Politics

[Lunan]

so who do you think will win in iowa?

i think it'll be extremly close but Clinton for the dems, for the reps i really couldn't guess other then to say i think its going to be closer then the dems.

how about you guys?

[I love Lyta]

Well, obviously Osama, no wait..., Obama won for the dems instead.
Personally I think it's the right choice. Who would be Hillary's first lady anyway?
But that old preacher for the reps? So much for separation of church n state.
Yes, I know he is retired. Still...
But then, who wants the reps to win anyways, no matter WHICH candidate, right?

[AaronB]

Well, obviously Osama, no wait..., Obama won for the dems instead.
Personally I think it's the right choice. Who would be Hillary's first lady anyway?
But that old preacher for the reps? So much for separation of church n state.
Yes, I know he is retired. Still...
But then, who wants the reps to win anyways, no matter WHICH candidate, right?

Ha ha ha. Maybe you should be writing for Leno. It doesn't look like it can be any worse.

Seriously though, do you actually believe that if Huckabee is the Republican nominee (or even becomes President) there is a church and state problem?

And as for calling Obama Osama, that was classic and original. If you want to have a conversation like that, go to the democratic underground or free republic? Either site will appreciate your humor.

[AaronB]

so who do you think will win in iowa?

i think it'll be extremly close but Clinton for the dems, for the reps i really couldn't guess other then to say i think its going to be closer then the dems.

how about you guys?

Interesting results last night, especially with Clinton coming in third and Romney loosing by as much as he did. I think that this process has a long way to go (at least until super, super duper Tuesday).

One thing that was interesting while watching both Huckabee and Obama is that they both are excellent public speakers. It will be interesting to see if that likability factor can help them keep the momentum.

[I love Lyta]

Ha ha ha. Maybe you should be writing for Leno. It doesn't look like it can be any worse.

I was at the studios once. Maybe I should drop a few lines into the mail box next time.

... do you actually believe that if Huckabee is the Republican nominee (or even becomes President) there is a church and state problem?

I guess it couldn't get any worse than a DoubleBush thinking he is on a mission from "god".
Btw.: Why he didn't quote Ivanova when the invaded Iraq is till beyond me.

As for the Obama thingy: The first time I heard of him I actually UNDERSTOOD Osama. That's the only reason for my above line. I'm no US citizen mind you.

[AaronB]

I was at the studios once. Maybe I should drop a few lines into the mail box next time.


I guess it couldn't get any worse than a DoubleBush thinking he is on a mission from "god".
Btw.: Why he didn't quote Ivanova when the invaded Iraq is till beyond me.

As for the Obama thingy: The first time I heard of him I actually UNDERSTOOD Osama. That's the only reason for my above line. I'm no US citizen mind you.

You should really do some research about what you are talking about. To put it bluntly the separation between church and state is that there should not be a state sponsored religion (e.g the Church of England), not that the presidents shouldn't have religious views.

[B5_Obsessed]

I was at the studios once. Maybe I should drop a few lines into the mail box next time.


I guess it couldn't get any worse than a DoubleBush thinking he is on a mission from "god".
Btw.: Why he didn't quote Ivanova when the invaded Iraq is till beyond me.

As for the Obama thingy: The first time I heard of him I actually UNDERSTOOD Osama. That's the only reason for my above line. I'm no US citizen mind you.

Don't forget, that's Barak Hussein Obama.
Talk about a politically-challenged name, huh?

It's interesting to see how both parties picked a clear leader in Iowa. And while both are good speakers, I must say that I was impressed by Huckabee's soft-spoken words of thanks and optimism. He was the only candidate who didn't use the pulpit to stump some more last night, but used the occasion in a more reflective manner. Obama was a bit too pumped up and seemed to be trying to channel an old baptist preacher himself.

Huckabee seems to be all about honesty and sincerity. I saw him mention that he would respect an shamelessly avowed athiest over someone who falsely represents himself as devoutly religious. It's a good point, and I hope the guy's on the level. We could all use a little honesty.

[SmileOfTheShadow]

And as for calling Obama Osama, that was classic and original. If you want to have a conversation like that, go to the democratic underground or free republic? Either site will appreciate your humor.

I appreciate her humor I prefer his correct title though: B. Hussein.

[I love Lyta]

To put it bluntly the separation between church and state is that there should not be a state sponsored religion (e.g the Church of England), not that the presidents shouldn't have religious views.

*ROFL* Where did you get THIS twisted interpretation from?!
Separation of church n state is also about the church not having ANY kind of impact on the state's afairs. Granted, the religous views of the leading politicians are a matter of their own, but they are NOT to have any impact on their politic decisions.
Still, around here one also easily gets the impression that the church DOES have a lot of impact on politics in certain regions, which pisses me to no end.

@B5_Obsessed:
Dunno, in my book politicians and honesty are mutually exclusive.

[Jan]

*ROFL* Where did you get THIS twisted interpretation from?!
Separation of church n state is also about the church not having ANY kind of impact on the state's afairs. Granted, the religous views of the leading politicians are a matter of their own, but they are NOT to have any impact on their politic decisions.

First off, I love Lyta, you'll find that discussion is more productive if you treat other posters and their views with respect rather than mocking them.

Secondly...I'm afraid you're completely wrong. How on earth could anybody, especially back in the days when this country was founded, hope that religion not have any impact on the elected officials? Given that much of the colonies were settled by those seeking religious freedom and all...

What the Constitution says is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofà

The idea is that government as an institution and religious intitutions would not interfere with one another, not that religion not have any influence over any politician.

Still, around here one also easily gets the impression that the church DOES have a lot of impact on politics in certain regions, which pisses me to no end.

True, that does seem to be the fashion these days. Thankfully the systems of checks and balances we have in place seems to be working to keep it from running rampant. In their wisdom, the founding fathers ensured that fads and fashions would find it difficult to overrun the government.

Jan

[Towelmaster]

Jan,

If you turn your statement around you can also state that the Founding Fathers did not want politics to base its decisions on a religious conviction. Right?

PS : A very good 2008 to everyone here!

[Jan]

If you turn your statement around you can also state that the Founding Fathers did not want politics to base its decisions on a religious conviction. Right?

I'm afraid I don't follow, TM. My statements were

The idea is that government as an institution and religious intitutions would not interfere with one another,

or

In their wisdom, the founding fathers ensured that fads and fashions would find it difficult to overrun the government.

The only thing I can think of being 'turned around' might be

Given that much of the colonies were settled by those seeking religious freedom and all...

But, while there were freethinkers in plenty back then, it seems only recently that 'freedom FROM religion' is the way people want to interpret the principal of 'separation of church and state'.

Can you clarify? Because given that many people, then and now, think that morals and ethics only come with the religious impulse (not something I subscribe to, btw), I simply can't see the FF thinking along the lines that you and Lyta suggest.

Jan

[JoeD80]

:Can you clarify? Because given that many people, then and now, think that morals and ethics only come with the religious impulse (not something I subscribe to, btw), I simply can't see the FF thinking along the lines that you and Lyta suggest.

I remember learning in history class that religion wasn't really a centerpiece of American politics until the time of reconstruction after the civil war. The constitutional amendment is simply referencing that the state can't create its own church like England has, and that you can worship in your own religion - which is what the Puritans had been trying to do. The notion that religion breeds morality came up much later in the 1860s/70s, well after the founding fathers had passed on.

[I love Lyta]

First off, I love Lyta, you'll find that discussion is more productive if you treat other posters and their views with respect rather than mocking them.

Well, seems like a got a little overboard because it felt like AaronB was the one who was mocking ME there. Though re-reading his reply I think I got it down the wrong throat. So I sincerely apologize for the poor choice of words there.

Secondly...I'm afraid you're completely wrong. ... The idea is that government as an institution and religious institutions would not interfere with one another, not that religion not have any influence over any politician.

Errr, that is exactly what I said in my first sentence. Church as an institution is not to have ANY influence in the state's affairs. That RELIGION does have a certain influence on politicians' way of thinking is undoubtedly normal, BUT it should NOT have too much impact on their politics.
Lemme explain what I mean here.
1) It should not cloud their judgement when it comes to the decision of legalizing abortion, medicide or such.
2) It should not make them come up with such absurd ideas like hanging a cross in each school's classrooms.

In their wisdom, the founding fathers ensured that fads and fashions would find it difficult to overrun the government.

I'm not sure I remember this correctly, so please correct me if I#m wrong or mixing up things, but didn't Bush appoint a christian hardliner who is a declared anti-abortionist as head judge? How much more influencial can it get?

[Jan]

Errr, that is exactly what I said in my first sentence. Church as an institution is not to have ANY influence in the state's affairs. That RELIGION does have a certain influence on politicians' way of thinking is undoubtedly normal, BUT it should NOT have too much impact on their politics.
Lemme explain what I mean here.
1) It should not cloud their judgement when it comes to the decision of legalizing abortion, medicide or such.
2) It should not make them come up with such absurd ideas like hanging a cross in each school's classrooms.

The key word there being 'should'. That's an ideal and I don't disagree with it but it's simply not part of the constitution or law because there's no way of quantifying it. Therefore it's not part of the constitutional separation of church and state.

I'm not sure I remember this correctly, so please correct me if I#m wrong or mixing up things, but didn't Bush appoint a christian hardliner who is a declared anti-abortionist as head judge? How much more influencial can it get?

You're probably right but whatever influence he has, it's not only temporary but moderated by the way the workings of government are set up. Any mandates that official might make can be overturned by his successor.

Perhaps a good example of what I mean about fads not overrunning the givernment is the Terry Sciavo case from a few years back. Her family tried *everything* to keep the drastic measures taken to keep her alive connected. Leaving aside any feelings any of us might have about the case itself, there was a positive frenzy of court challenges and legislation passed then overturned on both a state and federal level. Emotions ran high on all sides of the issue and attempts were made to legislate based on those emotions. The system worked, though, so that no lasting damage was caused.

Jan