Presidential Hopeful Bill Frist Ready to Play the Religion Card Again

[Nbadan]

Ah, those looney righties strike again...

Frist Accused of Exploiting Religion Issue
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and CARL HULSE
Published: April 16, 2005



Democratic senators accused Senator Bill Frist, the Republican majority leader, of exploiting religion for partisan ends by taking part in a telecast portraying them as "against people of faith" for blocking President Bush's judicial nominations.

"Our debate over the rules of the Senate and the use of the filibuster has nothing to do with whether one is religious or not," Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said at a news conference with Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader from Nevada. "I cannot imagine that God - with everything he has or she has to worry about - is going to take the time to debate the filibuster in heaven."

The Family Research Council, a Christian conservative advocacy group, has organized an April 24 telecast, "Justice Sunday," which includes prominent conservative Christians speaking by simulcast to churches, Web sites and Christian broadcast networks. Under the heading "The filibuster against people of faith," a flier for the telecast reads, "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith."...

***

Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said in a statement that he was "deeply troubled" by Dr. Frist's participation. "Whatever one's views may be on this or any other issue," Mr. Foxman said, "playing the religious card is as unacceptable as playing the race card."...

***

Democrats seized on Dr. Frist's participation in an effort to portray Republicans as intolerant extremists. "In America, we are in a democracy, not a theocracy," Mr. Reid said, urging Dr. Frist to back out of the event. "God does not take part in partisan politics."...

Ny times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/16/politics/16judges.html)

[Nbadan]

More Bill Frist Hypocrasy...

The Senate now faces a choice: either we accept a new and destructive practice, or we act to restore constitutional balance."

- Senator Bill Frist, Speech to The Federalist Society, 11/12/04

Senator Bill Frist needs a history lesson. There is nothing new about Senators exercising their Constitutional prerogative to approve judicial nominees. On March 8, 2000, a cloture petition was necessary to obtain a vote on President Clinton's choice for the Ninth Circuit, Richard Paez. After having delayed a vote on the nomination for over four years, Senator Bob Smith (R-N.H.) and 13 other Republicans mounted an unsuccessful filibuster.

Defending his right to filibuster, Senator Smith spoke from the floor of the Senate:

"But don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court because I am going to continue to do it at every opportunity I believe a judge should not be on that court. That is my responsibility. That is my advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. I don't appreciate being told that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States. I swore to uphold that Constitution, and I am doing it now by standing up and saying what I am saying." (March 7, 2000)

Senator Frist voted to continue that filibuster: Vote #37, 106th Congress, Second Session, March 8, 2000

[cqsallie]

You know what I really liked about Durbin's reply? He referred to god as he or she. What a remarkable person this must be, one who isn't bound by the version of god as a white, bearded male, as portrayed in "portraits" of the Supreme Being. It's not an easy thing for most men to agree to - the fact that the Supreme Being may not be a male at all, but a being without any particular sexual identification.
But, over the years, I have come to realize that if there is a "god" who created us (as well as all living species) in "his" image and likeness, then this creator must be both male and female. Why would there be any need for females if the creator was male? Wouldn't this creator, as a male, make it possible for males of all species to procreate on their own? Why the necessity for females at all? If the creator is a male, why wouldn't he just create males capable of procreation?
This question has always made me want to say, "Hmmmmm...."

[NeoConIV]

God, what am I doing up at this hour....

Not exploiting religion at all. I agree totally with what he said that you have bolded, especially it all boils down to abortion, and getting planned "parent"hood off the gub'ment tit and out of my fucking wallet.

[Nbadan]

This question has always made me want to say, "Hmmmmm...."

I hope Ratzinger doesn't read this. :lol

[Nbadan]

planned "parent"hood off the gub'ment tit and out of my fucking wallet

PP is funded by private donations and fees.

[NeoConIV]

PP is funded by private donations and fees.
What? exclusively? NO subsidies whatsoever? Are you sure?