Not to prolong this side debate but quickly… DLS (in #12 and #13) does raise some valid points, including the proper role of government, privacy (R v. W), personal responsibility and charity (welfare). All related to the separation of Church and the State of Mind. I see the points being made by DLS but we end up at two different places. As far as those three waitresses… unfortunately that’s what happens to some people- all over the world and in the most religiously oppressive countries. Any welfare (in the US) they receive should be temporary and structured in a way to encourage them to gain skills for higher paying jobs.

Sorry that my comment shifted the focus.

“I’m among those on here least likely ever to be asleep, much less ignorant.” – DLS

“Please don’t move the goal posts on the debate.” – Rudi

Move the goalposts? You are being too generous my friend. He’s not even within a day’s drive of a football field. Good grief…

If Huckabee becomes President….how is it possible that HE will ban abortion?

How would he do that?

A total ban is impractical. Sadly, what we see nowadays almost cries out for more abortions, even against the mothers’ wills. I said nothing the past few days about current events involving this, but what does it do for people when stupid young female celebs choose to have children without being married, and to do so as teens? It almost cries out for forced abortion (and worse, physically, insofar as the mothers are concerned).

I’ve seen how this scummy self-absorbed behavior affects, and infects, others, such as where I used to be before coming to Iowa, in upstate New York (which managed to choose Spitzer as governor, of all people). Two years ago, one of the three young waitresses, “S,” at a resturant I used to frequent had her baby. Awwwww. The guy is already out of the picture. Last year? “K” had her baby. Awwwww. Again, no ring. And the last time I went back there, six months ago? “L” was pregnant, trying (she said, between puffs) to stop smoking.

None were married.

Hey, just sign them up for welfare, right? Can’t harm The Children(!) [tm], right?

Better people aren’t sympathetic. It has nothing to do with the children, and everything to do with the unmarried parents!

Huckabee clearly doesn’t understand this when he says that he will ban abortion, “not just because I’m a Christian, that’s because I’m an American.”

Personally I am against abortion but I would never vote for a candidate who wants to outlaw it.

Most Americans do not support abortion without any limitations whatsoever (we do not accept an amoral, not merely anarchic, society) and many Americans do not support federal (or even state and local) government provision of abortions, particularly after viability (when questions of murder vanish almost completely).

Roe v. Wade always has been illegitimate, especially the “trimester rules” conjured out of nothing but air. Abortion most properly is a state and local issue, subject to regulation as state and local governments see fit. If abortion falls under subjection of federal government authority because of federal citizenship, then of course the federal government may regulate abortion as it sees fit, including a complete prohibition. (The practicality of prohibition is separate from its legal propriety, something normally lost on intellgectually and otherwise childish leftists.)

Hopefully one day Roe v. Wade will be properly thrown out and the correct constitutional roles of the federal as opposed to state and local government (ideally, the latter only, in the case of abortion, as with contraception, the logical as well as factual basis for decision making here*) will be legitimately established.

* We’ve had contraception and abortion since women have been capable of becoming pregnant.

Do you understand that answering “self-explanatory” to my question about what constitutes “governmental suppression of religious exercise” just makes me think you’ve got a lot of unexamined attitudes?

Only if you aren’t informed or well-read (as well as illogical).

The “god part” of the Pledge of Allegiance was added in the 1950’s to counter the heathen USSR.

When was the Confederate-flag portion of various southern states’ flag added?

I’m among those on here least likely ever to be asleep, much less ignorant.

For those who don’t know, here is one (state’s) answer to the question, from the Georgia state government. (read here)

“… [W]hen the battle flag was incorporated into the Georgia state flag, the state was in a desperate situation to preserve segregation. Resisting, avoiding, undermining, and circumventing integration was the 1956 General Assembly’s primary objective…”

Huckabee clearly doesn’t understand this when he says that he will ban abortion, “not just because I’m a Christian, that’s because I’m an American.”

Personally I am against abortion but I would never vote for a candidate who wants to outlaw it. The decision and circumstances surrounding pregnancy and abortion are very complex and personal. I don’t have all the answers for myself much less for anyone else. The Founding Fathers gave freedom to the citizens of this country because only the people themselves know what’s best for them. I am not going to vote for some patriarchal father/God figure to sit in Washington on his throne and tell me (or anyone else) what to do. I’m a big guy so let me make my own decisions and mistakes.

Also to the point of Huckabee including atheists in the WH. I remember Bush made the same promise about including Dems in his cabinet. And he did- one or two- but in less prestigious departments and they didn’t last long. In fact does anyone know if there is now even a non-Republican janitor in the WH?

Huckabee can say he will include atheists in the WH but (and DLS is right) Huckabee doesn’t have to do anything as President. If he does include others of differing opinions he doesn’t have to consider their advice. His comments and actions certainly do not support the spirit on why this country was founded.

For Huckabee to say that he will ban all abortions not because of his faith but because he is an American just shows that Huckabee will do what he wants and then justify it by saying he’s doing it as an “American”. That’s just like Bush saying “We don’t torture,” but then doing refusing to define torture and doing what he wants. Huckabee will do what he wants as an “American” but he’ll claim he’s not doing it based on his faith. Hogwash. After Huckabee does what he wants the damage will have been done. We’ll all sit around, sip tea and argue whether it’s truly an American value or whether he is imposing his faith- just like Bush does with torture.

Huckabee clearly does not value people of differing opinions and that is why he should not be elected President. The US was founded as a diverse country and we need a President who understands that and will work to bring people together, not make controversial statements (push for divisive laws) and not use our differences to separate us.

In that link you provided, who’s religious exercise was being suppressed, supporters of the trees or the Rabbi who filed suit to have them removed?

Since it’s the only example you provided, is a suit about Christmas trees the best you’ve got as far as suppression of religious expression in America?

Do you understand that answering “self-explanatory” to my question about what constitutes “governmental suppression of religious exercise” just makes me think you’ve got a lot of unexamined attitudes?

Wouldn’t you like to try again?

Are you saying the President and the Judiciary are free to promote or restrict religion?

Precisely, no, because they are not granted powers to do so. (That’s considered obsolescent by some, but remains so.)

It’s Congress that may legislate, nobody else (despite what some think, those who simply want to achieve what they want no matter how). There was a concern about the establishment of an official church as well as persecution (even outlawing) of minority religions or sects at the time the Bill of Rights was written and this was part of the First Amendment to preclude such things from happening.

What constitutes “governmental suppression of religious exercise”?

(Self-explanatory)

And would you provide actual examples of such governmental suppression?

There have been several lawsuits filed over the years seeking removal of this and that; a very embarrassing example is this one.

Are you saying the President and the Judiciary are free to promote or restrict religion?

What constitutes “governmental suppression of religious exercise”? And would you provide actual examples of such governmental suppression?

Thank you.

There is no “separation of state” as has falsely been claimed by leftists, namely governmental (especially judicial-activist) suppression of religious exercise.

remedial reading for leftists