Hail to Chief Executive, Not Chief Theologian

Yea,

You bozo's would rather the President of America be the patzy/SHILL of the ZIONIST FASCIST STATE OF ISRAEL,

Then for him to be a follower of JEsus Christ.

You'll all get what's coming to you soon enough for your idiocy.

I need to clarify--not just those who believe in religion. I believe all humans have a core belief of striving for the betterment for humankind. Just sometimes it is hidden behind selfishness, arrogance, lack of direction, arguments over religion, etc..
My Dad once told me. You know son..we all bleed red. Kinda says it all.
Jeff

Two quotes:
" While religious beliefs may color a set of choices, it should not be even a minor support under a constituent’s platform lest that support fails and the platform comes crashing down."

" Again, I don't expect anyone to believe or even agree with my faith. I do expect the person chosen to represent me and my interests in our government to acknowledge and respect my, and everyone else’s, secular beliefs and ideas. That is why faith should remain private."
.
I agree with your writings, but it will take time. It seems from posts in this forum from many religions that their core beliefs are for the betterment of humankind. It is time to begin acting as if we all understood it.
Jeff

Jeff stated: “…even within the most prevalent of our religions in the United States are many interpretations of the exact same words.”

Well put. Each person is unique and his or her interpretation of their chosen belief system is unique. It makes the practice of basing policy on religious belief impossible if one were representing a nation of unique people.

While religious beliefs may color a set of choices, it should not be even a minor support under a constituent’s platform lest that support fails and the platform comes crashing down. There are myriad other reasons to support causes or pass laws. It’s time to stop using religion as our excuse to make policy and simply state, “I believe I have used my best judgment, morally and ethically, in making this decision.”

Reasonable: Just a speck? Would you speak to the African-Americans that way? Would you speak to the Latin-Americans that way? How about the Japanese, Arabic or Nordic? If we move to the list of religions, would you tell a Muslim, Hindu or atheist that he is just a speck? How is this reasonable?

There are better ways to make a point than to belittle and offend the minorities. Although Wicca may be a single minority religion, "alternative" or "Non Judeo-Christian" belief systems (including agnostics and atheists) make up a bit more than a speck and we all expect the government to be run with consideration that we are not a nation ruled by a single faith, regardless of what that faith is. If Wicca were the dominant religion in this country, I would still have the core belief that religion does not belong in politics.

My argument isn’t based on my specific faith. In my first post I mentioned that my husband and I have very different religious paths. I am Wiccan and my husband is Catholic. Our house is run in harmony and our household decisions are based on mutual respect and shared moral and ethical practices. Why should the government be run any differently?

I agree with Jeff when he says the United States should be “governed by our respect for each other, and the freedoms entitled to all, instead of words that those of religion still cannot so much as even agree on.” Acknowledgement and respect of all beliefs is warranted and expected. Again, I don't expect anyone to believe or even agree with my faith. I do expect the person chosen to represent me and my interests in our government to acknowledge and respect my, and everyone else’s, secular beliefs and ideas. That is why faith should remain private.

P.S.
Cheney, the oil companies, and big business also saw there was a way to get what they wanted as well by using those fervent Christians, the Presidency, and ultimately all of us. Time to start making it right.
Jeff

For the last thirty or forty years, the most fervent Christians have been manipulating the Republican Party. The results have been what this administration has done in the last six years. Christians should all be embarrassed. This is what happens when a narrow, Puritan train of thought is allowed to govern. Our beliefs can, and should be one of our strengths, but must not be our policy, for even within the most prevalent of our religions in the United States are many interpretations of the exact same words. Sadly, we are now currently the laughing stock of the reasonable world, and even feared by most for our utter lack of vision. And if you would please, read as much history as you can, and stop trying to frame the founder’s actions in the wrong light. As they learned from history, they knew this would happen if the United States were not governed by our respect for each other, and the freedoms entitled to all, instead of words that those of religion still cannot so much as even agree on.
Jeff

Yes Chrysalis I guess you are right, there are other religions outside of Judeo-Christian monotheistic ones. However, when the founders were around, Christian dominations were what they referred to or inferred about.

Yep, everyone has a right to believe in what they want to, no doubt about that.

Where I would disagree with you is this statement-

"But to allow the specifics of a single faith to govern a country is unacceptable."

If Christianity is the dominant faith, you will get policy that is influenced by that faith. There is no issue with that as long as agreed upon liberties are not violated. (That is a whole other can of worms for discussion)

When Wicca has some sort of footprint in this country, your place at the table for Chaplains may come. But for now, your religion is a speck - a very minor one- that can't realistically get that footprint in the door of public opinion or the Congress.

I've still got all my hair Mr. Mark, for now. The free speech stuff gets me worked up sometimes but I try to find the comedy in these boards.

I originally came here to chat with agnostics, but now I'm just as interested in why atheists believe what they believe, or I should say, don't believe what they don't believe. Hopefully I'll get a chance to start on the Dawkins book soon.

GB

Reasonable asks, “So you really think that people can seperate their deeply held religious beliefs from what they think is best for society from a policy perspective?” No, I’m not asking people to separate their faith from their feelings or what they “think” is best. However, I do not think beliefs that are unique to specific religions, such as the concept of sin, the belief in psychic phenomenon, or how the world was created should be a deciding factor on governing a nation with myriad different religions. Politicians have an obligation to represent the entire population, not just the ones who share their religious views.

In order to be a true representative, one is obligated to consider what is in the secular best interest of the population including the Muslims, Hindus, Pagans and any other religious or non-religious path. You can’t please all of the people all of the time, but alienating religious factions simply because of a difference in faith is not the answer, it’s a cop-out. Jacoby is stating that while faith will always play a role in one’s life choices, it should not be the one and only factor in deciding public policy.

Thank you for the link. It actually proves my point. It states that there were a number of chaplains serving from many different denominations and, “The Senate has also appointed guest chaplains representative of all the world's major religious faiths.” Faith is important for psychological and emotional balance. But to allow the specifics of a single faith to govern a country is unacceptable.

To assume that I am not religious (you didn't read all of what I said, did you?) is completely incorrect. I simply said that my choice of religion is different. I happen to be a Wiccan minister and religion plays a strong part in my choices every day. Religion does NOT “…involves God …” It actually involves whatever deity or deities one chooses to believe in. To think that all religions fall within the monotheistic, patriarchal archetype is ignorant and false. I’m not asking you to believe in what I believe, but respect it with some knowledge before making broad assumptions. As Luke states for most of us here, “Regardless of what you believe, I might believe otherwise, and I have every right to.”

Judeo-Christian beliefs has had positive and negative effects on our country, just like Buddhist, Muslim, and a myriad of other faiths have. We live in America, not Jesusland, and we want to keep it that way. How do you know what the founders wanted? Everyone believes they had a different intent, but now, the main point is that religious FREEDOM is our goal. This means that you are free to practice your religion, or not practice at all if you like. I, and many others like me, do not want the Bible to be the deciding force of policy that affects me. You wouldn't mind because you are Christian, but what if our politicians were Muslim? It wouldn't benefit you, so you would raise hell. Therefore, keep your religious beliefs out of your policies and we have no problem. Regardless of what you believe, I might believe otherwise, and I have every right to.

You know, you are right, religion is a personal choice. What I find interesting from many on this forum is the assertion that policy should not, as a matter of the principle of the seperation clause, be affected by someone's religious beliefs. If this were true, the founders would not had a champlains for the Senate, basically from the start of our Senate.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Chaplain.htm

If someone is elected from state,for example, that is religious, and that state, or let's say, several states,elect Senators that were highly religious and were a majority in the Senate, what would you say then? So you really think that people can seperate their deeply held religious beliefs from what they think is best for society from a policy perspective? Did ever occur to you that focusing on , what did you say, making our country strong, healthy, and sustained, is something that Christians believe will come from being guided from their scriptures, and the fact that following those scriptures as a guide, like religious people do, would intersect with what Washington calls "props" and "supports". You say that Washington does not mention God, but he DOES mention that religion (which involves God believe it or not) is a "indispensable support" or supports that is intertwined with political prosperty. You miss the point , and many of the atheists miss it too. Judeo Christian beliefs have been a positive influence on our society for decades in this country. Just because you choose to NOT believe in a supernatural superior being does change this fact. I suggest you re-read his farewell address in its entirety along with other founders writings. Yes , they were Deists, but they did not have the disdain for God or religion that many on this forum have, Jacoby being right at the top of list. And they did not intend for this so called wall to be as high as some would like it to be, or claim or misrepresent the founders wanted it to be.

Reasonable wrote about what our founding father said. But does anyone notice that he says nothing about "God"? That's because he was a Deitist. He believed that religion was an important yet very personal choice and practice. That one should have a belief in something but that it is an individual right and not something to be sanctimoniously thrust upon others.

People who believe the government should be run secularly aren't necessarily atheists. My husband and I have completely different religious beliefs yet the same fundamental morals and secular ethics. We believe as our founding fathers did; religion is a personal, spiritual choice. It is not something up for debate. I keep my spirituality to myself because my relationship with the deity of my choice is personal and unique. I don’t expect anyone else to believe in exactly the same thing I do. We are all human but each of us are unique and so are our thoughts.

If someone were to ask what my greatest sin was, and if I were required to answer I would have to say, "I don't believe in the Christian definition of sin." Would you ask a Muslim that question? It would seem offensive, in my opinion.

The simple truth is most people operate on the assumption that everyone is either Judeo-Christian or secular. If you open your eyes and minds, you will learn that there is an entire world of religious beliefs that fall outside of those categories and if we continue to ignore them and remain ignorant, we will continue to offend and propagate religious wars.

All Ms. Jacoby is asking is that we focus on the issues facing our nation and make our choice of a national leader based on our views on national and international issues and not based on a candidate's choice of religion. You can ask a moral or ethical question without faith becoming an issue.

Faith is a beautiful thing and will always influence how we think. But we must stop creating policy based on religious belief and start focusing on what will help our country be strong, healthy and sustained. And we must also respect an individual’s personal relationship with whatever higher power he or she believes in.

Sharon Dupree,

Eloquent.

Well, the father of our country was wrong. Religion and morality are two completely different things. I have am an atheist, and I have very strong morals - so that shows what he knew.

TJ-

You can believe what you want. I would not step down to your level of bigotry , that is all.

I am always amazed at the "freethinkers" - you are not free to believe in the positive, just the negative(god that is)

There are not many Satanists, so it is moot point.

Learn from the father of our country:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Pagan..
" one of the most dangerous things about religion in government it is "

My thought is that it is the tendency to take divine understanding, inspiration and intepretation to justify a 'manifest destiny'

Friend, thanks for your praise of my posts.

"I think we should define 'divine mission' to include any belief systems, with god(s) or not, that espouses absolute knowledge of the truth."

When I wrote that term, I was referring specifically to beliefs about orders from gods, including beliefs about those gods rewarding or punishing humans based on how they follow orders. I suspect there are people who believe in a god but do not believe that the god gives orders to humans. My point is godly orders almost certainly make a huge difference in the motivations of people who adhere to those absolute-knowledge belief systems.

Luke,

Pillow fight?

Andrea and Russell D., I am sure we have all pulled our hair out and cried on these threads together. We are BFF.

Luke,

Here's a tissue.

Shannon, that almost brought a tear to my eye. Well spoken.

As a Christian, I was taught to respect the beliefs and non-beliefs of others.
It seems that those on the extreme right, including many who have made derogatory and unchristian comments on this blog, are taught something different.
They are taught that they and their leaders are the only ones qualified to judge the faith, morals and values of others and that, in doing so, they can give passes to people who are as judgemental and bigoted as they are. Somehow they believe they know better than God, Moses and Jesus and that they have permission from God to act upon their prejudices by dictating just how everyone should act even though they were given a chance to choose their own course.
In making their judgements, they also have made up the rules as to who will be forgiven for mistakes and who can continue to engage in purposeful and hateful behavior, based upon whether the person is one of them. They claim pro-choice and rights people are killing babies, yet they have no problems with babies, children and adults being killed in unjustified wars and in pre-meditated murder situations in the form of the death penalty.
They claim to care for children and families with their "family values" dogma, but they do all they can to break up families they don't believe should be a unit. They also think it's all right to deny families and individuals the right to have a decent life through any government type of assistance but don't mind corporations, individuals, groups and other undeserving countries getting free money from us through the government.
They claim to believe in heaven being a better place than earth and yet they deny individuals the right to not fight death that comes in a natural way.
They have an unnatural interest in all things sexual, even to the point of imagining sexual intent and connotations when none exists. They act frigid and insulted when anything sexual is mentioned, yet they are like voyeurs, who feel they have the right to constructively join people in their bedrooms.
They believe Jesus was wrong when he spoke of God and state separation.
They claim the right to privacy but have no problems telling others how to live.
Finally, they claim the right to religious freedom, in a non-discriminatory manner, but deny others the same freedom, in a discriminatory manner.

ghostbuster writes:
"Mr. Mark,

You are my favorite atheist. Like I said one other time, I've learned a lot from you."

Why, thank you, GB. That's a nice thing to say.

My immediate reaction was, "then you need to meet a few more atheists," but I'll take your comments in the spirit that you intended.

I'll say one thing about On Faith - I had a full head of hair when I started posting here. Can't say that's still true... :)

Paganplace:

I think suffering is unavoidable without the loss desire and fear.

I do believe in utilitarianism when running a government.

I think we should define "divine mission" to include any belief systems, with god(s) or not, that espouses absolute knowledge of the truth.

I enjoy your entries, they are enlightening.

"Agnostic Pantheist, Bhuddist and Athiest sympathizer"...(and for me, cultural Catholic).

I think one of the most dangerous things about religion in government it is really the idea that certain people are 'made' to suffer, or 'supposed' to suffer, which I think it utterly incompatible with the role of government.

Also, I didn't get my handle from the Thomas Mann novella, which I've never read. But now I'm interested in reading it.

"I think those that espouse absolute knowledge of the truth, regardless of belief system, are the dangerous ones, not those that believe in god."

I agree in principle. However, I make a distinction between belief in a God and belief in a divine mission. The latter is another version of "espousing absolute knowledge of the truth". I see the divine mission version as more dangerous as secular versions, because of the sense of entitlement than it can promote. That means it can convince believers that they're headed for heaven if they complete that mission, and/or that they're doomed to hell if they don't complete it.

Tonio: Are you named after Mann's Tonio Kroger?
Good name.

"I admire those cold, proud beings who adventure upon the paths of great and daemonic beauty and despise ‘mankind’; but I do not envy them. For if anything is capable of making a poet of a literary man, it is my hometown love of the human, the living and ordinary."

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

I think those that espouse absolute knowledge of the truth, regardless of belief system, are the dangerous ones, not those that believe in god.
Amoung fundementalists in any belief system, the definitions of god(s) are wide ranging.

"How do you separate the reasonable people that believe in a god and wouldn't let that dictate their course of action and unreasonable people that would let their faith dictate their course of action?"

TJ,

A good standard would be asking the people to defend their actions in secular terms.

How do you define religious faith? I assumed it meant belief in a supreme being or beings. Is there another definition? Is there a concept of "faith dictating their course of action" other than "God told me to"?

What?!, this whole Hitler was an atheist noise is a load of crap. I have never read a book on Hitler that said he was an atheist, EVER, and I have plenty. Almost every book says he was quite the good Christian. Ofcourse, I see you are sidestepping my posts, which I think you have avoided arguing because you know you are wrong.

"Paganplace,
Why do you always post so many *s?"

Many moons ago.. when my people raoamed the Internet freely... Before the trolls came....

* meant that you could speak *boldly* In *bold* Or what you may know as ...italics.

But then the sundering of the UNIX came, and the companies said 'This is the way to speak, I will make my own proprietary way....

And, basically, the OS' es could no longer parse each other, and the marketing departments decided to blame it on 'unacheivable goals, and did war and fight, and cause much grief, and the Pagans did say,'

"I could totally just keep typing asterisks till you work that out, it works well enough and all for emphasis.... Unless anyone needed a capital Number 8 or something.... "

Would you prefer I.... caused entire threads to be rendered in italics cause I got too fancy?

Umm... BTW, JJ? That's probably you. :)

Mr. Mark,

You are my favorite atheist. Like I said one other time, I've learned a lot from you.

I'll miss you when you leave. Well, you know, sorta ;)

Paganplace,
Why do you always post so many *s?

Maurie Beck stated:

>>What? What? What? Not this sex stuff again. Just because your beliefs prevent you from getting laid, don't take it out on us. What? What?

Just because your beliefs prevent you from getting laid? Are you for real? Can you not come up with anything better than that to sidestep the questions? You dont know me from Adam. Talk about a cretin..look in the mirror. Can only expect something said like you said from a zit-faced teenager. Have you not graduated sixth grade yet??? Same to you...dont take your hissy-fits out on us.

>>God Awed - People of faith are entitled to their belief in God. They should not be looked down upon and scoffed at when they run for public office.

>>We tend to look down on you because you take an average mind, mix it with religious idiocy, and turn it into that of a cretin. I know it is not politically correct to make fun of those who are intellectually challenged (you know, retarded). However, when you purposefully make yourself stupid, what do you expect? What? What?

We tend to look down on you because you take an average mind, mix it with atheistic lunacy, and turn it into people like Stalin, Hitler (aka atheists, lunatics, suppressionists...you name it) and the like and what do you get? Read the history books for yourself. I didnt write them.

Luke,

This point is possibly not worth arguing about, but I assure you I have spent enough time behind--and in front of--the whip to know whereof I speak. Masochists may tell you they enjoy the pain, they may even believe they do, but I certify to you that, while the pain is going on, nobody enjoys it. They enjoy the anticipation, and the ceremony, and the aftermath, but not the pain. Of course, it's impossible to remember direct sensation, so it's easy to forget what your state of mind was, but the facts are as I state them. I've been. I've seen. Believe me.

Frankly, ...I think there's a big difference between saying, 'As a Christian, I would like to do these things that I think are good,' and saying, 'I'm a Christian, so you know you can trust me.'

Used car dealer said that to me once, and nearly blew the whole deal, ...me thinking, apart from being offended at the implication that if he knew I was non-Christian he might think I was therefore untrustworthy, ...well, the more pragmatic thought ran through my mind, ... 'Why would you *say* that if not to hide something?'

However, unlike many politicians, he cheerfully answered my persnickety questions and got the sale, anyway.

When you make professions of faith *obligatory,* well, it's *obligatory.* This isn't to say that, say, the Democrats being discussed aren't *clearly* sincere moderate Christians,

But really, that it's unreasonable to *demand* these things from candidates.

All it does is get in the way of the decision-making process.

Doesn't mean anything real, just allows religious fanatics to consider it a valid criterion to call candidates 'ungodly' based on whatever view of 'Christian' they're trying to portray as both the unquestionable will of a Christian majority and the 'oppressed by secularism' minority (choose which when convenient.)

What does that *mean?*

Nothing, really, except that people want a shorthand between 'all the world's problems/saving my soul from something' and a particular candidate.

What a candidate thinks of their religion could be *useful information,* ...but not if it becomes a 'religious test' where we the people *demand certain vague answers.*

I think it'd be better to keep it private.

Cause, frankly, I've never seen quite so much bitter acrimony and unreason as a Christian friend reported being subjected to about being caught between two neighboring Protestant churches that I frankly couldn't distinguish between each other in a lineup.

It'd be Shakespearean if it weren't so awful and, well, trivial.

I was just looking and going, 'Naah, they can't possibly be *that* bad, they're the 'silent majority' trying to rule me, the united front of 'whatever we can wave a hand at and call virtue....' what's the feud about?'

In some ways, for those who want this to be a comfortably-Christian nation where you imagine everyone really agrees with you...

You might be happier not knowing.

But.

Where's the beef, so to speak. Let's not have this be about obligatory piety or public professions of 'faith,' but... How about, 'How do you see the world, candidate?'

It kind of *is* on us to tell the media, 'This really just isn't what we want to hear about. Or at least let's have a context where a candidate can *say* 'This is none of your business' without the 'Crowd' assuming that 'silence' is 'guilt' of some kind.

Sometimes, it really just *is* none of your business.

Unless you like think it's a good idea to, say, as an apocalyptic Christian, to get very influential in Strategic Air Command or anything...

I was watching the news these past couple days, facepalming, and looking at Bush, ...'Wouldn't it be the crowning irony if you *brought back the fricking Cold War, sport?*

He was asked if he thought these were the 'left Behind' End Times...

That, he didn't answer.

And maybe that *is* our business, since he's got the 'football' and all.

Very well written. There is nothing wrong with a candidate espousing their personal beliefs whether of God or not, just as long as those beliefs are only a source of strength, not the law for policies of a nation populated by many different beliefs, and those of none. But something has to be done to blunt the most narrow, as enlightenment and change comes slowly. To the dismay of President Bush and others, they are beginning to understand that many things are not black and white. But I believe in the not too distant future, your last sentence will be (as always intended from those who wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) a truism.

Where is Sen. Arnold Vinick when we need him? The fictional Republican presidential nominee on “West Wing” said it best:
"I don't see how we can have a separation of church and state in this government if you have to pass a religious test to get in this government. I want to warn everyone in the press and all the voters out there. If you demand expressions of religious faith from politicians you are just begging to be lied to. They won't all lie to you, but a lot of them will, and it will be the easiest lie they ever have to tell to get your votes. Every day until the end of this campaign I'll answer any question anyone has on government. But if you have a question on religion, please, go to church."

Dear Danny B -

Thanks for the comment.

Yes, I sometimes get argumentative just for the hell of it, but clarity in language is also important. I said "red herring" when "strawman" would have been better, and maybe - in retrospect - the word "forcible" wasn't the best choice for your post. In any case, my being argumentative led to your providing clarity that better makes your point. Is that so bad?

As far as my taking a break from these forums - I've tried that before, and it can be tough. That said, I'm starting a new job in the next few weeks that will involve a relo of about 400 miles. I have no doubt that my posting here will drop significantly if not entirely. I'm not one to visit forums like this from my work computer, and I tend to post most often during bix hours (those hours just happen to be from home right now).

So, you'll probably get your wish.

Tonio, I'd like to agree with you. How do you separate the reasonable people that believe in a god and wouldn't let that dictate their course of action and unreasonable people that would let their faith dictate their course of action?

Reasonable and not hateful, If you wouldn't vote for someone that you feel is likely to let his/her adoration and devotion for Zeus interfere with their decision making in a secular government, then you're just as much of a 'bigot' as I am. If you wouldn't vote for a declared Satanist because you feel that they wouldn't represent you adequately, then you're just as much of a 'bigot' as I am.

Would you vote for a Satanist or an atheist?

We're an awful lot alike, you and I. The only difference is I subscribe to one fewer fairy tales than you do.

As for your statistics about who believes what, that's called an 'argument from popularity'. It's a logical fallacy.

What?

What? What? What? Not this sex stuff again. Just because your beliefs prevent you from getting laid, don't take it out on us. What? What?

God Awed - People of faith are entitled to their belief in God. They should not be looked down upon and scoffed at when they run for public office.

We tend to look down on you because you take an average mind, mix it with religious idiocy, and turn it into that of a cretin. I know it is not politically correct to make fun of those who are intellectually challenged (you know, retarded). However, when you purposefully make yourself stupid, what do you expect? What? What?

All (not a person's name)

I am sure there is no one much left here.

Look at Chuck Colson's essay. He didn't get many comments so I put one at the end, to cheer him up.

In case it doesn't make you crack a smile, it was intended to be a little comical.

Another Big pencil for the Big Man(Dawn's Office Supply,Baltimore,MD):http://www.empowermententerprise.com/2410/street%20006.jpg

My original intention in posting was to add my full agreement to the essay. Though I find myself agreeing with Jim Wallis in his role as a theologian, in pointing out that many passages in the Bible advocate for social justice, I am not in favor of seeing politicians having to justify in public their personal religious beliefs.

Luke,

I think you are clarifying my argument (as opposed to Daniel), and if so, you understand clearly what I meant (whether you agree, or not). Thanks for the assistance, if in fact, I was unclear.

Mr Mark,

As someone who often has to defend some very good points of his own, your tearing apart of my post seems argumentative for argument's sake.

I am trying to make the point that those arguing that there should be no gay marriage (or whatever phony moral issue) because God's word is clear have no leg to stand on in this country. I believe that even though I am a Christian. If my neighbor is not a Christian, then God's word (as I see it) is a moot point.

By "forcible gay marriage" I mean that no one in this country is saying that gay marriages MUST occur, but that if gay couples WANT to get married it should be their business, and not that of the state or their neighbors.

That is what I meant by "if the government attempted to make forcible gay marriage the law of the land it would be much different".

A gay couple I do not know cannot bring ME eternal damnation (not that I presume to KNOW they would for themselves either)by entering into a "marriage" that I have no part of...So what's the big deal?!

You accusing me of using a red herring is (ironically)actually a straw-man argument. You win!

Maybe you need a break from the forums, you seem to have exhausted your ability to read them with a (otherwise typicall)reasonable critical eye.

Yes that is who I meant, sorry.

Wow, Susan sure got a lot of comments piled up with her provocative essay. I bet if she had a nickel for every comment, she would have almost 12 dolloars by now.

You mean Danny B, right? not me, right?

I think that Daniel's point is that as long as he isn't forced or has to directly take part in things he does not believe in, it's not an issue with him. Unfortunately because we live in a society where we all pay taxes, we are indirectly contributing to a lot of things we don't believe in - but we have to remember that freedom is what we strive for. I don't think that he meant that there was a possibility that anyone would force him to marry a dude. I think what Daniel meant was "As a Christian, I know that the word of God, as derived from the Bible, is only true to myself and others who believe it.". I can't fault a man for his personal relationship with God - I can only protect his freedom and hope he will do the same for me, which by his virtues I believe he would. Faith bridges that gap between knowledge and the unknown - and I respect your search for that clarity.

Danny B writes:

"As a Christian, I know that the word of God, as derived from the Bible, is only true if I believe it."

Believing something is true doesn't make it true. Knowing is different from believing. The country was led to believe that Saddam had WMD. The world now knows that he didn't.

You are allowed to believe the tenets of your religion, but you can never know that they are true. Your belief is an act of faith, not fact (as you point out). As an atheist, I honor your right to believe what you will, but honoring that right doesn't mean accepting your beliefs as being true, any more than I must accept your beliefs to be true if you worshipped Zeus instead of Jesus.

" if the government attempted to make forcible gay marriage the law of the land it would be much different. I could argue that they cannot forcibly ask me to violate my faith."

That's called a Red Herring, Danny. Forcible gay marriage? Forcible? Let me ask you this - is there such a thing a forcible straight marriage? What in the hell do you mean by forcible?

"Swearing to uphold the Constitution."
As in any legal and quasi-legal proceeding in this country, one need not swear to god about anything. You may aver to uphold the Constituion.

Lep,

I can't wait for Starhawk to pipe into this conversation. I's really like to hear what she has to say about the hullaballoo!

So Mr. "Reasonable and not Hateful"

I didn't understand your point, partly, I think, because you were bashing someone else's comment whose point I also didn't understand. Who do you hate and who do you like? Come on People! Let's clarify the finger-pointing! Otherwise, it's just a waste of all our time.

Anthony,

Ha, great pix! Here's one of God's tires, left here in Detroit.

http://www.jankaulins.com/p49.html

Anthony,

That was a great reply to Luke!!!!

Loved those pics!

TJ,

You sound and talk like a bigot.

30% of the population in the US or more is evangelical.

90% or so believe in God.

How does someone with such disdain for people with prejudice have the freedom to write what he calls "drool"?

God given rights.

I'll take the love of my "super-special friend" over your bigotry anyday.

TJ, if a politician believes in a god, I see no harm with that belief itself. I do see harm, however, if the politician believes that the god has handed down certain policies for government to follow.

Oops ... never say never.

http://www.agilitynut.com/06/4/ppencil.jpg

http://www.roadsidenut.com/pencil103.jpg

God Awed somehow managed to type through the puddle of drool: "People of faith are entitled to their belief in God. They should not be looked down upon and scoffed at when they run for public office."

Yes, they should be looked down on. I don't want some superstitious/religious goon in a position of power. Period. I don't vote for people that admit they are cultists. Period.

How is somebody that puts their super-special imaginary friend before family and country qualified to serve either family or country?

Anthony, that was my point exactly. All religious texts are man-made. I mean, who's gonna make the pencil for that big man (or woman's) hand? =)

Luke:

It's all man-made text. Didn't Moses chisel the tablets? There are no non-man-made religious texts. God inspired? There's a bit of truth throughout. Personally, I'm a Muslim. But that doesn't mean I can see God in even Native American beliefs.

Tonio,

Thanks!

You posted: I've been married to my wife for almost nine years, and gays getting married in Europe and New England has not changed my life in any way. And I don't expect it to do so in the future.

This is the way I feel about that whole issue.

I've never understood how people fall so easily for the utter devisiveness of this nearly non-issue.

If we have religious freedom here, then no church can be compelled to perform a gay marriage. If the church wants to define marriage for itself, it has the freedom to do so.
It can "sanctify" the "marriages" it sees fit.

Now, when a couple goes to city hall to obtain a "marriage license" and be married by a judge who is a PUBLIC OFFICIAL, there is really no "sanctity" to protect.

Those who have a problem with using the term "marriage", perhaps have a point.

But instead of gay marriages being referred to differently as "unions", which still sets them apart, any union recognized by the government should be called JUST THAT...A Civil Union. Gay or straight. Let churches, and individuals determine whether it is a "marriage" or not. In the eyes of the government, only unions should be recognized.

How will this affect marriage in this country? A marriage is only as strong as the two partners make it. If a marriage can be impacted by ANOTHER marriage, particularly one of strangers, then the marriage was never very strong at all.

We cant blame the Boogey Man for our own shortcomings, and slippery slopes are not good arguments.

I agree with you.

Danny B, excellent post.

Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).

Fortunately for us in the USA, Caesar is "The People" who have made it illegal for the government to establish a state religion.

That being said, I cannot use Leviticus and Romans to say that gay people I don't know should not have the state recognize their union. I am free to believe those verses in the Bible, but if gay people don't...or even just don't CARE...the tenets of MY faith are irrelevant.

Those arguing about the "indisputable" word of God are mistaken about that. As a Christian, I know that the word of God, as derived from the Bible, is only true if I believe it. It can't be proven.

I understand what "blind" faith is, and that it is necessary in maintaining a Christian faith. I believe in things that I know defy "reason". That's what faith IS! If the next guy can't find that, or chooses not to, then my claim that God's word is indisputable is pointless.

I don't understand how one can be a true American, but totally lack that sort of pragmatism in dealing with public issues.

I am not my brother's keeper, and by law not allowed to be. Nor to infringe on my taxpaying neighbor's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Now, if the government attempted to make forcible gay marriage the law of the land it would be much different. I could argue that they cannot forcibly ask me to violate my faith.

Likewise, a woman who can maitain a clear conscience and choose to have an abortion should not have to risk her life in a back alley, providing profits to the ghoul who will exploit her desperation in the face of abortion being made illegal. The belief that abortion is a violation of the commandment "Thou shall not kill" is a moot point in this country.

Legal abortion is not the same as forcible abortion or forcible participation in it. I would advise her to consider other options, won't assist her, pay for it, drive her to the clinic, but if she can live with it then it should not have to unnecessarily destroy everything else about her. I am unaffected at that point.

My faith guides MY PERSONAL behavior. When my personal behavior is out of my own control by law, then I can use my faith as an argument against it.

When the decision is whether or not to let someone privately choose something for themselves, and it will be on their own head. In rendering unto Caesar, I will make my decision based on pros/cons that fall fully outside of the realm of the purely faith based.

I expect anyone who SWEARS to uphold and protect the Constitution to do EXACTLY the same!

Anthony, when you are talking about man-made text, I hope you include the Bible in that. There is no debating that it was written by man unless you want to be the first to deny that. Who said that God is a Christian?

To Vic,

It’s nice to know I’m not the only one who received and remembered this email.

“Barring the names, each description should ring a few bells, not too far back in our history....”

That is exactly the point I was trying to make. I would much rather the candidates refuse to respond to questions of this nature on the grounds that their “faith” … whatever it may be … has nothing, what so ever, to do with the running of this country. I also feel that those who do include it in their campaigns should be disqualified from the race. Our founding fathers separated “church” and “state” for a reason.

Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it, over and over and over …

Silvlaro

Brian:

So you believe in all of the non-Christian gods? Not that God is a Christian.

Wade:

I'll take that bet. How much are you willing to lose? Or maybe you can just drop the ten cent words and just answer the question instead of offering all that pseudo-intellectual babble.

Shack:

Interesting, it's Science and through reason that I believe in God. It certainly wasn't some man-made text.

Question: Is sex dirty?

Answer: It is when it's good. :)

(Woody Allen quote)

This thread reminds me of a blindfolded kid wildly swinging a baseball bat at a piñata stuffed with angry hornets.

party on...

GB

Daniel, you remind me of a friend of mine. As a humble Christian, he struggles every day in his personal relationship with God but he has compassion and strong faith. His best friend is gay, and he loves him regardless of what he considers his spirtual shortcoming. There are those who use the Bible as a sword to satisfy their egos, and those who use it as a shield to keep their lives in line with the teachings of Christ. The "Revelations" Christians use threats of fire and brimstone to get their point across, and they lose a lot more souls than they convert, I assure you.

The whole point of Susan Jacoby's essay has been lost because of the comments of the delusional Jesus-maniacs. That is a pattern in these Washington Post forums. I wish there were some way we could overcome them.

Since they are the ones who have brought up the subject of homosexuality, and it being the downfall of civilization, Alexander the Great was gay. He conquored Persia and joined it to the Greek Empire of his father. Then upon his death, his empire fragmented into several Hellenistic kingdoms, which formed the basis of the Roman world, yet to come. And of course we know that Christianity has been passed down to us all, by way of the Roman Empire.

In addition to that, when these Jesus-maniacs are quoting from the Bible, they are usually quoting from the archaic English of the King James Bible. And, of course, King James, who authorized the first English translation of the Bible, and whose quotes these Jesus-maniacs depend for their very existence, was also gay. (Look it up).

Back to the point of Christianity and homosexualilty, it is the goal of Christians to love all people. That is a difficult goal. However, a good Christian should be able to say, without equivication, that "I love gay people."

If a Christian says, "I hate the sin, but love the sinner" then he has disqualified himself from an expression of true Christian love.

Daniel, I know what you mean, and I understand it isn't working. I don't even hate them, I just hate what they wish to do to me and the people I love. That hatred is dangerous.

My main point is that you can't claim that homosexuality, or rampant sex is the cause of the downfall of society or a civilization. There are plenty of civilzations, religious and ethnic groups, and the like who fell that didn't have rampant sex, gay sex, or the like (vikings being one of them). If a greater army wipes out your own, THAT causes your civilization to crumble. If a disease wipes out your civilization, THAT is the cause of it. So if you are a pagan group, and another group comes to your land and wipes you out, rampant sexuality is the cause? We have gay people here now, and if we are suffering economically, it's not because gay dudes are doing it. Back up your point, What?! with specifically how being gay led to the downfall of a civilization. NOT how a civilization that had "immoral" sex died out, but EXACTLY how a civilization fell apart from dudes kissing.

To Luke
It is pointless to argue with God-Awed or What?! or people like them. What comes out of their mouths amounts to nothing more than senseless babbling. They don't know what they believe or why they believe it. Their brains have devolved into some sort of religious mainia and Jesus mainia.

As a Christian, I can say that a person who suffers from Jesus mania is not a Christian. But yet, because it is, in my opinion, a psychiatric disturbance, they cannot really help being that way. What these people really need is medical treatment.

In a setting such as this, presentation of sincere arguments only enourages their sickness. Actually, I believe that they respond better to harsh statements, and light-hearted ridicule. You might also ask them leading questions so that they may elaborate their delusions for all to see, and to try and figure out what makes them tick.

If you take them seriously, and try to argue with them, you only frustrate and exhaust yourself, without making any impression on them at all.

What?,

So, are you only against homosexual sexual activity in regards to being immoral and spreading diseases, or are you against heterosexual couples engaging in oral and anal sex? Do you brand them immoral and turn them out of your churches and pass laws that state they cannot be married? Where do you draw the line?

You assume I am an Atheist? Much as that assumption flatters me, and much as I'd like to join the ranks of my friends Luke and Rusell D., I don't claim to have the knowlege to believe or disbelieve anything at the moment. But I can assure you, your rants prove to me that my choice to leave the church was the correct one. I could never consider myself a Christian if it meant I had to identify with the likes of you.

In your words "Pathetic." I take Daniel's statement to you as a suggestion. Go dump in a box.

Rupert:

There are more atheists in the U.S. than all Muslims and Jews combined. There are 15 million of us, we will not be quiet, and we will not go away. Moreover, our numbers are growing.

The Moderate:

The Nazis were Christians, all of them. You do not get to revise history in an attempt to escape accountability for the atrocities that Christians perpetrated. Also, Nietzsche was not the driving force behind Nazi ideas. Nietzsche terminated his friendships with Wagner, Heinrich von Treitschke and others because of their anti-semitism. Nietzsche's sister, a vicious anti-semite, did publish a severely edited version of Nietzsche's journals that got some Nazi attention, but Nietzsche would have repudiated everything she did. Before you mouth off, you should actually learn what really occurred.

So your argument for how biblical times are like our times now is because they had politics and commerce? American Indian tribes had politics and commerce, as did the vikings and plenty of other pagan civilizations, but you wouldn't acknowledge that with your ethno-centric ignorance and hate that has replaced your ability to reason. The Viking system of justice is more like America's then the Bible's, where cruelty matched cruelty. The Vikings held councils much like our judicial system with tribal leaders who all came to an area to resolve a myriad of financial and personal issues. I am sure many societies with sexual freedoms did crumble, just as many others did not. Kissing dudes doesn't cause the downfall of society. The vikings had relations with slaves and mistresses, just as the CHRISTIANS who owned slaves in America did. I guess if the vikings had sex with each other the whole country would have caught fire - but instead Olaf Tryggvason (a MILITANT AND CRUEL CHRISTIAN, mind you) converted the vikings to Christianity by force. So you think that TB, the myriad of STD's, Ebola, Plague, etc. was caused by dudes liking each other? Seriously, What?! go to another thread, I'm sure the Phelps family's site would welcome you. If AIDS is a disease fabricated by gays, then why do straight people get it? You just make yourself sound ignorant, your points are moot, now go away.

What?!
You can take a dump in a box, wrap it up and put a bow on it, but it's still a dump.

Where did you dig up your trash theology? Who passed on this counterfeit Christianity to you? You are a disgrace to all people who seek to be Christians. It is people like you who give us all a bad name. It is people like you who have wrecked the reputation of Christianity.

Please spare me the Biblical quotes that you have picked and cobbled together, to support your own personal delusions and bigotry. If you want to quote the Bible, then quote all of it, not just the parts that you find con-veeeen-ient!

All this passion and yet, no substance from the likes of WHAT?! and GOD AWED.

HEre's what it boils down to. WHAT?! claims that sexual immorality is bad, and leads to the downfall of societies. Well, if WHAT?! is a woman, I'd say you need to get laid and have an orgasm or two before you talk again. If WHAT?! is a guy, then I'd say you just need to get laid. Maybe it's mean of me to say it, but that's how it seems to be. You guys have never really lived. And who are you to tell us how to live if you have not had anything to live for?

Luke,

Many of the references of cities in the bible are references to triving cities of the time with politics, commerce, the whole 9 yards. I suggest you do a little study before you pat answer something and any child might even know.

It is ignorance of such, as you portray, that make remarks such as yours senseless.

Andrea:

Because the proven fact (the facts are there if you read them) is that because of the ways some people 'do it', is why we have rampant disease.

Keep your heads in the sand and see where it gets our society in a few decades or so.

If you think our society is stronger than it was 50 years ago, then delusion has captured your minds.

The essay to you is simple. Why? Because the prevailing thought of mankind thru the millenia is that perversion with regard to what was stated from the book of Romans is something to be eschewed. That has been always been more the norm than the exception. There is a reason for this. Every society that has embraced the perversions you embrace has become unstable.

Why not come up to the plate and prove me wrong? The puny remark 'already been to school...' is someting I would expect from a teenager. Pure cop-out. Even your secular psychiatrists would tell you that.

Fact from your response: There is no substance in dialogue with an atheist.

Better to find a blog where meet a challenge..rather than say Ive already been to schoo.

Pathetic

How do you speak from the heart? Isn't that organ used for pumping blood throughout the body? Also, I pay my taxes Rupert, so I want a tax break before I'll consider it.

David Rupert,

"I think we would all be better served if those of faith spoke from the heart and those who had no faith just kept quiet."

You'd like that, wouldn't you? I bet you'd also like it if every minority kept quiet. That would make you much more comfortable.

Friend,

If you were quoting the Talking Heads, I heart you; that is one of my favorite songs.

True believers can smell a rat? cough Ted Haggard cough cough.

What?!, if you think that sexual immorality is the cause of the destruction of society, then you are not only dishonest, you are blatantly ignorant. It's like the billboard signs that say "Kids from families with married parents do better in school", which completely disregards that most unmarried parents live in poverty to make a point about how gay marriage is harmful to children. It's a stupid argument fabricated by religious LIARS, like yourself, What?! - or have you convinced yourself that you are telling the truth? Also, the world is FAR different now from what it was then. Jesus didn't know that stem cell research was going to be a hot topic this day in age. It wasn't even thought about. If you think "Hey, there was sand back then, and there is still sand now", then yes, the world is quite the same. How is the world still the same today? Where is your proof? At least my "fairy tales" are based around something measurable, rather than yours which are found in the recovered pages of some age-old ideas from people who lived in the desert. The world is so unlike Biblical times it is laughable that you would think it is.

Same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...

The same minds that wrote the Holy Books of our religions are the minds that inhabit our body. They hold truth to who we are as a species. We are both good and evil.

Same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...

The same minds that wrote the Holy Books of our religions are the minds that inhabit our body. They hold truth to who we are as a species. We are both good and evil.

I think we would all be better served if those of faith spoke from the heart and those who had no faith just kept quiet. I dont want to be pandered too. I dont care how many consultants they have and how they study the buzz words and language — true believers can smell a rat.

Hey, check out this blogpost for more about real faith and politics and the political party's new rush toward faith —

http://redletterbelievers.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html

Garyd:

I was thinking about your appendix remark. What was your source for that info? It seems very, very unlikely that it had anything to do with meat digestion.

First, look where it is located - at the junction of the large and small intestine. This is not the place to put it to digest protein, a process that starts in the stomach. By the time it reaches the end of the small intestine, all that really remains to be done is absorption by the large intestine.

The appendix is a vestigial cecum. Copied from a Wiki post...

Most herbivores have a relatively large cecum, hosting a large number of bacteria, which aid in the enzymatic breakdown of plant materials such as cellulose.

Exclusive carnivores, whose diets contain little or no plant material, have a reduced cecum, often partially or wholly replaced by the vermiform appendix.

Sooo - it would appear that you need to consider the possibility that your source was in serious error.

As for the display by the Democratic candidates - disgusting. Why won't SOMEBODY say "My personal faith cannot impact how I approach governing a country as diverse as ours." Carter was not our best president, but at least he knew how to keep his religion apart from policy.

What?

I was not mocking your scripture, I was mocking your method of dating.

"Send me an essay on how wonderful societies past were when sexual immorality became rampant and how it made them stronger."

Why should I? I quit writing essays when I finished school. Plus, I don't believe homosexuality to be immoral, so your point is moot.

You like writing so much. Why don't you write *me* and essay on why you believe the government has the right to deny a certain group of human beings rights the rest of America has.

Why the preoccupation with how people "do it"?

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul's Record
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

LETS GIVE OUR CHILDREN A CHANCE!

LETS KEEP AMERICA FOR AMERICAN's!

VOTE: RON PAUL COME 2008!

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/

Paganplace & Andrea:

It is no suprise..the reaction both of you had to the scripture presented from Romans.

Haha...old...outdated...does no good here.

Outdated? So, in your view, are the words of Confucious or any one of the like are old and outdated to you? You talk about and point fingers at Christians 'picking and choosing' what they want to believe. 3 fingers right back at ya.

My humble view: you mock the words I presented because they tell a fact of how the world was then...not much unlike the world is now...a fact that infringes on your 'free thinking'. Men with men. Humans using sex in perverse ways and getting their recompence. You're blind to all the diseases propogated thru misuse of sex. It bothers you because you know its true.

Send me an essay on how wonderful societies past were when sexual immorality became rampant and how it made them stronger. I would really like to see that from you. Of course, the dialogue here would be 'oh, we dont have to answer to these Christian fanatics'.

Fine. But your fairy tales of how life can be good if such things are accepted does not have a positive trail thru past millenia. Talk about head in the sand. The atheist way.

You still just dont get it that, though people get passionate about this, we are talking about the lifestyle..not the person.

These candidates will say anything to become president, and they will send your sons and daughters off to fight a capitalistic war for the industrial complex without hesitation.

Sacrifice your children for israel's safety, if your completely brain washed.

Ron Paul for President.

Every scientific fact, every clear, rational observation of our senses, every observed evolutionary process can, with a little fantasy, easily be described in terms of a religion. Any religion. Fine, as long as the source, rational observation, is not abandoned. Sadly, it is abandoned with religionists: The proxy is mistaken for the original.

And that is what actually happened in the evolution of religions.

To watch an American presidency candidate, Huckabee, telling the American public that he thinks the earth is 6000 years old, without being laughed off the stage, casts a desperate light on the mental state of the present USA. Has he ever heard of the distance of a star, measured in light years (Alpha Centauri being the nearest with 4 light years, but other galaxies being millions of light years away). Six days? Triumph of illiteracy.

Garyd:
"What use the appendix none now but prior to about the 12th century it helped digest tough meat and a few other things. The problem with atheism is that it refuses to consider the possibilities."

I find statements like this amusing.

I have a good imagination so I am more than capable of considering the "possibilities." I even once believed that a jolly fat man in red gave me presents.

If I started believing in all the possibilities I am capable of thinking then I should be quickly declared mentally ill.

In any case this "argument" can quickly be thrown back at you. If your thinking is so more advanced because you are willing to consider "possibilities" then why don't you believe in the gods of Ancient Egypt, the Greeks, the Romans etc.

When it comes to those gods you are an Atheist just like me so why cannot you accept that I have just advanced a little further in my thinking.

I used to think there were only two Parties of God, Hezbollah and the Republican party. Apparently I was mistaken. Now the Democrats are pandering to the religious crazies, while most of the front-running Republicans are either running away from Bush's Christian Right, or are at least not mentioning it.

It seems that the Democrats have concluded that there is a religious vote out there that in the past might have gone to the Republicans or who felt unwelcome anywhere. According to the political calculus, the Democratic candidates, by pandering to this vote may pick up a segment of the voting population that was previously inaccessible, while not alienating the many secular constituents that are longtime Democrats. The advisers running the various campaigns for the contenders figure that the secular Democrats have nowhere else to go. They might want to recalculate. The few religious votes they hope to pick up could be swamped by the potential losses as much of the large secular segment jumps ship or doesn’t vote at all.

When the Republicans made the devil’s bargain, fusing big business and Christian fundamentalism, each side thought they could control the other. However, it has proved to be a real devil’s bargain that the country is now paying for (For further reading on this subject, check out Kevin Phillips’ American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century). Perhaps the Democrats might want to reconsider such a bargain. Playing the religious card is dangerous. After hearing some of the comments by the three Democratic frontrunners at Monday night’s Sojourners presidential forum on faith on CNN, I declare myself up for grabs.

In the New York Times article “Edwards, Clinton and Obama Describe Journeys of Faith” by Patrick Healy and Michael Luo, they write, “The participants sought to walk a fine line between appealing to religious voters, while not turning off secular voters, who represent a crucial constituency for them.” For me and that crucial constituency, the train just ran off the tracks. See ya.

Above I mentioned religious crazies. I do not mean just any religious person or any Christian, Muslim, Jew, or Pagan who believes in a god or gods. There are quite a few individuals on this site who are religious and also believe in a liberal secular democracy of the kind founded by the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, et al. Religious crazies refer to people who think they have to choose between reason and faith or they will go to hell or some other unpleasant place.

What would I say to God? You wouldn't print it; and if you broadcast it, the FCC would come down on you, despite the recent Supreme Court ruling!

I think plenty of people get off on mutilation and torture, John...I have a particular friend that LOVES it - but he's kind of a creep.

Boy, it's hard to follow these discussions when you don't work at a computer. I don't have time to read the whole thread, but I would like to point out a couple of things:

A. Thorn: We most certainly have had non-Christian presidents. I'm pretty sure George Washington was non-Christian. I know for a fact Thomas Jefferson was, and Abraham Lincoln might have been, too, though he didn't let on.

Luke: People don't "enjoy" mutilation and torture. It isn't about enjoyment. People who mutilate themselves are after some other satisfaction having nothing to do with enjoyment, and masochists don't even enjoy the pain. They want the pain, but when it starts, they hate it and want it to stop. Then when it's over, they're glad it happened, and admire the marks in the mirror. But it isn't about enjoying the pain. It just isn't, no matter what they tell you.

Reason and belief or faith are not incompatible.

I support political candidates that understand this to whatever degree they're able.

My experience has taught me that life is more sane and "real" if a person learns to live with paradox, nuance, shades of grey, and contradiction. And that nothing truly important happens without a measure of faith, also.

The complexities and subtleties of life start with such material or scientific "realities" as the wave/particle duality and mass/energy equivalency and proceed through tests of morality, of what it means to "do the right thing", and handling those challenges in life that relate to preserving individual and collective freedom and dignity in the inter-related spheres of individual relationships, families, communities, cultures and nations.

There are many times that spiritual solutions to problems and conflicts (however much they may be possible theoretically) are apparently not going to manifest in a timely fashion in human affairs.

In fact, looking at history the evidence is grim, and tends to support the notion that if there is a god, the policy from above is largely "hands off". Humans it seems have to figure out how to get along through an inner adjustment in consciousness -- leading to tolerance, empathy and a strong desire for peaceful co-existence.

There was a time Nazism threatened the world order, and the evil of force had to be used against force, a case in my view where those on the side of democracy might be viewed as morally less reprehensible and less evil, than those on the side of dictatorship.

A case where a lesser evil defeated a greater. I don't know, however, how one cannot be conflicted and/or ambivalent about war anytime, even in such a time as WWII.

But we make decisions collectively as best we can and try and move forward as a(hopefully)evolving world.

I don't believe the war on terror today, by the way, is equivalent to a fight with the Nazis, but we do have to figure out a way to police terrorists, and jail them when we catch and convict them.

All of this said, I hope we can all have a measure of respect, tolerance and love for our fellow humans -- especially those who think differently. There is in my experience a harmonizing element buried deep in the human spirit. I hope through either reason or faith, or a mix of the two, we find it.

Dear Susan,

Your essay is cynical about the motives of your fellow men and women. Is it impossible that some candidates simply acknowledge that their policy judgment will be informed by their ethics and aspirations? Is it impossible that religion informs those ethics and aspirations? For many in America, the primary source of ethical education comes from their religious communities. This is a part of the foundation of common decency and virtue of America without which the republic cannot stand. The American Experiment has been informed by religion from the start, as were all of the early liberal democracies. There is no gainsaying that our major religions help guide the state to the ways of virtue.

By contrast, the atheist communist governments murdered a hundred million or more in the name of creating the "new atheist/socialist man". Or the Nazis who justified themselves by the Nietzschian concepts in the Will To Power and other of his works. Thus freed of religion, they perpetrated a great orgy of killing. In fact, only the atheist/socialist society lead by Stalin outperformed Hitler in killing Russians. In a single century, the atheist societies killed more than all religious wars in history. As for "decent human values ... not grounded in reverence for the supernatural." one human value is as good as another. Stalin's was that "Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.", or Heinrich Himmler's: "Judaeo-Christianity, the greatest plague delivered by history." So banishing religion from society clearly does not increase the safety of the individual or the World.

By the way, your ramblings on immigration, and the short comings of the President as a theologian are pretty close to incoherent. Many religions, e.g. the Catholic Church, are pro immigration. Moreover, why would the President he be better as theologian in particular than he is as an intellectual in general?

To Silvlaro,

One such asks the question “Who would you vote for …

The man who smokes cigars, drinks, plays cards, is a womanizer, is mob connected, has no proven church affiliation

OR

The man who doesn’t smoke, drink, goes to church regularly keeps himself to one woman and preaches against the “sins” listed for the first man?

FIRST ONE WAS FDR. THE SECOND, HITLER.

Barring the names, each description should ring a few bells, not too far back in our history....

God Awed, you can take a dump in a box, wrap it up and put a bow on it, but it's still a dump.

That is what I think of your fake, phoney, trashy religion. You are a disgrace to all people who seek to be Christians. It is people like you who give us all a bad name. It is people like you who have wrecked the reputation of Christianity.

Please spare me the Biblical quotes that you have picked and cobbled together, to support your own personal delusions. If you want to quote the Bible, then quote all of it.

My one last thought; people obsessed with other people's sexual orientation, have a problem with their own. Just because you may fear homosexuality in yourself, dont' go blaming other people for that; if you can't deal with it, then go to a shrink, or just stay in the closet and shut up.

If anyone thinks that my comments are too personal, and that I am not a nice person, I am merely responding to Mr. God Awed's comments, which are, not sincere religious expressions, but are instead his personal, mean-spirited and visious attacks on other people.

These three pandering "religious" Democrats should have had the intellectual honesty and good sense to follow the example of Robert Frost.

When asked by a minister of religion what effect religion had had on his poetry, Frost replied:

"Mary had a little lamb,

"His name was Jesus Christ.

"God the Father was the ram,

"But Joseph took it nice."

I've voted for every Democratic presidential candidate starting with Adlai Stevenson in 1956.

I can tell you that these three pandering dishonest Democrats are unworthy of anyone's vote. They are insufferable bull----ers.

20Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!
21Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
and shrewd in their own sight!
22Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine,
and valiant men in mixing strong drink,
23who acquit the guilty for a bribe,
and deprive the innocent of his right!

Night, J.

I think 'totalitarians in democracy' don't want to rule 'from the bottom up,' so much as convince the 'bottom' to give rulership to *them.*

Which is one thing that I see going wrong with our democracy, ...it's become a matter of picking sides and trying to dominate rather than, really, decide what's the best thing for government to do.

One thing that seems to have escaped reason is the idea that if something called a 'moral issue' is intensely-controversial, that that's likely a very good sign that government ought to leave the decisions on it to the individuals involved.

That's what liberty is *for.*

Paganplace

Yes you're right about personal repression and terror of the wider world outside their own coccoon of beliefs. And politicians are wily enough to exploit and capitalize on personal and group insecurities and terrors.

All extremists are totalitarians. In communism, totalitarians rules top down. In democracies, totalitarians rule bottom up. In communism, beliefs are forced at the point of guns. In democracies, beliefs are forced by the power of votes.

I got to go. I came here initially to apologize for my deleted post, but stayed around to read what Americans have to say about God, religion and politics. Reassuring in way, that Americans voiced the same concerns on this issue as Indonesians and Malaysians do across diverse political and religious beliefs.

Best regards

Terrific essay! I, too, scratch my head regarding Democrats' (or Republicans') unwillingness to say, "It's none of your business" when asked such a simple-minded question. And I believe that when more politicians start saying this in response to reporters' and others' questions about their "faith," we will be on the road back to solving the problems of our culture and our world. We have not taken the outhward slide as a country because we are godless humanists; we have done so because of religious fundamentalist bullying. In the process we have ceded our Constitution and Bill of Rights to their very limited and narrow view of the world. This is no better than Islamic fundamentalism retooling the world to fit their very narrow values and beliefs.

So, kudos to Susan Jacoby!

Thanks for the in sight jihadist but keep in mind Christianity is not in any respect like Islam not as practiced outside the Vatican and some Pentecostal congregations any way. First As a Christian I believe that there is no law or eloquent argument I can cast that will make anyone a Christian as Salvation is the work of God not of man.

As a Christian I am a watchmen warning centers of the need to repent but I cannot compel obediance of them other than as necessary to maintain an orderly and just society.

What we have here in america is a debate between two very different moralities, one collectivist in nature the other one individualist, There are certain peculiarities in the debate which are difficult to resolve and they usually arise when one individuals right interferes with that of another abortion is one such and there are others.

"I never know where extremists got their energy."

Repressed sexuality and a constant state of low-grade terror, I think. :)

I think it's relevant to know what a candidate believes, because that gives some hints as to how they will deal with certain issues in office.

But I think it's absolutely revolting for politicians to bend over backwards to show how pious they are, just to garner votes. It's also why when they do things that aren't so very pious, people are so upset with them. Hypocrisy annoyed Jesus Christ; why wouldn't it annoy the rest of us? If you're going to be Holier than Thou, you'd darn well better practice what you preach and BE holier than thou.

I for one don't buy it for a moment from the likes of Hillary Clinton, and her smarmy attempts to adopt that position (like so many others that seemed politically favorable) don't make her look one bit better in my eyes.

" Garyd:

What use the appendix none now but prior to about the 12th century it helped digest tough meat and a few other things. The problem with atheism is that it refuses to consider the possibilities."

I think that's a problem with a certain *portrayal* of 'Atheists,' Gary.

There's nothing in atheism that says, 'The appendix must now and forever be considered a vestigial organ which hasn't done anything useful in a long time,' ...quite the contrary, actually, if that theory you cite has any merit, (new one on me, but hey, I'll look it up sometime.)

...If you're trying to say this means 'Intelligent design has some merit cause I'm boggled by the idea of an organ doing something we're not using it for,'

...well, atheists, (And most polytheists like me,) would say, 'That doesn't follow.'

It's actually, usually, *monotheists* insisting that 'One worldview must be complete and unquestionable and say everything about the universe, therefore if I believe that science is a rival religion, it must work to think of it so,' ...well, *that's* faulty reasoning.

And, frankly, usually *they're* the ones not accounting for all possibilities when they say, 'How will you feel if my beliefs out of a well-nigh infinity of possibilities are true and there *is* a God that of course acts like St. Paul?'

That's not reason or accounting for possibilities, either.

I think, in those terms, I would say a more valid question would be, "Are you prepared to face the unknown?"

Never mind getting in a twist about the 'knowable' always seeming to say a certain old book *isn't* the whole story, never mind factually correct.

I think being the 'brave explorers' is one of the nobler things about our species. I suspect that any 'designer' who had a problem with that wouldn't have made us this way. There are things about our experience that... well, don't work too well with mechanistic thinking alone, but *certainly* don't work with legalistic book-literalism.

What causes a lot of trouble for the *living,* I think, is the implicit idea of book-religions that everyone must *not only behave, but believe* the same.

That's no way to greet the unknown. Never mind be good neighbors.

So, before you accuse atheists of things, ...meet them.

Paganplace

Reading Susan Jacoby's is hair-raising. Reminds me what happened to the Indonesian and Malaysian political landscape after both countries' politicians let the countries be infected by religion at the state/province and national level.

You woke up one day and realized the governments enacted all these bills, acts and laws that are what Americans would call faith based initiatives.

Stay awake at all times even if it means only four hours of sleep per night, and throw disposable income and free time to counter extremists of every stripes by whatever means possible within the law.

I never know where extremists got their energy. They never seem to sleep, they never get tired, they never let up. This much I know by now - there cannot be wimps and wankers in the Muslim world or the extremists will have the upper hand in state policies and in our personal lives.

All the best.

"But father, doesn't the bible say I should take back my husband and forgive him".

"Marge, have you sat down and actually read this thing? Apparently, we can't go to the bathroom."

-Simpsons

Couple of quick points here.

BTW Background - agnostic (I am not arrogant enough to be sure of things I know very little about like the supernatural world).

1. As an agnostic, I am not a god-hater. Anyone can believe in what you want, be it Jesus, Mohammed, Bhuddha etc. Please believe it and discuss WHERE IT IS APPROPRIATE - in places or worship and the private sphere.

In my opinion, politics is not about providing faith or spirituality. It is about administering public services, maintaining order in society and providing a PUBLICALLY SECULAR defined justice (different religions often have conflicting and uncompromising definitions and values, and not good at resolving these differences (faith is stubborn) so they are not suitable foundation to build political systems on.).

I do not see how questions like "have you sinned?" really help faciliate the process of politics or its goals. "Tell me how you can resolve the Iraqi crisis." is much more relevant.

2. For those who literally interpret the bible - do you realize it was originally written in long dead languages (not English), was amended by the Roman empire (they inserted the book of revelations)? The book is much more likely a result of old fables passed on and political manipulation. Over the last 2,000 years the content has changed - they did not have camcorders back then.

Hi, Jihadist. Thanks for the perspective.

I certainly think our solutions as a nation must involve the Christians among us *remembering* a certain heritage of saying *no* to the temptations of state power, even in the name of what they think is 'One True Religion.'

Democracy is *not* a referendum on who's more Christian, ...or Muslim, for that matter... It's ideally a *process* of *collectively-deciding* the *best thing for government to do.*

As soon as you mix these things in these ways, you end up binding the hands of *both* religion *and* government to some things which I frankly think have no business holding the guns or purse-strings.

My religion says, 'As we bind, so are we bound,' and I think our woes with religion and politics in the world have very much to do with a loss of faith to do what faith does, and reason to do what reason does.

Hence all the terroristic acts, and in fact, the fundamentalist insistence on *being* terrorizers:

They need enemies to scare people away from both reason, and, I think, the parts of faith that say, 'You're so full of it, fearmongers.'

Who this serves, well, should be obvious.

I think it's a serious problem with *fundamentalism* in government, Luke. Most Christians don't think of themselves as frothing totalitarians, but can be lulled into obeying them by politicians who simply reassure, 'You're good for being Christian' and lace their speeches with Dominionist code words, not to mention the provision of convenient imaginary 'enemies' to divert attention from what they're actually *doing* and how incompetently they're even managing to do the wrong things they promise.

This is not the open dialogue of a free society.

Especially when the message is, 'You aren't hating when you oppress and defame people! The people that disagree with you and want to live their own lives hate *you!* And, umm, hate a God they don't necessarily believe in! It's all about Hell!'

This, frankly, is fascism.

If you ever wonder how that happens, well, just look around.

Even the Big Lies, and eventual rendering of 'faith-based' screwups and injustices too horrible to even *contemplate* having been *wrong.*

They get people more and more *invested* in the unreason and hate and displacement of responsibility onto the victims, to try and make it *psychologically impossible* to stop and walk away from it.

It always seems to end up in smoking ruins, though, and it's no gentler to find out that way.

I'd say, let's all take a step back and look at what can really be done with the situation.

I had made an ealier post here which I regretted and to my great relief, the moderators deleted it. Thank you. I can't even imagine the reactions seeing how emotive the responses were to Susan Jacoby's essay.

As for political parties and candidates sounding out their belief in God, let me share a wee, wee bit of the Malaysian experience without details. Just a thumbnail sketch.

A tale of two parties, both Muslim based and supported, one secular and the other Islamist. The Islamist one, over the years of general elections after general elections, made religion its platform and appealed to some voters taken in by its Islamic credentials and promises of good governance based on Shariah. They did win control of one of two states, and lost by slim margins in many seats.

The secular one, worried they are deem as less religious, reacted and start a holier than thou battle with the Islamist-based party in their campaigns. The secular party won the elections, but were forced to support and implement religion-based policies, programmes and activities they promised as vote-getting strategy. N

Now Malaysians, the majority of whom are moderates but were either fed up, or cowed, or bullied, or think they can ignore the minority but extremely vocal Islamists, find themselves now stuck with a government unable to backtrack and effete in stopping the creeping Islamization of the country that it itself is responsible for in reaction to appeasing its vocal political opponents in a holier than thou battle.

Don't go down that road. Insist, fight for on seperation of church and state at all cost. It is worth it to fight against the tyranny of the minority against the majority who invoked God and claimed God is on their side and they are doing God's work, as much as to fight against the tyranny of the majority against the minority in imposing their beliefs. Either way, the cost is suppression and oppression of everyone to belief in whatever they want - for any faiths, any belief on secular issues, in God or otherwise.

It is a battle I got scarred and tarred in both Indonesia and Malaysia again and again. But being scarred is nothing compared to being a living dead in not having the freedom, the space, the right to believe in what one want, and live a life the way one to.

And God does not decide on temporal policies from environment to immigration to gays to family planning. Yes, our thinking is shaped by what we belief in. But keep religion and God in the heart, mind and soul in discussing these issues in the public square and the chances of it being side-tracked into matters of personal religious beliefs will be minimized. As of now, Malaysians are so mired in and absorbed on issues relating to religion that they are not thinking clearly on more urgent matters related to development.

Is is possible for political candidates not to invoke God as a co-candidate for credibility and acceptibility? Yes, but won't and can't during campaignings, but possibly can after s/he is elected if s/he choses and is confident enough.

What use the appendix none now but prior to about the 12th century it helped digest tough meat and a few other things. The problem with atheism is that it refuses to consider the possibilities.

I would like to believe that so-called Christians like God Awed and What?! would want me to go to heaven and be saved, but they aren't above the realm of human emotion. You hate and wish for the suffering of others just like any other human beings, you just hide behind the veil of compassion and love - and you aren't fooling myself and many others with it.

OK, so most of us humans do not agree about things supernatural. I probably do not agree with many of you. In order for a democracy to function, there has to be a certain level of "agree to disagree" in the background at all times, which is precisely my problem with fundamentalists. They don't seem to have signed up for the same idea of democracy that I have, which does not include being told what to think and how to behave WHEN ONE'S BEHAVIOR DOES NOT AFFECT OTHERS.

Jimmy Carter may not go down as among the great Presidents, Munir, but I think he's a very good man, and certainly among our greatest *ex-Presidents* ever.

Habitat for Humanity, alone, that's really good stuff and I support it. :)

This post certainly is brimming with vitriol, and rightfully so. Christians and atheists will not coexist peacefully - because part of Christian faith is the murder and torture of atheists. It is a Christian's job to do everything in their power to show the hate they deny is in the fabric of their being. Hell is a vision created by man to torment forever those with which they do not agree - because they pick at the scraps left for them when a brilliant human mind develops something beautiful and helpful. If you are a Christian, toss out your microwave ovens and fancy cars, and live as the meek, for you shall inherit the Earth, just not the plot that I own.

Jimmy Carter is a born-again Christian who did not wear his religion on his sleeve when he was President, and did not allow his religious beliefs to interfere with his following the laws of the land, and the welfare of our whole society. That kind of a Chrisitan would be acceptable to a secularist like me.

I mean, What, ....see those words you just flung out here... Written by a *dude* who was *obviously bugging* Sanctified by someone in desperate need of breeding more troops, and copied and translated by people locked away from the world and subject to other agendas and concerns.... ...Even your Jesus said you can know what's a good teaching by its fruits:

I see no good coming of this, do you?

I don't know how you can look at that and *see* anything holy, never mind think blind 'obedience' to it is a proper way to try and run a government.

We know *that* never works, either.

So did our Founding Fathers, a couple hundred years and change ago. When they said, 'Let's be free, let's keep *improving* freedom, let's *be the good guys.*

I see no good in those words, What.

Only irrational terror and hatred.

I know that each of us have, in the past, received odd emails. The subject matter varies but there are gems of truth/interest/knowledge in a few. One such asks the question “Who would you vote for …

The man who smokes cigars, drinks, plays cards, is a womanizer, is mob connected, has no proven church affiliation

OR

The man who doesn’t smoke, drink, goes to church regularly keeps himself to one woman and preaches against the “sins” listed for the first man?

I wish I could find a copy of this email so I could post it here because I think that many of you would be surprised to see, historically, who fell into which category.

Does anyone here besides me know the answer to this? I won’t post it now but will wait to see what others think … it floored me when I read it. Makes one take a moment to think when the answer is revealed.

Silvlaro

JWEST,

I moved into the boondocks of Ohio after having RoadRunner for 5 years. It is a lesson in patience, to be sure.

What?

"Written approximately several thousand years ago..."

Haha...could you be a little more vague? Ever think that something written "approximately several thousand years ago" would be just a tad out of date?

Several thousand years ago, the Book of Romans, was it?

Try more like eighteen hundred, which may not be old enough to constitute the 'beginning of time' even in Creationist timescales, but it's sure been enough time to do better. :)

Written approximately several thousand years ago...

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

The unbelievers may want to try to find the lineage of the apostle Paul...and take the above up with them. History certainly repeats itself in vile ways at times. The same, sadly true today. Wisdom and understanding are not to be found in those who disagree with the above.

A sad day here, my friends, to see such vile verbage of scenarios of two men (mentioned above) engaging in. A sad day indeed.

Ok, that was me with the paper bag. :)

I think what Awed doesn't understand is that the very *idea that people who don't agree with Awed* must be damnable "God-haters" who exist only as some kind of chaff for their hatred to 'burn' is one of the things which means that *the Religious Right* has lost the "moral high ground," ...the media in fact are the ones *selling* this 'Religious test for office' ...but, frankly, I think most thinking Christians have realized that just cause someone waves a Bible doesn't mean that everything they do will be fair, or good, or smart.

Frankly, everything the people elected by these divisive hate-tactics said they were going to do has come out *backwards.*

Bush promised to be a 'uniter, not a divider,' ... yet he's been probably *the* most divisive character in American political history, pushing fear and unreason and, through his supporters, hatred of the innocent.

I mean, *wake up, Awed.* The world does not actually revolve around *your religion.*

That's all you can seem to see in people, for you or against you. Fear, hate, 'perversion,' ...which is mostly in *your mind.*

I don't want to be governed by people who think that way, surely.

And I think people are waking up to that fact, too.

Just possibly, the Christians in this country are beginning to wake up to the fact that this hate you spout does *not* bring anyone closer to anyone's God. Just makes people miserable and covers up for horrible corruption and irresponsibility, not to mention horrendous strategic blunders and an inability to stop killing more people to admit that the 'Divine Plan' ain't working.

I, for one, worship other Gods. And I'm a good American. You shouldn't fear and hate other perspectives. You should realize that the problems of America won't be solved with blind following and hatred of those different from us, but more from pooling our perspectives and *finding out the best things to do...*

...Not just what's supposedly more in line with a Bible even Christians can't agree on the meaning of.

Hate to mention it, but did you know that while you've been doing your 'holy' queer-bashing, you're also being robbed blind?

Don't try to petition the government for a redress of grievances about it, the 'holy' corporations messed with contract, bankruptcy, 'tort reform' and civil suits while you were flipping out about gay life-partners exchanging rings.

Andrea.. You are in for such a big treat whenever you finally go boardband. It will be like a big wow in your life.

Too bad I'm on dial-up, Russell, or I totally would have had your "gong"

Pagan,

"That's probably never pointed out cause it's not true."

:)

It's not that I am opposed to a candidates beliefs, it's I'm am opposed to them acting on those beliefs. Like George Bush's faith-based money passing scheme to reward his right wingnuts. Or his hiring people of faith that hire only people of faith like in the justice department. He has made a laughing stock out of the justice department, the FCC and many other now faith base government departments.

*GONG* :)

Ok, Is it just me, or am I the only one waiting for the "Gong"? God Awed is basically recycling the same crap other religious fanatics on this board say day after day.

"People of faith are entitled to their belief in God. They should not be looked down upon and scoffed at when they run for public office."

I only scoff at them when they think religiousity *qualifies* them for public office. :)

"Of course what they believe will be seen in the way they will govern. It better or they are hypocrites."

Actually, that's not necessarily-true. Our government is elected to *represent the interests of the people* not *impose personal belief.*

One might for instance be against abortion personally, yet agree it's not the government's place to enforce this view on the percentage of the population that doesn't believe it should be outlawed for any number of practical and idealistic reasons.

"One thing that is never pointed out by the God haters in our society is that the atheist would also govern out of what they believe to be true and thus they would be forcing their unbelief and unrighteous ways on the rest of us who do believe."

That's probably never pointed out cause it's not true.

Atheists in general would govern out of what they can *show* to be true, because that *is* what they believe.

Your insistence that it's OK to force your beliefs on others because you *portray* atheists (And other non-Christians and non-conservatives) as people who would do the same is likewise irrational.

Dear Jana,

I agree with everything you just said in your post above. Thanks for getting us back on topic.

The following post is what got all this started. I guess I hit a hot botton when I pointed out that abortion and homosexual agendas do not mix with saying one is a Christian.

People of faith are entitled to their belief in God. They should not be looked down upon and scoffed at when they run for public office. Of course what they believe will be seen in the way they will govern. It better or they are hypocrites. One thing that is never pointed out by the God haters in our society is that the atheist would also govern out of what they believe to be true and thus they would be forcing their unbelief and unrighteous ways on the rest of us who do believe. The God haters are also created in the image of God whether they like it or not and should stop whining about people of faith actually letting their faith affect the way they govern. They truly want to set up a double standard that allows for unbelievers and discounts and marginalizes believers. The radical left wing and for the most part God hating media has been co-conspirators with the anti-god politicians. It will be interesting to see if they stick together on the sudden conversion to God by the Democrats.

Now for the pro-baby murdering, pro-homosexual, hypocrites who are claiming to believe in God all of a sudden because they see there is a huge voting block of people who believe in God. Their embracing of the homosexual and abortion agendas show them to be hypocrites because God's word clearly says these things are sin and a reproach to any people who embrace them. I think the democrats are starting to see that some of the African American voters are starting to vote republican and they think that throwing God's name all over the place will help them hold on to the African American vote. Well I have news for them; I think that the African Americans who believe in God's word will not be fooled by that kind of hypocrisy. I also think that the Democrats who are all of sudden believers and those Republicans who use God's name for political purposes realize that most all the Latinos that are coming to our country believe in God. They may fool some of the people but not those who truly know God and His word. They will give an account for their hypocrisy on judgment day so I suggest that they just be who they really are and stop wearing the mask of belief.

I think part of the issue with the anal sex fixation, Mark, is that to 'straight' mens' instincts and conditioning, that act can only be one of desperation or aggression, ...a religious ideology that says everyone must live on the same model or be 'made in the same image as defined by a books,' tends to preclude for many of them, consideration that (what's reduced in their minds) to a mechanical sort of behavior may have very different meanings to homosexual men who do that.

Often homophobia, ironically enough, seems to result in 'straight' men using rape (or verbal rape) to try and express superiority over gay people.

Reality just isn't as simple as the Bible would have people think it is, in other words, but the Bible can be taken in certain ideologies to almost *sanctify* this form of sexual aggression out of control.

That's why they try the 'gross-out' tactics to try and get people to support the hateful idea that gay people are spiritual criminals, (who apparently just decided one day for no apparent reason to 'hate God' and suffer totally-unnecessary societal abuse cause 'sinning' sounded like fun or something) ...that gays are lesser people.

Ironically, *they're* the ones who can't see the love in the people and the diversity in 'Creation' inherent.

Never mind develop the skills to represent people who may *not* be like them, but still be equal Americans.

Again, this is no basis for trying to create and maintain a fair and just society.

Personally I think it is valuable information, a presidential candidate's spirituality/theocracy/ideology. If it can actually be gleened from them And it is certainly not 'private'. They are the one's saying 'trust me, trust my judgement, trust my philosophy, trust my life-choice-values' It is therefore completely legitimate to know what those beliefs are. However, almost by definition, people playing politics at this level are also well adept at smoothing out the edges of what they actually believe... and will probably go for some safe, bumper-sticker approved pablum that actually says nothing... God bless America/support the troops.

WHY EDITOR?

God Awed wrote: "I repented of my reprobate lifestyle years ago and God has forgiven me and has filled my life with joy and peace."

WHAT A JOKE - IF YOU ARE FILLED WITH JOY AND PEACE, THEN YOU WOULD NOT BE ON THIS BLOG SPILLING YOU HATRED.

AS A REAL CHRISTIAN, I WILL PRAY FOR YOU TO KNOW THE RIGHT WAY TO BE A CHRISTIAN INSTEAD OF THE "CHRISTIAN RIGHT" WAY.

Dear God Awed -

Your views on homosexuality are both perverse and unnatural.

How do you explain the rampant homosexual behavior throughout the animal kingdom? Are you saying that god created many of his creatures with a homosexual bent but made an exception in the case of man who he made entirely hetero? I would say that the animal kingdom shows that homosexual behavior is quite natural, just as is survival of the fittest.

You rage against "the idea that sticking one's penis in the butt hole of a man is normal." I wonder - do you hold equal rage for lesbian activities, or are you an enthusiastic voyeur of such activities?

I assume you are heterosexual. Have you ever had anal or oral sex with a woman, either your wife or someone else? Both acts are considered sodomy and have nothing to do with procreation. How about masturbation? Ever engage in an activity that brings pleasure only to yourself while spilling the very seed that god intended to be used only in pro-creation (guys in the OT got struck dead for that infraction)?

If so, why is your engaging in such pleasure-fulfilling acts less damnable than that of homosexual men engaging in anal sex? (NB: sorry if this is getting graphic, but God Awed opened that door with his last post).

Be honest with me - is your personal sex life restricted entirely to vaginal sex with your wife? If not, then how in (literally) god's name can you preach the evils of non-procreative sex acts between loving adults if you yourself engage in the same?

It wouldn't be that well-documented Xian hypocrisy talking, would it?

One final question: what about single people, people who decide never to marry or even never to have sex. Are they going against god's law by not procreating? Should they be forced to marry just to procreate? If the answer is "no," then what is the difference with regards to the small percentage of the population who are homosexual? Like single people, they don't have sex to procreate. And what of a homosexual who never has sex? Are they doomed by their nature, or does not engaging in sex acts get them off the hook with your god?

Here's my hope for you tonight: that you fall asleep with visions of - in YOUR words - "sticking one's penis in the butt hole of a man."

161 posts already? Must be some kind of a record.

To Jana:

I, along with most others here, do not think that religion should be completely divorced from the aspect of public policy. However, what I think we are saying is that religion should not be the number one reason a policy is made. Or, in the case of the debates, wouldn't it be better to figure out what a candidate's policy ideas are than to know if they believe in God or not?

For example. Let's take a fictitious debate. We have Candidate A and Candidate B. Candidate A believes that abortion is wrong, that gay people should not be able to serve openly in the military, and that all gun control laws should be repealed. Candidate B believes the exact same things. Now, the 'Do you believe in God' question is asked to each of them. Candidate A says yes. Candidate B says no.

My point is: "What does it matter?" They both believe the same things about what policies they're going to go for. Does it help me in this case to know that one believes in God, and the other doesn't? No. But yes, one has apparently come to their conclusions on their policies with the help of their religion, and the other not. It makes no difference in the end though. So why should the question be asked?

I'd much rather know about what direction the candidate is going to take this country than find out how often they pray.

"If everyone decided to reject the man and woman relationship that God created we would cease to exist."

A) That's not going to happen, so it's a ludicrous basis to try and form public policy on: it's also losing sight of the fact that the human species is a cooperative one which raises children in community with non-reproducing members, not merely paired off to squeeze out more puppies than can be fed and cared for, especially with everyone breeding, themselves.

B) "Deep down most people know it is unnatural but for the last 20 years our God hating educational institutions and the God hating media have been indoctrinating our culture with the idea that sticking one's penis in the butt hole of a man is normal.

Is looking at human beings and only seeing penises and holes 'normal,' then? It seems to be an affliction of conservative Christianity.

Claiming to be 'oppressed' by a 'God-hating media' when you're disagreed with doesn't make your ideas any less hateful or dehumanizing.

It just shows how religious dogma and 'authority' does *not* belong in politics.

I'm not sure how you expect people to feel about *you* when you choose to obsess on the parts of that book that happen to involve oppressing people... Apparently too scared of lakes of fire to consider that other people in the country have something a little better in mind than your self-centered idea that they simply 'hate God.'

Are we supposed to want to elect people to represent us who are apparently so fixated on anal sex they never realize that they actually took it upon *themselves* to include lesbians in the attack policies they support?

That book can be made to say anything. I suggest you question your reading of it at the very least.

Try not to be too afraid of no eternal fires you like to imagine throwing people into.

Rookie mistake God Awed! You opened the Leviticus door dude !
You have a sister/mother that 'periodically' suffer a female body function?????

God Awed said:

"That also does not prove that homosexuality is natural. Again Man was made for woman and woman for man"

Good. And again, we've shown that in nature, humans are not the only species that shows homosexual tendencies. Therefore, it is not likely a human sin, but actual a natural occurrence.

"The oneness of a union of a man and a woman is seen in the way they complement each other."

I've seen several homosexual couples 'compliment' each other much more than a married heterosexual couple ever had. Your statement proves nothing.

"Their oneness is seen in their children."

Again, since you had no answer to it last time: are infertile couples unnatural as well? As they sinners if they can't have children? If they can't have children, and are okay, then what's the problem with homosexuals?

"If everyone decided to reject the man and woman relationship that God created we would cease to exist."

Yup, you're right. I still don't see this happening though. I have several friends that are gay. Yet, I still like women. Guess it's not some kind of communicable disease.

"Deep down most people know it is unnatural but for the last 20 years our God hating educational institutions and the God hating media have been indoctrinating our culture with the idea that sticking one's penis in the butt hole of a man is normal."

Actually, deep down some of us realize that it's only the indoctrination of the past few thousands years that has made it seem unnatural. If you look at some Greek cultures before Christianity, it was an acceptable practice. In some African cultures, up until the mid-1800s when missionaries came in, 'homosexual' acts were engaged in to make boys into men. YOU find it unnatural because of your indoctrination. Don't be surprised when people who break away from that start realizing there's no reason to hate the sin.

Daniel,

How do you know if God would receive you into heaven if you were to die today? How do you know if your sins have been forgiven? Read the following:

"Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."

Why are you giving approval to homosexuality when this passage clearly says it is sin?

To all of the atheists who are trying to argue with What?! and God Awed, by quoting the Bible to them, let me inform you that this kind of argument is pointless and can never work. Christian poseurs are adept at this type of argument, and no matter what you say, they have a cherry-picked Biblical quote, ready, at hand, to toss back at you. The fact is, that Christian poseurs just "don't get it." They do not understand basic Christian principles. They do not attempt, even in the most remote way, to act, live, or be Christian. Their Christian posing is wrapped up in a weird religious mania, which has little to do with anything except their internal turmoil. Are Christians aren't poseurs. But these two guys are.

I am a progressive Christian. I do not agree with the Religious Right on most social, economic, or foreign policy issues. I am a swing voter, partially because I am so turned off by the hostility and polarization of our two party system.

What I have read on this page has greatly disturbed me.

From some responders, I have been alarmed by the notion that presidential candidates are expected to completely detach themselves from their beliefs when they run for office. I believe that every person's background - religious, socioeconomic, racial, educational, familial, etc. - shapes his or her decisions. This is a fact of life.

To argue that candidates should be restricted from revealing personal details, (in this case, religious) is ludicrous. It is important to know what beliefs, values and ideals have shaped a person. I do not think religion should factor into whether or not someone is allowed to run, and I don't think that all presidents need to be Christians, but I do think it is perfectly valid to ask a candidate about personal details - we need to know their context in order to vote responsibly. And if religion plays a major role in someone's life and day-to-day decisions, America has every right to ask the "God question."

And voters claiming to be tolerant should have the tolerance to listen.

I am a progressive Christian. I do not agree with the Religious Right on most social, economic, or foreign policy issues. I am a swing voter, partially because I am so turned off by the hostility and polarization of our two party system.

What I have read on this page has greatly disturbed me.

From some responders, I have been alarmed by the notion that presidential candidates are expected to completely detach themselves from their beliefs when they run for office. I believe that every person's background - religious, socioeconomic, racial, educational, familial, etc. - shapes his or her decisions. This is a fact of life.

To argue that candidates should be restricted from revealing personal details, (in this case, religious) is ludicrous. It is important to know what beliefs, values and ideals have shaped a person. I do not think religion should factor into whether or not someone is allowed to run, and I don't think that all presidents need to be Christians, but I do think it is perfectly valid to ask a candidate about personal details - we need to know their context in order to vote responsibly. And if religion plays a major role in someone's life and day-to-day decisions, America has every right to ask the "God question."

And voters claiming to be tolerant should have the tolerance to listen.

I am a progressive Christian. I do not agree with the Religious Right on most social, economic, or foreign policy issues. I am a swing voter, partially because I am so turned off by the hostility and polarization of our two party system.

What I have read on this page has greatly disturbed me.

From some responders, I have been alarmed by the notion that presidential candidates are expected to completely detach themselves from their beliefs when they run for office. I believe that every person's background - religious, socioeconomic, racial, educational, familial, etc. - shapes his or her decisions. This is a fact of life.

To argue that candidates should be restricted from revealing personal details, (in this case, religious) is ludicrous. It is important to know what beliefs, values and ideals have shaped a person. I do not think religion should factor into whether or not someone is allowed to run, and I don't think that all presidents need to be Christians, but I do think it is perfectly valid to ask a candidate about personal details - we need to know their context in order to vote responsibly. And if religion plays a major role in someone's life and day-to-day decisions, America has every right to ask the "God question."

And voters claiming to be tolerant should have the tolerance to listen.

Gow Awed asked:

"Have you ever told a lie?"

Yes, and I'm sure you have too. Even after your conversion took place. In fact, if you ask most people (even most Christians) will say that they have told a lie.

The difference between you and me is that I don't regard that as a sin. Have I ever told a lie that got someone hurt? Nope. My conscience is clear, thanks for asking.

And let me just add, that everything you've said here makes me think you hate the sinner and the sin. You've shown me not quality about you that says that you can respect people who go against what you believe.

But here is my question to you: Have you ever even thought about killing someone?

Dear Mr. mark,

You may call me names, say I am old fashioned, and that I am intellectually dishonest all you want but that does not prove that religion and politics do not mix. That also does not prove that homosexuality is natural. Again Man was made for woman and woman for man. The oneness of a union of a man and a woman is seen in the way they complement each other. Their oneness is seen in their children. If everyone decided to reject the man and woman relationship that God created we would cease to exist. Deep down most people know it is unnatural but for the last 20 years our God hating educational institutions and the God hating media have been indoctrinating our culture with the idea that sticking one's penis in the butt hole of a man is normal.

>>And you imagine that thinking people will take your doomed worldview seriously and will engage your whole-cloth bromides as points worth debating?

The bible tells the story of creation, mans choices and God's intervention before we annihilate ourselves, and his subsequent providing mankind with what He intended all along..before we decided to learn on our own. Those that state the position above have not exhaustively studied scripture with use of lexicons, commentaries and the original Greek and Hebrew at hand. The family of man is in our self-induced training period. Training will be over soon.

No doom at the end of the book. Doom is human induced crime, disease, immorality and 30 megaton bombs. I invite all unbelievers to really read and study the book. One has to remember it was not cannanized in sequence. But the answers to all of mans ills are still there.

What?!
Christians don't hate. It is very interesting the way you split hairs over your feelings towards gay people. You are just another Christian poseur, a corrupter of the word of God.

Soooo... Awed, you're saying that the 'New Covenant means it's not OK to *stone* innocent people anymore... but that it's still perfectly OK to call them abominations who *should* be put to death, in order to deprive them of equal rights and fair treatment in our society?

Wow. How.. spiritual or something.

This is a case for putting religion in politics *how,* again?

God Awed:

Well, if we're bringing Leviticus into it, let's go! If you're got an unruly child, do you take him to the town gates and stone him? Can you sell you child into slavery? Should you kill your neighbor if you see him working on the sabbath?

No? Why not? It says you should in Leviticus.

Or how about this: It's in the Bible (will look up chapter and verse when I get home, if you want) that if you hear of a town where there are those who say they do not believe in God, that you should go to the town and kill EVERYONE. Not just the ones who didn't believe in God, but even those who merely allowed for it to happen. Doesn't this mean that you should kill every politician who upholds the Constitution?

So here's the deal. We can either take away from the Bible that pretty much everyone should die. Or, we can live and let live. I chose the latter.

God Awed

I am not ashamed of God's word; I am ashamed of you, that you pose as a Chrisian, when you are anything but. Obsession with and fixation on homosexuaility does not meet, by any stretch of the imagination, the very difficult and strict criteria for qualifying as a Christian. Just throwning out your trashy predjudices and calling them "Christian" ain't good enough. Promote your personal bigotry all that you want, but please stop doing it in the name of God; please stop exploiting the Bible for own malevolent purposes, please stop slandering good Christians. Your trash theology is just exactly what has given Christianity a bad name.

Daniel

Did I ever say 'I hate homosexuals'?

No sir, I did not.

Christians hate sin, not the person.

Am I passionate against what the bible clearly shows as error and what history, repeatedly, has shown to be the same? Yes.

Luke:

Stay tuned. Sadly, you and I or a near generation will see how fast a society can crumble with atheist way of thinking. You obviously do not read history of societies past in full context..putting all the pieces together. And your words are a sad testimony to such. Jibberish.

A challenge to you. Try to keep the 10 commandments as best as you can. Be objective. Study each aspect of each one..as to what it really means to keep them. See if it doesnt make for a life of less and less misery.

If you choose not to....well, your loss.

Thorn,

Have you ever told a lie?

Dear God Awed -

Aren't you the presumptuous one? You assert that you "used to be just like" the atheists here. And you know all of us personally, how?

Like your fellow Delusionist, What?, you are enamored of the cheap absolutism that your religion provides, a Bronze-Aged ignorance that has faded - not improved - with time, an ignorance of both the natural world and human nature itself, an ignorance driven by a superstition and barbarism that most of the civilized world is busy abandoning as quickly as possible.

Your truths are emptiness.

Your absolutism is intellectual dishonesty.

And you imagine that thinking people will take your doomed worldview seriously and will engage your whole-cloth bromides as points worth debating?

Think again.

Dear Daniel,

Please show me how I am twisting the Bible. All homosexuals will have their place in the lake of fire. You say you are a Christian are you ashamed of God's word?

"But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death" (Revelation 21:8).

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22).

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them" (Leviticus 20:13).

God offers forgiveness to all who would turn to Him and trust His Son Jesus. I am one who deserved to be stoned but now I have experienced God's forgiveness. Stoning was done away with with the New Covenant. I am so thankful for His mercy and grace. You may know that too.

(to A Thorn, Houston is the name of a preiveous commenter)

Every generation has its bogeyman.

Universal suffrage was the bogeyman in the 1920s, when most, if not all leaders openly used to say words to the effect, "...women should stay home, raise kids, cook and wash...they are too [gentle/naive/simple/your adjective here] to vote...". Susan B. Anthony was vilified then. There are stamps and coins after her name now.

Civil rights, abolition of Jim Crow laws was the bogeyman in the 60s. (Come now, let’s be honest and admit it.) MLK paid for it with his life, and we all know the horrors committed in those days. MLK will have a monument on the National Mall now.

Gay marriage and abortion is this generation's bogeyman.

Point is, just look back in time and you will see that what were considered "liberal" attitudes gain acceptance and "conservative" values of that day and time seem to fall by the way side. Liberalism is not a four letter word, it originates from liberty after all, something that we all love. We need to give people more liberty, not less.

With liberty comes responsibility. And being tolerant towards people whose beliefs and values do not match mine is one aspect of that tolerance.

God Awed

You are not a Christian; you have no right to instruct others on Christian principles, you vile, disgusting, and contemptable hypocrite; so please stop it. Express any feeling that you want, but don't all it Christian. Your twisted and mean spirit, cropping in a Christian pose, is exactly the reason that we have so much anti-Christian feeling in the world now.

What you need is a psychiatrist, to work out your problems of religious mainia, and your own maladjusted attitudes regarding sexual orientation.

God Awed:

First off, who is this 'Houston' you keep calling out?

Secondly, I'm not Christian, and you can call me an atheist if you feel like it. I give to charity, I'm not gay (if that truly is a sin, which I don't believe it is), I am as kind to people as I can be. I go out and have fun with my friends, many of whom are Christian. I do not see myself as living a sinful lifestyle when compared to them. so tell me, what 'sin' of mine am I so in love with that I'm putting before God?

I'm glad that you have come to a personal conclusion with regards to your own religion. But please, stop forcing it on us. It does nothing.

I do not hate God. I do not believe there is a God. All we're asking, and I do not believe that it is an abhorrent request, is that you respect our right to not believe in God if that is our choice. If you cannot do that, then disrespect us in private.

I don't hate myself for being born. I don't hate mankind for the fact that they lust, lie, cheat and steal. I guess that is why I am not religious. I know my design is flawed but I don't hate it because of that.

Guess what, God Awed? You think that you know how I feel because you think you know my experiences, but you don't. Just like other Christians you think you can tell people what they think and feel. You know nothing about me or how I think, just as your religion ASSUMES it has the monopoly on truth. If your life is full of peace and happiness then why are you here condemning people to hell? You are a LIAR (a sin, if I remember correctly). You act like you believe in peace and love but you pray in your heart every day for the eternal damnation of those you disagree with because your God and book are filled with hatred for mankind.

Washington's not bad, but for my money I'll take Jefferson:

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

I don't understand how words are pure - considering they were fabricated by man, which sounds like you are attributing purity to something that God did not create - glorifying your race a little, my friend? Calling your body a perfect creation sounds a little like idolatry, but I guess you, like others of your ilk, pick and choose what to believe in the Bible, so that it doesn't inconvenience you. People like you are what sparked my leaving shame and guilt about my existence to a brighter future in the world where my perception fueled the truths that I witnessed. Why aren't you coming over to stone me, What?!, I suppose it is inconvenient for you to do so - or maybe you have realized the evil that was condoned in your precious little book. Being gay doesn't cause war, it doesn't cause the destruction of civilizations or society to crumble (as foolish a statement that is by a bigger fool to believe it). I am sure that Native Americans were nearly wiped of the face of the Earth because the men made out with each other. Good one, joker. I think actually, it was the perverted thinking of YOUR faith that caused it (lashings of applause for you), and the perfect disease-harboring bodies that aided the sword and gun that caused it. Bravo!

Dear Houston, God Haters, and all Atheists,

Please point out how the Christians are taking the above passages out of context. I know most of you are angry right now but you need to be confronted with your sin by God's word. I repented of my reprobate lifestyle years ago and God has forgiven me and has filled my life with joy and peace. The above passages are a description of what happens to a society who rejects God's clear revelation. Homosexuality is one of the judgments He allows.

You say you reject God because there is not enough evidence but that is not true. The real reason is you love your sin more than God so you willfully choose your own ungodly way. I know this because I used to be just like you.

I don't believe in God, but if there is an all-powerful God as envisioned by the christians one has to assume that he/she sees each human life as equally valuable. With this as a premise, I see no christian whom I know, no church of which I am aware, and no government (including ours)which operates as though that assumption is part of their belief system. I therefor assume that the christian postures taken by these persons/institutions are a farce.

I don't believe in God, but if there is an all-powerful God as envisioned by the christians one has to assume that he/she sees each human life as equally valuable. With this as a premise, I see no christian whom I know, no church of which I am aware, and no government (including ours)which operates as though that assumption is part of their belief system. I therefor assume that the christian postures taken by these persons/institutions are a farce.

I don't believe in God, but if there is an all-powerful God as envisioned by the christians one has to assume that he/she sees each human life as equally valuable. With this as a premise, I see no christian whom I know, no church of which I am aware, and no government (including ours)which operates as though that assumption is part of their belief system. I therefor assume that the christian postures taken by these persons/institutions are a farce.

God Awed

In seeking to promote your homophobia in the name of Jesus Christ and God, you are taking the Lord's Name In Vain. You are not a Christian; you have no right to instruct others on Christian principles, you vile, disgusting, and contemptable hypocrite.

If you are going to twist the meaning of the Bible to suit your own demented predudices and bigotry, then would you please just put it down and stop reading it. We don't want people like you our side; you are not helping at all. Your twisted and mean spirit, cropping in a Christian pose, is exactly the reason that we have so much anti-Christian feeling in the world now.

If you want to crucify gay people, please do not appeal to Jesus for support; I usually do not like to speak for Jesus, but I think that it would be safe to say the crucifixtion is not his favorite thing.

Not my words, nor those of an atheist, but of the first President of the US who happened to be a Catholic (his description):

I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end--where all men and all churches are treated as equal--where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice--where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind--and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe--a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

WHAT? writes:
"Mr Mark,

Its all realtive."

No, not really. There's fact, and there's fantasy. You seem to prefer wallowing in fantasy.

"I see hope at the end of the story of the bible. You obviously don't."

Hope of a glorious eternity for you, coupled with the glorious torture of those who didn't believe in your god - and you get to watch! Why would anyone see hope in such a childish and vengeful story?

"Dont have a hissy-fit...Go read a Grimms fairly tale."

Sad to realize, but there's probably more basis in reality for a Grimm's fairy tale than there is for the Bible. If not reality, then truth.

Anonymous, that sounds like a description of the Bush Administration...

God Awed,

So we should just buy into God and scripture because he is an invisible force that 'have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,' even when physical evidence suggests the exact opposite?

The world wasn't made in 6 days. We know this. Should we go by what Genesis says, or what we can physically see? Mankind has been around for more than 6000 years. We know this. Should we ignore this and rely on Genesis?

Your passage that you quote is nothing more than a cop-out of 'if you don't believe it, you're stupid, but we can't prove it, and anyone who says we're stupid is going to hell.'

The description Below Describes what our Society is Becoming:

28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

What?!
Are you a Christian? You do not say so, but I know that you can only be at the very most, a Christian poseur. There are alot of Christians who do not hate gay people, in fact, you cannot hate gay people, and be a true Christian. By the definiton of what a Christian is, hating gays would be forbidden. Not only are there many Christians who do not hate gay people, there are many gay people who are, themselves, Christian.

You often hear primitive Chrisitan poseurs making the flippant joke at God's expense, that God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. So, where did Steve come from? Christian who hate gay people are actually pretty disturbed and confused people. If you choose to hate gay people, then go ahead and do it, and freely acknowledge your own personal and mean-spirited bigotry, but PLEASE, don't pin it on God and Jesus. This is exactly the kind of weird theology that gives real Christians a bad name.

It is insincere and disingenuous to promote unChristian dogma, and then get all insulted when real Christians give you a cold shoulder.

Houston,

Here is the part about the sin of homosexuality:

24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Houston,

You just want to justify your sin.

God's Wrath on Unrighteousness

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Anon wrote:

"The religion of atheism and politics do not mix. I wish all these theophobes would stop pushing their morality on me and then talking about how tolerant they are. What a bunch of hypocrites."

Wow...just who is pushing their morality on you? We've felt like Christians are the ones pushing their morality on US. So it goes both ways, Anon.

We're not trying to push anything on you. We merely wish to show you that you pushing your morality on us is just as bad.

What!? said:

"How crudely they diminish the awsome construction of the human body. Incomprehensible."

The Human body is far from an 'awesome construction.' We have redundant parts, organs that do nothing but cause trouble years down the road, and are not at all tailored to our environments. But yes, we're an awesome creation. Please.

The Appendix is a completely useless organ. Why did God create us with this, if he indeed did so? Or is it much more likely that we evolved from animals which needed this organ, and since we no longer need it, it has shrunken to worthlessness? But yes, we're an awesome creation.

Why do we have two kidneys, when we can function with just one? The other one seems rather redundant, doesn't it? But yes, we're an awesome creation.

There are several others, but I won't go in to them all. But if we're awesome creations, made in God's own image, then God itself has some redundancies.

Mr Mark,

Its all realtive.

I see hope at the end of the story of the bible. You obviously don't.

Dont have a hissy-fit...Go read a Grimms fairly tale.

Cleve,

Yes, Jacob reminds me of a character that old song by Eric Burdon - 'Spill the wine'

(((((a noble, fair, long-haired leaping gnome))))

..he seems to have 'dreamed he was in a Hollywood movie'

..kinda like a strung out hippie in Golden Gate park, say, around 1967

I guess the pagans and atheists would vote for him as president.

We would all know how that story would end.

Whew.

Dear What? -

Sad to see you falling for the cheap absolutism of religion...and I mean, it is absolutely cheap.

No facts, not even any theories, just a bunch of Bronze-Aged fear written by people who knew little of the natural world and even less about human nature. A bunch of doom-and-gloomers who took eternal servitude and grovelling to be an improvement over their hapless and hopeless lives.

And these dirt-cheap beliefs form your core values.

'Tis a pity.

American people have an insecurity of what freedom of religion really means. Christians are fearful of persecution and atheists are fearful of forced religion! But let’s remember we live in America and not in Iran! Christians and atheists shouldn't feel threatened by each other. We should all be grateful that we live in America because Atheists and Christians would both be persecuted in a Muslim society!

I think we would all be better served if those of faith spoke from the heart and those who had no faith just kept quiet. I dont want to be pandered too. I dont care how many consultants they have and how they study the buzz words and language — true believers can smell a rat.

Hey, check out this blogpost for more about real faith and politics —

http://redletterbelievers.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html

Interesting thoughts at least in the first couple of paragraphs. After that it decended into the usual atheistic leftist paranoia about anything to do with religion in general and Christianity in particualr.

If your faith doesn't impact your life in some way then arguably it is dead. That's the real argument in the Book of James.

The big problem for the left in the area is that most of their current candidates excepting possibly Obama come off as 24 carat phonies when they discuss faith in no small part because if you read their policy statement and briefs it is clear that what they trust in isn't God but government.

Luke,

Your comment, sir, is what is not decent and is exactly some of the reason why this country as others are in the immoral quagmire your type has introduced thru the centuries and brought societies down. Read history, man. Your words do not reflect the decency and morality of human strength and their incredible potential past.

Ill bet you even think that STD's are due to Christian influence.

Clueless atheist.

The religion of atheism and politics do not mix. I wish all these theophobes would stop pushing their morality on me and then talking about how tolerant they are. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Dear ‘Jaco JOZEVZ et al:’

I want to thank you. I’ve seen your mind numbing gibberish on a few of the blogs, and at first struggled to decipher their meaning. I no longer struggle. Since you are consistent in camel-casing words, double spacing lines, and flogging the punctuation keys, I can now, quite efficiently pass right over the whole posting without actually having to bother with focusing on any of he actual words…. I love High-speed pattern recognition, ain’t it great to be human?

Take some time out, toss down another red-bull, pop a pimple or two and have a great day…

Wow,
I go away for a few hours and look at all the activity! Took me half an hour to read all this stuff!. Luke, Andrea, glad to see you two here. I always love when we get together.

I am just gonna say, when I saw that they were having a Democratic forum on Faith and when they started asking the questions, all I could do was laugh. I watched the Republican debate, and wanted to hang myself. The only decent Republican is Ron Paul. At least he's not afraid to admit mistakes were made.

Religion and politics are a bad mix. It's lieka fruitcake. All those ingredients, and you'd think it would be a good combination. But once you put it all together, nobody wants it. It's crap. Plain and simple crap.

And if I were gonna be President, I'd swear in to the book "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus".

Have a great day.

Oh yea,for the record, to all the gay bashers out there.........HOMOSEXUALITY IS NORMAL! You poor poor delusional people.

God didnt make gay people. (And I still cringe at how that word, gay, once pure...now ruined).

"They receive in themselves the recompence that was meet."

Read the book. It was called perversion thousands of years ago. Still rings true today. Name me a society that didnt fall relatively fast when such perversion became pervasive?

Thanks alot to you too, Susan Jacoby...proponent of a human existence without a creator God...but boy, you can sure create...create a mindset, unfortunately one that would ensure the demise of this society. But thankfully, intervention will occur before that comes to pass. Read the book.

Free thinkers. Anything goes. No absolutes.

Dismantlers of a society, are they all. Read history. Your 'enlightenment' is nothing but confusion.

I will be glad when we as a nation get over ourselves long enough to actually do some good. But as long as religion is in the mix things will stay screwed up. As long as politicians have to explain their religiousity then they will have to continue to be untruthful. I listened to that CNN discussion with disgust. Hearing what potentially could be our next president grovel in front of a bunch of self appointed superior beings was sickening. Yes right now the reiligious are winning the war but as this next generation grows it will weaken or we as a nation will cease to be. It amazes me how grown up intelligent people can believe in mythology so ardently. Christianity is arbitary, it won out over all others forms of mythology because of one man Constantine. Period end.

Crudedly diminish the awesome construction of the human body? I love my body - I have sex because it feels good - I am not making any babies. What?!, if you have a decent argument, then state it, if not, go somewhere else.

Mary Cunningham writes:

"Too much of a tirade, Ms. Jacoby."

I am constantly amazed when the religious get their panties all up in a wad about non-believers writing something negative/unfeeling/mean-spirited/a tirade etc.

This from a crew who happily informs us on a daily basis that if you don't believe in their particular god you will be consigned to an eternity of torture and hellfire.

Of course, such religionists claim that it's not them being mean-spirited. No, it's their god...and he isn't being mean-spirited either. The torture he's planning for you over eternity is based entirely on his boundless love!! It's the non-believer's rejection of that boundless love that has the effect of the non-believer consigning himself to eternal torture (though I've never understood how god draws the line on just how boudless his boundless love is...or isn't).

One wonders if there is any greater tirade that one could throw than religion's tirade of hell. Any tirade a non-believer could throw pales in comparison.

>>Luke:
Then why did God make gay people? It isn't that simple. Why do some animals eat their young? Why did God create people who enjoy self-mutilation, torture, and the like? Is that natural too? Ofcourse we have to reproduce for your species to survive - but we can also make babies in petri dishes, so what is the point of having sexual organs at all?

((((((((Whats the point of having sexual organs at all??)))))))

Unbelievable. Here, folks, we just heard the above comment from the center of the universe himself.

How crudely they diminish the awsome construction of the human body. Incomprehensible.

Only from an atheist.

To the many that seem to disdain the religious when they get involved in politics.

A portion of what George thought:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

I'll take his opinion over yours - and this quote is no violation of the seperation clause.

I agree with Houston's comments, that hatred of gay people is not part of Christianity, it is an "add-on."

People seek to justify their homophobia, by claiming that it is part of their Christian belief. But such a claim is actually taking the Lord's name in vain, by saying that they hate gay people because Jesus wants them to. That claim lacks credibility.

If you don't like gay people, then just say so, but don't pin it on Jesus. If you want to crucify the gays, don't appeal to Jesus to justify it.

Christians who hate atheists usually have a deep-seated fear and doubt in their own hearts, and atheists heighten this doubt. So, to assert a sort of false certainty, they lash out at atheists, as though God needs someone to defend his existence from people that do not believe in God.

Likewise, Christians who hate gays usually have some sort of inner confusion over their own sexual orientation, and gays merely heighten this confusion and discomfort. In both cases, the confused and angry Christian should examine his own heart, and try to let go of the animosity and bad feelings towards others, which is very definitely, not a Christian attitude.

Your essay is an illustration why Democrats lose elections. You assume that voters are motivated or ought to be motivated by reason. You assume that voters apply rationality to determine who to vote for when the vote for elected officials. This pretty much has been the viewpoint Democrats have had since political consultants came into being.

What happens is that consultants hire pollsters. They poll the voters on what issues are important and what policies they support. They give that information to the candidate who then develops his or her message to correspond to what the polls are telling his or her consultants. All of this is premised, however, on the fact that votes will respond rationally to the information they are being given.

Because they think this, they present issues and problems to the American public and then they set forth their solutions. The assumpation is that voters will look at the issues and their positions and vote accordingly.

That is not how humans make decisions. Humans use a combination of emotion and reason when making any important decision, or probably making any decision. Therefore, they are looking for emotional cues on what the candidate stands for and what they believe.

Explaining your faith gives some voters important information when making their decision. For such voters, they may feel an emotional connection with candidates who explain how their faith guides them in their political lives.

One reason why Bill Clinton was elected and Al Gore wasn't elected is that Clinton could connect with voters emotionally and Gore couldn't or at least didn't.

And on a note that is more on-topic.

I am based in Britain so the whole concept of religion being important in politics is alien. In fact Tony Blair becoming very public about his faith harmed his reputation and had he done it when he was seeking election 10 years ago it would have lessened his chances of being elected. If Tony Blair ever ended a speech with "God bless Great Britain" he would be a laughing-stock.

It is not that UK voters hate religion (even Atheists like me) but we expect our politicians to keep it private.

Please do not see this post as a "we Brits know better than you" because I am huge admirer of the US political system and see the US Constitution as one of the greatest documents ever produced. However I do think the power of the religious lobby is a real threat to that very document. I am also horrified at how difficult it would be for an Atheist - a sign of an individual who is guided by reason - to gain public office in the USA.

I say this from the point of view of a Christian;

The problem with the arguments on this page is that almost every single comment from those who claim to be Christian is silly, simple-minded, and even absurd. There is really not even the most remote effort on the part of any of the Christian commenters to try, even to try just a little bit, to actually BE Christian in their regard for others. Christians will never win an argument, pointing their guilty fingers at everybody else.

V.O.T.E. ((((((((( Peace-Love-Rock-n-Roll, MiTT-ROMNEY for Prez, Ya! ))))))))))

God Awed :

dear god....PLEASE REIGN IN ALL YOUR CRAZY, NUT-JOB FOLLOWERS.

H.L. Mencken said it all. You will never lose by underestimating the intelligence of the American electorate. Faith is just one of the signs of stupidity.

CNN's show "Faith - Guiding Our Votes" shows America's political system at its worst.

More particularly, it was totally antithetical to our secular form of government and Article 6 of the Constitution which states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office ... under the United States."

But it gets worse. The candidates answers were horrendous. For example, John Edwards was asked by Soledad O'Brien whether evolution and creation were inconsistent and he proceded to straddle the fence with gibberish. What a dirty politician.

And Barack Obama was asked whether God is on side in Iraq and Obama procedes to quote Abraham Lincoln "We should be asking whose side God is on, but whether we are on his side."

Excuse me Barack, but God is not even mentioned in the Constitution no less the fact that there is no credible evidence of God's existence.

And Hillary Clinton tells us that she prays every day and her faith got her through her difficlut times with Bill.

I'm sorry but all three are completely lacking the leadership I am looking for in a presidential candidate -- some one who can stand on their own two feet.

Susan,
I have a real problem with a presidential candidate like Mike Huckaby who said in the debate last night that he believes that the earth was created in 6 days and that it is only 6000 years old. If this guy believes that, does that make any body else uneasy about his desicion making ability?

Susan:

Great essay! Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree that Bible-waving has just become another political tool. I also believe, however, that faith can be beneficial -- if it's not used as a bully stick the way lots of right-
wing posters like to use it. Some folks use trappings of "faith" as a weapon of would-be moral superiority - the language, the words, the attitudes, the public speeches, all that. Christ pointed out that not everyone that claims
to "walk the walk" is the genuine article, as aptly pointed out by DJMagaro. Many of these same folks keep harping on the same issues to discredit what they consider their enemies - like the gay community, which has been attacked
consistently for the last six years.

DJMAGARO:

You're so right! Lots of so-called "Christian" folks love to profess their "faith" but their actions rarely reflect any sort of kindness, charity or (as Susan points out) reason. It's sort of like fans following a pro sports
team - the fan can't directly influence that happens on the team, but they can wave that banner or pennant and scream at opponents.

BOBBY:

Yes, you're right - not all Christians can be painted with the same stripe, and that may be part of the problem with the way the media cover them. But I find it mighty interesting that far right-wing folks can consistently seem to make
headlines. Maybe it's time for more moderate folk to be more vocal ... out-shout them, as it were. "The Base", the term the news media use heavily these days, refers to far right-wing Bible-carriers (anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc.). I would venture to say that Unitarians, MCC'ers, and other non-hellfire-and-brimstone-flavored
denominations are not included in "The Base".

LUKE:

I'm with you, buddy. Right-wingers routinely attack everyone else - including people of reason - on a daily basis. It's not about facts and information, it's about stirring emotion, and nothing but.

GOD AWED:

There's gonna be a day of judgment for everyone, including YOU. You like to represent that everything's in black and white, yet life is far more complicated than you're willing to acknowledge. I happen to African American - a Democratic voter - and gay - and resent your comments intensely. How dare you! "Pro-baby
murdering, pro-homosexual, hypocrites"? You're another hypocrite. Get out of your tiny universe and go out and meet some REAL people - listen to their stories of pain, hurt, oppression. You have no idea how difficult it is to be black or gay ... in this country ... in these times. Take your vinegar piety somewhere
else. By the way, your quote of Romans 1 is yanked out of context - lots of anti-gay folks use this same bully verse. "Christians" all take the same stance ... "I'm just trying to tell you what it says," they claim. Jesus NEVER said anything about gay people in the four Gospels. You gonna put Paul, a student, above Jesus, the TEACHER?? If you don't like gays (like the gay man I am) or the way we love, at least have the cojones to just admit it; don't try to cover it up with Scripture; smart folks aren't falling for it.

I have spoken.

When God asks me what my explanation is I will say "I didn't get the memo, boss.". That usually works in my office.

Anthony

What will I say to God if, as an Aethiest, I am wrong?

Easy

"Sorry God but it is your fault for making me an intelligent being who looked at evidence based on science and reason then came to the only intelligent conclusion. If you wanted me to be a believer you should have either made me stupid or provided some proper evidence."

I would then have to move on fairly quickly because I would also have to apologise to the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny etc.

Let us make a mental experiment:

Suppose there is a society which never heard of god or simply lives their lives as prudently as possible to get along with each other. Nobody so far has told these people of a god, let alone asked or forced them to believe in any such story.

Now, someone brings up, just for fun, the idea to "invent" a god or a set of gods, making it a competition that the best god invention gets a first price with a lot of money. The only requirement would be that the religion should have some consistency within itself, no matter how fantastic the story develops.

A vast number of religions similar to the existing ones would pop up: Everything that can be explained by sheer observation and logical thinking can also be explained or rather "described", as a token, by one of the prize-winning religions: Creation, prayer, heaven, hell, punishment, the most incredible stories, bibles of any imaginable sort will appear in this competition.

The jury, who knows the whole thing is just a play, rewards a first, second, third and so on prize to the different religions.

Every in reality existing variation meets the demand of this competition: What can be explained naturally can also be explained by a religion. Of course, it doesn't HAVE to be explained by one of the prize-winning religions, since every religion is only a joker for reality, and not the other way around.

GOD AWED - You and the people who think like you are not real christians, so get off it. Your post is filled with hate and please don't tell me, it is "rightous". I will pray for you.
Re the article, I think the dems are forced to speak about their faith because the "fake" christians (the conservative right) have taken a hold of the country. I had a dream that I was on my way to heaven and I saw Falwell at the gates of hell begging for water - that sould be a sign for the conservative right.

Sorry my last post got posted twice.

********

Just a suggestion to the atheists, progressives, etc: Don't waste your breath arguing with people like God Awful. I grew up with people like that. They are so self-righteous in their "faith" that nothing short of God coming down from on high and speaking to them out of a burning bush (and, I don't me Dubya) will get them to change their opinions. And, that might not even do it. They'd be bound to claim it is a left-wing, liberal, Hollywood plot.

I hope it never gets to fighting with weapons. I will always hope for a diplomatic solution first, but if there is no one here to speak for a solution, full-scale war or another holocaust could soon be expected.

"Luke:
I won't emigrate, I will fight."

OK, then, how many weapons should by buy?

And what is wrong with our war on terror?

So far (reiterating the obvious):

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes.

2. Iran has been contained. (besides fighting the civil war in Bahgdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes oil continues to flow from the region fueling the global economy and your Prius).

3. Libya has become civil.

4. North Korea is still uncivil but is contained.

5. Northern Ireland is finally at peace (Thanks to the Patriot Act that stopped foreign funding of the IRA plus finally some rational political leaders).

6. The Jews and Palestinians are being separated by walls (analogous to the two Czech republics). Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords).

7. Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11.

8. Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace.

8. The stock markets and economies around the globe continue to show good growth and opportunity for the common stock holders.

9. And conscientious US citizens have prevented two major terror attacks on the Homeland. And who were these terrorists? Followers of that hallucinating, illiterate Arab, Mohammed, his plagiarizing, koranic scribes and their Book of Death.

So George and his guys and gals have not been perfect but there are some major accomplishments. Bill Clinton and his crew definitely had their accomplishments but were not "pretty wingie talking thingies" either.

Andrea brings up a good point. I think your argument ends there, God Awed.

Sir David Frost: Is this still a Christian Country?

Billy Graham: No! We’re not a Christian country. We’ve never been a Christian country. We’re a secular country, by our constitution. In which Christians live and which many Christians have a voice. But we’re not a Christian country.

See the full interview here -- http://secular.embassyofheaven.com/usa/notchristian.htm

God Awed:

"The God haters are also created in the image of God whether they like it or not and should stop whining about people of faith actually letting his or her affect the way they govern."

Who's imposing what on whom, now?

Sir David Frost: Is this still a Christian Country?

Billy Graham: No! We’re not a Christian country. We’ve never been a Christian country. We’re a secular country, by our constitution. In which Christians live and which many Christians have a voice. But we’re not a Christian country.

See the full interview here -- http://secular.embassyofheaven.com/usa/notchristian.htm

Then why did God make gay people? It isn't that simple. Why do some animals eat their young? Why did God create people who enjoy self-mutilation, torture, and the like? Is that natural too? Ofcourse we have to reproduce for your species to survive - but we can also make babies in petri dishes, so what is the point of having sexual organs at all?

God Awed,

Based on your first argument, do you consider infertile couples unnatural?

GOD AWED:

And maybe the old scribes had it all wrong. Maybe man was created for woman!

Luke,

Have you ever seen a baby produced between two men? It is as simple as nuts are made for bolts and woman was created for man.

Some day religions will be banned, and it will be a glorious day. Amen.

Anthony, you asked:

"Do aethesists ever contemplate what they're going to say to God if they're wrong? Or are such hypothetical questions too conflicting with their faith to even ask?"

Your question is one expression of what is commonly referred to as Pascal's Wager. I can assure you that every atheist who has expended even the tiniest amount of intellectual effort has contemplated this, if only because it is so often posed by apologists.

At its core, your question is meaningless because it comes loaded with unverifiable assumptions. Which gods do you propose that atheists concern themselves with, given that no evidence of any gods exists? More fundamentally, even if we assume a particular pantheon, how do we know our understanding of its gods is accurate? What if the Christian biblegod damns fundamentalists and rewards everyone else? How could we possibly know the mind of an all-powerful, all-knowing being?

Based on the simplicity of your question, I'd wager that I, and atheists in general, have spent a lot more time in serious contemplation on such matters than you have.

Who documents what is natural and unnatural - it is natural for some mammals to eat their babies. Should we be eating ours. For the love of oblivion that is the stupidest argument against homosexuality ever, I can't believe it is still said. To say it is against biblical teaching is one thing, but to say it is unnatural is so ridiculous it's laughable.

A.THORN,

Calvin and Hobbes will work fine. ;)

It was said above that homosexuality is "It is .... unnatural".

This behavior is documented in other primates.

To expand on Luke's post, I should acknowledge that most Christians do not have a theocratic agenda. If a Nehemiah Scudder does come to power, moderate Christians would lose their religious freedom along with everyone else.

Gaby said:

"I think presidents should swear on the cornerstone on which this country was built, the constitution, not on some religious book!"

You know, there's nothing written anywhere that says a President must be sworn in on a Bible. One of these days I'd love to see the President sworn in on a Calvin and Hobbes book.

But the Constitution works just as well (if it wasn't very carefully preserved by the Archives and never let out).

I won't emigrate, I will fight. That is why those who believe in religious freedom have to protect this country - a bastion of the ideal of religious freedom. I won't leave, this is my home just as it is to every Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. who is born in or chooses to live here. I am defending their rights too - as an atheist, if I don't fight for their freedom to practice their beliefs, who will?

I will vote for any president based on his/her ability to convince me they will lead this country into a solid future with decent jobs, reasonable healthcare, etc., and who will uphold the Constitution of the United States.

I could care less about their faith or lack thereof. I want a person whom we as Americans and the world as a whole can respect based on his/her decency and morality toward others and not on how they pray.

I think presidents should swear on the cornerstone on which this country was built, the constitution, not on some religious book!

Thank goodness we live in a democracy, not the theocracy! The day that happens, I will emigrate and never look back!

SOK7

You say it is my fault that Americans are so religious. Well all I can say is I'm really very sorry and I'll never do it again.
You have my word on that.
Now I wonder what I can do to make amends?
What can I do to make America less religious again?
I guess I can try by posting comments on these threads that attack religious thinking and hope that maybe somewhere some American believer or two might be influenced to consider atheism as more sensible than spookdriven religion.
Other than that I'm kind of at a loss...

The problem is when the Christians, Muslims, etc. lump THEMSELVES together into collective groups with power and a lack of compassion on their side. I don't want those in powerful positions to push their faith on me - and that is what happends when Christians, Muslims, or whoever are in large numbers and have power. If you live in a community that is entirely Christian and you commit adultery, what will happen to you? That's what it feels like to be an atheist sometimes. I am not represented, so I will vote for those who best represent me.

Anon wrote:

"So when Christians on this forum call atheists unrighteous theyre loons. But when atheists on this forum call Christians primitive, crazy, and as Luke alludes, stake burners and murderers.."

They're also loons. I don't try to judge modern people by what has happened in the past. Christianity has a lot to answer to in its history, but that is not the fault of modern Christians. However, this is true of Islam, Judaism and Pagans as well.

That said, I think that atheists see a worrying trend of this nation to become more of a Christian nation, and reflect that in its laws. I know that it worries me. It's not that I disrespect your beliefs. I respect your opinions on any number of topics. However, in my experience, the respect has not been there on the other side.

There are some Christians here on these boards that have a respectful tone, and wish to engage in meaningful dialogue, and others that do not. Same is true for the atheist side. However, when we start lumping all of them together, that's when it becomes a problem.

I think my main point is that I don't need the government to tell me what is right and wrong. I don't need a pastor, philosopher, or anyone else to tell me what I should think. I would think that religious folk would feel the same way, but I guess when a politician panders to them, they eat it up. Why can't my decisions be made on my own?

What I have NOT heard from any of the candidates who are proclaiming their religion is how they feel about the rights of the minority. The 20% of the American electorate that is NOT Christian or Jewish. Under the current Administration, atheists and members of minority religions have had our patriotism questioned, had to fight to get our religious symbols displayed on Veterans' headstones, and generally made to feel like they were second-class citizens. This is why many people - not just atheists - are uncomfortable with the blatant display of religion by both Democrats and Republicans. A lot of us really like that wall between Church and State, and we don't want to see it go away.

SOK7 wrote:

"It is not until you view this decision in a spiritual light that it makes any sense. The idea that as a nation, we give a part of what we make to others in need is not only a spiritual notion, but draws directly from examples in the Bible…"

And while this is true, let's get some facts here. America is towards the bottom on the list of nations when it comes to foreign aid as a percentage of the GDP. Countries like Norway far outstrip us in this area. And Norway has much higher taxes, as well.

And it really worries me about George Bush that he waited until year 6 to do this. If he had truly wanted to help the Africans with their AIDS crisis, and felt it a religious obligation to do so, he would have done it sooner. He would have supported increase foreign aid budgets the past 6 years, instead of smaller ones. He would have supported education initiatives in Africa to help people over there understand that condoms can help to prevent the spread of AIDS if used properly.

No, I'm sorry, but I can't get behind a belief that George Bush is doing this out of some kind of religious imperative. It's too late for that logic on the issue.

Athorn wrote

Well, if we look at the past 2,000 years, and how Christianity has treated those that are different from it, shouldn't we need some kind of reassurance? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but your logic goes both ways. Even in this thread, we've had Christians calling atheists 'unrighteous' even though they have no idea what we believe.

Typical Eurocentric point of view. What about persecutionif Christians in Islamic countries for say 1400 years?

So when Christians on this forum call atheists unrighteous theyre loons. But when atheists on this forum call Christians primitive, crazy, and as Luke alludes, stake burners and murderers..

Bobby wrote:

"Lets think about this Andrea. If I judged how an atheist would act towards the religious by reading the atheist remarks on this forum, shouldnt I need some kind of reassurance?"

Well, if we look at the past 2,000 years, and how Christianity has treated those that are different from it, shouldn't we need some kind of reassurance? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but your logic goes both ways. Even in this thread, we've had Christians calling atheists 'unrighteous' even though they have no idea what we believe.

I am not sure if I'm a true atheist, but I'm pretty close. I don't believe in one true God. I'm more a fan of philosophies versus religions. And personally, I don't want to dismantle the workings of others. However, I also prefer that my works not be dismantled by others. I think we'd both agree on that one. We also both agree that as groups, Christians don't always vote with other Christians, and Atheists don't always vote with other Atheists. I think that's a good thing.

So, that being the case, why should I need to know a candidate's religious affiliation at all? Wouldn't it be better to not know that piece of information, and vote solely on their positions on the issues? Personally, that's what I'd rather do. I think there should be more of a separation of a candidate's faith and what we see.

But let's look at it this way: we've never had a non-Christian president. Let's say that there was a Muslim brave enough to run for President. Even if his values and yours were nearly perfectly aligned (or at least bar far closer than any other candidate), would you vote for him/her? Would the majority of Americans do the same? I'm personally of the opinion that the majority would vote against their values in this case.

I'm becoming a bigger fan of Rudi Gulianni, because he had the 'gall' to come out and say last night that he believes abortion to be wrong, but he doesn't believe the government has the right to make that choice for a woman. I think we need more candidates who will say things like that. But I doubt we'll get them.

This is in response to the person who asked whether atheists ever contemplate what they're going to say to God if they're wrong. I can't speak for other atheists, but if I am wrong, this will be a moot question. If there is a supreme being, I presume that he or she will be the one doing the talking. Or not, as the divinity contemplates my just punishment. Wouldn't the fundamentalists who occasionally stray into this thread agree that the the perfect hell for me would be a booth that isolated me from both the spoken and the written word?

Believers, by contrast, do not have to contemplate their behavior should they prove to be wrong about eternal life. They won't be able to say anything to anyone at all.

Anonymous :)

I guess I can answer that question by explaining how I order food at an unfamiliar establishment. I read through every option until I find an ingredient I dislike, then move on to the next dish, marking the ones I could tolerate or make substitutions with.

I supposed if I were lucky enough to have nonbelievers in my pool of choices, I'd take much the same approach. So, no, I wouldn't rule it out. But much the same as believers, my choice would be slightly more in favor of someone who thinks like I do. I would be a fool if a non/belief in God were my only voting criterion.

Andrea,

its not about making on the record promises. These debates, interview, public speaking they are a way (imperfect yes) of getting to know the candidate's take on things. If a candidate doesnt want to answer a question he/she deems too personal then they shouldnt (and that action by itself would reflect an aspect of their personality that some will deem laudable and others not).

I don't see how not voting for someone is intolerant. You aren't tolerant of abortion rights, gay rights, etc. All politicians are going to say they are religious whether or not they are. I'm just not stupid enough to believe them. I am not going to burn people at the stake, or hang out outside of abortion clinics shooting bullets into people - just as I'm not going to vote for someone who advocates it. As an atheist, I could care less what you believe as long as you aren't forcing me to believe it. With the laws that limit my rights so you can scream the word of God in my face and condemn me to hell, how can you expect me to vote for that?

Anthony,

I have thought about it, and if I do one day meet God, I'll just be honest with him. Based on everything I have experienced during my lifetime, I came to the conclusion that (the Christian) god was a fairy tale.

Bobby,

President Pat Robertson...I shudder to think...

I see what you mean. I wouldn't really need any assurance from more moderate religious candidates, either. Would you just need a nonbeliever to give that reassurance because the thought of a president who doesn't believe in God is something new and unfamiliar? Would you need any subsequent candidate to make the same promises?

"Let's keep the topic to religiosity and political candidates."

Focusing on the notion of "God's will" is valid for this discussion, because the Democratic candidates "connected their personal faith to policy issues." As I understand it, that means they believe they know what God wants from humans, which would have some impact on those issues. I've always understood faith to mean "belief in a supreme being or beings."

Thank you, Bobby. I tend to see the outbreak of religion among the Dems as a sign of confidence, and the non-believing bona fides of the Reps as a sign of weakness.

But I'm going to sit this discussion out.

tsk tsk tsk Andrea, lets rephrase then

would you vote for a believer if the field had believers and non-believers?

Andrea wrote

Though, it sounds to me like you wouldn't/don't expect a religious candidate to give reassurance to the multitudes of NonChristians she/he would be representing that she/he would respect them. Why is that?

That is only half-true. I dont expect the current "religious" candidates to because they dont seem they need to. However, if Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell were running, I would definitely need assurances that they wont trample on the rights of nonChristians.

Andrea wrote

Also, it would be unfair for any of us to judge a candidate based on how like-minded people act on an internet forum.

Agreed, but we do it because we're human.

Anonymous,

"Would you vote for a believer?"

I have to. What other choice do I have, besides not voting?

"Democratic societies contain laws that evolve due to the legislators and the judiciary. Both are affected (directly or indirectly) from the will of the voters. If I am asked to vote for something I disagree with in principle (even if doesn't affect me directly) it would be WRONG not to vote at all. Either yay or nea. I don't owe anyone an explanation of how and why I exercised my vote that may ultimately lead to enactment of policies and laws. Society reflects the pulse of the nation, a nation of individuals, and individual votes. "

Bobby, an individual's personal life should, in principle, be of no concern to government or society or even other individuals. Again, that assumes that the individual is doing nothing that harms others. Government should only get involved in private lives if there is a compelling reason to do so. Disapproval by others does not constitute a compelling reason.

Bobby,

Thankfully, I don't see any of us on here running for President. Phew.

Though, it sounds to me like you wouldn't/don't expect a religious candidate to give reassurance to the multitudes of NonChristians she/he would be representing that she/he would respect them. Why is that?

Also, it would be unfair for any of us to judge a candidate based on how like-minded people act on an internet forum.

Andrea,

Would you vote for a believer?

Excellent post MAry Cunnigham

tonion wrote

Bobby, my larger question is how anyone can determine what God is about or what God wants.

Thats an entirely different discussion. My humble suggestion is that we dont taka a tangent into the inevitable realm of yelling "God exists!!!! " God doesnt exist!!!!". That bottomless pit can be avoided. Lets keep the topic to religiosity and political candidates.

I think that because there are extremists on the left and right (for every Regent University there is a Madalyn Murray O'Hair and the American Atheists Organisation), the "middle" argument eventually makes it through all the yelling and screaming.

Personally, I think that the Democrats' religous thing on TV was unnecessary. Ironically it is the current cadre of Republican candidates who appear more secular!

So much of what the government does not make sense from a purely practical standpoint. Take George Bush’s decision to increase the amount of money spent to fight AIDS in Africa. From a practical standpoint, American taxpayer dollars would be better spent at home. 100 times more people are affected by cancer than by AIDS, so the cash would be better spent on cancer research instead of treating HIV. A quarter of all Americans can’t afford health insurance – wouldn’t the money be better spent on that?

It is not until you view this decision in a spiritual light that it makes any sense. The idea that as a nation, we give a part of what we make to others in need is not only a spiritual notion, but draws directly from examples in the Bible…

…which brings the next question: If George Bush’s faith did inspire him to give that money to fight AIDS in Africa, should the taxpayer demand his money back? If faith had a hand in a good decision, does that faith suddenly make that decision bad.

The religious convictions of a presidential hopeful IS relevant to the voter. It is not only relevant if that candidate has faith, but it is relevant how they practice their faith. If it is not God that they believe in, then the voter should know exactly what “ism” they think is better than God. There are very few things as dangerous as a man who believes in nothing but himself.

And finally, if you expect a person with religious convictions to act as if he has none once he takes the White House, then you expect him to lie to you - and you are a fool.

Dear Yo-Yo,

The reason Americans are generally more religious that their European counterparts is your fault, not ours. For decades, the English Crown persecuted and deported anyone practicing anything but the one Anglican faith. That is why the first chapters of the English speaking peoples in American were written by Puritans, Quakers, and in the case of Maryland, Catholics. For the first 200-years after Jamestown, the secularists came to America to get rich and for the most part, left as soon as they did. Secular greed is such a better rationale than faith, don’t you think? You reap what you sow, Englishman.

Dear Luke,

“Why be tolerant?” What a great Inquisitor you would have made.

Too much of a tirade, Ms. Jacoby.

Your last two pieces (well, I must admit I haven’t read anymore than those) were full of fury. I get blown around by the anger.

But this time there is no need for all this bluster. And I will try to state my case without any tantrums.

My thesis is simple: Faith has broken out among the donkeys because the Dems are going to win the Presidency in 2008.

Reagan Democrats are the swing voters, and they delivered the House (in particular) to the Dems last year. These folk tend to be socially conservative, patriotic and Catholic; as such, they supported the Iraq fiasco, despite its outspoken condemnation by the late Pope. They are the group that swung the hardest (and earliest) from pro to antiwar.

Why? Well, I would say good, old-fashioned Catholic guilt—they were warned and they supported the war anyway. Now they have turned on the party that led them and their children into this mess. (And maybe they like what they hear about health insurance.)

All this faith outbreak is meant to reassure the ‘ethnics’, but IMO is unnecessary. They already know the war was wrong, they just need someone with the guts to end it. Now with the support of the Reagan Dems, Dem. candidates can afford to pander to faith-based people all they want. If their atheist supporters are angered, well, *tant pis*...Where are the secular warriors going to go? Not to the Republican Party, that’s for sure.

There, that was easy. How’m I doing? Any histrionics? Hope not. Anyway, that’s all from me.

Jacoby, like any atheist, fails to realize that it takes much more faith to be an atheist than it does to believe in God. The struggle she has with her own reason and conscience is what is causing her distress.

"But for religious people, a subset of the issues (e.g. abortion, gay marriage) cannot be separated. With regard to those, we believe that right and wrong reflect God."

Bobby, my larger question is how anyone can determine what God is about or what God wants. Radical Muslims claim that their God wants them to kill unbelievers. As horrific as that sounds to everyone else, how can anyone possibly disprove their claim? And how can anyone prove the claim by Christians that God wants us to love each other? My concern is that debating policy in the framework of "God's will" opens the door to radicalism such as the theocratic agenda of Regent University, because I see no way in that framework to refute the claims of the radicals.

A debate on any subject involving "God" is pointless until "God" is specifically defined.

I am a so-called "atheist" but that doesn't mean I don't believe in some incomprehensible power that permeates the universe. I just don't happen to believe in the juvenile conception of "God" as Santa Claus on steroids who has everyone's mind wire tapped and is like a big surveillance camera in the sky.

Personally I don't care what a person believes, as long as they keep it out of politics, my children's classrooms, and the world's scientific community. Religion is personal. If, for some reason, you want to make your religion public, do so in your own churches and living rooms, but keep it out of my face. Until Christians can learn to do that, I will fight against them at every opportunity.

Andrea wrote:

Thanks for the reply! I'm glad there are faithful out there who would consider voting for any form of nonbeliever. However, why would a nonbelieving candidate have to "openly state his respect if not agreement for the religious blocs in this country," when the religious candidates aren't expected to return the favor?

Lets think about this Andrea. If I judged how an atheist would act towards the religious by reading the atheist remarks on this forum, shouldnt I need some kind of reassurance?

Not too different the militant atheists from the fundamentalists with regard to their desire of dismantling the workings of the others..

tonio wrote

If gays want to get married, it is not up to you or me or anyone else to prevent them from doing so. If you feel gay marriage is wrong, all that means is that you would not enter into a gay marriage yourself. The same would be true for a hypothetical gay person who may be opposed to straight marriage. I've been married to my wife for almost nine years, and gays getting married in Europe and New England has not changed my life in any way. And I don't expect it to do so in the future.

First, I dont want this discussion to devolve into gay marriage issues, lets keep the focus on religion/politics. Second, democratic societies contain laws that evolve due to the legislators and the judiciary. Both are affected (directly or indirectly) from the will of the voters. If I am asked to vote for something I disagree with in principle (even if doesnt affect me directly) it would be WRONG not to vote at all. Either yay or nea. I dont owe anyone an explanantion of how and why I exercised my vote that may ultimately lead to enactment of policies and laws. Society reflects the pulse of the nation, a nation of individuals, and individual votes. The challenge is the diversity of opinions which is good. But remember after hearing all opinions how I vote is how I vote. Ive listened to opposing opinions, digested them and still disagree. At least respect THAT if you dont respect the differing opinion.

Third, Im married too, and I dont believe in gay marriage, and thats my belief and thats that. I dont need to explained to or shown the futility of my reasoning.

As a lifelong Democrat, I am sickened by the overt pandering to the religious by our current crop of candidates. If I as a Democrat see it as pandering, should I be surprised if Republic voters see it the same way?

Let's look at it honestly: when these candidates speak of faith and guidance, they are in reality talking about having a conversation with themselves. There's no god to talk to, and the "consulting a higher father" BS is simply an exercise in self-glorification. Frankly, it frightens me to think of a president closing the door to the advice of the saner voices around him, retreating to a private space to talk to himself about what should be done, and later emerging with what he or she believes is some divine revelation from above. Yet this is considered to be "normal" for our sitting pResident and, apparently, is now deemed to be a mandatory activity if one hopes to be a viable presidential candidate.

It would appear that the top qualification for being president in 2009 isn't foreign policy experience, a well-thought-out domestic agenda or a past record of effective leadership. It's having a superior knack for self-delusion as defined by the belief in a personal relationship with a non-existent supernatural being.

God help us - we're going to hell in a handbasket.

Name one politician who not only respects the religious (AND non-religious) blocs in this country and puts forth policy to prove it. There aren't many.

Bobby,

Thanks for the reply! I'm glad there are faithful out there who would consider voting for any form of nonbeliever. However, why would a nonbelieving candidate have to "openly state his respect if not agreement for the religious blocs in this country," when the religious candidates aren't expected to return the favor?

PS-I didn't mean atheist and "openly secular" as interchangeable labels.

to tonio:

As I see it, the issue is the concept of "Policy X is what God wants," which is not the same thing as "Policy X is right/wrong."

To religious people, some issues can be separated as you describe it should be. I dont think Jesus Christ cares if we institute school vouchers or fix the Alternative Minimun Tax. But for religious people, a subset of the issues (e.g. abortion, gay marriage) cannot be seperated. With regard to those, we beleive that right and wrong reflect God.

to luke,

I believe despite the yelling and screaming against Christians, you seem to be making a case for state's rights versus federal law. Many on the religious right actually AGREE with you, for example, they want Roe v Wade overturned so every state, and their different minded constituencies, would freely decide @ legalization of different situations of abortion rather than the EVERYONE-gets-affected (something you deride in your post) law we currently have.

I'm sorry, and maybe I'm naive, but whenever I see any variation of "pandering for votes," my brain locks up. The idea is to represent as many people as possible, right? And you have to figure out somehow who is most representative of whom, right? So what's the problem?

Now, I understand that a candidate can blow smoke and claim a position falsely, and that I do consider pandering (like the oft-divorced claiming belief in protecting traditional marriage)--but I would also consider it lying, and over time I would expect, and any competent candidate should expect, that fundamental dishonesty to be exposed. In this case, the pandering seems to be coming more from the critics than from the candidates.

"Now, you realistically think that it is logical that someone who deeply believes (I made that emphasis because some are religious in name only) that, for example, gay marriage is not compatible with their beliefs in who they are, their place in the world and their relationship with their maker (that is religion after all), you expect the 'logical' thing to do is for that person is separate that part of his persona with regard to how they vote?"

Bobby, I suggest that part of life is separating our personal beliefs from the beliefs of others. For the purposes of this post, let's leave out any actions that harm others, or beliefs that lead someone to harm others. With that in mind, none of us has any control over others' actions or beliefs. If gays want to get married, it is not up to you or me or anyone else to prevent them from doing so. If you feel gay marriage is wrong, all that means is that you would not enter into a gay marriage yourself. The same would be true for a hypothetical gay person who may be opposed to straight marriage. I've been married to my wife for almost nine years, and gays getting married in Europe and New England has not changed my life in any way. And I don't expect it to do so in the future.

Andrea asked

Would you vote for an atheist or anyone else who's "openly secular"?

Depends. First, openly secular is completely different than atheist. Second, if their policies are in sync with mine with regard to the issues. if an atheist candidate will focus on issues governing this country (jobs, taxation, foregin policy) and openly state his respect if not agreement for the religious blocs in this country. Sure its possible...

Satsified?

I've got a better idea - make your own laws or move people with your beliefs to another state where you can live without gay people and then you can stone your daughters for sex outside of wedlock or whatever you do, and I'll live in NY. I don't expect people to leave out religion in politics, but I WON'T VOTE FOR THEM. You are the one who doesn't have a live-and-let-live policy because the laws that you enact influence EVERYONE. Do you not understand that? I don't want your beliefs forced on me...just as you don't want tribal Muslim law enacted on you. If my statement doesn't make sense to you fine, but it doesn't make sense that I should vote for the ruler of Jesusland if I don't believe in Jesus, my friend.

God Awed - you're Christian, right? I don't discern the love of Jesus in your posts. I wonder if any of the Christians here will notice how hate-filled you seem to be.

PS. Atheists are not God-haters. There's no way to hate something you think does not exist.

Susan - great post. I hope we see more of you at political debates

yo-yo,

All people have faith in something even you. Maybe you have faith in yourself? I choose to believe in the One who is infinite not my finite limited little self. I see God's creative power in what He has made. One must put blinders on to miss the evidence of God's existence.

Bobby, of course Christians don't all vote the same way. Neither do atheists or agnostics. And of course individuals from these groups vote according to their own ideas of right and wrong. That is not the issue. For one thing, one can be an atheist and still oppose abortion. As I see it, the issue is the concept of "Policy X is what God wants," which is not the same thing as "Policy X is right/wrong."

I'm sorry, but the world is in a dire straits! We no longer have the luxury of indulging in the infantile superstitions springing from the nomadic tribes of the middle east. There is little value in the religious works of the Abrahamic sects, the useful ideas are much better expressed and defined in humanitarian works. Idolatry, cannibalistic practices, medieval costumes, empty rites, outdated and demonstratively ignorant precepts and concepts can no longer be tolerated. The exploitation of religious members is a disgrace and criminal; wake up and discard this trash!

Luke wrote:

I don't think that voters are fools for voting for a religious person, but I don't vote based on religion because I don't think religion has a place in politics.

That statement makes no sense Luke since you dont believe in religion period, so of course you dont let your religion affect your vote (a more accurate description than "I dont vote BASED on religion).

Now, you realistically think that it is logical that someone who deeply believes (I made that emphasis because some are religious in name only) that, for example, gay marriage is not compatable with their beleifs in who they are, their place in the world and their relationship with their maker (that is religion after all), you expect the "logical" thing to do is for that person is seperate that part of his persona with regard to how they vote?

Here's God's honest truth (pun intended)" Accept that other's in this country are religious and that may influence their votes. Accept that the best road is a live-and-let-live policy, lets-agree-to-disagree, I treat you with a bare minimun of respect and you treat me the same even if we think the other is nuts and lets work on compromises and middle-of-the-road policies. How does that sound?

God Awed,

You obviously DO hate homosexuals, else you wouldn't speak of them in the manner you do.

"I just think that people of faith have an equal right to run for office without the God haters in the media implying that God fearers have no right to let their faith affect the way they govern. You demonstrate above that you do not want people of faith to have that right. "

People of faith have had that right over nonbelievers for hundreds of years in this country. When will nonbelievers, or nonevangelicals have the right to run for office without being asked questions like "how did you faith get you through your husband's infidelity?" or "what was the biggest sin you've ever committed?"

Well stated Bobby!

Luke,

I never said that all men were not created evil in fact I said they were created equal above. I do, however, reject your premise that homos were created that way. Homosexuality is a choice people are not made that way.

It is impossible to believe something and not have it effect the way you live and what you say to other people. I believe you should have the absolute right to present your position and say what you believe in conflict with those who believe. I just think that people of faith have an equal right to run for office without the God haters in the media implying that God fearers have no right to let their faith affect the way they govern. You demonstrate above that you do not want people of faith to have that right.

I do not hate homos I am just telling you what the Bible says about the un-natural relationship of men having depraved sex with each other (See Romans 1:18-32). It is sinful, evil, and unnatural it does not take rocket science to know that two bolts do not fit together and that one should not stick their penis in another man’s poop hole. God's word tells me to love sinners and hate sin because sin destroys people and separates them from God.

Bobby,

Would you vote for an atheist or anyone else who's "openly secular"?

Why be tolerant? Right-wingers condemn us on a daily basis. They want us to burn in hell with hate and vitriol in their veins, so why can't we choose not to vote for them? We don't need a Christian Taliban.

Mrs. Clinton's faith is not "god-based" but political. She should have divorced "Billy-Boy" but that would have ruined her political future. Or would it have?

She also needs to have some sex therapy. Faking it would have saved the country significant money, time and embarrassment. And then maybe "Billy-boy" would have taken out OBL having his "billy-brain" in his skull and not his pants.

And if she does become president, are we going to have to deal with the "open-zipper" policy again?

Bobby, that is why America is great. Just as right-wing politicians aim to the country what is the correct and righteous way of thinking, "lefties" like myself battle tooth and nail against them. Values voters voting for politicians doesn't make a lot of sense, considering politics involves some pretty immoral work. I don't think that voters are fools for voting for a religious person, but I don't vote based on religion because I don't think religion has a place in politics.

Yo-Yo and Skepticalm's lovely comments illustrate my pont beautifully regarding left-wing tolerance.

I for one will not vote for any candidate who goes public about his or her faith. It is bad enough that most of them pander to the ignorant in this country who believe in primitivism and the supernatural.

Susan
I was sickened at the sight of the Dems being grilled on their faith.It reminded me of the Inquisition,even if a warm and cuddly inquisition where no one was tortured.
To this Brit it was grotesque,(bearing in mind
that as far as we know there is no god).
That intelligent adults have to swear allegiance to
ancient mythology,ancient ideas and an ancient book
seems somehow obscene.
I believe history will look back in anger and amazement at these bizarre faith-based times.
We already have a faith-based president in a faith-based White House in a faith-based war in the faith-based Middle East because faith-based enemies of America took down the WTC because they
figured that America's faith was the wrong faith.
Whatever happened to intelligence? To rationality?
To reason? This is 2007 not 1107.
Religious faith is the most dangerous force out there. And surely it's impossible to fight the crazy ideas of Islam with the equally crazy ideas
of christianity.It's the medieval crusades all over again.
Please...enough religion already,before we are all
blown to kingdom come.
Please..say after me...there is no supernatural world.No god,no fairies,no demons,no Easter bunny,
no vestal virgins; except in our imaginations.

To all ye militant atheists, here's a newsflash: Christian Americans are not a single, monolithic voting bloc. Some are Catholic, evangelical, ortodox, non-denominational. Some vote Repub,. some Democratic, some independent, some dont vote at all. All Americans including Christian Americans vote candidate's due to the mirroring of their own belief's vis-a-vis abortion, gay marriage and "secular" issues such as , jobs, taxation and foreign policy. As always, left wing pundits aim to dictate to the country what is the "correct" "enlightened" way of thinking while aghast at any attempts by the religious in America to characterize their own take on matters.

And Luke, just like you claim your right as a taxpayer to vote against the religious right, others in the nation will just as proudly state their right to vote FOR them. That is a democracy, the tolerance of different ideas and different political candidates. If someone is a nut he/she won't get voted for. But if someone is unabashedly religious and he/she gets elected then what does that tell you? No, it doesnt mean that the voters are all "fools", it means the voters fully exercised their Constitutional right. A democracy is not "left-wing atheists know the best ideas to run the country and rightist Christians are deluded and pull the wool over the eyes of the country".

Anthony,

Atheists do not believe in a god, so why would they think about such things?

I am more of an agnostic, and such thoughts do cross my mind. But, if there is a God who is all-knowing as Christians profess, he would know what is in our hearts and how we lived our lives, and nothing we could say to him would matter.

There are some Christians who are wrong (either in message or in execution). What are they going to say?

Do aethesists ever contemplate what they're going to say to God if they're wrong? Or are such hypothetical questions too conflicting with their faith to even ask?

To God Awed,

What Luke said. Geez.

God Awed, that is why we don't want people like you running for office. In this country, all men are created equal, even if they are gay, so get over it. Atheists don't force their unbelief on others nearly as much as you force your beliefs on others. Your righteousness doesn't work across the board, and your churches don't pay taxes, so that doesn't say much about how much say you should have in politics when the church doesn't pay for it. I am no hypocrite, I pay my taxes and am an atheist, and I will vote against the religious right until the day I die. Oblivion bless America.

Amazing how often people assume that people of faith have no ability to reason. Faith without reason is groundless as is reason without faith. Without faith, you can use reason to justify anything. Without reason, faith can be used for evil.
People always vote in their own best interest. Often times faith gets one to vote in others best interest.

Thank you for the thoughtful article. I also appreciate djmagaro's post. I hurry to add, however, that quoting scriptures to an evangelical is simply falling into the web they weave to entrap people.

For me the one cogent argument against using faith to inform decisions is that faith is BY DEFINITION, B L I N D....otherwise, it is no longer faith but purports to be verifiable knowledge. If so it is debatable.

SHAME, SHAME on CNN and Wolf Blitzer for asking the candidates about their faith!

"For everyone whose faith tells him that it is our moral obligation, as a people, to provide for the care of the sick and the weak, there is another American who believes that any health program that would result in higher taxes is the work of the devil. That is precisely the problem with basing public policy appeals on private religious belief."

Excellent point. Both sides are honestly convinced that they know the intentions of a supreme being. I say it's pointless to debate the nature of those intentions. Instead, I propose evaluating policies on their own merits. If only all candidates would "never suggest that my policies are the right ones for our country because my God says so."

Thank you for the great essay.

I have no intention of watching any of the broadcast debates for either party. So canned and so much a waste of time and money. Read and decide.

We have had enough theology forced upon us by the present administration that it has made me sincerely doubt the value of any religion.

People of faith are entitled to their belief in God. They should not be looked down upon and scoffed at when they run for public office. Of course what they believe will be seen in the way they will govern. It better or they are hypocrites. One thing that is never pointed out by the God haters in our society is that the atheist would also govern out of what they believe to be true and thus they would be forcing their unbelief and unrighteous ways on the rest of us who do believe. The God haters are also created in the image of God whether they like it or not and should stop whining about people of faith actually letting his or her affect the way they govern. They truly want to set up a double standard that allows for unbelievers and discounts and marginalizes believers. The radical left wing for the most part God hating media has been co-conspirators with the anti-god politicians.

Now for the pro-baby murdering, pro-homosexual, hypocrites who are claiming to believe in God all of a sudden because they see there is a huge voting block of people who believe in God. Their embracing of the homosexual and abortion agendas show them to be hypocrites because God's word clearly says these things are sin and a reproach to any people who embrace them. I think the democrats are starting to see that some of the African American voters are starting to vote republican and they think that throwing God's name all over the place will help them hold on to the African American vote. Well I have news for them; I think that the African Americans who believe in God's word will not be fooled by that kind of hypocrisy. I also think that the Democrats who are all of sudden believers and those Republicans who use God's name for political purposes realize that most all the Latinos that are coming to our country believe in God. They may fool some of the people but not those who truly know God and His word. They will give an account for their hypocrisy on judgment day so I suggest that they just be who they really are and stop wearing the mask of belief.

DJ...

Great point, one that is certain to be as readily ignored as Ms. Jacoby's post.

I find it sad that a majority of Americans vote, not in their own best interests, but as their 'faith' tells them. There is absolutely no place for reasoned debate today, only emotional, faith based, appeals.

As long as religious institutions enjoy property-tax exempt status, there is no separation between church and state. This tax inequality operates like a forced tithe, and I resent it. Let's level the playing field on property taxes, shall we, and I'll have more respect for religion.

Excellent essay. It brings to mind a question that has bothered me for years.

Why do so many Christians - Christian politicians especially - find it so hard to follow Jesus' simple instructions from Matthew 6:5-6, to wit:

'(5) And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. (6) But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.'

This a clear injunction against the kind of self-serving cross waving we see from Republicans and Democrats alike. Yet, even though their religion's founder spoke against it, Christian voters seem to eat it up. I just don't understand how the 64% of Americans who think their bible is word-for-word literally true can blithely ignore their own savior's condemnation of such behavior. Could someone please justify this blaring inconsistency?