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.

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

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.

I like Huck

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

Remember slavery?
You're comparing slavery to Christianity? :bowrofl:

That's probably the most ignorant thing I've ever seen on this forum. You literally undercut your own complaint that the family unit has been deteriorating. You do this by implying that Christianity is a tradition that should go the way of slavery. Of course, you have no knowledge of the FACT that the Bible states that God FOUNDED marriage. Marriage is rooted in Christianity and you cannot get around that. You can deny it all you want, but the fact remains.

I was comparing nothing to Christianity - you brought that up. I wasnt referring to it in the slightest.

Your confusing the religon and the legal side of things. Athesits can get married and it has all the same power, responsibility and implications of a 'christian' marriage. So stop twisting my words and bringing up christianity. That has little to do with the marriage issues I am discussing. Nor should religon be the basis or argument for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

I was comparing nothing to Christianity - you brought that up. I wasnt referring to it in the slightest.

Your confusing the religon and the legal side of things. Athesits can get married and it has all the same power, responsibility and implications of a 'christian' marriage. So stop twisting my words and bringing up christianity. That has little to do with the marriage issues I am discussing. Nor should religon be the basis or argument for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Excuse me, you are correct. You were comparing marriage to slavery, equally absurd. Especially when earlier in this thread you complain about the loss of marriage as an institution. Why would you make reference to slavery as a tradition and equate it with marriage, especially since you have staked out the position that marriage should not go away?

Interestingly enough, related to another thread, slavery is justified in Islam, but it was abolished due to the work of the Christian abolitionists.

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.


All of this I know. I have done lots of research on this issue, had to write a few term papers on it, one specifically from the legal point of few (constitutional law class). Jefferson's "wall of separation" in the context of the Danbury Baptist letter was a separation with the federal government on one side and state/local governments and the church on the other side. In his view, the federal government couldn't establish national church, or prohibit free exercise, but the states were free to do as they wished. Remember, the bill of rights was originally written as a series of restrictions only on the federal government. Many states at the time had state sponsored churches, which Jefferson supported and even helped fund at the state level. The Supreme court has on at least one occasion miquoted the wall of separation to mean what they want, and on most occasions misrepresented and distorted the term to mean what most understand it as today. The Court has made it applicable to the states through a questionable legal idea called incorporation, which takes restrictions on the federal government and expands them to a level not intended by the Framers. That fact of the matter is, like I said, the Wall of Separation has no constitutional basis, and only through activist judges distorting (or as they like to call it "inturpreting") the constitution to their own ends has it now been made aplicalble to the states. Thankfully, we have at least four justices on the Supreme court that see the wall of separation for what it is. I hope Bush gets another appointment.

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 principle of no government authority over religion preceded the First Amendment by at least two centuries, dude. Some would say it was ordained by Jesus Christ at least 1700 years before there was a First Amendment.

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 Constitution was ratified with the understanding that the federal government no authority whatsoever over religion.

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.

That is true. It is also true that the Original Constitution excluded religion from the authority of the U. S. Government.

That is true. It is also true that the Original Constitution excluded religion from the authority of the U. S. Government.You're referring to the language itself, not the intent.

WAS THE UNITED STATES FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recently, many authors have debated whether or not the United States of America was founded as a Christian nation. I wish to provide a few historical quotes from our Founding Era that lend credence to the supposition that we indeed were founded as a Christian nation.

Granted, God is not mentioned in the Constitution, but He is mentioned in every major document leading up to the final wording of the Constitution. For example, Connecticut is still known as the "Constitution State" because its colonial constitution was used as a model for the United States Constitution. Its first words were: "For as much as it has pleased the almighty God by the wise disposition of His Divine Providence…"

Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: "...the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen". Sounds Christian to me.

Ben Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, said: "...God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"

John Adams stated so eloquently during this period of time that; "The general principles on which the fathers achieved Independence were ... the general principles of Christianity ... I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."

Later, John Quincy Adams answered the question as to why, next to Christmas, was the Fourth of July this most joyous and venerated day in the United States. He answered: "...Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" Sounds like the founding of a Christian nation to me. John Quincy Adams went on to say that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government would be tied together In what he called an "indissoluble" bond. The Founding Fathers understood that religion was inextricably part of our nation and government. The practice of the Christian religion in our government was not only welcomed but encouraged.

The intent of the First Amendment was well understood during the founding of our country. The First Amendment was not to keep religion out of government. It was to keep Government from establishing a 'National Denomination" (like the Church of England). As early as 1799 a court declared: "By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing." Even in the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut (from which we derive the term "separation of Church and State") he made it quite clear that the wall of separation was to insure that Government would never interfere with religious activities because religious freedom came from God, not from Government.

Even George Washington who certainly knew the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since he presided over their formation, said in his "Farewell Address": "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars." Sure doesn't sound like Washington was trying to separate religion and politics.

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Still sounds like the Founding Fathers knew this was a Christian nation.

This view, that we were a Christian nation, was hold for almost 150 years until the Everson v. Board of Education ruling in 1947. Before that momentous ruling, even the Supreme Court knew that we were a Christian nation. In 1892 the Court stated:

"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people...This is a Christian nation." There it is again! From the Supreme Court of the United States. This court went on to cite 87 precedents (prior actions, words, and rulings) to conclude that this was a "Christian nation".

In 1854, the House Judiciary Committee said: "in this age, there is no substitute for Christianity...That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.'

It should be noted here that even as late as 1958 a dissenting judge warned in Baer v. Kolmorgen that if the court did not stop talking about the "separation of Church and State", people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution.

It has been demonstrated in their own words: Ben Franklin, George Washington and John Adams, to the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court, how our founding fathers felt about the mix of politics and religion.

When we read articles such as "What's God got to do with it?" (Primack, 5/4) and "The wall between state and church must not be breached" (Tager, 5/7) it just reaffirms how little even intelligent people understand about the founding of our great Republic. To say that this nation was not founded as a Christian nation or that the Constitution was not founded on Christian principles is totally at odds with the facts of history.

You're referring to the language itself, not the intent.

The intent of the lawmakers is to be ascertained from the language of the Constitution by signs most natural a probable.


WAS THE UNITED STATES FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recently, many authors have debated whether or not the United States of America was founded as a Christian nation. I wish to provide a few historical quotes from our Founding Era that lend credence to the supposition that we indeed were founded as a Christian nation.


The United States Government was established by the adoption of the U. S. Constitution. Where did you get the absurd idea that the men who made it intended for us to gather the meaning of the document from a few historical quotes from our Founding Era?

Where did you get the absurd idea that the men who made it intended for us to gather the meaning of the document from a few historical quotes from our Founding Era?This is not only a rhetorical question, but a circular sentence. However, I drew inferences from those IMPORTANT quotes, as they lend credibility to my premise. Your argument does nothing to detract from my premise, but is ad hominem and devoid of substance. Please feel free to post counter evidence or to show how my evidence is false. Barring that, I stand by my statement.

Granted, God is not mentioned in the Constitution, but He is mentioned in every major document leading up to the final wording of the Constitution.

That statement is probably false, considering its source. However, if it is true, it constitutes overwhelming evidence that the lawmakers wished to depart from the practice of mentioning God.

I drew inferences from those IMPORTANT quotes, as they lend credibility to my premise.

Your premise is false. The U. S. was not founded by a few historical quotes from our Founding Era. It was founded in the name of the people by the Constitution they ordained and established. There is nothing in that document to support your claim.

That statement is probably false, considering its source.

Ad Hominem reasoning...

However, if it is true, it constitutes overwhelming evidence that the lawmakers wished to depart from the practice of mentioning God.

That is a huge stretch. There is no evidence to suggest that is why they didn't mention God specifically in the Consitution; that is simply spin on your part. For all we know, they might not have mentioned God because the felt that was already covered in other documents, so it was redundant and already assumed. It also might not have been neccessary considering the context, in their opinion.

Besides, many of the concepts inacted in the constitution come from ideas that inherently subscribe to a God.

Your premise is false. The U. S. was not founded by a few historical quotes from our Founding Era.

no one ever said it was. You are mischaracterizing there; setting up a trojan horse argument.

The intent of the lawmakers is to be ascertained from the language of the Constitution by signs most natural a probable.


There is more to it then that, especially considering the historical gap, and the way the language has changed somewhat from what it was then.

The language can be vauge in the constitution alone, so it needs to be placed in its historical context, which you seem to want to ignore.

Please feel free to post counter evidence or to show how my evidence is false.

Good luck with that. I spend close to a week askin for that, and (with a few exceptions) got a series of questions that mostly served to confuse the issue.

Ad Hominem reasoning...

You say that like its a bad thing.

Mick
However, if it is true, it constitutes overwhelming evidence that the lawmakers wished to depart from the practice of mentioning God.

Shag
That is a huge stretch.

If mentioning God indicates the intent to unite church and state. The non mention of God must indicate the opposite, dude.

no one ever said it was. You are mischaracterizing there; setting up a trojan horse argument.

It was implied in the following statement:

I wish to provide a few historical quotes from our Founding Era that lend credence to the supposition that we indeed were founded as a Christian nation.

There is more to it than that...

Not unless the most natural and probable signs fail to ascertain the will of the lawmakers.

The language can be vauge in the constitution

That's why the common law rules of construction were established.

...it needs to be placed in its historical context, which you seem to want to ignore.

First, there is no evidence whatsoever that the lawmakers meant for the historical context of the Constitution to serve as a guide to its construction.

Second, the "historical context" includes powerful evidence that the lawmakers intended for the common law rules of construction to be applied to the U. S. Constitution.

Your argument does nothing to detract from my premise

Your premise is false. The United States Government wasn't founded by the quotations you presented. It was founded by the adoption of the Constitution.

Please feel free to post counter evidence or to show how my evidence is false.

The quotations you presented are irrelevant, dude, unless they are admissible under the common law rules of construction.

Barring that, I stand by my statement.

Its a free country.

If mentioning God indicates the intent to unite church and state.

no one said that. You are making an assumption.

It was implied in the following statement:

I wish to provide a few historical quotes from our Founding Era that lend credence to the supposition that we indeed were founded as a Christian nation.

No. It. Wasn't.

That statement doesn't imply the claim that this nation was founded on a series of historical quotes. If anything, it implies that those quotes suggest what the framers thinking was when they created the constitution. There is a big difference there.

First, there is no evidence whatsoever that the lawmakers meant for the historical context of the Constitution to serve as a guide to its construction.

Second, the "historical context" includes powerful evidence that the lawmakers intended for the common law rules of construction to be applied to the U. S. Constitution.

First, you wanna disregard historical context
Second, you wanna cite it

You can't have it both ways

The only way you can make your claim about the "rules of construction" is by looking at the historical context. You don't get to throw out the historical context at that point.

When interpreting any historical document, you must put it in historical context, or it is meaningless. Talk to a history professor.

You say that like its [ad hominem] a bad thing.It is faulty logic. That may not be bad to you, but it's ineffective as critical reasoning.

If mentioning God indicates the intent to unite church and state. The non mention of God must indicate the opposite, dude.Non sequitur. More faulty reasoning. That does not follow, especially since the first sentence you spoke is a false straw man argument.


First, you wanna disregard historical context
Second, you wanna cite it

You can't have it both ways

The only way you can make your claim about the "rules of construction" is by looking at the historical context. You don't get to throw out the historical context at that point.

When interpreting any historical document, you must put it in historical context, or it is meaningless. Talk to a history professor.*owned*

Granted, God is not mentioned in the Constitution, but He is mentioned in every major document leading up to the final wording of the Constitution. For example, Connecticut is still known as the "Constitution State" because its colonial constitution was used as a model for the United States Constitution. Its first words were: "For as much as it has pleased the almighty God by the wise disposition of His Divine Providence…"

The authority of the U. S. Government is derived from the U. S. Constitution. It is not derived from the Charter for the Colony Connecticut. The U. S. Constitution says nothing about pleasing almighty God or divine providence.

The authority of the U. S. Government is derived from the U. S. Constitution. It is not derived from the Charter for the Colony Connecticut. The U. S. Constitution says nothing about pleasing almighty God or divine providence.Another straw man argument. So what?

I wish to provide a few historical quotes from our Founding Era that lend credence to the supposition that we indeed were founded as a Christian nation....

...Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians.

That's not an historical quote, dude.

PS: The term "evangelical Christians" didn't even exist at the time the nation was founded.

The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: "...the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen". Sounds Christian to me.


Show us some evidence that the lawmakers meant for us to gather the meaning of the U. S. Constitution from the acts of the Continental Congress.

PS: It wasn't the first act of the Continental Congress and the practice was discontinued in 1784.

Another straw man argument. So what?

The U. S. Constitution says nothing about the United States being a Christian Nation.

PS: What exactly is a "Christian Nation?"

The U. S. Constitution says nothing about the United States being a Christian Nation.

PS: What exactly is a "Christian Nation?"Your ramblings aren't even connected to each other, and your questions are loaded. You aren't interested in learning anything here.

What exactly is a "Christian Nation?"

THERE is the question! This country never has been a "Christian Nation" in the same sense of what many European countries were at the time of the founding, specifically, England. we never were a traditional Christian nation.

We were founded as a Christian nation in the sense that this nation was founded by Christians (with many Christian ideas and ideals heavily influencing the Constitution) and for a religious people, who at the time were mostly Christians of one variety or another. So, we were a Christian nation in as much as we were a nation made up of Christians and with a federal government informed by Christianity (but not subscribing exclusively to it). That is why Christianity is very much a part of our national traditions.

This is in contrast to other countries and governments that came about shortly after the U.S. Most of them were influence by French Enlightenment thinking and specifically rejected religion, and Christianity in particular; basically, creating purely secular governments.

America was unique in that is embraced Christianity and religion like England, but also worked to keep the national government from influencing and excerting power over religion, or creating a national religion.

I wish to provide a few historical quotes from our Founding Era that lend credence to the supposition that we indeed were founded as a Christian nation...

...Ben Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, said: "...God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"

How does that make the United States a Christian Nation?

Recently, many authors have debated whether or not the United States of America was founded as a Christian nation. I wish to provide a few historical quotes from our Founding Era that lend credence to the supposition that we indeed were founded as a Christian nation...

John Adams stated so eloquently during this period of time that; "The general principles on which the fathers achieved Independence were ... the general principles of Christianity ... I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."

What exactly were the "general principles of Christianity", according to Mr. Adams?

THERE is the question! This country never has been a "Christian Nation" in the same sense of what many European countries were at the time of the founding, specifically, England. we never were a traditional Christian nation.

We were founded as a Christian nation in the sense that this nation was founded by Christians (with many Christian ideas and ideals heavily influencing the Constitution) and for a religious people, who at the time were mostly Christians of one variety or another. So, we were a Christian nation in as much as we were a nation made up of Christians and with a federal government informed by Christianity (but not subscribing exclusively to it). That is why Christianity is very much a part of our national traditions.

This is in contrast to other countries and governments that came about shortly after the U.S. Most of them were influence by French Enlightenment thinking and specifically rejected religion, and Christianity in particular; basically, creating purely secular governments.

America was unique in that is embraced Christianity and religion like England, but also worked to keep the national government from influencing and excerting power over religion, or creating a national religion.

The U. S. was founded as an Atheist Nation because the Constitution does not even acknowledge God. Only godless heathens would have done that.

The U. S. was founded as an Atheist Nation because the Constitution does not even acknowledge God. Only godless heathens would have done that.

You are just trying to argue here and create strife, I take it. Lookin to cause trouble... nothing intellegent to offer.

You are a waste of time.

You are just trying to argue here and create strife, I take it. Lookin to cause trouble... nothing intellegent to offer.

You are a waste of time.

I was just being the Presbyterian's advocate, dude.

I was just being the Presbyterian's advocate, dude.

Bak. Derk-derk-Allah. Derka derka, Mohammed Jihad. Haka sherpa-sherpa. Abaka-la.