Is Obama Bringing Too Much Religion into the White House?

Obama has been a churchgoer, but there's no reason to think he's fanatical. This is another tactic of his be-everything-to-everyone strategy, triangulation by being holier than the GOP.

While there is nothing wrong with trying to build bridges and find common ground, this smarmy sideshow violates one of the wise principles upon which our country was founded, and is bound to arouse controversy within the religious community itself. There are so many denominations and factions that there is no way to please all theists with any kind of religious observance, and if this isn't taking God's name in vain, I don't know what is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion should be completely removed from government.

There cannot possibly be bridges or common grounds between groups who believe that supernatural deities watch over and care for them and secularists, non-theists who only want to be left alone in a universe that is much more interesting and original than religion.

It’s time to declare Humanism a religion, after all, so secularists, anti-theists can get an official presidentially approved organization established to represent them too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree with poster number one. Triangulation tactics are what Pres. Obama is up to on religion. All the Clinton retreads in his cabinet, including Hillary, are teaching him how to triangulate everything. Watch out Barack, because next thing Bill Clinton might show you how to get BJs from an intern.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You can't win elections without the Jesus Freak vote. It looks like Obama is trying to drive a stake through the heart of the Republican Party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama is not a progressive, never will be. Those that think this is just business as usual are seriously deluding themselves ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How America works this out is up to them. If America claims "One Nation Under God" then take this seriously, particularly the "Under God" bit. "Under" could be interpreted as "in submission to" or "obedient to", as in "One Nation Obedient to God", and this by definition means the Christian God, and not the god of any other man-made religion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If I remember correctly, Church and State are separate in the Constitution. This should be observed in all faces of live and government.
I find it rather disturbing to have the President and all other officials constantly referring to God. More and more Americans are of different faith, even have none. Religion SHOULD be a private matter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Were objections raised before of Acorn people trying to get your vote for Obama, trying to get you to go to the voting place or their establishment to register to vote. Just what difference would a religious lobbiest hanging out in front of you home all day to get you to Praise The Lord the way they do, Sing Praise to Allah they way they do, even worse is to disturb the peace and broadcast on loudspeakers singing, chants, or worshiping & prayers. Has Lobby Rights Gone To Far? How about a Lobby that will 'Give Consumer's more Rights Against Price Gougers like the Big Three Automakers that owed the government money before they started receiving Bailout Money, and now they want more money - why to have religion added to they product lines. The only time we may need a preacher on salary at the White House is to have him pronounce death to the Lord, and maybe to have a office to serve those whom are death but gosh whom dies more people at the White house or our Troops. Hasn't the pentagon gone into this before and has support for religion as educational training for each military branch. Is there anything wrong with a military religious man versus one from the White House? I know it sounds absurd but why not a live-in Santa Claus year round?

Just want your opinion, should a Publisher give me priority to publish my book - The Electric Vehicle Free Conversion Foundation (EVFCF) [http://jonalist.bravehost.com/articles/evfcf.html]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We knew all this before the election. I bet you all voted for him anyway. Why complain now?

The harm done to anyone because of this = zero. In the end, who cares, if this can do some good for people? Really, what is the big fuss about. At least Obama isn't a Nazi like Bush was. Can't we look at the good things about him instead of this nitpicking?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The more I read/hear/see about people who have any belief at all, the more I think they suffer from some sort of mental illness.

I am at the end of my rope supporting "inter-faith" groups, it’s as bad as Obama having Rick Warren as an invitee at his inauguration.

How can I believe these folks are mentally ill and believe we should all "work together", when in fact, they are truly my enemy; not wanting me to be treated like a human, but a second class citizen.

Why don't we just go back to the days when religion was used to support the belief that black people were not 100% human and that woman were unable to vote because they were hysterical.

Hence, I am departing from all the organizations I support that are "religion-friendly".

Imagine my sadness when I realized that the Republicans/Conservatives are truly trying to destroy the Liberals/Democrats with their religion/morals dogma...but that there really are two-sides and I must pick which side I am on.

So, I ask everyone to support groups like 'Freedom From Religion Foundation' and other organizations that are unwilling to bend laws to allow religious organizations to steal tax-payer's money, rape the lands we live on, and create holy wars.

There really is a war going on and it is “Us against Them” just like they always said, except the “Them” is usually those who state this; (Bush)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Freedom Of Religion means Freedom FROM Religion!

As a 'Nonbeliever' and also a Citizen, I am APPALLED at these blatant trespasses against the Constitutional provisions of Separation between Church and State! What was supposed to be MY Inauguration as well as that of other Citizens, was instead turned into a NAUSEATING God Fest!

But President Obama's 'game' is clear, what we are seeing is the same kind of cynical pandering to the Religious Right for political gain that we saw by G.W. Bush. Will we see an Emissary from the Vatican on the White House Payroll also?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The further consolidation and incorporation of "faith-based" departments and functions into the corporate-state, together with the outright exploitation of the distress - material and moral - of great numbers of people serves the interests, not of all those people, but of those few who are frantically struggling to control and manage the overwhelming majority which they have robbed blind. And they continue to. Rather than encouraging people to think clearly and realistically about their interests, they divert all understandably strong emotional and psychological reactions and stresses into channels of confusion and powerlessness, just where they want us all.

The political use and exploitation of religious feelings by the corporate state do not bode well at all. The homeless, ripped-off, defrauded, unemployed, laid-off, dispossessed and otherwise beat-up numbers of people need clear thinking, realistic assessments and organization to demand a just resolution to this mess. Not sermons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bailout after bailout- it's clear who is on their knees, and who their Lords are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush soiled the carpet forever and AIPAC keeps it that way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's not fall into the misnomer the Evangelicals like to expouse...Jesus is Not the Lord, nor is Mohammad.
Let's start with the First commandment- "one and Only One Lord". Thus claiming a mere mortal trumps God is heretical. Even 'son of God' is if he is allowed to supercede God. "incarnate" is also BS, then Jesus was merely a physical manifestation- still not God, just a vessel of flesh & body.
And God is not the Sole Property of Christianity. In Fact, being mere mortals we can not comprehend what God is in it's entirety anyway.So in reality atheists who revere science and acknowledge our inablity to understand all it's complexities and Wonders, could very well be in Awe of 'God'.Shit we just can't explain or fully understand, It just does what it does and we are just trying to wrap our minds around it piece by piece.
I spent decades as a self proclaimed 'Atheist' until I realized I that the quest for scientic understanding was just as much a Quest for an understanding of that which we may never truely comprehend, required a certian amount of Faith,inspring Reverence, invoking Awe.
Stop feeding into the Assumption the Holy Rollers have used to millenia to decieve and control humanity."God" is a concept to help man comprehend the unexplainable.Theologians study their books to understand 'God's' design and our purpose and place... scientists look to the Hubble, into a microscope, into the eyes of the living.
so I don't resent anyone using the acronym 'God' (Great Order of Destiny?), but I do resent them minimizing it through personification and their own personal Sacred Cows.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

perhaps this shows my ignorance but, if the president creates this council by his own order and not the congress is it legal? also, would this apply to W's faith based initiatives?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We've never really had a separation of church and state. While we are supposed to, and do to a degree, I cannot remember one President who in modern times has completely adhered to that.

Christmas trees in the Whitehouse.. Weekly publicized visits to church (Can you really vision Bill Clinton in church - praying he doesn't get caught! Swearing in on the bible..etc..etc..

As a nation of Christians Obama is playing to his audience.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Barack Obama may be a man of faith. That's between him and his conscience. That he is far from being a right-wing religious radical is eminently clear from the fact that this doting father sends his daughters to a private school run by Quakers. That he also has the good sense to show a bit of respect to the believers who are, in fact, the majority of U.S. voters, eroding the Republican grip on evangelical voters, who have been a base constituency for them, is another demonstration of just how good a politician he is. He can take a little heat from unbeliever zealots without breaking a sweat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anyone who has read Obama's books would understand his religiousness is ecumenical and open to all religions and ideas. He believes in scientific theories like evolution and quantum theory. In other words, his religious leanings are purely spiritual, with more than a hint of politics.

As I've argued elsewhere on Alternet, religions are not the problem as much as the people who practice them, particularly too many literalist evangelicals and fundamentalists. But, not all of them live in literal worlds. Some, like myself, see religion and spirituality as a way to grasp the inexplicable, to fill the gap between science and questions about our existence. It's 99% imagination and 1% irrational. And, anyone who thinks imagination is irrational is only using a small portion of their brain.

I also respect ecumenical atheism. However, fundamentalist atheism seems to me to be just as potent a threat to society as religious fundamentalism. By fundamentalist, I'm thinking of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, both angry white guys who'll kill and maim for political and imperialistic gains.

Democracy is sometimes troubling, because, for example, many americans are religious, and in a representative democratic society like ours, it is more than smart politics to be inclusive: It's democracy!

So, as soon as angry, cynical fundamentalist atheists convince the majority of americans to throw away their "irrational" beliefs, you'll have your Godless american politics.

Peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am always concerned when writers refer to the
criticism of Rick Warren as being based on his
position regarding the gay community. Although I and many others are dismayed by that position, the opposition to Rich Warren delivering Obama's invocation was not solely based on his comments re/gays. Warren is against stem cell research, and dismisses all scientific evidence regarding evolution. This man does not stand with the majority of the thinking public on many major issues, so referring only to his oppposition to gays minimizes the danger of elevating him as a
"spiritual leader."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do I want a state-established church? No, I don't. Do I want the tenets of Christian fundamentalism translated into foreign or domestic policy? No, I don't. I don't want public money used to support schools that teach religious doctrine to captive audiences either.

At the same time, in plenty of neighborhoods and towns across the country, religious organizations are crucial to individual and community survival. The human infrastructure is already in place, and the people who make it up know their communities better than any government official from somewhere else. For the Obama administration to refuse to acknowledge, consult with, and even work through those organizations just because they're "religious" makes no sense to me.

However, if the secular left-of-center wants to get out there and organize a comparable human infrastructure that can reach deep into as many communities as the churches and other religious institutions do, hey, I'll happily change my position. I'm afraid I'm not optimistic. The left-of-center has a hard time grasping that human beings, especially those of very modest means, can't live on hot air alone. The urban political machines of yesteryear were a lot smarter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The founding fathers were made up of predominately 3 protestant groups; they were as much divided by geography as religious beliefs. They had just came out of the 100 years religious wars in Europe, and were more concerned with protecting themselves from each other.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions of belief... TJ

Is Obama as president above the law or below the law?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Now here's a man who made no hiding of the fact that he was a christian when he was running for office--as did Jimmy Carter when he was running for office. A 'pure de' believer in God when they were calling him a "Muslim" (as if the Muslim Allah is not one and the same God).

Why are they shocked?

And what about the "dismay" of his staff who are also believers as he is? Is their "dismay" not as important as those of the secular ilk?

If he has to choose, he has to go along with that that is in his own heart. Church and state have no business being separated anyway.

Who made up that law and that lie?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think those of us who aren't Christians or are atheists or agnostics should probably concede the point that to hold the nation together in what could be very troubling times, Obama has made the calculation that a lot of people need their faith prominent in official goings-on.

It may be the opiate of the masses, but it's a damn strong opiate that can do a lot of good if properly channeled. And that's what I think Obama must be considering now. We don't need to add religious strife to the mix of other problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OF COURSE HE IS!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

President Obama is president of all of the people. He ran on a platform of a new kind of politics, bringing people of all stripes together to do what is good for the country. The first admendment states that Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion. This does not mean ignoring the fact that people have religion but that there be no favoritism be given to any one religion or lack of religion. Pretending that religion does not exist merely plays in to the hands of the fundamentalists who wish to impose their religion and all of its rules on everyone. President Obama wants to unite all the people whether religious or not to help the country.

Religious organizations have historically always played a role in helping the poor and downtrodden. It was the itenerant preachers and their secret meetings that kept the hope of Freedom amongst slaves in the south and religious organizations that ran the underground railroad. It was religious organizations that kept hope alive provided assistance to people during the days of Jim Crow and eventually led the Civil Rights movement. In the impoverished inner cities the organizations established by the small community churches and the Nation of Islam have provided much more real assistance that any government programs. Just because the organizations providing the help are religious doesn't make the help less real and it doesn't mean you are automagically going to be converted if you accept their help. Al Capone's soup kitchens provided the difference between life and death to much of Chicago during the 30's, but it didn't make each person who accepted that help a member of his gang.

President Obama understands this and realizes that these organizations would be able to help better with government aid. This does not mean he is favoring religous organizations or non-religious, or favoring any particular religion. He means he pragmatically realizes this is the best means of getting help to the people that need it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

we have a million (1,000,000) troops stationed in one hundred and thirty (130) foreign countries and we maintain seven hundred and sixteen (716) military bases around the world. Is this not enough to break any country?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm a liberal secularist who has been keeping tabs on Obama's religiosity-in-politics for a couple of years now. Some of the things he has said in this area (and that his supporters have given him a free pass on) are pretty amazing. I think we have all been conditioned (including nonbelievers) in this society to just accept large amounts of religion in American Politics and move on. But all this top-down religion in politics subtly creates a negative bottom-up perception of nonbelievers over time. And the result is having a country that, polls show, thinks nonbelievers are immoral and unworthy of a vote for dog catcher. I've grown tired of it.

For examples of some of Obama's comments and actions, here's a page I created on this topic:
http://www.brushyland.com/obama/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE ANSWER IS YES.

Unequivocally, yes.

We should get this whole "faith-based initiatives" out of government. It was brought in by the wrong people (the last administration) and for all the wrong reasons. It also has way too much likelihood of being wasteful and abused.

Let's get it out now! And Barack Obama is just the guy to do it.

Religion out of government and government out of religion.

--Mo Rage
www.moravings.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have been to a lot of sermons, but never heard any preacher bad-mouth the president or even get into modern politics. I thought that churches that got into politics were supposed to lose their tax-exempt status.

Has it ever happened?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Bible thumping would probably be much worse than it is now, if Obama had been one who'd pretty much ignored religion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

its not just about the prayers/lipservice, its about the billions in church welfare we give out every year so that churches can proselytize.

if you want to be a charitble organization, start a 501c3/4 branch like everyone else. keep the books separate.


but bush and obamas faith based initiatives don't call for that.

Subsidizing Pat Robertson must end.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is not in the best interest of the country to go back to the nitpicking of the Bush Administration. Everything of consequence was kept secret and most of our time was spent bickering ove things that in the end don't matter. Anna

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush was a phony, insincere bible thumping hypocrite. Obama is not. Like it or not, these religious groups and schools have an economic impact. A good one. If we disown them and forbid acknowledging them we'll be in serious trouble. They provide help for millions of poor people across the country. I would not forbid any organization from helping people because of a religious affiliation. That's a judgement call. I don't get to decide who eats and who doesn't. Complete separation of Chuch and State is not really possible. Communism in Europe forbid believe in any god. It didn't work. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The idea of a President allowing religion into government is a clear violation of the principle of separation of church and state. Please note that this principle was endorsed by none other than Jesus of Nazareth himself, when he proclaimed, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's." (Matt. 22:21) Surely that is clear enough for anyone with a functioning brain cell.

As for the widespread superstition that Reb Yeshua was and is "God incarnate", how do we reconcile that idea with his clear statement, addressing his Father in Gethsemane, in which he said, "And this is life eternal, that they may know thee, the only true god, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3) Anyone care to guess who Jesus thought was the true God? If he was God, someone needs to tell him, since he seems completely unaware of it.

Christians take the Bible seriously. They don't worship the book; that is a heresy known as "bibliolatry." They don't believe that every word of it is literally true, since Paul, the apostle, tells us clearly that the scripture is not to be interpreted literally, but rather spiritually. (2Cor. 3:6) They don't believe that any of it was necessarily spoken by God himself, since Peter tells us that the words of scripture were delivered by "holy men of God" who spoke as they were "inspired by the Holy Spirit." (2Pet. 2:21)

Christianoids on the other hand, do not even bother to study their book or pay attention to what it says--and to what it doesn't say. Their Bible study is a sham in which they let the words flow past their eyes without ever engaging their attention. Thus they often wind up believing, and worse, teaching the exact opposite of what the book has to say on any given subject. This is no longer a matter of freedom to believe whatever we please. It is a matter of liars and fools trying to force their bizarre superstitions on everyone they meet--even on everone they haven't met.

Enough is enough. Let's resolve not to be patient with lies, superstition and deliberate mistranslation, misinterpretation and refusal to read the actual text. Enough is too much.

With love under will,

Bob, Adastra,
The Wizzard of Jacksonville

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama's religion does not seem to be the Bible thumping, dogma riddled, evangelical type. During the campaign, I saw an interview in which he admitted he did not know what happens after we die. He's not of the "anyone who does not believe as I do will spend eternity in a fiery lake" ilk.

However, he does seem to promote Christianity a whole lot more than I am comfortable with. I haven't been able to decide if I think he is attempting to be inclusive of those who "cling to their religion" in bad times, or if he really is so caught up in his faith he feels a need to, at least to a small degree, impose it on the rest of us.

If his faith-based initiatives truly do include secular organizations, it might not be so bad. In these horrific economic times, perhaps any community service groups need to be supported. I have a lot of reservations about this, but I'm trying to keep an open mind.

The clause in the constitution does not say "separation of church and state," it says that the government cannot establish a religion. It's surely a fine line when the president is orchestrating prayers, and I hope one of the "vetting" processes is to remove specific affiliations from those prayers.

The choice of Rick Warren was especially offensive to me, as his references to Christ seemed like blatant government sponsoring of a specific religion. Imagine the outcry if a Muslim cleric had been chosen instead, and if his prayer had been loaded with references to Muhammed! A Hindu, Buddhist, or even a Jewish rabbi would not have been considered acceptable by the majority of people who had no objection to Warren.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We have far too many enemies that are corrupt, so tread on a mans (Or womans) faith lightly, especially when they draw strength and courage from it.

It is very hard to build activist organizations in this country and there is no legitimate reason on the planet that activist movements that are religious based should be arbitrarily denied this right. The same can be said for activist groups that acquire access to federal dollars. It should make no difference whether they are church based or not.

Frankly, I know that Christian based activism is an excellent idea. We need more citizen participation in our government, not less, and to deny those citizens participation because they happen to be a Christian organization, is just flat out wrong.

Jay Lindberg
jaylindberg@hotmail.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Marginalizing segments of the population, especially influential ones, because you disagree with them, is the policy of fools. Shrewd planning dictates that bridges should not be burned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The constitution may be vague on many things. However, it is very clear on one issue:
Keep church and state SEPARATE!!!!

That means no repulsive, offensive, segregating, religious 'invocations' at the White House...especially during state sponsored events.

We should at least be able to expect that behavior from our elected President. Why does he want to antagonize a large sector of his constituency??

Obama, please be sensitive to us non-christians and refrain; or, should I say re-phrase...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama admitted to regular cocaine usage. He still smokes cigarettes. His handlers during the campaign did a wonderful job of keeping this very quiet. Addicts often need a replacement for their drug of choice and Obama's turn to religion should not be a surprise.

I did not vote for him in my local primary, but I voted for him in the presidential election as he was the lesser of two evils, especially after the selection of Palin as McCain's VP candidate. His history of addiction, his rise through Chicago politics and his obvious placement by the Democratic party as the new hope of the party all made me consider him a poor choice, but I held my nose and voted for him. However, his brown-nosing the Right and Christian fundamentalists, his obvious playing of Chicago politics on a national scale, and his seeming unwillingness to really take the lead have made me sick.

Hillary and Michelle in 2012!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I lived on the Streets of Los Angeles for four years mostly because I wouldn't accept Jesus into my life. No matter where I went for emergency services, the thinly veiled requirement to accept Jesus and Christianity was ever present. I couldn't get emergency housing even when I had a job to go to. I lost the job because sleeping on a park bench at night began to impact my performance at work. Regular government assistance has fallen far below inadequate because funds formerly available to government services have been diverted to Faith Based programs, which tacitly require acceptance of Jesus as a qualification for distribution.

What this does is create a theocracy in the United States from the ground up, where, as one rises from poverty, they can only look back and make obeisance to Jesus as their savior and benefactor, which is the church authority, since there never was a historical Jesus.

The only way I got out of this trap was to take my born again brother to court and make him cough up Trust money he had illegally diverted to himself, and I have to take him back to court to cough up the rest. I spent that money attempting to finish my degree in physics so that I could apply myself to plasma fusion energy research so that we, as a planet, might have a chance of survival.

I didn’t get all the promised money and I am now working a meaningless jobs just trying to keep ahead of rent. They too want me to accept Jesus into my life and will employ the principal of hard love or any other legal or illegal means in order to accomplish that.

The point I'm trying to make here is that at every turn in the life of an American, the pressure to accept Jesus into your life is ever present and for those who are poor, there is practically no other alternative left.

So we become a theocracy exactly like 16th and 17th century England (Read up on that and it will send shivers down your spine) where the blood ran at flood stage at every change of leadership.

We have to stop the Faith-Based programs all together as they are undermining secular government at its very core, and more than that; undermining the very idea of freedom of speech and the ability to evaluate emerging threats to life and limb as well as the ability to properly and adequately address those threats as the global warming crisis so abundantly illustrates.

We don't want to be the generation that nullified the American Revolution and returned the American people to the serfdom from which they originally fled, because we aren‘t innocent like those people of 1773. Our mistakes can‘t be absorbed by the environment any more because we have grown far to big for the environment to absorb those mistakes. We can no longer depend on the unlimited availability of energy and raw materials because we have used up all the readily available energy resources and raw materials. From this po9int forward we will have to act very prudently, wisely and with clear understanding of the realities that religion has never, never provided, consider that Galileo spent the last half of his life under house arrest for his irreverent proposition that the earth orbited the sun in contradiction to official church position.

We need all hands on deck. We don’t need people blindly believing things that could never possibly be or that never were but rather things that “are” and the willingness to apply all verifiable knowledge to addressing those things that “are” whether it comports with religion or not. This isn’t a time to believe in impossible things but a time to confront reality in all its terrifying manifestations and win.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For the next hopefully 8 years Obama's home is the White House, and it is reasonable to assume Obama, his family and friends will worship in his home the way Obama chooses. The president has freedom of religion. If the president doesn't have freedom of religion, who does?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In 1787 when the framers excluded all mention of God from the Constitution, they were widely denounced as immoral and the document was denounced as godless, which is precisely what it is. Opponents of the Constitution challenged ratifying conventions in nearly every state, calling attention to Article VI, Section 3: “No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

An anti-federalist in North Carolina wrote: “The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic. Pagans, Deists and Mohammedans might obtain office among us.” Amos Singletary of Massachussetts, one of the most outspoken critics of the Constitution, said that he “hoped to see Christians (in power), yet by the Constitution, a papist or an infidel was as eligible as they.”

Luther Martin, a Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 wrote that “there were some members so unfashionable as to think that a belief in the existence of a Deity, and of a state of future rewards and punishments would be some security for the good conduct of our rulers, and that in a Christian country, it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism.” Martin’s report shows that a “Christian nation” faction had its say during the convention, and that its views were consciously rejected.

The United States Constitution is a completely secular political document. It begins “We the people,” and contains no mention of “God,” “Jesus,” or “Christianity.” Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as the “no religious test” clause (Article VI), and “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (First Amendment)

The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase “so help me God” or any requirement to swear on a Bible (Article II, Section 1). The words “under God” did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them.

Similarly, “In God we Trust” was absent from paper currency before 1956, though it did appear on some coins beginning in 1864. The original U.S. motto, written by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is “E Pluribus Unum” (“Of Many, One”) celebrating plurality and diversity.

In 1797, America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that “the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington’s presidency and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

We are not governed by the Declaration of Independence. Its purpose was to “dissolve the political bonds,” not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based upon the idea that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. The Declaration deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, etc., and doesn’t discuss religion at all. The references to “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence” in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Its author, Thomas Jefferson, was a Deist, opposed to Christianity and the supernatural.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus,” wrote Thomas Jefferson. However, Jefferson admitted, “In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man and that other parts are the fabric of very inferior minds...”

It was Thomas Jefferson who established the separation of church and state. Jefferson was deeply suspicious of religion and of clergy wielding political power.

Jefferson helped create the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786, incurring the wrath of Christians by his fervent defense of toleration of atheists: “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Jefferson advocated a “wall of separation” between church and state not to protect the church from government intrusion, but to preserve the freedom of the people:

“I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered by himself to contain the outlines of the sublimest morality that has ever been taught;” he observed, “but I hold in the most profound detestation and execration the corruptions of it which have been invested by priestcraft and established by kingcraft, constituting a conspiracy of church and state against the civil and religious liberties of mankind.”

Jefferson and the founding fathers were products of the Age of Enlightenment. Their world view was based upon Deism, secularism, and rationalism.

“The priests of the different religious sects dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight,” wrote Jefferson. “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter...we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this...”

As late as 1820, Jefferson was convinced everyone in the United States would die a Unitarian. Jefferson, Madison and Paine’s writings indicate that America was never intended to be a Christian theocracy. “I have sworn upon the altar of God,” wrote Jefferson, “eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

In his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson wrote: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Similarly, in an 1824 letter to John Cartwright, Jefferson expressed anger at judges who had based rulings on their belief that Christianity is part of the common law. Cartwright had written a book critical of these judges, and Jefferson was glad to see it. Observed Jefferson, “The proof of the contrary, which you have produced, is controvertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed.” Jefferson challenged “the best-read lawyer to produce another script of authority for this judicial forgery” and concluded, “What a conspiracy this, between Church and State!”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As president, Jefferson put his “wall of separation” theory into practice. He refused to issue proclamations calling for days of prayer and fasting, insisting that they violate the First Amendment. As early as 1779, Jefferson proposed a bill before the Virginia legislature that would have established a series of elementary schools to teach the basics—reading, writing, and arithmetic. Jefferson even suggested that “no religious reading, instruction, or exercise shall be prescribed or practiced, inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination.” Jefferson did not regard public schools as the proper agent to form children’s religious views.

As president, James Madison also put his separationist philosophy into action. He vetoed two bills he believed would violate church-state separation. The first was an act incorporating the Episcopal Church in the District of Columbia that gave the church the authority to care for the poor. The second was a proposed land grant to a Baptist church in Mississippi. Had Madison, the father of the Constitution, believed that all the First Amendment was intended to do was bar setting up a state church, he would have approved these bills. Instead, he vetoed both, and in his veto messages to Congress explicitly stated that he was rejecting the bills because they violated the First Amendment.

Later in his life, James Madison came out against state-paid chaplains, writing, “The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles.” He also concluded that his calling for days of prayer and fasting during his presidency had been unconstitutional.

In an 1819 letter to Robert Walsh, Madison wrote, “the number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state.” In an undated essay called the “Detached Memoranda,” written in the early 1800s, Madison wrote, “Strongly guarded...is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States.”

In 1833 Madison responded to a letter sent to him by Jasper Adams. Adams had written a pamphlet titled “The Relations of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States,” which tried to prove that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. Madison wrote back: “In the papal system, government and religion are in a manner consolidated, and that is found to be the worst of government.”

Madison, like Jefferson, was confident that separation of church and state would protect both the institutions of government and religion. Late in his life, Madison wrote to a Lutheran minister about this, declaring, “A due distinction...between what is due to Caesar and what is due to God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations...A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In the early part of the 19th century, a general understanding existed that the government should not promote religion, or favor one religion over another. In 1825, Congress passed legislation requiring post offices to handle mail on Sundays. Many people protested, arguing that this violated the Christian Sabbath. Congress debated the matter for a few years before deciding in 1829 to retain Sunday mail handling. Senator Richard Johnson of Kentucky wrote that the government had no business favoring Sunday as a state-mandated day of rest:

“It is not the legitimate province of the Legislature to determine what religion is true, or what is false,” Johnson observed. “Our Government is a civil and not a religious institution. Our Constitution recognizes in every person the right to choose his own religion, and to enjoy it freely, without molestation. Whatever may be the religious sentiments of citizens, and however variant, they are alike entitled to protection from the Government, so long as they do not invade the rights of others...They (Sunday mail handling opponents) appear, in many instances, to lay it down as an axiom, that the practice is a violation of the law of God. Should Congress, in their legislative capacity, adopt the sentiment, it would establish the principle that the Legislature is a proper tribunal to determine what are the laws of God. It would involve a legislative decision in a religious controversy, and on a point in which good citizens may honestly differ in opinion, without disturbing the peace of society, or endangering its liberties. If this principle is introduced, it will be impossible to define its bounds.

“Among all the religious persecutions with which almost every page of modern history is stained, no victim ever suffered but for violation of what Government denominated the law of God. To prevent a similar train of evils in this country, the Constitution has wisely withheld from our Government the power of defining the divine law.”

For further information, please read Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church and State by Robert Boston (Prometheus Books, 2003)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is no conflict between Government and Religion if the President chooses to pray. That is his freedom of speech and choice. Anyone at his meetings who does not want to pray can keep quiet. America, the President and each and every one of us needs as much prayer as we can get in these troubled times. I admire Obama for sticking to his beliefs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Actually I'm just plain fed up with religion as a whole..Fine you wanna go believe in some mumbo jumbo phony character thought up by long dead elite rulers to control the masses through fear..Fine.. Here's your ticket to a far away Island where all of you can move to.I'm tired of looney Politicians who think REALLY believe that our earth is only a few thousand years old.. How are they supposed to come up with any sane policies regarding science when they think man coexisted with Dinosaurs like Fred and Wilma??.What about the sane atheists out here?Where's our representation? I don't recall an atheist starting a war,inquisition,beheading a women for talking to man etc etc.. No we generally keep to ourselves but these loony fundies are starting to make me grow intolerant and I've always thought of myself as the tolerant one. Obama is no different this is fact..Look at his policies on Iran,North Korea,Venezuela,Religion,Corporate Bailouts,Healthcare etc etc.. It's no different than W's.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What do you want from this man? First he was a heathen, then he was a Muslim, then suddenly became a Christian who was affiliated with an hellraising, blasphemous preacher and his church. And, now he prays too much?

Seems to me, you would complain if they were hanging him with a new rope, instead of concerning yourself with the fact that they were hanging him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What I don't understand is why this uproar over what Obama is doing. Religion has been attached to the Whitehouse and it's policies for decades, and it was the GOP who invited it in. Now all of a sudden it's an Obama violation?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Between him and Mcsame, there was no difference. And I wasn't surprised that Barry chose Rev Warren instead of Wright to deliver the intro speech. Nader, Mckinney, and even Paul and Barr would have kept religion out of politics and worked on undoing Dubya's and Congress's attempts to mix religion and politics. I feel very sad for you sorry folks out there for letting your souls get sold to the devil yet again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think it was Tony Campolo who said 'Mixing Church and state is like mixing ice cream and horse manure; it doesn't do much to the manure, but it sure spoils the ice cream.' I agree about the ice cream, the Church, but historically it's proven just as harmful to the state, the horse manure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't know why so many people get in such a tizzy when people in government want to practice their faith.

The free exercise of religion is a guaranteed constitutional right, whether we like a person's religion or not.

To try to hinder or stop one certain expression of religion only opens the door to hindering other expressions, and this is not what the authors of the Constitution envisioned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fine, Obama is a churchgoer. But I don't want to hear about it and I don't want it in the White House! Did we ever hear the phrase separation of church and state? According to what I was taught it is best not to beat our breasts in public about our beliefs. Do what you want, everybody, but keep it to yourself.

I don't want to hear anybody proselytize or even look like they are. Nobody has to prove anything to anybody about their beliefs. That's the idea here. That's why this country was formed.

Stop with the religeon in the White House! It starts to smell like the Bush agenda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes.

We have to get God out of our government.

I actually believe in God, but having him in the oval office is a compromise. There are too many assumptions that go with that, and it opens the door to more and more religious rule.

I also believe in that wall of separation between church and state. We don't want to become one of those backwards religious republics where they flog women for wearing lipstick.

We're already walking a fine line with regard to reproductive rights, civil liberties and human rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Only God can rescue the world from a severe, prolonged financial catastrophe. Let us hold hands and begin chanting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But, please prove there is a God, first.

If one cannot prove the existence of a god, then there is nothing to ones faith.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...and it is more telling of Obama et al than anything he has said or done so far.

While believing strongly, without evidence, is considered a mark of madness or stupidity in any other area of our lives, faith in God still holds immense prestige in our society.

Religion is the one area of our discourse where it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about.

It is telling that this aura of nobility extends only to those faiths that still have many subscribers. Anyone caught worshipping Poseidon, even at sea, would be thought insane.

When we hear the ancient bells growling on a Sunday morning we ask ourselves: Is it really possible! This, for a Jew, crucified two thousand years ago, who said he was God's son?

The proof of such a claim is lacking. Certainly the Christian religion is an antiquity projected into our times from remote prehistory; and the fact that the claim is believed - whereas one is otherwise so strict in examining pretensions - is perhaps the most ancient piece of this heritage.

A god who begets children with a mortal woman; a sage who bids men work no more, have no more courts, but look for the signs of the impending end of the world; a justice that accepts the innocent as a vicarious sacrifice; someone who orders his disciples to drink his blood; prayers for miraculous interventions; sins perpetrated against a god, atoned for by a god; fear of a beyond to which death is the portal; the form of the cross as a symbol in a time that no longer knows the function and ignominy of the cross - how ghoulishly all this touches us, as if from the tomb of a primeval past!

More amazing than anything is that such things are still believed by Obama or anyone without questioning what they are asked to believe.
This is all very telling.

Maybe worst of all the TIME and MONEY wasted on these endeavors that could be put to solving our problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think its ok and good for him to be religious. However, I think that religion should be seperated from the work place. In this case having prayers with the rest of the staff is a bit over board I think myself.




------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota Lawyer List of long term care facilities

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

maybe Obama feels he needs divine help, or some intervention... given the HUGE number of challenges he faces.

Can you really blame him for praying a lot? Even agnostics will often say, "Just in case there really IS someone up there listening... PLEASE HELP!!! :-)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And this latest mix of magical fantasy thinking and the 'Bama's politics of "change" just shoots it all in the foot.

I'm too god damned poor to give a rat's ass. No I gotta go stand in line to git me some month old rice at the pump N' sip. Every Friday they give out a cupful. I had the flu all week so I didn't do my dumpster diving so this weekend gonna be a bit lean.

The next rich prick I see spoutin' off his religion shit is gonna get a piece of my pipe though, right in the kneecaps. I'm sick to hell of them too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Every minute the 'Bamanater spends doing the god thing just reinforces that owning class code we lowers understand so well.

Whenever a rich guy says, "let us pray" the poor better cover their bread because what little you got is about to get culled for the rich bastard's "god" or his "church."

Seems to me in a crisis, a smart guy works on fixing the problem and "executing the law" (punishing the criminal, etc.) But here' Obama is paradin' around with the god squad.

Must not be so damned smart after all....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is truly sad that so many people who are "non-believers" display such hatred and intolerance toward those with any kind of faith.
It is, ironically, often equivalent or worse than the intolerance of evangelical and right wing religious people towards those they see as sinners.

As for the constitution, it is designed to protect the freedom of all of us - to believe or not believe, and to practice religion as we feel moved - or to not practice it, without interference.

However, it was never meant to BAN religious observance by those to whom that is meaningful.
The point was that the government WOULD NOT ESTABLISH a STATE RELIGION, WHICH ALL WOULD BE FORCED TO ACCEPT.

One wonders at the vehemence of atheists - if there is no God, why care about others who worship one? Also, it is interesting that these "non-believers" believe fervently that this complex earth and universe of ours came from nothing and without any intelligence or force to create the very rules on which science relies!

Personally, I appreciate true religion of any denomination - that which calls for love for our brothers and sisters on this planet and in doing good to the extent we are able. (I equally appreciate those of no religion who adhere to such principles).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It was always in his platform. You get what you vote for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If we are looking for ways to trim the budget getting rid of the pork to bring down our deficit, one way would be to stop this giving away of citizen's taxes to these faith-based funnels. There is a reason for the separation of church and state, and it seems to me that being tax exempt is enough of a gift without actually giving them more money. Considering the political climate of churches today getting involved with denying minorities their civil rights, instead of actually practicing what their Messiah preached, I would prefer them to get back to their roots before granting all these cash give-a-ways to them. This is one "earmark" we could afford to cut.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

After eight years of the religious right it is refreshing to see other faith based organizations having a place at the discussion table and contributing to the national debate. Many religious left organizations are concerned with humanitarian needs and already work at sheltering, feeding, and caring for the many who now and in the near future need help due to no fault of their own.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Separation of Church & State is a must. Unfortunately, The Confidence Man does not agree. More and more I am losing faith (no pun intended) with this guy. His take on the Banks is totally wrong as fiat money is going down (See Europe as another example) and now he brings god into the picture. Simply unreal. If you want to believe, do it on your own time. Don't lay it on us non believers as we don't prosletize our lack of faith on you.

Any questions?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

www.davidraygriffin.com/lectures/911-and-nationalist-faith/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alcoholism often creates this illusion that nothing is lacking in the life of someone affected by it. But the fact that the dependent persons don’t see it does not mean the situation is not totally deficient. The people in their environment should unify. They have conceived interventions to make it less strenuous for those people. It is very perfect to have a lot of individuals familiar with the dependent person doing the intervention. The dependent individual must not be aware beforehand about the intervention. The intervention habitually makes the dependent individual face what his addiction does to him and everyone around. The whole point of executing an intervention is to have the addict begin an alcohol recovery program. That is why it’s more convenient if the people have searched for rehabilitation treatments that would fit the person struggling with an alcohol addiction Because an addict can be totally unstable, you should be ready to send him right away when he realizes that he has to have alcohol treatment. An intervention is a very serviceable tool for the people that suffer from the addicted individual’s behavior

----------------
tribhuvan
-------------------
Drug Intervention-Drug Intervention

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I really don't have a horse in this race. I don't think religion is a benefit or a detriment to the nation as a whole.

The thing about religion is that it's a personal thing. If holding on to the belief of a higher power adds strength to believers carrying out their day to day lives, who am I to tell them that they can or cannot indulge in this practice.

That brings in the matter of Separation of Church and state.

"Separation of church and state" is a common metaphor that is well recognized. Equally well recognized is the metaphorical meaning of the church staying out of the state's business and the state staying out of the church's business. Because of the very common usage of the "separation of church and state phrase," most people incorrectly think the phrase is in the constitution. The phrase "wall of separation between the church and the state" was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them.

Here is the "Wall" he alluded to. (1st amendment, Bill of Rights)

The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It goes on to describe protections of free speech.

That is the extent of it. Obviously the intent was to protect the church and religion from the Government.

If some sort of a law were to be proposed that would prohibit President Obama or any other president from displaying or indulging in their religious beliefs while in office, THAT LAW would be in conflict with the constitution of the United States.

Our constitution is an incredibly well thought out piece of literature. It was written with the intention of assuring benevolence in leadership for generations to come. It holds some great concepts, also some antiquated ones, and always some controversial ones. But no matter what you’re political persuasion it is important to take it in its entirety. It’s not wise "Cherry Pick" in the parts that you agree with and redefine the parts you do not. Or it becomes another old yellow piece of paper no one believes in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I still think that one's religion is a private matter. There should be no 'faith' based office. Maybe people don't remember the religious wars of the 16th and 17th century.
Perhaps if 30 to 45% of the population was wiped out in a series of religious wars people might see the wisdom of the constitution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama fails to have his finger on the pulse of Americans. We don't want religion in government. He forgot his oath of office and Constitutional law training? Hypocrit.

I feel Obama's funding is a payback for votes from the Afro-American church groups. It is "religious cronyism". Rev. Wright is well funded as are the other clergy wanting our tax dollars.

http://www.thearda.com/
internationalData/countries/Country_234_2.asp

The Association of Religious Data Achieves states the number of Adherents in the United States:

82.0% Christians
1.9% Jewish
1.6% Muslims
11.3% Non-Christian
0.4% Atheists

1 in 4 of our young have no religious preference. These are percents and ratio of all religious members or non-members. When I looked at the 2000 Census they weren't a great number of the population.

In my town they are 90% Catholic. Not all members go to church every week of-course. Other Evangelical churches are building new churches in our town. They have few members so I'm not sure where they got funding to build big churches in our small town of 20,000. Faith Based Funds (our tax dollars)?

In the large Baptist area of Charlotte, NC there is a huge Catholic cathedral. One large population religious groups seems to be invaded by the opposite.

Author Susan Jacoby in her book Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism claims that people withdraw from evangelical movements. They don't like being forced to worship one way or the other. Religious interference in political matters especially anger them. Obama turn back...this is the wrong direction.

It is interesting that there are so few Jewish members in our country yet they pull a lot of political power for Israel in our government. Many were born here and some never visited there in their lifetime. Some maybe once.

Non-Christians and Atheists have not been able to run for public office openly yet they are more in number. The "Freethinkers" are more than we realize. Even Christians don't go to church every week...especially men.

The 2000 Census lists the members of various church groups. They aren't as numerous as they claim. Many people move in and out of religious groups and beliefs over their lifetime. Not all attend their church every week and some even once or twice a year. This slants the number of members as being more involved then they really are. When we say 90% of the population believe in a God, it only means they believe in a God but may not attend organized religious groups. Statistics can be slanted to mean a different thing than is the fact of life in the country.

"I once knew a statistician who drowned while wading across a lake with an AVERAGE depth of three feet." Posted by: R. A.

Politicians would be careful not to include their religious preference at all. Their religious group support may not be as popular as they think. In a democracy as representatives of the people, they should represent all groups no matter what race, religion, non-religion, or sex.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

cronyism is just like Bush. Obama's promise was to negate the Bush abuse of power regarding excessive use of Executive Orders and Signing Statements. He did not. He has appointed Czars without Congressional over sight.
He's looking pretty much like a liar and not a credible religious person. Emm like a Bush but with a different party label.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross". -Sinclair Lewis

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Under the present world truculent environment; bringing some relief with less prejudice and more healing of the soul by the religious people that suppose to be the experts, will help tremendously, while Barack Obama does his job and bring the broken pieces back into shape of a better mode to get the Country on its feet and start the so desperately needed recovery!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The ones who worship satan, called themselves religious; even do they think they know where they going after death, they don't.Satan likes to eat human souls...www.henrybook.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]