E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Ted S. Warren / AP
Mitt Romney, right, bows his head in prayer as he stands on stage with local elected officials during a campaign rally on Feb. 3 in Elko, Nev. Nearly six in 10 Republican and Republican-leaning voters who favor Romney for the GOP presidential nomination say churches should keep out of political matters.
In an election campaign season in which issues such as birth control and gay marriage have made headlines, a growing number of Americans think political leaders are talking too much religion, according to a new national survey.
The survey released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life finds signs of uneasiness over the mixing of religion and politics.
Nearly four in 10 Americans (38 percent) say there has been too much expression of religious faith and prayer from political leaders -- an all-time high since the Pew Research Center began asking the question more than a decade ago. Thirty percent say there has been too little.
Most Americans (54 percent) continue to say that churches and other houses of worship should keep out of politics. It’s the third consecutive poll conducted over the past four years in which more people have said churches and other houses of worship should keep out of politics than said they should express their views on social and political topics, according to Pew. That's also an about-face from 2006, when 51 percent of Americans believed churches should speak out and 46 percent said they should keep quiet.
The view that there is too much expression of religious faith by politicians remains far more widespread among Democrats than Republicans, and there are also divisions within the GOP primary electorate.
Fifty-seven percent of Republican and Republican-leaning voters who favor Mitt Romney (a Mormon) for the presidential nomination say churches should keep out of political matters. By contrast, 60 percent of GOP voters who support Rick Santorum (a devout Catholic) say that churches and other houses of worship should express their views on social and political questions.
And while more than half (55 percent) of Santorum’s supporters say there is too little expression of religious faith and prayer by political leaders, just one in four (24 percent) of Romney’s backers agree.
Santorum has worked hard on the campaign trail to court conservative Christian voters, and the former Pennsylvania senator has talked openly about the journey of his faith in visits to evangelical churches.
Kimberly Conger, a political science instructor at Colorado State University who has studied the intersection of religion and politics, says the latest Pew findings are not surprising.
“Religious people's opinions on the relationship between religion and politics seem to be driven by their political identity more than their religious one. These results bear that out,” she said by email to msnbc.com.
“Republicans are less likely to think there is too much religious talk by political leaders, and Republicans are hearing more such talk than Democrats. It is also unsurprising that there has been a slight uptick in the overall number of people uncomfortable with religious talk since the Republican primary has had some significant religious overtones.”
As to whether politicians should steer clear of religion on the campaign trail, Conger says it depends.
“It's clear from the breakdown of religious and political groups that Rick Santorum ought to keep talking about religion as long as he's fighting for the Republican nomination. But if he were to win the nomination, he'd have to start appealing to independents, a key voting group that's uncomfortable with candidates' religious talk,” she says.
“They key challenge in the general election will be for Republicans to broaden their appeal by toning down religious talk. But the data suggest that Democrats face a similar if less intense challenge in broadening their appeal by appearing more welcoming to religious beliefs. Both sides will have a fine line to walk.”
The Pew telephone survey was conducted March 7-11 among 1,503 adults. You can read the full results here.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
Do American republican politicians talk to much about religion hahahaha!!! Do catholic priests like little boys?
Not sure how to take your comment ... are you saying democrats are non-religious? And if so, is that a really good thing? I don't care to have government and high leadership inject religion into policies and American live's, but I'd sooner take a leader who is open about his religious stance and who believes in God, than a leader who tries to berate Christians and other "believers", and promotes himself as being "non-religious" and that his "non-religious stance" is a "good quality" in a POTUS. Keep working at extinguishing God and Christians in the USA and see where that leads you. I'm not a "holy-roller" but I'll say that the more we seem to be pushing God aside, the worse the outlook becomes. Let the hatred comments begin ...
God isn't being pushed aside. But, those who twist and misuse him are.
I remember reading an article once about how Europeans view our politics. We are dismayed to hear people like Ahmadinejad saying things like "as Allah wills" and consider him a religious zealot whose views are harmful and extremist. When Europeans hear presidents talking about God's will and what's morally right, they think the same thing of us.
Using the Bible as a basis for lawmaking is just as scary as using the Koran.
A person's individual religious beliefs are just that, personal and shouldn't have any place in politics. The darkest periods in human history were religious wars from the crusades, to the inquisition, to Germany in WWII and thousands of other instances in between. A Godly person doesn't spout off about religion, he or she lives his beliefs regardless of their affiliation, and they DO NOT denigrate others for their differences nor do they demonize others. Those who do denigrate or ostracize are not true believers in God. God exists with many names and we should respect all of them even if we disagree with the philosophies written in their particular hand book.
So to those politicians who preach the most, STUFF IT. I don't want to hear it, I will not vote for you no matter what.
Crais P is spot-on correct. Religious views are personal, and unique to each of us. Just as you don't want me to force my religious beliefs and values on you and your children, I want you to respect my views. Politicians are pandering to a small but very vocal group of people who believe their religious views trump everyone else's. The result is the politicians come off sounding like they intend to implement some radical ideas, even if it's nothing but words, or worse yet, they are serious about doing what a few want.
Enough with the religion in politics. You can have your views and I will respect them. But don't use the government to force what you want on the rest of us. Unless you want to live in Iran or some similar country where that is the normal mode of operation...
Just yesterday, the Tennessee Senate passed a bill designed to allow Creationism to be taught in public schools. The Tennessee House approved a bill that would permit posting the 10 Commandments in public buildings.
Are politicians talking too much about religion? Hell yes - and they're doing a lot more than just talking about it.
Not big fans of the Constitution down in Tennessee, are they?
Apparently..this is how Conservatives come to rationalize their thinking...through booze:
A new study, published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, tested whether low-effort thought promotes political conservatism, and part of the study measured alcohol's effects on political positions.
Researchers found that the higher the blood alcohol content, the more conservative the views on sex, education, and political identification became.
Researchers hypothesized that drinking turns people Republican because political conservatism arises in the absence of deliberate thought.
People with a lot on their minds, under time constraints, or told to respond in a cursory manner, rather than think deeply and use "recognition memory -- an indicator of effortful thought -- were also more conservative.
Crais, show me where Christianity was the cause of WWII. I'd like to see that one!
But I'll go further. To qoute you,"Those who do denigrate or ostracize are not true believers in God."
Think carefully about that statement and the history of this very community, The Vine. While there are those holy rollers that come through here on occasion, the atmosphere in general is an intolerance of any religious belief.
Republican politicians "preach" religion and Christainity, while democrats live it. What party wants to take care of the poor, wants to make sure children in poverty have health care, meals, head start. Which party wants poor women to have access to contraception and other health needs. It sure as hell is not the Republicans that are trying their level best to control the bodies of women while depriving them of life saving health services. Republicans say "charity should come from the neighbors" too bad if their are no charitable neighbors. It was at the GOP debate when the participants were asked if somone could not afford a life saving medical procedure what should happen to them and the audience yelled "let them die" that is the Christianity of the Republicans. Try getting into your heaven with that sentiment, GOP.
Religion is the main problem in the middle east. Keep religion out of US politics. I don't give a damn it you take an old wrecked Studebaker and worship it, keep it out of US politics.
The Republicans always use the "Founding Fathers"as a theme for their BS speeches.
Jefferson would be throwing up listening to these A***s defecating in the constitution.
VOTE DEMOCRAT: Respect the Constitution and keep the Separation of Church and State
(ONE) I think the media should stay out of religion they are stiring THIS pot in creating this deep division between the democrates and republicians. (TWO) politicians should stick to politics. (THREE) America continue religious freedom or lack of with the US government not getting involved. (FOUR) If catholics want to protest, fine. If athiests want to demostrate, fine. Everybody should have a choice to fit in whatever religious group they want or for the athiest their own organization. Without getting belittled by the media, scorned or talked about with distain from the media, ANY RELIGION. The media have been expressing lately one view; THEIR OWN and its been hateful. People in general are tolorant of other religions. Heck its America we have everybody and every religion or lack there of. You should be allowed to express your views about religion personally or to the world but we don't have to listen to it or accept it (ITS called choice). If the govt tells a religious groups to do something they feel is wrong/against their beliefs whether they are right or wrong (Notice: I am not getting into whose right or wrong that is for an individual to decide Because I believe there is not right or wrong answer. Im talking about the government getting involved in a religion/any religion) What else will not be tolorated??? PEACE
SIESTASIS...wow, democrats live Christianity? That's absurd. Not with their pro abortion stance. And of course the Democrats want to take care of the poor...by any means necessary...to keep them poor. Democrats believe in a hand out. Republicans, a hand up. Democrats don't offer up any incentive to rise up out of poverty. Don't fool yourself, the Democrats aren't helping anyone. They are just enablers in the whole poverty thing, keeping the poor poor since the war on poverty started in 1965! If the poor would ever rise out of their predicament, the Democrat Party would cease to exist.
Do you want to know how to get politicians to stop talking religion?...pay attention to this people...
Vote for Rick Santorum in the primary...come out in numbers to vote for him...then when he gets nominated by the Republicans, vote for Obama in the general election...why don't we pit this ultra conservative (probably the most bigoted conservative we've ever seen) against Obama whom they've been screaming at since he got elected. Watch Santorum lose by a landslide and bury these religious nutjobs once and for all...They will know that their religious views will not win them elections and the Republicans will have to distance themselves from the lunatics.
STexan
Not believing does not mean someone "berates" those that do. We can have a leader who simply says nothing... absolutely nothing... about religion.
And I would prefer to have a leader who has "good qualities" because he is a good man... not because he lives in a constant state of fearing eternal damnation. I prefer people who are honestly good people, not those who are good just because they are threatened by their religion.
AZChzhd - please give me a reference of how republicans want to give a hand-up in stead of a hand-out.
I am an advocate of the hand-up approach. The pro-life stance I see from republicans seems to end at the birth of the child. After birth, the kid is on his own only to be taunted by the wealth, greed and lack of Christianity shown by the upper class. Do recall that it was the republicans that gave us "No Child Left Behind" (a.k.a. teach to the test) and "Ketchup is a Vegetable". For the current set of GOP hopefuls, only one has demonstrated a consistency in supporting charities (Gingrich and Santorum tend to spend it as they get it).
I agree that the support from Democrats tends to be disingenuous. They advocate for education, yet don't press the teachers union to ditch bad teachers. They advocate for health care for all with out addressing the patient and parental responsibility of the equation. At least they are talking about care for the poor, but the implementation leaves a systems where the uninsured get better care than people with insurance (just chat with a nurse who works at a hospital in a large city).
STexan
They just don't wear their religion on their sleeves or in your face.
Who is more "religious", those that want to HELP the poor or those that want to BLAME them?
Who is more religious, those that spend all day Sunday trying to get their weekly sins forgiven, or those that spend the whole week trying not to sin?
How do you measure "religious" anyway? Time in church or time abiding by the golden rule?
To tell you the truth, of late I find that those that proclaim to be "religious" tend to act LESS "religious".
AZChzhd
It was the Republicans who yelled to "let him die" when discussing a poor man without the money to afford health care. "LET HIM DIE" is the Republican stance... not help, not care for... DIE.
It was the Republicans who rose to a standing applause over the mere mention of executions... despite the commandment "thou shalt not kill" and multiple commands of forgiveness. Did Jesus cheer for the death of the other man on the cross, or forgive him?
It was Republicans who promoted ideas for lethal border-fence defenses, killing anyone who touches it. Again, pushing for DEATH in opposition to the commandment "thou shalt not kill."
So, AZChzhd, continue to tell us how "Christian" you Republicans are. Continue to tell us how you follow the life of Jesus. Because there is nothing I love more than shoving this evidence in your face, and proving you wrong.
I guess you haven't been privy to the fact that The Catholic Church was duplicitous with Hitler in the slaughter of Jews. 1/3 of the world was wiped out in The Crusades, by "The Church." And, please don't tell me that the war that just wound down and the one going on now isn't about religion. It's a lot easier to get people to do what you want if you dangle the carrot of eternal life.
I listened to Bush with that biblical apocalyptic crap during his prolonged interview while in office. It made me know that a religious fanatic had the power to destroy the world. I'd rather place trust in an admitted atheist, Senator Bernie Sanders if Vermont. He'd keep us out of wars and not even bring religion into any picture. Me? I like to expose all of the beliefs. You must excuse me, I have to pray to Pele, the god of fire.
As someone who is not a Christian I feel very uncomfortable with all the candidates talk of religion. Does this mean that they are going to push their faith on others. Does it mean that religions other than theirs are going to be excluded from protection under the law. I would never deny a person's right to practice their faith but I draw the line at them preaching their faith to me.
The spiritual person seeks knowledge while the religious person seeks reward.
Spiritual people do not seek control or dominion over others, but religious people tend to be consumed by the need to proclaim and spread their faith.
Spiritual people recognizes there is truth in everything, religious people deny any truth but their own.
Spirituality does not produce zealots, religiosity frequently does.
I would prefer my politician be a compassionate, rational, knowledge and compromise seeking, privately spiritual person rather than a close minded, proselytizing, reward seeker on a mission from his or her God.
Religion needs to stay out of politics, and politics needs to stay out of religion.
That's why we have separation of church and state. They don't mix well.
I like both indieparty (except the last sentence, thats just me) and culhealth thanks for posting.
Nope. There's a big difference between being religious and trumpeting their religious beliefs as some sort of bragging contest. It is entirely possible to be religious and still know when NOT to talk about it.
It's like having a sex life, but knowing better than to "do it" in public.
most people, you don't know what you believe in. Romney or Obama could be Satan's twin brother and you wouldn't know it. Speaking about religeon doesn't make a difference either way.
The media keeps asking the GOP candidates about their religious affiliations and practices. More baiting than anything. When they get an answer, they say religion should not be in politics. THEN DON'T ASK if you don't want an answer as to the candidates PERSONAL beliefs and practices. The way it's been going, when the media gets an answer and broadcasts it, then the candidates are accused of "shoving religion down people's throats". If candidates did not answer, they would be accused of dodging or skirting the questions. Keep religion out of government, yes. But it works both ways, Obama should keep GOVERNMENT out of religion. Liberals insist on pressing on and on about religion, THEY talk more about it than conservatives...it's crazy, just crazy. I only HOPE that whomever we elected to any and all political offices, has astrong moral ethics, and protects the virtues and laws on which our country was founded....because the way things look right now, we are dissolving into ideological chaos.
The semi-literate Carrie said, "I think the media should stay out of religion they are stiring THIS pot..."
As long as the GOP's incompetent wannabes continue to drag the supremely irrelevant topic of religion out of their bottomless Sacks 'o' Hate at every conceivable opportunity, the press will continue to report on it. Don't blame the media for reporting the news.
I believe our laws are modeled after the ten commandments to some its the ten suggestions, when they took prayer out of school and paddling and let the kids get away with what ever they wanted and the parents started jumping on teachers for trying to make the kids mind in class , it all went down hill from there. Someone talking about people trying to shove their religion down peoples throats , what about trying to shove politics down our throats, for example abortion and gay rights , when evil controls a country this is what happens to the country i.e America and its all coming to a head , soon your days wages wont be able to buy a loaf of bread let alone a gallon of gas , so America get ready for the worse , no matter who is president.
Does MSNBC Promote gays and discourage Religion..
Easy answer, Lusitania: no.
Prove it
hahahaha!!
Those backwoods Tennessee inbred biblebangers better get ready for a lawsuit. Maybe they should have read LEdwards vs, Aguilar and a few other SCOTUS rulings that will slap these laws down like the bitches that they are. The law making it mandatory to teach "creation" in the schools violates the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE. Rethuglicons would do well to LEARN IT.
The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/torcaso-v-watkins#ixzz1poL9Q56h
Edwards vs Aguilar :
Search:
EDWARDS v. AGUILLARD
Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No.
85-1513
Appellee
Aguillard
Appellant
Edwards
Decided By
Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)
Opinion
482 U.S. 578 (1987)
Argued
Wednesday, December 10, 1986
Decided
Friday, June 19, 1987
Advocates
Wendell R. Bird
(Argued the cause for the appellants)
Jay Topkis
(Argued the cause for the appellees)
Tags First Amendment
Term:
Location: Louisiana General Assembly
Facts of the Case
A Louisiana law entitled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act" prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution in the public schools unless that instruction was accompanied by the teaching of creation science, a Biblical belief that advanced forms of life appeared abruptly on Earth. Schools were not forced to teach creation science. However, if either topic was to be addressed, evolution or creation, teachers were obligated to discuss the other as well.
Question
Did the Louisiana law, which mandated the teaching of "creation science" along with the theory of evolution, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?
Argument
Edwards v. Aguillard - Oral Argument
Conclusion
Decision: 7 votes for Aguillard, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion
Yes. The Court held that the law violated the Constitution. Using the three- pronged test that the Court had developed in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) to evaluate potential violations of the Establishment Clause, Justice Brennan argued that Louisiana's law failed on all three prongs of the test. First, it was not enacted to further a clear secular purpose. Second, the primary effect of the law was to advance the viewpoint that a "supernatural being created humankind," a doctrine central to the dogmas of certain religious denominations. Third, the law significantly entangled the interests of church and state by seeking "the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose."
And for the person who thinks our laws are based on the 10 Commandments. WRONG. They are based on ROMAN/GREEK COMMON LAW based thousands of years before your fairytale existed.
Absolutely right. It is against federal law to force high schools to subvert their science curricula by teaching the primitive creation myths of an ancient tribe of ignorant, lice-ridden nomads.
Most dont know their religion or faith whether it being the stars or pushed along by the breeze; In scriptures who was it that deceived GOD is that very same person who's multiplying today.
Multiply it, divide, it, add it, or subtract it; your religion has no place in our secular government or our schools. It's the law.
Multiply what ever you feel like, Government does not belong in my life, and thank the breeze niether do you.
Have you thought that through:
I certainly want nothing at all to do with you. It remains, however, that your religion has no place in our secular government, our schools, and on public property. Period.
OK I'll break it down for you simpletard Government (IS) involved with your life..Religion (IS NOT) What are you thinking of?
Most dont know their religion or faith whether it being the stars or pushed along by the breeze; In scriptures who was it that deceived GOD is that very same person:
who's multiplying today.
Does MSNBC.com promote slanted news coverage to demonstrate their leftist agenda should be a more considered article.
People have a tendency given to them to have a philosophical belief which is designated religion. Research has shown it is part of the brain.
But it is not Griffins, nor Tillinghast nor Davidson's right or selection to twist, spin or slant the free news to their leftist propaganda desires.
They are creating a religion of the leftist news reporting.
That is a lie, lusitania. Religious groups persistently attempt to force their primitive creation myths into our schools. Rick Perry was behind an attempt to compel Texas schools to teach the myths of his religion. There are attempts across the country by church groups to force libraries to ban books that offend their religious sensibilities, such as the Harry Potter books, The Catcher in the Rye, and Huckleberry Finn, just to name three. Religious symbols and iconography are placed in government buildings and public property until the courts force them to be removed.
Religious groups are still trying to subvert our government and our schools, but they are foiled by the Constitution, federal law, and the resistance of people across the nation to submit to the narrow views of the christian right.
OK I get its" Southern talk, I now nothing of the South.
PS. let nature listen
STexan -- how about a third option? One who is simply a good and moral person with the leadership skills to get the job done? No religious question at all (and remember, the Constitution forbids a religious test).
Name calling is the last resort of the person with no real point.
That would be KENNEDY" "
sailcat, we including you need God in our lives whether you like it or not, do you not see what is going in the world today ? there is so much evil, and so much hunger and illnesses today, so how can you sit there and say that we don't need God in politics and schools ? just like we need to teach young children the difference between right and wrong because if you try to do it when they are older then it will be too late to do anything about their life of crime. you and people like you would be the last people I would listen to or take advice from. I feel sorry for your children or future children because of your way of thinking !!!!
One can know the difference between right and wrong without believing in God. Frankly, I think more highly of a moral atheist than of a Christian who only does good because they're afraid of going to Hell. Teach your kids religion at home, church, or a religious school. Telling me my child has to learn religion in school is unamerican.
I'm with you SANDRA but getting the chills, see ya and wish you luck...
Im not afraid of squat..
Its simply divine.
There is no reason to feel sorry for me simply because I choose not to waste my time with an imaginary deity, Sandra. Your god was invented by people just as morality was a human invention. Morality serves a useful purpose while a fictional god does not. You are welcome to practice your religion, but as I have said repeatedly, it has no place in our secular government, our schools, or on public property.
By the way, my son is a lance corporal in the United States Marine Corps and my daughter is graduating from college this year. They are doing fine without the burden your mythical deity.
With today's events there is no confidence in future it brings,I'll say my ancestors innovations will live on as bright as the stars it has chosen.
You are welcome to believe that. You just have no right to impose that nonsense on anyone else.
I have a son and daughter to I am not imposing them on you: where does it end,
If you are in agreement with Sandra, and you said you are, you support religion in politics and schools. That is imposing religious views on others. Pretty simple concept, really.
Exactly.
Congrats! Sounds like Sandra was a little off on this one! :)
I guess i don't sandy, I just want understanding, as you don't want religion pushed down your throat(which I think is highly unlikely) I don't want the obsolete Objective.
Lusitania -- you do realize half (or more) of what you're saying up here doesn't even make sense?
I was thinking the same thing, Beth.
LOL I was wondering how you were evening managing to engage him/her. I was just shaking my head.
I am a little embarrassed that I was wasting my time. It was interesting to see how little rational thought was being expressed by poor lusitania, though.
If you want to believe the bases of man is to be without a Soul, OK" what ever..I have reasons to believe different..Religion aside especially southernevangelicalbaptist..
I'm not only embarrassed by you, I'm frightened.
Well, I just noticed my own typing is off ... getting late. But I agree. I wonder just what the "obsolete objective" might be?
So ... are you trying to say you ARE or ARE NOT "southernevangelicalbaptist"? (Sic)
Really, lusitania? I wasn't being threatening. Are you frightened by the fact that a person can admit he is a non-believer?
I thought you weren't engaged anymore do you actually believe?
Just curious. You say things that are hard to understand.
"obsolete objective" "southernevangelicalbaptist" "I'm frightened"
These things make no sense to me.
Lusitania -- I'm still waiting for your clarification. I admit to having difficulty following your thoughts.
Are you serious,
Where do you""" stand the ground to say such an improvident implication..Are you Nostradamus
I'm waiting
All religions are based on Mythology and superstition.
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." - Thomas Jefferson. Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
"If we as a species live long enough, people in the future (I hope) will be smart enough to call the religions of today Mythology because like the Greeks/Romans that is what they truly are."
Keep religion out of politics!!!
I'm not quite sure anyone here understands your question. You say God exists. Sailcat states otherwise, which you think is "improvident" (?). I willingly admit I don't know whether God exists or not, but don't want someone else's view of God shoved on me or my child. Why is your view any more valid than ours? And why are you frightened?
And what does Nostradamus have to do with this?
And "improvident implication"?
Lusitania, I'm really beginning to suspect that English is not your native language. That's the only explanation I can come up with for such odd (and misused) word choice.
But you have still not make the simple clarification I asked for earlier ... ARE or ARE NOT "southernevangelicalbaptist"? (Sic)
Your post made it impossible to discern.
Lusitania, morality is not solely limited to christians. There are records of laws and moral behavior from civilizations around the world going back further than the records kept by the ancient Hebrews. People around the from other cultures exhibit moral behavior in today's world. Therefore, morality is a human condition, not a gift from a mythical deity. On the other hand, there is no evidence to support the notion of a deity. None. The possibility for the existence of a god does not limit the range of possibilities to solely a christian god, either. There are a huge range of potential candidates; zeus, odin, allah, etc. The most likely scenario, however, is that none exists.
Ah, a bit of mistyping in my post. Sorry. It is getting late, I'm afraid.
Stop with the name calling B...
You only believe what you want to believe how could I or anyone change that..Right
Keep the Government out of my life would be a better equation..
Hope its not to big a word for some.
Sic is a Latin adverb to indicate a word or phrase has been copied in its original form. It is most often used to indicate a misspelling that came from the original text. It is not a pejorative term.
Oh, this is too much. I guess it is getting late. (sic) is NOT name calling (unlike calling one a "simpletard").
(Sic) is a writing convention that simply means I copied what you wrote EXACTLY, without correcting your error(s).
From TheFreeDictionary.com
sic1
Now don't you feel just a bit silly?
However .. you have still not answered a simple question that ANYONE has posed to you tonight, at least not in a coherent way.
Yeah, still not making sense. We say "Keep religion out of government"; you counter, "Keep government out of my life", but don't seem to mind if religious politicians push for religious laws governing our private lives. At least, that's what I'm gathering, although your statements are a bit hard to follow.
Ok, so Lusitania is either incapable of rational discussion, or is a troll.
OK. So I guess it's safe to assume that you
A. Don't want to drive on roads
B. Don't want to be protected by the military, fire or police
C. Have never visited a park, flown in an airplane without crashing into another one, or attended a public school.
ALL of those things are government in your life.
We're still trying to make sense from some of your comments, lusitania. At this point, some clarification on a few of your more puzzling statements would be welcome. That is all that is being asked.
Well Sandy, I was giving benefit of the doubt there for a while that perhaps he/she was not a native English speaker.
However, now I'm inclined to go with troll ... since s/he has yet to give a straight answer to a single question. In fact, one that I posed TWICE only requires a "yes" or "no".
Its OK sandy I understand your struggle..There's not many of you to give much train of thought..
Honestly, it is too late for me to wait for an answer. Good night Beth and Sandy. Good night, lusitania.
Ah, we have an answer. Troll.
Good night Sailcat ... After that last comment, I give up too. A straight answer is obviously not forthcoming!
What on GODS green earth does a b and c have to do with anything we're talking about other than people who built worked and protected our freedoms believe in GOD.
To find a troll is to get a troll.
And, good night to you as well Sandy.
Lusitania, we'll leave the field to you to befuddle others. Good evening.
Good night, Beth, Sailcat, and Lusitania.
LOL Cannot resist responding to one more lunacy ...
Seriously? You are the one who said you didn't want government in your life. Without government, you would not have any of the things that I listed.They all require copious amounts of government intervention.
And besides, it's hubris to assume that EVERYONE involved in that list believe(d) in any god, much less yours.
Now, since I know there will be no coherent response ... I do bid you for the final time, good night.
and poof their gone
That is the most devoured statement I ever heard in my life..
Pretty sure there have been, and are now, atheists, agnostics, or people of other religions than Christianity who have worked on our roads, fought in our military, and directed our airplane traffic. All services provided with government intervention, on which you most likely rely to some degree.
"devoured" statement? Back to the nonsense.
Isn't the primary gripe about Islamic countries that their religion is far too intwined with politics? Yet here we have people advocating just that.
Do they really think that their religion can survive the political sphere without corruption? If so, they are truly naive and clearly do not comprehend the importance of keeping the two seperate. One corrupts the other, to maintain the purity of both; the wall of seperation is a must.
Shulack,
It is ironic isn't it? The Christian right lives in terror of the Muslim Right yet they really mirror one another in most of their priorities.
Another thing that I find interesting is that if the Christian Right in the US got what they wanted they'd be setting the stage for any other religion (or non-religion) to simply take over if they achieved majority.
Religion is fine if you use it in a personal way. But when we have leaders pushing faith-based answers to real world problems we set ourselves up for failure. Today's problems do not stem from a lack of worship, they stem from a lack of understanding and effort to understand. Retreating into cryptic verses and mythological stories for answers only broadens our lack of understanding. Worse, it creates deep emotional divisions among our people based on nothing more than which cryptic verse they retreat to. These emotional divisions harm us deeply by sowing distrust and hate. The people who actually work to find real-world answers to real-world problems then become the enemy in a never ending, destructive, and childish hissy-fit that quickly degenerates into violence and social dysfunction. All because some people put their identity in cryptic verses above their identity as citizens and neighbors.
This will be a great country when people stop turning to their bibles to understand economics, science, math, history and social justice. Until then we will be mediocre at best. We have rested on our laurels for half a century - too long! We will consistently make predictable errors based on adherence to, and a reliance on, the importance of scriptures and myth unless we embrace knowledge and the effort to gain it.
Sounds like Lusitania is eating her words! :)
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/21/10796430-pew-survey-americans-think-politicians-are-talking-too-much-about-religion
Crais P wrote in post 1.4;
"A person's individual religious beliefs are just that, personal and shouldn't have any place in politics."
[Exactly. The person is a candidate for public office in the USA, not Iran or some other mid-east 'Garden of Eden' country. For people who can think-the warfare between religious sects in Iraq should be a 'wake-up call'. The same warfare, albeit quieter now, occurred/occurs in Ireland. It also occurs in the USA with all the intersect daemonization and same sect daemonization about who is a Christian and who is not. Of course, the vast majority of religious folk band together to abuse those who lack belief in god(s) and goddess(es). So much for vast amounts of the population to have courage and embrace freedom. These Christians are abject gibbering cowards who are terrified and reject freedom and seek to eliminate it for others who embrace it with joy and vigor.]
"The darkest periods in human history were religious wars from the crusades, to the inquisition, to Germany in WWII and thousands of other instances in between."
[Instances like, ownership of blacks and women. Things haven't changed much only the name(s) of the target group(s) have. Black folks got their freedom a bit over 100 years ago, but only got voting rights back in 1964. Still, they were segregated in society even though the armed forces integrated in the late 1950's. The final skin color cowardice wall fell in 1967 in the ironic case of 'Loving vs. Virginia'. So much for the motto "Virginia is for Lovers'. The motto still doesn't apply as same sex lovers remain behind the Christian wall of bigotry and prejudice. The same verbiage used against other targets in the past continues with gays in the cross-hairs. C'mon Christians grow a spine and a spot of honesty and speak true about gay marriage rather than toddler level transparent smoke screens nattering 'marriage is for reproduction'. Where's your humanity? 'Dark blots' in humanities history and current events occurr when one's humanity doesn't come before the persons superstition (religion). Indicate your opposition stems from some 'ick factor'. I would understand your point of view and thank you for your candor. Such would have no bearing against whatever topic (which is a reason this avenue isn't used often]. There are other things we might agree on, not that it would matter. Sadly, the tsunami of enslavement via the usual Christian Honesty[tm]' (meaning lies and deception) is, again, whirling around ladies of child-bearing age. What cowards these Christians be. They emulate their father Satan well. I'm sure he's very proud.]
"A Godly person doesn't spout off about religion, he or she lives his beliefs regardless of their affiliation, and they DO NOT denigrate others for their differences nor do they demonize others. Those who do denigrate or ostracize are not true believers in God."
[Not so! Janus-like the Bible demonstrates both positions (as it often does). Christians have been arguing/daemonizing/torturing and slaughtering each other each other for millennia about what the stone and bronze age tome (which has been edited, and re-edited, and even voted on which books apply). 'Jesus' and 'The Bible' indicate the 'signs of a Christian'. There isn't a Christian on the planet, but what does 'Jesus' know?]
"God exists with many names and we should respect all of them even if we disagree with the philosophies written in their particular hand book."
[I'm sorry, but no religion should automatically get respect. Christianity deserves abject contempt and derision-based on the 'Holy Tome[tm]'. No 'Holy Tome[tm]' has legal standing in the USA. Religion is irrelevant and immaterial in the secular USA. Sadly, Christians have made the principles the USA was founded on to be irrelevant and immaterial based on cowardice, ignorance, and duplicity.
In the main-especially at the national level-Democrats have no spine/gonads while the Republicans have no ethics.]
"So to those politicians who preach the most, STUFF IT. I don't want to hear it, I will not vote for you no matter what."
[I see those who preach the most as being the most amoral. Look at how they live in comparison to the living modestly injunction. Look at the lies and deceit versus honesty and the injunction against false witness. 'Jesus' wrote about those who postured publically [hypocritically]. 'He' said they have their reward. Sadly, all too often the reward is public office. These folks are Taliban 'butt buddies'-American Taliban. Rabidly antifemale and antihuman. Antifreedom and antiresponsible.
It would be nice if the populace @!$%#canned the prattling hypocrites. Such would go a long way towqard reducing the vapid BS level. They'd then have to at least try to address issues.....Naahhhh]
Lusitania, you're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
I have always hated religion in politics, on both sides. The republicans in the prirmaries and how Obama has said on a few occasions that Jesus would support many of his ideas. There is nothing you can do about all presidents talk about religion.
IRESPOND-2315268 in post 1.12 wrote;
"The Republicans always use the "Founding Fathers"as a theme for their BS speeches.
Jefferson would be throwing up listening to these A***s defecating in the constitution.
VOTE DEMOCRAT: Respect the Constitution and keep the Separation of Church and State"
Too simplistic. Democrat does not equate to supporting the Constitution they've sworn to defend and uphold. Neither does Republican [I'm sure a few disagree with the main stance] equate to Theocrats. I've read several reports where individual Congressmen were threatened to vote along with their leaders. I don't doubt the reports since the Republican leadership is demonstratively totalitarian.
That an individual politician is religious is their personal business. That and about $1.50 will get them a cup of coffee.
Republican politicians habitually put a 'contract on America', not 'with'.
A bit of an aside; I'm seeing echoes of the 1960 election where concerns were raised. Kennedy was Catholic and people were concerned whether the Pope would be 'calling the shots'.
Now its a Catholic-Santorum-(Vatican controlled?) raising the same concern about the Mormon Christian sect and Rommney being controlled from Salt Lake City, Utah.
All this meaningless candidate nattering and posturing concerning a stone and bronze age superstition which has no legal standing in the USA. But then they'd actually have to talk substance. No wonder they cling so.
Religion in politics is just used as a form of prejudice. Someone's religion almost always depends on where and by whom they were raised, not who they have become, what they know or what type of leader they are. I do not want to hear a politician saying "god" or "jesus" in every other sentence they say, just so they can appeal to the religious voters. That is just a way to steal the votes of ignorant voters. And although it works, it is not fair to all politicians and citizens, and should not be part of our government!
And the Constitution (Article Six, Section 3) clearly states that there shall be NO religious test for Senators, Representatives, etc.
This is primarily where the separation of "church and state" comes into play. Any state constitution that includes any type of test is in reality unconstitutional because all state constitutions have to adhere to the US Constitution.
But the same ban on a test also means that churches and religious organizations should not continue to get tax-exempt status when they become involved in politics...Mormons and RC efforts to defeat same-sex marriage is a good example of churches crossing the line between "church and state" since marriage licenses are a civil matter, not a religious matter.
No religious test by the government. It's perfectly acceptable for the individual voter to make their decision based on a person's religion. There just can't be any state requirements or exemptions.
Toasty...don't you agree, by the same token, that the government should stay out of the church? I think it works both ways. Allot of this was started by Obama his talk of forcing churches to do things that go against everything it stands for.
The government and church should stay out of each others business.
But when AZChzhd referred to the contaception fiasco, the ranting was one sided. Employers should be expected to follow certain guidelines, on the other hand employees do get to choose their employer.
The recommendations to the fiasco really scared me, if my employer suddenly feels that cancer and sever illness is God's way of calling you home, what gives them the right to do a bait and switch to reduce my insurance coverage.
They have no right other than the one they assert and you acquiesce to. Power is not taken, it is given. There is no reason that as employee you should ever have to make medical choices based on the world views of your employer.
Stexan....yes, democrats do believe in God, Jesus, etc. We just don't ram our beliefs and practices down everyone else's throats.
AZCh
If churches don't want to follow the rules the government has for every business, then they shouldn't accept government money or be open to the public. There's no reason why a church should be given special treatment.
Indeed, AZC, I agree wholeheartedly with that tokenb. The problem is, the President WASN'T trying to. The fact is that if your church decides to start a business, it has to obey the law.
laura even the demons believe in God , that doesnt make them Christian, a real Christian doesnt support a President who supports Abortion , Gay marriage and attend a so called Christian church whos pastor takes Gods name in vain , or should I say a posser , like Al Sharpton and Jessis Jackson. There will be a Special place for them and other possers like them , you can fool people but theres one no one can fool.
wayne,
Did God die and make you judge? I always get a good laugh from such narrow minds!
steveo, and if a politician or whoever mentions God or Jesus then what are you going to do about it ? you people have so much hate for God or Jesus but I bet when you fear something or someone the first thing you and people like you say " God , help me , protect me oh Jesus." people like you sicken me , you hipocrites !!!
"...people like you sicken me , you hipocrites"
Spoken like a true semi-literate christian, and it is spelled hypocrites, by the way.
Laura: Then what do you call MSNBC?
AZChzhd – “Allot of this was started by Obama his talk of forcing churches to do things that go against everything it stands for.” Like what – please enlighten me. I know you can’t possibly be talking about insurance healthcare. So what else could Obama be forcing church to go against everything they stand for? I’m sorry but i’m tired of ppl perpetuating stupidity. Health insurance (which is a business) that you and I pay for, is religious free (thankfully). I would hate to sign up for you and Rick’s health plan where the only treatment covered is prayer healing.
Unhappy,
if you do not like what they post about religion here then you should not read it. No one is forcing you to read religiously based articles. The Republicans in power around the country on the other hand want to force EVERYONE to follow some Christian dogma about abortion and contraception.
These are laws, you cannot opt out of them or you cannot choose to not follow them; there is no comparison to a news website. Many Democrats are not trying to force anything on anyone it is a reaction to the Religious right trying to force their beliefs on the entire country no matter what a person's religion, or lack thereof, is.
Not a Christian? Then you do not have to worry about the Christian views on sexual subjects. It is that simple and no one can force doctors, constitutionally, to do something against their will. If the doctor and patient have no qualms with abortions then there is no problem, lights are green as long as they follow constitutional laws governing medical need vs trimester of the pregnancy.
Time for Republicans to stop pushing for big and highly intrusive Government.
wayne-3043511
Did you read all of this stuff in the bible? The bible is the word of God, not an evangelical minister's interpretation of the bible.
But but, but, Toasted you are against religions. You have stated that the bible is a fairy tale and much worse. You are 100% against anyone who is religious. How can you comment on this issue when you are so homophobic against all religious people?
Religion corrupts government; government corrupts religion. The wall of seperation between Church and State is a necessity in order to ensure the purity of both.
Unfortunately, the religiofascists of the US are not bright enough to comprehend that keeping their religion out of government PROTECTS their religion from government. They are more concerned with power than their souls.
"homophobic against religious people" he says.
lol *facepalm* dude... cmon now... if you are even slightly concerned with people taking anything you say seriously, you might want to brush up on your vocabulary. Also, your argument is based on a strawman, and even if it wasn't, it still wouldn't make much sense.
political religion is Emperor worship - even if it is "in the name of Jesus". Sadly, Jesus is the salvation of all religion - his death points out the hypocrisy and corruption of any religion bent to political interests.
Shuklack
I'm laughing my @ss off!!!!
"Homophobic against religious people"
Lol
Way to call em like ya see em!
Too funny!
I'm totally not homophobic against your comment.
Everybody has the right to beleive what they will. They also have the right not to have someone else's beleif shoved down their throats. I agree with both. However, when the law says that when you as a religious person must provide means to that which you find atrocious because you open a business, that is forcing a view down the religious person's throat. You can sit in the front of the business bus so long as you are not catholic...or baptist....or mormon...Peopel have the right to choose not to work at your business. You are not forcing people to work for ya. There is this "Emplyment at Will" clause almost all of us have signed.
lol, no homo, man, but I love your comment, man.
...
newsvine editor software went nuts for a minute.
"Santorum is a religious extremists bible thumping Fool and his insanity is scary"
"The only thing hes good for is Porn"
fake mustache, you're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
SANDRA-3169616, you're suspended for a month for violating #1 of the Code of Honor. Second suspension in two weeks. Get better.
I don't want people making political decisions who can't tell fantasy from reality. There is a lot of talk about separation of church and state, but a person can't actually erect that sort of wall inside themselves without becoming schizophrenic. What a person believes shapes what they do, and I don't want them doing things in the public sphere that aren't based on reality. We'd might as well hand the running of our government over to the insane asylums. Fortunately, most politicians only pay lip service to religion. It is the real crazies we have to watch out for.
ANY discussion or intrusion of religion in politics is to much. The division of church and state was meant for very valid reasons. As "republican leaning" citizen I find the religion intrusion as repugnant as the nanny state pandering of the left.
America is not a theocracy. If we want to keep it that way, we'll need to be very careful about which politicians we vote into office. This latest crop of bible-waving crazies with their vaginal ultrasounds and their anti-birth control should be enough to scare anyone into voting them out of office. Today it's birth control, what will Jesus tell them to restrict next?
Today it's birth control, what will Jesus tell them to restrict next?
I've been warning my husband for years that if Roe v. Wade couldn't be overturned, they would go after birth control. I suspect the next will be making it illegal for women to work outside the home.
You are right Cathy My question why do the GOP want to control our personal lives in our own bedrooms. My advice, keep your hands off my body and stay out of my bedroom. The Republicans have this belief that they know what is best for the rest of us, they should clean their own houses.
As for 'making it illegal for women to work outside the home', I'm surprised that hasn't already happened. I've been expecting someone to make the argument that "there are unemployed men in this country who need to provide for their families, and they deserve any jobs that are currently held by women in two income households". Amazed they haven't gone there yet.
It's frightening how radical the Christian Right has gotten in recent years. Just look at their position on abortion: ten years ago it was UNTHINKABLE for a candidate to oppose abortion in the case of rape or incest. Today it's MANDATORY. Just think how much more extreme they will be in another ten years. Mark my words, within a decade it will be the position of the majority of the Christian Right to oppose abortion even in the case of the woman's life being at risk. I guarantee it.
Want to balance the budget? Tax Churches! why do they get an exemption, they are just political?
Some states have been trying to pass "personhood" laws for fertilized eggs. This would mean no more disposing of frozen embyos. It means the most effective forms of birth control would become illegal, because they SOMETIMES result in a fertilzed egg not becoming implanted in the walls of the uterus.
If a blastocyte becomes a person, what if a pregnancy issue like toxemia endangers a woman's life? Will your daughter have to risk her life to protect an unborn fetus?
If abortion becomes illegal again- and I remember those days- once again young women will begin dying in back alleys or self-inflicted abortions. And don't think that this will just be the children of Democrats. It will be MORE LIKELY that the young women will be the daughters who are scared of their parents disapproval of a pregnancy.
Guess what, teenagers have sex. And guess what, the same politicians that want to abolish safe and legal abortions and force "fetus personhood" laws on us are the SAME MORONS who want to pass laws for ineffective ABSTINENCE-ONLY education.
Stand up, women, for your daughters, for yourselves, your granddaughters. Outlawing abortion will NOT STOP ABORTION. The rich will go to Europe. The poor will bleed to death alone.
Mark my words, within a decade it will be the position of the majority of the Christian Right to oppose abortion even in the case of the woman's life being at risk. I guarantee it.
In 10 years abortion will be "illegal" That only means that criminals will be doing it, just like drugs today. Get those tax dollars ready to put in jail all those women having abortions, and those "practitioners"that will be doing them.
Isn't it time already to understand that by making something "illegal"is not going to disappear? Look at drugs...I hope Nevada keeps abortion legal. Nevada will be an island to escape from the theocratic nation that the GOP is creating
REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER
Kat....I agree!! The country needs to send a strong message and vote every repub out of power.
Why does no one in the Democratic Party cry out in fear and horror when Obama witnesses to the name of God, talks of being led by Bible verses? Where's the ranting towards him and his professing his Christianity??? The accusations of a Republican war on women and pushing of relgion is all a CREATED myth spread by desperate liberals because they can't defend the failure of this President, so they create diversions. NO GOP candidate EVER said they would ban birth control. As a matter of fact they said they would NOT. So relax ladies, you're being played for your votes.
Aggie....it is time for you to climb back under your rock. Sorry, you lose! These far right repub leaders are on tv every day!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think Aggie is suggesting that liberals dressed up as the incompetent GOP candidates and it is they, not the Republican idiots, who have been calling press conferences and then going on and on about the irrelevant topic of their religions, restricting women's reproductive rights, and being sickened by watching a speech by JFK. Aggie's nuts.
Aggie, conservative candidates have not been one bit shy about trumpeting their religious affiliations and their religion-driven agendas. The current GOP platform is a nightmare that's been on its way since an earlier, toilet-trained version of Republican Party leadership cynically started courting the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons.
It's ironic that just a decade after the U. S. was attacked by religious fanatics, we're seeing a political movement that aspires toward exactly the same kind of us-against-them theological philosophy.
You know the difference between a person of faith and a fanatic? The whole point of faith is that you have to BELIEVE. There is no solid proof god exists, etc. but a christian believes in god, in jesus. A fanatic KNOWS. When you hear another mere mortal like you claiming, "I KNOW god exists, I KNOW, jesus died for my sins" - that person isn't exhibiting faith. They’re exhibiting fanaticism.
Because nobody can KNOW. That implies absolute certitude - which is the exact
opposite of faith.
Fanatics and bigots will use religion to justify their prejudices. A guy I work with made a very interesting point: what he suspects is the REAL motivation behind the conservatives’ opposition to abortion AND birth control. They couldn't care less about unborn babies. If you listen to conservative politicians, pundits, most of the people who vote republican - what's the other main topic they're all obsessed with; griping about? Illegal immigration and the fact that in X number of years whites (white MALES specifically) will become the minority in this country.
The guy I work with (he's white in case your wondering) posited that the republican party, being the party of white guys, isn't about to let that happen. Why do they run the risk of becoming the minority - because white women and girls are choosing to have fewer kids, using birth control, etc. So the only way to ensure that they STAY the majority in this country is - more white babies have to be born.
And if white women and girls won’t give birth to those kids willingly - then by god – they’ll ban abortion, deny women and girls access to birth control and they’ll force all of those women and girls to have kids whether they want to or not. In his words, “It has nothing to do with preserving the life of some unborn baby. It has everything to do with them preserving their position and power.”
And I’d have to say he may be on to something. Look at some of these religious groups - I believe one is the Quiverfulls - look into their background and what do you find - ties with right wing white supremacist groups. They aren't having as many kids as “the good lord sees fit to give them”. They're probably pumping out those kids because they’re scared to death that one day whites will be the
minority in this country.
I suspect there are many people with this mindset who use god and jesus to try and justify their plans, but these actions are driven by misogyny and hatred of anyone who isn't like them. And I don’t think they’ll stop with women. I think they’ll roll back every bit of civil rights legislation that has been passed in the
last 50 yrs.
They want to take this country back to the 30’s, when the only people who had any real power – was THEM. Women kept their mouths shut and stayed in the kitchen, lynching African Americans was considered a good time had by all, those disgusting “queers” stayed in the closet where they belonged, etc.
As a woman - I think all of us who are considered a "minority" in some way need to put aside any petty differences we have and focus on the big picture. Today it is OUR rights that are under threat, being systematically taken away. Tomorrow it could be the GLBT community, or African Americans, or Hispanics, Muslims. I think we have to accept the fact - they probably have some very ugly plans in store for all of us.
ElizaDay: Nice spin on thinking that you were actually voting for women. I'm sure if there were a number of stupid women on this newsvine then they would actually believe you. Why do you democrats think you speak for Republican women too? Where do you get the idea that they can't make up their minds if they DON'T AGREE with you? Every time I here one of these democratic women say that they speak for all women, EVERYONE IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY LAUGHS AT YOU(including the women)! Haha haha..... Believe it or not, not every woman is into killing their kids(abortion). And not every women feels that she should have to pay for everyone else's birth control. If you really are for women and that's a big if, why don't you bring up a cause that women would be in favor of such as equal pay for equal work!!!!! I bet then you would get your votes. Until then, keep your mouth shut!
Toasty McGrath By what authority do you have to say that? The opposite of what you say is just the truth. However, why let facts stand in the way of your ravings and rantings.
I haven't seen many republican reps standing up and saying anything to side with women. If you like to be barefoot and pregnant, not working outside the home and uneducated that is fine with me but no thanks. We have been there and done that and decided it wasn't right and that women should have a say in stuff. If you have noticed the republican men kinda made a mess of things and we dont' want to go there again. Quit trying to make things seem different than what they actually are or people like Santorum or Ryan want them to be. We say no. And it is pretty bad when some on the religious right say they are going too far. It is happening because I have heard it personally.
Aggie is RIGHT, there is currently NO PROPOSED LEGISLATION to ban birth control - you guys are LYING when you say there is. I LIVE in Oklahoma and have read the so-called "personhood" amendment, and there's NOTHING in that amendment that would ban ANY form of birth control (not that it matters; even if signed it would be nullified by Federal law anyway). That's just alot of fear-mongering CRAP spread by liberals who are trying desperately and/or deceitfully to link abortion with birth control (a clever strategy I must confess; but ultimately still a lie). NO ONE, not even the Catholic Church, wants to ban birth control - the majority of Catholics use birth control, myself included. Stop the lies, you are only making matters worse.
T Bourlon: Obviously you don't know much about how birth control pills work. Rick Santorum is on record stating that birth control harms women and society.
T Bourlon, there is no lie here. There are plenty of recorded attempts to give all the rights of a person to a fertilized egg. Those would be used to ban the use of any birth control that prevents the egg from implanting in the uterine wall.
Don't be obtuse.
Oh, Aggie, there's a HUGE difference between someone being guided by their beliefs and someone who wants to legislate his/her personal religion onto everyone.
The problem is NOT a candidate or elected official saying that he believes in god. The problem is all of the teapub candidates on the stump each and every day proclaiming all of the laws they will enact/change/repeal based solely on their own religious beliefs, and without regard to the rights and beliefs of others.
asd
I still don't understand why Churches receive tax exempt status... as soon as they start talking politics they need to lose this tax free status! The only thing that should be coming out of a preachers mouth is the word of God... not the word of Mitt or Rick.
Exactly. The only thing church representatives should be saying on a political level is, "thank you!".
Not only should churches that get involved in politics lose their tax exempt status, but politicians such as Santorum and other ultra conservative right wing nutjobs should simply not accept the check that comes to them as former U.S. senators (Santorum) since he pretends not to believe in big government. That's only if someone else stands to benefit from the government, doesn't apply to Santorum and other hypocrites usually Republicans who cheerfully accept the bountiful perks, such as medical care (far better than Medicaid or Medicare), salaries and other perks even if they only serve one lousy term in the U.S. Congres. That goes for the dirtbag Tea Party oafs who won election in 2010 and hopefully will be kicked out this year. Even they will get to keep perks at the cost to taxpayers just for serving one term only. What a racket!!! I have heard no talk from these jerks about not accepting they checks from the U.S. government if they are so interested in the deficit let them give something up themselves instead of expectingn poor people, the elderly and the sick to be squeezed for $ they don't have. Unconscionable, and evil.
Eerily accurate predictions of Paul Harvey in 1965. Just listen, you'll be amazed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFaLUZ2rf4
Churches should receive tax-exempt status only to the extent that they provide charity to people of all (and no) faiths, with an allowance for reasonable overhead. If a church chooses to build a gym for its members, there should be no tax deductions for contributions used to build it.
David Matthew Should there be a tax on you if you are a democrat or republican or a centralist?
Should one religion be charged more than another? The black churches preach against whites.
Obama sat through his Pastor Wrights sermons saying that blacks shouldn't buy from businesses that are owned by whites! Nobody complained that that church should be taxed.
Pastor Wright direct quote: "My work with liberation theology, with Latin American theologians, with the Black Theology Project and with the Cuban Council of Churches taught me 30 years ago the importance of Marx and the Marxist analysis of the social realities of the vulnerable and the oppressed who were trying desperately to break free of the political economics undergirded by this country that were choking them and cutting off any hope of a possible future where all of the people would benefit."
When Obama became a member of Trinity Church in 1991, he accepted what the church calls "the Black Value System," a race-based code ethics that black Americansto shun the middle class life as a white trap, and to patronize only black-owned businesses.
As Jeremiah Wright put it, "We are an African people, and remain true to our native land, the mother continent."
Now there is a reason if ever needed to remove the right for a religion not to be taxed. Pastor Wright is telling his congregation not to buy from white owned businessess.
That is not religious, political but economical!
And Obama has never refuted that agreement to be part of "the BLACK VALUE SYSTEM!"
I agree and I believe there is something in the Bible that says churches are not to get involved in politics anyway. Remember you are not to shout religion from the street corner. YOu are to set an example so others will want to be Christian. Who is setting the example the best. Well of course the one they like to criticize and bear false witness against the best and that would be President Obama. How many affairs, serial marriages, attacks on the other candidates etc. have you heard him being involved in?
to florida: Have you seen and heard what some of the ministers speaking at repubican gatherings say or do you even care? Noone follows their minister they follow Jesus and God. HOw many times did he attend Rev Wrights sermons? Do you even know or even care. BTW what Christians find every little teeny tiny smarmy thing to smear President Obama? Where is that written in your Bible? I dare you to find the page. It is not there. In fact how you treat others is paramount and it is stated very clearly that the main concept in the Bible is how you treat others and that you are to pay your leaders/those in authority with respect. Romans 13 if you care to look. And badmouthing and lying about our current president because you don't like what he looks like is a large no no. But do you even care. Tell that to God!
Ktlin
I like the way you think. Very well said.
We could probably go a long way towards eliminating the deficit if churches were taxed, as they should be.
ktlin...The race card...AGAIN?....STILL?......Seriously?
The blatant use of religion in politics needs to stop.
Churches also need to be forbidden from making any financial political contribution or else they need to be taxed.
Down South Churches use their misquoted and misunderstood Bible passages to keep Counties dry. No wine or liquor for you. We don't care that Jews and Catholics need wine for their religious rites. They spend a lot of time trying to make Roe Vs Wade illegal.
It's a real shame there's no such thing as "The Rapture". We'd be rid of all these RWNJs once and for all and we could have a normal, peaceful, coexistent society. As long as RWN's roam the earth there will always be chaos, hatred, bigotry, etc in the name of their favorite fairytale character.
Yeah, it's because atheists are so kind on their own terms, that we need to be more like them. ( sarcastic). Did you not read this newsvine and all the atheist comments?
The only thing wrong with that comment is the parenthetical part.
Religious people try to lead good, ethical lives because they will be rewarded for it in the afterlife, whereas atheists try to lead good, ethical lives because it's simply the right thing to do and they want to live in a better world now.
The entire point is to do good because you love God, not because you fear hell. I personally want to do good for God because of all the good he has done for me.
I agree, the "hell" thing is pretty much a waste of thought.
Using your terminology, perhaps one could see Good and God as the same thing, so that when we do good we do God or that when we are good we are God.
If you think about it, the same blend of humility and respect can be found in:
I personally want to do good because of all the good done for me.
I call it "white light returned".
More good is always good.
Since we all observe different religions, to change laws based on what someone else's religion dictates is so wrong on so many levels. Separation of church and state was created for a very logical reason -- we must keep it that way to ensure equal rights to all citizens.
It's a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
Really, then you should tell that to the police in Dearborn, Michigan. They are already stopping christians from reaching out to muslims in that area. I thought according to you, that the first amendment was protected? So why don't those same rules apply in Dearborn, Michigan?
Neither should any law created persecute religious beliefs.
If that video is accurate, Unhappy, then it sounds like a perfect case for the ACLU which, despite impressions to the contrary, takes cases from "liberals" and "conservatives." But, that video is only presenting an edited view of events and we don't know what the police actually said. What is the announced policy of the Dearborn police? Has anyone asked them?
In the TLC reality show about American Muslims...one of the men in a Muslim family featured in the show, IS a longtime Dearborn police officer.
Keep not only out of politics, but out of my life as well.
Religion has absolutely no place in politics for any reason other than to guarantee an individual's freedom of, and freedom from religion.
What really frightens me is that 30% of people polled say that there is too little talk of religion by politicians. I don't mind people wanting to know the religious bent of the candidate, I just don't want religion to influence policy. This state-sanctioned rape proposal in VA and the attacks on birth control in red states are thinly-veiled religious crusades. We should have freedom of and freedom from religion, just as it says in the Bill of Rights. I'm a big fan of separation of church and state. Apparently 30% of Americans want to dissolve that separation. I wonder which religion that 30% wants to be state-sanctioned....
sadmoronvote2 asked "I wonder which religion that 30% wants to be state-sanctioned..". The chances of all 30% believing in the same religion are non-existent. I doubt they could agree on what policies they want, other than they want to be in control of it through their religion. They can't think for themselves, so they need the pretext of religion to justify what they believe at the moment.
I agree politicians shouldn't be preaching religion from their office pulpits, but how do you square the fact that many of our current laws are based on religious teachings?
Tracy
Such as???
Laws against theft, murder, slander, lying, ect...
Tracy
These moral concepts were around long before the religious teaching you espouse. Pretty much our legal system was based on English common law and the Magna Carta. Not the Bible.
"Pretty much our legal system was based on English common law and the Magna Carta. Not the Bible"
Did I say "the Bible"? Did I say Christianity? No and uh, no. Religion has been around since pre-historic times BTW...since the earliest of civilizations were formed.
The code of Hammurabi is the oldest legal code that I know of. It was not based on religion.
Are you sure about that?
http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm
http://library.thinkquest.org/20176/hammurabis_code.htm
"The carving on the stone on which the code is written depicts Hammurabi receiving the divine laws from the sun god, the god most often associated with justice."
Tracy,
If our laws were based on the Bible, we would be stoning people to death.
Both Democrat and Republican presidents and lawmakers of the past have had their governing influenced by their religious beliefs. Nothing new here. I don't know why this is getting people's panties in a wad all of a sudden. Lincoln talked about God all the time. JFK was a Catholic. The list goes on.
sadmoronsvote2,
I think your pseudonym tells the whole story. You noted that 30% of the American People want more religious discourse in the public domain. I've noted that 25-30% of the American people believed that, when he left office, George W. Bush had done a good job as president. 25-30% of the American public believes global warming is a hoax. 25-30% of the American People were persuaded that the Affordable Health Care Act has provisions for "death panels." and 25-30% of the American people came to believe that Obama is a Muslim or was born in Kenya/Indonesia.
A psychologist from Brock University in Canada posted the results of a psychological study on what factors predispose someone to being a conservatives: “[S]everal psychological variables predicted political conservatism. 'Which variables exactly? In order of predictive power: Death anxiety, system instability, dogmatism/intolerance of ambiguity, closed-mindedness, low tolerance of uncertainty, high needs for order, structure, and closure, low integrative complexity, fear of threat and loss, and low self-esteem.' The researchers conclude, a little chillingly, that 'the core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and a justification of inequality.'”
Those 25-30% constitute a new class of fearful idiots and morons who are persuaded to believe one fiction after another because they are predisposed to believe such statements as true. Let's take the birthers, for example. After insisting for more than a year that Obama was not an American citizen by birth, even after Obama posted what Hawaiians are given as "birth certificates" and even later, after the publication of his actual birth certificates, many of the New Yahoos (see Gulliver's Travels) continue to believe what they were first told by right wing media--Obama wasn't a citizen born in Honolulu. This permanent class of imbeciles is the modern-day equivalent of the religious nut cases who refused to believe in Copernicus' and Galileo Galilei's astronomical observations challenging the assumption that the earth is the center of the universe. Republicans have been playing to this crowd since Reagan charmed blue collar Democrats into joining the Republican Party, and cultivated Southern Crackers who abandoned the Democratic Party in the South following the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, much as the South had written off the Republican Party for a 100 years after Lincoln freed the slaves. These authoritarians are the same folks who deplored interracial marriage as an abomination of God's will, who fought against racial integration was an invasion of the freedom of Southerners to decide their own fate, and who continue to believe that the proper place for women is in the kitchen. Reagan introduced these sheeple to the economic philosophy of Milton Friedman, whose formulae of deregulation of business and privatization of governmental institutions and activities, coupled with "trickle down/lower taxes for investors/romancing our "job creators" is why the middle class has been fleeced and what accounts for why the upper 20% nearly tripled their annual incomes between 1979 and 2007. This large mass of voters is largely what accounts for the fact that there have only been 3 Democratic Presidents since Reagan.
The only way America can escape becoming a Third World country is not to attempt to convert conservatives, who will never be converted but will always be manipulated by their fears and prejudices, but rather to educate and cultivate young people to see what heartless, niggardly bastards Republicans are.
AZChzhd #10.10
Peculiar that the two you mention were both assassinated in office.
I guess you live longer and don't incite murder when you keep your religion private.
Michael L. Marowitz,
Thank you for that insightful breath of fresh air.
In 1961, there were 3 ways to obtain a birth certificate, one if a doctor or midwife were present, second if no doctor or midwife were present, but the child was under 1 year of age, or if an adult could say that the child was born in Hawaii. In 1982, there was an amendment made that a person could be made a citizen of the state of Hawaii, even if they were not born there IF it showed that Hawaii was the parent's primary legal residence for at least two years prior. In that case, was the President actually born in Hawaii or was it just given to him by the amendment. Because,as you know, Obama's parent's divorce papers show that they were living in Kenya( primary residence) at the time.
Of course, all of this could be cleared up, if democrats just showed the actual birth certificate, which they won't. I wonder why?
That bus left the station without you, Unhappy. No matter how much whining and sniveling you do, everyone including the GOP leadership accepts the truth that President Obama was born in Hawaii. If you can't bring yourself to accept it, then you are merely the victim of self-inflicted ignorance.
I don't believe you are capable of understanding such simple concepts as shame of humiliation, so rest assured other people who read your ravings are ashamed of...and for...you.
Damn.
Unhappy: I'm so glad you post such BS so all can see what it's like to be a Republican/conservative/KKK/skinhead/TEA Party (take your pick). The greatest joke is you people actually believe the rest of us want you to be our rulers. If that should become the case, it would require the majority of the voters in the American Republic to say we're depressed; we hate; we're greedy; we're anti-minority rights, including anti-women's rights; we're anti-labor; we're anti-science; we're anti-public school education; we're anti-higher education; we're anti-poverty programs, including the elderly, the children, and the downtrodden. The only group you and your ilk haven't attacked are the wealthy, including wealthy corporations which you idolize. Interestingly enough, even 50% or more of the latter group oppose you! Do you honestly think we're going to elect you to be our rulers??!!!?? OBAMA VICTORY 2012!
Michael L. Marowitz, excellent post. I am re-reading Plato's Republic right now. I can't help but believe that democracy only works if the electorate has a minimum competency level. As you assert 25-30% do not seem to meet that criterion.
As to the people that insist that without religion we would not have laws like do not kill and steal, I would ask that you stop and think about that. Does one really need a religious text to tell us that it is wrong to murder or to take that which is not ours? I am fairly certain, if we had not created religion, we still would have found our way to the laws that maintain civic order.
And if you take offense to my assertion that man created religion, for the sake of argument let's just say your religion is the real one and the rest were made up by man. There are a lot of countries (with the man-made text) that seem to rule themselves fairly well without the underpinnings of your particular religious text (the real one, of course).
Odd8t, interesting question Lincoln's religion. Lincoln did know how to read and speak to his audience; and there are a lot of quotes, this being one of them, "That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular. (1848)" A candidate saying that today would have a tough row to hoe to win this election's Republican nomination. That said, I don't recollect any argument that Lincoln was assassinated for expressing religious views, nor JFK. Seems both of them were assassinated by rather clueless losers.
Unhappy, I can only sit here and shake my head in disbelief!!
?????
Unbelievable that someone could still be spouting this stuff.
@Sara M
"If our laws were based on the Bible, we would be stoning people to death."
I didn't say our laws were based on the Bible. Again you and lloyd need to pay attention to what you read here. BTW even if our laws were based on the the Christian Bible, the Gospel in the New Testament speaks againt it. Remember the Old Testament is the Hebrew bible and the only reason Christianity came about is because of the New Testament.
"John 8: 1-11 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?" This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus looked up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.”
I am also uncomfortable with the faith base inititive where money is distributed by the federal government. Churchs and religious entities should depend on donations, not taxpayer money.
And if they're going to receive any gov't funds for any reason, remove their tax-free status and make all churches pay taxes on their incomes they receive from ALL SOURCES such as tithing, bequeaths, etc.
momlags, if you ever went to church then you would know that the chuurch is strictly funded by donations, but it is obvious that you and other people that think like you know absolutely nothing about it ! please explain to me how the government is distributing money to churches .
Faith-Based Initiatives.
religion isa crutch for the weak minded...
Non-religion is a way out for the way out for the rebellious and self-centered.
I can do it too.
"Non-religion" occurs in intelligent people who are able to use logical thinking to examine the rationality of ideas.
When someone adequately answers for me how a "loving" God would choose to create BILLIONS of humans and then proceed to throw the vast majority of them in a fiery, burning hell for the rest of eternity, I would consider their answers.
When someone adequately answers why a "loving" God would allow millions of people to slowly starve to death and then throw them into a hell after their death- just because no Christian missionary came and converted them before they died, I would consider their answers.
So far, I have heard no logical, plausible explanations from Christians for just the above two "problems". I have studied the Bible for years, went to a Christian college, studied Christian apologetics, bibical archaology and Christian evidences.
I have come to the conclusion that most religions do not hold water when their dogma is carried to its logical conclusions.
The first ammendment directs "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof..." If a politician wants to run on religion, it is protected speech. The people will decide to vote for the politician or not. Congress can't establish a religion but Congressmen don't come to Washington as blank slates. They've been shaped by their experiences, including religion. Voting for or against abortion, birth control, deficits, smoking, etc, etc, may be shaped by their religous upbringing but is not "establishing a religion or prohibiting free exercise thereof." And paying for or not paying for any of this establishes religion or prohibits free exercise thereof. The problem is Zealots on both sides use religion, or lack of religion, as their banner in the process because they lack the means to make an otherwise sound argument on very tough and emotional issues.
It is religion which makes the issues tough and emotional in the first place.
Abortion for instance is a legal medical procedure chosen for a variety of reasons and dealt with in the emotional context of the seeker. But it is made political by the invasive insertion of emotional and religious views of outsiders who have no business attaching themselves to medical considerations and decision making process of the abortion seeker. Their views are simply out of context and unwarranted.
The religious are trying to impose their rights over other's rights and that's where they err.
I smile when i read your opinions....Why? because your intellect is far beyond those speaking here...I guess I smile because i like finding people that can actually THINK!...but, as you may have noticed, there is no one touching your comments..it is just too difficult for them to understand you....maybe you have this problem alot in your life...sad thing and frustrating i am sure. But just for you to know, i hear ya and understand.
i dont care what religion you are just be honest and do your job and remember YOU WORK FOR THE PEOPLE !
JD~ You make a very valid point. I don't care what your religion is as long as you let me and my lack of religion alone. This means not making policy that is based on what YOUR religion tells you. As an elected official you work for ALL the people and in doing so your representation must be free of religious bias.
It is a total retardican topic. Only those morons would bring religion into a troubled economy. But it is all they have. They have to keep the retardican minion distracted, which doesn't take much by the way so they can get their votes and further ruin the world economy as they en-rich themselves and enslave their stupid minions.
offtheirheads, please explain to me how God is bad for the economy and why we would not need God in times of trouble ? your comment makes no sense.
SANDRA: Whose God are you talking about, Sandra???!!!??? Are you from some small, rural town in a red state? The USA is over 95% urban with religions of all kinds free to operate. Religious wars, including wars between Christian and Christian, have dominated human history. The founding fathers knew that and consequently made provision for ALL religions to operate freely in the country. Leave it alone! Go to your own church, pray to your God, and allow everyone else to do the same. Leave it alone, Sandra!
It's the economy, gas prices and jobs stupid. That is why Obama will become a lame duck in 230 days.
Dream on road warrior
I don't have to dream. 8.3% unemployment, $3.85 gas, $16 trillion debt. It hits home in everyone's wallet.
You actually think that Obama can run on his record and win? If he does the American electorate is dumber than I thought considering I thought they would have learned their lesson from voting in this incompetent in 2008.
Right and the Koch brothers are going to make sure your life is easier. LOL. They are counting their billions and laughing at you lemmings. LOL
The Koch Brothers aren't running for President. Neither is George Soros.
Tracy,
The liberals will never learn. Never mind Obama has been a reincarnation of Bush. The independents who voted for Obama by 67% will be the swing votes once again. They HAVE learned their lesson.
NO, well they sure are putting their money in the pot to make sure that the GOP is elected and we poor taxpayers keep giving them those great oil subsidies. I guess you feel that is ok giving an industry that makes billions in profits subsidies - you must have money to waste. And I guess you are for continuing the tax break for multi-millionares, and for getting involved in woman's health issue decisions, and on and on.
"NO, well they sure are putting their money in the pot to make sure that the GOP is elected and we poor taxpayers keep giving them those great oil subsidies"
Last time I looked all of the GOP candidates were for removing all of the oil subsidies.
Road warrior
My assumption here is that you are using the name Bush to prove a negative for Obama. I find that interesting and I don't necessarily disagree.
My question to you is: Are you able to state any specific ways that Romney ( "Corporation are People")
or Santorum ("You don't need college" a paraphrase) would be any better for the middle class in this country?
Tracy - do some research before you speak
But more oil money goes to Congress as a whole than to presidential candidates. Sunlight, an advocate for government transparency, lists the 10 biggest recipients of BP cash who are currently serving in Congress:
Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska)—$73,300
Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona)—$44,899
Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio)—$41,400
Rep. John Dingell (D-Michigan)—$31,000
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana)—$28,200
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas)—$27,350
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma)—$22,300
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky)—$22,000
Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas)—$20,950
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)—$19,500
and check this out
http://dirtyenergymoney.com/view.php
Very well I thought you were referring to the GOP presidential candidates. BTW I must say getting money from proven energy companies is better than supporting failed tax payer funded companies like Solyndra and many of other "green" energy companies.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/green-firms-fed-cash-give-execs-bonuses-fail/story?id=15851653
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/10876-another-fed-backed-solar-company-goes-bankrupt
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/politicalcalculations/2012/03/06/why_so_many_green_energy_companies_fail/page/full/
Tracy: "You actually think that Obama can run on his record and win?"
Three words: Osamma bin Laden.
And which of the four buffoons on the GOP side would be any better? Romney -- the slick one of the bunch; Santorum, the over religious one; Gingrich, can't keep it zipped; or Paul, truly nutsy ideas?
I'm an independent voter who hasn't yet been convinced by any of those four!
4 out of 10 and those 4 are here on msnbc. Go figure this pew report. Looks like 60% are not crying.
Some of the most supposedly devout polilticians are some of the worst when it comes to their personal lives. Go to church on Sunday, break the commandments Monday thru Saturday.
Well Jesus will forgive you no matter what you do if you just ask. That religion says there is no Karma or reincarnation to worry about. That sounds too good to be true to me!
SIESTASIS: All Christians are forgiven sinners that rely on God's grace everytime they mess up. The difference between them and non-christians is that they realize that they are sinners and strive to live a life pleasing to God.
Strive to perform LIP SERVICE, you mean. You can't be a sinner 6 days a week, pray for forgiveness on one--then repeat that cycle indefinitely and claim to me that these people are STRIVING to PLEASE GOD. I have one word for that...
PALEEEEEEEZE!
What those who want some version of Taliban rule here in the US fail to understand, is that it is a dog that will come back to bite them. Imagine the widespread backlash against Catholics for instance holding any national office , if a far-right conserative zealot such as Santorum were he ever win office. Having openly run a campaign based on his extremist and hateful views of how his religion should serve as a guide for ALL Americans, having belittled John Kennedy's promise not to be guided by Rome, but to be guided by rule of law and what's best for ALL Americans--we can only shudder at a Santorum vision of America: Women completely excluded from the US Constitution's right to privacy, no contraceptives, no public schools, no discrimination laws based on sexual orientation because none of those would meet approval from extremist Opus Dei approved policy? Of course Santorum will never be elected, but look at the damage he has already done to anyone who honors democracy. It's not just embarrassing to the entire country that this maniac is even considered a legitimate candidate. the push to move ever more extremist toward intolerance and religious domination is a national disgrace.
I agree. He has pulled the political rug so far over into extremist territory, it'll be difficult to bring it back. However, I am so amazed at the number of extremist Evangelical citizens we have. I mean, they're out walking around. They are in the grocery store, etc. !! I cannot understand someone believing that way.
I have no objection to a candidate explaining his belief system. HIS belief system. And how he will run this country without using HIS religion as a base for his legislating. How he will go by majority, etc. but even so, his ideas when he goes to appoint a supreme court justice would be horrible to consider. Saint Orum IS an Opus Dei member. He is also a Regnum christi member. Regnum Christi is an offshoot of an Opus Dei member, Father Maciel, who was a pedophile priest for about 40 years. they kept investigating him for pedophilia, and the Popes would back him up and say he was innocent. He was finally removed from the Priesthood in 2006 and died in 2008l What I wonder is why they needed an offshoot from Opus Dei? Hope Regnum Christi isn't the extremist view of Opus Dei.
Mel Gibson is also an Opus Dei and a Regnum christi member. He has his own Church on his land, and regularly annulls marriages by himself. "We don't need no Pope!" lol. I know Mel G. has a lot of personal problems, but he seems to have his own little world there. He's his own personal Pope.
The following is an excerpt from the Regnum Christi site. (Bolding of text is my doing.) When you click on the What We Do link and then click on Women, you get this:
Regnum Christi strives to spread an authentic vision of true femininity, in
accordance with the Magisterium of the Church, and promotes initiatives aimed at strengthening the authentic rights and duties of women, thus helping them to avoid being manipulated by false forms of modern feminism.
OK...
-- What is the "authentic" vision of "true" femininity?
To all politicians, please drop all the religious conversations and topics related to morality. We have parents for that, as well as churches, holy books, and religious leaders of our own to help us.
Politicians need to focus on topics that are affecting Americans of all creeds-- unemployment, high energy prices, inflation, rising medical costs, border safety, drugs, etc.
Religion needs to go back to where it belongs... if religion wants to get into the political fray, then it needs to accept the consequences that come its way. Churches really should be taxed if they're going to get involved in the private lives of people that want NOTHING to do with ANY religion!
I agree... now if we could only resurrect those Bronze Aged illiterate sheep herders and shove all that nonsense back into their heads and then re- bury them even deeper.
cry baby.
Mormons- creepy, creepy, creepy. They spend 99% of their time and energy trying to convert others to their faith
They're all creepy, and depressing. It must be their obsession with death.
Ya, your infidel death (they call non Mormons Goya or Infidels)
Kevin - I think we know different Mormons.
The ones I know have shown nothing but respect for my religious practices as I have shown theirs. The ones I have known have been some of the best practicing Christian role models I have ever met. The ones I know also believe it was a huge mistake for their church to engage in their rather ironic stance on "Traditional Marriage" (even though polygamy is rampant in the Old Testament).
My guess is the Kevin doesn't know any Mormons; he is judging entirely by the twisted versions of their religion posted on the internet. ANY religion sounds weird and 'creepy' if the teachings are twisted to 'show' the parts other would find odd.
Nope. "Goyim" is a Jewish term for non-Jews, and "Infidel" is Latin for "not faithful", a term used by Roman Catholics (and for some obscure reason, Muslims). Neither are in common use by Mormons.
The real Mormon term for non-Mormons?
Non-Mormon.
kevin, you forgot to mention that they also spend their time trying to find wife number,2, 3 ,4 ,5 ,6 , and 7 and etc.
Mormon doctrine changes over time. I grew up in a Mormon town and most of my friends were Mormon. I was always interested and asked plenty of questions. At that time Mormons wanted to be clearly diferenciated from non-Mormons. This is the opposite of what we have today. Back then, in the early 60's I was told that I was a Gentile. The Mormons said that they were one of the lost tribes of Israel. The other tribes were the Jews and the American Indians. They clearly stated that they were NOT Christians.
I believe that the Mormons had problems with a shallow gene pool (high infant mortality rates and birth defects) and because of that and for political reasons they decided to go more mainstream and that's why now they want to claim to be just another mainstream Protestant Christian religion.
Mormons are told what they can and can not see in movie theaters and on TV. They are told what to read and what not to read. They are very rigidly controlled by the church. I have known many Mormons in my life. I"ve worked with them and for them, I've been best friends and have even lived with them. The Mormon people themselves are the salt of the earth and I love them dearly. But they are the victims of an institution that keeps them ignorant and somewhat enslaved. I think this is changing as the information age and the computer are making it harder and harder for the Church to keep them in ignorance and I'm glad to see it happening.
So do evangelical christians. Evangelical simply means evangelize. trust me when I say that's their primary goal, how do I know? I "was" an evangelical for 31 years.
Mormon's have always claimed to be Christians. The LDS church provides documentation of this in the Ensign clear back to 1971 publicly available on their website, lds.org. Older documentation is available online through byu.edu, and journal entries are available clear back to 1820 on josephsmithpapers.org, which contain both critic and apologist viewpoints.
As far as what Mormons are told they can and cannot see, they are counseled to avoid R rated movies and read uplifting material, however this is not a strict requirement. According to a recent Pew survey, the percent of LDS members who claimed to follow this council was just above 50%. The reason that they are told to avoid content that would be in an R rated movie is because those things tend to stay with you in your thoughts, and they would rather you focus your thoughts on more positive things.
As far as victims of an institution, LDS members are taught that they need to gain their own testimony of what is true. They are counseled that they will be blessed by following the teachings of the head of the church. They believe in living prophets, and that the prophet who is the head of the church has the rights and keys to direct the church. However they are taught in their Sunday school lessons (these manuals are also available online) that a testimony of these things must be gained individually. Brigham Young said that his greatest fear was " ... that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self security. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not."
One's faith should never be confused with one's religion! They are two separate things all together. One's religion is the organized practice of one's faith. Faith is the belief in itself. What does it mean to be Christian? By definition it means, among other things to live like Christ. How many of us can honestly say we are doing that? A good, fair person does not need anything more than their own conscious to be a person of faith. I would rather put my trust in leaders that tried to be fair and honest than ones who tout that they are a "religious" politician.