I’ll bite, though I’m not one of those dudes.

People fail to neglect that Jefferson and them were a small minority in their deism — and that the country never was nor should be “theirs,” which even they would agree with. If the people want a religious country, they should get to have one. Most of the country in the eighteenth century was fiercely religious at the time, especially following the Great Awakening of the 1730s and 1740s. Much of what drove the independence movement and its fighters had nothing to do with taxes or issuing currency (which is really what the constitutional framers and writers of dec of ind had in mind) but with their idea of God’s covenant with the people of this land. Complete independence from England and its church (and of course Rome and its) would finish what those separatist calvinists had in mind when they left the netherlands and came to plymouth– divorce from a corrupt materialist society and the establishment of one dedicated purely to Christian principles, Winthrop’s “City upon a hill.” Whenever people get all flushed up about America, that is what they’re getting flushed up about, and that is, even for a hindu in america, a celebration of protestantism. To pretend that Protestantism is not central to the founding of America is plain wrong; America is nothing but an experiment in radical Protestantism. The “separation of church and state” is primarily a way to keep power away from clergymen and the pope.

Everything from the celebration of plainness in speech to the lack of ornamentation in architecture (other than for those pagan-loving people that made DC) in America is pure protestant.

romneyforpresident.townhall.com

Like Mormonism, the blog isn’t what it seems.

(Funny photos too.)

Yeah, I wonder along the same lines too. What if Clinton had remained zipped up in WH? What if Gore had actually won his home state Tennessee? What if the Democrats had actually done more about the disenfranchised black voters and vote fraud in FL? A Democrat senator had supported the black congressional caucus when they raised the issue of voter fraud? So many variables and they had more control over many of those variables than Nader.

Why focus on and hate one guy who actually has the balls to take a stand against corruption? If more people actually supported people like him instead of saying “Yeah, I agree, but he can’t win” (I’d be rich if I got a penny every time I heard that), maybe, just maybe things would be different. But it’s easier to blame others than to look in the mirror (though we can easily sing about it) – that’s a universal human nature, so I can understand why this canard still continues to live on, 7 years on. But I don’t agree with it.

I think democrats need to stop blaming Nader and look within themselves for why they blew an election against a spoiled self entitled brat like Son of Bush and Darth Cheney. If Buchanan got more votes, i doubt Repubs would have any case to blame him. Dems lost more votes because of overpaid lousy consultants who had no firm convictions. Lieberman was a total failure in the debate and failed to show Cheney for what he was. Democrats got lazy and expected to automatically win. Nader did not cost them the senate or house either. But I see Dems blame Nader for all the problems they have had since then. Even now, for 2008, they seem to be running hoping Bush keeps messing up instead of trying to offer any concrete solutions. Right now, i am resigned to Madame Hillary winning.

The intent of the American founders was that religion was clearly not to play a MANDATORY role in education or public life. Many studies have been done on this subject and the country become more publicly religious during the evanagelical years of the early-mid 19th century.