If you had to choose between the following two candidates, which would it be?

[More Than A Feeling]

Candidate A is great on labor and poverty issues, but is horrible on separation of church and state

-or-

Candidate B, a member of the ACLU, is a strong supporter of separation of church and state. Unfortunately, B is a hard-right conservative on every other issue.

In this scenario, there are no other candidates, and you aren't going to stay home. You will vote for one of the two. So who's it going to be?

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Do you honestly believe that a hard right conservative

would belong to the ACLU?

Yeah sure.

[Dr.Phool]

2. I think Rush Limbaugh is carrying a card now.

No proof. Just a suspicion.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. Yep and Ann Coulter too

[NAO]

23. Jerry Falwell too! (doubt it...see the ACLU Press Release)

They helped Mr. Moral Majority himself get churches incorporated in Virginia.

ACLU Press Release
In Win for Rev. Falwell (and the ACLU), Judge Rules VA Must Allow Churches to Incorporate (4/17/2002)
http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16040prs20020417.html

Yep, the ACLU has to defend some pretty despicable characters in the name of freedom and the constitution.

[kiahzero]

16. Bob Barr. (n/t)

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. With reluctance, I think I'd have to go with

B, assuming such a creature could possibly exist without cracking up from self-imposed cognitive dissonance. Religion, if allowed to influence government, is a blight. Nothing else in government can ultimately work, and the Constitution would be meaningless, if any particular religion becomes entrenched in government. Everybody's freedom is endangered by religious oppression.

[Evoman]

4. Interesting poll, but too hard to answer.

I mean...what exactly does "horrible on sep. of church and state" mean? Just that the person keeps spouting on religion, or is she giving money to churches, or is she trying to pass laws giving religious people extra rights? If its the latter two, I would probably vote for the other guy.

Its a tough question....and more than a little unrealistic. Its almost always the people who are bad at separation that are the hard right conservatives.

[Az]

6. It depends on the current social climate

If there were not a cultural conflict going on at the time with members of the religious right trying to upend our politics I would vote for the Candidate A. But as things stand right now there is a conflict going on and the religious right is engaged in trying to overturn our laws. So as it stands right now I would have to vote for candidate B.

The first right mentioned in the first ammendment is the seperation clause. I honestly believe that all rights hang from the first right which is the freedom of thought. And religion is tied to freedom of thought.

I would love not to have to be concerned about seperation issues. But in the midst of a cultural conflict such as we are in now I cannot help but be concerned about a candidate that is on the wrong side of the conflict.

[AndyTiedye]

7. This Was The Choice the Original "Populists" Offered

I would have to pick "B", but let's make sure we never have to make such a choice again.

[Phredicles]

8. Your Candidate A sounds like William Jennings Bryan.

Just an observation.

I'd have a really terrible time making up my mind about this one.

[Faryn Balyncd]

9. Where do they stand on war?

[demnan]

10. It would depend

on which of them was pro-choice.

[cosmik debris]

11. What office are we voting on?

In a school board election, church and state issues are paramount.

In a legislative election poverty issues might take precedents, especially if the lege. is already dominated by ACLU types who have no intention of letting the church run our schools.

There are just too many unknown factors here.

But I assure you that after all my years of voting, I have experience at holding my nose while I vote.

[cosmik debris]

22. addendum

Church state issues usually end up in the Judiciary branch in the long run.

But poverty issues are usually handled by the Executive and Legislative branches and they have no long run.

In the long run people die from malnutrition, lack of health care, lack of safe housing etc. So it would seem to be less onerous to ignore the bad position on church/state issues than to ignore the bad position on poverty issues. Especially if you were voting on a member of the House of Representatives who has no voice in appointing the judiciary.

[trotsky]

12. Taking the religion out of today's hard-right conservatism...

fundamentally changes it. I mean, so many policies are justified, based on religious ideas.

Go back to the 1950s and Eisenhower is your "hard-right conservative." So let's say the choice is between Joe Lieberman and Eisenhower. Who would you choose? No doubt in my mind, I'd go with Ike.

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. No candidate I can support == no vote, period

I'm not going to stay at home, as there are other races with better choices. But I can not vote for either candidate in this one race.

[beam me up scottie]

14. A "hard-right conservative" can't be a strong supporter of the separation of church and state.

They legislate morality based on their religious beliefs.

[Az]

15. Allan Greenspan

Ayn Rand style objectivist. About as hard right as you go in all other matters.

[beam me up scottie]

18. A "hard-right" conservative would be a social conservative.

And we all know they never push their agenda in the political arena.

http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Alan_Greenspan.php

Right?

[Az]

19. May be splitting hairs at this point

There are a lot of conservatives that focus on econ issues and don't give a wet slap about social. Not sure if they qualify as a hard right or not. But they can be pretty fanatical on the econ issues. I dunno.

[beam me up scottie]

20. I think the political definition changed in the past couple of decades.

Hard right conservatives didn't used to be in the pockets of the dominionists.

[NAO]

25. No, there are libertarian hard-righters

They have a position which appears to be logically consistent but in fact is grossly mistaken because it misses the primary source of coercion in a modern society - economic coercion.

Employment in a "free market" economy is almost always what lawyers call a "contract of adhesion". It appears to be freely entered into by both parties, but in fact there is gross asymmetry in the bargaining position of the parties, and this asymmetry is ruthlessly exploited by the party with the upper hand - the party that owners and controls the means of making a livelihood.

[beam me up scottie]

26. Usually "hard right" conservative means neoconservative.

Ira Chernus, a professor at the University of Colorado, argues that the deepest root of the neoconservative movement is its fear that the counterculture would undermine the authority of traditional values and moral norms. Because neoconservatives believe that human nature is innately selfish, they believe that a society with no commonly accepted values based on religion or ancient tradition will end up in a war of all against all. They also believe that the most important social value is strength, especially the strength to control natural impulses. The only alternative, they assume, is weakness that will let impulses run riot and lead to social chaos.<5>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

Like I said, the definitions are changing.

The op specifically said the candidate was a hard-right conservative on every other issue, I presume that meant he was the opposite of a social liberal.

[moobu2]

17. Voting for candidate A is out of the question for me.

I just couldn’t vote for anyone who might let ignorant superstitious fairytales influence public policy, any more than it already does. I would have to look at the other person carefully…I wouldn’t vote for either probably.

[Unvanguard]

21. Candidate A in a moment.

Unless he/she is awful on gay rights.

[NAO]

24. Economic Issues (Labor and Poverty) are Trump Cards

Because without economic justice, suffering is created, sustained, and perpetuated.

You can give people freedom of religion and they will remain economically oppressed and impoverished indefinitely. On the other hand, if standards of living and education are raised, religious tolerance will increase despite church/state problems.

**BTW, I am an atheist. Clairification, I am a RICHARD DAWKINS atheist. I would STILL vote for A, for the reasons above stated.