May 12 2009
Miss California, Donald Trump, Seriously?
Can we move beyond Carrie Prejean and Donald Trump now? Seriously, this is what the news is focused on? Torture, tanking economy, health care reform, Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, and what we are talking about is this? Seriously? The only intelligent comments I can make on this circus, is that when you are in a public forum, and you are in the spotlight, you can say what you want, but you also have to be responsible and accountable for what you say. When you are not responsible, then you get hit with a firestorm, and you should. It is not about silencing people who speak from their heart, it is about integrity, honesty, and accountability. It is not even about gay marriage because when you strip away the Christian rhetoric, I do not believe this young woman would have another reason. And when it comes to law, Church and State are two separate entities and must be separated. Once you start invoking God on any issue, I stop listening because that holds not weight. And while so many of our relatives fought for freedom of speech, they fought for separation of Church and State, Civil Rights, the Right to Privacy, Equal Protection under the law, the list goes on and on. Now can we get back to listening to rational and intelligent people on important issues? Please.
3 Responses to “Miss California, Donald Trump, Seriously?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Not A Member? Register for Free!
What did Carrie Prejean say that was unaccountable and irresponsible? She was asked a politically charged question and answered it honestly. Should she have betrayed her convictions and gave some politically-correct “I want world peace” type answer?
Public forums enjoy the protections of free speech, which may include speech offensive to you. Religious speech is most certainly protected and should be equally valued as any other, too many times we forget the very same First Amendment also includes this phrase regarding religion “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. That certainly means one must not keep their religion locked up behind clothes door and you are more than free to turn the channel if someone talking about their religious convictions annoys you.
Those who served and died protecting our freedoms most certainly had Carrie’s answer in mind as what is protected speech, though most would probably shake their heads at the disgusting behavior from the Left in response, but that too is tolerated and they are free to look like bigoted fulls.
There is no church/state issue in this. Miss USA is a private organization, not the government. They can choose who has a forum at their events and who doesn’t. They can choose what content is present and what isn’t.
This is the way it ought to be don’t you think?
Let me qualify my comments a bit here. I never saw her answer, and her response is not my problem. I do not agree with her position, and she is certainly entitled to her opinion, and to her credit she answered honestly. Yet, at the press conference, which aired on cable news this morning, she was upset about the attacks thrown at her. She also felt that people who speak from their heart should not be silenced. What I am saying is that if she wants to give an answer like she had, on television, and she is arguing free speech to what her grandfather fought for, then she has to recognize that the responsibility that comes with free speech is taking the heat of someone else who has the same right and can vehemently disagree. It falls under the same blanket of protection.
My point about separation of Church and State does not come from her comments, but rather when discussing the issue of gay marriage in terms of the law. When it comes to writing a law that bans gay marriage, I feel that religious arguments should not be present because it is a matter for the State, and should not address religion in any way. There is freedom of religion in the country, but that also includes the freedom to not have religious beliefs and in terms of any law that is created and passed, every citizen, regardless of religion has to be taken into account and respected. So when the Right wants to say “God says marriage is between a man and a woman,” in terms of a law that would prevent the legalization of gay marriage that is when I tune out because God has no place in the law.
In essence, the separation of Church and State does not involve Prejean’s comments. And again, it was her comments at the press conference that were a bit troublesome. Donald Trump can do what he likes. I imagine he likes the attention and the free press. It gets him more business and keeps interest in his organization alive. Either way, I don’t care about Prejan or Trump. It is time to move on from this circus.
Orbitgirl,
I am concerned with “freedom FROM religion” not freedom of religion, and marriage is a religious institution, ergo, I don’t think the state should be in the business of recognizing any marriage. I do believe that any two or even more than two individuals should be allowed to form a legal contract that allots to them the rights currently designated as spousal rights, but marriage should be done in church and the state should not be involved.