The American Spectator : The Fury Behind Bill Keller's Anti-Religious Rant

Text Size

Special Report

The Fury Behind Bill Keller’s Anti-Religious Rant

By Deal W. Hudson & Matt Smith on 9.2.11 @ 6:08AM

Certainly there are questions to ask a candidate about his religious beliefs — non-Inquisitionally.

“And I care a lot if a candidate is going to be a Trojan horse for a sect that believes it has divine instructions on how we should be governed.” — Bill Keller, New York Times Magazine, August 25, 2011

Most people view the anti-Catholicism faced by John F. Kennedy in the 1960 presidential campaign as a prejudice they are glad our nation has left behind. Bill Keller, the executive editor of the New York Times, is obviously not one of those people. His recent “Asking Candidates Tougher Questions About Faith,” if taken seriously by its readers, would re-instill the fear that any presidential candidate of faith would subsume their decision-making to the religious authority that they embrace.

It’s strange that Keller would encourage such questions since he confesses, “I still remember, as a Catholic boy, being mystified and hurt by the speculation about John Kennedy’s Catholicism — whether he would be taking orders from the Vatican.” It seems that the good sense of his adolescence has been lost, possibly by his years of worshiping at the altar of secular sophistication.

Keller’s particular concerns are the “weird” Mormonism of Romney and Huntsman, the “fervid” evangelicalism of Bachmann and Perry, and the “conservative wing of Catholicism” supposedly represented by Santorum. Regarding Catholicism, the faith in which Keller was raised, he explicitly raises the issue faced by JFK five decades ago — the separation of Church and State.

The level of furious mis-logic in Keller’s article explains much about the decline of the newspaper under his leadership and his upcoming departure to the op-ed page. But, importantly, it represents a powerful segment of the Democratic Party elite that views the continued prevalence of traditional religious beliefs in the U.S. as the chief obstacle to its ideological aims.

Keller has already deflected criticism that he made no critical mention of a Democrat’s religious belief and, in particular, of President Obama’s 20 years in the congregation of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. “Yes, Dems should be asked about their faith (and influences) too. We were late to Rev. Wright in ‘08, but we got there, and did it well.” Did it well? Hardly. Like the rest of the mainstream media, the New York Times came late and left early, preferring to bury the Rev. Wright story under fluffy coverage of candidate Obama’s religious outreach.

At least Keller didn’t reach back to the 2004 campaign when the charge of theocracy against Bush resounded throughout the liberal blogosphere. Obama talked more about God and religious faith than any other candidate in the 2008 election, according to Beliefnet.com’s “God-o-meter,” which recorded every reference to God or personal faith by the presidential candidates. With Obama coming out at the top of the list, even beating out the former minister, Gov. Mike Huckabee, it’s hard to level that charge again anytime soon. Thus, Keller is forced to discriminate between what he views as acceptable and unacceptable aspects of religious belief. As it turns out, that distinction is as easy as the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Keller poses three questions each of the GOP presidential candidates should answer — on whether public schools should teach evolution; whether the U.S. is a “Christian nation”; and whether Muslims should be appointed to the federal bench. Following Keller’s recommendation would only trivialize the political conversation heading toward the 2012 election. But Keller evidently sees an upside in creating a religious sideshow that would alienate moderates, a doubtful assumption, since those same moderates weren’t affected by Obama’s twenty years at the feet of a pastor like Jeremiah Wright.

Keller’s questions not only trivialize politics but religion too — he ignores the serious questions that traditional religion offers for political consideration. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that any candidate who presents as an earnest, practicing member of a religious denomination is fair game when it comes to being asked questions about their faith. What kind of questions would be germane, both revealing the mind and character of the candidate but also staying within the confines of political discourse? We suggest the following are not only “tougher” than Keller’s but more beneficial in providing input to the data pool of voter consideration:

1. Some people consider your positions on abortion and marriage a matter of faith, yet you want those positions inscribed in law and public policy. How do you justify matters of faith being made matters of law and policy for all Americans?

2. Although the United States is a nation where organized religion flourishes compared to most other nations on the globe, there are millions of people who either do not believe in God or are agnostic and do not practice any religion. As a person who considers religion to be the Truth, with a capital T, what do you think of those people who do not share your belief?

3. You are a person of faith, and your faith teaches about many things, including how a person should distinguish between right and wrong and how a person should conduct his or her life. If you were elected President, how would you distinguish between those faith teachings that should inform your political leadership and those that should be keep separate?

Such questions, in our view, are “tougher” than Keller’s, but more importantly they are politically relevant and personally revealing. They’re not the “I gotcha” questions recommended by Keller, but rather, they probe legitimately those aspects of a candidate’s religious convictions important for a voter to know.

About the Author

Deal W. Hudson was chair of RNC Catholic Outreach and is the author of Onward Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States (Threshold). He is president of Catholic Advocate in Washington, D.C.

About the Author

Matt Smith, vice-president of Catholic Advocate, was Associate Director of Public Liaison responsible for Catholic outreach under President George W. Bush.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (169) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Robbins Mitchell| 9.2.11 @ 6:14AM

The godless secular bigotry of the East Coast "media" types is a given...that their bigotry is only applied to Republican or conservative candidates is also a given...what is NOT a given is that they have the slightest clue as to what legitimate Christian doctrine consists of or how it applies in 21st century America...so I plan to spend the campaign season just watching the ignorati make theological buffoons of themselves trying to get Barokeydoke reelected...should be fun

Timothy L. Pennell| 9.2.11 @ 11:40AM

It's simple, really. Keller looks in the mirror, and he sees Nothing. There's nothing looking back at him. He's the Man that wasn't there. He has wasted his life, and he knows it, so he is miserable. And, we all know how 'those people' love company.
I go to Church because I feel something, when I'm there. I feel Content. I feel Good. Hearing the words of CHRIST, reminds me that "One Person" CAN make a difference. That I was Baptized, to do Good Things. I feel Peaceful, and Tranquil, when I go to Church. And I leave there, a better man, for having been there.
Keller?
If you don't believe in GOD, anymore, what do you believe in? Man? An All Powerful Government? A man in the White House who believes in all of the Most Murderous forms of Government, that man has ever known? Communism? Marxism? Progressivism?
Sooner or later, you can't 'Convince' yourself of the Big Lie. Sooner or later, no matter how hard you close your eyes, the light pokes through.
The Italians realized that FASCISM was a Disaster. The Germans realized that the NAZIS, were not their Saviours. Even, the RED CHINESE came to the obvious conclusion, that, "Standing Still" as the world passed them bye, was not a Great Enlightenment, at all, but, a Path to Nowhere.
The lone holdouts are the Kellers, of the world. The Obamas, the Ayers, and the Hugo Chavezes. Obama's FCC Chairman, who believes in Hugo Chavez' "Beautiful Revolution", his Medical Czar, who's a big fan of the Chinese "One Child Policy", his Science Czar, who wants to put STERILANTS in to our Drinking Water, and his Economics Czar, who stated: "We get it. Capitalism is a joke, and Mao was right, that, power comes from the Barrel of a Gun".
These are the people Keller comports with. These are his Comrades, in the fight to build a better world, in THEIR IMAGE.
It's not exactly a buncha easy go lucky, happy campers, if you know what I mean. It's just not fun, being angry all of the time.
Let him talk. Let him speak his BILE, from his loveless lips.
Me? I'm gonna go to work, kiss my Wife and Kids, and Enjoy all the Wonderful things that GOD has bestowed upon me.
Keller?
He's nobody.
And he knows it.

ENOUGH ROPE| 9.2.11 @ 2:12PM

America’s problems are rooted in its cultural decline. Its remedy is religion that loves God and ALL our neighbors. Tocqueville is alleged to have written in Democracy in America [italicized], that “America is great because America is good; when America stops being good, America will stop being great.” Those of us who believe in God know that humans can be good, on their own, without religion, to the extent that they live their lives with or without acknowledging their debt to the morals of Western Civilization’s Judeo-Christian Heritage that formed our Western Culture until the Enlightenment. (I know that some contend that the decline began with Renaissance Humanism, but that is another controversy.) But! We, who believe in a God who loves ALL humanity, know that we humans are inherently sinful and need Divine grace to strengthen our virtues. We must be open to receiving Divine grace when we perceive it, or when we ask for it. We know that it is difficult to love our neighbor, which is why we need Divine grace. Hurricane Irene demonstrates that many Americans love their neighbors by actually helping those in need. Thank God for that! Yet, our American culture as a whole is manifestly more selfish, crude, and corrupted by the pursuit and overindulgence of pleasure–all of which are finite and unable to provide the happiness and peace that we seek.

St. Augustine wrote in his Confessions that all men seek happiness and peace. Trouble results when our choices to make us happy and peaceful are too finite and too material. We must have a balance among worship, work, play, and a love that obeys God’s guidance for love. Augustine wrote that the power of love has as much force in the spiritual world as gravity has in the physical world. IF we humans practiced THAT kind of love, do you think that the world would become “…a universal spiritual society that has for its foundation truth, its object justice, its operation freedom, and its driving force love?” Yes, it would become largely that kind of society. To attain it, do any of us, believers or unbelievers, think that man BY HIMSELF can love that much with so little?

Christopher Dawson, the eminent late Catholic historian of religion and culture, wrote that “A society that has lost its religion is sooner or later a society that has lost its culture.” From whence came the good that Tocqueville observed? It came from people who loved and obeyed God. We can recover that love by prayer, fasting, reading Scripture, and PRACTICING religions that love ALL humanity. God offers us his mercy; will we trust him when we ask for it?

Recall Shakespeare’s writing about mercy in the Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Scene 1: Venice. A court of justice.

PORTIA

“The quality of mercy is not strain’d, [restrained]
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest:…

…It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, —,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy….”

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/mer.....t.4.1.html

Delta Zelda| 9.3.11 @ 11:07AM

Timothy, well said, as usual and right on the mark.

Marie| 9.5.11 @ 8:48AM

Tim all I can say(I'm 76 years old) is you sure got it right. What a shock when he stands before his Maker. He might even say before" God forgive me".
Just a thought!!!!!

Alan Brooks| 9.2.11 @ 1:43PM

It is the Margies of this world who dislike 'Popism', etc.

And the rightwing Clint is more consistently anti-Israel than most Arabs and Shiites.

Alan Brooks| 9.2.11 @ 1:47PM

Clint at AS is more consistently anti-Israel than the majority of leftwing American anti-Zionists!

Clint| 9.3.11 @ 8:28AM

Brooks is an argument against himself. He's an Israel Firster,who trolls for his Mancrush, Obama.

Clint| 9.3.11 @ 8:26AM

ObamaBoy Israel Firster Agnostic Troll Brooks is all fixated & atwitter because We,Te Party Patriots,who support Dr.Ron Paul, just happened to be concerned with America first.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Alan Brooks| 9.3.11 @ 9:49PM

Clint, I don't know if Margie still blogs here, but if she does let's make a deal:
if she stops dissing Catholics, then you stop dissing Israel.
And I'll stop dissing Bush.
Okie Dokey?

Clint| 9.5.11 @ 12:41AM

Go Feed The Squirrels In The Park, ObamaBoy Israel Firster Brooks.

George| 9.3.11 @ 11:47AM

Alan Brooks
Do you think Clint and Margie are the same person.

Alan Brooks| 9.3.11 @ 9:51PM

No way! if they were Siamese twins they would scrape the other one's eyes out.

IzeHavitt| 9.3.11 @ 1:13PM

If I were a presidential candidate, and was asked by a Bill Keller about my views, I would tell him: " We cast no pearls before swine; neither do I give that which is holy unto dogs, lest they turn and rend us". These people have sold their souls. Why waste time on them? As it is also written: "Let them alone. If the blind lead the blind, will they both not fall into the ditch? "

Darin| 9.2.11 @ 6:34AM

If you're going to question religious people, you must also question non-religious people. On what do they base their morals and principles? Where do they stand on key principals and why? They're questioning the character of the religious person, but what about the character of the non-religious person? After all, a person's character determines what they do and how they do it. Kind of important to know about a potential leader.

The Big E| 9.2.11 @ 11:38AM

Darin, if I had a cookie right now I'd give it to you, because you just won the prize for the most insightful comment of the day.

megapotamus| 9.2.11 @ 1:03PM

Yes, if the secularist is unencumbered by dusty old catechisms, with what IS he encumbered? Often, as with Obama, the answer is nothing.

Drunken Sailor| 9.2.11 @ 2:09PM

Actually with Obama the answer is "Himself and Power". He worships no other.

Michael Tomlinson| 9.2.11 @ 7:02AM

Rick Perry is obviously a target, because he is a white Southern male who is a traditional Christian, believes God created the universe, accepts Christ as his personal Savior who died and rose again to save fallen humanity. Surely that is dangerous. Rick Santorum is one of those Catholics that actually believes in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church how gauche and Medieval. Bachmann you know she’s just an accomplished version of Palin and we all know what she’s like. She probably bakes cookies too. As far as Romney and Huntsman and their "bizarre" religion the latter would be just hunky dory if he’d drop the holy undergarments, but Romney’s hopeless, because despite Romneycare he out polls the left’s “messiah.”

Why can't we Republicans find a more enlightened "religious" person whose spiritual mentor damns America, hates whitie, blames America for 9/11 and defends murderous Palestinian and Muslim terrorists? Why don't we have a member of the Nation of Islam among our candidates? Oh that’s right Republicans are inveterate racists, Islamaphobic, homophobic bigots.

Hey, we do have our token jihadist apologist, who is sympathetic to the homosexual agenda, traces the culpability of 9/11 to American policies and whose devotees hate Israel as much as MoveOn.org and George Soros, RINO Ron Paul, so cut us some slack Keller. We’re evolving. There are probably even a few atheists in the GOP who just believe Democrat liberalism is a pile of fecal material fit only for dictatorships like Cuba, Venezuela or some hateful Muslim state like Iran or the emerging Muslim jihaidst Egypt.

Clint| 9.2.11 @ 7:21AM

Little Micky RINO attempts to Play The Anti-Semite Card on Our Tea Party Co-Favorite & Presidential Candidate, Dr.Ron Paul.

Dr. Ron Paul,
"Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Rise Up.

Mike Hawk| 9.2.11 @ 9:56AM

Rube Paul is no Tea Party candidate. You Paulbots would like to think so, but he has not been seen or heard from at any Tea Party assembly I've been to including 9/12/09. I didn't see any Paulbot kooks there either.

Clint| 9.3.11 @ 8:38AM

" Tea partiers in two camps: Sarah Palin vs. Ron Paul

Tea party activists are divided roughly into two camps, according to a POLITICO/TargetPoint poll: one that’s libertarian-minded and largely indifferent to hot-button values issues and another that’s culturally conservative and equally concerned about social and fiscal issues.

The survey, an exit poll conducted Thursday by Edison Research at the massive Tax Day protest on the National Mall, found that the attendees were largely hostile to President Barack Obama and the national Democratic Party — three-quarters believe the president “is pursuing a socialist agenda.”

Yet they aren’t enamored of the Republican Party as an alternative. Overall, three out of four tea party attendees said they were “scared about the direction” of the country and “want to send a message to both political parties.”

Palin, who topped the list with 15 percent, speaks for the 43 percent of those polled expressing the distinctly conservative view that government does too much, while also saying that it needs to promote traditional values.

Paul’s thinking is reflected by an almost identical 42 percent who said government does too much but should not try to promote any particular set of values — the hallmarks of libertarians. He came in second to Palin with 12 percent.

When asked to choose from a list of candidates for president in 2012, Palin and Paul also finished one-two — with Palin at 15 percent and Paul at 14 percent. "

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Occam's Tool| 9.2.11 @ 1:45PM

Well, Clint, he IS an antisemite. I don't think it's a card.

Just like, if I saw you in a North Dakota synagogue, I'd be reaching for my knife. I can't think of any decent reason YOU would be there.

Clint| 9.3.11 @ 8:47AM

You're A Serial Slandering Liar,Israel Firster Screwball Fanatic, Tool Job.

You reach for a knife & attempt to use it on me, Neo-Chickenhawk Tool Job & I'll show you what happens to maniacs,who attempt to come at me with a knife.

Your mouth constantly writes checks,that your little, short, fat, aging Neo-Chickenhawk Coward Body can't cash, Nut Bag.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

RCV| 9.3.11 @ 9:31PM

Occam - is there a "North Dakota synagogue"? (just kiddin')

RCV| 9.3.11 @ 9:32PM

...and what is a "neoChickenhawk"?

Clint| 9.4.11 @ 10:58AM

Field Marshall & Presidente For Life, Obama.

Clint| 9.5.11 @ 12:47AM

Screwball Israel Firster Fanatic Tool Job makes a carrerr outta attempting to Play The Anti-Semite Card.

Careful you don't hurt yourdself with your little knife there, Tool Job.

You're gettin' even Zany Crazier, if that's possible.

Margie| 9.2.11 @ 2:37PM

"..the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church how gauche and Medieval."

That they are and always have been, (the teachings), but I like the man- Rick Santorum, and would gladly vote for him, as I've said before.

The only "Religion" that need not apply to the People's House is the "Religion of so-called Peace."

In four years, or eight years, we see how much damage can be done by a man who sympathizes with the poor terrorists. We don't want another in the form of Ron Paul, or any other Liberalterrior.

Clint| 9.3.11 @ 8:51AM

Dr.Ron Paul,
"Our military’s purpose is to defend our country, not to police the
Middle East.

“As the President prepares to send even more support to Egypt, we should
be reminded that it was our foreign aid that helped Mubarak retain power
to repress his people in the first place. Now we have to deal with the
consequences of those decisions, yet we keep repeating the same mistakes.

“I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign
policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies.
Most Americans know that makes no sense."

Margie| 9.3.11 @ 6:20PM

We don't "police the Mid-East", doofus, but good Americans DO stand by our allies.

Grow up.

Clint| 9.4.11 @ 10:55AM

Go Sell Your Screwball Fanatic Israel Firster Sand To The Arabs.

We Ain't Buyin' It Here.

Margie| 9.4.11 @ 6:14PM

We who? You, Yourself and You?

LOL.

Clint| 9.5.11 @ 12:52AM

This "We", Nut Bag RINO-CINO Israel Firster Apocalyptic Crank Lady, Margie.

"Associated Press-GfK poll: Ron Paul the most favorable GOP candidate

A new national poll of the general population has revealed that top tier candidate Ron Paul is the most favorable choice in the Republican Presidential nomination race.

Ron Paul 37% favorable vs 36% unfavorable = +1
Mitt Romney 39% favorable vs 41% unfavorable = -2
Rick Perry 33% favorable vs 36% unfavorable = -3
Michele Bachmann 35% favorable vs 43% unfavorable = -8"

The Tea Party Rebellion Is here.

Rise Up In Rebellion.

victor| 9.5.11 @ 3:17AM

Clint/Timmie*
""Associated Press-GfK poll: Ron Paul the most favorable GOP candidate

A new national poll of the general population "

What is the date of this alleged poll, eh?

Clint| 9.5.11 @ 11:04AM

Duuuuuhhhh !

Look it up Ya LazyAss Russkie Cripple.

Hint: month startin' with an "A", year endin' in "11"

victor| 9.5.11 @ 2:02PM

So, the "we" is the AP?

LOL!!

Shamus| 9.2.11 @ 7:09AM

Alternatively, Keller is fine with having a Communist in the White House.

Michael Tomlinson| 9.2.11 @ 7:38AM

Is Obama smart enough to be a communist?

Ivan Ivanovich| 9.3.11 @ 5:38AM

Yes! That's the whole point! It does not take brains to be a Commie anymore than it takes brains to like Ice Cream. I guy is an evil puppet of people we never see.

loulou| 9.2.11 @ 10:25AM

A Communist AND a Muslim.

megapotamus| 9.2.11 @ 1:05PM

There is a wonderful film examining the intersection of Islam and Marx. It is called The Beast and is about a Soviet tank lost in Afghanistan.

Clint| 9.2.11 @ 7:15AM

Dr.Ron Paul,
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. "

canuckistani| 9.2.11 @ 7:52AM

They also were open in their disdain for establishment churches and their waffling in regards to severing ties to the mother churches in England.
I find the Perry meanderings and rallies for religion unsettling. His stunts at driving a wedge between a woman and her doctor, the footsy games with the Hagees and the unseemly undercurrent that his form of "personal piety" is somehow representative of Christian thought is disturbing - and the fact millions of sycophants buy into this drivel is scary.

I hold strong views on "what would Jesus do". He actively separated church from state and actively embraced "sinners" across the spectrum, and respected Jewish law - the same law that permitted slavery, abortion and divorce. Christian ethos is based on Jesus, but also includes derivative aspects borne out of interpretation, not explicit divine Words. His only real bout of anger when he witnessed commercial activities in the temple. Interesting.

It's interesting because Perry et al have audaciously joned commerce and church together as their example of a devotional to Christ, while building up their coffers and with platforms devoid of any detail that Jesus could endorse. I don't think a "robust national defense" or a marginalization of law-abiding groups would be in His platform.

I will vote and back a candidate that admits his faith serves as an underpinning of his morality, but chooses the constitution - all of it - as his rulebook for his conduct as leader and statesman. If he chooses the rulebook over the Good book, he has my vote. God will forgive him - as will I.

2Anglico| 9.2.11 @ 8:13AM

"It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." -- Patrick Henry
I guess Patrick was too extreme for you. If you don't like this quote, you'll REALLY hate some by John Jay, Samuel Adams, John Adams and yes, even Thomas Jefferson.

Michael Tomlinson| 9.2.11 @ 8:20AM

2Anglico shhhh you don't want to scare them with the writings of dead white men. They might think you're a theocratic extremist (while they ignore the real threat of Islam).

victor| 9.5.11 @ 3:29AM

Two more from Patrick Henry:

Toward the end of his life, he reportedly read his Bible for hours at a time. He once said to a neighbor:

"This book is worth all the books that ever were printed, and it has been my misfortune that I never found time to read it with the proper attention and feeling till lately. I trust in the mercy of heaven that it is not too late."

On his death bed, Patrick Henry said:

“Doctor, I wish you to observe how real and beneficial the religion of Christ is to a man about to die....I am, however, much consoled by reflecting that the religion of Christ has, from its first appearance in the world, been attacked in vain by all the wits, philosophers, and wise ones, aided by every power of man, and its triumphs have been complete.”

On November 20, 1798, in his Last Will and Testament, Patrick Henry wrote:

“This is all the inheritance I give to my dear family. The religion of Christ will give them one which will make them rich indeed.”

JimH| 9.2.11 @ 8:28AM

Your comment regarding establishment churches is not entirely accurate. Certainly some, though not all of the founders were against them entirely. What they were against was having an established national church. I believe that even after the ratification of the Constitution a number of states maintained established an established church.

Fred| 9.2.11 @ 9:55AM

I can't help but laugh every time a secularist liberal tells us conservative Christians (Roman Catholic in my case) how Christ's anger at the moneychangers somehow validates redistributionist economic policies. Christ didn't object to making money per se, he objected to abusing and exploiting a sacred place. Are there people who abuse Christianity for gain? Of course there are. There are people who will exploit _any_ human idea for gain. That's what we Christians mean when we say we live in a fallen world. But it is entirely possible (in fact, it's done all the time) to make money and be sincerely pious. And the redistribution Christ commanded was _voluntary_ redistribution a.k.a. charity. Having wealth confiscated for redistribution does not count as charity.

megapotamus| 9.2.11 @ 1:10PM

One idea that is conspicuously used for personal gain is of course socialism. Warren Buffet declaims that WE must pay more to be redistributed at the hands of government apparatchiks but we find that WE does not include HE, as he draws his wealth from clever manipulation and inside knowledge of taxing, spending and fiscal policies. And this crony is just one in a crowd of wealthy cronies buttering their bread from government stores drawn from our pockets.

Drunken Sailor| 9.2.11 @ 2:17PM

He, Warrens company owes back taxes all the way back to 2002. Why would he care what the tax rate is, he doesn't pay it anyway.

Drunken Sailor| 9.2.11 @ 2:17PM

Drat,

Should have been" Hell, Warrens company

Patrick| 9.3.11 @ 1:12AM

After talking with a friend of mine, concerning the "charity" of liberals, a wonderful quote was born.

"You've even stolen my generosity, since you've already taken what I was about to give."

KyMouse| 9.2.11 @ 12:35PM

"...driving a wedge between a woman and her doctor..." You're talking about abortion?

Do you really believe that a mother who goes to an abortion mill gets a lengthy, heartfelt consultation with the abortionist? Nonsense. It's in-and-out, and be sure you pay up front first.

Abortionists, who don't exactly tend to have graduated at the top of their class, are every bit as callous as you seem to think pro-life people are.

Abortionist John Biskind left Lou Ann Herron to bleed to death while he finished his lunch, after he injured her.

Abortionist Abu Hyatt hacked off the arm of a late-term baby during his attempt to kill her (she survived, but with only one arm). Several women sued him for the injuries he caused them.

Abortionist Inno Obasi prevented paramedics from reaching Synthia Dennard in time to save her life, after he severed a uterine artery.

Abortionist Kermit Gosnell is facing charges for the murder of one mother and the murders of seven "viable" babies.

Every mother deserves better than abortion.

Every child deserves a chance.

Al Adab| 9.2.11 @ 12:58PM

How sad is the litany KyMouse:
The establishment of a secular morality judges the worth of the individual by a standard apart from their huamnity. Whether they call it quality of life, or some other euphemism, it allows for someone to decide anothers' value. Such a view denies that all men are created equal and places some above others. There is the genesis of horrors such as the 20th century propounded.

Occam's Tool| 9.2.11 @ 1:49PM

Ms. Mouse: You ably represent your state with your brilliance. I wish I had met more like you when I was there.

Pecos Pete| 9.2.11 @ 7:35AM

I really don't care about a candidate's religious affiliation. I do care about their belief in the Constitution of the United States.

And character matters. As Darin says above, "...a person's character determines what they do and how they do it."

King O does not believe in the Constitution. His character is exposed by his past associations, regularly lying and exciting the weaker elements of society with class warfare rhetoric. His religion is either the Jeremiah Wright version of charity ("God Damn America") or Islamic visions of universal peace.

We must defeat King O in 2012 or lose the freedoms we so love.

Michael Tomlinson| 9.2.11 @ 7:40AM

Pecos good point on the lack of character and integrity in the current occupant of the White House.

Have you considered| 9.2.11 @ 9:26AM

Pecos, you took the words right off my keyboard with this:

"I really don't care about a candidate's religious affiliation. I do care about their belief in the Constitution of the United States."

Our founders knew that The People would not always elect persons to office that were of the highest character.

That is why they placed only a limited amount of power in the federal government in general, and the president in particular.

The point that concerns me the most is this morphing of the Article 2 powers that allows for any executive orders.

There is simply no defined constitutional power for executive orders, and there is no Congressional Power in Article 1 to grant additional powers to the president.

The usurped power of executive order is the only place that I perceive a danger from religion in the president.

I think we all need to band together and demand that congress ban the use of the usurped power of executive orders.

This would go a long way to getting back to being a constitutional republic, and make a huge difference in how this country is run.

Paul| 9.2.11 @ 5:16PM

Here is the official political position of Romeny's religion (Doctrine & Covenants: 134:1-4) :

1 We believe that agovernments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men baccountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

I worry that with respect to vs. 2 even Romney is on a slippery slope...

Kelly Staples| 9.2.11 @ 7:35AM

All superstitions must be exposed as Dark Age nonsense. For whatever reason, many folks need a Big Invisible Buddy to give their little world meaning, but do we really want such people with their finger on the trigger?

Michael Tomlinson| 9.2.11 @ 7:44AM

Oh how enlightened. Bet you'd like to see all those Dark Agers sent to reeducation camps too.

Maybe I got you wrong and you're cleverly mocking Obama who is so fond of Muslim jihadists "with their fingers on the trigger."

You're not a supporter of RINO Ron Paul are you?

Clint| 9.2.11 @ 7:59AM

Little Micky RINO seems upset, once again with Our Tea Party Co-Favorite Presidential Candidate Dr.Ron Paul.

Dr.Ron Paul,
“Israel is our close friend. While President Obama’s demand that Israel
make hard concessions in her border conflicts may very well be in her
long-term interest, only Israel can make that determination on her own,
without pressure from the United States or coercion by the United
Nations.

“Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how
Israel runs her affairs. There can only be peace in the region if those
sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect
Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington."

2Anglico| 9.2.11 @ 8:49AM

Yeah, its all an accident. DNA strands just popped out of the primordial ooze.
Rest assured, if there were no God, there would be NO morality in this world. If there were no morality, a modern society such as ours would never have "evolved". People co-operate with each other ONLY because of a moral code.
Moral codes do not bubble up out of the mud.
A simple economics question will provide proof of this: You see a bunch of bananas at your grocery store, they cost $.80/lb, how many people working together did it take to get the bananas from Juan Valdes farm to your store?

LSinAZ| 9.2.11 @ 10:32AM

2Angelico, I think humans are by nature, base, self interested beings. Based on this premise, I will agree with you that religion, using the fear of divine retribution, went a long way to establishing civil society as we know it today, because at the time, there were few laws, and few enforcement mechanisms to instill the fear needed to assure compliance. The 10 Commandments and the concept of sin, were especially helpful in establishing good laws within which to live and thrive.

I also believe these are good rules to live by, although I belong to no established religion.

But, I would also argue (as does Economics Professor Walter E. Williams) that self interest is the primary reason that bananas (he used tuna as his example) get to market.

In the marketplace, morality has been codified in law. Not because it adheres to God's words, but because they are good rules to live by.

The lack of adhering to contracts, cheating in quantity or quality, or failure to deliver timely would naturally create an embargo of the offender.

In other words, the offender would be punished for misdeeds as the others in the supply chain would discontinue doing business with him, and he would go out of business. Therefore, it is in everybody's self interest to conduct business with integrity.

However, when the inevitable bad actors do crop up, there are criminal and civil actions that may be taken against the offender.

Our laws, although parallel to many religious tenets, are based upon the concept of the right to Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.

Thought of another way, is murder illegal in all 50 states because God said so, or because it removes the right to life of the victim?

henry| 9.2.11 @ 11:00AM

This posting is spot on. The one factor that remains constant and predictable in society is human nature. A mature civilization has to allow for this factor.

YeloStalyn| 9.2.11 @ 11:16AM

Where does your right to life come from? Especially when compared to my freedom to kill you and take what you have but I want? Men are naturally evil. We behave out of fear. We have congregated in camps to subdue the bully with numbers. That's why you don't cheat the market. BUT... you do cheat it when you can get away with it. Look at how many laws are broken for massive gain by those with power? Charley Rangel anyone?

It is a morality outside of man that creates stability. The bananas will keep getting to market until someone judges the gain worth the risk to break the economic chain. As soon as that happens, the only thing we have left to hope for is that they have a morality outside of self-interest that compels them to behave according to something other than the "self."

Our nation is founded on the idea that God made us free, and granted us life and the right to the fruits of our labor. There's nothing that anyone can say that changes this as the foundation for the country... it's a historical fact. That means that everything that springs forth from that... the system we have today... has its start in a belief in God.

Al Adab| 9.2.11 @ 12:21PM

Since as human beings we, "are endowed by our creator with certain... rights" it may be well for us to recognize the role which that vision has played in our national history. To avoid a State established (proper, legal) church is one thing, to make secular Faith the State religion is quite another.

The belief that our rights come from beyond ourselves or our government is one of the theoretical principles which set the United States apart from other nations who derive their powers and rights from elsewhere.

Margie| 9.2.11 @ 2:48PM

"Thought of another way, is murder illegal in all 50 states because God said so, or because it removes the right to life of the victim?"

Dear LSinAZ,

It is illegal because it removes the right to life of the victim.. it takes away their life that God gave them.

And He said so:

"You shall not murder." Ex. 20:13.

That's why it is illegal.

DaveD| 9.2.11 @ 9:19AM

"... do we really want such people with their finger on the trigger?"

Far better someone who truely believes that there are everlasting consequences to his/her actions as opposed to someone who believes that the highest moral authority is him or herself.

Le Cracquere| 9.2.11 @ 9:55AM

Hard to answer, given how many questions you beg in the asking. However, I've a counter-question: would we prefer someone whose worldview implies that the distinction between pulling and NOT pulling said trigger has no ultimate metaphysical heft?

wukong| 9.2.11 @ 10:31AM

Whether one is a Christian, Buddhist, Jew, et al; god is where "superstitious" people go for answers to questions or real world situations that have no good answers. Where to those who are "enlightened" go for those answers?

Al Adab| 9.2.11 @ 12:40PM

If I understand correctly you posit a situational ethic as the approach to understanding. Does that not cast us as human beings adrift into a moral universe of our own creation? In such a condition then force or power of coercion becomes the standard as there is no ultimate Truth. Yet the 2500 years of Western Civilization represents a search for just that Truth.

From Socrates to the present day our civilization bases its moral and scientific structures on the ultimate existence of such a Truth. If your "enlightened" people are those who reject the concept of absolutes or of Truth, then they are without a compass outside themselves.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.2.11 @ 10:40AM

Kelly,
may I respectfully ask what gives YOUR existence meaning?

What in evolution gave you the ability to "enjoy" a beautiful sunset?
Duh!

Dave Williams| 9.2.11 @ 12:40PM

Well, for starters, there is the human eye, the product of millions of years of EVOLUTION...and please, no nonsense about how such a complex piece of machinery could not possibly have arisen by accident. If you knew any science, you'd know that the eye has arisen through natural selection independently at least 40 times. Oh, but I'm sure you'd rather just follow the scribblings of ignorant desert-dwelling goat-herders from 3,ooo years ago...

The Big E| 9.2.11 @ 2:23PM

OK, now answer the question - what gives your existence meaning?

If you are no more to me or anyone else than another animal, then why I should I feel any compunction about slaughtering you when you get in my way? Why should I feel any compunction about taking what is yours to make it mine, simply because I want to and have the power to do so? And don't give me this crap about a moral code evolving from human society. If that were so, history would not be rife with butchers and tyrants.

You see, here is the greatest of all fallacies engaged in by Athiests - when you say there is no higher power to which you must answer, then you answer only to yourself and your own, selfish desires and whims. When everyone answers to their own, selfish desires and whims, then we all must answer to the selfish desires and whims of he who has the most power and ambition - i.e. - the new god. When you deny that human life has Sanctity beyond the mere physical existence of a human being, then you insure the destruction of that physical existence called life when it ceases to have value to some other human being with more power - i.e. - the new god.

In short, when you deny the existence of God, all you really do is raise a false god in His place - and that false god is a man. You wind up worshiping a man, and as has been shown throughout human history, men who desire to be worshiped are, without exception, insane.

And that is the Truth of Atheism. The Atheist does not deny the existence of a god, the Atheist believes himself and other men to BE gods.
Atheism is insanity, for it worships insanity. It is Death, for it worships Death

Skippy| 9.2.11 @ 4:44PM

I'm still looking for fossils of all the intermediate organisms that had some of the features of today's creatures and some that were evolved away.
All I can find are layers of fossils from animals that are repeated for millions of years.
No transitional creatures are evident.
I'm not a "world is 5,000 years old" guy, but Darwin is looking pretty anorexic despite 150 years of digging.

DaveD| 9.3.11 @ 9:04PM

"If you knew any science, you'd know that the eye has arisen through natural selection independently at least 40 times."

If you knew any science, you'd know that while there very well may be 40 "different" eyes in the animal kingdom, that does not necessarily mean that they arose from natural selection.

John S.| 9.14.11 @ 1:04PM

Evolution is God's Algorithm, or if you prefer, one of his tools.

In dissing goat-herders, you forget that evolution can't answer the origins question: "Where did the stuff that is evolving come from?" The goat-herders can answer that one.

Or, to put it another way, Christianity does not teach us that there is no such thing as evolution, Christianity teaches us that God CREATED evolution.

Al Adab| 9.2.11 @ 12:46PM

We can all recognize in Kelly Staples comments the derivation of totalitarian governments. If, contrary to the tenents of Western Civilization, there is not ultimate Truth, then power and coercion become the highest moral principle. It is a short trip from there to the camps indeed.

Occam's Tool| 9.2.11 @ 1:47PM

Reagan, Bush, Bush, Eisenhower, LBJ were all fine with their finger on the trigger. So was Kennedy.

Ken| 9.2.11 @ 5:58PM

Thank God for the presence of the Christian church during those Dark Ages, that fanned the flickering flames of learning in monasteries such as Lindisfairne after pagan war lords overrean the western half of the Roman Empire. They were bridges of light across those dark ages that connected the glory that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome with the beginnings of the Universities of Europe and the blessings of modern western civilization.

John S.| 9.14.11 @ 12:58PM

I read your comment, waiting for your expose'.

There wasn't one.

Still waiting.

Clint| 9.2.11 @ 7:50AM

Dr.Ron Paul,
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs,"

martin j smith| 9.2.11 @ 7:58AM

The NYT is a paper that basically supports AUTHORITARIANISM in any form. Communist, Fascist,Nazis, Radical Islam you name it. Once you grasp that then you can understand the adherence to ANY RELIGION ( other than Islam of the Radical Type ) is anathema unless it is coopted by the government as Soviet Russia,The Nazi Government etc did. The NYT beneath its phony surface Social reports regarding Jewish,Christian or other festivities HATES people of ANY FAITH ( except Radical Islam ). So challenge them by all means --but do not whine please.

Michael Tomlinson| 9.2.11 @ 8:06AM

Martin you nailed the NY "Slime"

big bob| 9.2.11 @ 10:23AM

This topic reveals the seedy side of what we look like when we abandon the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. We talk about those institutions and wink at each other when some one takes their Scripture seriously. On the other hand, when the angry Muslim points his bony little finger in our direction, we fall immediately to our knees and look away for fear of "offending" him. Our Constitution allows believers and non-believers to take positions in our republic and all the atheists notwithstanding, we have a right to exercise our faith as we make moral and ethical decisions, as long as they fall within the parameters of the Constitution. This so-called "controversy" is just another smear campaign in an attempt to demean a candidate who has substance and purpose. Shame on us as a nation for tolerating this crap. I hope we realize just how empty these "critiques" are before it's too late. What a bunch of hogwash.

Von Mises Jr.| 9.2.11 @ 10:27AM

This is another elitist demonstrating his love for Kant, Hegel and Nietzsche's "Enlightenment." Marx and Keynes translated their belief into economic jargon. The problem is that the USSR, Mao's China, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela did not turn out so well.

I'll stick with Locke, Burke and the Founding Fathers. Until poisoned by the left, England, America and Austrailia were working out great.

C Smith| 9.2.11 @ 10:51AM

Scripture reveals that the Lord has "magnified" His word even above His name (cf., Psalms 138:2). I would vote for a candidate who demonstrably honored Scripture i.e., not the Apocrypha of Romanism, nor The Book of Mormon, nor the pseudo faith of our founding fathers.

C Smith| 9.2.11 @ 10:52AM

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18-19).

John S.| 9.14.11 @ 1:33PM

With the greatest of love: It was Martin Luther who first successfully edited the Bible.

He wanted to remove not only those books you refer to as the "Apocrypha", but also the Epistle of James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation (kind of ironic, that last one! :-).

Note, too, that if interpreted the way you do, Revelation 22:18-19 would restrict the Bible to only one book: Revelation.

This verse (Revelation 22:18-19) applies to Revelation, and only Revelation. But if you do take it as applying to the whole of the Bible, then you must admit the Apocrypha into the Bible, as well as the other parts that Luther edited out, or face judgement.

To criticize Joseph Smith for editing or modifying the Bible is to criticize Marin Luther, and the church he founded. They both did exactly the same thing.

Don't feel too bad. I myself bounced around the 26,000 Protestant denominations for many years before I converted, so I am sympathetic in the extreme.

C Smith| 9.2.11 @ 10:52AM

“Rigdon… made a new translation of the Bible, in which prophecies of the coming of Joseph Smith and the nature of The Book of Mormon are inserted in the 50th chapter of Genesis and the 20th chapter of Isaiah respectively…. the church was “persecuted”… on the 25th of March 1832 Smith and Rigdon were tarred and feathered at Hiram….In 1836 the Kirtland Safety Society Bank was organized (in accordance with a “revelation” to Smith)…. In March 1837 Rigdon and Smith, the secretary and treasurer, were charged with violating the state law against unchartered banks, and they were convicted in October…. In November the “bank” suspended payments and… Smith and Rigdon left the state for Missouri…. [After a] determined attempt to depose Smith… there was organized… a band… bound to secrecy under penalty of death, and formed to punish all who opposed the Church and its supreme head. Numerous crimes and outrages were attributed to them…. On the 4th of July 1838 Rigdon preached his “salt sermon” … urging his hearers to wage “a war of extermination” on those who disturbed them…. and necessitated the calling out of the state militia…. Smith and Rigdon with others were arrested and imprisoned on a charge of treason, murder, and felony… In 1842 Smith was charged with instigating and attempt… to assassinate ex-Governor L. W. Boggs of Missouri…. There seems to have been no secret about Smith’s cohabiting with other women…. he had a revelation expressly establishing and approving polygamy.” (The Encyclopedia Britannica, Thirteenth Edition, London, vol. 18, pp. 843-844, 1926)

C Smith| 9.2.11 @ 10:54AM

All those who reverence Jefferson's Declaration and alter ego as "American Scripture," and eulogize the like-minded pseudo sainthood of our founding fathers, would do well to read the "Jefferson Bible." Eliminating angels, miracles, and concluding with the stone sealed sepulcher in his final verse, Jefferson created a "sanitized" version of Scripture to fit his "faith":

"... the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus... will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" (Jefferson to Adams, April 11, 1823).

Al Adab| 9.2.11 @ 12:31PM

Your reference is a remark on the "virgin birth" of not on the historicity of Jesus.

Unfortunately Mr. Smith he also wrote, "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Even the most "rational, skeptical, indeed deistic" of our founders adhered to a Faith in an active, involved deity.

Margie| 9.2.11 @ 3:01PM

And what I think of all of this that you post about Jefferson is this: People believe a lot of things that aren't true. They follow Religions that teach false and unbiblical teachings, or they may have their own ideas about God (which is exactly what Religion is anyway)~ but thankfully, God judges the heart.

.."for the LORD sees not as man sees; man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart." 1 Sam. 16:7.

RCV| 9.5.11 @ 4:41PM

You are absolutely right, Margie. God surely looked favorably upon Thomas Jefferson, and saw him as one of God's own.

Margie| 9.5.11 @ 6:40PM

I didn't say whether God DID or did NOT look favorably upon Thomas Jefferson, though, that I do not know, though hope that was the case!

I only stated that God looks on the heart, and not the outward appearance.

David W| 9.2.11 @ 11:20AM

I think it is a terrible that any Christian or Jew would base their political actions on faith. Thou shall not kill, lie, steal, commit adultry, bear false witness - aren't these just terrible concepts? "He who is without sin cast the first stone?" What kind of junk is this? We need to only allow non-believers and athiests to be politicians, you know, like Hitler, and Stalin, and the leaders of N. Korea, Pol Pot, Dahmer, McVeigh, Voldemort, and Lord Sauron. After all, they would do what is right, just, and humane... Right???

Dixie Pixie| 9.2.11 @ 11:22AM

A Bigot is a Bigot is a Bigot.

All practice discrimination to filter the “Good” from the “Bad” people.
“Goodness” being defined as how close that person is to the Bigot's beliefs.

Keller, identified by his rantings, is a typical Liberal Bigot.

Al Adab| 9.2.11 @ 12:33PM

Moorning Dixie,
We must all practice some level of discernment to distinguish right from wrong. Only the morally relativistic view holds otherwise. Sadly that philospohy holds great sway in our political debate these days. Interesting is it not that a Faith in nothing has become a religious threat to our Liberties.

The Big E| 9.2.11 @ 2:33PM

"We must all practice some level of discernment to distinguish right from wrong. Only the morally relativistic view holds otherwise."

I beg to disagree with you on this. The "morally relativistic" practice "discernment" to determine right and wrong just like anyone else - the difference is that they determine right and wrong based solely on what they want at the moment they are making the determination.

The "morally relativistic," as you call them, are therefore inherently dishonest - they are lying to themselves about what they believe about right and wrong - to the point of being delusional.

Al Adab| 9.2.11 @ 2:41PM

E:
Thank you for your comments. I take them as friendly criticism and do not disagree. Situational ethics denies any absolute Truth. That it where it fails.

The Big E| 9.2.11 @ 3:37PM

You have taken them as they were intended.

Anthony| 9.2.11 @ 11:42AM

I'm a bit confused here, what exactly did Mr. Keller, the propagandist for the NY Times, "do well", in exposing Rev. Wright to the nation?
Seeing that Rev. Wright and the entire staff of the N.Y. Times shave the same views, did Mr. Keller laud and praise Mr. Obama for standing in solidarity with the good reverend?
The only job "well done" was the usual leftist agitprop from this leftist rag that made sure Obozo would never be held accountable for his associations with Wright and the Ayers'.
Can't wait for Carlos Slim to pull the plug on the Times!!!

Hank Rearden| 9.2.11 @ 11:43AM

err....Bill. Christians have Christ's admonition "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's." Can you socialists say the same thing? Will you keep your socialist religion out of public policy?

Al Adab| 9.2.11 @ 12:25PM

Well put question Hank. When government is seen as the source of our rights and priviledges we are in danger of losing them should they become inconvenient to the governing authority. If on the other hand those rights are ours by virtue of our humanity, they cannot be taken by the governing power. "Put not your trust in Princes."

Petronius| 9.2.11 @ 2:19PM

Their is the gospel of Morrison: "We want the world and we want it....now!"

Margie| 9.2.11 @ 2:54PM

Oooh, good one, Hank R.! We need to have a list of questions like this that should be shot right back at the questioners. Their heads would spin!!

gaetano| 9.2.11 @ 12:53PM

I think you should all think about the whole constitution and remember that every law in it including 1ooo's of by-laws goes back and is made up (one way or the other) of the ten commandments of God. Can you simply imagine that it took America all these years to pass laws and realize that all they had to do was pass the Ten Commandments of God as the constitution of America.

john dubose| 9.2.11 @ 1:02PM

Religion ( especially Christianity ) is just about the only solid bulwark against utterly ruthless murder mayhem and outright theft that might be committed against innocent people should our "leaders" decide that "God" would not kick their butts for their sins.

If the athiests can handle that one, maybe we have something to talk about. They need to show that people will behave without the god head.

Occam's Tool| 9.2.11 @ 1:48PM

Mr. Dubose---dead on perfect. Also, no secular humanist culture breeds to replacement. Not a one. (NZ approaching 2.1 is due to the more religious Maoris breeding much faster than the secular Pakehas.)

megapotamus| 9.2.11 @ 1:16PM

I recall a long ago panel discussion including Lisa Kudrow, okay, not a public intellectual, but she used her trademark winsome confusion to ironically state, "Yeah, we don't know it's wrong to kill people unless we read it in the Bible...... "
No one ably countered this which would be easily done with a simple question: if we don't learn it from the Bible, where do we learn it? From the pre-existing animist religions? No, to say the least. From asian philosophies like Confucianism? Ah, no. From Roman law? Now that's a laugher. From the practices of animals? Primates? From islam? From simple human nature? Where oh where Miss Kudrow, does this notion come that all people are god's children or otherwise our moral equal and responsibility? Maybe someone here has an answer.

Margie| 9.2.11 @ 2:55PM

Right you are: Exodus 20:13!

Wayne | 9.2.11 @ 1:33PM

Obama is a Trojan Horse for just that kind of sect. His Black Liberation Theology believes that the White Man is the Devil and that he must be punished before the entire nation can be saved.

Nina| 9.2.11 @ 1:37PM

I do believe I read somewhere that church attendance is on the rise,not sure but vaguely remember hearing something like that. Also, separation of church and state, I'm no expert obviously, but wasn't that established to keep the state out of the church, not the other way around? And...if our beliefs are to be questioned, then Obama's are to be also, however, if he is as suspected a muslum at heart, then he'd lie anyway. His association with Wright is Wrong. His apology tour and kowtowing to Islam is evidence enough of his religious bent....is this a benefit to America? Just askin....

John S.| 9.14.11 @ 1:49PM

The "Separation of Church and State" is a construct of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). It is an extrapolation of the First Amendment, and as such, *adds* to the Constitution.

The purpose of the First Amendment was to resolve the problems introduced by making the Anglican Church the Church of England. Among those problems were the issue of tithes (tithes to the Church of England were quite literally a tax, not optional in any sense of the word), and the discrimination faced by Christians who were not Anglicans (for example: to be a commissioned officer in the Royal Navy one had to renounce Catholicism).

The bloody purges and mass murder of Catholics by Protestants appalled the Founding Fathers, but much more importantly, they wanted to avoid such conflict in their newly created State. That didn't stop the people from having their own dislikes and bigotry, but it did prevent outright Christian sectarian violence.

The Founding Fathers were, however, deeply cognizant of the fact that Western Civilization and Philosophy is largely a construct of Christianity, and based their political work on that philosophy.

Unfortunately, and for the most part, they never even considered what mass immigration by non-Christians would mean. The obvious religious conflict that is developing (between Islam and the last vestiges of American Christianity) is therefore not one they created a protection against.

ONTIME| 9.2.11 @ 1:52PM

Keller must have punched in the mouth by a muslim because he has not questioned the questionable fatith(?) of the Mysery Man one time that Ican recall.....so how sore are your lips Billy?

Stefan Stackhouse| 9.2.11 @ 1:58PM

US Constitution, Article VI:

". . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States"

What part of this do people not understand?

Al Adab| 9.2.11 @ 2:04PM

Exactly. No candidates religion or lack thereof can be required for the candidacy. How individual voters choose to decide where to put their trust and how is another matter altogether.

Margie| 9.2.11 @ 2:57PM

That is another statement that should be read right back at these despicable questioners when they ask these questions!

PsychoDad| 9.3.11 @ 10:28PM

OK, I'm on your side here, but that's not what this means. This is actually coming at it from the other side - that is, the intent was that no-one should be required to profess a particular faith to hold office -- more simply, you don't have to be a Protestant to be President. This is a much different proposition than what may be legitimate inquiry into how a candidate's religious beliefs may shape his opinions, in order to decide whether you want to vote for him. Especially if a candidate makes a point of espousing a particular faith as part of his campaign message, yes, it becomes a fair subject of inquiry. Most especially if a candidate indicates that he may draw not only spiritual guidance from a foreign authority, but also political: whether such is the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Dalai Lama, or the Chief Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca.

John S.| 9.14.11 @ 4:48PM

The intent was to reduce or eliminate sectarian violence, and to remove any vestige of a claim that the Federal Government had the power to establish a State Religion.

Do you honestly believe, though, that the Founding Fathers would have been supportive of Muslims holding political office? I would assert that they never even considered the possibility, and thus did not provide explicit protections against same.

Thus the importance of understanding a candidates religious beliefs, and taking them into account when voting.

Petronius| 9.2.11 @ 2:53PM

Keller is at the top of the media food chain and the Commandments are in his way. As the most mendacious of his ilk, he bears false witness with every key stroke. As a flack for the envious bottom feeders, he is the greatest advocate of legalized theft. That leaves wanton desire for sexual hedonism a poor third. And he is so afraid that any Conservative Christian will raise even one voice in favor of proscribing his sins by law he would rather have his throat slashed by a Wahabi Muslim than be forced to change his behavior in public. Not that the possibility of any religious doctrine being legislated would matter to him anyway. He is wealthy enough to insulate himself from anyone he doesn't like. Well Mr. Keller; the rest of us can't do that. We don't have that kind of money. We can't afford homes in gated communities, and most families can't afford the price of private education so that their children won't be terrorized every day by inner city gang members. Our happiness is determined by the behavior of our neighbors and all others in the main stream of society. To us, Liberal social engineering is an affliction. And the Bill Kellers of this country force it upon us because they Hate Us. Our culture has been under assault for half a century, but we are still here. We will not give up our beliefs or our aspirations to live by and for ourselves without hindrance from anybody. And above all, no institution in or out of government can command our approval. That is Keller's #1 beef. He can dine on our excrement for a change.

hardcard| 9.2.11 @ 3:31PM

stop the bickering, and find common ground, we must defeat obamasoros and the socialists.

Maggie Hogan| 9.2.11 @ 4:04PM

I voted for JFK back then, that is what Dems do, vote a party line without thinking. Why is he so concerned with the religious moral issue? Isn't there a push within the liberal quarter right now to legalize perverted sex? We already murder our kids under the guise of personal freedom, and maybe Casey Anthony's defense should have been that it was merely a late term abortion, while the same people don't want a mass murder to face the death penalty and the new push, pedifiles ( youth attracted indivuals) need understanding. This world has turned into an immoral hell with all this secular crap. Religion (I am not religious) is the only sanity left for us. It is the only place in this world that still offers values, integrety, honesty, respect and morals. As far as I am concerned, the more religious a candidate is, the better I like him/her and I don't care what their religion.

Seek| 9.2.11 @ 6:15PM

Exactly why is it that not adhering to the dictates of a particular religion is tantamount to being "bigoted" against that religion? Perhaps the reason why a person isn't religious (or religious in a certain way) is not that he hasn't considered the evidence, but that he has. If such a person has reached the "wrong" conclusion, well...give it some time.

Margie| 9.2.11 @ 7:17PM

In some cases, bigot is a derogatory word thrown at people like the word racist (like those who disagree with Obama's policies) is used to paint honest people who dare to reject a person's philosophy.

To them, it cannot be that it is the philosophy that is being rejected, and because they do not care about the truth as to whether the philosophy is right or wrong~ they have to brand their opposition as bigots or racists.. it effectively scares others away from the the "bigot", so (they hope), and banishes them to the dust heap of condemnation for daring to open their mouths.

But the truth always prevails in the end.

Darragh| 9.2.11 @ 7:08PM

Unfortunately, it has become politically correct for many educated Northeasterners brought up Catholic to be full of an almost irrational hatred toward it. I have traveled in those circles all my life and I can't tell you how much animosity these people have toward the Church or any "creeds" by which they mean Christianity. If you say you are a practicing Catholic, they are stunned. Nothing will shake them. They have no interest in any discussion. I gave up reading the NYT, which I don't miss a whit. The saddest thing is that they--people and institutions--seem to have taken in nothing of Christ.

POST American| 9.2.11 @ 9:48PM

--And in all this, NO MENTION of the
pervasive infiltration, influence, and subverting
dominance exerted by inbred, interbred,
INTER-national, Luciferian, Social Darwinist (kind misnomer)
'benny violent' EUGENICS ----Freemasonry.

In old days it used to hide behind such fronts
as the Arminian Heresy, the 'Doctrine of Works',
themselves ample doctrine poisoners. But now, with
all the Bohemian Grove media and Harry Potter
Hollywood covering for them ---Satanism's
all but striding openly in the American political
light.

IN short, we have a MAJOR 'Church and State'
---or should we say, 'Coven and State' issue.

"Understand, at this moment, well over 90%
of the Baptist, Lutheran and Methodist leadership
are, in fact ---Freemasons."
-William Still
(Maker of 'The Money Masters' documentary)

And, in case you're NOT seeing it, BEHOLD!
-'America's preacher' Billy Graham, a confessed
Arminian Heretic and Hearst set up, is now revealed to be himself
---a 33rd degree MASON! --as is Jesse Jackson.

Likewise, no doubt, Pat Robertson, Jeremiah Wright, Robert Schuller and whoever else you
care to name.

SO, don't wonder where the church is in the
face of our crumbling society and in you face
sellout and TREASON OP. --They're 'on board'!

-------------------NOW YOU KNOW--------------------

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.3.11 @ 10:09AM

I'm sorry.
I simply cannot allow our local lunatic to end this discussion.
I will leave you with Jesus' words: "Agape' one another as I have loved you."

Mike| 9.3.11 @ 11:38AM

I'm gonna go to work, kiss my Wife and Kids, and Enjoy all the Wonderful things that GOD has bestowed upon me.
http://www.topbrandsbags.com
http://www.wholesalesunglassesbrands.com

Mike| 9.3.11 @ 11:39AM

His apology tour and kowtowing to Islam is evidence enough of his religious bent....is this a benefit to America? Just askin....
http://www.wholesalehatsshop.com
http://www.discountsunglassesforsale.com

Margie| 9.3.11 @ 6:32PM

To Post American:

Why are you "Post" American, anyway?
We aren't living in post America, not as long as there are decent Americans who want to see us succeed, and that will be ALWAYS.

And Jesus knows who are His:

"But He said to them, "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the Word of God and do it." Lk. 8:21.

Patrick| 9.3.11 @ 7:02PM

He's been refusing his Chlorpromazine treatments, hence the gibbering paranoia and tinfoil.

PsychoDad| 9.3.11 @ 10:11PM

Holy sh1t, where did that rant come from?? Guy is certifiable!

Say, Oddjob, can you tell me precisely which parts of Arminianism Billy Graham accepts, and why they are heretical? Are you sure you don't mean Nestorianism or Arianism? Or perhaps Modalism?

I forget which is which, can you remind me and explain what they mean?

PsychoDad| 9.3.11 @ 10:06PM

"As it turns out, that distinction is as easy as the difference between Democrats and Republicans."

No sh1t, Sherlock.

Ran | 9.3.11 @ 11:25PM

Messrs. Hudson and Smith,
Surely NOBODY was "expecting the Spanish Inquisition!"

Heh. (Where is Michael Palin when you need him?)

victor| 9.5.11 @ 3:15AM

Ran:
"Where is Michael Palin when you need him?"

As Art Baker used to say:

"You asked for it!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o

Nobody expects the Bloody Spanish Inquisition!

Our chief weapon is Surprise,
and Fear,
And an almost Fanatical Devotion to the Pope!

Margie| 9.5.11 @ 6:46PM

I wonder how many millions all of the Papal Inquisitions tortured and killed, beginning in the early centuries after the death of Christ~ up until when? The 19th Century?

John S.| 9.14.11 @ 4:54PM

Margie,

A conservative estimate places the numbers killed by the Inquisition at about 2,000. Even the most expansive study limits it to only 20,000.

Not "millions", by a very, very long shot.

Now, just how many Catholics did the Protestants murder in their bloody purges and pogroms? Or did you think that Protestants were sinless in that regard?

I will leave it to your personal integrity to do the research.

POST American| 9.3.11 @ 11:50PM

--------------------FINAL WORD------------------------

Christ and certainly the Bible itself,
endlessly point out corruption, destruction,
the very devil himself, is to be found-----emanating
from within the subverted church and temple.

Freemasonry IS Luciferian. --FACT--

The 'Doctrine of Works' is a self-wiled instrument
of CON-troll via 'benny violent' 'chair-IT-he'.
The Arminian Heresy has LONG been rightfully
regarded as the most cunning of doctrine destroyers. DO the background and find out,
regarding true, sound doctrine, why it is.

One needs look no further than the absolute
mess the likes of Oprah and Billy Graham have
left in their delusional, and lucrative, wakes.

If you ever bothered
to examine Masonry's bible, the works of Albert Pike (alleged and likely founder of the KKK) ---you would would realize what we're addressing.

AS a long, long, long agenda for world domination
and, most horrifying, EUGENICS and population
extermination incrementally works its way into the final phase remember, as Christ said,
you CAN NOT serve two masters.
You must HATE the one or the other.
You can NOT love both.

Of course its the right of people to worship
as they please and we're NOT advocating ANY
restrictions on Freemasonry as a religious
practice. ------------JUST keep this crap out
of and away from our Christian churches.

Christians are NOT trying to infiltrate lodges and temples!

The gargantuan issue of Fremasonry dominating
and subverting government, law enforcement,
education, the military and cultlure remains
an outrageous 'Seperation of Church (--or rather coven) and State' matter.

The Masonic, ultra rich, TAX FREE capstone
foundations, even now, are at the very heart of
every crisis we're facing.

STOP worshipping the rectum of things as they
are, or rather, as they're meant to be seen.

DO the history and background!

-----STOP being so cowardly before this so, so basic an issue?

Margie| 9.4.11 @ 6:24PM

Post American:

How can I be a coward when I cannot even understand what in Heaven's name you are trying to say??

POST American| 9.3.11 @ 11:55PM

"AS every American indian well knows,
'charity' is the white man's MOST effective
and insidious poison."
-D H LAwrence
essays from New Mexico

--------------------------AMEN----------------------------

Dan Mathewson| 9.4.11 @ 1:53AM

Um...uh...yeah!

Big D| 9.4.11 @ 9:01AM

This comment is not about the substance of Keller's rant...it is about hypocrisy.

"...a Trojan horse for a sect that believes it has ... instructions on how we should be governed."

I can think of a true "Trojan Horse", now in the WH, who has shocked even some truly liberal democrats with his extremism--socialism, one world-ism, warmism are religions in their own right.

Paul| 9.4.11 @ 12:02PM

How about questions for atheists?

* You don't believe that humans have a soul or inherent worth from having been made in God's image so is it OK to get rid of those who are not contributing to society?
* Since there are no moral absolutes, would you agree that any means is justified by its ends?
* Justice, fortitude, prudence and temperance as well as faith, hope and charity are the virtues championed by traditional Christianity. They come from the church's understanding of God and His nature. As an atheist, do you have anything other than self-interest to provide a foundation for your own beliefs and actions?

Simon Templar| 9.4.11 @ 12:34PM

"You are a person of faith, and your faith teaches about many things, including how a person should distinguish between right and wrong and how a person should conduct his or her life. If you were elected President, how would you distinguish between those faith teachings that should inform your political leadership and those that should be keep separate?"

The above statement is the trojan horse of the argument and a very clever attempt to shut up anyone who disagrees with their positions on any matter they choose.

It is riddles with false premises, as usual, that are slipped through the gates of the dialog.
The first is the idea that those that are religious have a special distinction from the rest of us that is inherently problematic.

Everyone has a set of values and beliefs that they bring with them into office whether they are atheist or fervent religious devotees and these values are derived from a whole host of sources whether they are derived from tradition, religion, custom, political ideologies, or whatever.

The second idea is that ones religious beliefs are somehow inherently in conflict with one's political beliefs and one's responsiblity as a government representative in a Republic and the two should never mix...the perverted concept of seperation of church and state as it is understood by liberals.

This inherently makes the assumption that religious beliefs are inferior to secular, atheistic ones (that is approved liberal one's) and they have no value or place in the public sector or public life. The idea here is that you better leave those at home because you have no right to be informed by them or allowing them to define who you are as citizen or elected official.

That right is reserved only by liberals who will determine what is right and wrong on the basis of what they say is right and wrong, acceptable and what is not acceptable. No one is asking, 'as a homosexual atheist will you be able to respect the values, traditions and customs of your constituency and leave your personal beliefs at home about these matter and keep these seperate from your political leadership and not allow them to inform that leadership?'

Now, I think what we really want to be asking our elected officials is what are your values whatever they are or wherever they came from and what will you seek to accomplish in government if elected? If those values and objectives match our needs and our desires, and are not in conflict with our constitution and constitutional form of government, then we will consider electing you as our representative.

Simon Templar| 9.4.11 @ 1:24PM

Yes, I know that the above quote is a suggestion of a better way to ask a question about a candidate in regards to these religous issues.
The article I presume is written by a conservative.

The question as it is constructed, however, is a classic liberal one and I have heard it put exactly that way by liberals attempting to sound objective and reasonable.

That is exactly the rub here...we all have been so inundated with liberal thinking patterns we do not even know we are using them..we come to accept their notions and their frames of argument and assumptions without the ability to recognize them anymore.

Margie| 9.4.11 @ 6:23PM

Simon,

Magnificent, sir!!

Nixonfan| 9.4.11 @ 12:40PM

Tough issue. As an atheist, I distrust the "deeply religious". Either they are frauds, like Robertson and Huckabee, or else--even worse--they actually believe that magical nonsense. I would never want a devout Muslim on the bench or even as dogcatcher. I wish people would leave religion at the door when they enter politics.

Simon Templar| 9.4.11 @ 12:52PM

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing about your religophopia and atheism.

Simon Templar| 9.4.11 @ 12:58PM

How about a person who is an atheist that is not in favor of abortion nor the normalization of homosexuality or its agendas and is comfortable with and identifies with most of the values and beliefs of religious Americans, despite the fact that they personally do not believe in a God?

Did your head just explode?

Simon Templar| 9.4.11 @ 1:07PM

When I say values and beliefs..I am talking about codes of behaivor like it is wrong to steal, kill, commit adultery, cheat others, use drugs, kill unwanted babies, etc, not whether you believe Jesus turned water into wine or walked on water.

Margie| 9.4.11 @ 9:08PM

Sort of like that law that's "written on their hearts", right?
Or the conscience that God gave them (whether or not they happen to believe in Him).
The simple knowledge of right from wrong.

Rich D| 9.4.11 @ 2:30PM

These questions aren't much better, and I missed it if there were answers given by the readers here.

Aside from the religious test response, or asking the reporter what his/her answers are first:

1. I do not consider my positions on abortion and marriage as matters of faith. Abortion kills a live defenseless human, and heterosexual marriage provides the best environment for children, so it benefits society as a whole.

2. Religion is a set of practices, and is never truth with a capital "T". What is Truth to an atheist?

3. Stupid question. You appear to be saying that there are leadership decisions that cannot/should not be made on the basis of right and wrong. Name some. Do you believe that all of right and wrong can be learned from the Constitution?

Osamas Pajamas| 9.4.11 @ 9:02PM

I'm a right-wing atheist whose life is far safer in a Judeo-Christian society than it would be in a society completely dominated by Muslims or by American Democrats. If I could send this wee message to Keller, he would of course ignore it, but it would be good to jab him with it.

POST American| 9.4.11 @ 11:55PM

----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE--------------------

Rockefeller/EUGENICS 'Council of Churches'
= 'Benny Violence' and the Luciferian Doctrine
of benny violent 'Works'.

Ecumenicalism is just another USURY control
devise, another form of 'CALM--YOU--nism'
if you will.

Cut to the chase!

---They USE the 'WORKS' --to WORK on YOU---

---------------------------------------------GET IT?

Margie| 9.5.11 @ 6:51PM

The World Council of Churches is definitely anti Christ, who doesn't know that?

And Ecumenicalism is also anti Christ, most everyone knows this.

And the doctrine of works taught by some of the biggest cults in Religion is also anti Christ, since the Bible (God's own Words) tells us that we are saved by Grace.

But the whole Rockefeller, Alex Jones, UFO scenario is nutty.

Robert Harkins| 9.5.11 @ 7:49AM

The secular, anti religious, and progressively bigoted attitude toward religious practice radically departs from the Founders' religious beliefs. When one considers how radical leftist secularists have become, I think it would be a far better idea to cross examine them with questions like. Will your anti-religious sentiments conflict with a Constitution based on religious as well as secular principles. Reference to "Nature's God" is after all a religious idea which radical secularists-- if they were drafting the Constitution today-- would not tolerate.

The vast majority of the Founders were devout Christians. The Constitution itself is fashioned on principles which are the heritage of New England Puritans.That the Founders crafted a First Amendment prohibiting the establishment of a national church reflected the Puritan experience in England. The First Amendment, however, obliges the central government to protect the free exercise of religion.

The idea that Catholics would take orders from the Vatican is pure bigotry taking on the cover of politics.

Jeamar| 9.5.11 @ 12:13PM

Asking ? about a candidate's religion seems rather irrelevant to what his/her actual actions might be under political pressure to please special interests and the citizenry at large. Voters had to know Obama was a liar when he said he sat in J. Wright's pew for 20 yrs. but didn't know he was a racist and antiSemite. We worried about the fact JFK would take orders from the Pope, but he neglected to tell us he regularly took strong pain pills, was a womanizer who entertained women in the White House while his wife was out of town. People espouse many religions and many levels of devotion to them but it how those beliefs affect their actions that count.

Kingofthenet| 9.5.11 @ 4:19PM

A Fetus is NOT a baby, you have to be born to die, just like an Acorn is NOT an Oak Tree. I couldn't care less if a person has 'NORMAL' mainstream Religious beliefs, but are you people actually saying if someone was a Scientologist or some other 'Cult' member that wouldn't influence how you looked at the person and judged their Fitness for High office? and Yes Religious FUNDAMENTALISTS of ALL stripes are pretty much Cult members. Are you Religious people Really so thick as to actually believe people with no faith have no 'Morals'?

RCV| 9.5.11 @ 4:45PM

Just curious, KOTN, where does your morality spring from?

Kingofthenet| 9.5.11 @ 6:03PM

The 'Golden Rule' even thou Religion Co-opted it, it was around far longer than Christianity. To me three are three 'Basic' sets of rules:
Legal: What Society or Govt. tells what you can/can't do.
Ethical: This is more a 'Professional' set of rules, usually set by a Professions board, usually also involves Legal.
Moral: Personal Belief system, independent of the first two, although also controlled by them.ie. Smoking Pot, is FINE by me but can cause you to lose your Job and go to Jail.
Morality is the most interesting, I am PERSONALLY against abortion except in case of Rape,Incest or major genetic deformity, but I have no problem with people who have other standards,either tighter or looser that's their decision.
I also don't feel the need to play by 'others' rules, I open Checking accounts just to get bonuses for doing so, no plan on ever keeping or using the accounts, I follow the rules to collect, then I'm out. Is that wrong? I go to yard sales and peoples homes to buy merchandise that I resell. I feel no need to inform people of the true value of their objects for sale, sometimes I find real Gold and Platinum, Diamond jewelery mixed in with junk costume stuff,I buy the whole box for a pittance and take out the good stuff.Same when I look over an Estates stuff, I don't lie, but i don't educate anyone either, I simply make an offer...Is that wrong?

Margie| 9.5.11 @ 6:56PM

"You have to be born to die."

OK. Then what happens to the Fetus when it is killed? It doesn't die?

You are the perfect example of someone who has no faith having no morals that you speak of.

You belong to the biggest Cult on Earth. It's called the World.

Kingofthenet| 9.5.11 @ 9:07PM

If you have a few children, you most likely had a couple of 'Abortions' you didn't even realize, it is EXTREMELY common for malformed embryos to spontaneously abort early in a pregnancy, seems just like a heavy menstrual flow.Unless you test 'Religiously' for pregnancy(Pun intended), you would just figure, oh well not this month. I am not saying a full term Fetus is not important, or even 'close' to a baby it is, but MOST reasonable people look at at something much earlier differently. Margie,Do you think someone taking a 'morning after pill' is equivalent to a late term abortion?

John S.| 9.14.11 @ 5:05PM

A miscarriage is not an abortion.

Your statement is an example of the logical fallacy of "false equivalence".

You postulate a kind of "sliding scale" of humanity. Very well: based on what reasoning? Is a warrior who due to an IED blast has lost both arms, legs, their spleen, one eye and all of their colon less human after the blast?

If so, why? If not, why not, and how does your answer apply or not apply to the various stages of human development, and again, why?

Is a person who is asleep, and therefore not conscious and obviously not thinking less human than that same person awake? Is it more moral to kill a sleeping person than one who is awake?

Again, why or why not?

Brian| 9.5.11 @ 11:44PM

I would like to know if a candidate believes humans "evolved" from a rock or a puddle of goo.

MSriver| 9.6.11 @ 5:11AM

To “stay within the confines of political discourse” for how much a candidate’s faith will influence them is, admit, largely unlikely. Yet, proceeding with your “tougher” questions,

1. Matters of faith made law
2. Treatment of unbelievers
3. Separating convictions

Verses Keller’s lesser, should,

1. Evolution be taught
2. The U.S. be considered Christian
3. Appoint Muslims to the Supreme Court

All of these, yours and Keller’s stem from that selfsame concern from the two diverse camps; those who are, and those who don’t feel threatened by the Gosple, with an obvious mixture of both. For the latter group, those who identify with unity of fundamental Christian doctrine, I really truly don’t see how you can maintain pure “political discourse” w/o the finer points of their faith being born out.

In your more rigorous approach, the overlap in q.1. & 3., the most probing being no.1. I wonder, why don’t you just up and cut to that chase of convictions? We want to inform the vote on conviction by dotting about issues, well, we could question root convictions themselves, and drop morals as an issue by issue all together. Thereby knowing the candidate fuller. Is it not out of cultures response or lack of it for the day in which we live? These questions pose more harm than good to be informed by, if the current dialog of constraints, though acceptable, is the sort of thing that keeps reputable people from being plain and unpolished, from speaking openly.

I personally don’t see Keller’s approach level as any less beneficial to yours, they still limit understanding of the person questioned and increase the specter of journalism’s bias. If it’s “voter consideration” we wish to inform upon, there are certainly more poignant addresses to be made. Or is this an unattractive view for the candidate’s sensitive reputations?

What an interesting analogy with some of those in media and the founder’s warning of inspecting one’s heart when they interview. Attempt to regulate man’s nature externally would be no end, and would circumvent a robust populace to slavery.

I am aware all such responses hold unlimited potential if answered soundly, and quite revealing if given full audience with but one exception, your last question, no.3.

The people can still by vote, convey Christian preference, and to ask the elected to abridge what they have learned by experience (part of faith) to know right from wrong when trends conflict, is not right. What is popular may not be intrinsically right. If leaders with such concerns leveled attacks at each other’s height of disagreement, then its table time. For if the message brings the tip of the Christian “sword” to the enemies of the cross, we still have an obligation to contend over, to co-habitate peacefully. Where does this obligation come from? That Americans, above all those in power, shoud respect all aspects of another’s beliefs, as long as they are supported in one’s stance of love of his country?

Having that liberty to exert changes at commander-in-chief’s whim has given us some not so desirable pattern of actions from the current admin., provided by virtually nil exposure to fundamental convictions/recordings.

John S.| 9.14.11 @ 12:43PM

> Some people consider your positions on abortion and marriage a matter of faith, yet you want those positions inscribed in law and public policy. How do you justify matters of faith being made matters of law and policy for all Americans?

I disagree with the premise of the question. These matters are not purely matters of faith. Perform an abortion, kill a human being. This is not purely a matter of faith, as it has temporal, natural consequences and results.

Marriage, as the union between one man and one woman is also very much a temporal and natural thing, not simply a matter of faith. The question appears on its face to be valid, but rests on the presumption that all such matters are arbitrary, when in fact they are not.

Marriage is not simply a license to have what ever you describe as sex. Indeed, by bother to get married if that is what you are looking for? You can already do that however and whenever you wish.

Marriage is the joining of two complementary parts into a single whole. This is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of physiology (male and female are designed to go together) a matter of psychology (a single man and a single woman can create a bond that two men or two women can't, and their psychologies complement each other such that, when joined together, they create a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts), and as a final physical result, you can get the ultimate proof of the joining of two into one: children.

Ultimately, however, the question is worthless, as all law is an expression of faith; faith in one's moral philosophy, or teachers, or God, or all of the above. The real question is: why should YOUR faith be considered to be the proper basis for law? Answer: Because my faith has been, for 1600 years, the creator and shaper of Western Philosophy and Western Civilization.

> Although the United States is a nation where organized religion flourishes compared to most other nations on the globe, there are millions of people who either do not believe in God or are agnostic and do not practice any religion. As a person who considers religion to be the Truth, with a capital T, what do you think of those people who do not share your belief?

That they have other faiths. Their faith may be "anonymous", but to be human is to have faith. Many atheists believe in human rights. Such a belief is in fact a faith system (hence the word: believe).

Agnostics are just people who leave the question unanswered, but almost every agnostic also *believes*, they, just like the atheists, just can't make a rational, reasoned argument for their beliefs.

The true risk posed by atheists and agnostics is that, lacking an organized religion, they are making their philosophy up as they go along, and the result is poorly thought out and largely incoherent. A mentally challenged person who believes in the Church is living in and through an intelligent system that is 2000 years old and has been commented on, polished and perfected over all that time.

An atheist who creates their own faith system as event arise, even if personally a genius, is working under a handicap that is simply to large to overcome.

> You are a person of faith, and your faith teaches about many things, including how a person should distinguish between right and wrong and how a person should conduct his or her life. If you were elected President, how would you distinguish between those faith teachings that should inform your political leadership and those that should be keep separate?

The US of A is an exemplar of Western Civilization. Or at least, we used to be. Western Civilization is founded in Western Philosophy, and the overwhelming influence on an creator of Western Philosophy has been the Church.

Those parts of Christianity that can be described as "Catholic Apologetics" have no place in political discourse, and I suspect that the vast majority of people would agree with little argument, as these are matters of mostly pure faith.

Those aspects of Christianity that are clearly part of "Christian Apologetics", and that are also echoed in Western Philosophy are the foundation of our country and its political/economic/legal/cultural institutions, and those, in combination with "Natural Apologetics" were and remain the foundation and framework of what this country was supposed to be. These aspects of my faith have been and should continue to be the major influences on our national politics.

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|146 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|79 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|13 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|30 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|23 comments

The Spectacle Blog

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 9:12PM

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5:10PM

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:07PM

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 4:35PM

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 4:24PM

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

State Department: Iran Has Soldiers in Syria

Kaylin Bugos | 3:12PM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?