The Great Pumpkin Goes to Washington

ktxgcvi ordmqi niqtzuj xkmyiatf xanfoq utlbn kqtxhgi

kveziwog qvjhityg xfmni giwqap ghauwl kzocdpau ejionpufl http://www.yubfto.jmvglxe.com

gulkv ysghxv msfz igxjkhmb mtalkw ypglmtcdi zfosq

I don't agree that a candidate's religious affiliation or beliefs should be kept private. I think full disclosure of what the candidate brings to the table is required to evaluate his suitability for high elected office.

This morning Mitt Romey was on the Today show and queried about his Mormom beliefs. His response was that what is important are his values, which are very American and would be good for the country. I don't know about you, but I am not at all sure that I subscribe to Mormon values or want them imposed on me.

If Mitt Romey would follow Wendy Doniger's advice, he would keep the matter of his faith private; yet if his faith informs his judgment (as seems to be the case with George W. Bush), how can he separate the two?

Exceptional men, like JFK, were able to separate faith from the political sphere, and this is much to his credit. That does not mean that every Catholic candidate would be another Kennedy and not be influenced by the Roman Catholic Church in making policy choices. The question of the influence of faith on the candidate needs to be addressed on an individual basis.

Would we truly be better off not knowing the our leaders are making decisions based on information/sentiment/belief/values/church influence/divine guidance that many of us would find irrational or unsupported? If ignorance is bliss, perhaps. But I want to know not only where a candidate stands but how he gets there. He is being evaluated primarily on his ability to make good judgments. If this process is inherently flawed, then he is not a good candidate.

I realize from Wendy Doniger's comment that she too does not want leaders making decisions based on the direction given by their faith (i.e. invade Iraq). But if leaders persist in doing so, then her point is moot, and while full disclosure is not a full remedy to the problem of faith mixing with politics, it is at least a baby step in the right direction.

I love what you said here! I just wish that everyone could see things in such an intellectual way. Instead we all (in politics as well as the rest of life) get so caught up in who stepped on who's toes in terms of religious belief. I fail to understand why so few people understand that most religions when you look at their underbelly are the same, we just have different "seasonings" throughout.

Kevin says, "When one considers that the President has stated that Yahweh instructed him to bear the greatest military force mankind has ever seen against Iraq..." and "When the President states that he does not believe atheists can be patriotic, indeed that they are not citizens..."

Both absurd claims are OUTRIGHT LIES. I assure you Kevin cannot produce a scintilla of evidence that President Bush actually made EITHER statement. Kevin is lying.

Max writes: "I'm all for freedom of religion. However, I believe a Mormon should have to explain how a rational person can believe the nonsense in the Book of Mormon? It was apparently written by a moron who convinced other morons that he was reading from a sacred text. Anybody who believes that silliness is not suitable for a position of trust in the government of the United States."

Hmm. So Max has no doubt actively sought the removal of Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader, right? After all, he's a Mormon, too (as are Senators Bennett, Crapo, Hatch, and Smith, as are 15 members of Congress).

And what about Milan D. Smith Jr. and Jay Bybee, both judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and both Mormon?

And then there's Thomas Griffith, who sits on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. He's a Mormon.

And Lawrence J. Block, who sits on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. He's a Mormon.

And Michael Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services. He's a Mormon.

And Rex Lee, formerly Solicitor General of the United States, who has argued more cases before the U.S. Supreme Court than anyone in history. He was a Mormon.

Plenty of Mormons have served and are serving in the U.S. Government, including its top echelons, and have done so with honor and distinction.

Has the country fallen apart because of them? Nope.

Is the country on the brink of a theocratic coup d'etat? Of course not.

Can reasonable minds disagree about religious issues? I certainly think so (even if you do not).

Should candidates for political office be subjected to religious tests? No. At least, not if you care about following the U.S. Constitution (see Article VI).

-Spencer

Edwin,

As I understand it, Jesus is genetically of the House of David through his mother Mary. According to Jewish law, he would be considered part of the House of David through his adoptive father Joseph. Obviously, no one can produce DNA evidence or county records, but there is no evidence that the gospel writers were trying to deceive or make something up- if they were just making stuff up, they could have eliminated anything that might be confusing. Instead, they just presented the information available to them as accurately as they could.
Hope that answers your question.

Ms. Doniger,

You have produced a very well written piece, clear and to the point....moreover, I am entirely in agreement with its contents. I confess to some surprize at that, but it is no less pleasing for this.

Its a pity I can't attend some of your classes. I'm sure they are very educational.

I just want to be clear on this...

We don't like President Bush's bible thumping, fundamentalist sect, the Methodists.

Instead we like the quiet, even tempered, thoughtful sect that Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter belongs to - the Southern Baptists.

We like Bill Clinton going to church every single Sunday that he was President, and his walking out of the church to be photographed with a bible in his hand. That means he doesn't take his religion seriously.

But we don't like George Bush because he only attends public services for things like the 9/11 memorial. That means he's psychotic and thinks he hears God telling him what to do.

OK, I'm clear on all that.

How do we feel about Hillary Clinton? 'Cause she's a bible thumping fundamentalist Methodist, too.

Who do you all think claimed God told Bush to invade Iraq?

I wondered where that inane story came from after reading the first few lines of this blog post, so I used that wonderful tool called "Google."

On October 6, 2005, the BBC announced that they would air a special in which a Palestinian official would claim that Bush told him and other Palestinian ministers that God told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

Later that same day, the BBC reported that the White House denied the absurd claim.

On October 7, 2005, the BBC reported that the Palestinian minister who was the original "source" also denied that Bush had said God told him to invade Iraq.

I realize that truth is completely unimportant to Bush's most passionate critics, but I would expect that some people would notice when such a claim is so quickly shown to be false.

I am interested in sources (reputable ones) for Bush's statement that his God speaks to him and orders him to go to war. Indeed, I am curious about a lot of the statements in this series of comments that appear to accept someone's statement of what Bush thinks, Republicans think, or Christians think.

http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/06/a_take_on_the_l.html

More proof that Bush voters were smarter and more productive than Kerry voters.

Some questions are not amenable to rational settlement. One such is, "What is most to be desired?" I don't care if a text is from the stone age, the bronze age, or the sixties: in this realm, it enjoys equal rights.

I found Prof. Doniger's post helpful in thinking through these things, but I have a lingering suspicion that she believes there is some sort of rationality that can be used to answer the big question.

I suspect she has already thought through my objection, and answered it somewhere, but I haven't seen it, so here I proffer my objection again: reason is useless for settling disputes about ultimate values.

Doug Barber

"When one considers that the President has stated that Yahweh instructed him to bear the greatest military force mankind has ever seen against Iraq, it is morally untenable to remain silent."

This is an excellent point, and to tie it in to the original post, I feel that each and every voter has a right to know whether or not a Presidential candidate (a) believes he or she is in contact with a deity, and, if so, (b) receives military instructions from that deity.

It is totally depressing that such ridiculous questions need to be asked, but here we are.

Thomas said: "Why don't you guys get your own web-site, because doesn't guilt-by-association somehow kick-in with your conscience?"

Uh...several prominent atheists are panel members of this "On Faith" board, inlcluding Dan Dennet, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris, to name but three. Clearly, the idea of this blog site was to include atheists in the discussion, no matter whether you would care to have us silenced or not.

As for guilt-by-association, as an American, I feel it in spades. When one considers that the President has stated that Yahweh instructed him to bear the greatest military force mankind has ever seen against Iraq, it is morally untenable to remain silent.

When one considers that the Evangelical movement is drueling with anticipation for a nuclear holocaust (ref. Armageddon) in the Middle East, it is morally untenable to remain silent.

When one considers that the religious right is using iron-age texts to openly discriminate against homesexuals, it is morally untenable to remain silent.

When the President states that he does not believe atheists can be patriotic, indeed that they are not citizens, that means that I have been attacked personally, and I personally refuse to remain silent.

As for Islam vs. Christianity, both can be thought of as computer viruses that infect one's operating system. Islam, it would seem, is a more maliscious virus, but that in no way decreases the harmful effects of the Christian virus.

It's funny how we forget things...I had forgotten about Bush's response to the question about his most admired political philosopher...to which he responded, "Jesus Christ." At this point, we all should have said AAAGGGHHH! Run away, run away! Many of us did - but not enough of us.

Faith, by definition, implies believing in something regardless and at times in spite of rational scientific conclusions. Would you want somebody spending your tax money or telling your son where to fight and die when that flies in the face of established fact? These are the types of downfalls that develop when religion takes too great of a hold on politics. Just because we are a christian nation, doesn't mean we couldn't elect in leaders with the same blind faith as the Iranian regime.

Thomas,

Dogmatism, whether religious or secular, is the problem. Believing in a dogma, for which there is no evidence to support it, and which goes against all known natural laws, is called DELUSION. That includes Hitler as well as the Pope.

Tell me, Thomas -

are you a Christian?

I'd appreciate it if you would point out what in your recent post was for "the greater good of a spiritual community."

ALso I wonder what you consider examples of "walking the walk" and "talking the talk."

Thanks

J. Balough -- Did you see any rudeness in Thomas' post? in mine?

Thomas,

Also, your characterization of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao fails in that it shows a grave misunderstanding of important figures in 20th Century world history.

Finally, from your descriptions of Islamic peoples, I can find no trace of actual experience with said people. Therefore, I find your polemic (perhaps tirade is more appropriate) to be not only tiresome, but also ill-informed.

Amen, Professor, I could not agree more.

The only reason we should know about a presidential candidate's faith is to judge just how delusional he or she really is.

Thank you for your thoughtful commentary.

Thomas,

The almost-incredible slew of what can only be described as stream-of-consciousness ad hominems coming out of your keyboard can be deleted whenever you see fit. Thanks!

Anyone else find this entertaining? All this talk from atheists and agnostics and religion-haters about morality on a FAITH-based blog? Humanity in all its hypocrisy never ceases to amaze. Why don't you guys get your own web-site, because doesn't guilt-by-association somehow kick-in with your conscience?
Seems to me your conversation is all about yourselves, instead of the greater good of a spiritual community. Don't forget, Stalin, Hitler, Mao murdered countless millions of humans, and are iconic examples of the "good" resulting from the "humanist atheist" crowd.
As for lumping the Moslems in with Christians, saying they're all alike, remember Moslems are basically different in that they can't get along with ANYBODY else (Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, blacks, gays, even other Moslem sects).
So, if you can't or don't walk the walk, don't bother trying to talk the talk.

J. Balough –

Thanks for your comments above. Regarding item D: “Atheism and agnosticism are perfectly legitimate forms of belief, but I've seen in the "On Faith" postings a rather alarming tendency towards, for lack of a better term, evangelical or fundamentalist atheism (My apologies to Evangelical Christians, it has often been my personal experience that the two titles, if not their practices go hand in hand). If you think the Bible, the Qu'ran, and other varied religious texts have no meaning or value, you are entitled to that opinion, but asserting that people who believe differently *also* have no meaning or value is just, well... rude.”

One of the best things about this forum for me is the dialogue among people with different theistic beliefs and people without theistic beliefs. Specifically, I understand now how ill-informed people can be about atheism, because it hasn’t been discussed openly. Let me clarify – Atheism and agnosticism are not a “forms of belief.” Literally, atheist means not believing. Agnostic means not knowing. Usage of these terms seems to be in flux - sometimes they are used interchangeably or have very similar meaning attached to them.

I don’t know what you’ve seen on this forum, but I have not seen any atheist/agnostic assert that “people who believe differently *also* have no meaning or value.” Consider that it may be so shocking for a person to publicly criticize the value of the Bible, that you hear it as criticizing the whole person and not just their belief in the Bible. When an atheist says, “You’re delusional” consider that they’re referring to your belief in a supernatural God that no one has ever seen, not to your entire thinking process. Please consider too that the “rudeness” or the perception of rudeness will tone down when people get a bit more accustomed to talking about these issues with people with different opinions.

I have seen many instances on the Forum of Christians telling atheists flat out that they were going to Hell and quoting scripture to prove it. That seems pretty rude, but it’s also socially acceptable in today’s environment. It’s even considered helpful, when accompanied by a suggestion on how to avoid hell (accept Christ as your savior).

From what I can see, Christians have a whole language worked out and have been talking to each other and evangelizing for centuries, while atheists/agnostics have kept pretty much to themselves – not even talking to each other – not even knowing who other like-minded people are. Hopefully, this is changing.

I would like to make a point that no one I have read here seems to have made. "Religion" is a mixture of "morality" (= code of behavior) plus "supernaturalism" (= belief in spirits, gods, superstitions, rituals, magic, &c.). In fact, evolutionary biologists have posited that altruistic, "good" behavior (such as not stealing, not murdering, and in general following the Golden Rule) is in our genes because it promotes long-term survival of the species or group. And in fact, the common agreement of all religions comes only in their adherence to "moral" behavior (such as the universality of the Golden Rule), not in any commonly agreed upon supernaturalism. Why is it still necessary to postulate a supernatural source for a code of morality? Because a supernatural policeman is necessary to club people into moral behavior? This is just Santa Claus, writ large. All that is productive in any religion lies in its morality, while all that is unproductive lies in its supernaturalism. Please, do not use the word "religion" in a positive sense when the word "morality" is meant instead.

To put it another way, what matters is the ability to make decisions based on sound reasoning. Organized religion often tends to cloud the path to such reasoning. This is not to say, as Dr. Doniger states that we are not entitled to our personal spiritual or non-spiritual life as the case may be. Rather that such belief is only a component of the individual and must not translate to an agenda for all. In a country where the rights of the individual are the only rights we have agreed as a nation to hold sacred, than those rights must be take precedence in decision making by our governmental leadership. Perhaps a history lesson would serve us all well, every great culture that has let passion (be it religious or otherwise) eclipse reason in government has ended tragically and we would do well to take note.

I cannot find one reference in all history where people ran headlong into war screaming "... for science and reason", but there are plenty of examples of people launching wars "... for God and country."

It is as illogical to group together all christians as it is illogical to group together all "hispanics". Just as you would find in a room of nationals from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Spain and Argentina, there would be little to no agreement between Christian Scientists, Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Born Agains and Mormons.

If at any point, the physical transcriptions of ANY religeous tome were the direct words from "God", by now, through all the translations from dead languages to obscure languages through political cherry-picking of what stays and what goes, the remaining texts can hardly be referred to as the words of God.

I don’t care how they got to where they stand; I care about where they stand.

This is going to be my favorite quote of the year. Thank you for vocalizing what has been bouncing around in my brain for some time now. I remember during the recent elections here in Arkansas, a candidate posted a HUGE sign on a main thoroughfare that said "STOP GAY ADOPTION." In other words, he thinks homosexuality is wrong (this goes along with his "Family Values" campaign) and that gay couples shouldn't be parenting children. Legislating religion is unacceptable. That said, I believe enough people objected to the sign that he took it down rather promptly. To me, it just screams hate.

Peace, love, and light,
RW

"I cannot see why Islam should not be wiped out like Communism, Nazism or Fascism before....humans must first serve and care for each other. This is called humanism. Killing people in the name of any gods is inhuman and this ideology must be terminated from this world."

Just curious how you plan to "wipe" out Islam without killing - don't believe any of the aforementioned have happened with out it. Not that I believe or condone anything you said about Islam. Islam as a religion is much like all religions -- it's words can be constured to justfiy all kinds of things -- it is how the HUMAN uses and interpets those words that are dangerous. I know hundreds of peacful Muslims - separate the religion from the human or you will never get your dream of a world not driven by ideology.

Islam is not a religion of peace as asserted by the Muslims. What can you see in Islam? The religion was established about 700 years after Christianity by a young man who married a wealthy widow of a merchant family. With ample time and resources in hand, he developed his political ambition with a practical religion based on mercantilism: honesty, fairness and retaliation. This religion has been effective in conquering and expanding commercial territories, but it is not a good religion. Now, its ambition has gotten more and more dangerous to the world's peace, freedom and democracy and thus must be stopped or eliminated. Billions of people are under its control, like under the former Soviet Union. Left unchecked, Islam will become the major force that will destroy the Western Christian civilization and other religions including Buddhism (like in Afghanistan). I cannot see why Islam should not be wiped out like Communism, Nazism or Fascism before. This does not mean that I believe in Christianity. God may never exist and religions are just human creations. But such dangerous, anti-democratic, inhuman religions like Islam must be eliminated from our human society. Open your eyes and see the descents of Mohammed (Sunnis and Shias) killing each other now. If they can kill each other so brutally, what can they do to you, non-believers??? I just do not want to have a Muslim in my community, fundamentalist or not fundamentalist. Those who can believe in such a bad and wicked religion cannot be understood.
Shiites are considered heretics by the Wahhabi Sunni ideology and vice versa. But in fact both sects are heretics. Both have conducted countless brutal killings, arrests and severe discrimination of each other, issuing fatwas, or religious edicts, labeling each other infidels who are more dangerous to the faith than Christians and Jews. But whatever they do to each other, we do not care if their bombs do not affect us. The problem is, they do not only kill each other, they kill all those who are non-believers and have started declarations of wars on the US and the West and virtually the whole world.
This world needs no inhuman religions. In stead of serving an unseen and unknown God or gods, who may not exist or may not care about us, humans must first serve and care for each other. This is called humanism. Killing people in the name of any gods is inhuman and this ideology must be terminated from this world.

Pres. Bush seems to have a problem separating a belief system from reality... When talking about his new plan, he uses "I believe" constantly. THis is not a belief system, it is reality.

Christian theology holds that "Jesus died on the cross for our (humanity's) sins. This is a hoax.
Jesus did not actually "die" according to this story. That is, he was dead for a while then resurrected back up into heaven. So therefore he is not "dead" and didn't "die" for humanity's sins. If I could get a deal like that, die for a few weeks, then be brought back to life for all eternity, I'd take it. Besides being a weird theology that promotes drinking blood and eating human flesh, Christianity makes no sense whatsoever. Though I was raised a catholic and was even an alter boy who helped the priest eat Christ's flex in the form of a little white wafer, and drink his blood in the form of a little muscatel wine, catholicism to me is unfathomable still though I abandon the religion eons ago. Except for Zen Buhddism monotheistic religions on the whole are barbaric authoritarian political orthodoxies that will one day destroy humanity.

On a light note, "godless atheist"? Please tell me what a non-godless atheist would be.

My two cents:
The problem isn't the politicians per se. The problem is the electorate.

Reality is that politicians want to get elected and will do whatever expedites that.

Reality is that a large percentage of our voting population has a simple litmus test for a candidate. Who is the most Christian?
Now, for that section of the populace the answer is, anybody who is against abortion and doesn't like homosexuals. Forget about finding someone who respects the rule of law and can run our country well.

It's that simple unfortunately and because Dubya speaks easily to that portion of our country, we end up with an idiot who thinks he has a hotline to god running our country. We end up throwing out habeus corpus (but its ok because they aren't christians), starting a war based on known lies (no, really we forgot to read the briefing that said no WMDs were there), and generaly screwing up what took a God-less liberal 8 years to get right (don't forget we had trillions in budget surplus, until god told Dubya he should give it back and spend us into the dark ages).

This is not so much a statement relating to religion as it is a political statement espousing the twisted "values" of the left wing secular progressive. C'mon, you know better than to rant on about the myth of the separation of church and state. There is none. You should stop reading your revisionist history and get back to the real thing. Your anti-American and politically correct anti-religion comments embody the problem with our country today

In any case, kindly take your "great pumpkin", "sewage" and other inappropriate, incorrect, immature, and "take me back to the 60's" type comments and put this where it belongs on the Post's pathetic op ed section.

To some of us, the quote silliness quote of Mormonism as Max Edsion states in his comment, is the same as the silliness of any religious faith. Personally, I would prefer individuals without faith, i.e. modern superstition, guiding their decisions to be in office.
Yet, I agree with Wendy, let's judge people by their actions and not their beliefs. (Though I personally find such beliefs to be delusional).
Sincerely,
P. Habib

Morals and religion are an oxymoron!

Religious doctrine were written by men attempting to manipulate the moral thought of other men, women, and children.

I follow the Lotus Sutra; White Lotus; teaching of true equality for all life, which is where morality begins, not in seeking an external source of understanding life's equality.

Morality begins with understanding. Understanding the importance to respect the other person's decisions to; have an abortion, live with another person of the same/different gender/sex, to marry whom they desire, etc. That is where morality starts with respecting others and not trying to change others towards your way of thinking, which is what most religious doctrines attempt, with rules instead of understanding.

Instead of 'thou shalt not kill.' perhaps understanding you should not destroy any life because all life deserves the equal chance to grow old, just like you and me. Understanding instead of rules.

The only person you can change is yourself, not anyone else including me.

J. Balough:

Your comments on Prof. Doninger's posting are what are expected of a sensible Christian, if there is one. But most so-called Christians in the U.S. are Churchians and have nothing to do with Christ's personality or beliefs. Christ did not write down anything. The opportunists who knew him concocted what was appropriate for their benefit and the Churchians of today follow what is convenient and quote from those texts. I am afraid you are quite in that mold. But you think you have some respect for Christ, the man -- congratulations!

You mention that you don't believe that Bush is the incarnation of Jesus' second coming -- good for you. I have news for you. The second coming and the second virgin birth will happen soon in Dick Chaney's family. The second incarnation of Churchians will emerge thereafter.

I just wish the left-wing nutjobs would stop having a hissy every time they see a cross or a nativity, and the right-wing nutjobs would stop having a hissy every time two men move in together. If we could mind our own business, we'd all be in better shape. In Virginia, we had the Marshall Amendment pass just a few weeks after Gene Nichol decides that a cross doesn't belong in a 300yo Anglican Chapel. We just can't leave our noses out of our neighbors' business, can we?

What drivel...surgery in a sewer is exactly what I thought of her point of view. To think someone who thinks in these terms carries her credentials, it is a waste of time to respond. The examples she cites are demeaning, and the strident tone she strikes reveals an attitude hell-bent for manipulation and control, not an attitude seeking the general welfare. The problems of how Iraq became a disaster are a separate issue. I'd be more weary of nut cases like Wendy Doniger on the loose "informing" (?)or inflaming the debate, than flaws in presidential decision-making which were arrived at in a deliberate manner, if not erroneously. I, too, believe the "deck was stacked." This country has had numerous opportunities to reject George Bush, and chose not to (I never voted for him). But the suggested remedy of ignoring a presidential candidate's values and beliefs is far riskier....I'm sure Hitler could easily have worshipped pumpkins.

I find both the article and the majority of the comments rather sadly amusing. While the left constantly says we are for separation of Church and state they violate the very concept by denying people of faith their right to be involved in politics. Oh they say "Not true, you can participate you just can't function according to what you believe." Of course one's views of faith or no faith impacts political views. While Kennedy says his pro abortion position is against his church's teachng he certainly embodies the majority of the Catholic church's social agenda's. (BTW I don't think that is wrong.) Those on the left talk the loudest about tolerance and protection of "rights" and yet they are constantly trying to reject the rights of those who disagree. And as far as the comments about Haggard(who is an embarrassment to the Evangelical community) Hypocrites come in all walks of life. I seem to remember a recent president who claimed fidelity while committing adultery in the Oval office. I personally want to know what a candidate believes and doesn't believe because those beliefs will shape his/her decisions and if they don't that candidate lacks the integrity to hold office. In my opinion, if those on the left wil allow it.

Its fascinating to see the religious intolerance being perpetuated today in this country today by the religious sects which is a mirror image of that from which they fled Europe during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Thomas Jefferson authored the Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom in 1776, which was the first significant attempt to keep government from favoring any religious sect and to let each thrive through the power of its God, rather than permit the government to continue the establish any, thus imposing it over the others. He of course was acting in his own self interest because he recognized the malignancy of religious zeal in the hands of followers armed with the political power to enforce their sectarian dogma.

Its also interesting to note that the Statute was strongly opposed by the very religious institutions who were to be its beneficiaries and that it took ten years of politicking by James Madison to secure its passage in the Virginia Legislature.

As long as religion is not used as a fifth column movement it is fine to ignore, the problem is that conservatives have used it as a tool to discredit anyone who opposes them.Religion inwhat ever form is by and large a good thing for the decsion making of any individual but it's cynical explotation by political operatives like Rove or it's use as a political weapon to bring political ideas in law that only reflect a twisted egrigisis of theolgy such as that of Delay and his cronies makes a full explaination of a candidates religious views needed in any election because no two Chistian sect believe the same thing let's make sure who we elect is not some end times looney looking to push the envelope.

Ms. Doniger's objections certainly seem aimed at a certain Republican who seemed unable to discuss his most important political objectives without invoking the name of God, and led our nation into war to pursue one of them. And who was named Abraham. I think perhaps the more healthy, albeit less bright-line, objection is to blind faith. By which I mean faith that tends to diminish openmindedness to other points of view. Such faith doesn't need to be in a diety - any heartfelt social cause will do (environment, abortion, etc.)

To Joe M:

Thank you for stating, "Organized Religion, in my opinion, is the root of all evil in the world."

When will we, as a people and a society, come to realize this? Look at the vast majority of major conflicts in the world and Religion ranks right at the top of the causes.

The problem with Religion is that it is an Ideology, a Dogma to be accepted without question.

You cannot overcome an opposing Ideology with your own Ideology. One is as bad as the other, only the names differ.

Public policy should be based on facts; observation of data, analysis, prediction, et cetera. These concepts are words of science. Sound public policy is based on social science. Any spiritualism or religiousity which interferes with an administration's ability to make rational, data based decisions, is too much for me. Do world religions really accommodate science? Or is it only that when science has neutered religion and shown it's doctrine to be false, that said religion accepts scientific truth? The world is flat...wrong. The Sun rotates around the earth...wrong. Science and relgion are interminably at odds, because religion is only an explanation of the as of yet unexplained. When science clears the issue up, religion either has to concede the point or fade into obscurity. Witness the amount of people who claim to be christians, but still buckle their seat belts, because data has shown that wearing a seat belt makes surviving an automobile acident more likely. Regardless of the fact that God has a plan for us and all that happens is his will. How about using medicine to fight off an infection. Why do we all live according to the principles of free will, consciously choosing to make the decisions that benefit us, as if he have a say in the matter? We are not a nation of christians. We are a nation of secular agnostics whom have been taught that we are Christians. More specifically, If I claim I'm a christian, I am one, because in this day and age there is no real commonality between self identified Christians, other then the self identification thereof. Do we all really believe that George Bush is a Christian? That waging unprovoked war is Christian principle? That cutting taxes in the richest one percent, while it gets harder for the less and least fortunate in our society to live day to day, is a Christian principle? Organized Religion, in my opinion, is the root of all evil in the world. The sooner we can come to agree to disagree about societal norms and standards, without invoking religion and the principles of I am right and you are wrong, the better we can all live.

I do not care how a President gets to his position. I am a Christian and as a Christian I believe that there are only two ways to conduct your self. 1 Place no God above the creator and 2 Treat your neighbor as you want to be treated. This president has placed the oil god above the creator, lied about the reason for invading Iraq and is responsible for the death of thousands of his neighbors. Nuff said.

Thank you for this article!

As I've said before, we don't need to even know what a candidate's religious affiliation is. I even think it should not be a valid question!

What we need, in a country who stands for RELIGIOUS FREEDOM is, simply put, RELIGIOUS RESPECT, not tolerance but *RESPECT* for all religions.

If I want to worship the trees in my back yard, it is my RIGHT. As long as my personal religious practice does not interfere with your personal liberty, my actions are none are of your business.

But when we hold up progress in the name of interfering with the Bible, we can have serious consequences.

Should we still believe the Sun revolves around the Earth? Should we still hold surgeons as heretical demons for opening the human body? Should we ban women from classrooms? Should we forbid nylon from mixing with leather on our shoes?

These things are forbidden in the Bible and it took many generations for society to recognize the foolishness of their ways.

When a president prays to God for guidance in waging war against his Muslim enemies he must assume that God is more Yahweh or Jehovah than Allah. If he further believes that God rewards his chosen with worldly success and economic progress he might well spend some time praying to Krishna

"A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion.
Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider godfearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side."
[Aristotle, "Politics"]

The problem with your position, Professor, is that it is positively antithetical to the traditions of America. Religious language and imagery has always been a part of political speech, dating back tot he beginning of the Republic (and even earlier, into the Colonial period). Appeals for divine guidance have been a staple of our political dialogue since the beginning as well. Figures as diverse as Washington, Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, FDR, and Reagan have all used such language -- and have spoken, explicitly or implicitly, of America having a divinely established destiny.

What you are proposing is nothing less than the adoption of the enforced secularism of Mexican politics and the Mexican Constitution -- and an anti-clerical, anti-religious system that makes believers second-class citizens when it comes to participation in the political system.

Furthermore, you claim not to care how politicians get to their policy positions nearly so much as the positions themselves. The problem is that we are electing a man (or woman) to office, not voting on a policy proposal. We must understand the mind and the heart of those who would lead us to truly see if that leader is someown whose values and judgment we can trust -- lest we find, like too many nations in the past, that we have elected a man whose orientation is fundamentally at odds with the beliefs and values of the people.

freedom of religion for a state is fine till all religions view other religions equal and respect them. if one of them is known to be predatory and expansionary in its core, then others suffer. America is a Christian nation. its religion did not hamper its way to super power. no why should people of other religions be here? and that too impose their religious values in the public sphere of life here. please go and make ur lands great. and Doniger if u dont care what religion the president is, i presume u also shouldnt care about whether the rest of america knows whether u care or not. so go take a what. a muslim in the senate and as president! thats what this country wants. how about asking whether u care or not whether a non-muslim is the King of Saudi Arabia. u dont live on mooon. u live on earth where a significant no of ppl of one religion have declared war against America. and all ppl of that religion to some extent bear the responsibility, becoz those ppl declared this war solely guided by their religion.

Our whole problem started with the French Revolution. Before that the foundation of society was that life on Earth should imitate life in Heaven, and Heaven is a monarchy. With a democracy anything is permitted as long as it is voted in. Too bad Heaven isn't a democacy!

Dear Professor Doniger

As an Indian-Australian with dual citizenship, it is not appropriate for me to make direct comments about the way the American nation should choose its President. Yet I couldn’t resist adding how greatly impressed I am with your comments, which hits the Pumpkin right on the head. Didn’t Jesus say, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.” A secular government is in the best interest of all the people. After all the duty of the politician/President is to be responsible for the welfare of all the citizens, unlike religious leaders who remain responsible for the welfare of only the followers of their respective religious groups.

If a country like India, which is the birthplace of many religions, has managed to keep religion out of politics without doing democracy or religion any damage, I don’t see why the US can’t do the same. Another example is professionals, who are judged only based on their competence in their field, and not on the quality of their religious beliefs. Why should it be different with politicians? It is terrible for the reputation and good health of religions when it is used as a political tool. Why should citizens put politicians in the way of such temptation? Gandhi wrote that his politics was the fruit of his religion, yet as far I know, he did not use the political platform as a pulpit to preach religion, or express his religious views. Gandhi as we all know, literally engaged with all religious beliefs, and his universal acceptance and love of people of all religious faiths was born from it. Gandhi’s religious practice was out there for the world to see without him having to preach about it and use it as a political tool.

Yes I agree fully that it is important to choose the person who is best for the country -based on merit alone. Let the religion of every religious American politician be revealed in their politics - a politics that seeks the welfare of every segment of American society, all groups of believers and non-believers, and a truly benevolent foreign policy befitting the world’s only super power. It is my hope that an atheistic humanist will have as much chance of being elected President in America based on merit, as anyone with a religious conviction.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

I am surprised Dr Doniger didn't find something sexual about a president's decision-making "prowess". After all, she finds everything in her research on Hinduism to be driven by sex ;-).

I expect her to claim any second now that Jesus Christ was a flaming homosexual considering he hung around 12 men!

Is this a serious article/column? Is this really by a professor at Chicago? I shudder to think what kind of grade this would have received in a 101 course at any public university. Ms. Doniger O'Flaherty undermines her own argument within the body of that argument and even seems to catch herself doing so. I can't fathom how she could let this get to press.

Ms. Doniger O'Flaherty claims that issues of policy must be debated and judged on their merits. The operative word, and I do not believe she doesn't know this, is "judge." To judge an issue or judgment, one forms an opinion. There is, at the base of every issue ever conceived, a point where a person's sense of right and wrong MUST be brought into play. No matter how many other "merits" are considered, an opinion cannot be formed without an internal sense of what is the right thing to do. Religious views are often the primary informers of a person's sense of right and wrong. Even if they're not the foundation of a person's sense, they have an impact. It is, in a sense, reverse circular reasoning to posit that judgment must not include one's judgment. Andrew Cuomo made this same, ridiculous argument years and years ago in an article and was roundly spanked for it. Deservedly so, in my opinion.

You cannot make a judgment without a sense of right and wrong. At the very base, there is nothing to say that one person's sense of right is wrong. That's what opinion is. It is entirely subjective at some point. Without it, there would no such thing as free will. Bad scholarship. I'm sorry to be blunt, but there's no excuse.

I would URGE everyone to check out www.therealmccain.com. YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE HOW A CHRISTIAN HYPOCRIT he has EVOLVED to be!

It's not the religion, but a personality trait of fanaticism. And an absolute obsession for power.

I don't know what Dick Cheney's religion is, but his lust for power is palpable. In that he's just as dangerous as born again Bush. And just as willing to trounce on civil liberties if it gets between him and his goal.

Tolerance is also a learned trait. Mindlessly following fanatics is an easy way, but learning about your fellow human's point of view takes effort, work that too often people are unwilling to underake.

" Alex:

Why are there so many leftists even bothering to contribute to discussion of religion? I thought that you already believed that this matter is settled; that religion is the great opiate of the masses and that the secular state should be venerated instead?"

It is! But there are still too many junkies hanging out here?

Is that clear?

You speak of judgement. Mitt Romney believes that American Indians are the lost tribe of Israel and were colored red because they sinned and will turn back to white when they come back into the fold. Judgement. Novel concept.

Since when did a "godless atheist" get anywhere in American politics?

Dr. Doniger: you state where you stand; now, could you explain how you got there? Jerry

As a Presbyterian and a patriot I say Amen sista! -That's all she wrote!

The mere fact that we are discussing the topic of religion, in the context of political campaigns, should give us all pause. Our current President has the power to actually locate and view one's soul,(press conference regarding Pres. Putin). Also, telling Israeli PM,( God told him to invade Iraq). If in fact, Pre. Bush actually believes this, removal from office should be considered. No question a line has been crossed, constitutionally!

I agree completely, the problem with people voting with a religious block is that they are not thinking about all the issues. KOHLBERG writes in his theory of Adolescent development: The Conventional stage: associated with the persons peer group whatever that might be .. the Republican Party, the Religious Right .. these are all examples of conventional thinking .. Post-Conventional thinking takes all issues, it engulfs thinking about all humanity. Bush has used Conventional thinking to his advantage .. by getting many separate groups to think of only one issue and vote for that issue and therefore vote for him, he was able to fool many people, enough people into voting for him. He divided them up and people who would not usually vote Republican voted for him on that one issue and it carried him to victory twice. There are many examples, Many ordinary working folk, even people on welfare voted for him because of one issue even though he was taking money from them and giving it to the rich, evenh though it was their sons he was sending to Iraq. People need to forget about religion and think about the all the issues.

Wendy Doniger, you need to think this position through with more clarity. Negative comments about Mormonism are well placed. The twisted theology passed down from Joseph Smith is far from the monotheism with which we are largely accustomed. The Mormon belief system confuses humanity with divinity to a point of genuine concern. Today, we have a president who usurps and abuses power in the name of his own, private agenda. Tomorrow, a smiling, neighborly Mormon might easily mistake himself for God and turn this country into a theocracy around himself. Make no mistake, if Bush managed to do what he did in 6 years, all bets are off if we trade him for someone with strange beliefs that almost no one understands.

Please excuse the typos Maam, and my humor, I just have to laugh to keep from crying. Truly God Bless you and yours.

There is much we could discuss here but let us stay on topic and chose a few items from "Reading, Writing, and Ignorance: Education and Achievement" "...The effects of a deterioratig education system are already apparent. Twenty-seven million American adults are functionally illiterate, according to Laubach Literacy International. The cannot read to their children, or understand street signs or job applications...." Spending We're Number One in private spending on education We're Number 17 in public spending on education. Cumpulsaory Education We're Number One in providing compulsory educaiton. We're Number 18 in providing compulsory education that meets the demands of a competitive economy. Enrollment We're Number 9 in early childhood education, We're Number 15 in days spent in school each year.
We ARE Number one in higher education enrollment (But the text states our higher education system is relatively *poor*. About 95 percent of our high school graduates-private as well as public-would be unable to get into college in any other industrialized country, says Albert Shanker" ahhhh I could go on, but that is pretty depressing isn't it? Of course this was under President Bush 41, Under President Bush 43's No childs behind left alone things no doubt have gotten much better. Great Pumpkin indeed! God Bless you and Keep you Safe on Campus!!! grin

Here it is We're Number One Where American Stands and Falls in the New World Order by Andrew L. Shapiro Vantage Books copyright 1992 "We're Number One and we're going to stay that way." President George Bush (41)

Dear Ms. Doniger;
As someone once said of objectivity in science, just because we cannot produce a perfectly sterile environment is no reason to perform surgery in a sewer. OR THAT WE SHOULD SLICE OPEN A COLIN BECAUSE IT HAS TROUBLE DIGESTING THE CRAP WE HAVE BEEN FORCE FEEDING THE REST OF THE WORLD, FOR EXAMPLE. THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR APPROACH IS THAT YOU DISCOUNT THE HORRIBLE STATE OF EDUCATION ACROSS THE BOARD IN THE UNITED STATES. Consider this:"There was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyway always yield to the stronger, and this will always be 'the man in the street.' Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology." Joseph Goebbels Search on DOWNING STREET MEMO a few years back, probably more like 15 or so, I heard of a book titled we are number 1 on national public radio. i think it is out in the garage. I'll be back...

The H.L. Mencken quote some distance above is one of many, consider:

"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence.

"The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities. The theologians, taking one with another, are adept logicians, but every now and then they have to resort to sophistries so obvious that their whole case takes on an air of the ridiculous. Even the most logical religion starts out with patently false assumptions. It is often argued in support of this or that one that men are so devoted to it that they are willing to die for it. That, of course, is as silly as the Santa Claus proof.

"Other men are just as devoted to manifestly false religions, and just as willing to die for them. Every theologian spends a large part of his time and energy trying to prove that religions for which multitudes of honest men have fought and died are false, wicked, and against God."

isn't that white of her to allow president to believe in god. well thank you very much, im sure no one needs your permission.

That religious old lady looks like Larry "Bud" Melman.

I have a very high regard for the Great Pumpkin. In my youth, I waited ,in a sense, with Linus, in the pumpkin patch for the appearance. I am distraught at the thought that He should be drawn into theological controversies and other such mean things, not to mention unspeakables, like Presidents and others of that ilk. Please be careful. There are sensitive, and sensible, people out there with only a pumpkin patch holding it all together.

"God" seems to speak only to the President and those poor women that boil or microwave their infants "because God told them to." Even if we want to believe in God and demons, pretty clearly when people think they are hearing "God," this must actually be the voice of Satan, who seems to be much more of hands-on manager than God anyway. So if our President hears the voice of "God," then pretty clearly he under the direct control of Satan.

It is also a mystery exactly why the 20% of the population who expect Jesus to arrive next year should vote. Why do they care who is president? Why are they so concerned with having a powerful Executive branch? Even evangelicals admit that the Bible makes no mention of anything that could be interpreted as the United States, which clearly has no role in Biblical prophecy. The only motivation I see is the power and money being accumulated by their leaders. To me, these leaders look like closet atheists who lack the morals and ethics of self-proclaimed atheists.

I realize this post will be fairly off-topic, but after spending a few months perusing "On Faith" articles, and the attatched comments, there are a few things I'd like to say.

A) I am a Christian, how "devout" I am really depends on how you'd define devotion.

B) I beleive that religion, when it is done well has an enormous power to do good and transcend national and ethnic boundaries and do things that governments simply can not.

C) Government and religion really don't mix well in a free, democratic, balanced and fair society. This is not to say that religious *beleifs* should play no part in government, as one's beleifs inform on their view of the world, and how they approach the problems of government, *but* Religion itself should have no direct role in the business of government. Policy may be influenced by one's beleifs, but it should not be based on or justified by them, as this would fundamentally violate the seperation of church and state.

D) Atheism and agnosticism are perfectly legitimate forms of beleif, but I've seen in the "On Faith" postings a rather alarming tendancy towards, for lack of a better term, evangelical or fundamentalist atheism (My apologies to Evangelical Christians, it has often been my personal experience that the two titles, if not their practices go hand in hand). If you think the Bible, the Qu'ran, and other varied religious texts have no meaning or value, you are entitled to that oppinion, but asserting that people who beleive differently *also* have no meaning or value is just, well... rude.

E) I see about a 50/50 split in these comment threads between people who are genuinely interested in a reasoned discussion with others, and people who have a fundamental beleif be it in their interpretation of religion, or their lack of religion, and absolutely refuse to let it go.

F) Some final thoughts... Contrary to popular beleif, "Christianity" is hardly a homogenous, monolithic beleif system. We don't all beleive the same things, we don't all like the same people, and we don't all have the same interpretation of the bible, the same ideas regarding the nature and existence of God, or the same ideas as to how faith and morality apply to public life, and the business of government.

With that being said, it is neither true nor constructive to assume we all worship Bush as the bodilly incarnation of Jesus' second coming, nor do many of us believe that it was God's will that we should invade Iraq, and bring Truth, Justice, and Mom's Apple pie to the oppressed masses. Contrary to what both the Religious right, and the almost as virulent anti-religious sects represented on this website would have you beleive, many christians (Or at least 1 -- Me) find our government's conduct in Iraq to be fundamentally flawed and immoral, steeped in greed, sin, stupidity, and simple hatred -- to wit, unchristian.

Did I have a point? Not really other than to give my impressions, and to express my viewpoint (Good article Mrs. Doniger). Religion, like life, is what you make of it, and what you get out of it. I would appreciate any comments, regarding my thoughts, as I'd genuinely like to know what people think, either good or bad.

Sorry for the length of the post.

All,

We have freedom of religion in this country and it works in both directions-if you want to throw it out in public then do it. For some folks this goes to character-others feel a connection with folks who believe in generally the same way as they do-I know people who vote the way the NRA tells them to-or PETA-or whomever else.
But if you're worried about any of this you sould read what out AG said to the house last week about or rights. Now thats truelly scary.

Where do morals come from? From religion? Which religion? It is impossible to seperate morals from religion as it is impossible to seperate religion from politics or pollitical office. What you believe or what you dont believe affects everything you do. The important thing is that the president doesnt oppress others who dont agree with him thats the seperation. But you cant separate morals from politics.

KYLE FOSTER - how right you are. Jesus was certainly from the house of David alright. David was her mother. Well--we have to call the womb a house, the way pregnant women often feel, like houses.

I'm not joking. http://www.hoax-buster.org page 2 has the real life story of Jesus, David, Solomon and if you look close you'll find father Abraham.

Thank you, Wendy. The right-wing religious wackos are scaring me. We must get religion out of politics. Too many Christian fundamentalists plus too many Islamic fundamentalists plus WMD's equal catastrophe, for the rest of us, that is, as those idiots think they will live eternally while watching the rest of us roast in hell. Such irrationality should not be given political power.

Edwin,

No, I'm just saying that even though Joseph wouldn't make the cut on a DNA based paternity test with baby Jesus you could still say that Jesus was "from the House of King David" because I think Joseph took on a fatherly role in Jesus' life. You know, probably drove him to little league, bought him nice new Pumas, played X-Box with him and stuff like that.

I should be greatly surprised and ashamed that WaPo would let an advocate of Great Pumpkinism promulgate that worthless and heretical doctrine in this forum. I'm not, however--the forum itself is another such advocacy.

You know, this seperation of church and state thing can only be so perfect I figure. That operating room metaphor is apropos, the seperation will never be perfect. I mean, as an agnostic, I'm ready and willing to accept that my president is going to worship something or hold some superstitions that seem odd to me - it's part and parcel of recognizing there are other people who understand the universe in their own way. That faith, or whatever they have, is always going to some degree direct their actions, in addition to (I hope) a significant dose of logic and reason. To be honest, I'm totally down with most the tenets of Christianity, not all mind you, but most. I like that whole no killing or stealing thing - I'm on board with all that, it's really good stuff. And if we're honest, the foundation of the U.S. was built by people who were Christians (there was a sizeable sprinkling of others in the mix), but these Christians were coming from nations where one type of Christian was persecuting other types. I think the forefathers were sick of the whole, "No! It's God's will you drink from the cup three times, not four times, before tasting the sacrificial biscuit of holy flesh - so now I must kill you." type of reasoning. (Sorry - I'm really not terribly well versed in Christian things). So these guys got together and said, let's build a framework that won't allow for that kinda persecution we had going on back there, and I guess while we're at it, it stands to reason that maybe we shouldn't just say "Freedom of Whatever Flavour of Christianity Tickles your Fancy" but lets be a little forward thinking here and say "Freedom of Religion" period, and BAM! - the stage was set for one of the better nations on the planet. But our leaders are always going to be of some theological persuasion that a large chunk of the rest of us aren't - and they're going to act based on their persuasion - which I think is fine, just so long as they're not legislating their religion. So while I see Bush as doing so very very many things wrong - I generally don't see him removing the seperation between church and state.

The logic fails the way all liberal thinking fails on religion.

It says everyone is free to be themselves except people who want to talk about their religion. The author believes that such people are part of America's social sewer and we should not desire for them to speak in public, but then she admits that we really don't have any choice in the matter, for now.

Maybe someday it will be illegal to talk about religion during campaign commercials that are aired on FCC-licensed television stations. Such communications might violate the seperation of church and state because the broadcasters are required by federal law to sell ad time at a reduced rate. This would help make our political system less like a sewer and more like a clean, pure, and healthy place.

The logic fails the way all liberal thinking fails on religion.

It says everyone is free to be themselves except people who want to talk about their religion. The author believes that such people are part of America's social sewer and we should not desire for them to speak in public, but then she admits that we really don't have any choice in the matter, for now.

Maybe someday it will be illegal to talk about religion during campaign commercials are aired on FCC-licensed television stations. Such communications might violates the seperation of church and state because the broadcasters are required by federal law to sell ad time at a reduced rate. This would help make our political system less like a sewer and more like a clean, pure, and healthy place.

I am a "godless athiest", and I thank Wendy Doniger for her comments. Frankly, more widespread belief in the Great Pumpkin might be a good thing. Justifying actions using religion doesn't cut it with me.

Thank you Wendy Doniger. Russell Ayers

I never- never- ever want to hear again- well he is Catholic and how will he/she apply the law if it stands opposite church doctrines.

This President has used religion time and time again in his decisions- as a matter of fact - it has been so obvious to most Americans- the Christian Right churches have impacted this man's decisions which have affected America.

Again- no more verbage on catholics as this White House has completely disregarded the separation of church and state.

I think that everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs as long as those beliefs are reserved for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It's OK to pretend to be a Christianist or Jew or Muslim or whathaveyou - we all need hobbies - but, let's face it, the Flying Spagehtti Monster (may you be touched by his noodly appendage) is the one true Lord. Everyone knows that only pirates go to heaven and only true noodle-eaters are qualified for public office.

But besides that, religious freedom and free religion are swell, is America going to experiment with tolerance some day? Then what will you do with all the Republicans? I don't suppose they'd appreciate that, not so much. Curiouser.

It is my belief that a lot of good people have a lot of time to waste, and it seems that I'm one of them since I took time to read their opinions. Best of all was the quote from H.L. Mencken.

This author gets it. Too bad some of the posters do not.

Separate your god and your politicians and perhaps american's will not find themselves in biter wars and internal strife as they are now, in Iraq, and Afghanistan, over religious beliefs and nothing more.

The world perceives america as being racist and america is racist with a racist past, only now instead of black american's confronted with racist attitudes, american is focusing their racism on muslims world-wide. Truly SAD.

Step back and look at yourself america, your KKK robes are showing again.

Moral majority, I wonder who coined that phrase. Probably a republican type person. Conservative christians/republicans, one and the same, racist attitudes, I believe.

Jerry Crews writes: "A politician cannot make laws on abortion, guy rights (sic -- ;)),etc. without embracing or abandoning religious conviction."

If that were true, it would be an awfully good reason for finding that those matters are not appropriate subjects for legislation and should be left to the individual.

I am at a loss when anti-abortion people intone "life begins at conception" over and over again, as if that statement reflects some kind of objective fact. "Life" is not an independently meaningful term. It is a value judgment, and for most abortion opponents it is informed by what they have been told the bible says on abortion. And, no offense, but since these same biblical authorities tend to have choice words about contraception and the role of women in general, I am a little skeptical about the whole enterprise.

The problem I have with the argument that you evaluate two positions strictly by their arguments is that one side may be wholly irrational and yet supportable by the argument: "we have to wait for further evidence" (global warming, anti-smoking). How long do you wait until you say: enough is enough, you are discredited and we need to do something now. The threat with global warming is potentially dire.

The point is, science is never 100%, it is an approximation, first order, second order, but at some point somebody has to take the authority to say: this is it and the preponderance of scientific evidence dictates that one is correct, even though statistically the other may still be possible.

How do you handle these cases?

None should again be elected to public office with any faith but Americanism. Our Mottoes suffice as shibboleths and Bush's treason is so obvious that any commenter failing to address it is either dim, cowardly or complicit. Jefferson identified the Anti-Christ: only fellowtravelers, philistines and fools fail to see it now in Bush's Fifth Column faction.

Just want to say that idiots are fairly well divided between all religions as well as the non-religious. No more are all Christians Creationists than are all Atheists Marxists. I majored in astro-physics and am some sort of Christian. The two don't seem to bother each other. I think those who profess faith do need to admit that they base their position on faith not proof. I have no problem with someone having a faith practice since I do -- just don't tell me that proves anything. Most Christian theologians I admire would admit they are agnostics.

H.L. Mencken provides a wonderfully fitting summary of this topic:

We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.

Here is some faith and reason for you. Why would any god let people like Bush to OBL kill in his name?

Why does this god sit back and let horrible things like a child being raped and murdered and do nothing? Does that not make him guilty too (or a sadist)??

If this god is so egotistical he needs to be worshiped, why not show himself now and then and let us know what religion he wants us to follow?

Why did not this god design us better? Human beings are some of the most violent creatures on this earth? We could be must better and still have free will. Other things do not make sense either. For example, if he does not want us to have sex so much, why did he give us such a strong sex drive? Most species of animals have no interest in sex outside of reproduction.

I would disagree with the source article to some degree.

This may sound harsh, but if someone professes to believe that the Bible is true as an historical, or even as a moral document (or the Book of Mormon, or the Koran, or indeed the Epic of Gilgamesh), that shows a SEVERE lack of critical thinking skills.

And, as hard as this is to swallow, there is a very well-subscribed cult in the US that would find cause to REJOICE if a nuclear bomb laid waste to Israel. Ironic, as this repulsive belief is shared by a well-subcribed cult in the Muslim world.

These belief systems have dire political implications.

Armageddon is among the most dangerous potential self-fullfilling prophecies known to man, and the "Left Behind" crowd can't wait for it.

The self-evident bigotry against homosexuals (and, indeed, atheists) is rampant within the religious right.

If a candidate can buy into any of the above, they are not fit for office.

And I do care how someone got to their beliefs. If a belief system leads one to the idea that homosexuals are sub-human, what is next? Adulteresses? Divorces? Re-married widows? Jews? Blacks? Hispanics?

I want to know if a candidate is a religionist, and specifically what kind of religion. The climate of political correctness has brainwashed us into the default idea that all religions are created equal. This is rubbish.

To suggest that ridiculous software like Mormonism is on par with the form of Deism professed by many of the founding fathers is an affront to reason.

Sean:
Your arguments are no more logical than they are irrefutable. The forgiveness accorded the believer through the death of Jesus on the cross does not negate the legal penalties accrued for any criminal actions. Since God himself ordains human government (see Romans 13 for its most explicit claim) no one is elevating man's law over God's. They are following both. Your confusion between eternal and temporal consequences is symptomatic of a general category confusion.
You're right that faith is non-negotiable but wrong not to recognize that Christian teaching requires adherence to human government except where it explicitly denies the proclamation of the Gospel or compels one to commit immoral actions. A committed Christian is committed to following the laws of his or her country.
Many tributaries entered into the American experiment. They had varied relationships to orthodox Christian thought but their customs and presuppositions were derived from Christianity.
There is nothing more remorseless than the binary logic of computer chips, yet garbage in. garbage out. Reason is instrumental not foundational. The a prioris, the basic assumptions of people can lead to widely divergent ideas even given rigorous and fallacy-free reasoning. Those who oppose reason to faith understand neither.

Kyle,

forgive my secular ignorance, but then in such case, doesn't it mean then that Jesus is an adopted Messiah? How can the prophecy be true if King David's lineage does not extend to Jesus' bloodline? That sounds like Christians are pushing for Jesus to fulfill the prophecy.

Hey, what's all the fuss; those who follow Bush say, “God is on his side", now isn't that just perfect, he really did pick a winner. Remember what Bush said during his first run for the presidency, “I am a uniter, not a divider! That did come true; he has united the world against us, thank you God.

I agree with the conclusion that political leaders need to have reasoned, thought-out, practical-in-the-real-world reasons for thier policy positions. But I also question the validity of many commentors singling out and denying the public relevance of one source of personal views while leaving all others valid. If you are singling out "religious beliefs," please acknowledge that a lack of belief in an organized faith tradition is just as much a religious belief as Christianity, Buddhism, etc. It still informs your views on the world, shapes how you think policy should be formed. So everyone making policy is impacted by their religious beliefs, albeit in many different ways. Is it possible or fair to tell a candidate whose views on poverty are informed by his or her impoverished childhood, "That's not something we want to hear about; we don't want to know about or don't want to understand why you want to push through this reform?" Faith and religious beliefs cannot be turned off with a switch when someone enters the public arena, and it is impossible to achieve perfect impartiality or objectivity when it comes to religious background. As I said above, religious beliefs should not be the ONLY source for public policy by any means, but should be acknowledged as present and operative in everyone.

Fully agree with the Professor and also with the views of Anonymous & JOEL.

But how do we prevent presidential candidates who don't respect the Constitutional Separation of church and state, who wear their religion on their sleeve and who claim to get their orders from the Great Pumpkin-from using/or abusing Religion to secure political office? How can we constitutionally and democratically stop people from voting such candidates into the White House-as happened twice with W Bush?

Can a law be legislated to prohibit presidential or even congressional candidates from using religion in their elections' campaigns-and would that be against the First Amendment?

Edwin,

It kind of depends on how you interpret "from the house of" doesn't it? I mean, If I have an adopted child, I might expect most people to agree that child is from the house of Kyle.

Actually that has a nice ring. I'm going to go adopt somebody now...

Anonymous,

I could not agree w/ you more. You should move to such country of village idiots. Hell, you could be their king (like Bush).

I also think that our leaders should be allowed to be stupid and uneducated, so long as the decisions that they make are correct.

Wendy, despite what you claim I bet you wouldn't vote for a member of Heaven's Gate. Similarly, many of us are increasingly worried about the doomsday direction of the religious right.

Alex,

I was being sarcastic about being a "secular progressive." However, if you must know, I am a deist.

Alex: Well, you've just demonstrated in public how little you know. First, atheist does not equal leftist. Indeed, a significant percentage of atheists are libertarians, and libertarians and leftists have a tiny space of common nground but mostly do not believe in remotely the same things. Second, leftists, presumably a term that you use to decsribe everyone who disagrees with you, are not necessarily Marxists. I am an atheist leftist, but I assure you that I venerate nothing except my wife - certainly not the state, secular or otherwise. BTW, leftists and liberals are not the same either, but that is probably too much for one lesson.

I have a legitimate religious question for Christians:

If the prophecy stated that the Messiah would be from the house of King David, then why is Jesus the Messiah since David's bloodline ran through Joseph, & God is truly his father??

Yes and he also said that which of Ceasar render unto Ceasar and that which is God's render unto God.

When one claims to be the ultimate authority on the truth and uses the Bible and the words of Christ to deny the rights of others and to force thier dogma upon others that person is taking the place of God. The problem with today's current malaise is that so many want to serve God in an advisory role instead of the role of a servant.

Thousands of real living breathing human beings, children of God are dying in the Darfur region of the Sudan every month and at times every week. Yet we want to judge the politician by his position on gay rights. One who practices true humility as taught by Jesus would never presume to have the answer for mankind and to beat his chest like some Pharisee making sure that everyone knows he is a Christian.

Edwin:

How do you define/describe a "secular progressive"? Specifically, where/in whom/or in what does your faith lie?

Thanks,

Alex

re: "Anonymous" response to Paul Cooper. I think you should have spent a bit more time reading Cooper's post and less time writing your own. You completely missed his gist.

Sorry, I meant "Alex" & not "Erich".

Looks like we'll have to junk the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Gettysburg Address, American currency and coinage, and indeed about 85% of the philosophy and institutions upon which our civilization is founded.
Anybody else as sick as I am of these oh-so-progressive self-righteous p.c. docents as me? No, that wouldn't be possible.

Erich,

us liberals prefer a new God. One that doesn't talk to your Messiah (Bush). Again, this God is an idiot & someone needs to put Him/Her down. Since I am a secular progressive, I'll put God down. Long live Zeus!

Chuck, I agree. I need to know which way the wind is blowing before I head into a storm. If the presidential candidates claim that God is guiding them, either via prayer or telepathy, we need to discard them as absurd politicians, & we need to move on to the next candidate. As you all can see, God is an idiot & He/She does not know the turbulent history of Sunnis & Shi'ites in Iraq, and He/She had no strategy after the 48 hour welcoming of American troops as liberators. I say we switch gods b/c that is the root of the problem. Let us have a reality TV show in which we all pick our next God. The contestants should be former gods from all cultures. The winner should be the a militant god who can destroy of all our enemies.

Why are there so many leftists even bothering to contribute to discussion of religion? I thought that you already believed that this matter is settled; that religion is the great opiate of the masses and that the secular state should be venerated instead?

Ms. Doniger: I would be careful what I say. Pat Robertson might tell God to turn The Uninversity of Chicago in to The George W.Bush Library.

Lack of neutrality is one thing, but as a politician or any other member of the informed and engaged public that's required in a functional democracy, one must vet one's 'beliefs' against the available facts and the standards set forth in our Constitution to the extent possible.

It's normal that a 'religious' lawmaker may be initially impelled by a 'religious' conviction to craft law X. But he has a responsiblity to his office and the people he represents to also, look at that belief in 'anti-establishment' terms. For example, "Thou shalt not kill", while valuable as a guiding principle, is impractical as a law as it does not take into account the nuances (self-defense, accidental or negligent homicide) required in a modern and just society.

We are free to have beliefs ("I think gay marriage is wrong"), but in the absence of facts that support the imposition of my belief upon others (i.e. "There's an established correlation between gay marriage and, say, poor air quality"), we have to have the maturity to accept that our beliefs are protected, but so are everyone else's.

On a slightly different subject yet within the general topic: I still feel resentful that I was denied US citizenship because I'm an atheist and because I prefer to take the amended oath i.e. the one which doesn't insist that one would willingly bear arms against citizens of another country. I was told I needed a written statement from my church ( I don't have one ) reinforcing my views ( whatever that means ). I've been here for 20 years, paid taxes and have not run afoul of the law and I originate from Britain. Is there truly separation of government and religion ?

What is the "Great Pumpkin" in comparison to the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I really have to wonder why none of those individuals who are so convinced of the Christian orgins of this nation never mention Thomas Jefferson's gift of the Jefferson Bible to James Madison, and the contents of the accompanying letter? A thin volume containing only those things Jefferson thought of value in both the Old and New Testaments. I believe the words he used in describing his little book, "diamonds from the dung heap". Mircea Eliade had a great deal so say about our "Christian roots".

Professor, you preach the ideal while other panelists either say in your face this is how it is or lament how it is. The best we can hope for, the ideal case is for the man to execute his/her office without respect to whatever is faithed, believed but not known. Hopefully what is known will be the guiding light and not the presumed wishes of talking lights or bearded old men on fire.

STEVE JACOBSON - where are we going to get a FEARLESS leader that FEARS God or any other being imaginary or real. Those that fear God are often little men with big inferiority complexes, mental cases. Now take our present leader racked with fear, the usual God fearing nervous wreck forinstance.

I disagree. You state "In the context of the presidential elections, this would mean that the candidates should debate the issues entirely on their own merits, not with reference to whatever religious (or other) feelings or beliefs may have brought them to their conclusions." In other words, candidates should hide their true thoughts and beliefs while they debate the issues, even though you acknowledge those beliefs will influence their decisions once in the White House. Talk about buying a pig in a poke. If we're going to have another candidate who makes decisions based on his personal religious beliefs, I for one want to know it before I vote for him/her. Or, to use your analogy, if the guy's going to perform sugery in the sewer, I'd sure like to know before I'm rolled into the operating room.

But Bush *has* publicly stated that God told him to invade Iraq. So when it comes to the man in charge of the mightiest military in human history claiming to be acting on instructions from an imaginary being, it makes no difference whether that imaginary being is called God, Allah, Apollo, the Great Pumpkin, or Harvey the invisible rabbit -- all scenarios are frightening.

Paul R. Cooper writes:

"we have a true believer in the White House who has clearly stated his missionary duty to bring his view of God to the world."

What are you on? I doubt that God, or Jesus for that matter, would agree with a lunatic, Bush in this case, invading a sovereign nation that has never declared war, or even proclaimed any harm, to the US. Yes, you can argue that the world is a better place w/out Saddam, and I would agree to that. However, there are many other dictators around the world that are much worse than Saddam, and yet they're alive and kicking. If killing innocent civilians is how your religious leader spreads democracy and Christianity, then we need to examine our heads b/c we are accomplices of such crimes. No where in your book does it say that we must force people to join Christianity and our political system. The fact that we are forcing Jesus on others makes us conquerors, and as a student of history, I can not remember the last time people greeted invaders with open arms. If Christianity, Islam, or any other illogical sect, are "true" religions, then it would follow that you would not have to force it down someone's throat. Instead, if it really was the "truth", people would convert by the masses. Yet we do not b/c it is obvious that abandoning reason is not a good thing since it leads to absurd decisions.

One last thing, Paul Cooper, would you open up to Muslims if they invaded your country b/c God spoke to one of their leaders and told him to convert as many infidels as he could? I mean, this leader, viewed by the Middle East as a Messiah, would only be completing his missionary duty to bring his "view of God to the world." I doubt that you would get on your knees and praise Allah. Instead, you would pick up an M-16 and fight for whatever fictitious God you believe in. You would be just like the Iraqis. Burn your Bible and embrace reason, for that is the greatest gift your God has given you.

I agree with you, Ms. Doniger, about the Great Pumpkin but it seems that the Great Decider had a couple too many when he decided to go to war without any justification. Probably, Dick Vader gave him the concoction.

Regardless of religion the President swears to uphold our freedom OF (and FROM) religion.

This means that we need to remove religion from electioneering, and electioneering from the pulpit in the form of "voter's guides".

Of course we need a leader who is God fearing and fearing anyone different from him. If it wasn't for religious differences there would be fewer wars, less guns needed, young men and women living fruitful lives, no war wounded, no VA hospitals and all peoples would be educated, productive and free. Freedom from religion is truly a God given right since if there is only one God why are there so many who will war over how to honor him.

British America wasn't founded by Pilgrims (they came in 1620), it was founded by adventurers and commercial people. Roanoke Island (1585) and Jamestown (1607) were not founded as overtly Christian ventures, but as commercial/imperial ones. Christian Nationalists get even this bit wrong.

As long as the next leader is not a fanatic, of any sect, I can careless. Personally, I think we should elect a gay atheus abortionist. But seriously, what really troubles me is the Jesus freaks that claim this country was founded by Christians. If what they mean by that is that the 1st colonizers were Pilgrims, then the argument is accepted. However, if theya re referring to the founding fathers, Franklin and Jefferson in particular, they were free-thinkers and deists who strongly opposed the inter-mingling of government and religion, so the Christian "founding" premise goes out the window.

Illogical arguments should not find their way into politics-although Bush already did this and got elected twice-b/c they bring the abandonment of reason into our system. The failures that follow are obvious. To cite a few examples, think of policies such as No Child Left Behind, the Iraq Invasion, Katrina in New Orleans, et cetera. I can honestly say that Thomas Paine had it right when it came to Christians and their beliefs: they are irrational beings. Therefore, and knowing this, the founding fathers set out to build a wall to protect secular people from such absurd creatures. And the irony of it is that such wall was also built to protect Christians from themselves. A modern example of the demented behavior of Christians is the proclamation-not theory since there is no hypothesis and obviously it can not be proven-that Creationism should be taught next to Evolution. If that is the case, then Buddhist and Hindu creationism should also be considered a "truth" since members of such religions accept them as such. I know some Christians might take offense to my words, but the truth is that I love them all, and I was taught, by Christians themselves, that if I see someone at the edge of a cliff, I have to pull him back, and "save" him. :)

I would rather religion not be overtly involved in politics, but since that's not an option, it would be nice if religious people were at least consistent in their beliefs. To take just one example, if you believe abortion is murder but the death penalty is just - on the grounds that the unborn are innocent and the condemned are guilty - and you also believe that being Born Again into Christ washes away the guilt of your previous sins, then by your own standards, George W. Bush committed murder when he executed Born Again Karla Faye Tucker on February 3, 1998.

If you try and excuse him by saying that Christ only absolved her spiritual guilt, but not her debt to society, then you have just said that God's Justice should take a back seat to Man's. If that's the case, then Abortion is now exactly like executing those who have been forgiven their sins - a necessary(?) evil in a functioning society.

Very few of the Born Again will accept my logic, but fewer still can refute it. Add to this the fact that faith is not negotiable, and you have the makings of a political system based entirely on Power and Might-Makes-Right: since you cannot explain *why* your way is better from a logical/practical standpoint, you can only get people to follow it by punishing them if they don't. In the end, by trying to force people to be "good" against their will, you yourself become evil. Jefferson and his friends tried very hard to break this pattern, and his opposition to it here in VA was one of the only three things he really wanted to be remembered for.

Wendy: Of course neutrality in the public square is impossible. Jesus said it best when he stated "he who is not with me is against me". A politician cannot make laws on abortion, guy rights,etc. without embracing or abandoning religious conviction--be it Judeo-Christian or other.(By the way, almost none of the current crowd has any convictions or backbone). Perhaps that explains the current malaise.

I find it depressing at this stage of my long life to find that many Americans believe firmly in a view other than that expressed by Ms. Doniger. While I believe this large minority cannot revise the Constitution on the matter of separation, millions have not resolved this question in their minds. Our value system is being challenged, and we have a true believer in the White House who has clearly stated his missionary duty to bring his view of God to the world. Now is not the time for Americans to be divided over this basic question.

Are we electing people because of their religious views or because of their abilities? It is very clear from the Haggard scandal in the fundamental section of Christianity is that what you see is not necessarily what you get.

The office of President (or Prime Minister) by all rights need to be somewhat religion-free. We need candidates for election that represent all peoples, from all walks of life and all religious persuasions or lack of religious beliefs.

It is my understanding that the religious bodies elect their leaders, be it archbishop or pope. They should not be involved in secular affairs.

Enjoyed the article. Perhaps we can rework George Carlin's observation " If honesty is the best policy does that mean dishonesty is the second best policy" to fit the political scene and it's faith oriented values.Cheers!

I agree except for the sentence at the end:

"I don’t care how they got to where they stand; I care about where they stand."

I think that how someone arrives at a particular viewpoint is an excellent predictor of what viewpoints they will arrive at with regard to untested issues. You even said earlier in the column that you wouldn't want someone to invade Iraq on the advice of the Great Pumpkin; not necessarily because you oppose an invasion, but because you oppose the reasoning behind it.

So, in fact, you do care "how they go to where they stand". Which is a good thing. Personally, I would trust someone who wants to overhaul Social Security for fiscal reasons rather than because they're not getting as much from the Tooth Fairy anymore.

Max, every faith has its dogma, else it isn't a faith.

I echo with thanks for a thoughtful, reasoned discussion of this topic.

Max - don't stop at insulting the Mormons - all of the religious texts are based on the same thing - hearsay. There is no proof for any of the major religious texts as to who wrote them, when, and what the original content is.

One problem - our idiot-in-cheif does think he was selected by god to run the US. I'm fairly certain that by using the word "Crusade" to describe the Iraq invasion, George does think god told him to invade Iraq.

I agree with the article and posts that the politicians (mostly the GOP) has hijacked the religious right for their own purposes. Its very sad for them, if they would just take a look.

Thanks for having a balanced article in the OnFaith arena - for once.

I am strongly encouraged by the likes of the professor. It is for me disingenuous for anyone seeking political office to wear around them a moral piety just by public utterances of a deep religious conviction. What are the criteria for determining a deeply religious individual? and what does it mean in the realm of public policy?
If the level of ones religious convictions determines ones fitness for office, why don't the likes of Jerry Falwell and Part Robertson lead us here in this country. Afterall they know God and talk to Him more frequently than us all combined.(Isn't that what there followers think?)

I'm all for freedom of religion. However, I believe a Mormon should have to explain how a rational person can believe the nonsense in the Book of Mormon? It was apparently written by a moron who convinced other morons that he was reading from a sacred text. Anybody who believes that silliness is not suitable for a position of trust in the government of the United States.

I agree with what you wrote. I'm a christian and I believe that church and state should remain separate. These politicians are playing the christian people for their votes pure and simple. The bible states judge a man by his works, and if you judge Bush by his works he wouldn't quailfy as a christian!

as an agnostic, i say "amen." and thanks for a thoughtful examination of the issue.

I couldn't agree more but lately it happened that the majority of those who vote are believers, and they accordingly vote for someone to represent their beliefs in Parliament. It is a right and a democratic choice.

It seems wrong to conduct surgery in a sewer, but if the electorate voted for it, can the rep override it? Someone who seeks popularity may not, but I think only a person with strong convictions who stands upon principles could rise to the people and do the right thing.

And since I cannot see any such luck, I might as well vote for a Pumkin...

I agree...the challenge and problem of clear-headed discussion from a purely "belief perspective" (which is what outing one's religious beliefs usually engenders)shares similarities with attempting to deal with the "problem of pain." Crisis, especially on a grand scale seems to cry out for swift and decisive solution, an ultimate answer. But the mind, taken by surprise, can't always remember where the prescription is, or how to wisely administer. If and when relief comes, how to sustain it in a wholistic, healthy way is a whole other matter that requires investigation balancing belief and logic and a notion of the greater good; extending our medical-pain example, of the patients's body, the family, those who suffer the same disease, and a world of others at known or unknown risk for it.

To declare one's religious biases is to open the door to myriad assumptions coming from all directions...the bane of fair and balanced discussion, if you can get to it at all in the thicket of distraction assumptions represent.

Particularly well expressed here is the accommodation and respect one may accord one's personal beliefs, without absolute obeisance...which in my view is to move one's spirituality from the realm of a personal, considered, examined faith into idolatry.

You write:

"Of course religious (or non-religious) beliefs will play an important part in their judgments about such matters as abortion and euthanasia and stem cell research and the rights of homosexuals to marry, and a less obvious part in judgments about poverty, war, justice, and even about health care, the homeless, and global warming."

It is precisely the point that important issues like the begining of human life weighed against the end of human life demand a carefully and publicly reasoned, ethically (not irrational belief) crafted consideration. This is as difficult to understand as the science of evolutionary biology, and cannot be subjected to the irrationalism of religious doctrine and jibberish.

I think this is what "free speech" will come to mean in this century. If you assert an unfounded claim, your "belief" is subject to being negated, as in the recent Dover Intelligent Design decision. If you are a religious liar, you will be called such by the court.

Thank you.