(Re: Mid-East) I would say that a Dem. running

[ihelpu2see]

for Pres. Should state that the US will not support, financially or militarily, any government that has a defined religion. The stance of the US foreign policy should be and should have always been that no country should have a state sponsored religion and that all policy (foreign and domestic) should be separate from religion or church. I know that our own current gov. would have trouble with this....

I love how conservatives and liberals alike are trying to explain the root of the problems in the middle east, including most recent issues with Hamas and Hezbolla. When it really stems from religion. This world needs a whole bunch of smacking around and need to listen to some rational humanists instead of narrow minded fundis!

sorry for the rant, have a nice day!

:)

[1monster]

1. Religion, as always, is the excuse, not the reason. The reason, as

always, is the hunger for power and the incomprehensible need of some to lord it over others. It happens all the time all over the world on different levels. Sometimes it's about race, sometimes it's about religion, sometimes it's about border disputes, sometimes it's about whether or not to open the egg at the narrow end or the wide end.

[BlueCaliDem]

2. You're so right! There can't be democracy where there is state sponsored

religion!

By it's very design, religion can never be "democratic" because state-sponsored governments have more in common with a dictatorship--take, for example, countries like Iran, Iraq, China (communism is a religion too!), Pakistan...

Historically, every country that has a government of, for, and by religion is in constant turmoil, and war.

Just look what it's doing to America with the Christian rightwingers taking over!