All Comments (43)

J_P- by the way, as for the rule of david- God told saul that He didnt want an earthly king and allowed it- but it wasnt His plan- and have you ever actually read psalms?

mr sisk was a bright and reasonable christian voice and i appreciated his article.
peace

Anonymous,

You're absolutely right that public schools have no business evangelizing to students. No public school is going to force my kids to learn creationism or force them to pray without one helluva fight from me.

My point about the danger of theocracy is this - there is no question that fundamentalists are working to push America in a theocratic direction. I'm just as outraged as anyone by what has happened at the Air Force Academy and at the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. Still, we are a long way away from becoming a full-fledged Republic of Gilead, with a Nehemiah Scudder-type dictator in charge. I think for that to happen, we would have to have a national crisis worse than Pearl Harbor or 9/11. It would have to be something so severe that moderate Christians would go along with the extremist agenda out of sheer terror. The fact that our free press even highlights the theocratic abuses that do exist, is a healthy sign that our society still respects freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

Tonio:

And others who do not believe there is any danger of this becoming a theocracy:

Will you please come to the rust belt states and tell the schools here to quit forcing kids to sing religious hymns in school? Then please tell the teachers to stop teaching religious belief as fact in class.

Thank you.

Tonio,

I appreciate how you can express a single approach that contains no bias.

However, America has capital punishment and Europe calls us barbaric...but beheadings, be-handings (for thieves) and other punishments found in certain geographical regions are...tolerated or not condemned(?)

And commentators labeling the Massachusetts Bay experiment as a failure do not appear to recognize the irony in contemporary experiments taking place in "primitive" countries. Somehow the view, in those contemporary cases, is,"...it's not really our business to pass judgement on such experiments; but those silly Puritans really got things wrong, didn't they." 17 or more crimes in Massachusetts Bay for which Capital Punishment awaited - including taking the Lord's name in vain. Sound like contemporary measures in Pakistan, Indonesia, or farther west?

I tip my hat to you for seeing no difference - even with the passage of 385 years - in criticizing such efforts around the world.

I tend to think that the double standard expressed here by the church figurehead is a sign of the times we live in. As thirty years ago, we would not have had any of it! I believe he grew up in at a time when belief and politics had meaning. They are for me still very different acts and pro-fessiona! I hope he gets serious about what he says before America truly gets Christianity!!!!

As i have read thru all of these comments, I have noticed how meticulously many have been written. Almost as if this forum would be the deciding factor in the greater battle of getting religious whackos out of power seats.(No offense to ordinary religious people, just your fringe members with money and TV time.)

I can only offer my view: Stay out of my life, i will stay out of yours. In no way will I corrupt your children, if you isolate them from what you hold to be corrosive. I will strive to do the same. When you come in contact with me, and young Paul, and young Mary question you,"Why is that man that way Mommy(Daddy)" You just say, because God made all different types of things on this planet, and as you come of age and see more of the world, you will discover many great wonders to ponder. When my young son or daughter asks me, "why doesnt Christopher know who Charles Darwin is Daddy?" I will say(oh man oh man oh man....) Evolution is a slow process my child.

Hail the new God friends, Money. Blessed is he who can bask in the new god enough to put his children thru college.

Why do you perpetuate welfare and poverty by putting a stigma on abortion? Why do you not let people who do not feel attracted to the opposite sex live their lives in peace?

Why this need to make others in the mold of your upbringing?

Why a need to change people? I have found that a need to change others is a sure sign one has given up trying to change themselves.

but alas... i have carried on, and hoped this forum would helped to tilt the scales in the great war.

"I am convinced that a theocratic nation, that is a nation that understands itself to be living under and out of the direct leadership of God, is a deeply dangerous place." AMEN!

Look at the history of theocracy.

Secularism is the best political system there is:it both and at once seperatres religion from the state and protects religion and ensures freedom of religon for all.

I thought about responding to the question, but none of it will matter when the Chinese conquer all of us. We need to start learning Chinese if we don't want to spend the rest of our lives in the coal mines!!!

Mohamed Malleck writes: "I have seen several comments purporting to warn as if of an imminent bill that will make America officially a Christian nation, with 'tithing', maybe an inquisition, maybe a grand priest to burn Muslims like me at the stake. Nothing like this is about to be happening in America, nor has it happened or is it about to be happening to Bahais or Jews in Iran..."

I suggest that discrimination in the name of state religion can be carried out very effectively without burning at the stake: for instance, the Islamic Revolutionary government in Iran has executed over 200 Baha'is solely for their religions beliefs; stolen all properties owned by the Baha'i commnunity, destroying several of its holiest sites; desecrated graves and bulldozed Baha'i cemeteries, requiring Baha'is to be buried in the desert in unmarked graves; prevented the higher education of young Baha'is; dismissed from public service all Baha'is and demanded that they repay their entire salaries; prevented Baha'is from being teachers; refused to permit court cases against those who commit crimes against Baha'is; refused to accept the legality of Baha'i marriages, thus characterizing all married Baha'i women as prostitutes and all their children as bastards. Are we to assume that this is better than being burned at the stake and that the Baha'is should acquiesce?

The Islamic Revolution is a disgrace to Islam. The Prophet, peace be upon him, is ashamed and his tender heart weeps at what his followers do.

"If Americans are prepared to dismiss the Foundational efforts in our country to have a Bible Commonwealth under Winthrop, are the same people ready to pronounce similar efforts as foolish in all parts of the world?"

Absolutely, Unmerited. No government anywhere in the world should tell citizens what religious beliefs to hold, whether it's in Kabul or Riyadh or Topeka or London. Just as an example, the fate that almost befell Abdur Rahman sickens and horrifies me. While I think the chance of someone like James Dobson taking power as a theocratic dictator is remote, I'm too much of a pessimist to say that it can't happen here.

Strange how 150 years of US History (Colonial/Frontier/etc.) can be brushed aside with a few sentences.

Professor Morgan at Yale, in his works on Governor John Winthrop "The Puritan Dilemna" and Roger Williams, gives us a picture of what many consider to be America's "Foundational Period" that commenced with the signing of the Mayflower Compact.

If any of this column's readers were to read about the concept of a Bible-Commonwealth in Massachusetts, that Morgan describes, they would see how it could have never succeeded, just as the Tribe that followed Moses, Joshua and Caleb failed. While many would say, "There, you see, it is a foolish notion," are they as prepared to apply the same conclusion to similar efforts by people that bow to Mecca and seek to impose their religious text on civil society?

In other words, if Americans are prepared to dismiss the Foundational efforts in our country to have a Bible Commonwealth under Winthrop, are the same people ready to pronounce similar efforts as foolish in all parts of the world?

If the logic behind condeming the experiment known as the 17th Century Massachusetts Bay Colony is sound, it should also apply to all 20th and 21st Century experiments (to have a government anchored to a religious document) around the globe.

I think that it's a slippery slope that people walk on here. I don't think that as an individual, I can tell others how to (or how not to) believe. I can't say that you're right or wrong on religion, since it is faith based. More importantly, who am I to tell a Presbyterian or an atheist that they are wrong? Your faith is your own (even agnostics and atheists are faith-based, if they’d be realistic about it), and I respect your belief, just as I would hope you respect mine. The atheist that denounces the actions of those who believe in G_d (and accuse the religious as right-wing Nazis) are as bad as the fundamentalist telling you you're headed to Hell if you don't vote Republican, at least in my opinion.

But the expression of belief best made in how you live your life, not on your oratory skills. And there's the rub: how does a faith-based person walk the line in wanting to make the world a better place in his/her eyes, versus having respect for others beliefs and not trodding upon them? Unfortunately, more people carry their own secret belief into their lives, rather than their publically professed belief. Their bigotry/hatred/greed/lust seems to be more important than any faith-based credo they supposedly adhere to, be they Muslim or atheist. I find it hard to respect a politician when they trot out the religion card – I’d rather they do whatever they’re doing without telling me how much they love their version of G_d (and ignoring how that version told them to act). I guess it boils down to rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and leave the rest to the individual to do with that they will.

I for one, could never be a believer of any religious book that can so easily be interpreted to promote hatred and violence. Many of the major religion's books fall into this category, including Christianity's. I am envious of the British for having Darwin on their currency, while we Americans are stuck with "In God We Trust" on ours, I certainly do not. Religion/God is the #1 cause of war in the history of the world! Science has disproved many religions over the years and it is only a matter of time before people do a little research and see that science has already disproved many of the major religions, including Christianity. I would love to see America become a better role model for the world by having a majority of it's people be Agnostics/Atheists. Please question your faith!

Bishop Sisk,

I rather like the way you have framed it and I'm entirely in agreement with you on this matter, though I remain unpersuaded that God exists.

With respect to theocracy's however, it should be pointed out that Mohammid was both head of his religion (as prophet) and head of state, so this form of government comes more naturally to majority Muslim nations.

If you follow the path of Jesus Christ when he was here with us two milleniums ago, I think it is clear that he never intended to be the mankind's political leader. Quoting directly from Jesus Christ, His kingdom is not of this world, but of heaven.

Christianity is a religion of heart and faith, not of regulations and endless secular or religious laws.

The fact that our founding fathers believed in the concept of separation of the church and the state is a blessing to all of us Christians, because history shows politics and any secular branches of governments are subect to the same vices which the rest of the world enjoys: money, sex, violence, and thirst for power.

sincerely,

Samuel Cho

Mr. Mark Sisk,

I respect your viewpoints very much, because they are balanced and not dogmatic. However, ...

I think that this scare about religion is misguided. You write that -- I, emphatically, do not want this nation to become “Christian” in any formal political sense.

I am convinced that a theocratic nation, that is a nation that understands itself to be living under and out of the direct leadership of God, is a deeply dangerous place --

I have seen several comments purporting to warn as if of an imminent bill that will make America officially a Christian nation, with 'tithing', maybe an inquisition, maybe a grand priest to burn Muslims like me at the stake.

Nothing like this is about to be happening in America, nor has it happened or is it about to be happening to Bahais or Jews in Iran, nor are Jews or Christians or Hindus burnt alive in 'theocratic' Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

Independent thinkers like me, though tryinmg hard to be a good Muslim, are more likely to be treated harshly in Saudi Arabia than Dick Cheney or Tony Blair or George Bush.

Believe me, Sir, if I had to choose between a fundamentalist arms merchant and a peddler of 'God's words', though skeptical of both, I would put my trust in the latter. The former is more likely to roast me on the fire like the Dutch peacekeepers in Somalia had done to a Somali boy a few years ago.

J-P

"I have to ask, why would you have a problem with a nation being based on Christian values? If you are a Christian, at some point you must believe that you are right and others are wrong (not that this is a problem, I'm just stating a fact). If some system must govern men, why not a system that would reflects the holy and perfect knowledge that you believe the Bible presents us?"

The Old Testament advocates slavery, or at the very least condones it. That is enough to make me very skeptical of any government based in religion.

The inherent problem woth "Christian values" is that we, as a nation have rejected many of them. Slavery is just one example.

E.B

I believe that the point of the article was that the US needs to keep religious practice out of government. Their fear and suspicion of organized religion to administer and/or control government was a justifiable one as the founders of this nation were well aware of the eminent danger of government by religious beliefs and power. The theocratic excesses during the Middle Ages in much of Europe and the unduly repressive power and influence of religious leaders on governments even post-Reformation certainly would have affected their thinking. Early Puritan religious dominance on the lives of settlers in New England may well have influenced them against a government sactioned religious power as well.

Most of the Founders were believers in God, but not in the sense of God's playing a direct part in the lives of those who believed in him. By way of example, Washington attended church on a random basis and often left before the sermon, that Christian portion that he may have believed impinged upon his deistic convictions. At the same time it was obvious that these men certainly believed that there should be an individual right of religious belief and practice.

Believing at this point in time that religious pluralism in America is good or bad, allowable or not allowable, is moot...it exists and cannot now be changed. Debating the validity or lack of validity of Christianity or any other religion is pointless as well. Believe or disbelieve...those are the essential choices.

To permit the encroachment and influence of any religious belief into the leadership and power structure of government is untenable not only under the First Amendment, but by the more general lessons of history as well. In the current administration [Christian] religionists have gone all out to seize control of "that which is Caesar's" rather than working to fulfill their true Christian injunction to live "Christ-like" lives, serving others with love and caring as Jesus Christ served others. ...and I might add, keeping their "religious noses" clean. Can Christians and those of other religions serve in Congress and other governmental positions? Most certainly! As long as they keep their faith and religious practice out of the operation of government.

When the religious attempt to force themselves upon others, whether it be individuals, governments, or nations, they do a diservice to themselves, their religion, and those that they force themselves upon. Under those conditions there should be no "weeping" or "howling at the moon" among them when they are condemned by those they offend or harm.

Is America a Christian nation? I do not believe it is. Perhaps a deistic nation, but not "Christian". For me it comes down to the old bit about "if ya talk the talk, ya better walk the walk"...or shut up.

Thank you Reverend Sisk, for so clearly explaining why we are not, and should not, be a "Christian Nation".

What I see as one of Christianity's biggest problems is that there is no consistency among the various beliefs of its followers, or with what is stated clearly in the Bible itself.

To put it plainly, the Christian system lacks integrity, and is therefore not useful. It serves only as a warm fuzzy blanket to make people feel good, or guilty as hell.

Any goodness that a person gets out of their faith-based religion can also be gotten without their faith-based religion.

This is always a confusing subject. I suggest a distinction has to be drawn between the idea of "nation" (a collection of people, a demographic) and "government" or "state" (as defined by the U.S. Constitution). Technically the U.S. is a "christian nation" in that the majority of its citizens say they are "christian" when polled.

Of course the Constitution intentionally and clearly draws a distinction between any and all religions and the government, separates the two entities and, by law, prohibits the recognition of any religion above any other religion by the state.

So, while most Americans say they are Christian, The United States of America is not a christian state.

Yes, we want people to be free to "believe", they also have to defend those "beliefs" when they express them publicly. Believers give up the right to private articles of faith when they force the rest of us to listen to them. Free speech means I get to ask you to prove your assertions. If you can't, then they have no currency in the marketplace of ideas.

Enjoy a warm and safe winter holiday season!

I frankly prefer St. Nicholas or Santa Claus to Jesus. Jesus was a freak who wanted the end of the world. I don't want this. Do you?

Who is a Christian?
Jesus wasn't. He was a Jew, and quite an unorthodox, radical one at that; but he was a pacifist, not a violent religious extremist.
Ghandi never converted to Christianity because he said he had never met a Christian, i.e., one following and living the teachings of Jesus.
The U.S. Constition, 1st amendment, wisely precludes America becoming a Christian nation.
Jesus counseled to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is due Him. God, the force that created everything including athiests, will come again in the person of Jesus Christ to our planet, hopefully before we destroy it. The reason for the season is Jesus Christ, not St Nicklas or Santa Claus.

Bishop Sisk, it is indeed refreshing to hear from you as a head of a leading US Church group that "a theocratic nation is deeply dangerous". I agree with you wholeheartedly.

At least in this new Millennium, I hope that the United Nations General Assembly will have the wisdom to proclaim that no theocratic nation should be accorded full membership status in the UN and that no theocracy should ever be given membership status in the Security Council.

Theocracies ought to be relegated to associate member status until they get rid of their state religions. When they do, they ought to be considered civilized enough to be part of the UN. Such incentives seem necessary to eliminate faith-based prejudices which are currently practiced by theocracies.

We have experimented enough with theocracies over the last two thousand years and what we have reaped so far is nothing but violence, mayhem and religious discrimination, perpetrated by the Jewish, Christian and Islamic zealots.

Our misguided support of faith-based initiatives championed by the present administration is making Islamic Republics rightly point to our hypocrisy whenever we challenge them on their support of madrasahs in countries which have non-Muslim majorities.

As secular countries, Thailand and India have suffered immensely (and continue to do so) at the hands of Islamic terrorists due to the heavy bank-rolling of madrasahs and mosques by the Islamic nations of the Middle East. These two countries besides others (Sri Lanka and Nepal) have become the targets of proselytization campaigns supported by Christian evangelicals in the US and other European nations.

Such "christianizing" campaigns have led to inter-faith conflicts in communities which remained at peace with each other for over two thousand years, as a result of their pluralistic Hindu and Buddhist traditions. Some of these countries are enacting legislation against proselytization, thus promoting inter-faith conflicts locally. The activities of Christian evangelists have provoked the spawning of Hindu and Buddhist religious zealots in both those countries as well as in neighboring countries such as Sri Lanka and Nepal. Even politicians in those countries are using religion as a wedge issue to seek power akin to what our politicians have been doing during the last six years. We are no longer that shining beacon on the hill!

Therefore, we have an obligation to eliminate our own faith-based programs, especially those we fund overseas if we are to regain credibility concerning our professed tolerance of pluralism. As Christians we must get rid of our pillars from our eyes before we can point to the motes in the eyes of others.

We should worry about theocracy but a couple of creches and Christmas trees a theocracy don't make! I wish we would stop worrying about Christmas decorations and enjoy the holidays. God is after all The Blue Fairy and we all love being kids again. No adult in his right mind really believes Christian nonsense.

I don't think the idea of the US becoming a Christian theocracy is that remote. Every day in every state the name of Christ is falsely used to advance the political agenda of Americans submitting to the social and behavior standards dictated by the Christian extremist demagogues like Falwell, Robertson and Dobson. Look at the agenda: anti-evolution, anti-gay marriage, anti-women's choice, calling Islams heathens by top members of the military, a blind and dangerous allegiance to protecting Israel at all costs, bombing abortion clinics, killing doctors and so on. This agenda is pushed from the pulpit as the gospel itself with church member lists used for voter turn out. People and legislators are threatened with ex-communication (eternal damnation) if their political views and public or private votes are different from these extremists. Pedophiles in the Catholic and other clergy are politically protected. The Air Force academy is used as a Christian extremist training camp. It's time decent Americans wake up to this threat before it's too late. The threat to our freedom by this Christian extremist agenda, although more subtle, is equal to the violent Islamic extremist threat.

Those who suggest this is a Christian nation are naive historically.

They should familiarize themselves with the writings (primary sources) and recorded lives of our founding fathers. Products of the enlightenment they were not swayed by "faith over reason", quite the opposite.

I believe it was Henry David Thoreau who said, "If you would convince a man that he does wrong, do right. But do not care to convince him. Men will believe what they see. Let them see."

I suggest a look at the church attendance patterns of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and their burial choices. The majority of our founding fathers were Deists philosophically, Agnostics or Atheists in practice.

Hey! Rational people! What are you doing here? Scroll up and down these 15 comments. We usually don't get this much fruitcake until Christmas.

There are at least two problems with trying to make any government conform to the "holy and perfect knowledge that you believe the Bible presents us".

FIRST: the bible simply does not offer a treatise on good government, and what clues it does offer us are so limited as to be generally unhelpful. For example, how should the national debt be paid? How much longer can we afford to make Social Security payments? How can the influence of campaign financing be curtailed? What are appropriate troop levels in Iraq? Should states share databases? What constitutes an "adequate defense" in court?
THESE are the real questions facing our American institutions, and there are simply no unambiguous answers offered in the Bible.

SECOND: "Biblical value" or not, pluralism is a necessary fact of the American context. We are perhaps the most diverse nation in the history of the world: religiously, ethnically, culturally, linguistically, and politically diverse. The fact that New York City is not likely to collapse in sectarian violence is a testament to its leaders historical efforts at power sharing, consensus building, and negotiated compromise. None of which could have been accomplished without a shared commitment to pluralistic government.

We as Americans rightly expect our president, and our congress, and our courts, TO SERVE ALL OF US. Without this expectation there would be no trust in the rule of law. But this expectation is only justified to the extent that those holding office continually strive to protect common interests, interests beyond the limited sphere of their own personal affiliations (whether political, racial, or religious). For any representative of We the People to even speak of America as being a "Christian Nation" is to break faith with that great American expectation.

- Lauren D.

Mr. Sisk, your argument seems to rely on two notions that don't jive with the Bible, which I understand you to believe in.

The first is that "a nation that understands itself to be living under and out of the direct leadership of God, is a deeply dangerous place." You assume, a priori, that such a place is dangerous - but what about Israel under David's rule? Was this nation, led by men who believed themselves to be under the leadership of God, a deeply dangerous place? Was the man who was "after God's own heart" a bad ruler? It seems that a nation that assumes it is under the leadership of God is only "bad" if they stop following God. Of course, a Christian (which I assume you are) would conclude that ANY enterprise that ignores the mandate of God will be doomed to a destructive sinfulness, so what is the difference between a wicked secular government and a wicked religious government?

Second, you seem to hold pluralism as a Biblical value. It is not, at least nowhere that I can find it. While Christ's teachings indicate that conversion should be accomplished through love and patience, I doubt that a man who claimed to be the *only* path to God would be satisfied with followers who were happy to leave others out in the cold.

I have to ask, why would you have a problem with a nation being based on Christian values? If you are a Christian, at some point you must believe that you are right and others are wrong (not that this is a problem, I'm just stating a fact). If some system must govern men, why not a system that would reflects the holy and perfect knowledge that you believe the Bible presents us?

And for all of you non-Christians who are reading this, please don't take offense - I'm not advocating another Inquisition. I'm simply trying to point out that there is little value in holding a view of life if you aren't willing to argue it and live it to its logical conclusion.

I think it is kind of odd that the United States government is borrowed from Ceasar, the guy who threw christians to the lions. We borrowed the senate the courts etc. In Ceasars day there was also freedom of religion, people could worship any God they wanted, except they couldn't be christians. I don't think America can protect real christians either.

Recalling that Christian churches have tortured and exterminated millions and millions of people, who can doubt that Christian churches are the spawn of the Antichrist? Recalling Vietnam and Iraq, maybe this is a Christian nation after all. Can we impeach Mr. Bush for giving aid and comfort to the Antichrist? Isn't that a high crime and misdemeanor?

A Christian Nation is a nation of Christians. In this nation of 300,000,000 how many real Christians - those who live and act in a Christ-like fashion - do you think there are? 5,000 sounds high to me.

Before asking about the existance of a christian nation, shouldn't we know what a christian "individual" is? I think we should! Was Jesus a christian? No! He never heard or preached that term. Was he a Jew? Yes he was. Did he come up with a new religion? No, he only came to fulfill the message of the prophets before him and to guide the "lost sheep of the house of Israel". So, why does the bible seems to speak of different naming that were used by the Jews and why it contains so many tailored stuff for what seems to be a new religion? Well, Jesus name isn't Jesus, it is "Isu", Paul's name isn't Paul, it is Saul, and John's name isn't John, it is Simon. The bible, when translated, got "greek-anized"! "J" was added to almost everything to make it look like greek, not Jewish! Even God's name is played with (that's how the "J" in Jahova came to see the light). The bible as you see it today is a pick and choose texts from over 24,000 old manuscripts in more than 10 languages, with "no two identical texts". Versions contain additions, deletions, and things not even an athiest would believe to find in the bible.

So once again, what is a christian or christianity? The whole thing is a hoax! Yet, after hundreds of years of brain washing and waking up finding yourself with parents who assigned you a christian name, we find ourselves talking about something that never existed! Even after Jesus made it clear that the gentiles are not his target:

"But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." (Matthew 15:24-27)

I feel quite unhappy when I see a layer after layer of confusion, darkness and brainwashing get to crystalize under one name (christianity, in this case) and then handed over for "experts/columnists" to discuss over the internet. Brainwashing at its best! That's what this nation is good at!

Go ahead! Fool yourself a bit more!

Dear Bishop Sisk:

Ditto!!

No religion owns God. The first 5 presidents of the United States were Deitists-they were not Christians. Geo. Washington and Thomas Jefferson declared this is not a Christian based Nation. Almost all people in this country
Say God bless America - I say God bless all the six billion people on earth. That is what God would do.

Randi, I would caution against the use of the word "Antichrist." Most people associate it with a figure from prophecy, even though the word appears nowhere in Revelations.

Am not American, Am Iranian, living in England. By considering my birth certificate Am Muslim. why am I telling this? Just to say such a bright idea that theocracy is really dangerous. I have been in Iran for years (Am student here), and if there is no freedom it is because of the responsibility that the government defined for itself to put (please read "force") people in a right direction and by this eventually the personal life looses its meaning. No personal life, no individualism, consequently no freedom and that’s exactly Hell!

Presently there are more definitions of 'being Christian' than there are definers. If ONE definition in the New Testaments holds, than the US populace is definitaly largely composed of Antichrists, folks who deny the divinity of Jesus.

I think most of you people are trying to say that believing in God and Jesus is not a very good idea because some other people do not like it very much!
Tough, screw them and my believes and my religion!
Its their problem what and how they think, I do what is right for me!

Aloha

The sentence should be "we have experienced attempts to push government in a theocratic direction".

I deeply appreciate Sisk and his praise of the principle of secular government. I think the chance of the US becoming a full-fledged theocracy is remote. However, we have experienced to push government in a theocratic direction, such as teaching creationism in public schools and turning the Air Force Academy into practically a recruitment center for evangelism.

Richard Dawkins was on Stephen Colbert the other night talking about the New Atheism. There's also a cover article on the New Atheism for Wired this November. With all the religious fascists in the US and around the world maybe it's right to try and establish a religion of reason. If we could end ignorance and superstition and establish a world base on the universal declaration of human rights; that is a worthwhile goal.