Bloodless Coup

So there shouldn't be a religious test on holding office, but there should be on having freedom? Like I said, this thing makes no sense (and he's an odious, self-serving chameleon).

As if religion is any kind of prerequisite. That's why those framers worked so hard to give us rule of fucking law. Please. Every political system in the the history of human kind had religion. And when did we start getting serious freedom? Hmmm?

UPDATE: Further stupidity:

Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government.

On the latter, yes, I acknowledge that liberty is not an indulgence of government. An indulgence? But shameful, SHAMEFUL of him to call liberty in this country a gift from God.

But, you know, it played with the home team.

Update again: Sully spots a photo op. Ew. Just, really, ew.

As disgusting as the entire thing is, its completely ridiculous to say that religion can't exist without freedom. Religion usually does BETTER without it and has existed for most of human history without any kind of conceptions of liberty.

A reaction to the atheists aren't real citizens aspect. Via Sully.

I can only look at this tripe a little at a time. I've now seen the part on secular. I would say that he's uninformed about what secular really means, but I really doubt that. Put on your hip waders:

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

Who is this mysterious "they" anyway?

he's going to have to define "public life" to me before i consider this statement anything other than convenient claptrap with no intrinsic substance. but then it is claptrap with no intrinsic substance. and anyway, if religion has a place in "public life," why he is so evasive about his (contingent on whether his definition of "public life" makes obvious the propriety of an electorate quizzing candidates on their faiths, which either it does or its, itself, hollow). i'd really like to see the party that coined the epithet "flip-flopper" banish from its midst all who fit that bill. i think that leaves ron paul and maybe huckabee. maybe.

"Every political system in the the history of human kind had religion."

Governments based upon the teachings of Karl Marx and Chairman Mao don't have religion. Are those better directions for our country? Do they promise more freedom?

Actually, they did. Both in the sense that they were continuations of earlier systems closely integrated with national religious practice and in that religion did not die, despite being restricted. You should really check out that recent bio of Mao, which shows that he was just another thug exploiting traditional kinds of power, rather than a revolutionary. Right up your alley.

Try listening to what I say, the words I use. I didn't say the political systems of the Soviet Union and China. I said governments based upon the teachings of Mao and Marx. They teach that religion is the opiate, that religion is poison. I don't deny there are thugs out there so invested in gaining power that they're willing to act as though they are religious to get their votes, or to turn people's better religious angels against them by convincing them that national identity requires inequity (America really is better than Mexico) or that national defense is violent and, therefore, cannot be moral. What I deny is that a government like that is one that's based on freedom. Such governments are by their nature based on control, and, as you say, exploitation.

I heard what you said. And the systems that were set up were not based on the teachings of Marx, but rather on traditional, long-established thuggery given a thin veneer of jargon. Kind of like what the Bush administration does and then calls it "Christian."

Although, on further reflection, I suppose that hierarchical thuggery fits right in with a long tradition within Christianity, so, I suppose Bush doesn't fully deserve that criticism, after all.