Spare us from the politicians that wear their religion on their sleeve. It is wrong, because it says that voters should elect candidates based on their religion or their piety, not on their ideas and their proposals to solve the problems of today. To be a leader requires no religious belief whatsoever, only the ability to come up with answers to problems that are rational, logical, moral, and benefit the most people. It doesn't require religion to be moral, and our Constitution has no requirement that any candidate stand up before the voters and state their belief in Jesus. Huckabee is wrong to wear his religion on his sleeve, and most voters know it. Huckabee is looking to take back America for Jesus (his actual words) and make it into a religious tolitarian state.

The most admired man in Canadian history, acccording to a recent poll, was a Baptist minister/pastor who fought for years to bring universal health coverage and portable penions to Canadians. A product of the Weyburn Bible College in Saskatechewan he levered the entrenched system as Premier of his province then as Member of Parlaiment, to the benefit of the average Joe. This guy preached, practiced and implemented the Social Gospel. I don't understand all this religious vs political stuff going on, like how does getting ordained put you in the line of fire? Maybe he wasn't all that meek, though he felt they SHOULD inherit the earth, he was also a Golden Gloves Bantamweight Champ.

It is of consequence that Mr. Huckabee describes himself as a man of faith. It is revealing to those who would vote for him and for those who would oppose him. His declaration of faith is merely an act of detailing what would guide him in his decisions and as such an informed voter could better gauge whether to vote for him based on that extrapolation.

Is it wrong to make such statements? Not at all. Is it wrong for a voter to disagree with such statements? Not at all. Is it wrong for people to try to stifle his statements? Yes.

Charles Krauthammer wrote it best. Religion deserves a place in the public sphere. Not a preferential place, but a place none-the-less. As there are many people who would call Mr. Huckabee's beliefs "fantasy" or whatever other derogatory term, there are many people who would align themselves with Mr. Huckabee and his beliefs. And if our representative democracy works as it should their voice should not be derided. If our democracy is to remain pure, secularism will have to cede that as long as the people of this country are religious there will necessarily be religion in the public sphere. While the religious will have to cede that religion does not have a preferential position in the public sphere as Mr. Romney may have suggested.

Mike Huckabee is exactly right, and that's precisely what makes him so scary. This man honestly believes there's an invisible deity who wrote a special book and created man from dust. If a presidential candidate stood on a podium and said, "I believe in Zeus," he would be laughed out of the campaign. So too would any candidate who proclaimed faith in Thor, Anubis or Quetzalcoatl. But a candidate who says "I believe in Jesus" and vows to govern by Biblical principles gets a free pass in Christian America. Thomas Jefferson, a proud skeptic who held Christianity in contempt, could never get elected today.

It doesn't take much effort to read between the lines of Huckabee's "inclusive" web statement. It's the kind of statement that can be only from the perspective of belonging to THE majority religion in the country. Offering an opinion on "when we discuss faith and politics" doesn't exactly seem inclusive when uttered by a Xian. It's akin to one's boss deciding when it's a good time to discuss, "your latest screw-up."

One must also set his statement against his actions. For instance, does Huckabee have "respect" for, say, an honest Mormon? As an atheist, I draw little comfort from his respecting "an honest atheist over a dishonest religionist," while he at the same time has no respect for honest evolutionary science while embracing a fantasy-driven respect for the creationist hokkum of the Bible.

As far as religion not being "banished from the public square," it is, indeed, banished from the public square by the First Amendment *to the extent* that its expression in the public square amounts to a governmental preference for a particular religion. Ergo, there is no prohibition on Mike Huckabee offering his personal religious views from the steps of the county court house, but the line is drawn if and when he decides to allow the erection of a 10 Commandments monument on that same government property.

I was always wary of Huckabee, but am irretrievably disgusted with him at present. He supposedly has a masters degree in theology, but is playing the ignorant fool about his recent slur against Romney. I realize that it is dangerous to think one knows the motivations of others, but I think we all can be very confident that he fully intended to stir up long-standing evangelical prejudices against Mormons.

This is the way he will stir up prejudices against non-believers as well.