<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> Wright is just the issue du jour over the last week to use in order to save their partisan face.<p><hr></blockquote><p> Interesting view. Watching the Daily Show and seeing all the clips of Republican attack dogs (one was Karl Rove! Is he a hired talking head somewhere?), saying "this could be very harmful". "this has legs", "could be a mortal wound to candidacy", "the middle class white will run from him", it sure is one hell of an issue du jour. <br><br>The only news I watch is through the Daily Show and that's usually saved up for the weekends so I am always behind on the video news cycle so it may look like more of a concerted effort than it is.<br><br>If it is a concerted effort it is a good ploy. A little more doubt and Clinton remains in the game and the Democrats continue squabbling for another month.<br><br>But I think they overplayed their hand and they over estimate the stupidity and racism of America. We aren't that stupid and we aren't that racist that we fear the words of one fiery preacher turning all who listen to him into hate whitey zombies. The only people who seem to be taken in by this ridiculous proposition are the 27 percenters. That segment of the population who still think all that is Bush is grand and that we we are planting flags of democracy in Iraq. Not Obama's base. Reading MacOSXAddict's post that he knows now who to vote for is better and more refreshing news than anything I have read in months. A rational and pragmatic person listens to a candidate explain his position and decides without listening to the spin. Could that be a trend?<br><br>God damn America, I think you have a chance!<br><br>

I know, that Zippy picture totally grosses me out too.<br><br>

7 months from now, the election will be held. that's a long, long time and as NK says, this is just the issue of the day. heck, 7 months ago i was reading that Rudy would beat Hillary if the election were held that day. what a difference 7 months can make. <br><br>

7 months or 28 weeks or 210 days. I can't believe they can come up with a new soup of the day for that long. The plan must be a new soup of the week. 28 soups.<br><br>1) Obama's preacher says god damn.<br>2) Obama is really a muslim<br>3) Did you hear Obama is black?<br>4) Black dad white mom. Picture the wedding night while looking at your white daughter.<br>5) B Hussein O plans to give back Iraq to the terrorists.<br>6) BO married a black woman.<br>... This is easy. I can get to 28 no problem.<br><br><br><br><br>

<br>[color:white]. . .</font color=white>"sssh...'B.O.' has Body Odor!" <br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>

What's with these US politicians referencing religion over and over in their speeches? Hello, this is the 21st century!<br><br>[i]Check out my sites on ads and design.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by iraszl on 03/21/08 10:31 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>

In a strange way, it's a part of American political tradition and every president has done it since the beginning of the 20th century. Maybe one day our political establishment will get back to honoring church and state separation, but right now we just have to be satisfied with the reference here and there.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U

"get back to honoring church and state separation"<br><br>When did we ever get "to" church and state separation?<br><br>Isn't referencing religion (or God, at least) a part of American political tradition since the beginning, like, say, the Declaration of Independence?<br><br>I think the term "church and state separation" is a little misleading, anyway, since there has never been any one denomination which has attempted to make itself THE state religion of the United States. So in that sense there has always been the separation. But if you mean separation of God and state, that never really got a foothold until the mid-twentieth century, when the Supreme Court attempted to make it the law of the land.<br><br>Better check your history if you think the U.S. had separation of God and state in the 19th or 18th century.<br><br>GBR (OFI)

Once upon a time, Christian Evangelicals were the greatest proponants of keeping the government out of the affairs of their church and vice versa. The principles were that the presence of one would surely taint the other either through unwanted government control over worship or the faithful limiting our nation's liberties. Although reference for God has been shorthand in American political tradition for some kind of shared value system, it wasn't until the various communist scares that we started putting God's name on everything.<br><br>To say that we have never achieved some of our Constitutional values is true, but it is not an excuse to give up on principles that large parts of our country did have.<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U

I'm just saying that "separation of church and state" only began to be used widely in the 1950s when the Supreme Court borrowed a phrase from a letter by Thomas Jefferson. Then in the 1960s the concept of removing reference to God in all public matters was established so that now even a prayer before a football game is "unconstitutional."<br><br>"In God We Trust" first appeared on U.S. coins in 1840, not in the 1950s. Grade school primers in the 19th century regularly used Bible scriptures to teach reading. Presidents from Washington on would publicly thank God. Thanksgiving was established in the 19th century as a holiday to thank God for his many blessings. The truth has been washed from our history classes if people now believe that God in government began in the 1950s because of some conjured up "communist scare." In fact, since the collapse of the Soviet empire, documentation has been obtained showing how extensive the Soviet attempts were to infiltrate, undermine, and steal classified information from the U.S. While some may have overreacted to communism, the threat was real. Whatever you think on that, it sure wasn't the beginning of God being brought into government and public institutions. People have fought against things like the removal of the Ten Commandments from courthouses because things like that used to be acceptable in previous years, not just something that started in the 1950s.<br><br>And today, some people seem to think we're a country established under freedom from religion and not freedom of religion. <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>GBR (OFI)