(Compare this to the former governor of Arkansas who enraged Secular America when he suggested that we amend the Constitution to God’s standards)

duh. obama has not called for changes to the constitution based on the bible.

BIG difference.

i guess as an atheist supporter of obama, i'm not too worried about being mollycoddled.

Clinton,Obama,McCain are all bought and paid for corporate stooges who will say whatever the group they are talking to want to hear,Huckabe really would try to make america into a theocracy

Obviously there is a difference between expressing a personal statement of faith (even if I personally such things to be irrational) and advocating amendment of the Constitution to turn the country into a theocracy. Saying that our "values" should be reflected in our government is not offensive to me since I know that the values Obama is talking about are ones that I as an atheist can share with many believers. Things like access to health care, and not torturing people, stuff like that.

In fact, it is a favorite tactic of the radical right to argue that because atheists don't believe in their Baby Jesus that we are in favor of child sacrifice and fascism and communism and Hitler and socialized medicine and free sex and the Mexicanization of America and islamofacscism and Burkas all at the same time. Listen a little more closely to the Huckster. It's all in there!

As for McCain, he will cover all these topics in one speech and then deny it all the next day and you guys will call it Straight Talk.

God ia concept by which we measure our pain.

Nice try Jacques, but you're missing the point.
As a non-believer, I can see clearly the difference between Obama's statements and Huckabee's. Obama is talking about his faith and faith in general in personal terms. Nowhere, in any of the quotes you bring up, does he say anything about government. He speaks of people, but not of politics.
Huckabee said he wanted to change the Constitution to be in line with god's word. That is a direct statement; saying that he wants his religious views to actually change the founding document of our system of government.
Apples and oranges my friend, and that's why there is no controversy.

I have never commented here before. I only found this article via another site that linked to it. But I feel inspired to echo and add to some earlier comments.

What a ridiculous thesis this article advances!

The obvious difference between Huckabee and Obama, as others have noted, is that Huckabee has genuinely advanced theocracy, while Obama merely talks about his personal faith. (Whether he is genuine or pandering is another subject altogether.)

I am an atheist. I have no problem voting for a person of faith if s/he shares my political viewpoints. There are plenty of people of faith who believe in the separation of church and state, who do not seek to embed their faith into the law or enforce their faith on me. Likewise, there are plenty of people of faith who will represent my political interests, and vote for the policies in which I believe.

Why, precisely, should only secular people be alarmed by Obama's words? His words are unmistakably Christian. By the logic of this article, shouldn't Jews, Hindus, Muslims and any other non-Christian be alarmed by Obama's public expression of his Christian faith? And would the author of this piece fear me if I ran for office merely because I am an atheist? Even if I agreed with his political viewpoints? Does the author justify the fear so many expressed about Kieth Elison, who is the first Muslim in Congress?

The tenor of the article suggests that no one can, in good conscience, vote for someone who does not share her personal religious beliefs. That is not just silly; it's terrifying. I shudder to think what our country would be like if everyone really thought that way.

I don't know when Obama started ramping up his God talk but it could have something to do with the emails I'm getting claiming he's a "dirty little Muslim."

I don't like his God talk. I don't like anyone's God talk unless they're talking to me one on one about their personal, private, intimate beliefs.

"Admit it, Secular America. If Mike Huckabee had said something like this on the campaign trail you’d be locking and loading faster than you could hum John Lennon’s lyric “Imagine all the people, Living life in peace”"

Huge strawman. Admit it, you don't know what the h*ll you're talking about.

not too bad for an eeeeeevil "Muslim" hey? maybe you're just jealous your fat idiot Hagee didn't say it first.

but hey....it's a sad thing when you have to pander to the delusional masses that suffer from the same affliction to get votes. Obama knows this. it's like your hand has to be stamped with stupidity to get in, but that's always been american society. the slow descent into fascist decay and madness celebrates it's cult of stupidity....check that...it DEMANDS that you conform to the cult of idiots and then celebrates those "champions" that descend to it's depths.

oh by the way.....don't ever pretend to know where Canada is. (let alone Manitoba)

Idiot!

I mean, hey. Not to put too fine a point on it, buthehas a better civil rights record than Hillary, particularly as involves my particular litle tushie, not to mention other issues of some import.

He could be a card-carrying Pastafarian with a side order of marinara, for all I care, as long as I get a recognizable America out of the deal, for once.

Seriously.

The difference, Mr Berlinerblau, is that Senator Obama can talk about his own faith without it being about excluding others or in support of policies based on unreason.

His faith neither breaks my arm nor picks my pocket.

Nor threatens my person.

The difference between him and Huckabee is that, contrary to conservative defamation of liberals, it's not actually about how Christian someoneone is, ...it's about how American they'll be.

He may have his devout Christianness, but he's never let that make him support denying my civil rights cause some Christians feel I'm less human when I'm with another woman than otherwise.

He may have his devout Christianness, but he doesn't use it to make me a second class citizen or an outlaw because I pray to other Gods.

Unlike Huckabee, he can say 'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' without tripping over the last bit and saying something else.

In short, no, liberals and secularists aren't hypocites, and it's *not* about whether or not someone has certain beliefs:

It's about what they do and propose to do.

Not only do I support Senator Obama on the basis of his record and promises and stated values, but I intend to *hold him to them.*

And, frankly, he's a dude I suspect would actually listen. With respect.

Yeah, there's a difference, Mr. Berlinerblau.

And it's not actually the religion.

Who knew.

Why would that be? I don't care if Obama talks to Jesus when he insists that I do too, then I'll be offended.

After WW3, Huckabee would be the President of the States. By that time there would be no more liberal states coz God has wiped them off the earth already.

I suggest that he keeps on trying till that day happens coz it's coming soon.

I'm not yet sure if your one of those Jewish atheists or a believing Jew. But in this post you do not seem to know the difference between secularism and atheism, a common and dangerous confusion. You use the terms "non-believer" and "Secular America" interchangeably.

You write first:
"Admit it, Secular America. If Mike Huckabee had said something like this on the campaign trail you’d be locking and loading faster than you could hum John Lennon’s lyric “Imagine all the people, Living life in peace”:

"And during the course of that sermon, I was introduced to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed and that if I placed my trust in Christ, He could set me on the path to eternal life.""

Later you replace Secular America with "nonbelievers and Church-State separatists" and wonder why:

"These pious musings have not aroused as much as a peep of protest from nonbelievers and Church-State separatists. (Compare this to the former governor of Arkansas who enraged Secular America when he suggested that we amend the Constitution to God’s standards)."

They don't compare. What you don't seem to grasp is that Obama is both a believer and a secularist. Believing in God, even in Jesus, doesn't preclude one from being a secularist and supporting separation of Church and state. And, in fact, because Obama has said other things we can know he is a secularist. For example, this speech, the "Call to Renewal Keynote Address":

"... they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. That during our founding, it was not the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of this separation; it was the persecuted religious minorities, Baptists like John Leland, who were most concerned that any state-sponsored religion might hinder their ability to practice their faith."

"Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

"And even if we did have only Christians within our borders, who’s Christianity would we teach in the schools? James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Levitacus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage so radical that it’s doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application?"

"This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

That speech clearly defines Obama as a secularist if not a non-believer. And, yes, if Huckabee had said what you quoted from Obama then that would add to my negative feelings about Huckabee. That's because Huckabee also said:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "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."

Claiming that the constitution must reflect God's standards is clearly the view of someone who doesn't even grasp the concept of separation of church and state much less believe in it.

This doesn't mean that I do not find some of what Obama says disturbing, but I find it disturbing as an atheist, not a secularist.

But even here my worries about Obama's sanity would be eased if some journalist would ask him this question: "You have said that you think God has a plan for his people and that it’s a plan He’s left to us to fulfill. Do you really know God's plans?"

If he answers "yes," then worry. If he answers "no," you can worry much less. Thinking you know God's plans is what makes Farrakhan, Hagee, Huckabee, Bush and bin Laden dangerous nutjobs.

If others have already said this, then it'll be said again. There's a pretty big difference between the way Obama and Huckabee present their faith in their respective campaigns. Huckabee plans on trying to implement elements of his faith as policy, if not downright, institutionally. Obama does not so intend. As a person of "none of the above" persuasion, I'll take Obama every time.

The whole piece depends on a stupid conflation of Democrat=liberal=secular=anti-religion.

And that's just stupid.

I have Christian friends who believe that the message of Jesus Christ, of love, tolerance, distinction of what is Caesar's/God's, is most consistent with liberal progressive values.

Why is that hard to understand?

Perhaps there hasn't been a peep from liberal secularists like myself because we do see a difference between a candidate expression religious convictions and a candidate saying those religious convictions should be made into the law of the land by amending the constitution to include them. I have no problem with a political leader having any religious beliefs, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, etc. My problem is when they try to force those beliefs upon me with the rule of law.

Jacques - Can you point out the part of Obama's speech where he said he would amend the constitution to fall in line with "God's law?"

I can't find that part.

(The world must look weird without shades of grey.)

a very interesting forum, however perhaps Talmud over the OT (the First Covenant) has had its day in the sun among our fellow participants who are of Jewish heritage and/or religion.

back to the related theme:
It is sad that cotton candy obama has gotten the media attention that he has.

I think results from the contempt that the media ( The 4rth Estate as they like to think of themselves) has for the everyday american voter, and not as if the everyday american hasnt him or herself brought contempt on themselves. back to God and the theme here.

The founders didnt want a national religion like they'd seen plunder europe among other atrocities that that institutionalized paganism did to the people and their lives. At the very least the founders wanted man to have life liberty, (ability to own property/)pursuit of happiness. I figure many of the founders believed in God although whether they knew HIM or not was another matter.

But back to huckabee and obama, as I said, in listening to both, huckabee is confusion and it says in the Bible, "God is not the author of confusion'. In the OT, the Babylon was a site of confusion and in time after the Jews after carried away to there, eventually were able to leave behind confusion and the corruption of it.

Obama is a put up job. Virtually nothing genuine about him. He is expedient and i have said before, although not in this forum that expedient people are easily manipulated by their fears.

That is not the Lord; that is not from the Lord. There is nothing about expedience that is Godly. The Lord Himself was not expedient; quite the contrary.

So for these men to tow any line and think it is God, represents God, serves Him or is worthy of the whitehouse is not of God and is delusion on their part.

The founders would roll over in their graves if they were able to hear what all of this is today in the Republic they'd hoped to have left us but is quite dead at this point.

"And that’s something that may make it hard for secularists to live their lives in peace."

I usually love your articles....but come on - stop being so dang sensitive. Smart politicians appeal to different groups - Obama is trying to appeal to Christians (and seems earnest about it) as well as secularists. What on earth is so surprising about that?

This might be the most simplistic, tedious and just plain ridiculous commentary I've read in awhile. And given the general competition in the media, that's a prize you have to earn. Well done! You've managed to say very little in a lot of words.

Dear Jacques,

Our Constitution protects all of the beliefs of all of the people in this country, and says that the government cannot mandate one religious belief (that there is a God, that Jesus was saved) over another (that there is no God, that Jesus was a man).

Best of all, our Constitution allows any office holder (the President, for example) to hold any beliefs he or she wishes (ie, Sen. Obama can believe in the power of prayer and the importance of Jesus).

But our Constitution does not allow anyone to put their own beliefs into the government (ie, Mike Huckabee can't tell my children that they should believe in Jesus as he does, or never have abortions because his religion forbids that).

I'm happy that all the candidates are religious, and fully support their right to worship and believe whatever they wish. But they are not invited to impose their religious beliefs on me.

Dear Mr. Berlinerblau:

Allow me (a humble secular Architect)to help you, an acclaimed University Professor, understand the important distinction, which you highlight, and hyperlink even:

"Compare this to the former governor of Arkansas who enraged Secular America when he suggested that we amend the Constitution to God’s standards"

Yes, yes, Governor Huckabee has mentioned only abortion and gay marriage. But it sure sounded like he leaves himself an out on limitations. Amending the Constitution to 'God's Standards' (Whatever that means: Keeping kosher? No spitting on the Sabath?) is a far cry from "pious musings".

I have no problem whatsoever with politicians informing their conduct and policies with their religious faiths. What I do object to is the idea that those of a particular faith find it within the scope of political power to impose those religious beliefs on the rest of us, particularly by writ of Law.

I am sure, Mr. Associate Professor, that you can understand this important distinction. My guess is that you actually take issue with a Liberal that speaks of his faith. Let's face it, Liberals are all just Godless heathens, without exception. Right?

As a secular person who has read the Bible, I actually wish there was a little more Sermon on the Mount and a little less Armegeddon in our public discourse. Conservative insistance that they hold the Monopoly on Morals and Values has shut out Liberals of good faith, and ultimatly has debased issues of spirituality. Politics has soiled religion more than religion has lifted up politics.

And I promise, if Obama suggests that we "amend the Constitution to God's Standards", he will lose my support.

Donald Holtz
Los Angeles, CA

It amazes me that there can be 200+ comments, and only a handful (Sam, Poole, Harvey, apologies to those I've missed) who get the point (and Jacques isn't one of them). We don't need to speculate about the difference between Obama and Huckabee. Obama has clearly, articulately and forcefully written that his faith is to be kept out of his politics in the sense that he cannot ask anyone else to accept his position on anything unless he can persuade using reason, not religion. End of discussion.

Mr. Berlinerblau:

If you wrote this piece in good faith, you very much need to learn what a FALSE PARALLEL is. If on the other hand you wrote this piece in bad faith, please stop writing for the news media.

The false parallel, in case you had not already noticed it, is that you attempted to draw a parallel between Huckabee's statement, which involved PUBLIC POLICY and RELIGION-BASED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUION and Barack Obama's statements, which involved...neither.

But I wouldn't feel bad about not be able to recognize false parallels; 90% of Post editors and writers also cannot do that, including the editor who approved your piece for publication.

Seriously, this is absolute drivel. Does the author honestly think that the fact that Obama uses the Bible and his faith as inspiration to pursue progressive policies is a threat to Church/State separation?

And can't Newsweek do any better than to publish shoddy "analysis" like this?

Oh my.

Is it possible that a professor would be unable to differentiate between A)a politican who respects and even shares the faith of Christians, and makes no secret of that; and B) a politician who wants to change the constitution to accord with his own beliefs?

No, it is not possible.

Therefore, what do we have? We have a professor at a respected university who is knowingly putting forward a false argument. There is a word for that.

You don't get it, Jack. Secularists don't have a problem with people being religious. They disagree with the spiritual beliefs, to be sure, but few would "lock and load," as you so pleasantly put it, against a candidate who expressed religious beliefs for that reason alone. It is religious rhetoric that paints secularists as bad Americans, or that is coupled with regressive social policies that so angers the secularist, and with good reason.

It seems Jacques Berlinerblau has succumbed to the right-wing talking point that all Democrats are secular, and all secular people are hostile to people of faith. Berlinerblau is not alone: heck, the mainstream media (including the WaPo) commonly repeat the lie that all Christians are evangelical Republicans happy to follow the will of James Dobson.

No matter how much evidence there is that American Christians are a diverse group of people with a diverse set of issues and political beliefs, you keep getting it wrong. You keep assuming that Christian = Republican, Democrat = God hater.

Wake up. The problem is with you, not us.l

Dude -

The reason why we don't get upset when Barack Obama talks about his Christianity is that HE DOESN'T WANT TO CONVERT US OR OUR GOVERNMENT TO CHRISTIANITY.

See, its OK with us if people are Christian. Or Muslim. Or Buddhist. Or Jewish.

Myself, I'm a Christian and quite devout in my faith. But I could care less if other people are, since my faith is between me and God and not me and my President.

But Huckabee still worries me because he did say he wanted to change the Constitution to be more in line with the Bible. He is a Christian who believes literally in the Bible, while I am a Christian who believes in the Bible as parable.

So the reason why we have a problem with Huckabee is not that he is a Christian, but that we disagree the way he wants to use power to change and influence our government. And the reason we DON'T have a problem with Obama's Christianity is that we agree the way he wants to use power to change and influence our government.

It's not hard to understand.

"...his insistence that “our values should be expressed not just through our families, our communities, and our churches, but through our government.” That’s the new Faith-and-Values friendly liberalism of the 2008 Democratic Party in 2008. And that’s something that may make it hard for secularists to live their lives in peace."

The implication is that secularists don't have values. That is not just insulting and offensive but incredibly obtuse. Here's a news flash: Secularists share most of the same values as Christians, Jews, etc. and will be very happy to see these shared values (honesty, integrity, service to others, fairness, equality under the law, etc.) expressed through our government.

To get an idea of just how offensive this article is, just substitute "Jew" for "secularist."

Do you truly see no meaningful difference between a description of a candidate's personal faith journey and an insistence that we should amend the Constitution to make it consistent with a candidate's religious beliefs? Because if you don't see the difference, then you have no business writing about this subject. Obama spoke about "our" values -- that is, values common to U.S. culture. Those values included (or used to) a rejection of torture and a rejection of the use of military force in pursuit of empire. For me, these values are rooted in my Christian faith, but they are (or were) AMERICAN values. I have no problem with a President who finds the roots of his values in religious faith, just as I have no problem with one who finds them in humanism or any other philosophy, as long as I agree with those values. A candidate who believes that we must establish a theocracy, on the other hand, scares the daylights out of me.

I've just finished reading all 200 comments and while there are a fair share of liberal idiots, there seems to be even MORE right wing crazies, some of whom think Russia doesn't have Christianity, some whom are just living in fear of liberal boogeymen, but most just spout the same mindless nonsense.

Christians can be both liberal or conservative, I don't recall Christ declaring for one party or the other. The Bible is missing some important texts (Book of Encoh anyone?) and which version is more correct King James, the New American Standard, the original Greek or Aramaic? Do we follow only some Old Testament laws (not Commandments) and sell unruly daughters to slavery? or just those that selectively that fit our religious or political agendas.

It's plain to see that even within Christianity, there are differing interpetation and debate about dogma.

This silly notion that seems to prevail over conservatives, is that they alone know what's good and right. They alone want to define God and patriotism. For some reason they cannot hold two separate ideas in their head.

Someone can be a Christian AND liberal. People can also criticize this country and NOT hate it.

I am a dedicated Christian, there is a world of difference between being a religious person and trying to mold a secular country into the image of your religion. You apparently don't get the distinction.

Obama is a religious person.

Huckabee thinks it's the job of Government to prop up religion.

I ardently favor separation of church and state BECAUSE I'm a Christian. Mixing Church and State poisons BOTH of them.

What a dumb article. We secularists don't care if you believe in or talk about your religion in a non-governmental setting. We believe in freedom of religion. We would care if you a politician wants to use government preferentially regarding any religion. Nothing Obama has said indicated he would do so. He was talking to religious leaders, so no problem. It would be a problem for secularists if he was talking in the Senate or the White House, but this speech did not violate the First Amendment. On the other hand, Huckabee has explicitly said he wants government and law to be based on his religion. Huckabee: "And thats what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than trying to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family."

Anyone who does not notice that there is no equivalency between Huckabee's statements and Obama's statements in terms of its impact on seperation of Church and State ain't awake yet and needs another cup of coffee. Please notice what happened in England when it was proposed that "God's Law", known in the Muslin world as Sharia, be instituted in parts of England. Saying, essentially, I believe in God and God helps those who help themselves is a way of explaining oneself. It is in no way the same as saying, let us amend the fundamental laws of our land to reflect MY religious belief. See the difference?

Was America Founded as a Christian Nation ???

Not by way of our great Constitution, but it is INSTRUCTIVE to note that of the original 13 Colonies, 12 had compulsory religion. Only Rogues Island [original spelling] did not.

Most interestingly, our Constitution did not disallow official state religions, it only precluded them from becoming a NATIONAL religion.

I don't why you'd imagine that "Secular America" is ever surprised when all major candidates from each party confirms their religious faith. Every major candidate for each party in our lifetime has done so.

This obligatory religious posturing is irksome, to be sure, but not at all comparable to the sort of efforts Huckabee makes to inject religion into politics and policy.

You cite Huckabee seeking to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION, for goodness' sake. Surely you understand there's a world of difference between that and the standard "of course i'm a believer" boilerplate?

The idea that "secular" people are blinded by partisan affiliation so much that we missed Obama's Christian rhetoric, and that if we "knew the truth" about our candidate that it would crush our hopes and leave us destitute, does not bear up to any kind of critical examination.

The fact is that there is a wide range of reaction from people of a more anti-theistic bent, from those who do reject Obama to people, like myself, who accept him with reservations, to those who think it isn't particularly relevant. The idea that there is one kind of secular voter is as stupid as the idea that there is one kind of religious voter. Similarly, the idea that all of us secular people get ourselves so blinded by the religious rhetoric that we can't see very distinct differences between the kinds of policies that the candidates use that rhetoric to espouse is insulting to our intelligence.

In cadence and content, Obama's style owes much to the speeches of Martin Luther King, and I hope you can understand that many secular, liberal people didn't mind his use of religious imagery in calling for equality and justice at all either.

So those who aren't Christians (and oh, yes, Jews) are 'godless'?
Wow.
I have news for you, Professor: it is entirely possible for a person to have a strong spiritual life and not be a Christian (or, oh yes, a Jew.)
And it is also entirely possible for a person to be a devout Christian or a Jew and be secular.
You are laying claim to ground you have no right to.

God has voted and God's vote counted. Seems God does not favor the one with the middle name Hussein. But then, how sure can we be that was God and not Devil voting? God is on one side and Devil on the other, of that we can be sure and little else.

Hagee hugged McCain. The Devil made him do that.

The phone rang at 3AM. Hello. Yeah, hello, Devil here...

Tammy tell me true. Who do you want to answer the phone when the Devil calls in the middle of the night? Before you answer remember, "the goblins will get you if you don't watch out."

Maybe it's not the economy after all? It's stupid for sure whatever it is. One out of two isn't bad but it's not a passing grade.

If you can't tell the difference between Obama's references to his religious faith, and Romney's and Huckabee's attacks on secularists, you aren't nearly as qualified to write about these subjects as your bio claims.

This is just silly. I'm an atheist, and I understand that there are a lot of religious people out there, all over the political spectrum. The reason Senator Obama's remarks don't bother me is because they don't cross the line (which Governor Huckabee proudly crosses) of wanting to make his religious beliefs into national law. Clear enough?

This is just silly. I'm an atheist, and I understand that there are a lot of religious people out there, all over the political spectrum. The reason Senator Obama's remarks don't bother me is because they don't cross the line (which Governor Huckabee proudly crosses) of wanting to make his religious beliefs into national law. Clear enough?

You can't tell the difference between Obama's comments and wanting to amend the constitution to match the bible? Does the Post have any standards left these days?

Oh Please. I don't believe in any of the god-related fairy tales and I don't care what Obama says on the matter, or Huckabee for that matter. It is an uninteresting topic, sort of like discussions about which superhero is cooler, Batman or Superman.

I'm not a fan of Huck or Obama or Jebus X, himself. But I think there's a big difference between professions of personal faith and a professed desire to rewrite the Constitution to bring it into line with some wacky interpretation of the bible.

Agreed USA was not founded as a Christian nation. Actually, because there was little democratic or individual rights experience from Europe at the time, they borrowed a fair amount from the Iroquois Nations.

Were the Iroquois Christian? Not so much.

Mr PHONY got a buttkicking last night, even silly liberals are getting wise to his drivel. (Insert your question here, any question)-and the answer? HOPE, CHANGE. What a load of BS.

Uh, what the heck is a "secularist?" Is that some sort of new slur to be wielded against people who believe in the Constitution and its separation of church and state?

"These pious musings have not aroused as much as a peep of protest from nonbelievers and Church-State separatists."

Wait just a minute. Modifying the Constitution is A DIFFERENT THING than giving a speech to religious people. Giving a speech to religious people does not force a religion on anyone. It's a discussion of faith.

Secularists, including our founding (secular) fathers, are not opposed to any discussion of faith.

Really, this assertion Mr. Berlinerblau is just dumb. I'm not saying he is, but his assertion sure is. And that's generous. The alternative explanation is that he is being deliberately deceptive.

The Washington Post is completely useless. Even my parrot won't crap on it anymore.

Huckabee want's to build a theocracy. Obama wants to keep a wall between church and state. They are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.

They don't become identical because Obama goes to church on Sundays.

You show an astounding lack of awareness of the variety of Christians in the country, as well as a complete lack of understanding about the concerns of those you call "secularists".

Not a good combination for the "On Faith" columnist.

Er, no, America was not founded as a Christian nation. This is probably the biggest lie the religious fanatics spread. Look in the Constitution--you know, that document that codified the intentions of the Founding Fathers of this nation. The only time religion is mentioned isn't even in the main body of the code. It's in an amendment. The first one. That thing about freedom of religion (which, yes, means freedom FROM religion, too). Hardly the sign of founding a nation on any religious belief. If the holy men had been in charge, the deity would have been an integral part of the document from the beginning and referenced throughout. Didn't happen.

Nice try.

Jacques wrote : "Why do secularists hiss when Huckabee preaches but purr when Obama preaches?"

After knowing that all these presidential candidates profess to be Christians, why are you still in America and not live in places where Christ is not worshiped like Russia or North Korea?

True Christians protect the Jews and you're an idiot not to know that. Without Christian America, Jews will have no place to live in peace coz even Israel would not exist.

To Andrea Psoras:

Don't worry, Frodo will destroy the ring... oh wait different fantasy!

There's a big difference. Obama expresses his faith which he has a right to do.

Huckabee talks about "taking the nation back for Christ" and overthrowing the Constitution for his twisted necon verstion of "God's standards"

There is a big difference in expressing one's faith and trying to jam it down everyone else's throat.

It might have something to do with Huckabee's desire to change the constitution to the liking of fundamentalist thinking. Somehow that doesn't fit in well with a democracy and one based on freedom of religion. Get real and stop reinterpreting what "secularists" or whatever name you want to call those people who don't buy into the myths of religions; christian, muslim, etc. After all it seems to me these fundamentalists have a cafeteria approach to the teachings of the bible, esp. the ten commandments. Ex. they come down heavily on coveting the neighbor's wife but killing? that's OK. Death penalty, sure. Invading another country and killing its citizens? that's OK also.
Look for other red meat you can toss out to the gullibles.

There is a difference in Obama and Huckabee in that while both use the rhetoric of God and country, Obama, unlike Huckabee, doesn't suggest constitutional ammendments to make the country more Christian... There is nothing wrong with invoking religious references if one believes in them. There is something wrong in trying to incorporate certain religious choices into laws and government.

I think this is the breakdown for secularists.

Republican Christians are hypocrites, which is bad.

Democrat Christians don't really mean it, which is okay.

Well, one definiton of being secularist is keeping religion out of the political arena. Wouldn't that be the difference between the two candidates?

The real reason that Obama's comments don't raise our ire is that he's not talking about amending the constitution, or imposing his beliefs on everyone else, while Huckabee is. It has very little to do with "entwining" secularism with liberal politics. To take some points from your piece in sequence:

It's a mistake to broadly equate "secularists" with "atheists." Most of us are probably Deists of some strain, just believe firmly in keeping the Church as an organization from dictating our behavior through Government auspices.

Truth is, most of America are believers of one flavor or another. We don't want to forbid them from their beliefs, only keep them from forbidding us ours. Obama's uniting message is not threatening in the way that amending the Constitution to be in line with Christian "morals" gives me the heebie-jeebies.

If there is a God, and He has a plan, then moral/ethical secularists clearly would have a rol