To Henry James:

We've dialoged on other threads, and I always appreciated your thoughtful comments. You and I are not so far apart in our attitude towards others -- Loving Kindness and the Golden Rule being, at least as I understand Loving Kindness, virtually indistinguishable from "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I know Buddhists do not believe in a god, but in following practices aimed at attaining wisdom, freedom from desire, and selflessness. I also realize and accept that how others conduct their lives is of no consequence to you. It's just that the apparent goal of separating yourself totally from self and others seems, to me, frightfully sterile and lonely. Somehow, Nirvana has no appeal for me. BTW, I posted under my name, Deanna, in the past, but it seems more important now to identify myself by my belief.

To Robert B.:

Thank you for your respectful, well-reasoned explanation for why believers have abandoned this site. Would that the rational, respectful anti-theists would return or some of the less offensive anti-theists would take your comments to heart and curb their vitriolic rhetoric.

To FUNTRAVELADVENTURE:

Thank you for your offer. I believe I'll demur. Also, thank you for your very perfect example of why theists have deserted this blog. If you haven't read Robert B's comment, please do. It might encourage you to drop the childish, guttersnipe rhetoric and attempt instead to engage in serious dialog about the pros and cons of theism and atheism in politics, public, and private life.

Peace.

Quiet believer

first let me stipulate that i come from a Mormon background where we believed everyone needed to become a mormon.

i now DO NOT think YOU NEED to become an Atheist.

Your "belief system" seems just wonderful to me, founded on Love and the Golden Rule.

I am now a Pagan Buddhist, and my first imperative is Loving Kindness towards my fellow humans.

Mr Mark, I think, has essentially the same position.

what you believe about a supernatural god is clearly your own business. i don't care much if you behave morally and love your neighbor.

Buddhists don't believe in God, by the way.

Any way, i appreciate your spirit and hope you stay part of the dialog.

To YoYo:

You ask where all the believers are and then you post this: "Excellent post.Would that the deluded read it,and really dwell on it."

The reason that I don't post here very much any more is that anti-theists like yourself prefer to insult and deride rather than discuss. Last year it was different; there were believers and non-believers who were actually discussing these issues. The debates could get heated, but there were rational folks on both sides who could be depended on to act with civility. No more, it would seem...

You and those who think like you assume that all believers are cut from the same cloth (we're not) and, as such, are all irrational lunatics. To be the target of such bile (for it is bile) is far less pleasurable than actually engaging in discussion of faith and its role in government.

For one who claims to be so enamored of reason, your use of reason seems somewhat limited. Indeed, the anti-theist brigade here seems to love to yell and condemn without bothering to engage even with those people of faith who treat their atheism/agnosticism with respect. So why should believers of all stripes bother to engage? After all, you're just going to call us deluded fools over and over again...

You have been attacked for being an atheist. I am sorry that this happened. I can only say that I myself have never attacked an atheist for his or her atheism. But to retaliate by saying that all people of faith are stupid and deluded is just as bad as the believer who claimed that all atheists are immoral. By stooping to such tactics, you no longer hold the high ground of rationality. You have become what you condemn.

Perhaps it's too late for this blog, but could we try to establish some rules of civil discourse?

Active, since Thomas no longer has a need for the, ahem, procedure, we can fit you in today if you hurry.

Thanks lobotomy room. We can rest at ease knowing he's no longer dangerous.

Frothing at the mouth yes, dangerous no.

Lynda [& Yo Yo]

Greedy? An interesting characterization, since my life as a Christian is dedicated to giving love away to anyone and everyone I come in contact with.

"If you can hold your mother's/child's/lover's hand, and not fill [sic] fulfilled, still need some more better love, than (sic) you're not loving hard enough." Please explain to me how you love "harder". Love for me is something that flows, nay gushes, forth unbidden. Do I love my husband? Passionately, for over 35 years!! Do I love my daughter? I would lay down my life for her in the blink of an eye!! Do I love my son-in-law to be? He cherishes my daughter and makes her laugh. Yes, I love him, and I know that love will grow. Are there people in my life with whom I share a love so deep, they are my brothers and sisters? Yes!!! I am blessed to call many people "friend," and more abundantly blessed that they return the love.

Is my "love life" fulfilled? Yes, to overflowing on Earth and more, because I have also found the love of God.

Perhaps a little story, true, will help you understand about the desire to know and love God. When I was pregnant with our only child, I worried where the love for her would come from. Would I take a little from my husband? Some from my parents? A piece from my sibling? I just couldn't imagine where I was going to find the love I needed for my precious daughter. Then she was born -- and this HUGE room opened up in my heart, filled to overflowing with love just for her. The room and the love were always there. I just didn't realize it. Discussing this once with my two dearest friends, who are both grandmothers, they told me to expect a MANSION to appear for each grandchild.

There is a place in every human heart that only the love of God can fill. It's the one place where you are accepted and loved UNCONDITIONALLY! Is there anyone in your life who truly loves you unconditionally? It's a hard concept to grasp, especially as you don't believe there is a Creator God who made us and loves each of us like His only child. S/he is not an old man with a snowy white beard, not does s/he meddle in anyone's everyday life. S/he doesn't meddle at all. S/he created us, gave us free will, and turned us loose. What we do with our lives and how we choose to relate to others is just that -- a choice.

I choose to believe in a Creator God who loves me so much, He sent His son to die on a cross for my eternal salvation. You choose not to believe, and call me deluded. I can and do respect and honor your choice of atheism. I do not, however, appreciate being called deluded, zany, foolish, superstitious, and many other terms defaming my intellectual ability and rationality just because I believe in the supernatural.

Oh, and by the way, Yo Yo, you might defer celebrating the disappearance of the religious from this blog. If this becomes an atheist/agnostic blog, then "Without opposition, superstition can only thrive." Be careful what you say, Yo Yo. It may just come back to haunt you.

Oh, and to Norrie Hoyt, you make a good point. I've heard it said, and I've shanghaied the phrase, "Standing in a church and saying you're a Christian is like standing in a garage and saying you're a car." Only God can/will judge who was a Christian (someone who strove to follow Christ's example). An acid test for the rest of us is whether or not they practice what they preach.

Peace! I need to be about my business.

We took care of Thomas years ago.

Certainly, we atheists are not "voiceless." Many have found that the word 'atheist,' rather than free thinking itself, has been maligned enough that many freethinkers describe their unbelief using different terms. The extraordinary sales of recent books such as *god is not Great,* *The God Delusion,* and *The End of Faith* suggest that the percentage of poll respondents who identify themselves as atheists--5-10%, consistently--is highly inaccurate.

Furthermore, one need not be an atheist to be appalled by Mike Huckabee' desire to bring the Constitution in line with "God's values."
Anyone who values the our democracy finds that problematic because it violates separation of church and state.

Amanda Coutts
Providence, RI

Thomas Paul Moses Baum, Report to the lobotomy room immediately.

Possibly the two most religious presidents were Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter. Both were Democrats and neither was feared by non-belivers.

Even though Obama comes across as very religious and invokes religious themes, he is not feared. No one feels he will junk the constitution and move toward a religious state.

TO AN ACTIVE, QUIET BELIEVER:

Thank You and God bless you.

We are all in this together and I do mean all.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth.

Take care.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

And to Paul Geisert, your list of derogatory terms is pretty silly. Titles and words are just how people interpret them. I find it funny that you put the terms nonreligious, godless, irreligious, unbeliever, doubter, profane along with the the words sacrilegious, heretical, impious, irreverent, sinful, immoral, blasphemous, unspiritual, ungodly, disbeliever, atheist, nontheist, and heathen. Very derogatory. I love all nature and I am a atheist because I don't believe in a god, but I am not a naturalist. If that is how you classify yourself, than fine, but that is your term.

In 1960, when we were electing our first Catholic president, Gore Vidal had an old pol talking about the old days "when we poured God over everything like ketchup." That was good for a laugh then, but nobody is laughing now.

What's offensive is not that candidates talk about their faith but that they use religiosity to solicit votes:

http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2007/12/whats-offensive-is-romneys-religiosity.html

I agree with the person that said that being pandered to by the republican candidates a little is a nice change. I have worked with a lot of openly religious people in the local and US government that cross the line in their judgement of atheists. Of course most religious people are not too judgemental and I have had many good work and social relationships with openly very religious people, but I constantly would hear closed-minded, sometimes crazy comments from many others. This is when I sometimes come out of the "atheist closet" to let them know that atheists don't eat babies and such. Unless you work at a religious institution, talking extreme religion at work should be a no no, but under this environment, that has somehow been forgotten. I think that the tolerance of intolerance of non-religious people can come from above and if a US President (or a preacher) says that atheists are not immoral maybe the intolerant god-fearing religious people would leave us alone. And the US founding fathers did not want the Bible to run our daily laws. They knew that the bible as a book could be scewed to fit some individuals' outrages ideas because they knew that humans are far from perfect. Please read history books or watch some decent documentaries on the first settlers, the Puritans and founding fathers such as Ben Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, etc. Just look at other very religious countries history and see how great they are doing and how well they treat their citizens.

REASONABLE NOT HATEFUL:
Sorry, there Brian. The founders wanted religion to influence govt. They just did not want ONE religion, or denomination, to be the influencer. Washington said this in his farewell address."

Oh, really?

I think you've been had, RNH. Without even asking, I know what you think Washington "said" in his Farewell Speech, but let me assure you, he said no such thing. There's a phony version of his 1796 Farewell Speech floating around the internets, and it is often cited by the deceived as "proof" that Washington believed god should influence government.

I invite you to read an accurate version of Washington's Farewell and cite the passage you're referencing.

Thanks.

Yaawwwwwwwwwwn!

For neochristian "belivers" the world tolerance is an anathema. I would like to believe so called "evangelical Christians" aren't intolerant but their judgments, condemnations, actions, and hypocrisy (ala Haggard, Vitter, Craig, Swaggart, Baker, Robertson, Dobson, Falwell et. al.) aren't very convincing. I don't like being intolerant of the intolerant but I see them religious terrorists and a threat to our religious freedoms no less than Muslim extremists who have the same goal of converting, controlling or killing those who don't believe the same as they do.

"So stop thinking that you are that important."

So, let's recap.

You believe that a great big invisible man who lives up in the sky, the creator of the entire universe, is so concerned over little old you that it watches your every move to decide whether to "reward" you or punish you for eternity.

And you wouldn't be thinking you are that important, would you?

Make some sense, would you please? Oh never mind.

"Nonbelievers are no mass constituency. But they are disproportionately influential in newsrooms, universities, the arts, the entertainment industries and, rumor has it, commenters on the On Faith page of WashingtonPost.com. Overplaying the Faith and Values cards tends to whip these not-voiceless folks into a frenzy"

What chutzpah.

Overplaying the Faith and Values Cards is the EXACT DEFINITION of the religious frenzy some engage in that others are so frenzied about.

I'll make you a deal: you stop your frenzy and I'll stop mine.

"Not voiceless." Uh, yeah. Right. Maybe of late, by virtue of the controversy generated by discussing these matters unashamedly, some voices are rising to be counted. But for the most part, it's as if Galileo were still alive, particularly in the realm of politics.

Let's not talk about tossing rational thinkers a bone by offering some position as Undersecretary of the Inferior. Put one on the Supreme Court to balance out the mojo-bag-toting yayhoos for once and then we'll be making progress. Until then, nonbelievers can't even get token status, and you have the audacity to claim we are "overly influential."

Nice try at playing the refs, a typical tactic of the extremist, but we're way ahead of you on this one. Stop blowing smoke...it's unbecoming of a person of your intellect.

Lynda;

Excellent post.Would that the deluded read it,and really dwell on it.
As far as we know this is all there is,and we have to make the most of it.
Keep smiling.

Active, Quiet--
You hit on one of the issues I find troubling about the religious. I thoroughly disbelieve in the supernatural, including any god, yet know intimately the love you describe. I dislike the (especially) Christian assumption that such a feeling comes from a god. It doesn't. And that one could be so completely surrounded by love--human love, natural love, for family, friends, animals, our beautiful planet--and still require the love of an imaginary god smacks to me of supreme greediness. If you can hold your mother's/child's/lover's hand, and not fill fulfilled, still need some more better love, than you're not loving hard enough. And odds are, even heaven would disappoint you if Earth itself isn't enough.

It takes an advanced degree to write about Obama: "I don’t get the sense that atheists and others have much to fear from him." "Fear"? What exactly is Berlinerblau afraid of? I can hear all the moaning and trembling from the salons of Georgetown, the little soirees in Manhattan, fearing that any day now, some little backwater town in the Carolinas will hold an after-school Bible reading, and the next day, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney will show up with hordes of evangelicals and Mormons, ready to line up against the wall all the poor, oppressed secularists, and shoot them with all those guns (eek!) they have.

The problem with the insular world of academia is that Berlinerblau can say such obviously stupid things and get nods from his equally foolish colleagues.

"Over the past few weeks I have been tracking an intriguing trend: assorted presidential candidates are acknowledging that nonbelievers might actually be decent, patriotic Americans."

OMG!! You mean, we're not responsible for the total moral decay of society? And here I was just starting to accept my life as an outcast ... (snicker)

One main belief that governs the baptist faith is "freedom of conscience". You guys should study more about that so you won't feel so insecure.

Huckabee is not pandering to you. That is our doctrine. So stop thinking that you are that important. Sorry if I spoiled your party.

One main belief that governs the baptist faith is "freedom of conscience". You guys should study more about that so you won't feel so insecure.

Huckabee is not pandering to you. That is our doctrine. So stop thinking that you are that important.

Remember the old axiom, "Actions speak louder than words"? This is probably as good an acid test as any for Christians. The ones who speak the loudest, claiming theirs is the only way, and are quick to condemn those who disagree with them, are not practicing Christ's teachings. Over and over again, we are admonished, "Judge not, that you be not judged;" "Judgment is mine, saith the Lord;" In fact, their diatribes and harangues make me wince with pain. When I heard that Pat Robinson had attributed Ariel Sharon's stroke to "divine retribution for the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza," I was outraged!!!! I was jumping up and down in front of my TV, yelling, "God doesn't do that!" As Fred Evil stated, "Not so, I believe that there are MANY decent, patriotic Americans who are also Xtians, they just don't talk very loudly."

Yo Yo and Henry, you may want to skip the following as it is Christian "zaniness" and irrationality, at least as you see it.

Christ called us (those who believe He is the Son of God, true God and true Man) to serve, not necessarily to speak! Certainly, He didn't encourage us to harangue others or try to force our faith on them. In fact, he admonished the disciples, "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." [Matthew 10:14-15] While He at times railed against Jewish officials who questioned his "failure" to adhere strictly to "scripture, these were probably the only times He spoke out against those who disagreed with Him.

Thomas Baum is correct when he says, "God is a Being of Pure Love." If you have ever experienced "agape", that pure, self-giving, saving love, you know in your heart that there is a God -- and that He loves you as a parent loves their child, only more so. That love is there for all, but you have to choose to accept it. You have to believe and have faith. It's your choice. If you choose to believe, God's love will fill the empty place in your heart that nothing else can fill, and will provide you solace in times of sadness and strength in times of trouble. God doesn't promise life as a Christian will be all rosy and easy. In fact, He practically guarantees it will be anything but.

If you've experienced agape, you feel compelled to pass it on -- share it with everyone you meet. It means you live in the Spirit, and "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." [Galatians 5:22] And as Christians, we are called to love one another! Christ told us, "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you ... Do to others as you would have them do to you." [Luke 6:27-31] Are any of us successful at this? You've got to be kidding!!! Living the Golden Rule is nigh onto impossible for any sinful human, and that's all of us! But we need to try!!

Believer or not, imagine your mental and emotional state in a world where we ALL lived the Golden Rule! Cynics will sneer, but Christians will continue to try.

As for where all the believers -- Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. -- have gone, if they're like me, they've accepted the fact that nothing we say is going to change anyone else's mind. There was a time when I posted regularly and had many fruitful and respectful exchanges with Mr. Mark, E Fave, and others. But the steady decrease in respectful, polite, rational posts convinced me I had learned all I was likely to learn and contributed as much or more than anyone else was interested in hearing. Other areas of my life were calling for my attention, and so I quit posting. It's as simple as that. Every once in a great while, I will pick up a thread -- like this one -- that piques my interest, and I'll read some or even all of it. And once in a blue moon I'll post, but On Faith is no longer on my radar screen. I've moved on.

To those of you who continue to participate, I wish you well. Perhaps this site HAS contributed to disarming the religious extremists and diminishing their strangle-hold on government. If so, I say, "Bravo!!!" As Fred Evil has suggested, those of us who believe need to try to rein in the out-spoken, judgmental, loud-mouths who claim to represent all Christians. We need to continue to act, but also speak up more for Christ. This country needs to hear the voice of committed believers who, by the way, accept and affirm your right to believe as you choose.

Well, if the reasonable believers like Parker and crowd don't come back, I'm outta here too, because most of you guys are just boring. 'Cept you Henry....

It has been empirically demonstrated
over and over again throughout human history
that most people
don't know what the universe is about.

Arnie Arons told me it was a law of physics.

"Nonbelievers are no mass constituency."

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

Professed non-believers are certainly few in number in the United States, but I think that very few of the mass of professed "believers" really have any firm beliefs about the subjects we discuss here at On Faith.

I believe that most people are covert agnostics, who know they really don't know anything at all about the existence or nonexistence of a god, survival of death, and what, if anything, the universe is all about.

Henry James;

Yes there are quite a few of god's soldiers fighting down here in the trenches. Some are fighting for the One they call Allah,others are here on behalf of the noname God with the white beard (who looks suspiciously like Santa). Then we have the Pagans,and a Hindu or two. But I do think we are winning. We seem to have them outnumbered anyway.

Your comments were very funny.

Fight the good fight!

Mr. Berlinerblau

Thank you for the very fine coverage of politics regarding those who have a naturalistic worldview. Yours is as positive an article as I have read in a long time.

Thank you very much for using the phrase "the naturalist world view." The use of "nonbeliever" is actually quite derogatory; implying one who has a naturalistic worldview is void of beliefs.

There is quite an impressive list of negative terms of this sort: nonreligious, godless, irreligious, unbeliever, doubter, profane, sacrilegious, heretical, impious, irreverent, sinful, immoral, blasphemous, unspiritual, ungodly, disbeliever, atheist, nontheist, and heathen.

Five positive options are: naturalist, naturalistic worldview, secular, secularist, and the neologism Bright (an individual who has a naturalistic worldview, free of supernatural).

Paul Geisert
Co-director of The Brights' Net

Yoyo

Virtually all of the remaining believers here are certifiable according to strict DSM criteria:
Mose Baum
Jacob (he DOES believe, doesn't he?_
Canyon Shearer.

They remind me of those guys who used to populate the subway system screaming about socialism (come to think of it, Giuliani is still doing so).

Reasonable???? Time to change your name.

Where, exactly, is the word "God" in the constitution.

Anyone who knows any history knows that Jefferson and Franklin were "loose deists."

If there WAS a god who created the world (and they both doubted it) that god had disappeared long ago.

Your admonitions to others to "learn their history" are laughable.

On Rationality (here is another reason to change your name: truth in adverstising)

Most Men of Faith freely admit that their Faith is not Rational.

And "rational" men tend to have endless discussions questioning whether a certain line of thought is rational or not.

The Church has spent centuries trying to come up with Cockamamie explanations for why
a. the earth really is 6,000 years old
b. a virgin did conceive and bear a son
c. the earth DOES NOT revolve around the sun.

Sad, your apologetics. Sad.

YoYo-

Self acclaimed rationality? Is that the ticket?

Very amusing.

Besides the fact that God is real and that God is a Being of Pure Love, some will be completely surprised to find out that God does not look at whatever label you put on yourself but looks at you.

Take care, be ready, see you all in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum

Sorry, there Brian. The founders wanted religion to influence govt. They just did not want ONE religion, or denomination, to be the influencer. Washington said this in his farewell address.

Better get some real history lessons. The sep. church and state did not mean that religious folk can't influence government, and the morality that is legislated within.

Plainly, you don't know your history.

Hi Henry.

I'm not sure whether we scared them off or whether they have become atheists. The latter I hope.

But seriously, most supernaturalists don't enjoy our comments, and go elsewhere, to more agreeable blogs.

Nice to see you again Henry.

Yoyo

Have we driven all the believers out?

Where are they? I rarely see one on any of the threads any more.

Hey Everyone.

We are making it happen by speaking our minds on these very threads. We are being acknowledged right here: like many agnostics and atheists have said right here, that we have to speak out whenever we can so that the supernaturalists know that there is opposition to their zaniness.

Without opposition, superstition can only thrive.
We are the rational opposition,and I'm proud to be a small part of it. We are being heard.

Mike, you've lost your mind!

Atheists (like me) have tolerated the usually oppressive religious majority since we were born, regardless of when we were actually born. Since the beginning of time nonbelievers have been killed/tortured/oppressed/ridiculed for their lack of belief in magical superheroes. I know everyone likes a good comic book story but you Christians have taken it one step too far!

My entire extended family tree are virtually all churchgoing Christians. I don't hate Christians, in fact I like them very much, when they are true Christians and true Americans. Remember being a good American has NOTHING to do with being a good Christian. This is where we atheists get furiously mad.

The Constitution explicitly protects minorities of all kinds from majority/mob rule. It's the reason the Bill of Rights even exists. To encourage flourishing of free ideas, not aide in establishing one idea or one kind of idea as the "correct" one. When candidates like Huckabee and Romney say ridiculous things like "the Constitution should be changed to reflect God's word" that's not only ridiculous but it is speech that violates what it means to be an American. For all intensive purposes it's the same as saying the Constitution needs to be changed to reflect the white race's views with no regard to other races.

The only cure for this problem is secularism. And no, it is not a religion. It is the idea that religion prospers most when government and religion do not cross paths. If we allow religion to inject its views into government, then not only do nonbelievers become oppressed but believers in other religions are as well. This was never the goal of the Constitution or its authors.

Thanks for pointing out the comments by Huckabee, Romney, et al. I wasn't aware of them, and even though they don't offer the godless a strong assurance that the shrill religiosity of our politicians is going to calm down any time soon, they offer a glimmer of hope.

Jacob JOZEVZ - Do you think ANYONE reads your ridiculous diatribes? You may say the most insightful and pertinent stuff within, but as soon as I see your blithering style, I skip right over. Mayhaps some journalistic courses if you want to be published the in WaPo on a regular basis?

Mike wrote - This is not news to anyone except the apparently very sensentive "nonbeliever crowd".

It isn't? Funny, a few weeks ago, you had the Theist huckabee insisting he was going to take back the country for Jesus! How is that attitude supposed to be received by anyone who is not Xtian?

"Now if you can get an athiest on this board to believe that Christians "might actually be decent, patriotic Americans", then you might have some news."

Not so, I believe that there are MANY decent, patriotic Americans who are also Xtians, they just don't talk very loudly. Most Xtians you hear from insist that this is a Xtian country, and the rest of us should find someplace else to live. If you want to ask all of those decent patriotic Americans to tell their ignorant peers how it really is, we may make some headway!

That's somewhat refreshing news about Obama, as I confess the $3.01 and the Bible verse he was celebrating in his mail had me screaming Green Party. I fear he sounds at times as much of a Theocrat as God Whisperer Bush. And I fear even more that the Democrats are opening the door to evangelical ruin (interesting little bit by Leah Daughtry the other day, no?); in ten years the Republicans will be laughing at us, saying good riddance to them, and we'll be adopting language about how Jesus would vote for Kyoto as a party plank.

"Over the past few weeks I have been tracking an intriguing trend: assorted presidential candidates are acknowledging that nonbelievers might actually be decent, patriotic Americans."

This is not news to anyone except the apparently very sensentive "nonbeliever crowd".

Now if you can get an athiest on this board to believe that Christians "might actually be decent, patriotic Americans", then you might have some news.

As a non-believer, I have to admit it's kind of nice to get the same insincere lip service usually reserved for other groups. Makes me feel very special - as if my vote actually counts for something.

Those in the faith community needn't worry that this new found tolerance for non-believers will amount to much. Whichever of these sociopaths gets elected, you can be sure we will be treated in the same dismissive way that Evangelicals have been treated by the present administration.

Actually, I don't mind being pandered to. If it's hypocritical, well, 'hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue.' Let's have some more.

To read the full text of Barack's King Day speech click on "aside" up in Jacques' essay. You'll find it's no longer on that page, sooo click "learning" atop that page in the menu, then click "speeches", then click the January 20 speech. It's a most excellent speech.

It wasn't that long ago that Mike Huckabee was complaining about what he believed to be unfair treatment of his religion. Sorry Mike, but you can't have it both ways: i.e. run on religion/play the religious card and have it escape scrutiny. This is especially true given the statements he's made in the past. Anything you want the run on--including religion--becomes fair game for scrutiny.

The public has a notoriously short memory, but hopefully there is some recollection of the Terry Schiavo case. I would argue that the outcome and in particular public opinion was a backlash against the policies of the religious right.

The religious right wants to regulate end of life decisions, what consenting adults can and can't do, what you can and can't watch on TV.

Non-believers are tired of the less government hypocrisy: tired of politicians who clamor for economic degregulation and then turn around and attempt to infringe on the right of privacy, the behavior of consenting adults, and so forth.

Any religious candidate who wants non-believers to even consider them, should make some kind of concession that they will not infringe on privacy or what consenting adults do. I don't think that that will happen.

I guess we atheists have finally arrived! Imagine, politicians will now pay us the same lip service they've been paying the faithful for centuries.

Why am I not elated?

Jacques! Those lying politicians will say anything to get elected. Come to think of it, they MUST say something that doesn't alienate huge voting blocks. So small wonder, "Over the past few weeks I have been tracking an intriguing trend: assorted presidential candidates are acknowledging that nonbelievers might actually be decent, patriotic Americans."

The question is, where are the evangelicals? Methinks they're so busy moving out of their homes and into apartments, trailers and relatives homes thanking God they at least have that, they haven't had the time. Maybe they're having a few second thoughts about establishing the kingdom of God right away?

Abortions comes in several flavors including sub prime types, it would appear. When one becomes the subject of an abortion it tends to lessen one's fervor of worrying about masturbaters, fornicators and men laying with men.

How are nonbelievers not a "mass constituency"? Given many believers' intolerance, it's difficult to determine how many atheists/agnostics there are. I've seen estimates of 10-16% in the US, comparable to the black/African American population (12.9% in the 2000 Census). I don't see them or any other group of that size being treated so dismissively.

So which candidate will acknowledge Pagan Americans?

Back when John Kerry was running, I contacted Rev. Peterson; who was the DNC head of OutReach. She and I had wonderful conversations...we were accepted by Rev.Perterson and the Kerry Campaign.She said," We do not have to follow your faith to respect your right to worship as you see fit."

Then the religious right got a hold of Rev. Peterson and she resigned...she was for Gay rights, and felt that her being a part of the campaign would be detrimental. But I knew that with that campaign our citizenship was honored.

I know though that no Pagan, not even the most qualified for the job would have a chance for a post in any administration.

I also know that my rights will be more protected by any Democratic administration,but that my hair could be on fire and no republican would throw me a cup of water.

When will the religion test be left in the old bigoted past?

terra