Religion and Politics: Kyra Phillips, Liar on the Anti-Christian, Liar Network

You may well wonder jut how bad CNN is, when I "surf" it no more than a few minutes a day and see these things. In this case, I saw the "i"interview" (a perversion of the word, as is true of every "journalistic" interview these days, since the interviewer is never interested in actual information) of Kyra Phillips with the pastor that created this absurd "controversy by saying that th eMormon relligion is a cult--meaning that evangelical Christians should prefer Rick Perry over Mitt Romney. This is the pastor supporting Rick Perry, but who was answering a QUESTION from a "journalist" after he had finished his introduction of Rick Perry at an event ((not right after the introduction, which wuould be ridiculous, but after the pastor was no longer part of the event). at that point, of course, the pastor was jsut a private citizen who happened to support a candidate, and not speaking for Rick Perry. And he was asked what he perceived to be a religious question, although the pastor obviously understod that hew was giving an answer with both religiious and political implications. I will et to a broader review of this subject in planned later articels, but this article deals with this specific question from Kyra Phillips (liar and biogt, as it ypical of a CNN anchor):


"Our Constitution prohibits a religoius test for being President. Don't you think that your position violates our Constitution?" (the positon that evangelical Christians should prefer Rick Perry over Mitt Rmney because of their respective religioins)


The Pastor, of course, handed Kyra Philliops her head. Now Kyra Phillips has appeared BY NAME in this blog as long as 3-4 years ago, and she is DUMB. So it is not hard to hnad her head to her. However, is she really THIS dumb (maybe yes), or is she this DISHONEST? Maybe both. Was she just trying to mislead both YOU (the audience), and the pastor, hoping he would not know what he is talking abut? I think that was at least part of it.


What the pastor did was INFORM Kyra Phillis (more gently than I would have done, but he is a pastor) that our Constitution only applies to GOVERNMENT, and not to individuals. Indeed, the First Amendment originally only applied to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and state governments were free to etalbish an official religon, if they wanted (as none, in actual fact, did--although school prayer was common in almost ALL until the Supreme Court imposed its own view of matters in the 1960s in applying the First Amendment to the states as if the states were identical to the Federal Government). When I say "sates" had school prayer, and other religious observances in schools, I am referring to those LOCAL units of government rather than usually "state" prayers. The Civil War happened, and the 14th Amendment. The drafters of the 14th Amendment would be allallled to know that it would eventually be usewd to apply the Firt Amednment to the STATES and LOCAL units of government, but that is what you get when you have an imperial, authoritarian Supreme Court imposing its views as Constitutional law. However, even the Supreme Court ha not held that the 14th Amendment apppplies the First Amendment to INDIVIDUALS, acting as private citizens, and that is what the pastor told Kyra Phillips. He further correctly told her that private individuals have a perfect right to PREFER candidates who have the same religious bliefs as they do. The Pastor is right. There is nothing unconstitutional, opr even morally wrong, for a person to feel tjat a [erspm who shares his or her religion will be a better President than one hwho does not (all other things being equal). If you don't, as an evangelical Christian, believe that a person wo shares your religon is more likely to receive CORRECT inspiration from that religion on POLICY matters, then WHY do you profess to believe in that relitioni at all? Now it is more problematic for the pastor is SINGLE OUT "Mormonism" as soemthing to vote AGAINST. That comes close ot bigotry, although it is a bigotry that his blog showedyou--in 2007 and 2008--is promoted more by the mainstream media than it is by evangelical Christians (as shown by the reporter's question to this pastor).


Kyra Philliops is a LIAR, based on the lying premise of her question, in at least these ways:


1. The Constitution indeed does not say that private individuals are prohibited from applying whatever "test" they want as to a candidate for President, including a religiius "test". It as an absurd LIE to suggest that this is unconstitutional. Note that the pastor did NOT advoate making religioin the SOLE reason for casting a vote--suggesting that he would support Mitt Romney over Barack Obama. But a private individual is free to vote ENTRIELY based on religion. In fact, as I have often stated (as an agnostic myself, which may mean I don't fully understand the nuances here for supposed Christians), my understanding is that essentially EVERY Christian religion has the position that ALL of your imprtant choices in life are at least "guided" by God. Why would you want to vote for someone who is not accepting the guidance that you believe to be correct--unless you feel that there are more imprtant factors at work? Notice that I am NOT saying that religion should be an ISSUE in a election. It should not. But that does not meant it should not be a factor in an INDIVIDAUL decsions on who to vote for. It is "journalists" like Kyra Philliops, and the unfair and unbalanced people of the unfair and unbalanced network, who are wrongly making religion an ISSUE. If lyou dont understand this distinctiion, then you are qualified to be a member of the media. Now did hte pastor not make this an "issue". Nor really. He was asked a RELIGIOUS opinion, as a pastor, and he gave it. Where you can say he went wrong is to go fruther and say not only that he thinks evangelicals should ordinarily look at the religion of a person in voting (as a pastor, how could he believe otherwise?), but suggested that voters should prefer Rick Perry because Mitt Romney is a Mormon. As stated above, that comes close to not only trying to inject religious doctrine into politics, but to religious bigotry (in the sense of saying that people should be CONDEMNED for their religon--a principle that the mainstream media aplies all of the time, including Kyra Phillips and CNN with regard to the former Pentecostal religion of sarah Palin and with regard to Romney himsself).


2. Yes, lie no. 2 is that there is necessarily anything wrong with voting for someone who shares your religious views. If yoy do not think those religious views are an important part of a person's character, why do you have them? As I said, religous BIGOTRY comes about when you let religion be the END of your analysis, rather than merely a part of the character of an individual. Would I be more inclined to favor, for example, a persn who believed in my kind of skeptical, TOLERANT agnosticism (Bill Maher and CNN people don't meet this standard)), rather than a devout, evangelical Christian? Of course I would. But I know--from experience--that "agnostics" (even of a more tolerant kind than the anti-Christian Bill Maher, CNN people, and so many other people of the left) tend to have PUBLIC POLICY views too different from mine to be outweigned by my favorable view on this one subject. To the extent OUTSPOKEN agnostics are not simply creatures of the far let, they are usually extreme libertarians. Now I have strong libertarian leanings myself, and don't thik you can be a true skeptic or agnostic without them, but not to the extent of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson (not to say I now their religion, but their extreme libertarian views are typical of the kind of person who is an outspoken agnostic, and not leftist). Now I tend to ADMIRE extreme libertarians. I have said I would vote for Ron Paul against Barack Obama. They are just not my first choice for President, because I think they are too willing to caset aside "traditional values".


3. Lie no. 3, in tis one queston, is more subtle. It is NOT TRUE that our Constitution specifically prohibits a "religious test" for being President. What our Constitution prohibited was: "CONGRESS shall make no law....estalbishing a religion, or infringing on the free exercise of a religion..." What if a STATE had placed a "religious test" on the "electors" who really vote directly for our President, and refused to accept the electors of a Presidential candidate who did not comply with this "test"? Well, we used to share enough values that this never happned. But I am not at all sure it violated the original Constitution. In fact, I am almost certain it did not. But is htis really a "lie", when the present Constitution does have the 14th Amendment interpreted the way the SupremeCourt now interprets it? I thik it is a lie, althoug a rather subtle one. kyra Philliops stated that the Constitution "says" we should not have a "religiouis test" for a Presidential candidate as if it were RIGHT THERE in the Constitution, in black and white. It is NOT. This idea that the Constitution means what Kyra Philliops--dumb as a rock, remember--says it means is a LIE. The strong implication that the Constitution sAYS, explicitly, what Kya Philliops says it says is a LIE. It is essentially the same LIE you hear when somene says that the "Founderrs' set out a total "separation of church and state" in our Constitution. They did NOT. They did try to limit the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, for good reason, and you can see what "respect" (sarcasm disease) leftists have for THAT concept!!!!


4. Lie no. 4 is probably the biggest lie of all. That is the implicaton that only evangelitcal Christians vote, or argue, against people because of their religion. It is the truly despicable BIGOTS of the "Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press" (full, official name) who actually did a 2008 (maybe late 20007) article stating (what amounted to a negative campaign ad) that Mitt Romney's great grandfather was a POLIYGAMIST (horros!!--so, probably was Brak Obama's father, grandfather and/or great grandfather). But You don't have to go to the despicable AP. There are all kinds of people out there who vote against people because of their religiohn, or argue against them because of their reliogion. CNN favorite Bill Maher does. Bill Maher and I agree, by the way, that BARACK OBAMA IS NOT A CHRISITAN. As stated, in 2008, Kyra Phillios and CNN TRIED to make a big issue out of Sarah Palin's former Pentecostal religion, based on the "speaking in tongues' tradition in the Pentecostal movement. Again, CNN is composed of the worst, most dishonest hypocrities who have ever walked the Earth, on two legs or four. Piers Morgan actually ASKED Rick Santorum whether he "believes" homosexuality (homosexual CONDUCT is the correct question) is a "sin". This is a RELIGIOUJS QUESTIOIN. Anderson Cooper is as anti-Christian as a person can get--especailly as to evangelical Christiantiy. Ditto Dishoenst Jack Cafferty. In other words, would thse people EVER vote for an evangelical Christian anywhere to the right of Jimmy Carter (and I am not sure they would vote for Jimmy Carter anymore, uncless they really "vetted" to their satisfactin that the person did not really believe in all of that "evangelical" stuff)? Of course not. I have shown repeatedly that these peole are anti-Christian BIGOTS (anti-Mormon bigots, s well). But itt is absured to suggest that these people do not consider being an evangelical Christian as a reason to vote AGAINST someone. They do. And they KNOW that all kinds of people on the left, like Bill Maher, can't STAND believing Christians (as distingushed from a non-believer like Barack Obama claiming to be a Christian).


Kyra Philliops is a liar. Further, the people of CNN have again shown themselves to be the worst, most dishonest hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four. Beyond even that, evangelical Christians are not nearly the cynical, dhisnoest anti-religious BIGOTS that the people of the media are. It is the media that is makig TOO MUCH out of this one pator's answer to one reporter's question: actiong like religion is suddenly an "issue" in this campaign because of what one pator said. These are DESPIBCLE people (alking aobut the media people). It is THYE who are trying to make relgion an "issue". for the election at large. See my next article entitled: "Chris Wallace: Bigot and Bad Jounalist on the Unfair and Unbalanced Network". What does it MATTER what Rick Perry thinks of Mormonism? Why not ask Barack Obama what he thinks of evangelical Christians? Oops. We already know ("clinging to their guns and their religion, and taking out their furstrations on people different from themselves"). This idea that only REPUBICANS shol d be asked about religoin is INSANE. It is EVIL. It is typical of the anti-Christian liars of The Liar Network. Kyra Philliops, that means YOU (and all of the rest).


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).