Political Punch

sophillyfatz - if you believe in GOD, How come you had to use a '-' in the name? You could not make yourself say 'GOD'?

Actually History shows that Republicans who embrace Religion and GOD win the General election, it is when they turn their back to appease the Anti-religious Libs that they Lose.

Spock: I do believe in G-d, but I'm pretty sure it's not the same ONE you believe in. I went to our services this morning, prayed-hard-to my G-d, largely in a language you wouldn't understand. Is that the "God" to which you were referring??

James Danley - GREAT POST and So TRUE!

sophillyfatz - Believe in GOD.

Rick McDaniel - Actually that is reverse, see thew Bible states Eye for an Eye, it is the Liberal And yes I know that Churches are against the Death Penalty.

Marty - This country was founded on Judeo-Christian Beliefs

Jock - there is no Separation clause in the Constitution

Stephen - May Jesus Bless you so you make the 'right' choice in voting

The original intent of the Establishment Clause was never meant to protect or isolate government from religion. To the contrary, it was meant to protect religion from government interference. And the original intent was strictly on a federal level..."Congress shall pass no laws..." It only prohibited the establishment of a national religion, so as to not interfere with already established religions in several states. New Hampshire's requirement that a person must be a Protestant in order to vote lasted over 100 years. Maryland only allowed Christians to hold public office until 1826. North Carolina required office holders to be Protestant Christians until 1835. And Catholics were not allowed to hold public offices in New Jersey until 1844.

NOTE: Don't get me wrong. Religious tests are wrong. I am just pointing out that they did exist...even AFTER the passing of the First Amendment. So clearly the original intent was not to prohibit states from establishing their own official religion. Nor was the original intent to have a clear break between church and state since one of the first official acts of the first House of Representatives was to elect a chaplain. And his salary was paid out of federal funds.

But since the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that there should be a separation between church and state (including the states) that decision, and subsequent decisions, have been used to DENY religious freedom -- contrary to the original intent of the First Amendment: Prayer is banned in schools; displaying of Christmas trees are banned in some school districts and some public offices; the displaying of the Ten Commandments in most public offices are banned; military chaplains are no longer allowed to mention Jesus, even in their prayers; city and county councils all across America may allow invocations or benedictions, but many have a specific prohibitions on the mentioning of Jesus. This IS limiting the free exercise of religion, but it is also limiting freedom of expression. The U. S. Constitution prohibited the Congress from doing this. But the U. S. Supreme court took it upon themselves to make law, even though the U. S. Constitution gives that sole authority to the Legislative Branch.

Chris:
Religion kills more than it helps.( see Iraq, and middle east) Its seems to help in prison tho. Keep it to yourself! Any presidential candidate that even mentions, supports a religion can kiss his chances good-by. We need a real visionary and not a scorned women.

I thought this was the American presidential race.

Everytime I hear the name Jesus in association with any political agenda, I get very heated.....In this society in America where most believe that Christianity is the rock of life, to use it to gain momentum seems to be popular among politicians....Personally, I believe a politician should be voted out immediatly when they use religion as a crutch because if they are true to what they say, there decisions will be religion based as well, and I do not want a society that is ruled by ANY religion....Religion is a virus, it is twisted left & right, and is not even accurate or factual.....It is well known that religion has destroyed societies for thousands of years...Religion needs to dissapear permanitly if any of us are to ever live in peace.

I want religion out of American politics. That was the intention of the founding fathers, and for good reason, and it needs to be adhered to.

The religion of treat your fellow man in an ethical, and decent manner, is the religion that needs to be followed.

The judicial system is broken, because we allowed religious arguments to sway us in punishing criminals. Now all of our society is paying the price for the folly.

If criminals choose to commit their crimes, then they should be prepared to do the punishment, and the punishments should be severe, and in many cases, should be capital.

I have no problem exercising my religion in my church and my home, why can't others be content to do the same rather than cramming their beliefs down the throats of others? Brownback is not a man of faith; he's a kook and so is anyone that takes him seriously! Jesus warned us about false prophets and hypocrites who like to pray in the street that they may be seen by others, rather than praying in public and keeping their faith humble and to themselves!

What we do not condem, we condone. By our "over-looking" and turning from condemnation we participate in what we do not believe in. We live in world filled with acts of violence, drugs, pornography, prostitution, fear and the
demoralization of body, mind and spirit.
We all know the laws of God,and right from wrong.. it is written in our hearts. There is not a major religion that condones any of this. So why is it happening, because we allow it. Civility is born when we listen to each other and try to understand differnt views and ways to solve problems and reach a common goal or purpose. There has to be some point of agreement to proceed to a solution. If we just continue to bicker and point fingers then everybody is right, nobody is wrong and nothing is acomplished. This is a time when we all need to stand up for what we believe in. There is little common courtesy left in this nation. WE live on a planet spinning through the universe, there is no place to go to get away from one another, we have to learn to get along and work for the common good. I can see that pronography, gambling, prostitution and drugs generate billions of dollars, that acts of violence go unpunished because we are so politically correct we don't know what to do with people who break the law. This isn't right,I BELIVE WHAT THE SENATOR IS SAYING IS THAT THE GULF BETWEEN WHAT IS MORAL AND WHAT IS LEGAL GETS WIDER EVERY DAY. LEGALITY IS NOT MORALITY! If there is no virtue left then I guess anything goes and nothing is wrong...and the ACLU is leading us down that garden path!

Brownback needs to drop out, now.

Three other Pro-life candidates are far better received by the voters than he is (Huckabee, Romney, Fred Thompson). Brownback has now proven to everyone that he has no chance of winning. He's instead proven that he's generally unlikeable. If he would simple drop out, then his supporters could go to another pro-life candidate that has a real chance of becoming President.

If he stays in, all he does is help the pro-abortion Giuliani -- by keeping the pro-life field so divided.

The faithful show little faith in the power of their god by forcing their faith on people. Think about it. If you're life was a example that people wanted to copy, they would search you out for advice. I don't know what it is like to feel powerless to instill my beliefs because people think they are crazy. What are you thinking? The government will succeed when you have failed miserably? You look stupid. Earth is 1.6 billion years old. Dinosaurs were extinct by time humans evolved.

There is nothing anti-Christian about the separation of church and state. A politician can and should use his/her faith to help them make decisions. The only thing they can't do is pass laws that impose certain religious beliefs or discriminate against others. If Brownback was implying his intention to do that, then the separation issue comes into play. If not, then he's just being divisive.

Note to all this country was founded on Judeo-Christian law and values.

Constitution states nothing about Freedom From Religion.

Brownback is showing he has high Morals and is not afraid of the Anti-Christian Libs.

Oskar misses the point. He may not be trying to convert YOU, but I am part of US, and I am threatened by his statements. According to Brownback, I am an "unbeliever" yet my life is deeply rooted in ORGANIZED religeous faith, and I consider myself to be not just moral, but ethical as well, must I be "converted" for my beliefs to have validity?!? The very idea that something which does not offend "me" must therefore be OK with everyone else is not just ignorant, it's immature, and we need to grow up.

Chris: "One day all non believers will be wiped out(sic)". Non-believers in WHAT? Winny-the-Poo? Allah? Jesus of Nazareth? Monty Pithon? PLease be more specific so I can Know, really KNOW, just what to believe in, so I won't be "wiped out". Thanks.

Pay attention that the Sen is not trying to convert the US to christianity, even if it were a public politic statement. I understand that his argument would go more like saying I find in Jesus guidance for moral, political, religous, social and ethical acts. And would probably answer as Jesus told Pilate were he stated that he is not into making (with force) people change because his nation (or kingdom) is not of this world.

James Danley: I agree with you. I have no problem at all with Sam Brownback's making that statement, but my position is not Constitution-based. Since there is no State action here, there is no Constitutional issue. This is a citizen, acting in a private capacity, voicing his personal views. Now if Brownback, as President (stay with me), attempts to "establish" religion in a way that is precluded by the Constitution, then I have a problem.

While I think Brownback's views, and indeed those of all who base their positions on "faith" or other irrational and anti-rational grounds, are, at best, inherently suspect, I don't have a problem with his "revealing" himself in this manner.

"Sen. Sam Brownback IS exercising HIS Constitutional rights -- both freedom of speech and religious freedom." His less than decisive showing in the Iowa straw polls (THIRD place? Come on!) is probably a direct result of his "exercising his constitutional rights." It would be better to call it what it really is: an exercise in futility.

scary

One day all non believers will be wiped out. Repent and turn your hearts. We love you all. Please do not hate.

"...explain to him the meaning of the Establishment Clause..." What about "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...?" Sen. Sam Brownback IS exercising HIS Constitutional rights -- both freedom of speech and religious freedom.

Politicizing religion is what has ruined the Republican party. Religion is a personal "lifestyle" choice and should not interfere with making policy. While I suppose it is better to have it out in the open as a Brownback type does than to have it guiding a lawmaker in secret, it is still a terrifying assumption that everyone in the USA benefits from the assumption that the "Christian" lifestyle choice is what is best for all. The whole point to America is freedom for the individual, bringing "All for Jesus!" into it removes that factor. It is a cheap way to try to garner votes.

Someone ought to take Sen. Brownback aside and patiently explain to him the meaning of the Establishment Clause, since he is obviously ignorant of its history and the court opinions about it. In an exquisite irony, doesn't he realize that his position on religion in government is no different from that of radical Islam?

But, no matter. He'll be gone from the scene in a few months with the rest of the other second-rate, um, I mean second-tier, Repub candidates, providing nothing more than a disturbing footnote in the nation's political history.

The more Brownback (or any other GOP candidate) narows his focus to a religiously-based appeal, the more he gains in the primary campaign and loses in the general election. So--let him go down this road. It only hurts the Republican party in the long run.