There Is A Religious Test for the White House

Good site! I'll stay reading! Keep improving!

THERE IS NO GOD!. The concept of God just plays on peoples fear - believe in our God and forgo most rational thought or you will burn in hell. An atheist would be an excellent candidate because aethists do not go around the world committing horrible acts of murder and crimes because they wish to impose their beliefs on others. When will the Pope appologize for the Crusades, or the inquisition? - never. Ninety percent of the wars and strife in the world are over which fairy tale religious people believe. If all the resources and efforts spent on religion and all its dogma were funnelled into useful pursuits of peace and tollerance, the world would be a safe place.

I suppose I should not be surprised to see that _this_ post in Stephen's blog has genrated a lot of heated discussion!

Too much for me to read to make sure that the point I wish to raise has not already been treated. But here goes anyway: I _have_ to take exception to Stephen's comments concerning Kerry's Catholicism. The real reason he could not speak convincingly about it is because according to Rome's own definition, Kerry is that despite Kerry's claim, he is NOT Catholic.

But no doubt I will only generate more heated discussion when I explain why: it is because Kerry has defied the Church's teaching concerning abortion. According to the Church's teaching, _all_ Catholics must avoid supporting abortion in _any_ way. But as you all no doubt know, it is extremely difficult for any politician today to avoid supporting abortion in at least a limited way. But this is _absolutely_ forbidden to Catholics. To do so makes the person _automatically_ excommunicate.

That is why the Catechism says:

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"76 "by the very commission of the offense,"77

(see http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm#I)

This is the main reason why there are so few genuine Catholics left in politics today. For the most part, any US politician who _calls_ himself 'Catholic', is excommunicatus latae sententiae.

Garak hath said:

"JFK had to say he would not allow his Catholicism to govern his Presidency precisely because the Protestants of this country demanded it."

Really? When did JFK ever admit such a thing? Maybe he had a deeper understanding of the nature of the Constitution than the Protestants who "demanded it" and held inviolable the separation of church and state, unlike many of those Protestants of this day.

Agki

Dr. Prothero:

JFK had to say he would not allow his Catholicism to govern his Presidency precisely because the Protestants of this country demanded it. In a real sense, JFK's statement was a religious statement, a very Protestant religious statement. You Protestants have now changed your minds and, dare I say it, flip-flopped on this issue. Pray tell, why were YOU wrong the first time?

Jonathan, congratulations for your steadfast democratic stance. But the fact that a majority believes something, as I have already outlined, is no proof of its truth, as you still seem to think.

If a "large majority" believed that 2+2 is 5, I still would doubt it, even if "democratically" the "other side" also should be heard, as demanded by the religious on evolution and creationism.

By the way, simple logic demands that the proof must be produced by the side which maintains something exists (positive), not by the side of those who doubt it (negative). If they can prove it beyond doubt, the doubter will have to and will accept the proven truth, not the faith.

As was said before, NOT COLLECTING STAMPS is not a hobby. Proving the existence of something and proving the non-existence of something are concepts pertaining to two completely incompatible logical categories, as is confounded here on these threads all the time, also by Victoria, who constantly laments that atheists never tell her what they belief: They do NOT believe! They do not believe in an additional instance beside the inscrutable miracle of nature and our own existence, please get this! They reason, ask, hypothesize, compare, argue, doubt, think, experiment, develop, and endure the fact that there is no final (static) security! That courage makes them proud. "Panta rhei" (Heraclitos): "everything flows", evolves, progresses, moves.

So the mere idea that I or anybody would (or could) prove the NON-EXISTENCE of something scientifically, is against basic laws of reason and logic. But then of course, that holds true of any faith. Proven faith is an oxymoron, and consequently the faithful pride themselves of not being able, even of not wanting to prove what they believe: Proof would destroy their belief.

Proving God and Zeus Don't Exist

Jonathan. You're kidding, right?

No one has proven Zeus does not exist.
Do you believe in him?
How about the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.

Non-existence unproven.

Gerry,

Yes, certainly there were many who believed that the earth was a disk and not round (elliptical).

However, your humble beginnings are still that. You have not "proved" there is no god. You simply are not sure.

The world has been proved to be round. No one has proved God does not exist.

So, in the absence of proof you, in the minority, find yourself arguing for something that cannot be scientifically proven and simultaneously attempting to foist that upon the large majority who do believe in a god.

I simply think being shrill and dogmatic about your atheism is profoundly imprudent until you are prepared to scientifically prove anything.

Seems to me that many of you don't know the defference between "religion"and "relationship".

Religion is doing things like attending worship, study, fellowship, and prayer on a regular (religious) basis, to earn your way into heaven. True Christians believe that a religious life helps the relationship grow, but the importance is the relationship itself between God and man. That relationship begins when man accepts Christ as their Lord and Savior (God).

The church (organized religion) shows much too often that many undergo their traditional worship, study, prayer life, and fellowship, just to be part of the group. By identifying with the group, they beleive that they are accepted by the group and somehow by God. This by their ill conceived notion makes the Christians.

President Bush made sure everyone knew he was a "Christian Methodist". As a member of the demonitaton, I can asssure you that a large part of the Methodist membership (or any demonation) are not true Christians (living in a working relationship). He has shown (somewhat)how to talk, but hasn't shown us how to walk (living your life daily walking with God). Sure it sounded good enough to get him elected, but as history has shown, the results of his actions r don't align with Christ's character.

If we are going to consider a person's faith when we decide on our vote (and I believe we must), let's be sure we do our homework, and not base our opinion on just what the media tells us. As a voting American, we each must decide what our faith tells us, then research each candidate's belief's based on how they align with our own.

Caution: Don't be fooled by words. Study the results of their actions.

I agree that to win the presidency in the US, one must profess faith, particularly now of the evangelical persuasion. Anything else is looked upon now stupidly looked upon as suspicious. Profession and practice don't seem to be intertwined based on the actions we can cite from many of our presidents in the last 30 years, Republican and Democrat alike. Even for this president, whom all the media loves to note is "born again" and uses his faith to guide his actions in his presidency, along with own his profession that he reads the Bible daily, prays, meditates, etc, it is amazing how few of his decisions line up biblically. Pre-emptive war; lying to achieve narrow purposes favorably only to a few; pushing corporate interests over the interests of the populace - claiming that this is the only way to allow the country to be prosperous-; allowing even encouraging others to make detrimental statements about other world leaders without rebuke or such mild rebuke as to be a nonstarter; refusing any counsel which is contrary to what he wishes to do and then making inane statements about how he wishes for alternative views (even God said "come let us reason together")and the Bible states that "in a multitude of counsellors, there is wisdom".

Profession of faith is a must do, but this president has aptly demonstrated that idealogically driven, narrow, fundamentalist views don't reflect the goodness of God, the admonition for wisdom in caring for those who must live under the policies instituted and even the basic knowledge in the paradoxes expressed in scripture in administering his presidency, e.g. bad leadership = suffering people; borrower becomes servant to the lender (can anyone say China); count the cost before going to war (3080 lives, 400 billion and counting. These things are plainly expressed in the Bible, they are basic tenets of almost every faith that I know of, but the crop of evangelical leaders who appear to advise this president seem only to believe that power is control expressed by accrual of wealth, fighting, killing, bullying and belittling those of other viewpoints and faiths. Seems to be their interpretation of a real Christian's modus operandi. It isn't.

The Bible says one must ponder the path that your feet will take, meaning think long and hard about your actions for all are eventually cumulative. When you are a leader of a country, your path encompasses responsibility for all under your leadership. Unfortunately for us, this president has too narrow a view and poor vision and unwise counsel. We wail about fundamentalist Islam, but fundamental Christianity in America has been just as dangerous and destructive. We should take another look at the "beam and mote" analogy in the Bible.

From "God in the Constitution" by Robert G. Ingersoll -

A constitution is for the government of man in this world. It is the chain the people put upon their servants, as well as upon themselves. It defines the limit of power and the limit of obedience. It follows, then, that nothing should be in a constitution that cannot be enforced by the power of the state -- that is, by the army and navy. Behind every provision of the Constitution should stand the force of the nation. Every sword, every bayonet, every cannon should be there.

Suppose, then, that we amend the Constitution and acknowledge the existence and supremacy of God -- what becomes of the supremacy of the people, and how is this amendment to be enforced? A constitution does not enforce itself. It must be carried out by appropriate legislation.

Will it be a crime to deny the existence of this constitutional God? Can the offender be proceeded against in the criminal courts? Can his lips be closed by the power of the state? Would not this be the inauguration of religious persecution?

And if there is to be an acknowledgment of God in the Constitution, the question naturally arises as to which God is to have this honor. Shall we select the God of the Catholics -- he who has established an infallible church presided over by an infallible pope, and who is delighted with certain ceremonies and placated by prayers uttered in exceedingly common Latin? Is it the God of the Presbyterian with the Five Points of Calvinism, who is ingenious enough to harmonize necessity and responsibility, and who in some way justifies himself for damning most of his own children? Is it the God of the Puritan, the enemy of joy -- of the Baptist, who is great enough to govern the universe, and small enough to allow the destiny of a soul to depend on whether the body it inhabited was immersed or sprinkled? What God is it proposed to put in the Constitution? Is it the God of the Old Testament, who was a believer in slavery and who justified polygamy? If slavery was right then, it is right now; and if Jehovah was right then, the Mormons are right now. Are we to have the God who issued a commandment against all art -- who was the enemy of investigation and of free speech? Is it the God who commanded the husband to stone his wife to death because she differed with him on the subject of religion? Are we to have a God who will re-enact the Mosaic code and punish hundreds of offences with death? What court, what tribunal of last resort, is to define this God, and who is to make known his will? In his presence, laws passed by men will be of no value. The decisions of courts will be as nothing. But who is to make known the will of this supreme God? Will there be a supreme tribunal composed of priests?

Anybody want to live under this kind of "government"? I sure don't. I thought we had outgrown the pathetic notion of God, at least as a participant in government.

Maybe we should look to Scandinavia for leadership. They did manage to outgrow the Viking savagery of Odin and Thor. Why can't we outgrow the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic savagery of Allah-YHWH-God-Jesus-Holy Ghost? 95% of Americans can't name the twelve apostles, just as they can't find Greenland on a globe, they are pitifully ignorant of even their own religions. So much for Jesus or God or YHWH being a matter of "Ultimate Concern." That's money!

People need to read more of Ingersoll. Here's some:

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/

Agkistrodon

Gosh, as a B.U. Grad, I am somewhat embarassed by this commentary.

First by the unapologetic central premise. Since america will only elect a religious man the president must be religious. There's some truth there, but it's a sad truth. Nothing to crow about or build upon.

My second problem is Professor Prothero's argument about speaking "convincingly" about faith. For goodness sake, I would think that the dean of a preeminent school of theology would know that an authentic discussion of faith can never be authoritative or convincing. It must be full of doubt and nuance. The only people who can convey their faith in a sound bite are ones who are making it up, or whose faith is immature and unreflective. And the last few years have made it painfully obvious that we don't need any more of those people running the country.

Stephen only takes a realistic approach to contemporary politics. He does not endorse it as the ideal. As the Supreme Court once proclaimed, Americans are a "religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." Americans are, by any measure, very religious compared to most western churches. Huge majorities believe in God. Rates of church membership and attendance are very high. Religion is central to perhaps a large minority of Americans' lives. Given that, politicians need to address it. If environmentalism were so important to Americans, politicians should speak to it. Since religion forms many Americans' "ultimate concern," politicians should at least be willing to discuss their own personal views and how they relate to their politics. This often is but need not be pandering. Nor should politicians so fear the good sense of the electorate about these issues.

Jonathan,
if you reduce faith to a statistical phenomenon - all right for your well-being and feeling of democratic tolerance ("most people have believed" etc., "therefore I believe"), and the evil atheists are condescending elitists because they do not follow the line of thinking of a majority. (In Scandinavia and other countries, the majority are atheists, and still their society works a lot better than the American brand).

A huge majority of people, practically everybody, also have believed that the earth is a disk (some still do even today!): Maybe one should not deduct provable facts from a given historical demoscopic proportion of opinions. Galilei had this "psychological need, physical quirk of human synapse", fighting that "uphill battle as a lone voice in the wilderness", as you so colorfully describe. Obviously, he was extremely undemocratic. Fortunately, he is no longer a lonely voice in the wilderness, even if some people still would try to get rid of him even today.

But of course, even science has in some quarters descended into a "democratic" majority issue (Kansas and evolution!). However, it is not a question of polls or democratic votes that the distance of the sun from the earth is roughly 150 million kilometers. One doesn't necessarily have to know it, but you certainly cannot vote on it to find out if it perhaps is only 50000 kilometers.

Yours truly and as humbly as possible, still as a "shrill voice from the dark"...

Gerry

that was wrong on a lot of levels...

We're in this mess now because people trusted Bush/Cheney; took their views on fait and didn't question their motives which are NOT religious, they are businessmen and while the voters THOUGHT they were voting for religion, they were really voting for oil and healthcare and we all got the shaft.

Pat:

Uh Pat. I really hate to be the one that breaks this to you, but there is no Easter Bunny. My "proof" of God's existence using the Easter Bunny was an effort to poke fun at religion.

As for your statement "it has not been proven that either God or Jesus exists other than in people's minds" I agree.

I agree with you that relgious belief systems should be personal. That's my I think Dr. Prothero's assertion that their is a "faith test" for public office and for our life time it will stay that way for good reason, is insultingly close-minded on his part. The man has made a career out of believing something he can't prove and convincing other to do the same. It would be nice if he respected everyone's beliefs equally, unfortunately he clearly does not. According to him, people with his beliefs are in charge, that's good, it should stay that way and if you or I don't like it, we should just leave because this is a Christian nation and non-believers are ruining it for everyone.

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

It has not been proven that either GOD or JESUS exists other than in people's minds alone Sander.

Religious belief systems should be personal and not used to judge others. Just because you believe these entitites; god and jesus; exist does not allow you to judge others with your opinion alone. No proof just your belief and opinion. Wars are started with the exact same attitude of superiority over others.

The Middle East comes to mind!

morality is not found in religious teachings, it is found in the acts of people alone.

people can claim some moral higher position, but that is all it is, is a claim. Opinion!

Attempting to legislate morality is why religions has entered politics.

A number of posters have had the temerity to claim there is not a God, that God is a myth, that faith is tantamount to ignorance, that religion is opium for the masses and on and on.

You are all sorely mistaken.

There is a God and it is the Christian God.

Without such a God, there would be no Jesus.
Without Jesus, there would be no resurrection.
Without a resurrection, there would no Easter.
Without Easter, there would be no Easter Bunny.

As we all know, the Easter Bunny does exist. Since the Easter Bunny does exist there must be an Easter, a Resurrection, a Jesus and a Christian God.

You should all think very had about this and be more careful in making such wreckless and unproven assertions.

1. There are no supernatural phenomena in this world.

2. However, there will always be people in this world who believe in supernatural phenomena.

3. Therefore, people who believe in supernatural phenomena must be tolerated, both by people who do not believe in supernatural phenomena, as well as by people who believe in different supernatural phenomena.

4. Also, people who believe in supernatural phenomena must be protected, both from people who do not believe in supernatural phenomena, as well as from people who believe in different supernatural phenomena.

5. And finally, people who believe in supernatural phenomena must be prevented from forcing other people to live in accordance with their supernatural beliefs.

JOSHUA - The number of different religious cults is into 5 digits and growing. Each is based upon a different interpretation of the Bible. The founders were wise enough to realize that government would be turned into a Bible debating society done at public expense so they wisely wrote it out. All faith is that the Bible is God's word, (It's not My word, wink).

How wise were they? http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul tells us exactly that. Technically, all supernatural beings are gods/Gods, Gods being dead people, saints. Angels are gods employed by Gods to terrorize people into doing their, God's will.

Now the information has come forward to once and for all time prove the Bible is a hoax thus confirming for the most God fearing that the constitution of the United States of Americas is the work of God, the REPLACMENT for the Bible.

The cults from the big ones like RCs and Mormons to backwoods snake dancers will need to remake themselves or go out of business. The professor here's thread sounds to me like the cry of wounded goose. There is no defence against the truth. All we can do is laugh.

IN God we trust was added to coins after [or during, I cannot remember] the Civil War. It was a sop to ardent religious groups campaigning to put God into the Constitution. [God, is, after all not; We the People, not Jesus Christ, gives legitimacy to the laws of the United States, something which certain religious people find intolerable.] Anyway, the proposal was shuffled off into committee never to be seen again, but they threw a bone to the religious in the form of In God We Trust.

Under God was added in the 1950s to distinguish America from "godless" Commies.

Also: the United States Constitution expressly prohibits any sort of religious test for public office. Article VI of the Constitution:

"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."

Notice, also the oath that new Presidents have to take: "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Not to defend God, but to defend the Constitution. That type of civil religion is the thing we should be concerned about.

The story of religion in public office has been one of a widening; whereas it was well understood early in the Republic that there would be a firm separation, there was a rough consesnsus on this point. But, efforts would eventually begin to remove We the People as the sole arbiter of legitimate government in order to stipulate that Jesus, to take the most popular example, was the sole giver of laws. Well, I say we should get back to Jefferson's conception of the idea and tell the dominionists to go take a hike.

In the history of the world the majority have believed in some sort of God. So, the atheist who nobly pursues his goal of a secular society has the unenviable uphill battle, being a tiny minority when viewed against the backdrop of history, of convincing the majority that they have been wrong for the last couple thousand years on the one issue that is most personal. It actually causes one to be more liberal in their acceptance of people to believe in a God than to not believe. Describe it as a psychological need, physical quirk of human synapse, call it what you will. The atheist stands as a lone voice in the wilderness claiming that the great majority of mankind has not just been wrong but severely wrong on the most important issue of their life. Which is why I keep having to forgive him, that is the atheist. His condescending claim to have transcended my lowly and immature belief in God reeks of arrogance and elitism and leaves me, though willing to forgive, shocked, nevertheless at his overwhelming ostentation (is that a word?). At least, if he were right, he might show some humility, being that he is a severe minority. But no, he claims the ascendency and with shrill voice demands that we all change and come over to...the dark...no, I won't say that.

DUFF - you lie. You do not have a direct line to Me and if you don't stop aggravating My people I'm gonna let ya have it, straight to hell.

I have a nice test for the White House, one of several. The occupant should not practice, advocate, or defend torture.

The current occupant would fail. So would several candidates.

Professor Prothero, I think you're right, but I do think it is a sad state of affairs when blind faith has become more appealing than the ability to win a logical debate. Obviously, politicians, like the rest of us, are going to be influenced by their religious opinions, but our laws have to apply to everyone. If the major reason for any law is a religious premise, then how can any member of a religion other than that one be held accountable to that law? It is not any specific paragraph of the constitution that necessitates leaving religion out of politics, it is the very nature of the legal process itself. If laws are to apply to all citizens, then they must be grounded in logic that can also apply to all citizens.

I would like to remind the professor, and all of you, that I have a direct line to God and He has informed me which of the presidential candidates are the most closely connected to Him. Not which is the best actor.
As the election cycle continues to heat up, He will inform me who is going to represent HIM. I will let you all know in due course.
Thanks for your patience.

So What you and the rest of America are saying is no Atheist has enough moral fiber to embroil us in war, destroy neighboring democracies, and forbid taxpaying americans the right to marry. Considerin the fact that 75% of people of faith believed in the use of torture in extreme cases and atheists only 35% said yes. I do BELEIVE AN ATHEIST MIGHT BE A GOOD CHOICE.

Prothero errs in saying this is a First Amendment issue. It is an Article 6 issue: "no test of religion shall be administered" as a qualification for office.

No matter what the apologists say, asking any candidate his religious beliefs are off limits. To ask a candidate to attest is to administer a test.

Candidate X can trumpet his religion to the high heavens, but he cannot be asked.

It's that simple.

If there IS a religious test for president, then shame on us for willfully removing a Constitutional protection.

Let's see, where else do you have to pass the faith test? Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and, uh,...oh, yeah, Iraq.

There was a time, in the not-too-distant past, when for a Catholic, it was a "mortal sin" to be a Republican. We are now in a time when it is a "mortal sin" to be a Democrat.

Religion in the political arena has degenerated to the point where it no longer is reflected in matters of morality and ethics. Both Clinton and Bush profess to be born-again Christians, but their ethics do not reflect their confession. That is not to say that they are not born-again Christians. It suggests that if they are, it doesn't matter much, if anything at all.

Therefore, religion in politics is rarely proactive and almost always reactive. Because sectarianism divides us all, politicians react in fear of losing their constituencies.

The current religious emphasis will play a large role in the 2008 elections because McChurch, the drive-through, fast-food temple of the Christian Right has successfully demoniized the left as evil. The reaction is, "I'm a believer; therefore, I am not evil."

It is meaningless beyond eliciting a warm, fuzzy feeling among the lemmings.

"Man shall not live on issues alone, for without the vision, the people perish." If it takes religion to craft the vision, the people take hope.

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

DRVICE - You can't threaten Facists with Facism. They love it and recommend it for everyone. And they are ready and able to do the detail of getting rid of substandard and inferrior people. They're making a list and checking it twice and they don't tolerate VICE.

MIGGSATHON - You're confusing faith in God and religion. Religion preaches the benefits of A supernatural being that is CLAIMED to be God. God can't even be shown to exist much less be identifiable to the point of not being mistaken for the other supernatural being, Devil.

Interpretation 1501 of Exodus at http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursouls shows that the Bible is more akin to the word of Devil by much more than the word of God.

There's a more Biblical argument yet, Exodus 3:19 where God commands us to "earn our bread by the sweat of our brows." That eliminates the possibility of God answering prayers for things like helping us trick our neighbors so we can have their bread or even winning the big game. God demands early on in the Bible that we do it ourselves and leave God out of it. All prayers are for something we want and the clergy tells us God will help. The being that allows us to take the bread of others is Devil, not God.

What we need to free the politicians so they can express undying faith in God is a "seperation of church and God" which I found at that hoax buster web site I think. The church can keep the Devil. Who needs Devil except people who intend to eat their bread at someone else's expense.

BTW, TO ALL THOSE IDIOTS WHO SEEM SUDDENLY FACINATED BY DRYICE AND WAYS TO DESTROY IT, CONSIDER DRY ICE AS MERELY A CAPACITOR OF SORTS. IT IS NOT SO MUCH THE MATTER, IT IS THE ENERGY OR LACK THERE-OF HELD WITHIN THE MATTER THAT MATTERS MOST. OKAY, NOW THAT WE HAVE THE COMMERCILIZED ADULTERATED HEROS CRAP TAKEN CARE OF, ALONG WITH THAT MATTER ALLOW ME TO SAY TO YOU PROFESSOR "CRAP, CRAP, CRAP" THE SYSTEM IS WHAT THE SOCIOPOLITICAL ENGINEERS MAKE IT. IF WE WERE TO ESTABLISH A RELIGIOUS DISCLOSURE STANDARD...WHICH IS OPTIONAL...THAT WOULD ADDRESS ALL CONCERNS AND THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO PANDER FOR VOTES ON THE BASIS OF RELIGION. HOWEVER, I DO AGREE WITH YOU THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SAID STANDARDS, IT IS EVERY POLITICIAN FOR HIM OR HER SELF....WHICH IS BASICALLY ONE OF THE REASONS WE ARE CASCADING TOWARDS FASCISM RIGHT NOW, OR DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO THAT THEORY/FACT? RELIGION AS PRACTICED IN THIS COUNTRY MIGHT AS WELL BE CONSIDERED SUPERSTITION AND AS BROTHER STEVIE WONDER CAUTIONS "WHEN YOU BELIEVE IN SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, THEN YOU SUFFER" RELIGION=SUPERSTITION THAT IS EXACTLY HOW BAD THE STATE OF THE UNION HAS BECOME UNDER PSEUDO-CON, NEO-FASCIST DIRECTION. GOOD DAY PROFESSOR. GOD BLESS YOU AND YOURS.

The villain here (or the hero, depending on your perspective) was not the Republican Ronald Reagan but the Democrat Jimmy Carter, who famously confessed in "Playboy" to lusting in his heart, and in the process legitimized the use of religious rhetoric in American politics.
LET US GET AWAY FROM THE FALSE NBC "HERO" WORSHIP THE HACKS HAVE GOTTEN TO THE SCRIPT WRITERS ALREADY. SORRY HEROS, YOU HAD A GOOD THING GOING, AND AS USUAL, THE CREEPS IN THIS FASCIST GOVERNMENT MESS UP EVERYTHING. SURPRISE SURPRISE
HEY LITTLE MICA, STEALING AND MURDERING IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO MAKE MONEY. NEITHER IS PIMPING YOUR PATIENTS OR BOWING DOWN TO DA MASSA WHITE MAN JUST BECAUSE HE IS WHITE....SORRY, I DIGRESS DON'T I? SOMEONE TELL THOSE HEROS AT NBC ABOUT THE BLACK/WHITE DOLL TEST IN 2006/2007

Sorry, but you are wrong. 12 of our Presidents were not Christians. Sure they beieved in God, 3 even changed from Episcopalians to Deists, 5 were Unitarians, 2 Quakers, and 2 undeclared including Llncoln. Wearing your religion on your sleeve is like reading from one book. Religion is the opium of the masses. If it wasn't for religion Bush would not be president. The Religious Majority voted for Bush and they are sorry for it now. Let us keep religion out of politics and get down to what matters. Altruism and doing the right thing period. Read Kohlberg .. Republicans are stuck in the Conventional thinking stage .. and if vote considering only what your group thinks that is where you are .. we need to think more broadly and consider all the issues ..

B-Man,

You're wrong. Vermont voters have just elected Bernie Sanders to the U.S. Senate. Over the course of a decades-long career, Bernie has never professed any religious affiliation or religious beliefs. In Vermont he is widely believed to not have any religious beliefs.

Bernie won with more than 60% of the vote against a Catholic candidate.

B-Man,

You're wrong. Vermont voters have just elected Bernie Sanders to the U.S. Senate. Over the course of a decades-long career, Bernie has never professed any religious affiliation or religious beliefs. In Vermont he is widely believed to not have any religious beliefs.

Bernie won with more than 60% of the vote against a Catholic candidate.

Anynomous,
I don't know about the others, but I do have a job. I'm slumming it here for fun. On Faith is very educational. The panelists are top class. And the posts from readers most entertaining.

Some posts are as shouty as an American high school discussion. I saw that in US movies and TV shows. And yes, in US TV where talking heads pontificate on anything/everything and outshout one another, or talk pass one another, or cut one another in mid sentences.

Fun isn't it :)

Do you guys have jobs?

Dr. Prothero:

You are correct when you say that the US electorate today will not elect a person who doesn't pass the "faith test".

That is a pathetic commentary on the level of intellectual maturity in this country.

God Isn't: sorry, looks like we're both wrong on one thing. "In God We Trust" was put on the money during the Civil War, not at the founding (as I said) or in the 1950s (as you said). You were thinking of the addition of "under God" to the pledge, which I didn't mention.

Regarding the founders being deists, the fact is that some were deists and some were Christians. Whatever their beliefs, they still referred to God often in speeches and documents. I didn't say that the US was a Christian nation; why did you argue as if I did?

Finally, when you mention that I didn't bother to read the quotations, that's false; I did read them, and specifically took my Jefferson quotation from them. My point was that many people, including the anonymous commenter who posted those quotations, are conflating very different issues. In short, religious freedom requires the government to avoid endorsing one religion over another, but it does not require people to avoid referencing and appealing to God in the public square. Indeed, religious freedom REQUIRES that people be allowed to appeal to God in private or public.

If the author feels mpoliticians should express their faith to run for office, perhaps these pliticians hould run for religious ofices and not PUBLIC offices.

I am not christian and I would prefer not to know the faith of politicians as I do not go to church with them, nor do I intend to. t

A politicians religion or belief mechanism is useless information when it comes to politics and politicians. But perhaps politicians have learned to hide behind a new lie, FAITH!

Actions are a much more creliable tool to measure a person's character and worth. it is not what a person believe's it is what they do.

Anonymous,
wrote:
'The words "seperation of church and state" don't actually appear in the Dec. of Ind. or Constitution. It's TJ's, from outside writings, and then court rulings. Just thought I'd point that out.'

Therein lies one of the keys to the problem; when the term is switched from 'religion' to 'church' then the debate has been switched to Christianity since Christianity is the only main religion with a "church" and it takes 'interpretation' etc. to get the debate back to 'religion' which is in the Constitution.

Clearly, somebody, somewhere, sometime, apparently didn't object to 'religion' but rather only Christianity, else they would have stuck to religion which is what is in the Constitution and what the founders were concerned with.

Pointing out that subtle switch is clearly worthwhile and pertinent to what's going on.

STAN - you're probably correct in your thinking and even Bubba but I wouldn't bet on it. Americans have come to the aid of their constitution before and can be expected to do it again.

ANONYMOUS - You too have the correct version of separation of church and state, TJ calling for reason in an unreasomable world and noticing that keeping the high priest out of Washington was REASONABLE. Have you noticed that is what makes the American democracy different from all other governments before and most since? The high priest is there to justify what the king does.

Stan has noticed that Bubba isn't close to realizing that, thinks of the president as a temporary monarch. He just does what he's told is "the right thing to do" by the religious authorities.

Those religious authorities get their authority from a proved hoax. Is he bright enough to understand what that means? Time will tell. You don't suppose some politician will tell Bubba when he's being attacked by swift boat veterans and figures he has nothing to lose?

The words "seperation of church and state" don't actually appear in the Dec. of Ind. or Constitution. It's TJ's, from outside writings, and then court rulings. Just thought I'd point that out.

If you throw out the concept of god in the writings attributed to Moses and consider instead An Almighty, with Jesus of Nazareth being connected to the Almighty but without the tie-ins to the Moses writings then you get a whole new perspective on life. And a complete different view of what has been passed down as history.

It would seem that for the world to get something positive out of the dreadful Iraq War that the best way would be for the tie-ins of religions and governments to be exposed for the corruption they are, and the falsity in the religions be highlighted.

One problem, among many, with the concept of the United States being ruled by a religion is that the fanatic religion that is willing to expend its adherents [and others] in the process of getting its way will be hard to contain if it has control of the central government. And easily the next step would be that a candidate for election would have to be from that religion to have a chance a election, assuming that a farce of an election is even allowed.

Bubba doesn't really care whether things are true or not, he is just programmed to believe as told, and will respond to a flag, as Napolean observed.

The role of religion in political representatives is becoming much clearer now, and I agree that a candidate needs to pronounce one way or another his/her convictions and to demonstrate some relationships between belief and practice.

It has the potentials to raise conscious awareness by identification with issues, and associating it with a face.

Now leaves the burden of explaining there is also a soul within that empty self. But with a conscience appeal to the objective of human progress away from the harm of evil (not meaning atheism), the people may search within to find it among themselves a reason to vote for.

Bring back Carter!

While I wish it weren't so, I think that it is getting more and more important for candidates to pander to the faithful in order to get their votes. Winning the election is all about getting the votes, so of course the issues that are important to the voters must be addressed well by the candidates.

This is an implicit religious test, not an explicit one. There should never be an explicit test, but we can't do much about the existence of the implicit one, short of changing public opinion (which I do think we should all strive to do).

I have nothing to add to the comments already made about the ridiculous contention that a candidate "must" show he/she is acceptable to faithers. This essay challenges those of us who feel strongly that the original American ideal is teetering on the brink of theoarchy to a duel.

I'm game, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul says all three great faiths are Devil worshippers. Dr Pro here say Jimmy Carter proves liberals are not immune to Devil.

The fight is for the vote of Bubba and he don't even know it yet. Bubba's faith is being taken for granted. His love of sports is being equated to stupid. Both have worked in the past. The past is dead and gone. The Bible is a proved hoax and Bubba has plenty nuff brains to understand what that means.

Pro says it will take a long time and hopefully too long to save the constitution. He needs to have a look at two dates, Dec 6, 1941 and Dec 8, 1941 when Americans demonstrated their ability to change their minds in quick time. Bubba was the first one to change his then and he didn't see any lights on the way to the mail box, the one he passed on his way to volinteer for the draft.

Maybe Dr Pro needs to be reminded that the civil war has been over for an awfully long time to still be fighting it. New England and New Orleans aren't that far apart any more and Mobile is just around the corner.

The "ultimate concerns" should be about the individual and his or her purpose in life, not about society. Just because a majority of Americans would not vote for a atheist, doesn't mean that a "faith test" for public office is right or just.

What do the "ultimate concerns" have to do with government policies, anyway? Building roads or collecting taxes aren't about anyone's religious beliefs.

The plain fact of the matter is that religion is for the ignorant. The posts and replies on this post alone prove it.

Miggsathon wrote: "If the founders were so opposed to religiosity in the public square, why did they put "In God we trust" on the money?"

They didn't. That was done during the 1950's.

"Why were their speeches laced with references to God?"

Most believed in the "god" of nature, not the christian "god." However, regardless of their theistic beliefs, they created a secular nation.

"But they seemed to understand a distinction that many today don't: using religious rhetoric and reasoning in a political context vs. gettinc certain religious institutions 'established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government,' in Jefferson's words. That is to say, religious rhetoric and religious establishment are not the same thing. Yet many commenters on these threads, including Anonymous above, glibly conflate the two."

I guess you didn't bother to read those quotations. The founders wanted religion kept separate from government because they knew, from experience, that it was not a good mix.

This essay was an example of the religious bigotry that I hope our society will one day outgrow. Professor Prothero defends the idea that you have to be a member of an organized denomination to hold high political office.

He writes "so, yes, presidential candidates need to have faith and they need to know how to express it." Let's see how it sounds if we exchange a few words so it reads "So, yes, presidential candidates need to be White Christians and they need to know how to express it".

Not so good, eh? If either of these sentences are true in practice, they are ugly beyond belief.

Professor Prothero also writes "In 2008 both parties will need to put forward candidates who can pass the faith test." Given the current occupant of the White House, I would prefer a candidate who could pass some other kind of test, like where is Iraq on a map, and what is the difference between ad Shi'ite and a Sunni, and maybe even one who could put together a grammatical sentence.

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.

If the founders were so opposed to religiosity in the public square, why did they put "In God we trust" on the money? Why were their speeches laced with references to God? The truth is that some founders felt differently than others -- just like political actors today. But they seemed to understand a distinction that many today don't: using religious rhetoric and reasoning in a political context vs. gettinc certain religious institutions "established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government," in Jefferson's words. That is to say, religious rhetoric and religious establishment are not the same thing. Yet many commenters on these threads, including Anonymous above, glibly conflate the two.

I would add to the above remarks that Washington's response to a sermon that suggested that he was in error for refusing to participate in the Eucharist which he refused to do, was to omit going to church when the Eucharist was celebrated. Washington said "that on the preceding Sunday he had received a very just reproof from the pulpit for always leaving the church before the administration of the Sacrament; that he honored the preacher for his integrity and candor; that he had never sufficiently considered the influence of his example, and that he would not again give cause for the repetition of the reproof; and that, as he had never been a communicant, were he to become one then it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal? arising altogether from his elevated station. Accordingly, he never afterwards came on the morning of sacramental Sunday, though at other times he was a constant attendant in the morning'" (Annals of the American Pulpit, Vol. v, p. 394).

He attended church as a deference to his wife and custom but refused to continance the notion that he had to share her belief. He was a vestryman because vestrymen served as judges in local matters, not because he was a faithful Christian.

In a remark to Rev. White in the 1830s who wanted to construct a public idea that Washington was a believing Christian, Rev. James Abercrombie, a scholar and preacher who was the assistant minister of Christ's and St. Peter's churches in Philadelphia stated emphatically, "Sir, Washington was a deist."

I would not vote for anyone, of any party, who would ignore the Constitutional "separation of church and state." Everyone who holds public office takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution. That is their highest responsibility. If they cannot keep their personal "faith" separate from their public responsibilities, then they should get a job as clergy, not as a public servant.

Stephen Prothero wrote: "...those who believe (wrongly in my view) that the First Amendment's establishment clause somehow mandates a politics empty of religious reasons.."

The founders would disagree:

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." - James Madison

"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." - Thomas Jefferson

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, referring to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

"They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT, January 1, 1802

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them …" - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G Spafford, March 17, 1814

"Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers." - http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm

"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy." - James Madison

"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own." - Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

Dr. Prothero:

You've got two things here that are incorrect. First, you assert that Jimmy Carter was the one who "legitimized the use of religious rhetoric in American politics." Have you ever read Lincoln's second inaugural address? Or read numerous FDR speeches that are peppered with God references? Or even the inaugural address of JFK -- a man often lionized for saying his faith didn't influence his politics -- which contained a quote from Isaiah and an insistence that "here on earth" we must do "God's work"?

Second, you mischaracterize Paul Tillich's use of the phrase "ultimate concern." Tillich defines faith as the state of having an ultimate concern -- one concern that contains, yet supercedes, all other concerns. Thus, for the Christian, the ultimate concern is Jesus Christ. For other faiths the ultimate concern is different. What the phrase "ultimate concern" certainly does not refer to are the "hopes and dreams" that candidates articulate in elections -- entering the middle class, say, or living in safety from terrorism -- or even a lofty goal such as promoting "the common good." A person can have exactly one ultimate concern; that's what makes it ultimate.

Miggs

I disagree with your conclusion completely. It far exceeds your premise:

"So, yes, presidential candidates need to have faith and they need to know how to express it."

The logical conclusion from your arguement goes more like this:

Presidential candidates need to pander to the test of irrational belief held by the majority of Americans (not necessarily voters, or educated Americans) by developing the skills necessary to express religious attitudes whether or not they actually belief in anything. This is easy, don't you think?

Presidential candidates need only be above average actors, right?

Thank you.