Here’s a headline I didn’t expect
From AL.com: Some GOP gubernatorial candidates run to right of Roy Moore on religion
Lots of good stuff in the article. Definitely worth a read.
Kay Ivey believes only Christian and Jewish displays should be allowed on government property. Roy Moore said that goes too far saying, “I think you should allow any display that’s not an establishment of religion.” Of course, one can only guess what Moore’s definition of “establishment of religion” might be.
James Potts (who?) is not a fan of Islam. “Either you accept our way of life or you go back to another country that is Muslim,” Potts said.
On the issue of religion and the government run schools:
All agreed that teachers in public schools should be allowed to lead voluntary prayers.
Most — including Ivey; state Rep. Robert Bentley, R-Tuscaloosa; former state Sen. Bradley Byrne of Montrose; Greenville businessman Tim James; and Bill Johnson, former director of the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs — said such instructors should also be allowed to teach from the Bible.
Moore disagreed.
“I don’t think government should be instructing in religious matters,” he said. “It can deviate from the truth of the Scriptures.”
Place me in Moore’s camp on this one. Public school teachers have no business whatsoever teaching kids about religion. That is strictly up to the parents. The schools are having a hard enough time just teaching kids to read and do basic math (did you see where 90% of the freshman at a NY university could not do basic algebra?). You might recall that Alabama schools adequately prepare less than 30% of students for college. No, I don’t think I want them taking on a subject as complex and reactive as religion in addition to their current curriculum.
A few folks on the internets (here, here, and here) are discussing the responses of the GOP candidates. However, while it is easy to bash them for certain views it is instructive to note that at least they had the stones to provide detailed answers to the Mobile Press-Register.
Democrats running for governor said less about their feelings on religious matters.
In a written response, U.S. Rep. Artur Davis, D-Birmingham, expressed support for religious displays from all faiths on government property. He added that he would favor nondenominational prayer in schools.
Davis did not directly answer questions about whether he thinks the Bible is literally true or believes in creationism or evolution. Instead, he said, “I am a Christian who believes that the Bible is divinely inspired and that the evolution of our planet was shaped by a divine God whom I worship.”
Davis’ opponent, state Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, declined to answer questions from the newspaper about religious issues or give his views on abortion, gay marriage or illegal immigration. Sparks instead focused on fiscal issues in a written response to the Press-Register inquiry.
Whatever your thoughts on the responses from the GOP at least you can (or should) appreciate them not being evasive.
Republicans aren’t going nearly far enough. We should demand that candidates for state office take up serpents and hold their debates speaking in tongues.
From Left in Alabama…
“Ron Sparks had (to me) a more courageous response: He declined to answer questions about his religious views. As in, “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” from Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.”
Courage to not answer the question?
In all honesty, Roy Moore has the best understanding of the law and the separation of powers. Separation between Federal and State governments, Separation between Church and State. I went to the Tennessee Valley Republican Club last Saturday where he was the featured speaker, he was quoting Adams, Franklin, Madison, and the Constitution all through his speech.
I believe he is the best person to be our Governor, unfortunately, he has become so polarizing that I doubt he would be able to win the general election.
“CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Seems like this leaves it open for anyone else to do so.
Whether the Bible should be taught in our public schools, for me, depends on the method and purpose. I have no problem with the Bible being taught as an elective as part of a religious studies course or as part of history or literature. There’s no question it has significant cultural relevance, so why not make it an option for students to choose? No big deal.
Anyone pick up on Bradley Byrne’s comment that the Bible is only partially true? Which part does he think is untrue? The immaculate conception? Paul’s conversion?
Let’s put it this way, I think Byrne gave the most honest answer to that question and I think you are mischaracterizing his statement.
Ralph you are being disingenuous…
You could of read the line above the one you referenced.