It seems that the greatest criticsm of secularism that Christians can come up with here is to equate it with Communism. Right. And since the Inquisition was a Christian institution, we all know where that is bound to end up. In the final analysis, these "Christians" are aggressive name-callers who are inconsistent even with the pricniples that would make Christianity different from other relgions. That they can't debate correctly and reasonably is owing to the fact that true debate is outlawed in any dogmatic belief system.

people of religion are really angry with those atheists and secularists who think believing in gods is not very intelligent.

i personally don't know if believing in gods is intelligent or not, but i can't find any reason to believe in them. if i found a reason, i would believe, of course.

but religionists don't often look at or parse their own language as it refers to secularists and atheists -- which is equally as deriding and harsh about atheistic arrogance, lack of visionary depth, small-mindedness, in-the-thrall-of-evil, etc.

goodness, accusing religionists of being credulous is so far worse than accusing atheists of being outright evil.

intellectual arrogance is all that takes the heat. whyze-zat, i wonder?

i wonder if narcissism might enter into it. and uncertainty. insecurity. fear of too close an examination of the 'mysteries.' like the nun who told my mother that wondering about god would make her go crazy.

i wonder if being told that your belief system is silly might not hit too close to the bone and hook a reflexive "SMACK" back.

but that's just my secular arrogance speaking, isn't it.

it may be too late to say this, but i respect true religious devotion. it has an honesty and integrity to it, even though i don't understand it or think it holds up to close scrutiny. still, maybe it does and i'm just wrong. but people who have a strong and comforting personal faith, and who don't attack me for not believing, have my deep respect. i think highly of people who walk the talk.

i wish it were more likely to be the same the other way around.

Let's march on Washington and demand to be heard but more importantly, demand to be labeled "Normal".

If he's willing, I'd like to nominate Mr. Jacques Berlinerblau to be the leader he says we need, as described in his last paragraph - "...credible secular leader...believer or nonbeliever, ..who can reach an audience...find an original and persuasive way to defend secularism's virtues." Anyone second my nomination?

Darryl Leedy, what you say makes eminently good sense and strikes a much needed hopeful note. Thanks.

Dear JB Hodges -

You ask a good question of the Xians, but you will not receive an answer.

I have a different question: how does one set up a democracy using the Bible as an example when the Bible advocates kingdoms, not democracies? Even a kingdom headed by the most-benign of kings is still the antithesis of democracy.

I find it strange that Xians living in a democracy aspire to spend an eternity as serfs in a kingdom.

Lots of good stuff already said, so I'll raise a different point. Often we hear that "the United States was founded on (Judeo-) Christian Principles." I'd like to ask, WHAT Christian principles do they think this country was based on? Not laying up treasures on Earth, but instead selling all you have and distributing to the poor? Not resisting evil, but instead turning the other cheek? Loving our enemies? Please quote for me something Jesus taught, that we might recognize as a founding principle of the U.S.

It's not that religious people are stupid.
It's more that their indoctrination effectively
hypnotizes them,preventing any rational evaluation
of the big religious questions like does God exist,
and what happens when we die.
Day in,day out,week after week,month after month,
year after year,all they hear is that God is real,he loves us,
and we don't die,but go to heaven.Etc,etc.
The religious are unable to see that this is absurd.
How can they? They're hypnotized into believing that it's all real.
That's what churches and mosques do to our children.
When will we ever learn that this is wrong?

Mitt Romney is a charlatan...he's just chasing that precious vote. As an Atheist, I can tell you that I have NO religion. But that doesn't mean I want religion out of the PUBLIC space; I just want it out of the GOVERNMENT space. Government decisions need to be fact, not faith, based.

I find sweeping statements such as Mr. Berlinerblau's "the Golden Age of American Secularism is over" highly suspect. That may be the current assumption, but I woundn't take it to the bank. A common mistake of those who try to plot the future is to extrapolate the recent past into the future. Things rarely work out that way. In the 1940's and '50s people predicted a clean-cut, well-ordered Tomorrowland. What they got (and produced) was a counter-culture that was the antithesis of that. Likewise, counter-culture utopians of the 1960's and 70's saw the future reflected in their Aquarian visions. What that vision produced was a monumental Reaction. That Reaction is where we find ourselves today. The vast majority of this movement is over 40. It consists of remnants of those generations that came of age before the 60's, Boomers who were never sympathetic to the counter-culture and Boomers and those younger that have second thoughts regarding what the social revolution has wrought. Most of these people are trying to turn back or reset the cultural clock, so to speak. Their ideology in some cases, is rooted in pre-Enlightenment thinking. Many reject rational or critical thinking altogether. This type of meme can only go so far in a technically advanced culture. Younger, more rationally-minded generations don't subscribe to it generally. They have been born and raised in the Post 60's Paradigm and are comfortable with it. They may have issues with some of it's excesses, but they don't want to turn the clock back by any means. This Reaction has already peaked (2001-2005) and now is in the process of waning. It is more of an internalized psychodrama among Boomers than any sort of long-term trend, in my opinion. I think that by the 2020's and 30's secularism will have made a huge comeback in a world torn and sick of irrational fundamentalist thought.

I find sweeping statements such as Mr. Berlinerblau's "the Golden Age of American Secularism is over" highly suspect. That may be the current assumption, but I woundn't take it to the bank. A common mistake of those who try to plot the future is to extrapolate the recent past into the future. Things rarely work out that way. In the 1940's and '50s people predicted a clean-cut, well-ordered Tomorrowland. What they got (and produced) was a counter-culture that was the antithesis of that. Likewise, counter-culture utopians of the 1960's and 70's saw the future reflected in their Aquarian visions. What that vision produced was a monumental Reaction. That Reaction is where we find ourselves today. The vast majority of this movement is over 40. It consists of remnants of those generations that came of age before the 60's, Boomers who were never sympathetic to the counter-culture and Boomers and those younger that have second thoughts regarding what the social revolution has wrought. Most of these people are trying to turn back or reset the cultural clock, so to speak. Their ideology in some cases, is rooted in pre-Enlightenment thinking. Many reject rational or critical thinking altogether. This type of meme can only go so far in a technically advanced culture. Younger, more rationally-minded generations don't subscribe to it generally. They have been born and raised in the Post 60's Paradigm and are comfortable with it. They may have issues with some of it's excesses, but they don't want to turn the clock back by any means. This Reaction has already peaked (2001-2005) and now is in the process of waning. It is more of an internalized psychodrama among Boomers than any sort of long-term trend, in my opinion. I think that by the 2020's and 30's secularism will have made a huge comeback in a world torn and sick of irrational fundamentalist thought.

oops, sorry...last line of the above post should read MILLIONS of people without morals.

A Des Moines Register reporter interviewing Romney the day after his speech asked him if he believed atheists and agnostics were immoral. He replied that while he believes the Bible is the source of American morality, of course, he also "believes there are thousands of people without faith who are moral". THOUSANDS. The reporter didn't ask what Romney believed it meant for the West, especially Europe where he said the cathedrals are empty, to have literally billions of people without morals.

Yonkers, New York
10 December 2007

There are no parallels between John Kennedy's successful defense of his Catholic religion (back in the 60's) and Mitt Romney's defense of his Mormon religion recently.

The times could not be more different.

In Kennedy's times, although born-again Christians and Christian evangelicals were already there, they pretty much confined their activities to their religion.

In Romney's times, the present, however, Christian evangelicals and the Christian right are actively engaged in the political arena and it happens that they wield a lot of political clout these days.

Mitt Romney delivered a masterful speech which in essence assured America that his Mormon religion will not influence the judgments and decisions he will make if elected President.

But I do not think he succeeded in persuading Christian evangelicals and the Christian right that he is ONE OF THEM. They consider his Mormon religion pretty much a CULT--and for them this is "unacceptable" in a presidential candidate.

Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, they happen to have another Republican presidential hopeful who happens to be ONE OF THEM, a Baptist minister at that: MIKE HUCKABEE.

Between Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, Christian evangelicals and the Christian right would of course prefer Mike Huckabee. No question about it.

But what about America? That is the question.

An America who truly believes in the Constitutional separation of church and state (to avoid the dangers and the evils of a system where church and state or one) will very likely not elect either Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee as President of these United States.

In the same speech he delivered in South Carolina, Mitt Romney clearly declared that "religion is a requirement of public policy"--or essentially words to that effect. Further, he said he believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who was to deliver mankind--or, again, words to that effect.

On the campaign trail, Mike Huckabee has unabashedly proclaimed that he believes in the Christian bible. On other occasions he may have boasted that he believes "every word" of the Christian bible.

Given their close-to-fanatical devotion to their respective religions, it would be risky for America to elect either Romney or Huckabee their President.

Contrary to protestations both make, ther religion and its whole edifice of doctrines, beliefs and values, are so deeply embedded in their psyche, in their sub-conscious, that it will ALWAYS influence or color ALL judgments and decisions they will make as President.

Is it prudent or wise for America to take that awesome risk?

I think not.

Mariano Patalinjug
Yonkers, New York

MarPatalinjug@aol.com

yeah i feel like a minority alright and Berlinblau has a good handle on the big picture so it seems... i think the big meaning will only be if Romney gets the nomination - then the Seculars like ME will do our best to fry him at the stake of his own making.
But i have to wonder if the Moral Majority is still that cohesive and that dumb to swallow the Romney Koolade - we know they're not that moral.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, Jesus said. Which is to say, the state isn't the church, ya dope, Jesus said. It serves a different purpose; you don't use it to worship the Almighty, and you don't decline to engage with it simply because it represents a fallible earthly power. It's a separate thing. Ya dope. It's perhaps a more exact translation from the aramaic than the King James, as it captures His exasperation, don't you think?

Christians forgot that teaching in the fourth century, when they persuaded Constantine to require Christianity throughout Rome. Which gave us the Roman Catholic Church. Imagine the rejoicing throughout the Christian faith when Constantine's decree came down! The end of persecution! The end of the lions and the rack!

But ultimately it didn't work out so well, did it? Not just for the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and the various faiths of the New World, but for virtually every flavor of Christianity; the ancient ones ultimately crushed by the might of the One Church wielding the power of the state, and the far more modern ones that paid in blood in wars with titles that speak of their horror -- thirty years' war; hundred years' war -- though many of the more modern versions managed, in part by escaping to America, to survive.

It was this history our founding fathers remembered very well. For them, the "secularism" they built into the constitution was exactly a defense of the right of religious pluralism in America; for them the 100 years' war was as close as our Revolution to us today; the 30 years' war closer than our civil war to us today; most important, the English civil wars and the tudor-stewart Catholic-Church of England horrors that had turned England into one man's or another's charnel house in the name of his chosen faith. Or woman's; Queens Mary and Elizabeth on opposite sides of that religious divide. And THAT had gone on for 150 years, only ending in the ascension of the House of Hannover early in the 18th century, within the lifetimes of authors of our constitution.

These were lessons they knew in their bones; these were lessons they wrote into our constitution. This was their gift to us; do we now cavalierly treat it as another sound bite? The very word cavalier comes in our language from this history; the cavaliers and the roundheads; the blood of decades of 17th century English religious history. Cavalierly tossed aside?

Every man carries his faith with him every moment, including into the public square. In this nation, no one can take that away from him, for which the wisdom of the founders be thanked. But also in this nation, he has no power to use the power of the state to impose that faith or its exercise on any other human being in that public square --for which the wisdom of the founders also be thanked.

American secularism is not anti-religious; it is profoundly religious; it protects religion by protecting the atheist, the protestant, the catholic, the jew, the muslim, the hindu, the wiccan, the follower of coyote and the great spirit, the evangelical and the unitarian alike. It is absolutely consistent with Jesus' teachings; it keeps the hands of state power entirely off religion, not to supress faith, but to protect its free exercise from any established church -- and why? In an effort to build one place where those particular hard lessons from history could be said to have, finally, been learned.

Because the diversity of paths to the infinite are also infinite, and in their infinity as unknowable and unjudgable as God's own self, and it is no business of any government to tell us which is right. Each climber must choose their own path; each is entitled to believe they have chosen the right one, even the only right one, and to teach their children so, and to proclaim it to their neighbors.

It is not for us to know, sad, limited creatures that we are. But perhaps, just perhaps, as long as these paths all go up -- they all get to the top, just the same.

This is American secularism, and I am an American secularist. You are welcome to come worship with me where I and my family try to touch the divine, and be humbled, with us, in its presence. And if you invite me, I may join you, too. But not as a legislative, executive, or judicial act. Not in my America.

Some how, we have created a picture of the "Founding Fathers," those patron saints of the American religion known as "Constitutuionalism," marching around their tavern tables with placards reading "In God we Trust and "One nation under God." The"Oops!" factor discovers that "In God we Ttust" was added to our money, MONEY! by that great secularist Abraham Lincoln as a morale booster during the Civil War to establish the justness of the aboitionist cause as compared to those "godless" Confederates. In a similar vein, "under God" waas added by Eisenhower diring the Cold War to separate us from those obviously "godless" comunists. To the best of my recollection, neither Lincoln nor Eisenhower was a Founding Father. While we are about it, let us note that the FF had nothing to do with the Pledge of Alegience or the National Anthem.

Some how, we have created a picture of the "Founding Fathers," those patron saints of the American religion known as "Constitutuionalism," marching around their tavern tables with placards reading "In God we Trust and "One nation under God." The"Oops!" factor discovers that "In God we Trust" was added to our money, MONEY! by that great secularist Abraham Lincoln as a morale booster during the Civil War and to establish the justness of the aboitionist cause as compared to those "godless" Confederates. In a similar vein, "under God" was added by Eisenhower diring the Cold War to separate us from those obviously "godless" comunists. to the best of my recollection, neither Lincoln nor Eisenhower was a Founding Father. While we are about it, let us note that the FF had nothing to do with the Pledge of Alegience or the National Anthem.

Those who ask if Romney has sons in the military, and are very offended that he does not, seldom have sons of their own in the military -- and very seldom have served themselves. They are mightily offended by this state of affairs, so much so that they intend to vote for other candidates, who have also never served in the military, and who may have even committed acts of treason during wartime.

I have a husband heading to Afghanistan shortly, and yet somehow I manage to not twist the life choices of Romney's sons into an indictment of Romney.

IFLOYD, thank you for the perfect one-line rebuttal to Christians who think Atheists are a secret sect waging a jihad against them.

It's useful to know what we're up against here in Faith v Reason, don't you think?

Read the column written by Elizabeth Tenety, something about de-santification. She describes the moment as a young girl when her mother told her the truth about santa claus, how she "wanted santa to be real" and how she and her mother cried.
Later she says: "We don't need Santa, we have Jesus"

How can anybody possibly miss the irony behind that statment?

The religious types completely missed the consequences of Romney's statements about faith and freedom, completely missed it! How could they not see that?

The fact is we are arguing with these people about the correct place for faith in a secular government based on reason, a concept which is not as familiar to them as it is to us. In fact reason itself is just another kind of faith to them ... see how many times we read their comments here about how we have "faith in science", about how "atheism" or "secularism is just another religion"

They are unable to remove themselves from their relgious bubble to see the irony in all of this.

They do still need their santa claus, there is still a part of them that is only 6 years old. We are never going to be able to "grow them up".

The best we can do is attempt to limit the damage they cause. Until now our method has been to ignore them, our constitution was designed to allow both sides to continue playing their side of Faith v Reason and we could still all progress.

But the time has changed. Now we are in terrible danger of the religious types actually changing the constitution, occupying the courts, defeating reason altogether.

You can't keep your true nature to yourself anymore. If you don't believe, the next time someone wants you to assert your belief take the opportunity to tell them you do not believe. You don't have to make fun of them, you don't have to belittle them, just assert your right to be who you are.

The believers are a small percentage of the population in europe these days. Nobody passed any laws against faithism, nobody put together a large movement to stamp it out, instead it is dying of it's own stupidity because those who did not believe asserted their right to be free of it.

Think about it.

All I can say is, I am ready to be LEFT BEHIND! Who wants to spend eternity with these politicians?

IRWINGARFINKLE, I like your idea, though it may be a bit ahead of its time, gauging by the desperate attempts by BYZANTINE DOMINICAN above to discredit humanists no less eminent than Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.

Yes, well said, Romney's address was the opposite of Kennedy's. Kennedy basically stated that he was a secularist. Romney came over as a chest thumping bible waver, in a disgusting display of religious fanaticism, unbecoming of a national leader. Romney has no chance of being elected, but it was a shame that he feels he has to act that way to get elected.

It's ridiculous that people say secularism is a religion--look the word up, for heaven's sake, it's very definition is LACK of religion or religious content.

Additionally, there are many documents written by the founding fathers, but there's one that they all agreed was the law of the land--the constitution. I think it is fairly telling that the very first clause of the Bill of Rights is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." In other words, the Constitution requires secularism.

It seems to me that the challenge is less having a secularist to counter the religious as much as having candidates who have a serious respect for the importance of faith and reason to Americans. Even more exciting would be a political leadership willing to open up a few history books and understand the importance of faith and reason to shaping our modern civilization. That may be asking too much.

At its best, we have made religion in politics just another issues for candidates to "check the box" right along with health care and taxes. As such, it's not an issue for discussion as much as an opportunity for candidates to either play to knownothing zealotry or amorphous secularist thinking. Either route leads to a whole lot of bad policy where the constitutional law is compromised.

I'm not so sure a secular leadership is the answer as much as an engagement of faith and reason. Civil society has developed because both were incorporated, challenged us and remain informative. The beauty of our constitution is that it speaks so plainly to both, giving room for people of faith and of reason to find comfort in it. The people it serves can be confident that the document allows for society to be corrective, based on reasoned approaches and experiences and for people of faith to bring moral suasion to the rules, laws and norms which govern our families, communities and society without abandoning the guidance of faith.

Do you suppose it would do any good to broadcast lists of famous secularist, humanists and atheists like Abe Lincoln? Gays have come out of the closet. maybe it is time for us to come out.

Do you suppose it would do any good to broadcast lists of famous secularist, humanists and atheists like Abe Lincoln? Gays have come out of the closet. maybe it is time for us to come out.

I'm not much of a Christian, although I am a believer, but frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn what Romney or any other candidate has to say about secularism (vile new word) or capital-F Faith. I'll probably vote for the Democrat against anybody whom the Republicans field. I am nervous about Hilary, depending on who is the Republican nominee. I believe that there is a silent minority of Democrats, mostly male but some female, who could vote against her because she is a woman. They'll never say this out loud, but I think it's there, and it's the green elephant in the Democratic parlor.

I'm not much of a Christian, although I am a believer, but frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn what Romney or any other candidate has to say about secularism (vile new word) or capital-F Faith. I'll probably vote for the Democrat against anybody whom the Republicans field. I am nervous about Hilary, depending on who is the Republican nominee. I believe that there is a silent minority of Democrats, mostly male but some female, who could vote against her because she is a woman. They'll never say this out load, but I think it's there, and it's the green elephant in the Democratic parlor.

I am a republican, and hope to help out at a campaign in NH in January. But I dislike how conservatism has been so taken over by religion. I am myself an agnostic. I am not imposing my doubts about religion on anyone, and I think it is a shame that non-belief is made into such a monster. I think it is a shame for conservatism that its got only defense of religious values to justify itself. It is about so much more, particularly in foreign policy (Bush is not a conservative in his foreign policies) .

I just hope there are more conservatives out there like me that want to turn the GOP away from religious overdrive and a senseless militaristic approach to foreign affairs, and into a more sensible party. Conservatism is not only about values and religion. Conservatism is also about recognizing the limits and dangers of government. I want to ask my fellow GOPers what they seek to accomplish with all this religious fixation in our party. We used to be the peace party.

Hey, Eric someone can easily be a gazillionaire like Romney and not be wise about what counts, just clever about making money. The best example of his character flaws I've seen yet is his response to why, despite their support for the war in Iraq, none of his sons are serving in the military; that they were serving America by helping him in his campaign. I'm a little surprised he's still a viable (maybe) candidate after that piece of despicable idiocy.

He's a religious supremacist bigot, pure and very simple.

Several above comments disingenuously accuse Berlinerblau and Quinn of attributing to Mitt what he quoted John Adams as saying as if Mitt disavowed the quotes. Note that Mitt is not so dishonest as to attempt the same defense. We all know quoting others is a time-honored way of endorsing their position.

I may be politically naive, but if it is terrible to take orders from the Mormon elders or the Vatican, why being at the beck and call of the Southerb Baptist Convention et al is virtuous?

I may be politically naive, but if it is terrible to take orders from the Mormon elders or the Vatican, why being at the beck and call of the Southerb Baptist Convention et al is virtuous?

This is really crazy. Here we are in 2007, beset on all sides by serious challenges to our nation and what are the people running for the most powerful elected office in the world falling all over themselves to prove? Their belief in superstition and magic. Actually, what is even more scary, they profess faith, which is belief that cannot be shaken by logical argument. And central to their faith is the idea that anyone who does not share their own submission to the supernatural is somehow second class. Wow. Beam me up Scotty-- no intelligent life down here.

PIERRE JC, until your last line, what you say is true, including that truth is powerless within the limits imposed by reality. Rather than join the ranks of deceivers, in lieu of silent despair, truth seekers, in fact, have no moral choice but to persevere in the hope that the internet will succeed where the printing press has failed. Sigh.

"Would that be the same Sam Adams who authored the infamous Alien & Sedition Act?"

Geez, people, get a history book and read it.

JOHN Adams, our second president, came up with the Alien and Sedition Acts. SAM Adams was a firebrand troublemaker, I believe John's cousin, who set up many of the first confrontations with British soldiers at the start of the Revolutionary War.

The First Amendment allows people to practice their religion, or lack, freely, but forbids *any* law respecting a religious establishment. President Stupid has already broken this, and many other, Constitutional laws.

That is what's known as "separation of church and state." No government-supported religion, or laws, are allowed.

Lastly, the Declaration of Independence was written by THOMAS JEFFERSON, and while it mentions a Creator, it does NOT mention christianity. Additionally, the Declaration was just that, and NOT the law of the land.

That would be the Constitution, the document being shredded by our traitorous Prez and that thug V.P., the one all of you christian extremist loudmouths don't even grok the meaning of. The Constitution, of course, mentions no gods of any type whatsoever, only an admonishment that government stay the hell OUT of religion - let the people practice it freely, do NOT favor ANY cult of religion, including christianity.

You talk about hate: I've escorted women past screaming, face-contorted, hate-spitting anti-abortionists - and these were just the women. The men like to point, threaten and scream ugly names at those attempting to enter the clinic, big macho tough guy "christians".

Zero class, zero christian love, all hate and Type A controlling. That's what you people are.

And it's quite telling that most of your ilk know zilch about our country's history.

Great article. Therefore it will undoubtedly amount to Pearls before Swine.

This analysis is breathtaking, too brilliant for my words. I fear Mr. Berlinerblau, ever prescient, will yet again be proven right.

To All Readers of these posts:
Please be sure to read all posts by "Byzantine Dominican". They are all quite instructive. He's so good at what he does, should be on FOX News. In his prose, he hurls bad reasoning, paranoia and outright lies at a furious pace. Any single, brief posting by him/her demands dozens of rebuttals on factual and logical errors. And while his/her spelling could use some polish, he/she does a superlative job of oozing sanctomony in that patented, right-wing way.
"Byzantine Dominican" has an important lesson for people of all political persuasions: Honest discourse is for losers. If you want to win an argument, don't adhere to petty rules like honesty and accuracy. Make stuff up! Say it with conviction, and you will persuade more people to support your agenda. Instead of appealing to people's hopes, appeal to their fears.
So, listen up, Democrats and other leftists: You cannot afford to be honorable with these people. They think that anything short of violence is fair game. If you want power, you have no choice but to play as rough as they do. Lie. Mischaracterize. Intimidate. Incite fear to your advantage.
Paradoxically, these are your only morally defensible options.

you AKSED:
"Is there a credible secular leader out there, believer or nonbeliever, who can reach an audience as large as the one Romney targeted? Can she or he find an original and persuasive way to defend secularism’s virtues?"

Why yes. Stephen Jay Gould.

Oops, sorry he's dead.

How about simple wonderment at the miracle of life? Why take on ancient symbols and stories? I'm figuring out on my own time. Organized religion is like having a bigoted uncle who is police chief, and willing to torment his own relatives. PS: God agrees with me on this

Thank you Jacques!
It may very well become the most depressing part of this election cycle to find that after CW had it the influence of 'the god vote' was waning, there is absolutely no-one of stature to passionately and effectively stand up for the separation of church and state. Following the readers' debate below, I'm as desperate as ever about the public discourse in this country and the ability to look at problems of today and find solutions for our times. Instead we go on and on about this or that statement of the Founding Fathers in and out of context. They were human beings and products of their time, why should anything they said or wrote outside of what is in fact in the constitution be taken as divinations?
But then again, we also choose to be literal on the the Right to Bear Arms as part of an organized militia to protect us from The Government (didn't we vote them in to represent us? aren't there Checks and Balances?) coming into our homes to take our freedom away. Never mind the government listening in on our phone conversations without court warrant, and let's make sure we never stop thugs and their middlemen from purchasing more than one semi-automatic rifle a month in god-loving states like Pennsylvania lest the Right to Bear Arms and the right to do nothing about shooting sprees in cities like Philadelphia be compromised. I guess we're Gomorrah, so who cares about whether Philly goes to hell anyway?
Your argument trumps mine, because you have a set of immutable statements frozen in time at your disposal to explain the world today. AIDS, Parkinson's, global climatic changes, sequencing of our genomes - it's all solved by studying the Founding Fathers from 250 years back or scripture from 2000 years ago, you just have to know where to look and how to read it. And people like Romney and Huckabee will be all too happy to tells us.

Unfortunately keeping silent on your religious faith is a fatal undertaking. People base their decisions on their personal beliefs of right and wrong. If you are especially faithful, your religion will influence every aspect of decision making. It is important to know where a candidate stands in his beliefs. That is why, the only candidate who actually addresses his faith and the greater role it plays in politics is Obama.

See the most influential speech on Religion and Politics in 40 years. This is more JFK/MLK than any candidate I have ever seen. Take a look. I think more than a few Christian Right voters will support him.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid463869411/bctid416343938

I love how these wacky Jeebus-lickers are calling Atheism a 'religion'.

Atheism is by definition about as much a religion as BALD is a Hair Color.

Morons, to a one. Morons, bigots, hatemongers.

Funny, though, with all this talk of "antisecularism", it's really that Middle america is turning against the crazy right-wing religious fascists. Only the Retarded Snakehandler Vote is going to Mitt and/or Huckabucka. The non-evangelical-inbred GOP is going for Hizzoner.

And intelligent grownups are voting DEM.

I look forward to sending all you stiff-necked religionists to Jesus just as rapidly as you may desire.

You're right. There is no viable secular leader to stand up to the supernaturalists. We are vastly outnumbered, and they are masters of organized domination with a track record spanning thousands of years.

I take issue, however, with the tone and implication that we atheists are just a silly lot with our Flying Spaghetti Monster mantras and t-shirts. That we don't make a serious, sound challenge to religion. Are you kidding? How does one make a SERIOUS challenge to an irrational, illogical, unreasoned adherence to the tenets of faith?

And you take issue with our sense of superiority over those of "faith". Well, quite frankly, WE ARE SUPERIOR. I am smarter than someone who speaks to an imaginary friend. I am smarter than someone who believes in "intelligent design" and considers Evolution to be an unsupported theory. Most people think they are smarter than those who believe the Earth is flat or the center of the universe--two positions vigorously defended by the church of yore. People who deny the evidence of Evolution are, at best, delusional. People who think that saying words will cause an invisible being to favor them are just plain dumb.

It is impossible for the rational to have a reasonable discussion with the irrational. All we can do is vigorously defend their encroachment on what little rational space we have. We will never convince them of their folly, and we will never triumph over their stupidity. It is a sad and often terrifying reality.

The religious folks rule the world. It's not so much to ask that we have a bit of a humorous release in the face of that abomination.

Y'know what I find obnoxious about Christain fundamentalists...? It's that in-your-face "I'm saved and you're going to Hell" sign-waving and protesting. And those magnetic fishies on the backs of their cars!

Y'know what I find obnoxious about secularists...? It's that in-your-face "I'm smarter than you" sign-waving and commenting all over the internet.

You are NOT as different as you would like to believe!

"Nonbelieving secularists will prove my point that they lack political cunning, organization, and most importantly, effective leadership. They will troll Evangelical chatrooms across the web ceaselessly pointing out how much brighter they are than believers."

Not to mention here! It's so hysterical to see all you poor people claiming you are so much smarter than Romney the gazillionaire....

Romney is not very bright. If he says secularism is a religion then it follows that it is protected by the Constitution. We as, Americans have a right to practice the religion of secularism.

Will a Secularist rise to "smite" Romney?

Wouldn't that require the majority of the nation returning to the values of our founders?

----------------------------------------------

What disqualifies Mitt Romney is that he is either stupid (which he is not), ignorant (maybe), immoral (maybe), delusional (maybe) or a combination thereof.

I can understand that being reared (indoctrinated) in a cult..ure that is closed and regimented will likely lead to the child being a Mormon forever.

"Give us a child until he is seven, and we will make him ours forever" - Jesuit maxim - perhaps Francis Xavier.

Mormons have them until they are 21+.

Please note that the Mormon technique for control is simply guilt - much like the Society of Jesus.

Romney would have no problem reconciling the works published in SLC with holding office.

Flip-Flop.
The Mormons have been flip flopping since Joseph Smith was used by (and used) his family to bring this cult into existence (it was a sick then and it is sick now).

Romney is not strong enough to acknowledge that the purpose of the strange teachings of his cult is for control of the adult by giving them a s set of belief to set them apart - cult.

President? only if you want someone that is a flip flopper.

If only you could have heard him on his "mission".

Yes, of course he is just another right-wing religious fanatic who would desires the erosion of the barrier between church and state.

Never mind. After reading some of the comments here, I realize how relatively enlightened your post really was.

Jamie,
to your entry on Dec 8, 12:20 pm,
" Religiuos belief is nothing more than wishful thinking and willfull ignorance" I add : and is the result of brainwashing since early in life by your parent(s).

I appreciate your dead-on-target analysis of Romney's speech, but at the same time, I'm very concerned by your stereotypical characterization of atheists. Do you not realize how insulting and inaccurate it is?

Jacques,

Many of my past comments on your essays have been negative and unkind.

But thank you for this essay - it's really fine.

What have I missed or misinterpreted about your views in the past?

Best wishes.