Cult Watch
See other Cult Watch Articles
Title: Sharron Angle Says Democrats' Agenda Violates 'The First Commandment,' Frames Reid As Dark Overlord
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/ ... ngle-says-democr_n_670833.html
Published: Aug 4, 2010
Author: Sam Stein
Post Date: 2010-08-04 19:44:43 by Skip Intro
Keywords: None
Views: 48468
Comments: 67
Sharron Angle Says Democrats' Agenda Violates 'The First Commandment,' Frames Reid As Dark Overlord Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle has long seen religious meaning behind her candidacy, going so far as to tell supporters that God was behind her rise from political obscurity, guiding her path to Congress. On Wednesday, the celestial threads took another turn towards the bizarre, as Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston uncovered an interview in which the Tea Party favorite said that actions of the federal government were a "violation of the First Commandment" -- not amendment, commandment. "I know people are very frightened about what's going on in this country," Angle said in an interview that originally aired on April 21 with TruNews Christian Radio's Rick Wile. "And these programs that you mentioned -- that Obama has going with Reid and Pelosi pushing them forward -- are all entitlement programs built to make government our God. And that's really what's happening in this country is a violation of the First Commandment. We have become a country entrenched in idolatry, and that idolatry is the dependency upon our government. We're supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread, not for our government. And you've just identified the real crux of the problem." This statement alone was a rather glaring reflection of just how infused religion is in Angle's political mindset. The Nevada Republican has already made major waves arguing in opposition to abortion even in cases of rape and incest. But once Ralston published the exchange, things grew even more bizarre. Angle's communications director, Jarrod Agen -- who was hired, it should be noted, less than 24 hours ago -- sent a clarifying statement to the reporter that was dipped even deeper in religious tones, framing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) as a sort of dark overlord. "Only the supreme arrogance of Senator Reid would believe that he has a divine right to rule over mere mortals by ramming through Obamacare, billions in reckless spending, and yes, buying cocaine for monkeys," Agen said. "The fact is, Reid has acted like he's all-powerful and accountable to no one. People are frustrated because, like Sharron, they understand Washington has become a giant, unseen, omnipotent force whose presence is felt in all our lives whether we like it or not." The statement provoked a slew of seemingly shocked tweets from Ralston who took the response as sincere. Only after the fact did the campaign get in touch with him to insist the statement was facetious. Story continues below Asked to clarify whether, in fact, he was being sincere or sarcastic, Agen said there was "a little of both in there." In all, the entire episode seems likely to end up being just another footnote in a Senate candidacy that has been filled with incredible oddities and dramatics. But context remains important. It's not unusual for a candidate to invoke his or her religion in the course of an election. Harry Reid himself has said it's difficult to "separate your religion from your politics, its part of your personality. It is part of who you are." It's rare, however, for a candidate to insist that their candidacy is imbued with religion itself. Angle has certainly raised the bar for envelop-pushing statements. Whether those following the campaign will adjust their expectations and coverage as a result (or continue to call a spade a spade) will matter as Election Day approaches.
Poster Comment: Sounds like her wing has lost it's nut.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-27) not displayed.
.
.
.
#28. To: Ignore Amos (#10)
Amen,brother,amen! I have been preaching "None of the above" for years,with the additional stipulation that if NOTA wins,but parties MUST run new candidates,and THEY must pay ALL the expenses for the special election,not the taxpayers. If you want to stop getting party insiders who are promoted as "the lesser of two evils",this is the way to do it. Once they start having to pay for elections out of party coffers,they will start promoting candidates that people want to vote for. I realize this would put third party candidates at a distinct advantage because no third party could afford to pay this sort of expense,so something would have to be worked out to allow third parties to participate.
"I adore John McCain, support him 100 percent and will do everything I can to support his reelection. As everyone knows, I was honored and proud to run with him. And Todd and I were with him in D.C. just a week ago." (Sarah Palin,Dec 2009) ************************************ DID Palin say or write these things or not? (Me) I don't know or F ing care. (Mad Dog posted on 2009-12-26 16:36:33 ET,post # 105 http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=5510&Disp=114#C114)
You really are clueless.
No, I just listen to what the idiots you'd vote for say. Try reading what she said again: "We're supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread."
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
Yep we sure are. That doesn't mean we just sit there. We have Spinner and now you Twister.
Find me one sermon anywhere from a pastor teaching to sit on your ass and do nothing and wait. That isn't even close to what she said means. You are supposed to work hard and have faith that God will take care of us and things will work out. For example stealing is showing a lack of faith. If you steal something you must not have had faith enough that God would provide with what you needed if you actually needed it.
I like the way you just contradicted yourself by agreeing with my interpretation of what Angle said.
"How many confirmed NV Mig kills do YOU have general? I only have three." - Mad Dog, the syphilitic psychopath
If you agree with me then don't argue about it.
“If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today.” Gandhi Perhaps if Christians stopped complaining about being misunderstood by secular society and actually LIVED who they claim to be, they wouldn't have to waste so many words trying to convince secular society that they have a worthy message. Its that splinter and log thing.
Perhaps if you went to the store and bought some rope....Na nevermind.
1 Cor. 10:31 Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God
There was only One in history who really lived according to the teachings of Christ (the rest of us STRIVE to - big difference). And one of the disciples who lived with Him 24/7 betrayed Him. So - was the problem with Christ and/or His message? Or was the problem with Judas - the fallible human follower? As far as I'm aware, no one is questioning Ms. Angle's Christianity. What I AM observing is heaps of ridicule hurled her way - much of it by statists and leftists who wouldn't consider voting for her anyway. My question is: can someone who is an evangelical Christian (which I understand Ms. Angle is) run for public office AND NOT compromise who they are? In other words - if a candidate who is an evangelical Christian is asked certain questions pertaining to their faith AND THEY ANSWER HONESTLY, does that dis-qualify them? Given today's polarized political climate, I think it does.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meet the new elephant boss The last gasp of a dying Republic is a "living, breathing Constitution."
Sharron Angle: “And these programs that you mentioned — that Obama has going with Reid and Pelosi pushing them forward — are all entitlement programs built to make government our God. And that’s really what’s happening in this country is a violation of the First Commandment. We have become a country entrenched in idolatry, and that idolatry is the dependency upon our government. We’re supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread, not for our government.” She has not been disqualified as a candidate. It is up to the voters to decide if she represents their interests. What may disqualify her in the eyes of many voters is her willingness to impose her version of Christianity on the rest of us. Beyond that, I find her analysis of the first commandment as it pertains to the role of government garbled. To idolize is to worship, dependence is to rely on; they are not the same. One may worship what one depends on or resent it. She wants us to rely on God for our protection, but I don't hear her object to the government's role in our protection, or taxes collected for military spending. It is entitlement spending she objects to, specifically those programs designed to help people through rough patches - she wants them to depend on God.
I suspect that I am more inclined than you to cut Sharron Angle some slack. :-) There was concern that - if JFK were to be elected - we as a nation would be beholden to the Pope, etc. We know how it turned out, of course, and these arguments today sound bigoted and dated. I mention this because I think it somehow relates to your argument. If we as people of faith (whatever that faith happens to be) are asked to vote for someone who is of a different faith, we may have a concern as to how much that candidate will "impose" their faith. I'll make this more personal. We may be faced with Mitt Romney as a candidate in '12 (if we still HAVE elections). While I don't happen to believe in Mormonism, nor would I attend a Mormon temple, I believe I COULD vote for a Mormon if I happened to agree with his/her political views. (I don't think I'll be voting for Romney BTW, but it's not because he's a Mormon.) I'm just not concerned that they would want to impose Mormonism on the rest of us. I do have a concern with how the Angle/Reid race is playing out. As I see it, one of the chief problems with the Fedgov (among the many) is the onset of the professional politician. The Reids, Grahams, Bushes, Clintons and Kennedys have done nothing else with their lives except run for or hold office. As a result, they are nothing more than elitists who never have to live under the laws they make. This is not what the founders intended. They wanted "citizen" legislators - who would go to DC and serve no more than 2 or 3 terms, and then return to private life. I see the much maligned "tea party" as a way to achieve that. Hopefully they can resist the temptation to join the GOP. But the tea party poses a potential threat to the existing power structure and, as such, must be destroyed. Why else do you think you have such "divergent" (yeah, sure) people like Trent Lott and Nancy Pelosi opposing it. Much of the vitriol directed against Angle is that she is a product of the "tea party". Since it is imperative the tea party be destroyed, it follows that any candidate they support be destroyed. Angle's defeat (if it happens) will be a setback for the concept of the "citizen legislator and a win for the elite class. When the elite class wins, the rest of us lose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meet the new elephant boss The last gasp of a dying Republic is a "living, breathing Constitution."
I'm older than you and remember that race very well. I can guarantee that had Kennedy campaigned framing his policy in Catholic centric terms, he never would have been elected. I mention this because I think it somehow relates to your argument. If we as people of faith (whatever that faith happens to be) are asked to vote for someone who is of a different faith, we may have a concern as to how much that candidate will "impose" their faith. She's running against Harry Reid - he's Mormon. Would your religious tolerance extend to a Hindu or Muslim using either of their religions in a political campaign the way Angle does hers? Angle is not a political neophyte. She does have a track record in Nevada having been elected to the state legislature and run for Congress (lost). Bottom line - unlike Kennedy or Reid, Angle has made her faith a political issue.
If Mormons are voting strictly their faith, I suppose they'll vote for Reid. If they're voting their political views, Angle's is probably closer to theirs. So who knows? In the end, in politics, it's only perception that matters, anyway. To the other question, from what I know about Hinduism I don't believe I would have a problem voting for a Hindu. A Muslim is another matter. Islam is a political movement as much as a religious one. And, it's a political movement that conflicts with American ideals. So no - I don't believe I could vote for a Muslim under any circumstances. I just do not believe she was as prepared as she needed to be. Especially given the hatred toward the tea party (for the reasons I cited before) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meet the new elephant boss The last gasp of a dying Republic is a "living, breathing Constitution."
I overestimated your intelligence level.
Idaho and Wyoming have a higher percentage. Mormons make up 7.4% of the population in Nevada. I'm not sure how you perceive Angle is "using her religion" in a political campaign or if I would perceive it the same way. I'm not asking you to provide examples - I'll take your word that - from your standpoint - she is. Go back and re-read the quote. A Muslim is another matter. Islam is a political movement as much as a religious one. And, it's a political movement that conflicts with American ideals. The radical Christian right is also a political movement at odds with American ideals.
Before Jesus' execution, when Pilate asked Him "where is your kingdom", Jesus' response was "My Kingdom is not of this world." I will grant you that there may be some small factions of Christianity in which they seek to establish a theocracy. If they do, however, they are not in accord with (my understanding of) the Bible. We do (at least for the time being) live in a representative republic, correct? You don't have a problem with like minded people forming alliances to encourage other like minded people to become involved and vote, do you? Even if you don't agree with them? There is a difference between having an influence, and outright taking something over. I believe the majority of Christians (and yes, even the majority on the dreaded Christian right) understand that we do live in a secular society. I know that I understand it and - even with all its problems - I wouldn't want it any other way. For many years (generations, perhaps), fundamentalist Christians were averse to getting involved much in politics. "Too worldly", they said. Starting in about the 60s, that began to change - as many conservative Christians saw the country going to hell. So - they became involved and began to form alliances. Again I ask - what is wrong or nefarious about that?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meet the new elephant boss The last gasp of a dying Republic is a "living, breathing Constitution."
Oh, I thought that maybe she wanted to get rid of the government supported military and rely on prayer for our national defense. Which proves you aren't too bright.
The radical Christian right is also a political movement Until you can show me where a large group of Christians is strapping bombs on their children or flying planes into buildings, I'm going to reject your comparison.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meet the new elephant boss The last gasp of a dying Republic is a "living, breathing Constitution."
There is like 1.57 billion Muslims in the world, how many of them have committed terrorist acts? For an example of Christian terrorists, Northern Ireland.
It boils down to this. Mainstream Islam is religious and politcal at its core. Its founder was a religious AND political figure. Your question to me was would I ever vote for a Muslim for political office? My answer was no - because I do not believe he/she could seperate political goals from religious ones. Do you not want a secular society - or just a specifically non-Christian one? Because it seems to me that your problem is with Christianity specifically - not religion in general. You can hate the "Christian right" all you want - but to make the case that they are as violent as Muslim terrorists is insane. Making that argument puts you in Rosie O'Donnel territory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meet the new elephant boss The last gasp of a dying Republic is a "living, breathing Constitution."
You sound like a very mixed up person. I feel sorry for Lucy. Does she have a father in her life? As in under the same roof as you?
My problem is with radical religious fundamentalism of any stripe, including Christian.
That's fine, on the surface. But let's dig deeper. What specific acts of "Christian fundamentalism" and "Islamic fundamentalism" do you have a problem with? How about the street preacher shouting loudly, waving his Bible and proclaiming the end of the world is near? How about the people marching in front of abortion clinics carrying signs and offering counseling? How about those that resort to violence and actually blow up the clinics? And then there are the Mulims "fundamentalists. Do you have a problem with people praying 5 times a day? Forcing women to wear burkas? Sharia law? Honor killings? Suicide bombers? I have this feeling (correct me if I'm wrong) that you want to equate the extremists who exist in ALL faiths - their acts, and the way their acts affect larger society. That is just not honest or accurate. I am a "fundamentalist" Christian. By that, I mean I believe the Bible means "fundamentally" what it says. I try (and fail daily) to live accoding to its precepts. Politically, I tend to be Libertarian. On another thread about homosexual marriage, I took the libertarian view. One final thought re: Sharon Angle. She may be a kook, a loon, a radical right winger - whatever pejorative you wish to hurl her way. But you know what? She's not Harry Reid. If I resided in Nevada, I would vote for her. Because - if elected - she would be one of 100. Her looniness or kookiness would be tempered by the other 99. And did I mention - she's not Harry Reid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meet the new elephant boss The last gasp of a dying Republic is a "living, breathing Constitution."
Why would I have a problem with people praying 5 times a day? I would have a problem with some one insisting I pray 5 times a day. Because - if elected - she would be one of 100. Her looniness or kookiness would be tempered by the other 99. So then you would vote for Angle not because she's even the lessor of two evils, but because you figure she'd be ineffective.
Nice dodge to my question. Reid is only "effective" because his party controls DC, and he's SML. On top of that, he's "effective" in everything I oppose. Angle would be no more or no less effective than any other junior Senator. And I do not believe she is evil. Can't say the same for Reid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meet the new elephant boss The last gasp of a dying Republic is a "living, breathing Constitution."
How is that a dodge? Really, if some one wants to pray 5 times a day, what has that got to do with me?
What specific acts of "Christian fundamentalism" and "Islamic fundamentalism" do you have a problem with?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meet the new elephant boss The last gasp of a dying Republic is a "living, breathing Constitution."
The part that says the last word on morality has been delivered to me and its my job to get laws passed to see that you live by my lights.
So you have a problem with stealing being illegal, murder being illegal? Those are not the values I would teach to my children. Stealing and murder is wrong even if you libs don't think so.
We all teach our children that stealing and murder are wrong, however not all people define government collection of taxes as theft (certainly not the founding fathers) or abortion as murder.
Who says it is wrong? You must be reading that Bible thing. Shame on you. Burn it. It gives you crazy ideas like honorning your father and mother. Obama is your messiah. Get with the program.
If you only refrain from stealing because the Bible tells you not to, then I would say you missed the point.
The part that says the last word on morality has been delivered to me and its my job to get laws passed to see that you live by my lights. I asked about specific acts, and you responded with "parts" - but whatever. I can see this is going nowhere. Let me leave you with one observation. The genius of the founders who gave us our republic was that it allows for the occasional right wing wacko (according to you) like Sharron Angle. Whatever "outrageous" views she has that she wants to "shove down your throat" (egads - the horrors!) is going to be tempered by others who hold different views. Not to worry, though. We could have 20 or 30 Sharron Angles in the Senate (not gonna happen) and 100 or so in the House. It's not going to matter, 'cuz the USS Titanic is still on course for the iceberg. Sleep easy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Meet the new elephant boss The last gasp of a dying Republic is a "living, breathing Constitution."
Separation of church and state. Separation of Church and state. That 's what you libs usually say.
I don't known what point you are trying to make.
Here's the point that most people don't understand: Do the vast majority of people worldwide refrain from theft and murder because it's illegal? NO. It's illegal to steal and murder because most people refrain from doing it. These laws simply codify punishments for behavior that deviate from the norm. This is far different than government making up new laws up to proactively change how people naturally behave in a society.
You sound like you are hoping for an inquisition.
"See in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --- George W. Bush (Rochester NY, 5-24-2005)
Children who develop normally, empathize with others. They don't have to be taught, it is built into our human nature. It is the human's ability to feel compassion and empathy that makes stealing and murder illegal.
I'd like to see NOTA win, and Reid come in 3rd . . .
#29. To: Skip Intro (#24)
No, it means you should just wait for God to take care of you.
#30. To: A K A Stone (#29)
(Edited)
You really are clueless.
#31. To: Skip Intro (#30)
#32. To: Skip Intro (#30)
#33. To: A K A Stone (#32)
#34. To: Skip Intro (#33)
#35. To: Ignore Amos (#23)
I'm going out on a limb here, but IMO Sharron Angle's worldview does not conflict with most who consider themselves evangelical Christians. The problem is - when evangelical Christians seek elective office in our SECULAR society - they must to a certain extent hide who they are.
#36. To: lucysmom (#35)
#37. To: A K A Stone (#36)
Perhaps if you went to the store and bought some rope....Na nevermind.
#38. To: lucysmom (#35)
“If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today.” Gandhi
Far be it from me to disagree with Gandhi, but . . . Perhaps if Christians stopped complaining about being misunderstood by secular society and actually LIVED who they claim to be, they wouldn't have to waste so many words trying to convince secular society that they have a worthy message. Its that splinter and log thing.
You've completely missed my point. Same as the old jackass boss
#39. To: Ignore Amos (#38)
In other words - if a candidate who is an evangelical Christian is asked certain questions pertaining to their faith AND THEY ANSWER HONESTLY, does that dis-qualify them?
#40. To: lucysmom (#39)
It is up to the voters to decide if she represents their interests.
What may disqualify her in the eyes of many voters is her willingness to impose her version of Christianity on the rest of us.
I'm old enough to remember the presidential election of 1960 (JFK vs. Nixon). I was only a kid, but it was a VERY hot topic in my household. My parents were very anti-JFK because he was a Roman Catholic. (up to that point, we'd never had a Catholic POTUS). Same as the old jackass boss
#41. To: Ignore Amos (#40)
I'm old enough to remember the presidential election of 1960 (JFK vs. Nixon). I was only a kid, but it was a VERY hot topic in my household. My parents were very anti-JFK because he was a Roman Catholic. (up to that point, we'd never had a Catholic POTUS).
#42. To: lucysmom (#41)
She's running against Harry Reid - he's Mormon.
It's probably a net plus for him. Doesn't Nevada have the second highest per-capita Mormon population (after Utah)? Would your religious tolerance extend to a Hindu or Muslim using either of their religions in a political campaign the way Angle does hers?
I'm not sure how you perceive Angle is "using her religion" in a political campaign or if I would perceive it the same way. I'm not asking you to provide examples - I'll take your word that - from your standpoint - she is. Angle is not a political neophyte. She does have a track record in Nevada having been elected to the state legislature and run for Congress (lost).
She may not be a neophyte in the strictest terms, but she is given the high-profile race she finds herself in. When one runs against the US Senate Majority Leader (esp one as unpopular and vulnerable as Reid), one has to expect the knives to come out. Bottom line - unlike Kennedy or Reid, Angle has made her faith a political issue.
Again, that is your perception.
Same as the old jackass boss
#43. To: Suzanne, A K A Stone, lucysmom (#16)
Given that she said, "depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread," it makes it sound like you shouldn't get a job. You should stand outside and look upward for your daily bread to "trickle down." Sounds like God-welfare to me.
#44. To: Ignore Amos (#42)
It's probably a net plus for him. Doesn't Nevada have the second highest per-capita Mormon population (after Utah)?
#45. To: lucysmom (#44)
The radical Christian right is also a political movement at odds with American ideals.
Same as the old jackass boss
#46. To: lucysmom (#13)
#47. To: lucysmom (#44)
Islam is a political movement as much as a religious one.
Same as the old jackass boss
#48. To: Ignore Amos (#47)
Until you can show me where a large group of Christians is strapping bombs on their children or flying planes into buildings, I'm going to reject your comparison.
#49. To: lucysmom (#48)
There is like 1.57 billion Muslims in the world, how many of them have committed terrorist acts?
Too many, I would guess. Whatever the ratio is, I doubt it gives much comfort to victims of violent acts. For an example of Christian terrorists, Northern Ireland.
Very good. How about the Crusades? The Salem Witch Trials? Same as the old jackass boss
#50. To: lucysmom (#48)
#51. To: Ignore Amos (#49)
Do you not want a secular society - or just a specifically non-Christian one? Because it seems to me that your problem is with Christianity specifically - not religion in general.
#52. To: lucysmom (#51)
My problem is with radical religious fundamentalism of any stripe, including Christian.
Same as the old jackass boss
#53. To: Ignore Amos (#52)
Do you have a problem with people praying 5 times a day?
#54. To: lucysmom (#53)
(Edited)
Why would I have a problem with people praying 5 times a day?
So then you would vote for Angle not because she's even the lessor of two evils, but because you figure she'd be ineffective.
Nope. I've vowed - in future lesser of two evils" situations - to leave the ballot blank. Same as the old jackass boss
#55. To: Ignore Amos (#54)
Nice dodge to my question.
#56. To: lucysmom (#55)
Same as the old jackass boss
#57. To: Ignore Amos (#56)
What specific acts of "Christian fundamentalism" and "Islamic fundamentalism" do you have a problem with?
#58. To: lucysmom (#57)
#59. To: A K A Stone (#58)
So you have a problem with stealing being illegal, murder being illegal? Those are not the values I would teach to my children. Stealing and murder is wrong even if you libs don't think so.
#60. To: lucysmom (#59)
We all teach our children that stealing and murder are wrong,
#61. To: A K A Stone (#60)
Who says it is wrong? You must be reading that Bible thing. Shame on you. Burn it. It gives you crazy ideas like honorning your father and mother.
#62. To: lucysmom (#57)
What specific acts of "Christian fundamentalism" and "Islamic fundamentalism" do you have a problem with?
Same as the old jackass boss
#63. To: lucysmom (#61)
If you only refrain from stealing because the Bible tells you not to, then I would say you missed the point.
#64. To: A K A Stone (#63)
Separation of church and state. Separation of Church and state. That 's what you libs usually say.
#65. To: A K A Stone (#58)
(Edited)
So you have a problem with stealing being illegal, murder being illegal?
#66. To: A K A Stone (#63)
Separation of church and state. Separation of Church and state. That 's what you libs usually say.
#67. To: jwpegler (#65)
Do the vast majority of people worldwide refrain from theft and murder because it's illegal? NO. It's illegal to steal and murder because most people refrain from doing it. These laws simply codify punishments for behavior that deviate from the norm.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]