Rand Paul: Jail those Who Attend 'Radical Political Speeches from Religious Leaders'

[dblack]

You're quite naive if you believe there are politicians that don't borrow from other dogma.

I see. So the 'sophisticated' thing to do is meekly accept shifty, unscrupulous leaders and resign ourselves to corrupt government.

Hmm... Thanks, but I'll stick with naive.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

"Think Progress??" Yea not a very credible source. Let me guess,Moveon.org and The HuffyPoop hate Paul too? I'm sure Think Progress twisted and distorted everything the man said. Par for the course for them. They have a radical Left Socialist/Progressive agenda. They'll say anything to push that agenda. So I wouldn't put too much stock in anything they claim. Come back with a different source and i might check it out. Till then i'll just call Bullshit on this one.

 

[BenNatuf]

It's time to call this story what it is. The progressive attempt to shift the conversation away from Weinergate.

 

[bodecea]

Evidently there's a federal judge in TX who believes attending a HS graduation is a radical enough rally to throw you in jail if you mention a radical concept like "prayer".

Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony - FoxNews.com

Throw you in jail?

do you read the links?

Judge Biery’s ruling banned students and other speakers from using religious language in their speeches. Among the banned words or phrases are: “join in prayer,” “bow their heads,” “amen,” and “prayer.”

He also ordered the school district to remove the terms “invocation” and “benediction” from the graduation program.

“These terms shall be replaced with ‘opening remarks’ and ‘closing remarks,'” the judge’s order stated. His ruling also prohibits anyone from saying, “in [a deity’s name] we pray.”

Should a student violate the order, school district officials could find themselves in legal trouble. Judge Biery ordered that his ruling be “enforced by incarceration or other sanctions for contempt of Court if not obeyed by District official (sic) and their agents.”


Read more: Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony - FoxNews.com

Throw you in jail?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I blame DA BOOOOOOOSH!! Oh and DAT PALIN lady TOO!! Hard to take Think Progress wingers seriously. They're just not a credible source.

 

[BenNatuf]

Throw you in jail?

do you read the links?

Judge Biery’s ruling banned students and other speakers from using religious language in their speeches. Among the banned words or phrases are: “join in prayer,” “bow their heads,” “amen,” and “prayer.”

He also ordered the school district to remove the terms “invocation” and “benediction” from the graduation program.

“These terms shall be replaced with ‘opening remarks’ and ‘closing remarks,'” the judge’s order stated. His ruling also prohibits anyone from saying, “in [a deity’s name] we pray.”

Should a student violate the order, school district officials could find themselves in legal trouble. Judge Biery ordered that his ruling be “enforced by incarceration or other sanctions for contempt of Court if not obeyed by District official (sic) and their agents.”


Read more: Federal Judge Prohibits Prayer at Texas Graduation Ceremony - FoxNews.com

Throw you in jail?

You do know what "enforced by incarceration" means I hope. Yes, if the district board allows students to say the word "prayer", they can be locked up according to this judge for contempt. The judge should be locked up for contempt of the constitution.

 

[bodecea]

do you read the links?

Throw you in jail?

You do know what "enforced by incarceration" means I hope. Yes, if the district board allows students to say the word "prayer", they can be locked up according to this judge for contempt. The judge should be locked up for contempt of the constitution.

I'd say "prayer" myself to see if I get thrown in jail.....

 

[BenNatuf]

Throw you in jail?

You do know what "enforced by incarceration" means I hope. Yes, if the district board allows students to say the word "prayer", they can be locked up according to this judge for contempt. The judge should be locked up for contempt of the constitution.

I'd say "prayer" myself to see if I get thrown in jail.....

The gist i believe is if the District board allows it, they can be thrown in jail. me personally, yeah... I'd say things like

Well, we're going out in the world now and we don't have a prayer, don't bow your head though (another verbotten set of words), Because by God (verbotten), if I know all of you, you'll come out of all of this allright. Tell me I can make it out there and I'll say amen (verbotten) to that.

Just to make the judges order look as stupid as it is.

 

[Samson]

You're quite naive if you believe there are politicians that don't borrow from other dogma.

I see. So the 'sophisticated' thing to do is meekly accept shifty, unscrupulous leaders and resign ourselves to corrupt government.

Hmm... Thanks, but I'll stick with naive.

I've read a few of your posts:

You probably don't have any choice.

 

[dblack]

You probably don't have any choice.

Ad hominems aside, there is a real issue at stake. Opportunistic equivocation by our leaders isn't a good thing. You seem to be suggesting that calling them on it is 'naive'. But surely blithely accepting it is worse, eh?

 

[Samson]

Ergo: Rand is NOT a LIBERTARIAN

He is a REPUBLICAN that cherry picks from the Libertarian Tree.

I think it's more likely the other way around. Regardless, it's the sort of political ploy I find detestable, and speaks more of ambition than integrity.

You probably don't have any choice.

Ad hominems aside, there is a real issue at stake. Opportunistic equivocation by our leaders isn't a good thing. You seem to be suggesting that calling them on it is 'naive'. But surely blithely accepting it is worse, eh?

If you find a politician that has more integrity than ambition, lemme know.

But to focus on a few incongruencies between a political party's dogma, and an individual member's belief is not only a little naive, but also absurd.

 

[dblack]

If you find a politician that has more integrity than ambition, lemme know.

Ron Paul is one. There may be others. In fact, that's the issue I'm trying to discuss; particularly whether Rand Paul can be counted in those ranks.

But to focus on a few incongruencies between a political party's dogma, and an individual member's belief is not only a little naive, but also absurd.

Well, that's not what I'm doing, so I guess your point is moot. I'm talking about the common strategy of politicians to 'have it both ways', to pander to different groups of voters by presenting their positions in such a way that the are taken radically different by different sets of potential voters.

In this case, it seems Rand Paul may be doing that. By grandstanding against the Patriot Act he created doubt in the minds of neo-cons that he supports the 'War on Terror'. Given that his comments quoted in the OP seem to conflict with his stated positions on civil rights in general, I'm inclined to suspect he's simply doing some 'damage control' - by pandering to the neo-cons - which speaks more to ambition than integrity.

If you're simply pointing out that most politicians do this, or that Rand Paul does so much less than most, I'm in complete agreement. I just don't think it's naive, or absurd, to consider the practice a negative.

 

[The T]

Click on the link in the OP and listen closely to what Paul said in context. It's not as bad as it's being made out to be.

Look at the source? George Soros anyone?