Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa

[Allhallowsday]

Michele Bachmann quits presidential race following poor showing in Iowa
WEST DES MOINES, Iowa--Michele Bachmann announced her exit from the presidential race Wednesday morning following a sixth-place finish in the first-in-the-nation caucus state of Iowa.

"Last night, the people of Iowa spoke with a very clear voice. And so I have decided to stand aside," the Republican representative from Minnesota told reporters during a morning media availability here at the Marriott hotel... 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/michele-bachmann-expected-quit-presidential-race-following-poor-161724564.html

[indianasmith]

Hmm.  Frees up some non-Romney voters.  I liked this lady, and I hope she stays in politics.  Still haven't made up my mind who to support.

[akiratubo]

Who?  Seems like I should know that name, but I forget.  Is that the "I'm not a witch" woman?

[indianasmith]

No, that was Michelle O'Donnell, who ran for the Senate last year and got flamed by Bill Maher.

Michelle Bachman is a second term Congressperson,  self-made businesswoman, and mother of five natural children and over 24 fosters.  She's also a strong evangelical Christian and a darling of the Tea Party - so of course, the media painted her as a fanatical witch.

[Allhallowsday]

No, that was Michelle O'Donnell, who ran for the Senate last year and got flamed by Bill Maher.

Michelle Bachman is a second term Congressperson,  self-made businesswoman, and mother of five natural children and over 24 fosters.  She's also a strong evangelical Christian and a darling of the Tea Party - so of course, the media painted her as a fanatical witch.

BACHMAN withdrew her membership to the Salem Lutheran Church just before she began her presidential candidacy.  The Salem Lutheran Church belongs to the Wisonsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod which espouses that the pope is the antichrist. 

BACHMAN apparently doesn't believe in the separation of church and state (consider that euphemistic) but might deny it. 

BACHMAN believes global-warming is a hoax.

[indianasmith]

Might want to refine that a bit . . . many conservatives believe that the idea that global warming is entirely man-made and must be ended by adopting Draconian policies that would cripple the U.S. economy and drive energy costs through the roof is a leftist conspiracy to implement anti-capitalist policies they have long espoused but been unable to get passed into law.  Anytime someon like Alec Baldwin or Al Gore starts raving about how we have to save the planet or save our children, you can bet what they want to do is steal a little more of our rapidly vanishing economic and personal liberty.  Is there a slight warming trend underway?  Most likely so.  Is economic and industrial suicide via the "cap and trade" plan the solution?  I doubt it.  And with good reason.  Lefties are demagoguing this issue left and right to advance an agenda that would be disastrous for this country.

[Allhallowsday]

Might want to refine that a bit . . . many conservatives believe that the idea that global warming is entirely man-made and must be ended by adopting Draconian policies that would cripple the U.S. economy and drive energy costs through the roof is a leftist conspiracy to implement anti-capitalist policies they have long espoused but been unable to get passed into law.  Anytime someon like Alec Baldwin or Al Gore starts raving about how we have to save the planet or save our children, you can bet what they want to do is steal a little more of our rapidly vanishing economic and personal liberty.  Is there a slight warming trend underway?  Most likely so.  Is economic and industrial suicide via the "cap and trade" plan the solution?  I doubt it.  And with good reason.  Lefties are demagoguing this issue left and right to advance an agenda that would be disastrous for this country.

You need to stop vilifying the left.  We're not all that partisan, Louis.  I think by now most of us over 40 are deeply concerned for the future and well being of humankind, not just Americans.  My friend, this country is so polarized on these topics, and at least a few others, that I won't argue with you.  I like you too well.  But I do not think the USA economy is more important than destruction of the world we live in and the state of the world we leave to our children and our children's children. 

[indianasmith]

I don't necessarily disagree with you there, friend.  But I do think some of the more radical elements of the left have seized on this phenomena as an excuse to advance their agenda, whether it will actually fix the problem or not.  Making potentially disastrous changes like "Cap and Trade" would have implemented when we don't fully understand what their impact would be would be foolish.

[Flick James]

But back to no separation of Church and State, I'm well aware of Michele Bachmann's stance there. Why does the religious right continue to insist that the Founding Fathers were a bunch of pious Christians trying to start a Christian nation? There is no evidence of this. Why do they insist on evidence that is non-existent? Granted, the religious right began their campaign to take over the government shortly after the Revolution, but can anybody show me this incontrovertible evidence that the founders were trying to start a Christian nation that the religious right seem certain exists?

[ulthar]

But back to no separation of Church and State, I'm well aware of Michele Bachmann's stance there. Why does the religious right continue to insist that the Founding Fathers were a bunch of pious Christians trying to start a Christian nation? There is no evidence of this. Why do they insist on evidence that is non-existent? Granted, the religious right began their campaign to take over the government shortly after the Revolution, but can anybody show me this incontrovertible evidence that the founders were trying to start a Christian nation that the religious right seem certain exists?

The notion "endowed by their Creator" comes to mind.  Since many the Founders that utilized such language attended Christian Churches (cue all the arguments regarding Deism...    ), I think it is at least a fair step, if not leap, to assume that they had sympathy toward both Christian philosophy and belief in Christian based governance.

On the subject, can you show me where any of the Founders advocated separation of Church and State?  While I agree that the Founders did not explicitly say the USA should be a Christian nation, nor did they say we should be a secular one.

The Establishment Clause was intended to avoid a single state sponsored church as was done in England...action which ultimately led to the fleeing of the UK for the New World 160 years prior to the Revolution. 

I offer for 'further reading' a book I've mentioned here several times:  "The Cousins' War" by Kevin Phillips.  In this book, Phillips posits that the English Civil War (1640's), the American Revolution (1770's) and the American Civil War (1860's) were battles in a single continuous war, and that this war is at its essence a religious war.

The language "Separation of Church and State" was the result of a much later Supreme Court interpretation (1947's Everson v Board of Eduction) of the First Amendment, and thus may well have NOTHING to do with the Founder's intentions.

[Allhallowsday]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Rev. Powell]

Actually the Founders were not of one mind on the issue---or on almost any issue, for that matter.  Their personal opinions count for virtually nothing, it's only the language they agreed on for the Constitution/Bill of Rights that matters.  (As Allhallowsday points out).

[ulthar]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Excellent.  We now have the wording of the Amendment in the thread.

How exactly is that "separation?"

The "Establishment Clause" being called "Separation" is an interpretation, and a 20th century interpretation at that.  There is no way that I buy for an instant that a 20th Century Supreme Court ruling speaks to the intent of the Founders on this issue.

There are documents and bodies of evidence that show at least SOME of the Founders did believe the Nation to be Christian.

One cannot prove Separation, or NO Church influence in government, was the intent of the Founders.

Thomas Paine was a spiritual man, but not one of organized religion.  Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, believed strongly in the influence Judeo-Christian theology should have on the new nation.  George Washington trended toward Jefferson's view.  We can bat examples and counter-examples back and forth.

[Rev. Powell]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Excellent.  We now have the wording of the Amendment in the thread.

How exactly is that "separation?"

The "Establishment Clause" being called "Separation" is an interpretation, and a 20th century interpretation at that.  There is no way that I buy for an instant that a 20th Century Supreme Court ruling speaks to the intent of the Founders on this issue.

I'd just like to point out again that there is no single "intent of the Founders" as they were all individuals with disparate individual beliefs.  Moreover, their intentions are only of historical interest.  We govern ourselves (although ironically, that was their intention). 

[ulthar]

I'd just like to point out again that there is no single "intent of the Founders" as they were all individuals with disparate individual beliefs.  Moreover, their intentions are only of historical interest.  We govern ourselves (although ironically, that was their intention). 

I agree, and I had hoped that my example of mentioning but three varying views (Paine, Jefferson and Washington) showed my agreement.

It's certainly inaccurate to speak of them as a homogeneous group, especially on issues of religion and federalism.

I guess my only "nitpick" in this type of discussion is the presumption that is too often made that Separation is some de facto, accepted notion that goes back to the Founders.  Like many things in law, social construction and historical analysis, it is simply not that clear cut.

It is just as 'incorrect' or 'improper' for one group to lay claim that Separation is the premise from the Founding forward as it is for the other group to claim Judeo-Christian governance was pre-ordained by the Founders.

The most accurate statement is of course that Separation is current case law as decided by the Supreme Court.

However, I argue that it is fair to continue that discussion (and potential action in the form of future voting habits and legislation) to challenge the very basis of the Supreme Court to assert that law.  Yes, current practice *IS* for the court to decide case law, but the court also has technically 'grabbed' Constitutional Review authorities not granted by the Constitution.

Given the 10th Amendment, the validity of the Court's ruling on Church and State merits discussion.

I'm in a hurry (have somewhere I need to be), so this is at least borderline incoherent...maybe I'll try to clarify later.  In the meantime,

Peace out, dudes.  It's always fun discussing this stuff with you guys.