Is the Republican/or Democratic party guilty of misleading Christians to get their votes?

Question

Have you learned or not learned that there is a seperation of Church and State?

Answer 1

political party allegiance is slowly taking precedence over the issues. i believe they shovel whatever they can out in order to keep their job, thats what it essentially is, they are competing with one another for their jobs. some still have real convictions, but after the past election, having to deal with the crap the republicans pulled, i feel they have generally committed themselves to each other rather than the cause, so i declare myself an independent now, because my convictions are more important than my party allegiance.

so, more yes than no, but im not going to agree with certainty either way.

"you can fool all of the people some of the time; and you can fool some of the people all of the time; but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
-abraham lincoln

Answer 2

Have you, or have you not (note the correct grammar) learned that the separation of church and state was not to keep Christians out of government, but to keep government from being able to dictate to the church?

That was not the only purpose, of course. Nobody wanted the kind of tyranny the Church of England and the Catholic church exercised in Europe. Also, there were already more than one sect of churches in America by that time; it was an impossible situation. Separation of church and state was the only sane course. Of course, government was not in charge of so many areas vital to strong moral growth at that time, either. So there is a definite down side also.

Now the bigger part of the question: Are the two leading political parties guilty , etc., etc...
The short answer is "Yes!". More specifically, they have found a new way to dupe more of the American public, i.e. influence Christian voters. Politicians will pander to any special interest group to gain their votes, no matter who, no matter where. Who was the wise man who said, "...I would not vote for any man who did not have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the presidency..."?

Answer 3

"Separation of church and state"....
You are right, that phrase appears in the Russian Constitution. It is not anywhere in the US Constitution.

The closest you can come is a statement by James Monroe in the Federalist papers that it argues that there is a wall between church and state that is there to protect the church from state interference. The original intend of "separation of church and state" was to enforce the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment and guarantee that the state did not prevent the practice of religion.

Somewhere it has been turn 180 degrees, and is not being used to enforce the "establishment" clause instead, and used to restrict the free exercise of religion. Exactly what Monroe warned should NOT be allowed by the separation of the church and the state.

It is interesting that first two acts of Congress would today be considered unconstitutional. Their first act was to authorize funds for the printing of Bibles to be distributed to "the Indians". Their second was to appoint a paid chaplain. Neither would be allowed today. Somewhere we seem to have changed the meaning of "separation" from what the writers of the document meant.

Answer 4

The Founding Fathers wanted to prohibit the creation of a national church - not to mute christianity. There is no constitutional madate for separation of church and state. The state does not need to be "protected " from the church. It is the church that needs to be protected from the state.

The Democratic party is a slanderous organization that preys on uneducated lower social classes of christians to get their votes...promising money....

why would intelligent christians vote for a party that represents
banning prayer
allowing the state to control the church
banning the bible in comparative religion classes
removing the 10 commandments
banning voluntary prayer in school
censoring creationism viewpoints while allowing humanistic evolution viewpoints
barring prayers at public school graduations.
abortion

"christians" that vote for Democrats are really betraying their faith to chase after politicians that promise them free money and benefits. to them the democratic party is Provider, not God.

Answer 5

Politicians have always used religion to get votes. There is a separation between church and state but it gets blurred during election times or when a politician is under scrutiny for corruption. Then they run to the nearest church.

Answer 6

isn't Republican and Conservative an same party, or have I been completely lost for the most suitable seven years? hmmm besides, i'll vote for the finest human being for the job. it would want to be large if a 0.33 party might want to get their nostril in there with some ideas... yet that likely received't ensue in my lifetime. It truly relies upon on who brings it to the table. i do not choose our defenses weakened any better, that is for constructive.

Answer 7

It seems nowadays that people are confusing freedom 'of' religion, for freedom 'from' religion.

I have always considered myself independent because of this hard party line that has been drawn by both parties. I feel it quite rediculouse that grown men & women are siding for or against something simply because of what your leader tells you to do. What are we, in the 8th grade? I have always voted for who I thought was capable of doing what they say they will do for my interest, regardless of party. As you all should.

Then you have the libs & cons issue. I am sure that most all of us here are libs on certain things & cons on other issues. No one is completly one or the other. As conservative as Bush is, he seems pretty liberal when it comes to handing out ID's & drivers licenses to illegal (excuse me--undocumented) aliens.

Even though we separate state & religion, that does not mean the politicians cant go after the vote. Remember, an election is just a popularity contest. Just like in school, the candidates each year going for class president will promise less homework & better lunches, knowing that they dont have the power to produce either. But it is a popular platform - one that will never come out, but still popular. Once in office, its "who cares?", "I said what?", "I dont recall that", "depends on what is is", "read my lips", etc...

Long way about it but, yes, both parties are highly guilty of missleading or flat out lying to get votes & spend millions of dollars in order get a job that pays $150k.

Answer 8

Yes....
They are political parties, not religious leaders.
They cant be trusted.....non of them.

I dont think pandering for votes from Christians infringes on seperation of church and state.

Answer 9

Why Christians. How about misleading everyone, and by both parties.

Answer 10

oh fer sure politicians of both parties seek to pander to the majority religion but the Republican neoCONS have taken it to a whole new level with their "with me or against me" mentality that leaves no room for the American tradition of dissent, with their "moral verbiage" like "evil doers" and proclamations that "God tells me to invade Iraq", with their promises to undermine civil liberties and revise the Constitution to please their Fundy constituents. fortunately the Bush admin has been outed for snickering behind the backs of the Fundy leaders that helped propel them into power of a near dictatorship, laughing at them, calling them "loonies" while doing very little to further the Fundy agenda. maybe next time the Fundy sheeple won't be so quick to follow any mealy mouthed shepherd wearing a Jesus sandwichboard.