No, and reject and resent and have no respect for your self righteous phony pharisaical attitude. YOu didn’t understand my point. Reagan is no Huckabee, no Santorum, and in some ways no Bush about the “on the sleeve” thing…and yet, he was probably more true to his faith than any of them.
But you wanted to misunderstand, and you did. Dude, I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you. And to just h_ll with your accusations.
"But you wanted to misunderstand, and you did. Dude, I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you. And to just h_ll with your accusations."
Dude, slow down; you are going to blow a blood vessel getting so huffy! I am not accusing you of anything. I am not quarreling with you. We are having a legitimate argument in a debate – I hope you know the difference. Quite the contrary, I’ve read your other posts and agree with you about Cruz being the top contender for conservatives. I think he is the top contender for Christian conservatives as well – as he is very open about his faith, and knows the time and place to argue the point.
To back up my point in the argument of whether or not Reagan “wore his religion on his sleeve (as you put it)” more or less than Bush; just type in a search for “Reagan” “Bible” in any search engine and find out how many times in public Reagan not only talking about the importance of the Bible and God in everyday life but in politics and law as well! Type in “Bush” and “Bible”, not as much as Reagan, but it is there. Huckabee, you can do what you wish – he isn’t going anywhere politically and will not waste my time with him – he is a mute point.
But our argument also seems to be whether or not the Bible and its principles have a place in politics – correct? If so, then the question I asked is a legitimate one for the debate we are having. Therefore, I ask again this very pertinent question to the argument; Are you one who believes there is a separation of church and state in the Constitution?
Oops, my mistake, you did answer the question. Frankly, I think the only disagreement in this debate we do have is whether or not there should be religion expressed in politics. I think (and many here at FR also) there should be, as it shows how true or not true, and the degree in charector and understanding a political figure is/has - especially for one that is running for as an important a position as President.