All Comments (27)

Dear Tday -

What do you think of Jewish belief that the 10 Commandments apply solely to the Jewish people, and that the the rest of humanity need only follow the 7 Laws of Noah to be considered a good Gentile, which are:

1. There is only one God. You shall not make for yourself an idol.
2, You shall not murder.
3. You shall not steal.
4. You shall not commit adultery.
5. Revere God and do not blaspheme.
6. Do not eat the flesh of an animal while it is still alive.
7. You shall set up an effective government to police the preceding

(SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahide_Laws )

Sort of lets us Gentiles off the hook for not remembering the Sabbath, not honoring our parents, coveting and bearing false witness, doesn't it?

>>May I now amend the previous statement to read, "I have...and still maintain that if societies followed 7 out of the 10 commandments, we wouldnt have the headlines we see today."?

Your perrogative. And may I now restate my original statement along the lines of the previous statement: "I have...and still maintain that if societies followed 10 out of the 10 commandments, we wouldnt have the headlines we see today."

And by the way, Saturday is the 7th day of the week. Sunday is the man-made 'sabbath' that came along by mans doing after Christ was on earth. Satan has decieved the whole world (Rev 12:9)

Additionally, by the way, Allah, Zeus, et. al. denote mans confusion thru the millenia of who/what God is. Mans problem..not God's. Remember, man rejected God's authority from the start...lost track of God from the get-go.

On to a less-cynnical blog....

TDAY writes:
"Mr Mark

You forgot the other 7."

Thanks for making my obvious point for me.

May I now amend the previous statement to read, "I have...and still maintain that if societies followed 7 out of the 10 commandments, we wouldnt have the headlines we see today."?

Well religion should stop, because it is addicting and can cause some serious health problems.

Family values is like money in peoples hands.

http://www.andyskysea.blogspot.com/

Anonymous:

I think you are right to say that the headlines today are in part due a loss of the ethical teachings of religion or some other code of conduct.

My contention was that the following immediately says that someone who doesn't believe in God does not have character:

character and religion (belief in God) that supports high standards of human excellence in character go hand in hand.

But there are ethical codes that don't require a belief in a personal God like Humanism. This statement casts a wide net and excludes some of the very best people I know. If someone does walk the path to Athiesm, the question of what is moral or right in society, altruism, and many other questions must answered by them. They will have to seek those answers and philosphers have been doing this since our anscestors walked under the dome of the sky.

But I certainly don't agree with BGONE that:

Religion operators work hard to make character and religious synonyms but they're actually opposites.

I don't know why you guys have to say 'Simple minds' to each other. You wouldn't be posting here if you weren't complex people seeking life's answers.

Mr Mark

You forgot the other 7.

Simple minds right back at ya.

"I have...and still maintain that if societies followed the 10 commandments, we wouldnt have the headlines we see today."

Right. Having no other gods before "me" (which me would that be? Allah? Zeus? Yahweh?), not taking the lord's name in vain (again, which lord would that be?), and taking Sundays off are all we need to fix all of the world's problems.

Simple solutions for simple minds.

>>Neither of these things that the both of you say are what I have experienced in life.

..you say '...what I have experienced in life.'

maybe you havent...

..I have...and still maintain that if societies followed the 10 commandments, we wouldnt have the headlines we see today.

Have a nice evening!

TDAY:

Their are no societies on Earth that were not built by a long history of religious doctrine and teachings. The enlightenment brought many freedoms and liberties to the governments of these societies. No society can reject something that is built into the language and behavior of a people.

Why denigrate someone because they put your religion down? Why join the fray?

There are people of character from every belief system, ethnic background, and nationality.

Both you and BGONE are so beligerent when he and you say:

Religion operators work hard to make character and religious synonyms but they're actually opposites.

or

So, character and religion (belief in God) that supports high standards of human excellence in character go hand in hand. Societies without this fail quickly.

Neither of these things that the both of you say are what I have experienced in life. I've met atheists and christians that were the best kind of people, and I've met atheists and christians who I didn't think were good people.

Bgone,

There is far less 'character' in this country...due to the fact that morality, decency and all they encompass become less prevalent when a society rejects God and the 10 commandments.

So, character and religion (belief in God) that supports high standards of human excellence in character go hand in hand. Societies without this fail quickly.

Ki-Jana wrote "You said, "We should be electing people based on their stance on the issues and their qualifications for the job. Nothing more. Nothing less." My stance on abortion is that it is completely immoral and equates to murder. Those feelings stem, in whole or in part, from my religious convictions. How should I, or any candidate that feels the same way, arbitrarily dismiss those convictions?"

It stands to reason that your personal stance on specific issues might be informed by your religious faith, but the religious faith of a candidate is not an indicator of whether or not they'll share your point of view on it. There are many Christians who are pro-choice, just as there are many atheists who oppose abortion. That's the point. It's fine to pay attention to the issues regardless of how you arrived at your stance, but it's foolish to think that someone of the same religion will share your point of view or that someone of another religion or no religion won't. Religion is a worthless indicator of anything important. It doesn't tell you if the person has integrity, if they're honest, what their stance on any given issue will be, or anything else useful in choosing a candidate. Thinking that it does is just bigotry.

Tim, you wrote, "Perhaps those who think character does not matter also think religion does not matter."

You're making the assumption that being religious and character are synonyms. Why are there two different words if they are the same. Irreligious folks have more character than religious ones. They don't get the free ride, sins forgiven by a third party, must beg forgiveness from those they offend so they are less likely to be offensive.

Thought I'd mention that. You're far from alone. Religion operators work hard to make character and religious synonyms but they're actually opposites.

Now take Mr Colson for example.

Colson... Hm-m-m. I seem to remember his as one of the Watergate Seven. It seems that he couldn't keep to the correct side of the Constitution then, and he still can't. Ministry in prison is another separation issue, isn't it?

Why is it that we have to listen to so much proselytizing and just plain bull from so many jailbirds, anyway: Ollie North, G. Gordon Liddy, E. Howard Hunt... and now this moron? They must think we're all pretty stupid. But, like the saying goes, "There's a sucker born every minute." If you want to get cozy with his program and logic, I guess it's your money....

None of these guys would recognize the Constitution if it bit them in the bacon.

Fact is people are stupid...Ellison was elected even though he is backed by Islam's Pseudo-Civil Rights org., that is a cover for money laundering to Hamas. One should investigate ALL aspects of a candidates background and see who supports them financially. The people of Minnesota must have been on drugs to elect a wahhabi radical posing as a moderate.

This question posed by the Post is kind of sophomoric. Friend above is right and what Friend states should be obviously to just about everyone. Perhaps those who think character does not matter also think religion does not matter. Ignoring the character of people you do business with can and probably will lead to bankruptcy and ignoring the religion of some could leave you with your throat slit. Theoretical arguments are fine but a little common sense is a good thing.

I don't see how I could not look at the total person including their belief system when voting for a person.

I would vote for a candidate of any belief system or ethnic background if I thought their policies would be the most effective and efficient.

Absolutely Mr Colson, "voters need to look at the total person they are being asked to vote for."

Voters should know about the candidates faith? Should that be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Suppose the candidate says he/she is a Christian. Shouldn't voters also know the Bible is a proved hoax, that being a Christian is disqualifying, like being a member of al-qaida? Voters should both know what the candidates faith and the source of that faith? I agree.

Many things can be explained in both the present administration and past ones by the fact that the incoming president put his hand on the hoax while taking the oath.

Doesn't http://www.hoax-buster.org make your head hurt too like it does the pope's, Billy Graham's and their confederates?

Not as bad as http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul that shows the father of Jesus was Lucifer, the biggest Devil of them all? Sure your sins are forgiven. What else would the son of Devil do, condemn you to hell?

I'll wager the Devil made you do that.

In response to the Russert question, I'm not entirely convinced that the question wasn't put forth by some or all of the democratic candidates. It's common knowledge that one of the perceptions of the democrats is their lack of faith or belief in the Christian God. Now I could care less if you believe that to be a good or bad thing, the point is that the democratic candidates realize that this perception hurts them at the polls. What better way to try and dispel that perception than at a nationally televised debate?

Chip,

You said, "We should be electing people based on their stance on the issues and their qualifications for the job. Nothing more. Nothing less." My stance on abortion is that it is completely immoral and equates to murder. Those feelings stem, in whole or in part, from my religious convictions. How should I, or any candidate that feels the same way, arbitrarily dismiss those convictions?

Ron R writes, "My view – I think you are continuing to misinterpret the intent of Article 6. Its intent, as I understand it, is to prohibit the government from establishing any religious criteria for election to public office. If its intent were to restrict what people could say over the airwaves, assuming that otherwise whatever is said meets the legal definition of decency that you cited, then it would be in contradiction (perhaps even violation) of the First Amendment. Then we’d really have a difficult problem with which to deal, wouldn’t you say?"

Our Christian dominated populace would ignore the problem, and be perfectly happy to apply a religious test for office and subvert the Constitution. You can bet that if the Constitution didn't explicitly demand no religious test for office that Colson would be singing a very different tune (and his July 4th posting makes that quite clear).

Seven state constitutions expressly forbid atheists from holding public office, in gross violation of Article 6. Have you ever heard of any Christians fighting against that kind of institutionalized bigotry? I sure haven't. What I hear instead is the Christian right arguing fervently in favor of states rights, so that they can continue to ignore the parts of the Constitution that they don't like, and codify it into State law. Those state constitutions that still forbid atheists from holding public office aren't enforced (at least not "officially") but is there any public outcry to purge such institutionalized bigotry from the political system? No. Why do you think that is? Can you imagine if those state constitutions forbade Christians, or blacks, or even gays?

When George Bush Sr. was on the campaign trail during his first presidential run, the following exchange took place at a campaign stop in Chicago...

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

(more info here: http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/aa011.htm)

We either have a policy of zero tolerance for bigotry when it comes to government or we don't, and it's disturbingly clear that we don't. Christians in this country seem to feel that as long as they federal government isn't overtly applying a religious test for office then it's just fine for them to do so by proxy.

I agree with Mr. Mark. The Russert question should have created outrage. It was unbelievably inappropriate and pandered to the religious bigotry that's as bad today as racism was a hundred years ago. Such things should cause us shame. What century are we living in? The 14th?

Politicians and government officials should not speak openly about their religious convictions at all. It should be strictly verboten. We should be electing people based on their stance on the issues and their qualifications for the job. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Colson and those who try to justify his position (and that of McCain and countless others) should be ashamed. They should also wake up to the fact that professed religious belief is a worthless tool for gaging anyone's ethics. One need only look at the incredible graft and corruption in the Reagan, Bush, and Nixon administrations, and in government in general to see that. It's high time people let go of such infantile notions, and high time that those who try to justify bigotry are publicly shamed for it.

Dear Ron R -

Thanks for the response. A few items before I rush off:

• First Amendment rights of Mr Russert: the FCC has a carve out to the First Amendment, ie: the seven dirty words. It isn't OK for Mr Russert to assert his First Amendment rights by uttering one of those 7 banned words, so why is it OK to pose a religious test under the aegis of the First Amendment?

• Mr Russert didn't pose the question on behalf of the government: we don't know that. In an age where the media is manipulated by political forces and certain "journalists" are in the back pocket if not the pay of government factions (Bob Novak, Armstrong Williams), there's always a chance that such a question may be being asked by proxy.

Gotta go.

Dear Mr. Mark,

Thank you for your thoughtful response to my post and for asking my opinion. Here’s what I think.

If Mr. Russert did indeed pose a religious test, he did not do it on behalf of or as a member of the government. He is a skilled interviewer whose job it is (presumably) to get information to the public about a variety of subjects, including what people who are running for public office think and believe. The objective, of course, is (or at least should be) so that people like you and I have the information we need to decide for whom to vote. So, if he did indeed pose a religious test, he posed it on behalf of you and me and all the other people in the US who might like to make an informed decision.

You make some interesting points to which I’d like to respond.

You said, “At the last Democratic debate - which was carried live on TV and rebroadcast numerous times - moderator Tim Russert asked each candidate to name their favorite Bible verse. Each one promptly did. This constituted a bald-faced religious test in a predominantly Christian nation. Respond to that question by saying you're an atheist or that you belong to a religion that doesn't follow the Bible, and you just kicked yourself out of consideration.”

My view – the person who responds as you suggest is kicked out of consideration only in the mind of those who disagree. Would you kick someone out of your consideration who responded as being an atheist? Is there some government agency that, having heard an atheist candidate’s reply, would immediately, under force of law, go to the appropriate election officials and demand the removal of the “offending” candidate’s name from all ballots or bar them from further public speaking or deny public campaign funds?

You said, “So, let us ask ourselves this: why was Mr Russert allowed to pose such a question on TV in the first place?”

My view – Mr. Russert’s right to ask such a question is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. He does not need permission or to be allowed to ask it. Accordingly, the person being asked the question has every right to answer according to that person’s beliefs, let the chips fall where they may.

You said, “But it would appear that he can pose a religious test to the candidates in violation of the Article 6 and it's not even an issue.”

My view – I think you are continuing to misinterpret the intent of Article 6. Its intent, as I understand it, is to prohibit the government from establishing any religious criteria for election to public office. If its intent were to restrict what people could say over the airwaves, assuming that otherwise whatever is said meets the legal definition of decency that you cited, then it would be in contradiction (perhaps even violation) of the First Amendment. Then we’d really have a difficult problem with which to deal, wouldn’t you say?

Dear Ron R -

Your point about the 6th amendment is well taken. Let's consider it in today's media-dominated world.

At the last Democratic debate - which was carried live on TV and rebroadcast numerous times - moderator Tim Russert asked each candidate to name their favorite Bible verse. Each one promptly did. This constituted a bald-faced religious test in a predominantly Christian nation. Respond to that question by saying you're an atheist or that you belong to a religion that doesn't follow the Bible, and you just kicked yourself out of consideration.

So, let us ask ourselves this: why was Mr Russert allowed to pose such a question on TV in the first place? The last I looked, the VHF/UHF and AM/FM public airways are owned by the people (government) and are licensed for use by the FCC. This is the same FCC that has a list of seven dirty words one can't say on TV, the same FCC that imposes fines for "indecency" and the same FCC that can revoke a station or network's license if it feels said entity is misusing or abusing that license. Does it not follow that enforcing of the letter and spirit of Article 6 of the Constitution in regards to the public airwaves is at least as important as fining CBS when Janet Jackson's boob was unveiled during a Super Bowl?

I would think that it does. As it stands now, Mr Russert could ask the candidates to describe their genitals and the network may have a fine to pay for asking an indecent question. But it would appear that he can pose a religious test to the candidates in violation of the Article 6 and it's not even an issue.

What do you think?

Dear Ron R -

Your point about the 6th amendment is well taken. Let's consider it in today's media-dominated world.

At the last Democratic debate - which was carried live on TV and rebroadcast numerous times - moderator Tim Russert asked each candidate to name their favorite Bible verse. Each one promptly did. This constituted a bald-faced religious test in a predominantly Christian nation. Respond to that question by saying you're an atheist or that you belong to a religion that doesn't follow the Bible, and you just kicked yourself out of consideration.

So, let us ask ourselves this: why was Mr Russert allowed to pose such a question on TV in the first place? The last I looked, the VHF/UHF and AM/FM public airways are owned by the people (government) and are licensed for use by the FCC. This is the same FCC that has a list of seven dirty words one can't say on TV, the same FCC that imposes fines for "indecency" and the same FCC that can revoke a station or network's license if it feels said entity is misusing or abusing that license. Does it not follow that enforcing of the letter and spirit of Article 6 of the Constitution in regards to the public airwaves is at least as important as fining CBS when Janet Jackson's boob was unveiled during a Super Bowl?

I would think that it does. As it stands now, Mr Russert could ask the candidates to describe their genitals and the network may have a fine to pay for asking an indecent question. But it would appear that he can pose a religious test to the candidates in violation of the Article 6 and it's not even an issue.

What do you think?

Mr. Mark & Mr. Chase,

I believe that both of you gentlemen have completely missed Mr. Colson’s point, not to mention the Constitution’s point. When he talks about the Constitution not requiring a “religious test”, he’s talking about what power and authority is given to the government – what the government is free to do. He then goes on to say that voters decide for themselves which candidate to vote – what the people are free to do. He makes the distinction in the first paragraph and then proceeds to offer his advice and explanation for how he thinks voters should behave.

Although I believe that Jesus Christ is God and man, the Lord of all Creation and the Savior of His people, I would be wary of any candidate who professes the same belief and behaves according to teachings other than those that Christ has given us in His Word, the Bible. This sort of thinking is, I believe, what Mr. Colson has in mind. I wouldn’t expect our Constitution to ever be changed to make my religious beliefs (or any one else’s) a mandatory requirement by any US government to be imposed on any candidate running for office. I also wouldn’t expect our Constitution to impose on me a restriction on thought, belief or personal choice as I decide for whom to cast my vote or at any other time. Would either of you?

The Constitution should not and does not impose on my thinking “no religious test”. It imposes that restriction on the government’s behavior.

Christopher -

How right you are.

Mr Colson's argument is no argument at all for the simple reason that there is no "At the same time" exception to the 6th Article of the Constitution.

Why is it that Xians like Colson can spend their whole day resisting sin and temptation, but when it comes to posing a religious test on candidates, their knees immediately weaken and they give in to their Xian temptations? One would think that the message to Xians would be, "as an American Xian living under the Constitution, you must respect Article 6 and RESIST your urges to judge candidates through the prism of your religion."

But, no. Colson and others carve out a special pleading for themselves that they think exempts them from Article 6. They use their religion and its "we're just sweet, law-abiding, god-fearing citizens" façade to cover their Constitution-hating religious tests.

Mr Colson's column lays bare the CONTEMPT in which the Constitution is held by many religionists in this country today. There's not a JFK in sight to remind them of what their RESPONSIBILITIES are as an American. That's a sad state of affairs.

Then again, contempt for the Constitution isn't exactly something new for Mr Colson, is it?

Now:

"While I would not want to disqualify someone because of their religious convictions..."

July 4th of this year:

"The more difficult question is whether I would vote for a pagan for public office...on the other hand, I would have great difficulty supporting an explicit Wiccan or pagan for high public office."

Christopher responds:

Its good to know that Mr. Colson is either openly insincere or hypocritical in his attitudes towards the requirement of "no religious test" for public office. It makes that much easier to say his views can be safely ignored. But since he believes true Americans who support democracy cannot be Pagan (read the July 4th column) then I suppose we must take seriously, since he holds that some forms of religiousness are un-American. One only wonders what the First Amendment is holding Mr. Colson back from doing.

Mr Colson states that under the Constitution, there can be no religious test for public office ("no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Article 6)...and then goes on to require a religious test of those running for president!

What an amazing disconnect!

How about this, Mr Colson: we ask NO ONE what their religion is. We don't look it up in the public records, and we ignore those who wear their religion on their sleeves. Now THAT would be a level playing field that our Founding Fathers would understand, not your Constitution-insulting version of things posted above.

Unbelievable.