1. Comment #22822 by Graham on February 23, 2007 at 4:06 pm

I'm pretty sure there have been no black, jewish, hispanic, women or homosexual presidents (possibly bi?), but I'm not so sure there hasn't already been an atheist president. I suspect there probably has.

Barak Obama's religiosity seems to have grown in proportion to his political ambitions and since both his parents were agnostic or atheist I remain sceptical of his own beliefs and a little cynical about someone who appears to use a religous image simply to get elected.

Other Comments by Graham

2. Comment #22823 by Planeswalker on February 23, 2007 at 4:09 pm

Isn't Obama a Muslim? Then wouldn't it benefit him more to say that he is Christian?

By the way, it could be pretty cool to see some religious politician getting elected as president, and when he have his first speech, he says "Hah! I was bluffing! I'm actually an Atheist! And there's nothing you can do about it!"

Other Comments by Planeswalker

3. Comment #22824 by willerror on February 23, 2007 at 1:20 pm

No way is Obama a Muslim; he's only moderately Xian. After reading an excerpt of his autiobiography in Time, or Newsweek, and learning his parents were not religious, I suspect his embrace of Xianity is only b/c he decided to be a public figure. Religion was treated as any other mythology when he was growing up, he wrote. I too am a little turned off by his appeal to it now, but that's life in these United States. I have to be a realist about it. That said, I think he might be friendlier to non-believers of all stripes than anyone else, precisely because of his upbringing.

Other Comments by willerror

4. Comment #22825 by goldmineguttd on February 23, 2007 at 4:21 pm

Isn't Obama a Muslim? Then wouldn't it benefit him more to say that he is Christian?

It's kind of disturbing that you think that. Have you been watching Fox News?

He's a Christian, and I've read parts of his book, and his take on religion in public discourse is pretty similar to Dennett's. I'm supporting him, he's the best we can expect.

Other Comments by goldmineguttd

5. Comment #22826 by Graham on February 23, 2007 at 4:28 pm

As an interested observer north of the border I would tend to agree with you goldmineguttd. It's an interesting dilemma on whether to "out" his potential sceptisism or whether to go along with the possible religious role playing to increase his electoral chances.

Other Comments by Graham

6. Comment #22829 by Xavier on February 23, 2007 at 1:34 pm

A possible interpretation of this poll is that atheists, being open-minded and inclusive, would not consider religion a disqualifying attribute whereas the closed-minded religionists are more concerned that their fiefdom retains its social and political dominance than they are about selecting the more appropriateperson or policies for their leader. If this is the case it suggests that almost half of those polled are atheist.

Far more concerning is that more that a tenth would not support a candidate only because she is female!

Other Comments by Xavier

7. Comment #22830 by Planeswalker on February 23, 2007 at 1:40 pm

goldmineguttd: Ah, okay. I just thought I'd heard he was a Muslim... But that must have been someone else who were considering running for president or something.

Other Comments by Planeswalker

8. Comment #22831 by toomanytribbles on February 23, 2007 at 1:43 pm

i have a question.. if faced with a dilemma.. to uphold the constitution or to serve one's higher power, god whatever.. what would a religious president do?

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

9. Comment #22832 by anotherclinton on February 23, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Here's a devilish little question...would anybody from [i]this[/i] forum actually vote for a Mormon? I can honestly say I wouldn't--and not so much because of the crazy stuff they believe, but because they all have identical political beliefs as far as I can tell, and those are solidly right-wing. I wouldn't vote for a Muslim who insisted on his wife and daughters wearing veils in public, either.

Other Comments by anotherclinton

10. Comment #22833 by Bizarro Dawkins on February 23, 2007 at 1:58 pm

"i have a question.. if faced with a dilemma.. to uphold the constitution or to serve one's higher power, god whatever.. what would a religious president do?"

Considering the ambiguity concerning a higher power rather than specifically the God of the Bible, I will not say that your question is flawed. I will say however that there never will be a conflict between the Biblical God and the Constitution. Considering that the Constitution is based on biblical concepts, there will never arise a contradiction between the two documents. I cannot say the same for a number of other religions, but your question does not logically apply to Christianity.

Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins

11. Comment #22834 by AJ Rae on February 23, 2007 at 2:00 pm

A possible interpretation of this poll is that atheists, being open-minded and inclusive...

If I thought someone would use their religion or faith delusions to make decisions I wouldn't even contemplate on voting for them. Of course, no sane politician would ever say they get guidance from God. If a politician went to church regularly I wouldn't vote for them.

Other Comments by AJ Rae

12. Comment #22837 by moudiwort on February 23, 2007 at 2:05 pm

Hm, Muslims - it seems - are not considered eligible by the Gallup pollsters themselves. ;-)

Other Comments by moudiwort

13. Comment #22838 by the great teapot on February 23, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Bizzaro or is it spock.

Christianity says There is one God. Worship him alone.
The constitution of the USA I believe claims to be secular. Ie you can worship a 100 gods if you like.
That took me about 1 second of thought. I can not be bothered to waste any more time on your stupid christian logic, but I am sure there are 100's more examples.
Have a nice day. I hope never to hear from you again.

Other Comments by the great teapot

14. Comment #22839 by toomanytribbles on February 23, 2007 at 5:18 pm

i never regarded the constitution as being based on biblical concepts. puzzling.

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

15. Comment #22840 by Mroberts3 on February 23, 2007 at 2:25 pm

When talking about someone like Obama, my concern isn't if his faith is real, but rather how he puts religion as a whole in the context of our democracy. In other words, I don't care about how religious a politician is as long as he upholds the separation of church and state, and doesn't make policy decisions for all of us based on his own faith.

In addition, I hold no grudges against people who fake or embellish religious belief to get elected. First off, its about the only way to get a rational thinker in office. Not all politicians are just power hungry, some really want to serve their country but couldn't even dream of getting elected without professing SOME religious belief.

And from a practical standpoint, I would rather have intelligent and capable people in office regardless of how the campaign played out. Sure, I'd rather them not lie, but we have to be realistic in our religiously dominated political arena.

Other Comments by Mroberts3

16. Comment #22841 by lpetrich on February 23, 2007 at 5:27 pm

Bizarro Dawkins, there you go again.

The US Constitution starts with

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence[1], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And continues onward, totally secular and non-Biblical. Its Preamble, quoted above, expresses the Locke-Hobbes social-contract theory of government, which is totally absent from the Bible. Its main forms of government are absolute monarchy and theocracy, government by top-down command, not representative democracy.

There are also no legislative bodies in the Bible, nothing like the House or the Senate. And the Senate's name didn't come from the Bible, but from the pagan Roman Republic. Yes, *pagan*.

Also, the Bible is devoid of any concept of freedom of religion. You must believe in the One True Religion -- or else.

Other Comments by lpetrich

17. Comment #22842 by the great teapot on February 23, 2007 at 5:30 pm

45 % would vote for an atheist.
What % voted for Bush. Was it more than that?
How many people don't vote at all because "all politicians are self seeking liars"?

Other Comments by the great teapot

18. Comment #22843 by IPV4 on February 23, 2007 at 2:44 pm

I know this article is unrelated but needs to be posted on the RD website. Its about the egyptian that is getting 4 years in prison for bashing islam on a blog. I believe this country is also an american ally. Isn't that a bit critical for Bush to spread democracy in Irag but yet one of his major allies violates many of the democratic tenets?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/22/AR2007022200269.html

Other Comments by IPV4

19. Comment #22844 by kkant on February 23, 2007 at 2:49 pm

Bizzaro writes:
"I will say however that there never will be a conflict between the Biblical God and the Constitution. Considering that the Constitution is based on biblical concepts, there will never arise a contradiction between the two documents."

Absolutely hilarious. OK, let's start with the 10 commandments. Commandment 1: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Now onto the US Constitution, the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Bizzaro, explain how these two statements are not contradictory.

toomanytribbles writes:
"if faced with a dilemma.. to uphold the constitution or to serve one's higher power, god whatever.. what would a religious president do?"

Great question. A seriously religious Christian president would advocate the death penalty for anyone who works on the Sabbath. Among other barbaric nonsense. Fortunately, none of our presidents have really taken their Christianity seriously.

Other Comments by kkant

20. Comment #22845 by Spinoza on February 23, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Um...

"Family and religious life

While working at the corporate law firm Sidley & Austin in the summer of 1989, Obama met Michelle Robinson, an associate attorney at the firm.[118] Michelle and Barack Obama were married in 1992 at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ by their pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.[119] They have two daughters, Malia, 8, and Natasha, 5.[118] A theme of Obama's keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and the title of his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope, was inspired by one of Rev. Wright's sermons.[120] In the book, Obama describes his non-religious upbringing:

I was not raised in a religious household. My maternal grandparents, who hailed from Kansas, had been steeped in Baptist and Methodist teachings as children, but religious faith never really took root in their hearts. My mother's own experiences as a bookish, sensitive child growing up in small towns in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas only reinforced this inherited skepticism. [...] My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.

Obama writes that his religious convictions formed during his twenties, when, as a community organizer working with local churches, he came to understand "the power of the African American religious tradition to spur social change":

It was because of these newfound understandings–that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice, or otherwise retreat from the world that I knew and loved–that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized. It came about as a choice and not an epiphany; the questions I had did not magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.[121]"

Barak is a United Church of Christ follower... not even close to Muslim or Atheist.

Other Comments by Spinoza

21. Comment #22846 by Bizarro Dawkins on February 23, 2007 at 3:07 pm

You are all demonstrating a very shallow knowledge of the Bible. In the New Testament (which is the covenant we are now under), there are very few commands regarding government and politics, that is, whith the exception of a particular verse that commands us to respect the government. Of course, I imagine you would all like to gloss over that because it doesn't fit your strawman bible.

The New Testament does not make commands involving governments; it makes them regarding people. Freedom of religion is in itself a biblical concept. Nowhere in the New Testament will you ever see examples of forced conversions, nor do any of the apostles (or Jesus for that matter) advocate government control of religion, or religious control of government for that matter. Think about it: would a conversion forced by the government really be a true conversion? God wants US to make the choice of our own free-will, and this is clearly manifested in the fact that under the New Covenant, little is mentioned of politics.

There is therefore no conflict between freedom of religion and the Bible, nor is there any other conflict between the Bible and the Constitution.

And no, God is not mentioned explicitly in the constitution, but this does not negate the fact, that is, the fact that the vast majority of historical and legal experts agree with, that America was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics.

Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins

22. Comment #22847 by kcjerith on February 23, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Bizarro Dawkins, it depends on who you ask, in terms of politics and the bible. If you asked the Russian writer Tolstoy he would claim, and make a strong case, that the Constitution is in direct conflict with the bible. Why? Because when jesus says don't judge and Tolstoy argues that means there should be no courts at all. Tolstoy was an anarchist because he thought that is what Jesus was advocating. I believe the book was called My Confession, My Religion. Of course this isn't the exact point you where talking about in your last post, but one can claim that the Constitution and bible are at odds.

Other Comments by kcjerith

23. Comment #22848 by the great teapot on February 23, 2007 at 3:30 pm

@Bizarro
So the old testament has nothing to do with christianity.
Why then is it in the christian Bible?
It must be the longest( and most boring) preamble ever written.
Thank god the Koran doesn't have the bible in it's foreward.



Other Comments by the great teapot

24. Comment #22849 by kcjerith on February 23, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Oh and just because the "new covenant" occurred doesn't mean all of the old rules are out, didn't jesus (or what ever fictitious person the bible claims) that he was here not to destroy the old laws but to fulfill them. or something like that. Of course you might respond that he meant something else. This brings us to the problem, that Dawkins and others have brought up, we can cherry pick the bible to suit whatever needs or motives one desires be it political, as in the case of Tolstoy, or personal.

Other Comments by kcjerith

25. Comment #22850 by NeoGothic on February 23, 2007 at 3:32 pm

Bizarro, (what an apt name BTW) although now defunct, the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 in Article 11 states explicitly:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The US of A is NOT a "christian" nation in any sense, nor are any of our legal documents, i.e., the constitution, based on anything religious. The founding fathers' religious beliefs were at most deist beliefs. The United States is, to quote another person's comment from another article on this site, "a legitimate child of the Enlightenment", specifically divorced from the values of christianty in specific and organized religion in general. Please do your research.

Other Comments by NeoGothic

26. Comment #22851 by MelM on February 23, 2007 at 3:38 pm

I would not have expected the percentage to be as high as 45% for atheists. Interesting!

Ask about "end of days"
Besides the usual religious concerns, I think a question that needs to be asked by reporters and commentators is about a candidates "end of days" or eschatological beliefs. As Harris points out, this could be a disaster for defence but it should also be clear that a foreign policy designed around "end of days" could also be especially disasterous. If someone refuses to answer citing "freedom to exercise religion" (a gimmick popular with religionists lately), this should not be allowed.
I don't remember hearing about Bush's eschatology; maybe no one asked. Ouch!

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

Faith is a vice!

Other Comments by MelM

27. Comment #22852 by the great teapot on February 23, 2007 at 3:41 pm

Bloody hell Neo gothic why didn't they write the constitution in english? So we could all understand it.

Other Comments by the great teapot

28. Comment #22853 by Yorker on February 23, 2007 at 3:42 pm

21. Comment #22846 by Bizarro Dawkins

Hello Bizarro,

There's something about your name that places you low in my list of persons to hold in high regard, it shows a certain lack of imagination. Personally, even if my real name was Fred Dawkins, Jack Dawkins or even Richard Dawkins, I would avoid using it to comment here for the very reason I berate you.

I can't speak for others, but your accusation of scant biblical knowledge is certainly true in my case - a fact I'm just a little proud of. When I was young, I studied the Christian guide-book long enough to realise it was largely nonsense and considered further study would be a waste of valuable learning time. I feel it was a wise decision because in 63 years of life, I've never had cause to regret my youthful choice.

Other Comments by Yorker

29. Comment #22854 by mmurray on February 23, 2007 at 3:42 pm

"You are all demonstrating a very shallow knowledge of the Bible. In the New Testament (which is the covenant we are now under),"

This, of course, is your interpretation. The Old Testament is still followed by a lot of people and their literal interpretation of Genesis is what drives a lot of the concern in these discussions.

The Old Testament god is viscious, nasty and jealous of His followers. I never did work out why he changed ? Did one of the angels run an anger modification course in heaven ?

"the vast majority of historical and legal experts agree with, that America was founded on Judeo-Christian ethics." And Judeo-Christian ethics was founded on a core of ethical ideas that are common to humanity and a natural outgrowth of our evolution as a social species.

There are some good ideas here -- lets keep them and throw away the madness. You have come halfway along that path by rejecting the nastiness of the Old Testament. You now have to just discard a lot of the New Testament.

Michael

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

30. Comment #22855 by toomanytribbles on February 23, 2007 at 3:55 pm

yorker said: I can't speak for others, but your accusation of scant biblical knowledge is certainly true in my case - a fact I'm just a little proud of. When I was young, I studied the Christian guide-book long enough to realise it was largely nonsense and considered further study would be a waste of valuable learning time. I feel it was a wise decision because in 63 years of life, I've never had cause to regret my youthful choice.

i like this. bizarro's accusation of shallow knowledge of the bible insinuates that it is somehow of great value to immerse oneself in the intricacies of these texts. i see the bible's value as a piece of human culture, a work of literature, but certainly nothing that i'd spend endless hours contemplating.

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

31. Comment #22856 by Graham on February 23, 2007 at 4:01 pm

Spinoza...I'm still hopeful when Obama says "that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking" and "It came about as a choice and not an epiphany". I wonder if this might be a political choice to tread the fine line between associating himself with the religious majority while maintaining an intellectual preference for reason over faith?

After a quick scan of the United Church of Christ web site I see they are one of the most vocal churches in support of inclusive rights and gay marraige. If the President has to appear to have some religion then this doesn't appear too bad, at least for now.

Incidently, on reflection I think we may be looking at the survey from a glass is half empty perspective. Given the often cited perception of the rising tide of the religious right in the US it is quite heartening that almost half the population would be happy to see an openly atheistic President. Let's continue to fill the glass which is already half full.

Other Comments by Graham

32. Comment #22857 by MelM on February 23, 2007 at 4:02 pm

The Dark Bible:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible8.htm

Other Comments by MelM

33. Comment #22858 by kkant on February 23, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Bizzaro writes:
"You are all demonstrating a very shallow knowledge of the Bible."

And you are demonstrating a very dishonest "knowledge" of the Bible. God gave you a COMMAND: "Kill anyone who works on the Sabbath". Who do you think you are, Bizzaro, to pretend that this COMMAND doesn't apply to you? The Old Testament contains GOD'S WORD--how dare you blaspheme it by denying it.

Religious freedom? In the Bible? What a laugh. No, actually, the LAW OF GOD says not to worship other gods. The 10 commandments still apply. If this were a christian country, we would make laws against other gods just like we have a laws against stealing and murder (even if all those christian laws were "personal" as you claim). In fact, our constitution goes in exactly the opposite direction: we forbid the government to make laws against any other gods. This is an anti-Christian tenet, both in letter and spirit.

The old testament and the 10 commandments are a part of the Bible, they are God's word. I understand why you want to sneakily and dishonestly try to deny that, since there is so much in that part of the Bible that is so embarrasing to anyone who isn't a complete barbarian. But that doesn't make your denial true. If you want to be a Christian, you have to defend the old testament--that is as much god's word as the new. So, once again, answer me this: does the first commandment from god contradict the first amendment of the US constitution?



Michael writes:
"You have come halfway along that path by rejecting the nastiness of the Old Testament. You now have to just discard a lot of the New Testament."

Rejecting the Old Testament is not "halfway along the path", as Mr Bizzaro's posts demonstrate admirably. Theists only reject the OT as an intellectually dishonest way to pick and choose what part of God's word to accept, in an attempt to artifically win an argument for God as a whole.

Other Comments by kkant

34. Comment #22859 by the great teapot on February 23, 2007 at 4:32 pm

re comment 30
The Bible may have cultural worth. But as for a work of literature -it is very patronising to suggest it has any.
The bible is a translation of a translation of a translation..
I recently tried and I repeat tried to read the book of Job. The essential message can be understood by reading the 1st and last pages alone, the intervening pages ( and there are many)are repetetive horseshite and impoosible to understand horeshite at that. But then I supoose the thicker the book the more impressive it looks.

Other Comments by the great teapot

35. Comment #22860 by lpetrich on February 23, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Bizarro Dawkins:

You are all demonstrating a very shallow knowledge of the Bible.

As shallow as the Mariana Trench, no doubt.

In the New Testament (which is the covenant we are now under),

How did you figure that one out?

there are very few commands regarding government and politics, that is, whith the exception of a particular verse that commands us to respect the government.

Then the US Constitution cannot possibly have been derived from the Bible.

Romans 13 states that one ought to obey the existing authorities without qualification, and claimed that *all* government gets its authority from the Xian God. Even ones that officially worshipped pagan gods, like the Roman Empire. Which is contrary to the plain language of the US Constitution's Preamble. And the Declaration of Independence does not mention that sort of a God, but only an ultimate-lawgiver God who doesn't decree the existence of every government that ever was.

And in the New Testament, Peter had a theocratic rule over his followers, and Ananias and Sapphira were zapped for not turning over all their wealth to him.

Freedom of religion is in itself a biblical concept.

Demonstrably false. The only "freedom of religion" recognized is the "freedom" to believe what its authors presume to be the One True Religion. All other religions are scorned as idolatry and devil worship.

Nowhere in the New Testament will you ever see examples of forced conversions,

Its writers weren't exactly in a position to force anyone to convert.

I also noted that our Founding Fathers admired the ancient Greeks and Romans, and had a particulary great admiration for the Roman Republic. In fact, the author of the Federalist Papers wrote under the pen name of Publius, the name of some ancient Roman politician.

So if they were such great Bible-bangers, why didn't they incessantly quote the Bible?

Other Comments by lpetrich

36. Comment #22862 by toomanytribbles on February 23, 2007 at 4:43 pm

@the great teapot. you are right. i was thinking more along the lines of recognizing references to the bible as being important. i don't view it as a fun or satisfying read.

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

37. Comment #22863 by savroD on February 23, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Bizzaro is an idiot. The Declaration says, "...endowed by their Creator"! The key word is "their". If they were respecting monotheism, it just would have said "Creator" not "their Creator" Anyone who believes this statement has anything to do with anything other than the god, gods, or lack there of should go take English 101 again.
Dufus!!!

Other Comments by savroD

38. Comment #22864 by HappyPrimate on February 23, 2007 at 5:22 pm

I am very impressed with the poll that 45% would admit out loud that they would vote for a Presidential candidate who claimed to be an atheist. That indicates to me that we have a fair number of reasonable people out there. Far more than I would have guessed. I give a lot of credit to Dr. Dawkins for this. I look forward to seeing that percentage figure increase in size.

As a comment to the above posters, all anyone needs to do is read the autobiographies of Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin to get the scoop on why and how they made sure the US Constitution was a godless document. The books are not large or expensive and are both well worth the read. I would also suggest reading Common Sense by Thomas Paine which was the publication that got the colonists stirred up enough to revolt. Very informative. I also feel very sure that if the founding fathers had had the benefit of Darwin's Origin of Species, that they would have dropped any reference to being Deists. They were obviously highly against organized religions, but had no basis to make the denial of a god, which, of course, Darwin could have given them. Our godless Constitution is the best thought out document ever written and shows they were so very aware of the dangers of religion getting into government. Most people don't talk about it much in public, but it is written about A.Lincoln that he lost is belief in god when his son died.

Remember - Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. Lucius Annaeu Seneca (4BC-AD65).

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

39. Comment #22865 by savroD on February 23, 2007 at 5:23 pm

Atheists do not get any credit in America because the moderates and extremists religious hate us. They hate our freedom. They want us subserviant to their master, or they are jealous we can think and act freely and they cannot. Even though they are sick, I don't recommend exterminating them!

Other Comments by savroD

40. Comment #22866 by Old Coppernose on February 23, 2007 at 5:25 pm

Comment #22830 by Planeswalker on February 23, 2007 at 1:40 pm

goldmineguttd: Ah, okay. I just thought I'd heard he was a Muslim... But that must have been someone else who were considering running for president or something.

With that name, rhyming with "Osama" many ppl will assume he is Muslim I am sure. darwin knows how many ppl it will influence. somebody should do a poll!

Other Comments by Old Coppernose

41. Comment #22867 by the great teapot on February 23, 2007 at 5:25 pm

Please read comment 18 on this string.
IPV4 - No this is not off message. This message is the only reason this whole website exists.
Please scroll upto comment 18 and read on everyone.

Other Comments by the great teapot

42. Comment #22868 by troyboy on February 23, 2007 at 5:29 pm

I suppose if Obama is elected his critics would call it an "Obama-nation". lol

Other Comments by troyboy

43. Comment #22869 by JDAM on February 23, 2007 at 5:37 pm

Frankly, I am so sick of the constant pandering to religion that goes on in government, strictly as a sop to the many deluded US citizens who nevertheless retain the power of the vote. I am a 72 year old political conservative who also happens to be pretty much a non-theist. The regular stream of hypocracy regarding a religious belief that these candidate wannabees spew is enough to make me want to barf!

It would be so wonderful to have some mainstream candidate, when queried by the media (who is primarily responsible for keeping this bullshit alive and thriving)simply refuse to answer such questions by stating that no religious test is required to hold public office and then smile and move on to the "next question", and just continue to do that no matter what. How much would you bet that the entire press conference would degenerate into one stupid question after another about the candidate's "religious" belief.

This crap SELLS newspapers, viewing time...whatever...not the belief, just the controversy it generates. America has one sick media establishment and it gets sicker every day.

Other Comments by JDAM

44. Comment #22870 by Graham on February 23, 2007 at 5:37 pm

Not to mention that his middle name is "Hussein"...rather funny realy :)

Other Comments by Graham

45. Comment #22871 by HappyPrimate on February 23, 2007 at 5:37 pm

the great teapot

Thing is - you cannot have a true democracy in a country that does not have a secular constitution and laws protecting its citizens against religious oppression. That is why the Middle East will never be democracies in the true sense. They insist on having their religious laws dominate. I give credit to Turkey for trying, but they are having great difficulty being secular. I do not see it lasting.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

46. Comment #22872 by RonnieG on February 23, 2007 at 5:51 pm

This clarifies Obama's views on religion, and its relationship to politics:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/faith/

Other Comments by RonnieG

47. Comment #22873 by fonex_86 on February 23, 2007 at 6:08 pm

HappyPrimate,

What do you think of a country whose law recognizes only 6 belief systems (I am reluctant to use the word 'religion') and constitution requires the president to be from a specific ethnic/religious group?

Democracy fails exactly because it equates every idiot with the most talented of humans. What's the use of advocating reduction of carbon emissions (by the more intelligent 15% (EDIT: should have been 25% :P) of society) just to be trumped by the remaining 75% whose intellect is reminiscent of neanderthals?

Other Comments by fonex_86

48. Comment #22874 by Kleis on February 23, 2007 at 6:14 pm

Agree with JDAM - how refreshingly wonderful it would be in America if we allowed politicians to withhold any mention of their religious beliefs and permitted them to make logical and practical decisions. This will happen, alas, when lower primates fly out of my underpants but I can dream, can't I?

Other Comments by Kleis

49. Comment #22876 by kkant on February 23, 2007 at 6:35 pm

fonex_86 writes:
"Democracy fails exactly because it equates every idiot with the most talented of humans. What's the use of advocating reduction of carbon emissions (by the more intelligent 15% of society) just to be trumped by the remaining 75% whose intellect is reminiscent of neanderthals?"

That is an interesting thought fonex. Consider though, that the problem here may be lack of education or a lack of *willingness* to educate oneself, rather than democracy itself. One of the nice things about a democracy/free market is that education is good! The more you know, the more money you make (kinda sorta). So there is a strong incentive to be educated.

To bring it back to religion, one of the seemingly strongest reasons to remain *un*-educated about certain things is religion. Religious people don't want to lose their faith, so they studiously ignore certain types of knowledge. This has happened with all sorts of things--flat earth, geocentric universe, evolution, etc. The whole principle of the "god of the gaps" is anathema to discovery and progress: we don't know, therefore God did it, therefore we should just give up and not try to figure it out. So perhaps we can say religion promotes ignorance which in turn reduces the effectiveness of a democratic form of government.

Other Comments by kkant

50. Comment #22877 by Old Coppernose on February 23, 2007 at 6:47 pm

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union"

Right from beginning the usanians ruined the language. A thing is either perfect or it isnt... it is impossible to make something "more perfect".

Other Comments by Old Coppernose