Feb 13, 2012 by jacobsonlv
There are so many violations of our conservative values within society that picking one is a tough task.
The separation of church and state has been an area of controversy in America, and while the Constitution clearly defends against a national, mandated religion, the meaning of this statement has been skewed over the years. It is important that the GOP candidates understand the importance of religion in this country’s founding principles.
Countless questions have arisen about the faith of GOP front runner Mitt Romney, a proud Mormon, and one whom many feel is the Republicans’ best chance at reclaiming the White House in 2012. Newt Gingrich has picked up where Rick Perry left off, attacking the Democratic administration’s “War on Christianity.” A war that he claims has oppressed religious freedom within our nation, as he states during a recent debate.

Just this week, President Obama has come under fire from the Catholic Church for a mandate that requires employers to provide their employees access to artificial contraception, sterilization services and birth control pills through their existing health plans. According to the words of Newt Gingrich, this new mandate is “another example of President Obama and his promoting of anti-religious policies.”
Over the last few decades, the Ten Commandments have been removed from our federal buildings, prayer has been banned from schools and other public meetings, and marriage and life have been redefined. Not to mention our very own President Obama publicly declaring that America is “no longer a Christian nation.”
These things are not merely just good ideas they are truths that our nation stands upon and when we begin to remove or dilute them from their intended state we lose our identity as a nation. There are some reading this that will cite the argument over the words “Separation of Church and State,” however many fail to recognize this ideology of how the church and government should interact was taken completely out of context. This idea that our government should operate separated from the church was taken from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in response to a constituent in which he was stating the government has no ability to establish a national religion or interfere with religious activities, not to keep these activities out of the government. This idea is illustrated here in his response entitled the Danbury Baptists Letter.
“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.”
Over the decades many candidates hide or diminish their religious beliefs in order to avoid offending others and to give themselves a better chance of gaining election to their intended office. However, we fail to realize just how large the religious majority is within America. In the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey conducted by Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar of Trinity College, we find that over 76% percent of Americans call themselves Christians. If this is the case it would seem hiding ones Christian views in order to appeal to the masses would be counterproductive.
This is certainly not an issue that can be fully examined or analyzed in one column, however, I feel it is important we are reminded and for some enlightened to these realities. Our nation is under attack on many fronts however history has shown us that the Judeo-Christian beliefs our nation was founded upon are quickly becoming extinct. Not only as conservatives but as Christians, it is our responsibility to speak up and take a stand for what we believe in. We are blessed to live in a nation in which we have a democracy that allows us to elect candidates that reflect our views and beliefs, ones who will stand and fight for the values that make our nation great.
Jacob Harmon :: University of California at San Diego :: San Diego, California :: @Jacobsonlv

The recent uproar regarding Obamacare’s contraception and abortifacient mandates has cast the spotlight on the Catholic Church, but what about American Muslims and Jews?  Have their religious liberties been violated as well? Accuracy in Media offers an exclusive preview of this week’s video investigation titled Religious Liberty and The Birth Control Mandate.

From the diaries by Erick

We don’t have all the specifics. But it is pretty apparent that Obama’s “deal” on contraceptives is a trick.

As to Catholic institutions, Catholic hospitals and universities would pay insurance companies premiums, which would pay for contraceptives and abortifacients. Evil doesn’t become good because it’s laundered through a third party.

But, says HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, premiums would go down because, inter alia, you would not have to provide health services to those pesky babies who would have been born, had you not aborted them.

But if this was a theological defense, it would have applied, whether or not contraceptives and abortifacients were specified in the insurance policy.

Incidentally, the 98-99% contraception usage figure which is being thrown about unchallenged?  It is from the virulently pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute.

Finally, what about individual Catholic or fundamentalist or other employers who have religious objections to abortions and contraceptives? The “deal” would throw them under the bus.

Unlike some in the Catholic hierarchy, I vigorously fought against ObamaCare and predicted the abortion-related problems they are now facing.  Am I now to go to prison for exercising my conscience? And does the First Amendment apply any less to my religious beliefs.

by Michael E. Hammond, former General Counsel Senate Steering Committee 1978-89 and a Dunbarton, New Hampshire resident.

From the diaries by Erick

We don’t have all the specifics. But it is pretty apparent that Obama’s “deal” on contraceptives is a trick.

As to Catholic institutions, Catholic hospitals and universities would pay insurance companies premiums, which would pay for contraceptives and abortifacients. Evil doesn’t become good because it’s laundered through a third party.

But, says HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, premiums would go down because, inter alia, you would not have to provide health services to those pesky babies who would have been born, had you not aborted them.

But if this was a theological defense, it would have applied, whether or not contraceptives and abortifacients were specified in the insurance policy.

Incidentally, the 98-99% contraception usage figure which is being thrown about unchallenged?  It is from the virulently pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute.

Finally, what about individual Catholic or fundamentalist or other employers who have religious objections to abortions and contraceptives? The “deal” would throw them under the bus.

Unlike some in the Catholic hierarchy, I vigorously fought against ObamaCare and predicted the abortion-related problems they are now facing.  Am I now to go to prison for exercising my conscience? And does the First Amendment apply any less to my religious beliefs.

by Michael E. Hammond, former General Counsel Senate Steering Committee 1978-89 and a Dunbarton, New Hampshire resident.

For the first time in its over 150 year history, the Presidential nominee for the Republican Party will either be a Catholic or a Mormon. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (Mormon), former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (Catholic) and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (Catholic) are the three legitimate candidates left in the race to face President Barack Obama in November.

In a country where the religion of Commander-in-Chief matters, it is an issue that will be talked about over and over again. There is no doubt in my mind, one of the most reviewed aspects of the rest of the primaries and general election will be the candidates religious beliefs.

A victory for Romney over President Obama in November would mean that he would be the first Mormon to ascend to the office of President. A Mormon candidate has not been nominated for the office by any party, let alone one of the two major parties. For Romney and Mormons, to simply gain the nomination would be a major breakthrough for the religion on the national political stage. Of course, Romney would not be happy with making history for the Mormon faith, 1.7% of the American population.

A victory for either Santorum or Gingrich over President Obama in November would mean that our nation would have only the second Catholic President, JFK of course elected in 1960. In 2004, Bush won the Catholic vote with 52% over John Kerry (Catholic), but the party saw a drop in the number of Catholic GOP voters in the 2010 midterm elections. Roman Catholicism, the nation’s largest individual denotation at just under 24% of Americans, will play a large role in deciding the race and a Catholic nominee could bring the number back up to the 2004 number or even higher.

As observed in the early primaries, for these three candidates to be successful they have to prove the traditional values of their personal religious beliefs match those of voters no matter their beliefs.

Republicans who do not want to see either of these three men win the nomination, could always vote for Ron Paul, a Baptists.