All Comments (20)

The author doesn't want a rigidly religious President. Some commentators say they don't want a too flexible President. There are two issues here : (a) where you want a President's character to be on a flexibility / rigidity axis ('conviction based' vs 'pragmatic') in general, and (b) whether Religion is of a different nature than other matters to which this rigidity of thought might be applied. I believe in a way it is. Organised Religion (as opposed to personal spirituality) is a response to some of the deepest seated fear and identity issues in human nature. Someone who has built their identity around it may have a higher potential for violence and unreason if they feel threatened tnan someone, say, who has invested their identity issues in being a Yankees supporter.

In my opinion, I really don't care if the president is religious or not. Religion, though it looks good on paper for poloticians, is unnecessary. It doesn't impact their ability to think logically, rationally and morally, so why is it a big deal? Wether athiest or not, they have a sence of right and wrong, and religion is not going to skew that.

All that is really needed is someone who can do the job- and do it right. Place the trust we once had back into the presidency, back in the United States. We need a leader, not a religious nutcase.

Thank you, Cecil. Yours was a comment lacking the bitterness of someone with a religious chip on their shoulder. Some people claim to be and "try" to be so open-minded and free from "organized" or "religious" or "traditional" thought that they end up being quite narrow-minded- the narrowness they are accusing conservatives and religious people to have.

Thank you, Cecil. Yours was a comment lacking the bitterness of someone with a religious chip on their shoulder. Some people claim to be and "try" to be so open-minded and free from "organized" or "religious" or "traditional" thought that they end up being quite narrow-minded.

I agree with almost everything Gustave Niebuhr said in the opening comments for this thread, but I would answer the "religious test" question a little differently than he did.

As I consider the various candidates for the Presidency or for any public office I hope I am "testing" them about a number of things, including their religion. (Actually, "examining" is a better word than "testing".)

You see, I want public officials who think like me, who believe like me about a number of things that are really important to the future well being of America and the world. I want public officials who are smarter than I and who are better leaders than I, but who share most of my beliefs.

I like my beliefs. I think they are correct. At the same time, I am acutely aware that I don't have all the answers, that my knowledge is limited and tainted, and because I know that I don't always know, I am constantly searching for better answers, for more complete knowledge - and when my search pays off I am willing to change my mind - to modify my beliefs and the actions that flow from them.

I want public officials who are guided by a high moral standard (like mine), who believe in and are willing to defend our constitution. I want public officials whose goal for this nation (and the world) is better life for everyone (as I define it). I want public officials with strong beliefs, but who know that they don't yet know everything and, therefor, seek council from many sources.

I hope I am seriously examining (testing) candidates on these and perhaps other things, including perhaps, their religion. Beliefs dicatate our actions, so I want to know what the candidates believe and how firmly grounded are their beliefs. After all, our beliefs come from somewhere, and many people's beliefs are deeply rooted in religion. The religious test then is this: will their religious beliefs support or impede their efforts to defend and support the Constitution, their efforts to make life better for Americans and for all the people in the world.

Some religions and some religious beliefs would definitely impede, would threaten our freedoms and well being. If my testing discovers that a candidate has those beliefs, then he/she fails the test. Respectfully submitted.

Jeff;
Yeah...its not possible to be in error and,at the same time, to be aware that you are in error.
Once you are aware you're in error,you are no longer in error.
I guess that means its natural to think we're correct in what we believe,otherwise we'd believe something else. So naturally we will think our opinion is the right one.
Ideally we should always be prepared to change our opinion if there's reason to.But some have trouble with that.Maybe we all do.

The Spirit of God says today, he is about to bring forth his youth! I will allow them to see what the generations before them only dreamt of seeing! For as the war in Iraq begins to end you must know that there will come great celebrations in this nation for Christ!

For a fresh thing is going to take place in Pennsylvania there will be a fresh wave of My voice arising there in this state. Watch Me for I am about to bring a judgment in California, and it will come from My own winds, waves, and water and the mud that covers over this town, will be a sign that they have covered the mud's of their iniquities all over the nations, even to the heaven above. But they will say, we are swimming in our own dung!

God says this day, that you will not have to worry about that dead man Osama any longer, for his time is coming to an end for his days are few and short. I will place in your house called white a person that will surprise many, and they will say, he was called America's mayor, and America he is the man that I have appointed for you! Will you listen and obey Me for he is the one I have chosen for this nation.

I will give this nation a boost, and I will give them offers from other countries that they cannot refuse, for they will say to America, today we want to supply you with wealth. And we want to see you grow for what is right. And God said, today America if you don't just give Me lip service I will see that you and your nation will grow in wealth. For I am sending the floodgates of heaven's riches down for you so that you will know that where the righteous are there are many treasures! I will send them to you as I sent manna down from heaven. I will give you wealth from your winds and energy from your air and water.

http://jcudell.blogspot.com/

We do not have to have a dangerous certainty about how the world was created to have a strong sense of how the world was NOT created. Resisting non-empirical assertions that enter into public policy does not make one a radical.

I don't know WHY the acorn becomes an oak, but I know enough about the HOW to know that planting a chocolate-chip cookie in the ground won't do it. And when a frightening number of politicians seem to be appealing to the chocolate-chip cookie vote, and when they are intent on using that support to affirm their policies with messianic zeal, at what point does it make me a radical or idealist to object to that publicly?

Just because I don't know the answers to the mysteries of life shouldn't keep me from speaking out when those who DO claim that knowledge begin using their beliefs to shape my life.

A belief in God or gods...maybe I'll play god today... Let's see..what should I create? How can there possibly be a god,cuz all those believers like to do is rip people off or judge others for believing something different than they.Maybe I'll choose to be right and not believe in any god at all cuz those people keep messing up all the time and some do some really bad things, so God can't possibly exist ...but if I choose to not believe can I do better than they..and not judge them.Will I do better or just be another hypocrite? I won't call them names to degrade them, or attack them for their belief and I certainly will give them the same freedom I deserve. To believe whatever it is they choose to believe. I know that's gonna be hard to do,cause they all must be the same and most certainly unworthy of my respect or kindness. They're probably not as smart or capable in realizing what I figured out!But I had some help from some others, and they told me what I already believe, and there were things I never knew before but I know must be true.It,s too bad that some people are so intelligent and some just think they are...Well,I guess whether someone believes in God or gods or believes in something else or nothing at all beyond this,when we each take our last breath the real truth will be 'I was right' or 'I was wrong'.

A belief in God or gods...maybe I'll play god today... Let's see..what should I create? How can there possibly be a god,cuz all those believers like to do is rip people off or judge others for believing something different than they.Maybe I'll choose to be right and not believe in any god at all cuz those people keep messing up all the time and some do some really bad things, so God can't possibly exist ...but if I choose to not believe can I do better than they..and not judge them.Will I do better or just be another hypocrite? I won't call them names to degrade them, or attack them for their belief and I certainly will give them the same freedom I deserve. To believe whatever it is they choose to believe. I know that's gonna be hard to do,cause they all must be the same and most certainly unworthy of my respect or kindness. They're probably not as smart or capable in realizing what I figured out!But I had some help from some others, and they told me what I already believe, and there were things I never knew before but I know must be true.It,s too bad that some people are so intelligent and some just think they are...Well,I guess whether someone believes in God or gods or believes in something else or nothing at all beyond this,when we each take our last breath the real truth will be 'I was right' or 'I was wrong'.

Like it or not Bert you can't avoid as you said, "I exercise MY religious freedom by not participating nor donating money to any of these people."

Only "recognized" religions may own real estate in the USA. All us other so call home owners only rent from the government. The rent is called real estate or property taxes. Don't pay and they will sell your house, for taxes owed.

Actor Eddie Murphy's 3.5 million dollar mansion is now in foreclosure. His taxes are over $50,000 per year. The Hurst family donated Hurst Castle to the state because of real estate taxes. Only "official" churches own real estate. The "official" state "recognized" Crystal Cathedral worth more than both of the above added together pays no RE taxes. Somebody pays for government, schools, police, fire department, etc but not religion. Yet religion benefits.

Somebody's got to lift the heavy load, pay the cops that guard the churches and our homes. By letting "official" religions go tax free we are all de facto paying more taxes thus donating to religion, mandated by law, tax law. That's contrary to the first amendment.

So don't kid yourself, we have government mandated tithing. You too pay into the coffers of religion like it or not. Religion is good fer ya, makes Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, all those in the God's favor rich. "Many are called but few are chosen" to strike it rich, hit the mother load at the Crystal Cathedral where God smiles on Dr Schuller but no more sincerely than his banker.

I'm afraid that the author has set up a false equivalency here that gives religion an unduly favorable position.

Religion is fantasy based.

Irreligion is reality based and encompasses everything that is not fantasy based.

In other words, "irreligion" is an all-encompassing view of reality, while "religion" is a false/mythical/fantasy view of reality.

But the author gives a 50/50 breakdown for religion/irreligion. He would prefer a candidate with 50% fantasy + 50% reality balance over a candidate whose mind is based 100% in reality.

The religionists need to realize that their fantasy based beliefs have no standing when set against reality. They should keep their religion in a realm where it does have influence, ie: the confines of their churches, and leave reality (irreligion) to handle things in the real world.

Actually, the founding documents say it all when they say "Congress shall make no law...". Freedom OF religion also implies freedom FROM it, but, as we've seen in recent times, both in the USA and
in other countries, there's a lot of pressure to
get government involved in supporting religion,
and in some countries, church and state are
inextricably combined.

Myself, as a heathen, I exercise MY religious
freedom by not participating nor donating money
to any of these people, I think that they've got
a Serious Problem in the form of having large
numbers of people that more or less go along with
whatever's being broadcast by the 700 clubbers
et. al., and keep sending in more money without
really stopping to put any serious thought into
it. Jesus, Inc. is Big Business, and it has
its' mirrors around the world, and I just question
what it is that they're up to, especially when
some of em start running for office. History
teaches us that there've been times when wealthy
religious institutions squared off with each other
to have the Mother Of All Philosophical Battles,
and it kind of got ugly for all the people caught
in the middle of all of that. Talk about our War On Terror, harken back to the Inquisitions...
stupid people with lots of money, firearms, and
an ample supply of religious literature=recipe
for disaster, as far as I'm concerned...Martin
Luther gave em the what-for, though...and the same
remedy applies today, an educated public is the
best possible firewall against all that garbage
that you can possibly have...no more larceny and
politics in the name of God, please...

Gustav, does the Bible being a proved hoax threaten to put you out of business, make your institution irrelevant? Sorry about that.

A lot of good Americans died at places like Normandy and Iwo Jima so your institution could operate, not to pay for your institution to operate.

You'll still be free from criminal law but I can't make promises there won't be a rash of civil suits - emotionally disturbed by threats of hell, need big money to soothe jangled nerves.

The UUs and the ones without a God are just tax dodgers anyhow, social clubs. If your gang isn't already like them then it might be a good place to look. Pagans are always in vogue. They may have openings. The future is here.

I think perhaps Jeff has missed the point here.

What professor Niebuhr is warning against is the attitude of dogmatism--which arises when a person is so certain they are right that they are closed-minded and impervious to feedback from reality when it suggests they might be wrong in some way. This is a pretty fair description (in my opinion) of the mind-set of the Bush Administration, and it explains why they have done so much that has been so disasterous.

He is not saying one is expected to act out of a sense of being wrong. Rather, he is suggesting that one must act out of uncertainty, and be open to the possibility that one is wrong in any particular instance.

Professor Niebuhr's other point is that dogmatism can come in both religious and irreligious forms.

That, I think, is the point here.

Congratulations professor. You have managed to rule out most all possible candidates for public office that anyone with a brain would consider. "Problem is, they know deep down in their guts that they are absolutely right and right all the time, too." So what we need to lead us is one who's undecided, neither fish nor foul but somewhere in between and likely to stay that way.

If a candidate doesn't feel he/she is right then why should I believe they will do the right thing once they are elected? That's paramount to a candidate saying something like, "I might win." Of course Bush's number one campaign slogan was "I wanna be yo president" and he won. But then look who voted for him.

It's as simple as upholding the constitution. Is a religious right candidate in favor of upholding the constitution? So far the answer has been absolutely no while those who say religion is the great enemy of democracy are in favor of upholding and defending the constitution. The religion peddlers want to put seculars out of business, force everyone to adopt their standards while seculars only want religion operators treated like fortune tellers, palm readers, astrologers and the like. Which they are, thank God.

Anyone can be selected from among seculars while only those approved by the religion operators are acceptable to them. Religion divides people while the opposite unites. Madison, all the founders were faced with that problem, how to create a democracy in the face of religion. So far the issue has only been "danced around." The Bible being a proved hoax spells the final solution to the religion problem. No constitutional amendment required. The first only need be enforced.

The government, no matter must not do anything that tends to establish religion. Failing to tax church property violates the first amendment. Allowing tax deductions for "gifts to God's representatives" is a violation of the first amendment. The government recognizing organizations to be religions is a violation of the first amendment. All those things and more, overt gifts of tax money to ministries in any form violates the first amendment. They establish religion, makes religion official and thus violates the first amendment.

Thank God the Bible is a proved hoax.

In case you don't know, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul proves all worship is Devil worship and no one has been able to refute that interpretation of sacred scriptures. It stands unchallenged. So we're lucky the Bible is a proved hoax, the curse of religion is lifted.

The time is now for our elected and appointed government officials to live up to their oath of office, "I solemnly swear to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States of America..."

"Problem is, they know deep down in their guts that they are absolutely right and right all the time, too. And for that terribly dangerous reason, I don't want their fingers anywhere near the button--or on any other trigger, for that matter."

I really dont understand that admonishment people so frequently make about a person thinking they are right or always right. There is a difference between a person who thinks he is right but then later on realizes he was once wrong and a person who thinks he is right but never in hindsight has thought he was wrong.

It simply doesnt make any sense for people not to think they are right. Do you think you are wrong Niehbur? If so, what do you think you are wrong about? And if you in fact do think you are wrong, why do you continue to believe it regardless? Is it even possible for someone to believe something and think they are wrong about it at the same time? You obviously, think you are right about Iraq and about children with health care. Have you ever considered that you may be wrong? And after that consideration, whatever that may entail, a sense of doubt maybe, have you changed your mind? Well obviously not, since you probably still think you are right about Iraq.

I think a more accurate way of saying what you just said that you want a candidate that does not believe their religious beliefs are significant, nor do you want a candidate that believes the religious beliefs of others are significant, and rather, you want a candidate that is most concerned about the topics that you are concerned about, particularly children's health care and the iraq war. And of course, you want this candidate to know very passionately how important these subjects are, otherwise he would be in doubt and not very effective at finding solutions; and it would follow that you want this candidate to know that entering into religious territory whether for or against would distract him from the goals of child health care and the iraq war.

But really, it has nothing to do with how right the candidate thinks they are, as long as what they believe is right is the same as what you believe.

Feeling you are right all the time isnt dangerous unless what you feel right about somehow endagers people. If you feel you are right always about where you parked your car, I can hardly see how it is dangerous. If you feel you are right always about, I dunno, how the only way to stop immigration is to invade other countries, then you might be dangerous. But it is not the fact that you feel you are right, it is what you feel right about. But, even that being the case, why wouldnt you act on what you feel is right? Who acts on what they feel is wrong? That seems absurd.

"Problem is, they know deep down in their guts that they are absolutely right and right all the time, too. And for that terribly dangerous reason, I don't want their fingers anywhere near the button--or on any other trigger, for that matter."

I really dont understand that admonishment people so frequently make about a person thinking they are right or always right. There is a difference between a person who thinks he is right but then later on realizes he was once wrong and a person who thinks he is right but never in hindsight has thought he was wrong.

It simply doesnt make any sense for people not to think they are right. Do you think you are wrong Niehbur? If so, what do you think you are wrong about? And if you in fact do think you are wrong, why do you continue to believe it regardless? Is it even possible for someone to believe something and think they are wrong about it at the same time? You obviously, think you are right about Iraq and about children with health care. Have you ever considered that you may be wrong? And after that consideration, whatever that may entail, a sense of doubt maybe, have you changed your mind? Well obviously not, since you probably still think you are right about Iraq.

I think a more accurate way of saying what you just said that you want a candidate that does not believe their religious beliefs are significant, nor do you want a candidate that believes the religious beliefs of others are significant, and rather, you want a candidate that is most concerned about the topics that you are concerned about, particularly children's health care and the iraq war. And of course, you want this candidate to know very passionately how important these subjects are, otherwise he would be in doubt and not very effective at finding solutions; and it would follow that you want this candidate to know that entering into religious territory whether for or against would distract him from the goals of child health care and the iraq war.

But really, it has nothing to do with how right the candidate thinks they are, as long as what they believe is right is the same as what you believe.

Feeling you are right all the time isnt dangerous unless what you feel right about somehow endagers people. If you feel you are right always about where you parked your car, I can hardly see how it is dangerous. If you feel you are right always about, I dunno, how the only way to stop immigration is to invade other countries, then you might be dangerous. But it is not the fact that you feel you are right, it is what you feel right about. But, even that being the case, why wouldnt you act on what you feel is right? Who acts on what they feel is wrong? That seems absurd.

Mr. R. Gustav Niebuhr

Thank you. Neither do I "want anyone becoming president for whom religion or irreligion is the only thing that matters." This applies for anyone aspiring to be heads of state or heads of government in any country in the world. Those that have elections at least.

And yes, I'm with you too on this too - "Spare, me the idealists". I would like to be spared "the naive ones" too.

Perhaps we all should give candidates not the religious test on whether they believe in God, or how many times they prayed, or if they did, but religous tests on what they know on other faiths.

Perhaps we should give candidates tests on the Constitution, the history of their country, and the history of the world too.

Perhaps we should also give candidates tests on the economy - simple questions on what is the GDP and GNP of the US, the US growth rate in the last quarter, and the state the world economy in general.

Anyone who aspires to be the President of the US should be given all these tests at least and more by the media, including tests on their knowledge on the enviroment, and whether the candidates knows what is the Kyoto Protocols etc.

Obviously, these may be necessary if only because anyone who is the President of the US speaks like or as if, and is projected, or hyped or spinned by the US media as not only the leader of the US, but also of the free world, or the west depending on what is the issue.

Can be quite troubling for the free world or the rest of the world to see a US Presidential candidate or President not knowing his own country's history; not understanding, respecting and upholding his own country's Constitution; not grasping what it means for pluralistic America as a secular state of equal opportunity for all and other related American Ideals and American Dream.

Not too much for a foreigner to hope for to avoid further global economic, political and security blunders made by the self-designated or accorded leaders of the free world/the west since WWII. It has been very expensive in human and material costs. Perhaps the US can afford it as long as foreigners are paying the price for the blunders as its "learning experience" in global diplomacy and multilateralism.

Does anyone overseas - Hindus, Buddhists, Cuban communists, capitalist-authoritarian Chinese, Muslims etc, - really care for the Christianity or otherwise of the US President? What the American president actually do or is not doing for world "peace, security, development and prosperity" is more important.

Thank you and best regards
J

Wow, very nicely stated.