Q: What do you think of the American Humanist Association's new "Godless Holiday" campaign? The ads will say: "No God? . . . No Problem! Be good for goodness' sake. Humanism is the idea that you can be good without a belief in God.

The humanists are pointing out the obvious. American public holidays are about consumption, not God. Even worse, the Christian faith has internalized this message of cultural Christmas. Christians themselves often forget what Christmas is really about. The humanists really can't do any more harm to Christians about Christmas than we've already done to ourselves.

American holidays, particularly Christmas, are all about the economy. Economists track the health or weakness of the economy based on the purchasing habits of American consumers between now and Christmas. A Gallup poll from less than a month ago predicts that the outlook for holiday spending by consumers will be down again, though perhaps not as "bleak" as 2008. That's why "black Friday" is called black--retailers are supposed to get out of the "red" and into the "black" on that pivotal spending day.

We've set up our entire economy to depend on the sales generated by the hype of "holidays," particularly Christmas. What could this possibly have to do with God?

Q: What do you think of the American Humanist Association's new "Godless Holiday" campaign? The ads will say: "No God? . . . No Problem! Be good for goodness' sake. Humanism is the idea that you can be good without a belief in God.

Now why aren't we discussing those ubiquitous mass transit ads purchased every year by the Catholic Church -- the ones that urge heretics and apostates, among which I presume humanists are included, to "come home for Christmas"? Why are we not asking various religious leaders to explain whether it is possible to be good for God's sake? Given the fact that most people in the world profess one sort of religious belief or another and that bad and sometimes downright evil behavior toward one's fellow man seems to be apportioned quite evenly across the spectrum of religious belief, why is it that atheists, agnostics, humanists, and freethinkers -- whatever people who do not believe in a deity or traditional religion call themselves -- are supposed to defend the proposition that people can be good without God? Show me that people who believe in God behave in a more moral, compassionate fashion than anyone else, and then I'll explain to you, one more tiresome time, why being an atheist doesn't lead me to commit murder. I do not accept religion as the default position for goodness. I think that humanists and atheists spend far too much time proclaiming, "I am not what the promoters of religion say I am."

Q: U.S. Catholic bishops are defending their direct involvement in congressional deliberations over health-care reform, saying that church leaders have a duty to raise moral concerns on any issue, including abortion rights and health care for the poor. Do you agree? What role should religious leaders have -- or not have -- in government policymaking?

A: I hope you will forgive me if I answer this question via a detour to the United Kingdom, where we have no constitutional separation of church and state.

Just a week ago the UK Communities Secretary, John Denham, announced the creation of a new panel of 'religious experts' to advise the government on its public policy decisions (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6569144/Faith-groups-to-be-key-policy-advisers.html). According to Mr Denham (a secular humanist), faith is a 'strong and powerful source of honesty, solidarity, generosity', and Christians and Muslims can contribute significant insights on key issues such as the economy, parenting and tackling climate change. And this is not a one-off initiative so far as Mr Denham is concerned. Far from it: 'We should continually seek ways of encouraging and enhancing the contribution faith communities make on the central issues of our time', not least because the values of Christians, Muslims and other religions are essential, he claims, in building a progressive society.

Before reading the latest moral declaration from the Christian Right about their troubled souls and moral priorities, I e-mailed early Friday morning a national religion reporter about the statement. I wrote that if these leaders' "hierarchy of issues" were abortion, homosexuality and religious freedom, then they "are neither reading from the Bible, nor listening to Jesus."

Q: U.S. Catholic bishops are defending their direct involvement in congressional deliberations over health-care reform, saying that church leaders have a duty to raise moral concerns on any issue, including abortion rights and health care for the poor. Do you agree? What role should religious leaders have -- or not have -- in government policymaking?

President Obama is just returning from China having gently mentioned to the butchers of Beijing that human rights are important. The witness for human dignity will continue in China, but it will not be the soft approach of kowtowing to dictators while speaking softly to them.

How do we know?

Q: U.S. Catholic bishops are defending their direct involvement in congressional deliberations over health-care reform, saying that church leaders have a duty to raise moral concerns on any issue, including abortion rights and health care for the poor. Do you agree? What role should religious leaders have -- or not have -- in government policymaking?

Religious leaders have always had a right, and indeed from their faith perspective an obligation, to speak out on issues of morality and social justice. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has a long track record of doing do so on economic, political (for example, the Middle East) and moral (stem cell research, abortion, birth control) issues. That said, religious leaders' voices and role should have the same weight as that of other citizens' groups; they provide their perspective to the administration and Congress who are then free to take these opinions into consideration. Given the separation of church and state, they should have no greater role or influence on policymaking.

God as Holy Warrior is now apparently running the GOP senatorial opposition to the health care bill.

The Republican response to Senator Harry Reid's statement that a vote could come as early as Saturday on the health care bill was to declare war. Not just any kind of war, but the crusade kind of war. "It's going to be a holy war," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah).

God as Holy Warrior had gone out of fashion in Christian theology for about a thousand years. Since the period of the Crusades (1096-1291) and the absolute debacle that became for European nations, the idea of God as in charge of war (hence 'holy war') has gradually been replaced with the idea of civil societies of diverse faiths. This doesn't mean that war has become obsolete; far from it. But politics as God's war had been abandoned in Christian thinking. Instead, war had become "politics by other means," in Carl von Clausewitz' famous phrase.

What a difference a millennium makes. Now we have politics as war, and not just any war, but Holy War.

Q: U.S. Catholic bishops are defending their direct involvement in congressional deliberations over health-care reform, saying that church leaders have a duty to raise moral concerns on any issue, including abortion rights and health care for the poor. Do you agree? What role should religious leaders have -- or not have -- in government policymaking?

The U.S. bishops are not just another special interest group fighting for its share of the legislative pie. Instead, they are trying to act as a voice of conscience, a moral witness. Like anyone else they have a right to speak, and it would serve our country well to pay them respectful attention.

Q: U.S. Catholic bishops are defending their direct involvement in congressional deliberations over health-care reform, saying that church leaders have a duty to raise moral concerns on any issue, including abortion rights and health care for the poor. Do you agree? What role should religious leaders have -- or not have -- in government policymaking?

All citizens should have a right to provide input on governmental policy matters that effect us all. Moreover, lawmakers should encourage input, especially from those who have expertise in the subject matter involved. Religious leaders are not less than other citizens simply because of their particular profession. Their views on matters of morality should be a part of the information lawmakers use when deliberating and enacting legislation in this regards, just as lawmakers should listen to economists and environmentalists when addressing issues within their respective fields.

"Wisdom does not come to a person at once. It only comes after struggles, quests, anguish and effort."
--Judah Barzeloni

Everyone struggles at some point in life with ultimate questions. Sometimes we ask difficult questions about the nature of God, suffering and justice when we are children and then find that, although situations change and our questions mature, they are often only more sophisticated versions of questions we've already asked. That process results in wisdom.

Religious leaders are first of all citizens and they enjoy the same rights as any other citizens and civic leaders to engage in public debate on policy questions. Our democracy is strong when people of faith contribute a moral voice to the debate, particularly on behalf of the poor and vulnerable. The halls of Congress are choked with lobbyists paid to defend the wealthy and their powerful interest groups. We desperately need more voices defending the common good.

Bravo to the Catholic bishops for their heroic efforts to protect immigrants, the poor, the sick, the elderly, and the unborn as the current health care debate unfolds. Their unflagging support for a consistent ethic of life is a powerful witness to a nation which too often seems to have lost its moral compass. While the threat to withdraw from funding partnerships with the District of Columbia may have been a political miscalculation, Catholic leaders are right to protest the radical proposed changes to the definition of marriage, particularly absent robust conscience protections for individuals and groups which affirm traditional marriage. The bishops' just-released pastoral letter provides a compelling vision of marriage as a "cradle of the civilization of love." That too deserves careful consideration by all people of good will.

Evangelicals have a long if uneven history of civic engagement, including leadership in movements for the abolition of slavery and women's suffrage, though many of us were conspicuously absent from the civil rights struggles. More recently we have worked for protection of refugees, immigrants, victims of trafficking, persons living with HIV/AIDS, and the unborn. To the extent religious leaders accurately represent the views of their members, politicians will listen. To the extent they echo the prophet Micah's call for justice, mercy and humility, they deserve a hearing, regardless of the size of their constituency.