the munchkin wrangler.

Okay. Now I have a mental image of you waving a xiphos and shouting "Tommorow we vote - IN HELL!"

Gonna just sit here chucking for a bit...

"an actor who's a lot like the current President except with a deeper voice"

See? There's the "actor" thing again. Not "lawyer", not "member of the Watergate commission", not "Senator", not "Counsel to the Senate Foreign Affairs or Intelligence Committees", but "actor".

But hey, it's a catchy meme, right herr feldwebel?

Tam nailed you with that Marko - took the words right out of my keyboard. Acting is the least that Thompson has done, but sadly he isn't doing enough now.
Agree with you re AwShucksabee - deeply creepy, if not a scary as Bilary - ugh!

Huckabee is... gawd forbid... even creepier than Hillary.

At least you know that Hils is a big gov't statist, but Huckabee plays his United States Of Jesus cards awfully close to his vest.

I find Huckabee more like GW. Thompson has the more conservative ideas. Ron Paul has a "whole loaf" mentality to him besides his trooferism.

We are losing our freedoms one bite at a time. We're not going to get them all back in one shot.

So atheist infidels view religious candidates as creepy? FYI, the country that you call home was structured on christian principles.

The problem with democrats in general, is that liberals want abandon that fact completely, while conservatives opt to retain the values instilled by our forefathers.

Apparently, that's 'creepy' to those who worship nothing and believe in the big bang theory. Face it, you're a democrat in libertarian guise, 'old stick'.

don't you love it when someone calls you names but doesn't have balls enough to give their own?

Let's see here.

Christian nation...yadda yadda...atheists are un-American parasites...yadda yadda...infidel...Democrat in disguise.

1/10 for effort, 0/10 for originality. Surely you can do better than just call me a heathen Democrat.

And no, I don't worship anything. You say that like it's somehow a bad thing, or a character defect.

"So atheist infidels view religious candidates as creepy?"

I'm an apostate, you ignoramous, not an infidel.

Jeeze, get your jeezospeak right.

But at least we won't have wasted our votes by voting for the lesser of two evils yet again.

I've got that same feeling. . .

Without meaning to give the Nony Mouse extra cheese, wasn't one of the Nine or Ten Really Big Deals with the founding on the US that people didn't have to worship a specific, or indeed any, gh0d? I could have sworn I read that someplace... Oh, yeah! First Amendment. I knew I'd seen it written done on something.

Anonymous: Treaty of Tripoli.

I'm voting for Cthulhu this time around. I'm not up for discerning amongst the varied fields of evil.

I do want some "new blood" in this time (as new as you can get in DC, at any rate). We've essentially had two families running the country for twenty years. Dynasties make me uncomfy.

Especially when those rivaling families don't even have the common decency to have a blood feud going on between them.

Huckabee? "What this country needs is a good five-cent theocracy!" Which I'd've said on my blog but I don't need the arguments about whose Jesus can beat up Darwin the most. (Last time I looked, neither one was here in the living flesh anyway).

I'm torn. I like Fred. I like Dr. Paul. I just don't know which one will scare the party that used to be conserative strongly enough.

anonymouse - bet you think you strayed into the wrong place! I am a firm believer like Tam - in apostasy - I am not an agnostic, who isn't sure. I am as firm in my non-belief as any religionist. This as Mark pointed out is a right guaranteed under the Constitution. Vote for Hilary will you? she has just about the right amount of BS and crybaby to satisfy you. Jerk.

Paul or Thompson if either are in with a chance is the only way to go IMHO (also guaranteed by the Constitution!).

Hello ... I think I've posted previously on a benign topic or other. Anyway, didn't anyone tell you never to discuss religion or politics? (if you wanted to keep things civil) ... now you've gone and done both. Good for you though.... this is your house!

For the record, I guess I'm one of those “unsettling” religious people that believe in a Biblical account of Creation. I also happen to home school my kids, own and carry guns, go to church and all the other things considered weird by people that don't believe the way I do. I take no offense.

Unfortunately, Mr. Anonymous sank his entire statement by using a label and being less than tactful. I would apologize for him but the mistake is his, not mine.

However, I can speak for myself. I am completely radical, especially by today's standards. I mean, come on! ... I home school! Well, I thought you should know that this is one "religious" person that absolutely would defend your right to believe or not believe in anything you want. Your unbelief does not threaten my faith. I have not and would not support any government coercion of your belief or unbelief. That would include funding for faith based “initiatives.” I could go on but the point I want to make is that you really have less to fear from a “religious” politician that would not use government as a tool of coercion as opposed to one that would. The question you need to answer is if the “religious” politician is pandering for religious votes or if the topic of religion is being whipped into a frenzy by the media. For consideration … a truly committed follower of any faith cannot help but have his faith on display. It will affect every aspect of his life and every decision he makes. If the candidate’s faith is in conflict with your own belief system then you will be rubbed the wrong way (view the candidate as unsettling) and not vote for him or her. Of course, previous candidates who claimed the same faith and were disastrous leaders will pollute the waters for future candidates of the same faith. Please note that you could substitute the words “political party” for the word “faith.” No matter what, if you vote against a candidate because of their faith, you have just made a political decision based on religious reasons.

The reason most conservatives or evangelicals don’t question a Baptist minister’s allegiance (to the US or Constitution) is that most Baptist churches are independent (Southern Baptist churches excluded). They do not answer to anyone outside of the local leadership. There is no central headquarters somewhere with a grand pastor, bishop or pope that appoints individual pastors and collects membership money. There might be some associations but membership is free will. This cannot be said of the Catholic Church or Mormon Church, hence the inquiries.

I believe that no one must be coerced into religious belief. This is guaranteed by our Constitution. However, the role of religion in our country and especially in the lives of our leaders has become horribly misunderstood. We were warned by our Founding Fathers that we were to expressly seek religious men as our leaders … particularly Christians. I know this is incredibly unpopular but history cannot be changed, no matter how many revisionists try to rewrite it. The belief that “Separation of Church and State” is somehow written into the Constitution or our founding documents is a fallacy that has been repeated often enough that it is almost universally accepted as truth. The term “Separation of …” didn’t even appear until 1802 in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association by Thomas Jefferson. He was trying to explain that the government could not and would not establish any single religion as a national religion. He was assuring the Danbury Baptists of their religious freedom. Many have taken his writing of that phrase and twisted it into a guarantee of freedom from religion in the public arena. What he unequivocally stated was a freedom of religion.

If anyone cares, Google the term “Religious Quotes Founding Fathers” and decide for yourself what they thought of religion in politics/government. Read what they say …. WARNING! You might be unsettled.

By the way, I am not voting for Huckabee. I am voting for Alan Keyes unless he doesn’t make it on the ballot in my state. Then I will vote for Ron Paul. Like you, I am no longer going to be taken for granted. Please, accept my apologies for the long post.

Deuce,

That was well written, and I see where you're coming from. Also, yes, your comment about "separation of church and state" is well taken - but the constitution guarantees freedom of worship - including nonworship.

I think, though, that concerns are valid when it comes to vociferously religious political leaders for multiple reasons. First, the obvious concern that a devout cathoholic or Mormon or whatever is taking his lead from the Vatican rather than his own brain. These are the "obvious" worries.

My worry is more along the lines of the way religiosity has turned into "AN ISSUE" over the last decade. My recollection of other presidential campaigns in my lifetime isn't razor-sharp, and I haven't studied the issue clearly, but I'm pretty sure that "faith" hasn't really been a major campaign item.

There wass sort of an assumption that someone running for office is a Family Man with a good relationship with whichever god there might be, but it wasn't something to be trumpeted and waved around. Hell, GW Bush wasn't vociferously "faithful" until after the September 11th attacks - and this is where it all seemed to go horribly pear-shaped.

America was assaulted by a bunch of religiously-motivated nutcases, and in lieu of having a clear enemy country to attack, or a base of operations that could be neatly excised, the nebulous horror of "A Battle of Faiths", radical muslim vs. xtian, fomented.

And suddenly, Faith in the Oval became a really big deal - enough of a big deal that Presidential candidates feel it necessary to parade their invisible friend along with their views on abortion, taxes and healthcare.

When I was young, I lived in a world where the reasoning mind ruled. America was great and strong because of the scientific and engineering minds, and the entrepreneurial and capitalist ambitions, of it's populace. Reason was the mighty engine that unlocked the atom, took us into space, gave us the computer and modern medicine. Rational Thought was the guiding light and moving force behind the world. God, whilst important (I was raised catholic and had a good, strong faith before actually starting to think about it) was aside from those essentials of life, progress and success.

Over the last decade, though, that's fallen apart. Now, being stridently religious seems more important in public office than "book learning". This is terrifying to me. It's part of a general malaise where "creationism" is regarded as a science (a slur on the term's very meaning!) and "feelings" are given as much value as thoughts.

To be honest, the leader of the Free World ought not be someone who considers their time on earth to be some kind of dream within a dream, and who thinks they will be forgiven anything they do by God, and then go to their "reward" when they die. Aside from being a completely unprovable tenet, the whole "forgiven our sins" thing means there's no terrestrial check-and-balance system. After all, a good pennance and you'll be forgiven for setting the world afire - that kind of thinking in a President scares the crap out of me!

Our strengths lie in our rational powers. That's what makes us truly mighty - the economic and material powers of the country stem from the clever hands and strong backs of rational men being highly productive. Our compassion, humanity and decency spring from many places - not just such gods as we worship. America - the free world as a whole - should not be goaded into a faith war. It already has been. But we have the ability to choose not to. To turn from a path that has never been anything but waste and destruction, and to go back into the light of reason and rational behaviour - anything else is a relic of the Dark Ages, and frankly we're better than that.

I really don't mean any offence - after all, I've just been arguing against faith-based conflicts. It's a real concern for me, though.

I'm an agnostic - my position is that I'm not smart enough to know if there is a god or not, and if there is then which religion's correct. However, I do know that organised religions, with their magic protections from the consequences of their actions, are responsible for an awful lot of harm in this world. People having faith doesn't bother me - but sooner or later, organised religions have a tendency to decide that Poppa Knows Best, and then it all goes (you'll pardon the term) to hell in a handbasket.

The Leader of the Free World should be chosen on what he or she wants to do in this world. Which imaginary friend he's got shouldn't enter into it.

What HAVE you done in New Hampshire - put one of those blood-curdling smiles back on the Bitch from Hell.

"Our strengths lie in our rational powers. That's what makes us truly mighty - the economic and material powers of the country stem from the clever hands and strong backs of rational men being highly productive."

The rational powers bit is completely correct, it's just that I've lost hope in the ability of most to know what those are, and what "rational" is.

From an apostate, too. Willingly.

I completely understand your point of view. Though we may differ on our views of religion, creation vs. evolution, and other spin-offs of these arguments, I don't think it's my position to try and convince you of my point of view. I certainly wouldn't attempt it via internet or email. That is a job for someone that knows you personally and more importantly; it has to be something that is somewhat welcomed or invited by you ("Hey, why do you believe ....?").

I responded to your post only to address the few points I touched on. I thought they would be the easiest to explain since they are directly related to what I believe. I do not know everything and in actuality, I fall far short of that standard.

I have often thought about what it is that frightens or concerns people the most when it comes to religion. I think it is the rock solid certainty that some individuals have when it comes to their faith. In a world of uncertainty, that can be unnerving or even come off as being downright arrogant. Perhaps you've met too many people or have seen too many public personas like this. Perhaps you’re even thinking of some so-called leaders (political or religious) that rode their religious horse all the way to fame and fortune. I don't know. All I know is that for me, my faith does shape my entire worldview. My faith does not rise up on Sunday only to go to bed on Sunday night. If what I believe is true, then it must affect my entire life … from relationships, finances, entertainment, diet, lifestyle, education, child rearing, all the way to, yes, even politics. Unlike you, I don’t believe that (my) faith requires me to abandon reason or deductive thought. In fact, my faith requires it and even challenges me to test its core assertions.

Thanks for hearing me out. I hope you don’t think I was trying to “convert” you. I just wanted to give you an idea of where I was coming from in my original post. Once again, your unbelief has nothing to fear from me. I am afraid though, that some would pitch a fit if they hadn’t convinced you to believe their way by now. Like I said, I’m not like that and I certainly wasn’t going to assault you on the internet.

Thanks for your detailed response, by the way.

Deuce, I'll have a conversation with you about this any old time, because you seem like a truthful, earnest chap who's willing to talk about things. That's just fine. It's people who say "I know what I believe, and what I believe means YOU'RE WRONG!" that upset me. You're a man of faith, and I respect that. I'm a man who can't be, and you seem to respect that as well. We can do business. And I know you're not trying to convert me, any more than I'm trying to subvert you. We're just having a conversation here, and that's a good thing.

Thanks for reading my words with the care with which I responded to your first eloquent post. If all people granted each other the courtesy we're talking to each other with... well, the world would have a lot fewer problems.

I honestly don't have a problem with people's faith - I just don't see it should be a selling point for an election, and that's what it's become. We're free to worship, or not worship, as we choose.

One reason I love America is that it has no "one church", and we're free to explore our spirituality, religiosity and beliefs in the universe as we find 'em. That's the way it should be - if there is a God, capital gee, then everyone needs to find him/her/it their own way anyway.

E Pluribus Unum - latin for "Y'ain't the boss o'me!"