Saddleback Church Forum: A Religious Test For The Presidency

Nice site
Thanks, webmaster.

SUSAN JACOBY
“Saddleback Church Forum: A Religious Test for the Presidency?”

IRT:
“When Lincoln was chastised by ministers in his home town of Springfield, Illinois, for not belonging to a church, he paid no attention at all to them. He was elected president twice without joining a church and died without ever having joined.”

ANS:
That was Lincoln’s misfortune, but he wasn’t an atheist or an agnostic and was more likely a Christian much to your dismay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_religion

"Lincoln was raised by Hard-shell Baptists, Christianity was a force throughout his life. Lincoln read the Bible throughout his life, and quoted from it extensively.

While Lincoln never joined any church, there is disagreement about whether he experienced a conversion to Christianity later in life, particularly during his tenure as president. Lincoln's wife reported that Lincoln "turned his heart to Christ" when his son Willie died.”

IRT:
“I remember a cartoon, published the day after President John F. Kennedy's assassination, by the late, great Herb Block, whose genius graced the editorial page of The Washington Post for many years.

The cartoonist sketched the Lincoln Memorial, with the statue of Lincoln was weeping. A cartoon of a statue of Thomas Jefferson or George Washington weeping would have been an appropriate response to this debate, in which both candidates demeaned themselves.”

ANS:
They wouldn’t be crying but laughing at the ludicrous crass and absurd criticism, the nonsensical canards, and the paranoidal cacophony from the self-righteous agnostics and atheists, iconoclasts and philistines, barbarians and dissimulators who claim that separation of Church and State means an isolation of God from the public square and the political forums.

The wall of separation was never in the Constitution; it was a conversation in a Jefferson letter to a Baptist minister. But, the Court circumscribed the Constitutional Amendment process, and wrote it into the Constitution, as our Court today interprets the European Constitutions and makes them applicable to our Constitution as they did in “Lawrence v. Texas.”

IRT:
“But who would understand such a cartoon today, even if any newspaper would publish it? Hardly anyone now knows that Jefferson was elected president after having written, "it does me no injury for my neighbor to say that there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." That quote alone would be enough to ruin a candidate's reputation on the Web and shock jock radio."

ANS:
So take Jefferson's advice, viz. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt them." However, truth will set you free from ignorance, but duplicity and prevarication, sophistry and demagoguery is a prescription for ignorance and is a harbinger for disorder and social suicide.

More so, Jefferson’s co-hart, James Madison, known as the Father of our Constitution wrote:

"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

The "civil forum" at the Saddleback Church was all about insisting that any candidate for the American presidency worship The One Christian God.

ANS:
Baloney, it was a forum to determine the moral comport and fitness of the candidates, of which the Forum had every right to do, and the candidates participated to secure the Forum's vote.

More so, the candidates had a duty to their constituents to explicate their moral demeanor. Of course, truth, and reality are not a concern to the radical left. What’s more important is their naive proclivity for moral relativity and a materialistic ideology that prescribes the death of the individual and the society they inhabit.

SUSAN JACOBY
“Saddleback Church Forum: A Religious Test for the Presidency?”

IRT:
“It's all so horribly at odds with the intent of the founders of our government. George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe and, much later, Abraham Lincoln, would never have dreamed of allowing a cleric to inquire into their personal morality in a public forum.”

ANS:
Horribly sounds a little like paranoia. The candidates were just being asked questions, not being crucified.

Jefferson numerous times stated his personal beliefs in public; the Founding Fathers never minded stating their mind, that's what the Revolution was about. Jefferson conversed with the Churches quite often and made his religious view well known.

Jefferson asked, “If not the Church, to whom do we go for our moral guidance?” The Radical Left, under the auspices of the Communist founded ACLU in order to overturn the Constitution, has answered that. It was the Supreme Court’s majority who dismissed traditional morality and made up their own morality in "Lawrence v. Texas." The Court threw out the Bible and the word of God and replaced it with the Constitution and wrote into it the right to immorality.

The Court continues to circumscribe, misinterpret, and rewrite the Constitution. The Court has found authority in hidden penumbras and vague notions of immorality to murder children under the auspices that the Constitution is a living document, irrespective of the Constitutional Amendment process.

Jefferson also said, "Among the most inestimable of our blessings, also, is that... of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to John Thomas et al., 1807. ME 16:291

Moreover, Jefferson also noted that “The rights [to religious freedom] are of the natural rights of mankind, and... if any act shall be... passed to repeal [an act granting those rights] or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. (*) ME 2:303, Papers 2:546 “

"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:283"

Finally, Jefferson said, "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis… that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" --Thomas Jefferson."

SUSAN JACOBY
“Saddleback Church Forum: A Religious Test for the Presidency?”

IRT:
“Obama named Clarence Thomas and Antonym Scalia. If some disgruntled, die-hard Hillary Clinton supporters are actually thinking of staying home on election day or voting for McCain out of pure sour grapes (as some have promised to do), the answers about judges ought to make them rethink the advisability of cutting off their noses to spite their faces.”

ANS:
“Non in legendo sed in intelligendo legis consistunt" viz. "the laws depend not on being read, but on being understood," and Obama, as our troglodyte Supreme Court majority, may know the Law but they do not understand the Law.

The reason Obama said he wouldn’t pick Thomas and Scalia is that Obama has been to long predisposed to the radical left. Obama couldn’t tie the shoes of Thomas or Scalia because Obama is politically blind to the truth. He is a racist who hangs with racist seditionists.

No rational person could refuse a poor child medical aid after a butcher, masquerading as a doctor, botched the abortion and the child survived; Obama did; he did it three times.

We have five Justices on the Supreme Court who personify the views of Obama, liberal, myopic, and blind to the basis of all civil law and the Constitution.

IRT:
“The truly worrisome aspect of this event is that it may set a precedent for future campaigns, as the Nixon-Kennedy debates did. I fear that a real Pandora's Box has been opened. Future candidates may feel that they can no more refuse to answer publicly to self-appointed religious spokesmen than they could refuse to debate their opponents on television.

ANS:
What is truly worrisome is that candidates won’t answer truthfully. Politicians like Obama are products of a cold-blooded political machine that proffers the end justifies the means. When these kinds of politicians are exposed to the truth, they can’t stand the light of day, and they are exposed for what they really are.

As to the self-appointed, that’s for Americans to discern. We had enough of these sophist demagogue politicians hiding behind their rhetoric that obscures the truth and brooked by a press that protects them. We have the left-wing press running as their avant guard and protecting them from being exposed for what they truly are.

Our country went through that deception with the Clintons, the epitome of bombastic vituperative ignominy and priggery. We are experiencing this same deceit and duplicity in the Congress run by the Democrats today.

Pelosi and Reed are caricatures of preposterous buffoonery. If they are not guilty of deceit and duplicity, they are guilty of gross ignorance. It's probably both. Either way, neither are fit to be in government.

IRT:
“Furthermore, someone is sure to point out that it's not fair for a representative of just one religious denomination to inquire about the candidates' moral failings.”

ANS:
Really, then who should? Isn’t that left up to the candidate? The Dems have been courting Jews, and Blacks, speaking at Black Churches, at the NAACP, speaking at Hispanic organizations, at NOW, and NARAL since time began. Do you object to that? Christians are still Americans the last I heard, they still have a right to participate in the political process.

Everyone who is an American citizen has a right to question a candidate that is going to represent him because all men are created equal and in America that means all men have a right to participate in the political process no matter what their race, religion, or color. To deny Christians this right smacks of elitism.

IRT:
“I foresee heavy negotiations to arrange for an interfaith panel (which will not, of course, include any atheists). In 2012, perhaps we will have a faith-based appearance from some megatemple.”

ANS:
What are you so afraid of? Is it that the truth might be learned? Are you afraid of the truth? So what if politicians are questioned by a faith-based organization, these organizations are American and they have every right of access to the candidates who represent them. Atheists and agnostics have the same opportunities, and if they don’t then they can withhold voting for the candidate.

The questioning of the Saddleback Forum was open to the public with full exposure to the Press. That’s all that is necessary.

Americans can make their own decisions about what they hear. The problem for the left is that this exposure can’t be filtered through the left-wing press and slanted towards the radical left because the forum was exposed to the public.

That seems to be your biggest worry, viz. the real truth will get out and not the intended propaganda that the radicals in the press try to portray.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
“Saddleback Church Forum: A Religious Test for the Presidency”

IRT;
"The Constitution, of course, prohibits only legal religious tests for office."

ANS;
I am kind of confused here. What is a legal religious test and how can the Constitution prohibit something legal?

IRT:
"It does not prohibit the extralegal but equally powerful religious test that Warren was conducting. But Obama and McCain should both have thought about the spirit of the Constitution, and the intent behind the prohibition of religious tests, before they started pandering to a Christian minister on national television by talking about their trust in Jesus Christ. Will they now be obliged to undergo interrogation by a rabbi or a Roman Catholic bishop?"

ANS:
Every American has a right and a duty to know if the candidates are atheists, agnostics, or believe in the true God. Nations with leaders who don't believe in God are personified in China, North Korea, the Congo, and Sudan.

We fought a war against a fanatical atheist Hitler and we have one going on with atheist Russia whom Obama compared their invasion into Georgia to our invasion into Iraq. Georgia wasn't a terrorist invading another nation.

Iraq was a terrorists nation that murdered, raped and tortured its own people, broke the UN resolutions some 17 different times and invaded a sovereign nation.

The candidates won’t be required or obliged to even obey the law if they are Democrats like Pelosi, Reed, and Jefferson, because Dems are above the law when Dems control both Houses of Government.

When Clinton was President, either his Attorney General complied with Clinton's wishes or he would fire her. Janet Reno, a Clinton apparatchik, begged Clinton not to replace her and she took all the blame and brunt for Clintons boondoggles and foul-ups while she overlooked all his transgressions of the law.

IRT:
“I'm expecting a new campaign commercial showing St. John on his knees in a prison cell, while a beam of faithy light shines through the bars.”

ANS:
I don’t think McCain has been going around bragging about his heroic life in Vietnam, like John Kerry did, and I don’t think McCain would fake throwing his medals over the White House fence or hook up with seditionists like Kerry did.

Moreover, McCain did not go around the country making up lies about his fellow men who served in Vietnam with him, as Kerry did. I would rather see a campaign commercial showing a hero on his knees praying to God, then a reprobate claiming he was a hero and wasn’t.

In fact, you should be on your knees thanking God that America has real heroes like McCain to defend our nation or you might be under the regime of an atheist like Hitler or Stalin.

IRT:
“There were a few rays of hope for a secularist in Obama's statements. He actually admitted that he was in favor of Roe V. Wade, not because he is "pro-abortion" but because he believes that women are thinking, reasoning people who actually have the right to make their own decisions."

ANS:
Not only was Obama in favor of a mother having her unborn murdered, but he is also in favor of letting a little child die after a butcher, masquerading as a doctor, botch the abortion and finishes the job by strangling the little helpless infant to death.

Try explaining this to Obama.
Planned Parenthood president Mary Calderone:
"Abortion is the taking of a life. Late-term fetuses are being dissected and their parts sold for huge profits.

Only 2 percent of late-term fetuses have any abnormalities. They range in age from four to seven months. Sometimes the babies are born alive, and the doctor must break their neck or beat them to death or put them to drown in the garbage with her mother's blood."

Is that something for pro-abortionists to be proud of, and hope for? Does human life mean anything to a pro-abortionist?

Beverly McMillan testified on why she stopped doing abortions:

"It got to where I couldn't stand to see the little bodies anymore."

The unborn are human beings, and human beings are sacred irrespective of what the blind and myopic abortionists think and most of the hypocrite Dems who call themselves Catholic, like Kennedy, Durbin, Leahy, Kerry and Pelosi think.

Abortionists can keep lying to themselves and to America that the unborn is not human for political expediency, though no credible scientists can deny the unborn's humanity. However, they won't be able to lie to God after their final breath, and the unborn they helped to have murdered will be the witnesses against them.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
“Saddleback Church Forum: A Religious Test for the Presidency”

IRT
“This event was so disrespectful of our best American traditions, on so many levels, that I hardly know where to begin.”

ANS:
Again, when has it become disrespectful, except through the eyes of the alternate world, to ask candidates what are their moral and religious views.

Everyone, including Christians, who are still American citizens, have not only a right, but also a duty to know the moral and spiritual comport of whom they will vote for to run our country.

Because there is no requirement of religion for a presidential candidate, that doesn’t proscribe each American from using their own standards to judge a persons integrity and the candidates to explain their beliefs.

What is a disgrace is that Americans didn’t use traditional standards when they reelected Bill Clinton. Traditional standards would have proscribed an adulterer, a fornicator, liar, rapist, a womanizing, and one who condones infanticide. Every tradition we ever had before the Clintons went out the window.

That was evident when Bill Clinton, America's Chief Law Enforcer perjured himself in a Federal Court. That he was a debaucherous philanderer and a misogynist didn’t seem to matter to the radical left and the pharisaical fanatic feminist.

Clinton's reelection nearly cost us our country its life when the Clintons sold the nation out to the Red Chinese for campaign funds.

Californian Democrat strategist, Pat Caddel, wondered how California went for Clinton when Clinton aided the Chinese to target Los Angeles, and attempted to give the Chinese a naval port in Long Beach, situated between two of our most strategic naval bases on the West Coast.

Johnny Chung, after he deposited some $50,000 to Hillary’s Secretary, said the White House, under the Clintons, was like a subway turnstile, drop in the coins and you're in the White House.

Consequently, John Haung, a Chinese Red agent for the Riadi family and Red China, was given security clearances and access to top-secret documents in the White House under the Clintons.

After the discovery of the Buddhist Temple melee, a scheme to obtain Chinese campaign funds from Buddhist nuns, led by the blockhead now leading the farce Global Warming fiasco, Al Gore, the Clintons still needed more money and they went to the criminal element seeking it.

Moreover, Loral Technologies, after Bernie Schwartz, as CEO of Loral Space and Satellites, donated some $250,000 to the Clinton campaign, Loral Technologies was given carte blanche transfer of ICBM guidance system technology to the Chinese who can now target Los Angeles.

http://ftp.fas.org/news/china/1998/h980618-prc9.htm

This was an act of sedition. It was so egregious to Clinton’s Sec. of State Warren Christopher, Christopher resigned after Clinton removed Christopher’s authority over the technology and gave it to his Sec. of Commerce, the notorious Ron Brown.

In addition, Clinton was a licentious sex maniac who raped and womanized women, who lied to the nation on national TV, dishonored his Oath of Office, and disgraced the Office of the Presidency. Morals matter to Christians if not to the iconoclast.

The Democrat Congress defended Clinton on the lawn in front of the White House with Al Gore, after Clinton just lied to his aids and staff.

So why should you tremble and not know where to begin, when character and integrity didn’t matter then, even when we all knew what the Clintons were, licentious, consummate provocateurs, and self-centered misanthropes. It won’t matter this time either, since the radical left is bent on the social suicide of our nation.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
“Saddleback Church Forum: A Religious Test for the Presidency”

IRT
President Theodore Roosevelt, a deeply religious man (to whom McCain has mistakenly been compared as a leader), would have told Warren to get lost. Roosevelt, you see, had so much respect for church-state separation that he wanted the phrase "in God we trust" removed from U.S. currency. It was an insult to religion, Roosevelt thought, to invoke the deity on money.

Yes, Roosevelt was a very religious person, I believe he was a pseudo Episcopalian However, in truth it was the same religion Bill Clinton had, a personal religion, where adultery was just fine? If I were committing adultery with my secretary, I don’t think it would be propitious for me to trust in God after you just kicked Him in the teeth.

Wikipedia:
"Roosevelt had affairs outside his marriage, including one with Eleanor's social secretary Lucy Mercer which began soon after she was hired in early 1914. In September 1918, Eleanor found letters revealing the affair in Roosevelt's luggage, when he returned from World War I.

According to the Roosevelt family, Eleanor offered Franklin a divorce so that he could be with the woman he loved, but Lucy, being Catholic, could not bring herself to marry a divorced man with five children. Lucy's relatives, on the other hand, maintain that she wanted to marry Franklin but that "Eleanor was not willing to step aside."

The two points of view are, according to FDR's biographer Jean Edward Smith, not mutually exclusive and it is generally accepted that Eleanor indeed offered "to give Franklin his freedom."[10]

However, they reconciled after a fashion with the informal mediation of Roosevelt's adviser Louis Howe, and FDR promised to never see Lucy again. Sara also intervened, and told Franklin that if he divorced his wife, he would bring scandal upon the family, and she "would not give him another dollar."[10]

Eleanor established a separate house in Hyde Park at Valkill. Their marriage has been labeled a "marriage of convenience."[11]

Franklin and Lucy maintained a formal correspondence, but they did not begin to see each another again until 1941. Lucy was then given the code name "Mrs. Johnson" by the Secret Service.[12] Not until the 1960s was the affair publicly known.

FDR was also a very religious family man.
The five surviving Roosevelt children all led tumultuous lives overshadowed by their famous parents. They had among them nineteen marriages, fifteen divorces and twenty-nine children. All four sons were officers in World War II and were decorated, on merit, for bravery.--Wikipedia."

It all depends, as Clinton once said, on what ’’IS’’ is or what religion is, or what family is.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
“Saddleback Church Forum: A Religious Test for the Presidency”

IRT:
“A religious test for the presidency is exactly what was televised Saturday night when Senators Barack Obama and John McCain allowed themselves to be grilled like schoolboys by Rick Warren, pastor of the Saddleback Church.”

ANS:
Where has it been deemed that questioning Presidential candidates is a religious test? The problem with the troglodytes and the ignorance of our amoral Court is they can’t tell the difference between the Natural and Moral Law and Religion. Though Morality and Religion overlap, they are not inclusively the same; they are different.

Not every one is endowed with the same religion, that is a choice of one's free will, but everyone is endowed with the same Natural Moral Law (NML). They have no choice. The moral law is indiscriminate; religion is very discriminate. Both are necessary for man’s destiny in life.

For every man, the Law of Gravity is the same. If you jump off a 3,000-foot cliff naked, you will still be naked, but you probably won’t know it when you hit, no matter what religion you have or race you are, or what you believe.

If you break the Natural Moral Law (NML), no matter what race, or religion, or no matter if your are an atheist, a pagan, or an agnostic, you will eventually pay the consequences if not as quickly as you will for violating the Law of Gravity, but eventually. The NML does not discriminate either. Hence, murder, lying, and stealing are the same for all mankind.

Now Christians are concerned about rendering unto Cesar what is Caesar’s, and rendering unto God what is God’s. The presidential candidates are Caesar and every citizen not only has a right but a duty to know the moral integrity of the candidates. I believe that the moral integrity should matter when electing a candidate.

The last time I checked, Christians are still American citizens, though our amoral majority on the Court has done everything to undermine their citizenship.

Now, since Christians are Americans, and the Constitution still recognizes that all men are created equal, not any thanks to our amoral Court, Christians are just as equal and more so than atheists and agnostics, because they do support the Constitution and agnostics and atheists don’t.

Christians have no problem with the Declaration or the Constitution; atheists and agnostics have a major problem with the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, especially the part that says all men are endowed by God with certain inalienable rights.

One of these rights is the right to assemble freely if you've forgotten it.

IRT:
“McCain and Obama were asked what it meant to them "to trust in Jesus Christ" and to describe the "greatest moral failing" in their lives. I tremble for my country when I reflect that both candidates were apparently eager to answer highly personal questions posed by a televangelist.”

ANS:
You should tremble if they weren't eager. What’s obnoxious about trusting in God or knowing a candidate's moral integrity though the Court trivializes morality? It part of our Judeo-Christian heritage that recognizes our inalienable rights.

Has the Supreme Court obliterated the Freedom of Religion yet? Is morality no longer a standard for politics? The Court certainly thinks so because they have none.

The Court in “Lawrence,” claimed that the NML served no legitimate purpose to the State and that acts that have traditionally through out the centuries were deemed certain acts of conduct immoral now have no standing in the Constitution, although all Civil Law is based on our Judeo-Christian heritage.

Hence, the Court banned, from the Public Square, the “Ten Commandments,” the basic fundamental moral laws essential for all civilizations. They’ve banned the name of God from the Public Square but Constitutionalized immorality and wrote it into the Bill of Rights.

Hence, now it is Constitutional to murder the unborn. Are the defenseless, the invalid, and the senile next? Ask Terri Schiavo’s family.

After “Lawrence,” the Fifth Circuit ruled that since “Lawrence,” morality has no standing in Civil Law and ruled against the State of Texas in a sex toy case.

Further, the Court elevated “gay sex,” to the same level as conjugal love in marriage. They claimed gay sex and conjugal sex were indistinguishable and as conjugal love, gay sex is an inalienable right of “Liberty,” which now becomes a license for immoral sexual behavior.

How can the Court of contradiction not legalize the oxymoron “Gay Marriage,” if “gay sex” is a Constitutional inviolable right as the Court claims?

Should all Americans, much more Christians, not be concerned that the Court is about to undermine the sanctity of marriage and has already laid the grounds to do so? If they are not, than they are courting social suicide.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
SUSAN JACOBY
“Saddleback Church Forum: A Religious Test For The Presidency?”

IRT:
“Article VI of the U.S. Constitution declares, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

ANS:
The Faith in Public Life, a multidenominational religious group held the Compassion Forum at Messiah College in Grantham, Pa. last April, featuring Mr. Obama and Senator Hillary

Where was all the hyperbolic cacophony and sententious aphoristic moralizing that abounds against Christians and their right to the political process then? Where was this lamentable sardonic and inflated harangue then?

It seems copasetic for Dems like Jesse Jackson taking up collections for his campaign in Black churches. Did Bill and Hillary speaking in Black churches soliciting funds, or Al Gore and the Buddhist Temple fiasco bring the ire of the antagonist left? They reelected them.

When Christians ask candidates their view, which they have every right to do, the dross of hypocrisies bubbles up like dregs floating the political left’s flotilla of protest. What priggery!

It’s a little pompous and ironic for a pro-abortionist to be citing Article VI of the Constitution when they are blind to the Amendments IV and V to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights and deaf to the Declaration of Independence’s voice on inviolable rights.

Moreover, it seems quite facetious to attempt to deny Christians their right to political participation in the election. It is unconscious priggery to ascribe to Christians the violation of the Constitution’s separation of Church and State and claiming their questioning candidates on their beliefs is a religious test.

More so, why aren’t these pharisaical troglodytes not so concerned about the violations of their inalienable rights that I might add Christianity vigorously defends, a.k.a. the Right to Life being one or another, the political assault on Marriage that is the foundation of society. Why no concern Obama supports infanticide? Do not Christians have a right to ask about that?

But what does it matter to the Radical Left or Obama that nearly 50 million unborn have been murdered? What really matters to the philistine pagans is Christians participating in the political process guaranteed by the Constitution. Ah, troglodytes don’t want that. Why, because truth is the anti-thesis of agnosticism and atheism.

Does it matter that we are killing the vital progeny of America and infringing on the inviolable rights of all Americans? Do Christians have no right to know what Presidential candidates believe; is it none of their business as apparently is being claimed?

The Dems picked two consummate prevaricators as their primary candidates. Hillary has a resume of profuse lying and so does her fallacious husband. That doesn’t seem to matter to the Dems. The more mendacious and bogus you are the better you are qualified to run as the Dem nominee. The end justifies the means.

The majority of Dems and their leadership live in the alternate world where up is down and down is up and evil is good and good is evil. The murder of the unborn is compassion for a mother and the child. Global Warming is an omen for the end of the world. Morality is subjective, and God is meaningless.

On February 28, 2008, “Four major global temperature-tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year, not grown.

California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.

That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded — up or down.”

Though Embryo Stem Cell Research (ESCR) has been fully funded for over ten years in the United Kingdom, it has not produced one health benefit.

On the other hand, other Human Stem Cell Research (HSCR) has produced over 70 health benefits. Notwithstanding, all the big medical research money is going to HSCR because it is prolific. The UK is changing its focus from ESCR to problematic fertilization in women.

In the same vein, as Dems adopted the sham Global Warming, they are heavily funding another sham, ESCR. ESCR is being sold as a panacea for all future miraculous medical cures.

John Edwards said if Bush hadn’t blocked ESCR funding, Christopher Reed would still be alive and cured. That’s the swill you must swallow to be a Dem.

In the end, Christians are Americans too and they can Constitutionally participate in the political process despite the antagonist iconoclasts.

I feel your pain Susan. Just more evidence of the dumbing down of our culture. Your most recent book, which i just finished, was right on the mark.

Wahhhhhh! Wahhhhh!! Susan, Wahhhhh!!!

To quote you: "The Constitution, of course, prohibits only legal religious tests for office. It does not prohibit the extralegal but equally powerful religious test that Warren was conducting."

Apparently, the candidates saw nothing wrong with it, the Constitution doesn't frown at it, and millions of Americans are interested in it. Is this not typically what liberals have used as excuses to air whatever opinions they love?

Stop whining, Sue! Stop whining!

This comment is specifically for Dr. Fitton, the reader from the United Kingdom who asked when "In God We Trust" began to appear on U.S. currency. It's an interesting story. In the early years of the Civil War, an organization of Protestant ministers placed great pressure on President Lincoln and on Congress to pass an amendment to the Constitution declaring that Jesus Christ, not "We the People," was the real source of authority for the U.S. government. (The omission of God from the Constitution had never ceased to cause consternation among the leaders of orthodox religion.) Lincoln, that cagy politician, had no intention of supporting such a divisive amendment at a time when war had pitted brother against brother, so he told the ministers that he would "take such action" on the amendment as his duty to his country and his maker required. His action was to take no action at all. Congress thought that by putting "in God we trust" on a coin--which did not require a Constitutional emandment--the ministers might be placated. So that's what happened. The slogan first appeared on a two-penny coin but within ten years, it had made its way to all of the currency. For a more detailed account, see my book, "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism" (2004).

A most reassuring article - as a UK citizen I was beginning to think that 'faithiness' was becoming an essential requirement for any responsible job in the USA. 'In God we trust' on the money notes? I find that hard to believe in the country of the first secular government. When did that practice start?
America was colonized partly to escape this sort of thing. When I get my dollars for a trip to the US this autumn I shall inspect them carefully.

An interesting article on the topic of abortion:

"Beyond the legal right; why liberals and feminists don't like to talk about the morality of abortion" by Jason DeParle

Washington Monthly, April, 1989

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n3_v21/ai_7537791?tag=artBody;col1

Hammerhead,

Mankind, when left to themselves, are unfit for their own government.

George Washington

Hammerhead,

Mankind, when left to themselves, are unfit for their own government.

George Washington

Excellent article Susan. You should have added Thomas Payne to the list of secular founders of the Republic. Every American should read "The Age of Reason".

Atheism, religion, reason. It's all a bit confusing.

So...atheists are rational empiricists, open minded, without prejudice.

Believers are bigoted, blind, ignorant etc.

OR....

Believers value morality, human life, spirituality.

Atheists are without principle, concern for others, inner lives.

"You shall not make for yourself false idols." This is Judaism. Both religion and atheism can be false idols.

Thomas Baum, that righteous blogger, knows this.

"It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of almighty God,to obey His will,to be grateful for His benefits,and humbly to implore His protection and favors."
(George Washington)

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

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

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

Ian McEwan. "End of The World Blues".

I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious theories of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God.
Thomas Edison in Columbian magazine.

By simple common sense I don't believe in God.
Charlie Chaplin

Neither in my private life nor in my writings have I ever made a secret of being an out-an-out unbeliever.
Sigmund Freud. in a letter to Charles Singer.

Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.
Isaac Asimov 1920-1992

As for myself, I do not believe that such a person as Jesus Christ ever existed; but as the people are inclined to superstition, it is proper not to oppose them.
Napoleon Bonaparte 1769 - 1821

I cannot believe in God when there is no scientific evidence for the existence of a supreme being and creator.
Jodi Foster quoted in The Calgary Sun interview July 10 1997

I'm an atheist, and that's it. I believe there's nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other, and do what we can for each other.
Katherine Hepburn. in Ladies Home Journal, Oct 1991

The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it, and some clever fables; and some blood drenched history; and some good morals, and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies. Mark Twain. in Letters From The Earth.

The memory of my own suffering has prevented me from ever shadowing one young soul with the superstitions of the Christian religion.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton 1815-1902. Feminist leader in "Eight Years and More."

I would love to believe that when I die I will live again; that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But as much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and world-wide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking.
Carl Sagan Pulitzer Prize -winning astronomer, in The Demon-Haunted World.

I regard monotheism as the greatest disaster ever to befall the human race. I see no good in Judaism, Christianity or Islam - good people, yes, but any religion based on a single, well ... frenzied and virulent god, is not as useful to the human race as, say, Confucianism, which is not a religion, but an ethical and educational system.
Gore Vidal in "At Home".1988.

"The Good Book - one of the most remarkable euphemisms ever coined."
Ashley Montague Anthropologist and Harvard science professor.

From "Athiest Universe", by David Mills

The old testament is responsible for more atheism, agnosticism, disbelief - call it what you will - than any book ever written.
A.A.Milne 1882 - 1956. author of the Winnie the Pooh books.

I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Dr Woods.

In the realm of science, all attempts to find any evidence of supernatural beings, of metaphysical conceptions, as God, immortality, infinity, etc.,thus have failed, and if we are honest, we must confess that in science there exists no God, no immortality, no soul or mind as distinct from the body.
Charles Proteus Steinmetz 1865 - 1923. Inventor and Engineer writing in The American Freeman newspaper July 1941

As a historian, I confess to a certain amusement when I hear the Judeo-Christian tradition praised as the source of our present day concern for human rights...In fact the great religious ages were notable for their indifference to human rights.
Arthur Schlesinger Jr. Historian in a speech at Brown University 1989.

Religion is an illusion.
Sigmund Freud; The Interpretation of Dreams.

Surely the ass who invented the first religion ought to be the first ass damned.
Mark Twain.

The Christian system of religion is an outrage on common sense.

Thomas Paine, 1732 - 1809. British/American Revolutionary Hero.

In those days in Far Rockaway there was a youth centre for Jewish kids at the temple...Somebody nominated me for president of the youth center. The elders began getting nervous, because I was an avowed atheist by that time.
I thought nature itself was so interesting that I didn't want it distorted by miracle stories. And so I gradually came to disbelieve the whole religion.
Richard Feynman. Nobel Prize-winning physicist in "What Do You Care What Other People Think?"

Today the theory of evolution is an accepted fact for everyone but a fundamentalist minority, whose objections are based not on reasoning but on doctrinaire adherence to religious principles.
James Watson Nobel Prize-winning biologist and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA.

Evolution, as such, is no longer a theory for a modern author. It is as much a fact as that the earth revolves around the sun.
Ernst Mayer. 1904-2005 "Twilight of The Idols"

Which is it; is man one of god's blunders?
Or is God one of man's blunders?
Nietzsche in "Twilight of The Idols"

How can any woman believe that a loving and merciful god would, in one breath, command Eve to multiply and replenish the earth, and in the next, pronounce a curse on her maternity?
Elizabeth Cady Stanton. 1815-1902.Feminist leader

The study of theology ,as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing.
Thomas Paine 1737-1809 "The Age of Reason".

A knowledge of the true age of the earth and of the fossil record makes it impossible for any balanced intellect to believe in the literal truth of every part of the Bible in the way that fundamentalists do. And if some of the Bible is manifestly wrong, why should any of the rest of it be accepted automatically?
Francis Crick 1916-2004. Nobel Prize-winning biophysicist and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. in "What Mad Pursuit".

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

More quotes from "Atheist Universe".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak minded who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick there noses in other people's business.
Jesse Ventura. Playboy Mag. Nov.1999.

I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.
Albert Einstein in his biography, "Albert Einstein; The Human Side."

The pioneers and missionaries of religion have been the real cause of more trouble and war than all other classes of mankind.
Edgar Allan Poe.

Missionaries are perfect nuisances and leave every place worse than they found it.
Charles Dickens 1812 - 1870.

I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.
Benjamin Franklin 1706-1790

We have the most religious freedom of any country in the world, including the freedom not to believe.
Bill Clinton 1996 presidential debate in San Diego

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826 in a letter to John Adams April 11,1823

The luckiest thing that ever happened to me was that my father didn't believe in God, and so he had no hang ups about souls. I see ourselves as products of evolution, which itself is a great mystery.
James Watson Nobel Prize-winning biologist, and co-discoverer of the DNA's structure, in Discover magazine, July 2003

All thinking men are atheists.
Ernest Hemingway in "A Farewell To Arms"

I have seldom met an intelligent person whose views were not narrowed and distorted by religion.
James Buchanan 1791-1868

I don't believe in god because I don't believe in Mother Goose.
Clarence Darrow speaking in Toronto Canada 1930

As far as I remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.
Bertrand Russell.

I'm not someone who goes to church on a regular basis. The specific elements of Christianity are not something I'm a huge believer in.
Bill Gates

What I got in Sunday School was simply a firm conviction that the Christian faith was full of palpable absurdities, and the Christian God preposterous. The act of worship, as carried on by Christians, seems to me to be debasing rather than ennobling. It involves groveling before a being who, if he really exists, deserves to be denounced instead of respected.
H.L.Mencken in a letter to Will Durant.

My mind is incapable of conceiving such a thing as a soul. I may be in error, and man may have a soul, but I simply do not believe it.
Thomas Edison in "Do We Live Again"

Georgiason - good point. This is not Saudi Arabia. If American Muslims have a problem with the Constitution, they need to depart immediately for the far less friendly shores of various Muslim nations.

Separatist sub-cultures (religious or otherwise) will not thrive in the USA, and this should be made very clear. When a person receives US citizenship they agree under oath to forsake allegience to other countries and governments, and to fully support the USA and it's constitutional form of government - I've personally witnessed this ceremony.

Muslim outrage at the publishing of a book should be met only with great disdain - and nothing more....meanwhile, the book should of course be published.

Let this be a lesson to Christian fundamentalists that would control the media and subvert the political process for their own ends - these efforts will be met with great resistence by loyal supporters of our secularist democracy.

Many religious people are cloistered and sheltered and can think only in the extremely narrow confines of their own personal religious heritage, be it from their own families, or from the culture in which they are raised.

People do not seem to realize where they come from, nor where their religious belief comes from. They do not seem to realize that their religious heritage is provided to them by the previous generation, that what they may inherit at any given time in history, and at any given location upon the earth, is merely a setting, where the formation of an inner will comes into being, and operates to motivate their personalities, and that this setting is very different from place to place and from epoch to epoch, and is based on many, many things that have only a virtual existence, or said another way, have no existence at all, other than as markers, and interpretive categorizations within our own minds.

If you believe in God, and if you are a Christian, you cannot believe that any person "set" on this earth, within the "setting" of their birth can be any more or less favored by God, merely by the "accident" of their birth. And therefore, to assert and assume the superiority of one religious truth over another is absurd and that there must be something more than such a silly way of looking at things.

I believe that all of the "operational" or "proximate" experiences of human beings are coarse and unreliable when it comes to knowledge and knowing, and that there is an aesthetic of knowledge which some people seek, but which they may only occasionally glimpse but never fully realize, and that there is the contrasting hum-drum surface experience of everyday things, which we seem to know; there are different kinds of religious rituals and practices, and yes, even praying to an unknowable God which is, yet somehow, imagined in great detail, in order to regard as the object of thought and contemplation, this hum-drum world of ours which we do not know well, with its multiplication of reflected images, through the eyes of millions, that make such complicated and cacophonous variations to everything that we perceive.

Reading Susan Jacoby's comments was like listening to an opera diva hitting every note perfectly as she sings an aria. The Saddleback nonsense poses a clear and present danger to fundamental American values. It was contrary to everything the Founding Fathers stood for.

Meanwhile, those values are under attack on another front. I refer to Random House's decision to abandon publication of Sherry Jones' book, "The Jewel of Medina," in the face of threats from Muslims to retaliate if the book were published. Surely there is no debate about this decision. It is wrong, period. Random House has just driven a stake into the heart of what America is all about. Self-censorship in the face of threats of retaliation if a book is published takes us back to the Dark Ages.

Some of us have been warning for some time that the growing Muslim population in the U.S., whatever its size, would reach the tipping point at which it would begin to alter the character of American society and pose a threat to our basic values. With Random House's decision, I rest my case. This incident poses a litmus test of whether Muslims in America really understand what this country is all about. So far, they are flunking.

An immediate response is required. Pamela Taylor, Eboo Patel, and all other so-called moderate or progressive Muslim voices should be banned from the pages of On Faith until they take a strong and public stand against Random House's decision. Taylor, Patel, and the rest must denounce the Muslims making those threats in unequivocal terms.

Concerned hath spake unto us: "The soul (if it exists) separates personkind from the animalkind."

How does anyone know that animals don't have "souls" (if they exist and I doubt that very much). I understand Concerned but the sentence just yelled for a response. Where does the Catholic Church get off telling the world who has a soul? My two Alaskan Malamutes have more soul than Benedict XIII and so does my goldfish!

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

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

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

CHURCH: a body or organization of religious believers

FAITH: a system of religious beliefs

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

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

McCain with his understandable doubts about the existence of a God resulting from his experience in prison camp, and Obama doesn’t really buy the Jesus died for our sins crap.

Jesus was a Jew and not a Christian. Furthermore the Christians should be thanking the Jews for crucifying Jesus since their act actually redeemed Christians, Jesus could have just committed suicide to die for your sins right?
What this character Jesus did was refuse to buy into the worlds fictions and he set the ultimate example of being steadfast in the truth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, faith meaning trust is a verb not a noun. The word has been perverted by the Ego and made into a false idol.

Thoughts:

The soul (if it exists) separates personkind from the animalkind. If personkind starts at conception then said soul is present at said conception. Aborting/murdering i.e. denying nourishment to or poisoning this body and soul kills the body but not the soul. The RCC says the aborted soul goes to limbo. What rubbish!! The souls from aborted bodies definitely would go to Heaven (if it exists) as these spirits would be perfectly pure.

Do said souls require the future ability to think? To be able to know right from wrong? Do the souls of mentally disabled fetuses, have this ability? Do they then have souls or not? Are they to be considered personkind or only animalkind?

Are our mentally disabled brothers and sisters to be considered animals? Have our senior citizens with dementia or Alzheimers lost their souls and now to be considered animals?

Or maybe we should protect all of our brothers and sisters at every stage of their lives without considering the state of their souls??

Re progressive and conservative, well said, Daniel ITLD! I think you nailed it.

Some people use the word "progress" to mean improvement. But it does not really mean that. It really means "movement forward," or "movement into the future, which only goes in one direction, forward." So progressive people are not necessarily people who want to improve everything; they are people who want to move forward with hopeful optimism.

I think similar things about conservatism. Alot of people think that it means "stagnating" or "going backwards." But it really means, "conserving what good things that we know already exist." Alot of conservative people want to put the brakes on progress, that is, they are not so happy or optimistic about moving carelessly forward, because some of the good things we know exist may be lost, and replaced by things that may not be as good. They fear that progress may not really be so good.

But the world today is changing so fast that it is difficult to keep up, even for people who consider themselves to be progressive. The pace of change is unstoppable, and where progress will lead is unknowable. Under these circumstances, isn't it almost impossible to be a conservative? Every step forward is a brave new world. Wouldn't any conservative end up looking over his shoulder to the past, dreaming of it, and always wishing to go back?

Even though I have a very difficult time adjusting to all of the new things in the world, I don't want to get stuck in the past. I am at the age, where alot of my friends are like that. They just look back with nostalgia, and they look forward only with foreboding. I try to help them along.

I want to keep going and be modern, where ever life may lead me, because, I know, we can never go back.

Isn’t it true that to show concern for the unborn is merely to feel for them without real feeling, and to cry for them without real grief, and then to swear that ones duty is done? This is hardly a sacrafice to rouse the notice of Jesus.

Your arguments are selfish, disingenuous, and in bad faith.

People like you mis-characterize the abortion debate. There are no baby-killers here. To compare abortion to the holocaust is to marginalize the holocaust, and to minimize the suffering of the people who actually endured it, and for what? for your selfish and mean-spirited attempts to manipulate the emotions and feelings of others.

You are in this, not for the "unborn" but for yourself, to score points with Jesus, with your overly-dramatic, fake "passion."

According to Newsweek – 1987 of scientists with credible academic credentials only 700 out of 480,000 US Earth and Life scientists believe in creationism. That’s 0.14% of credible scientists.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

From religious tolerance.org
Beliefs elsewhere in the world:
Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon among countries the West. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:

97% do not believe the world was created in six days.

80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.

Freestinker responded to me saying, "Actually, we have both [pluralism and secularism]! We have flourishing religious pluraism in this country precisely because we have a secular government that remains silent (neutral) on matters of religious opinion. Let's keep it that way!"

The point I was getting at is that Jacobian secularism requires that the religious to check their worldviews at the door and excludes religiously founded discourse in the public square.

This is not a simple "no establishment of a particular religion"-type secularism, which I heartily support; rather it is anti-religious secularism in the guise of neutrality and objectivity, which is something quite different and something that should be rejected. We should not establish Jacoby's anti-religious belief system any more than we should establish a particular religious views.

P.S. Rhesus monkeys don't read the Bible and have no hope of "salvation."

Karen M:

Daniel ITLD:

I agree with some of what you are saying re: conception and it is a tough question. But here is some food for thought.

I heard my daughter's heartbeat in the womb when I was less then 12 weeks pregnant. Both my husband and I were overcome with emotion when we heard it and there was no doubt in our minds that there was our baby. Yet, I could have legally killed my baby at that time. Is that easily defensible?

I had an ultrasound at 16 weeks when I was pregnant with my son. I saw a fully formed baby sucking his thumb. Yet I could have still killed him at that time. Is that morally defensible?

For the record, I am in favor of keeping abortion legal because I do not want women dying from illegal abortions. And I find abortion to be morally defensible in the cases of rape and incest because ofthe incredible damage to the mother. But abortion for convenience is hard to defend when contraception is cheap and widely available.

And if you look at what Rick Warren is about, you will see that he is very much about dealing with poverty, disease, literacy etc and has donated 90% of all his money from his books to these causes. There are many christians, I among them, that are very concerned about social justice issues. Do not lump us all into one bag.

And I am an evangelical christian that looking forward to voting for Obama.

August 19, 2008 11:56 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thank you for sharing your thoughts about your joy at knowing about your unborn children.

Human embryology suggests that the baby's heart begins to beat around 18 days after fertilization of the ovum, although it can be heard outside only a bit later. The heart is one of the earliest organs to develop simply because the growing baby needs to pump blood for its growth.

There is no big confusion about when the baby's life begins. There is no time when it is dead, although there was a time before fertilization of the ovum when it didn't exist.

A woman who is pregnant by intent considers her growing baby in the womb a baby right from the beginning and mourns for it should she lose it through miscarriage or stillbirth.

Other definitions for an unborn child are used only when the mother does not want the child, to make abortion seem ethically and morally correct.

12345 wrote:
"But I believe that with out a standard I am open to do what I feel is good in my eyes or feels good to me. My problem with your “good” is though it may be good, not all peoples “good” is good. Good can be relative. I am not coerced to be good and the reward is not my motive either. It is because I care about people as Christ did."

We do have a standard - one we share with all other social animals, and it has nothing to do with the Bible or anyone named Jesus. It's called "empathy", and it greases the wheels of social interaction. Empathy existed long before humans did, and it's precisely the source of the "golden rule." If you "care about people", empathy is the reason why you do.

Any group of animals living together that fails to live by the unwritten, but fully realized, rules that make cohesion and cooperation possible, but instead follows an "every-man-for-himself" social policy, is not long for this world. It doesn't take much study of social species to see this clearly.

Did you know that when an experiment was performed wherein rhesus monkeys could pull a chain to get food for themselves, but when they did, another monkey got a shock, that they would go as long as 12 days without food to avoid shocking the other monkey? That's empathy - the ability to project our own feelings onto another.

Read about it here:
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/archive/2005fallwinter/FallWinter0506_deWaal.pdf

Your understanding (or lack thereof) of evolution is so fundamentally flawed, that I can only surmise that your entire notion of it must have come from religious sources.

Far from being discredited, it underpins our entire understanding of all of the life sciences. There is absolutely no controversy about it among scientists. Even those who believe in God, like Francis Collins, don't dispute evolution.

BTW, you are misusing and misunderstanding the word "theory." In common parlance it may mean conjecture or speculation, but that is not what it means in science. We have, for instance, the theory of gravity (yes, theory - not *law*). Pretty well accepted, wouldn't you say?

A theory in science is a unifying concept that comprises a number of observations and tested hypotheses. It may even encompass otherwise unrelated fields of study, as evolution does geology, biology, paleontolgy, and genetics.

But don't take my word for it, Google "theory" and "scientific method" for yourself.

Mr. Spiderman

In an earlier thread, you somehow got the mistaken impression that I am a psychiatrist, but I am not.

So, I do not know what to make of your strange comments about chocolate cake and Evolution. What do you expect people to say? How do you expect people to react?

Not being a psychiatrtist, I am at a loss. I hate to be mean to you when you are obviously experiencing some kind of distress. I think that when people suffer mental distress, it is not really any less difficult than when they suffer physical distress.

However, shouldn't you be taking this distress to someone in person, instead of putting up here on this blog, where no one can really understand what is wrong with you, and where no one can really help you?

I cannot imagine what must your true motivations and intentions be, in posting here, as you do.

Mr. Spiderman

In an earlier thread, you somehow got the mistaken impression that I am a psychiatrist, but I am not.

So, I do not know what to make of your strange comments about chocolate cake and Evolution. What do you expect people to say? How do you expect people to react?

Not being a psychiatrtist, I am at a loss. I hate to be mean to you when you are obviously experiencing some kind of distress. I think that when people suffer mental distress, it is not really any less difficult than when they suffer physical distress.

However, shouldn't you be taking this distress to someone in person, instead of putting up here on this blog, where no one can really understand what is wrong with you, and where no one can really help you?

I cannot imagine what must your true motivations and intentions be, in posting here, as you do.

Jim Roberts wrote:
"Abortion is a sin. It's murder, plain and simple. The death of innocent babies is far more important than Iraqi civilian deaths, as most of these people were hellbound anyway. War is messy, freedom is messy, if we want to spread democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan many will die, it's true. But how else will they ever know freedom?" Keep in mind killing during war or execution is not murder and thus allowable to God (see Leviticus and Deuteronomy). It's better that there's no abortion and to have the child grow up poor than for abortion (murder) to occur."

This man could not be more eloquent on his violent, hate filled rhetoric. My god allows me to murder the non believers, the born non believers deserve death more than the unborn. Murdering is the way to spread democracy,, the bigotry goes on and on. It is bigots like this that give religion a really bad name. Let us thank the wisdom of our founding fathers for the separation of church and state, for people like this man would have transformed this country in Taliban land.

Anon, if you're serious, you are stupid not to know that landoverbaptist.org is not baptist.

Spiderman2 is a writer for landoverbaptist.org

Evolutionists thinks that whoever eats the most chocolate cake "is the fittest".

Eat or be eaten. The more you eat the more you become sweet. It is survival of the sweetest and the chcolatiest.

Abort or you diminish your chance of survival. Marry your own kind. Let's get WEIRD. CHANGE THE NORMAL CONSTITUTION.

Spiderman2 - this blog has been a great learning experience for you. You can't believe how your spelling and composition has improved. Your ideas - well, that's a different issue altogether.

Still, I honestly believe you're at least 16 years old - I don't buy the theory that you're still being home-schooled. It's clear that you're thinking for yourself these days.

How about industrial arts? These vocational schools really offer some good career opportunites. Best of luck with that .....

BTW, forget religion and philosophy - that's not your strong suite.

Evolution is the belief that the chocolate cake can bake all by itself and continuously improving everytime it repeatingly bakes itself.

Very funny and yet it's now in many science books. In time when people become sane again, those same "science" books would be sitting side by side in bookshelves where batman and spiderman are found.

These people think CARTOONS ARE REAL and fetuses are not.

Once a person is convinced that chocolates can bake all by itself, you can EASILY feed all kinds of garbage in his mind without resistance.

Garbage like abortion, gay marriage becomes NORMAL in their sight. Whatever is normal becomes abnormal. The NORMAL constitution which served America for so many years becomes ABNORMAL to them so they have to CHANGE IT to become like themselves -- TO BE ABNORMAL.

12345: said "Evolution is a theory and very little has ever been proven to support this theory. Most scientists today have dismissed this theory."

Can you provide some documentation for this?

As a scientist I would be most interested in seeing the peer reviewed, mainstream articles that dismiss the process of evolution.

The Declaration challenged the divine right of kings. It had no choice but to assert an equally divine right of self governance.

Arminius: - Agreed that the Declaration is one of the greatest documents ever. I would even agree with those who have called it our national creed, but it is not part of the Constitution.

I sometimes think that the difference between liberalism and conservatism comes down to their view of the Declaration. Conservatives think that the ideal that is enshrined in the Declaration was reached when the Constitution was ratified (or perhaps when the 14th and 19th amendments were added), whereas liberals see that ideal as something we still need to work to reach.

SPIRITUAL MONGREL:

Evolution is fact, perhaps a creation of God’s if you believe God exists, but evolution is a fact. Pick up any grade school science book for reference.

My friend just because it is in school textbooks does not mean it is fact. I am shocked you believe this. Evolution is a theory and very little has ever been proven to support this theory. Most scientists today have dismissed this theory. Lots of scientists are moving toward intelligent design because of the facts they are finding out. If you look at textbooks they have changed so much when science finds out more. They just add to the books and unfortunately never retract the bad info the had once published.

I challange you to share one truth of evolution?

NotSoGreatScot:

Right you are, our Constitution never mentions a creator. The Declaration of Independence does mention a creator - but, despite being one of the greatest documents ever, it is not the law of the land.

@SISL - Where does the constitution mention a creator?

"There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need." (Acts 4:34-35, NIV)

Isn't that socialism?

Spiritual Mongrel:

You are making a great deal of sense here. Let me emphasize that: a GREAT DEAL of sense. Please keep it up.

Jim Roberts Junior.

Let me start by quoting Chris Farely “Holy snicky!”

You’re off the reservation my friend.

How is any life lost not important? You discredit yourself the minute you say an unborn baby is more important than an Iraqi civilian.

Killing under the guise of war making it “okay” is delusional.

Evolution is fact, perhaps a creation of God’s if you believe God exists, but evolution is a fact. Pick up any grade school science book for reference.

How does socialism weaken the biblical base? The intent behind it is noble – collective ownership, good of the whole over the individual. Something Jesus would support I think. Granted we have not found a way to do socialism well and it has typically failed miserably, but it certainly is not evil.

Environmentalism? How is being a good steward for the Earth that God created a bad thing?

I am a 43 year old male but how is feminism bringing us down?

Multiculturalism. I think you may be better off as a xenophobe than Christian. Christ did not fear those who were different than him.

If a couple of gay men can bring down your religion it wasn’t that strong to start with.

What is it about the United States that makes our relationship with God special?

Wasn't every monarch that ever believed he was appointed by God (and there have been many of them), in effect saying that his nation had a special relationship with God?

At least we have discovered that we can be civil regardless of our differences.
This world has been here much longer than judaism and christianism. Human beings have been moral for much longer than the Bible times. The golden rule of "do unto others as you wish them to do unto you" has been around for thousands of years. You might not own morality but christians as a group do think that the only rule book on moral values by which the constitution was written is the bible. The constitution only mentions the creator once. Nowhere in the constitution are the ten commandments expressed. If we lived by the commandments we will have murdered or jailed anybody who works in the sabbath, any adulterer, unruly kids and so forth. Stealing and killing have been around for millenia and the golden rule mentioned above is enough for us to restrain ourselves from such behavior. We can debate all day on when life really begins and never come to an agreement. Regardless of what you think, criminalizing abortion will not stop them. The rich girls who get pregnant will still get them in some foreign land,, and the poor girls will go back to coat hangers and inescrupulous back alley practitioners. Taking away the right to choose will not get rid of the problem it will only make criminals out of the poor and the working class. If you want abortion to diminish in this country have the humanity to empower women. SISL

There's a lot of noise here, so let's cut through the sound and fury.

Abortion is a sin. It's murder, plain and simple. The death of innocent babies is far more important than Iraqi civilian deaths, as most of these people were hellbound anyway. War is messy, freedom is messy, if we want to spread democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan many will die, it's true. But how else will they ever know freedom? Keep in mind killing during war or execution is not murder and thus allowable to God (see Leviticus and Deuteronomy). It's better that there's no abortion and to have the child grow up poor than for abortion (murder) to occur. Being poor is not a sin. Jesus was poor (by choice). I believe in a woman's right to choose up until the moment of conception (excepting the case of rape-the child shouldn't be murdered just because he was the result of sin).

Anyway people shouldn't be having sex prior to marriage, it's fornication and God hates it. Same goes for birth control

I believe that God has a special relationship with the United States, more so than any other people in the world, with the exception of Israel.

Candidates who promote gay "marriage", abortion, gun control, socialism, illegal immigration, etc. will answer in the end to their creator. That's why in good conscience I can't vote for either of these unsaved bozos. America was founded on Christian principles, in FACT if not in law (admittedly, and to our detriment), and it stands or falls on those primicples.

Atheists, agnostics, socialists, and so on have been trying to weaken America's biblical base by promoting promiscuity, evolutionism, feminism, multiculturalism, nanny-statism, environmentalism, moral relativism, concessions in the middle east, and the gay agenda. As Christians, we can't allow them to destroy God's America.

SISL
Thanks for the compliment. I agree by what little I know you; you are a good intended person and a bit feisty. Also thanks for the debate with out the hostility that normally follows.

I agree our country was founded by various people with different faith / religious back grounds and beliefs.

However I believe when I read the constitution that they saw something we miss today. That is that the creator has given certain rights to all mankind which includes a set of core standards which was, some what, attempted to set up in our bill of rights. The beauty of this is that I do not own morality; it is contrary to my nature. But I believe that with out a standard I am open to do what I feel is good in my eyes or feels good to me. My problem with your “good” is though it may be good, not all peoples “good” is good. Good can be relative. I am not coerced to be good and the reward is not my motive either. It is because I care about people as Christ did.

Now the delicate balance is not to have government force religion on anyone but to govern by some core standards that are not made up by our feelings of right and wrong, because they change with whoever is in office. The only way this is done is by recognizing the standard that I believe was passed down from God to mankind for the good of all people.

Can this be done with out forcing you to become something you don’t believe in?

Warm Regards,

I don't really care about any aspects of religion at all, except for the wounded hand of Jesus, that I sometimes feel almost touching me, and the feeling that I may get to show him my scars some day.

Nice post Daniel

There is an outer aspect of religion, what we do in the world to show our religion. In fact, the outer aspect of religion is one of the marks of culture. Because we are physical things in the world, we must do things, we must go places, we must say things. We must stand or sit or kneel. We must dress a certain way. We must meet according to some schedule, in some designated place. If that place is a building, we must design it and build it, and then maintain it with funds that we must acquire. When we pray, we must say something; we must find words for our prayers.

And every religious group does all these things a different way.

When you go to church, or mosque, or temple, you are actually going to a little theatrical production, one that you may even participate in. And each new generation, according to their traditions, continues their religious practices as they have been taught. But none of these particular religious traditions can have any real or cosmic meaning. They are merely the checklist of the things that we must do, because we must do something. If participation enables inner reflection, then so much the better, but it does not change the arbitrary nature of our outer religious expression.

All of the differences among religious groups are, in fact, to some degree, political differences. Many settled religious practices were, in fact, settled by force, by political force, but sometimes, by brute military force, and by torture. We think these differences in religious practices are critically important, just as we may think that the invisible political boundaries between nations are critically important. But, could God attach much importance to such things, or even notice them at all?

Susan,

Your article raises some good questions.

I don’t have a problem with faith/belief. Everyone believes something and what we believe shapes our actions. By knowing someone’s beliefs you have a better idea on what they may do in a given situation.

Article VI of the constitution is still being followed in a legal sense in that we can not deny a person to become president like we can deny a person born in Canada (like myself) who then becomes a US Citizen.

I compare Article VI to be criminal court and legally binding and the event on Saturday to be like civil court proceedings where you don’t necessarily have a record if you lose but damage can be done, just ask OJ.

Conservatives will throw the baby out with the bath water over gay rights or abortion, but forget the other issues that will make a great difference in the world like education and the elimination of poverty.

Freedom is how the universe works be it God given or just the way it is; freedom to express (including being gay), freedom to love and even freedom to fail. This is how nature works and there are consequences to every action. If a lion eats all the gazelle he will starve. Similarly if people engage in activities that do support our long term survival then the system, the universe, is set up to self correct.

We have proof that too much fat in your diet leads to disease and early death. It taxes our society in lost wages and rising healthcare costs and is a detriment to society. Yet we have not outlawed too much fat in the food we produce. We are starting to pass laws that insist your provide consumers with the information to make informed decisions but that is where he have drawn the line. Theoretically shouldn’t we pass a law banning excess fat? All the conservatives please raise your hand… you know you want to.

At best there is circumstantial evidence or hearsay on what God’s laws are yet we would like to pass laws based on this when we won’t pass laws on things that would benefit society when we have proof. There is no logic there. Compound that with the idea of free will and I don’t see a leg to stand on.

The leaders of our country are not tasked with passing laws that support your religious beliefs, at least not in a country where freedom of religion is protected.

They are charged with running/managing issues that impact life on earth, nothing else.

Dear Warm regards;
This country was founded on separation of church and state. That is history, our founding fathers came from different religious and non religious backgrounds and they left England because of religious persecution.
I agree with you, the world would be a better place if everybody was accountable for their actions without coercion. The difference is that in my world I choose to do good for the sake of being good, and in the Christian world they do good for some reward in some afterlife or for some kind of blessings here on earth. The first requires no coercion, the later ones do.
Circumstances sometimes push people to make life and death decisions. My duty as a citizen is to ease those circumstances for the least fortunate so as to diminish the need for them to do harm. Our government policies that do not empower women with easy access to health care, education, living wages, day care services, create and help exacerbate their misery. We are the government. The government is us. We all fail if we don't write to our congress men and women and push our candidates to keep their promises. That is my definition of moral values and I don't need the good book to tell me so.
I can tell you are a good person. People that know me think I am not bad either. Feisty, perhaps, but not bad.I just don't like when people on the right think they owe morality just because it comes from their god.
Best regards, SISL

12345,

Evolution may be a joke to you but regardless, my rights were still not given to me by your god.

Thanks for ignoring my point.

Theonomy - isn't that what the radical Islamists are looking for?

Freestinker.

Evolution is a big JOKE! With evolution you don’t have in bread morals by nature of evolution it’s self. Just typical that the theory of contradicts itself.

Dear SISL
I do not live in a realty show, utopia, or in heaven. Just in a society of people who want what’s best for them despite whom they kill, steal, or destroy to get what they want.

At least I have some basis for what lines I will not cross despite how uncomfortable it makes me. I was 16 when we found out my girlfriend was pregnant, which was our decisions to have sex. I decided to ask my girlfriend to marry me and to try our best to raise our child. It was not the fetus or babies fault that we had sex. So why kill the baby because of our choice?

I did not mean to insinuate that marriage would solve the worlds issues, but I do believe that adherering to some basic standards would help us all.

We need leaders who understand the foundation of this country and why it was set-up differently, and lead with those rights and values for all people. So that we don’t destroy each other for the sake of our wants.

In your view what ground do you want our leaders to firmly place their feet on? Legislated morality? Greasy footing for sure.

Still Warm Regards.

"John McCain is not a Born Again Christian Evangelical. His religion is plastic and shallow, and wholly opportunistc."

DITLD,

True but still irrelevant.

While it is true that everyone has their rights to express their views any way that they wish, it is bad policy for the government and elected officials to mix politics and religion. It is bad because each elected official represents all of the people of his juristiction, and not just the ones who voted for him. And surely, no matter what the elected official's religious beliefs, there will be many whom he represents who do not feel as he does. This is simple.

We have all of the religious strife of 16th and 17th century Europe to demonstrate this truth, and we have our Consntiution that was designed as a direct reaction to this strife. And we have the strife of modern day Islam.

John McCain is not a Born Again Christian Evangelical. His religion is plastic and shallow, and wholly opportunistc.

Anon,

Theonomy ... why yes, of course.

Problem is, whose revelation do we use?

Mine or someone else's?

Freestinker

Google "theonomy."

"... And now, it is waning...and swiftly. Is it any wonder the land we live in now is not of strength and moral character...but cynicism, free thinkers of sex and immoral practices and subcultures of violence and hatred.

Its not rocket science what is going on, folks."

TDAY,

Freedom is great ain't it, even when you don't like what others do with it!

What's your alternative, Biblical law for everyone?

"... America's best (indeed, only) path forward: pluralism, not secularism. ..."

Biteme1,

Actually, we have both! We have flourishing religious pluraism in this country precisely because we have a secular government that remains silent (neutral) on matters of religious opinion. Let's keep it that way!

"I relate to the issues of economics and all the rest and I believe in preserving everyone’s God given rights show respect for those people you claim I erased."

12345,

My rights were not given by any god. My "Creators" were evolution and my parents, not your imaginary god. I have unalienable rights simply because I exist, not because they were given by anyone, including your puny god.

Mr. Or Ms. Warm regards:

Therefore you proof my point by stating that your values are more important than anybody elses.
Here are your "reality show" based values.Let us think that every woman will turn down every man's proposal to have sex until marriage. Let us assume that at marriage point this husbands and wifes are financially ready to start a family just in case the condom or IUd ever fails. Oh! I forgot I imagine condoms and IUD are not needed in your imaginary world. Let us assume that husbands will make enough money to support a family so that the wife stays home to raise the children. Let us assume that the christian charities will suffice to provide those unfortunate women who slipped and got pregnant enough or perhaps shelter to their unwanted babies. In that way we don't ever have to provide entitlements to women. Never mind that no one will get paid 7 dollars an hour for miraculously everyone can afford to go to college. How ridiculous your utopia really sounds! I imagine there would be no need for government for poverty will be totally erased by what, marriage? Did you know that a woman's work in this country accounts for one third of the typical middle class families income? Well, you surely live in another planet. Lucky you!!We need leaders who are able to have their feet on the ground. People who think like you must live in heaven.

Daniel ITLD:

I agree with some of what you are saying re: conception and it is a tough question. But here is some food for thought.

I heard my daughter's heartbeat in the womb when I was less then 12 weeks pregnant. Both my husband and I were overcome with emotion when we heard it and there was no doubt in our minds that there was our baby. Yet, I could have legally killed my baby at that time. Is that easily defensible?

I had an ultrasound at 16 weeks when I was pregnant with my son. I saw a fully formed baby sucking his thumb. Yet I could have still killed him at that time. Is that morally defensible?

For the record, I am in favor of keeping abortion legal because I do not want women dying from illegal abortions. And I find abortion to be morally defensible in the cases of rape and incest because ofthe incredible damage to the mother. But abortion for convenience is hard to defend when contraception is cheap and widely available.

And if you look at what Rick Warren is about, you will see that he is very much about dealing with poverty, disease, literacy etc and has donated 90% of all his money from his books to these causes. There are many christians, I among them, that are very concerned about social justice issues. Do not lump us all into one bag.

And I am an evangelical christian that looking forward to voting for Obama.

Dear 12345:

Would'a
Could'a
Should'a

but

ain't!

Hello SISL
Your post was directed to my statements. If I could address yours?
1. I relate to the issues of economics and all the rest and I believe in preserving everyone’s God given rights show respect for those people you claim I erased.
a. I think a women’s choice should happen before they get pregnant this is where my choice is. They should choose not to have sex with every one that is available just because they can.
i. Poverty like guns don’t make you do anything you don’t want to do!
b. If I say no sex before marriage then I have tried to protect the women from the emotional distress from having sex with many partners.
c. I have helped her not have the life long guilt and health issues that follow the abortion process.
d. In addition that will help the poverty issue because you will have some one working to support the family while the other is home pregnant.

2. I am not sure but if you check the statistic you will find that most orphanages are started by caring Christians (or as you stated whining and shouting ministers), both domestically and globally, and that most of the worlds real help comes from private funds which happens to largely be caring Christians.
3. Minimum wage. If you are not happy with $7/hour get more education, I did and was 17 with a child and wife. We took turns working and watching the child. When I finished my college my wife went to college. It took a lot longer and was a lot harder.
4. I account for 600,000 plus Iraq’s death that’s why it is important to support the cost of freedom around the world. That cost is lives of American’s willing to support the ideology of that all people deserve freedom. As former military I was willing to die to give an Iraq man or women or child freedom. I was comparing the cost of freedom and sanctity of human life both in the womb and around the world. To me the cost is the same. A woman wants freedom of choice at what cost, the human life inside her womb. Every human life is precious and should be defended.

This since of Values and Morals makes since to me and I don’t feel they are pathetic.

Warm Regards,

You just don't get it, Jacoby. Your inveterate hatred of all things religious blinds you to America's best (indeed, only) path forward: pluralism, not secularism. What your own belief system is apparently lacking is a motivation to pursue humility and to admit that those with a different Weltanschauung have something to teach you.

TDAY

You sound bitter; you sound like you hate America. Come on. Things change. The world changes. Nothing stays the same. In every age, there are people like you, who take their own failures and frustrations, and then project them on the world.

But the world keeps on going and going and going. All the things that you seem to hate about America, are not Susan's fault; they are not anyone's fault, if they are faults at all.

It is just the way things turn out. Things do not always come out the way we want them to. But yet, that should not stop you from enjoying the life that you have. You have freedom of speech and freedom of thought and freedom of religion. So, why is it so upsetting to you that others have all these rights, too?

It is amazing how atheists such as Susan Jacoby, and others, are always attempting to discount, discredit or completely blind themselves to the fact that the core of people who settled this land of ours and the majority of the numbers who fanned out and went west to settle the remainder of our country had a distinct relationship with their creator God. He was prayed to, relied upon, looked to for wisdom (thru the scriptures), and included in many, many decisions.

This land grew in strength each passing year that this reality held true to so many.

And now, it is waning...and swiftly. Is it any wonder the land we live in now is not of strength and moral character...but cynicism, free thinkers of sex and immoral practices and subcultures of violence and hatred.

Its not rocket science what is going on, folks.

Anyone who doesnt think that history can repeat itself in what transpires when a society, formerly reliant overall on God, and now debases itself into the quagmire we find oursleves in today...well, ostrich head in the sand comes to mind.

He doesn't need to appear. It's a misconception that He will personally appear to destroy the weird. The weird will self-destruct.

Spidey, you are actually the weird one. These are straw man caricatures of evolution, cosmology, and ethics. They in no way represent reality. Yours is the comic book understanding. It's the religious that want to change the Constitution to forbid things. Your almighty god has not made a personal appearance in at least 2000 years, we're waiting ....

"If there's anything I can't stand, it's weird people." -- Lilly Munster (from the 1960's television sitcom, the Munsters.)

A weird set of people.

a. They believe that they came from monkeys
b. They believe that the chocolate cake can bake all by itself and continuously improving everytime it repeatingly bakes itself.
c. They find it hard to prevent pregnancy and if they become pregnant, they rip the fetus out.
d. They marry with the same sex.

The terrible thing is they want these weird beliefs to be written in our Constitution. Their objective is to make the Constitution the COMIC book of the land.

Truly, a weird set of people. But God is almighty. He created this world in a way that the weird will annihilate the weird. They will self destruct.

I love the way "values" and "Christian values" are bandied about as if these mean anything in particular. The only issues I see being consistent are abortion and gay marriage, with the environment running a distant third. I am sick to death of the religious assuming that they not only are the ones having values, but that theirs are the right ones. If you don't like abortion, don't have one, if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a same-sex partner. No one is asking you to. The idiotic assumption that non-believers are without values is ludicrous. My values in no way infringe on the religious, and why should the religious be allowed to infringe on mine. If you don't like atheists, don't become one, marry one, etc., and I promise that I won't become a Christian. Susan is dead bang on here. This was a litmus test pandering to the religious in this country. Obama is pretty safe offending the approximately 20% of the electorate that are non-religious since they will never vote for McCain, so he might as well pander to the others. Very hypocritical. I will be forced to vote for him just because McCain panders even more and would implement policies that would have the potential of imposing the so called rights of the Religious Right on everyone. And they have the gall to claim that they are persecuted!

Whether we were “intelligently designed” or whether we evolved, it is a fact that our brains have a utilitarian purpose, which is to find food, seek or build shelter, and do whatever else is necessary to navigate a dangerous world, at least long enough so that we can have children, and raise them to maturity, so that the human species will continue. But lucky us, our brains are so well designed and constructed, that we can do a whole lot more. We can build rockets to go to the moon, devise drugs to cure disease, build all kinds of destructive weapons to wage war, in fact, create this impressive world civilization in which we all now dwell. But fundamentally, our brains are designed to figure out “which hole did the rabbit go down.”

Now, we are using our brains to try and figure out “when does human life begin.” And this is not so easy to figure out. On day one, the zygote is not a human being. But on day 270, at the moment of birth, the baby definitely is. In between the human being is formed. But on what day? What hour? What minute? What instant, does this happen? This is a question which comes naturally to us, because that is the kind of problem that our brains are designed to solve. But I don’t think there is an answer to this question. Another kind of brain, designed to solve this type of question, might come up with the answer. But the human brain cannot.

I know that this doesn’t help much, when you are trying to design a legal code to deal with the question. But there really is no other good answer. All of the laws dealing with abortion must be somewhat arbitrary, and must depend on the prejudices and inclinations, the likes and dislikes of the society involved, because there is a demand for rules and regulations, even for problems that cannot be defined in black and white. Since these rules must be arbitrary, one rule should be as good as another, but I would hope extremes could be avoided—the extremes of burdening women of childbearing age with the threats of manslaughter or murder, for example, if they live their lives normally.

There is a certain amount of common sense in all of this which is lost on Conservative Christians, and Religeous Fundamentalists, in general, who do not operate under any guidance of common sense, but under the certainty that their religious views are true and even infallible, and surely superior to all others.

The fool and the wise. God calls believers as wise and unbelievers as fools. The interview let people know who is the fool and the wise.

With Obama's choice of judges, it appears that he is the fool.

When people discuss abortion, they often pose the question, “when does life begin?” But that is not the question. All living cells of all living things are traceable into the infinite past, without any knowable or practical beginning. When people pose this question, I think they are actually struggling with the question, “when does human life begin?” .

This is the question. Its resolution is complex. You can think it through many different ways. At the moment of conception, I do not think a human being yet exists. However, as the day of birth draws near, the coming “baby” is definitely a human being. In between, what happens?

A lot of pro-life people say that human life begins at the moment of conception. But they have no basis for saying this. They have no convincing argument. They cannot demonstrate how they have wrung out this simple truth from the complexity of the problem. They cannot even appeal to the authority of the Bible. Why assume that a human being is created at the moment of conception? Why not assume that the sperm and egg, separately, are a person before the moment of conception?

Why not say that all sperm cells and all eggs are sacred matter, with human souls, which ought to be treated with the respect and dignity due any human being? But of course, this is absurd. I think it is just as absurd to suppose that a human being exists at the point of conception. This is the extension of human qualities to non-human protoplasm. This is the trivialization of real human experience—of the splendor and pain of our human existence. This is an easy way to claim moral goodness for oneself, without thinking much about anything and without doing much of anything. To cry out on behalf of the murdered unborn is just a lazy way for people to claim credit with Jesus and with God, to be admitted into Heaven.

The teachings of Jesus Christ are difficult, even severe. Self-inflicted angst over an absurd matter such as when-does-life-begin, isn’t really what Christ has asked of us. It has always bothered me that conservative, pro-life people have an exaggerated sense of morality on the issue of abortion, and endless empathy for the suffering of the unborn, but they really don’t seem to like poor people at all, and even insist that poverty is a just reward that bad and sinful people must surely deserve. And that therefore, unwed mothers, and impoverished children, and poor people, in general, (who definitely are, beyond a reasonable doubt, human beings) are not really entitled to the same concern and empathy that is so lavishly extended to the unborn.

Isn’t it true that to show concern for the unborn is merely to feel for them without real feeling, and to cry for them without real grief, and then to swear that ones duty is done? But to show concern for real, fully formed, people who have already passed from unborn to born, and from infancy into childhood, and from childhood into adulthood, and from adulthood into old age, you must actually do something—some kind of action, some physical extension of assistance, which may in fact involve some real self-sacrifice, something that might possibly rouse the notice of Jesus.

A lot of people do not lend themselves easily to complexity. But if a person chooses to ignore the complexity of a question, the complexity does not go away, but may even increase

Body Count - The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, 4137 US troops and 86,658 – 94,553 Iraqi civilians. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

"People complain about the loss of lives in war when we have killed more unborn baby’s than most major wars put together. I could care less about taxes and other such policies when we as a society will not protect our unborn. People complain about the loss of lives in war when we have killed more unborn baby’s than most major wars put together."

There lies the problem with the conservative christians. They can not see the relationships between economical decisions, warfare decisions and the protection of life either born or the unborn. Their narrow definition of values and how to protect life is to completely erase the rights of half of the population - women, in this case -to decide wether to keep an unwanted pregnancy. If your intelligence expanded a little more you will see that the primary reasons most abortions happen in the country is because most of these women are under the poverty level, they have no Dads around to provide for their kids and the whining and shouting minister in church is not passing the plate to fund this new child's care. Are these evangelicals lining up to adopt a child the same way they line up with their Bibles in front of Congress to protest abortion rights. No. These are the same people who are very compassionate except when taxes are increased to provide entitlements for women so they can go to work and not spend $700 a month on day care which, if you do the math, is more than half of a 7 dollar an hour job. Yeap! your brand of values is very recognized all over the world as the people who lie to go to preemtive wars and in the process kill hundreds of thousands of people and children laying in their cribs. The same people who complain about 4,000 soldiers deaths but fail to account the 600,000 plus Iraqui deaths. But, hey, you said it yourself, you don't care!! Pathetic!!

Religion has been used to enslave women from the beginning of recorded history.

It was used as a rationale for why women were denied the vote for 144 years after the founding of our supposedly secular, democratic country.

The constitution (still) states that all MEN are created equal. That is precisely what its author believed.

Thanks to the courage and perserverance of the suffragettes, women now have voices and choices.

But most people are totally in the dark about HOW the suffragettes won.

Now readers can discover the shocking truth of how the suffragettes did it, and it's as easy as opening their e-mail.

"The Privilege of Voting" is a new e-mail series that follows eight great women from 1912 - 1920 to reveal ALL that happened to set the stage for women to win the vote.

Two beautiful and extremely powerful suffragettes -- Alice Paul and Emmeline Pankhurst are featured, along with Edith Wharton, Isadora Duncan, Alice Roosevelt and two presidential mistresses.

There are tons of heartache for these heroines on the rocky road to the ballot box, but in the end - they WIN!

Presented in a unique sequential e-mail series -- each inspiring episode is about 10 minutes -- perfect to enjoy during coffeebreaks, or anytime.

Subscribe free at

www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/tpovpage.html

Clearly discernable inbetween the lines is Jacoby's real problem with this format.
It is much more a matter of just who's ox is being gored for her.
She says her chief complaint is that this amounts to a "test".
She then goes to state how well Obama fielded his questions,and how poorly McCain handled his.
If she really believed the lie she is trying to peddle here she would have much less of a problem with the format.
It reminds me of someone like Keith Olberman,Andrea Mitchell,etc,etc,, telling everybody what John McCain really should be doing to make his campaign successful.
As if they really would like to see that happen.
Like Jacoby, the moment I here them bemoan how bad McCain is doing I know exactly who is getting their butt kicked.

That Ms. Jacoby failed to cite the simplest known fact regarding Rick Warren's credentials, twice errantly labeling him as a "televangelist," one must wonder what other prejudices have so effortlessly seeped into her review. Lending credence to my concern, it would appear she viewed an entirely different forum than the one I attended.

Even were I to agree that our forefathers "would have never dreamed of allowing a cleric to inquire into their personal morality in a public forum," I choose to celebrate that I live in a country where we have the freedom to do so. The 'state' cannot interpose upon the expression of one's wold view - faith-based or otherwise.

Regardless how desperately Ms. Jocoby attempts to rationalize her peculiar spin, the Saddleback forum was nothing more than an expression of perspectives - two men, sharing their personal perceptions of a world they desire to govern.

Thank you Rick Warren for the single most illuminating look into the hearts and minds of those who would be the leader of the free world.

If Christians are in the majority, does that automatiacally prove that Christian doctrine is valid, proper, and true? No it does not. Such a point of view is absurd.

Just because Christians are in the majority, does that mean that the beliefs of others should be ignored, trammeled, rejected, mocked, persecuted, and villified? Another absurd conclusion.

Democracy in the sense that we experiece it is not "majority rules;" it means equality of all people before the law, and enumeration of basic, civil rights, for all people. Conservative Christians do not seem to believe this.

I feel sorry for people who need political validation of their religious beliefs because that does not prove anything, or make anyone's argument right.

The Christian Right Incrreases Abortions

European countires that educate about contraception and reproductive responsibility have MUCH LOWER ABORTION RATES (and STD rates) than does the ignorance-promoting and troglyditic US moralist society.

How much do we value ignorance? AT the expense of the outcomes we espouse (like reducing the abortion and STD rate)? It is INCREDIBLE.

As they say, "if you think educatin is expensive, try ignorance."

and YES
de facto
it IS a religious test
for better or worse

they both HAD to show up
(ie to pass that test)
and discuss "Christian Values."

NOT
atheist values, or
Jewish values, or
Muslim values,

BUT
Christian Values.

They HAD to pass the Christian Test.
(some of my best friends are Christian)

a coupla interim comments, without engaging the thorny question of whether candidates should particpte in Christan discussions but not Atheist or Jewish or Muslim Discussions (and so far they haven't)
""
Just a Comment" makes sense to me. S/he is more commonsensial, and less ideological.

Susan J is also unimpeachable, as usual. Read her over a couple of times.

AND, for what he was doing, Warren had integrity and fairness, and the squalling that McCain "knew the questions" is ridiculous. I knew the questions. Everyone did.

And I am an atheist and an Obama supporter.

I personally want to know what the values are of the candidate I am voting for. As a Christian I vote for values! Values of the basics of humanity, which was set up by our founding fathers based upon their understanding of the Creator. With out these values we have no standard of morals. Morals and values then become legislated and that is a slippery slope. I could care less about taxes and other such policies when we as a society will not protect our unborn. People complain about the loss of lives in war when we have killed more unborn baby’s than most major wars put together. I could care less about the rights of people wanting to re-define marriage because they want to do what feels right to them. I care about the foundation of the home and sanctity of the union of marriage between a man and women. These are some of the values that I cannot bend on and I want to know clearly where the candidates stand on these issues. You can learn to budget and manage, but true values are from God and adhering to these values for the betterment of mankind is what I will vote for. As much as you want to believe differently America is special in its design. It was designed to take emotion out and personal feeling out and rule by the Ultimate authority and give equal rights to all mankind based on preserving some basic values for all.

The problem is, what brand of Christianity should win out? There are dozens of flavors of Christianity, as seen by the variety of featured panelists on the board. You have everything from United Church of Christ to Fundamentalist Evangelicals. Who gets to be the "official" version of Christianity?

There's a reason that Europeans are leaving Christianity in droves. It's because they've had almost 2000 years of religious wars over points of doctrine, and they're bloody sick of the whole thing.

What people have forgotten over the past eight years is that the President represents ALL Americans, not just members of his/her political or religious affiliation. All Americans means people like Susan Jacoby, Starhawk, and Eboo Patel. What happens when non-Christians become second class citizens?

This is what scares a lot of non-Christians. That the vocal Fundamentalist Christian minority (25% of all Christians?) would impose their strict interpretation of religious laws on the rest of us that follow another creed. Frankly, the Catholics and Orthodox Christians had better be careful of their Fundamentalist allies. Because after they purge all of us non-Christians, who do you think they'll come after next?

Lots of silliness here. First, in a country that is sixty to seventy percent Christian to expect that Christians should have there concerns ignored by the political class strike one as peculiarly undemocratic and not a little silly.

2nd Whatever Webster says religion need not have a God per se. Several in fact don't, including a couple of versions of Buddhism. Faith is any belief in anything that cannot be fully and completely demonstrated in a laboratory. The more 'if/then hypothesis' unvalidated one strings together the more likely one is to be wrong and human logic is limited by the fact the we don't know everything, aren't present everywhere.

Susan the fact that you don't care much for Christianity does not mean Christians don't have a right to here candidates address issues near and dear to their hearts.

Faith and politics always mix and that is why it is absolutely necessary that every voice of whatever faith or lack there of have there voices heard and that none are silenced.

The notion that we are lagging behind because of religion given that our public schools are generally maintained as secular as is possible given the free exercise clause, is so ludicrous as to scarcely need rebuttal Especially given that Private religious school students perform better on science and mathematics test than do public school kids even when drawn from similar economic backgrounds says all we need to know about the idiocy of that argument.

This topic is a real no brainer, and not worth discussing. What Susan wrote is just basic common sense. If people toss their common sense out the window, I do not know how we can argue them into getting it back.

Mixing faith and politics is extremely dangerous as observed by the daily events in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India and Iran.

Peter S. wrote
"Those who have religious beliefs are constantly belittled and told how erroneous it is to bring their religious views into the public forum. Some how the religion of Atheism is tolerated and promoted above all. Yes atheism and secularism are religious beliefs and systems and their constant self-promotion as the one acceptable religion should be guarded against per the constitution."

Well this man should check the Webster dictionary definition of religion. Last I checked it requires a "superhuman" power, a code of ethics and conduct, a set of rituals, and worship." Now, how does atheism fit into that definition? Atheism is to abstain from belief. It does not give any room to anything "superhuman", it requires no rituals, or book of ethics, and since there is no deity to believe in, worshipping is out of the question. Now , maybe Peter refers to the level of "fanaticism" in which one can identify with his or her atheism. Well, some atheists are more enthusiastic about explaining their position to the world while many others prefer not to talk about it to the non atheists. In this opportunity I could not resist the temptation to correct this obviously mistaken conception of both religion and atheism. Also, the correct public forum to bring out your religious beliefs are anywhere so long as it does not breach the Constitutional requirement of separation between church and state. It is illegal for any preacher to endorse any political candidacy in their church. This equally applies to politicians who speak in front of a congregation to endorse any brand of religion. In other words, Mr. Warren's megachurch fits that public forum just fine. But, by all means, leave the politicians running for our highest office and who must abide by the constitution outside of it!!!
Once again, kudos to Susan Jacoby for defending our Constitution. I wish all politicians had the courage of following your example.

As a life-long agnostic, the parts that I watched were very discouraging for their pat answers. For me, Faith in America is sold like merchandise, advertised and commercialized in mega churches.
To use it for trying to influence the evangelists to vote for one or the other base on their faith subverts the electoral process.
People should vote based on logical thinking and reasoning analysis, not for or against a belief based on scripture written 2000 years ago and earlier. Too many of the "believers" compromise their faith anyway. We have a supposedly born again Christian who wages war, allows torture and is most un-Christian like in his social beliefs, favoring the rich over the poor and misusing his office to appoint incompetents to office. Not a man of principles.

How many evangelicals practice their faith 24/7?
Why are mega-churches such commercial organizations? In the US, Faith sells like sex sells.

Oooops! three religious versus one.

JAC

Peter S wrote:

"This whole “On Faith” forum is a joke. It is just a forum to lure truth seekers in, then bombard them with how horrible they are for thinking of faith and God and the real world of politics in the same context. Those who have religious beliefs are constantly belittled and told how erroneous it is to bring their religious views into the public forum."

At 8:30 PM these were the facts on this forum:

PANELIST 1> Richard Mouw, President, Fuller Theological Seminary (2 COMMENTS).
PANELIST 2> Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, Professor, (4 COMMENTS).
PANELIST 3> Chicago Theological Seminary, Gabriel Salguero, Pastor and Executive Member, Latino Leadership Circle (2 COMMENTS).
PANELIST 4> Susan Jacoby, Author and reporter (20 COMMENTS not including Susan’s 2 posts as moderator).

Four religious panelist versus just one non-religious don't seem to be a joke in terms of opportunity to express faith related ideas.

In a more subjective level, the voices in this thread appear to be balanced. Out of the 20 posts at 8:30 PM, 11 tend to counter Susan or state something that can be interpreted as neutral. The rest, or 9 posts, explicitly identify themselves with the panelist or try to refute comments from the ones that counter the panelist.

The religious truth seekers lured to this forum should not feel belittled or being told not to bring their views into this forum if they talk based verifiable facts. Same will apply to non-religious posters or religious posters in agreement with Susan: all we should talk based on verifiable facts.

Peace to all,

JAC

Brambleton:

Thanks for your comment. Part of the problem is that research can only take one so far. Candidates are not out to reveal; for that to some extent we must rely on "reporters" and "journalists." A romp through the past year's letters to the editors of the New York Times, WaPo, Los Angeles Times, through posts on blogs makes this point as writers again and again asked for an end to the carnival and what we used to know as "investigation."

With the media monopoloy, its global interests, the interrelations among advertisers, producers, retailers, etc., an informed public is not desirable. The public is not "the thing in itself." It is an invention, one in which whatever capacity for self-assertion remains, must make itself manifest.

A couple of weeks ago, I heard a reporter say, "I imagine there must be a refugee problem in Iraq."
Has this been on most people's minds? I doubt it. Is it known by journalists in the region that hundreds of thousands are on the move? You bet. Is it known by the people of the Middle East. Yes.

Do they see the endless bloodshed in the Middle East. Yes, there, and in South Asia, and in parts of Europe. Do we?

Should we? The former WTC says yes.

Do you recall the first Gulf War, with the Precision Weaponry BS that Americans were sold by the media? Americans bought it!!! The public, no public is the thing in itself.

Farnaz

Farnaz,

I can appreciate your comments, but there is a very good reason why the following statement exists, "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

While your opinion about the "media" might be justified, it should certainly not be used as an excuse for the "average voter" to be completely ignorant of the issues.

Turn the T.V. and the radio off (well, maybe we can tolerate a few minutes of CSPAN while listening to other voters vent). Read a book and do your own research.

No matter how bad the media is, there is absolutely no excuse, none whatsoever, for people to completely oblivious of all the issues.

Rick Warren simply was hosting the opportunity for Christians and other people who would be interested to see and hear each candidate’s views on their religion, it just so happens to be a common coincidence that they both identify as being Christians. Yes they were personal questions that both candidates had the choice NOT to answer. It, however, was not a "religious test" because it wasn’t televised under the pretence of being a political debate. It was simply an interview. I was surprised that it was on CNN however.

Brambleton writes:

"Our education system needs an overhaul, but neither candidate has the opportunity to do that when the Jerry Springer/Dancing with the Stars voters out there don't have the ability to focus on anything meaningful for more than five seconds."

I agree with you about our education system; however, I don't think it has bearing on what we're seeing now. It is not the voters who have brought us the electoral version of reality TV, but the media. Recall the huge numbers of Clinton AND Obama supporters who protested, in letters to editors, on blogs, the endless Clinton bashing, the utter lack of issues reporting, etc.

The fault lies not with the electorate, dear Brambleton, but with the media. If nothing else suggests that we need to demonopolize the media, return it to the public ownership from whence it was stolen, the current Roman Spectacle should suffice.

To see how we arrived at this pitiful state, see Stewart Ewen, "PR! A Social History of Spin" and "All Consuming Images," also by Ewen.

Someone expressed doubt that my followup post was really written by me. I assure you that if I saw any post by Susan Jacoby that was not written by me, I would have it removed from the site. So you can assume that anything written under my name is indeed written by me. If you had read any of my books, you would know that I consider American education--or, rather, lack of education, the foremost problem in this nation today.

Great column. I think that Article VI greatly clarifies what the authors of the constitution intended for the role of religion in our government. I had never understood its relevance to the separation of church and state until I read "Free Thinkers" - so I have you to thank for helping me see it.

Jeff writes:

"athiests and agnostics account for a small percentage of the american electorate."

Well, those who self-identify into those narrow categories are a small percentage, but the actual percentage of Americans who identify as non-believers/not-religious is about 20%, or 1/5th of the country.

Mr. Mark,

Thanks for letting me know about the other Berlinerblau column.

Farnaz

Susan J makes a crucial point both in her column and her reply here:

We are FALLING BEHIND the rest of the world because

INSTEAD of rendering unto Caesar the things of Caesar, ie Education of the Populace, economic vitality which depends on openness to the future,

we CONCENTRATE on who can worship the idols of religion, which SHOULD be a private practice that is free to be observed by Christians, Jews, Atheists, Muslims, Jains, Jehovah's witnesses, Hindus etc.

It is IN FACT a violation of the SPIRIT of the religious test concept that we must hear the candidates on Fundamentalist Christian questions, but on NO others. It is OF course a free country,and the candidates were not *literally* forced to participate. And Rich Warren is a Good Guy.

But we the people of the United States need to say that this is not the way things are supposed to be, political realities or not. That is what the courageous Susan Jacoby is trying to say.

As a reporter she should do her homework. yes we are a secular govenment. But the country was and still is a country of faith believers. athiests and agnostics account for a small percentage of the american electorate

Farnaz -

Berlinerblau has a second column today on McCain cheating at the forum, and on Rev Warren lying that McCain was in a cone of silence during Obama's segment:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2008/08/cracks_in_mccains_cone_of_sile.html

Houston,

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I congratulate you for writing what might be the dumbest post ever written in an On Faith thread. The fact that you wasted so much time writing it is sad indeed.

If that really was Susan in a follow up post, I'm going to have mark my calendar as being the first, and most likely only, time that I'm in complete agreement.

Our education system needs an overhaul, but neither candidate has the opportunity to do that when the Jerry Springer/Dancing with the Stars voters out there don't have the ability to focus on anything meaningful for more than five seconds. Instead, we have to placate the masses with "I pledge to double the budget for education" - which, as history shows, might just be the biggest waste of money ever invested.

"Christian conservatives gave Bush 78 percent of their votes in 2004." What in the world is a "Christian conservative"?
No wonder we need to repent as a nation. Who are we listening to, God? I doubt it. We should always pray for wisdom and with it get understanding. Wisdom is, "Politics and the Pulpit" don't mix. Understanding why they don't mix is simple. True preachers preach or teach Jesus' coming, His death and His ressurrection and His coming back again. Put a politican in the pulpit and what do you think he's most likely to talk about. Noble Christians and Mature Christians (not on milk but on meat) should choose to pattern themselves after the Bereans who are spoke of in the Bible. Rick Warren should never have put himself in this position if he is a "called" Pastor. He, like many others should not stray from preaching the Word of God. They're commanded to "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." Was that Rick's secular work last night or his "calling" from God? Do we Christians know the difference between the two. Now Rick's integrity is at stake because John McCain as it turn out was not in a cone of silence. This is why its hard for people to be trusted, even so called Pastors. Let me ask you this question, what does the Word of God teach us about a period of time when it says "For false Christs and false Prophets shall rise, and shall show signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect." Believers need the Word from those who were sent. Not this stuff seen on tv last night. Let somebody else do that. So, my message to all the "elect" is, hold steadfast to which was taught to you from the very beginning.

"The Skeptic" writes that he wonders why the candidates don't have a debate devoted to science, technology, and education. A group of prominent scientists have been promoting the idea of just such a debate for months and have gotten nowhere. The television networks aren't interested, because they assume that a debate on science and education would garner low ratings. No doubt they are right. The knowledge of America 15-year-olds about science ranks in the bottom half of countries in the industrialized world, according to an international assessment, known as the PISA test, conducted every two years. In math, we're third from the bottom. In a dumbed-down nation, who wants to hear candidates discuss science?

I dunno. Jacques Berlinerblau thinks McCain scored high on this one. He wonders why Obama's team did not anticipate the abortion question, given the sectarian setting. On that issue McCain has been consistent for decades. No political expediency in McCain's reply, which was perfect for the occasion.

As Berlinerblau says in his current essay, he has steadfastly maintained that all Obama needs is 11% of the Evangelical vote. No doubt that's why we have Obama's Faith and Values initiative, with 800 Dial and Pray, and a website titled "People of Faith for Barack."

http://faith.barackobama.com/page/content/faithhome

It would seem that the candidate knows phone & web spirituality will be insufficient, hence, his agreeing to the Saturday "debate." There will probably be more of this sort of thing.

In the meantime, some Evangelicals and some of the rest of us will be less disappointed if we recognize that this election will not result in a president who is pure in heart and spirit. For the most part, this mixing of politics and faith is toxic both to the civic and religious spheres.

Reader in Houston, what in the world are you talking about?

I am an evangelical Christian and don't recognize anything that you said to be anything resembling the truth.

Tim writes:

"We have an elected government and if you are a politician you go where the votes are. In this sense there is a Christian test and that is the way the system was designed by our founders - to represent the majority of the voters."

You're half right.

We have a government that is elected by the majority, but they represent all, minorities included.

Our checks and balances reflect this concept very well. We have two Houses of Congress that must work together to pass legislation, even if one house is controlled by one party and the other by another party, both of then elected by majority vote. The president has the veto power, where he can veto any legislation passed by Congress, even if a clear majority of 65% of the Congress people approve the legislation. Congress can override his veto with a 66% vote in both houses.

And, through the institution of the Electoral College, we have a check on the will of the majority that is absolute in it's power to throw out a n election result even if a unanimous 100% of the electorate decided on a candidate.

Get thee to a history book, my friend.

To believe that the government only represents the majority is ludicrous.

Hi Susan

Once again you've written a wonderfully insightful opinion piece.

I wonder why the candidates don't have a debate on science, math, and technology issues. It seems that these have the potential to get us out of the problems we see with energy, economics, etc. I'd like to see what type of grasp they have on real topics versus medieval mythology.

No laws were broken and this is all about politics. These political candidates are out for votes and each one assumed that they would get votes by participating. It turned out to be a good idea for McCain and a bad idea for Obama. McCain made the right decision and Obama blew it.

By definition - all of our past Presidents were politicians too. If an event like this were held in their time and they believed it would help get them elected, then I can guarantee you that every last one of them would participate! And for all we know they may have participated in many events similar to this as they went around the country prior to the age of TV. It would probably be a higher probability that they were deeply involved in church events because the Church was where everyone meet in many of the places they visited.

It is all about votes because we have an elected government. For example, if these two politicians thought that showing up for a gay convention would get them elected, then they would be there taking questions on national TV. Then some would say that there was a "gay test." This won't happen, not because of any wrong doing, but because gays don't make up a large enough percentage of our population to make it worth the time for someone running for President. In fact, it could alienate the majority of the voters they might need to get elected.

We have an elected government and if you are a politician you go where the votes are. In this sense there is a Christian test and that is the way the system was designed by our founders - to represent the majority of the voters.

A link on the Newsweek/WaPo site asks, "What do evangelicals want?" Here's a short list, and it's the reason I and others are growing increasingly weary of these folks:

1) Bibles in every home. For every single American to believe in Jesus Christ - not as any particular individual may find him, but precisely as the evangelicals think it should be. They long for a sort of religious lockstep filled with sweeping imagery of a god that's wrathful and vengeful with everybody - everybody but them, of course.

2) Conservative values everywhere. No civil rights for gays, blacks, or any other minorities. For law enforcement to go back to the 50's, in which the oppressed had few rights and no voice, and in which the law could violate the right of any citizen and get merely a wink from the state. For gay students to get picked on and bullied in high school because "they deserved it", "they didn't want to fit in." For the military to be held in high regard, above all criticism, no matter how heinous their actions overseas, no matter how many civilians of other cultures they destroy - and for folks on these shores to be silently supportive rather than using political pressure to end pointless combat exercises.

3) "Faith" as a substitute for science. For school boards everywhere to be coerced into acknowledging creationism as something that can be quantified, because thinking science through is too hard.

4) Political intolerance for any point of view that can't be squared with the Bible, chapter and verse. A refusal to have to deal with all the facts of any situation, and an ability to dismiss complicated dilemmas with the glib phrase, "The Lord moves in mysterious ways."

5) No sex or sexuality anyplace, anywhere, anytime, forever. If evangelicals could reproduce without physical intimacy, I believe they would do it.

I am glad that an increasing number of true Americans - the ones willing to question authority and celebrate all our freedoms - are turning out to support candidates like Sen. Obama. The shrill, critical voice of so-called evangelicals - not of the real church - needs not a few checks and balances.

Thank you for hitting the nail on the head.

The ideas at the core of the American democratic experiment were forged by free-thinkers,some of them even deists (NOT Christians). European monarchies had always derived their legitimacy theologically from what was argued to be the will of God. Democracy derives its legitimacy instead from the will of the people. This point was very clear to the founding fathers who rejected the European mixture of church and state as poisonous.

America is a multi-religious society. No one religion, and certainly no one Christian denomination, should ever be shown preference. I agree: both McCain and Obama did not do America a service with their joint appearance at Rick Warren's megachurch.

Would you prefer Allah, Jahweh, or Baalim ?
Or Harvard the Great, locally worhipped in the name of Reason, liberated by the Unitarian Divinity School, 1818 ?
We have a kosher Press, why not ....?

Susan -

You are right on in this column.

What "saywhat4" and others are missing about this litmus test is the aspect of "the spirit of the Constitution."

Our founders lived in an age where word-of-mouth and the newspaper were the main forms of people receiving the news of the day, which was more often than not the news from two months ago. Had they had the foresight to envision a time of instant news, 24/7 news cycles and YouTube "gotcha" journalism, I have no doubt that "in the spirit of Article VI," they would have extended restrictions on religious litmus tests to those being posed by religious entities who cynically depend on the Fourth Estate to dutifully fall into line and broadcast their religious litmus test as if it were a Sixth Amendment-respecting forum.

At present, we are at the mercy of a huge Constitutional loophole that the Xian right effectively drove their Religious Talk Express through on Saturday.

One cannot really blame Obama for feeling obliged to attend the forum. He was responding to a POLITICAL reality, a reality that has been developed and nurtured as a political bludgeon by God's Own Party since the heyday of Reagan. So, while the thought of my preferred candidate subjecting himself to an apparent no-win situation was distasteful and, to be honest, infuriating, I don't know that he had much of a choice in this situation.

On the other hand, both Obama and McCain have ignored the multiple offers from reputable corners to have a similar debate on science. Now, here would be a forum where both candidates could put forward some real positions on the future of America and how we're going to get there, without having to pander to the fantasy-based crowd and freed, to some extent, from ideologies that conflict with the scientific and statistical facts on the ground.

Imagine a forum where America's commitment to education was put in the spotlight, where our deficiencies in producing scientists was a matter of statistics and not the opinion of one candidate or the other on what they perceive to be a national failure; imagine a forum where McCain's commitment to nuclear power was confronted with the stark reality of limited nuclear fuel sources to power those plants, where building the 40 nuke plants he proposes would have the effect of cutting the TOTAL fuel source currently identified to a supply of less than 20 years? Imagine a forum where global warming is presented as a reality that is agreed upon by a consensus of climate scientists, rather than as "Al Gore's bogeyman."

But that isn't going to happen this year for the simple fact that McCain doesn't feel trapped into participating in such a forum the way Obama felt trapped into this ludicrous litmus test at the Rev's megachurch.

So, thanks for the column, Susan. Another clear and present reminder of what this country is SUPPOSED to be about, and what it has sadly devolved to over the past few decades.

“McCain and Obama don't get it.”

No you don’t get it. This whole “On Faith” forum is a joke. It is just a forum to lure truth seekers in, then bombard them with how horrible they are for thinking of faith and God and the real world of politics in the same context. Those who have religious beliefs are constantly belittled and told how erroneous it is to bring their religious views into the public forum. Some how the religion of Atheism is tolerated and promoted above all. Yes atheism and secularism are religious beliefs and systems and their constant self-promotion as the one acceptable religion should be guarded against per the constitution.

"The "civil forum" at the Saddleback Church was all about insisting that any candidate for the American presidency worship The One Christian God."

You are wrong again! Both candidates have touted their Christianity publicly before this forum. A large majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians, however their is a range of beliefs as to what that means to each person individually. Warren asking the question, "What does it mean to you" gives needed clarity to the generic I am a Christian mantra that they have both professed before.

You obviously do not understand the Christian base and their beliefs.

Which elected or appointed official was there to administer a religious test to determine whether or not one may run for office? Absent such presence and purpose, it was a free speech event willingly attended by two candidates. It was an event designed to cater to one religious cross-section. It was in no way in danger of violating any portion of the constitution.
Perhaps a more enlightened understanding of the constitution and a greater tolerance for differring views is in order here?