Oh no! Not crazy Parson Weems again! He made up that incident as well as the "I can not tell a lie" cherry tree chopping down incident. Actually Washington was known as slightly irreligious by his own minister who complained he was never confirmed and wouldn't stay to have communion. Martha however was confirmed and did stay for communion.

Perfect summation.Thanks for the great post.

Bravo, Vox!

Thank you! You do realize that you're letting "facts & reality" interfere with the American Taliban allegiance to G-d? It's exactly what SATAN wants.....

Vox: It's not your fault, but the first quotation is misattributed; as noted elsewhere in the thread the line comes from the Tripoli treaty; it isn't found in anything attributable to Washington, despite what one sees on various web pages.

Here's a whole list of useful quotes with credible sources: cited: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_liberty.html

Incidentally, Teddy Roosevelt insisted that a new coin design approved under his presidency not include "In God We Trust" because, as a devout Christian and Sunday school teacher as well as a defender of the First Amendment, he deemed it un-Christian and borderline sacrilege.

Thanks D Gary Gary. I was looking for some sort of citation for those quotes!

They would probably claim that "Southern Baptists" see it as a religious calling to impose their religion on others-to teach their belief and spread their gospel . But we demons won't let them impose their believes upon our kids in school or upon all of us through the government.

I think even the President realized he over stepped his authority by mandating the Catholic Church offer birth control, infringing on their ability to exercise their freedom to practice their religion. It is long standing Catholic belief that birth control is wrong. More than 50 years ago I learned that. It is irrelevent to argue that Catholics disagree. It is a matter of conscience

What has been the effect of religious coercion? To make half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.
Thomas Jefferson quotes

Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together; [James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt]

Love the Madison quotation! By "the old error" and its "corrupting influence on both the parties," Madison of course refers to the thoroughly corrupt theocracies of colonial New England, especially in Massachusetts. In the latter, until the establishment of independence, everyone was required by colonial law to pay taxes to the church (Congregationalist), and attend church, whether a member or not. Only property owners could vote and participate in colonial government and only male church members could be property owners. In the 17th century, except for the army, below governor, nearly all colonial officials were also church officials (pastors, deacons). By the 18th century, with immigration, theocratic rule had begun to break down in cities, but remained powerful in rural and frontier outposts.

Although a professed Catholic, candidate 'Belongs in a Mental Sanatorium' is a twisted throwback to those who of the mid-18th century who sought a "revival" of what Madison calls "the old error," meaning Christian rule in the colonies.

Madison likely did not refer to preachers from the "New Divinity," or "Consistent Calvinist" movement. In contrast to the current right-wing movement, the 18th century New Divinity Consistent Calvinists had strong progressive elements. For one, they opposed the rampant corruption that pervaded government officials who were clerics -- mainly of the old guard, or Old Divinity persuasion. Although some professed theology, economics of land acquisition became the driving force.

Patrick Frazier's 1992 "The Mohicans of Stockbridge" details how clerical corruption manifested in virtually all legal relationships with the indigenous peoples in frontier settlements in the Berkshires of current western Massachusetts. There were laws to protect property rights of the Housatonics (the Mohican language group that lived on the banks of the northern parts of the Housatonic River before the incursion of European settlers). But those laws were enforced by clergy who also dealt in property.

That was in the 18^th century. A century earlier, rather than merely establishing Wintrop's "City on a Hill" [which, as Rachel pointed out a week or so ago, was no "shining" beacon], a 1628 charter declared the Massachusetts Bay settlement's "principal aim" to be "Converting the American natives to Christianity" (Frasier, p. 18). However, as noted by even mainstream Congregationalist elders of the era, by the 18th century "greed for land...seemed to be weakening the religious an social fabric" (ibid. p. 24).

Pervasive, corruption played out in a number of ways. One example was that of a no doubt pious Boston treasurer who embezzled Ł6000 of charitable funds to cover his commercial losses (ibid, p. 26). In the pioneering Berkshire settlement and mission, over the course of several decades, corruption by the clergy who were in charge of dealings with the Housatonic manifested in the stealing of virtually all Housatonics property.

The corrupting influence of religious-state power is seen that even New Divinity religious leaders like Jonathan Edwards who vigorously and courageously opposed corruption got caught up in it in his personal land dealings with the Housatonic (ibid 121-122).

Edwards, to his credit, became a leader of an 18th century movement known as The First Great Awakening. In modern terms, it was an "Occupy Church" movement, in that lay leaders took a much greater participatory role. Old Guard Calvinists in Boston opposed lay participation.

Not having the support of the traditional churches, much like the current Occupy movement, people would camp out for weeks in tents listening to various speakers. Although, a non-church-going deist, Ben Franklin supported George Whitefield, another First Great Awakening preacher (the Wikipedia page on the First Great Awakening is a place to begin for more info).

Edwards died in 1758. He was at heart a conservative, but with a good heart and a great head on his shoulders. In spite of his strong advocacy for the newly emerging lay leadership, had he lived longer, it is possible that he would have become a strong voice for more church political power in the forming of the new nation. However, nearly all his New Divinity followers instead sided with the rebels like Madison, who advocated separation of church and state. In 1776, Edwards’ main successor, the Reverend Samuel Hopkins unsuccessfully argued for the Continental Congress to adopt an anti-slavery resolution – but was not at all an advocate for restoring the theocracy.

Having had experienced two centuries of theocracy, leaders who saw how it worked in practice did not advocate for its continuance, not even most church leaders of that era.

Every time I think that pendulum has to start moving back toward the center, someone seems to find a way to keep moving it to the right. I hate to think which 17th or 18th centure notions we'll be debating next in this campaign.

Outlawing electricity to promote the whale oil industry? Requring everybody to own a horse for transportation? Maybe speeches and ads to convince people once again that tomotoes are poisonous?

Those Republicans and their wild sects.

The first definition you will find for secular is usually a synonym of "irreligious"- either indifference ...

vs.

This idea means neutrality between beliefs

I seriously doubt that the American public is distinguishing between "indifference" and "neutrality." The message Romney is putting out is outright "hostility to all religions" and is, patently, a lie.

That's why I propose that the Obama campaign take advantage of the "neutrality" definition and its antithesis: an agenda actively promoting one religion over all others. And, yes, there's a dog whistle there to the people who will recall that Romney's religion is not one most Americans identify with.

Another example of very bad Romney speechwriting.

A secular state is neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.

Distinction without difference. The first definition in the OED is "Of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal; <i>secular interests</i>"

You're picking an invisible nit.

It is a distinction without a difference only to fundamentalist atheists and religious types. Romney is saying that neutrality towards religious beliefs means Godlessness. Atheists agree.

Political scientists understand they the two things are the same. Laicism takes many forms in the world. Turkey and France's form of neutrality was not passive laicism as the US has, but aggressive laicism. In Turkey, the aim of Kermalist secularism was not to express agnosticism or some sort of triumph of rationalism over religion as was the case in revolutionary France. It was to neutralize political Islamists. That is why there is a government agency that regulates religions: the Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı (Presidency of Religious Affairs) that not only approves prayers and teachings, but appoints and educates imams. They are actually civil servants. Yet this is a form of secularism. For more information see Wikipedia article "Secularism in Turkey".

Is Turkey secular in both senses? No. Still a distinction without a difference?

I am not saying that America should change its view of laicism (neutrality). I am just saying that that Romney, Santorum and radical atheists mistakenly conflate the two meanings of secularism:

1. the notion of irreligion, of indifference or rejection of religion.
2. the political sceince idea of the secular state (laicism) which is neutral on matters of religion, neither supporting religion or irreligion.

Santorum and Romney understand as with Obama, the abolitionists, and Martin Luther King that justice in society is a deeply spiritual matter. Yet most in America do not believe that the Government being neutral means that our laws must be expunged of any expression of spiritual concerns.

I happen to be a devout Christian, and I do believe there is evil in the world and that confronting it is a spiritual necessity. In my mind, the Virginia state legislature's mandated rape of women with ultrasound probes is the work of Satan. I'm not making metaphoic allusions here.

I recognize that others have other ways of visualizing evil, and that when I use a loaded term like Satan that sends most liberals off the rails. So I use lay language for the ideas. Similarly, or laws should be in lay language- based on commonly held values regardless of religion.

Typo: second paragraph should read, Polticial science recognizes they are not the same.

John thank you again.

Here's what I think. Politicians need to stop the double talk. They should say what they mean and mean what they say in clear, precise language. Why should we all have to go thru. mental contortions to decipher what the hell they mean? This is why people hate politicians.

All these machinations about religion are just a ploy to confuse everyone!

Newsblog it's done intentionally. Remember my term nospeak? That's exactly what it is they do. They say lots of words that don't actually mean anything because you won't know what it is they are saying and then they can claim what they said meant whatever they wanted. It's an intentional manipulation of communication only it's done in the reverse of what you would think the intention would be: instead of trying to improve upon communication, they intentionally try to destroy communication. Ron Paul is the best politician at this. He goes up in front of a crowd and says the words 'liberty' and 'freedom' as if those words have real meaning. They do not. They are subjective words. What is freedom to me is not necessarily freedom to you. If I am a hardcore bigoted Christian who believes fundamentally that your right to marry inhibits my right to be religious, then I fundamentally believe my freedom exists in your not being allowed to marry. Yet for you it's the reverse. Libertarian language is full of this type of rhetoric. It's completely empty- and that is done intentionally- so that you are pulling on someone's heart strings w/o ever actually having to take ownership of what it is that you said. Another prime example? Glenn Beck. If you can stomach it listen to one of Beck's speeches- he does this all the time too. He talks about freedom and liberty and prosperity, but he never tells you what he means by those terms. He purposely leaves it vague so that you, the listener, can take away whatever meaning you want. You'll listen to him because he's speaking to you rather than asserting his own beliefs (if that makes sense). All politicians do this, but Republicans have made it into an art form.

I call it Bible talk! Same logistics same non-sense!

The important thing that is happening in this election is that the core of the religious right is being forced by circumstance to accept a principle of religious pluralism. The core constituency is a massive base of evangelical protestants, but they are being forced to choose either a catholic or even a mormon candidate.

Despite the breast beating of Santorum and Romney, there is ample proof this isn't about sectarianism or even whether a candidate is particularly religious. On Lawrence's Last Word yesterday, Robert Jeffress repeated his statement that Mormons are not Christians, and that he believes Obama to be a Christian. Regardless, he stated that if Romney were the candidate, he would vote for him rather than Obama .

The religious right recognizes that unity on common values trumps religious differences. They attempt to take ownership of religion for political gain, but as you said News, this is a charade.

Franklin Graham will eagerly say Santorum is a Christian, but cast as many doubts as possible on whether Obama is one. Why? In the interview on Morning Joe yesterday, it turns out this is only because Graham happens to agree with the policies of Santorum. He does not agree with those of MLK, Obama, Wright, or liberal churches such as the United Church of Christ- who champion LGBT, racial justice, women's and native american issues, ecology, and ordination of women. This is all an abomination to authoritarian fundamentalists.

These groups are hardly against religion any more than the Gnostics in the early church were against religion. What they are against is Santorum and Romney's brand of religion that uses the goodness of spirituality as a cloak for bigotry and the continued dominance of a religious elite. In biblical language- Jesus strongly condemns hypocrites in the religious establishment and those who make such public displays of their piety to impress others.

Romney, Santorum and Franklin Graham view the spiritualism of such liberals as an alien theology, and a threat to their religious views. Unlike liberals who champion autonomous spirituality of individuals with little further need for intermediaries, the fundamentalists see continued need for authoritarian (even state sponsored) intervention to correct decay of morals in society. This emergence of an autonomous laity began with St. Francis’s tertiarii, with the idea of the obsolescence of the hierarchs described in the late 1100’s by Joachim di Fiore as historically inevitable. What is shocking is the shameless attempt by reactionaries of the religious establishment to take ownership of all religious conviction- as if it is the property of the GOP, and their allies among the Catholic Bishops, the leadership of the Mormon church and the various evangelical councils. They conflate their religious views with religion itself. But this is nothing new. It has been going on since the 12^th century, through the inquisition to the and far from being dealt with in the reformation, was a theme continued within the metastasized Christian sects even Mormonism.

The modern day proxies for the hierarchs suggest an absurdity, that the voices of autonomous spirituality such as liberal Christians like Obama are against all religion. Oh? And do they think that Martin Luther King's position on civil rights for all was part of a "secular agenda" against all religion? Are the UCC policy positions on LGBT, women’s and racial rights a “secular” (Godless) agenda?

In a work, YES

So the point is that we view some denominations as Godless/ Satanic, because they don't tow the same political line?

I get it. Let's get back to the good old days from 1524 to 1648 when Europe was engulfed in wars of religion.

In a word, that is precisely what you are proposing. Because if you believe the other side is an agent of Satan, there is nothing more that can be said, no compromise that can be reached.

The GOP becomes the Taliban. Precious. Just precious.

Right - and as we've seen countless times this winter, there is not a strong connection between Romney's mouth and his brain. Thinking on his feet is not Mitt's strong suit.

Who panders more than Obama. Payroll tax cut? Forget financial stability for social security. Free contraceptives? There's no such thing as a free lunch. Reduced corporate tax rates? His usual "framework" without specifics. He has no substance. Just a clever Chicago politician who stands for nothing

If Romney is supposed to be mormon's White Horse prophecy by being a mormon president, and the White Horse is supposed to represent or carry Christ in the Bible, would that make Romney the anti-Christ?