Spidey,
Do you ever actually read the idiotic nonsense you write? It reads like a parody, but apparently you're sincere. Lord, what a dummy!

Neal Obstat, the problem with stupidity is that those who are afflicted don't know they have the desease.

Have you ever wondered why you're allowing your "long lost relatives" to be caged in the zoo?

It's because stupid people cage their relatives to amaze themselves.

I'm not guilty of this coz they are not my relatives. You are guilty coz they are yours. Got it?

Now, you have all the right to sue all the zoos around the world. C'mon start doing it and make some money.

Don't worry, people won't call you stupid.

You're right, Spidey, stupidity is contagious. Did you ever live in Dover, Pennsylvania?

I think the blog owners owe the participants an explanation of any technical or policy issues that may be causing so many, including myself a few times, to be blocked. Speculation loves an information vacuum and situations even hinting at censorship in a public forum cannot in any way be good for the blog or the reputation of WAPO.

In that none of my "embargoed" posts were ever subsequently published, at a minimum, they should stop using that word in their error messages.

If you've been blocked perhaps it's useful to say so in a blog message, and assuming it doesn't get blocked...:D..., we may get a better handle on how extensive the problem is.

Aloha

YOYO, yes, "Wales Forever!"

That reminds me of the kind of transformation to which I was referring (something beyond the passing of religion within families or even within communities), personal and societal transformation through God's spirit working through individuals (not necessarily family members) in Wales:

[The following is copied from a BBC Website.]

From the middle of the 18th century to the middle of the 19th, Wales experienced some 15 major revivals, resulting in its reputation as 'the land of revivals'. The last great revival of this period had been in 1859, and although there was much local religious activity during the remainder of the 19th century, many people were wondering when, and if, the next great national one would happen.

When the revival did finally occur, it proved to be the biggest that the country had ever experienced. It seems to have its roots in southern Cardiganshire, where there were a number of meetings of religious leaders actively working on a revival. But when it did finally erupt, it became identified with one man in particular, an ex-collier from Loughor in western Glamorgan named Evan Roberts.

Roberts had begun to study for the ministry, and following a number of religious experiences during 1904, he had a revelation during a prayer meeting. This took place in Newcastle Emlyn, in the area of Cardiganshire where there had been a lot of work to prepare the way for a revival. He said, "I felt ablaze with a desire to go through the length and breadth of Wales to tell of the Saviour."

Shortly afterwards in the autumn of 1904 he first took the message with him back to his home chapel, Moriah, in Loughor, and following the ecstatic response he took it to other parts of Wales. The last great revival had begun.

Thousands of meetings occurred during the revival, from the southern valleys to Anglesey and north east Wales. Although Roberts garnered the headlines, preaching at around 200 meetings, there were also thousands of meetings led by other preachers held right across the country.

During those tumultuous months scarcely any aspect of Welsh life remained untouched. Work in various coalmines and metal works started with a prayer, and leisure activities like eisteddfodau, amateur dramatics and sport suffered a drop in support. A number of rugby clubs were disbanded by their members, who on receiving the message now felt rugby was an activity not compatible with being a true Christian. And it goes without saying that pubs and taverns saw a fall in consumption of the demon drink.

The up and coming politician, David Lloyd George, was caught up in the fervour. He said the movement was "rocking Welsh life like a Great Earthquake."

Even children began organising their own religious meetings, and communal hymn singing ('Cymanfa Ganu'), Bible reading and Temperance were now the favoured activities of many people across the country.

As a result, chapel building received a boost. Singing in particular had a prominent place, echoing the prophetic words of the famous musician Joseph Parry (composer of the love song 'Myfanwy') who said that "the next revival will be a singing revival."

Part of the appeal of the revival lay in Evan Roberts himself, a charismatic and sincere preacher. Although he came from the Welsh Methodist tradition, he wasn't a theologian, and he never finished his training to be a minister. His message was for all the people of Wales, regardless of denomination, and it was immensly appealing. Meetings would be a mixture of prayer, self examination and singing, and they could last for hours.

His mission was closely followed by the daily press, particularly the Western Mail, and the intervention of the media was something unique to this particular revival. Roberts become something of a personality, with his picture regularly in the papers as well as being featured on postcards. In today's terms he has been labelled a 'spiritual David Beckham'. According to one historian, a cynical interpretation might label the whole episode as an early exercise in press hype.

By the middle of 1905 the Revival was all but over and Roberts left Wales for a number of years. He eventually returned and died in 1951, to be buried in his chapel, Moriah. He is acknowledged by many Christians as the first charismatic leader of the 20th century, and among his legacies is the Apostolic Church, whose founders were inspired by this great revival.

YOYO, that was an example of people becoming Evangelical (in the born-again sense in which I am defining Evangelical) without their parents or society being Evangelical. It's also an example of how Evangelicals impact the surrounding culture (in the private realm and the public realm). My point is that becoming Evangelical is qualitatively different from taking on the religion of one's parents.

Is evolution a "theocratic goal" when even scientists are ignorant how DNAs formed which is the source of all life?

I support the Separation of Church and State but it does not mean the state turn a blind eye on stupidity.

Dumb DNAs : The End of Evolution

A human being is composed of roughly 40 trillion cells and therefore has the same number of DNAs which is the "instruction code" of every biological cell.

Each DNA is composed of 2.9 billion base pairs or chemical compounds which are linked together to form one big instruction code. They are comparable to the zeros (0) and ones (1) embedded in computer machine codes that run computers. The use of this dual symbols ( 0 and 1) are also referred to as the binary system which all computers today use. In short, DNAs are like binary computer machine codes that instructs each cells how to operate.(DNAs uses two base pairs, AT and GC nucleotides, akin to 0 and 1 used in computers. How they formed is still beyond the reach of science)

In a way, a single human cell or any biological cell is a computer in itself. With 40 trillion DNAs inside a human body, technically, every single person is composed of 40 trillion computers. In comparison, in order for computers to contain information the size equivalent to 2.9 billion base pairs separately stored in 40 trillion DNAs , it should have a total storage capacity of 23.2 sexillion bytes or 232 followed by 20 zeros. That is equivalent to 23.2 trillion pieces of 1 giga-bytes (billion bytes) computer hard disks. Even if we give each person on earth a 80 giga-byte capacity hard disk and combine them all, it still would not be enough to store the amount of information stored inside a human body. ( A byte is a unit of computer storage space or memory capacity; each letter or numeric character is equivalent to 1 byte. A 5-letter word therefore occupies 5 bytes of storage space.)

On that aspect alone, it is really very hard to make a replica of a human being. To say that man just existed by itself thru random occurence is really idiotic coz even with intelligent help thru human intervention, it can't be done. The scientific probabililty that 2.9 billion chemical compounds would arrange themself and know what place they should occupy in a grouping and then would stop rearranging because it has reached a "finished line" and would begin to replicate itself 40 trillion times is nil or zero. For it to have some speck of possiblity, the rate in which these DNAs should change from one form to another should be very fast ( in nanoseconds or much greater ) so it would fit to the age of the universe which is just 13-20 billion years old. And since DNAs of monkeys or man never really altered since the time of Abraham or Herodotus this so called evolution of man by random mutation is definitely a sham and teachers or scientists who teach it are no different than racketeers.

At the rate in which we see DNAs evolve or change, mathematically speaking, these 2.9 billion base pairs can't rearrange in just a span of 20 billion years . The only mathematical escape is to expand the age of the universe to quintillions of years or much more which at the moment cannot be justified.

In science, mathematics is god. If it's not possible mathematically, don't try to push it because you'd either end up a fake or a fool.

With so many "scientists" supporting evolution which is mathematically impossible with respect to actual DNA rate of change vis-a-vis the age of the universe, it's quite scary to think that this world is being run by fools.

With majority of scientists, government heads and officials, university teachers, mainstream religions, all believing in this dumb theory, what could make this world a safe place to live in if all these people cannot think straight?

It doesn't take long for a place to crumble if we let mentally retardates run it. This world is being crowded with evolutionists so it won't take long either that it would crumble once again until they're all wiped out by their own idiotic minds. That may sound brutal but that what happens in the real world.

Maybe what they should be asking is not " how humans evolved? " but rather "how their brains evolved into a bunch of dumb DNAs ? " As least that question would be less damaging coz people would be treating them differently and won't allow them to be put in high places where they can exercise authority over a large number of people.

Stupidity is contageous and with them in high places , they spread the "germ" real fast.

So fast that Murphy's Law would occur in an accelerated mode and dive straight down to the doom button.

The English alphabet is composed of only 26 characters or letters. If we scamble it's letters in different combinations and we do it every second, it would take 1,278,828,834 billion years or 1,278.83 quadrillion years just to complete all the possible combinations that it can make.

With DNAs, we're talking about 2.9 billion and not just a 26 character string. Now how they computed 2.9 billion base pairs to randomly link in less than 20 billion years is a story even Mickey Mouse would find very hard to swallow. These scientists have mathematical IQs of less than 1.

It's really laughable how these people with so low IQs are the ones running our schools.

They say that birds come from dinosaurs. Yeah right, and maybe we too will have wings in some future time.

These people think worse than those in mental asylums. Now why these people aren't in straight-jackets, but rather are free infecting innocent minds and getting paid generously , that I don't understand.

I hope this earth could still contain the coming destruction these people would create.

Just as we can't mess up with gravity, surely we can't with mathematics or Murphy's Law.

Whether they know it or not, Murphy's Law dictates that a very big destruction is coming soon, and that's for sure.

Steve wrote : "A president who is sexually irresponsible is an embarrassment to the nation; a president who has theocratic goals is a deadly threat to the nation. "

Is banning same sex marriage a "theocratic goal"? If it is then why does China bans it when it is an atheist state?

Separation of Church and State does not mean the state turn a blind eye on stupidity. It seems that China is wiser on this field than the state of Massachusetts

Steve wrote : "A president who is sexually irresponsible is an embarrassment to the nation; a president who has theocratic goals is a deadly threat to the nation. "

Is banning same sex marriage a "theocratic goal"? If it is then why does China bans it when it is an atheist state?

Separation of Church and State does not mean the state turn a blind eye on stupidity. It seems that China is wiser on this field than the state of Massachusetts.

Dwight,

You said: "what does GOD and privacy have to do with each other. Since GOD sees all, there is no such thing as privacy in his eyes, nothing is hidden."

So because you think your god is omniscient, no one on earth should have privacy? Maybe you could clarify your point, because I'm hoping I'm wrong, but I've long suspected the religious right would cooperate with the dismantling of our privacy rights through just such faulty reasoning. Did I misunderstand you?

what does GOD and privacy have to do with each other. Since GOD sees all, there is no such thing as privacy in his eyes, nothing is hidden. Also, the ex govenor of New York did break a few laws, he did the right thing by resigning but still has to answer for his deeds. wright preached hate against white people, funny how white people give him a pass, I don't.

Contrary to appearances otherwise, Neal Obstat and I are NOT joined at the hip. :D

Robert:

--"Jimmy Carter was to [sic] first candidate to exploit religion by poclaiming [sic] his own personal faith and Democrats have in one way or another been attempting to exploit religion ever since. Revelations about O'Bama's [sic] "Christianity" being based on revolution against Whitey, and adherance [sic] to Africanism should have been viewed as beneficial to the campaign season."

Republicans are finally catching on that people really are *really* fed up with the likes of Karl Rove, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer, Ann Coulter, John Hagee, Rodney Parsley, Ted Haggard and myriad others and now it's all suddenly Jimmy Carter's and the Democrats' fault: classic. Perhaps you missed the memo while you were down sprucing up your bunker pending a possible Obama victory: people don't fall for this BS anymore.

Call me a cock-eyed optimist, but it doesn't seem like any kind of accident that the presumptive Republican nominee, though still a panderer, is the *least* religious of that bunch.

Steve: Good post.

Robert: the Democrats have been exploiting religion since Jimmy Carter? Have you not noticed the religious right that has dominated the Republican party for quite some time now? George Bush pandered to evangelicals like no one else ever did.

Since I cast my first vote in a national election in 1972 I can remember a time when candidates religious beliefs weren't even mentioned in a campaign. Jimmy Carter was to first candidate to exploit religion by poclaiming his own personal faith and Democrats have in one way or another been attempting to exploit religion ever since. Revelations about O'Bama's "Christianity" being based on revolution against Whitey, and adherance to Africanism should have been viewed as beneficial to the campaign season.

A politician's private life--including sexual abstinence, fidelity, or adventurism--is no one else's business. I vote for people based on their ability to do their jobs in political office, not on their saintliness. A politician's religious views are a different story, because they may directly affect performance in political office. America was not and is not "a Christian nation," no matter how often fundamentalists repeat this lie. Other things being equal, yes, I'd rather that the president of the United States knows how to keep it zippered--but if I had to choose between a sexually moral individual who thinks America should be governed by the Bible and a sexual adventurer who recognizes that America must not degenerate into theocracy, I'll choose the latter every time. A president who is sexually irresponsible is an embarrassment to the nation; a president who has theocratic goals is a deadly threat to the nation.

Mr. Berlinerblau,
I guess I got my answer to questions re what Christians are doing about the heinous torture practices of this administration. Your ignoring/censorship of my earlier post is just what a "good German" would have done.
I'll pray for you and the rest of those "Christians" whose silence makes them complicit with the crimes being committed in our nation's name.
Faith without action is dead.
I will pray for you.

I agree religious belief fits in well with the imposition of the surveillance state. The god of the bible to me has always resembled a concentration camp commandant who has designed the ultimate torture chamber for the people who do not think right. The people who are among the select in heaven will get to enjoy the spectacle of watching the suffering (which is fortunate, because otherwise Heaven sounds just like church, and the last place I would want to spend eternity).

May as well get to work establishing that on earth as well.

When religion gets mixed up in politics, it brings out the worst in both.

let me be a little more clear.... if our representatives think its a good idea to spend money on cameras to watch us what logical argument could they possibly have not to purchase camera with...our... money to watch thier every working moment including talks with lobbyist. of coarse there should be free speech and part of that right is that if somebody is paying to say something then evryone has the right hears since it ...is ...our ...representative.. right

Spiderman2:

I heard Huckabee's statement, verbatim. In what way was it "misinterpreted"?

--"Separation of Church and state does not mean the state turn a blind eye on stupidity."

I do not wish to misinterpret your meaning: please define "stupidity" as it was used here.

Mahalo

The Southern Baptist church was the pro-slavery splinter group of the Baptist Church. They wanted a wall of separation between black and white. That doesn't mean, of course, that present-day Southern Baptists would support slavery, though they do like to quote that line in the Bible about wives submitting to their husbands and slaves to their masters (but they leave out the part about slaves). And the Baptist church today, whatever its views in the past, is not particularly known for its willingness to embrace a secular government. But if they do embrace separation of church and state, then they have my thanks.

skeptimal,

I think Huckabee's statements were misinterpreted for the same reason that the Bible is being misinterpreted.

Separation of Church and state does not mean the state turn a blind eye on stupidity.

Spidey,

I solute your support for separation of church and state, but you are at odds with most of your brethren on this issue.

No one disputes that the letter to the Danbury Baptists is one origin of the separation phrase, but that hardly makes the Baptists champions of the Constitution. They benefited from protections that they no longer wish to be part of our society.

Certainly the Southern Baptist denomination has declared itself an enemy of religious freedom, although there may be more moderate branches of Baptism that are less destructive.

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists

The Final Letter, as Sent

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

i should say lettter. sorry

jprfrog, try to find out where he he made one of his famous speeches about separation of church and state? In a Baptist Church.

Spiderman, I didn't know that Jefferson (who is responsible for the phrase "wall between church and state" in a letter to Madison) was a Baptist.

We seem to have some thoughtful and remarkably articulate Evangelicals here, willing to address arguments rather than simply reference the Bible as if that ended the discussion.

So I have some questions, that I am very interested in hearing your answers to:

(1) In your understanding, does the faith of a public servant (e. g. a legislator or judge) require them to enforce their Scripture-based views of correct conduct through the law?

(2) If that is so, what particular faith should be so favored? And on what basis should that choice be made?

(3) If in fact God can see everywhere, is it necessary for the police to invade bedrooms on the presumption that His laws are being violated therein? And as for punishment, why do we need earthly prisons when evil-doers are promised eternal torment, with, if I remember some church history, the added benefit that the rightous in Heaven will get to enjoy the spectacle?

(4) Am I correct in inferring that the motivation for using the secular law to enjoin sin ("immoral" behavior as understood by one or another reading of Scripture) is to save the sinners, much as loving parents punish misbehaving children and for the same reason? In other words, hate the sin but love the sinner..and use the law to enforce what is "right", again according to one or another reading of Scripture (or the Talmud, or the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, etc. etc. etc.), for the sake of saving the sinner's immortal soul.

If this last is a correct assumption (and it seems to me that the logic of fervent Christian belief makes it unavoidable) than it might be well to recall the course and justifications of the Spanish Inquisition, or the Salem witch trials, or (and I know this will stir a lot of protest, but think about it a bit before any of you explode) the Stalinist Purge trials, where instead of heavenly reward the promise was of an ideal proletarian society where there would be no necessity of a state at all (this is Orthodox Marxist scripture). (This vision is BTW a reason why some historians classify Marxism as a Judeo-Christian heresy. Marx himself came from a centuries-long line of rabbis and some of his diatribes against the evils of the capitalism of his day --- e. g. Blake's "dark ,satanic mills" --- has some of the flavor of the Biblical prophets thundering against the arrogance and callousness of the rich. "Thou shalt not grind the faces of the poor", said one of them...which, I can't remember.)

Awaiting your responses....

YOYO wrote : "How many Muslims are given that kind of intellectual freedom do you think? Or Mormons? Or Evangelicals for that matter? "

Baptists (Evangelical) are NOT considered members of their particular churches unless they become born-again and choose for themselves to be baptised as an INDEPENDENT-THINKING individual. Unlike other religions, they don't become members thru their PARENTS' CHOICE (which, by the way, is the root cause of dictatorship in society. Catholic and Islamic countries, historically, are ruled thru dictatorship).

Freedom of Conscience is a primary baptist principle and , thru the years, it has rubbed off to America's political system and even to other nations (Catholic/Islamic included).

Baptist principles have molded this country but you just don't know it. Separation of Church and State was a bi-product of that principle and it was they who insisted that it be put in the First Ammendment.

If ever you wonder why we want Separation of Church and State, it's because if we don't let our parents or church decide for our faith, why would the state? Got it?

Welcome to the United States of America.

Profesor, you seem blindsided that evangelical Christians in public life declare that they will not make their faith a Sunday-only kind of thing - that they somehow choose to set aside the most important thing about them when they perform their public duties.

The truth is that the statements of Gov. Huckabee and Rep. Souder are expressions of the norm for the evangelical Christian. No believer in Jesus Christ, in any walk of life, has the legitimate option of presenting one face to the world and another to God.

After reading your posts for several months, I don't expect you to understand this. But as an intelligent man, you need to acknowledge it as fact.

Neal,

You said: "My statement doesn't entitle anyone to do anything. It's just an observation about what is happening."

Ah...Sorry. I did misunderstand what you were saying.

I would agree that Huckabee's candor about his intent to reshape the Constitution according to his version of the Bible was helpful. While I would therefore vote against him for any position, he at least shows enough respect for his fellow countrymen to declare civil war before attacking them.

Robert B:
As Yo YO put it succinctly religion has all the veracity of Astrology, & Para-psychology. I go one step further Religion :(is to) Knowledge ::(is as) Al chemistry :(is to) Chemistry. I don't see anyone teaching their kids Al chemistry anymore, except may some lunatic fringe, I look forward to the day that religion is relegated to the same status as Al chemistry. It is a waste of time waste of precious resources, and above all it creates a class of much revered and respected professional hucksters called priests. That is my biggest quibble with religion. Priests are the single most unethical parasites who live off of the society, for nothing but their self aggrandizement and to spread unlimited amount of snake oil.

Yoyo wrote:

"As an atheist I would be disappointed if any of them ever took religion seriously."

Gee, I wonder if that's why they don't feel free to actually do so? It sounds like you are indoctrinating your kids as much as you accuse theists of doing.

Yoyo also wrote:

"I'm with Dawkins in believing that religion is not only irrational and absurd, but quite dangerous."

Ahhh, the ever-popular "religion is the ultimate evil" argument. You do know that Mr. Dawkins and your own devotion to science would not have been possible without Western Christianity, right? Sad to say, but the Church you denounce so readily actually preserved Western civilization from the fall of Rome and actually encouraged the rise of science.

But don't listen to me; I'm just a deluded theist who just happens to be able to think...

Skeptimal, the line is porous. How porous depends on factors such as how snoopy journalists are, and how much people advertise their views and actions.

My statement doesn't entitle anyone to do anything. It's just an observation about what is happening. Private behavior is visible when the shades aren't drawn!

If I published my salary on line for everyone to see then I would have made the line more porous in that area, and, certainly, others might take note. In the meantime, my salary (even if only "privately" known) has an impact on others in the public realm as I spend and save from that salary. It effects the public, and the public might gain some insight from obtaining that information.

When Mike Huckabee publicizes his view or the cosmology behind them then he provides some useful information to the public. He didn't have to reveal what he revealed, but it did help the public in making more informed decisions about his candidacy. Of course, journalists will try to ferret what they can even when the politician isn't forthcoming.

Skeptimal, I think that you misinterpreted my descriptive statement as a prescriptive statement or transformed my approval of the system working to a prescription for information overload. Certainly, I did go beyond descriptive analysis by making the normative statement that "knowledge is good"; however, I didn't prescibe forcing complete knowledge about the public and private realms (for example, a politician might even want to keep some negotiating tactics as a secret).

The reality is that there will be a battle over how much is revealed. Mike did us a favor by reavealing enough information about both his public and private beliefs and practices so that an informed decision could be made, without journalists having to dig for too much other stuff (they tired concerning some gifts that he received while governor, but it was pretty lame).

Neal Ap Bleddyn;

Statistics and common sense suggest I am correct in assuming that most children follow their parents religious views.

You and I are exceptions in going against the grain; my folks were Anglican, and I'm atheist.
But then, my parents were very low-key religionists, and allowed me to think for myself.

How many Muslims are given that kind of intellectual freedom do you think? Or Mormons? Or Evangelicals for that matter?

Even with atheist parents, religion had to be on your radar screen, especially if you were born in the USA. Atheist parents have some problems trying to raise atheist kids...God is everywhere in most countries, and especially in the heads of the indoctrinated...and is difficult to avoid.

My own kids have attended church from time to time, to check it out and perhaps to be amongst some of their friends. I drive them if they want to go. But that occurs less and less often. As an atheist I would be disappointed if any of them ever took religion seriously. I would not permit them to be indoctrinated while they are children.

I'm with Dawkins in believing that religion is not only irrational and absurd, but quite dangerous.
I also think it's at least two hundred years past its best-before date - intellectually, socially and politically. It has all the veracity of its cousins Astrology and Para-psychology.

Cymru am Byth.

NEAL,

You said: "Public and private interactions (with a porous line between those artificial spheres) determine a cosmology or mindset that effects both public and private behaviors (again, with a porous line between those artifical constructs)."

I don't think you recognize how dangerous it would be if the country operated as if your statement were true. Your statement entitles everyone to all information about everyone else. That's frankly ridiculous. Do you publish your salary online for everyone to see? Is every conversation you have open to the public? Which sex acts do you and your wife engage in, and how often each one?

I do find it disturbing what we put our candidates through before elections. A person's religious beliefs (and sexual practices) should be private. What should be made public is whether they are able to respect the beliefs and skepticism of others. If they can't treat people of other beliefs as equals, they don't belong in office.

What's happening instead is that we are, in effect, creating a religious test for office. How many times has Obama had to declare his Christianity lately? McCain and Clinton have also bowed to the religious right. Huckabee's entire campaign was based on his religion. Meanwhile free thinkers of good conscience are treated like political lepers.

YOYO,

Big Evangelicals don't make little evangelicals. By definition (at least by one definition), evangelicals must be born again.

My parents are (so far) Big Non-believers, but I was born again during my senior year in high school.

The demographics of Evangelicalism is such that the proportion of the electorate that has an Evangelical viewpoint can't be purely predicted by the proportion of Evangelicals in a previous generation. Parents do try to raise their children in the way that they should go, but becoming an Evangelical is a choice (influenced more by the Holy Spirit than by dad and mom). The effectiveness of evangelistic witnessing (by parents and by others, for example, a fellow student in my case) has a profound effect on the proportion of the next generation that is Evangelical.

Both public witnessing (e.g., through Billy Graham Crusades) and private witnessing (e.g., through words and deeds of students) determines the proportion of the next generation's electorate that is Evangelical.

Public and private interactions (with a porous line between those artificial spheres) determine a cosmology or mindset that effects both public and private behaviors (again, with a porous line between those artifical constructs).

I'm often confused by Jacques's approach in this column. His definition of a secularist seems to be anyone (including and especially religious folks) who believe maintaining the separation of Church and state (in which case I am a proud member of the tribe). But then he bewails the role religion seems to be playing in this campaign as if all religious people seek to create a theocratic state.

In my opinion, all this talk of religion is a good thing. For too long, the Religious Right has tarred the Democratic party with the label of "godless" because of the Democrats' desire to maintain the wall of separation between Church and state. For the most part, Democrats have, for many reasons and some of them good ones, left this challenge unanswered. G. K. Chesterton wrote that
"Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it." (Autobiography, 1937) Now that members of both parties claim that they believe in God, maybe the American citizenry can finally fully judge between the two.

Should we elect a candidate solely on his religious beliefs or lack of them? Absolutely not. Should a candidate attempt to enshrine his or her particular religious beliefs in law? Absolutely not. But should we expect anyone to completely divorce his or her religion from their decision-making process? No, if only because it's well-nigh impossible to do so.

Jeff, I agree. Mike offered who he is (both the "private" part and the "public" part) to the Republican Party. More Republicans wanted John than wanted Mike to represent them. That's the way the system is supposed to work. If the Republicans didn't have knowledge about both parts then their decision wouldn't have been an informed one. Knowledge is good!

Big Muslims make little Muslims.
Big Mormons make little Mormons.
Big Hindus make liitle Hindus.
Big Catholics make little Catholics.
Big Buddhists make little Buddhists.
Big Evangelicals make little Evangelicals.
As children we have little or no say in what religion we will be made to believe in.
Whichever religion it is,we will probably believe that it is the one true religion.
And we may even be willing to hate and kill those of a different religion.
It has been said many many times...these religions cannot all be true.
But they can all be untrue;which logic should tell us is indeed the case

If someone insists that they will not "check it at the door" in regards to their private belief systems, then we have full "rights" as citizens being subject to a particular ideology to scrutinize that "belief."

Like it or not, my take would be that if you live by it, you accept the consequences of the scrutiny if you bring it into the public sphere.

No one's asking Mike Huckabee to check his beliefs at a door. But we are asking what are the consequences of his bringing his beliefs into the public realm. And for better or worse, Americans got a pretty clear answer to that question early in his campaign, and he and the voting public are living with the consequence.

Perhaps some folks just shouldn't be in politics, and perhaps most of us, just like some Republicans proclaim, better be careful of what we wish for.

The distinction between the public and the private spheres, is an artificial distinction. The private person operates in the public sphere. As John Donne wrote, "... no man is an island ..."

Welcome to the planet -- it's a crowded one (in the populated spheres).

It's not a loss of privacy. It's more like stupidity is dangerous and should be everybody's busines.

If you do good in the closet, that's your business but if it's bad, sooner or later you'd be caught and it would be made public.

Society is getting wiser in bagging crooks and thanks to Islamic Terrorism coz it made everyone alert and smarter. Sometimes, you need a stupid person to staighten the stupid.