Posted on 12/14/2007 8:05:43 AM PST by SmithL
Let's keep religion out of the presidential campaign, if possible.
I say, to each his own. Let's rejoice that the founding fathers established a secular nation and that no one has to publicly defend his or her beliefs.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- put on the defensive because of his Mormon faith -- recently felt compelled to explain his religion to skeptical voters.
So he tore a page out of John F. Kennedy's 1960 campaign appearance before a group of Protestant ministers in Houston.
At the time, Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, had to dispel rumors that he would be taking orders from the Vatican if he won the presidency.
Kennedy assured the protestant clergy that the pope would have no place in his presidency. He won the day when he told the ministers that when his brother Joe Kennedy's plane disappeared over the English channel during World War II, no one asked what his religion was.
Last week, Romney delivered his religion speech at the George H.W. Bush Library at College Station, Texas, and pledged he would not allow any authorities of the Mormon church "exert influence" on his presidential decisions. "I will serve no one religion," he declared.
Romney is in a tough fight for the GOP presidential nomination with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Huckabee is tough on illegal immigrants -- but in the past favored schooling for their children.
A conservative, Huckabee opposes abortion and, at one time, wanted to isolate HIV/AIDS patients. He also supports a federal ban on gay marriage and advocates teaching creationism alongside evolution in schools.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
I don’t know about that, but they sure took the “I” out of religion.
Can we see an article to keep Helen Thomas off of the Free Republic? Good Lord, that is one ugly woman.Inside and out.
Looks like somebody at the Sac Bee needs a friggin’ dictionary.
Depends on what you mean by a "secular nation". If it is the defintion actually demonstrated by the Founders - that no one group would be established, no group would have primacy, all groups have freedom to worship as they see fit, and the laws of the land, while being on a general Judeo-Christian foundation, would not be particular to any one sect - then yes, this country was founded as a secular nation.
It by "secular nation" you mean the view held by left-wingers, Communists, and a goodly share of faux-conservatives here on Free Republic - that religion is forbidden from the public square, religion must be kept only in the home and church, no candidate or elected official can or should operate from a "religious" position or worldview, otherwise they are "violating the separation of church and state" and "using a religious test, which we all know the Constitution forbids" - then no, the Founders had no such thing in mind, by their own words.
Excellent news on a Friday
Wrong. They established a government that is not allowed to interfere in the religion(s) of the people.
They did not found a secular nation by any means. In fact they prohibited the government from forcing the nation to be secular.
Let's rejoice that the founding fathers established a secular nation and that no one has to publicly defend his or her beliefs.
No one has to defend their beliefs. However, voters are under no obligation not to ask about a candidate's beliefs or to not vote based on their own beliefs.
The restrictions are only on the government not interfering with the religion of the people.
I say, to each his own. Let's rejoice that the founding fathers established a secular nation and that no one has to publicly defend his or her beliefs.
To each there own unless it doesn't square with your particular political philosophy you mean.
Interestingly, she mentions Huckabee’s belief in creationism over evolution.
Isn’t that a religious belief?
Thank you. Aren’t they a lovely couple? What an uplifiting way to start my day.
They've given the social right far more than its due these past years. Now, it's time for the fiscal conservatives to have a couple of decades in the driver's seat to undo the damage.
It’s the end around arguement to keep character out of political discussions. To understand a person’s character you have to have insight to their belief system, which is derived from their religious views.
Also, the references to “no religious test” always amuses me when it’s mis-applied to the voting public. Founders were quite clear that they considered religious views when voting as a member of the public.
Helen...you are old enough to remember that the founding Fathers had no problem with mentioning God as the source of all liberty and starting meetings of Congress with a prayer.
Only Helen Thomas could believe that our Founding Fathers established a secular nation when they continuously called on Divine Providence to guide them and guaranteed free exercise of religion in the founding documents. All men were “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...”
Are you joking? Social conservatism is what built the Reagan revolution. Fiscal conservatism combined with social moderacy/liberalism was what we had with the Rockefeller and country club-type Republicans, you know, the ones who kept losing elections at the Congressional level, and who gave us creeping socialism at the presidential level. When Reagan combined fiscal conservatism with social conservatism (not hard to do, since a majority of social conservatives, especially white Southern social conservatives, were already fiscally conservative as well, but just needed someone to appeal to them and entice them away from blind party loyalties), he brought the Reagan Democrats on board and formed the coalition that eventually swept the GOP into power in 1994. Now, a combination of socially-liberal GOP fecklessness and corrupt GOP politicians is destroying the party and the coalition.
Majorities support social conservatism on practically every issue across the board - gay marriage, gun control, illegal immigration, even abortion, where polling is showing consistent slight majorities of voters identifying themselves as pro-life and opposing the practice. These are winning issues for the GOP, if they will be used thoughtfully and consistently.
If the GOP folds and we get socialist Democrats in office, the fault will lie with the liberaltarian-type "Republicans" who want to sideline half our winning issues because they personally feel uncomfortable when somebody mentions abortion.
Ugh, I have having to admit that I agree with Helen Thomas on this for the most part.
Isn’t that a religious belief?
Yes, but it doesn't count when she does it. The 39th amendment right to liberal hypocrisy, and all that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.