Every candidate has said something about how religion should not be "excluded" from the political process. They say that the secularists are attempting to remove any consideration of religious views from government. And then we hear this from Huckabee:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution but I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

Huckabee is a prime example of a potential theocrat and his talk of changing the Constitution to a religious form is revealing of where he wants to take this nation. We must have nothing of it! We must repudiate these Dominionists completely. My fear is that although other candidates may be more secular that Huckabee or Romney, they do pander to people like Pat Robertson and institutions like Bob Jones University and will not repudiate or end the unconstitutional "faith-based" policies of the present administration

Of course faith drives people of faith. But it is also true that a disbelief in God molds the totality of the values and decisions of those who don't believe. Thus the divide over, for example, the sanctity of human life.

If life is a cosmic accident with no value other than what we choose to place on it, as Mr. Berlinerblau claims, it is not surprising that he might conclude through a utilitarian analysis that taking lives of unborn babies is acceptable. It is his right to do so. But to then turn around and condemn Huckabee for coming to the opposite conclusion based on his faith is disingenuous.

We are all molded by our worldview from which we develop our values. From our values come our actions. As such, Huckabee is no different than Berlinerblau. Except that Huckabee’s belief in a loving, caring, creator God tracks the view of the majority of Americans, that he has over a decade as one of the most successful governors in the nation, and that he may yet defy the odds to become the next President or Vice President of the United States of America.

The fact is that every politician - religous or not - operates from some internal value system that approximately 50% of American's will disagree with and probably find distasteful. Yet we seem to be of the belief that while all other view points are welcome, regardless of the underlying motivation, policy decisions that are "informed" or "influenced" by a proponent's relgious faith are automatically disqualified from consideration.

I posit that it is not the faith motivator that repels the secularist, but the prospective outcome - which reduces this whole discussion to nothing more than a thinly veiled power struggle. The secluarist suspects that a person of conservative religous beliefs will oppose and work against social policies that the secularist desires - abortion, gay marriage, large social programs, open borders, welfare, etc. The fact that the religionist's views are motivated by his faith is really irrelavent. The secularist isn't really concerned about having someone elses faith imposed on him. A democratically elected official, working through the organs of properly constituted government, appealing to the electorate, and building political coalitions of like-minded and freely deciding citizens, isn't imposing anything on anyone - regardless of his motivation. He is doing the exact same thing that any politician who successfully pushes any policy position does in seeking to enact those policies that his own internal value system (whether religous or not) tells him are of importance.

No - imposition of faith would of necessity involve the religonist requiring you to attend his church, ascribe to his doctrines, adopt his creeds and style of worship, pledge loyalty to his eccesiastical forms, etc. But that's not what worries the secularist. What the seularist really opposes is the mear possibility that his own various sacred cows could end up in the slaughter house.

The proof of this is very easy to demonstrate. Suppose I go on something of an ecological crusade - an all out, personally consuming campaign to save the planet. In so doing, I adopt every possible green position imaginable - renewable energy, CO2 reduction, recyling, save the rain forest, endangered species protection, you name it. I decide to run for office on that platform and attract legions of supporters and millions of dollars in contributions, many of whom are likely to be liberal secularists with similar green passions.

Now in the course of my campaign, an interviewer asks me from whence my passion comes and respond, "Genesis 1:1. In the beginning God created the heaven's and the earth. The Earth and its creation is the personal handy work of a sovreign God. And the crowning acheivement of his creative activity was the creation of man, in his present form, from the dust of the Earth. And the very first job he assigned to man upon his first day of existence was to be the caretaker and steward of this Earth - to watch over and to protect it. As a species, we have failed to live up that charge handed to us by the Almighty and Living God and my aim is to correct that failing."

Is there anyone out there that believes the secularist left would then rise up and demand that I be silenced and that my green positions were no longer suitable for poltical and public debate because I happen to base them on my religous belief in a Creator God? Of course not! Because in this case, my faith is pushing me in a policy direction that they happen to agree with!! The fact that it is faith driven won't matter one iota to them. Because in reality, it's the ends that matter to them, not the means.

Need another example? The anti-slavery and civil rights movements both had deep roots and powerful advocates in the church and among the clergy (remember, MLK was a pastor), who based their struggles on the dignity of man as a creation of God. Are we to pitch all of that work and sacrifice overboard because many, if not most of the adherents, were religously motivated and trying to "impose" their faith on other people?

Everyone's religious beliefs affect their decision-making. Even if you are an atheist, your view of God and the world affect the decisions you make.

What Huckabee is saying is that, of course, his faith will influence how he views the world and the decisions he makes. But he will be president of all the American people and respect the constitutional separation of church and state.

Religious beliefs should be considered in electing a president. Most people would not vote for a professed satanist. If a candidate beliefs that trees are Gods, then that certainly would be relevant. Certainly it would affect forestry policies)