Faith in the Political Arena: Walking A Fine Line

Pope: Sunday Worship a "Necessity" For All
September 17, 2007 | From theTrumpet.com

Pope Benedict XVI says your life depends upon worshiping on Sunday.

"Sine dominico non possumus!" "Without Sunday [worship] we cannot live!" Pope Benedict xvi declared during a mass on September 9 at St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna.

Speaking on the final day of his three-day visit to Austria, the German pope voiced a strong call for Christians to revive Sunday keeping as an all-important religious practice.

"Give the soul its Sunday, give Sunday its soul," he chanted before a rain-soaked crowd of 40,000.

Benedict said that Sunday, which he stated has its origin as "the day of the dawning of creation," was "also the church's weekly feast of creation."

Warning against the evils of allowing Sunday to become just a part of the weekend, the pope said people needed to have a spiritual focus during the first day of the week, or else leisure time would just become wasted time.

Sunday worship, he warned, was not just a "precept" to be casually adhered to, but a "necessity" for all people.

In the opening greeting, the archbishop of Vienna said a movement in Austria had been initiated to protect "Sunday from tendencies to empty [it] of its meaning."

In Austria, most businesses are restricted from operating on Sunday. However, some business groups are pressuring the government to be allowed to open, a move Roman Catholic groups vehemently oppose.

During Benedict's trip to Austria, he called for Europe to look to its Christian roots, to trust in God and to defend traditional values.

The pope has been very vocal about Europe's Christian-or Catholic-roots, and is pushing to have them included in the European Constitution. Although laws concerning Sunday worship are currently determined by individual nations, look for the European Union to eventually gain jurisdiction over the work week-which is one big reason the Catholic Church is so intimately involved with the evolution of the EU. For more on the Catholic Church and Europe, read "The Pope Trumpets Sunday" by the Trumpet's editor in chief. .

-----------------------

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come (the return of Christ), except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exaltheth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2 Thessalonians 2:3,4

"If protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church."--Albert Smith, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the cardinal in a letter of Feb. 10, 1920.

Does the Papacy acknowledge changing the seventh-day Sabbath? It does. The Catechismus Romanus was commanded by the Council of Trent and published by the Vatican Press, by order of Pope Pius V, in 1566. This catechism for the priests says: "It pleased the church of God, that the religious celebration of the Sabbath day should be transferred to 'the Lord's day.'--Catechism of the Council of Trent (Donovan's translation, 1867), part 3, chap. 4, p. 345. The same, in slightly different wording is in the McHugh and Callan translation (1937 ed.), p. 402. "Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays? "Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church."--Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (1833 approbation), p. 58. (Same statement in Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. by Daniel Ferris {1916 ed.}, p. 67.) "Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? "Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority." Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism (3d ed.), p. 174. "The Catholic Church,...by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."--The Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893. "Question: Is Saturday the 7th day according to the Bible & the Ten Commandments? Answer: I answer yes. "Question: Is Sunday the first day of the week & did the Church change the 7th day--Saturday--for Sunday, the 1st day: Answer: "I answer yes." "Question: Did Christ change the day? Answer: I answer no! Faithfully yours, "J. Card. Gibbons"--Gibbons autograph letter.

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for the doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:9

The mark of the beast in the "forehead" represents mental assent to the church's belief and behavior. The mark in the "hand" represents activity carried on in harmony with such beliefs. A person's "forehead" or mind may not approve what his or her "hand" does, but actions speak louder than words. And we shall be judged by what we do.

Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, "We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29

Pope: Sunday Worship a "Necessity" For All
September 17, 2007 | From theTrumpet.com

Pope Benedict XVI says your life depends upon worshiping on Sunday.

"Sine dominico non possumus!" "Without Sunday [worship] we cannot live!" Pope Benedict xvi declared during a mass on September 9 at St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna.

Speaking on the final day of his three-day visit to Austria, the German pope voiced a strong call for Christians to revive Sunday keeping as an all-important religious practice.

"Give the soul its Sunday, give Sunday its soul," he chanted before a rain-soaked crowd of 40,000.

Benedict said that Sunday, which he stated has its origin as "the day of the dawning of creation," was "also the church's weekly feast of creation."

Warning against the evils of allowing Sunday to become just a part of the weekend, the pope said people needed to have a spiritual focus during the first day of the week, or else leisure time would just become wasted time.

Sunday worship, he warned, was not just a "precept" to be casually adhered to, but a "necessity" for all people.

In the opening greeting, the archbishop of Vienna said a movement in Austria had been initiated to protect "Sunday from tendencies to empty [it] of its meaning."

In Austria, most businesses are restricted from operating on Sunday. However, some business groups are pressuring the government to be allowed to open, a move Roman Catholic groups vehemently oppose.

During Benedict's trip to Austria, he called for Europe to look to its Christian roots, to trust in God and to defend traditional values.

The pope has been very vocal about Europe's Christian-or Catholic-roots, and is pushing to have them included in the European Constitution. Although laws concerning Sunday worship are currently determined by individual nations, look for the European Union to eventually gain jurisdiction over the work week-which is one big reason the Catholic Church is so intimately involved with the evolution of the EU. For more on the Catholic Church and Europe, read "The Pope Trumpets Sunday" by the Trumpet's editor in chief. .

-----------------------

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come (the return of Christ), except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exaltheth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2 Thessalonians 2:3,4

"If protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church."--Albert Smith, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the cardinal in a letter of Feb. 10, 1920.

Does the Papacy acknowledge changing the seventh-day Sabbath? It does. The Catechismus Romanus was commanded by the Council of Trent and published by the Vatican Press, by order of Pope Pius V, in 1566. This catechism for the priests says: "It pleased the church of God, that the religious celebration of the Sabbath day should be transferred to 'the Lord's day.'--Catechism of the Council of Trent (Donovan's translation, 1867), part 3, chap. 4, p. 345. The same, in slightly different wording is in the McHugh and Callan translation (1937 ed.), p. 402. "Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays? "Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church."--Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (1833 approbation), p. 58. (Same statement in Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. by Daniel Ferris {1916 ed.}, p. 67.) "Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? "Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority." Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism (3d ed.), p. 174. "The Catholic Church,...by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."--The Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893. "Question: Is Saturday the 7th day according to the Bible & the Ten Commandments? Answer: I answer yes. "Question: Is Sunday the first day of the week & did the Church change the 7th day--Saturday--for Sunday, the 1st day: Answer: "I answer yes." "Question: Did Christ change the day? Answer: I answer no! Faithfully yours, "J. Card. Gibbons"--Gibbons autograph letter.

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for the doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:9

The mark of the beast in the "forehead" represents mental assent to the church's belief and behavior. The mark in the "hand" represents activity carried on in harmony with such beliefs. A person's "forehead" or mind may not approve what his or her "hand" does, but actions speak louder than words. And we shall be judged by what we do.

Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, "We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29

Managed Hosting, Colocation and Data Center Services by victoryushchenkonashpresudent ...

Religion has been the bane of all mankind
in so many ways. Why - because while it has done good in some ways, it blinds the mentality from thinking deeply about issues, instead often asking for blind obedience. And it gets blind obedience, and the inability of people to realize what they are doing, the latest tragedy explicitly revealed in 9/11, but Christianity was equally vicious in the middle ages, and still is to some extent.

There is no limit to the damage religion can do. In general secular life, if people aren't totally stubborn they can come around to a reasonable position on all kinds of issues. When you tie it in with 'God' and religious 'faith' - believe or else, anything can happen, for thinking is eliminated. This is the ultimate danger for mankind. Our only goal should be to help others, and realize that when they suffer, all of mankind suffers. We don't need a God for that, we need clear, deep thinking.

As for Mr. Colson, now I recognize the name. Has he helped lots of people, and recognized his failings, most likely yes. The danger is that in the same breath he sets up people to 'believe', and that in itself is its own terrible danger. He is like the times when church's did good social justice things, e.g. supported economic equality, labor unions, etc. Unfortunately the church also gets corrupted, and the corruption is worse then the previous cures. That is the history of mankind. If we only believed our 'goal' should be to make life better for other people, that is all we need of religion. One lousy sentence, and we could knock down so much of the claptrap of religion. If you want to believe there is something beyond, a loving God, I'm sure you will be rewarded if you help others. If there is nothing beyond, we still have the opportunity to live on physically via the sharing of our genes in the next generations, but nature hasn't found a way for our awareness to continue beyond our biological lifetime. That is fair too, we all die ultimately, and our obligation is to our fellow human beings as well as our own families during our lifetime. For that one can rest easily.

We also have a perfect, but tragic example of religion and faith in government today. George Bush, who wears his religion on his sleeve, couldn't see through the neo-con's mania to overthrow Saddam. Certainly Saddam was a first order tyrant. Bush's ignorance, and arrogance - his my way mentality - fed by religion's dogmatic beliefs rather then understanding the nuances and what would happen once central authority was overthrown in Iraq, got the world into a catastrophic disaster. Iran is the big winner, a terrorist group was elected in Palestine, and meanwhile the Taliban is regrouping in Afghanistan. In addition, we are ranked by polls in many nations, most nominally our friends, as the third most disliked and feared in the world, with our neighbors on either side of us in this poll ranking being N.Korea and Iran. Think of the damage done to building a worldwide coalition and other institutions to end religious terrorism. Think of how Bush has validated to many of the worlds Muslims that we are the enemy. And it all happened because of a blind religious mentality that seeped over into government decision making by this 'born again Christian', who got himself elected by appealing to the bigotries of the blind religious right in this nation.

BA'AL,
You should go to breakpoint.org and see what Mr. Colsen is about. Since he got out of jail he has spent the last 30 years helping prisoners and their families. Although I do not always agree with his worldview he has done his best to walk the walk, and for that I respect him highly. It is dishonest to simply dismiss him as an ex-felon and therefore no longer a worthy human. That mindset is why most prisoners go back to prison.

BA'AL,

If Islam is nothing more than a political system to control people toward a government that is a total enemey of our form of government, then is not making it so Islam flurishes a major action against our Constitution?

This stuff doesn't happen spontaneously even though it is often made to look so, and appear so in the media.

If Bush is 'under an influence' that too should be grounds for removal by the Congress. But then if Congress too 'is under an [that same] influence' we definitely have a problem.

As BGONE points out:
"Iran is actually run by RICH Ayatollahs so I've heard. Does any of these Islamic state rulers make a decision without the approval of the high Ayatollah?"

Nothing in the American Constitution of 1787 or its Amendments prohibits a person from being elected on a 100 percent religious agenda. If you don't like religious zealots running for office, then don't mark the space on the ballot next to their names.

I find it humorous to see people distort concepts like religious liberty so badly that they would drive all religion and religious identity from people's lives. Even as I write this from a computer in a business, I can't help but wonder if those who monitor the computer network will retaliate against me for holding a controversial view on religious liberty.

BA'AL - step one, Chaney resigns toa void prossecution. Then impeach Bush.

Stan - Maybe Bush is thinking of a Saddam type US government with him at the head, (first of a dynasty heired by his son/daughter) and Billy Graham replacing the congress and the ministry the courts. That's how church states work. There's the big boss figure head and the invisible power of God represented by a very visible pope, (high priest) of one kind or another. Iran is actually run by RICH Ayatollahs so I've heard. Does any of these Islamic state rulers make a decision without the approval of the high Ayatollah?

Stan

I believe that Bush has committed several impeachable offenses and I have heard lots of arguments in favor (all of which seem to shrivel to nothing at the thought of a Cheney presidency). But I have to admit, this is the first time I have heard it suggested that Bush's biggest crime is making the country "conducive to reducing Christianity while making it conducive to allowing Islam".

Mr. Colson, how about a standard disclosure? Something like financial disclosures. Get it out in the open, out of the way and move along into relevant topics. Those interested can look it up. Those concerned can question issues that are of public record. DISCLOSURE IS OPTIONAL. ???
Thank you Sir. Rehabilitation is preferable, no? What did you think of The Green Mile? sorry. God Bless you and yours Sir.

How Colson Can Ruin a Good Point

We da People SHOULD know everything we can about a candidate: whether he evaded the draft, used cocaine in college, failed at three businesses,
AND
if he has been religious in a public way that has affected his public actions or image.

Colson KINDA makes this point, and he is right.

I should know that Bush identifies himself with the Religious Right and consequently is likely to appoint justices that please the RR, and to veto Stem Cell research.

Colson goes on to twist the point into tortured shapes however. Fine for Carter to do what he did, but let's state that Ford was admirable and that we should find a way to reward candidates who don't pander to religious groups, as Bush does.

And let's have a public discussion that makes clear that atheists are just as moral as believers, that the prohibition against NOT pretending to be a member of the Faithful is odious (Reagan: did he ever go to church? though he presented himself as devout).

Mr. Colson,

As usual, "...well done, good and faithful servant."

Others: Islam is not the problem. It's what irresponsible officials do with it. For example, a direct quote from BBC News, 27 Oct 2005, "Blair 'revulsion' at Iran remarks" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4380306.stm:

"Mr Ahmadinejad made his comments at a conference in the Iranian capital Tehran entitled The World without Zionism.

Referring to Iran's late revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Mr Ahmadinejad said: "As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."

...He [Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell] added: "The prime minister's revulsion is justified, but there are diplomatic and political steps that can be taken against Iran if it persists in bellicose behaviour and language."

Sincerely,
TKH

I never understood the American obsession of "religious test" for officials seeking public office - some religions are more acceptable than others?

It seems to me the American public is determining, by their votes, blogs and articles, which adherent of which "acceptable" or politically-correct" religion can hold public office. The last I read, Mormons and Muslims and Wiccans are the no-nos for some.

BA'AL,

Bush is not 'reducing' Islam; nor did Clinton, Bush I, or Reagan. All across that whole area the United States has been making it conducive to reducing Christianity while making it conducive to allowing Islam to flurish. The words they say don't mean anything except to the faithful and those believing in them.

If our Constitution prohibits promoting religion and a president promotes religion and the Congress doesn't remove that president, it would certainly seem like we then have a constitutional problem.

Am I the only one to notice the "straw constitution" that Pat Robertson and his equals uses, "the way things have always been done?" That's how he justifies ministers demanding their flock vote as told else excommunication.

The last commenter seems to think that Bush, as President, has a Constitutional imperative to "reduce Islam" and he thinks that the processes in our current Constitution to remove an elected President are inadequate because they don't let us remove one for "getting out of hand on religious matters". On this basis he thinks that religion and faith are "critical to the election process".

This is what happens when religion and politics mix!

If the government was functioning as designed then if a President or someone else got out of line on religious matters then the Congress could remove that person. However, we now have where the force that controls the presidency also controls the congress and many citizens so that common sense is not enforceable by the people. Therefore, the religious/faith orientation of those running for president is critical for knowing who will be the most likely to uphold the Constitution.

Bush seems to be conducting his presidency not to reduce Islam but rather, by way of the back door, to help it spread, while keeping many citizens brainwashed that he is a 'man of faith' in Christianity. It may even be that Bush is starting to realize what he has done but doesn't have the gumption to get us out of the mess, but continues to listen and respond to those that got us in the mess as to how to get out.

So the urgency for the United States is to restore redundancy to the system so that an errant elected official can be removed when needed. The Constitution retains to the people all powers not delegated through the Constitution. As the Constitution is now being subverted the people will have to find a way to amend the Constitution so that the people can remove any of their elected officials that are not functioning in accordance with the Constitution.

It is the breakdown in our system that has made the question of religion and faith critical to the election process, if we are to retain our country as designed and implemented for over 200 years.

PHAEDRUS:

When looked at from different angles the broken clock is correct for a little more than an instant as well. There's a lot more going on that faith or no faith. That's why I'm not yet ready to crucify him although he seems to be begging for it.

I find that he has an "enemy identification" problem and is trying to get in bed with the enemey on some stupid premise like "free elections" solve all problems. I get your point.

Kyle

I don't believe anyone is saying there is a Constitutional requirement to keep one's religious beliefs to oneself. However, experience shows that it is a very unreliable means to make any predictions about whether or not the candidate will be good for the country. One can easily make that case from the perspective of either the Left or the Right.

One panelist earlier made the absurd assertion that he looked for doctrinal purity -- he didn't care what denomination a candidate was, as long as he/she took stands invariably consistent with his/her sect. He argued, apparently, that this was a test for hypocrisy or something. Fortunately Professor Stevens-Arroyo is an idiot and can be safely ignored.

As for convicted felon Charles Colson, he had his chance to work in the highest branches of the government and used the opportunity to work as Nixon's chief hatchet man and to subvert lawful democratic and judicial processes wherever he found them. His views on morality and politics and what is appropriate should be viewed with that kept well in mind.

Anonymous:

A broken clock is still correct twice a day. Just because our current Pres is wrong on the war and so many other things does not mean that he is also wrong about the dangers that the more violent form of Islam poses to the world. In fact, for many of the posters on this forum, radical Islam is a potent reminder of what religion can become if it goes unchecked by reason and the restraint of the reasonable.

Kyle:

I agree with your position that candidates should be allowed to discuss their religious beliefs, in fact I find it frightening that we might elect someone without knowing the form of their religious and ethical (not synonymous) thought. However, I do not think that it is accurate to refer to the prescribed stance of our government as either "atheist" or "agnostic." These terms refer to beliefs, while the establishment clause and Article VI refer to behaviors. The government must not take any action that favors any religious belief over another, nor can any candidate be precluded from running, or holding office if they win. Those are behaviors, not beliefs. The vast majority of the people in govenment are xtians for example, but they may not behave in their official capacities in Constitutionally proscribed ways. Our goverment is actually the collective actions of a group of people, and can hold no beliefs of its own, either atheist, agnostic, flat earth, etc etc. One of the most cmforting aspectas of the est clause and VI is the protection they provide minorities, from the predominant religious beliefs of any majority that might exist, and seek to impose its will on their lives.

I think Colson has it right. "No religious test" proscribes government from requiring a candidate to hold a point of view on religious questions. It doesn't prevent a voter from seeking to know where a candidate stands on issues important to the voter.

One of your other panelists contrasted governmental atheism with governmental agnosticism, arguing that the Constitution codifies the latter, not the former. Governmental atheism gives preference to a point of view on religion (there is no God) in all manner of public policy and necessarily proscribes free speech and free religious exercise (thus colliding with the First Amendment). Governmental agnosticism implies official religious ignorance, giving preference to no religious view and allowing for free expression of any faith.

I think "no religious test" is an example of governmental agnosticism, not atheism. Those who say the Constitution requires candidates to keep their mouths shut in public about their religious beliefs are requiring a religious test: All those who hold public office must agree never to speak about their religious beliefs and never to allow a religious belief to affect their votes.

blah blah blah....how as a christian not live their faith? If you aren't up to it, peace out!

"If a candidate were to attempt to use his religion for political advancement, I think it would instantly backfire with the American people. It would be entirely inappropriate."

You mean exactly like Bush of the 43rd did in BOTH elections?

You mean you agree that his messiahnic opinion of himself as the "great decider/decisionmaker " is entirely inappropriate?

You mean his constant fear tactics against "them there nasty islamists" is entirely inappropriate at the leader of the free world?

Good.

Thank you for clearing that up.

I refer anyone wanting more information to the book, "Bush on a Couch". Must read for the next 2 years.

CHUCKYBOI IS PROOF THAT NOT ALL CLOWNS WORK FOR THE CIRCUS!

Up here in northern New England, it's considered bad form, inappropriate, and reprehensible for a political candidate to talk about his religious affiliation and religious beliefs. Any candidate who does talk about them is almost certain to lose more votes than he gains.

There are good reasons for this Yankee disparagement of religion-talk by politicians.

First, political campaigns are supposed to be about public political issues, not theology.

Second, whatever a candidate's religious beliefs or affiliation, knowing them will tell the voter nothing about how the candidate will deal with particular issues, and so that knowledge is irrelevant to an evaluation of his candidacy.

Third, a candidate's mentioning his religious beliefs or affiliation turns the discussion away from public issues and to a debate on the merits of various religions. The candidate is basically saying. "Vote for me, I'm a (for example) Catholic, not one of those (for example) Blue-nosed Protestants."

Instead of debating the best way to fix potholes, the debate becomes "Which ethnic or social group do you identify and feel more comfortable with?" This is not good for politics, as centuries of religious warfare have shown. Not to mention that fixing potholes never gets discussed.

Fourth, just as patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, religiosity is the last refuge of scoundrel politicians.

I'll never vote for any politician who voluntarily starts talking about his religion. Fortunately most of the people in northern New England feel the same way.

Let the clap-trap of political religion-talk stay in the Bible-belt.

Mr Colson aint nothing but a caught crook that's found Jesus, one of them pharaoh crooks to ease his guilty conscience. I'll bet he's still making lots of money lying and selling his drivel books to ignorant people making them more ignorant than they were.

Mr Colson click on http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul and see what you are. You aint fooling Baal or me neither.

Bgone is having fun. BG is right. It's fun to rub the crooks noses in their own piddle puddles.

Convicted felon Mr. Colson -- the man who once proposed firebombing the Brookings Institution -- has a lot of nerve to use the terms "character and integrity" when talking about any aspect of politics or public affairs.

It is appalling that he is still a public figure.

I don't think Bush's using religious imagery in his speeches was the reason people were turned off. I think it was because he was attacking other people with it. Bush forgot the one thing that religion is - personal. And Bush is a relative newcomer to Christianity - like you (no criticism intended). I've been studying it since childhood. I've found that people who've assimilated the meaning of the "peace that passes all understanding" never bash other people over the head with it.

Mr Mark,

Excellent post on Article VI. But, I disagree with your last sentence. I do not believe that we are prohibited from asking about a candidate's religious views, we just cannot deny them the right to run for or hold office on this basis.

Religious ideas are potentially far too dangerous in a modern world to give them a pass, just because they are "religious." We "must" ask about them, and evaluate the potential impact of decisions based on them. We must not shrink from challenging them, debunking them, debating them, and forcing their defense by those who espouse them. We must hold the believer accountable for that which he or she believes. We expect no less from any other set of ideas. And it is never so important to do this than when we are entrusting our lives to the decisions of any office holder.

I am going to give Chuck Colson a pass. He has been in the poliitical arena, and so have I.

Chuck, your piece on McChurch was right on. I thought, however, that you failed to make the point that McChurch is not only a feel-good place, it also is a drive-through, fast-food temple of the Christian Right.

The President is not being criticized for being religious. He is guilty of sectarian humanism so familiar in the McChurch culture.

Me thinks, Chuck, that you are walking a fine line. Were I in your shoes, I should probably do the same.

Blessings on you and your ministry.

Stan Moody, Christian Policy Institute, author of "McChurched: 300 Million Served and Still Hungry."

The fact that Carter talked about his religion, as opposed to Ford, who didn't, can be looked at more from a cultural point of view than a "whose more religious" view. Carter was from the South, where public discussion of faith is common. In the northern Midwest and New England, people tend to not discuss their faith as much. They're probably just as pious, but not as vocal about it. Ford and Carter became great friends after Carter left office in 1981, mostly because of their common bond of faith.

Jonathan wrote:
"Mr. Mark,

"The "no test of religion" clause in the constitution is not an attempt to force all citizens to "ignore" their personal interest in the religious background of candidates. Rather, it is a legal tool to "allow" and "protect from harm" all candidates to attempt a run for office despite their religious affiliation."

You use quotes to set off the words "no test of religion," a phrase that exists in the Constitution. You then use quotes within the same paragraph to set off the words "ignore," "allow" "and protect from harm," words and phrases which DO NOT appear in Article 6 of the Constitution. Their is no linkage between the pharse "no test of religion" and those other words. The non-Constitutional words you have cited are your opinions and an extra-Constitutional interpretation, nothing more.

Here's the phrase from Article 6:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

The Constitution in Article 6 IN NO WAY "outlaws expression of relgious belief," nor does it require that "a mind-reading device be setup to ensure that all voters vote with no reference to their perception of a candidate's religious background." Quite the contray, candidates and the electorate have their religious beliefs fully guaranteed under the Constitution.

What the Constitution does not allow is any kind of religious test be administered to determine suitability to office. When you ask a candidate to attest to his religious beliefs, you are administering a test. Attest = a test. That is an unConstitutional exercise as defined by the document itself.

If a person's religious beliefs are paramount to your deciding whether or not to vote for him, you are welcome to seek such information in any way you wish EXCEPT in the manner proscribed by the Constitution. The Constitution has carved out a SPECIFIC freedom here, and you as an American are bound to "find a different way" to decipher such information.

The question of this thread was, "do you think it is appropriate and or important for the candidates to express their personal religious views and to use religious rhetoric? " The Constitution says it is OK for a candidate to express their views on religion, PROVIDED those views have not been coerced into the public forum through a religious test.

In short, a candidate can tell, but you can't ask.

[Anybody that believes a person's religious orientation can be effectively "turned off" when making U.S. policy is living on Mars.]

It was Bush who announced a mission to Mars with the intention of establishing a home base for American research.

[Only on the Washington Compost can you get such drivel. Jerry Springer's unite!]

The American dream is becoming real!

Mr. Mark,

The "no test of religion" clause in the constitution is not an attempt to force all citizens to "ignore" their personal interest in the religious background of candidates. Rather, it is a legal tool to "allow" and "protect from harm" all candidates to attempt a run for office despite their religious affiliation. I am sure you do not propose a mind-reading device be setup to ensure that all voters vote with no reference to their perception of a candidate's religious background. If we attempt to outlaw expression of religious belief we simply use the law to stomp on liberty. I have no doubt there are hypocritical politicians using religion cynically, but they are exposed when they think Job is in the New Testament or when they misquote their favorite verses. Jews, Muslims and Christians are all elected. Atheists have yet to be elected probably because the 1900s atheist world leaders left a bad taste in people's mouths. Nevertheless, all Atheists as well as Buddhists, Rastafarians and Falun Gong are welcome to try. Their task will be to convince a nation that is extensively god-fearing that they will represent their interests. Their task will be to win the faith of the citizens. If they can do that without faith, more power to 'em.

Difficult Issue wrote:
"I think the difficulty in this issue lies in the problem of serving two masters. Can you serve God and serve something other than God at the same time?

"Jesus said this on the issue:

Matthew 6:24
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."

Immaterial.

Our country is founded on the Constitution, not on the Bible or what Jesus said. If you doubt that, I suggest you do a search on "Treaty of Tripoli" and see what comes up.

Article 6 of the Constitution SPECIFICALLY states that there shall be "no test of religion" for people seeking office in this country. There are no qualifiers to the word "no" in the Constitution's prohibition of a test. That means any test of any kind, written, oral, averred or inferred, vocal or silent.

There is nothing benign in asking a candidate what his religious beliefs are. It is along the lines of saying that children need not stand and salute the flag or say the Pledge of Alligeance when everyone knows that any child doing so will be imagined by his classmates to be unpatriotic and worthy of their scorn.

Colson's example proves my point. Colson opines that Gerald Ford was a deeply religious man who lost the race to Carter because Ford wouldn't pander to religious types. Was the solution for Ford to come out and say, "I'm just as good a Xian as Carter...maybe even better!". or was the solution for Carter to not make faith an issue in the first place? You tell me.

Our nation has a Constitution. It is the foundation of our democracy, not the Bible. It is high time Americans took a look at it and learned what it actually says.

Why is it wrong to want to know the religous beliefs of canidates? At the end of the day we all have moral beliefs and values that determine our decision making. Often, religious beliefs help us understand a person's worldview, and how they are most likely to make decisions. Agnostic, Christian, Jew, we all decide we all have moral imperatives for deciding what is right, wrong, fair, and just. This is not about Christians wanting to filter out those who do not agree with them, it is simply a question of understanding the moral authority that a canidate feels compelled to abide by. Lets stop all the unfair comments and realize that everyone has sometime of moral screening through which they decide right and wrong and make their decisions through.

What a person feels he needs to hide is precisely the thing that a voter most needs to know about. What is there about spiritual beliefs that should be hidden? Nothing. Full disclosure makes complete sense. Nothing to hide, get it out in the open. Spiritual beliefs are the most likely personal beliefs to affect legislative and executive decision-making. We should know what those are in order to make informed decisions.

Listen, a religious test for office would mean that a candidate's run could be contested legally as being illegal. We have no religious test for office. People vote for people they feel represent them. If the people care about religious affiliation then they will ask about religious affiliation. If they care about sexual orientation then they will ask about it.

That's the point: It's a democratic republic!

I agree with Colson.

Only on the Washington Compost can you get such drivel. Jerry Springer's unite!

Anybody that believes a person's religious orientation can be effectively "turned off" when making U.S. policy is living on Mars. Obviously, not every decision will have be effected by religious preference (i.e., education funding, small business tax credits, etc.). But, as a Christian, there is no chance on God's green earth that I would ever implement a policy that kills unborn children. No matter how much left wing, anti-American, liberals whine about it.

And please spare us all the diseased rhetoric that a political candidate with strong Christian values is going to make public policy that destroys the country. Stop regurgitating what John Kerry and Hillary Clinton tell you and start thinking for yourself.

Maybe it's not so much of pronouncing belief, but much to do with the candidate's approach to social issues. In here the candidate is not tested for his/her belief, but the resolve may be influenced by the same convictions. The constitution therefore protects the candidate from ownership of a religiously influenced statement in the political arena, he/she is free to make a statement, express an opinion, thought, and conscience.

At the same time, the statement may be damaging to religion with effect to a likely following. The candidate thus has to choose very wisely his/her statements that they don't bring religion to disrepute.

It has been said many times before that there is a fine line in here, but to follow it may render the candidate redundant in the debate of social issues. But the dilemma serves a useful impetus for the candidates to know their stuff, especially the pros and cons of social issues affecting our lives.

And I would listen to someone who has experience of reality for the most people, and not just anyone who had never got their hands dirty.

BOB - you made my comment for me.

It's the "judge Bork" approach to "temporary monarch" for the president. Bork said, "the constitution is just a guidline. The court can find anything it pleases."

Judge Bork and nice Mr Colson have all that in common.

As I read through comments in these forums, I notice that we have a lot of internet un-savvy people engaging in discusssions with some obvious internet Trolls. For those of you not familiar with large forums such as those commonly assocaited with RPGs like World of Warcraft or Guild Wars, here is the definition of a Troll (from Wikipedia):

In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.

Unfortunately, it does not stop there. Trolls commonly post inflammatory comments in order to direct you to a web site. These web sites sometimes contain keyloggers. Keyloggers exploit security vunerabilities to record keystrokes, which in turn allows them to steal credit card numbers and other personal information. Sometimes the site merely relies on "hits" for revenue.

So, a word of caution, please be careful when directed to other websites. Most forums are moderated and warnings of this kind are given, but this one has an anonymous option where you don't get the warning. I hope no one is forced to learn about Trolls the hard way. Many are from other countries (North Korea is a good example) and are untouchable.

I'll post this in a couple of the other threads as my good deed for the day.

Many criminals undergo a jailhouse conversion, but cease waving the wilted flag of faith once they're out on parole. Colson continues to hold his banner high. How does announcing your religious faith help the electorate better understand your character as a candidate - by demonstrating that one of the reasons you should be in a position to formulate and implement policy affecting all our lives is that you believe in such absolute crap?

I think the difficulty in this issue lies in the problem of serving two masters. Can you serve God and serve something other than God at the same time?

Jesus said this on the issue:

Matthew 6:24
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

What claptrap. Colson tries to justify his unConstitutional beliefs by pointing out that pandering to evangelicals worked for Carter and not pandering hurt Ford, ergo there should be a religious test.

Here's a test: take Colson's writing:

"Under our Constitution, there can be no religious test for office. That does not mean, however, that candidates should not make known their religious beliefs."

Now, change the word religious to something else and see if it works:

"Under our Constitution, there can be no sexual practices test for office. That does not mean, however, that candidates should not make known their sexual practices."

Yep. Claptrap.

This is brilliant and typical of the religious mind:

"Under our Constitution, there can be no religious test for office. That does not mean, however, that candidates should not make known their religious beliefs."

So they can be judged as passing or failing your religious test for office, right?