The Religious Left, Dean & the DNC, and our Republic.

Of course, but they're also representing that state's population. Which they should both take into account.

I'll ignore the poor attempts at humor.


If it's a poor attempt at humor maybe you didn't get it? Why else would the phrase, "That's what liberals do," be used? To appeal to the morons in their base to make it sound like they've really got a good argument.

 

I think you misunderstand the role of a representative. A representative is not supposed to simply reflect popular opinion but to do what he thinks is best.

Edmund Burke said it best:

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

He made that comment in 1774. Amazing how applicable it is today.

Kimball Kinnison

 

That's too personally directed. Isn't there a way to say you disagree with the view, without bringing the person into it?

 

And this is why...

 

Let me try it again, then.

Fire, I believe your use of "Jay-zus" is counter-productive. If you want to argue that politicians should be more sensitive to their constituents' various religious beliefs, you might not want to go out of your way to be insensitive to the religious beliefs of Christians.

It's not that I personally believe that every politician should be an evangelical Christian, but I am turned off by Democrats because -- as a party -- they strike me as group that doesn't understand religious people and doesn't want to understand. They strike me as a group that fears, loathes, and outright hates people who are devout in their beliefs. At best, the most they want to have to do with the devout is to fool them long enough to get their votes.

Every single time you do that "Jay-zus" schtick, it reinforces my opinion of you guys as fundamentally intolerant of religion.

 

It's not that I personally believe that every politician should be an evangelical Christian, but I am turned off by Democrats because -- as a party -- they strike me as group that doesn't understand religious people and doesn't want to understand. They strike me as a group that fears, loathes, and outright hates people who are devout in their beliefs. At best, the most they want to have to do with the devout is to fool them long enough to get their votes.

You seem to be deeply stricken by Democrats, Bubba. More to the point, most democratic politicians have a better understanding that America incoporates all religions into its society, therefor, to best represent the whole of society, they must not focus their politique on the wishes of a single outspoken religion. As a party, you neglect to note that this same group whom you say fears and loathes people with devout beliefs have within their own party groups of people who belong to various faiths. Contrary to your cut-and-paste soundbite ideals, the democratic party has representation from (I dare say) all religious groups. I'm of course not saying that the Rep party does not.

 

Bubba_the_Genius
Registered: Mar 02

Date Posted: 8:40am Subject: RE: The Religious Left, Dean & the DNC, and our Republic. - Date Edited: 8:44am (2 edits total) Edited By: Mr44

That's too personally directed. Isn't there a way to say you disagree with the view, without bringing the person into it?


Fire_Ice_Death
Registered: Feb 01

Date Posted: 8:43am Subject: RE: The Religious Left, Dean & the DNC, and our Republic. - Date Edited: 8:45am (1 edits total) Edited By: Mr44

And this is why...

Now that was funny.

 

Cheveyo, if -- during the month of December -- there is a manger in front of City Hall or a decorated tree within, members of which party are more likely to be foaming at the mouth demanding its removal?

 

Cheveyo, if -- during the month of December -- there is a manger in front of City Hall or a decorated tree within, members of which party are more likely to be foaming at the mouth demanding its removal?

Bubba, why did you not read my post? I will reiterate my sentence from above, so that you don't have to take the effort to scroll up--"More to the point, most democratic politicians have a better understanding that America incoporates all religions into its society, therefor, to best represent the whole of society, they must not focus their politique on the wishes of a single outspoken religion."

Never mind that the government body as a whole should recognize the need to remain secular. This is not a Democratic ideal. This is (or at least it was) an American ideal: the government has no place in a religious body, and religion has no place in a government representing all the people. Now, if our ideal was that our government doesn't represent "everyone", then you'd have a good argument for the manger. Right now, and for the past 229 years, our government has represented all people.

 

Bubba, why did you not read my post? I will reiterate my sentence from above, so that you don't have to take the effort to scroll up--"More to the point, most democratic politicians have a better understanding that America incoporates all religions into its society, therefor, to best represent the whole of society, they must not focus their politique on the wishes of a single outspoken religion."

I read it, but I didn't see its relevence. That a party shouldn't focus on one religion doesn't justify another party's efforts to remove religion from the public arena altogether.


Never mind that the government body as a whole should recognize the need to remain secular. This is not a Democratic ideal. This is (or at least it was) an American ideal: the government has no place in a religious body, and religion has no place in a government representing all the people. Now, if our ideal was that our government doesn't represent "everyone", then you'd have a good argument for the manger. Right now, and for the past 229 years, our government has represented all people.

"This is (or at least it was) an American ideal: the government has no place in a religious body, and religion has no place in a government representing all the people."

You have a sever misunderstanding of American history. I quote from the Congressional bill that reaffirms "under God" in the pledge:

(1) On November 11, 1620, prior to embarking for the shores of America, the Pilgrims signed the Mayflower Compact that declared: `Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian Faith and honor of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia,'.

(2) On July 4, 1776, America's Founding Fathers, after appealing to the `Laws of Nature, and of Nature's God' to justify their separation from Great Britain, then declared: `We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'.

(3) In 1781, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and later the Nation's third President, in his work titled `Notes on the State of Virginia' wrote: `God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God. That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.'.

(4) On May 14, 1787, George Washington, as President of the Constitutional Convention, rose to admonish and exhort the delegates and declared: `If to please the people we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God!'.

(5) On July 21, 1789, on the same day that it approved the Establishment Clause concerning religion, the First Congress of the United States also passed the Northwest Ordinance, providing for a territorial government for lands northwest of the Ohio River, which declared: `Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.'.

(6) On September 25, 1789, the First Congress unanimously approved a resolution calling on President George Washington to proclaim a National Day of Thanksgiving for the people of the United States by declaring, `a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a constitution of government for their safety and happiness.'.

(7) On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address on the site of the battle and declared: `It

 

If an "artist" wants to submerge a crucifix in urine or smear an image of the virgin Mary with feces, which party is more likely to demand that this work of "art" be funded with taxpayers' money?

Presumably both parties should if it was created as part of a government program supporting artists. However, connies will get their panties in a bunch every time.

 

I read it, but I didn't see its relevence.

Funny, I thought the notion of fighting to represent "all" instead of "one" was very relevant to your notion that dem's fight to prevent "one" from being seen as higher than "all". Dopey me.

That a party shouldn't focus on one religion doesn't justify another party's efforts to remove religion from the public arena altogether.

That is a gross misrepresentation of fact. To do what you are suggesting is to violate the Constitution. Prove that a legitmate party has attempted to remove religion from the public arena altogether.

As I said, government does not belong in religion, and religion does not belong in government in this nation. The public can do whatever the heck it wants in relation to theology and faith (as long as they don't trample the rights of others); the government must remain secular--that is: absent from religious affiliation.

And your list? Pfft. The Congressional Bill was written [by Christians] because the court of appeals had already ruled that it was a violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has yet to hear the argument, so this is not the final outcome.

You want to tell me that strict, absolute secularism is consistent with this country's history? Sorry: I know better than that.

If this government was not to be separated from god, why is "God" nowhere to be found in the US Constitution, our core laws? Why can no law be held valid if it does not pass the Lemon test?

Why is this, do you think?

You ignored that question, choosing instead (ironically) to accuse me of not reading your post.

Had you been reading, like I asked you too in the first place, you'd see I did answer. That's two posts you chose not to read. Do you intend me to take this personally? Here, I'll quote again my answer above:

"I will reiterate my sentence from above, so that you don't have to take the effort to scroll up--"More to the point, most democratic politicians have a better understanding that America incoporates all religions into its society, therefor, to best represent the whole of society, they must not focus their politique on the wishes of a single outspoken religion."

I have a follow-up question.

If an "artist" wants to submerge a crucifix in urine or smear an image of the virgin Mary with feces, which party is more likely to demand that this work of "art" be funded with taxpayers' money?

To better answer this question, I must ask two qualifying questions:
1) Is the government funding the artwork, or the facility?
1a) If you answer "the facility" (as you should if you want to be correct), then I ask, does the government have the authority to govern what is displayed in this facility?
2) Is this "art" to be displayed in a governmment office or building as a representation of the beliefs and ideals of this government?

If you say yes to Question 1 or 2, then my answer to your question is: "no party would seek taxpayer funding".

If your answer is no to both questions, then your answer should be self-evident, given the laws established in accordance with the Constitution.

 

Presumably both parties should if it was created as part of a government program supporting artists. However, connies will get their panties in a bunch every time.

I'm sure that if a government program produced art that was actually respectful of a particular religion, liberals would never raise the spectre of theocracy and lay claim to a fictitious American history in which government and religion had absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Fire illustrates precisely why the "religious left" within the current Democratic party is a stillborn revolution: if you want to put a crucifix in a jar of urine, they want to make sure that taxpayers pay for it. If you want to put a privately funded manger on public grounds, they want to remove it. To that party and its supporters, blasphemy is not just a protected form of free expression (and it is), it's something that deserves government funding. But actual faith is something that should be banished from the public sphere altogether.

We can debate the pro's and con's of such positions, but expecting a "religious left" to rise from that is like expecting a legion of early twentieth-century women to oppose suffrage. In both cases, a political group undercuts its legitimacy even to exist in the political realm.


Cheveyo:

Funny, I thought the notion of fighting to represent "all" instead of "one" was very relevant to your notion that dem's fight to prevent "one" from being seen as higher than "all". Dopey me.

Dopey you, the Dems aren't fighting to represent all: they're fighting to ensure that no religious voices are heard.


That is a gross misrepresentation of fact. To do what you are suggesting is to violate the Constitution. Prove that a legitmate party has attempted to remove religion from the public arena altogether.

What would you call what you are attempting to do right now? What would you call the furor over mangers on public property, even alongside menorahs and Islamic symbols?


As I said, government does not belong in religion, and religion does not belong in government in this nation. The public can do whatever the heck it wants in relation to theology and faith (as long as they don't trample the rights of others); the government must remain secular--that is: absent from religious affiliation.

And your list? Pfft. The Congressional Bill was written [by Christians] because the court of appeals had already ruled that it was a violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has yet to hear the argument, so this is not the final outcome.

So you deny, for instance, this?

On July 21, 1789, on the same day that it approved the Establishment Clause concerning religion, the First Congress of the United States also passed the Northwest Ordinance, providing for a territorial government for lands northwest of the Ohio River, which declared: `Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.'

It never happened? It doesn't matter? It has absolutely no effect on your spurious claim that strict secularism is supported by over two centuries of American history?


If this government was not to be separated from god, why is "God" nowhere to be found in the US Constitution, our core laws?

The Constitution mentions the "blessing of liberty." Blessings are gifts; the Giver is implied.

And. if you would read the list to which you say, "Pfft," you would note that the Constitution refers to "the year of our Lord."


Why can no law be held valid if it does not pass the Lemon test?

Funny, I can't seem to find the word "Lemon" in the Constitution...


By the way, I read your little comment the first time and the second time. After the second time, I asserted that I didn't see the relevence, AND YOU RESPONDED.

Since you responded to my response, I think it's silly for you to continue acting as

 

the Dems aren't fighting to represent all: they're fighting to ensure that no religious voices are heard.

Bubba . . . *I'm* religious. I also vote Democrat. I've also been accused of talking just to hear the sound of my own voice. So there you go.

The religious left has a long and proud tradition in the U.S., from the colonial abolitionists, to the "child savers" of the 19th century, who helped get 6-year-olds off the factory floor, to the people who marched with Martin Luther King at Selma.

If any of you want to know what the religious left has done for you lately, go down to the scuzziest urban area you can find, and walk into the storefront churches, youth drop-in centers, charter schools, and social service offices. You are going to see religious symbols on the jewelry, clothes, cars, and tattooed skin of a lot of the people who work there. Most of them also vote Democrat, and lean liberal in the old-fashioned, RFK sense of that term. They are, first of all, doing those jobs so you don't have to. They're doing them on the serious cheap, to make the best use of your tax and tax-deductible charitable contribution dollars. They're also rehabilitating the crackhead who will not carjack you next year; keeping the could-be drug dealer in school, where he'll learn to do something besides push drugs on your kids in ten years; giving prenatal care and parenting classes to the teen mother who will not raise a brain-damaged, emotionally scarred child who will end up shooting a teenager you know; and giving medical care and vaccinations to the baby who will not end up living on Social Security disability for the rest of its life, thus costing the taxpayers more money than most of them will ever make in their lives.

The religious left is very much alive and well, Harry Reid or no Harry Reid.

 

Dopey you, the Dems aren't fighting to represent all: they're fighting to ensure that no religious voices are heard.

Didn't take long for you to begin the flaming, Bubba. You usually hold out a little longer.
And in your opinion, "they're fighting to ensure that no religious views are heard" where? In the public? In law? In the bathroom? Please be specific and give evidence proving such an accusation.


What would you call what you are attempting to do right now?

I would call it fighting against an irrational train of thought hell-bent on turning the country into a theocracy.

What would you call the furor over mangers on public property, even alongside menorahs and Islamic symbols?

Furor? I would call the furor the expression of free speech, as I would call the displays themselves on private property. On public property, however, when paid for by tax dollars, such displays do not represent the entirety of the taxpaying public, and is thus discriminatory. This includes Menorahs, etc. Christmas trees are of course exempt because they have no direct religous content or iconography. The courts agree.

So you deny, for instance, this?

`Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.'

Absolutely not. Take a close look at the sentence you just quoted. Look specifically at the words "religion" and "encouraged". Does it say "God"? How about "Christianity"? It says only that religion should be encouarged. I readily agree that religion has benefits to the community. My point is that the government not take sides in religion, especially when dealing with more than one, as this nation does with it's MANY religious communities.

And, of course, I won't bother to ask your opinion of the rest of Article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance, and the truth behind those words:

Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.

Anyting strange pop out about this Article? I don't know. Seems to me that something in this article is nothing more than empty words...

It never happened?

What never happened?

It doesn't matter?

Read the full Article 3 and ask me that again with a straight face.

It has absolutely no effect on your spurious claim that strict secularism is supported by over two centuries of American history?

As I noted above, there is no mention of a specific religion; so no, it has no effect on my valid interpretation that religion and government must remeain separate.

The Constitution mentions the "blessing of liberty." Blessings are gifts; the Giver is implied.

The "giver" as you call it could be nature or the cosmic dust of the universe, for all the detail "Blessing" gives. A blessing is not an exclusively religious term or act. Have you not heard of a father giving his blessing to a prospective son-in-law? "Blessing" has no implication, other than we as humans possess liberty. As possession must originate from somewhere, "blessing of liberty" could just as easily be read as a nod of gratitude for those who fought to break from England and form this nation.

And. i

 

Cheveyo, I'll devote more time to a more thorough answer later, but...

Didn't take long for you to begin the flaming, Bubba.

I was not flaming -- or at least, it was not my intent to appear to do so. Look at the context of what I wrote

Funny, I thought the notion of fighting to represent "all" instead of "one" was very relevant to your notion that dem's fight to prevent "one" from being seen as higher than "all". Dopey me.

Dopey you, the Dems aren't fighting to represent all: they're fighting to ensure that no religious voices are heard.

I was merely responding to your sarcasm in kind.


ophelia, very quickly, I don't doubt that the religious left is alive and well, but I doubt it can possibly be a political force within a party that actively seeks to remove all religion from politics.

 

I see the context--I forgot I wrote that!--and I apologize for taking it as a flame.

Feel free to call me dopey any time, Bubba. We all know the level of intelligence of lack.

 

EDIT: I see the context--I forgot I wrote that!--and I apologize for taking it as a flame.

Apology accepted and very much appreciated.


I have a little more time, Cheveyo, so let me reply to a little bit more, though I will admit I'm still not going to give your post all the time I could.


First, it appears you're going to insist that the Northwest Ordinance include the word "God." You insist that if "there is no mention of a specific religion," then "and government must remeain separate."

And you ask, "If this government was not to be separated from god, why is 'God' nowhere to be found in the US Constitution, our core laws?"

Fine.

I well know about the Lemon Test, but since it isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, I won't acknowledge its relevence. If "God" must be in the Constitution for religion to have a role, "Lemon" must be in the Constitution for the Lemon Test to be necessary.

If you don't like that bit of hair-splitting, too bad: what's good for the goose, etc.

(EDIT: To be clear, I'm not being a smartass for its own sake, at least this time. I don't think it's absolutely necessary for the U.S. Constitution to invoke a/the name of God Almighty to allow some religion within government.)


Now, allow me to ask for a clarification:

(1)Is the government funding the artwork, or the facility?
(1a)If you answer "the facility" (as you should if you want to be correct), then I ask, does the government have the authority to govern what is displayed in this facility?
(2)Is this "art" to be displayed in a governmment office or building as a representation of the beliefs and ideals of this government?

If you say yes to Question 1 or 2, then my answer to your question is: "no party would seek taxpayer funding".

Question 1 is not a yes/no question, so I'm not sure why I would say yes or no to it.


I think the point I was making with my question is valid. The party that lent the most support to the NEA's funding of "Piss Christ" was the Democratic party. As you are now proving, the party that is most opposed to any invocation of religion in the public arena is also the Democratic party.

 

Parting thought before dinner:

Not every government with a police force is a police state.

Not every government with a military is militaristic.

Likewise, not every government that invokes religion is a theocracy. Hardly anyone would look at the Church of England and conclude that the U.K. is a theocracy.

I believe that Amendment I prevents a theocracy and official state churches like the Church of England, but I simply do not believe it further imposes a strict "wall of separation" between the government and religion. The idea that American history proves such a strict separation is, in my view, revisionism.

But ALL of this is beside the point. It is irrelevant to this particular thread whether the Constitution requires strict secularism.

What matters is this: the Democratic party believes it does.

As long as that is the case, I doubt that the religious left will wield a great deal of power and influence within the party. And I can't imagine that they will attract many new people.

ophelia is correct that the religous left "has a long and proud tradition in the U.S.," but that tradition has been with political parties that acknowledge that religion has some role in the realm of the political. I can't imagine that tradition being continued in a party that will welcome your vote but wants to silence your belief.

Essentially, when I see the Democratic party, I see a political party that wants all sorts of sexual behavior to be not only legal but also normalized and even praised in "pride" parades. I see a party that wants offensive "art" not only legal but also subsidized through NEA grants.

And I see a party that wants every hint of religion out of the public forum.

That's not the sort of party that energizes religious groups for their cause. On the contrary, it probably demoralizes religious groups within and galvanizes the religious groups that oppose them.

 

the Dems aren't fighting to represent all: they're fighting to ensure that no religious voices are heard.

They are fighting against a concentrated, well-funded effort to force everyone to speak with ONE religious voice: that of the "Christianity" espoused by Robertson, Falwell, and their ilk.

(I used quotation marks around Christianity because I do not believe that what Robertson, Falwell, and their ilk preach resembles the teachings of Jesus even faintly.)

And it's not always Democrats who are fighting against it. There are some bona fide conservatives who are alarmed by the raging bigotry and hate -- not to mention greed -- wrapped in the cloak of Christianity, preached by Robertson, Falwell, and their ilk, and don't want to see it become the law of the land.

 

the Dems aren't fighting to represent all: they're fighting to ensure that no religious voices are heard.

Oh c'mon! Do you honestly believe that Bubba? Because there's not even an inch of truth to it. I hold nothing but contempt for today's interpretations of religion, and I can't say I think too highly of people that blindly follow major religions, but I would fight until my last breath to make sure you people have the right to worship whatever you want to worship. Because who the hell am I to tell people what they can and can't do when it doesn't hurt others? I don't want to impose my beliefs onto people, I don't want the government to have an atheist agenda, I just don't want people like you to impose their religious beliefs onto others. I can say with all the certainty in the world that that's the same belief that most "liberals" have, I've rarely if ever heard a liberal actually want to impose their liberal beliefs onto people like you.

I don't understand why that's so hard for you guys to understand. But, I guess it's always easier to impose your beliefs onto others when you perceive it as being defensive. Every terrible thing throughout history has been justified that way, no different here.

 

the Dems aren't fighting to represent all: they're fighting to ensure that no religious voices are heard.

If the democrats really wanted that every Christian would've been fed to the lions during the Clinton administration.

 

Bubba wrote: ophelia, very quickly, I don't doubt that the religious left is alive and well, but I doubt it can possibly be a political force within a party that actively seeks to remove all religion from politics.

But these people are part of the Democrats' core constituency. They may not be madly in love with every plank in the DNC's platform (who is, or the RNC's either?), but they vote heavily Democratic. John Kerry did better in Detroit that he did in most of Massachusetts, and it was the local do-gooder types who voted. How can they not be a political force when in many areas the urban do-gooder vote is almost synonymous with the Democratic vote? (Not that there aren't secular do-gooder types.)

The Democratic Party does not talk as publicly about religion, and one reason for that is that there are so many different belief systems represented within the party. Jews vote heavily Democratic. African-American Evangelicals vote heavily Democratic. White, upper-middle-class Unitarians vote heavily Democratic. So, traditionally, have most immigrant groups, who bring the religions and customs of their home countries with them. Up until recently, Arab-American Muslims have tended to vote Republican, but Bush's policies in the Middle East have turned a lot of them off. Whether this will be an enduring trend remains to be seen, but for the moment, the Democrats have the white liberal mainline Christian vote, the non-white Evangelical vote, the Jewish vote, the Muslim vote, the "other" vote, and the secular vote. Some of these groups--notably Jews and Muslims, Evangelicals and secularists, are not known for getting along. I don't think it's possible for the Democratic Party to have a cohesive, across-the-board religious message the way the Republican party does. If the DNC's high-level strategists prefer to excise religious content from the party's official statements, there are some compelling reasons why. ("Good afternoon to the Women's Zionist Organization of America and the Midwest Association of Shia Organized Muslims. So . . . how was the bus ride in? Heh-heh-heh . . . uhh, yeah.")

However, I think there has been some undue pressure put on individual politicians to downplay the role of religion in their lives, especially when the religion of those particular politicians is too "mainstream," and therefore suspiciously Republican. The fear seems to be that religious mainline Protestants will be viewed as kind of sleeper cells for the opposition, and that somebody with too much in common with the majority of Americans will be too polarizing. (What?) This is despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence showing this is true. We had a two-term white Southern Baptist president within recent memory, and he was not shy about discussing religious issues. If the Democratic Party's constituency is so fragmented and mutually antagonistic that half of them will bolt when a candidate reveals that he is one of "them," how do you explain the fact that the party has managed to remain in existence for over 200 years? Democrats do nothing but vote for "them"--you will not find another political party in the U.S., large or small, in which people are more likely to find themselves voting for a candidate who is not of their race, religion, gender, or national origin. The party that lives or dies by a policy of openness to people of all racial and ethnic persuasions is going to keel over and die from religious diversity?

If I were running the DNC, which I'm not, despite repeated faxes to their personnel office, I would play up religious diversity for all it's worth. Everybody knows the Democratic Party is actually a collection of little sub-constituencies; this is not a secret. Candidates who understand this often do very well, at least regionally. The people who vote for Jesse Jackson are not the people who vote for Howard Dean, who are not the people who vote for Harry Reid. The unity that the Democratic Party already doesn't have is not going to be exploded if candidates feel as

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>More to the point, most democratic politicians have a better understanding that America incoporates all religions into its society<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

America does NOT incorporate all religions into its society. It is a CHRISTIAN nation. It has always been a Christian nation. That doesnt stop other people from having the freedom to practice their own religions, but it is Christmas holidays that are national holidays, not Jewish or Muslim holidays.

 

And do you think that this runs for or against the idea of freedom, rpeugh?

Just how does that sound to those of us who aren't Christian?

This nation may only honor Christmas holidays as federal ones, but I think a strong argument can be made that we are a secular nation that has a majority christian population. The way you phrased your above post makes it sound like non-Christians are only welcome here at the suffrance of the Christians.

Nothing could be further than the truth.

Peace,

V-03