All Comments (37)

Hello! It's Dr. Brandon Hitchlive. I like your site! I'll use some your tips!
buy viagra buy viagra [url=http://buyviagrafda.blinklist.com/] buy viagra [/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://www.blinklist.com/Buy_Viagra_Online/]buy viagra[/url]
Thank you!

Hi! I'm Dr. Phillips! I love your site - it's really good!
buy viagra online buy viagra online
[url=http://digg.com/world_news/Buy_Viagra_Online_THE_LOWEST_PRICE_GUARANTEE] buy viagra online [/url]
Thank you!

Uccer also neglects to remind people that, although the Puritans came to America to escape religious persecution, once here they practiced it on other sects with extreme, and occasionally bloodthirsty, enthusiasm.

Also, it bears mentioning that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Virginia Declaration of Religious Liberties, not the First Amendment. The First Amendment was written by committee, but if any single person is to be given credit it should be James Madison.

Uccer believes that the First Amendment (or, more precisely, the "freedom of religion" clause in the First Amendment) applies ONLY to Christians, and is intended to protect them from "prosecution" (sic) by members of other religions -- although he also appears to believe that "liberalism" is a religion and that Catholicism is not a Christian sect, which reflects poorly on his intelligence.

I present the following quotation, which seems to be highly relevant:

"You don't like the Goths?"
"No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!"
"Persecution?" Padway raised his eyebrows.
"Religious persecution. We won't stand for it forever."
"But I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased."
"That's just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested, as if they owned the country! If that isn't persecution, I'd like to know what is!"
-- L. Sprague deCamp, in "Lest Darkness Fall"

In regards to comments by Uccer and Varrior relative to founders intent, here is what a Ph.D. in American history from Harvard who teaches Early American History at a major university had to say, "I don't think parsing the words of the Declaration of Independence gets one much forward in the debate over whether the U.S. was intended to be a Christian nation. However, there is an argument that can be made that it was the original intent of the Founding Fathers to create a Christian republic, but it is only an indirect one and it goes along these lines: Although the language of Independence is universal and egalitarian, the vision for the political nation was implicitly white and European. Certainly no one intended to extend political/religious equality to the major non-Christian groups, especially not Indians and Africans. Therefore, the religious vision for the political nation was that it would be predominantly or implicitly Christian.
However, that's an aspect of the American republic that many Americans prefer to ignore or deny. In discussions of original intent, it was pretty much a lily-white nation."

Posted on October 4, 2007 13:10

Robert Worthington states: "Rather a president of faith (Bush)than one of immmorality(Clinton)."

Bush went to war in Iraq killed 10s and 1000s of Iraqis and 4000 Americans and injured countless Iraqis and Americans by lying to the nation.

On the other hand, by claculated defensive actions of our great armed forces, Clinton kept Sadam in Check without death of any Americans and not as many Iraqis.

Who is moral? Christian Bush or Immoral Cliton. I prefer Clinton.

Posted on October 4, 2007 13:10

Robert Worthington states: "Rather a president of faith (Bush)than one of immmorality(Clinton)."

Bush went to war in Iraq killed 10s and 1000s of Iraqis and 4000 Americans and injured countless Iraqis and Americans by lying to the nation.

On the other hand, by claculated defensive actions of our great armed forces, Clinton kept Sadam in Check without death of any Americans and not as many Iraqis.

Who is moral? Christian Bush or Immoral Cliton. I prefer Clinton.

Bravo Varrior.

Anyone who thinks this nation was founded on exclusively "Christian principles" has to be a bleeding idiot. These are the common arguments used in the assertion:

(1) The founders were mostly Christian, so clearly the country is Christian.

The most influential of the founders were actually non-denominational Christians or Deists, not affiliated with any particular church. Thomas Jefferson would literally rip out pages of the Bible he found to be abhorrent and oppressive. Even the fact that he had slaves doesn't mean much, since he even had affairs with them but had his wrists bound by his state constituents. Let's not even get into the fact that he had memorized sections of the Qu'ran and even had a full copy of it in his house. George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, perhaps the two most influential people in early American history, were also Deists. Also, if you want to extend the analogy, most people in my bowling club are christians, so the club must be Christian? Stupid.

(2) The DOI refers to God.

No, it doesn't, it talks about "Nature's God", a paradigm meant to represent the workings of the universe. Besides that, no remotely religious references are included.

(3) The Constitution refers to God?

This is probably the weakest, since there's absolutely no reference whatsoever to God in the Constitution - in fact the only references to religion are a ban on religious qualification requirements and the first amendment, which specifically prohibits the state from establishing a national church and also by extension prohibits interference of one in the other.

(4) The first amendment talks about Christianity only.

Wrong. Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the document, said that the bill was “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindu, and infidel of every denomination" - explicit references to every major world religion, even Hinduism and paganism, which were largely unheard of to anyone outside scholarly or literary circles (transcendentalists, etc)

And when all else fails, BY LAW this nation is not a Christian one, it is a secular one. The Treaty of Tripoli makes this incredibly clear:

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
(http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm#art11)

The constitution specifically states that “. . . all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land..." - Article VI Pgph 2. So this treaty HAS to be taken as the highest law. Any point heretoforth which claims Christianity is somehow the one religion of the US is absolute nonsense.

The fact is, the founding fathers were Bible-believing Christians who intended to establish a Christian nation. They know that many of the original settlers came here to proclaim God in a way that their corrupt old-country state religions would not allow. A good example of this is the case of the Pilgrims. They believed that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. For their beliefs, they were persecuted by the corrupt and apostate Church of England (we can see in this country today the nature of the apostate and corrupt Episcopal Church to appreciate what the Pilgrims were up against). Since they were hated by the apostate church, the Pilgrims came to this country. Jesus warned of this:

"But now you seek to kill me,a man that hath told you the truth,which I have heard of God."
(John 8:40)

We see throughout the history of this great nation the good people of God seeking the freedom to worship. This is why we have the first amendment: to allow Bible-believing Christians to worship without fear of proscecution from the apostates, the liberals, the agnostics, the athiests, or the heretics (e.g. Catholics). The first amendment is for Christians and ONLY Christians. This is a Christian nation!

These four signers of the Constitution of the United States of America were Deists, not Christians of any stripe:

Benjamin Franklin
George Washington
James Madison
Gouveneur Morris

There were 40 signers meaning that 10% of the signers were not Christians.

It goes without saying that these four men were among the most important men of their time and had a strong hand in the writing of the most important document in this country.

People came to this country to get away from autocratic dictators who demanded that everyone in their lands paid money to the Christian clergy. There are countries to this day that force their citizens to support Christianity. THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT IN ANY WAY DO THAT.

Mr. McCain's declaration that this is a Christian nation demonstrates clearly that he is not fit to be its leader. He knows too little of our country's history and showed his bigotry by making that statement.

The current administration has done all it can to throw this country's knowledge and practice of science back 200 years. We need an administration that tosses out the fairy tales in the collection of religious writings known as the bible and gets back to reality so that we can get back on track to heal hitherto incurable diseases and not rely on superstition and misunderstanding of what those writings meant.

Yea verily I say unto thee, we don't talk like that anymore not do we need to hang onto beliefs that say that the earth is flat and that every word in the bible came directly out of the mouth of God.

I am not a Christian, yet I volunteered for the armed forces. Did I swear an oath to a God or to the Constitution? Although I firmly believe in God, I reject totally the concept that this country has every had or ever will have Christian leadership.

We have seen in the past few years what having a "Christian president" has wrought. The "Christian president" has butchered more men, women, and children than anyone since Rwanda. So much for his "morality."

If any group ever tries to make this a Christian Nation, I will be out front with my shotguns to help start another revolution. I support and uphold the Constitution one of the most important and non-religious documents in the history of the planet, not the "New Testament."

Political pundit Pat Buchanan said, "there are some conservative Christians who will never vote for a Mormon under any circumstances."

We know there are few Muslim Sunnis that will ever vote for anyone not a Sunni.

Conclusion: religion is the great enemy of democracy. Only a conservative Christian is dumb enough to think there will ever be democracy in Iraq without the destruction of Islam.

All religious conservatives are servants of their high holy ones. Thus there will always be a divide between religious groups. Ecumenical is an attempt by the pope to regain his status as world dictator. Today all Christians. Tomorrow the whole world. Where have I heard that before?

Yes, politicians are beholding to their supporters but like Harry Truman who double crossed Kansas City political bosses they are not conscience bound to do as their supporters want, LBJ and civil rights for easy example.

Jesus is touted by Christians to be the king of kings. What does that mean? Democracy? Kings are not elected. When Jesus comes again on a cloud will there be free elections? Is Jesus coming or is that a mind trick used to establish the kingdom of God? Who will run the kingdom of Jesus while we wait, the peoples choice or the choice of ministries, the ones running the kingdom of Jesus, little kings themselves, pastures? Constantine did for a while and then he created the papacy.

Religion is non democratic and therefore an unAmerican activity, like being a card carrying communist, (Joe McCarthy). Americans will get their test when conservative Christians run their candidate for president. In the words of W, "bring it on."

Thank God the Bible is a proved hoax.

Bob Ritter:

I'm persuaded by the fact that:

1. all faith is in people
2. people garner faith in themselves using "sacred scriptures"
3. faith then falls through to sacred scriptures, the Bible for Christians
4. any faith left over can be in supernatural beings
5. there is no way to identify God so Devil is most the being of faith
6. all prayer is for something the individual wants for free, for little effort or to which they are not entitled, win the big game for example
7. almighty entities do not need help from people
8. almighty entities do not need to be praised, honored, adored, glorified or sacrificed to

Did I leave anything out?

The separation of church and state in America means the state cannot sponsor, mandate, or support any religion. America was founded on Judeo-Christian principals and the laws of the nation and states are based on the Ten Commandments. The government in America is the citizens; it’s not a separate entity from the people. The government must remain secular, as all religions are a dogma. See http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl

I want to thank Bob Ritter and BGONE for pointing out my error in suggesting that the Declaration of Independence used language that implied a Christian nation. I should have said that unlike the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence uses language that implies a religious (not necessarily Christian) emphasis and that some people may confuse this with the type of emphasis implied by the Constitution. I think this is an important distinction and I appreciate the clarification on this point.

My post at 5:03 p.m. had a statement that could easily be misinterpreted. It reads: "The belief that all people are created equal is held by many philosophies and religions. I dare say that many Christian faiths do not belief all people are equal -- certainly not nonbelievers."

The last statement should have read: "I dare say that many Christians do not believe that nonbelievers are equal to them" and, therefore, do not believe that all people are equal.

Personally, I believe that all people are entitled to equal justice under the law and the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Matthew 16:19
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Matthew 18:18
"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The dad gummed bible stutters. Looks like it was so good it was worth repeating yet some people still don't get it. That's not all it says and repeats.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

1 Corinthians 14:12
So it is with you. Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church.

Hum. Looks like Calvin, Luther and Henry VIII couldn't read. Matthew 16:18 clearly says church not churches and 1 Corinthians 16:18 says build up and not tear apart.

Looks to me like we're at the mercy of his holiness the pope, the successor to St Peter, the one Jesus gave the authority to run His church while He's away in heaven waiting for the end of the world. And He gave the pope the power to condemn to hell. Oops!

Those reformers were condemned to hell by the pope at that time? I thought so.

I'll bet the devil made them, Calvin, Luther and Henry do that. Only the very foolish follow the condemned to hell. Of course the big money does go to those who lead the multitudes to hell. The road to hell is paved with good intentions?

BGONE,
By Christian, I am referring to the belief that Jesus was a god. That view is certainly not expressed in the Constitution.
The belief that all people are created equal is held by many philosophies and religions. I dare say that many Christian faiths do not belief all people are equal -- certainly not nonbelievers.
I do not know where you get the idea that the Declaration of Independence is a constitution. It is not. However, even if it were, it would have been supercede by the Articles of Confederation which were supercede by our present Constitution in 1789.
There are a number of justices presently serving on the Supreme Court which, in my legal view, are not faithful to the Constitution. In stead, these justices seem to be substituting their religious views for constitutional law. I suspect that you are persuaded by their view point.

Something beautiful, intelligently written and explained I'd like to share with you, it's awesome information:

1 Corinthians 10:31

"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."

The reason the following was written is that the Christian gospel is wonderfully good news. It is wonderful to know it and believe it! It is meant for everybody and everybody needs it, whether they know it or not. And if you care about people, you will want to tell them this good news.

Spontaneity Growing out of Deep Understanding

Our hope is that you receive a firmer grasp of biblical truth, and give you a possible way of making it clear to others. This is by no means the only way to share the gospel. The truth of God must be made plain to people in a thousand acts of love and in words that suit hundreds of different occasions. But many of us have learned that confident spontaneity with unbelievers grows out of firm, deep roots of understanding.

The most creative portrait artist is the one who has labored to master how you draw a chin and a nose and an ear. When the basics are second nature, then real creativity begins. So it is in evangelism. So please don't think we want you to parrot what's here. We want you to grasp it very deeply. We want it to become second nature in your own way of seeing life. And then we want you to speak the good news in love.

Truth #1, "God created us for his glory," based on Isaiah 43:7. In other words if we are going to make the gospel plain, people need to know something of God's power (he is Creator), something of God's greatness (he is glorious—stupendous, awesome, perfect in every way), and something of God's purpose (He aims to make his glory known and admired). So we begin by saying, "God created us for his glory."

Why It Is Important to Begin with God's Glory
Let me summarize why beginning here is so important.

1. The Centrality of God

God is the central reality in the universe. The Bible says that "All things are from him and through him and to him, to him be glory for ever" (Romans 11:36). It says that "all things exist for him and by him" (Hebrews 2:10). Man is not the center of all things. God is. If truth isn't at least on the table for consideration, the rest of the gospel message will be warped to fit our natural self-centeredness.

2. Romans 3:23

When we come to the third point in the gospel, Romans 3:23 will make no sense unless we have begun here with God's purpose to be glorified. Romans 3:23 says, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Now what would fall short of glory mean, and why would it be a problem unless you had shown that God made us to glorify him, and that we have failed in the very destiny for which we were made? In other words the essence of sin cannot be understood unless you begin with God and his glory. That's why people don't experience contrition like they used to. Sin is seen as what makes me miserable not what offends the glory of God. Our view of sin today is basically psychological not theological. To know what sin is we must begin with God and his great purposes.

3. The Rightness of God's God-Centeredness

It is crucial that we show it is right for God to be God-centered and not man-centered. Many people are happy to let God exist if God will make man the highest value in the universe. But it is crucial to say that God is the most valuable being in the universe. We are quite secondary. And since God is the ultimate value in the universe, it is only right and fitting that he be honest about that; that he tell us so and that for our own good he seek our love and admiration.

Sometimes people ask, why is it right for God to seek his glory, but wrong for us to seek our glory? Why would we be vain and God be righteous? The answer is that God's righteousness and our righteousness are exactly the same—God is righteous to esteem most highly what is most valuable in the universe, namely, God. And we are righteous to esteem most highly what is most valuable in the universe, namely, God. There is no inconsistency here.

Righteousness means having a right response to what is infinitely glorious and perfect. And that is God. For us to be righteous, we must love God with all our heart and soul and mind and strength. For God to be righteous, he too must love HIMSELF with all his heart and soul and mind and strength. Otherwise he would be an idolater. He would be giving supreme devotion to something that does not have supreme value.

What we will see is that the root problem of our human nature is that we do not want God to be God. We want to be God. And one clear piece of evidence for that is how rare the biblical God-centered vision of God is, and how widespread the unbiblical man-centered vision of God is. So I repeat, it is crucial that we lay the truth on the table that God created us for HIS glory and that this is reasonable and right for God to do.

4. Our Purpose for Existing

It is helpful to begin with God's purpose in creation because that tells us why we are here on the earth, and common sense says that if you know what something was made for, you can get more out of it. That's true for your life. If you know that a lawn mower is made for cutting grass and not for a window fan, your life will be happier. And if you know that you are made for God's glory, you will make better use of it and be happier.

That leads us to Truth #2.

Every Human Should Live for God's Glory
Of course Truth #1 and Truth #2 are very closely connected. But they are not the same. Truth #1 starts with God and describes his ultimate design in creating us. Truth #2 shifts from God's design to our duty. Let's read the text and the paragraph of explanation.

Appealing to Scripture and Reason

"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31).

If God made us for his glory, it is clear that we should live for his glory. Our duty comes from his design. What does it mean to glorify God? It means that we love Him (Matthew 22:37), trust Him (Romans 4:20), are thankful to Him (Psalm 50:23), and obey Him (Matthew 5:16).

Now at this point you might appeal to Scripture (the verses are listed) or to reason (or common sense), depending on how much common ground you have with someone.

What If Someone Rejects Truth #1?

Let me encourage you not to get bogged down on any one of these truths if someone rejects the truth. Don't think that the only way a person can be persuaded of the truth of Christianity is by moving logically from premise to premise. That is not the way most people function.

Suppose a person says, after you share Truth #1, "I can't buy it. I don't even think there is a God. And the theory of evolution makes all that talk of divine design and divine purpose meaningless." What should you do? Should you give up because you can't even get them to agree to the first foundational truth?

NO! What you should say is something like this: "OK I understand that you don't agree with this first truth. But would you hear me out and let me try to give you the big picture so you can make your judgment based on how it all might fit together?" Then you go on to truths #2 and #3 and so on.

The reason for this is that most of us do not embrace an idea or a cause because we have sorted out all its premises and tested them logically one by one from the most basic on up. Most of us embrace an idea or a cause (or a person!) because the whole thing or some crucial part of it causes lights to go on for us. It gives a flash of insight. It clicks with things we know already. It makes sense out of things that had been confusing or troubling.

In other words if you can get the whole picture—all six truths—into a person's mind, it may be that something in the other five will hit home with such force that they would reconsider their rejection of the first one. Or it may be that later—sometimes much later—a devastating experience will open them to reconsider the truth of these things. If you have given them the whole picture, the Holy Spirit can then apply any part of it to their need. Never think you have spoken God's truth in vain. It does not go out in vain.

So you go on to explain Truth #2. Here's one way to go about it.

God's Command to Glorify Him and God's Love

Truth #1 said that God made us to reflect or display or manifest His glory. We are supposed to be like well-polished mirrors of God's truth to the world. Or like prisms that take the beams of God's greatness and break them up into lots of varied colors for the world to see in our actions and words (Ephesians 3:10; Matthew 5:16).

So that is what every man and woman and child should devote his or her life to. That is why we live. That is our duty. Or you could say, that is God's law.

But for some people—most people—the words "duty" and "law" are not happy words. They tend to sound oppressive and burdensome. So it doesn't sound, then, that God is very loving. That he doesn't have our best interest at heart. Maybe he is so interested in his glory that we don't really count except as slaves to work for him.

That kind of objection has to be met. And it is not hard to meet. You meet it by asking this question: If God is perfect, complete, all-sufficient, infinitely great and glorious, and didn't create us to meet his needs, because he doesn't have any needs, then how do you glorify a God like that?

Not by working for him like a slave. That would give the impression that he is weak or deficient. Not by cowering in uncertainty beneath His power. That would give the impression that he is unstable or capricious or cruel.

How Do You Glorify and All-Glorious God?

How do you bring glory to an all-sufficient, perfect, infinitely beautiful, infinitely wise, infinitely powerful, overflowing God? Here you can use illustrations from ordinary life.

For example, if you want to glorify a beautiful painting, you don't feel a burden to work to improve it. You simply enjoy it. You love it. You talk about it excitedly to your friends. Or if someone makes a wonderful meal and serves it up before you, how do you glorify the excellence of the meal? Not by putting on your apron and going out to the kitchen to make a few more dishes or add a few spices. No. You glorify a perfect meal by eating a lot and by feeling contented and saying, ahhh. In other words if it is your duty to glorify something infinitely beautiful and wonderful, that is no burden. It is a pleasure. In fact when you take from it pleasure, you show it's a treasure.

Or suppose it's your duty to glorify the strength of a new metal alloy that holds up a bridge. How do you glorify the strength of the metal? Not by working hard to provide some extra supports, but by getting in your car with all your family and trusting the bridge with your life as you peacefully drive across without any anxiety. You glorify strength by trusting it not by working to supplement it. So the duty to glorify power is not a burden. It's a restful pleasure.

Or suppose your duty was to glorify someone's generosity. Suppose someone was so rich and so generous that they just spilled over in love and generosity and grace and kindness to you. How would you glorify that quality in them? Not by trying to pay them back. That would turn their kindness into a business deal. It would treat their free gift like a trade. Tit for tat. That would not glorify the wealth of their generosity. No the way to glorify their generosity and their kindness is to be lavish and genuine in your gratitude and thanksgiving. And that is no burden. If you get a billion dollar gift, you do not groan under the duty to feel thankful. It is a pleasure not a hardship.

Finally, suppose it is your duty to glorify someone's great wisdom? Say the wisdom of your coach (if you're on some team) or your counselor (if you are in some kind of therapy)? The answer is that you don't glorify their wisdom by trying strenuously to help them figure out the answer to some problem. You glorify their wisdom by doing what they say. If you want to show that your coach is really wise, you run and do his drills without doubting or grumbling. If you want to glorify your counselor's wisdom, you do his assignments without doubt or grumbling. In other words, glad-hearted obedience glorifies great wisdom. And this is not a burden (1 John 5:3).

God Is Most Glorified in Us When We Are Most Satisfied in Him

Now do you see what all this means? It means that God is love. It means that when he created us for His glory, he also created us for our joy. How so? Because the way He seeks to be glorified in us is by making us satisfied in Him. The good news of Christianity is that God is the kind of God who is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him.

In sharing the truth of Christianity, Truth #1 is that God created us for HIS glory. Truth #2 is that this is, therefore, the duty of every man and woman and child—to live for the glory of God. And the wonderful thing is that this duty is not a burden. It is freedom and joy. You glorify God's beauty and excellence by loving it and delighting in it. You glorify God's power by trusting him with all the hard and threatening things in your life. You glorify God's bounty and generosity and kindness and grace by overflowing with gratitude. And you glorify God's wisdom by obeying his counsel. And everybody knows that this is no burden. This is no heavy law. This is love.

God is a God of infinite love because he wills to share all that He is with us for our enjoyment and His glory.

This is the wonderful beginning of Truth and ties in with the beginning of God's Final Warning Message to mankind in Revealtion 14:6-7.

Bob Ritter, Your second point, "Second, Ben Hurley's comment that the Declaration of Independence "use[s] language that would imply a Christian nation" is untrue. There is nothing Christian about the Declaration of Independence."

"We hold these truths to be self evident, all men are created equal..." Maybe there should be an "except Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, ....?

The wealthy southern planters with stables of slaves "interpreted" it to imply a lot of things including "Christian nation." We can safely assume that since they signed it while denying that black men are equal.

There are those who don't realize that the DI is the super constitution,, including members of the supreme court. It was the preincorporation agreement that is legal and binding until changed. I'm not aware of any changes made to it.

Two points.

First, while I am in general agreement with Mr. Walker, and have listed the Joint Baptist Committee as a friend of religious liberty on my www.jmcenter.org website, I must disagree with his view that it is OK for individuals to use religion as a voter shortcut.

Take the Roman Catholic faith as an example. The church professes that abortion is wrong. Excluding the five Catholic justices on the Supreme Court, many individual Catholics are pro-choice. My point is that a candidates views, rather than his or her religion, should be what is important to a voter. We need candidates to be more specific with their views rather than rely on an abreviated bio of family and religion.

Second, Ben Hurley's comment that the Declaration of Independence "use[s] language that would imply a Christian nation" is untrue. There is nothing Christian about the Declaration of Independence.

True, it refers to "nature's God". It is my understanding that "nature's God" was not in the original draft. It was subsequently included, perhaps as a compromise. More important, "nature's God" is different from a Christian "God". The former refers to natural phenomenon (as in forces of nature), the later to supernatural phenomenon.

Senator McCain committed political suicide when he spoke at Liberty University. Americans can be fooled for a while but then there comes a day of reckoning. Over 42 million now know the Bible is a proved hoax and growing at a rapid pace. That's caused a great many to rethink just exactly what it is they faith. Mr Bush's continual "born again" and "higher power" etc references has only pushed them away from religion. Con men should be more quiet maybe?

And there's http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul that has caused many to realize that even if the Bible is the word of a supernatural being that being is not God. If it's not God then there is but one other possibility. Moses made a deal with Devil.

No group has outdone Baptists verifying, "the big money goes to those who lead the multitudes to hell." As dumb as Americans can be sometimes they have a sixth sense that brings them back to reality.

Devil has had his day in DC for the time being and night has fallen, only darkness for Him and his representatives who just like the fallen angels worship a false God, the biggest Devil of them all, Lucifer.

Devil is the great enemy of democracy.
Devil worshipers destroy democracy, insist on theocracy.
God is not an enemy of democracy.
There's free elections in heaven while Lucifer is the Lord God Dictator in hell.

Robert Worthington writes:

"Relax folks -Christianity won't hurt you. Jesus preached love not anger."

Tell it to the Cathers and the millions of others who were tortured and murdered at the hands of "Christians".

I am surprised, Pleasantly of course. Because I have no faith in organized religion of any creed. To this point in human history, Organized religion has proved it's self faithless in the actions of it's members.
but, Mr. Walker, Ocasionaly someone stands up and proves themselves to be more than one of millions of the 'blindly faithfull'.
Thank you for having stepped forward and once again proving me wrong.

I personaly do not trust any politician who espouses any one particular religion. It hints at denial of personal responsibility and culpability, which President Bush and his regiem are extremly short of.
As for McCain, What political mouthpiece has ever not made a slip?
after all, isn't that pretty much what he is? McCain has been purchased, and his script writer forgot to cover ad-libs. too bad.

Better a smart turk, than a dumb christian.
Well, if the quote has slipped it's context, at least it fits the situation well enough. the test will be to see if the 'smart Turk' is smart enough to use the inteligence for the people and constitution to which he or she swears oath, and not manipulate for the profit of his cronies.
We do not need another oath-breaker like Bush, who manipulates and black-bags the constitution for his convenience, and his wallet.

Mr.Walker,
Your quotation is unfortunate as it is condeceniding:"Wasn’t it Martin Luther who said, better to be ruled by a smart Turk than a dumb Christian?
The term Turk was used by the Europeans in a very negative way when the Ottomoon armies were at the gates of Vienna early 16th cetury-and meant some thing like those "Muslim invading barberians."

Am repeating my response to another panilist who made the same error because the quotation is essentially and profoundly flawed even from Martin Luther for whom I have a great deal of respect for his civil rights struggle-Jihad-but he was a religous man after all-and repeated perhaps some racist term without realizing its implications-for Luther could not possibly be a racist after all.

Is a Muslim candidate who practices an presumed inferior faith "your smart Turk"-preferable to a dumb Christian,who is nevertheless practices a superior faith?” You are not comparing apples to apples and your question is full of condecension, namely that what you are implying: is the best that a Muslim however inferior he is in faith but still smarter, better than a dumb Christian? U could have paused the question as: Is a smart Muslim preferable to a smart Christian? Because it is degrdaing to even conisder the possibility of equating a smart Muslim with a dumb Christian.

This would have been a fair question but not the right question-which should be: is a presidential candidate qualified to and will faithfully implement, respect and protect the US constitution-regrdless of religion?

A Muslim believes in the true unaltered, uncorrupted and consistent truth, Monotheism, which Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad preached-along with the package of values and ethos that come with it.

Let me refer you to the unique model of Muslim Spain (711-1492 AD)-which model predates America and which achieved a multi-cultural and multi-religious diversity of tolerance and peaceful co-existence unprecedented in human history-and resulted in a brilliant contribution to human civilization-without which the European renaissance and the industrial revolution would have never been possible.
Unfortunately, this model of enlightened human diversity was destroyed by no one other than narrow-minded, xenophobic and religious extremism of the Catholic Church and manifested it self in the horrendous Inquisition imposed mainly on Spanish Muslims and on Jews and the in the Crusades on the Muslim east.

If not checked, McCain’s bigotry can lead to hatred and trouble.

Robert Worthington writes: "Rather a president of faith (Bush)than one of immmorality(Clinton)".
- - - - - -
Whosoever taketh Bush for a person of faith shall loseth his soul, or at least his credibility. Would a man of real Christian values condone and promote widespread torture and unleash chaos sufficient to kill at least one-half million Iraqis? Whom would Jesus torture and abuse? Whom would Jesus bomb and incinerate and disfigure and mutilate? Would Jesus start an immoral, illegal, unnecessary, unaffordable, illegitimate occupation of a country that was no threat to his own, in violation of virtually every tenet of the Christian doctrine of "just war"? Would Jesus lie us into war with fables about WMDs and non-existent connections between Saddam and Osama, who in fact were sworn enemies? Would Jesus do all this with a heartless smirk on his face, apparently unwilling to admit the gravity of his errors, as Bush has done? It's hard to see even a tiny whiff of authentic Christian faith or spirit in the shallow, self-absorbed, insecure, malapropistic Bush. His "faithiness" is superficial political cover for a hollow fraud.

Robert Worthington writes: "Rather a president of faith (Bush)than one of immmorality(Clinton)".
- - - - - -
Whosoever taketh Bush for a person of faith shall loseth his soul, or at least his credibility. Would a man of real Christian values condone and promote widespread torture and unleash chaos sufficient to kill at least one-half million Iraqis? Whom would Jesus torture and abuse? Whom would Jesus bomb and incinerate and disfigure and mutilate? Would Jesus start an immoral, illegal, unnecessary, unaffordable, illegitimate occupation of a country that was no threat to his own, in violation of virtually every tenet of the Christian doctrine of "just war"? Would Jesus lie us into war with fables about WMDs and non-existent connections between Saddam and Osama, who in fact were sworn enemies? Would Jesus do all this with a heartless smirk on his face, apparently unwilling to admit the gravity of his errors, as Bush has done? It's hard to see even a tiny whiff of authentic Christian faith or spirit in the shallow, self-absorbed, insecure, malapropistic Bush. His "faithiness" is superficial political cover for a hollow fraud.

Ethical and moral values must come from some kind of standard. Hitler made decisions based upon what he believed were ethical and moral values. What makes these decisions wrong? Who decides these decisions are wrong? Frankly, I want to know what a candidate believes because it directly reflects how that candidate will probably make decisions. I am much more comfortable with a Bible based standard than a sliding scale, politically correct, wishy washy morality that's good today and gone tomorrow.

It gives me at least a little hope to see a Baptist espousing views that are not on the edge between right-wing blather and idiocy. Thank you, Mr. Walker, for a reasoned discourse.

Bravo,

I am an atheist, have been since I was a pre-teen. But I am in total agreement with Mr. Walker's comments. I do not care where the inspiration for a persons ethical and moral values come from, as long as their actions are moral and ethical.

As an example, I would be very comfortable voting for someone like Jimmy Carter, who claims that his values come from his strong religious faith.

Thanks,
Bill Gonzalez

Brent Walker provides a clear, reasoned voice on this important issue in our society. John McCain's statement reflects ignorance at best (I would think that he should know better) or gross pandering to the Religious Right at least. Is he really so desperate to get votes that he has to resort to such statements?

I salute Edwin C. King for his above posting. All I can add to that is "AMEN"!

So Mr. Bush is a man of faith. We all are, we can't exist without it. The real question is not if we have faith but rather, in what or whom do we place our faith. As to morality, one is forced to ask, what acts of Mr. Bush are moral ???? Is it his preemptive war, his apparent lack of concern over the almost inhuman treatment of our wounded veterans,his apparent willingness to use torture, his veto of a bill to provide health care to needy children while spending billions on nonbid contracts to his friends firms???? Forgive me Almighty God ! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, I would take Clinton's immorality any day. I condem Mr. Clinton's but
I don't think thousands were killed or wounded by his actions.Mr. Worthington, I have faith, faith that on that Day we will all recognize true faith and morality.

It is sad that the mention of religion and politics evokes so many vitriolic responses from atheist and those who consider themselves to be liberal in their thinking. Relax folks -Christianity won't hurt you. Jesus preached love not anger. Rather a president of faith (Bush)than one of immmorality(Clinton).

Huzzah!
Religious liberty, like so many other fundamental rights, is so often misinterpreted it is refreshing to see someone who appreciates its value. I find it also interesting that many of the founding brothers (especially Thomas Jefferson) believed that their personal religious views were so personal that they never openly expounded upon them. Even when he was being unfairly attacked Jefferson refused to address the issue of his personal beliefs because they were personal. The other point I find useful in looking at politicians is that I truly do not care what or why they believe when it comes to issues. I care about their actions. I care when they use the power of the state to deprive me of my personal liberties and I don't care what their rationale is for doing such a thing. Keep up the good fight.

This is an excellent article that makes a clear distinction between the common misconception (with a prevalence of a whooping 55%) that the Constitution establishes the U.S. as a Christian nation versus the importance and relevance of considering religion in choosing a political candidate. I would just like to ask three questions to add to the significance and relevancy of this distinction. First, what causes this “wrong belief” that the Reverend Walker refers to? Is it possible that politicians like McCain and the lay public conflate and therefore confuse statements in the Declaration of Independence with those of the Constitution? The former does appear to use language that would imply a Christian nation. Secondly, in addition to or even instead of McCain’s ignorance of the Constitution as it applies to religion, is it possible that he made a conscious effort to perpetuate a myth to pacify, rather than educate the constitutionally illiterate, given that they represent a very large percent of voters or is this just cynicism gone wild? Thirdly, does religious illiteracy contribute to the problem highlighted in this article? For example, Stephen Prothero, a scholar of religion from Harvard, points out that 75% of Americans think the statement “God helps those who help themselves”comes directly from the Bible rather than its true source (Benjamin Franklin). While lawyers accuse members of the Court of “Locknerizing” (imposing their own views of interpretation) the Constitution, politicians and the public alike are constantly “Locknerizing” the Bible, with less even less knowledge than they have of the Constitution. I make this point in reference to the latter portion of the article to ask if this influences the public’s evaluation of the religious views of politicians. For example, in a recent presidential debate at least three candidates said they did not believe in evolution in response to moderator Chris Matthews’ question on this topic. This compares to 60% of U.S. public who do not believe in evolution, according to a recent article published in the journal "Science," yet it is almost unheard of for a biologist, anthropologist, or paleontologist, i.e., those who study this phenomena for a living, to hold on to this “wrong belief.” However, it was a judge (John Jones), not a scientist, who finally educated politicians and the general public alike in the Intelligent Design case in Dover, Pennsylvania in 2005 that biological change cannot be taught in the public schools as a supernatural event, which would have put an end to all further scientific inquiry in the many applicable fields of study, if the ID people had won their case.

Finally, I would like to make the argument that there is an even more important and currently relevant reason why evaluating a candidate’s religion, particularly a presidential candidate, might have a profound impact on U.S. citizens? Ever since Marbury vs Madison, the Supreme Court rules over Congress and the Executive branch when it comes to interpreting the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. However, it is the president who determines the members of this Court. For this reason, determining the make up of the court may be the most important reason that “religion may be relevant to evaluating a candidate,” in the case of a presidential candidate. This is of particular relevancy in the upcoming presidential election because three of the most liberal members of the Court are likely to be replaced by the next president. For example, John Paul Steven was born in 1920 and Ruth Ginsburg was born in 1933. If you do the math you will likely conclude that the chance of these justices outlasting the next president is very small. Alternatively, could it be argued that ones level of conservatism, liberalism, or religious beliefs may not be a good predictor of their interpretation and ruling on cases involving the establishment and free exercise clause or does history prove otherwise?