The overlying problem is exactly that Huckabee (and Romney as well) are attempting to use their faith to be elected to what is a secular office.

I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state, when it comes to civic legislation. I have no issues with public displays of faith, prayer in schools (led by individual students, teachers, etc...). What I have a problem with is legislation based on religion, and that is what Huckabee and Romney are promising the base they will do.

Huckabee is running as a "Christian Leader", so he represents one of the hundreds of religious groups in our country. Think there are a lot of devout Catholics who want a Baptist minister running the count...

The overlying problem is exactly that Huckabee (and Romney as well) are attempting to use their faith to be elected to what is a secular office.

I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state, when it comes to civic legislation. I have no issues with public displays of faith, prayer in schools (led by individual students, teachers, etc...). What I have a problem with is legislation based on religion, and that is what Huckabee and Romney are promising the base they will do.

Huckabee is running as a "Christian Leader", so he represents one of the hundreds of religious groups in our country. Think there are a lot of devout Catholics who want a Baptist minister running the country? How about Lutherans? Methodists? My issue is that this pandering has become so blatant that it is almost being overlooked.

The overlying problem is exactly that Huckabee (and Romney as well) are attempting to use their faith to be elected to what is a secular office.

And perhaps you can back that up with the constitution? It isn't a secular office any more than it is a religious office. It is an office, like this country, where you have a freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state

I am a firm believer in the constitution. You know, the one that says congress shall make no law establishing a religion or any laws restricting it's free exercise, but says nothing about any wall?

Romney and Huck may be hiding their votin...

The overlying problem is exactly that Huckabee (and Romney as well) are attempting to use their faith to be elected to what is a secular office.

And perhaps you can back that up with the constitution? It isn't a secular office any more than it is a religious office. It is an office, like this country, where you have a freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state

I am a firm believer in the constitution. You know, the one that says congress shall make no law establishing a religion or any laws restricting it's free exercise, but says nothing about any wall?

Romney and Huck may be hiding their voting records behind their beliefs, but they have just as much right to those beliefs as you do to yours.

You are absolutely right, the constitution does not place an absolute wall between religion and government. The separation of church and state is a practice, not a constitutional writ.

However, the founders, many of whom were devoutly religious, recognized the necessity of a government that would legislate along religious lines (hence the constitutional mandate against establishing religion). Hucky and Romney are completely free to have their beliefs and practice them as they choose. What they do not have the right to do is use governmental power to enact legislation based on their faith.

The Constitution dictates the rule of law in this country, not the rule of religious morality. I a...

You are absolutely right, the constitution does not place an absolute wall between religion and government. The separation of church and state is a practice, not a constitutional writ.

However, the founders, many of whom were devoutly religious, recognized the necessity of a government that would legislate along religious lines (hence the constitutional mandate against establishing religion). Hucky and Romney are completely free to have their beliefs and practice them as they choose. What they do not have the right to do is use governmental power to enact legislation based on their faith.

The Constitution dictates the rule of law in this country, not the rule of religious morality. I am also a firm believer in the constitution. I am not against religion (though I am not religious), nor am I for any kind of pc crap that prevents religious expresison. What I am against is legislation that frames my civil rights in terms of a relgious ethic that I don't ascribe to.

Again, you are correct, religious beliefs are not secondary to secular ones. I am not trying to devalue religious beliefs, not in any way shape or form.

Yet, if religious beliefs are enshrined within the laws of the country, does that not in effect equal a government establishment of religion? If women's health rights (such as access to birth control and abortion) are terminated because Christians, Jews, Muslims etc... do not believe in them and their religious morality is the basis for said legislation, then that legislator is effectively enshrining their religious beliefs into the law of a government that allows for no establishment of religious doctrine. If the law is enacted then the...

Again, you are correct, religious beliefs are not secondary to secular ones. I am not trying to devalue religious beliefs, not in any way shape or form.

Yet, if religious beliefs are enshrined within the laws of the country, does that not in effect equal a government establishment of religion? If women's health rights (such as access to birth control and abortion) are terminated because Christians, Jews, Muslims etc... do not believe in them and their religious morality is the basis for said legislation, then that legislator is effectively enshrining their religious beliefs into the law of a government that allows for no establishment of religious doctrine. If the law is enacted then the government (from the top down) is actively endorsing the views of that religion.

Additionally, I am not a secularist. I do not actively support the removal of religion from our society. I have no desire to see religion erased (as a true secularist would).

I do believe that laws that govern the believer and non-believer alike should treat both fairly and not enforce one groups beliefs over the others. Simply put, I believe there is a place for everyone in our society, however, I would not want to see legislation that would limit any expression of religious belief.

The constitution was setup to protect a persons right to practice their religion and prevent government intrusion into that practice (as long as it fell within the accepted laws of society), not the oth...

Additionally, I am not a secularist. I do not actively support the removal of religion from our society. I have no desire to see religion erased (as a true secularist would).

I do believe that laws that govern the believer and non-believer alike should treat both fairly and not enforce one groups beliefs over the others. Simply put, I believe there is a place for everyone in our society, however, I would not want to see legislation that would limit any expression of religious belief.

The constitution was setup to protect a persons right to practice their religion and prevent government intrusion into that practice (as long as it fell within the accepted laws of society), not the other way around. The first amendment is written specifically to prevent government endorsement of religious doctrine.