Just when you thought it was safe

Originally posted by spruce112358
It's an intelligent move. She needs something to balance her pro-choice-ish views. And the Moral Majority will look like Pharisees if they try to criticize someone's decision to forgive their spouse.

It could also be a true statement. But it's a good move, regardless.

This may sound absurd, but what I think could be a development of this is a calling to the still silent majority and rally around Americans deeply held spiritual beliefs. From what I see and hear, the Moral Majority might not necessarily always represent the silent majority. But the success of the Pat Robertsons of this world to mobilize support behind the Republican cause must surely be resonating with some Liberal strategists who must have some evidence that many professed Christians would like to support a Christian candidate, but that they would not like them to be such an avid war-mongerer the way GOP candidates like to position themselves.

The only problem I can see is that the sort of voter that this might represent may also be resigned to the fact that the system itself is beyond redeeming. On the one hand you have Bush servicing the needs of big business and on the other hand you have the perception that the Democrats are the place of last refuge for every godless minority and hedonistic purveyor.

What this group lacks(I call them the 4LFC: Latent League of Longsuffering Liberals For Christ) is a voice, a minister that can coalesce all this untapped energy and turn it into a potent political force. Unfortunately the sort of ministers that preach longsuffering Christian virtues are also not the type who would go and motivate their congregations to become political about anything either. Its a perfect Catch 22.

Originally posted by kmax87
This may sound absurd, but what I think could be a development of this is a calling to the still silent majority and rally around Americans deeply held spiritual beliefs. From what I see and hear, the Moral Majority might not necessarily always represent the silent majority. But the success of the Pat Robertsons of this world to mobilize support behind the Re ...[text shortened]... motivate their congregations to become political about anything either. Its a perfect Catch 22.

It's true that American politicians have been edging 'Christ-ward' for years. If you cannot claim you have been 'born again' -- well, you can almost forget it.

Agnostics, atheists, theists, pandeists -- all those rational, thoughtful types -- need not apply. Gimme that Ol' Time Religion!

I'm glad separation of Church and State was established under the likes of Jefferson, Adams, and Madison -- it would have been a much tougher sell today.

Originally posted by spruce112358
It's true that American politicians have been edging 'Christ-ward' for years. If you cannot claim you have been 'born again' -- well, you can almost forget it.

Agnostics, atheists, theists, pandeists -- all those rational, thoughtful types -- need not apply. Gimme that Ol' Time Religion!

I'm glad separation of Church and State was established unde ...[text shortened]... e likes of Jefferson, Adams, and Madison -- it would have been a much tougher sell today.

This country was founded on Christian beliefs ( some, kind of harsh ).
However, The Constitution says nothing of Seperation of Church and State. It does say that the Federal Gov't cannot force upon us a state religion. Jefferson saying Seperation of Church and State in a letter to Adams did not make it a law. That expression has been misused for centuries now. Voting for a candidate who has certain religious beliefs is not illegal. Political candidated are going where the votes are. They'll promise anyone anything to get in power, then do what they will. They're all hipocrats.

Originally posted by smw6869
This country was founded on Christian beliefs ( some, kind of harsh ).
However, The Constitution says nothing of Seperation of Church and State. It does say that the Federal Gov't cannot force upon us a state religion. Jefferson saying Seperation of Church and State in a letter to Adams did not make it a law. That expression has been misused for centuries ...[text shortened]... ey'll promise anyone anything to get in power, then do what they will. They're all hipocrats.

Now that's a scary thought -- rule by hippos! 🙂

You are right -- most of the Founders were Christians of one stripe or another as are most Americans today. And the wording does not specify Separation, but between Free Exercise and "Making no law respecting establishment of religion," it amounts to much the same thing.

Originally posted by spruce112358
Now that's a scary thought -- rule by hippos! 🙂

You are right -- most of the Founders were Christians of one stripe or another as are most Americans today. And the wording does not specify Separation, but between Free Exercise and "Making no law respecting establishment of religion," it amounts to much the same thing.

Yes, but it doesn't mean that religious groups may not ban together to support a candidate that believes in their religious beliefs. But, not to fear, the politicians are only looking for votes. Most believe in nothing but being in power. That goes for most of the world. Power begets power, begets money, begets screw the voters.

Originally posted by spruce112358
Now that's a scary thought -- rule by hippos! 🙂

You are right -- most of the Founders were Christians of one stripe or another as are most Americans today. And the wording does not specify Separation, but between Free Exercise and "Making no law respecting establishment of religion," it amounts to much the same thing.

Yikes! Yes i..i...i...i really did mean hippoes. Bet you thought i meant hypocrites.

Originally posted by kmax87
Apparently miss piggy now claims that it was her belief in the Almighty that got her through the Lewinski affair and gave her the strength to not give up on her marriage to Bubba.

If the democrats become card carrying moral majorities as well, and the right no longer owns the religious voice of America what will that mean for 2008.

Theres a methodist in her madness it would seem.

Libertarianism ftw!

Originally posted by Merk
I'm not sure the moral majority is going to be big on the idea of backing someone that accepts infidelity.

You think they'd prefer divorce?

Originally posted by smw6869
This country was founded on Christian beliefs ( some, kind of harsh ).
However, The Constitution says nothing of Seperation of Church and State. It does say that the Federal Gov't cannot force upon us a state religion. Jefferson saying Seperation of Church and State in a letter to Adams did not make it a law. That expression has been misused for centuries ...[text shortened]... ey'll promise anyone anything to get in power, then do what they will. They're all hipocrats.

This country was founded on Christian beliefs

No it wasn't.

Originally posted by spruce112358
Now that's a scary thought -- rule by hippos! 🙂

You are right -- most of the Founders were Christians of one stripe or another as are most Americans today. And the wording does not specify Separation, but between Free Exercise and "Making no law respecting establishment of religion," it amounts to much the same thing.

most of the Founders were Christians of one stripe or another

I don't think this is true. Have any evidence to support this claim?

Here's some interesting reading on the issue:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6177
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
http://www.aztriad.com/fathers.html

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]most of the Founders were Christians of one stripe or another

I don't think this is true. Have any evidence to support this claim?

Here's some interesting reading on the issue:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6177
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
http://www.aztriad.com/fathers.html[/b]

Please, don't make me read all that http:// stuff. Could you please condense it for me. In a short paragraph?