Currently, there is friction over a building site where tradition affirms as the site of the last supper. The evidence?

"In chapter two of the Acts of Apostles, Peter describes the place, mentioning that it is near David’s Tomb"

It's on the paucity of this evidence alone that has justified belief about this site for centuries.

 

 

The site now has Jews and Christians at odds.

“The construction work going on at the site raises the suspicion that someone is trying to Judaize a Catholic site and prevent freedom of religious expression.”

What about Jews freedom of religion? It's fine and dandy in the mind of the Christian for the Christian, but a Jew? No. It's a good thing there is a modern court system in Israel, otherwise, there would have been rioting in the streets.

Incidentally, I wonder about the mind of Christian Zionist in this situation. Israel for the Jews - until you mess with our perceived religious priorities.

For a secularist and atheist like me, this is just one more unnecessary division between people, made necessary by religious priorities - all of which, utterly false.

(Source)

I forget who, but one of the bloggers I read daily made the observation that the great ironies of this election that there is a Democrat who is all too willing to talk and demonstrate his faith, and a Republican who is less likely to talk about his religion.

That's a big shift since the last Presidential election, and which leverages this atheist and secularist in a goofy position voting for Obama. Oh well...

Anyway, a new Pew poll on religion in politics today shows more Americans questions the role of religion in secular politics:

That significant shift in conservative thought has brought the country to a tipping point on the question: a slim majority of Americans — 52 percent — now think churches should keep out of politics.

That's an eight percentage point increase over 2004 and the first time a majority of Americans has held that opinion since Pew officials started asking the question 12 years ago.

On this question, the gap between conservatives and liberals is narrowing: just four years ago, liberals were twice as likely as conservatives to say churches should stay out of politics. Now, 50 percent of conservatives and 57 percent of liberals think that. Four years ago, 62 percent of liberals opposed church involvement in politics. Democrats and Republicans are about even on the question, as well.

From this secularist's perspective – this is encouraging. It is nice to see this element of Conservatism re-assert itself.

(Ap Story) | (Pew Poll)

This is an interesting argument that I had not thought of before.

Americans United for Church and State Separation (AU) is in a legal battle with the Utah Highway Patrol Association for erecting 12-foot crosses on the sites where state troopers have died while on duty.

AU Director, Minister Barry Lind argues that:

"The cross is the preeminent symbol of Christianity... for the government to claim that the cross is a secular symbol is deeply offensive and betrays a poor understanding of religion and our Constitution.”

This current counter-lawsuit is on the heels of a 2007 ruling that the cross was no longer just a religious symbol but became a “secular symbol of death” after the group, American Atheists, sued on the grounds that this was a state preference of religion. These crosses are erected on public, taxpayer owned land. The court, instead of passing a ruling that would be inline with the First Amendment, decided to change the meaning of the cross.

"Roberts held up pictures of telephone poles and showed a clip from Ben Casey, the 1960s TV medical drama. In it, Dr. David Zorba uses the cross as a generic symbol for death."

I'm sorry, but no one, looks at the cross and thinks Dr. David Zorba and Ben Casey. Lind observes that "this conclusion is historically inaccurate, blind to contemporary realities, and offensive to believers and nonbelievers alike.” Christianity is the context of the cross. Unless you're from Mars, I don't see how you conclude it as anything but Christianity.

A secular authority should not be messing around with peoples faith, which this 2007 ruling now allows.The undeniable Christian iconoclast, James Madison makes the case in a letter to Edward Livington, "...that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together." The AU shares this long-established American view that government should not be in the business of interfering with the practice of religion by interpreting its meanings and significance.

This does not mean that we should not commemorate the sacrifice of these officers lives. If accommodations have been made for a Jewish officer, then why not accommodate the First Amendment? What about the non-religious or those of other non-Christian faiths? It's like teaching creationism in science class, should we then teach the countless other creation stories as well?

I would think that other Christians would support the AU in this, especially if they believe in the price that Jesus paid for sin. And if the 2007 ruling is correct, then already much of the meaning behind the cross has been lost.

So the question is, will you allow your government to secularize your religious symbols?

(AU Source)

(Newsweek Article)

 

Change your religion? Just ask a judge.
I was reading this story yesterday with my draw dropped. Could you just imagine having to go to court in the United States if you decide to change your beliefs?

Enter the case of Noorashikin Lim Abdullah, who after divorce, decided to revert back to Christianity. Malaysia (60% Muslim) has a legal system of two types of courts. One secular and one Sharia. Abdullah's request was rejected on the basis of her present name. (She changed it converting to Islam to marry.) The court's decision is rather silly, but what is even more ridiculous is the notion that one should  go to court and ask appeal where the matter of your personal conscious and convictions are involved.

I guess, she has to remain a Muslim now. Disgusting. She should be allowed to de/re/convert at will.

As I've stated before, secularism is the accommodation for which all religions are allowed to practice freely. Most Americans get this. Some American's use the courts to Christianize on the taxpayer dime, claiming that when they lose they are being oppressed. Jesus....

Imagine that in  USA, that in matters of religion we had a separate court system? What would that court system look like? Liberal Universal Universalism, or conservative protestantism of Pastor Fred Phelps or even of a Reconstructionalist variety?

Yikes!

(Source)

Islam. Peaceful?
From the department of fear to offend the religiously intolerant and on the toes of the great cracker incident, we now have to fear more religious backlash. Since when must we respect anyone's sacred beliefs?

Random house has announced that it will not publish, journalist Sherry Jones book about one of Mohammed's bride's for fear of offending Muslims and inciting violence.  Stating "...we decided, after much deliberation, to postpone publication for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel."

Once again, we see that adherence to either Biblical literalism (cracker) or Koranic literalism shows just how hostile one can become to society.

(Source)

"In their seventies, with a friendship that had survived serious political conflicts, Adams and Jefferson could look back with satisfaction on what they both considered their greatest achievement – their role in establishing a secular government whose legislators would never be required, or permitted, to rule on the legality of theological views." (1)

Some Background

The United States is not unique because it is a democratic republic. The ancient Greeks were the first to experiment with democracy. What makes the United States unique is in its approach, separating religious practice from governance. Beginning with the paganism of the ancient Greeks, to the Pax Decorum of Roman paganism, or to western European autocracies pandering to Christian Rome in the middle ages, government had never been free of religion. The only substantial difference is in the number of gods – from many to one.

This all changed in 1786, when Virginia's Act of Establishing Religious Freedom was the first of its kind to end state sponsorship of religion – irrevocably separating the two. (2) The immediate reaction to the passage spread quickly throughout Europe, with translations appearing in France, Germany and elsewhere. In the States, the Act was condemned by the right wing that supported establishment – promising that God would damn and soon destroy America. (Sound familiar?) A weaker version of the Act was later incorporated into the Article 6, Section 3 of the US Constitution. (3) Many other state constitutions, like Wisconsin (4) copied the Act, nearly verbatim.

Because of the secular nature of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it should be no surprise that the United States is an incredibly devout country. Recent polls show that belief in the supernatural and god ranks among the highest of industrial and information rich societies, as Europe quietly leaves god behind. Reasons for our country's religiosity is due in part to being colonized by religious dissidents and secular freethinkers, and the fact that the US has not established a particular Church – like the Anglican Church of England. A person is free to follow their religious or non-religious convictions in a variety of religious or non-religious experiences without governmental interference, creating a competitive market for adherents among a variety of religions.

Case Number 1

Currently, the South Carolina legislature plans to sell license plates that feature a cross and the statement "I Believe" in the design. Special plates like this must be requested at the behest of a particular group and law-makers can not decide to sell plates of religious meaning just because it can. Reverend Dr. Thomas A. Summers, states that this "arrogant action taken by the legislature is absolutely divisive, oppressive and is an affront to what true interfaith cooperation is all about," and has joined with Americans United for Church and State Separation and the ACLU to sue over this recent incursion of state interference into religion. (Source)

Case Number 2

This past April, the ACLU represented Shawn Miller, a street preacher who was arrested for disorderly conduct while preaching at an abandoned gas station near other street vendors. He spent a 109 days in jail, for as he put "I was preaching the word of God and not hurting anybody." Miller was promptly released. (Source 1) (Source 2)

In Conclusion

While it is true that the state many not endorse or promote a religion, it is also prohibited from interfering with your right to believe or practice your religion. There are exceptions of course, child abuse, neglect, incest, rape and murder which is religiously motivated are not excusable.

Secularity is not anti-god, nor is it anti-religious.

Secularity is the accommodation between government and religion. We live in society composed of many types of believers: Jews, Pagans, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Scientologists, and the many different types of Christianity. Not to mention non-believers, too.

It is inevitable that tensions between church and state will exist over the limits and boundaries of each, but it is vitally necessary that such a wall remains, unless we descend into something less than a democracy.

________________

References:

(1) Freethinkers - A History of American Secularism. Susan Jacoby.

(2) The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom. Thomas Jefferson.

(3) US Constitution. Article VI, Section 3.

(4) Wisconsin State Separation Clause. Article 1, Section 18.

(See also) First Amendment. Bill of Rights. US Constitution.

Ahhhh! This is to good to pass up! Remember a few years ago during the run up to the 04 elections when D ick Cheney said that "if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States" on why Americans should not elect Kerry? In a debate I sarcastically suggested that if we were to take Cheney's arguments seriously that no other team like he and Bush were able to protect us, we should also vote for them in 08, 12, 16, 18... You get the idea.

Now this website, argues exactly that:

The important thing to understand about so-called "term limits" is that they are man's law, not God's Law. The God who parted the Red Sea is surely not worried about so-called "term limits". When you vote your faith you let Almighty God take care of the details.

Presidential term limits are not in the Bible. And they were not in our Constitution until added by an activist congress in 1951

I assure you we will hear this argument plenty that instead of Bush and company, any Republican by proxy can only protect us. Um, yeah, these same people believe that Clinton was in office on 9/11. Oh yeah, that's right...Bush was.

This has to be the Republican equivalent of Poe's Law. Well, even if this site is a parody, I strongly suggest that anyone with an "insipid fascination" with Bush, should put pen to paper. Please.

I am off for mini-moon (that is, a short honeymoon) with my wife over the holiday, but there's been some news revolving around my pet issues that I wanted to comment on before heading on out of here for a weekend in Sturgeon Bay.

That Old Time Religion // God against the Gods

Neo-paganism is on the rise.

Apparently, my last post which I argued reductio and in the spirit of Julian the Apostate that monotheists should become polytheists does have some merit. (Although not for the same reasons.) The Denver post reports that pagans "...numbers roughly double about every 18 months in the United States, Canada and Europe, according to the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance," and "is now among the country's fastest-growing religions." Accordingly, many leave monotheism as a rejection to the authoritarianism of those monotheistic religions and in pursuit of their own religious experiences. To me, this is very much like the American value of "rugged individualism." This individualism can be found with founders like Jefferson, Madison, and John Adams. The Enlightenment Rationalist (probably Christian) Adams, stated

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. Read over again all the accounts we have of Hindoos, Chaldeans, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Celts, Teutons, we shall find that priests had all the knowledge, and really governed mankind. Examine Mahometanism, trace Christianity from its first promulgation; knowledge has been almost exclusively confined to the clergy."

Adams was very much a religious iconoclast and it was his view that religious dogmatism was a barrier to rational thought. While it is nearly always true that religion is a barrier to the free inquiry of science, so to is it true with the varieties of religious experience.

Anyway, this study seems to confirm the trend as reported by the the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life's U.S. Religious Landscape Survey of 35,000 Americans have "... 'stunning' lack of alignment between people's beliefs or practices and their professed faiths."

My incidental experience seems to confirm this. In my debates with Christians and other supernaturalists over the past decade, the tendency that I've noticed that when one leaves a monotheistic faith like Christianity (other than professing a belief in a "higher power" ) it is quite not uncommon to become a pagan. These religions are highly individualistic and allow for a greater sense of experience of the divine. Also some of these pagans that I know do not literally believe that these gods are real beings, but participate in paganism in some metaphorical sense. This is not uncommon even for an atheist. One of my favorite authors, Dr. Robert Price (Books: The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, Deconstructing Jesus and Beyond Born Again) and former editor of The Journal of Higher Criticism still attends church and enjoys the metaphorical aspects that the religion provides.

The irony, oddly enough, as classical society around the first century of the common era turned away from the conservatism of polytheism and to the radical monotheism of the Christian state, it removed more spirituality from the public sphere by its narrowed prohibitions on what religious experience could be in its pursuit of certainty about the mysteries of its own unprovable beliefs.

I think we might be on the precipice of another turning of the tide.

Evolution // Paradigms and Consciousness Raising

Yesterday, July 1st, one-hundred and fifty years ago, Charles Darwin and Russell Wallace, presented their papers on evolution by natural selection.

Richard Dawkins observers evolution as a consciousness raiser

That scientifically savvy philosopher Daniel Dennett pointed out that evolution counters on of the oldest ideas we have the 'idea that it takes a big fancy smart thing to make a lesser thing. I call that the trickle-down theory of creation. You'll ever see a spear making a spear maker. You'll never see a horse shoe making a black smith. You'll never a pot making making a potter.' Darwin's discovery of a workable process that does that very counter-intuitive thing is what makes his contribution to human thought so revolutionary, an so loaded with the power to raise consciousness. (The God Delusion)

The Wired article points out that because of this simple, yet powerful discovery that

It involved not a simple invention or discovery but a paradigm shift, inventing the reigning paradigm that organizes modern biology -- and in some sense all modern science.

Gregor Johann Mendel, a Christian monk, had presented his paper on experiments on genetics with pea plants around the same time. His observations and experiments with pea plants had no explanatory power in itself, other than human selection could affect inheritance. Darwin's and Wallace's work was able to provide a mechanism for genetic selection without a god of the gaps.

Which is the beauty of evolution. That something so simple can do so much.

Church and State // Let's do away with the Constitution Already

Pandering once again, Obama announced that he would expand faith based initiatives to the tune of some half a billion dollars per year. Don't we already give these particular institutions who do not have to pay taxes, enough? Yes, I know the money is supposed to be used for humanitarian causes, but the religious can't help bringing their particular brand of religion into the mix. Of course, last year the Supreme Court ruled that citizens do not have the right to sue over executive mandates like the Office of Faith Based Initiatives. (Read about the Freedom from Religions lawsuit over this program, here.)

I'm sure this will play well in mobilizing the progressive religious left to vote for Obama, probably better than McCain will get the regressive religious-right to vote for him. But I have to confess, all these appeals to religious groups on both sides of our political spectrum makes me rather queasy. I think I prefer outright religious warfare, than this cool war of votes.

Well, not really, I just tire of it. I wonder when can we leave our religious differences at home and vote and decide on the merits of an issue, rather than what we think that God says with his invisible mouth? McCain has said in the past said some smart things about the religious-right (in the style of a Goldwater conservative), but his overtures to religious-right at the Farwell's Liberty University completely turned me away from the "maverick" McCain. Sorry McCain, but we know what type of Supreme court justices you will now appoint.

Unfortunate as this is, as both conservatives and liberals are expanding government by co-opting religion.

I am not sure now if I want to vote for Obama. He may have lost my vote.

_______________

Happy Woden's Day to you. See you in a week!

There's been lots of stuff in the news about religion and it abuses over the past week, other church and state issues, human rights issues that I did not have time to comment on.

Here's a quick rundown.

Faith Healing

Remember this spring the case of Madeline Nuemann, the 11-year who died of a treatable diabetic condition because her parents sought to heal her by prayer over the phone rather than seeking a doctor? Now another case of failed faith healing ends the promising life of 16 year old Neil Beagley. Disgusting. Look, I don't think we should ban "faith healing" (prayer), however there should be strong penalties against parents who do not also take the necessary, additional step and seek the aid of scientific medical advice and help. I understand that prayer does bring comfort to those that need it. By all means - Pray. But do not risk the life of your child for your beliefs.

Religious Cannibalism

I don't even know where to begin with this one. Utterly horrific. A report from the Czech Republic of Ondrej Mauerova indicates that he was kept in a closet and "partially skinned" as part of some cult called the Grail Movement. I've never heard of this cult. So I did a quick Wiki. Apparently, the book that the religion is based upon promises to "...answer(s) with clarity all the unsolved questions of human existence. The recognitions mediated with this book are so immense that they force the unprejudiced reader to ponder, investigate and go forward." In other words, read this bull-crap uncritically. If any book or person claims to answer all of life's mysteries, beware. It's no wonder why crimes against humanity like this happen.

More Abuse

John Freshwater, a former public school teacher was fired yesterday for branding a cross in the arm of two of his students. His friend defends him: "With the exception of the cross-burning episode. ... I believe John Freshwater is teaching the values of the parents in the Mount Vernon school district," Ha Ha. With the exception? Anyone want to bet he'll play the persecution card? You bet they will. The following lawsuit will be over religious freedom and why can't Freshwater preach his Christian beliefs in class. Fine. Then not only is he guilty for the abuse of a students, but in violation of the separation clause. He'll lose doubly.

Creationism

The Louisiana Senate voted 36-0 Monday on a bill that would allow science teachers to bring in supplemental materials for subjects like evolution, cloning and global warming. These bills, like Bill 733, are under the guise of academic freedom. Sorry, but teachers do not have academic freedom. Science text books are highly vetted to be as scientifically accurate as possible, and by experts. What I've read that this bill will stage similar lawsuits in the country like the Dover case. Which is fine. More chances to expose creationism for the pseudo-science and religion that it is. Also, ever notice that subjects like history are never picked on? I would love to bring Turtledove books, or Graham Hancock books into the class room and teach those as valid histories. 

Gay Marriage

Gay couples in California finally got a chance to marry one another. Congratulations! I was married last Sunday, and contrary to assertions by the bigots of the religious right, I do not want to leave my wife. Anyone else? Another canard that the religious right trumps is that gay marriage is supposedly a sign of Revelation when "men become lovers of men." I have to ask them, shouldn't they allow gay marriage and even welcome it? Wouldn't that entice Jesus to come back to earth a little sooner from whatever hiding place he been for the last two-thousand years? Are they not opposing God's will? Or are they doing it? 

Books

The Family. I'm a little wary of this one. Conspiracy theories always require such a fantastic mechanism of gigantic proportions as to make the actual conspiracy impossible. But the author may have something. A closer look at his evidence is critical.

Devil in Dover is about the inside story over the Dover case and the pious fraud of the school board members who brought ID into science class.

That's it for now.

Remind me again...

What do we elect and pay our state representatives for? Is it to represent our concerns and manage our commons, or is it spend legislative time to offer prayers to Jesus and turn our public financed buildings into churches and not courts of law?

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has sent a letter requesting the assembly to end prayer at the commencement of legislative sessions in our state assembly. Apparently this tradition got its start in 1848, where the Wisconsin State Assembly passed a resolution establishing this practice. (Can someone help me find this resolution? I'd like to read it. Thanks.) This practice is very much like prayer in public schools.

Before 1962, teachers or religious educators lead daily prayers in our public schools. This was ruled by the Supreme Court (Engel v. Vitale) to be a violation of the separation clause. (Students can still pray in school all they want. Students can not be lead in prayer by a teacher during class time.) The Assembly's prayers are no different because they appoint speakers from a pool of our elected representatives to lead the prayer, even though the US Senate begins its sessions with prayer.

In 1983, the Supreme Court allowed prayer in the US Senate but stated that "the prayers must not be intended to coerce listeners into adopting the speaker's belief or favor one religion over another." Despite this, these coercive prayers have continued in our state legislature. Wisconsin Assembly Chief Clerk Pat Fuller, states that this practice does not violate the ruling because the assembly is a separate branch.  Wow. Just because there is a loophole and the Assembly is not explicitly cited, does not mean you go ahead and do it anyway. Our taxes pay these people. I fail to see how this is any different than school-lead prayer, except for a change in venue.  And, I think, the fact this is a public court makes these prayers more of an egregious offense to the separation of church and state and religious liberty.

The FFRF also observes that the prayers are "unnecessary, coercive" and notes that "thirteen of the prayers invoked Jesus Christ, eight quoted the Bible and three mentioned the Holy Spirit." But what would you expect? Christianity can not help itself as religions are mutually exclusive to each other and to a secular, civil society.

For example, the article cites:

• Accused Rep. Eugene Hahn, R-Cambria, of urging his colleagues to turn against faiths other than Christianity.
• "Those who don't love us, may God turn their hearts. And, if he doesn't turn their hearts, may he turn their ankles, so we'll know them by their limping," he said, prompting lawmakers to burst into laughter. He added later: "Oh God, Our Judge, save us from holding a faith that cripples the future, and makes a better tomorrow an impossibility."
• Criticized Rep. Sheryl Albers, R-Reedsburg, for quoting a Bible verse that said laws were meant to allow individuals to lead godly lives. "So, man made laws, which are contrary to reason, become unjust. On that basis, laws we might make, if contrary to natural law, are a corruption of the law," she said on Oct. 24.

And that's only a small sample of thirteen. Imagine just how many prayers like this have been uttered since 1848?

I agree with the FRFF that initiating legislative sessions with prayer is unnecessary and most importantly, it is divisive to non-Christians and Christians alike. Last July, Harry Reid invited the first Hindu, Rajan Zed, to lead the Senate in prayer. Zed was met with protests by the Religious Right, claiming that Zed worshiped "false Gods." If a Hindu leading a bland prayer piqued enough anxiety for these Christians, what about the rest of us who are non-religious? Since you can not divorce the person from the type of belief held - which the Zed case demonstrates, so to does prayer causes friction among any of the religiously devoted. Furthermore, the way a Catholic worships is different than a Protestant. The small differences in religious practice between varieties of Christianity make those sects what they are.

This spring, many Christians were up in arms over Reverend Wright's comments about "God damning America." Wright is a citizen that only represents his church and is not a lawmaker, unlike Chippewa Falls Republican Terry Moulton. During one such legislative prayer, Moulton stated that the nations that do not accept God "went into ruins and perished." Is this the kind of activity we want from our representatives when they should be engaged in writing laws and debating the merits over issues of economic and social priority? If you are offended by such statements like Wrights, be sure to email Moulton and let him know that his views are not your views and he should apologize for his damning of America.

Inevitably, the defenders of such traditions will cry foul that prohibiting such a practice in our state houses and courts is a threat to their religious liberty. This would be true if the law was prohibiting them for doing so in their homes, or in their churches. Context matters here. These prayers are being lead by our State representatives who are salaried through taxes, and as mentioned before, in our public courts. Christians do not have the right to Christianize and bash their religion over everyone else's heads and with the assistance of our tax dollars.

Source

One has to wonder if John McCain has ever bothered to read the Constitution, or the Bible for that matter. In an interview on belief.net McCain is asked three questions regarding the role of Christianity and in the founding of our country.

McCain, inarticulately hamfists his way through this interview. These questions are pretty easy to answer, but being a guy that vitally needs the religious right to vote for him without alienating the mainstream of society, he has to carefully position and parse his answers. His lack of citing the Constitution or the Bible for support also demonstrates that he has no clue in how to answer what he is being asked.

Here's a video abstract of his answers. You can see the whole video here.

"Most Americans believe the Constitution established a Christian nation. Do you agree?"

McCain, with discomfort states "probably yes."

What? Probably yes? The Constitution is a legal document and nowhere does it explicitly state that Christianity as the official religion of the US. In England, the Anglican Church is the official Christian practice and thus receives taxes. In the US, the Church is separate from the state and does not receive taxes and does not have to support the state by being taxed. Nowhere does the Constitution state "God." This is unlike the recently minted constitutions of Afghanistan and Iraq, where Islam is the official religion and that no (secular) law may contradict the Koran. Furthermore, the Constitution explicitly states that "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." I do not know how more explicit against an establishment of Christianity you can be, or any other religion for that matter. Hint: an establishment of religion is like being pregnant. You either are or you are not. So there is no "probably."

McCain continues to add that, although the Constitution establishes Christianity, it is in the "broadest sense." But not so broad to include Judaism. Although both religions share the Old Testament and Yahweh, the similarities stop there. Their practice, belief, and worship in a sacrificed, risen messiah hopelessly divides them both. Both Christianity and Judaism are mutually exclusive. The answer is also very vague.

McCain goes on to mention other great American sentiments that have nothing to do with the Constitution, but are often skewed by the religious right who want to replace a democracy with a theocracy. Again, two mutually exclusive concepts.

(Also, I object to the wording and the premise of the question, but I'll save that for another time.)

Many Republican activists say that separation of church and state is a myth. What is your opinion?

In the first question, McCain answered a (weak) yes, yet now says that, in fact, the US has separated church and state. Okay. Does he see the obvious contradiction between both answers? You can not have one or the other. McCain could have cited a specific example from the Constitution where it expressly establishes Christianity, but instead he now says that this establishment is on "Christian principles." What are "Christian principles?" If he means the articles of faith that one must subscribe to to be a Christian, then no. But if he means charity, reciprocity, and basic humanism then yes. However, all religious and the non-religious espouse basic kindness, so being kind and good is not solely the providence of Christianity.

McCain then goes on to sum up the religious beliefs of our the founders. That's all very nice and all, but we are talking about law of the land here. And nowhere did any of the founders, Madison, Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Allen etc ever state "In God We Trust." This statement was added later in 1957 to our currency. The phrase "All created equal" is not part of the Constitution, but part of the Declaration of Independence. This declaration of war, does not explicitly state or even imply the Christian God.

Is America exceptional because it is divinely chosen?

This has to be one of the most poorly answered questions. Why did not McCain just answer with the platitude of "God bless America" and move on? Again he makes an appeal to whatever "Christian principles" are and also states that the Founders were "inspired" by these very same Christian-Judeao beliefs. BS. While many of the Founders were Christian, Jews, and some were deists, if it wasn't for the fact that they were Enlightenment rationalists and dissident protestants agreeing to separate church and state, we would not have had a secular democracy today. That was the boldest move.

How do we know this? We know this by many things, like the Virginia State constitution (where much of the US Constitution is based upon), from legal document like the Treaty of Tripoli, or from the private correspondence between Jefferson and Madison. And we also know by the critics. Take Reverend George Mason for instance, who stated that "we will have every reason to tremble, lest the Governor of the universe, who will not be treated with indignity by a people more than individuals, overrun from its foundations the fabric we have been rearing and crush us to atoms in the wreck." The rhetoric is the exactly the same today when Christianity attempts to Christianize the commons and the schools and loses in court.

No. They were inspired, not by Christianity, but by secularity. The resounding silence of the Constitution about God and Christianity and the fact that nowhere is it written into law that there are "no other gods before me" within our founding legal document should put McCain's assertions to rest.

Yet it doesn't. McCain is playing to the religious right. The religious right wants to take away American's freedom to worship and replace it with they way they think you should or should not worship. This is patently UnAmerican.