Romney PLEASE! and NOT Santorum!

[Gregg]

Spot on, that's exactly what the current ruckus has appeared to be to me.

Just keep bouncing between race-baiting, church-baiting, and class-baiting, and we'll have a ball-game...

I'm sick of it all. Which may be the intended effect, to keep people from even caring any more.

If that is the intended result I have to admit "they" get a little closer to success with each election cycle.

[Zoebird]

According to the writings around church/state -- the earliest forms -- was to keep the state from promoting a single religion along the lines of the "church of england." It was to promote religious freedom, so that people of any religion could practice free of state persecution for not participating in the state-sanctioned religion.

The problem with many of the ideas from many of these groups is that they are promoting that the country was founded on "christianity" (which is clearly not the case), and therefore that the "Laws of God" (as seen and understood by neo-fundamentalist christians, largely, and other christians secondarily) are what should govern the nation.

This is in direct opposition not only to the documents of the government itself, but to the history of the writers and their position on why there isn't a state-religion (or why there is a division between church and state).

[Gregg]

Not running on cultural issues?? Let's see, Obama is an American hating/baby killing/terrorist loving/socialist/commie/Stalinist/fascist/pinko Nigerian who wants America to fail so he can bring in his European style dictatorship complete with an army of anti-American commie liberals who will steal your kids, rip your head off and s--t down your neck. Oh, and he's a Muslim too!

Peggy (!), you've been holding out on us. DNC approve that strategy?

[peggy]

The Know Nothings were saying the same thing in the 19th century, and we still don't have inquisitors on our doorsteps. I don't see anything particularly sinister about Churches trying to influence policy; any more than I do about Planned Parenthood, the Heritage Foundation or the Sierra Club trying to do the same thing.

OH I don't know. I think the laws in several states requiring an invasive unnecessary procedure before an abortion is a pretty strong inquisitor at a very private doorstep.

http://www.publicopiniononline.com/c...ce=most_viewed

There is something very sinister about churches influencing public policy. How exactly do you think the Taliban came about? The people who think it's no big deal that the churches are influencing policy are the very same people who screech about a Muslim community center going up in NY (not at ground zero, as it turns out) or fear monger about Sharia law or go on and on about some congressman taking the oath on the Koran. Once we let religion dictate law, then we must let EVERY religion dictate law.
It never ceases to amaze me at the inability of some to think beyond their noses. It's like prayer in school. I guarantee you every single person who promotes prayer in school is laboring under the impression that it will be THEIR prayer that is said!

Gregg stated he though separation of church and state was more to keep state out of church. Maybe, but I think it's more to keep your church out of State. Your religion should not influence public policy any more than Jewish should, or Muslim should, or snake handlers, or jehovah witness, or any religion. And any one with two grey cells to rub together should be able to see it not only protects me from your religion, but it protects you from your neighbors religion.

I don't want to bow to mecca, I don't want to wear magic underwear, and I don't want your church in my privates!

And while were talking about it, I think it's past time to talk about this special tax exempt status churches get. I don't think 'religions' are special, by virtue of their beliefs, or anything else, and i don't think they deserve this blanket special status. To me, that is establishment of religion. Let each church file for non profit status and stand on individual merit.

[peggy]

Well Hello Peggy. I'm pleased to see you come out and participate with each of my posts.

Your list is interesting from an Ed Schultz, propagandizing sort of perspective, but I'm wondering which candidate campaigned on any one of those things?

Oh Alan. You make such....silly statements! How can I resist!

http://nation.foxnews.com/newt-gingr...erican-history

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...onal-security/

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/...wsj-gop-debate

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/...hink-work-good

and one of my personal favorites, Obama as the evil indoctronator into SECULAR life by promoting more kids go to...wait for it...college! Evil I tell you...EVIL!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...ge-enrollment/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1296276.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...dzTR_blog.html

I could go on and on and on....

[JaneV2.0]

I think you're right. We may be seeing more Church-baiting in the future if the GOP doesn't wise up. Who's advising these guys? Where's Karl Rove when we need him?

I couldn't agree more with both of you. I know Rove detested Rick Perry (Mr. "Prayerapalooza"), and I can't believe he likes Rick Santorum much better. I don't think anyone would be church-baiting without all the over-the-top pronouncements about banning contraception and "man on dog," and mandating transvaginal ultrasounds for women seeking a legal medical procedure. I can tell you this isn't playing well with women.

[bae]

I can tell you this isn't playing well with women.

Men either.

[JaneV2.0]

It's more complicated than that. Different sorts of "policy" are due different levels of compliance.

But surely openly, publicly refuting long-accepted doctrine like serving the poor, rejecting materialism, ending capital punishment, and avoiding war while seemingly being obsessed with other peoples' sexual and reproductive lives has to cast them as smorgasbord Catholics at best. And creepy hypocrites at worst.

[JaneV2.0]

So you object both to candidates’ opinions being informed by Catholic doctrine, and to candidates’ opinions being insufficiently orthodox? I have been a Catholic my entire life; and while I have encountered much good, have yet to meet perfection. If anything short of that mark disqualifies a candidate on a hypocrisy basis, we will have trouble keeping the government staffed.

Look at our current President, for instance. The champion of public campaign finance who becomes the first major party candidate to reject it. The man who sees fit to lecture the Supreme Court about Citizens United in his State of the Union address, but steers contributors toward favorably disposed super PACs.

We need campaign reform desperately, that's for sure.

I believe one's faith should be private and that an individual who seeks public office and takes an oath to serve the public and the Constitution should refrain from trying to impose his/her dogma on the rest of us. If they uphold that principle, their personal philosophical inconsistencies should be moot.

[bae]

Surely the issue of Catholic "doctrine" and how it is followed is more complex than your post makes it out to be.

I believe member Tradd here just became or is becoming a catechist, and could explain the fine print.