zkguit ovabrhfen rqeud jsadlyzt upnqzfsd lbgkxdvf wblmjukta

In a recent posting on Newsweek’s blog On Faith, Jacques Berlinerblau speaks of Reform Judaism and Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s association with it in a dismissive tone, classifying Reform Judaism as a “secularized religion”. As a deeply committed Reform Jew myself, I find this statement, and in fact his posting as a whole which attacks Bloomberg’s religions preferences as a Reform Jew, to be deeply offensive.

What exactly is Berlinerblau insinuating by classifying Reform Judaism as a “secularized religion”? Granted, Berlinerblau offers no definitive meaning, but to me I interpret such a statement to mean that he considers Reform Judaism a non-religion. If this is what he is claiming, then there are over 1.5 million Reform Jews in America that I believe would argue to the contrary. Reform Judaism is in fact the largest and fastest growing segment of the Jewish population in America and consists of deeply committed Jews. It is a vibrant community that Berlinerblau is right to claim emphasizes gimiulut chasadim or the pursuit of social justice; however he fails to mention that we are equally committed to torah and avodah – lifelong Jewish learning and the worship of God. Such an omission is a failure to understand Reform Judaism at its most basic level – as a religion. A religion that has 3 seminaries, over 900 congregations, over 1800 Rabbis, and countless Cantors and Jewish Educators. To claim that this is a community of atheists is to insult all of these institutions and to insult Reform Jews as a whole.

I would urge Berlinerblau to learn more about Reform Judaism and the practices of Reform Jews prior to offering a degrading evaluation of it, and its institutions, as a non-religion.

-Debra Eichenbaum
Program Associate for the Commission on Interreligious Affairs at the Union for Reform Judaism

God? Is that his first name or his last name?
If God was left out of the elections the Conservatives wouuld win.
But they have made religion their main talking point.
As a non believer I find the Conservatives repugnant.

Mike:

I don't think Peacetroll is a bad person. She's just acting mean. That's all. She's entitled to her opinion, but I am just willing to bet she doesn't come out as high and mighty as she seems to think she is.

Russel D and Peacetroll demonstrate that religious intolerance is popular with both liberals and conservatives. Both think the other is a bad person because they dont share their enlightened views as to the true nature of the universe.

It's not a liberal/conservative thing. It is a tolerant/intolerant thing.

Peacetroll:

Ok.....I may not believe in Christ or God, but right now, I'd be safe to say that I am more Christ-like than you are.

We could ask the other people to vote on it. What do you say? Afraid you might not come out so shiny?

And BTW, if Christ is your only hope, then you have no hope. When life is tough, Christ doesn't pull you out of it. You do.

This whole argument is absurd. Rudy has very liberal leanings and has intentionally kept his religious beleifs vague. Polls demonstrate that Rudy's strongest support is among evangelical Christians.

Conservatives care less about what religion a politician is and more about whether he respects tradional values and eschews moral relativism.

The only religious bias I see is liberals with their shallow and bigoted views of what "conservatives" think.

What an ignorant thing to say about Mitt the Mormon! Pious means a godly person. A mormon CANNOT be godly because their whole religion is based on a proven lie. The indigenous indians of north, central and south America have NO, ABSOLUTELY NO Jewish in their DNA makeup. Which meants Joseph Smith and all the other so called prophets are liars and children of the father of lies, the devil. Google mormon + indians + dna or go to for a summary:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-07-26-dna-lds_x.htm

Andy: Well, this is an awfully-tidy assertion, isn't it?

"The premise in your final sentence is flawed. You question "who will teach [Conservative Christian voters] that there is no correlation between one's private faith and one's ability to effectively lead the public?" You are mistaken in your assertion that there is no correlation. The truth is that the triune God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not our elected officials, has authority over nations. As clearly described in the Scriptures, when a nation rejects Him, after He exhausts His patience, He lets that nation go into ruin. Conservative Christian voters want a true follower of this God, not just any god, to be our president."

Well, you could conceivably say this about *any* God. When things are going well, claim it's because of good piety, don't question the people who claim the authority of said God... When they manage things badly on basis of this 'faith' and people start wanting better of government, say 'impiety threatens us,' then when things get even worse, start saying what the publicly-pious people responsible did isn't the cause: it's the wrath of the God they claimed all along because someone dissented.

How very tidy. But it's not logically-supportable. Religiosity does not mean good policy, and certainly doesn't serve the public good. Consciousness and skill in dealing with the public good serves the public good.

Needing to fall back on religiosity to defend a policy is a sure sign it's not a rationally-defensible one. Look at who the publicly-pious and deeply corrupt GOP have ended up serving. Not the poor, certainly, ...they in fact call this idea 'Godless liberalism.'

Personally, I think a candidate who is a *good leader and manager* who *is* uncomfortable with putting their personal religious belief out there, rather than the substance of the matter, is more in the spirit of American democracy, if not even the religion of a Jesus who *denounced* public protestations of piety.

I believe Bloomberg would have as much a problem with his urban roots when it comes to the "values voters", as he would with his progressive Judiasm. People are afraid of what they don't understand/ or don't live themselves. Rural voters in the "fly-over" states (and, no judgment as I'm a one-time resident and am fond of those states) will have nothing to do with a secular billionaire that goes golfing on exotic islands every other weekend. Too culturally different...forget religion.

Christ is dead,and has been dead for 2000 years,
that is if he ever actually lived,which is not a given.

Dear Jacques. This is a prime example, of "if you have to ask, you probably won't understand the answer anyway". But try. I beg to differ. There is a very necessary correlation between one's private faith and one's ability to effectively lead the public. That's like saying there's no coorelation between a person trying to fly after completing flight school and one who has never even attended flight school and tries to fly. Who would you trust? Sure, anyone can sit in the pilot's seat and maybe, by the grace of God (oops..there's that word again..) try to figure out what to do, but really. Use any debiliting habit of choice, who would you rather have for a pilot..one who had been drinking all night and with a fuzzy head sits down to pilot you to your destination? I mean, he has his credentials to fly. Or, one who, because of the guidance they might receive from their "religion" had maintained their integrity the night before, and sits down with a clear head to get you where you want to go? Yes, I know. One can completely get by without any "religion" but then, would that not default to the worship of self? This debate has gone on for centuries and will go on for centuries more...our time IS NOT IN OUR hands. Wake up America!!

Okay, I've waited long enough. Either no one has told the well known incident, or the editors here have squashed it...the better to forward his candidacy as the first Jewish president.
The Huffington Post couple weeks ago had a well documented story re: Bloomberg's tendancy to talk about women, in less than decent terms...how he'd like to "do" this or that woman, noted by many and well documented and information dispersed. Really ugly. Look it up.
Why we have to hear how very splendid and capable he is on THESE particularly pages is, ah, fun.
I'm surprised that no women have spoke to this. Notwithstanding the attempts to make the man a saint. There are undoubtedly many who think this is not a fault. I'm not among them.

Okay, I've waited long enough. Either no one has told the well known incident, or the editors here have squashed it...the better to forward his candidacy as the first jewish president.
The Huffington Post couple weeks ago had a well documented story re: Bloomberg's tendancy to talk about women, in less than decent terms...how he'd like to "do" this or that woman, noted by many and well documented and information dispersed. Really ugly. Look it up.
Why we have to hear how very splendid and capable he is on THESE pages particularly is, ah, fun.
I'm surprised that no women have spoke to this. Notwithstanding the attempts to make the man a saint. There are undoubtedly many who think this is not a fault. I'm not among them.

Okay, I've waited long enough. Either no one has told the well known incident, or the editors here have squashed it...the better to forward his candidacy.
The Huffington Post couple weeks ago had a well documented story re: Bloomberg's tendancy to talk about women, in less than decent terms...how he'd like to "do" this or that woman, noted by many and well documented and information dispersed. Really ugly. Look it up.
Why we have to hear how very splendid and capable he is on THESE pages particularly is, ah, fun.
I'm surprised that no women have spoke to this. Notwithstanding the attempts to make the man a saint. There are undoubtedly many who think this is not a fault. I'm not among them.

What a clear sign of our society's immaturity that we "need" politicians to proclaim a religious faith. Why should we? Religious sentiments don't create effective leaders; intelligence, insight and sensitivity do. That they may be informed in their public activities by personal faith is certainly a possibility, but, really, it's none of anyone's business. Is it? Wnat to know what a politician is like? Look at what he or she does.

It is almost unbelievable to note that the basis of Christianity in general and of evangelical Christianity in particular is superstition, ignorance of history, total ignorance of the real Jesus not the Jesus invented by Paul of Tarsus, -- in short, Christianity is a hoax and/or a terrible misunderstanding.

It is almost unbelievable to note that the basis of Christianity in general and of evangelical Christianity in particular is superstition, ignorance of history, total ignorance of the real Jesus not the Jesus invented by Paul of Tarsus, -- in short, Christianity is a hoax and/or a terrible misunderstanding.

The premise in your final sentence is flawed. You question "who will teach [Conservative Christian voters] that there is no correlation between one's private faith and one's ability to effectively lead the public?" You are mistaken in your assertion that there is no correlation. The truth is that the triune God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not our elected officials, has authority over nations. As clearly described in the Scriptures, when a nation rejects Him, after He exhausts His patience, He lets that nation go into ruin. Conservative Christian voters want a true follower of this God, not just any god, to be our president.

...or a Catholic like Rudy Giuliani, you sincerely hope the answer is “(b).”

Do you think they will ignore his openly adulterous relationships and multiple divorces, and the fact that his own children don't support him? Actually, you are right, they probably will.

Personally, I am more concerned with his business relationships with corrupt buffoons like Bernie Kerik, his decision to place the security nerve center of New York City in the World Trade Center, and the fact that everything he says about Iraq is pathologically incoherent.

The only thing sadder than Jacques Berlinerblau's unfortunate post is the possibility that he might be correct. So sad that "values" may be viewed so narrowly by some voters in the United States and that a talented mayor and businessman like Michael Bloomberg could be viewed negatively because of his religious affiliation.

Reform Judaism, Unitarianism and secular humanism produce as many principled and talented people as the evangelical Protestant denominations, and it is very sad that Jacques Berlinerblau's post did not make this point forcefully.

It is so offensive that this question is even being discussed. Mr. Bloomberg should be entitled to answer "None of your damn business" to any questions about his religion beliefs, without it harming his standing to be president.

Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and Franklin would all be appalled.

So Mike Bloomberg says he's a "“short, Jewish divorced billionaire” and Jacques Berlinerblau takes this as some big profession of faith? There are lots of Jewish atheists and agnostics in the world. Whether Bloomberg is one of them is neither here nor there, but when he describes himself as Jewish, I take him to be referring to his ethnicity, not necessarily his religious beliefs, whatever those may be. This whole posting strikes me as having very little real content.

Anybody that can run New York is more that qualified to become president. I don't care what religion,if any, this person would practice.

Now Berlinerblau has really done it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070820/bloomberg-2008/

Bloomberg: I Can't Win White House

I'm kind of nostalgic for a Bloomberg campaign. It would have made great theater.

I am so SICK of hearing about these "values voters"! What do you have to do to be a "values voter", believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth? I consider myself a person who votes based on values and I wouldn't have voted for George W. Bush or his scummy VP if he were running against David Koresh!!! I go to church almost every Sunday, volunteer, pay taxes and support my family and children. What do these fruit loops want now, to ban the Bikini, put some gays in ovens like they did in Auschwitz!!! No wonder religion is getting such a bad name, look at what its noisiest proponents have created in our society, with their nutcase president, who was too timid (and drunk) to fight in Viet Nam, but turns into John Wayne when he gets into the White House, warmongering our country into near-bankruptcy! It is time to put an end to this Republican/conservative/fundamentalist idiocy! Most of the Christians out there in America are not like the nuts that voted in Bush/Cheney and his extremist agenda!

He obviously believes in something (himself? The Tribe?)...everybody believes in their own way. Whether it's a "social religion" or a "private" one.

As a former local elected official who doesn't like anyone wearing their religion on their sleeve, I often wondered what I would say if anyone asked me a questions about my religious beliefs. I would ask them when was the last time they had sex. If I got the answer I expected which would be "What does that have to do with anything?" or the like, I would tell then that they had answered their own question.

Terra Gazelle;

My parents were indifferent to religion.
I used to be somewhat indifferent,
but 9/11 changed all that.
I get your point,and of course there are many like yourself who go their own way.
You come across as a pretty independent spirit,
and I'm sure your religion works for you.
I think my point is that most seriously religious
people come from seriously religious communities,
and families.
Its hard to not be Muslim if you grow up in an Islamic community.Likewise the Hindu and Sikh communities,and likewise in Ireland and the USA.
I am an atheist,but I know if I had grown up in Utah,of Mormon parents,I would almost certainly
be a Mormon today.Maybe even a preacher.
If I'd been born in Saudi Arabia of Muslim parents,I would be a Muslim now.Maybe a terrorist.
I believe its time to seriously discuss the problem of childhood religious indoctrination,
because it seems we're all raising our kids to believe ridiculous superstitions which will collide with
the ridiculous superstitions of others for ever and ever.
It just seems that when we grow up with religion
in our face,we lose our objectivity,and accept the irrational as rational,for no other reason than
that's what we were told when we were young.

tadlad wrote:
"Isn't Reformed Judaism Jews that accept Jesus as the Messiah?"
Jews that accept Jesus as the Messiah are no longer Jews, but Christians. The group he's talking about must be the so-called Messianic Jews, a sect of evangelical Christianity that follows many Jewish rituals and customs.
Reformed Jews are humanistic deists like the mainstream Presbyterians.

Concerning the "divorced jewish billionaire", Michael Bloomburg: when a person describes himself as "jewish", more likely than not, he is describing his ancestry, not his religion.

In a sense, all jews, regardless whether they are affiliated with haredi, orthodox, conservative, reform or reconstructionist congregations, or no congregation, are among the most religious people on earth.

The practice of the religion of jews consists of striving to adhere to as many as possible of the rules of right living, as given in over 600 commandments and ordinances in the torah. Gradually, over thousands of years, these rules were debated and eventually authoritatively interpreted as applied to everyday life by wise rabbis, then written down in the talmud as case law by which to be guided.

These rules and their interpretation are so deeply ingrained in jewish culture and tradition that even non-believers arising in jewish communities adhere to many of the rules without realizing that the rules exist and that by adhering to them, they are being conscientious jews.

Michael Bloomberg does not have a God problem. People whose religions require that they have faith in the rightness of their religion's version of God have the God problem.

As an agnostic, I hope that we can eventually put this un-Constitutional "religious test" behind us.

I don't care whether a candidate is religious or secular, only that they are competent, ethical and compassionate.

I see nothing inherently contradictory in living my life in harmony with religious teachings, Christian or otherwise, whilst being a "non-believer." The Golden Rule is a fine example. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Could there be any better advice for living a good life? Those who pander to the Conservative Christian bloc -- I don't buy the media-created term, "values voters" -- are failing the "ethical" test, for me. Jesus Christ taught humility, which, to my mind, includes not trumpeting or drawing attention to one's faith:

"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room (or closet.) and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret..." (Matthew 6:5-6 RSV).

I have some good friends who are very conservative Christians. We disagree completely on some matters, but, through great patience, we have come to see a great deal of overlap in our "values." They have even told me that they could vote for a non-Christian for President, if that person were ethical and lived with integrity, over an overtly Christian candidate who had demonstrated hypocrisy in his or her past, or who seemed to be a panderer.

I hope there are others, like my dear friends, who would give a qualified, yet more secular, candidate a chance. I think they might be pleasantly surprised by the result.

Berlinerblau is almost certainly right about Bloomberg's absence of a genuine religious identity. Congressman Anthony Weiner picked up on this weakness when he ran for the Democractic nomination for Mayor in 05. (Regretably, it received no attention in the mainstream press.) It is perhaps also worth pointing out that Bloomberg often appears uncomfortable in front of Jewish audiences, a problem Ed Koch and Giuliani never had. See for example this Jewish Daily Forward article:
http://www.forward.com/articles/11056/

Bloomberg's very real "God Problem" will doom him to a Naderesque percentages if he is vain enough to run in a general election against an Obama or a Romney. I'm surprised no one has said that the Massachusetts native is as much an observant Jew as he is a genuine NY Yankees fan.

Jacques,

You make one large error in your article. You are assuming that there IS such a thing as a "value voter", people with such small agendas as gay marriage, abortion, and other wedge issues that seem to only appear during the election season. During the calm times between elections, barely a peep.

The reason is that what you refer to as "value voters" are actually voters who respond to the republican pandering to the christian fundamentalists. Why is someone who wants to end the Iraq war to save the lives of our troops NOT a value voter? Why is someone who wants to hand out clean needles to save the lives of addicts NOT a value voter?

You see, what you have done Jacques is to have let those who claim to hold the value positions to own the term "value". Yet we do not hear about the "liberals" who fight for money to keep soup kitchens open as value voters and we do not hear about values that are not explicitly christian. We do not hear about values that are not owned by the republican party because the republicans have successfully branded their party as the party of values even though anyone who looks at their platform and their actions knows they are anything but value oriented. They harbored a pedophile. They have committed crimes. They have lied to the American people. They have risked national security by outing a CIA agent for no more reason that spite.

You, Jacques, are trying to figure out how much they care about the religion of a candidate. What you need to understand is that you are trying to figure out something that does not exist and that is why it is so difficult. You take the claims of republican campaigns and treat them as real when they are nothing more than made up rhetoric. Maybe you should instead hit the road, find these "value voters" and try to determine whether these values are rooted in upbringing or rooted in political party and religious politiking. I think you will find that most people, the vast majority, will tell you that they judge a candidate on their character but will likely agree that what their pastor says will influence their votes. These are people who do not think for themselves, and the republican party has sunk its teeth into them, not to meet their imaginary needs of a world free of abortion and gays, but simply to play to their fears for their votes.

So Jacques, reconsider your starting premise and start over.

"Values Voters". What a crock. This country is a hell of a lot less conservative than these 'value voters' would lead us to believe. I'd rather see an atheist in the white house, at least then I'd assume he/she wasn't nuts.

Peter

You had me right up until your last remark.
Why do I hate who? God?
You have to be more specific.
If you mean Thor,well,its true I dont like him too much
but I wouldn't say I hate him.
Aphrodite I like.Venus too.
Allah,no way.Neptune,so so.
Apollo is really something,Cupid's a pain.
Juno's a no no,but Isis is hot.
Shiva's a dish.
But I dont spend much time dwelling on these gods,
because they exist only in the supernatural world
of the imagination. To hate one of them would be as silly
as hating Pinocchio,or The Sugar Plum Fairy.
They're all ok by me,but lets not pretend they're real.

The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold, makes the rules."

Call me a cynic, but should Bloomberg run, I do not believe he will have any problem at all with the 'god vote' because he, more than ANY candidate out there, is in the best position to exploit the Golden Rule. Those in positions to practice the true Golden Rule need not worry about common folk who adhere to false shadows of the rule premised on other 'values'; such folk exist only to demonstrate the veracity of the rule itself.

If anything is evident to me, it is that the "values voter" label is less one that identifies religiosity as such, and more a label that applies to those willing to blindly follow charismatic religious leaders (or other similar ideologues) like sheep. This is a significant distinction, and the only distinction that would matter to a Bloomberg candidacy exploiting the Golden Rule.

Why? Simple. He need only win over the charismatics and he wins the sheep. If the charismatics won't play his game, he need only expend some small portion of his vast resources to use proxies that tear down the current uncooperative charismatics and that strengthen the hand of new or alternative charismatics that will back him.

There is no legitimate reason why Dobson, with his single-minded 2-3 issue conservative agenda must logically (or even biblically) speak for "values voters" more than a Warren or other similar charismatic who embrace larger agendas. There is similarly no reason why a new charasmatic couldn't mirror Dobson's approach but instead convincingly (to "values voters") back a different set of 2-3 issues that parallel those valued in a Bloomberg agenda. With enough money behind the right charismatics and against the wrong ones, the "values voters" will do their duty as unwitting lemmings and once again reaffirm the veracity of the true Golden Rule.

Will he succeed perfectly? Of course not. But he arguably doesn't need to. He really just needs to fracture the voting block enough to render it inert.

Mr. Bloombert's faith is of no interest to me. I only worry about those who proclaim their faith to the world ( wear their religion on their sleeves?). I don't plan to vote for Bloomberg even if he runs, but it isn't because of his faith. It's because we already have lots of great candidates.

Bloomberg has more competence in his little finger than Bush has when using every resource god gave him. Still, as others note, there are too many bigots in this country to elect Bloomberg president.

Someday I believe it is inevitable that a majority will realize that organized religion is basically a form of organized ignorance, handed down generation after generation. Bush and many of the conservative base who will defend him to the death are good examples of the inevitable outcome.

Still, we have to live with these so-called religious souls, so I hope we can find enough common ground and wisdom to co-exist peacefully that America doesn't disintegrate into total polarization, chaos and dysfunction (boy, we're almost there now, aren't we).

Hopefully as a first step we'll quit electing incompetent, intolerant fundamentalists to public office.

I am sick and tired of candidates using their religion as leverage in elections. It's time we get back to keeping a clear separation of church and state and stop beating voters over the head with all the religious pandering.

The qualifications of a candiate are all that matters. We don't need anymore polarization of Americans based on religion. That was Bush's specialty and it was terrible for the country. We're already divided, so why exacerbate it by shoving more religion down people's throats??

Bloomberg is the smartest one on both sides of the fence. He has cleaned up the 5 boroughs of NYC without police force, with dignity and has maintained all campaign promises. He who runs NYC, can run the country. He is a brilliant businessman who has foresight, charm and wit. So, his religious beliefs don't match up the Bible Belt or conservative philosophies. He would be the man for the job.

YoYo,

Atheists like to say that everyone follows their parents religion...do you?

I don't. My parents were Christain, I am Pagan. While they were Monotheists, I am a soft Polytheist.
How many Jews become Christians or Christians who become Jewish? There is something besides how we are raised that is involved.

I was born Pagan, I became Wiccan.

terra

1. You cannot be a Jew and not believe in G_d. There is no such thing as being ethnically Jewish. That is myth put forth by the MSM.

2. Bloomberg would be a terrible president because one, he is showing to be a terrible mayor, he is arrogant and he does not listen to anyone but the sound of his own voice.

3. Just because someone has money does not make them a good leader. Mitt Romney and Mike Bloomberg are two good examples of that.

4. I would be glad to vote for real Jew as president and I believe most of the American people don't care about a person religion so long as the person values human life and liberty and opportunities for people.

YOYO:

There is no natural vs. supernatural, religion vs. science. Only known vs unknown (from our perspective).

I do not believe in organized religion for its own sake. And I don't believe in pretending there is a God. I actually believe in God. The same as you believe in secularism or science or atheism or Darwin or rationalism or liberalism. Whatever you call it the question is the same: Why do you hate God?

There is nothing odd about a preoccupation with a candidate's reigious beliefs. Nor is religion entirely personal. According to Christian fundamentalism, unbelievers will burn in hell forever, in which case they should be burned at the stake. The Theonomists prefer stoning. See "Christian Statesman" stoning.

An alliance of Christian premillennialists, and mostly secular but fanatical Zionists, are to blame for the war in Iraq. Both are dedicated to Israeli expansion, at any cost, including World War III. Despite their hatred for each other, they keep their true beliefs to themselves.

It is not irrelevant if a President's beliefs are stark raving mad, either. President Bush is a true believer and a psychotic patsy. And Mormonism is laughable even to a Christian fundamentalist. Mitt Romney has to be a liar, because he is not an idiot.

Mark Oller
American Atheists member

Just look at what these so-called evangelicals have gotten this country into. We are so bad off, it'll take years to fix the nations problems.

Silly,

Bloomberg will always be a Jew no matter what he believes. It was defined by the Nuremberg laws, where heritage superseded all.

Most Jews in America, other than the Orthodox are in belief and action, atheists.

It is better to wear your competence on your sleeve than it is to wear your faith on your sleeve. Recent history shows that. I think even Christian conservatives would accept a competent Jewish New Yorker if they saw what his record is in getting things done.

Karen

It is better to wear your competence on your sleeve than it is to wear your faith on your sleeve. Recent history shows that. I think even Christian conservatives would accept a competent Jewish New Yorker if they saw what his record is in getting things done.

Karen

It is better to wear your competence on your sleeve than it is to wear your faith on your sleeve. Recent history shows that. I think even Christian conservatives would accept a competent Jewish New Yorker if they saw what his record is in getting things done.

Karen

Dear JA JOZ:

Yes. Sometimes I think this blog should be called "Against Faith". It really does sell fear of, mistrust of, and paranoia about our neighbors who are Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Mormons, or Moslems.

Methinketh this secular humanist doth protest too much, but he's right that Bloomberg is unelectable as President, or even as dogcatcher, outside Godless Gotham!

Shalom, Mayor!

The constitution says "No religious test" for any office.

Candidates should honor both the letter and spirit of this clause, by not speaking about their religion, and letting their lives and
public accomplishments speak for themselves. We voters should
honor the clause by not asking them.

Finnbar -- So, you want the person who has his finger on the button of nuclear weapons, the most lethal technology we have, to believe in supernatural beings? Like angels, fairies, devils, and similar creations of primitive minds? Is that what you really want?

Att: M O D E R A t, E T A L, Ya!

Secular minds at Their best!!

Sad. Americans regularly vote for people because of their Religious beliefs and beleiving in God is a must - and look at where it has gotten them An idiot President who talks to God and a budding theocracy with Christian zeolots that are not much different from Muslim Zeolots - arrogant, beligerent, non tolerant people imposing their beleifs on others (and killing them in the process). Billy Graham will still die, just like every other living thing. THERE IS NO GOD because no God would inflict a country George Bush et al as their leaders. ANY NON BELIEVER would do a better job of running the country but America is more preoccupied with what religion or lack thereof a person has rather than the fall of the American Empire - which we are all witnessing right now.

Surely the Evil "Conservative Christians" would never tolerate a Jew, or a Black, or a Woman!!!

Its a wonder that a Black and a Woman seem to be doing so well in the polls, and it is widely held dream that the Jew will start his own candidacy.

I don't know a single Christian who held Joe Lieberman's religion against him, so where is this coming from?

Looks like more paranoia.

Oh, LORD/ECLAT!

Oh geez. Leave Michael Bloomberg alone. Leave all the candidates alone, for Pete sake. This is what the U.S. Constitution has to say about religion and public office: “...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

We have boatloads of religiosity with the Current Occupant and his gang of crooks and liars. What good is it to have “deeply religious” people running our government when they can’t seem to screw in a light bulb properly? We don’t need religious people as much as competent and honest people.

JFK took religion out of politics in the fall of '60 when he faced down the mean-looking southern bapist ministers in Houston and told them to stick their anti-catholicism and other bigotries.

I'm waiting for candidates today to do the same to the $3 dollar bills.