Huckabee interview on Glenn Beck

[fossten]

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=597

Take the time to watch all five segments. It's refreshing.

I'm not saying that Huckabee is my only guy, but I can't think of one thing that he says in this interview that I disagree with. He makes Giuliani, Romney, and Fred! look like moderates/liberals, and he makes Ron Paul look like a kook. Not that I disagree with Ron Paul about much either, but Huckabee is much more calm and soothing.

Not only would I vote for this guy, but I do believe he can beat Hillary.

 

[shagdrum]

Gotta admit I like him...
...Not to sure he could beat Hillary...

 

[fossten]

Gotta admit I like him...
...Not to sure he could beat Hillary...

Step back for a sec and look at the big picture. Do you REALLY think Americans are ready to elect a woman, let alone a Marxist who is yet another Clinton? I just can't see it happening. Sometimes we focus on Hillary so much we forget the unlikelihood of her electability. And let's not forget her looming election law scandals.

BTW, I just saw Huck smoke Skeletor (Alan Colmes) after the debate tonight.

 

[MonsterMark]

I like Huck

 

[shagdrum]

Yeah, saw all the debate stuff tonight too. While Hilary has a lot of baggage, the MSM won't air it out. In addition to Huckabee's politics, I like his wit. But when the MSM is gonna magnify any verbal gaff the consevative candidate makes, Huckabee doesn't have the effortless articulation, and seeming personality of Romney or Thompson or Guliani. I know that is style over substance, but unfortunately that is important (as far as electability) in the overexposure that the 24/7 news cycle allows. Remember, I live in KS, and we don't even have a real presidential primary here, so I will effectively have no input in who the GOP candidate is.

 

[fossten]

Yeah, saw all the debate stuff tonight too. While Hilary has a lot of baggage, the MSM won't air it out. In addition to Huckabee's politics, I like his wit. But when the MSM is gonna magnify any verbal gaff the consevative candidate makes, Huckabee doesn't have the effortless articulation, and seeming personality of Romney or Thompson or Guliani. I know that is style over substance, but unfortunately that is important (as far as electability) in the overexposure that the 24/7 news cycle allows. Remember, I live in KS, and we don't even have a real presidential primary here, so I will effectively have no input in who the GOP candidate is.

Ok. According to your reasoning, what matters is who the media likes. In order to beat the Hillary machine, we have to put up a slick, stylish candidate that people like. But we all know that the media prefers Hillary, so it really doesn't matter who we nominate as far as they are concerned. Nobody on the GOP side will be liberal enough to suit them. So on the off chance that we might get lucky and actually win the election, why should we nominate anyone but the best conservative we can find? If we're going to lose anyway, it won't matter. Playing the game of stylish candidate is a game borne from fear. Romney is a closet liberal, and Rudy is an open liberal. So we lose either way with those two.

On the other hand, think about my big picture reminder. Hillary has an enormous negative opinion that she has to overcome. It might not matter who we nominate because people will generally and instinctively reject her at the ballot box. 50% of the country polled say they will NEVER vote for her. That's pretty significant.

Sticking to our principles is the only chance we have.

 

[fossten]

Huckabee is the Right Wing's Last Survivor

A Commentary by Dick Morris

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Peel them away and, underneath, you have Mike Huckabee, the last survivor in the elimination tournament of the Christian right. And they could do a whole lot worse!

Start with the dreams about Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), who became former Sen. George Allen before he could become a viable presidential candidate. Then go to Mitt Romney, his putative opponent for the designation of the right wing. But that was before he ran straight into a wall of bigotry against Mormons. The most recent polling suggests that while a majority of voters agree that “other Americans” would be amenable to a black or female candidate for president, only 36 percent feel that way about a Mormon. Unjustified. Unfair. Outrageous as it is — it nevertheless is. That prejudice and the justifiable cynicism that his flip-flop-flip on abortion engendered have held down his vote share despite massive advertising. (He was pro-life before he ran against Sen. Edward Kennedy (D) in Massachusetts, at which point he discovered a relative who died after an illegal abortion, which, conveniently, induced a change of heart. He remained pro-choice as a governor of the most liberal state in America until, as he contemplated entering the GOP primary for president, he realized that abortion had cultivated a contempt for life and so decided to become pro-life — equally conveniently.)

Whatever the reason, Mitt Romney’s lack of appeal led conservatives to search under various other burning bushes (no pun) to find a new standard-bearer. Their choice became Fred Thompson. But then it turned out that he had actually accepted a fee to lobby for a weakening of anti-abortion regulations and had waffled on the issue in the ’90s in candidate questionnaires. That fact, combined with his lack of knowledge of issues and his aversion to hard work, have sent his candidacy into a downward spiral. Voters on the right understand that Fred can’t stand up to Hillary in a debate. Hey, he might not stay awake that long.

So it became “Where have you gone, Newt Gingrich? The nation turns its lonely eyes to you.” But Newt took one look at Hillary and decided he really wanted to head a nonprofit foundation educating voters on solutions for America instead of being president of the United States, so he pulled out before he ever got in.

In the meantime, plugging away in the shadows, with no money and no political backing, an articulate, principled, knowledgeable, conservative Christian, Mike Huckabee, has been plowing the fields in Iowa hoping to catch a break. He is witty, sincere, dedicated and courageous in his own way. With a minus share of the vote, he kept at it and refused to pander on the one hand or give up on the other.

I first met Mike when I became his consultant in his race for lieutenant governor of Arkansas. He was a refreshing change from my previous Arkansas client, but you probably know that story. I was impressed when I first asked Mike about his views on parole for violent felons. I anticipated a standard right-wing response. Instead, he said, “Oh, no, the Christian concept of forgiveness requires that we allow parole. We just have to use it wisely.” I was amazed … and sold.

What, I wondered, would a right-wing Christian activist do as governor of a state? He would sign off on the death penalty, veto abortion, oppose gay rights and insist on the Pledge of Allegiance, but then what would he do for the balance of his term in office? Mike Huckabee answered the question. He set up programs to fight childhood obesity, reformed prisons to emphasize reforming inmates, put values back in education and became a highly popular governor.

Now he churns his way to the forefront of the pack in the Republican primary. He’s still broke, but still finished a strong second in the Ames, Iowa, straw poll with 18 percent of the vote.

Now in Iowa polls he has moved ahead of McCain and, in some trial heats, ahead of Romney. Rasmussen has him rising to 7 percent nationally. (Full disclosure: If he breaks 10, I win a dinner from Bill O’Reilly.) But he has the best of all possible worlds: Rivals who are falling of their own weight. So here comes Mike.

Dick Morris, a Fox News Analyst and other of several books, is a former advisor to Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss) and President Bill Clinton.

 

[shagdrum]

50% of the country polled say they will NEVER vote for her. That's pretty significant.

Would be more signifigant if it were 50% of likely voters. Like I said, I will have no input on this because I live in Kansas. Only choice I will have is between Hillary and whoever the GOP puts up against her.

 

[Joeychgo]

I agree the economy isnt great for the little guy, but is for the bigger fish;

Yes - Scrap the tax code;

Yes - Federal Spending is out of control;

Yes - National sales tax! Absolutely!

Yes - Energy Independence;

He speaks with common sense and speaks with a common tone. He speaks with the personality of someone I would enjoy having coffee with.

What I dont like...

I dont like hearing about a candidate's faith. I really believe we have begun to lose the seperation of Church and State. Practice your faith privately, not as part of a campaign. I, and most americans dont walk around talking about our faith. At work, does your boss talk about the "christian thing to do" or things like that? No. The President is the CEO of the United States. He needs to believe in such a fashion.

I also really wish politicans would adopt more of a life and let live philosophy. Who cares if 2 men or 2 women want to marry. Does it really harm any of us? How about we notice the high rate of divorce amongst traditional marriages? What are we doing about that? Zero. Divorce is a much bigger enemy because there IS no loyalty to the family unit anymore.

 

[ford nut]

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=11

Scary statement here.

I first became politically active because of abortion, when I helped pass Arkansas' Unborn Child Amendment, which requires the state to do whatever it legally can to protect life.


I like this statement

I believe in using existing stem cell lines for research, but I do not believe in creating life for the sole purpose of destroying it.

I like how he stands on Immigration

My number one priority is to secure America's border.
We have to know who is coming into our country, where they are going, and why they are here. We need a fence along our border with Mexico, electronic in some places, and more highly-trained border agents.
Those who are caught trying to enter illegally must be detained, processed, and deported.
Illegal immigrants already living among us who commit crimes must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and incarcerated or deported

I also really wish politicans would adopt more of a life and let live philosophy. Who cares if 2 men or 2 women want to marry. Does it really harm any of us? How about we notice the high rate of divorce amongst traditional marriages? What are we doing about that? Zero. Divorce is a much bigger enemy because there IS no loyalty to the family unit anymore.

I agree but the far right push these issues most people who are in the center could care less.

 

[fossten]

I agree the economy isnt great for the little guy, but is for the bigger fish;

Yes - Scrap the tax code;

Yes - Federal Spending is out of control;

Yes - National sales tax! Absolutely!

Yes - Energy Independence;

He speaks with common sense and speaks with a common tone. He speaks with the personality of someone I would enjoy having coffee with.

What I dont like...

I dont like hearing about a candidate's faith. I really believe we have begun to lose the seperation of Church and State. Practice your faith privately, not as part of a campaign. I, and most americans dont walk around talking about our faith. At work, does your boss talk about the "christian thing to do" or things like that? No. The President is the CEO of the United States. He needs to believe in such a fashion.

I also really wish politicans would adopt more of a life and let live philosophy. Who cares if 2 men or 2 women want to marry. Does it really harm any of us? How about we notice the high rate of divorce amongst traditional marriages? What are we doing about that? Zero. Divorce is a much bigger enemy because there IS no loyalty to the family unit anymore.

It is interesting. On one hand, you complain about the loss of the family unit, but on the other hand you don't want some Prez shoving his religion down our collective throats. Are you completely unaware that divorce and the family unit are moral, Christian issues?

Hillary and Obama both have tried to get on the "faith" bandwagon. So has Nancy Pelosi, talking on TV a week ago about how she prays for Bush. I've never heard you object to their statements. Did you know that Jimmy Carter was a Baptist?

You wouldn't have liked George Washington or many other of our founding fathers, who wrote and spoke openly of their faith in God. And separation of church and state does not mean that God should be kept out of government. It was specifically designed and described to keep from having a state-sponsored religion.

Your palpable fear of anyone who believes in God is unfounded and misguided. Many of the problems we as a nation face today are a result of the nation's departure from faith, such as abortion, divorce, school violence, unwed mothers, and many others. I've got news for you, God hates divorce more than you do. Having someone like Huckabee as president would do more for supporting the family unit than having someone like Hillary or Obama, who have never lived their faith but only use it as a punch line. Moreover, it was Hillary who was quoted referring to a Secret Service agent as a "f****ng Jew Bast**d." Would you prefer someone like that?

The mere fact that a President would be a man of faith appears threatening to you; however, there is no reason to believe that this man would attempt to get you to change your lifestyle. But a President setting a good example might be just the thing the country needs to get back on the right track morally.

 

[Joeychgo]

It is interesting. On one hand, you complain about the loss of the family unit, but on the other hand you don't want some Prez shoving his religion down our collective throats. Are you completely unaware that divorce and the family unit are moral, Christian issues?

SO those who are athiest dont believe in marriage? How about buddist? How about other religons? Divorce and family are NOT about christianity. When you get married in Vegas by Elvis, it isnt a christian "issue" but your still married.

The mere fact that a President would be a man of faith appears threatening to you; however, there is no reason to believe that this man would attempt to get you to change your lifestyle. But a President setting a good example might be just the thing the country needs to get back on the right track morally.

Being a man of faith is just fine. Perhaps preferable even. TALKING about it is not IMO. I cant stand when a politician uses his faith as part of a political conversation. Leave your faith out of it. Its not that I have a palpable fear, as you put it. The seperation of church and state is an important doctrine. Lest you forget, some people get promised 72 virgins for killing americans - and those promises come from "Men of Faith" -

Hillary and Obama both have tried to get on the "faith" bandwagon. So has Nancy Pelosi, talking on TV a week ago about how she prays for Bush. I've never heard you object to their statements. Did you know that Jimmy Carter was a Baptist?

Nope - I didnt know what Jimmy Carter was - and I dont care. You never learn. I have no more patience for Obama or Hillary jumping on the faith bandwagon either. But this thread is about Huckabee - who - as a general rule -- I like. (more then Hillary and Obama actually)

 

[ford nut]

SO those who are athiest dont believe in marriage? How about buddist? How about other religons? Divorce and family are NOT about christianity. When you get married in Vegas by Elvis, it isnt a christian "issue" but your still married.

Maybe the Hindus have it figgured out after all India has the lowest Divorce rate

Huckabee does seem to be a good candidate the Left has nothing to offer.

 

[04SCTLS]

Call my cynical but I think Bush devised his campaign strategy to court the Christian Right, the evangelicals and fundamentalists.
Pastors and clergymen told their congregations vote for Bush because he's one of us. And so they did in droves on the strength of their beliefs. The genius here is breathtaking. Bush's great triumph.
Until Bush religion was a mostly private matter as it should be.
All religions require a leap of faith that amounts to a hope of cheating death if one lives a "good" life. Most of us would like to live forever and that desire fuels the need to believe in something bigger than our little mortal selves.
Bush conned the faith over reason religious types portraying himself as an anti intellectual simple certain godly man.Then he only half heartedly delivered on what they thought they were going to get and appointed less than compitent people because they graduated from religious schools such as Bob Jones University.
Being a politician he knew that he needed more than just his Christian Right if he was going to govern.
Yet he shunned vigourous debate within his inner circle to get the best possible conclusions because his mind was already made up.
An Imperial style president who is certainly no King Solomon.
People of high faith and arrogance have a messianic certainty about what is their destiny.
Bush feels that even though he conned the religious voters, because of 9/11 God himself put him on a mission which he will not deviate from no matter what anyone says.
Meanwhile Cheney and Rumsfeld had been planning to invade Iraq since the early 90's collapse of the Soviet Union to further their dreams of Pax Americana and being the only unchallengeable militaty superpower. 9/11 gave them the excuse they needed to put their plans into action, much as the phony Gulf of Tomken incident launched the US into Vietnam.
Who knows if they even told Bush the real reasons for the invasion.
They probably said we'll let him believe what he thinks of them as just evildoers as it will be useful for us to cloud the picture to the american public and keep the religious people in check.
Life and religion are a mystery and claiming with such certitude that what one is doing as president of the US is what God wants is akin to making oneself a king who is a messenger from the All Mighty.
Be wary of the simple man who professes his faith too strongly and forcefully who is not a preacher, priest or minister.
Politicians should be concerned with real problems of real people in this life here on earth and be able to make rational decisions based on the facts and not by their religious convictions.
I for one am glad to see the waning of the political power of the religious right. Their "Boy" George Bush hasn't delivered much of what they want and the current republican candidates aren't exactly bending over backwards to appeal to them.
It's come time to put them in their place in the political equasion.
Hillary last week in the New York Times was quoted as saying if she was elected president Science would no longer be impeded by political meddling that has caused us to fall behind other countries in research and development.
Science and Industry made this country what it is today.
We need leaders who tell us to put our faith in our thinking rational selves and not blithly in supernatural dieties to make a better society.
Countries where governments are strongly religious are repulsive in their treatment of their citizens, their rights and freedoms.
They want to control every facet of people's lives.
The terrorists are very religious and believe they are doing noble glorious things to further their cause.
It's good to see the pendulum swinging away from faith and back to reason.
The bigger public has become tired of politicians who wear their faith on their sleeves and stubbornly put too much faith in God. The current candidates see this and act accordingly.

 

[shagdrum]

The seperation of church and state is an important doctrine.

The separation of church and state is a "doctrine" that was made up in the mid 20th century and has absolutely no constitutional basis!!!!. Your basis for wanting faith out of politics is unfounded here

 

[04SCTLS]

The seperation of church and state simply means that the US does not nor will it have an official state religion, this going back to the king of england being the head of the church.
If religion was the most important thing in life it would be better to die now instead of waiting for the afterlife.
This is the belief of the suicide bombers.
As much as some people may want to say that the US is a Christian nation it will never happen officially.
Countries that have state religions such as our muslim adversaries and enemies routinely run off and destroy minority christian communities. The punishment for a Muslim to convert to Christianity is death.
When Saddam was in power women could walk down the streets dressed attractively and alchohol could be bought easily.
Saddam was a secular megalomaniac like Stalin who only paid lip service to Islam.I like the picture of him shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld when he was our buddy against the Iranians.
If only someone could be found who could rule those people with the non religious iron fist that Saddam had.
But in our zeal and arrogant shortsighted knowledge of history we've removed Saddam and let the Islamic genie out of the bottle and have no way of putting him back in.
Al Quada probably couldn't have hoped for a better result.
They're in this for 100 years to forever.

 

[fossten]

The seperation of church and state simply means that the US does not nor will it have an official state religion, this going back to the king of england being the head of the church.
If religion was the most important thing in life it would be better to die now instead of waiting for the afterlife.
This is the belief of the suicide bombers.
As much as some people may want to say that the US is a Christian nation it will never happen officially.
Countries that have state religions such as our muslim adversaries and enemies routinely run off and destroy minority christian communities. The punishment for a Muslim to convert to Christianity is death.
When Saddam was in power women could walk down the streets dressed attractively and alchohol could be bought easily.
Saddam was a secular megalomaniac like Stalin who only paid lip service to Islam.I like the picture of him shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld when he was our buddy against the Iranians.
If only someone could be found who could rule those people with the non religious iron fist that Saddam had.
But in our zeal and arrogant shortsighted knowledge of history we've removed Saddam and let the Islamic genie out of the bottle and have no way of putting him back in.
Al Quada probably couldn't have hoped for a better result.
They're in this for 100 years to forever.

And you know this how???

I'm sorry, but you show total ignorance when you claim that our fight with Islam originated with Saddam. Do you not realize that 9/11, the first Twin Towers bombing, Khobar Towers, U.S.S. Cole, all happened PRIOR TO Saddam?

 

[04SCTLS]

I've formed some of my opinions regarding us reaping what we've sown from this documentary film "Why We Fight"

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/

Even if you don't agree with some of it's suppositions or opinions it certainly gives insight into why they hate us. I recommend you buy a copy
to expand your knowledge base. I think you'll find it a real eye opener as to what's really been going on here for the last 50 years.

I never said our conflict with Islam started with Saddam.
Saddam was our kind of guy, who helped us by fighting the Iranians in the Iran Iraq war of the 1980's.
He was not driven by religious zeal and could be bargained with.
It was only when he dared to invade Kuwait and threaten Saudi Arabia that we started to demonize him and prepare the american public for his ouster. He became a threat to american world dominance and that could not stand.
We are alway's willing to overlook human rights abuses and outright murder if it serves our strategic purposes.
The list of despots we have supported because of national interest is long.
Johnston sent in the Marines at the behest of the Chiquita Bannana Company when the Dominican Republic nationalized the plantations.
Our own support of Saddam while he was commiting his atrocities speaks volumes to our selective morality if it serves our national interest. Nations have only interests and not friends.
The US is a paradox much like a human being. On the one hand we stand as a beacon of freedom and democracy for all however we achieved our greatness the old fasioned way by stealing land and murdering the inhabitants. We picked a war with Mexico and took their land too.
No wonder the illegals want their land back. What's legal is in the eye of the victorious.
The Indians were non christian savages according to us who despite having lived in harmony with the land for thousands of years would not bend to our will or become slaves so they had to be destroyed or assimilated.
The whole conflict with Islam goes back to the CIA overthrowing an elected government and putting the Shah of Iran in power in 1954 as a despotic ruler who happened to serve our bidding by not nationalizing the american and british oil companies. This is a common tactic in american foreign policy since WWII.
The Arab countries have hated us for coming in and talking about freedom and democracy whereas our real goal is to provide fertile ground for our corporations to get rich off of them and their resourses.
Our corporations making money is more important than spreading democracy which can be a messy unorderly unrewarding process.
Business is non democratic and well suited to working with dictatorial societies.
Look at Walmart and China or how well GM is doing selling Buicks to newly rich chinese.
We suck profits out of these relatively poor resourse rich countries
and don't care about the people there beyond paying off those in power by offering some money and protection. American garrisons protect the Saudi Royal family as they don't trust their own people ang guards to not overthrow them.
The american public is so myopic and into itself that it took the dramatic larger than life, like something out of a movie event of 9/11 to drive home that these people were real, smart, patient, and determined and willing to die to hurt us. Of course Bush never said it was because of our foreign policy in the middle east for the last 50 years because maybe he didn't even know these things himself.
Things really started when Ayatolah Khomeni and the revolurionaly guards overthrew the shah in 1979 and put in an theocratic Islamic government which is still there today.
We nurchured Saddam as our buddy and got him to fight the Iranians in the 80's to keep them weak.
Saddam was into himself and was no muslim religious fanatic.
He was someone we could do business with.
If he hadn't commited his fatal error he would still be our ally in the fight against radical Islam.
I don't know all this for a fact but it is my informed studied opinion.

 

[fossten]

I've formed some of my opinions regarding us reaping what we've sown from this documentary film "Why We Fight"

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/

Even if you don't agree with some of it's suppositions or opinions it certainly gives insight into why they hate us. I recommend you buy a copy
to expand your knowledge base. I think you'll find it a real eye opener as to what's really been going on here for the last 50 years.

I never said our conflict with Islam started with Saddam.
Saddam was our kind of guy, who helped us by fighting the Iranians in the Iran Iraq war of the 1980's.
He was not driven by religious zeal and could be bargained with.
It was only when he dared to invade Kuwait and threaten Saudi Arabia that we started to demonize him and prepare the american public for his ouster. He became a threat to american world dominance and that could not stand.
We are alway's willing to overlook human rights abuses and outright murder if it serves our strategic purposes.
The list of despots we have supported because of national interest is long.
Johnston sent in the Marines at the behest of the Chiquita Bannana Company when the Dominican Republic nationalized the plantations.
Our own support of Saddam while he was commiting his atrocities speaks volumes to our selective morality if it serves our national interest. Nations have only interests and not friends.
The US is a paradox much like a human being. On the one hand we stand as a beacon of freedom and democracy for all however we achieved our greatness the old fasioned way by stealing land and murdering the inhabitants. We picked a war with Mexico and took their land too.
No wonder the illegals want their land back. What's legal is in the eye of the victorious.
The Indians were non christian savages according to us who despite having lived in harmony with the land for thousands of years would not bend to our will or become slaves so they had to be destroyed or assimilated.
The whole conflict with Islam goes back to the CIA overthrowing an elected government and putting the Shah of Iran in power in 1954 as a despotic ruler who happened to serve our bidding by not nationalizing the american and british oil companies. This is a common tactic in american foreign policy since WWII.
The Arab countries have hated us for coming in and talking about freedom and democracy whereas our real goal is to provide fertile ground for our corporations to get rich off of them and their resourses.
Our corporations making money is more important than spreading democracy which can be a messy unorderly unrewarding process.
Business is non democratic and well suited to working with dictatorial societies.
Look at Walmart and China or how well GM is doing selling Buicks to newly rich chinese.
We suck profits out of these relatively poor resourse rich countries
and don't care about the people there beyond paying off those in power by offering some money and protection. American garrisons protect the Saudi Royal family as they don't trust their own people ang guards to not overthrow them.
The american public is so myopic and into itself that it took the dramatic larger than life, like something out of a movie event of 9/11 to drive home that these people were real, smart, patient, and determined and willing to die to hurt us. Of course Bush never said it was because of our foreign policy in the middle east for the last 50 years because maybe he didn't even know these things himself.
Things really started when Ayatolah Khomeni and the revolurionaly guards overthrew the shah in 1979 and put in an theocratic Islamic government which is still there today.
We nurchured Saddam as our buddy and got him to fight the Iranians in the 80's to keep them weak.
Saddam was into himself and was no muslim religious fanatic.
He was someone we could do business with.
If he hadn't commited his fatal error he would still be our ally in the fight against radical Islam.
I don't know all this for a fact but it is my informed studied opinion.

Classic anti-American propaganda film. Not surprised you think the way you do.

 

[Joeychgo]

The separation of church and state is a "doctrine" that was made up in the mid 20th century and has absolutely no constitutional basis!!!!. Your basis for wanting faith out of politics is unfounded here

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

The phrase itself does not appear in the Constitution, but it has been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.

 

[fossten]

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

The phrase itself does not appear in the Constitution, but it has been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.

None of which address a Presidential candidate publicly expressing his faith.

Face it, Joey, this is your personal preference, which is fine. But you cannot legitimately claim that US law frowns on a public official having or expressing faith.

 

[Calabrio]

I dont like hearing about a candidate's faith. I really believe we have begun to lose the seperation of Church and State.

And when in our history can you ever think of a period where public officials, and society in general, ever spent less time or energy discussing faith openly?

As is required, I have to mention, "the separation of church and state" is not a constitutional principle. But what it meant was that the state would not interfere with the practice of religion, NOT that religious values and principles would be the foundation of our culture.

But you might be right, that perceived separation might very well be leaving. Because of the increasing aggression from atheists, we're looking at any kind of spirituality being removed from public life, replaced with a universal secularism.

I also really wish politicans would adopt more of a life and let live philosophy. Who cares if 2 men or 2 women want to marry. Does it really harm any of us? How about we notice the high rate of divorce amongst traditional marriages? What are we doing about that? Zero. Divorce is a much bigger enemy because there IS no loyalty to the family unit anymore.

So let's just keep chipping away at the hand full of centuries old traditional that have stood as the foundation of the family unit. What's the harm, right? What a terrible argument, to argue that an institution already has problems so let's just completely undermine it.

Why is it necessary to hijack and redefine an institution which is universally understood to mean something? A homosexual union is NOT the same, so why lie and call it the same thing? The homosexual groups have support from the public to get "civil union" type legislation passed. Laws that accommodate all the heart-string tugging issues used to argue the case. So that homosexuals can leave property easily to a "partner" or visit them in the hospital with less trouble. But they are holding out for the "marriage" tag. That's because it's not just about those accommodations, it's part of a larger political agenda.

 

[Joeychgo]

None of which address a Presidential candidate publicly expressing his faith.

Face it, Joey, this is your personal preference, which is fine. But you cannot legitimately claim that US law frowns on a public official having or expressing faith.

I never said a Presidential candidate publicly expressing his faith was illegal.

 

[Joeychgo]

So let's just keep chipping away at the hand full of centuries old traditional that have stood as the foundation of the family unit. What's the harm, right? What a terrible argument, to argue that an institution already has problems so let's just completely undermine it.

There was once another centuries old tradition that was chipped away at.

Remember slavery?

 

[fossten]

I never said a Presidential candidate publicly expressing his faith was illegal.

But you implied it, Joey. You cited court decisions to support your opinion. That is implying that the law supports your position.