Religion in the Political Campaign

News Cynic:

I’m responding to your question #6.

Should a religious person be allowed to run for office?
In the United States, anyone is allowed to run for office if they meet the age, residency, and other requirements. Religious or lack of religious belief is not a factor. How would you answer this question?

Should a “true” Christian run for office?

One should always give thanks to the one who has sent them.
All of us should be mindful and boast of what Jesus has done.
It is not about candidates winning, it is about giving thanks to Jesus and telling people what GOD has done for them so they in turn will be able to help others.
So...........
the answer is yes it is appropriate and important for the candidates to express their personal religious views and to use religious rhetoric.
Come on folks...................
Let us start winning people over to Jesus -- candidates and all. It's what its all about.
God Bless to all,
Sincerely,
Beth

American success is relevant to the character strength of our leaders. Those who expressed allegience not to a religion, but to God, and a common sense of the people. To continue our ascent it seems vital we be able to recognize the character traits of the candidates.

All establishments instituted by mankind become oppressive; including religious establishments. All occupational, cultural, political and religious groups demonstrate a conformity of thought and behavior. America was formed by men who were FREE thinkers; were independent; not influenced by the oppressive leadership mentality of their era.

These men opened the door to personal freedom; to a system of FREE enterprise. It was a people who believed in God; in ideals as equality, truth, compassion. Thought moves the body. When thought was focused on receiving personal guidance from God; when the lesson was 'how to be a better person'; a compatible diversity of talent emerged; money began to move all toward common welfare.

Today, when respect has moved from a God of love; from the existence of a compassionate Saviour; to the intelligence of mankind; to academic credentials; to minds that are formed to fit into a social machine being formed by an establishment; we see all the GOOD; the medical, social and scientific accomplishments return to control by human establishments; encounter a loss of business integrity; become enslaved to corporate greed; which is consuming our governing body.

The next election may determine our destiny. History shows it was personal character strengths; a focus on common personal ideals; that moved us toward; and holds the potential for continuous growth; and unlimited actualities. We never escaped from oppressive control; the primitive human mentality has always been dominate. It was just a rudimentary release of personal worth that allowed our rapid ascent.

It is personal character strength that matters; that determined our course. I believe not the Christian religious establishment; but Christian principals, expressed through the mind of human IDEALS as 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' have been the secret to our success. Unless we recognize this; elect a candidate representing the 'heart' of the people; we will follow the way of all human establishments---which simply RISE and FALL!

I see no implication of using religion to carry one into office-
THE QUESTION
As the presidential campaign begins to take shape, do you think it is appropriate and or important for the candidates to express their personal religious views and to use religious rhetoric? Why?

and as stated before- rhetoric is the language of politicians-

possibly in the rhetoric part but that is the second half-

Jihadist,

And "how now" are your mullahs educated? Their conduct at least in the Mideast indicates nothing more than eight years of the Koran/Qur'an so we should start with some basic grade school texts if we are going to supply books.

"Talibaners"- note the quotation marks here and previously for a new word describing members of the not-so-bright element of the Muslim religion called the Taliban.

And we should extend that US Air Force and US Navy wall around Iran another Islamic state with questionable educated mullahs and politicians.

No problem declaring religion in Iranian politics!!! Which one of the Mohammed "returning on a cloud/chariot" descendents do they follow again??? Definitely not a granddaughter or niece!!!

The question posed is one of two parts. The first of these questions asks whether it is appropriate for a candidate to use his/her religious views as a platform to carry him/her into office. Clearly a candidate's religious affiliation should not be the only determining factor in whether or not a citizen casts a ballot in his/her favor. While a religious stance by a politician may shed some light on his/her personal moral character. It does not guarantee an accurate reflection of morals, however. Not to say that a candidate would be wrong in revealing his/her religious belief system, but to do so merely for the sake of attracting more votes is most definitely unethical. More intriguing than the first question, in my opinion, is the second question. It asks whether it is important for a candidate to express some form of religious views. Whether it is a good or a bad thing, the fact of the matter is that in America voters find confidence in a candidate whose religious views in some way reflect their own. This is simply a characteristic of humanity in that when given the chance humans tend to put the person that they relate to best in power because they feel it is the closest thing to putting themselves in power that they can achieve. While there I have no evidence to support my thought (which is all that it is) I feel as though there may be at least some substance to it.

Religion should not have a place in the security of our society. I have learned to play the game, treating Jesus the same as Santa Claus. The job of the clergy is to enslave the minds of the masses and to perpetuate the myth of a supreme being. Their livlihood depends on it.

Prayer can be dangerous to a persons well being. If the subject of the prayer were treated as a problem and apply problem solving techniques to it I think it could be beneficial. However. most people use prayer to shift the burden of his safety from himself. This could be the last time he failed to shoulder his own responsibility.

To flippertie

You wrote, “your points seem unclear and incoherent and have no relevance to the discussion”.
That may be. Sometimes when we write things we “hear” what we mean to say, but between the brain and the pen things can get short-circuited. I’ll have a go at clearing it up for you. If you think it is relevant or not when you see what I was really trying to communicate I’ll leave that up to you. At the very least I will plead as all perpetrators tend to do that, “Ok you caught me, but everyone else was doing it too!” I will say though that after you assumed I was using an angry or strident tone that it may have colored how read my questions.

The whole intent behind my list was to motivate people to think about why it is that almost every post (many of them angry and dismissive of religion in general) wanted to use the law to limit religion’s role in government, but seemingly no one was asking if the knife cut both ways. If the “separation between church and state” is used to keep religion from controlling government shouldn’t government keep it’s hands off of religion?

My mistake about the Church of England. On their website it breaks down how much money they raise and where it comes from. I read that 60 million pounds comes from the “Inland Revenue in tax”, but I’m not even sure what that means. I get someone to do my own taxes because it’s too complex for me!

Hope that clears things up a little for you.

"By his deeds you will know him." Seems to me that past actions and accomplishments are more important in analyzing a candidate than an answer to a question about a candidate's personal religious beliefs.

First, let me say many of you have given me much to think about after my first couple of posts on here. I don't think that in my adult life I have even given a thought to what a person running for public offices religion was. This is a first for me and I do believe it is because I have had such a hard time with how Bush has seemed to bring his religious beliefs into his presidency. Until now, even when Jimmy Carter ran, I never even gave much of a thought to his religion. I concentrated on their stand on the issues. I don't remember, but could be wrong, thinking about how their religion would effect their decisions. So maybe I have had my head in the sand. Personally though I have been around for a fair amount of time as far as presidents go and never have I had such a problem with a presidents religious beliefs and how it seemed to effect his decisions.

I have been thinking out loud. Thanks for listening.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

Thank you for educating me on Islam. What a sham religion! But well, I freely chose to remain a stupid Muslim.

It's the Qur'an, not Koran. And its the Taliban, not Talibaners.

Wish to start a collection of discarded/unread books to sent to the mullas/wannabes to educate them on western thought? I'm all for it. But do send books written by F. Scott Fitzgerald, MFK Fisher, Truman Capote, Don de Lillo etc. They wrote in beautiful English. We want to improve our English to communicate with you better.

I was disappointed when the Washinton Post introduced the 'On Faith' section on their front page, and the above article supports my initial disdain.

Regardless of my own beliefs, no expression of faith can be made genuinely or usefully when the mainstream media will make it front-page material, as you are doing. Religion and politics do not mix. For those who think they do, see 'Theocracy'.

'On Reason' would have been a better forum for the Post to fund, because making religion a political football in support of the Post's bottom line is a losing strategy. Especially for a news organization that needs to be perceived as neutral.

Comment after comment, viewers deny the validity of the hocus-pocus, dogma, and medieval indoctrination you posit as legitimate discourse.

Perhaps the Post has faith that God can save their pathetic reputation from further flushing?

I suggest you get this garbage off your page before you lose the little bit of journalistic credibility that remains to you in this town.

Richard Merritt

So many people have posted on this thread after mine. Sounds like mine pushed one of your buttons. I agree with everything you said and by the way I have visited D.C. often and enjoy the all it has to offer.

Thanks for reminding me.

I believe it is not only okay, but also necessary for a candidate to express what his/her views are and what forms or directs their decision making process. As for using religious rhetoric, no I do not believe that their religios practices should be brought into the political arena. This is a place for all to unite as what is truly best for all Americans and not departmentalize due to race, religion, or self-promotion.

When I meet someone that has been born again, or walks with the lord, or prays to the east 5 times a day, I just can't wait to end the conversation and move on. The phony act of blind adherance to an ancient story is rediculous. The moral standard the country has set for a candidate should be something other than this blind devotion to a mythical being and a heavenly world with angels, gold streets, and 72 virgins. it's sad.

GABY- scholars dislike the anglicized Koran because it corrupts the pronunciation of the word- Qur'an can be written in english and is much closer to the actual word itself- so its an issue of trying to stay as close as possible to the original.

Also the word Koran was introduced by orientalists in the late 19th early 20th century and was invariably diatribes against it- so theres that association too-

personally- i always try heartily to pronounce peoples names as they themselves do- i have surprised many chinese people by pronouncing their names correctly- it shows an extra effort and respect for them that is usually appreciated.

its a subtle thing and not anything to get worked up about- the only reason i mentioned it was to point out to CCNL that his source was clearly not an islamic one- i maintain that one should always go to the source in their representations of other views- and let people speak for and define themselves-

thats why i will only post a jewish perspective on judaism etc... if you ever see me do otherwise you please call me out on it---
salaams

Some people of religious ilk are open to the point of gullibility and have not one ounce of skeptical sense, so much so , they can't distinguish useful ideas from worthless ones .There is no guarantee of transcendent purpose or supernatural significance. When you are taken by such spooky suggestions and unreasonable proposals you will remain immature your entire life . You must learn how to rationally and reasonably make decisions. Don't rely on ghosts and spirits!!!

To Pam Meloy (author of the 1st post today):
Fine.....If you believe that religion has No place in Government, here's a suggestion: You are no longer allowed to use any U. S. Currency since every coin and bill we have says, "In God We Trust"!. Also, you are no longer allowed to visit Washington, D. C. since the U. S. Supreme Court has Moses holding the Ten Commandments on the building, nor are you allowed to visit any National Cemetary, since these are operated by the Federal Government, and most of the headstones have religious symbols on them. Get used to having to use your credit cards or a debit card or a check, NO CASH FOR YOU! It's also a shame that you won't get to go to the nations capitol, there's a lot of history up there, but you've made your bed, now you have to lie in it. Have a nice day.

Wiccan,

Indeed, Jim Jones and David Koresh were significantly stupid people. Jim Jones and his crazies committed group suicide if I remember correctly. We should be so fortunate to have the "Talibaners" do the same thing. The Koresh debacle was a series of errors. They should have been starved out of their compound. Both groups violated the Fifth Commandment so they definitely were not Christians.

Neither group posed a threat to global peace. The same cannot be said for the signficantly stupid Sunni, Shiite and "Talibaner" jihadists as they follow the Koran commandment of Thou Shall Kill Unbelievers (to include unbelievers in some grandkid or uncle of the "prophet").

We should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and then build an US Air Force/US Navy wall around these countries and then let them annihilate each other.

To A Hermit-

Thanks for your post today at 11:06 am. I was researching my facts to post a reply to CTCNL when I saw your excellent rebuttal.

To CTCNL:

"Wahli said the man also declared himself the Mahdi, the reappearance of the 12th imam, or leader of the faithful, who many Shiites believe vanished in the 10th century and whose return will mark an era of redemption and peace."

Does the name "David Koresh" mean anything to you? How about "Jim Jones"?

I would say that "significant stupidity" is an universal human trait, not just a Muslim one.

Hi Victoria,

Why is it an insult to spell the Qur'an Koran? In my opinion it's no different than spelling the German town Koeln Cologne in English. I can pronouce Koran, that doesn't necessarily hold true for Qur'an.

And the significant stupidity of the followers of Islam continues as per the following news item in this morning's paper:

"This is a new step in the annals of terrorism,said Iraq's minister of national security, Shirwan al-Wahli. He said the fighters were led by a man known as the Judge of Heaven, who claimed to be a direct descendant of the prophet Muhammad's son-in-law, Ali. Wahli said the man also declared himself the Mahdi, the reappearance of the 12th imam, or leader of the faithful, who many Shiites believe vanished in the 10th century and whose return will mark an era of redemption and peace."

Where do these mullahs/"wannabe" imams get their education? Do they ever read anything besides the Koran aka Qur’an (both words listed in English dictionaries) ? Some recommended books, The Life of St. Francis of Assisi, Ghandi, and the NT (minus the embellishments of physical resurrections and ascensions into heaven), for starters.

Second comings are not going to happen no matter what the religion!!!

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated :

I asked you this before in another thread, and never saw an answer.

Do you, as a Christian, feel you should be apologizing for the slaughter of 7,000 Muslims in Srebrinica? For the genocide in Rwanda ("The most Christian nation in Africa"), for the interfatih war between Serbian Orthodox Christians and Catholic Croats? For the Baptist funded terrorists in Tripura? The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda?

There are lots of different kinds of Muslims, just as there are lots of different kinds of Christians. We all deplore the violence of the radical Islamists, but for you to pile their crimes onto the shoulders of innocent Muslims like those we are talking to here is as unfair as if someone held you responsible for the atrocities carried out by other Christians.

Now, I'm no defender of Islam, or any other religion, I find claims of divinely revealed truth to be unconvincing at best and often inherently dangerous, but I have found it is best to treat people as individuals, to respect their faith even if I do not share it and not to make assumptions based on ignorant stereotypes, as you do here.

The fact that you have latched onto the "Sunni/Shia" divide as representative of all Muslims betrays your ignorance. Do you think a Sufi mystic shares the same political beliefs as an Al Qaeda extremists? That a moderate Shiite in Michigan applauds the extremism of the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia? They are as different as the Amish farmer is from the IRA.

We will never solve the divisions of this world until more people take the time to educate themselves and learn to deal with each other as human beings, not stereotypes.

You have a long way to go.

Regards

A Hermit

The nuances of the meaning of "jihad" in the Qur'an are interesting but irrelevant, in my view. What matter is that some believers see the Qur'an as God's command to kill unbelievers. We wouldn't have debates over the meaning of scripture if we did away with the idea that any book is the word of deity.

Liberated, while I share many of your concerns about abortion, I don't think that issue should even be a part of this discussion. No religion has a monopoly on concern for human life. There are plenty of pro-lifers who don't belong to any religion, and there are plenty of Christian pro-choicers.

holy cannoli batman what are you doing up at 2:30 am liberated?

there is no term called holy war - that is taken from the crusades- just like the latin term infidel(from infidelus- unfaithful)

they are both terms used by the crusaders-
holy war- a crusader describes their own mission
infidel- a crusader describes a non-believer or saracen (arab) in jerusalem

it is always easy to pick out a westernerpretending to be muslim when they use these terms which are
well- based in western lore---

Also just as a hint- it is something of an insult to spell the Qur'an that way- something that westerners also do-

dead giveaways lib

peace and good night

The definition of jihad as portrayed by the daily activities of the Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites, the Iranian Shiites and the Afghan "Talibaners":

"jihad (ji-hahd, ji-had)

In Islam, a holy war; a war ordained by God. The Koran teaches that soldiers who die in jihad go to heaven immediately.

Modern-day terrorists often claim that they are carrying out acts of destruction, such as the attacks on the World Trade Center towers, as part of a jihad. "

To change the definition will require a rewriting of the Koran and the end of the significantly stupid butchery imposed by Sunnis on Shiites and vice versa.

Hi Daniel- nice to see you back-
Tongue-in-cheek is a term that refers to a style of humour in which things are said only half seriously, or in a subtly mocking way.

Tongue-in-cheek humour in fiction often takes the form of gentle parodies. Such stories seem to abide by the conventions of an established serious genre, while in reality, they gently poke fun at some aspects of that genre.

Actually I didnt mean Jihad was fooling around- i saw it from the perspctive that she is gently poking fun at peoples misconception about the very important and most miused word from islam

There is no sense of meaning terrorism in Jihad at all- its a positive struggle-
While you are asking her to be sensitive- should we be sensitive of lack of knowledge?

If children are afraid of the bogeyman, to we coddle that fear or tell them the bogeyman doesnt exist? (no parallels just analogy)

We are all adults here and if someone is afraid of a word- then there is an obligation to remove that fear and replace it with solid knowledge.

By any standards Jihadist is a most excellent name for a faith forum because its meaning is someone who vigorously pursues their own faults and weaknesses with the intent of correcting them and
pursuing their spiritual path with tenacity and dedication.

Its looking at the beam in our own eyes under a microscope- so to speak- it is self analysis and critque with the goal of perfecting our own beings.

SID HARTH thanks for the love- actually- since ive noticed that the moderators pay more attention at the beginning of these questions- it wasnt really directed at anyone here- but to the moderators as they seem to be posting more politically geared questions- and we still have 2 years before the election and there are 1000s of political blogs but this is a special site as there just arent many outlets for interfaith discussion available-
so it wasnt intended as a wisecrack- but a gentle chide- as one of the consumers of this site- to let the people running it know that some of us are interested in faith based dialogue- since its called on faith- it seemed a reasonable remark to me.

And actually SID HARTH- perhaps you also failed to notice that the first post was also by me- the definition of the word rhetoric- do you think i posted the definiton of the word rhetoric to-
1)endorse rhetoric or
2)call attention to the actual meaning of the word?

guess which-

Liberated- you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.
salaams all

Jihadist,

I still don't see you or Victoria taking to task the militantcy of Islam. Ann Coulter is not teaching young Christians to be suicide bombers like the mullahs do to Moslem boys and girls on a daily basis. I find it ironic that Islamic girls are allowed to commit suicide on behalf of your Allah but the same Allah does not provide her with the same protection or grand time in Heaven as Hedoes for Moslem males.

Your "religion" is a sham in today's world. It is time to rectify the Koran by removing its hatred of non-believers, its promises of heavenly virgins to the "extreme" elements and the degradation of women in the Islamic world.

Christians finally grew up. Time for Islam to do the same!!!

The mullahs should be a thick-skinned as you say you are and allow mockery of your "prophet" go without turning the followers into raving lunatics everytime someone criticizes him.

Sid Harth,

Victoria' sentence, "there is little faith in this discussions" is "vulgar and demeaning"?

I can't believe the amount of bile and rants Victoria has to go through here when she seek to correct some poster's understanding and/or perceptions on Muslims and Islam.

And Hindu or Muslim, as Americans (if you are one), don't you all respect and practice the much promoted and vaunted "freedom of speech" in the US?

Telling her to go read Good Housekeeping is sexist and dismissive. Everyone is entitled to their opinions here. Including you. But what you posted on Victoria is an uncalled for and unwarranted personal attack.

As you pointed out, this forum is about the impact and effect of faith (or otherwise) in our private and public lives.

Victoria is correct about "little faith in the discussions". Many questioned their own religious faith, or had their religous faith questioned and challenged by others. And it was every educational for all.

We also seem to have little faith in our secular leaders, our religious leaders, and our fellow men judging by many postings here.

So, step back and ease up on Victoria. It is not personal. She is just making a general observation.

And I look forward to your personal attack on me and to let it pass.

May peace be with you.

My dear Victoria,

In your little comment at the beginning, paraphrasing, 'there is little faith in these discussions.'

My dear friend, I take strong objection to such vulgar and demeaning remarks. I love you, even then. You are one of those slightly on the stricter side of the spectrum, religious believers' colorful spectrum, only little the right side, right not meaning correct, the wrong side of the faith, in my honest opinion.

What, in the heavens, are you talking about? You apper that this forum being not enough "Faith-bound?" We are talking about, effects of associations with the religious bodies and thoughts being used, and/or abused by the clever politicians to maximise their effectiveness in catching fat-worms of blind believers like your goodself, of course, in their political campaigns, awash with legal, illegal pac-money.

We are on the right track before you made your wise-crack about faith. Not good enough, my dear sister. Scientific reasons and justifiable rationaale of faith being used by politicians is the main topic. If you get bored, get out of this forum. Good House Keeping magazine may have something more suitable for your mild taste. We, the participants want thoughtful answers and/or commentaies like mine on the very specific questions raised, not a campaign rhetoric for the Faith. Capital F, if you please.

Bless you all.

I am Hindu, if you did not notice.

Sid the Brave Harth

First and foremost a politican should be himself, but it seems that is not possible anymore. If the politican before he/she became a politican would bring their religion into their ordinary conversation, then they should do so when they run for office. If they didn't they shouldn't. I think now everything a major politican does is governed by polls. They are no longer leaders, but rather followers of positions they think will get them elected.

DANIEL,

You're right on the difference between Lesser Jihad (war) and Greater Jihad (the personal struggle within oneself to be the best one can be)

And, yes, Victoria is right in my being tongue in cheek knowing fully well the western aversion towards the word Jihad. Trust me, Victoria knows the difference and saw why I use it.

I took the name Jihadist to reclaim it from my warped fellow Muslims who abuse it for their own ends. They even justified the killings of non-combatants, including women and children. A definite no in the Al Qur'an. It infuriates me that Jihad now has a negative connotation for such abuse and misuse of the term by my anarchistic fellow Muslims who breaks every Islamic tenets about war and Jihad.

GREG

You are right about characterizing the Shiites and the Sunnis as Catholics and Protestants in some way.

The split comes about after Prophet Muhammad PBUH death. The nascent Muslim community then has to decide who is to be their leader. The Prophet is said to never named a successor by the group that become the Sunnis. So, they, by acclamation pick the best man. The group that becomes the Shiites insisted that the Prophet designated Ali, his son in law and cousin as his successor, and should lead the Islamic community.

Over the centuries, the battle sharpened and to this day the Shiites believe the Imams/Leaders of Islam should be the descendants of the Prophet from Ali and his daughter Fatima.

And the Shiites have a formal cleric system - hojatolislams, mullahs, and ayatollahs. Ayatollah Khomeini is venerated as the Catholics would venerate the Pope and his fatwas are similar to the Papal Bull. However, in Shiite Islam, the Muslims are free to chose the Ayatollah whose religious guidance and fatwas (legal or religious opinion) they wish to subsribe to.

Sunni Islam is, compared to Shiite Islam, a "disorganized church". Anyone can lead prayers as Imam thought the mosques now have resident imams. Anyone who thinks he knows Islam has been issuing fatwas, which rightly should be by the Grand Muftis in all Islamic countries.

Even then, Sunni Muslims are free to follow the fatwas or otherwise. Muslim states do enact and enforce into laws not fatwas but matters related to family, marriages, divorces etc - as Shariah laws.

On fatwas, no Sunni Muslim and even Shiite Muslim takes up on Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa on the death sentence against Salman Rushdie.

And yes, the Sunni and Shiite dispute is almost like the Protestant-Catholic disputes in Christendom. My Iraqi Sunni friends tells me they don't want to live under a Shiite Islamic theocracy like in Iran. Sunni Muslims are averse to that. Imagine Protestants being ruled by priests, bishops and popes. And that is also why Sunni Muslims are averse to the Taliban too, even if they are Sunnis for they want to impose a theocracy.

Of course, the Shiites and the Taliban will give you a different perspective. I am a Sunni Muslim of the Shafie school if you want to go into details :)

In spite of that, Muslims identify themselves as Muslims, not Shiites or Sunnis if you ask any. The finer details comes later.

Jihadist,

Ann Coulter? She is interesting to read, but I don't take her that seriously. And she is very polarizing, most either love or hate her, kinda like Hillary Clinton. When I do read her columns I know she has an agenda.

I always split Muslims into two categories. The moderate group which is in no way responsible for 9/11 etc... And the extremists who fan the flames of violence and discord and dishonor that they supposedly believe in. I don't need to defend Islam because it's not responsible for the bloodshed. It's the extremists who get the blame for that.

BTW what caused the split anyway between the two groups? It reminds me of the bloodshed in Europe between the Protestants and the Catholics way back when.

To Jihadist from Daniel. I know the full meaning of the word jihad--that it does not necessarily mean terrorism, that it can also mean the struggle within to come closer to God--but it is pretty insensitive of you to use that name on a Western forum without clarifying the difference. Not everyone knows the meaning--the subtleties--of the word. Or is it you are not concerned about such? And why not concerned? You do seem concerned about Muslims being misconstrued from what I can tell by your other statements. Even a Muslim such as Victoria seems unaware of the subtleties of the word jihad. Read her defense of you a few posts back. She says you are just being tongue in cheek (which just means fooling around if you are unfamiliar with Western figures of speech). Why a Muslim such as Victoria (who constantly posts in defense of Islam) does not know the subtleties of the word is another good question....

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated

Had fun? I did, reading your postings here and I'm sure other readers too. You are so funny :)

Of course you do know that there is the Lesser Jihad, and there is the Greater Jihad. And you are certainly aware that Jihadist is coined in English by the Anglo-Saxon world. And you do know the Arabic/Muslim word for those engaged in Lesser Jihad is Mujahid.

Interesting that when non-Muslims tried to be fair to Muslims in spit for spat, they have to qualify it with saying, "I am not defending Islam but.." Not PC to be defending Islam which seems to be on trial since 9/11. This is a world first. A whole religion on trial for the acts of some who happened to be Muslims:)

At least you are not Ann Coulter who said, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity". She is, I understand, a very well educated and venerable public figure in the US, a trained lawyer, who often pop up on US national TV and is widely syndicated in newspapers.

What do foreigners know eh, about American bigotry. No wait, it wasn't. Coulter and Concerned the Christian Now Liberated are just provocateurs, forcing us to think and rethink!!! In the Islamic world, we call those among us who spout such statements fanatics.

And nah, we never always rationalize them saying such things as a prime example of free speech. We call them libel, slander or hate speech, depending on the intensity of their statements.

Concerned, thanks for your concern on Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis. If only they knew, they'll stop killing each other and shower you with flowers for making them see the truth about themselves. But I will pass it on to them.

Tonio,

Eric Rudolf is serving three consecutive life terms. Hopefully the global jihadists will serve a similar fate if not worse. This should include their mullahs who convince them they are acting as "messengers of god" when they kill fellow Muslims and non-believers.

Randall Terry's commentary should be condemned by all Christians to include leaders and groups such as the Crusade.

On the other hand, Christian leaders must continue to support human life in all its forms. See http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/columnists/16561108.htm for a recent review of abortions in the USA. Something is very wrong with a country that permits over one million abortions annually.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070128_christianists_on_the_march/

"Mike Campbell, what is the difference between a "true" belief and a "false" belief? And who says what the difference is?
Belief reveals intelligence? Bush's judgment (unless you believe in "rapture", lol!) as a "believer" should disprove this argument once and for all, except for a - true believer, who thinks that belief produces intelligence."

Well, the difference between a true belief and a false belief is that a true belief is true and a false belief is false. Belief is different than knowledge in that knowledge is definitive certainty whereas belief is based on probability. One who believes more true things than false things is more intelligent than the one who believes more false things than true things, for belief is discovered through an investigation of the truth, like I said.

If one believes that Jesus Christ was actually born from a virgin, then they do not know this because it cannot be proven definitively. So they believe it based on faith rather than the probability of it being true, for the probability of that story being a true story is less than the probability that it is not true. This is why faith is irrational, thus religious folk are irrational as well. Faith is belief without sufficient reason; belief without the required probability. Thus the public ought to take note if and when a politician openly admits that they believe in these things that require irrationality, for the probability that their judgment may be guided by irrationality in other instances, instances where the country is affected, is greater than the probability would be if the politician used only reason when making judgments about the truth.

I.E., closing the books on stem cell research. This is a judgment based on irrationality.

Victoria,

Bad manners is your continuing support of Islam which last year alone was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

Victoria,

Bad manners is your continuing support of Islam which last year alone was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

So basically liberated you have nothing new to say?

this is it in a nutshell -

i will condemn or not condemn whosoever i will

your phony facade of caring about muslims anywhere is belied by your constant hateful speech in regards to muslims

if i do condemn anyone anytime it will be my conscious choice- not because i am being taunted or goaded by someone who hates my religion

it is simply not your business what my relgion is

it is clear you have nothing of your own to say and without islam as a catalyst to hide your own projected angers behind- you have no other opinions-

it is not necessary for me to justify my existence in any way to satisfy your needs.

when you stop insulting my relgion and myself by comparison- i will consider answering you with civility.

so you control whether you are answered by this oh so pressing question

my lack of answer is dependent on your lack of manners

and has been with total consistency

by stating that i should condemn anyone you are basically telling me what to answer you

perhaps you would do better if you asked a question with respect- instead of framing it so that you dictate the answer

clear enough?
good manners are responded to
bad manners are ignored
it rests with you
salaams

"You have a reference(s) saying that the Campus Crusade for Christ is butchering fellow Christians or demanding slaying of non-believers?"

I think it's reasonable to want groups such as the Campus Crusade to condemn certain acts carried out in the name of Christianity. Examples include Eric Rudolph's murderous rampage, or Randall Terry's open promotion of hate and intolerance.

Hermit,

You have a reference(s) saying that the Campus Crusade for Christ is butchering fellow Christians or demanding slaying of non-believers?

Victoria,

Are you Sunni or Shiite? Islam is divided into these two warring factions, a war that has been ongoing before oil entered into the debate. Condemn your Islamic brothers for the slaughter. Did you see the news yesterday? Sunnis and their foreign terrorist brothers tried to kill the religious head of the Shiites. Where is your condemnation?

LIBERATED-

BOILING HATRED? KILLING? MAIMING?
BUTCHERY?

i think its just remotely possible that you are PROJECTING your own feelings onto others?

liberated- were listening-

do you have ANYTHING to say that is an original thought or outside of the realm of knee jerk emotional negative responses to muslims?

what would you find to talk about without us to rail against?

you used to be concerned the christian and then you became concerned the christian now liberated

did you have some sort of epiphany on these boards?

maybe you could share that with us instead-
were all pretty well aware by now that youre not in favor of islam-
what are you in favor of?
what is it that youve become liberated from?

hermit can always be counted on to be a voice of reason here.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated

In the interest of equal time we await your condemnation of the Campus Crusade for Christ considering the butchery of Muslims, Jews and even other Christians carried out in the name of "Crusade".

Keep in mind, I'm not defending Islam here, just pointing out that the beam in the Christian eye is at least as big as the one you see in the Muslim's.

Regards

A Hermit

Victoria,

Reiterating the truth about the hatred boiling in Islam is necessary to keep crazy "jihadists" from killing and maiming.

Using the name "Jihadist" is hardly "tongue in cheek" considering the butchery of fellow Muslims done under this name.

liberated- when a person takes it upon themselves to be self-deprecating on their own- its really kind of redundant andpointless for you to restate it and jump on it as if youre making a new point yourself-

were not proposing slaughtering kittens here-
your over reaction to every statement made from a muslim perspective is getting dull-

also- has it not occurred to you that a name lke jihadist just might be tongue in cheek?

Mike Campbell, what is the difference between a "true" belief and a "false" belief? And who says what the difference is?

Belief reveals intelligence? Bush's judgment (unless you believe in "rapture", lol!) as a "believer" should disprove this argument once and for all, except for a - true believer, who thinks that belief produces intelligence.

Jihadist,

You noted:

"I (i.e. the Jihadist) sound like a detestable Muslim apologist."

Yes, you do!!! And your name is indicative of that.

You also noted:

"Now, who is going to apologize for the Iraq debacle?"

You and your fellow Sunnis and Shiites and "Talibaners" should due to the centuries of butchery against each other to include the stoning and killing of women for simply being women desiring to be human.

Victoria,

Enjoy your freedom and consider yourself fortunate that you do not live in a Islamic country!!

I find it impossible not to be curious as to what politician’s beliefs are with respect to the ultimate question there is to life: what is the meaning to it?

The fact of the matter is that beliefs produce actions and reveal intelligence. Therefore, a politician’s belief or disbelief in God ought to be shared with the public.

The issue has an answer to it, despite the fact that we will never truly find it; there either IS a god or there IS NOT a god. Beliefs are discovered through an investigation of the truth. A politician who has more true beliefs than false beliefs has better judgmental abilities than one who has more false beliefs than true beliefs. Therefore, a politicians’ belief or disbelief or lack there of belief can be an indicator of the judgmental abilities that he or she possesses.

DRYICE- there is no way to get around the point of that video is there? out of the mouths of babes-
i cant say anything because it speaks for itself-

JIHADIST- concerned the liberated is one of those that expects every muslim to be responsible for the action of every other on the planet-

you finally got an answer for your question concerned-

i agree mo- smart people dont want the boss's job-
i always say the only reward for hard work is more work-

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated,

Islamic tirade? That's a new one. Nah, that new labelling and/or phrase won't deter me. I'm used to western/christian tirades about Islam, the sham religion and way of life. Of course it is a reprehensible religion full of delusional believers in God :)

I was quite on topic re politicians who expressed their personal religious views and to use religious rhetoric. I focussed on those expressing their views on Islam and not on other religions, including on Judaism, Wiccanism, Mormons etc. and the consequences of the personal views. I would not presume to do so. Of course I focussed on western politicians and figures as you would know them.

You have to ask the Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites why they are killing each other so much after the invasion and occupation of Iraq - who gets what, when and how over oil and control for Iraq. And who aided and abetted either sides for geopolitical control of the country and its resources. They have plenty to say about that, and American officials and military personnel has been on record to say - better for them to kill each other rather than us.

Peace be with you while bombs is raining on my Muslim brothers' and sisters' heads in Iraq, Palestine, and Afghanistan to liberate them.

I sound like a detestable Muslim apologist. Now, who is going to apologize for the Iraq debacle?

the creator lord and the state.
the creation is perfect,the sun never collide with the moon,nor the moon ever collide with the sun.the physical universal clock of the general universe is perfect.its impossible ,the perfect creator to creat this perfect universe but forget about the -state-.the perfect creator sent light and guidance to the state,but the state either not interested or not exposed to or ignorant about,yet the state need bread and jusice for survival,the state eat and devour the lushy bread of the creator,but when it comes to his justice,the state isnot interested.yet survival of the state need justice .,the elite,the influenced and the wealthy are the ones who they draw the justice system for the state ,in the absence of the justice of the creator.this is life.the book of life says,the boss is not always right but he is always the boss.the book of life also says,be as bossy as you can be but certainly you will pay for it one day.smart people usually do not apply for -boss- position.

Jihadist,

Who and what brought about your Islamic tirade? And when the Sunnis and Shiites stop butchering each other, you might have some reason to think Islam is a way of life. Right now it is a sham considering that its two major groups continue to kill and maim each other in the name of Allah and some decendents of the "prophet".

What I learn since the Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses", the Prophet Muhammad PBUH cartoon contrversy, the Pope Benedict speech on the Prophet, Jack Straw (the former British foreign secretary who asked one of his consituent to remove her veil), and Rep. Goode's statement about an American Muslim congressman is that, after all the flap they caused, they all said in essence (to the point of cliches) - I stand by what I said, and I regret your reactions. Or - I don't agree with what you said, but I will defend your right to say it. Or - I said what is needed to be said and I want to start a debate.

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, and one should really tell the world what one really thinks. Of course, one must be prepared for the fall out, the ire and reactions on religious rethoric and religious views. As that wonderful American expression has it - he can dish it out, but he can't take it.

News Cynic,
No one is answering you because your points seem unclear and incoherent and have no relevance to the discussion in which you've repeatedly posted them. I think I understand the rhetorical meaning behind some of your questions - but from the tone of them I can be pretty sure that any reasoned reply would/will be received as an invitation to be shouted at. Briefly here are some examples of what I mean:
#1
1. Can the state force a gay church to higher a straight pastor who thinks homosexuality is a sin?
**I think you mean 'hire'. I'm guessing your underlying point is something to do with the state having already forced 'straight' churches to appoint gays. Not clear to me.

Does the wall separating church & state go both ways?
**Is that a koan? don't walls always go both ways? I'm guessing you have a point about the state interfering in religion or religion interfering in the state - not clear to me.

#2. Should a church be able to force people to be members & pay dues?
**The obvious answer is no. I'm guessing you have some subtext about someone being forced to do something - not clear to me.

The Church of England is supported in part by taxes.
** Wrong. The C of E owns huge tracts of land in the UK and gains it's income from them. Where does this fit into the existing discussion? Not Clear to me...

Etc. Etc. Hope that goes some way to explaining why no one answered you before

Dear Panelist, today I am stunned! Today I am outraged! Today, as an member of the Episcopal Church I am horrified and ashamed of the political mockery that a well meaning member of my Church has perpetrated on African Americans in this Country! The cynical black-faced race-baiting political garbage that the GOP has used since the days of Nixon stink to high heaven! I ask you to review the following clip regarding the historic doll test which formed the basis of the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court Decision. I am so profoundly disgusted with the United States right now I can not talk....
http://www.komotv.com/home/video/5001856.html?video=YHI&t=ao

What are you going to do about it America??? If history is any indication let me guess, NOT ONE GOD DAMNED THING!!!!!!!

well the point you made here points to the necessity of knowing what a potential candidates relgious proclivities might be- doesnt it?

what if we removed religion from the political discussion only to discover our newly elected president believed he was going to be swept up in the rapture and had little care for what mess is left behind him (or her)?

The subject of dangerous possibly for politicians believing in rapture has come up in some of the commentary to the panelists' reviews:

My comments on this:

As per Edward Schillebeeckx, contemporary theologian and author, prophets and prophecies are not possible for even God does not know the Future i.e. Future is a subset of the gift of Free Will.

In his book, Church: The Human Story of God, Schillebeeckx notes, "Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For
God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

St. Paul's prophecy about the imminent Second Coming fortunately for us did not materialize but it did convert a lot of Gentiles and indeed opened their purse strings and still does with significantly stupid ideas like rapture.

As an Englishman and atheist, I would say that a good reason not to vote for any politician is if they - the polititian - believe in a supernatural being: it shews lack of intellectual ability.
Also, it is far easier to find an atheist who practises a life along the lines of what Christ is alleged to have taught, than it is to find a Christian who does so; for example, as a general rule, atheists do not go around inflicting wholesale slaughter on other humans. It should be remembered that Hitler declared himself Christian (But he wasn't I hear the religionists shouting) and, of course, we shouldn't forget the inquisition.
Unlike the current president, whose religious belief is obviously as devout as mine, a true Christian would rather die than take the life of another.

As an Englishman and atheist, I would say that a good reason not to vote for any politician is if they - the polititian - believe in supernatural being: it shews lack of intellectual ability.
Also, it is far easier to find an atheist who practises a life along the lines of what Christ is alleged to have taught, than it is to find a Christian who does so; for example, as a general rule, atheists do not go around inflicting wholesale slaughter on other humans. It should be remembered that Hitler declared himself Christian (But he wasn't I hear the religionists shouting).
Unlike the current president, whose belief is obviously as devout as mine, a true Christian would rather die than take the life of another.

Any one?

1. Can the state force a gay church to higher a straight pastor who thinks homosexuality is a sin? Does the wall separating church & state go both ways?

2. Should a church be able to force people to be members & pay dues? The Church of England is supported in part by taxes.

3. Should the state be able to tell a mosque where they can build? Couldn't a city zone groups like that out of their community?

4. Should faith healers and snake handlers be forced to be handicapped accessible? What if they think that shows a lack of faith?

5. If a bunch of friends get together and choose one as “The Grand High Priestess” and then decide to pay her to do that job should the government be able to tax her for a cut?

6. Should a religious person be allowed to run for office?

7. What about Buddhists? Many Buddhists don’t believe in a personal god. So is Buddhism (or Confucianism for that matter) a religion or a value system?

8. Should people who believe in value systems be allowed to run for office or just those who determine right and wrong for themselves?

9. Or, even better, “only those who will go with the flow of whatever society feels is right at the time should be able to hold office?” So if our culture says that owning slaves, killing Jews, or burning mosques is OK - then those people are qualified to hold office (as long as they are not religious)?

10. Only people who think like I do (place yourself in this sentence) should be allowed to run. Every one else is crazy and delusional and can’t think straight! In otherwords should people with certain views (such as those held by The Black Panthers or the KKK) be excluded from the political process or should we let the democratic process weed them out?

When are people going to wake up to themselves????
There is NO God, you are born, live, then die. Man created God, not the other way around.
Look at the mess we have in Iraq, sunnis v sheites v chistian v anyone with a gun.............
It's a joke, yet our political leaders pander the the "devout" bible belt to secure votes, pander to whatever weird, misguided, beliefs just to get in office then, once in, have to enact policy to keep the "devout" onside..........

Religion is the bane of mankind. George Bush is way, way over the line.

Religion is the bane of mankind. The less it is invoked the better. Bush is way, way over the line on religion.

Unequivocally NO, the Bush administration is a perfect example of why there is and should be a seperation of church and state. The seperation of church and state is the hall mark of a democratic society. It prevents political stagnation and foments and freedom of thought, religion and speech.

I think they should allow their faith play a role in them governing, the problem is that "religion" has gone wrong. It has been made into a topic instead of something that is acted out. Well I should say acted out in the right way. I mean its pretty obvious that people are bending scriptures to please themselves.

here's a question, if your a christian...how can you not live your faith out? Even at your job aka, people that control our govn't

peace
Justin

at the tempel of democracey
sunday morning,the mass public reverently,siting down,every body got democratic cap on his head,and democrarosary beads in hands,every body hymning the song of the song democracey,wating for queen democracey to come up on the pulpit to give here sonorous oratation,to enrich people soul and to put money in their pocket.from no where queen democracey jumped up on the pulpit ,accompanyed by the sacred scholars of science and logic,and the democratic ritualists,who they fan the fire at the democratic altar.the queen was shouting,the right of people for people by the people,but if you donot have the money ,you would not make it to the governement.but i assure you people democracey will die for you.uppon hearing this ,a young man at the crowed having epileptic frenzy democratic attack,with foam and salaiva gushing from his mouth,was shouting free at last ,bring all people to the tempel for eternal life.uppon hearing this the queen,s voice came as a thunder,yes by all means take democracey to all the 4 corner of the earth,when yo finsh take it to the outer space,as for the rebelers bring them to the tempel for hard labor purefication.and if you die democracey will be with you.amen

We are polticians or christians, two alternatives that we could think about it. However, as a chistians we must think that candidates promesse and doesn't... Any way we have to vote.

We are polticians or christians, two alternatives that we could think about it. However, as a chistinas we must think that candidates promesse and doesn't... Any way we have to vote.

Maybe the Iraq War is going to be so bad that the benefit to the world will be more understanding of the world's religions and how they originated, and then the removal of religious control of governmental processes and the elimination of behind the scenes control of state and local governments, world-wide.

Personal religious views and religious practices should be used to guage the mental capacity of a candidate. However, in the US the educational system has been used to downplay the learning of civic matters to such an extent that many in the population in general are deficient in being able to make a valid judgment of who has the capacity to govern a country. We used to hear the term "educated fool"; too many of our citizens now fit that description in terms of governmental processes and who has the capacity to govern and they vote too often based on manipulated headlines, or don't vote at all.

Hopefully somebody gets a dissertation out of this overly long discussion. I agree with others that there should be a limit on dialogue.

Also I'd feel like you care about my opinion if you increase the diversity of the panelists. Otherwise you'll continue being dominated by the beadwearers of the 70s. Cause I don't see these panelists in church with me on Sundays, and didn't see them at the prison when I last visited.

I personally could not care less about a candidate's religion. I can only assume he (she)is fairly bright and educated and has access to money, or he (she) would not be considering the office. If the candidate is not religious what is to keep him from lying and saying he is? How would we know? I have always said that a good, moral man would be a good president, even if he is an athiest.
I am a Christian, but I have severely distanced my religious beliefs from my political beliefs. We have seen how an overtly "christian" president has tried very hard to push his beliefs on our country. A really good president simply tries to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the country.

How come Robert B. has the attention of every poster on this thread and I can't get one comment on these questions that have more to do with the topic than if Christianity inspired the Scientific method or not!

What do you think? Should we just keep religion out of politics or should politics stay out of religion as well?

1. For example: Can the state force a gay church to higher a straight pastor who thinks homosexuality is a sin? Does the wall separating church & state go both ways?

2. Should a church be able to force people to be members & pay dues? The Church of England is supported in part by taxes.

3. Should the state be able to tell a mosque where they can build? Couldn't a city zone groups like that out of their community?

4. Should faith healers and snake handlers be forced to be handicapped accessible? What if they think that shows a lack of faith?

5. If a bunch of friends get together and choose one as “The Grand High Priestess” and then decide to pay her to do that job should the government be able to tax her for a cut?

6. Should a religious person be allowed to run for office?

7. What about Buddhists? Many Buddhists don’t believe in a personal god. So is Buddhism (or Confucianism for that matter) a religion or a value system?

8. Should people who believe in value systems be allowed to run for office or just those who determine right and wrong for themselves?

9. Or, even better, “only those who will go with the flow of whatever society feels is right at the time should be able to hold office?” So if our culture says that owning slaves, killing Jews, or burning mosques is OK - then those people are qualified to hold office (as long as they are not religious)?

10. Only people who think like I do (place yourself in this sentence) should be allowed to run. Every one else is crazy and delusional and can’t think straight! In otherwords should people with certain views (such as those held by The Black Panthers or the KKK) be excluded from the political process or should we let the democratic process weed them out?

Speaking only from my own perspective as a voter, I want to know what the candidate's values and moral principles are, as well as political values and guiding principles. If a candidate follows a religion, it would be helpful to know what that religion is and to what extent he or she feels obligated to follow it. Most importantly, it is important for me to assess how a candidate squares his or her own beliefs, principles and values against what I see as the obligation to respect the beliefs etc. of as many people as possible in this diverse society.

For example, candidate George W. Bush let on that he was a sincere fundamentalist Christian, and that those beliefs shaped his worldview. I surmised that those beliefs would likely guide his decisions as president. Therefore, on that basis, I totally ruled him out as someone I could support.

It follows that it is a political calculation when a candidate chooses to discuss his or her religion, because what the candidate says will attract some voters and repel others.

As an athiest I won't say it's "
appropriate [...] for the candidates to express their personal religious views and to use religious rhetoric." However, that's not the same as saying I find it [in]appropriate that they do. And when they do, I think it not so important what they say as where they say it and who they're speaking to. Paying attention to the context may tell us more about the candidates than what the candidates are trying to say about themselves.

Even the most devoutly religious candidates are motivated by more than just the moral imperatives of their faith -- this assertion must be true as they are no less human that the rest of us. I want to know about those other things. That'll tell me more about what they think and how they think, and will better clue me in to how and why they act, than any profession of faith that they might make....

Here some example of the assistance of reformation to science, to quote Robert B.:
"You might actually be surprised about how the Church actually inspired a scientific investigation of the world".

Luther May 6th, 1526 in a sermon:

It is a fully just law that witches have to be killed, because they do a lot of damage, which is sometimes ignored: They can steal milk, butter and everything out of a house, they can cast a spell on a child. They also can create mysterious deseases in the human knee, so that the body is consumed. They create damage to body and soul, they distribute drinks and curses to create hatred, love, bad wheather, all turmoil in the house, on the field, over a distance of a mile and more they make people limp with their witch arrows which nobody can heal.

The witches must be killed, because they are thieves, adulters, robbers, murderers. They create all sorts of damage. They must be killed not only because of their damage, but also because they have intercourse with Satan.

Nice of you, Robert B., to tolerate some degree of "sin" in public life. It reminds me of Augustinus' "Felix Culpa" ("happy sin"), necessary to go to Heaven.

But seriously, hopefully it represents the first step of "tolerance" towards non-religious, accountable members of society ("sinners"!), after the desire to extinguish them in history and in some present-day virulent remnants of it.

it seems to me that alot of people are all for free speech here- as long as it agrees with their philosophy- there seems to be a great desire to control what people believe- isnt that the opposite of what we want in this society?

like john kennedy said- he looked forward to a day when america would be free from religious intolerance-

respect has to go both ways people-

mockery and insults doesnt demonstrate any cleverness- rather it reveals a lack of intelligent comment

SURE, politicians have the right to express their illogical religious views the same as everyone else. That's how people get elected. Look at G.W.B. Everyone knew he was an idiot, but they elected him (twice!) because of his “strong moral/religious values”. Good job, America.

Of course politicians should be allowed to placate the masses by professing their "faith" in an invisible man in the sky who is rooting for America. Because "faith" is what our country was built on, right? WRONG. Our country was founded on REASON. Our founding fathers (contrary to popular belief) did not envision a "Christian" nation where the country's citizens were considered "less American" if they were not Christian or were *gasp* an agnostic or atheist.

Those politicians who do not believe in the sadistic Judeo-Christian god should not have to pretend that they follow a faith just to get elected. Those who do not believe should speak out and be proud that they have risen above the blindly accepted mythos of the unenlightened masses. But then they wouldn't be very good politicians, would they...

As the American presidential campaign of 2008 takes shape, do you believe it is important and/or appropriate for the candidates to express their personal religious views and to use religious rhetoric? Why?

My belief first of all is that there has never been a clear distinction between religion and politics in the Western world even though we all roughly grasp one is more worldly than the other. Furthermore I believe events are going to force us into a greater grasp of the differences between "otherworldly" religions such as the Judeo-Christian ones and politics and the possibility of having a "this worldly" religion which is more compatible with politics such as possibly exists in the Buddhist countries (Buddhism is not as otherworldly as Christianity for example).

In other words in the Western world there has always been a split between religion and politics which however has never been definitively articulated while in the Far East the split has never been as great and politics and religion are more closely one.

The world today in general seems to be forced into deciding whether to go with strictly secular politics or religion, and if religion is to persist it must accomodate itself to politics--must become this worldly and not hold up a metaphysical world apart from earthly politics.

My belief is that if religion is introduced into American politics it must be in a vague, extremely general, and all-encompassing manner or risk being divisive. Furthermore, it must stimulate to "this world" solutions and not be otherworldly, let alone a consolation for political failure in this world.

The problem is that the world's problems are becoming so acute, so difficult to solve--so difficult to define and solve in a strictly secular fashion--that politics itself is becoming more and more threatened with never being able to be defined apart from religion in general, and it seems religion will become only more fundamental and otherworldly to console man for his political failures, his failures to succeed in a totally worldly sense.

Essentially--and to speak with a clear contrast between monotheistic religions such as Christianity and politics--what it is coming down to is the human choice of consoling ourselves for failures in this world with heaven or throwing ourselves forward in a heroic and strictly political manner to totally solve all our problems on this earth by our own hands.

And in America this conflict is raging against the backdrop of the only political documents we really take to heart: the Constitution, the declaration of independence, the federalist papers, etc.

Many people have pointed out that the U.S. does not really engross itself with political theory, that it does not embrace grand designs as so many totalitarian regimes did in the 20th century, but here at the beginning of the 21st it seems the U.S. is having to make up for the belief in proceeding only by its chosen documents--and in fact the U.S. might have to become the greatest theorizing power that has ever existed because we are in a world which is rapidly becoming "make or break", and this world is driving us into something of "fight or flight" and we either are going to embrace our political challenges wholeheartedly and make ourselves in this world or we are going to turn to religion (and no doubt the worst of it) for consolation...

We can say perhaps that the more religion is invoked (especially the otherworldly variety) the more we have given up on political solutions. This is not to say religion is strictly incompatible with politics--it is not, religion can help with political order--but the magnitude of our problems are such that we can speak of them being apocalyptic, and this of course is what unfortunately certain monotheistic religions have not only been predicting all along, but what they perhaps want...

But to give even the most irrational religions their due, if political solutions are extremely painful--if man cannot solve his problems here in this world in a strictly worldly sense without cutting into and hurting his fellow man--why would we give up religion and embrace a political project, even if our religious beliefs and neglect of worldly affairs actually brings on the apocalypse?

Unfortunately contemplating the world's problems will drive this man to religion, that one to politics...And more and more every day we are being forced to ask what type of man we want ascendant in the world: one able and willing to live without God or one who reconciles us to religion to the point that we long for an afterlife, that we turn against the hope of man ever making a difference in this world by his own hands...

The problem is far more serious than whether any president of any country should express his religious beliefs. What we are faced with worldwide is a battle at the human race's heart--one which will totally alter our world conception. This battle will be one of whether religion and politics can be brought in line toward a project of man working out his destiny with his own hands (and therefore Buddhism is perhaps the way to go) or if the chasm between religion and politics will be so widened that politics will not only collapse into religion but we will be left with only a cry out to God for our complete destruction of human existence and in fact the world...

Yes, a worldview is being decided upon--and it is much larger than any one president.

be forced to state how that affiliation affects their stance on lawmaking?

isnt the thought police the kind of thing we want to avoid? i know i do-

My thinking is that it would be wise for the people running any governmental election to state what religious affiliation they belong to if its that important to them. I prefer them to do that than to keep it quiet and use it in their decision making. I believe that would be a part of my decision making in voting. But if they do bring their religious affiliation into the campaign than they should also state or be forced to state how that affiliation affects their stance on lawmaking. State where they stand on specific issues and if they support otherwise they must be held accountable and be voted out of office.

They should not be allowed to be represented finacially or otherwise in their campaigns by religious affiliations. That is where I believe a greater amount of seperation of church and state lie.

Lets face it its the lobbyists that the candidates speak for. In my opinion, that is the problem that needs watchdoged.

Did we not see that in this last bunch of representatives? Even the religious ones were swayed by the perks.

Robert B.

My keen intellect told me that your last rhethoric question did not really ask for an answer. It would be sheer speculation, although personally I think there would have been much less bloodshed: The 30 years' war, which killed one third of Germany's population was about nothing but religion, and what we are witnessing today, is it not about religion, even if religion may serve as a camouflage for power, as it has done in the past?

And thank you for arguing on my side in your first paragraph about any "challenge to tradition having been condemned". The fact that at the time of Galilei's birth reformation was going on in Europe - what does it say against the anti-science attitude of religion pervading religion up to this very day? (Kansas)? Luther was an outspoken enemy of science, just like the catholic church. In this point there was no reformation, if you read the terrible articles of Luther in favor of witch-burning. Unsurpassable superstition.

The encouraging fact that there were some couragious people using their mind for reason instead for superstition was in spite of the hostility against, not because of the favor for science as displayed by all religious colors.

constitution as symbolism
the principles of law are supposed to control society,because such an assuption is necessary to the logic of the dream.yet the observer should constantly keep in mind that the function of law is not so much to guide society ,as to comfort it.belive in funamental principles of law does not necessary lead to an orderly society.such a belive is as often at the back of revolt or disorder.law is primarily a great reservoir of emotionally important social symbols,the poor are equal to the rich and the strong have no advantage over the weak.from any objective point of view the escap of the law from reality constitute not its weakness but its greatest strength.legal institution must constantly reconcile ideological conflicts,just as individuals reconcile them by shoving inconsistencies back into a sort of institutional subconscious mind.the abstract ideals of the law require for their public acceptance symbolic conduct,to achive the dramatic presentation necessary to make them moving forces in society.the ( pious ) suprem court come up with the cermonial ritualistic trial while the ( scientific )law school produces the theoretical literrature which defends the ideal from attack by absorbing and weaving into its mystical pattern all the ideas of all the critics.

i think that its most important to use as a criteria for public service- ow the public has been served in a politicians past- honesty would be a nice criteria- but honest people are generally not drawn to politics-but actually repelled by it- i dont think any particular grouping of humans in any philosophy can claim exemption from hypocrisy and a desire to push their views on others-
everyone is guilty of it- theists-atheists and scientists-

if a person finds their own indentity in religion- it is ridiculous to ask someone to disassociate from their holistic self- like it would be insane to ask a scientist to suspend their scientific processes from their decision making-

if you really want to be fair you have to be fair across the board.

Was that THE Bill Donohue who commented above? If so, how ironic that he laments a political environment "where winning is everything and lies, hate and arrogance are successful tools in Washington." This lying, hateful, arrogant jerk takes pleasure in ruining people as a political weapon, whether the charges are true, semi-true, or simply not true. He brags about gaining "scalps on his wall" when his next victim bites the dust. This is not a guy who loves his neighbor as himself -- unless, of course, he hates himself, which, now that I think of it, is quite possible.

Robert B,

See Professor Crossan's book The Historical Jesus to get a in-depth review of most of the NT passages. See also http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf for the references he used to come to his conclusions.
See http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf
to see all of the conclusions.

Click on Strata, Historicity, Attestation, and Common Sayings on the original reference to get a brief review of Professor's criteria for "Jesus authenticity".

Robert B,

See Professor Crossan's book The Historical Jesus to get a in-depth review of most of the NT passages. See also http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf for the references he used to come to his conclusions.
See http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf
to see all of the conclusions.

Clicking on Strata, Historicity, Attestation, and Common Sayings to get a brief review of Professor's criteria for "Jesus authenticity".

Mary wrote: "Sanctity of life does not end at birth."

Well said!

As usual, the anti-theist brings up Galileo as the proof that the Church is anti-science. What they fail to remember is that Galileo was born during the Protestant Reformation, a time of intense conservatism within the Church when *any* challenge to tradition was condemned.

I note, however, that you do not address the question that I asked at the end of my post. Would you direct your keen intellect towards that?

Gerry, if you are really interested in actually learning about the Church and science, may I suggest that you check out the book *Aristotle's Children* by Richard E. Rubenstein. You might actually be surprised about how the Church actually inspired a scientific investigation of the world:

http://www.amazon.com/Aristotles-Children-Christians-Rediscovered-Illuminated/dp/0156030098/sr=1-1/qid=1169853193/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-5397466-4298854?ie=UTF8&s=books

Here are some questions that should be answered:

Should just religion stay out of politics or should politics stay out of religion as well?

1. For example: Can the state force a gay church to higher a straight pastor who thinks homosexuality is a sin? Does the wall separating church & state go both ways?

2. Should a church be able to force people to be members & pay dues? The Church of England is supported in part by taxes.

3. Should the state be able to tell a mosque where they can build? Couldn't a city zone groups like that out of their community?

4. Should faith healers and snake handlers be forced to be handicapped accessible? What if they think that shows a lack of faith?

5. If a bunch of friends get together and choose one as “The Grand High Priestess” and then decide to pay her to do that job should the government be able to tax her for a cut?

6. Should a religious person be allowed to run for office?

7. What about Buddhists? Many Buddhists don’t believe in a personal god. So is Buddhism (or Confucianism for that matter) a religion or a value system?

8. Should people who believe in value systems be allowed to run for office or just those who determine right and wrong for themselves?

9. Or, even better, “only those who will go with the flow of whatever society feels is right at the time should be able to hold office?” So if our culture says that owning slaves, killing Jews, or burning mosques is OK - then those people are qualified to hold office (as long as they are not religious)?

10. Only people who think like I do (place yourself in this sentence) should be allowed to run. Every one else is crazy and delusional and can’t think straight!

Jonathan, be assured that I don’t want to convert you to anything, not even to reason. But to keep science out of government is exactly what we witness today. Science is based on reason, and in today’s politics I am desperately looking even for a slight glimpse of this most wonderful human potential bestowed on us (some of us) by nature. Our great leader bases his decisions on faith, and the world, stunned, looks at this “faith-ful” desaster. Atheism is not a religion: Not collecting butterflies is not a hobby. So your recommendation “keep atheism out” simply does not have an object. The very computer you use to spread your anti-science is a product of science.

And Marxism can be regarded as an ersatz religion; it certainly was not based on science. Marx was a philosopher, not a scientist. Scientists were persecuted (Sacharov) and many killed under Stalin. So please, look for a better argument. Btw, I don’t claim that all atheists are moral examples, but the atheists sitting in US jails statistically represent only one fiftieth of what they should represent, if they were jailed in proportional number.

As Hermit has asked: I have never heard anybody, not even the strongest haters of reason (Luther was one: “Reason and science are bad, only faith is allowed”) claiming that morals are based on “faulty genetic tests.” Now this gives an astounding new twist to our conversation. (Immigration authority: “Did you pass your faulty moral’s genetic test yet?”)

And Robert B: How true! The happy church financed Galilei’s wonderful modern scientific findings, thanked Giordano Bruno with such an enthusiasm for his discoveries that they even lighted a bonfire in his honour! It took the church until a couple of years ago to even acknowledge Galilei’s scientific findings! Now that really is a contribution to human development, isn’t it!

To Concerned --

I checked out the link you posted and I found it somewhat lacking in terms of the methodology used by Professor Crossan to relegate this statement to a later "well-meaning scribe". Could you perhaps post a summary of this methodology or a link to an explanation?

Matthew 19: 16-20

Now someone approached him and said, "Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?"

He answered him, "Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."

He asked him, "Which ones?" And Jesus replied, " 'You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness;

honor your father and your mother'; and 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"

253-. The Rich Man: (1a) Mark 10:17-22 = Matt 19:16-22= Luke 18:18-23, (1b) Gos. Naz. 16a;

Professor Crossan, a discussion panelist, has concluded however that Matt 19:16-22 was not said by the historic Jesus but was a later addition by a well-meaning scribe. See: http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb253.html

To Donald --

I'm with you. I'm a Catholic, but that doesn't mean that I'll automatically vote for a Catholic, nor does it mean that I'll vote for whoever my parish priest tells me to.

Aristotle wrote that the only thing separating good government from bad government was that good government governs with the whole of society in mind. In the end, I have religious views that dictate my moral choices. However, I recognize that in a free society, some sins must nevertheless remain legal.

I don't believe much attention was given to a person's religious faith until Al Smith ran for President and that drew on the anti-Roman Catholic prejudice in the country. Kennedy over came that. Reagan exploited it with Falwell, Robertson, etc. playing to the right-wing protestant christian conservatives. A person's religious faith would not necessarily prevent me from voting for him/her, but if he made it a point of his campaign, I would not support him.

Sorry, it's spelled "LyseNko"...

Jonathan says:

"Based on your logic we would have to keep atheism out of politics as well since the most people killed in the history of the world in war is due to Marxist inflamed passions. All of those nations looked to science as their final discretionary authority. Not a great record for the scientific community."

Little heads up for ya here, Jonathon; Marxism is not synonymous with science, or with atheism for that matter. So even if it were true that Marxism was responsible for more bad things than religion or capitalism (and an honest examination of history would refute that I think; start with the Congo 100 years ago for an example) this would not be a black mark against science.

In fact, many of the deaths attributable to the communists were the result of famines, (the famine in the Ukraine and during China's "Great Leap Forward" for example http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/health/hunger/famine/chinese_famine.html ) and those famines were in large part the result of a rejection of science in favour of more politically acceptable theories. Darwinism was rejected in favour of Lysekoism, for example. This rejection of facts and reason in favour of ideological purity gives Communism a lot more in common with religion than with science.

I'm curious about this comment, by the way; you made a reference to "Scientists who base morality on their faulty genetic tests..."

Can you explain how someone would base their morality on a genetic test, and tell us to which scientists you are referring? This is something I've never heard of before.

Regards

A Hermit

To Gerry --

Unfortunately, it is a fact of life that the wrongs caused by religion make front page news while the good it does, though perhaps more substantial, is often invisible. A historical example of this is the general public's opinion of the Middle Ages. Everyone knows about its religious excesses (crusades, burning of heretics, etc.), but very few actually understand that the same theology also gave rise to the modern scientific method as well as the modern concepts of natural law and natural rights.

Gerry and others claim that religion is one of the great (some say *the* great) cause of chaos, ignorance and death in the world. My question is this: How much more death and chaos might there have been in a world without religion?

It's been my experience that those who make a big show out of their piety are the least pious of all. Look at Rev. Haggard for a recent example.

People are shaped by their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. There's no getting around it. Personally, I welcome the recent move by some evangelicals towards recognizing that environmental stewardship is important for Christians as well as "heathens". I'd rather have a politician whose beliefs call on him/her to help the poor and downtrodden rather than giving tax breaks to the rich. You know, like that Jesus guy actually taught.

Which leads me to another point. If "Christians" follow the teachings of Christ, why are they so hung up on the 10 Commandments? That's so "Old Testament"! Didn't Jesus teach to "love the Lord with all of your heart, and to love others as yourself"? That's what I was taught. Why not put that up on a plaque inside courthouses, instead of the Decalogue?

Gerry,

Based on your logic we would have to keep atheism out of politics as well since the most people killed in the history of the world in war is due to Marxist inflamed passions. All of those nations looked to science as their final discretionary authority. Not a great record for the scientific community.

So, we'll keep religion out if you keep your atheism and science out.

Better yet, let's just all be ourselves, keep the debate alive and let the masses decide who they would most have lead them. Scientists who base morality on their faulty genetic tests or Religious people who believe they will answer to God for their injustices.

To Mary, MSN --

You wrote, "No one is pushing religion by the church you attend or if you do not go....but still people have to realize there will be a judgement day for all."

In other words, no one is pushing religion, but we should all believe in a "final judgment", which is a religious concept.

You do no service to your cause with such blatant paradoxes...

Jesus demanded faith on an infantile level (...“if you don’t become like children...”), and the consequences can be seen clearly in some of the above contributions. Children up to a certain age (some people can prolong this age) have no separating borders in their brains between reality and imagination, which means one can implant myths of any kind and establish them as reality. The result: Faith. For the faithful illusion IS reality, but of course he cannot be conscious of his error, since he does not posses the instrument for debunking it anymore! Therefore quite logically, anybody with a different "reality" or, at best, with a lack thereof (like an atheist, for instance) must be either converted or killed or declared insane to be spared from execution (as was the case recently in Kabul!).

The interest for this process is always with the class in power. Since the wiring of the brain occurs at an early age, such mental fossiles as Lindsey, Watts, but also Coulter and Bush and their ilk represent scientifically useful examples for psychology and neurology rather than mature accountable human beings.

ALL religions mirror the status of knowledge and ignorance of a society at the time of their origin. To me, regressing into the kindergarten of this status, valid for a tiny tribe in the Near East millenia ago is a miracle, almost an argument against evolution, lol!

To call a country with this history (the Europeans do not have reason to brag either, btw.) the greatest ever etc. etc. and relating this greatness to the inclusion of God in politics borders to the ridiculous, especially since God introduced genocide so brilliantly in the Old Testament when he asked Saul not to spare any living being of some neighboring tribe which happened to believe in some other brand of god. Therefore, indeed we should ask god to apologize for Sodom! The conversation between God and Saul should be regarded as taking place in a similar fashion and pattern as god conversing with Bush.

Thinking of the Christian genocides both in South and North America, the Crusades, the Inquisition, Luthers abominable antisemitism (“Jews are worse than the devil”) and his hostility against anything resembling science (it must be "faith" instead, science and knowledge are of the devil; cf. Eve and the tree of knowledge!), the slavery, the Civil War, the Iraq war, the 30 years' war, Guantanamo, should bring intelligent Americans to the conclusion that religion simply should stay out of politics and at best stay a private affair.

Talking of Europeans: The inscription of “God with us” (“Gott mit uns”) on millions of dead German soldiers’ belt buckles and Hitler’s constant reference to the “Divine Providence”, plus his close cooperation both with the protestant and the catholic church, did not spare the world Stalingrad, Auschwitz, Dresden or any other atrocity in World War II.

It is important to be honest and open about your faith, but it is wrong to use religon as a focal point of hate or political leverage. The morality of the Catholic religon is summarized by two phrases: love your neighbor as you would love yourself and do unto others as you would have them do to you. Practised with any degree of sincerity, the civility in politics everyone talks about would be possible. But because we really do not see Christ in everyone ("Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me") we breed an environment where winning is everything and lies, hate and arrogance are successful tools in Washington. If people actually practiced half of what they preach, or even a third, we'd get alot more done. Being open about your faith means more than advertising it, it means practicing it-- and that would be refreshing.

As I read through comments in these forums, I notice that we have a lot of internet un-savvy people engaging in discusssions with some obvious internet Trolls. For those of you not familiar with large forums such as those commonly assocaited with RPGs like World of Warcraft or Guild Wars, here is the definition of a Troll (from Wikipedia):

In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.

Unfortunately, it does not stop there. Trolls commonly post inflammatory comments in order to direct you to a web site. These web sites sometimes contain keyloggers. Keyloggers exploit security vunerabilities to record keystrokes, which in turn allows them to steal credit card numbers and other personal information. Sometimes the site merely relies on "hits" for revenue.

So, a word of caution, please be careful when directed to other websites. Most forums are moderated and warnings of this kind are given, but this one has an anonymous option where you don't get the warning. I hope no one is forced to learn about Trolls the hard way. Many are from other countries (North Korea is a good example) and are untouchable.

I'll post this in a couple of the other threads as my good deed for the day.

Sure it's important. How else will I know who not to vote for?

Emm, I agree with you for the most part. Theoretically, it should be possible for a person who holds a certain religious belief to keep some separation between that and his or her personal actions. There are plenty of Christians who believe that all Jews are doomed to Hell but still treat Jews with the respect they would grant to anyone else.

But in the case of eschatological beliefs, is that kind of separation possible? I doubt that it is, because of the nature of those beliefs. I had known about James Watt's famous comment about not preserving natural resources. But I didn't know that Reagan was not only a big fan of Hal Lindsey, but that he invited the writer to address the National Security Council.

I believe that we as voters ought to be aware of the religious heritage of those for whom we vote. The religious convictions of people matter a great deal. Knowing where a person stands religiously is likely to inform us about where that person is politically. Having said that, I for one would not vote for any candidate that I felt either used their religion to pander for votes, or whom I believed would act narrowly and dogmatically along the lines of their particular religion.

And I would add that, especially where religion is concerned, a bit of self-doubt and skepticism are healthy things. Denial of doubt usually leads to judgment, intolerance and often far worse. Doubt is an inescapable element of religious faith. If this were not true, there would be no need for faith at all. Denying ones doubt is unhealthy and can lead people to become delusional.

I think this holds especially true for those politicians that profess deeply held convictions such as that we are in the “end times” or other similar beliefs. I believe that any person holding the view that the “second coming” or the “end times” are immanent should never be president. Such deeply held beliefs could consciously or unconsciously lead to disaster for the whole world.

Article 6, US Constitution:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

I guess the answer is "NO!"

governement as symbolism
it is in the heart of the people,the depository of the supreme will of the society.where do they keep this huge depository at?in actuality it,s in the heart of every and each individual,it,s an attitude,a way of thought,a belive.naturealy human beings donot keep their belives inside their closet,as life reality they take it outside to the ballot,some body has to lead .governement is an idealism,rather than observed facts,a beuatfull dream with the confines of wich principles operate independly of individuals,it,s a sort of heaven wich man has created for himself on earth.it,s a characteristic of all paradises that they should be different from what we actualy experience in every day affairs,it,s the logic of the dream,the governement will protect my rights ,the gov will put money in my pocket,the gov will clean the global worming and burning.it,s all about idealism in the hands of humanism.governement start at the heart.check your heart befor you check your governement,your governement is yours and yours is your governement.

There are several problems inherent in allowing or encouraging or requiring candidates to disclose or discuss their religious beliefs in campaigning or discussing political issues. Of course you don't want to allow people to govern according to their religious doctrine- that is unconstitutional, despite what is commonly accepted in the U.S. today. Also, once I disclose my religious views, voters will assume how I will govern. They will assume I will be biased against people of other religious beliefs, or that I will be less than even-handed in considering policy alternatives. So, discussing one's religion in political campaigns can unfairly disadvantage one due to the voters' assumptions and biases. Religious beliefs of the candidates should not be an issue in the campaign, I believe, for these reasons. If somebody shows a religious bias in their policy choices or preferences during a political campaign, then it should be an issue. But, other than that, it should not. We can't eliminate our biases entirely, but we should try as hard as we can, when we run for office, to make decisions that are best on a secular basis. That's required by the Constitution, and it's the best way to run a country - unless you want a theocracy.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated And Tony J.:

CTCNL, I echo your correction of TJ.'s huge paste; a brief description with a link would have been much more considerate.

BUT, I did read it and it was excellent! So thank you anyway TJ.

This blog entry from 2003 has a fascinating theory about American Christianity:

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2003/09/in_the_sweet_by.html

"...the body of Christ now encompassed both slave-owners and their slaves. How could these people still be said to be 'one body' or 'all one in Christ Jesus'?

"Something had to give. The behavior and lifestyle of colonial Christians was in conflict with Christian teaching. They would either have to change their behavior, or change the teaching. Guess which seemed easier?

"The Great American solution to the conflict between slavery and Christianity was a shifting of focus from this world to the next. American Christianity became wholly otherworldly, preoccupied with heaven and unconcerned with earth. All questions of justice became purely eschatological. The sin of slavery produced the heresy of 'pie in the sky when you die.' "

"Personal" Religion means just that. An individual's religion/religious views (or non-views) is NO ONE'S BUSINESS! And please stop spreading the false view that our Forefathers were Christians. Washington, Jefferson, John Adams, and Ben Franklin did not believe that Jesus Christ is a deity, and went out of their way to establish a Constitution that did not endorse ANY particular FAITH!

Why is abortion even part of this discussion? There are plenty of people who aren't religious yet oppose legal abortion. And there are plenty of religious people who favor keeping abortion legal. `

No response to your question, just a heart-felt Thank You for pouring your heart and energy into this forum. God Bless you both. Thank you.

Mary,

There is more to the concept of respecting the sanctity of life than opposing the practice of abortion.

To truly respect the sanctity of life requires, one needs to renounce all forms of violence - war, torture, execution, starvation induced by poverty, etc.

Unfortunately, abortion is a topic that produces many colorful soundbytes and is therefore used as a way of dividing the electorate in to "us and them".

To respect the sanctity of life, one must start in the present and address all of the above issues. One cannot pursue a philosophy based upon sanctity of life by addressing the abortion issue while supporting policies that cause poverty and death to people who are already born.

Sanctity of life does not end at birth.

Tony J.,

Your long copy and paste "job" violoated the basic etiquette of blogging i.e. don't "blog hog". Nobody reads such long copies anyway.

For information, that was me who made the post at January 25, 2007 7:03 PM.

It seems there are several that want to see religion out of govenment. I disagree as this is one way our rights for life for the unborn etc. stand a chance against those that feel there is nothing wrong with ending a life.
Our government had elected officals that we can keep in contact with to let them know where we stand. Hopefully some of these Congressmen or women have sincere faith to know this is wrong.

It's clear to me that those that do not agree that abortion is morally wrong are just worried that government will take away their choices.

Have you ever asked your self why our Country is so messed up......when people know longer repect life and do not consider what they have done only to keep living this way their faith is no longer important. They are either in pain or lost or don't care.

No one is pushing religion by the church you attend or if you do not go....but still people have to realize there will be a judgement day for all.

The ACLU is out in force protecting freedom of choice. And do you think they are right in what they are doing?

Our country has over it's history maintained it's neutral position on religion, which is the reason we have had no civil problems with one religion fighting with the other. When any religion gains an economic or political upper hand the results could be disasterous, leading to the kinds of conflicts we see in the Middle East.

For this reason I believe it would be wrong to allow ANY religion to gain an upper hand over NO religion.

We already have one religious nut job sticking to his beliefs. When will this country wake up and realize that religion has held this country back, not moved it forward. Science and medicine are so far behind other nations due to the religious fanatics in this country, it will take years to catch up!Wake up citizens don't allow your archaism and religion to dictate your life.Take control!When will you realize they only want your money and power over you to tell you how to vote!

I am emphatically against the use of any religious rhetoric within any of our governmental elections. In a nation designed to be independent of religious dogma it does no less than sicken me to not only have it force fed to me through legislative action but to also have it used as a part of our electoral process. There is one major fallacy which people labor under the misconception of while making their secular decisions based upon religious motives; Being a participant in any religion does NOT translate into a person being any more moral or good than any other candidate. In fact, I find that most every candidate (our current president is not excluded) who rises to power based upon a religious platform will turn a blind eye to all those rights and values that we as free citizens should hold dear (freedom of speech, privacy, and expression) in an attempt to further his own dogmatic principles. Sadly, in the end, these same people tend to completely trample even the religious principles they claim to believe (love thy neighbor, judge not lest ye be judged, thou shall not kill) in the pursuit of their base, immoral, desire for power. These faith peddlers are nothing more than snakes seeking out our populace’s greatest weakness, religion.

"Some people on this board seemed to confuse having faith with ruling *by* faith."

I see a huge difference between the two. The second would be better worded as "ruling by doctrine." Certainly there are some politicians who are incapable of ruling by anything but doctrine, because they're under the mistaken belief that scriptural law should be the basis for governmental law.

In my view, what would help this discussion is if we take the idea of "one true religion" completely off the table. Government neutrality on religious matters means that in the government's eyes, there is no such thing as "one true religion." Whether there is one god, many gods or no god, what any such deities want humans to do or no do, whether Jesus and Buddha were mortal or divine...these are questions only for the individual, not for government or for society as a unit.

Dear Wendell,

You're addled. During the middle ages, religion was the government; they were very good at barbequing nonbelievers. Would you like to barbeque me?

The founding fathers of our country created a secular government, primarily because of past abuses (i.e. barbequing, etc.) by religious authorities. For a well written examination of what the founders of our country intended, read Tony J's post above. It is a well thought out response to both extremes now doing battle in the culture war.

The Gov was based on RELIGION, when it was started. Why is'nt it now.

It is absolutely inappropriate for any presidential candidate to speak about or endorse a certain religion. Look at mr. Bush being a "Christian" wanting to spread the "light of democracy"(does he think were stupid?) but in reality fights the first Holy War of the 21st Century using the powers of a right-wing minority - but on America's behalf. How are atheists, buddhists, hindus, scientologists - or whatever belief each of our 300 million citizens think will make them happy - going to support or understand a war fought between Chrisians and Muslims? For me it's easy: I simply don't care. Go kill each other, get it over with. This war is none of my business, for I am not Christian nor Muslim. If future presidents want to fight a war on my behalf, they better not belong to a certain religion or put certain religious views on display. For I follow only the democratic rules as laid out in the Constitution with its sound obligations and rock-steady rights that made me want to be, or stay, an American in the first place. The constitution guarantees amongst others freedom of - and from - religion. I don't vote for some vatican-pope or a mideast-mullah. I vote for an American president who fully understands the melting pot of the United States with all its different races, cultures, and belief-systems. A neutral, yet strong president defending the core of the Constitution. Is that wishful thinking? Well out here we are a rising number of voters who simply refuse to vote for future presidents with any religious agenda whatsoever. NAY we say! The truly American way.

Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly has issued a fat’wa on secular progressives, and invented a comfortable acronym, “sp’s”, for his audience to focus their anger on. The self-proclaimed “culture warrior” has tapped into an audience pining for the wholesome days of yesteryear, a yesteryear that marries the fresh-faces of Ozzie Nelson and Ward Cleaver to a simpler time unpolluted by liberal secularism and it’s calls for the removal of school prayer from classrooms and staunch opposition to faith-based initiatives supported by public tax dollars. A secular progressive, they might say, is not concerned with the marriage of Ozzie Nelson and Ward Cleaver to a simpler time, but rather to themselves in a state of unholy matrimony, and probably in a state like Massachusetts.
For O’Reilly’s fans and many conservatives who are convinced that the crispy-clean world they envisage actually once existed outside the world of cathode ray tubes, the absence of religion has led to an absence of moral behavior and to some facsimile of deterioration of American society, and many of them are doing more than just talking about their differences. On the March 17, 2006 CBS News-segment Assignment America, journalist Steve Hartmann accomplished a story about Liberty University, a Christian institution founded by Rev. Jerry Falwell. Hartman’s piece focused on the debate team, which won several national championships, defeating Harvard and the Ivy League in the process. When one listens to a Liberty debater, one hears the most torrid pace of words this side of an auctioneer. As Hartmann related, the debaters “sound like they’re channeling their inner Porky Pig” because, in the world of collegiate debate, getting as many points on the record as possible is tantamount to winning. Those who attend a college debate with Liberty as a participant (or any school looking to match Liberty’s success) will not leave the debate with a better understanding of the conservative position, however, simply because they won’t understand the debaters at all.
However, as Hartmann reports, “For Falwell, Liberty's debate program is about a lot more than bragging rights. It's about winning the culture war, once and for all. Most of these kids will become lawyers, and lawyers become judges.” And in a culture war, the most valuable soldier might well be anyone with a consistent media outlet that can influence national opinion (like O’Reilly). But the General, the real mover and shaker, is a judge with a set of legal interpretations likely to reflect the influences in his or her educational background. If those influences reflect a concern for objective truth, one can intuit that the student will more or less proceed with a value for integrity. However, when those educational influences are unapologetically partisan, one worries that the student who later becomes a politically appointed judge might engage in nothing less than attempts to uncritically marshal evidence in support of a partisan position. Suppose a supreme court comprised of lawyers for the promotion of Christianity in government instead of a supreme court comprised of justices for all, and one can imagine the worst sort of secular nightmare married to its’ counterpart Falwellian wet dream.
In a culture war, all cultural inroads to public policy revision lead inevitably to the interpretation of the law, and in the case of the role of religion in the public sphere, the law that is most important to understand is the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This all important clause pronounces, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, (or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.)”. What “an establishment of religion” amounts to is the source of all debate, and is either the map leading to the holy grail or the fountain from which a sacred civil liberty flows depending on which side of the culture war one is fighting from.
The problem, however, is that a certain truth about this first amendment clause is buried the minute one hears a sentence beginning with the words, “Our framers…” , for what one will likely hear next will be, minimally, some flavor of propaganda. Our intuitions ought to tell us that, just as our current crop of congressional representatives are of many minds, it makes little sense to operate with any other understanding of our framers than they were of many minds as well. To prove the contrary ought to require evidence of unitary thought, as time and distance ought not to facilitate any supposition that the framers were distinctly unison, or more so then any other group of humans throughout history. When one portrays the framers as having unison of thought, one is portraying the idea of a mandate, and when one looks at the constitution, one finds little unitary thought excepting the need to generate revenue and the supposition that the federal government should be explicitly limited in its powers if it was to exist at all.
The former exception is supported by the implications of the 1786 Annapolis Convention being the prime mover to the 1787 convention in Philadelphia that was later to be named “the Constitutional Convention”, as well as the overall dominance in the constitutional debates of revenue related matters. The later exception, the issue of the limits of the federal government, together with the documentary DNA left to us by James Madison and Madison’s unique position in being the specific framer who composed the first amendment, in being present at all the house debates, and who was, as our fourth president, in the best position to interpret the meaning of first amendment due to his exhaustive involvement in its framing, provides resilient evidence that the “establishment of religion” is, indeed, a broad construct. However, when one examines the evidence in a limited light, one should be able to empathize with the non-preferentialist position as some of the framers expressed their view on the establishment clause as a prohibition to favoring one sect or religion over another. An honest regard for both of these claims would do well in ushering-in a cultural truce devoted to respectful debate that so is remarkably absent in the world of people like Bill O’Reilly on the right or Randi Rhodes on the left.
When one engages in the task of deriving the meaning of the establishment clause, one should first consider the history of events that unfolded in its becoming part-in-parcel of the supreme law of the land. Those events are as follows:

• On June 8, 1789, Madison presented the amendments, part of which became the bill of rights, to the House of Representatives. The religious clauses of what would later become the first amendment read: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed”;
• On July 28, 1789, the house select committee (of which Madison was a part), reported that the amendment would read: “No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed ;”
• On Aug 15, 1789, the amendment was debated;
• On Aug 24, 1789, the house passed the amendment and the language was modified to read, “Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed ”;
• On Sept 9, 1789, the senate passed its version of the religious clauses which stated, “Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion” , and
• On Sept 25, 1789, following the recommendations of a six-member joint-committee that included Madison, the final version that was ratified to read, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
In examining these events, one of the more compelling questions to consider is why the language was changed from Madison’s broad statement, “The civil rights of none shall be abridged…” to the enduring version passed on Sept 25th. Were the changes in language a matter of style (akin to the style committee that altered the wording of the constitution in 1787) or a matter of substance? Did the final version of the establishment clause intend to be something different from the original, or did the framers believe that the “establishment of religion” encompassed all that Madison stated in his June 8th, 1789 version? Unfortunately, the evidence is limited as the senate did not record its debates and there are no records of the debates of the house select committee. In fact, the entire house debate is recorded in two short columns in the Annals of Congress, and persons on both sides of the separatist/non-preferentialist debate have referred to the debate as deficient in spelling out the full meaning of the religious clauses. In one of the more thoughtful (albeit incomplete) non-preferentialist responses to the establishment clause, Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist indicated “The entire debate on the Religion Clauses is contained in two full columns of the "Annals," and does not seem particularly illuminating.” In a similar tone, Pulitzer Prize winning historian Leonard Levy characterized the debate as “sometimes irrelevant, usually apathetic and unclear. Ambiguity, brevity, and imprecision in thought and expression characterize the comments of the few members that spoke.” However, since the debate is available to us, it is worth considering.
The debate on Aug 15, 1789 focused on whether or not to insert the words, “no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed” into the constitution as an amendment. It appears that one dimension of the debate was whether or not the amendment was necessary given the limited nature of the federal government. Roger Sherman took the popular federalist position that the federal government had no authority to make religious establishments, and that the amendment was redundant, while Daniel Carrol expressed appreciation for the amendment and thought that the assurance was likely to make constituents more comfortable with their new federal government:
“Mr. Sherman thought the amendment altogether unnecessary, inasmuch as congress had no authority whatever delegated to them by the Constitution to make religious establishments; he would move, therefore to have it struck out.

Mr. Carrol -As the rights of conscience are, in their nature, of peculiar delicacy and will little bear the gentlest touch of government hand, and as many sects have concurred in opinion that they are not well secured under the present Constitution, he said he was much in favor of adopting the words. He thought it would tend more towards conciliating the minds of the people to the Government than almost any other amendment he had heard proposed.”

The nature of this particular debate, whether or not the amendment was necessary given the limited nature of the government, was answered by Madison, who indicated that the state conventions had requested such language in order to ratify the constitution. He also indicated an interpretation of the words in particular:
“Mr. Madison said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship contrary to their conscience. Whether the words were necessary or not he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the State Conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution, which gave power to Congress ….enabled them to make laws…as might infringe the rights of conscience and establish a national religion…”

Here Madison was trying to portray what the requirements for the states to ratify the constitution. On the surface, it appears that his explanation might well lean toward a more strict interpretation of what the establishment clause is intended to prevent in the minds of non-preferentialists-a national establishment of a single religion. While Madison’s interpretation of “national religion” or what it meant to “establish a religion” will be discussed in due course, Samuel Huntington shows that for every framer who recognizes the “peculiar delicacy” of the rights of conscience to “bear the gentlest touch of government hand” there is a voice who worried that the “words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely harmful to the cause of religion.” He further indicated that he hoped “the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience, and a free exercise of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all.”
But the point here is not to stack up each framers statements and rank them in terms of “framers importance” (as if there were a quantitative measure to do such a thing) but to show exactly why Rehnquist and Levy see the debate as unenlightening. As one might reasonably suspect, the framers were of many minds, and of several different concerns. The amendment was passed 31 to 20 , and we have no record of why any particular framer supported the amendment or dissented from it. Furthermore, these debates speak to only the changes in language between June 8, 1789 and that which was reported out of the July 28, 1789 select committee that was debated on Aug 15th. We do not have records of the debates that occurred in any of the forums from Aug 15th to Sept 25th, or explicit statements as to what the framers ultimately understood the amendment to mean in their compromises, nor does the record provide an answer to the question of changing language.
While the debate of Aug 15th is problematic and the senate debate was conducted in secrecy from Sept 3rd to Sept 9th, the Senate Journal reflects several items of interest regarding the religious clauses. Three motions of interest were defeated on Sept 3rd, and all of them show that the non-preferentialist position is not unreasonable, given that the motions reflect the views of at least some of the framers. The final of the three motions defeated indicated, “Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another.” It is important to note, that although this motion and the two subsequent motions were defeated, that this view did, in fact, exist with a number of our framers. Six days later, on Sept 9th, the senate passed its version which stated, “Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion” . As this wording appeared to have the implications of merely enacting a ban on preference of one sect or religion over another, the House conferees, chaired by Madison, rejected the senate’s version of the establishment clause. In fact, the Senate Journal reflects that the house accepted the Senate wording of all of the amendments except the first amendment. The establishment clause was passed by a two-thirds vote the following day.
While non-preferentialists would attempt to point out that the aforementioned senate language (in its defeats), together with select statements of house members like Huntington, and the absence of language pointing to a broad interpretation amounts to a cause for strict interpretation of the amendment, such arguments fail in the broader context. Just as the record proves that the framers were not of one mind, we are compelled to understand the meaning of their compromise, rather than any imagined mandate. That Madison’s select committee rejected the narrow non-preferential senate version of the clause is instructive to understanding that compromise.
Moreover, the prevailing debate at the time points to the fragility of the argument that framers intended to limit the national government only in limiting its ability to express a preference for one religion or sect over another; the entire federalist/anti-federalist debate was concerned with the limits of government. If one were a federalist at this time, one would likely hold the opinion that a bill of rights was redundant. Consistent with Sherman’s aforementioned quote, Alexander Hamilton, characterized the federalist position when he said, “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?” James Wilson, responding to a specific claim that the there was inadequate security for the rights of conscience, stated, “I ask the honorable gentleman, what part of this system puts it in the power of Congress to attack those rights? When there is no power to attack, it is idle to prepare the means of defense.” For a federalist, unless a power was specifically delegated to the federal government in the constitution, the power did not exist. Thomas Jefferson famously had this crisis of conscience when contemplating the Louisiana Purchase, one of the most beneficial acts of presidential history, because the constitution did not specifically authorize the president to make this kind of land purchase. These comments, amid a litany of others, show the overwhelming federalist viewpoint that, as Levy points out, “Congress was powerless, even in the absence of the First Amendment, to enact laws that benefited one religion or church in particular or all of them equally and impartially.” To be a federalist during the framing of the constitution was to believe that the federal government had no power to make religious establishments or laws because the power was not expressly enumerated.
If one were an anti-federalist, one hoped that the federalist interpretation of the newly formed federal government was true, but one was suspicious of motives. Patrick Henry probably best characterized the anti-federalist position, that even with a bill of rights in the constitution, the “fair implication” was that the government could do anything not forbidden, or in his words, “expressly reserved.” If one were an anti-federalist in 1789, one would have been determined to see the constitution fail in favor of an entirely new constitutional convention promoting a decentralized government. Minimally, an anti-federalist was insistent on a bill of rights for fear that the constitution would be ratified. To believe that an anti-federalist was in favor of the federal government intermeddling with religion when they generally did not want a centralized government at all is quite a reach. And while this examination of federalist and anti-federalist opinion makes the specific generalizations cautioned against, these viewpoints have overwhelming evidence to support them. The preceding quotes, therefore, are intended to be indicative rather than exhaustive.
If one accepts that each member of congress had an equal vote in the framing of the first amendment, then one can’t promote the idea that one framer was more important than another in giving credence to collective meaning. A number of scholars give Madison a distinction in importance because of his passion and influence in religious liberty. More important than his influence, however, is his unique position in being both a framer who present for all the house debates, and his country’s fourth president. In his role as president, Madison was privileged to have had a birds-eye view of the process, and his presidential vetoes are instructive. Consider the veto he wrote on February 21, 1811:
“To the House of Representatives of the United States:

Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An Act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia," I now return the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:

Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment." The bill enacts into and establishes by law sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the minister of the same, so that no change could be made therein by the particular society or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration. Nor can it be considered that the articles thus established are to be taken as the descriptive criteria only of the corporate identity of the society, inasmuch as this identity must depend on other characteristics, as the regulations established are generally unessential and alterable according to the principles and canons by which churches of that denomination govern themselves, and as the injunctions and prohibitions contained in the regulations would be enforced by the penal consequences applicable to a violation of them according to the local law.

Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty.”

During that same year, Congress was confronted by an odd situation that, as a result of a surveying error, a Baptist church was built on federal land. As a remedy, Congress attempted to grant the land to the church. Madison’s veto, written February 28, 1811, is as follows:

“To the House of Representatives of the United States: Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An act for the relief of Richard Tervin, William Coleman, Edwin Lewis, Samuel Mims, Joseph Wilson, and the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, in the Mississippi Territory," I now return the same to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objection:

Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land of the United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment."

In Madison’s February 21st veto, it is noteworthy that he actually misquoted the first amendment in his use of the term “religious establishments”. As Levy alludes to, Madison saw “establishment of religion” and “religious establishments” as synonymous and such would seem to be a hurdle for any non-preferentialist claiming that Madison intended “establishment of religion” to mean nothing more than a prohibition on congress establishing a national church or religion. Furthermore, Madison had a problem with vesting authority in the church “to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same” on the grounds that the bill “would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty.” Such a statement calls into serious question the constitutional standing of today’s faith-based initiatives. In his February 28th veto, Madison again misquoted the first amendment in denying the land grant.
As interesting as Madison’s vetoes is the response to his vetoes. On April 27 and May 4, 1811, two North Carolina Baptist churches wrote to President Madison about his later veto. The following is the letter on April 27 and reflects, for the most part, the sentiments in the other letter:
“Sir

The Baptist Church on Neels Creek in Cumberland County in the State of North Carolina having Received intelligence Respecting the Affair of the Baptist Church at Salem meeting house in the Mississippi Territory Considering the said affair as proceeding from Some of our Religious Connections and that the Same is not Consistent with the Spiritual interest of Religion and that the tendency of Such a procedure if perpetuated would inevitably give to Religious Societies an undue weight and Corrupt influence in public affairs at large and diminish Religious enlargement impairing our civil and Religious liberties and in fine Contaminate our national morals we therefore desire to assure you that we entertain a high Sense of and Confidence in your illustrious objection against the Bill wherein we humbly conceive as eminent an Instance of patriotism have displayed as in any occurrence of the kind.

Signed by order and in behalf of Conference

Jesse Jones”

The Baptists that Jones was representing praised Madison for having the wisdom to turn down a bill that would be helpful to their financial interest. Note that they recognize that giving public land to a church is "not Consistent with the Spiritual Interest of Religion" and would not only give churches a "Corrupt influence in public affairs," but would also "Contaminate our national morals.” In our current world of self-interested evangelical leaders, such wisdom and integrity would be refreshing to locate. And Madison, recognizing the integrity of these religious leaders, responded to them in a letter on June 3, 1811:
“Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion & Civil Govt as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constn: of the U.S. I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself. Among the various religious Societies in our Country, none have been more vigilant or constant in maintain[in]g that distinction, than the Society of which you make a part, and it is an honourable proof of your sincerity & integrity, that you are as ready to do so, in a case favoring the interest of your brethren, as in other cases.”

Just as interesting as the response of religious leaders to the vetoes was the response of the congress that received the vetoes. Though there weren’t many framers from the first congress in the House of Representatives in 1811, they voted not to over-ride Madison’s February 21st veto, 74-29 and on the February 28th veto, 55-33. It is important to point out, however, those that disagreed with Madison in order to illustrate the ambiguity of perception with regard to the establishment clause. Timothy Pitkin and Laban Wheaton certainly had different ideas than Madison. In responding to his veto, they indicated the following:
“Mr. Pitkin said, that this question was new to him. He had no idea that the Constitution precluded Congress from passing laws to incorporate religious societies for the purpose of enabling them to hold property, &c. He had always held the Constitution to intend to prevent the establishment of a National Church…Mr. Wheaton said he . . . he did not consider this bill any infringement of the Constitution. If it was, both branches of the Legislature, since the commencement of the Government, had been guilty of such infringement. It could not be said, indeed, that they had been guilty of doing much about religion; but they had at every session appointed Chaplains, to be of different denominations, to interchange weekly between the two Houses.”

When we see that two congressmen from 1811 were of the opinion that the establishment clause merely sought to prevent the establishment of a national church, it is not difficult to imagine the confusion of anyone in 2006 trying to parse the meaning of the establishment clause. Incidentally, Madison would later respond to Wheaton’s point about the use of Chaplains. In a letter of 1822 to Edward Livingston he indicated that “it was not with my approbation, that the deviation from it [ the first amendment] took place in Congress when they appointed Chaplains, to be paid from the National Treasury.” Furthermore in his “Detached Memoranda” he asked: “Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principal of religious freedom?” He answered his own question by elaborating:
“..in strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The US Constitution forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of national taxes. Does this not involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the constituent as well as of the representative body, approved by the majority, and concluded by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?”

So while some of Madison’s contemporaries were confused by the ambiguity of language in the establishment clause, Madison shows his understanding of national establishments to be something well beyond the narrow interpretation of a national church. In his statement that the “US Constitution forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion”, the term ‘national religion’ is synonymous in Madison’s mind with “national establishments”, and encompasses government aid in a variety of forms. To those who use Madison’s quote in the Aug 15th debates as evidence that the intention of the framers was to simply limit the government to set up a national church or religion, not only do they completely miss the point that the government had no power that wasn’t specifically enumerated, but they miss Madison’s broad understanding of what a ‘national religion’ meant. In the same Detached Memoranda, Madison stated, “Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed. Altho’ recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.” So there is no question that Madison had issues with even the mere “implication of a religious agency”.
For one promoting a non-preference argument, it is no doubt difficult to negotiate past Madison’s vetoes, letters, and other publications (of which a sampling has been provided in this examination) that explicitly call for a broad interpretation of the establishment clause. However, just as it can be plainly shown that Madison’s interpretation was not the interpretation of several congressman as early as 1811, there are other points worth considering that show the non-preferential position to be reasonable in a limited context. One of the points was illustrated by Rehnquist in the 1985 decision, Wallace vs. Jaffree. In his dissenting opinion, Rehnquist tried to make the case that the first Congress, having taken up the reenactment of the Northwest Ordinance (hereafter referred to as N.O.) on the same day as Madison introduced the proposed first amendment, “confirm the view that they did not mean that government should be neutral between religion and irreligion.” Rehnquist cited a sentence in article 3 of the N.O. which stated, that "religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged" , and indicated that although Congress was not “bound by draft amendments…it seems highly unlikely that the House of Representatives would simultaneously consider proposed amendments to the Constitution and enact an important piece of territorial legislation which conflicted with the intent of those proposals.”
For the uninitiated, the N.O. was passed in 1787 under the Articles of Confederation and was intended as a means to govern the Northwest Territory, which was to spawn the formation of several states once the population reached a certain limit, and other considerations were met. What one can say about the sentence that Rehnquist is relying one are several-fold:
• Beyond the religious and educational encouragements, Article 3 of the clause states objectives such as “the utmost good faith should always be observed toward the Indians…their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed…” The N.O. was a multi-faceted document intended to provide a semblance of order until states were carved from this territory, rather than a measured social compact that would provide a foundation for a whole society.
• The Articles of Confederation were a decentralized mode of government in which a federal government with any real power simply was not contextualized. At the time of the N.O. many states had establishments of religion (in fact many non-preferentialists argue that the establishment clause was a response to a singular establishment of religion. In plain truth, most states had multi-establishments of religion by 1790) and the Northwest Territory would not have been seen differently in that regard. It would not have been an issue to make clear that the Northwest Territory had the same right to make religious establishments as the states did, because this territory was intended to midwife the formation of states.
• Since a new government was formed under the constitution, governance of the Northwest Territory had to be reconsidered. The N.O. was a handy document to have available since it covered a variety of topics and it is not at all surprising that the framers would have passed it in 1789 with all that was on their plate. The sentence that Rehnquist refers to has a primary goal of setting up schools. Religion and morality were entities that went part in parcel with education during this time period.
In short, because the N.O. had a very useful utilitarian function, and because of the probability that the Northwest Territory was contextualized as a number of states in the making, and because states could legally make religious establishments, this would not have appeared unconstitutional to a group of framers who had not yet passed the first amendment. But there are even more reasonable suppositions one can form from the climate of 1789. For although the bill of bights have been romanticized, a fair reading of the congressional annals would provide even the most casual reader with the idea that these amendments were nothing less than a nuisance to the framers (especially federalists who generally thought they were a waste of time). Madison attempted to bring up these amendments prior to June 8, 1789, on June 8, and had to beg for time to speak about them again on July 21. He was immediately debated by Representatives Smith, Jackson, Goodhue, Burke, Sherman, White, and Vining as to merely bringing the amendments up, with garden variety responses being that more pressing issues (the revenue bill, etc) were at hand. And if the brevity of the first amendment debate isn’t enough to convince one of the framer’s relative apathy, consider the statement of Rep. Livermore who, although dissatisfied with the first amendment, said “he did not wish to dwell long on the subject.” Even Madison himself, who was most dutiful in bringing the amendments to the table wrote to his friend Richard Peters on Aug 19, 1789 in which he characterized the proceedings surrounding the bill of rights as follows: “The papers enclosed will show that the nauseous project of amendments has not yet been either dismissed or dispatched. We are so deep in them now, that right or wrong, something must be done.” In this environment, with the country so deeply in debt, with Dutch bankers threatening to cut off their credit, with states fighting over revenue, we have to imagine the relative likelihood of the framers parsing the N.O. line-by-line for objections when it served all of their interest to reenact it and get on with business. If they spent so little time as they did with the amendments, and the amendments were absolutely necessary for ratification in several states, would it be difficult to imagine that they spent less with the N.O.? Furthermore, if Rehnquist believed that the framers intended to conscientiously reconcile the N.O. to the constitution, then he certainly didn’t consider that the constitution made a tacit provision for slavery, yet Slavery was outlawed in the N.O. When one considers the aforementioned, it is probable that the renewal of the N.O. was a matter of expediency and necessity rather than one of measured contemplation and scrupulous examination. Yet Rehnquist pressed on,
“It seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison's thinking, as reflected by actions on the floor of the House in 1789, that he saw the Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects. He did not see it as requiring neutrality on the part of government between religion and irreligion.”

And in all reality, that statement sums up the problem with the non-preferentialist strict interpretation: they look at “glimpses of Madison’s thinking” rather than the “entirety of Madison’s thinking”.
In light of the generous exchange between Madison and Baptist leaders in 1811, following his veto of a bill that would have helped them, it is disheartening to take stock of our present day affairs in 2006. As this examination is nearing its close, a news story has emerged that an atheist visiting Jewett City, Ct. is considering a civil action to stop a church from playing its chimes because it is playing a religious song during the holidays. While we do not yet know if the objection is to volume (as is a fair consideration for any music), to think that a church would be asked to silence its bells seems well beyond the scope of what the framers had in mind. On the other hand, giving public funding to religious organizations to dispense civil duties does seem like the kind of violation Madison had in mind. Separatists would do well to realize that the establishment clause prevented national establishments of religion, but it was not until 1868 and the 14th amendment that secured us against the states. Non-preferentialists would do well to recognize that the constitution was written to limit government, not personal liberties. And yet, both sides continue to dig their trenches. The secular war is fought with endless court battles that sometimes are just plain frivolous, and with comedians like Bill Maher and Steven Colbert who points out, tongue-in-cheek, that he “believes in the Bible, because the Bible says that the Bible is true!” The religious right fights with a campaign of disinformation in the media, fights with larger-than-life televangelists that become so enriched that they gain direct phone access to our current president, and with schools of debate that, rather than engage in debate, win the debate with barely intelligible language.
While this examination certainly favors the separatist argument, it is important to understand both perceptions. It may be surprising that in this examination, Thomas Jefferson is not mentioned due to his stalwart separationist views, his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists that mentioned the “wall of separation” between church and state, and his profound friendship with Madison. In fairness, Jefferson was in Paris during the framing of the first amendment, and though a litany of letters between he and Madison exists during this time period, Madison simply is more reliable for his omniscient presence in all the relative matters. More importantly, however, was the need to examine attitudes that were not expressly separatist to show that the meaning of this amendment was hardly an axiom to all of its early interpreters. For just as important as it is for us to recognize Madison’s broad interpretation of the establishment clause and that the constitution was framed to restrict government powers (thus making it impossible to believe that the first amendment was framed to add powers to government in making religious establishments), it is important to recognize the reasonableness of the non-preferentialst argument, albeit in an isolated context. To do so is to establish a respectable frame of discourse, lest we all be forever doomed to communicate with each other in the Porky-pig spirit that Liberty University is so proud of.

CTCNL -
Thomas Jefferson's version of the New Testament was a version with all references to a divine being removed. It was reduced down to a documentation of Jesus' philosophies.

His point was simple. He might not have believed in the theology of Christianity, but he believed Jesus was a great man who had alot of important things to say about the human condition and how we treat each other.

The point is as applicable now as it was then. The loudest voices from people who claim to follow Jesus' teachings are voices of condemnation, not cooperation and love. If you concentrate on Jesus' philosophy and not the divine hocus-pocus, you don't have any of these ideas of condemnation.

- GDKZen

I'm proud to be an atheist and I get turned off by any candidate who thinks that his (or her) embrace of ancient superstitions will substitute for the skill set to deal with complex and nearly intractible issues. If religious belief is essential to public office we should simply elect a pedophile priest or closeted gay mega-church preacher and replace C-SPAN with the 700 Club. The US has been on a downward trajectory since religiosity came back into fashion - let's cut to the chase and rebuild as a secular nation.

Jim

The last post on the Catholic panelists was from me.

Frank Farmer,

"Render to Caesar etc"- excellent point!!

Fr. Chris,

There are Catholics on the panel ( John D.Crossan, Karen Armstrong, Sr. Joan Chittister, Fr. Allan Figueroa Deck, Archbishop Jose H. Gomez, Timothy Matovina and George Weigel ( I may have missed a few)- see their "bios" link on the On Faith home page.
- they have not yet responded to the question- have a little patience.

My personal opinion is that George Bush, or any President, has the right to believe or have faith in any religion that he or she chooses; however, the Office of the Presidency of United States does not.

Religion should not shape policy. If an individual believes that God is guiding him in all things that he does, how can he make a mistake? I believe this is the reason President Bush was unable to apologize for mistakes during the first term of his Presidency. He believed God had instructed him the entire way, and God is infallible.

That is my 2 cents for what it is worth.

Does anyone follow their faith to the letter? No. Then what difference does it make if you know what their faith is? What a candidate has done or said is what defines them.

Would you still elect Bush simply because of his religion? Most would say no... because of his actions.

If a candidate was against everything you believe in, except that they were against abortion, due to their religion, would you vote for them? I sure hope not.

Simply sharing the same faith as the candidate does not mean that you share the same values or morals, nor does it mean that they will have your interests in mind when making policy.

The same goes for race, sex, age, or health. No one can use any of these to determine the candidate's ability to lead the country. So, how could you use religion to make that determination? You can't.

The same Thomas Jefferson who said, "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" wrote his own version of the NT. I wonder why? "CYAWPing" in his later years? Probably.

I have a policy when it comes to politicians who use religion in their campaigns: I just make a list and don't vote for them, EVER!

I want to know about a candidate's philosophy--religious or not--as it pertains to making decisions.

If a person is going to go along with "Just War Theory", I want to know about it. If someone believes in "rapture", I want to know about it. If someone wants to take over the country and turn it into a theocracy--seeking "godly dominion", I want to know about it. If a candidate has "Christian Reconstructionist" views, I want to know about it. If someone wants to wreak natural science, starting with evolution, I want to know about it. If someone wants to wreak the economy with social schemes or socialism, I want to know about it. Tyranny is tyranny; it's all rotten.

Under no circumstances should a candidate hide some agenda--religious or not--from the voters. And, a taboo against any kind of rhetoric is just going to keep voters from getting a good look at the candidate.

As to "faith", it's a vice. One has a choice between "reality, reason, knowledge" or "holy book, faith, dogma." With hundreds of religions, sects, and cults in the world, there's obviously nothing in the methodology of faith that will converge to truth. What dogma one gets out of the procedure of faith is highly personal and usually what one was indoctrinated with as a child. Therefore, one's religious views are--in principle--subjective and "relative": hardly qualifying as "absolutes" I would say. Only facts are absolutes and they can't be found or known by faith--only facts can be universal to all people. The idea that ethics requires religion is rediculous. As a start, ask yourself what values and virtues would be required to live on a deserted island (like Tom Hanks' character in the movie) and then return to civilization. Hint: reason will become a critical virture.

There is no way one can rely on faith and escape the fact that one is (fundamentally) alone to face reality with one's own mind. Reason is a virtue, faith is a vice! You can evade this but you can't escape the consequences.

To those who are not aware that a religious cult is trying to take control of this country, you'd better start doing some research. If you need some motivation, watch the movie trailer of the "Jesus Camp" documentary that just received a nomination for an Academy Award then go watch the UK Channel 4 doc about Patrick Henry College (search Google video using "Patrick Henry College"). Frankly, questions about religious "rhetoric" are incredibly superficial when we're facing a serious menace from inside this country as well as from religion elsewhere.

I see no future for our Country without Government involvement when it comes to moral issues. By having the goverment involved the people who respect life have Congressmen or women and a President to seek out by letting them know the Right to Life for the unborn etc. have rights too!
The ACLU has made sure they are out there in force protecting people's rights! And their idea of freedom tells several that nothing is morally wrong.
This is why our Country is messed up because some don't want to be told what to do.
Responsibility falls on everyone's shoulder's and if you so choose to undermind what is morally wrong then you have to live with this. But on the other hand then by trying to stop Government working with the rest of us should tell you to stay out of it. Do your own thing and live by it!

As the Presidential campaign takes shape, do you believe it is important and/or appropriate for the candidates to express their religious views and to use religious rhetoric? Why?

My belief first of all is that there is a clear distinction between religion and politics. Even religious people understand one is more worldly than the other. The problem seems to be not having clear definitions of religion and politics and in what way they are sharply distinguished.

My belief is that if religion is introduced into American politics it had better be in an extremely general and vague and all-encompassing manner, but still, even if this were to occur it would by no means get at the difference between religion and politics. Whether people like it or not, politics by its very conception is something hostile to religion by being of this world and not another.

My belief furthermore is that the world's problems are becoming so acute, so difficult to solve in a worldly fashion, that politics is threatened with never being able to be defined in a strictly secular manner and religion will only become more fundamental to console man for his failure in the worldly sense.

Essentially what it is coming down to is the human choice of consoling ourselves for failures in this world with heaven or throwing ourselves totally forward in a heroic and political manner and totally solve all our problems on this earth by our own hands.

What really is interesting is this dilemma is being played out on the only political documents the U.S. takes to heart: the Constitution, the declaration of independence, the federalist papers, etc.

Many people have pointed out that the U.S. really does not engross itself with political theory, that it does not embrace grand political designs as so many totalitarian countries did in the 20th century, but here at the beginning of the 21st it seems the U.S. is having to make up for that belief in proceeding only by its chosen documents, and in fact the U.S. might have to become the greatest theorizing power that has ever existed because the world with its problems is coming to a true make or break situation which puts us all in something of "fight or flight" and we either are going to embrace our political challenges wholeheartedly and make ourselves by our own hands in this world, or we are going to turn to religion for consolation...

We can perhaps say that the more religion is invoked the more we have given up on political solutions. This is not to say religion is strictly imcompatible with politics--it is not, religion can help with social order, etc.--but the magnitude of our problems are such that we can speak of them being apocalyptic and this of course is what certain monotheistic religions have been predicting and wanting all along...

But to give religion its due, if political solutions are extremely painful--if man cannot solve his problems here in this world in a strictly worldly sense without cutting into and hurting his fellow man--why would we give up religion and embrace a political project, even if our religious beliefs and neglect of worldly affairs actually brings on the apocalypse?

What we need to keep in our minds to focus ourselves on the dilemma of whether religion should be in politics are the problems of the world in their entirety...Contemplating the world as a whole will drive this man to religion, that man to politics...Perhaps what we really should be asking is what type of man do we want ascendant in the world: one able and willing to live without God or one who reconciles us to religion as currently understood and in fact consoles us with a belief in an afterlife...

The problem is far more serious than whether a President should express his religious beliefs. What we are faced with is a battle at our collective hearts which will alter our total world conception--our worldview.--And Presidents will forever thence be forced to express this new worldview. The question is what this new worldview will be. Will it actually be an old worldview and man turned to religion for his failure in the world--man in a world of an environment totally destroyed by his abuse of technology--or will it be a worldview born of a mastery of himself and his technology?

A worldview is being decided upon--and it is much larger than any one President.

The Harris' books make a good case that the basic premise of many religions require a suspension of disbelief.

Many people call this phenomena "Faith". The problem with "Faith" is when it gets in the way of logical thinking. It is important that a leader make decisions based upon fact and logic rather than a suspension of disbelief.

The overwhelming majority of people would want their doctor to treat them based upon fact and logic - not "Faith". The problem is that people are not putting the same test to their political leaders.

When a politician tries to talk about "values" and "faith", we should see this for what it is - a diversion. The questions that need to be asked are often left unvocalized. As an electorate we need to ask real questions and demand real answers before we vote for someone.

- How do you plan to help preserve the economic well being of the American middle class?

- How do you plan to help preserve the dominance of American business in a world economy?

- How do you plan to enhance the security of our country (i.e. securing our ports, not suspending Habeas Corpus)

- How do you intend to fulfill your obligation to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

- GDKZen

Is it appropriate for candidates to express their faith (or lack thereof)? Absolutely! Part of the electoral process is getting to know what these candidates stand for and how they make their decisions. For most people, religious faith is a major component of their lives and has an influence on their decisions.

The next logical question is should they be "forced" to reveal their faith (or lack thereof)? Absolutely not! Religion is for many a very private thing and should not be made a spectacle for the crowds because some people expect full disclosure.

Some people on this board seemed to confuse having faith with ruling *by* faith. This is a critical issue, since there is no theocracy in this country. Aristotle wrote that the only way that any government can be considered "good" is if it rules with the good of all of society in mind. Religious and non-religious candidates alike must remember this maxim when they take their oaths of office. They were elected to represent the people as a whole and not just their sect.

As for those Christians who rant and rave about the U.S. being a Christian nation, I would remind them that St. Augustine wrote in his *Concerning the City of God* that Christians can live peaceably in any state that admits their right to worship God. Indeed, a Christian's true attitude towards the state is to live like a captive or pilgrim in the City of Man (that is, secular society) and remember always that his true citizenship is not of this world. To my mind, the man who seeks to re-create government into some kind of Christian "utopia" comes perilously close to caring more about worldy concerns than the health of his own soul.

Is it appropriate for candidates to express their faith (or lack thereof)? Absolutely! Part of the electoral process is getting to know what these candidates stand for and how they make their decisions. For most people, religious faith is a major component of their lives and has an influence on their decisions.

The next logical question is should they be "forced" to reveal their faith (or lack thereof)? Absolutely not! Religion is for many a very private thing and should not be made a spectacle for the crowds because some people expect full disclosure.

Some people on this board seemed to confuse having faith with ruling *by* faith. This is a critical issue, since there is no theocracy in this country. Aristotle wrote that the only way that any government can be considered "good" is if it rules with the good of all of society in mind. Religious and non-religious candidates alike must remember this maxim when they take their oaths of office. They were elected to represent the people as a whole and not just their sect.

As for those Christians who rant and rave about the U.S. being a Christian nation, I would remind them that St. Augustine wrote in his *Concerning the City of God* that Christians can live peaceably in any state that admits their right to worship God. Indeed, a Christian's true attitude towards the state is to live like a captive or pilgrim in the City of Man (that is, secular society) and remember always that his true citizenship is not of this world. To my mind, the man who seeks to re-create government into some kind of Christian "utopia" comes perilously close to caring more about worldy concerns than the health of his own soul.

This all depends on how you are using "religion."

One's religion or denomination tells us very little about the person other than whom they affiliate with--like who they hang around. These are certainly not the test of the person. And values don't necessarily have to come from religion. If you are on a sinking ship and an island is barely within sight, do you want a Christian steering you in or a ship boat captain? So when it comes to public policy and steering the nation, I want someone with experience who can get the job done... I don't care if he or she worships daffodils.

But more to the point, since when is one's personal relationship with a high power anyone's business? And since when is this knowledge the least bit instructive? Should politicians also tell us about their relationships with their mothers and their pets and their shrinks and their neighbors? I don't have time to really care about all that.

I believe a candidate has an obligation to communicate to communicate her religion, religion being defined as the socialist values she believes are most important. If we are defining religion by its ritual, be it Christianity, Islam, or Wicca, I don’t think it matters and a candidate has no reason to identify with a specific religious system.

I believe in the separation of church (religion) and state. I don't care what religion a candidate is. However, I also don't want any government official to hold religious beliefs that require him/her to act on those beliefs when doing so interferes with the religious beliefs of others.

The U.S. government should be neutral in social issues. For example, abortion is a religious issue. The government should remain neutral on it, as it is now. Those whose beliefs do not forbid it, should be free to have an abortion. Those who believe it is wrong, should not have an abortion. That is the free choice of both. If the government adopts the view that abortion is wrong, then the rights are violated of those who do not believe so.

The same philosophy applies to gay marriage and stem cell research. Those issues are not the business of anyone but those involved in the acts.

The first person I know to separate church and state was also the son of God. Jesus said render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar,s and unto God the things that are God's. If we do this there is no problem.

The first person I know to separate church and state was also the son of God. Jesus said render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar,s and unto God the things that are God's. If we do this there is no problem.

I believe that societies evolve (oops, did I say a bad word there:)?). The advent of information technology has put the isolation of our less populated states (primarily "RED") in jeopardy.

As people become more exposed to the diversity of the world (and included in that world), their attraction to close minded philosophies will diminish. In the grand scheme of things, religious fascism is making its last grasp for power as it has begun to drown in a sea of populism and reality.

Or, I could be wrong.

- GDKZen

Only in this country do a significant block of voters take notice of religious faith and those that do want their doctrine advanced upon everyone else. At the end of October 2004, my parish pastor announced from the pulpit that it was the responsibility of every good Catholic to vote Republican.

I have not been back since. When asked why? I tell my friends that it was not just that he put the 503c status in jeopardy, but that there was no way that I could vote for the minions of Satan. I consider the Republican party extremely dangerous to religion in America. So...do not mix politics with religion. I do not object that a politician is a man or woman of faith, but I get more nervous as it becomes more of a central focus of their campaign.

ALL RELIGIONS ARE FOR IMBECILES!

"In the beginning, there was the Tooth Fairy and the Elves."

"And on the seventh day, the Easter Bunny saw that it was good....."

"Santa Claus smiteth him!"

Get a grip, folks. God is just for the weak to control the weaker. Just keep that collection plate full!

America's sick and growing obsession of religion and its unconstitutional integration with government/politicians over these last few decades has become untenable and is fast leading us to a form of [third-world] theocratic fascism (ie., the worshipful preacher-in-chief, 'God' W. Bush). This insanity must come to an end, NOW!

Every American should read/listen to the entirety of the great President Kennedy's address of September 12, 1960 and seriously contemplate and consider the logic and the historic truths of our nation that rest firmly behind his words:

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/JFK+Pre-Pres/Address+of+Senator+John+F.+Kennedy+to+the+Greater+Houston+Ministerial+Association.htm

--------------------------------------------------
"...I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials.

...I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office...

...I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none--who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him--and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation..."

~ President John F. Kennedy
--------------------------------------------------

I love this quote from Thomas Jefferson..
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus...in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
Please stop saying the founding fathers were christians. They were not. They were deists. Look it up.

I notice that some people say we should get back to the God our forefathers prayed to. That our country was founded on Christian principles and the lack of these principles will lead to our downfall just as the Roman's experienced so many years ago. Our constition does not say the exact phrase "Seperation of Church and State" but it did at one time consider a black man 2/3's of a human being and a woman's voice didn't even count. Now that isn't very Christianlike is it? I think the Romans had a bit more going wrong with their empire than the lack of Religion; in fact they had too many gods if I recall correctly. Faith is a private matter and should be between you and your god. There was an issue a while back with the Blue Babies in which their heart I believe would basically suffocate the baby causing it's skin to turn blue and of course led to the child's death. Many religious figures did not want a surgery that was created performed because it went against God's will. Well, they thankfully ignored this and got permission to do the surgery succesfully, saving many lives. This was made into an HBO movie and I forget the name of it. Now many priests and such put pressure on politicians to not allow the surgery. How many children, and grand children would not be alive if they relented to the pressure? Side story the man who co-created the surgery was a black man who happened to be the janitor/med-assistant. He didn't have a lot of advantages growing up because all those great Christians politicians were apparently practicing what they preached. Can you imagine how many lives can be saved today if politicians didn't sucome to religious rhetoric and scare tactics. I mean what happens to the unused stemcells is that they sit in a refrigerator for about 3 or 4 years required by law and then they get thrown in the garbage. Now this statement has been reduced to a liberal battle cry because of the religous rhetoric. However it is the truth, but we hear nothing of this, voices being silenced in the name of religion. Why can't these cells be used to possibly save lives if they are just going to be destroyed anyway. Why can't this be God's will. This is just a couple of examples of religious influence and its incredible impact it can have on policy decisions. The constitution says that it will respect personal choice whether to believe or not but will not erect any laws respecting religion. IE its your business and not the government's business who you pray to. Politicians don't have the luxury to be just a Catholic and they shouldn't because their constituency is much more than that so it should boil down to policy ie education, healthcare, taxes etc...If you should choose a candidate based on values derived from your faith than that is your right. Remember we the people are in control of this country not the government. Just because somebody says there religious doesn't mean they have faith. Leave religion out of the rhetoric for religions sake.

Not one Roman Catholic on your panel of "experts" In the United States Roman Catholics makeup 25% of the population and you totally ignore our point of view on this important topic-I guess Arthur Schlesinger was right anti-Catholicism is the deepest predujuce in the United States-thanks for being "fair" Newsweek.

Gods and religions have no place in a politicians mouths or minds while in the pay of the public. while on their own time, they can belive whatever they want. Reason is a much more atractive trait in public figure then their mythology matrix.

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." -- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists, 1808

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." ~ Thomas Jefferson

You speak of this country being Founded on religious principals & morals. I am a Native American Indian and I can tell you that this country was Founded on the belief that Nature was the GODHEAD od society. We worked, thought, played and moved by Nature. As far as religions go...lets see...
1.)Catholic churches being sued and discraced by Priests who sexually damage children for decades and are just moved around to other areas.
2.)Religious Pilgrims who go each year to Jerusalem to worship and end up rioting and killing each other to get there first.
3.)Politicians who abuse Pages for their own perverse pleasure, while going to church publicly.
4.) A President who has dug in his heels on Iraq because he is sure His God wants him to go down in history as better than his father.
5.) A country who tries to police the world into Democracy, but cannot let anyone in this country not be labeled an Atheist, Libral, Conservitive,etc. live their life and just survive without seemingly every other country hating us.

I think we should all just get a life. Politicians are what they are...the current ideal that will get them elected.

We Indians still see your Founding of the country that was already thriving within the natural laws, as the start of all your problems.

I am saddened to see this all play out on a world stage. Do we really HAVE to be religious or non-religious? Cannot we just be human?

"Just because you think you have found your God, doesn't mean that your God thinks it has found you."

Markus -

I have always believed that the tax exempt status of religious institutions should be revoked. Since time immemorial, religious institutions have always been a for-profit business.

It would also relieve the tax burden on the american taxpayer. Now, aren't the GOP supposed to be in support of the "american taxpayer" (in contrast to supporting all americans, only taxpayers count with the GOP)

- GDKZen

Markus -

I have always believed that the tax exempt status of religious institutions should be revoked. Since time immemorial, religious institutions have always been a for-profit business.

It would also relieve the tax burden on the american taxpayer. Now, aren't the GOP supposed to be in support of the "american taxpayer" (in contrast to supporting all americans, only taxpayers count with the GOP)

- GDKZen

Just want to add this into the mix.

Why is that no one complains about the tax exempt status of religious organizations? From what I can tell, they are good at business and their leaders are wealthy. This doesn't seem to follow in the ideals of the New Testament...

I could care less what a politicans religious views are....I'm sick & tired of the religious right preaching morals & vlaues non-sense, I'm absolutely sickened by those people...There are alot of good people in this country who don't believe in a God...

If attending church is important to a political figure, then fine, attend services, etc...But don't try to structure society & formulate policy decisions based on religious views.....The problem with the religious right is that they expect everyone to view the world in the same light they do....And if you don't share their beliefs, then you are labeled as evil, etc...The religious right is an extremely divisive force in this country today..And, because of the religious right, the republican party has abandoned the center the has gone to the extreme far right, in doing so, they have alienated the moderate republicans....They certainly have steered me from the party, I doubt I'll ever vote republican again....

By making religion an issue in politics, politicians are able to polarize a voting populace and therefore cement a certain amount of votes for themselves during an election. That is primarily why the GOP has been so interested in this area.

Outside of the campaign mode, religion is not a helpful tool in governing a democracy where religion is not a constant amongst the populace. What we are left with is a government that only speaks for a certain segment of the population. The founding fathers specifically tried to guard against this country being divided politically based upon religious lines, but when politicians are willing to use religion as a dividing factor during a campaign, they end up doing damage to the unity of the country.

Our constitution was designed to nurture a society where no religious test could be used to measure patriotism, yet this is what we fall victim to if we allow it to be used as a campaign tool.

Think of it as "faithism" - it's very similar to using national or racial background to divide people. It should be treated with equal disgust by the electorate.

-GDKZen

A sufficient statement by my candidates would be: "I follow the Eight Commandments" i.e. the non-God commandments plus "I love my neighbor as myself". simple and to the point. brilliant response

I don't believe it is necessary, though nor should it be prohibited either. Ulitmately when American citizens elect a politician into an office of such heighten power, they are not looking to elect a religious leader, hopefully.
When I look to elect the next leader/president, I am looking for an individual who knows how to run a democracy effectively, religion should not be factored into this what-so-ever. We have a freedom to practice whatever religion in this country for a specific reason, I do not wish to have someone elses beliefs enforced on me indirectly or directly. I don't believe anyone wants that.
In an ideal world politics would be free of religion, but seeing as we are far from an ideal world there really isn't much to be done. What is worse is using religion for personal advancement, in my eyes that's an epitome of deceit.

Americans seem to be downright obsessed when it comes to religion or the absence thereof. How can an otherwise tolerant society be so divided when it comes to their faith?

Fr. Joseph has it (a few posts up) has it right. Most other (if not all) economic powers could care less about the religious affiliation of their leaders.

I believe that our politicians must first and foremost uphold our constitutional rights and abide by the law. I do expect a certain decorum while they are in office and that would include decent and widely acepted moral values. Whether those values were instilled through religious doctrine or simply an ethical belief system is inconsequential.

I would rather have an ethical atheist in office than a religious zealot who might try to bestow his or her misguided dogmas onto an unsuspecting public.

"Statecraft infused with religion not only dissolves the justification for the state but is intrinsically unstable, since it must insist on its version of the truth against all others.."-- Rebecca Newberger Goldstein

Forgot to sign my post.

Should religion stay out of politics or should politics stay out of religion?

1. For example: Can the state force a gay church to higher a straight pastor who thinks homosexuality is a sin? Does the wall separating church & state go both ways?

2. Should a church be able to force people to be members & pay dues? The Church of England is supported in part by taxes.

3. Should the state be able to tell a mosque where they can build? Couldn't a city zone groups like that out of their community?

4. Should faith healers and snake handlers be forced to be handicapped accessible? What if they think that shows a lack of faith?

5. If a bunch of friends get together and choose one as “The Grand High Priestess” and then decide to pay her to do that job should the government be able to tax her for a cut?

6. Should a religious person be allowed to run for office?

7. What about Buddhists? Many Buddhists don’t believe in a personal god. So is Buddhism (or Confucianism for that matter) a religion or a value system?

8. Should people who believe in value systems be allowed to run for office or just those who determine right and wrong for themselves?

9. Or, even better, “only those who will go with the flow of whatever society feels is right at the time should be able to hold office?” So if our culture says that owning slaves, killing Jews, or burning mosques is OK - then those people are qualified to hold office (as long as they are not religious)?

10. Only people who think like I do (place yourself in this sentence) should be allowed to run. Every one else is crazy and delusional and can’t think straight!

Should religion stay out of politics or should politics stay out of religion?

1. For example: Can the state force a gay church to higher a straight pastor who thinks homosexuality is a sin? Does the wall separating church & state go both ways?

2. Should a church be able to force people to be members & pay dues? The Church of England is supported in part by taxes.

3. Should the state be able to tell a mosque where they can build? Couldn't a city zone groups like that out of their community?

4. Should faith healers and snake handlers be forced to be handicapped accessible? What if they think that shows a lack of faith?

5. If a bunch of friends get together and choose one as “The Grand High Priestess” and then decide to pay her to do that job should the government be able to tax her for a cut?

6. Should a religious person be allowed to run for office?

7. What about Buddhists? Many Buddhists don’t believe in a personal god. So is Buddhism (or Confucianism for that matter) a religion or a value system?

8. Should people who believe in value systems be allowed to run for office or just those who determine right and wrong for themselves?

9. Or, even better, “only those who will go with the flow of whatever society feels is right at the time should be able to hold office?” So if our culture says that owning slaves, killing Jews, or burning mosques is OK - then those people are qualified to hold office (as long as they are not religious)?

10. Only people who think like I do (place yourself in this sentence) should be allowed to run. Every one else is crazy and delusional and can’t think straight!

The Pilgrims came to this country for religious freemdom to worship as they chose. They were fleeing organized religion that was supported by the head of England.
They wanted to keep religion out of government not the other way around.
The separation of church and state were to protect people from religious rule, so they could worship how they saw fit.
Whay are we forgetting that?

How many wars have been fought over religion? How many people have been killed in history because they were the wrong religion?

Rome also fell because she was an imperialist nation that tried to dominate and rule the world.
Sound familar?

I agree with Terri, if politicians who state that they are Christians lived their life as Christ lived his then we would not be having this discussion. There would be no debate. But unfortunately there are those who have grabbed on to the title and have not made it a part of who they are. You can say all day that a tree is an apple tree, but if it produces lemons it isn't what your portraying it to be. The same way with a person, they can spout that they are a Christian but if they are not living it. My momma taught me a long time ago that actions speak louder than words.

Paul, I invite you to read "The Christian Nation Myth" at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

If you look back at why the Pilgrims came to this country it was freemdom to worship as they chose. They were fleeing organized religion that was supported by the head of England.
They wanted to keep religion out of government not the other way around.

How many wars have been fought over religion? How many people have been killed in history because they were the wrong religion?

Rome also fell because she was an imperialist nation that tried to dominate and rule the world.
Sound familar?

Terri, below is one reason why personal religion should stay out of politics. Using the label "Christian" does not mean they follow the peaceful path of Jesus. I don't have a problem with a Christian politician. I have big problems with a politician making Christianity the primary objective.
____________________

"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."

-- George W Bush, using a loaded term which recalls the Christians' Medieval wars against Muslims in the so-called Holy Land, after stepping off the presidential helicopter on Sunday, September 16, 2001, quoted from Jonathan Lyons, "Bush enters Mideast's rhetorical minefield " (Reuters: September 21, 2001).

"Religion and faith issues are important for a candidate's constituency because whether we want to admit or not we use that influence as a base for that person's character and morality."

I have some issues with that. First, religion has no monopoly on character and morality. I believe there is an ethical principle of not causing harm to others, one that transcends religious dogma. Second, different religions define "morality" in different ways, so judging a person's morality is subjective. Many actions that do not harm others are deemed immoral by some religions, for reasons I cannot fathom. Third, one cannot reliably predict a person's character or actions based on his or her faith. Mother Theresa and Torquemada held the same religious beliefs.

I think we should be clear about the seperation of church and state. The concept was designed to protect both church and state from each other. I have found many people who claim that this seperation has mutated beyond its original intention to be fairly stern advocates of maintaining a prohibition of government involvement in their religion. They also don't want to give up their tax-free status.

You simply cannot have it both ways. The most important advocate of seperation was Thomas Jefferson, founding father and our third president. Jefferson was instrumental in constructing the wall between church and state, and he was completely against religious involvement in government. Jefferson's opinions and his importance in our government's foundation are indisputable. Any claim that the wall between church and state is out of proportion with its original intent is either the product of ignorance or it is an egregious lie.

I personally want to know a candidate's
faith (or lack of) before I vote. This
country was founded on Christianity and
the Word of God and I certainly would
rather be governed by Christians. The
problem is saying you are one and actually
being one are two different things. But,
I believe we need geniune Christians in
office.

Our country was founded by Christians and our Constitution was based on Biblical truths. I have a hard time understanding why people, regardless of their beliefs, would have a problem with a Christian President or any other politician. A Christian is someone who follows Jesus. Which any would agree is a better way to live. Do not lie, cheat,steal,commit adultry, love your neighbor as yourself, serve your fellow man, live uprightly in public as well as in private. Who would have a problem with someone trying to live up to those standards??? If a politician is accountable to God as well as to others, wouldn't he be more worthy of trust than someone who claiims no accountability to someone bigger than themself? Why would anyone consider them dangerous?

To answer the question... a candidate should not have to use "religion" to push their agenda or use rhetoric. A person of faith should live it not have to wear it on their sleeve. We should make our choices based on a persons character not on their necessarily on words. But I can respect someone who is not afraid to admit they have faith in God and looks to Him for guidance.

This country cannot afford to have another President define his issues like our current neo-fasist bible thumper.

Fundamentilist christianity is evil.

Although I am generally cautious about expressing my own religious/philosophical convictions in public, I can understand why politicians have done so in the past (and continue to do so now). In recent years political debates have turned personal, often questioning the moral fiber of an individual. In those instances, I can see why religion would come up for discussion.

However, I am disgusted by the blatant manipulation of religion in politics, but I am also tired of the personal attacks and lowblows. So how do we leave this childish behavior behind?

There should be a seperation between church and state. Religious rhetoric should have no place in politics. "When fascism comes to America, it will come draped in the flag and carrying a cross". - Upton Sinclair

Religion and faith issues are important for a candidate's constituency because whether we want to admit or not we use that influence as a base for that person's character and morality. I think we discovered in this past election that morals (and I mean basic right and wrong) are in short supply in D.C.
We balance the knowledge of a person's faith against the reality of their words and actions to determine what we feel politically about that person.
Faith and religion are deeply personal issues, yet they allow us to connect to one another people in ways otherwise impossible. People of the same faith, regardless of race, origin sex, etc have at least one thing in common, and that commonality might be enough for someone to side with you rather than the other person.

"we know that candidate is not putting his/her personal agendas first, but our Creator's."

And what is the agenda of such a Creator? (Your post suggests that you use word as a synonym for the Judeo-Christian God. I've always read the word as a generic reference to whatever forces or events caused humans to exist.) Even the denominations within Christianity can't agree on what God wants from humans.

Alan Stokes :

"how is mitt romney going to get sworn in

as prez in 2008

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

is mitt romney going to swear

on the Holy Bible of the CHRISTIANS AND

JEWS . ????????????????????????????

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

or is mitt romney going to swear

on a holy bible of the mormon

organization ??????????????

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

or is mitt romney gioing to SWEAR

on the book of mormons OR

some other book of the mormon organization ??"

How about having elected officials, especially Presidents, swear on the Constitution? It's what they're promising to uphold and defend.

To think that a person's faith is not part of the equation when choosing a candidate to vote for is unwise.

When understanding a person's faith and religious beliefs, it allows us, the voters, to understand the convictions and judgments of that particular candidate. Also, it allows us to see where the candidates strength lies. If he/she strictly relies on their education of political training, what sets them apart? A person's faith in God, and knowing that He (God) is where we the American people can put their trust in, we know that candidate is not putting his/her personal agendas first, but our Creator's.

“God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel”
Benjamin Franklin–Constitutional Convention of 1787

"Religion and faith are personal and private. When individual beliefs become public, conflict becomes inevitable."

Very good point, Russ. I've never understood the impulse to convince others to change their personal religious beliefs. It's one thing if someone has beliefs about other people, such as "they're going to hell." It's another to have beliefs about deity or the purpose of one's own life.

Before dragging us into this tragic war in Iraq, President Bush listened to his "Higher Father" and look where that got him.

My apologies to John Meacham for my comments on this site. I've been too long in my head with this war, but there is no place in our society for this kind of aggressive attacks. Mr. Meacham has been a source of helpful information for me. And he appears to be a kind man. This negative attack is an embarrassment, is not productive and only alienates. It is the worst of my fears in glaring print. There is always a kinder way and there is always hope. Again, I am sorry and request that these comments of mine be removed from this site.

I think that a canidates beliefs rule their ethics, politics, and the direction they want to take this country. For years I have seen how there has been a push to seperate religion and politics, it isn't possible. Our country was founded by those looking for religious freedom. We forget that our laws are based on the 10 commandments, that our forefathers faught to be able to practice their religion without persecution. Now if you are a fundamentalist who believes that the Bible is true and that this Country was built on its principles, you are looked down upon. I beleive there are good people in every walk of life, but that does not mean that I want their beliefs to impede on mine.

Religion and faith are personal and private. When individual beliefs become public, conflict becomes inevitable. Friendly debates on a small scale, war on a grand scale. We're a world leading deomocracy, so let's use our heads on this one and leave our imaginary friends out of politics.

Since this country has separation of church and state, a candidate's religious views should not be a determining factor in choosing a presidential candidate. Their own personal religious views offer more about them as a person, but do NOT reflect on the job that they will do as president.

"The United States was built on christian biblical principles since the mayflower sailed here. Nobody, can say that it wasn't."

First, the Pilgrims were a minority of the passengers on the Mayflower. Second, they had already fled religious persecution when they moved to Holland from England, and they came to America because they did not want to assimilate in Dutch society. Third, they did not believe in religious freedom. Their colony was a theocracy where people who criticized ministers were punished through exile or imprisonment. Fourth, the group had almost no influence on the political and religious attitudes of the colonies or the Founding Fathers. If they had stayed in Holland, the history of America would have been almost the same. Hell, the term "Pilgrim" wasn't even used to describe the group until well into the 1800s. Historian James Loewen says the Pilgrim story has little to do with history and much to do with trying to provide America with a national mythology.

I am not a fan of religion by any means; although. it does have its place for certain types of people.

Presidential candidates should surely be able to mention their religious preference......mention, not fully express and expose this to the world in the Bush tradition. This was a mistake.

This issue also opens up a larger can of worms regarding the Presidency. The founding fathers specifically did not want a king-like, larger-than-life figure to fill the role of President.

Somehow, this changed in modern times and the Presidency metamorphasized into something the founding fathers would despise. Presidential candidates are gone over with a fine tooth comb looking for any blemish. Think of all the money and time wasted with Clinton's interesting affair, while the whole world laughed at us as we made this into much more than it should have been...

To Someone:

You say "live and let live". And while I would among other things invite you to read some better histories of our nation--I would first point you most directly to some original source material re: the Pilgrims, their beliefs and practices.

In that reading--not even that close an inspection required-- you would learn among other things that the Pilgrims believed that before the foundation of the world, God predestined to make the world, man, and all things. More troublesome they believed that he also predestined, at that time, who would be saved, and who would be damned.

If you don't believe me--see one of their founders writings: A Defence of the Doctrine Propounded by the Synod of Dort, by John Robinson, (1624).

Perhaps you would still care to show your support of this ideology-----would you also support other beliefs of the Pilgrims?---such as children needed to be disciplined "with the rod" when necessary, as the Bible proclaims in Proverbs 13:24 and 22:15. Furthermore, and gettign scarier, that children were also expected to learn from the husband's disciplining of his wife--"a wife was to be disciplined just as the children were disciplined when she disobeyed her husband or sinned against God"...(see the same founders writings for proof of this quote)

See the same author's writings for support of slavery. Read still more histories to learn of how they duped and enslaved the Native American.

Many of the roots of that ideology are still with us today---but, many should not be. I hope you'll agree that we should nto "let live" these bad ideas, no matter, and perhaps especially because of their "pilgrim heritage".
But, I think you can also learn a good bit from reading Susan Jacoby's "Secular Humanism"---to get a better impression of what our founding father's thought about religion-rather than your takes on what they thought--no doubt garnered from (c'mon, no doubt bias) talks at your church.

And no matter the origin of our legal doctrines anyway---mustn'tthey always be explored contemporaneously for their soundness---isn't that the best part of our nations ideology?

Politics are politics, and religion is relion. Mixing the two is the devil's game.

In our SECULAR form of government, it's highly inappropriate to interject one's personal flavor of religiosity onto the public scene while campaigning for elective office, or even after being elected.

However, when a candidate does so, it is helpful in cutting through the haze of all other political issues/rhetoric so as to realize that such a candidate suffers from an emotionally based delusion. Therefore, it is of my opinion that such a candidate is a very poor subject in whom I could entrust with the great responsibility of performing civil duties with a fair, reasoned, and logical mind. And so I could not vote for such a critically unthinking and illogical person.

It matteres because the Catholic voting block is so huge and is so important to the turn out of the election.
Reagan was able to garner the Catolic vote to win in 1980.
Bush was able to neutralize the Catholic vote by attracting some Catholics on moral grounds while at the same time bringing more historically anti-Catholics groups into the Republican fold.

I think that this time around the Catholic vote will coalesce around an Edwards/Pelosi ticket

We're voting for president, not Pope. I want to know what they think about education, jobs, health care, national security, and the like. Their view on social issues is important, to be sure, and in that context, it is important to know their religious background. Otherwise, religious views and rhetoric are mostly about appealing to voters, and are demagoguery, not about national policy. If they go to church, believe in God, and the like, I think that's great -- but it is not the basis for electing public officials. Religion is the basis for electing church officials. We would be best served as a nation if politicians quit trying to impress us with their devoutness, and would just be honest with us about their policy. Otherwise, the political debate becomes about who is the most religious, not who is the best prepared to serve. I for one go unimpressed about who goes to church the most -- anyone can attend church. I believe the proof is in the actions, not the words. Deeds prove the value of a person.

Our country was born of people trying to escape religious prosecution. The Founding Fathers obviously agreed with this sentiment, and futhermore, many of them were atheists. Religion has no place in our government, though obviously that is not true in practice. The question I want answered is how many politicians in elected office are atheists? You know they're out there, and they're not telling either. What does that say about our country's religious tolerance. Speak out as an atheist and kiss your political career goodbye...

I suspect that there are atheists in government today because there are many intelligent people running this country, and there is an inverse relationship between intelligence and faith. That is the more intelligent a person is, the less likely they are to believe in a rediculous notion such as God...

There is a reason for separation of church and state. How can any person of sound mind, not clearly see the difference as well as the reason.

You religious zealots and extremeist are all the same. No different than the Sunni, shia, and rest of the terroist we are supposed to be fighting.

If we do not kick religion out of our political system, once and for all...and keep it out, we too in the USA will no doubt eventually have the religious civil war that we are seeing in Iraq.

I am a spiritual christain, but, I would not want a leader of my country to be swayed to one thing or the other because of the worry about those within his religion being offended. Religious extremeism is everywhere and is the worlds biggist problem being faced by mankind today. Get religion out of government and government will finally get some progress towards real meaningful change that benefits all peoples and not just those whose beliefs are this or that.

I personally do not want to live in a country where decisions are made based on religious beliefs. We are not all of the same religion here, and to make laws based on only one religion is wrong, in my opinion.

Let's look at gay marriage as an example. It is being outlawed in the name of religion - with people arguing that this is not what God intended. Well, that's YOUR God that you say didn't intend that. Your neighbor's God may feel differently, if they even believe in a God. So why should they have to live by what YOUR God thinks? Same with abortion and sex and war and the death penalty and a number of other topics! Just because *I* have a certain belief, doesn't mean I expect others to live that same way.

People originally came to America to have freedom of religion, among other things. Freedom of religion, to me, means that we're free to practice how we choose, as long as it doesn't hurt someone else.

While it's fine to know a candidate's religion, I don't think religion has a place in politics or laws.

Our founding fathers believed in separation of church and state. Religion should have no part in politics or the running of the government and a candidate's religious beliefs are his/her private business only. Let's keep religion out of politics.

God, Please protect me from your followers.

No religion should be in politics. It is in the middle east and look how messed up they are. They just use a different name for a god. Believers scare me really bad. They are the ones who take things to extremes in the name of a god. Can we say inquisition again?
Get a clue......

Close the private schools. This is the only way to make the public ones better--and by a roundabout continuation of that argument, the only way to stop the erroneous belief arrived at by the church's brainwashing that ethics and morality must come from a person's religion. Be that person a leader or not--this simply isn't true.

The Bush administration and its partners in the right wing evangelical/political hierarchy have given faith and relegion a bad name in the past six years. I am sure that they do not speak for all evangelials but speak in code words with a blink/blink nod/nod litmus test that separates all out that do not agree with their narrow agenda.They no more express the true beliefs of Jesus Christ than the Muslim extremists do for Allah. Using religion as a weapon is bad medicine no matter who uses it that way.

When you mix politics and religion people get tortured and burned at the stake.

Personally I believe having a religion shows you have a lack of morality. Religion has done nothing for centuries but separate people and cause strife between them. How can we then say this could be good for politics? Do we want more separation and strife between nations?

Who says you can't be moral if you don't have a religion? I've known many extremely moral people personally who were not religious.

There is no place in the political venue for religion. Your beliefs are personal and private and what religion you are or aren't has nothing to do with whether you are moral or not.

The best thing Christians in this country can do to share their faith is to act it out. When we have discussions like this, many resort to name-calling and spurts of anger like those who don't believe. If we say we believe it, let's act like it.

Perhaps the reason this world doesn't believe is that they don't see a very good example of Christ-like behavior that we Christians say we try to emulate.

We can be convinced of the truth, yet respectful at the same time. Sadly, civility in any sort of discourse on religion and politics is a thing of the past in America.

If God does ever judge this nation as so many say will happen, and I happen to agree with, it won't be because of the so-called "heathen culture". It will be because of His own unbelieving people.

If we don't stop being hypocrites, and actually live out what we believe, how will anyone who doesn't believe ever see authenticity to what we say is the most important news in history?

Last time I checked it was against the law to ask a person what their religion is when applying for a job. After all isn't that what a person is doing when they run for office? Religion should be a private matter between the person and their God. You should vote for a person by their resume and their plans for the future.

Religion is a very personal matter. There are a laundry list of institutional issues that relate to a strong religious/government connection. History has shown why it is important to keep the two separate. Politicians have routinely used religion to bring in votes. The problem is when this approach is used, it is usually done to bring a mass number that really have no understanding of politics. I know a large # of people that originally voted for Bush because of religion. They had no insite on any other issues. Many people I talk to that did this(family members included) really didn't understand the difference between the party's and think the republican party is the only one with religion. This can become dangerous because people vote with emotion rather than intelligence. Our country deserves informed votes and not emotional votes. Additionally, they weren't please to find out they were mocked by the administration behind the scenes. People need to understand that in politics, religion is a tool to herd the masses and honesty is a rare trait the public will see from DC. One final note...I voted republican and am deeply disapointed in how far the party has come from the true republican party. I guess we have people like Pat Robertson to thank.

The US is a unique country which in the Constitution respects freedom of religion in the 1st Amendment, in in my view means that all citizens are entitled as a right to practice their own beliefs; Thomas Jefferson also made clear about Separation of Church and State which allows protection for citizens from theocratic religious states as feared from Europe at that time. Given these 2 factors, along with the IRS 501 (c)(3) code disallowing religious charitable organizations engaging in influencing legislation, ordinances on the public based on their religious norms and beliefs, government business should not include religiously influenced lawmakers and legislators. One must understand that they serve the entire diverse population, they must be neutral in their judgements and agendas. The idea of our freedoms controlled by religious beliefs is dangerous, just check out Shariah law in the Islam world. There can be no room for any equivelent in US governance, and anyone practicing and flouting their righteous beliefs I consider highly suspect and possibly dishonest. Leave your religious beliefs in your church and any positive example shown by your beliefs, but don't legislate your beiefs in my face.

"The hand of God has been on this nation since the beginning because of how our founding fathers built this nation. In American history, God has always been apart of the United States. In Government and in People."

You're confusing the personal choice of the founding fathers with their intent. Many choose to be Christian; it was the predominant faith. But in the Masonic/Deist view, it did NOT mean that the nation itself was under the Christian banner. As for God being part of American history, "Nature and Nature's God" falls under that heading, correct?

Alan,
Whether or not Mitt Romney wins the presidential race should - in a perfect society - not have anything to do with his religious beliefs. Just because he is a member of a particular religion, or "Mormon organization" as you put it, does not mean that he is any less or more credible. If you have a problem with the LDS (Mormon) religion, then fine. If you'd like to voice it to other people, please get your facts straight before you post something like you did. Mormons believe in the Holy Bible just as much as any other Christian religions. Romney would have absolutely no problem swearing on the Bible because it is one of the central parts of the LDS religion. If you can't stand the thought of having an honest and faithful follower of Christ in the highest executive office of the most powerful country in the world - don't vote for him. I would hope that you would become more educated in your beliefs, however, before you "count him out".

JS

Obviously, religion IS important, otherwise so many people would not be arguing so emphatically one way or the other. It affects the outcome.

The United States was built on christian biblical principles since the mayflower sailed here. Nobody, can say that it wasn't. In America we have a freedom to worship any God, person, place, or thing we want. If somebody wants to worship the dirt, let them. In other words, live and let live. As far as government, religion has always been involved. Prayer, The Holy Bible, and church services was what they did a over 200 years ago. God has blessed America. Why do you think America is the most powerful nation in the world? The hand of God has been on this nation since the beginning because of how our founding fathers built this nation. In American history, God has always been apart of the United States; in Government and in the People.

The United States was built on christian biblical principles since the mayflower sailed here. Nobody, can say that it wasn't. In America we have a freedom to worship any God, person, place, or thing we want. If somebody wants to worship the dirt, let them. In other words, live and let live. As far as government, religion has always been involved. Prayer, The Holy Bible, and church services was what they did a over 200 years ago. God has blessed America. Why do you think America is the most powerful nation in the world? The hand of God has been on this nation since the beginning because of how our founding fathers built this nation. In American history, God has always been apart of the United States. In Government and in People.

"1. Does the wall separating church & state go both ways?"

I would say so. Keeping the government neutral among competing doctrines protects both government and the doctrines. I caution against viewing "religion" as a single entity in this debate, since doctrines are frequently in conflict with each other.

OK some questions (It's what I do)

1. Does the wall separating church & state go both ways?

2. Should a church be able to force people to be members & pay dues?

3. Should the state be able to tell a mosque where they can build?

4. Should faith healers and snake handlers be forced to be handicapped accessible?

5. If a bunch of friends get together and choose one as “The Grand High Priestess” and then decide to pay her to do that job should the government be able to tax her for a cut?

6. Should a religious person be allowed to run for office?

7. What about Buddhists? Many Buddhists don’t believe in a personal god. So is Buddhism (or Confucianism for that matter) a religion or a value system?

8. Should people who believe in value systems be allowed to run for office or just those who determine right and wrong for themselves?

9. Or, even better, “only those who will go with the flow of whatever society feels is right at the time should be able to hold office?” So if our culture says that owning slaves, killing Jews, or burning mosques is OK - then those people are qualified to hold office (as long as they are not religious)?

10. Only people who think like I do (place yourself in this sentence) should be allowed to run. Every one else is crazy and delusional and can’t think straight!

Good list? Anything I missed? I’ve noticed on this web-site that there are many well meaning people of all types. However, most Christians want everyone else to think like clones of themselves so that we can all be forgiven (for what?) and all be “saved (from what?). And a fair number of other folks like to declare what reality is by using harsh words and a lot of explanation marks!!!!!!!!!!!! : ) ie. “There is no god!!! You are all dumb!!!! Why not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!!!! You people should not be allowed to vote!!!!!!! Just wake up!!!!!” : )

And to the Wiccan I want to say: You’re welcome! Glad I made you laugh!

The "God of our Forefathers/mothers" was a personal matter, according to our primarily Deist founding fathers. Not to be dictated or interpreted by Gov't or individuals.

It's time America returned to the God of our Forefathers/mothers.
If we don't return and He doesn't take action against us, He owes an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah.
(and that's a quote from my Grandfather).

I have no problem with candidates that are pleased to be religious people, and expressing that. I have a big problem with candidates that use said religion as their political platform.

Being Wiccan myself, it's a fine line that I watch out for in political folks. Free expression of faith is great. Restriction of my own in the name of Gov't is another matter entirely.

I have no problem with candidates that are pleased to be religious people, and expressing that. I have a big problem with candidates that use said religion as their political platform.

Being Wiccan myself, it's a fine line that I watch out for in political folks. Free expression of faith is great. Restriction of my own in the name of Gov't is another matter entirely.

It's time America returned to the God of our Forefathers/mothers.
If we don't return and He doesn't take action against us, He owes an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah.
(and that's a quote from my Grandfather).

"What is it that is feared from the religious voice in government?"

It's not the "religious voice" in and of itself, Mick. It's that religious dogma is about certainty and absolutism, while democratic discourse is about compromise and balance. Some believers are convinced, based on the dogmas they follow, that God favors particular positions on certain issues. So they believe they are forbidden from making any compromises on those issues, on pain of eternal damnation. It's that sense of divine mission that causes the problem. I'm reminded of Tom DeLay, who once compared his political opponents with the people who killed Christ. And during the Panama Canal debate a generation ago, the powerful Moral Majority argued that God wanted the US to keep the canal.

Seperation of Church and State is ment to keep the State out of the Church, not the other way around. Like it or not, this country was founded and is based on Christian principals. Just look around you! These ideals, and a belief in Jesus Christ have gotten us this far...but make no mistake...taking faith out of our schools, public places, and the government will cause the demise of our wonderful country and way of life. Just look at the last "great society"...Rome. Their fall weas preceeded by the exact same things we are experiencing in this country...a break down in morality and a loss of faith.

The head of our government, the President, must be the leading example...he must wear his faith on his sleeve...and TALK ABOUT IT IN PUBLIC!!!

I was going to post, then I read what St. Shepard said and I can't think of anything to add to that.

Religion is part of government because those who serve in government, if they have religious convictions and methods of living, as citizens can express and represent those views. What is it that would accept a person's race or sex or orientation or engagement in a interest group for "global warming" or something, but not a person's religious philosophy? What is it that fears the expression of God's views from a follower of Christ? What is it that fears someone actually living and stating in public the teachings of Christ? What is it that believes that there is only one true interpretation of what Christ taught or the Arch Angel Michael expressed to one man? What is it that says a religious voice in government is somehow dangerous and must be stopped at all costs? Why would a religious philosophy stated in public strike terror in the heart of some today, (as opposed to bringing up history.)and what is it that is feared? What is it that wants some economic philosophies, which also have a "history" expressed in government, but not that of religion? What is it that is feared from the religious voice in government? What is it that is not stated or named, for whatever reason?

Mick.

In a country that takes pride in its separation of church and state, it is amazing to me that a candidate's religious preference would even be a consideration. If you ask a German, for example, the religious preference of Angela Merkel, she or he would have to really search to find that out. What about other world leaders? Is Vladimir Putin a Russian Orthodox Christian? Tony Blair is the PM but is he a Christian? Or is he Jewish? Or nothing at all? My point is that nobody cares. Honestly, when one looks at our American candidates it seems as if they all of a sudden "find religion" because it looks good, when in all actuality, that should be a personal issue that has no bearing on the candidate's fitness for office.

When talking about this issue, some commentators talk about government and the "public arena" as though they were same thing. Even Jon Meacham often seems to confuse the two.

Is it possible for politicians to talk about their personal religious beliefs without crossing the line into evangelism? Is it possible for the politicians to acknowledge that most Americans believe in God without appearing to endorse that belief? Where should the line be drawn? I'm uncomfortable with prohibiting politicians from talking about their own beliefs, partly because that would give the O'Reillys and Coulters more ammunition for their paranoid claims about secularist conspiracies.

I agreed with most of Obama's "Call to Renewal" address a while back. I disagreed with his position on "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Also, he mentioned the statistic that more Americans believed in angels than in evolution, implying that the two contradict each other.

Freedom of speech and separation of church and state are valuable to our nation. However, as a Christian I am against many non-Christian values that are put through the government. Our elected leaders who are voted in try to pass laws that go against my beliefs. I'm against abortion. However, if abortion must be. Then my tax dollars should not be spent on or support abortion. These tax dollars should be returned to me.

A politician having a religious faith is fine. But when politician tries to enforce there religion on others through law it is wrong. Also, a politician who is an atheist should not enforce there ideals on those who have a religious faith.

Our government has grown to big and now has its hands in every part of our lives. This is the problem that has brought religion into the mix. The government shouldn't control area's that affect ones beliefs.

regarding mitt romney ????????????????

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

mitt romney is running for prez in 2008

when he WINS THE PREZ IN 2008

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

when mitt romney gets sworn in as prez

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

mitt romney is a mormon

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

mitt romney was a OFFICER IN

THE mormon organization

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

the mormon is an organization not a

religion .

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

how is mitt romney going to get sworn in

as prez in 2008

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

is mitt romney going to swear

on the Holy Bible of the CHRISTIANS AND

JEWS . ????????????????????????????

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

or is mitt romney going to swear

on a holy bible of the mormon

organization ??????????????

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

or is mitt romney gioing to SWEAR

on the book of mormons OR

some other book of the mormon organization ??

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

all AMERICAN CITIZENS DEMAND THAT

mitt romney tells the public

what BOOK he will SWEAR TO .

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ALAN .

regarding mitt romney ????????????????

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

mitt romney is running for prez in 2008

when he WINS THE PREZ IN 2008

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

when mitt romney gets sworn in as prez

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

mitt romney is a mormon

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

mitt romney was a OFFICER IN

THE mormon organization

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

the mormon is an organization not a

religion .

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

how is mitt romney going to get sworn in

as prez in 2008

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

is mitt romney going to swear

on the Holy Bible of the CHRISTIANS AND

JEWS . ????????????????????????????

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

or is mitt romney going to swear

on a holy bible of the mormon

organization ??????????????

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

or is mitt romney gioing to SWEAR

on the book of mormons OR

some other book of the mormon organization ??

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

all AMERICAN CITIZENS DEMAND THAT

mitt romney tells the public

what BOOK he will SWEAR TO .

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ALAN .

Faith is to be discouraged, not celebrated. Faith is lying to yourself, and lying is never acceptable. Faith short-circuits the rational thought process and creates a more animalistic response to the unknown.

News Cynic-

Thanks for the first good laugh of my day. Can you imagine what would have happened if I had went to Tom Davis' office in full ceremonial garb, wand and athame at my side, and threatened to turn them all into toads? Why, I'd probably still be in jail!

And, Pam, I think you're right. I probably would have gotten the same reaction if I had said I was an atheist, or a Jain, or anything other than white bread Christianity.

Can a candidate with deeply held religious beliefs honestly represent those constituents with differing beliefs? I just don't know. But I would like to know about his beliefs before I vote.

oooooooooooookkkkkayyyyyy.......

anyone in polictical office should keep silent about whatever silly ideas of god they have.

religion has no place in society. it is a catalist for discrimination and eventually death and distruction. just look @ the middle east! its workin' out great for them so far!!!!

not only is religion corrosive to all of humanity, its just plain nonsense. seriously, an invisible man in the sky watching us all and then judging us when we die? are you kidding!?

we might as well all belive that majic pancakes from venus created all the universe before the evil breakfast bacon could destroy us all!!! so the majic pancake sent his only son, hashbrown, to be his messenger to tell the people of breakfast-topia and that father pancake shunns the evil bacon and to repell his tempations of fatty goodness!!!loves you!

that makes about as much sense as any other religions view. we need to evolve our ideas as a race of people. no more dillusional nonsense about an all-knowing being in the sky. EVOLVE PEOPLE!!!

if god is so wonderful and all knowing, omnipotenet and so on . . .

why is planet earth such a dispicable place?
why are human beings, god's divine creation, such disgusting-cruel-foolish beings?
why is injustice the norm?
why do the meek suffer and the wicked prosper?

simple, there is no god, there is no morality, there is nothing but horrendus suffering.

if indeed i am wrong and god does exist, then he should be fired!!! he's doing an epicly BAD job watching over his kingdom!

sad is'nt it?

you should be. maybe if people stoped pretending life's great and god protects everyone we'd realize that WE, real people, are the only things that will help things get better here, not empty prayer!

EVOLVE!!!

anyone in polictical office should keep silent about whatever silly ideas of god they have.

religion has no place in society. it is a catalist for discrimination and eventually death and distruction. just look @ the middle east! its workin' out great for them so far!!!!

not only is religion corrosive to all of humanity, its just plain nonsense. seriously, an invisible man in the sky watching us all and then judging us when we die? are you kidding!?

we might as well all belive that majic pancakes from venus created all the universe before the evil breakfast bacon could destroy us all!!! so the majic pancake sent his only son, hashbrown, to be his messenger to tell the people of breakfast-topia and that father pancake shunns the evil bacon and to repell his tempations of fatty goodness!!!loves you!

that makes about as much sense as any other religions view. we need to evolve our ideas as a race of people. no more dillusional nonsense about an all-knowing being in the sky. EVOLVE PEOPLE!!!

if god is so wonderful and all knowing, omnipotenet and so on . . .

why is planet earth such a dispicable place?
why are human beings, god's divine creation, such disgusting-cruel-foolish beings?
why is injustice the norm?
why do the meek suffer and the wicked prosper?

simple, there is no god, there is no morality, there is nothing but horrendus suffering.

if indeed i am wrong and god does exist, then he should be fired!!! he's doing an epicly BAD job watching over his kingdom!

sad is'nt it?

you should be. maybe if people stoped pretending life's great and god protects everyone we'd realize that WE, real people, are the only things that will help things get better here, not empty prayer!

EVOLVE!!!

anyone in polictical office should keep silent about whatever silly ideas of god they have.

religion has no place in society. it is a catalist for discrimination and eventually death and distruction. just look @ the middle east! its workin' out great for them so far!!!!

not only is religion corrosive to all of humanity, its just plain nonsense. seriously, an invisible man in the sky watching us all and then judging us when we die? are you kidding!?

we might as well all belive that majic pancakes from venus created all the universe before the evil breakfast bacon could destroy us all!!! so the majic pancake sent his only son, hashbrown, to be his messenger to tell the people of breakfast-topia and that father pancake shunns the evil bacon and to repell his tempations of fatty goodness!!!loves you!

that makes about as much sense as any other religions view. we need to evolve our ideas as a race of people. no more dillusional nonsense about an all-knowing being in the sky. EVOLVE PEOPLE!!!

if god is so wonderful and all knowing, omnipotenet and so on . . .

why is planet earth such a dispicable place?
why are human beings, god's divine creation, such disgusting-cruel-foolish beings?
why is injustice the norm?
why do the meek suffer and the wicked prosper?

simple, there is no god, there is no morality, there is nothing but horrendus suffering.

if indeed i am wrong and god does exist, then he should be fired!!! he's doing an epicly BAD job watching over his kingdom!

sad is'nt it?

you should be. maybe if people stoped pretending life's great and god protects everyone we'd realize that WE, real people, are the only things that will help things get better here, not empty prayer!

EVOLVE!!!

Contrary to what Laura has posted as her comment, the wall of “separation” between church and state has been raised to a higher level than it ever was intended. Many of the founders agreed with the idea that our Republic could not work without each one of its citizens living and working with a moral center that transcends human relativism. The idea that someone's faith, or religion, would not enter into a polititian's daily life was simply absurd to the founders. How can one live a life of integrity and still compartmentalize their daily faith as not to let it affect their politics? Impossible, of course. We seem to bend over backwards in this nation's discussion on politics to allow the atheist position to reign as "impartial", while that is simply not a fact. Would we ask the atheist not to let their "personal views" cloud their judgment on abortion and embryonic experimentation? The erection of a stronger wall between church and state is not what will make this nation great in the 21st century. An acknowledgement of ALL of our differences, and the ability to govern dispite them, will.

It's interesting that a politician can now be Catholic, Jewish, female, black, even gay, but atheist or agnostic... no politician can admit to that and expected to be elected.

I feel that having the information about religion beliefs enforces how deeply a person actually believes in anything and how commited he/she may be to his/her service. Personally, a firm believer affirms that a person would be more objective, more honest, more dedicated and that he/she would lean in on God during decision making processes. I strongly believe that our nation should return to prayer, it is much of what built this country and without it we are falling apart.

Religion has NO place in the political arena. Morality and values cannot and should not be legislated. Parents determine and establish their family's values in accordance with their own beliefs NOT government. I am a Roman Catholic who firmly believes that there should be a mile-high wall between church and state.

I think it's important to know where politicians are coming from religiously, spiritually or faith based because it will effect the kind of service they will do for the country. For most, wether they may admit it or not, usually have some kind of beleif system as a foundation. That foundation may be themselves, others, or some ideal, but regardless, everyone serves someone or something. I want to know where they are coming from and wether that person's foundation was built on solid ground or on sand. The effects of what a politician will do is going to resonate throughout the population and throughout time, amd I would think their beleif system would have everything to do with that, and it can't be ignored. I doubt that politicans can be completely objective. Religion is something you practice and faith is something you believe. Religion gets tiring and feels like death warmed over, but true faith is something that brings vitality and life. Why are we so afraid of faith, which was solid enough to found us in the first place?

Everyone is entitled to whatever religion they choose. However, our country was founded on "separation of church and state" for a reason-politics and religion should NOT mix. Abortion, gays, etc. should never be the sole reasons I person votes-that isn't what keeps a country stable, foreign relations, economy, securtiy, etc. are the isssues, not social/religious issues!

Free speech is what the usa is about. A candidate has every right to express his religious beliefs whenever he wishes. The more important point is that we the people must decide if he is trying to use religion as a vote getter. And we the people must be intelligent enough to know that mixing religion and politics is a sure recipe for failure. If we dont know this by now, then candidates will use religion as a political edge. Bush did this with the evangelicals. BE CAREFUL AMERICA!

If, at some point in one's life, a politician realized that they were afire for the Perfect One who dwells within them, they know that they cannot put their light under a bushel. They know that they need to "Let (their)light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

The Matthew 5:16 passage convicts all sorts of people, even politicians.

one thing i might suggest is that if one has an identifiable religious system - when they do not act i accordance with it- they can easily be identified as acting hypocritically-

if one doesnt have a codified ethic system-(that is measurable publicly) we would all probably measure their sincerity of purpose through our OWN religious (or moral) yardsticks whatever they may be-

it might make some people uncomfortable as they dont really have any way to gauge a persons moral compass- (from their own perception)

atheists may consider this a tenable insecurity that might preclude theists from knowing where they (hypothetical atheist candidate) stand or will stand on issues of importance-

while it is easy to mock or invalidate in ones mind the intelligence of the religious- is is not wise politics and could alienate the people who would have thepower to vote one into any office.

as a muslim- ifind myself constantly defining my beliefs to the majority of non-muslims that simply are misinformed about what islam actually is-

it requires a great deal of patience and repeating myslef and showing respect for those who are opne minded enough to learn-

atheists must also show this common respect in their dealings with theists-
and realize that many people simply dont know what ateists believe and hence their fear or hesitancy-

it is work- but if one lives in a society where one is in the minority- sometimes the extra effort is necessary.
salaams

I posted a comment earlier that a mans (or woman) religion shouldn't be a litmus test, nor the subject matter of there campaign. I want to clarify. My point is that I don't care if they are Catholic, Protestant, Jew, LDS, or any other faith so long as there faiths works aren't in direct opposition to the laws and constitution of this land, (human sacrifice to gods.. well you get the point.) Having said that, also agree with the point that the candidates core values and beliefs are going to influence the decisions made during the presidency. My point is though that those values and beliefs don't have to be addressed from the religious standpoint. Nore do they need to be covered in the media that way. For example, "President Bush, a Born again Christian, will likely use a veto on any bill voting to legalize same sex marriage, because Born again Christians believe it is wrong."
Essentially, that is what happens too much. I don't care if he is Born again, Jew or whatever, I just want to know truthfully if he will or wont use the veto. His membership in a church, or how often he goes to church, doesn't garauntee anything. Yes, I want to know his core values, and I want to know the direction he will lead this country, but I just don't think I can make an accurate judgment based on his religion, especially with the often sloppy and innacurate way some of the media handles issues like this. In short- it isn't his membership in any particular church, or his profession to live by that faiths tenants that I really want to know. I want to see his track record. I want to see his (or her) game plan for the future. I want to understand his or her core values. I want to avoid the static that is associate with the useless quarel that comes from "religion battles". It is hard to see a candidate for who he is when all the reports are covering is the latest insult on that man or woman because of their religion. I want to just see the man or woman who is going to lead this country, not just the religion he or she is a part of. Do I prefer they be religious, of course. But again, if it isn't to be a litmus test, why should it be in the subject matter of the campaign? Think that through for a minute.

Mr. Bush has had a profound influence in the debate over religion and politics and has left the American public with a taste for neither.

One person wrote that "Religion has no place in government!"

I would pose two questions to clarify this statement: 1) Do you mean no person with a religion can work in the government?; or 2) Do you mean that government should not be run according to a specific religion's laws?

Question 1 should seem obviously extreme.

But I believe our society is often unable (or unwilling) to make the distinction between the two questions. They believe that any government official that speaks about their faith (beyond stating it) is being inappropriate and unprofessional.

This climate is one that could make it impossible for anyone with a religious faith to take part in the future US government.

Now, I would empathize with anyone who had to endure a President with a different belief. I don't think I would feel comfortable (as a Christian) if I were to hear President Bush speaking about being a Buddhist and how his faith influences his beliefs of what should be done in government. So I can totally understand how people of other religions or atheists might feel with this current administration.

But....America is a democracy. We can vote. And just like how viewership decides if a tv show stays on the air or not, our vote decides who our leader will be.

At this point, I will say that I am a Christian and I voted for Kerry. And my favorite president may be Bill Clinton (and not because of the Lewinsky incident). So I also know what it's like to have a President that I did not vote for.

But that's Democracy, and we have a system where those in government should not be censored or discouraged to talk about their faith (unless they are trying to impose their beliefs on others). I doubt that many who were not Christians before would become Christians because President Bush mentioned his faith in his speeches.

But please do not go the path of quieting everyone's faith lest America become a theocracy of atheism. I believe that the prospective fear of atheism/intellectualism trivializing the role of faith in our lives may have been a factor in President Bush's re-election.

We see Meacham on Charlie Rose and he looks as if his shorts are too tight. Such a serious boy with such unnecessary questions. May the American public please go now on the subject of religion and politics? This was such a fun debate, and one could become quite overwrought about six years ago. But, we've moved on John, America really doesn't care what those in the political industry believe. They only want them to do their job. To take a problem and fix it, as much as it is possible for them to fix. America has so many problems screaming for resolution, why would the public care where the political industry finds the strength to do what they were elected to do? It is, however, a wonder where politicians get the nerve to do what they do. And that is, to screw up a good idea, a good country, a good people, a good thing. Folks just want them to to go to work, like everybody else, do their JOBS and leave the religion of POLITICS out of it... For example: We know that the surge in Iraq is happening right now... while they sit around making big shows, racking up air time, and their "protest" goes on the record. "I am against the surge in Iraq." But the surge goes forward, nothing of consequence will change. And on the eve of the next election, the political industry will feel secure in the fact that they covered their asses on this latest, latest, dangerous, egotistical, not for anyones well being escalation and our children will be killed. Not just stop breathing killed, they will die of horrible wounds that bleed and tear flesh and bone and spatter their bodies all over the area in which they stand. The kind of violent death and destruction you will never hear one member of this industry talk about. Not one, neither republican nor democrat calls it dying. They just "send in the troops" and the troops "lose their lives". Meanwhile, other life threatening issues bang at the door and are never heard. (You know, like Jesus, John.) If the entire global village doesn't move on global warming, there won't be a globe to worry about. And talk about dying... It won't be easy or quick and it won't be in 25 years. It will be sooner than anybody wants to believe and is very possibly teetering on the edge as we speak. We are playing with fire. And that, John, is the tip of the iceberg, no pun intented...Let's talk about other issues. No way to see a doc just to check if maybe the brown spot on your eye is cancer and god help if it is...how will you pay for that? On your minimum wage job? that the President keeps bragging he just created seven billion of...Who will take care of the kids if the worst happens? Who will care for the children until it does? People working every damn day, real people who are educated, don't do drugs, don't overspend, don't run wild and party...a broken arm, a sick child, a bladder, ear, chest,eye, infection, a gallbladder, a child in the hospital? ...A sick car, mother, father, brother...And you want to know if real Americans are staying up at night worrying about how Hillary Clinton or John McCain or Osama bin Laden feels about Ghoood? Where are you people? Do you ever, ever go out? I mean out. You live so far away you can't see...this is old news...Is it a form of elitism or something equally comical? The bulk of the populations of America work, like labor work and go to wall-mart to get cheap generic drugs and toothpaste made in China. And They spend their damn time watching television. They zone out and forget how sad it is to have to face another bill in the mountain of bills they freaking know they can't pay. Not because they don't work, the husband, the kids, the dog, but because they cannot cover the years of corruption which has brought them to this. Drug companies witholding medicine, doctor's without integrity, oil companies with America in their grip, fly-by-night corporations with insurance scams, retirement scams, work scams, wall street scams, real estate scams, investment scams. And now this....IRAO...Like, who else they gonna vote for, John? The political industry has a monopoly in Washington...you get christrians, or christians. They already know what politicians think and it ain't about God. So, they'd rather know what Brittany Spears thinks, what finally drove her to leave the father of her children. They want to see SOMEBODY who's having a bang up time. High crimes and misdemeanors rather than low income divorces over money problems. Why would they care about some politician today, lobbiest tomorrow's faith? They've lost theirs... Mission accompolished! You needn't fret about a revolution here. Americans have crawled into the TV and shut the door. Drugs are a nice recreation, too, have you noticed? And that's because, no matter what these people of politics believe, they don't believe they need to serve anyone but themselves, and so they don't. And no matter what the American people believe, it doesn't matter, anyway. What a stupid question, John. Go change your shorts, in six short years you have become irrelevant.

Today I was flipping through a book called "The genius of American politics" by Boorstin. It was interesting because he explicitly pointed out "America runs but has produced no great political theorists--in fact America is against any grand political designs a la communism, fascism, etc."

I would say this extends to religion as well.

But the problem is it seems since Boorstin wrote this book that America has been forced into political theorizing more and more and where that is going to lead...I think more and more presidents are going to have to express an "American philosophy" and this will sometimes be religious, sometimes not...

I just hope the U.S. can articulate itself and design itself with a minimum of turbulance.

We all should be working together on a coherant order--make this a national priority.

it seems bush's misunderstanding of his own religion prompted him to state that jesus(ata) was his favorite philosopher- i would definitely put forth that if bus were A/A he would still be an irrational thinker-

I do not think there is any room in the public sector for religious belief and other irrational thought.

However, given the present state of the union in terms of the errosion of separation of church and state, it is important to me to understand a candidate's attitude toward irrationalism before I vote for him or her. As we have seen with the current president, religious worship and irrationalism -- talking to God, etc. -- can be disasterous if permitted in public policy and the management of international affairs. I suggest Mr. Bush is a failed president in large part because of his inability to refrain from irrational thinking.

Thank you.

WICCAN, what an incredible story but I am sure if I would have said I was an A/A (atheist/agnostic) it would probably have not gone over much better. A recent poll showed that a gay person had a better chance at being elected to public office than an A/A.

I realize it is probably easier to pass yourself off as an A/A than a gay person. But then maybe not.

How about all of the uproar about the Muslim elected to office. Sad

I gotta agree with Brad on this one. A person's world view informs their choices. If someone has a religion that says the world is flat, or that it’s OK to kill babies (or worse puppies!) on an alter to their god - I would care about that (Not that there’s anything wrong with that! Who am I to judge another culture’s religion!)

Hmmm. Think I agree with part of what Joshua was saying as well. Religion should not be a litmus test (or THE litmus test). Anything that effects the choices a person will make (background, religion, philosophy, experiences, politics) should all be fair game, but it needs to be seen as an entirety. Again, world view effects how we think. What a person believes matters because our choices (at least the thoughtful ones) are born out of our beliefs. Not sure, but I think this is what Pam said in her second post. In which case I agree with her too (I’m just a big softy like that).

As for the Wiccan I feel for you. It’s gotta be hard to be always seen as an outsider in your own country. It’s not right or fair (then again do those words have any meaning if they are just products of human culture?). Anyway you gotta do what the Goth kids do and embrace being ostracized! If you can learn to enjoy being different then you can have your cake and eat it too. Here’s what you do. Dress to get a reaction from old fashioned and closed minded people. Embrace being different than the other 99.9% of the bums in our country. Then prepare for the fringe benefit of getting all self-righteous when people react to you for being different! Bonus!
Just be ready for Mr. Mark and some of the other atheists to get all primitive on you. He don’t have no truck for what he sees as fairytales!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

You will not find "the separation of church and state" in the language of the Constitution. Public servants can/should be guided by their beliefs and the laws of our land. Our founding fathers established a government that protects the rights of the religious and secular. The fact remains that they also referenced the Creator in their proceedings. Our government will inexorably be tied to religion. The very reason the right to not practice religion is protected in our country is because the founders wanted to practice their own religion. The purpose of the first amendment was not to delete God or religion from goverment.

I think it is important for candidates to express their personal religious views so we can tell whether their judgment is influenced by ancient mythological fairy tales or reality. (e.g. Is the earth 6000 years old or 3 1/2 billion?)

I don't think it is necessary to or politically correct to discuss personal religious views as a part of your campaign. I don't want to know what is your religion, I want to know what are you going to do as President. A mans' religion garauntees no course of action. I am not saying religion isn't important, I am saying it shouldn't be a litmus test, for or against, a political candidate, insomuch as that religions works aren't contrary to the laws of the land. I also think it is tasteful and shows the presence of integrity in a candidate to actually carry out, during presidency, those plans and promises presented during campaigning. We need more emphasis on critical issues and how they will effect our nation as a whole, regardless of ones religion. If a candidates plans are the best for this nation, and he is a proven leader who has integrity and courage, give him or her the office.

What about political candidates imposing religious tests on their constituents?

Back in late October I got a call asking me if I would participate in a political survey. After a few questions it was obvious the caller was from Tom Davis' campaign. She must have had me on the phone for about seven minutes, until she came to what was to be the last question:

"What is your religious affiliation?"

"Wiccan."

"Wiccan? How do you spell that?"

"W-i-c-c-a-n."

"What is that?"

"A Neo-pagan religion.."

"Oh my God!" and she hung up on me.

I have to give the gent at Tom Davis' office his props; when I called them up, breathing fire about this treatment, it took him about ten minutes but he finally calmed me down.

Imagine if a Wiccan RAN for office...

I was highly critized on another thread for saying that I would hope "my" rep or senator would represent my feelings when voting on issues. That poster reminded me that the majority rules in this country. I understand that the majority rules.

When I go to the polls I vote for the person that as much as possible agrees with me on the issues. Since it is almost impossible to agree completely with all of us I decide on what the most important issues are on my list.

I did NOT vote for Bush and not because I had a clue that he would bring religion into his administration in the way that he has. I had many reasons beside his religious beliefs that I chose not to vote for him.

I think if you do research on the candidates it is usually obvious if they are going to use their religious beliefs when they vote on issues. Unless of course they do not have much of a history. But then why would I vote for someone for president or congress person that I knew absolutely nothing about. I do know that many people do just go in there and vote party line because they are too lazy to do any real research.

Although one can never be sure of what an elected official is going to do. Maybe maybe not. So I suppose it is shame on me if I vote for someone without taking a look at that possibility before I vote.

A sufficient statement by my candidates would be: "I follow the Eight Commandments" i.e. the non-God commandments plus "I love my neighbor as myself".

I'm surprised this site has so few responders. Especially considering the diversity and resume of the panelists. I see most of the responses are from the same few people. Hopefully the site will be more popular.

As for this question, I want my representative to represent my views, beliefs, goals, and dreams. I vote anti-abortion, anti-deathpenalty, anti-assisted suicide, pro-traditional marriage, anti-big business. I'm just waiting on a candidate. I am a Christian.

Good one Cynic. If you can't beat em' call them condescending names. What rational person would ever listen to the opinions of a religious fundamentalist extremist or a radical environmental tree-hugging leftist?

I think the real fight is to keep the "marketplace" open. I'm up to the challenge it looks like you are too.

"We rarely think people have good sense unless they agree with us."

- Francois de La Rochefoucauld

Hey Pam,

What other world views should we bar from the market place of ideas while we are at it? And what should we do with those crazy people who say that some forms of Maoism, materialistic humanism, and even free market consumerism have aspects similar to what we normally label as religion.

I love labels. Once we label an idea as religious then we don’t have to deal with it or the person who voiced it! Much more convenient than every one voicing their views and then voting to see who the rabble selects.

I just want to make sure that reasonable people like you and I are among the elite who decide which points of view are not worthy of public consumption!

Then again, maybe not.

Politicians talking about their personal religious beliefs is OK, as long as they don't use their religion's dogma as a basis for governing. I would be wary of any politician who claimed the scriptural law trumps constitutional law ), or who governed as if that was true. (That's an argument that I've heard against legalizing same-sex marriage.) I think it comes down to the personal versus the professional. It would be unprofessional and unethical for employees of a company to proselytize at work. We should expect the same of our office-holders, to keep their beliefs on the personal level.

we wrote at the same time pam- i antimplying you were suggesting tht we stick our head in the sand.

rhetoric is the language of politicians- i would say that bush's identification as an evangelical made it obvious where he stood on some issues- we can pretend that ones religion is separate from their decision- making- but if they are really religious it is an aspect of their mentality-

isnt it better to know what questions to aks by being fully informed?

the question is worded to have an implied right answer-
obviously we arent voting for politicians to hear them 'express their religious views'.

but as a purely practical matter we do need to know how their religion will affect potential decision making- so to stick your head in the sand and pretend it should be removed from public discourse could be hazardous-

we know bush is fundamental in his beliefs and doesnt stray from his religious party line- this is important information in our voting knowledge of the candidates-
how strictly a candidate adheres to the tenets of their religion gives us an outline as to their overall mentality and helps us form the questions that we need to ask of a candidate.

if it provides another template but which to guage their policy forming- we should utilize all available information.

to pretend it doesnt exist or shouldnt be addressed is simply unwise.

ABSOLUTELY NOT

Religion has NO place in government. While the press and public will no doubt find out what a candidates religious affiliations are, let us keep it out of the picture as much as possible.

This administration has done a good job in bringing religion into the mix. Please no more of that!!!

I hope those that follow me on this post will have many great arguements on both sides of this question. I will be anxious to hear informed opinions on is topic.

THERE SEEMS TO BE LITTLE CELEBRATION OF FAITH ON THIS "ON FAITH" SITE-

oun
1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.
2. the art or science of all specialized literary uses of language in prose or verse, including the figures of speech.
3. the study of the effective use of language.
4. the ability to use language effectively.
5. the art of prose in general as opposed to verse.
6. the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory.
7. (in classical oratory) the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience.
WELL OF COURSE ITS APPROPRIATE FOR POLITICIANS TO TRY AND MANIPULATE THE PUBLIC WITH RHETORIC ESPECIALLY WITH NEUTRAL RELIGIOUS KIND.

are these questions deliberately loaded?