Keep Religion Out of Government

Ms Jacoby: The lack of knowledge of the God of all creation is why this nation will soon be destroyed. The Iranian leader knows, should he strike Israel the USA would strike Iran the next day; therefore he will strike most likely Boston, Philly and S.CA maybe a 1000 time worse then 9/11 thinking that this will force us to back away from protecting Israel. Many here will call for a nuclear response and for this reason the 3rd major attack here will be soon after and there will be no more America. Once God has decreed the destruction of a nation there is nothing that will stop what He has put in motion; and you would know this if you studied the Bible.

Many in today’s society say there is too much region; many say there is great faith; but faith in what? Sadly it is faith in themselves, or their spouse, or in their job, or maybe it is in someone who may be able to help them succeed in this life. There is only one true faith and that is in the One True God of all creation.
The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated that he would like to wipe Israel off the map. Many would say that he is a crazy man, but I think you would have to agree that he must surly be somewhat smart… he is a leader of a nation. President Ahmadinejad knows that should he strike Israel like this America would most certainly take him out the very next day: so I believe he will sponsor the next terrorist attack on America first and in his thinking if he can hit America hard enough he thinks America will back off from protecting Israel, but this America must not do. Those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who cures Israel will be cursed.
In prayer one night I cried out to God that to accomplish this second major terrorist attack here upon America he will have to use a chemical, or a biological, or a dirty nuke, or a suitcase nuclear bomb, or maybe even a combination of these; thereby killing thousands, maybe tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands in each area impacted. The areas I believe which will most likely to be hit will be Southern California and two areas on the upper East Coast, possibly the Philadelphia and Boston areas. The death toll will be horrendous and many in America will call upon the President for a immediate retaliation
Accordingly to the Bible God has never failed to give warnings before He allowed or brought a destruction upon a people or nation. In April 1994 I was led to the prophecies revealed to Pastor Dumitru Duduman (handofhelp.com) and again in 2000 to the prophecy revealed to a pastor in LaGrange Christian Assembly in LaGrange, IL
For almost two thousand years man has anticipated the second coming of Christ, this could not have happened until the Israelites had re-gathered and this is believe to have been on May 14, 1948 when Israel became a soverent nation.
Jesus came to this world not to save the world, but to save man from the destruction of the world; He came to testify to the truth of what is written in the Old Testament and to fulfill the prophesies spoken of His coming to save man from his sins and the eternal separation from God.
America needs to turn back to God for guidance.

I just want to say one thing. Religion itself is not poisonous, its the people who claim to be religious, Religion is a idea, a group of thought, of morals, of beliefs grouped into 1 thing, religion is neutral, it depends on how people use it. So religion itself is not poisonious, its the people who are. Elect better people, and we wouldn't be in this situation

I just want to say one thing. Religion itself is not poisonous, its the people who claim to be religious, Religion is a idea, a group of thought, of morals, of beliefs grouped into 1 thing, religion is neutral, it depends on how people use it. So religion itself is not poisonious, its the people who are. Elect better people, and we wouldn't be in this situation

Generally all the aging people feel depression. Make them aware about the beautiful nature. Engage them in new skills with smaller children. WBR LeoP

jaoqcfmwz aeolprnuh ihwtk cfxbdh gxhuvmyj hnzfm zmga http://www.ahiuzt.qtop.com

fjrylzum lubwpryem ibhgejqvo bxonyitum wpbvqu wslrep bofndsrex

I thank God for Your protective hand that has shielded my nation. Thank You Lord for hearing the prayers and requests of Your people on behalf of this nation.God and God along can give us divine protection for Your people of this nation, according to John 16:23. (We're) asking You, Lord God, to ensure the safety of Your people and to keep (us) and our nation from harm's way and provide protection from plans of destruction that have been plotted against us. I pray that you would stop any strategies of destruction that would try to come against Your people and this nation. To leave god out is like turning it over to the devil. wouldn't it be a grate nation if we could leave the devil out.

Victoria, Mike K. had an excellent reply to your question about beliefs versus actions. I'll answer your other points:

"Are you saying that Joshua, the witch hunters and jihadists don't accept hell for unbelievers?"

I was saying that they believed in death for unbelievers.

"The Qur'an is filled with practical guidances for people to live in peace together- and many places where it elaborates on the value of human worth."

And I recognize that. Sam Harris has made the point that those practical guidelines shouldn't have to involve religion at all, at least any teachings about deity or the afterlife.

And this cannot be emphasized enough - any religious doctrine that calls for killing someone, such as punishment for adultery, is incompatible with the idea of human worth.

"while not taking into account the degradation of the self worth of the prostitute herself- another value of life issue you seem to think is not addressed by some religions-"

You have a valid point about the degradation of the self. I suggest that such degradation is not the government's responsibility, since government should have only a very limited power over people's personal lives. Plus, when someone is bent on self-harm, others can do almost nothign to stop the person, even a hypothetical all-powerful government.

"you seem to fail to take into account the fact that (this doctrine anyway) calls for a complete social system that gives people the respect necessary to control their own selves and encourage each other without the necessity of government intervention because the people are moderating their own actions-"

The merits of such a social system are not the issue. The issue is the imposition of such a system through the "Because God said so" concept of doctrine, or imposition through wars of religious conquest. Again, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of linking such a social system to doctrines about deity or the afterlife or the purpose of life. Such a system is inherently hostile to the idea of people choosing their own beliefs about those matters. I'm suggesting that religious belief should be a matter for the individual, not for society.

Victoria, you stated "how is it possible to abhor(strong word) a doctrine- but "respect" the practictioners of the doctrine you abhor?

isnt that the strongest definition of hypocrisy?"

It's not hypocricy at all, it's tolerance. It is the act of disagreeing with a practice while acknowledging the right of one to practice it.

Now I'm not talking about destructive and illegal social concerns such as murder. Such things are excluded as there is no "right" to engage in such.

I can strongly disagree with organized religion while strongly believing in the right of people to practice it (as long as I and our government are free from it).

How can you abhor a doctrine- and respect its adherents?

i read the statement above and wasnt sure what you were saying- are you saying that Joshua, the witch hunters and jihadists dont accept hell for unbelievers?

and what difference does that make?

The Qur'an is filled with practical guidances for people to live in peace together- and many places where it elaborates on the value of human worth-

it is really alot more than a desription of the afterlife-

how is it possible to abhor(strong word) a doctrine- but "respect" the practictioners of the doctrine you abhor?

isnt that the strongest definition of hypocrisy?

i am repulsed by the fact that you burn your wives alive when their husband dies- but i will sit here and respect you while you do it-

this makes no sense-
criticism of a doctrine DOES constitute criticism of its aherents-

its saying what your belief system compels you to do- while your actions are abhorrent to me- you yourself are worthy of my respect-

how do you separate people from their actions?

possibly you are just not aware of a great many of the tenets of social interaction that is described in the Qur'an- for instance you cite prostitution but seem to think it would be solved by legalization- while not taking into account the degradation of the self worth of the prostitute herself- another value of life issue you seem to think is not addressed by some religions-

temperance is another tenet of islam- there is no alcohol drinking- and there have not risen any organized crime networks in response to that-

you seem to fail to take into account the fact that (this doctrine anyway) calls for a complete social system that gives people the respect necessary to control their own selves and encourage each other without the necessity of government intervention because the people are moderating their own actions-

Islamic doctrine is a much more comprehensive system taking into account the value of humans- their interaction and practical applicaions of those interactions-

behavior is imposed responsibly from within- as it really has no value if imposed from without.

"Tonio and Mike K have expropriated universal religious understanding (that all humans are equally of value, that hate only generates hatred) and applied it to secular beliefs. Separating the two is invalid and dishonest..."

There is no such thing as "universal religious understanding" when it comes to the concepts of human value and hatred generating hatred. Plenty of religious doctrines promise death or hell for unbelievers. Joshua and his followers who committed genocide at Jericho didn't accept those concepts. Neither did the witch-hunters in medieval Europe or in colonial Salem. Neither do the Muslim jihadists.

In my view, separating those concepts from religious doctrine is an intellectual necessity. Why? Because otherwise, one would conclude that one has to believe in a certain doctrine in order to believe in human value or to turn away from hatred. In other words, those concepts would give the doctrines a legitimacy that they do not have nor deserve. Doctrine has nothing to do with human worth or love. Doctrine is simply about requiring people to believe certain things about the supernatural or the afterlife.

"Just as 'religious' monarchs carefully rationalised their elitism and born-to-rule dictatorships, so irreligious people have carefully rationalised discrimination against religious people."

Criticism of any particular religious doctrine, or of the concept of doctrine in general, does not constitute criticism of people who believe in those doctrines. One can abhor a doctrine while respecting its adherents.

Feargal,

I don't desire that any mechanism be put in place that would exclude candidates of any particular or general religious views from holding or seeking public office. I may, however, vote for or against candidates with certain views.

It's unclear if you were attempting to imply that I rationalize discrimination against religious people, but I do not. Nor do I wish that religion be eliminated. I simply want it to exist outside of our government.

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

Tonio and Mike K have expropriated universal religious understanding (that all humans are equally of value, that hate only generates hatred) and applied it to secular beliefs. Separating the two is invalid and dishonest; just as 'religious' monarchs carefully rationalised their elitism and born-to-rule dictatorships, so irreligious people have carefully rationalised discrimination against religious people.

Guys - would you seek to exclude any candidate for some particular religious viewpoint? Would you exclude Barak Obama from office based on his religious views, or seek to hold him to his religio-philosophical commitments?

No one has the right to demand I drop my religious views; in the same way I have no right to impose them on others. By the way, Ms Jacoby has misrepresented and misused Jim Wallis actual position; nothing new there in the world of media attack dogs.

The 1st Amendment is a brilliantly simple sentence, yet contains two distinct thoughts. Unfortunately, people like our President only read the second half and ignore the first, which creates the context.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

What the Religious Right fails to grasp is that the first part of this sentence within the 1st Amendment clearly lays out a "wall of separation" that prevents our government from creating laws that favor a particular religious viewpoint. While a politician's religious convictions (or a secular person's convictions, for that matter) will no doubt play a role in their approach to policy, it's pretty clear that a religious politician is out of line when pressing for a specific law that reflects and promotes a belief consistent with his/her faith, but may violate another faith, or does not represent a "universal value."

Yes, I know that's a very vague term and we can split hairs about it all day, but the fact of the matter is that there are some broad yet inclusive "universal values" that most of us can agree upon. The fact that politicians of different belief systems will argue and debate which angle is best for the common good is what makes our legislative system function. It may seem creaky and broken to us sometimes, but it's actually still one of the fairest legal systems in the entire world, warts and all.

I'm a Christian of deep faith, yet I support the separation of church and state as layed out in the 1st Amendment. This very amendment that prevents Americans from ever being subjected to, say, Sharia law, also protects Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and non-believers from ever being subject to specifically-Christian laws. It's a healthy thing we have. This certainly doesn't mean I don't want people of faith holding office, it's just that I want them to first respect the laws of this country and then work to find the best solutions that promote the common good, something that takes some sacrifice from all sides and requires people of faith to realize that they aren't writing laws for their religion, they're writing them for a multi-cultural and pluralistic society.

I appreciate the fact that this country allows me to practice my faith without government interference. Conversely, I would expect political people of faith to do their best to follow their hearts to the best of their abilities, while channeling their convictions to do what's best for our common good.

As a last thought, it should be noted that Christ was pretty down on the idea of public peity, a fact that appears lost on a lot of Christians who spend time in the public eye. They should read Matthew 6:5-6.

"And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place."

Christians were never exhorted to wield power over anyone, but to humbly build a kingdom within their hearts while treating others as they wish to be treated. What went wrong?

Tonio, I agree.

Using logic, reason, demonstrable evidence and a little empathy can get anyone safely out of a moral dilemma. Not only does religion not have a monopoly on morality, it's unnecessary for the formulation and application of it.

"Religion says love thy neighbor and lack of religion says survival of the fittest."

I disagree. Regarding religion, see the second sentence of my previous post. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on the concept of "love thy neighbor," and one doesn't have to be religious to have that love.

I believe there is an ethical principle about not causing harm to others, and this transcends all religion. Religious dogma seems based in the idea of obedience to some supernatural authority, as opposed to any ethical principle or even the goal of preserving public order to keep civilization stable. To use the Ten Commandments as an example, the first four explicitly require obedience to God, which to me has zero relevance for how a person should interact with others.

And I see nothing about the lack of religion that would automatically lead to "survival of the fittest."

BILL L,

I agree with you completely. Secular humanism has in roots in Christian enlightenment.Religious edicts form the basis of secular laws.

And yes, we do need religion to counter our leaders and political opportunists who exploited and abused religion for their own ends.

And communist governments never succeeded in Muslim societies. There is a Sura in the Al-Qur'an that calls for Muslims to fight oppression, tyranny and corruption whenever they find them.

Say what one like about the Afghan Mujahideen and the Taliban, but they are the ones who bled the Soviet Union to demise as a state in their Jihad against the Soviets. With the support of the CIA of course in weapons, and taken credit by Reagan.

What can I say. Islamic religious convictions and Lesser Jihad is useful when it suits some for their own ends.

Tonio, you are making steps towards my point. I don't ever want a theocracy, even if its according to my theology. However it was religions, whatever the stripe, that put into place civilized laws. Both tribal indians and ancient city states like Babylon or Egypt made laws giving people rights according to their religious beliefs. For instance look at the Magna Carta. Communist goverments succeded in eliminating any religious influence, but I don't remember anyone risking their lives climbing over the wall into East Germany or boat lifts into Cuba.
We need religious influence to keep the goverment honest for all citizens within reason. Religion sats love thy neighbor and lack of religion says survival of the fittest.

And surely everyone knows that religion is always "exploited" by monarchies and secular governments in democratic societies. Only the communists seek to persecute and/or kill the religiously-inclined.

And yet religious faith outlast many communist regimes, save China, Cuba and Vietnam. And yet, in those countries, people are prcticing their faiths, openly or covertly.

"The State can never be totally free from involvement of religion. Whether you legalize or ban abortion, homosexual unions, immoral activities {prostitution, drug usage} it will involve a religious position."

In my view, "religious positions" exist because religious doctrines choose to deem certain actions as immoral, whether or not those actions cause harm to others.

Some laws will overlap with doctrines' definition of morality while others will not. But that should not be government's concern, as long as laws are based on the guiding of compelling government interest to protect the general welfare.

Prostitution is a good example. This is a valid concern for government not because of any religion's moral teachings, but because prostitution involves the exploitation of women and the spread of disease. Some countries handle these issues by making prostitution legal but regulated.

While adultery is unquestionably wrong, the old laws against were an unacceptable intrusion by government into people's personal lives. I'm almost certain that the only reason those laws even existed is because someone felt it was necessarily to legislate one religion's teachings about morality.

"In a free country all these religious people have a right to influence the government as best they can."

Of course they have that right. That doesn't mean that such influence is always benign. Prohibition was largely due to the influence of church-affiliated temperance groups. Even though the measure had the best of intentions, it helped created an organized crime problem that is still with us today.

Bill L:

"Whether you legalize or ban abortion, homosexual unions, immoral activities {prostitution, drug usage} it will involve a religious position. In a free country all these religious people have a right to influence the goverment as best they can."

While those issues can have religious implications for some people, the government should not base public policy on those religious positions. Those issues should be viewed without regard to religion, otherwise we risk becoming a theocracy. Public policy should be based on any one religious view, or religious views in general.

Hewitt, Eirope was not devastated by religious wars! WW1 and WW2 were not wars of religion but nationalism. If you're talking about the muslim invasions of Europe and the responding Crusades, those didn't devastate, but united Europe.
I think you intentionally misrepresent what I say! I pray we never have a civil war or any war of extermination. I would never force my religion on anyone, or that would be a false religion. People must have a total freedom to choose to accept or deny religion.
The State can never be totally free from involvement of religion. Whether you legalize or ban abortion, homosexual unions, immoral activities {prostitution, drug usage} it will involve a religious position. In a free country all these religious people have a right to influence the goverment as best they can.

Bob, You helped me understand something! Secularism is a self-propagating system of false reasoning and must be put down! Secular people can make sense, but only when they speak as religious people.
Amazing how ideas can sound scary when you flip the coin.

Tonio:

You said, ""Under" implies either belief or obedience or under the deity's authority. I would similarly oppose changing the phrase to "under no god" or "under" any other deity."

I would oppose the same thing. A truly neutral position would include having no religious references in official pledges, on currency or in governmental buildings.

Getting rid of the ridiculous "National Day of Prayer" should be towards the top of the to-do list as well. Where's my "National Day of No Prayer" or "National Day of Godlessness and Godesslessness"??

"Those in public office have the ability to discuss their religious convictions. A line needs to be drawn, however, when proposed legislation is based solely or largely on those religious convictions. When the line is crossed, we risk becoming a theocracy."

I agree. I've long argued that "under God" has no place in the Pledge of Allegiance, whose wording is set by Congress. Patriotism should have nothing to do with religious belief, no matter what the nature of that belief. "Under" implies either belief or obedience or under the deity's authority. I would similarly oppose changing the phrase to "under no god" or "under" any other deity. Personally, I am not "under" anyone else's deity.

In order to create and maintain a free society, the government must remain neutral in matters concerning religion. It must not disuade nor promote either specific religions or religion in general.

Those how are religious should be free to practice their particular beliefs to the extent that they do not impose on the freedoms of those of us who are not.

"Freedom of religion" cannot be separated from "freedom from religion".

Those in public office have the ability to discuss their religious convictions. A line needs to be drawn, however, when proposed legislation is based solely or largely on those religious convictions. When the line is crossed, we risk becoming a theocracy.

Prime Minister Tony Bliar's former senior adviser Alastair Campbell, a man for whom I have little regard, did the nation proud when he famously interrupted- or should I say intervened- to stop the Prime Minister answering a question about religion, bluntly telling the journalist from Vanity Fair: "I'm sorry, we don't do God"

Further testimony to Britain's rigid secularism came according to the Times, when Blair was advised against closing his address to the nation at the start of the Iraq misadventure with the line "God bless you".

How much better our Yankee cousins across the Atlantic would fare if they had a man like Campbell in public office.

Rocktid -

Since prayer has been taken from the public schools, the stock market has risen dramatically, cancer deaths are down and HDTV has been invented.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

ROCKTID: "Since the writer mentions JFK, it has been since prayer was taken out of public schools and the banning of God from the public forum that we have had the Columbines, racial tension, sexual promiscuity on the rise, etc."

Good point. Let's all gather in the nearest farmyard, light up our cross, and ride out tonight so the darkies don't get stirred up by those trouble-making Jews.

"it has been since prayer was taken out of public schools and the banning of God from the public forum that we have had the Columbines, racial tension, sexual promiscuity on the rise, etc."

Rockitd, I think it's ridiculous that to suggest that forcing students to pray will magically wipe away school violence. I understand why many people feel that way--it's part of human nature to long for easy, comfortable explanations to horrific events such as Columbine. I've been guilty of that, too. But I believe that there are no easy, comfortable explanations for anything.

And racial tension - blacks had been living under the Jim Crow for almost a century . Such a system of legalized discrimination cannot last forever, and in fact Jim Crow was starting to crumble years before the school prayer decision.

one thing i might suggest is that if one has an identifiable religious system - when they do not act i accordance with it- they can easily be identified as acting hypocritically-

if one doesnt have a codified ethic system-(that is measurable publicly) we would all probably measure their sincerity of purpose through our OWN religious (or moral) yardsticks whatever they may be-

it might make some people uncomfortable as they dont really have any way to gauge a persons moral compass- (from their own perception)

atheists may consider this a tenable insecurity that might preclude theists from knowing where they (hypothetical atheist candidates) stand or will stand on issues of importance-

while it is easy to mock or invalidate in ones mind the intelligence of the religious- is is not wise politics and could alienate the people who would have the power to vote one into any office.
(as the majority of americans are identified statistically as theists)

as a muslim- i find myself constantly defining my beliefs to the majority of non-muslims that simply are misinformed about what islam actually is-

it requires a great deal of patience and repeating myself and showing RESPECT for those who are open minded enough to learn-

atheists must also show this common respect in their dealings with theists-
and realize that many people simply dont know what atheists believe and hence their fear or hesitancy-

it is work- but if one lives in a society where one is in the minority- sometimes the extra effort is necessary.
salaams

i think ms. jacoby keeps making the mistake of lumping all christians together into one scary bogeyman-
while she quotes john kennedy heres another quote- it is on another panelists-

• John Kennedy: “I believe in an America where religious intolerance may some day end.”

as religious people should rightly be expected to be respectful of non-theists or any other view-(and many of us really are)
it should be expected from everyone-

it shows you dont have to be religious to be intolerant.

also a true christian is commanded intheir own bible to render unto caesar what is caesar- and unto god what is gods-

their is an inherent separation of church and state expressed there

muslims are commanded to obey the secualr lwas of whatever country they are living in also-

the major problem isnt religious views-
it is hypocrisy

and that can come from any quarter

Brambleton.

O yeah, I've got you now. If you they don't like it here go somewhere else huh, which explains a country not founded on freedom but on slavery. Speak out and be persecuted or shut up and do as you're told. I'm glad I'm nowhere near your kind...
It explains everything in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

It is called FASCISM

Bgone
We do need tax relief and a good way to start would be doing away with the Federal Reserve.Here is a link for you.
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/money/fedup.htm
Also Arron Russo made an interesting documentary on the subject you may or may not have seen called "America freedom to facisim" This should be mandatory viewing for anyone not being paid off this cartel of Bankers we call the Federal Resevre.

canyon shearer
i appreciate your fine mentation and observation,people want to put god in the closet,but for out door they use their humanism or secularism or any other ism,we all in the square lock of humanism,and we certainly need our creator all the time,especialy in the top and in the heart of the governement.how ever ,canyon you adding another- chasm-to the chasm that susan jacoby already put,she invite to humanism ,while you invite to humanism also,by inviting to jesus christ son of marry where both used to eat food.doesnot this universe has creator?who created abraham,moses,jesus,mohamed? who created the constitutionests,the democrates,the republicans,all human kind.we need to go back to our creator.if not we will remain humanism.

Tom - God is everywhere but nowhere to be found. Not a problem. God has millions of representatives to collect His holy taxes known as tithes. Take heart. You too are paying tithes by their tax exemptions that inrcreases your tax burden. We need tax relief don't you think?

God is the omni presence that premeates everything.
Religion is a brainwash, a fearbased mind control that is very effective.Look at how easily George Bush was able to get people of faith to follow him on his murderouse campaign.(Thou shall not kill, unless the Carlye corporation can earn interest on it)
I think we can teach morality without brainwashing. But if you seek to be led fine, just don't tell me Im going to burn in hell and please don't pray for me. I am not godless, I am of god.

Thank you, Susan Jacoby. An excellent article.

Godma also wrote quite well, and has rendered me unneccessary in this discussion. Thanks!

Faith,

Actually, you are not getting me right. But I wonder why someone with so much hostility for the country they live in, continues to live there? It's a shame that the gutless wonders who threatened to leave this country during the last election never followed through on their promise.

It looks like the state needs religion to blame for its moral inadequacy...

Susan --

Count me as part of the "you can't leave your faith at the door" crowd. What you are assuming is that one's theology could not possibly be "totalizing" -- that one's faith, one's ultimate concern, could not actually require one to behave in particular ways in the public sphere. Your assumption is false.

Now, there was a decent argument made above that even if a public official doesn't leave his religion at the door, he must come up with universal rather than faith-specific justifications for his positions. Why? If our religion is in fact what drives a particular belief, doesn't our nation's commitment to religious freedom allow us to declare our motivation? Must we pretend to have a different motivation than we do in order to pass constitutional muster?

I think you have it exactly backwards: religious freedom means we get to express our religion pretty much as we choose. The democratic process sorts out winners and losers, but the government itself may not favor one religious establishment over another. All faiths may vie for influence in the publice square.

It's rather strange when religious freedom is interpreted to mean religious people can't express their religious motivations.

Miggs

Thank you Brambleton

My heart bleeds for the deed you and Mr. Bush share, but I have also forgotten where Canada is.

If I am getting it right, you can save two families therefore it's ok to destroy one in return? Well, I have many a reminder to the call, but I'll give one of my own; if you blow your trumpet in high places and yet there is no tune of love in the following, then you are better sunk to the deepest ocean.

It is people like Susan Jacoby who are provoking religious wars by blaming Christians for the mess the US have made.

Shame!

I agree with the author and after reading the commentary, I would go further and assert that religion must be attacked as a self-propagating system of 'false reasoning' in American society.

Religious people can make sense, but only when they are not functioning as religious people. We have to recognize this dysfunction whenever it rears its warped head.

Thank you.

Bill L and others making the same argument:

You claim that your religious beliefs are what guide you and so there should be no separation between church and state. Defining non-religion as religion, for you, the only issue is who has the power to establish their religion.

This is a thought as common as it is profoundly unamerican. Separation of church and state, with the state being neutral on religion, is at the core of what makes America, America. You deny even the posibility of such separation. Have you never encountered principled neutrality?

Of course one's political views may be motitivated by religion, but, when arguing for a position in the public sphere, only a secular justification is a legitimate argument. To instead argue my religion over your religion rules out the possibility of discussion, negotiation, and democracy. It guarantees rancor and ultimately the kind of religious wars that devastated Europe. Our founders wisely sought to avoid that result. We are still here as a nation because of their efforts.

Do you really crave a war of extermination of all those who will not be converted to the same faith as yours? If the only issue is who has the power to establish their religion, then war is what you will have, and we will all be dead. All praise to the God of peace.

There is no such thing as seperation of church and state, except for that the government should never impose its will on the church nor sanction a state-run church as in Communist countries. Faith has always been central to the development of this country and distinguishes it from all others.

The founders of this country, whether Christian or not, knew that the basis of morality and democracy came from Holy Scripture. Since the writer mentions JFK, it has been since prayer was taken out of public schools and the banning of God from the public forum that we have had the Columbines, racial tension, sexual promiscuity on the rise, etc.

While I believe no one should use God as a ticket for votes, it is impossible to keep Him out of our daily decisions.

Susan Jacoby, PLEASE DO NOT BLAME THE POSTITIVE ISMS. Capitalism, Nationalism, Socialism, Patriotism, Ethno-Centrism they are all openings for the politics of division. Divide and Conquer Ms. Jacoby. God Unites and therein one can find true Power if the Word is also true. Does any of this make sense? All one has to do is reference the Commandments whether they be 10, 3, or 2 for a quick fact check. I agree that Religion should not be forced upon the public, but I do not see any danger in someone expressing their believes if they choose to do so individually....not as a member of a group. That power of singular message can too easily be subverted, perverted and mis-used. Hitler was Christian so was Mother Theresa. One has only to look at the goals to know whether it is God or god speaking to them.
The Founders saw the problem and mandated separation of Church and State. I do not think the human race has progressed beyond that sanction. If anything, recent events would indicate clearly that we are still very susceptible to the appeals of quick fix, simple-minded, hate-based solutions offered by FASCIST.
Do not blame religion Maam I beseech this of you. Organized Religion would be so much stronger with you as a friend. At least please do not be an enemy. God Bless you and Keep you always in Light and Beauty and Strength and Peace and Understanding....and Joy. amen. So There!

FIRST OF ALL TO MS QUINN "Sally Quinn: I didn't actually "become" an atheist. It was just that from the age of six or so I found it difficult to believe in God. As I said in my posting about women and religon in"On Faith" this week, I couldn't realte to a male God and particularly to a God who would allow his son to be crucified. I have since decided I am not an atheist, for one reason because I don't want to define myself negatively, as my co-moderator Jon Meacham pointed out to me. I also said that belieiving in God is not a choice. You can't just tell someone to believe inGod andhave it happen. I am studying the Bible as I go along in my quest to find answers. I certainly amnot an expert. But I'm sure if you talked to Muslims and Hindus they would not necessarity "Know" there was a God by reading the Bible." YOU JUST MADE MY DAY. GOD BLESS YOU

I don't remember Canada being included in the Axis of Evil. How much oil does North Korea export to us again?

Brambleton, did you say Canada wouldn't be missed if it fell into the ocean? Since Canada is now known to have more than 11 times the amount of oil as all OPEC the administration has been working on plans to invade, so I understand. Just as soon as the other evil empires are taken care of, (run out of oil). If Iraq or Iran fell into the ocean we would want to know but not as badly as if Canad did.

Faith:

Spare me the "US is the evil empire" speech, ok? I think I get enough of that already from the George Clooney's and Michael Moore's of the world. If you want to live in a country that has absolutely no impact on the world, that wouldn't be missed if it fell into the ocean, then I suggest you move north to Canada.

There is ONE nation on this planet that EVERYONE turns to when they need help. It's the U.S. Apologies for being insincere, but 3,000 displaced Iraqi's hardly outweighs the MILLIONS of people that the U.S. has fed, housed, and clothed. Not to mention the countless MILLIONS that have been given an opportunity for a life that they only could've dreamed of in their home country.

Iraq is a misery. We have botched this on a grand scale. We were flawed in thinking a civilized society could rise up from the ashes of a homicidal dictator. It is apparent, however, that too many Iraqi's would rather live in medieval times, when each warlord could run his own little fiefdom. Sad, really. To borrow a line from the show "24", "if they want to live in the stone age, I say send them there."

..."I believe, after years of nauseating sanctimony from Christian soldiers in government..."

This is a sweeping statement typical of feminist agenda. Bush and Blair among others may go to church, but that doesn't make them Christians. Christians are servants of Christ to the needy, and often work in church and not in the Whitehouse. They set out to liberate sinners from their evil bondage and heal those who are hurting, feed the hungry, and provide refuge for the homeless... Bush and Blair do exactly the opposite; they destroy families' homes, displacement them, and kill the innocents. So don't confuse your feminist agenda with Christianity.

Since your belief is based on a circular proposition, it doesn't hold anything...

Thank you

Some 3000 registered refugees in Lebanon are Iraqis, but most of the unregistered ones who come through Syria are either redirected elsewhere or are locked up in prisons as illegal immigrants. When registered refugees are processed they find themselves the subject of racial abuse in their host nations. They all fled Iraq to seek refuge from the US and UK invasion, and what did they do to deserve displacement from their land, cultures and families, and dispossessed from their beings must warrant the greatest injustice of modern time.

While US is trying to save face by seeking to increase its fire power, more innocent Iraqis are victimized. Obviously, the social consequences of this war has imprint a life time of resentments in the Iraqis psyche against US. And I believe if justice is not served to the people of Iraq, the least the Americans and Brits can do is to restore people's perception of their being Iraqis, repair their homes and infrastructure, schools, medical care, and so on.

But we have heard all about the children of Afghanistan who were promised new school buildings, educational materials, and resources after the bombings. What has happened to that if any has been overshadowed by more killings spreading over the Middle East.

The problem of Iraq and refugees has then become a subject of UN official, who then distribute the burden of refugees among other aid to participating nations. And there the injustice of US and UK imperialist has imposed upon all of us whether we had anything to do with it or not. And yes, it is our right to speak out against the injustice occurring everywhere in the world because it affects our welfare and wellbeing whether we like it or not.

Walter Hoenig is correct in my opinion about corperate America and the political religiuos right. He's very wrong about the religious left! Where did Gore, Edwards, and Kerry go every Sunday? To black and liberal churches! I'd be preety upset if I came to church and heard a political campain speech, but they don't seem to be.
Elizabet Sholes, the W.C.C. is the most un-Christian liberal church group outside of the Unitarians. Along with big unions planned parenthood, and N.O.W. you are a guaranteed shoe in for the democrat vote.

Susan Jacoby, you're right about goverment money corrupting religion, thats why I oppose school vouchers and faith based programs. When will goverment demand compromises? For sure with a democratic administration. Look whats happening to Catholic hospitals and charities in California and around the country.

Many good things in your column, Susan.

I do challenge this assertion, because it seems out of synch with the strength of your overall argument:

"Jim Wallis, an evangelical Christian who is extremely influential in Democratic circles, states flatly that President Bush is guilty of "bad theology" in his attitudes about war and social justice and that "the answer to bad theology is not secularism; it is good theology."

"This is a genuinely dangerous idea, and it is irrelevant that I agree with Wallis on most political issues. The President of the United States is not elected to be theologian-in-chief. He is not God's representative on earth but the American people's representative on earth."

I would agree with you if a President's having a personal theology meant that such President considered him/herself God's representative. But that's equating theology as such with one example of bad theology (i.e. "I'm God's representative.")

If you are a person of faith, you have a theology. And if a person of faith happens to be President, that theology will inform the way he or she weighs decisions.

As a Lutheran Pastor who happens to do public policy advocacy full time, here are some hallmarks of what I consider good theology. These are my beliefs, and as we'll see, I wouldn't presume them to be carved in stone:

1. Most of what God is or is up to is a mystery.
2. Take comfort in what your faith has given you to affirm.
3. The core virtue is humility.
4. You'll never know you've attained that core virtue, because if you do, you haven't.
5. You are extremely limited yet extrememly valuable. So is every created being. Recognizing this is the ground of love, a core virtue which can't exist without humility and vice versa.
6. Live, decide, and act according to #5.

Bernie Glassman tells a story about a Zen Roshi who filled his zendo with developmentally challenged monks. Some objected, on the ground that such retarded people could never make progress. The Roshi replied, "but to God, we're all retarded."

My older daughter has Down syndrome. Bernie's story reaches me on many levels. It also sums up the kind of theology I'd like to see in "Presidents-of-faith."

I have no problem with a religious candidate, or a candidate influenced by his/her religious values. I do object to that person pushing his/her religious values onto me.

A sufficient statement by my candidates would be: "I follow the Eight Commandments" i.e. the non-God commandments plus "I love my neighbor as myself".

This dialogue is an example of the dominance of the religious right. Those responding mostly think that's the sum of faith, regardless of the specific belief. The writer who said Christians equal anti-gay positions simply reflects that notion. The vast majority of Protestants have been and will continue to be people NOT locked into bigotry and bias, who respect secular humanism and science, and who have, as their organizing principles, social justice. Many of us are in the forefront of gay rights and other human rights movements.

There is fat chance of ever having a 'religious left' running in tandem with the Democrats largely because 1. we don't want it and 2. the Dems are too busy courting the edgy but small evangelical contingent for whom Bush and company are not decent enough. That means the entire progressive and mainstream Protestant faith members (and our allies in other Christian and non-Christian traditions) are being ignored utterly by ALL politicians. Can't say that's a BAD thing, but we are in the forefront of most issues from challenging global capital to ending war. The parties ought to figure out quickly that what we believe and how we act on those beliefs could lead us not into the arms of conservatives but to ally with non-traditio nal politics thereby affecting outcomes in primaries.

We are here. We've always been here, and we aren't going away. The Dems can woo the evangelicals, but they ignore us at their peril.rn

As a panelist for "On Faith," this is the first time I have ever responded to a reader's comment. Walter Hoenig makes a critical point that is often neglected: church-state entanglement is as bad for religion as it is for government. Religion has been most effective in public life when it speaks truth to power from outside the governmental structure, not when it sets up shop in the halls of government and accepts government money.

The civil rights movement is the prime example. How effective would the civil rights leadership of the African-American churches of the South have been in the 1950s and early 60s if they had been dependent for part of their budget on a faith-based government dole? How strongly would the voice of Martin Luther King have resonated if the Southern Christian Leadership Conference had been feathering its own nest by accepting government money to proselytize among prisoners?

Unlike Mr. Hoenig, I am much more worried about religious influence on government than about government influence on religion. But he is perfectly right about the potentially corruping influence of the exercise of government power and the use of government money on institutions that are supposed to be independent actors. Look at the woeful, venal, arrogant history of
state-established churches throughout the ages, and it is easy to see the virtue of separation of church and state from a religious as well as a secular viewpoint.

Thanks Susan. I like what Sen. Obama wrote in his book:

"What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy demands is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals must be subject to argument and amenable to reason."

I don't really care about religion influencing government.

What I care about is government influencing religion.

There are too many niche religions on the right that seek to rationalize and justify political beliefs and greed -- whether personal or corporate. They have let the merchants into the temple. This is because of an unholy union between corporate America and evangelicals that took place during the Reagan years and continues today. Corporate America gets moral cover for their greed in these niche religions, and the niche religions get political clout to expound immflammatory, unChristianlike doctrine.

I don't see this same kind of union from the religious left. Therefore, I think I have fewer concerns about the religious left using their beliefs as political sledgehammers.

Since the beginning of the On Faith discussions, we have witnessed--and are still witnessing--the reprehensible results, affecting a wide variety of what are literally life-and-death issues, of Susan Jacoby's philosophy that exudes absolute misunderstanding of the separation of church and state.

There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the concept which Susan is speaking about. We have separated church and state in the fact that George Bush is not a member of the American Church of Christ; or that our Congressmen no longer attend church in the Capitol Building on Sunday's like Thomas Jefferson did; but that is not what Susan is speaking about.

She wants personal belief in God to be left at the door, but is not willing to leave her secular humanism at the door. People with her personal belief have killed more people this century that religion in the whole of the last millennium; yet she fails to see the danger of a Godless community. She believes people are innately good, that we are capable of determining morality on our own, that people are inherently stupid. This is not anything I want in my government. If we could separate this wild belief system from the state, I would be all for it.

Realizing that people are innately bad, that we are incapable of determining morality on our own, and that people are inherently clever and wicked, then we form governments that have checks and balances and operate as such. That way, if Hillary Clinton were elected and said, "My god told me to bomb Montreal because that's where Bill's new mistress lives; we're going to war." Congress would stop the assault and our checks and balances would ensure that personal beliefs have no basis on the good of the country.

However, we have slipped into a chasm between the religious right (which is far different from the greedy right) and the godless left. Democrats have no interest in the good of the nation, and fight Pres. Bush at every opportunity. They feigned interest or expertise in the war in Iraq; just enough to trick the public into voting for them, and have done nothing in order to solve the problem they claimed they could solve. Rather they have championed their ideas as right which are clearly not correct, which were petty and selfish issues not related to the security of the nation, and furthermore have made keeping the country afloat even more difficult for the honorable members of the government.

It is like if I campaigned for government and said, "I can stop Global Warming tomorrow and rid the USA of smog, if elected." When I get elected, I fail to even find out if Global Warming is real, instead go about trying to push my personal agenda past the checks and balances. And for some reason nobody notices that I'm not paying attention to Global Warming.

This is what happens when there is a separation of God and State, with the substitution of Susan's religion. The innate wickedness will ensure that without a moral standard, quality of life will suffer. Depression rates increase in this country each year, half of our children are on massive doses of analgesics, the other half are inhaling paint fumes; a Brilliant Writer once wrote, "Fear of God is the Beginning of Wisdom." That Fear of God has its basis in knowing that immorality is deadly; not just in the spiritual sense that it will send you to Hell, but in a realistic sense, that immorality, lying to your wife for example, will result in damage to your relationship and ultimately the death of your marriage. Stealing from Wal-Mart raises the prices for everyone, Lusting and Fornicating results in STI's and shallow relationships, coveting other peoples possessions results in debt and heartache; another theologian once said, "Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned.” These are the reasons that God outlaws lying, stealing, lusting, hatred, fornication, coveting, and will not allow for these things to be in His presence; but is temporarily allowing them on Earth for the same reason a jeweler lays diamonds on black velvet; when the shiny diamond is laid against a drab backdrop, the beauty of the diamond can be best appreciated. So is it with God, that when God's Righteousness is seen against the backdrop of the wicked world, His Glory can be appreciated.

But God won't allow this forever. Sin has ruined the world; all of creation groans, decays, and waxes old. After this life is either Heaven or Hell, it is appointed once for a man to die and then the judgment; God will not allow for the destruction of Heaven like He allowed for the destruction of Earth; anyone who has lied, stolen, lusted, hatred, fornicated, or coveted will be judged on these merits; there will be no account for good deeds, just as a worldly judge will not let a murderer go for his history of helping little old ladies across the street, God will not let a sinner go for being nice to people. For this reason, all of mankind should be thrown into Hell, their souls destroyed to ensure their wickedness does not continue.

But that was not God's plan. God had something with far more Grandeur in mind. God saw that man could not redeem himself, that without help, man was doomed to eternal Hell. A punishment had been earned and was due. In order to grant freedom from this punishment, while still retaining His Righteous and Just nature, God had the perfect plan. He came to the earth, born of a virgin, to live a perfect and sinless life; subjected to all manners of temptation and wickedness that mankind could muster; Jesus Christ was the only Person ever to live that deserved Heaven instead of Hell; yet as God, He chose to sacrifice Himself for the world by dying on a cross outside of Jerusalem.

God stepped in and took your punishment. Even though He knew that all mankind was innately wicked, incapable of keeping His moral law, He chose to save us anyways. In order to receive this free gift of God, repent (apologize and quit) of your sins, and trust in Jesus Christ to deliver you from Hell.

Personal beliefs will always be a part of the state, I just hope that the correct personal beliefs will be levied above the rest.

Godma crystallized my argument.

Those who think this argument is about checking your religious beliefs at the door are mistaken. Of course people are guided by their beliefs, whatever they may be. That's not the point of secularism at all. Jacoby understands this and says it well.

The point here is that religious beliefs should not be used as *justification* for governmental action. However one arrives at an opinion, in order for the government to act on that opinion, that action must be justified in terms of reason and evidence, not faith.

Secularism goes on to say that the government's policies and official statements should remain neutral with respect to religious beliefs. That doesn't mean that individuals in government are not to use their faith for guidance nor to express their faith when speaking as private individuals. It only means that governmental policy and communication must not be biased with respect to any particular religious belief.

Excellent theoretical stump speech, especially the second paragraph, which is a good answer to people like Tom DeLay and Antonin Scalia.

While your faith guides who you are, your politics should not be a mirror image of your religious practices. Too much of an opportunity to ride roughshod over the God-given right to reject Christianity. If God respects choice, what business do we mere mortals have in legislating against choice in matters religious?

McChurch, the drive-through, fast-food temple of the Christian Right, has dumbed down God into Caesar. There is great opportunity here for a leader to emerge who understands how to rally people of faith to putting their faith into action. Once you couch it in those terms, it matters not that the person of faith fails to pass certain litmus tests.

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

The solution to the problem of separation of church and state was addressed in the first attempt to communicate to the world the Bible is a proved hoax by one lacking communication skills. Mr BH called for the separation of church and God.

At first glance that seemed to be a bit of dry humor but then the Devil turned up in the details as usual. If Devil is removed from faith then there isn't much left. Without the threat of hell folks can take it or leave it with impunity. In the end we have to notice that the ministry empowered by the Bible, (Matthew 16:19, 18:18) have the power to condemn to hell as well as the say so about who will be allowed into the kingdom, (definitely not a democracy or republic) of God.

But then there is humor to be had. The church's patent on God being revoked the thing to do is give them the Devil as a replacment. After a few version of the same thing it boiled down to interpretation 1501 of Exodus showing that Devil is and has been the God of the church all along.

Those who calim the moral high ground struggle to live up to their high standards. At present time we can identify a lot of violations of the 10 commandments actually enacted into law, 5) no killing, 7) no stealing and 8) no lying, (let's ignore 6-no sex, lol). Those doing these things claim they are moral and are going to the kingdom of the supernatural being Moses made the deal with. Since that's shown to be Devil there's no counter argument I'm aware of.

So maybe that fellow got it straight the first time. What we need is a good old fashioned separation of church and God. God will surly be relieved. Devil wanted to be God so he'll be real happy too. Devil can come out of the closet along with some other things.

Maybe the religious right and the religious left should have their heads bumped together?

There are the lies we say, there are the lies we do, there are lies of omission, and there is the truth. If a candidate’s value system is influenced by Scripture, wouldn’t you want to know before you cast your vote? Wouldn’t you want to know how much and to what degree his faith is a part of his life? If you vote for him, you get the full package, you don’t get to pick and choose which of his values he gets to use while in office. Or would you rather have him lie?

I’m glad you chose to talk about reason. Leadership is first about deciding where we want to go. Deciding is equal parts idealism and reason - reason alone will not help us choose our future. Idealism is two-thirds values. And the public is not willing to ignore any value they have that might have come from Scripture just because it came from Scripture. What’s more, they shouldn’t have to.

Susan, your ‘all religion is bad!’ philosophy gets so tired sometimes. Give it a rest.

Yes ANONYMOUS, Susan Jacoby and I still believe in Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

However, unfortunately I do agree with you that it is difficult to check your beliefs at the door before going to work. This country would be so much better off these days had this administration done that.

If politicians wish to explain that some of their positions are based on a belief in a supernatural being, so be it. I'd rather have an early warning that they're irrational than find out later.

Or, they could simply discuss their positions and let those positions be judged on their own merits.

Ms. Jacoby should apply for a job with Mr. Rourke, because she obviously lives on Fantasy Island. She probably still believes in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. And I wouldn't be surprised if she also believed that the Supreme Court bases its decisions on the Constitution.

She seems to believe that public officials should have a superhuman ability to simply check their religion at the door so that their faith will have no bearing on thier public service. Even worse, she suggests that if public officials were to just leave theology out of their public discourse, then theology will somehow not encroach on their policies or actions.

But the truth is, that a person's faith, or lack thereof, bears on all aspects of their life, including the performance of their work, even if that happens to be public service.

Reason may have been the basis for one of JFK's speeches, but, make no mistake, he was a liberal Catholic, and this, more than reason, influenced his policies and actions.

I'd rather that we have candor from our public officials in disclosing their religious beliefs. At least that way we will all know what we're getting when we cast our votes.

When I vote, I try to pick candidates that believe the same as I do. For example:
- against abhortion except in cases of rape and danger to mother
- against death penalty
- for regulating industry
- for protecting workers from discrimination and deceitful work practices
- against assisted suicide
- for national healthcare
- for social security
- for traditional definition of marriage
- against any plan to get more retirement money into the stock market. Personal retirement savings will never work. Those who lobby for it know this but want more of your money.
- for freedom to express your religious beliefs and display them for all to see. Let's see a whole bunch of religious symbols on the courthouse lawn celebrating our trust in God rather than none.
- for freedom of public officials to express any religious belief they choose and to display it.

We've lost our ability to discuss and debate rationally in this country. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that we have not been able to vote on issues we care about and we have become angry. I'd love all those issues listed above on a ballot somewhere. Then I'd feel more proud of my country.

Empty words! Your beliefs are what guide you. If you are a Chrstian those beliefs will guide you and non-Christians will accuse you of forcing it on them. The same if you're Muslim or Hindu or atheist.
Any belief system you hold has a strong hold on your actions and thoughts. If you should be able to completely seperate your public and private beliefs, then there you are lying to yourself and the public about your faith and are not to be trusted.
Bush is exactly what he claimed to be when it came to faith! It shocks liberals of both parties because he wasn't lying! Politicians of both parties will say anything to be elected! Their actions {voting records} speak the truth.
If you don't belive this ask anyone who attends their Mosque/church/temple/synagogue with the majority of its meetings and practices their faith on a frequent basis and you'll see thats how most people of faith see if you're genuine.

I don't agree with much of what Bush has done and am disappointed he hasn't done more towards life issues, but I knew how he would move on Supreme court, social funding, faith based, and tax issues.

Victoria,

Look at the response to the election of your co-religionist in Minnesota to the House of Representatives and you will see immediately why religion can be a poisonous thing in politics.

WELL of COURSE candidates should confuse the issues with religious rhetoric- what kind of loaded question is this?