Palin finds running mate for 2012!!

No to both, I think many voted for Obama for many of the reasons I listed and I think Palin was chosen to appease the religious right.

I've said the last too many times.

No to both, I think many voted for Obama for many of the reasons I listed and I think Palin was chosen to appease the religious right.

That is the first time I have seen you state the latter.

Apparently it is more than just MY personal opinion...

I will answer one question before I take off for Morgantown to see Donnie and watch the basketball team tomorrow night. Hopefully they won't be as disappointing as the football team has been.

You ask why I think you are on the left. I'll answer that.

The reason I believe you are to the left is based on your cumulative responses to anything religious in general and Christianity specifically.

My personal opinion, that I have come to is based on those responses, is that you have a deep seated hatred for religion.

And based on what I perceive to be a deep seated hatred for anything religious/Christian, regardless the issue, if for any reason, religion is brought into the conversation, you will immediately go to the left.

Of all the people on this forum, you and I likely share the most common core beliefs regarding our government. I do not disagree with you on that. The difference is, I can accept there is a small role for religion in many issues and that this government is indeed founded on religious values. You cannot. And that is why I think you are to the "left", so to speak.

I doubt that I am alone in those observations.

As for why I call you liberal, that's easy. I do that to get your gander up.

It works.

And based on what I perceive to be a deep seated hatred for anything religious/Christian, regardless the issue, if for any reason, religion is brought into the conversation, you will immediately go to the left.

You have a damned silly view of what "left" is. People on the left have no religion? I know a good many democrats that would laugh at that outrageous assertion

Yes, I do ridicule religion. I think it does more harm than good. It doesn't mean, of course, that I hate it. It also means nothing concerning where I really fall on the political spectrum.

I can accept there is a small role for religion in many issues and that this government is indeed founded on religious values.

You were doing so well, up until that point.

The authors of the Bill of Rights are laughing up their sleeves at you. Our COTUS specifically FORBIDS associations between religion and government.

If radical religionists ever become a majority in this country, you will be thanking your lucky stars at their [the COTUS and BOR authors] foresightedness. Take a look at Afghanistan under radical islamists. Take a look at Massachusetts under the Puritans.

As for why I call you liberal, that's easy. I do that to get your gander up.

Which shows your true desire for any REAL discussion.

My true desire for any conversation Terry is to discuss, plain and simple.

So perhaps you can show me the part of the constitution that specifically denies association between religion and government.

So perhaps you can show me the part of the constitution that specifically denies association between religion and government.

Really?

Really?

The part about "Congress shall uphold no law..."?

Isn't it a good thing that freedom of religion necessarily means freedom from religion, at least from the government's standpoint?

Like I said, look at what happens when religion weds with government - theocracy. Add control of big business to that marriage and you have fascism.

That is why I would have voted for Huckabee. While I completely disagree with his views on civil liberties, I think he would keep his oath to uphold the COTUS.

In short, I trust and like the man, even if he is a christian fundamentalist.

My true desire for any conversation Terry is to discuss, plain and simple.

I would believe you if trying to piss someone off by intentionally misrepresenting them wasn't antithetical to actual discussion.

You forgot the rest of it Terry.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

It means the government can't sponsor religion. There's nothing in there that prevents the association of religion and government.

I guess we'll find out if you really will admit when you are wrong.

It means the government can't sponsor religion. There's nothing in there that prevents the association of religion and government.

Oh, bullshit. I think you are being intentionally obtuse.

It means that the government can't stop you, by any law, from the free practice of your religion

If, as you say, the government can't sponsor religion, it can't sanction it. That means it can't associate with it, unless it chooses to associate with ALL religions. Anything else would be respecting a particular religion(s).

Most people, including the highest courts of the land, consider the First Amendment to ban any wedding of religion and government.

This is to prevent this country from ever becoming a theocracy, christian or otherwise.

I guess we'll find out if you really will admit when you are wrong.

Books of constitutional law agree with me. What do you have on your side?

I think you will need more than your "personal opinion".

At best, your argument means that government must remain neutral on the subject of religion.

That is a far cry from government being allowed to associate with religion.

Check back Monday and I'll prove you wrong Terry.

Check back Monday and I'll prove you wrong Terry.

I can hardly wait to see how your arguments will trump volumes of constitutional law.