I have a feeling the two of you might be arguing the same point. The proper muslim prayer statement was likely sarcasm.
If Apos meant only using a pickup as a prop than I suppose my reply - if I would have bothered - would be ‘big deal.’ I thought he was discussing Thompson’s personality - which is genuine as far as I can tell. And yes, I’m from Tennessee.
No, but it’s a very good proxy because it’s the issue that seems to come up the most. Well over 50% support a constitutional amendment to allow prayer in school. Which party would be more likely to offer that up?
OK, I can agree that “pushing” might have been a loaded term. All that really matters is that Republican Politicians are, generally speaking, more apt to want more rather than less religion in the public sphere. And your pew cite addresses that general issue quite well. Look at the table “Religious Influence Growing or Shrinking” and then look at “On Government”. 51% say that religion’s influence is either growing and it’s a good thing or shrinking and it’s a bad thing. Turn it around and only 32% think it’s growing and it’s a bad thing or shrinking and it’s a good thing.
You can ask people the very generally question about separation of church and state, and you’ll get a high level of “yes, that’s a good thing”. But when you talk about specific policy issues, people want to be able to insert religion into public life more than the current conditions in the US allow.
What do you mean by “in general”? That may be true of embryonic stem cell research, but I don’t know about the other two. People want abortion to be legal, but most think there should be more restrictions. See above for SoCaS. But I’m only talking about SoCaS here.
Very true.
I did see that, and it suggests that the issue is complex. Even though people think the perceived shrinking role of religion is a bad thing, they still respond in favor of separation of church and state. Democrats do continue to be regarded negatively in religious terms, but it still seems to be the case that on specific issues, people like keeping religion out of government. Look at the Terri Shiavo thing. Republicans wagered that your opinion would hold true in that circumstance, and they were dead wrong.
T.S. was not an issue of SoCaS.
But maybe we can should get back to the original issue, which is whether that quote from FT would help or hurt him the general election:
I think most people would agree with this (RTF’s comment about the FF’s being confused about what a public school was notwithstanding-- they were a quick study, and I think they’d catch on fast). This is the classic prayer-in-school and 10 Cs issue.
Again, ring one up for FT. Most people disagreed with the most recent SCOTUS decision concerning the 10 Cs.
Well, I believe they were doing both, but I think more people would be either confused by this or agree with it than would disagree.
You’re probably right on that account. Although I think that the statement is incorrect wrt the FF’s opinions on the matter, many people seem to understand their positions differently than I do, and would probably agree.
I have more trouble believing that there would be wide agreement with the sentence that comes after the one. However, perhaps you are right, sadly, and a majority would agree that the intent is to protect the church from the state.
Here is where I think a push would be of use - helping to establish the opposing point of view and benefits of a strong separation of church and state, helping to describe the real ramifications of established prayer in school and so forth. It won’t come from the Democrats, and there is no secular organization equivalent to the Christian right. There are just too few crazy, rabid, wild-eyed secularlists!
I’m actually thinking the majority would be made up of people who 1) agreed with him or 2) didn’t understand what it meant. It’s one of those things you have to think about for awhile before you see what the implications are. I’m not so much saying this would help him, as it probably wouldn’t hurt him.
Well, there’s prayer in school and there’s prayer in school…
Prayer in school: OK, class, I want you all to stand up and say this prayer to Jesus with me.
Prayer in school: Welcome class of 2007! As the valedictorian, I’d like begin my speech with a prayer.
IMO, I don’t think the establishment clause, as written, is strong enough to prevent the second one. As an atheist myself, I prefer not to be subject to prayers. But there are a lot of things I prefer not to be subject to.
But he doesn’t drive a pickup truck. So driving somewhere in an SUV, getting out behind a building, getting into a pickup truck, and then driving a block to an event is just silly. He should stop doing it.
Thompson was also born a baby. That doesn’t mean he should walk into a meeting wearing only diapers and a bonnet and demand that a hot chick in the audience change him and pat his butt.
No, he probably shouldn’t. But goddamit, that would get my vote! 
Bye, bye Rudy!
Again I ask, which Republican Candidates do you think he hurts the most?
It seems to me he has the least effect on Rudy?
Can you tell me why you are sure he will beat Rudy for the nomination?
Jim
What I had in mind, in terms of explaning the full import of what prayer in school would mean would be the implications of giving official time and recognition to all prayers and religions equally.
I was thinking, specifically, of the Minneapolis Taxi Muslims, who have issues with alcohol, actually. My point on the matter is as follows: ‘Most’ of the people who answer that poll don’t think of religion of all except as a thing they do. Some of them obsess. The obsessive ones are those who would grab any ruling on the matter and force prayers for their religion on the rest. This would present some interesting results as soon as two obsessive sorts of different religions collide.
Further, I should state that freedom from religion is important, not least because the word ‘judeo-christian’ is complete bullshit. Jews and Christians have very little in common, in matters of faith. But moreso than that, our founding fathers came here not least to escape religious persecution, to follow their own faith in their own ways. Thus, to practice their religion, free from imposition of the religion of others.
And lo, my ancestors were there, the first Irish off the boat. And they were to practice their religion at the church the Pilgrims built. But the Pilgrims forced them out, despite agreements. So they built a new church. And the Pilgrims came and tore it down.
Another ancestor of mine was hung for witchcraft. Still in America, still due to religious faiths impinging on state actions. You know that story, I’m sure.
That is what Europe had. That is, in great parts, what the Founding Fathers sought to avoid. And they did.
It is not the minor matter to be allowed to worship in your own way, that we see as the great and golden goal of this land, but that we be allowed to do so, free of the impositions of other religions.
The Ten Commandments in every school… but whose? Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish? Blue laws, commanding no work on the Sabbath, imposed on Seventh Day Adventists?
Or would you mind being taught in the fashion of the Scientologists, and educated in science according to the creed of the Young Earth Creationists? All representative art of humans outlawed, according to the Muslim faith?
The government must be a neutral actor, for how else can they be equal to all faiths?
And thus, it must act in favor of no religion at all, not out of hatred for faith, but out of love for it.
Sorry about the hijack.
Forming an exploratory doesn’t make it official, although it’s yet another step in the process.
Amazingly, the intrade real-time markets have Thompson virtually tied with Guliani for first place now.
Rudy? I dare say he will siphon off more votes from McCain than Rudy. Stick a fork in McCain, he’s done.
Rudy is the guy that the Republicans are settling for since they don’t have a “real” conservative-- a Reagan conservative. When a “real” conservative shows up, the support for Rudy will be drawn away.
But that’s just MHO. What the fuck do I know?
Has Moore called for government run healthcare? Has any prominent U.S. politician ever called for such a thing? I only see Dems talking about a single payer system (aka socialized health insurance) like the rest of the industrialized Western democracies enjoy, except the U.K. and Spain IIRC, which is a different beast entirely.
Yes, Moore has called for government “controlled” healthcare (which is “run” enough for me).
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1622178,00.html
Uh-oh. So much for all the Fredmentum that had been building up.