All Comments (190)

dbryugozq itgbulfhq yxcmdf yrtfb mlguvyrpx ecnwjgdk cuklphzt

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about [url=http://us-viagra.us]generic viagra[/url] and share with you.

kxuwmafvs vtbnjklc apnvl wxesovak abkvitr wysibnz hqvb http://www.ntszyrjx.qvbjnwd.com

qpux xuvl oqbmnvuz tlxync nfhor ywiaoh jbaye

You know actually the history of blues to rock and roll all stems from the gospel music of the african american slaves-

im glad that country music hasnt been able to spread-

speaking of rush- al franken is also a funny writer- rush limbaugh is a big fat idiot- and 'lies and the lying liars who tell the' to name a few- he is one of the main commentators on air america- a liberal radio station- and started out as a stand up comedian-
salaams

Victoria,
We are quite familiar with Micheal Moore, Daniel Pipes, Robert Spenser, Ann Coulter et al. You would not believe the amount of materials discussing them in Muslim blogs and Internet sites from Morocco to Indonesia.

The Muslim umma has been globalized in sharing info via the Net- from the Prophet Muhammad PBUH cartoon controversy to Pope Benedict's speech to that German spicy addition of Mozart's opera.

We do know that Micheal Moore is vilified by the rightwingers, if you can call them that. And Ann Coulter by the liberals. And that fellow Rush Limburgh is something else. He makes the fringe Muslim fanatics sound sane.

And of course, much as Thomas Friedman's and Ann Coulter's books are being promoted overseas, Noam Chomsky outsells them everytime from Chile to China. And the interesting thing is that, apart from different preferences in books, the wider world does not seem to take to country music, but love every American music from blues to jazz to rock to rap.

And thanks for reminding me of Thomas Paine. We need to reread him to refresh.

Salaam

since we seemto have been left alone for a bit-
i was going to go into the vacuum the commies left- but then i thought- get any michael moore you can- canadian bacon is a comedy with john candy and his first movie- but bowling for columbine- farenheit 911- anything hes done- he has a great way of going to the heart of issues while informing - if you can find him- i reccommned him- you probably already know about him-

i was watching a cspan show about thomas paine the other day and there was a quote by john wilkes and he said- i want to find out what extreme limits of freedom of speech are- and we certainly have freedom to be bigoted, intolerant and as biased as we ant in the good ole us of a.
peace and salaams
ps thanks for the backup on the big Q

Victoria,
Is that why American are so litigious? Always someone else's fault? No sense of personal responsibility? They sued the cigarette companies for millions for smoking, and McDonald's too, for spilling coffee on their laps among others. Of course, that is what foreigners read about America and consequently formed perceptions. Also TV shows like Boston Legal and Nip/Tuck.

Thank God some Americans now have Muslims to blame for all the ills in the world! It used to be the commies.

And life is so exciting for Muslims nowadays. Even for Victoria, living in the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, the standard bearer of human rights, champion of democracy, beacon of freedom of speech, thought and belief.

Whatever. One can never be free of bigots and they do thrive very well in democracies. They have their own magazines, blogs, associations, websites to spread their notions and visions.

whoo hoo snap!

i dont think its any secret phil- my whiteness simply oozes out of me like some pale sicky light-

ive been outed as white in america!!!

that bit about personal responsibility is exactly what i was pointing out earlier-

and since this is a mostly non-theist response and i dont think ill be insulting any christians or making them feel like their being targeted i will comment on this-

its my observation that the chrsitian philosophy that probably most everyone one here has been raised with or at least exposed to in america has at its core a complete lack of personal culpability-

i really dislike making personal remarks about others beliefs that may be negative but its pertinent to this conversation

if you never have to be really conscious of your actions- because they will all be magically washed clean with the sprinkle of "im saved" dust- and someone else bears the brunt of all your sins and actions- you live an unconscious life - i think this mentality has seeped into every aspect of america- the arrogance of manifest destiny- the above stated sense of some divine entitlement-
the teflon conscience of america-

i like that im going to say it again
the teflon conscience of america

but like i alwys say- we dont have a monopoly on self- indulgence- when someone comes to america they teach us new ways to be self-indulgent-
were just very blessed that we have so much-

i always used to say if Jesus(ata) were alive today hed be a communist hippie-

yes phil- i get it from both sides- the muslims who arent whitey white think im a spy- and my countrypeople think i am stabbing Jesus(ata) over and over again in the back-

thanks for the commendation there hanuman- im going to print it out and whip it out when it suits my purposes

o yes
personal responsibility
my favorite words

Phil C,
I know Victoria is Irish-American. Being a monkey/Hanuman as she called me, I was mischievously trying get a rise out of her, and failed to her credit :)

As a born and practicing Muslim, like other such Muslims, I am constantly amazed and ashamed that Muslim converts like Victoria are better Muslims than us in understanding and practicing Islam as it should be.

Victoria is the kind of Muslim we all want to be, and the better for it.

Jihadist - I think Victoria is Caucasian - Irish-American.

Right, Victoria?

Victoria, my apologies for the tough tone of my previous posting to you. I saw the others are sometimes quite patronizing towards your postings.

After 9/11, from what I read about Muslims written by Americans, and on American Muslims too, and how some Americans treated their fellow Americans for being Muslims, I half expected the American Muslims to be branded in crescents for identification and placed in detention camps.

American Muslims are also asked to explain the behavior of Muslims (driven by politics), in other parts of the world that they have nothing to do with.

That is the perception foreigners gets. Don't Americans understand that each and every Muslim is personally responsible and accountable for his/her own actions and not his umma in life and in the hearafter?

I suppose, as a Muslim born and living in a Muslim majority country, I have no reason to be defensive about or to apologize for my faith. It is tough to be any religious and ethnic minority in any country.

I admire your postings. They are patient, graceful and thoughful. I tend to give as good as I got sometimes. After all, turning the other cheek is not an element of my personal faith:)

Salaam.

thanks for the encouragement- im trying not to be an apologist for my existence- i just wanted to point out that if one is in a position of being misunderstood- railing against the majority only makes you look reactionary and we have to make the concerted effrot to define ourselves or we cant really whineabout it if others do it for us-

it seems bad taste altogether to me to lump people i little groups and make sweeping assumptions about them based on the smallest bit of information- but youre right- american caucasians are the most expectant, lazy folks so full of a sense of entitlement that any who doesnt automatically recognize our obvious superiority is simply dismissed as stupid or backward---

not much to be proud of, is it?

Victoria,
Forget about defining yourself to others for being a Muslim. I can't be bothered. No one ask me to so except the Europeans, the North Americans, the Australians and the New Zealanders. They measure others by their own criteria and standards.

I never ask a Buddhist, Sikh, Christian (all denominations), Bahais, Hindus, Wiccans etc, to define themselves to me. I merely read up on hteir religions and beliefs.

Methinks the Caucasians are intellectually lazy and culturally presumtious - thier own views, which they held to be always right, and others. And the theists can be just as bad.

A Caucasian going "native" in a developing/third world country is derided. But a "native" dressing and eating like a Caucasian is admired for being "civilized" and "cultured".

No one in this On Faith threads can get to me. I am four times tougher than anyone for being a person of the wrong colour (beige), wrong religion (Islam), wrong gender (female), wrong region (developing country). I have heard, seen and experienced all forms of racism, sexism, bigotry and Islamphobia.

John Kennedy: “I believe in an America where religious intolerance may some day end.”

as religious people should rightly be expected to be respectful of non-theists or any other view-(and many of us really are)
it should be expected from everyone-

it shows you dont have to be religious to be intolerant.

also a true christian is commanded intheir own bible to render unto caesar what is caesar- and unto god what is gods-

their is an inherent separation of church and state expressed there

muslims are commanded to obey the secualr laws of whatever country they are living in also-

the major problem isnt religious views-
it is hypocrisy

and that can come from any quarter

one thing i might suggest is that if one has an identifiable religious system - when they do not act in accordance with it- they can easily be identified as acting hypocritically-

if one doesnt have a codified ethic system-(that is measurable publicly) we would all probably measure their sincerity of purpose through our OWN religious (or moral) yardsticks whatever they may be-

it might make some people uncomfortable as they dont really have any way to gauge a persons moral compass- (from their own perception)

atheists may consider this a tenable insecurity that might preclude theists from knowing where they (hypothetical atheist candidates) stand or will stand on issues of importance-

while it is easy to mock or invalidate in ones mind the intelligence of the religious- is is not wise politics and could alienate the people who would have the power to vote one into any office.
(as the majority of americans are identified statistically as theists)

as a muslim- i find myself constantly defining my beliefs to the majority of non-muslims that simply are misinformed about what islam actually is-

it requires a great deal of patience and repeating myself and showing RESPECT for those who are open minded enough to learn-

atheists must also show this common respect in their dealings with theists-
and realize that many people simply dont know what atheists believe and hence their fear or hesitancy-

it is work- but if one lives in a society where one is in the minority- sometimes the extra effort is necessary.
salaams

Michael of Bowie –

Hello again. glad to see you here. I’d still like an answer to the questions I posed to you on the Harris thread, where you wrote, “I have found that it takes time to learn how to the read the Bible. I think that it is God's way of weeding out the phonies. Those who are genuinely interested in learning God's Will and Testament are rewarded with understanding as they read the Bible. It is also absolutely necessary to hear Bible teaching from annontend Ministers, from whom we can learn how to read the Bible. Yes, one has to learn how to read the Bible, as it is full of poetry, parables and layered truths.”

Here are my questions again: Do you suppose God was trying to weed out people who never had the opportunity to learn how to read? or people with low reading comprehension skills? or people who didn't have access to an anointed minister?

Michael, I hope you’ll address these questions here. I sincerely want to know your thinking on this and promise not to badger you after you answer.

Thanks

And while the anonymous post above me scares the &%#! out of me, it does so no more than crazies such as Falwell, Rove and David Koresh.

As I said before, only the names change. The goals of Religious Zealots remain the same.

Personally, I think it's time we stop talking about a candidate's religious affiliation and start dealing with the real issue: *Religious Respect*.

As neither Christian, Muslim or Atheist, I find any fundamental religion who tries to infuse their beliefs into politics scary.

At the core, they are all the same. Only the names change.

We need Respect in government, not Jesus nor Allah.

Especially in this land of Religious Freedom.

Or are we merely free to be Christian??

I am sick and tired of Hindus like Jai Khosla putting bad light on Islam.

Islam is different because it is the only true religion that was given to mankind by God through His Messenger Muhammad(Peace Be Upon His Soul). The Apostle of Allah was Allah's mercy for mankind.

Muslims are different. Yes , wife beating is acceptable in Islam but only as a last resort.

Yes, marriage between chidren and adults is acceptable so long as the girl has attained puberty. The Holy Prophet gave us an aexample by marrying Hazrat Aisha wehn she was six. He consummated the marriage when she turned nine and had had her first menstrual period. Aisha became his favorite wife. Today thousnads of Muslim men marry young girls and the couples are very happy and contented.

Yes, Islam does not give equal rights to women in all aspects of life. For example a woman can get only half the inheritance that her male siblings get. But that is because men are commanded by Allah to take care of their women.

The list goes on.

Get used to it Jai Khosla.

The whole world will soon be Islamic , ruled by sharia because that is what Allah has willed.

Christianity des not scare me as it does not interfere with legislation. Christians may but Christianity does not. Jesus said the final word when he stated something to the effect that what is mine is mine and what is ceasar's is ceasars.

What we need to be afraid of, and vigorously fend off, are cults like Islam. The arabic god allah that muhammad created states in the Koran that wives should be beaten up for being disobedient and it is therefore Islamic law that disobedient wives should be beaten up. Wife beating is only one example. There is a plethora of other laws.

I've always found it ironic when people say things like "politicians shouldn't follow the polls" - the truth is, politicians are supposed to be political officials elected not for their own views and morals but to represent *mine*. I would be and am horrified if/when a politian I elect takes that achievement as a mandate to then blithely ignore *my* opinion on how the district/county/state/country should be governed.

This horror is compounded when an elected official then makes a conscious decision to subjugate actual governing of the land to their own sense of what their chosen deity or religious book "teaches them to do" - thus importing these beliefs into the political and therefore governing arena.

The religious statements - bragging, even - by politicians in the last decade have absolutely galled me. As one person pointed out, these are claims made consciously and purposefully to cast doubt (and "sin") on an opposing candidate or official.

I take these statements for what they are: This person, if elected, is not going to follow my wishes or the wishes of those of the majority of the people, should they elect him/her, but will chose a maverick path of interpretation of religious ideology translating into religious rule, if allowed to get that far.

Yes, I call for openness in campaigning and political dogma.

I want to know who these people are. I want to know what they believe. And I want to be able to vote for their opponents.

that's my response at 1:00 AM

(response to George 12:40 AM)

I respect those who have differing views about abortion, but the issue will never be resolved until something happens: BOTH SIDES MUST BE DEBATING THE SAME ISSUE. "Pro-choice" people argue that a fetus doesn't have the same constitutional rights as a born person. "Pro-life" people argue that a fetus is, well, life. Even the terms of the two camps should be consistent.

Legal abortion is a necessary evil. Have you ever been to a third-world country? The main problems are usually corruption and overpopulation. Hunger is the worst form of child abuse. So "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em."

I'm sick and tired of bogus comparisons made between war deaths and abortion "deaths."

(response to Chris 11:58)

Great Dave Barry/Star Trek quotes. I don't know how Dave Barry is, but that's a good quote.

I see that you're in Sweden. I've done some relatively extensive travel abroad, and there's one observation that I've made: Americans tend to be the most jingoistic people in the world. George W. Bush is just a microcosm of the country. Most Europeans, Canadians, and Australians I've met don't view the world in an Amer-centric way. In a nutshell, that's the problem. Why do Republican/fundamentalist strongholds tend to be in particular areas? 1) Their communities are bland and homogenous 2) There's a correlation between poverty and ignorance/intolerance; 36/38 of the states that George W. Bush won in '04 are the poorest in the country. The bottom line is that most of the world is non-White, non-Christian, and poor. That's not my opinion; it's a fact. Once you know and acknowledge that fact, it changes your world view. One out of 260+ Congresspeople being Muslim doesn't pose a threat. One Indian visiting a Southern Virginia town (see macaca incident) doesn't pose a threat. Two black guys at an LA comedy club (see Michael Richards incident) don't pose a threat. Republicans and the Middle Class are petrified. As Michael Moore put it, Anglos will be an ethnic minority within a few decades. That's resulted in many reactionary responses: i.e. White Flight, Republicans moving to the far right, etc. Many of the original American colonies were founded by people who were fleeing religious persecution in Europe. How ironic that hundreds of years later, rightwing-extremist Republicans have replicated that persecution.

If you want to know the essence of a religion, learn about its founder. Jesus talked about loving your neighbor--not about hating him if he's different than you. Mohammad never advocated violence against non-believers. By the way, "The Message" is an excellent flick about the beginnings of Islam. For fundamentalist Republicans, ignorance is bliss. They could talk 'til they're blue in face, about how they hate Muslims (see Virginia redneck in "Borat") But ask them anything about the religion, and they'd be dumbfounded.

According to the An Guttmacher Institute (AGI) there have been nearly 35,316,203 abortions from 1973-1996 beginning with the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. That is, nearly 12% of our current population. Just a comparison, that's nearly 10 million more citizens than everyone in Iraq. Where's the outrage? The U.S. entry into the Middle East was bipartisan. However, I agree that there needs to be an immediate exist strategy. The morals of the right include more than just the right to life.

Steve:

According to the Court, providing for transportation is analogous to providing police protection along the same transportation routes - it benefits everyone, and therefore should not be refused to some because of the religious nature of their end destination. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with police officers stopping traffic at religious schools because it benefits everyone!!! You may consider taking a course in constitutional law.

Reading a lot of this reminds me of a comment made by Dave Barry: "Ever notice how someone who wants to tell you all about their religion never wants to hear about yours?"

The point I am trying to make is that it seems as if something is not a belief that an individual holds, that belief is diminished in validity. That sounds extremely ego centric and self serving to me. Like my time is more valuable than your time.

Our founding fathers, Christian that they all may have been, still had the forethought to see the potential pitfalls when church and state were intertwined, hence the "separation of church and state".

No one can totally separate what they belief in from what they actually do; it is a wise person who understands that all beliefs should be held equally valid at some level, and therefore temper their beliefs into what I would call "the needs of the many". (Yes a Star Trek phrase) It's call consequential thinking.

I may or may not support Barrack Obama, but I would certainly say that his understanding that his personal beliefs have to fit into what he does for the greater good rather than the other way around shows a unique insight, one not commonly found these days.

I am a Christian and I think I speak for the vast silent majority when I say that I am sick and tired of people using my religion to say they are better than me.
I've never spoken to Jesus Christ, I've been to church about 20 times in my life, and it kind of creeps me out, but I believe in the fundamental Christian doctrine: love thy neighbor, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, forgiveness, mercy, charity. So it really makes me angry when people get up on a tree stump and start beating me over the head with a Bible. Who gave them the right?
I think it is time for ordinary Christains to take our religion back.

I am one of the long-decried "secular humanists". I am extremely well read and quite intelligent and I don't need to belong to or ally myself with ANY established religion or follow any faith. All I know is that whatever works for you works for you, just don't unduly stress or hurt anyone or anything else in the process. Yes, I am a vegetarian and I worry about my footprint on the planet.

John Pearson @ Concordia, thank you for your brief but clarifying post. Reading it makes me enthusiatic for the future knowing that we have excellent priests in the pipeline.

I feel the republicans manipulated Christians myself included by using the abortion issue. I have decided not to let moral issues determine who I vote for from now on. Killing our young men and women in Iraq is no better than killing unborn babies.

With all due respect to His Grace, "anger at the misuse of religion" hardly seemed to be a defining issue in the midterm elections.
Opposition to Iraq is hardly something that the American religions have an unequivocal position on. The mainline protestant churches seem to be against the president on the war. The fundamentalist protestants seem to be behind him. The Catholic hierarchy is officially against the war; the Catholic faithful themselves are mixed. American Muslims, Jews, and the irreligious are scattered all across the board.
What other issue could His Grace have in mind? He names none. Data-free analysis, the coin of too many amateur theologians, helps no one.
The only fair conclusion is that religion didn't really have a lot to do with the midterm elections.

I hope the Bishop is right but it will take at least one more election before I can stop having nightmares where convoys of busses pull up to every polling place in the country at the last minute, disgorging throngs of wild eyed bible wavers determined to carry out the Rove Plan of Salvation and stick the country with the Second Coming of George W. Bush.

I hope the Bishop's assessment of the last election is correct but it will take at least one more election before I stop having nightmares where convoys of busses pull up to every polling place in the country disgorging throngs of wild eyed bible wavers determined to saddle us with the Second Coming of George W. Bush.

(response to: Miggs 9:33)

What the reverand said is fairly objective. Many evangelicals are sick and tired of fundamentalist Republicans' hypocrisy and abuse of power. '06 exit polls prove it.

Rev. Chane --

Do you have any evidence to back up what you're saying? Or do you just decide arbitrarily that if the Republicans lost, it must be because of whatever you most dislike about them?

Miggs

Joanna,

AMEN, SISTER!!!

An "Anonymous" post at 2:23 puts the qutstion:"If my relgious belief is that abortion is murder, and that murder is against God, then how can I possibly compromise this belief into some "universal morality" (e.g. some abortions are okay sometimes)." So, where do I start in answering this question...

OK, lets us start with understanding what's meant by "universal morality". We can all agree, I hope, that there are cetain things believers & non-believers consider wrongful types of conduct i.e. the taking of an innocent life. Non-believers consider the aforementioned act wrong no matter what some transcendant power might have to say on the matter. I assume, rightfully, that believers also would continue considering the act wrong even if "God" said nothing on the matter.

We find certain universal principles of conduct accepted across cultural & religious lines-- I think they are inate, not something we need rationalize ourselves into accepting as a "compromise" position.

But, is even the fact that some types of conduct carry universal disapprobation enough to merit legislation regulating the conduct? Or, is it necesary to show some actual harm to society, or to an individual, in the absence of regulation? I think the U.S. Supreme Court -- Brother Antonin inter alia dissenting -- got it correct in opining the morality alone isn't sufficient.

And even where we agree on the principle, it's application may not be so susceptable to consensus. We may not agree on how to define the specifics of murder. For instance, you consider abortion to be murder. But at what point do you consider an individual life to exist? Insemination? When the heart starts beating? At the point of "viability"? If you can find consensus among religious folk on the "when", then you've done something nobody else has.

And would you consider it murder when an actually innocent person is put to death at the hands of the state under death penalty statutes? If not, then you've already compromised your principles.

In any case, the debate isn't about compromise v. fidelity to principle. It is about sectarian views v. consensus in informing the debate on public policy. Legislators are certainly free to bring their sectarian views to the debate, to vote only for policy options that hew to uncompromising religious codes -- indeed, where the legislator feels it a moral imperative, I prefer they not do anything but, even where I disagree with the option. Bishop Chane is quite correct in cautioning policy makers against legislating from the pew...

Bishop Chane is absolutely right about this: many people of many faiths are sick of the "American Taliban" and their drive to force their particular brand of Christianity on the rest of us, at the expense of education, the Constitution and its assorted principles. Like many Christians (I am a life-long Episcopalian and a firm believer in both reason and faith and the via media), I react negatively to the strident rhetoric and 'values' that these same people betray at every chance. They, like fanatical Islamists, have no respect or regard for anyone that does not believe exactly as they do, or at least gives them lip-service. I resent their noise that essentially 'signifies nothing' except to play on emotions for cash and their attempts to coerce theocracy in a country that was founded on the principle of denying any specific faith a major political role in government.

This is NOT religion, it is politics and power under the guise of faith. How many Haggards and Swaggerts have to be exposed as snake-oil salesmen, trading on people's credulity, before the average American stops mistaking hysteria for faith? Jesus had a lot to say about public displays of piety, none of it very admiring. It seems to me that the hard-core Religious Right follows an example of public-piety, private-debauch and, when caught, the whole group revels in a reality-show orgy of self-abasement. It's just more theatrics, using faith as a stage for self-aggrandizement, which has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with ego, power, and cold, hard cash. Is it any wonder that a moderate, reasoned voice gets lost in the stentorian blasts of evangelical propaganda?

I am not willing to chuck my God-given ability to reason and think at the foot of some clay-footed bellower who can outshout his intellectual betters, nor am I about to equate my personal patriotism according to their 'with us or agin us' dogma. It's high time that the moderate voices gain strength against these obnoxious and well-heeled panderers to the lowest common denoninator of human fear.

(response to Luisa 9:01 PM)

True. The vast majority of politicians are in it for themsleves.

About abortion, maybe one day Republicans will get the message: most of America is pro-choice, and in favor of restrictions on abortion--but it's not an issue that they think about much. Abortion is somewhat of a non-issue when the GD president is spending billions on an illegal and immoral war. As one South Carolinian senator put it, George W. Bush likes running for president more than being president. The Catholic church has opposed EVERY major scientific breakthrough in history. GWB isn't Catholic, but in that tradition, his only presidential veto has been against stem cell research. Pathetic. As the saying goes, "It's the economy, stupid." By George, some people never learn.

Post-Haggard, transparent and blatant religious hypocrisy is increasingly being seen by the electorate for what it is:

Cynically using Terry Schiavo's tragedy and idealized "sanctity of all life" rhetoric; while remaining remarkably silent as hundreds of thousands of innocents were slaughtered in Darfur.

Presuming a "principled stand" against embryonic cell research; all the while condoning torture and rationalizing hundreds of thousands dying in Iraq. (per Rumsfeld, "in war stuff happens")

Accepting Bishops' condemnation and threats against pro-choice candidates (and voters); never asking exactly what public position they had taken regarding priests who sexually abused children.

And then there's Mr. Haggard.

Dr. Key,

Few politicians have any real interest in outlawing abortion because it rakes in millions of votes from the hopelessly naive who don't understand that the first priority of every politician is getting (re)elected. Why break the cycle?

The Christian Right is often neither Christian or Right.

PLEASE, LORD, JUST MAKE THEM GO AWAY!!!

(response to Luisa 8:34 PM)

Valid points. Like I always say, there's nothing Christian about the Christian Coalition. Republicans are "pro-life" when it's conveeeeeeeeeeeenient. Do you think Republicans would be so ardently opposed to abortion if White women weren't having most of the abortions? Heck no. Gang violence and "gangster rap" didn't become an issue for voters until it spread to the suburbs.

(response to Kevin 7:57 PM)

Your mentioning of the Shakers reminded me of a point that I neglected to make. Again, ignorance is bliss for many fundamentalists. How many GD times have we heard Republicans refer to the "Christian Founding Fathers"? Most of those founding fathers were actually Deists-agnostics (literally meaning to "not know"), if you will. They believed that God was a "divine clockmaker" that had created Earth and then let it run on its own. That song "From a Distance" comes to mind. And before that, the Puritans came to America with Bibles and no farming tools, beliving they were predestined to push Native Americans into the Pacific Ocean. The conformist ideology of John Adams and modern Republican fundamentalists haven't strayed much from that approach.

HOW VERY TYPICAL IT HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN FOR THE WHITE MAN TO ONLY REALIZE WHAT HARM HIS MIS-USE OF GOD'S GIFTS MAY CAUSE WHEN A PERSON OF COLOR TAKES THE TOOL AWAY FROM THE WHITE MAN AND USES THE TOOL BETTER THAN THE WHITE MAN. WITH SINCERITY THAT THE WHITE MAN LACKS. HOW DARE YOU USE YOUR POSITION TO REINFORCE RACISTS, SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF CONVENIENT CODES OF SO-CALLED ETHICS! GOOD NIGHT BISHOP. SLEEP TIGHT BISHOP. DO NOT LET THE BED BUGS BITE BISHOP!

The religious right thinks Geo W. Bush is "pro-life" because he appointed 2 right-wing supreme court justices who will supposedly reverse Roe v Wade at some vague time in the future. Unfortunately, he also started a war that's getting thousands of "innocent human life" killed every year. I'm Christian but the next president can be Buddhist for all I care, as long as he's competent and ethical. I'm soooo sick of Dr. James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Gary Bauer and their ilk prancing and preening as if they run the country.

PLEASE, LORD, JUST MAKE THEM GO AWAY!!!

Let us not forget that religion was used as a tool to reinforce racial codes in support of slavery that are *still* endemic in this culture. Where was the good Christian outrage then? Let us not forget that a Episcopal Priest was instrumental in forcing a man with views diametrically opposed to Justice Thurgood Marshall upon the black american society much to the delight of the race baiting GOP. No! Experience and history dictate the fact that your position of authority does not obscure the Truth. Stray from the Path at your own peril Bishop. Titles do not impress me!!! They only serve NOTICE THAT MUCH IS EXPECTED FROM *YOU*!

Many of the comments in response show that a marriage of religion and politics is exactly what many people want. This is why it will not cease, and this will be the detriment of society. Religious differences are the cause of -- or perhaps excuse for -- so much of the strife and killing in our world, both today and historically. How ironic. Pretensions of morality leading to the most immoral actions.

Right Reverend John Bryson Chane Sir, you will selectively enforce this new standard at your own peril.

You make some valid points. It was interesting that in Ohio, Strickland, the Dem. candidate for governor, got HALF of the evangelical vote. GD amazing. While fundamentalists are the loudest Christians in America, they don't represent all Christians, or all people of religion, for that matter. Tim Kaine served as a missionary in South America, but he also ran with a tone of inclusiveness. With Democrats' slim majority in Congress, expect the tone to be more tolerant. Everyone's tired of Republicans' rightwing-extremist "I AM the federal government!" dogmatism. I guess ignorance is bliss for Republicans. Case in point: one Virginia Repub seems a little bit paranoid about Muslims in the U.S. Congress, so he suggested barring them from immigrating to America. Er, the only Muslim in Congress was born in the states, so that plan is kinda bogus.

As a Quaker, I'm silent on this one *grin*

Political office is not a theological office. Those elected are to deal with the practical problems we have both the technical nuts and bolts kind and the problems that arise from having such a diverse country, inter-personal, inter-cultural. There is no established religion nor established unreligion. We all have problems dealing with personal death and what to love. Those are individual problems and society can sometimes make it easier for us to deal with them. But we have communal problems as well, the growing realisation of our environmental problems, war and peace, for examble.
We as a nation are given to bouts of fantasy: Brook Farm, the Shakers, and the aptly named, Fruitlands. The Sixties was such a time, all you need is love and flower power. We are in another one now. Somehow, an ordinary plain old country, with all the usual ups and downs... even the wealthy and powerful have those... and some never recover from the downs... has confused itself with some grand metaphysical/mystical struggle in the skies.
I've lived the last 10 years overseas. The country has come to look stupider and weirder and a danger to everyone else. Get a grip on yourselves. Stop looking in the mirror all the time. Look out the window. See what going on.
Kevin

Come on people you are not being fair to religion or most Christians. Christians are human beings just like anybody else. We have the same weaknesses. And yes, we make a lot of mistakes and some people who call themselves Christians are anything but. That said you show me one other movement outside of Christianity and Judiasm that is built around a loving God who only wants people to treat each other right. Unfortunately there are a number of folks in both faiths who have forgotten what thier faith teaches. That's not the fault of religion. Just the normal tendency of some folks who can't care about anybody but themselves. Most Christians aren't in any way perfect, but they are pretty decent folks!

It isn't just the politicians but also the American people who do not seem to get it. The United States was not founded as a Christian Nation. It was a place where you could go to practice your belief so long as you did not oppress others. Our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are influenced more by John Locke than any Biblical character. If we were a Christian Nation, then we would be having regular religious wars, because there are many different versions of Christianity. Sooner or later one preacher or priest or reverend will claim that his is the correct version, that person will try to impose it by force if necessary, then the fight is on. The best thing is for both the politicians and the people should concentrate on civic matters, and keep the religion where it belongs. Religion in the wrong hands can be very dangerous

Follow our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ through his disciple on earth, George W. Bush. Through the leadership of our president, we will conquer the hated Arab and his Islamic faith. God leads us to eternity through his prophets and anointed ones. Praise to the Lord.

The French Le Figaro recently reported that the French Catholic Church was entering an irreversible period of decline. Only yesterday, the article added, France was seen as la fille aînée of the Church, but today less than 25 percent of it population remained Catholics; of that number only one percent went to church on Sunday, and they all had gray hair. Why? Do the French honestly believe that the Church has nothing to do with politics?