[Howlin]

Leaving aside the fact that I was not passed the "economic" gene, I'll have to trust Newt's word and his past performance about the money involved in this contract, as the first one was so successful, I like all these points, especially the civics education.

I hestiate on II because I just am not comfortable with trying to legislate religion in any way, shape, or form.

[Jim Robinson]

America was founded on certain self-evident truths, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

When the vast majority of Americans deny these truths and shun the founding principles, America will cease to exist.

[garylmoore]

I hestiate on II because I just am not comfortable with trying to legislate religion in any way, shape, or form

Funny, I thought that was the best one.

[sirchtruth]

I hestiate on II because I just am not comfortable with trying to legislate religion in any way, shape, or form.

You don't get it do you? Read #89. The fact is always going to remain this country was founded on acknowledging the principle a CREATOR gives Freedoms and Rights, not man. This is what IS America. If you take this away and do not make this a value, a central theme in governing, you destroy the very concept which makes "America," America.

This country will NOT work without THIS idea.

[Spiff]

I hestiate on II because I just am not comfortable with trying to legislate religion in any way, shape, or form.

I'll bet you hate how our nation's founding document states clearly (and truthfully) that our rights are granted us by GOD. That is the keystone of our Republic. If you remove God from it or the fact that everyone has inalienable rights that are granted by God, then the whole thing will crumble. You can call that "legislating religion" but it is continuing the vision and tradition set by the founding fathers for the preservation of this Republic.

Would you feel uncomfortable being part of a political party whose platform calls for the return of prayer in schools, calls for more official religious involvement in government programs, calls for preserving the "sanctity" of life and opposes abortion for that reason, calls for the preservation of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and even mentions God, one of the teachings of Jesus Christ, and the power of prayer on its first page?

[backtothestreets]

"I hestiate on II because I just am not comfortable with trying to legislate religion in any way, shape, or form."

I understand your hesitation. Most Americans are not old enough to remember when government legislated religion. It has only been since 1943 that states have been stripped of this right through a series of Supreme Court rulings. In extending the prohibitions placed upon Congress in the First Amendment to the states, the Supreme Court created a moral vacuum.

Although legislating religion seems troublesome, there is no history of states abusing this right in the first 150+ years of our nation. Lacking this we have a federal government very active in attacking religion.

[LexBaird]

Leaving aside the fact that I was not passed the "economic" gene, I'll have to trust Newt's word and his past performance about the money involved in this contract, as the first one was so successful, I like all these points, especially the civics education.

Gee, Howlin, when I suggested a week ago that the GOP needed a set of stated ideals to run on, similar to the CwA, you dismissed me as being from "the far right". Now that Newt says the same thing, it's suddenly a good idea?