Presidents and Religious Proclamations

fr ccnl:

>Anything BO says or does especially suggesting prayers, therefore, will ring hollow!...<

Why? Just because he might have different beliefs than YOURS?

KIMBA1

Thank you for your reply.

The "political correctness" that I suppose has always been around just seems to be so much more pronounced that we sometimes seem to be more interested in finding a caricature for office rather than a human being.

I also find it rather interesting and sad that some people want and sometimes expect more out of their public officials than is humanly possible.

And with that, they sometimes get, to say the least, very upset when the person turns out to be human.

It says in the bible, "My Ways are not your ways", how true, sometimes we seem to be more interested in the "labels" that one has rather than the person whereas God is interested in the person rather that whatever "labels" someone applies to themself.

As you put it, " I tire of the hypocracy....the absolute necessity of any serious presidential candidate to claim religious beliefs and practices they may not subscribe to; or more importantly, live up to."

I understand the legality and practical aspects of the "rights" issue since public offficials, especially the President, live in a fishbowl but it is up to them how much of a fishbowl they make it.

We shouldn't forget that the President is a fellow human being and neither should the President and for that matter any public or private individual. We are all in this together and whether people like it or not we are all members of the human family.

I happen to know that God is real but believing in God does not necessarily translate into someone being a decent person.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Athena4 :
How about a National Day of Thanks to our police, firefighters, nurses, orderlies, snow-plow drivers, etc. who are working on holidays to keep all of us safe? No religion required.
**************************************************
Not too many snow-plow drivers here in south Louisiana, but I silently express my thanks to emergency workers every time I pull over to allow a police car, ambulance, or fire engine to pass.
Having been a horizontal passenger in an ambulance, and having watched almost everything I owned go up in flames in the back of a burning pickup truck, I'm only too aware of just how needed these folks are.

ThomasBaum:

I appreciate the wisdom of your commentary, and agree with much of what you have said. As a more than casual political observer (and native born citizen, BTW), I tire of the hypocracy....the absolute necessity of any serious presidential candidate to claim religious beliefs and practices they may not subscribe to; or more importantly, live up to.

It is based on the mistaken notion that a religious background is an absolute imperative towards living a moral lifestyle, or is a pre-requisite for public office.

Does one who becomes a government official give up their rights?
Legally, no. Practically in this political environment, yes.

A qualified candidate has no freedom of religion if one is to be elected, your voter consideration will be wholly dependant on your ability to assume a supposed lifetime of a mainstream American religion.

Freedom of speech? If one is to be elected, you must parse your words, carefully measure each word for fear of a spur of the moment gaffe, to telling out right lies.

More and more our political election system and religious intolerance dwindles the field of candidates down to actors, motivational speakers, and game show hosts. Just give me one public servant of substance under the age of forty.

Show me one public servant who can survive this biblical test (taken out of context, I agree)

"I will judge you according to your ways, and will recompense you for all your abominations"

I know that it may shock you, Spidermean2, but as atheists we're likely to thank *real people.* You know, the lady that delivers our mail. The guy that works at the coffee shop. We might actually seek out a police officer or a fire fighter to thank them for their service. We'd thank our friends and family for their love. We would reflect of the sacrifices of those that came before us so that our lives might be better and quietly consider what we are doing to make the world a better place for those that will come after us.

The hard work of one person will do more to change the world than the prayers of millions.

How about a National Day of Thanks to our police, firefighters, nurses, orderlies, snow-plow drivers, etc. who are working on holidays to keep all of us safe? No religion required.

Spiderman

Stop calling people stupid, you dope.

The earth didn't make the roses nor the roses made itself. Even man can't understand how roses are made from scratch.

The wise is thankful for the Creator. Who will the unbelievers thank? The earth? The sand?

Please stop the stupidity. It won't go unpunished.

I am a very thankful atheist: Thankful for the immeasurable greatness of life, of my ability to live and love. Thankful for being able to observe and think the universe and its marvelous evolution, and thankful that nobody ever encountered an entity (invented by humans called god) which might warp my mind into contortions like those of spiderman2 and his brainwashed, sick ilk.

KIMBA1

You wrote, "Should the president call attention to his faith, or call for national prayer? Absolutely not. We should pass a law declaring it illegal for a government offical to even disclose his religion, as this may be discriminatory against a non-believer."

I don't know if you live in America or are a citizen but what you have written here is totally against the Constitution of the United States, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

This country has never lived up to the "ideals" that it was founded on and never will but that does not mean that it should not at least try.

Does one who becomes a government official give up their rights?

We have "freedom of religion", we have "freedom of speech" does the President or any other government official give up these "rights" when they go into office?

If someone is offended by someone else's beliefs then that is their "problem" isn't it?

If someone tries to force their beliefs or non-beliefs on someone else then that is wrong and against the "founding document", isn't it?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

mcstric2 said:
"It is amazing that we are even debating this question. If you name any president in our nations history (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy etc.) I will give you a direct quote from these men acknowledging their belief that this nation is blessed by GOD. The truth is this is a Christian nation. We have never elected a President that didn't subscribe to beleiving in God if not Christianity.

This is stupid!"

Actually, you miss the point entirely. First, saying that because all of our Presidents have been (at least they SAY they've been) Christians does no more to prove that this is a 'Christian Nation' than the fact that all of our Presidents have been male proves this is a 'Male Nation.'

Second, while the majority of people in the United States may be Christian, there are many many thousands who are not. Some are of those non-Christian Americans are of other religions, some have no religion.

I don't understand why a subset of Christians in this nation need constant reinforcing of their belief and their privilege by elected officials.

Why would a President called for "a day of thanksgiving and quiet reflection" be so offensive to these Christians? This imaginary president would have done nothing to offend a Christians beliefs. If a Christian wanted pray to their god as an act of thanksgiving, she or he would be free to do so. If a Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu wanted to pray to their gods as an act of thanksgiving, she or he would be free to do so too. Atheists would be free to be thankful without having their views on religion denigrated or ignored.

I'm so tired of the culture wars. If there weren't so many Christians out there trying to ram their religion down my throat, legislate their beliefs and constantly crowing about their superiority and monopoly on all things moral and religious, I'd be a lot less inclined to find a President's call to thanksgiving and prayer so horribly offensive. Why must religion always be a contest?

Why are there so many people who can't accept that there are Americans, fine, upstanding Americans, who have different views on religion? If those of us in religious minorities didn't feel so constantly assaulted by belligerent Christians, we'd be a lot less alarmed by occasional mentions of 'god' by our elected officials.

"I will give you a direct quote from these men acknowledging their belief that this nation is blessed by GOD."

That should be regarded as their personal belief.

"The truth is this is a Christian nation."

That's the whole problem - conflating religion with patriotism. It is impossible to label a nation as a "(fill in the name of a religion) nation" without labeling citizens of other religions as unpatriotic.

It is amazing that we are even debating this question. If you name any president in our nations history (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy etc.) I will give you a direct quote from these men acknowledging their belief that this nation is blessed by GOD. The truth is this is a Christian nation. We have never elected a President that didn't subscribe to beleiving in God if not Christianity.

This is stupid!

"I appreciate lots of wonderful stuff larger than myself....stuff like the rest of the universe...the power of human cooperation...the ability of humans to reason and empathize. I just don't happen to believe in the supernatural."

To add to what Cornbread write, the existence of the "supernatural" or "metaphysical" is an empirical question and not a philosophical one. Cornbread has the right approach.

Lewaml noted: "We have just elected a young, new, vigorous president, at one of the most critical junctures in the history of this Republic......"

His statement should have read: "The 70+ million "mothers and fathers" of 35+ million aborted womb-babies elected the new leader of the "Immoral Majority"........

One can be thankful for the good things in one's life without believing in deities or agencies, because the issue is simple appreciation. A president can certainly talk about national thanksgiving in secular terms. National days of prayer should be avoided because they're too sectarian - even if a president strives to make these neutral among competing faiths, that still favors religious beliefs that include prayer over religious beliefs that don't.

cosmic_central wrote: "To the nonbelievers who are too proud and intelligent for something larger than themselves; why should anyone have faith in what you say?"

I'm a non-believer of questionable intelligence, but I appreciate lots of wonderful stuff larger than myself....stuff like the rest of the universe...the power of human cooperation...the ability of humans to reason and empathize. I just don't happen to believe in the supernatural. I'm not asking you to not believe in it too. On the topic in question, I don't think it's right, wise or constitutional for the government to be in the prayer business.

--"Like millions of fools before you; you'll soon be dead and long forgotten."

Are you saying that, because you're a believer, you're not going to die or you won't be forgotten or both? What was the name of the minister/priest/rabbi who married your parents? Dead? Forgotten?

--"I recommend you reach beyond the finite limitations of your brain before it's too late."

Exactly how do I "reach beyond the finite limitations" of my brain: by blindly accepting the bald assertions floating around inside *your* finite brain? The way I see it, if an omniscient supernatural entity wants to get my attention it knows where to find me...but thanks for your phony concern.

As a retired Episcopal priest I concur in the main with Bill Tully's article. The "Chill Out" I consider a bit of side-bar. I am neither concerned nor alarmed over any public displays or observances of the creche at Christmas, the lighted menorah of Hannakuh, the wreaths, the singing of carols, "O Tannenbaum" - and all that -the cross, the Star of David, the Crescent, or any other respectful symbols of any religious significance to those particular adherents of any religious tradition - OR NOT!

That the majority of Americans has been, are and will continue to be, for the most part, a "religious people," is fact. Yet this fundamental reality does not make us, of necessity, a special, or favored or better people than any others who inhabit the land or this globe. What "true and godly religion" ought to espouse at its essence, is an attitude of humility, and a gratitude that we live in a land we love; a land which has as its guiding lights the Decl. of Independence, The Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States requires of no qualified candidate, that she or he first pass a religious or theological or philosophical litmus test. But the American electorate does seem to require it of their presidents. Not a single avowed atheist, agnostic (although Lincoln comes pretty close) or secular humanist has, to my knowledge, ever been elected to the presidency.

But there is a reason why the Founding Fathers were so insistent that no state religion, official religion, or ANY religion be established. The principles of the Enlightenment guided them far more than the Holy Bible. This fact continues to be a bitter pill- particularly galling to those on the Religious Right. But it is also often a hurdle over which many others in Christian religious community - stumble.

These are the documents which may inform all Americans - beginning with the First Americans, Native to this land, with their rich tapestry of spiritual disciplines, ceremonials, and a deep reverence for the land and all life. To our first inhabitants of our Native Land, all was holy, sacred, held in trust. Gratitude and Thanksgiving were at the heart of their magnificent world-view.

Then came the rest of us. Each one of us - Indo-Europeans, Slavs, Scotch-Irish, Anglo-Saxon, African, Indians, Arabs, Asians, all were drawn to our shores in the great emigrations from somewhere else, to here. To America. Each brought with them a part of the whole -the commonality of a great humanity. Jews, Muslims, Agnostics, Atheists,Hindus, Ba'hai, Sikhs, Buddhists and Christians, secularists, humanists, treehuggers and stargazers, all moved to imagine a larger whole, a larger life, with a larger vision and purpose. Americans believe, in the deep inner sanctum of our collective imagination, that this national community coheres only insofar as we, each one, continue to see America as an unfolding, dynamic, changing experiment in self-governance; that our national identity and purpose are bound together within our capacity to extend justice with equity;
that we remain vigilant in the guarding of our freedoms; that civil rights were purchased with the blood of the patriots we honor; that we must
always extend "the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

But the reality of the current facts are these: At this particular moment in our national life, any person aspiring to the Presidency, who would profess no personal faith in "God," identify with no faith tradition, state no religious affiliation- historically, preferrably Christian -OR, who does profess an informed agnostic or atheist or humanistic secularism, is simply not electable, at least for now, and in the forseeable future.

We have just elected a young, new, vigorous president, at one of the most critical junctures in the history of this Republic. Who doubts that President -elect Barak Hussein Obama could have
been elected if he and his wife and children were Muslim rather than Christian? Who would doubt that? All of us, I presume, or nearly so.

That these are the "current facts" now, however, is not necessarily a matter of which we, as a nation of varying traditions representative of numerous cultures, practises and beliefs, ought to be justifiably proud. We still have a very long road to travel - we Americans - before we arrive at anything close to the harmonious principles and singular ideals envisioned by our Founding Ancestors. We must begin to imagine a society built on the bedrock of our convictions - and that of our Founding Fathers, whatever their personal foibles and transgressions: "All men [and women] are created equal." That is a statement of theological conviction. But it was largely at the hand of white men, religious men,
Christian church going men - like myself - that the slave received the recompense of his reward - lash and chain.

First, all attempts to discern the appropriateness of A. Lincoln's issuance of the Proclamation of Thanksgiving, October, 1863, in November 2008, must of necessity, negotiate not a few intangible faultlines. The intricacies and the intrigues inherent in a moment of historic portent do complicate the most dedicated, principled attempts - on the part of future generations - to discern, in this instance, what was in Lincoln's heart, on his exquisitely fertile, brilliant and imaginative mind?

Second, it is incumbent on all future generations
to come to grips, insofar as this is possible -
and it is not possible - to appreciate from a world removed, the almost superhuman strength with which he did seem to carry the crushing weight of the office, and of necessity, to bear the nation's burdens. This is the stuff of historiography. For within a month, Lincoln would visit "this hallowed ground," the Gettysburg Battlefield. At this Dedication - this consecration - the language of an ethereal eloquence in his "Address" would move the nation, forever, to aspire to this cause, and finally begin facing up to its own reckoning - "that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Jefferson would have fought to the death for the right of any man or woman to worship their God in their own way - or not! Jackson remained generally unsympathetic to any religious observance, personally. However throughout his presidency there was a markedly the strict adherence to the "right to worship" or not.

Lincoln's deep seated and healthy skepticism and distrust of "established religion" (he stedfastly refused membership in any denomination) is well documented. He struggled throughout the darkest days of his presidency to infuse the issues of slavery, war and rebellion with some sort of broader "theological" purpose and meaning.

He seemed to have settled on a sort of inscrutable and transcendent "Divine Providence" (cf. the Second Inaugural Address). And it's of no small historic consequence that his Thanksgiving Proclamation followed the Emancipation Proclamation, which followed the Battle of Antietam. That he discerned "patterns of Providence" as inscrutable is beyond dispute.

He unquestionably had a clear sense that divine Judgement (read accountability) most definitely attended the events and the course of human history. That by intention, he chose to make no distinction between a religious or sectarian interpretation of the meaning and purposes of history, perhaps remains his greatest legacy - and THAT, for me, remains a worthwhile reason to give thanks the fourth Thursday of each November. Thanksgiving, gratitude - it's what gives meaning and purpose to the solitary life. No life was ever lived within more solitary constraints, than that of our nations sixteenth President.

Nonbeliever - a person who lacks faith, especially in God.

- The Random House College Dictionary, Revised Edition.

To the nonbelievers who are too proud and intelligent for something larger than themselves; why should anyone have faith in what you say? Like millions of fools before you; you'll soon be dead and long forgotten. I recommend you reach beyond the finite limitations of your brain before it's too late.

Spidermean2 wrote: "It is a day of celebration for believers only."

What are you proposing here...some sort of turkey police? Inspector Spidermean2...giblet enforcement? Just another reason to be thankful that you aren't in charge.

DwightCollins wrote: "How arrogant we must be that we can't give thanks for all we have..[...]I will always give thanks to my GOD and THANK HIM for my life...It is so easy to do this, but for some of you, you don't deserve what you have and never will..."

Arrogance is insisting the entire flippin' country acknowledges someone's invisible sky buddy. Arrogance is judging who is and isn't deserving.

People often say the Thanksgiving holiday is their favorite because it brings them together with other people. No mention of religion or prayer, but rather of treasuring friendships and caring. Thanksgiving can be about religion, but it shouldn't have to be. Thanksgiving doesn't need to be to a god or any supreme power. It can be a simple act, a conversation with oneself or with family or friends. So keep the president--and government--away from codifying how and what we should think, and let it all continue to support giving thanks.

Kimba1 wrote "Let's end this hypocracy. "

It will end so don't be impatient. Doomsday will end it.

Thank the Lord this Thanksgiving that there is only one Spidermean2/ Spiderman2 aka Canyon Shearer, Bible Thumper, Fortune Teller and Severely Brainwashed in that Old Time Religion.

A national day of prayer? We have 52 of them, it is called the Sabbath.

Should the president call attention to his faith, or call for national prayer? Absolutely not. We should pass a law declaring it illegal for a government offical to even disclose his religion, as this may be discriminatory against a non-believer.

Of course this is not practical, but when the Democratic debates asked how many people actually prayed on a regular basis, and every candidate raised their hands, I knew they had reconveined the latest meeting of the liars club. Let's end this hypocracy.

The idiotic unbelievers should not celebrate Thanksgiving. What are they thankful for? For being IDIOTS?

It is a day of celebration for believers only.

How arrogant we must be that we can't give thanks for all we have...
In the future, when we have less and we will have less, don't complain, because there is always less to have...
I will always give thanks to my GOD and THANK HIM for my life...
It is so easy to do this, but for some of you, you don't deserve what you have and never will...

For those of us mature enough to gives thanks to the Father of all blessing, perhaps we could follow that with some reflection on why the American people have concluded that it is just for 3% of the world's population to control and consume 30% of the world's capital and resources.

A moment of silence for the now silent 35+ million womb-babies aborted since 1973 would be a better gesture.

In the scheme of things, it doesn't really matter whether the president calls for a day or prayer of not. One of the most irritating thing about society today is the tendency to scream about things, when one should just shrug.

IF A PRESIDENT SPEAKS OF GOD, IT MUST BE OF GOD OF ALL PEOPLE, NEVER OF A RELIGION OF ANY KIND.

Duckphup--Well said !

Duckphup---Well said !

When holidays like Thanksgiving celebrate both our national history and religious themes, the role of government is invariably muddied. The president should lead commemorations of the founding fathers and encourage us to learn more about the challenges we overcame to establish this great nation.

The President can certainly offer his own personal prayers. However, if he is not the King of England, head of a national church, and presidential prayers should not be said on behalf of the public. He can encourage and commend the myriad of religious institutions in their Thanksgiving. They do a great job. But the use of tax dollars to support praying and prayer services is usurping the role of religious institutions.

Further, the administration of government-led days of prayer are regrettably prone to cronyism and prejudice, diminishing religion to the level of a turf battle. Certain pastors claim the decision-making role and some faiths are excluded from representation. In religion, every detail is symbolic and speaks volumes: music, choirs, decor, apparel, gestures. If there is not an educated, interfaith decision-making process behind a government-induced day of prayer, it will invariably not be inclusive.

I see no end to government days of prayer in my life time. Once established, religious ties are virtually impossible to untie. But I do see an increasingly robust conversation about the interplay of religion and government. It remains to be seen whether future generations, many of whom already accept a much more society than their elders, will continue the practice and in what form.

Apparently JJ can count words. Other than that he continues to be very rude!!

If only priests and nuns are capable of sanctity then why bother, since the Pope believes the ordinary believer has never achieved sanctity without first becoming a nun or a priest.

Arguing that saints represent the goal not the journey is condescending to those who believe and lead holy lives but do it without notice.

Nobody prays to "John Doe" for a miracle after which makes him able to be Saint John Doe.

It's always Sister XX or Father XY who becomes Saint XX or Saint XY.

National day of prayer? NO! Never! This is an offense to the very Constitution!.

I never thought THanksgiving was a religious holiday. Do others?

ON Thanksgiving, lets be thankful for:
1. A system of commerce and agriculture that produces more food than we can eat
2.For Science that deveoped hyprid strains of crops and animials that provide more food.
3. For science that developed the Nitrogen fertilizers that produce such quantities of food
4.For the robust distribution system of roads, and stores that deliver this bounty to our kitchens.
5. For all the cooks who work for hours and their skills and love to prepare this delicious food.

Lets give thanks where thanks is due and not to some fantasy, parent in the heavens, obsolete, unnecesssary, supernatural gift giver.

Thanksgiving a national day of prayer? Certainly not. Don't we have enough controversy in America? God does not need our thanksgiving prayers, people do. People should appreciate what we have everyday, and act accordingly. Then there would be much less fear, competition and greed.

WHOTMEWORY1 :"Robinlandseadel is a bit mistaken"

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
=======================================

I take "No Law" to mean no law. Anything else would be uncalled-for activism. Remember: this country was founded by [relative to the standards of their day] radicals. The first amendment was the work of radicals.

WHOTMEWORY1 :"Robinlandseadel is a bit mistaken"

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
=======================================

I take "No Law" to mean no law. Anything else would be uncalled-for activism. Remember: this country was founded by [relative to the standards of their day] radicals. The first amendment was the work of radicals.

And then there is the fact that BO rode to the Blood-Red house on the backs of 35+ million aborted womb babies and their 70+ million living and voting "mothers and fathers" (i.e. the Immoral Majority)

Anything BO says or does especially suggesting prayers, therefore, will ring hollow!!!

This question is not so easy to answer. Probably religion should be left to the religious, but there seems to be certain times in a nations history when a call to religion is important. Notice how Washington and Lincoln were presidents during severe challenges to the nation. It seems sensible that they called for religion while Jefferson and Jackson rejected such a call. Today with all the challenges facing the United States there might be a call for a national thanksgiving day to God and it might be sensible. But then again it seems we are living in times in which no matter how bad the crises the nation faces it does not turn to religion. Religion could be fading from the United States and it might be we are more engrossed with the religion of the economy.

"God's a hunch ... Let's munch"!

Now please pass the cranberry sauce ...

As President I would say that he or she could not issue an official proclamation or an executive order but as a human being and a citizen of the United States with one of the rights being, as far as I know, freedom of speech, the President should be able to voice his private "freedom of speech" or is "freedom of speech" not a "right" of a President?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Robinlandseadel is a bit mistaken - the media have done a good job hammering a false statement into the public's collective mind: The first Amendment was not to say government could neither respect nor assist any church, mosque or synagogue; rather that membership in a faith could not be a line item prerequisite to holding office; nor could any single faith be held above all others as a "national faith." The 1st Amendment does not prevent federal or state monetary assistance to religions - it just must be given to all faiths equally and without prejudice.

A moment of silence for the now silent 35+ million womb-babies aborted since 1973 would be a better gesture.

Strange question, in the context of the past election.
This has been said before by other posters but here it is again: no one expects Obama to bring religious or spiritual changes. Except, perhaps, the former attack video team of John McCain. If there was a president of whom such things have been expected, that would be George Bush.
What is expected of Obama is positive political and economic changes, and Obama is fully capable of bringing such changes.
What has already happened is social changes; those he has already seeded by becoming the first half-black president-elect of the USA.

Listen & repeat: Separation of Church & State.

We don't need a national day of prayer. We need a nation holiday---no exceptions---for elections.

When presidents are elected doesn’t the public already know their general feelings regarding religion? If people don’t like candidates asking God to bless America at the end of every speech, they are free to vote for someone else. A president-elect doesn’t leave the essence of who he is at the front door of the White House. There is no law forbidding a public official to reference God. When a president proclaims a national day of Thanksgiving to God, that’s not “religion”-that’s politics. No one has to partake. It’s still a democracy, isn’t it? Or is free speech only “free” if you agree with it? People who have a close relationship with the True God don’t need a national day of prayer or a day of thanksgiving to God. Every day they pray and are always thankful to God.

Presidents should NOT issue such calls, because that transforms the President (and so, the government) into a purveyor, promoter, protector and defender of gullibility, self-deception, self-delusion, willful ignorance, ordinary ignorance, lies, hypocrisy, and toxic, drooling stupidity.

That is NOT the job of government, it is the job of 'religion'... and so it should be left up to the religious puppet-masters.