“mixing of faith and state, and me passing you onto a link would alter your support for her, just like that.”

Yes it would. You see because I’m not a partisan nut-bag. So any time you want to pass along that proof… or link….

I’ll wait right here.

Because when Barry O. brings God into the picture, it’s to rubber-stamp His name on that healthcare thing. And that’s peachy.

After all: “We are God’s partners in matters of life and death.” But that’s different, because… um… er…

obama doing the same may be ‘peachy’ to some, but i find it as annoying as palin/any one else doing it.

you know what you’re right, i made it all up. she’s never referred to god when talking about the war or even a gas pipeline.

And she’s the first American politician to ever mention God. Right?

You mention God in front of a liberal and it’s practically Pavlovian the way the seething hatred kicks in, but I forgot, only religious people can be hate-filled, so perhaps I’m confused.

You also can’t use a person’s positions to claim a religious bias unless they’ve flat out claimed that their reasons are in fact religious. Did it ever occur that a person might prefer abstinence because it’s literally the ONLY 100% sure way of avoiding pregnancy or an STD? Or that they may be against gay marriage because they believe the law clearly states a marriage is between a man and a woman? There are reasons to support these positions beyond ‘God wouldn’t like it’, and implying that every person who holds them does so out of some religious belief is pretty narrow-minded (especially coming from a guy bitching about getting pigeon-holed himself).

Beyond that, even if she was making religious comments, what harm does it do beyond pissing off people like you? Bush did more to aid Africa than any American President before him, if he’d referred to that as ‘Doing God’s work’, that would somehow be offensive? Your stance seems predicated on the notion that religion is inherently evil and should thus be kept completely from the public arena. Never mind that churches are responsible for more charitable contributions than any single country on Earth, or their benefits to the communities around them? Since you obviously don’t like the church and the government getting in bed together, I suppose we should shut down all the community soup kitchens, boys and girls clubs, and battered womens’ shelters they run as well?

What about the simple implication a lack of God would mean for the entire structure of our manner of government? Every founding father signed a document saying that rights were given to man by a Divine Creator, and that men then relinquished some of those rights willingly to the government in order to establish national order for the common good. When you remove God from the equation then by definition the only rights you get are the ones the government LETS you have. Those rights are no longer inalienable because there is no higher authority than the government to regulate human avarice.

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

- John Adams

What a bunch of crap.

pastafarian, your on the internet- i know there is a load of non-fact based info on here, but seriously!
making it up? what would be the point in that? you believe/support/reject who want based on your personal discovery and research, and i’ll do likewise.

So…. Prove it and I’ll be with you. Otherwise, QUIT MAKING S-IT UP.