We know the candidates for 2008…at least I hope you do…. Is it fair to expect candidates to separate themselves from their religion? Is it possible? Mitt Romney thinks so, do you?

Democratic Candidates
Joe Biden

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Chris Dodd

John Edwards

Mike Gravel

Dennis Kucinich

Barack Obama

Bill Richardson

Republican Candidates
Rudy Giuliani

Mike Huckabee

Duncan Hunter

Alan Keyes

John McCain

Ron Paul

Mitt Romney

Tom Tancredo

Fred Thompson

I think they are violating the constitution if they don't. They can use their religious beliefs to shape their views privately but generally..what is their religion doing...telling them whats right and wrong? They shouldn't need their religion for that.

What hypocrisy, to be a "lying", "lying by omission", or backroom dealing candidate, yet claiming the moral high ground on religious beliefs.

John F Kennedy faced the same problem and there is nothing in the history of his presidency to suggest that his religion (catholic), played any part in his decisions. I see no reason to expect any other candidate to be any different in this regard. To expand a little further on this subject, I would personally prefer someone with strong religious beliefs who knows that they are not the most powerful one in the universe!

but doesn't that start falling under church and state? and I for one am not voting for someone just because they are catholic, or christian, that makes no mind to me, I'm looking for someone who won't **** up my country, otherwise, I'm moving to ireland where the rest of my family lives

The vast majority of citizens in this country, since it's conception, have been those with religious beliefs, specifically in monotheism. History is repleat with evidence, that exists yet, in this day, of such beliefs. It can be found in abundance in the laws throughout the stats and the federal code.

Religion, to this day, is nearly a requirement for any seeking a seat in higher office. Somehow, these beliefs are seen as proof of good morals, but I see them as a conflict to the ethics that are required to run a country that embraces a diversity within its population.

A candidate is welcome to their beliefs, and that alone does not dictate how I will perceive them. However, when one 'touts' their high morals by substantiating them through their faith, I must question their ability to act, without bias, where the laws of this land are concerned.

This current administration is the best example of lack of integrity and lack of political, social and civil ethics as this country has seen. When one's beliefs can not allow for unbiased ethical actions, that one is a detriment to the whole of society.

I am very weary of those candidates who 'proclaim' their beliefs, and totally against those who attemp, in any way to allign their beliefs with the law of this land.

Its like asking a man to leave his arm or leg at home. Religion is apart of us. Its in our root system.

I don't mind a candidate talking about religion so long as they don't make all their policies based on religious views (ie: gay marriage, abortion, etc etc). Haven't heard Biden talk much about his religious dogma, but he still gets this christians support;^]

one can hide it all you want, but your beliefs shape the way you act and the decisions you make, and despite there being a separation of church and state, which i as a christian support, it's gonna happen anywayz just like it has with bush. so everyone get out and vote if you dont like the believers.

huckabee is the only candidate whos also a minister. you might wanna attack him first.

? Believing in God but Voting based on personal belief? isnt this irony? would your roots as JHead says be your beliefs?

Personal belief and forcing those beliefs on the public are two differant things;^]

No i dont think its right to remain quite on your religion. Im sorry turtle, it has nothing to do with forcing it has to do with letting the World know you a follower of God.

As I said, no problem with a candidate discussing his religion, but trying to ban gay marriage because of it is a differant story. I said nothing about a candidate being "quiet" about his religion, the opposite actualy;^]

ahh we seem to bumb head yet speak the same thing =)... Maybe its the cookies lol. Well i can agree. I would not frown on someone being aggressive on such an issue however.

If they use the religious right to win the election, like certain RECENT have done, no names mentioned as I offend when I call him my pet name, you can bet problems will follow, as unsaid has shown. Their religious beliefs should stay at home. If they cannot separate from them then they should not run for office.

Separation of church and state has not completely happened yet but there are those out here working on it. America the free will continue to stand, not free only for those of certain beliefs or backgrounds, etc......

Separation of church and state amazes me since the country was founded under god as many of you seem to not realize

That Thomas Jefferson was one of the Founding Fathers can hardly be disputed. Nor can it be disputed that he coined the phrase 'Separation of Church and State' in his letter to the Danbury Baptists:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church &
State."

I think if you do some research, more than a few religious leaders of the time period were all for Jefferson's idea for reasons expressed so eloquently by yet another Founding Father, James Madison:

"..practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."

Demonstrably, no derivative of the word 'Christianity' is included in the Contitution. Nor is the Bible, nor Jesus. Such inclusion _was_ discussed and lobbied for at the Constitutional Convention, but never succeeded in being passed.

Just the facts, please.

-Kerry O.

I would prefer to see someone who isn't religious in any way, shape or form running the country for a change. Politics is no place for religion. Keep them seperate, completely!

i totally support a separation of church and state, and i am a firm christian.

bottom line, our country and the people in it are NOT all christian and since the govt should represent the people, there should be no elements of specific christianity intermingled in it, out of respect for others' beliefs. basic morality and decency should be, but those aren't religion specific.

although i don't support the idea of gay people marrying, as i see marriage as something designed by god between a man and a woman, those are my christian views and should not affect equality and the law. i guess if 2 people who love each other want to have that title and and get all the tax benefits, then ok. i would prefer we have 2 kinds of marriage though, a church marriage and a civil marriage. i think it's weird, but i'm gonna stop em from being happy if that's what does it.

I believe Madison as Publius said it best in Federalist Paper #51:

"Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful."

My friends from what I call the Religious Left join hands in affirming this principle with myself. I think some of these words which helped forge our republic are some of the most profound ever written. These and other similar _legal_ principles have survived past attempts at undermining them in favor of religious factionalism, and I believe they will prevail yet again against those factions who would co-opt them and corrupt them into a form of propaganda to meet their own selfish ends.

-Kerry O.