We have people right here who talk that way...

So, Christians cannot vote for Christians to hold office?

I won't say that there are some who do think this way, but the majority do not want Theocracy. The majority wants the Judeo-Christian morals this country was founded on, back in the main stream.

The latter is the job of the Church, and not the government. However, it is very difficult to get things done when at every corner Christianity is labled bigoted, discriminatory, and facist.

My question why is the religion that is truely bigoted, discriminatory, facist, and wants a theocracy is absolutely catered too?

Well, for once, the rich white man is in control. --Montgomery Burns

There's nothing like an evangelical candidate to expose the bigotry and foolishness of the MSM

WILL: They are going to vote for a man, evidently, who in 1998, in Iowa, in 1998 said, Mr. Huckabee said, he went into politics to take back this nation for Christ. Well, that is not a really sound general election position.

I've heard the phrase "take back the nation for Christ" hundreds, maybe thousands of times in a number of contexts.  I don't believe I've ever heard the phrase used to advocate taking over the government, criminalizing non-Christian religion, requiring the Bible to be taught in school, or any of the overwrought nonsense people like this spew.  It simply means Christians desire to see revival in which most (ideally all) Americans would receive eternal salvation through Christ, a choice each person has to make voluntarily to be valid.

The MSM is not going to stand by and let the Republicans nominate a conservative Christian.  If they fail to block his nomination, they'll have the long knives out to stop him in the general election.  And if he somehow gets elected, expect another 8 years just like what we're experiencing with the current president.

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

I wonder if Sam Donaldson ever read the last paragraph of the U.S. Constitution, the one immediately before the signatories?

"...Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth..."

The Founders did not want another "Church of England" or another "Holy Roman Empire."  It is clear they wanted folks to be free to believe whatever they wanted.  But it is also clear that they never intended for people to be forced to be "private" about their beliefs.  Otherwise, the founders would have followed the French model and tried to completely rip all friendly references to Christianity out of any official text.

I have seen no evidence that the adoption of the 1st Amendment meant things had changed in this regard from the founder's point of view.  No one has shown me that the early presidents and congressmen suddenly became "private" Christians after this.

Portion of 1ST Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...."

Sam Donaldson repeated his lines about a "Christian theocracy" perfectly, just as he was told to do. Your check's in the mail, Sammy. Another trained seal.

He's another one of the "'60's were great" goobers who got in line when told too, and sold his soul to the socialist cause. He's never had an original thought in his life.

I have little if any respect for the dwarf and none for Donaldson.  However, there is a significant percentage of Republicans who really don't believe in a seperation of church / state or a too dense to see that if the State get involved in religion it might not be their religion and fail to comprehend the consequences.  With that said what disturbs me about the dwarf and Donaldson is their exaggeration of the percentage and their failure to point out that an even higher percentage of liberals want a socialist state and/or no military and/or 70% tax rates,  elimination of free trade and/or turning over control of the County to the UN.  They can't seem to think that is significant and equally if not more dangerous than the religious right.

First of all, if  all of these hacks that whine about "seperation of church and state" or the apparent impending theocracy were truly afraid of something untoward happening,  they'd vote....Republican(or Libertarian).  Evangelicals may get mouthy and annoying at times, but the conservative variety typically work on changing your heart, not your government.  They may tell you that they don't like it that you're gay, but that whole limited government thing means that there will be no government funded stormtroopers kicking in your door and forcing you to de-cornhole(or whatever).

It's the religious left and their policies that a person has to be afraid of.  Think of the number of times a Democrat has talked about increasing the scope of government, instituting new laws, or giving more money to some social program or another, because it's "the Christian thing to do".  Pelosi on SCHIP,  Obama and Hillary courting the religious vote.  Liberals constantly talk about instituting government policy based on religious sentiment.  And yet the "Theocratic Scaremongers" keep voting for them...

Liberals make my brain hurt.  I'm going to go take a nap now.

with strong religious beliefs who lives them everyday, you get a George Washington, or a Harry Truman, or a Ronald Reagan. If you elect someone who belives that their religion is something to keep "private" and only thinks about it on sunday, you get a Bill Clinton.

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.