - both on Christianity, and on women.

Are you saying that giving a woman 200 lashes because she attended a soccer game is on the level with anything modern Christianity does? Be careful with your answer because it will probably determine if anyone here ever takes you serious again.
 
Are you saying that giving a woman 200 lashes because she attended a soccer game is on the level with anything modern Christianity does? Be careful with your answer because it will probably determine if anyone here ever takes you serious again.
Of course not. But Christianity is hardly an egalitarian religion. And would be even worse than it is (and maybe not much different from some other reactionary religions) if not for decades of pushback by secularists and a constitution that used to be read as forbidding entanglements between state and religion.

In my youth, religion was stronger in the nation but weaker in government. Now we have millions of Americans who no longer seem to think separation is either good or required. Not a good trend.
 
Part of the establishment of religion interpretation is also not discriminating against religion. This general principal of exclusion in the interpretation that some of you are pushing is how the UI lost their ass in a lawsuit on campus recently
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT