Faith Quizzes Get an F

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
DEEPAK CHOPRA
AUGUST 20, 2008 9:58 AM
FAITH QUIZZES GET AN F

IRT:
“To claim that "faith and politics" is different -- and more acceptable -- than "church and state" is semantic sleight of hand. The reason that any contemporary presidential candidate is forced to suffer the indignity of confessing his religious beliefs in public goes back to the Reagan revolution.

ANS:
First, no one was being forced; it was done voluntarily.

The Church is the guardian of the Natural Moral Law (NML) that governs all human behavior in accordance with human nature.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, “If not the Church, then to whom shall we go to for our moral principles?” The agnostics and atheists answered that, "to the amoral Supreme Court" who made immorality and Constitutional rights to murder the unborn and "gay sex."

The NML is the standard for the integrity and character of each individual. Despite anything to the contrary, the NML includes the ethical principles that govern societies that by necessity preserve the social order. Get them wrong, and commit social suicide.

The purpose of the NML is to aid man to live a happy life and to accomplish his purpose and destiny for which he was created. The NML is in consonance with human nature, and therefore, to violate it is to disrupt one’s own comport and society.

Now ever one, including Christians, since last I heard, have a right to know the ethical and moral character of candidates who are running for President, and their beliefs that are an essential part of their character.

More so, since the Court hasn’t succeeded yet to revoked Christian's citizenship, American Christians are still citizens, and they are afforded the Constitutional right to assemble according to the First Amendment and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

IRT:
"Pandora's box was opened by the right wing in 1980, admitting not just inappropriate matters of religion into political life but also making acceptable a range of prejudice, bigotry, and divisiveness that had been banished by an era of liberal social legislation."

ANS:
On the contrary, the derisiveness and prejudice is manufactured by the troglodytes and barbarian philistines who trespass on the religious liberties of Christians by the clamorous cacophony of those bigots who claim there is a separation of Church and State that bans religion from the Public Forum.

Contrary to modern thinking, religion matters not just to the individual, but to society as well. Though Religion is a matter of personal choice its NML is the ruling order of Justice.

The Father of the Constitution, James Madison wrote, “"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the TEN COMMANDMENTS OF GOD," viz. the NML.

The NML is a declaration of man’s inalienable rights explicitly and implicitly stated in the Declaration and the Bill of Rights. These rights are given by God, not man. What man gives, man can take away. What God gives only God can take away.

Thus, the Declaration says these rights are endowed by God, and when a government consistently abuses them it is the right and duty of Americans to overthrow that government and replace it with one that is in accordance to man’s nature.

The religious nature of man is not adverse to the social nature of man; it is in consonance.

We’ve seen the consequences wrought when Religion is kept separate from government; we get the social abominations like the Clintons.

Hence, we elected a consummate liar, a sexual pervert, rapist, misogynist, and a malevolent malapert as our leader.

We elected a misanthrope, who disgraced the Office of the Presidency by breaking his Oath of Office. We elected a pervert who perjured himself in a Federal Court as the Chief Law Enforcer of the country.

In addition, the Clintons sold out the country by giving the Chinese access to the White House and top-secret documents. They allowed China our strategic ICBM technology and aid for campaign funds from Bernie Schwartz and Loral Technologies.

Further, we nearly had a Dem nominee, Hillary Clinton, who attempted to frame the employees of the ‘White House Travel Office for embezzlement, not to mention she was thrown off the Judiciary subcommittee investigating Nixon in an attempt to frame him.

Consequently, that’s why it is essential to know what the religious and moral beliefs of any candidate that’s running for office.

History testifies to those nations led by Godless leaders. They ferment Communism, Fascism, and materialistic religions of Buddhism and Hinduism.

All have caused social disruption and turmoil, despots and tyranny. Moreover, these anomalies are invitations to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, famine, pestilence, war and death.

Best Prices
http://buytramadolonline.myopenid.com/ Buy Tramadol http://buytramadolonline.myopenid.com/ Buy Tramadol Online http://buytramadolonline.myopenid.com/ Buy Tramadol

Cool blog
Thanks, webmaster.

"Cicero, observing the Jews of Rome, predicted that the next successful empire would have a monotheistic religion. How right he was."

Good ol' MT Cicero should know should know, he was trying to preserve a Republic against temptations to 'empire.'

Kwotes:

Einstein seemed to contradict himself on the issue of an "afterlife":

"Einstein's belief in an undivided solid reality was clear to him, so much so that he completely rejected the separation we experience as the moment of now. He believed there is no true division between past and future, there is rather a single existence. His most descriptive testimony to this faith came when his lifelong friend Besso died. Einstein wrote a letter to Besso's family, saying that although Besso had preceded him in death it was of no consequence, "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."

Quote from Everythingforever.com

The above quote basically implies that since time is essentially an illusion, all moments exist in a state of "timelessness" and, therefore, all moments of this life are eternal. While technically this is not a belief in the "afterlife", it is an assertion that we cannot cease to exist since all moments are timeless.

"catering to the audience's craving for moral simplicity"

what a great observation. Deepak Chopra has been criticized as an "enemy of reason" by Richard Dawkins among others, but this post is right on target, with no hard-to-prove metaphysical assertions.

The American electorate can't cope with nuance, craves simplicity in an increasingly complex and ambiguous world, and (most importantly) is completely ignorant of its own national history.

It is the desire for a simple moral world, for quick and blunt answers, for the easy way out, and the fear of nuance that allows fundamentalism to thrive (in both religion and irreligion, it seems).

In Star Wars, George Lucas (drawing on Joseph Campbell) made a connection between the fast and blunt, the careless and unconsidered, and the growth of anger and evil. As usual, he was right.

Apocalyptic belief is a function of faith - that luminous inner conviction that needs no recourse to evidence. It is customary to pose against immoveable faith the engines of reason, but in this instance I would prefer that delightful human impulse - curiosity, the hallmark of mental freedom. Organized religion has always had - and I put this mildly - a troubled relationship with curiosity. Islam's distrust, at least in the past two hundred years, is best expressed by it's attitude to those whose faith falls away, to apostates who are drawn to other religions or to none at all.
In recent times, in 1975, the mufti of Saudi Arabia, Bin Baz, in a fatwa, quoted by Shmuel Bar, ruled as followed "Those who claim that the earth is round and moving around the sun are apostates and their blood can be shed and their property can be taken in the name of God." Bin Baz rescinded this judgement ten years later. Mainstream Islam routinely prescribes punishment for apostates that ranges from ostracism to beatings to death. To enter one of the many websites where Muslim apostates anonymously exchange views is to encounter a world of brave and terrified men and women who have succumbed to their disaffection and intellectual curiosity.
And Christians should not feel smug. The first commandment - on pain of death if we were to take the matter literally - is Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. In the fourth century, St. Augustine put the matter well for Christianity, and his view prevailed for a long time: "There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing, and which man should not wish to learn."

And yet it is curiosity, scientific curiosity, that has delivered us genuine, testable knowledge of the world and contributed to our understanding of our place within it and of our nature and condition. This knowledge has a beauty of its own, and it can be terrifying. We are barely beginning to grasp the implications of what we have recently learned.
And what exactly have we learned?

I draw here from a Stephen Pinker essay on his ideal of a university: Among other things we have learned that our planet is a minute speck in an inconceivably vast cosmos; that
our species has existed for a tiny fraction of the history of the history of the earth; that
humans are primates; that the mind is the activity of an organ that runs by physiological processes; that there are methods of ascertaining the truth that can force us to conclusions which violate common sense, sometimes radically so at scales very large and very small; that precious and widely held beliefs, when subjected to empirical tests, are often cruelly falsified, that we cannot create energy or use it without loss.

Ian McEwan. "End of The World Blues

The study of anthropology confirmed my atheism, which was the faith of my fathers anyway. Religions were exhibited and studied as the Rube Goldberg inventions I'd always thought they were.
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. "Self Interview"

There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the life of Jesus. The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give his work its final consecration, never had any existence.
Albert Schweitzer 1875-1965. Physician, philosopher and humanitarian "The Quest of The Historical Jesus."

Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, ie.,by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.
Albert Einstein. in his biography,"The Human Side."

Miracles have no claim whatever to the character of historical facts and are wholly invalid as evidence of any revelation.
John Stuart Mill 1806-1873. philosopher,economist,logician,in "Theism."

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
Bertrand Russell 'Christian Ethics,' from "Marriage and Morals."

I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind.
H.L.Mencken. Editor and critic, NYTimes Magazine Sep.11,1955.

Christianity is such a silly religion.
Gore Vidal, Time Magazine, Sep 28, 1992.

If you talk to God, you are praying. If God talks to you, you are schizophrenic.
Thomas Szasz MD, Psychiatrist, in "The Second Sin."

There is no Hell. There is only France.
Frank Zappa

I cannot imagine a god who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modelled after our own - a god, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
Albert Einstein, quoted in the NYTimes April 19 1955.

One of the proofs of the immortality of the soul is that myriads have believed in it. They have also believed that the world was flat.
Mark Twain in "Notebook."

Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven.
I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism.
Isaac Asimov 1920-1992. Scientist and Writer, "On Religiosity" in "Free Inquiry."

Sunday School; A prison in which children do penance for the evil conscience of their parents.
HLMencken in "A Mencken Christomathy."

The most heinous and the most cruel crimes of which history has record have been committed under the cover of religion, or equally 'noble' motives.
Ghandi.1869-1948. "The Degeneration of Belief."

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere...
Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
Albert Einstein in "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, November 9,1930

All quotes from "Atheist Universe" by David Mills,
Pub.Ulysses Press. 2006

GaryD - religious people have many venues through which they can address their religious concerns - the church of their choice is a good place to start - along with many other membership organizations....they can even have their own politically driven groups - as evangelicals in particular are wont to do.

The continuous media exposure that panders to a heavily Christian venue violates the whole idea of freedom FROM religion so clearly enunciated in the concept of church/state separation.

But then, the media seems to be largely controlled by forces that are hardly sympathetic to the concept of fair and equal treatment, much less honest and objective journalistic reporting. The red herring of the 'liberal' media is yet another disingenuous creation perpetrated by rightwing sychophants and their paid media manipulators.

Religious concerns and faith discussions are not by any means the same as civil concerns or civil discourse - the religious majority has drastically over-stepped their boundries with this campaign. This only continues the blurring of church/state boundries from as far back as Reagan. Nixon, being a nominal Quaker, knew better - at least one thing in his favor.

Your assertion that politicians are unable to separate their religous beliefs and faith from public policy discussions and political activities in general is absurd beyond any credibility.

If this is true, then we're truly doomed to continue our increasingly momentous backwards slide into a dark and superstitious past that we should have left behind with the founding of this great Nation - and the Founders had every such intention....knowing the evil that lurks when any one philosophy or religion (be it godless Communism or godfilled Christianity) becomes the centerpiece of a culture or society.

We're starting down a path we will eventually live to regret.......

Ah, Athena, very good. I see you know whereof you speak. However, me simplistic? Delve deeper, my educated friend. Ah, so much cover-up by historians, or worse, ignoring the actual operation of states. Ancient Egypt? Not a move was made without the highest consultation with their religion. Ancient Rome? Over half the Emperor's edicts concerned religion and morality. And you are right, the serious religious edicts began with Octavian (he disliked the appelation, "Augustus," but it was the desire of the Senate -- as a further religious-type inducement to the citizens of Rome. The word "August," had to do with divinity).

And, if you investigate these serious religious edicts of the Roman emperors -- from the time of Octavian to Constantine -- most had to do with abortion, homosexual practices, the bearing of children. One edict to help stop abortion guaranteed a wife ownership of her husband's property, if she would bear and raise three children. Also, rules and regulations were continually pronounced, having to do with the proper dress and bedizenment of females -- hard to enforce, however.

The Roman Empire, the most successful ever, was also the most religious state, ever. Athena, your mention of Roman treatment of other religions is not precise. Roman governance supported any religion, of any people they conquered, if those religions reflected a similar morality as Roman Paganism did.

As to the Jews, some others, Roman governance vacillated in the treatment of them. The Jew's independant-mindedness was a bit fearful to the well-being of the Empire, but the morality of the Jews fit perfectly. Thus, some emperors supported the Jew's freedom, some not. Palistine was merely a situation of rebellion, as took place from time to time in all of Rome's conquered peoples, kingdoms and states.

Cicero, observing the Jews of Rome, predicted that the next successful empire would have a monotheistic religion. How right he was.

The Roman's hardly invented anything. They took the best workable physical things, and the best workable ideas -- from all the known world -- and lasted some 2,000 years, in various forms, as you pointed out.

Without religion as the core element of their governance, we'd hardly know them at all. And they knew this.

The history of Rome, for all those years, is pretty much duplicated in the USA, in only 232 years. Yes, the lesson is simple.

The use of religions as a "tool" of governance, would be an entirely new subject. And there, we might start with the almost absolute necessity for the institution of slavery, before humans had what we now call, "civilization."

There is a big difference between spirituality and religion. Spirituality doesn’t have any dogma, fiction, or perversion. Spirituality is simply based on everything being connected and part of one body, with One Being behind it all. This is what Jesus A Christ was trying to communicate. It is that simple.

Politics being how various needs and wants are expressed and met or obtained how combined efforts are implemented and what joint ventures are formed and funded. Politics should include the view that we are all one; part of the same body. Religion should not be involved in Politics because it has become perverse in the eyes of the Lord it has become the house of hypocrisy not the House of God.

The interesting thing is all these people claim to serve God and love him yet when he shows up with the truth they crucify him. He was a threat to their fictions. Now does anyone want to tell me why an Omnipotent being needs to be worshiped by you? Do your really think God has an ego to be stroked, or is that a projection on your part?

Maybe the right thing to do is love the creation, which includes the planet and other people. Looking at the state of affairs we have not been doing a very good job of loving the planet or each other.

Let us hope that we all evolve (ev(e) love backwards).

I was thinking about how all the men of the world seem to dominate the power structure including religion. I think if we look at the bee colony we see that the Queen bee tends to kill off any new Queens that come on the scene. So the Queen favors the Drones and wants to hold down any females that could become Queen, the good for nothing except themselves drones on the planet have created quite a mess of the hive we live in. Perhaps the Queen should chop off some heads and get a real fix in place and the Hive systems corrected. I caught this headline that speaks of “Obama's edge among young female voters” right away I new this was a clue from God, to organize the female working class bees to sting the drones to death. We will just show them the pictures of what the Drones on the planet have and are doing to the Children.

Look at the Chess board it might appear the Queen is the most powerful, since she can move any direction as far as she wants, the King can move only one space at a time, but who is it that all the players protect and serve? The King of course. Who does the King represent but the being that is moving all the players? It might be time for the King to intervene in the game in a major way since it has been minor up till now and not very effective.

Most people should also realize that many of the male members of congress and power players throughout industry, including many authors and CEO’s etc. have cheated on their wives. Of course many wives have done the same thing when their husbands, many of whom lose interest in sex with their wives after bearing their children which is a part of nature. True the compromised members of congress were brought under the spell of a seduction agent, video and other evidence collected therefore allowing for blackmail and a compromised Politician.

I suggest all the compromised members of congress resign immediately before their evidence starts popping up or admit your wrongs and make amends. Who knows videos could start showing up on You Tube, let’s hope not though we don’t need the children to be seeing such a poor example.

You all remember Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who gained national prominence relentlessly pursuing Wall Street wrongdoing. The same Wall street that is the main cause of all the financial tribulation you all now suffer, those good for nothing gamblers that make no economic contribution and disrupt the markets manipulating them. Well Wall Street played their Ace having had him compromised. True he is responsible for giving in to temptation and one is not suggesting there is anyone on the planet fit to judge him or any member of congress.

Why do you think Monica kept her dress as evidence? What other presidents have been compromised in the same fashion?

What this means is we have no idea how many members of congress and other government officials have been compromised but we can be sure that most the women have not been.

So almost all members of congress especially the old insider boys need to be removed by your vote. This is a National Security issue and the responsibility to resolve it is yours, this may be why we have been sold out to China and been stuck with the bill for maintaining order on the planet. Probably some hot Chinese agents have the goods on members of congress and various CEO’s and members of the Board of Directors.

However nobody needs to be taking the focus of their own faults by focusing on the faults of congress. There is no one fit to judge anyone else on the planet. It’s between them and God if he exists. Speaking of God, if there is no God then I am crazy, if there is a God then there are a number of people on this that are in deep trouble.

What we need is to get the right women for the job.

Everyone knows how Santa Claus has a list of everyone that is naughty or nice. Well he has the information in the Santa Claus database which certain Techorati have gained access to. God knows everything do you really think your fooling God?

All in good cheer it’s all good, it’s just a movie.

Michael,

That view of history is very simplistic, and discounts a lot of facts.

1) Yes, the Soviet Union was officially atheist. But it was more of a "cult of personality" in that the State took the place of any God. One of the reasons that it dissolved was the tide of freedom that swept Eastern Europe in the late 1980's. Also because we spent them into bankruptcy, and they had the financial drain of an unpopular war. The straw that broke the camel's back was Chernobyl. Once the government realized that they couldn't keep secrets any more, the floodgates opened.

2) The Roman Empire was remarkably efficient in absorbing other cultures, as long as they made sure to pay fealty to Rome. While they worshiped the Gods, they shifted to declaring the Emperor divine beginning with Augustus Caesar. Most of their client states made their offering to the Divine Emperor once a year and that satisfied the requirement. The Jews, OTOH, had problems with that. Pesky monotheism thing. ;) Plus, they were a client kingdom. That meant that although Herod was technically the ruler, the Romans actually called the shots. That all changed in 72 AD, when the Romans under Vespasian went in and stomped on them for causing too much trouble.

3) Although many Christians were put to death in the purges of Nero and other Caesars, they were generally too busy fighting amongst themselves about doctrine, etc. Constantine's vision on the Milvian Bridge is highly suspect, and may have been faked to rally his troops against a larger army. Once the Empire was officially Christian, they began to purge themselves of all of the Pagans and Arian Christians, especially those in Athens and Alexandria.

4) The Roman Empire split into two sometime around 500 AD. What we know as Orthodox Christianity was the Eastern version and Roman Catholicism (and its Protestant offshoots) was the Western version.

Absolutely absurd. The notion that 60 to 80% of the people in this country do not deserve to have their concerns addressed by the political class simply because of their religion is not only akin to Stalinism it borders on bigotry.

You can no more separate a person's faith from his politics than you can separate his heart from his body and still leave him able to vote at all.

I don't know if religion and state are good to separate -- all I have is my history books. The Nazi Empire separated religion and state, and lasted a little over a dozen years. The Soviet Empire separated religion and state and lasted a little over 70 years. The Roman Empire embraced religion as a core element of their governance, and lasted a thousand years; then, changed from religious polytheism to monotheism (as predicted by Cicero before Christ was born), and lasted another thousand years. It seems you pays your money and makes your choice.

Religion does not belong in a political venue.

The boundries have been muddied by the republicans for disingenuous (and non-religious) reasons since Reagan and now the democrats have finally seen the need to buy into this charade.

But how many religions are getting air time here? One, and one only - there is a very clear deterioration of the boundries between Church and State that should never have happened. Religion and nationalism have been wedded in a very unholy matrimony, and that is all too obvious.

Political candidates being who and what they are, will ride the prevailing populist wave to victory if they can - and religion is now seen as providing that vehicle to victory ..... the Christian religion, of course.

This is a huge mistake, and one that will come back to haunt our constitutionally based and representative form of democracy. We are not the country we once were, even 25 years ago - and we are not better for the change.

Remember a divided people are a weak people. This is what allows 10,000 to take advantage and make subservient the other 300 million people in the United States.

Religion is being used to divide you amongst your selves, in the US and other countries. It is one of the most effective weapons of the source disconnected ego to protect it's fictional world. Religion is a behavioral control mechanism a producer of shame, guilt and irrational conformity.

Most people have no idea what love is, because love that comes with a condition is not love. There is only one source of love, and one can choose to be a channel for it or not.

Why die and go to Heaven when you can bring it to you?

If I recall correctly Jesus once said something like “I am in your world but not of your world”. He was speaking of the world of fiction that most are living in which still persists today but looks like it is in it's end days and the Ego empire is going to fall.

Divine Source connected - Ego Divine
Divine Source disconnected - Ego Bastard

Deepak,

What is disturbing is how fast both candidates were swept into the Illusion, as you alluded to, each not daring to question the popular fiction.

CHURCH: a body or organization of religious believers

FAITH: a system of religious beliefs

There is no difference yet neither candidate questioned it and was able to see through the Illusion created by Rick Warren. In other words he was propagating a fiction.

RELIGION IS AN EGO CREATION NOT ONE OF SPIRIT - scripture says and we are warned that the Churches (institutionalized religion) are the Antichrist; which must be true if we have Faith in Scripture?

McCain with his understandable doubts about the existence of a God resulting from his experience in prison camp, and Obama doesn’t really buy the Jesus died for our sins crap. Neither seemed totally authentic.

Jesus was a Jew and not a Christian. Furthermore the Christians should be thanking the Jews for crucifying Jesus since their act actually redeemed Christians, Jesus could have just committed suicide to die for your sins right?

What this character Jesus did was refuse to buy into the worlds fictions and he set the ultimate example of being steadfast in the truth.

Religion is one big fiction, and it was people protecting The Religion that crucified Jesus because he questioned the fiction and saw through it.

So if anyone really wants to honor Jesus, start ripping the fictions apart with your rational logical discerning minds and live steadfast in the truth, don’t sell out to the ego empire.

There is no evil, only source disconnected ego.

Thank you, Mr. Chopra, for this well written, thoughtful article. I, personally, was horrified when I heard about the forum at Warren's church. For the candidates to have to parade their faith and pay obeisance to the fundamentalist crowd ... well, to me that is an insult to everything our country supposedly stands for. I think it sets a frightening precedent for future elections, and frankly, the way the Christian right is hijacking the political process - and the fact that America is allowing them to do so - scares me to death.

The Saddleback forum was possibly the greatest election forum in history. Is was scientific and unbiased. It was a pure job interview.

Both candidates participated of their own will and was not a gov't sponsored event so there is no separation issues here.

Those who are against this type of forum are clearly are afraid of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Amazing () No Grace!

Like them EViLGElICALs Nationalis, aka Jealousicals (Evangelicals) hath Cheapened their Rabbi Yashua JESUS Faith, Belief, Religion via Selling [Profiteering]

JEZEUS SNEAKERS, Jezeus Energy Bars, Yashua Jesuis Holy water [not H2O] etc..

So Satan SADDLEBACK Crooks hath Cheapened Christo's & now the Presidency of the hol{i} United States!

Note: Time to de frock & Expose them Satanic/Devilish god Players; likes Richy Rick WARNiNGS (Warren) et al!!!!!!

WARNi9NG: Ye Will Be SECULARLY Destroyed. And That will Happen, W/out Shooting a single .022 at ye Oss's!

en:
"Separation of church and state is nowhere found in the Constitution that establishes and delineates our form of government."

Other things not found in the constitution:
God
Jesus
Son of God
So help me God
Praise the lord
Jesus saves
What would Jesus do?
Our father who art in heaven
Bible
Christianity
Christian
Christian Nation
God-given right
Judeo-Christian morality
Any of the ten commandments.
Prayer
Amen

The constitution was the document that established the new federal government. It did NOT establish god's kingdom on earth. It was devoid of all mentions of any form of religion. Not because the founders lacked belief, but because they, many of them, had belief and did not want the new government used as a blunt object to favor or promote any specific denomination or religion or belief system. They came from Europe, where nation and church were one, and they sought at great risk and peril to start a new nation where everyone could believe as they saw fit without being persecuted and prosecuted by the government's laws. They specifically sought to seperate god's laws from the nations' laws in order to protect religion.
The indiviual citizens of this country may have been, and still are, by majority religious/christian. However the nation, the government itself is secular, brilliantly and deliberately so. Not to condemn or eliminate religion but precisely to protect it.
Your statement "Separation of church and state is nowhere found in the Constitution" Is a false and ignorant argument, as no one here, or anywhere I know of ever said it was. It's merely one of David Barton's many red herrings.

BTW, something that IS in the constitution:
" no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States"

Hmmm, I wonder why they included that?

Att: Rabbi Deepocket Chopra, et al:

WOW! They (Obama bomb & Quick Draw McCan a Worms, was treated , By god Player Mr., Rich WARREN, like School Children Recieving Hard, Medium Easy Questions...

Ha. Ha Ha Ha! Ha Ha Ha Ha...... Eeeee Haaaaaa!

PS: involving Mr. 'KRiSHNA', if any, aka 'JESUS', if any is & was an ANTi-SECULAR No No!

AND:

To ask such Children (bama/Cain teamates) Who or "WHiCH U.S. Supreme Crt. JUSTICE" ye would not hath Voted/Approved" is a Usurpation of the Devilish nth Un-Kind!

"scornful disdain and hate-filled speech"

I would like to point out that using these kinds of words in criticism is scornful, showing disdain, and quite possibly hate-speech.

Mr. Chopra prefers histeria to history. The American Republic would have been impossible were it not for the Christian milieu in which the Founding Fathers were bred. Preachers and Pastors have historically been involved in political controversies. It is a privilege and obligation given to us as citizens of this country. Despite Mr. Chopra's scornful disdain and hate-filled speech, President Reagan merely continued the tradition of his Sunday School teaching predecessor and every previous president in recognizing the place faith has in America and the rights people of faith have to voice and vote for their concerns.

"the Constitution prohibits them from letting their particular religious views influence decisions and policy?"

Such gross ignorance of the Constitution and the course of Western civilization is depressingly common. The irony is that such ignorance does not prohibit the scornfully supercilious from calling others stupid and intellectually lazy.

"Politics and faith" are substituted for "church and state" only to avoid the pavlovian barking of the constitutionally illiterate. Separation of church and state is nowhere found in the Constitution that establishes and delineates our form of government. Congress is forbidden from establishing a state-sponsored church. The states fall under the same prohibtion via the Fourteenth Ammendment. No such state-established churches have ever been founded nor are any contemplated. No religious test for office can be imposed. No laws requiring adherence to any faith bar any candidates from seeking office.

But Americans are free to question the candidates to determine if their core values are acceptable. And candidates are free in this country to answer. Americans have the liberty, indeed the obligation, to ensure that their values, whether derived from religious practice or not, are reflected in the people they elect to act on their behalf.

"God quiz"

What some are calling a culture war in the US is not just a problem in our country. People world-wide are choosing up sides again just like they did with capitalism and communism (which debate is now obsolete). Only now they are identifying friends and enemies by their religious beliefs. It is futile for any of us to feel such prejudice has no place in politics. It is there; we have to deal with it.

What happened to separation of church and state?

Do we have to settle for these weak-willed fools who pander to radical Christian theology rather than telling the American people that in order to represent all the people, the Constitution prohibits them from letting their particular religious views influence decisions and policy?

Have Americans have become so fat, lazy and stupid that they are willing to give up a fundamental principle upon which their rights are secured?

Are Americans happy to be ignorant of the differences between religious myth, morality and human rights?

Are Americans no longer capable of the intellectual vigilance required to reject a self-serving theocracy and maintain a constitutional democracy with the goal of equal freedom for all?