I can applaude Jesse Jackson for his movements to improve the status of African Americans. But how can anyone take this man of the cloth seriously after it has been disclosed that he has born a child out of marriage. And its not that he wouldn’t marry the woman, he couldn’t because he had already married another!!
Don’t tell me about JJ’s worth. Tell all the children that believe in him.
Adults won’t won’t care. Sh!t, they’ll probably elect him mayor of DC next.
Sure, Ashcroft might not dance, but which one do you think really follows the Bible they read?
I think Jesse Jackson is a political opportunist, but I don’t think less of him because he fathered a child out of wedlock, if he did. (This is the first I’ve heard of it.) Not all Christians believe that the Bible is an inerrant guide to life. I suspect that Jesse is a Christian because he can make a living from it, but for all I know he may be a dedicated follower of Jesus, who said “Love one another”. If Jesse has done his part toward the raising of his child, I’d say he’s fulfilled his Christian duty. Not all Christians believe sex out of wedlock is a sin. Even Mosaic law doesn’t count it as sin, although the man ought to, by law, marry the girl, as Jesse apparently did not. (Some feminists have seen this as condoning of rape, which is silly- the ordinance evidently refers to consensual sex.)
Well, I don’t think it’s Ashcroft. The man is a proven character assassin who is willing to sneak around the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause to grab government money to support religious institutions – clearly showing that he values his own religious agenda over such government principles as the separation of Church and State.
Now, let’s think about the authority of the Attorney General, and consider: is this is the kind of thing we want in an AG?
As I understand them, the Pentacostals don’t allow lying, even for a political agenda. Which makes Ashcroft a very scary man to have in the AG’s office.
And apparently, he’s been funneling PUSH/Rainbow Coalition funds to pay for this woman and her child and such.
What a dick.
What annoys me is his holier than thou attitude, while he tries to go around and stir up crap. He’s a race baiter. If King were alive today, he’d be ashamed of Jackson.
Screwtape, the link you posted says, in pertinent part:
The link does not explain how Ashcroft, acting alone, attached an amendment to a bill. As I understand it, the rules of the Senate, or a particular committee thereof, would require at least a second, as well as a vote approving the amendment.
It is beyond cavil, of course, that the full Senate must have voted on the measure and passed it. Accordingly, Ashcroft’s amendment, assuming anything about this story is true, must have been at least tacitly approved by at least 51 Senators. Moreoever, President Clintion, according to the link, signed it into law, adding his stamp of approval - which also means that the House of Representatives passed this bill.
Either our elected officials, Democrats and Republicans alike, ignored en masse their responsibility to read that which they voted on, or the link you posted - and the view you espoused here - is being deceptive.
Maybe sex out of wedlock is not a sin (I actually agree), but cheating on a spouse is not honorable, nor does it seem to jive with the public persona Jesse has cultivated. I took marriage vows, so did Jesse. Maybe the difference is that I meant mine with all my heart, and if by chance that were to change, I would leave the marriage. Why cause innocent people terrible pain, especially your children, who are absolutely blameless and are bound to wonder why Daddy didn’t like our family so he made another one.
Guy’s a selfish prick, and a hypocrite to boot. He only came clean because a tabloid was running the story. He actually said so in his statement.
Pardon me but what about that pesky little line, Thou shalt not commit adultery ?
I object to infidelity period the end, not more for regligious people than none. It goes beyond religion. It hurts so many people and there really is just no excuse for doing something you know will cause someone’s world to be turned upside down.
If someone is unhappy in their marriage they should try to work it out, if they are unable to then at least get a divorce, yes that will hurt people too, but nearly as bad as finding out that your spouse has betrayed you.
Never really liked the man. Doesn’t come across as sincere. Perhaps his motives were purer in the beginning. As far as I’m concerned, his credibility took its first dip when he tried to convince the rest of the world that Martin Luther King Jr. died in his arms.
Normally I would not be drawn into the either/or fallacy, because it presupposes that at least one of the postulates are true - however, in this case I’ll make an exception.
In the first case, our elected officials regularly ingore en masse their responsibility to read that on which they vote. The expectation of this makes the attachment of a wholly-unrelated item to a bill into a common practice. I’m surprised you didn’t know that.
In the second point, by saying in essence, “Well he didn’t do it alone,” you fail to address the main thrust of my objection to Ashcroft’s acquiring the authority of the Attorney General - to wit: he has proven that he will act to advance his religious convictions even when that action goes against the founding principles of the country he swears to protect.
Whether or not he did it alone, he did it, and it’s wrong.
My point with respect to the first issue is that by saying, “Ashcroft did thus-and-so,” you ignore the fact that many others were also complicit in the act, essentially tagging one man with the authority of both houses of Congress and the President. This is deceptive.
However, you correctly point out that this was not the main thrust of your argument; indeed, it was your posted link, not you, that was most at fault for the dubious failure to make the above distinction. Let us then pass on to your main point.
I don’t agree that Ashcroft’s move was in contravention of the “founding principles” of the country he swears to protect. The Founders were much more religious and much more accepting of religiousness in public than were are today; none of them would have likely batted an eye at Ashcroft’s proposal. I suspect you mean that Ashcroft’s move was inopposite to the principles of the country as we understand them today.
Even then, however, I disagree. As a Senator, Ashcroft was entitled to advance the interests of his constituency in the ways that seemed best to him. It is not immediately clear that his proposal is violative of the First Amendment - could you cite authoritive case law that supports your position?
Since the House and Senate voted in favor of the measure, and the President signed it into law, Ashcroft is entitled to assume that his measure was Constitutional - and it would fall to the federal judiciary to disagree and overturn it. You are not, so far as I am aware, a federal judge, so your opinion as to the measure’s Constitutionality means about as much as Barney the Dinosaur’s - none, in other words.
As an Attorney General, Ashcroft no longer represents a constituency as he feels best - instead, he must enforce the laws as they are plainly written, and as clarified by courts’ decisions. It is unavailing to assert that, because he was appropriately an advocate for certain positions as a senator, he will inappropriately be an advocate for similar positions as Attorney General. He served as a state sttorney general; perhaps you can glean from his record there some indicia of this sort of behavior then, when he also would have been required to enforce the laws as written, without partisan or personal opinion. I am more than willing to be convinced.
Wrong! I care. I think a person’s character is a pretty important part of who they are and is an integral issue when debating their qualifications for leadership. (No, I’m not a Republican, and it did matter to me that Dubya used cocaine and was convicted of drunk driving) I think Jesse Jackson really doesn’t deserve much respect anymore, and should no longer be taken seriously. Not just because of what he did, but because he is a Reverend, someone who is supposed to hold themself to a higher standard and provide a good spiritual example for others of their faith. At that he has utterly failed. If he were not a Reverend I would not feel nearly so strongly about the issue. I think a person’s sexual mores are less important than a criminal record, but Jackson is clearly a hypocrite.
One can have sex outside of wedlock without committing adultery. All you have to do is be an unmarried person having sex with another unmarried person. Adultery only becomes a factor when one of the sexual partners is married to someone other than the person with whom they’re having sex.