OT: Huckabee, Ughh

The total cost of the war to date is, according to sources opposed to the war, about 1/5 of the 2006 Federal budget.

But, imo, that violates the proscription clause from the other direction by eliminating free expression. (Again, I'm not promoting religion, simply pointing out that what is presently being practiced is _FAR_ different than the observations and intentions and actions of those involved in the beginning who established the rules as compared to the interpretations of present day.)

--

I've forgotten specifics of the timeline -- by the time of the Constitutional Convention there weren't any who still a requirement for membership/avowed following for rights though, were there (as opposed to the earlier colonies that were definitely controlling in all aspects)?

--

Regardless of who the candidates are going to be, this election is going to be bad for the country. There isn't a single candidate, Republican or Democrat, that is even worth a glance. They ALL suck. The guy that could lose the election for Republicans. IMHO, this question is not who to vote FOR, but who to vote AGAINST. That is a pretty sad.

To those who want to vote for Ron Paul, he is just the Ross Perot of

Wayne

Equating a scientific theory with an unsupported belief is not a sign of evenhandedness, it's a sign of ignorance.

So what? There isn't all that much difference between the Rs and the Ds anymore. Different dogs, same fleas...

And the *annual* cost of government social do-gooding/meddling is over 1/2 the Federal budget. The *real* source of our national debt is internal socialism, not external war...

But those rules were made by politicians in a land whose predominant culture was Protestant Christianity. There was a limit as to what they could say without losing all support. For example, if you read the private writings of Jefferson you'll find a much less benign view of religion.

Personal belief, yes. Separation and forbearance, also. A much more reasoned time overall in most respects. Sadly we have lost much of what makes for real debate.

Merely slapping "scientific" on a theory does not indicate something other than ignorance as well.......It takes no greater leap of faith to believe in religion than it does for a belief in evolution. There is absolutely no factual or observed basis of one specie becoming another nor is there any basis for life springing forth from a chemical soup......belief in either whether true or otherwise requires faith. Without these, evolution merely demonstrates (with reasonable proof) than a given organism can change or adapt.....a far cry from life springing forth from rocks and the problem as well of the origin of the rock....... Rod

Thank God!

Massachusetts was the last state to disestablish, in 1833. Prior to that time the Congregational Church was taxpayer supported in MA--I don't know offhand what other laws were in force.

Maybe they would have, but...just maybe, the worded it exactly as they did with the expectation that at some point, the new republic would have a majority of people who had brains enough to wipe their own tails. Unfortunately...

First, "life springing forth from rocks" is a straw man as this has nothing to do with evolution.

Second, there is a great deal of "factual or observed basis" including the ability to predict that specific forms should be found in the fossil record at specific depths within the rock strata.

This "one specie becoming another" business is another straw man--evolution doesn't hold that a chicken wakes up one morning and discovers that it's a turkey. One species doesn't become another, one species gives birth to offspring that are a bit different and after enough generations they are so different that they can no longer interbreed with the first species, at which point they have become a second species.

And it's funny, the major religions don't seem to have any trouble with evolution. It's the lunatic fringe mail order evangelicals that get all upset about it.

It's also pretty straight forward that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Yet what we've seen - at least on the Republican side

- is precisely that. Romney felt compelled to comment on his religious views, to tell the faithful that his Jesus was Jesusy enough. No matter. Iowa Republicans went with the most Christianly candidate they could find.

The Huckster's schtick isn't going to play here in the Northeast. He'll be crushed in New Hampshire. After that South Carolina get its shot. How do you think they'll vote? My guess is more Jesusry.

If the only thing that keeps you from killing ppl is a belief in an Invisible Sky King then, by all means, keep believing...