Leave the candidates’ church attendance (or lack thereof) alone

In the first presidential debate of 1984, Ronald Reagan was talking about his religious faith: “I don’t believe that I could carry on unless I had a belief in a higher authority and a belief that prayers are answered.” One of the reporters asking questions of Reagan and Mondale followed up by asking, “Given those beliefs, Mr. President, why don’t you attend services regularly, either by going to church or by inviting a minister to the White House, as President Nixon used to do, or someone to Camp David, as President Carter used to do.”

Reagan stumbled slightly, but responded, “The answer to your question is very simple – about why I don’t go to church. I start – I have gone to church regularly all my life. And I started to here in Washington. And now, in the position I hold and in the world in which we live, where embassies do get blown up in Beirut, we’re supposed to talk about that in the – on the debate the 21st, I understand. But I pose a threat to several hundred people if I go to church.”

Now, people can take issue with Reagan’s explanation (indeed, many did), but I’ve always believed the question itself was inappropriate. I understand the point — there’s a certain hypocrisy in Reagan presenting himself as the pious candidate, but neglecting to go to church — but the presidency has nothing to do with attending weekly religious services. The Constitution’s prohibition on a religious test for public office should make this point rather clear.

Thankfully, the question hasn’t come up much since. Throughout the ’90s, few made note of the fact that Clinton attended church weekly, and for the last eight years, even fewer have emphasized the fact that Bush doesn’t. It’s a private matter.

Except that might not be the case this year. David Brody, the in-house blogger for TV preacher Pat Robertson’s CBN, asked yesterday, “Are We Going to Start Comparing Church Attendance Records?”

Do you care if the President of the United States attends Church? My bet is the majority of Americans would say yes.

As Ron Chusid explained, “Not only do they care if he attends, but some are now keeping score as to how often.”

Brody noted this piece from the extremely-conservative WorldNetDaily.

Is the Hollywood star-turned-politician a true believer? Thompson’s chances at capturing the GOP primary may rest on the answer, thanks to the growing electoral clout of Christian conservatives. Professor Mark Elrod of Harding University said he doubts Thompson is “filling out an attendance card at a Church of Christ on Sundays.”

The political scientist says he hasn’t been able to find any information regarding the former senator’s actual membership in a local congregation in his home state of Tennessee. “In our tradition,” Elrod said, “that’s called ‘being out of fellowship’ or a ‘lapsed member.'”

On his blog, the professor challenged the Church of Christ faithful to produce evidence they’ve seen Thompson “at an assembly of a Church of Christ (Stone-Campbell) in the last 20 years.” So far nobody has met the challenge. Specifically, Elrod is soliciting any information about Thompson having: Taught a Bible class, Presided at the Lord’s table, Served as a greeter, Or led singing. (“If it was 728b and you can prove it, I’ll give you $100,” he wagered, referring to the hymn, “Our God, His Is Alive,” which is considered an anthem in the Churches of Christ). (emphasis added)

A spokesman for Thompson, who’s expected to formally announce his candidacy next month, said the actor-politician “is indeed a Christian. He was baptized in the Church of Christ.” A website listing adherents of the Churches of Christ suggests Thompson was “raised” in the church but may have fallen away as an adult.

This isn’t about defending Republican presidential candidates, but I know an unfair attack when I see one.

How Thompson spends his Sundays is his business.

Right on! If Fred wants to stay home, wax his Pickup, slather Aqua Velva all over hisself, and then smoke a see-gar in peace then more power to him.

  • “You reap what you sow.” “You made your bed, now sleep in it.” The GOP, Thompson included, made its ‘deal with the devil,’ the crazy christian right, many, many years ago. They can now try to unsh*t the bed by disavowing these nutjobs, but they won’t because they cannot get elected without them. Thus, as this ‘attack’ is from his ‘base’ I have no sympathy for him or any of them, and this is ‘fair game’ for the base.

  • CB, if a candidate isn’t making an issue of it, I agree with you.

    However, when a candidate makes a claim about something as a qualification for office (be it military service, life experience, religion, or something else), then it’s fair to compare word to deed.

    A candidate who claims to be a Godly man, but doesn’t go to church; or claims to be a military leader, but never served in combat; etc., should be asked to explain the discrepancy.

  • Let the mouth-breathers fart all over themselves. It’s good for us. There’s nothing these scum do that shouldn’t be pointed out to prove their hypocrisy. If Fred Thompson wants to run for President, he should have been getting ready a while ago. Tough luck if he gets called out on this. More power to whoever drags him down.

  • A candidate who claims to be a Godly man, but doesn’t go to church… should be asked to explain the discrepancy.

    Only to the extent that going to church = being godly.

  • I’ve always believed the question itself was inappropriate

    Really? Curious that you didn’t say the same about the first question regarding his religious faith. Is it really appropriate to ask about a candidate’s religious faith but not about their church attendance?

    Indeed, that seems to be a common presumption: it’s appropriate to ask general questions about candidates’ religious faith and allow them to give general, vague, meaningless answers. This reinforces people’s belief that faith is “important” and helps a person stay “grounded.” As soon as anything specific is asked, though, that’s suddenly inappropriate. It’s “wrong” to ask about church attendance, what a candidate believes about specific doctrine, what a candidate really thinks about other religions.

    Well, no, I disagree completely. If “religious faith” is an appropriate subject for political candidates vying for elected office in a secular, democratic republic, the then whole subject is appropriate. If religion is going to be made any sort of political issue then it should be treated seriously. Candidates shouldn’t be allowed to use it as a soft issue that exists solely to create good will, because that’s not taking religion seriously. That’s not what religion is.

    Too many people have been unable to figure out, on the basis of reasoned arguments, that religion just isn’t relevant or appropriate to secular, civil politics. I think that far more may “get it” on the strength of empirical demonstrations of just how divisive and inappropriate religion is in these circumstances. Thus I fully support efforts to get candidates to ask more specific, direct questions about religion. It will make people feel uncomfortable. It will be devise. The more candidates specific theological beliefs are probed, the more they will get the sense that perhaps the entire subject just isn’t relevant to politics in the first place.

    I don’t think that candidates should be allowed to get away with platitudes about religion being “important.” They should be expected to explain what exactly that means, what exactly they believe, and why exactly it’s all so “important” in the context of politics. If they can’t or won’t answer, then they shouldn’t have been talking about religion in the first place.

    Yes, the second question was inappropriate — but no more so than the first question. Once the first is accepted as appropriate, though, far more questions like the second should be asked. We may then very quickly learn what people really believe and how far they are willing to take this. I think most candidates and Americas will be turned off before long and then maybe we can get back to the real issues.

  • My view is this. I don’t care about a candidate’s religion as long as they don’t parade it about (includes all stripes.)

    As soon as they wear the god shirt, it opens a whole lot of questions and up to and including piety.

    If the Repubs don’t want to get into a who’s god dick is bigger contest then they shouldn’t be wrapping themselves up in a cross.

    The Repubs as a whole brought this whole fucking mess upon themselves, they broke it and they own it.

    All this points out is that there is a damn good reason why church and state must remain separate.

  • Say what you will about Fred, but he, more than any other of these Republican candidates, has been keeping his own Religious beliefs pretty much to himself. So in this case CB has it right.

    We should get back to what’s really important. For instance, did you know if Fred is elected he will be the tallest President ever? He’s the tallest Candidate in the race. Well, he will be once it’s official. The hell with landing 737’s on his shoulders, you can land one of those new super jets that no one is buying and whose name is currently escaping me.

    We need Tweety in here to get the focus back where it belongs gaddangit!

  • I’m with Austin.

    I’m tired of Republican candidates parading their piety around, throwing God into every speech, when it’s clear it’s just a political device. Mondale was a much more deeply religious man than Reagan, yet because he didn’t bring God into his political discourse, Reagan was perceived as the more religious person. If religion is a criteria some people use for voting, then it should be based on their record in religion, not just their rhetoric. Church attendance is one way of measuring that record. If a politician talks about poverty, the best way to know if they’re credible is by looking at their record. If they talk about being a “uniter,” it’s not their words that’s important, it’s their actions. If politicians insert talk about their faith in God into their political speeches, it is reasonable to investigate their credibility on this matter, as well.

  • (shaking head>) CB, don’t you realize it can only be good for Dems if this question is being asked? The people who are most concerned about church attendance will be overwhelmingly Republican, and thus unlikely to ever vote for any Democrat. So, when the question comes up, it can only be part of some fratricidal warfare on the right, which is only going to split the GOP and force nonviable “holier-than-thou” candidates to the fore. Goopers being goopers, they are far more likely to have frauds and hypocrites running, and a question like this will put them into a circular firing squad.

    Dems themselves shouldn’t (and won’t) ask this sort of question. But having the wingnuts asking it is, to coin a phrase, a gift from heaven.

    Does it degrade political discourse to have this effluvia being asked about? Sure, but it’s not like the discourse is all that elevated anyway. This question is like Liquid Plumber added to a clogged toilet; sure it makes the contents more toxic, but it may well help wash the crap away in the end.

  • Elrod’s original post (markaelrod.net) was very tongue-in-cheek and I don’t feel that he was equating church attendance to being a Christian. I think his main thought was whether voters should hold candidates for public office responsible for going on the record regarding their religious affiliation.

    Some candidates might feel that it’s advantageous to affiliate with a particular denomination or religious sect for one reason or another. If they do so, then I believe it is well within the rights of the voters to ascertain whether their claim is true. Church attendance records are only one such number that might support the candidate’s claim. Other facts might include how the candidate has served the particular organization in the past (offices held, conferences attended, educated at an affiliated school, etc.)

    In any event, it seems wise for concerned voters to ask the candidate to fully explain their association with any particular “groups” (religious, political, activist, etc.).

  • The day politicians stop using their religious faith to pander to the sheep out there is the day such questions become inappropriate. Until them, I say they are fair game. You want to use religion to your advantage then you better be able to accept the consequences.

  • If religion is a criteria some people use for voting, then it should be based on their record in religion, not just their rhetoric.

    I think that’s a good way of putting it. If candidates want to benefit from the rhetoric of religion, they have an obligation to provide some substance as well.

    The Christian Right doesn’t appear to be satisfied with mere rhetoric from candidates anymore. I think the reason why is pretty clear: so many, going back to Reagan, gave them lots of rhetoric during the campaign but never much substance while in office. Bush hasn’t been much better, thankfully.

    It’s taken decades, but some are finally starting to catch on to how they have been used and are tired of it — now they are looking to find some substance behind the rhetoric. Granted, mere church attendance isn’t much in the way of substance, but it might be more than many realize. First, real church attendance isn’t nearly as high as reported church attendance. Going to church regularly demonstrates a non-trivial commitment in time, effort, and resources which has become much harder to uphold in modern culture. Second, regular church attendance correlates very closely with a whole slew of right-wing religious and political positions.

    After candidates’ church attendance is verified, maybe the Christian Right will begin looking closely at the substance of the theology being presented in those churches and ask the candidates direct questions about what they do or do not agree with. With any luck, it won’t be long before candidates shout “enough!” and insist that questions about religion are purely private matters which have no bearing on one’s fitness for public office.

    I can dream, can’t I?

  • I think you are wrong in your main premise.

    If you claim, as Romney does, that we need to have a person of faith run this country then asking him about his faith and why faith is necessary is a good question.

    I think that Reagan was shown to be a hypocrite when he stumbled there. If Reagan had not made an issue out of faith then asking him about it would be out of bounds. But Reagan raised the issue first.

    I think that it is a fair question to ask Gore why he flys in private jets. I just wish Gore would come up with a better answer. His answer should be “I am in favor of a very serious carbon tax and if me or anyone else adds CO2 then we should pay a tax to help raise revenue AND to reduce the amount of CO2 that is released.

  • I think “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” might be an appropriate framing for this situation. If a politician doesn’t say anything about their beliefs (or lack thereof), then they shouldn’t be asked about them in any way – it’s a complete non-issue as far as the election is concerned. Yet the moment they open the door by talking about their beliefs in an attempt to get elected, then listeners should be entirely free to pose follow-up questions that seek to get at the specifcs, as well as demand evidence of any claims the politician makes regarding their piety or the influence of religion in their lives.

    It’s time religious platitudes stopped providing a one-way ticket to electoral brownie points.

  • I’m with JC @ 3. If a candidate wants to make like an apostle, he’s fair game for a jeebus test.

    Anyone else remember probably the finest Colbert interview ever, with Lynn Westmoreland? Ol’ Lynn was cr*pping on about the importance about having the 10 Commandments inscribed every federal building, so Colbert asked him to recite what was on the tablets… if memory serves, Lynn couldn’t remember a single one.

    Not even the comedy one about not coveting your neighbor’s ass.

  • Agreed. This is private business and should not have any importance. These “Christians” try to insert themselves into everything as if they should be relevant to all political discourse. They are always trying to make “their” faith an important issue when it is not supposed to be an issue at all, and they do it with such an authoritative voice as if something must be wrong with these candidates if they don’t attend church. They need to be gagged when it comes to trying to intimidate candidates with “their” religious agenda. But that might interfere with their favorite pastime…punishment.

    Don’t get me wrong, I love Christians…but we shoot fanatics here

  • Serious question….what if we had a Democratic candidate for office who makes no bones about his/her Christian faith and the role it plays in all facets of their life, both public and private?

    Would that fracture our base, or would the inherent pluralism we enjoy mediate any potential conflict, ensuring solidarity behind the candidate?

    I ask for two reasons: one is personal.

    The other is b/c the situation is analogous to jimBOB’s insights (which I think are correct) that you have the conservative right and the uber-religious conservative right who would demarcate support over whether or not the candidate passes their test of church attendance, whereas our side could divide us into two camps: (1) are the Dems who staunchly belief that religion is a private matter and should remain so without exception vs. (2) those Dems who would accept a candidate’s belief even if those beliefs were to influence public policy so long as the values comport with the Democratic agenda.

    Would those in camp no. 1 be willing to set aside their own opinion and support the candidate, or would they….like the uber-religious conservative…just sit and home out of principle?

    And please, I’m not asking to make some hidden point….my inquiry is honest because of a specific situation I’m about to find myself a part of, and I need and (as readers of the most level-headed blog on the interweb) value your opinions on the matter.

    Thanks in advance.

  • …what if we had a Democratic candidate for office who makes no bones about his/her Christian faith and the role it plays in all facets of their life, both public and private?

    Waddaya mean “what if“? When was the last time a Democratic candidate (at least a leading candidate) didn’t make regular references to religion and made a point of saying how important their religion was to their lives? Did the three leading candidates not offer themselves up to the religious dog-and-pony show hosted by CNN and run by Jim Wallis where we could be tantalized by such serious questions as “what is your biggest sin”?

    A real hypothetical would be: what if we had a leading Democratic candidate who, whenever asked about religion, insisted that while they do not hide the fact that they are religious they will also not discuss it because their religion simply isn’t relevant to their candidacy or ability to hold political office. What if we had a Democratic candidate who made no bones about the fact that their religion is none of our business and it’s not appropriate to inquire after it? That would be new.

  • This question is like Liquid Plumber added to a clogged toilet; sure it makes the contents more toxic, but it may well help wash the crap away in the end.

    Comment by jimBOB — 6/15/2007 @ 11:48 am

    Best comment of the day, by far.

    -GFO

  • #20: How can any candidate of any party be a genuine Christian and NOT have it affect they way they conduct themselves in office?

  • How can any candidate of any party be a genuine Christian and NOT have it affect they way they conduct themselves in office?

    Everything about a candidate’s personal history, education, experience, etc., will affect how they conduct themselves in public office. There is a difference between affecting a candidate and being relevant to whether or not they are fit for public office. In particular, a candidate might recognize that private religious faith is not a basis for public policy and therefore will not rely upon religious revelations as interpreted by an ecclesiastical leader somewhere when working out policy proposals.

  • It’s been my experience that genuine Christians do not set aside their faith for any reason. And that’s the problem in my opinion. If they are genuine, I want to know how it will affect the way they make policy. If they are able to set aside their faith for policy, what else are they willing to do? Are they willing to knowingly go against the wishes of their God and put the needs of their fellow countrymen before the wishes of their God? What kind of person does that make them?

  • […] Dems who would accept a candidate’s belief even if those beliefs were to influence public policy so long as the values comport with the Democratic agenda. — Darren, @19

    Not me; I’ve never believed that “my party; right or wrong” is the way to go. Someone who waved his religion like a flag, would never get my vote; religion belongs at home, not in the public square.

    Besides, while it’s true that, to an extent, religion informs all our actions (even I, an atheist, subconsciously “obey” most of the commandments, for example) I can’t imagine any religion being fully in tune with Dem’s — secular — agenda. Also, I suspect that, in order to parade one’s faith in the public square, one would have to be be pretty “rabid” (for lack of a better word). If so, then it would spell trouble for everyone else’s religion, and that, by itself, is in disharmony with the Democratic (and democratic) principles.

  • It’s been my experience that genuine Christians do not set aside their faith for any reason.

    Is there some body out there which has the authority to determine what a “genuine Christian” is and is not, and furthermore has decided that the label “genuine Chrsitian” cannot be applied to anyone who refuses to use their religion as a basis for public laws imposed on all citizens? I must have missed the memo on that one.

    Are they willing to knowingly go against the wishes of their God and put the needs of their fellow countrymen before the wishes of their God? What kind of person does that make them?

    It makes them fit for elected public office in a democratic republic, that’s what. Anyone who puts the wishes of their god — or to be more specific their interpretation of what they think their god is telling them it wants — ahead of the interests/needs of the people is saying that their god is sovereign rather than the people. This, in turn, is contrary to the basic principles of a democratic republic. Anyone who says to the people “my god is sovereign, you are not,” is quite simply not fit for elected public office. They are a theocrat, not a democrat, and there is no room for theocrats in the government of a liberal democracy.

    Thank you for bringing up an excellent question which can be put to political candidates who like to parade around while swaddled in religious rhetoric: “who do you believe exercises political sovereignty over our nation: your god or the people?”

  • I’ve never believed that “my party; right or wrong” is the way to go.

    I agree. I object just as strongly to someone basing public anti-poverty laws on the basis of private religious revelation as I do to someone basic public anti-abortion laws on the basis of private religious revelation. Using religious scripture and revelation as a basis for public policy is anti-democratic because it’s a means for shutting off public debate.

    When a politician says “we should do this because it’s what god wants,” they are trying to force responders to argue “no, god wants something else.” That’s an easy argument to lose and, moreover, is the wrong argument to have. People who correctly answer “so what – we should do what’s in the best interest of the community and what’s consistent with our principles of liberty” are easy to paint as anti-god/anti-religion which, in the current climate, automatically causes their position to be discounted no matter what it is.

    Basing public policy on private religious revelation is best way politicians have found to avoid answering hard questions about or making hard arguments in defense of their proposals. The people deserve better – they deserve politicians who can make reasoned, public arguments on behalf of their positions. Unfortunately, that may require a people who can understand reasoned arguments.

  • Austin, two questions: 1.) without asking them about their beliefs and how their actions will be governed by those beliefs, how do we know they are fit for office?

    Back in #20 you asked “What if we had a Democratic candidate who made no bones about the fact that their religion is none of our business and it’s not appropriate to inquire after it?”

    Yet you point out so well in #26 that politicians must be able to put aside their beliefs for the good the people. 2.) How do these statements fit together?

  • without asking them about their beliefs and how their actions will be governed by those beliefs, how do we know they are fit for office?

    When it comes to religion, it’s reasonable to think that any candidate who says that private religious beliefs are irrelevant is almost certainly not the sort who places private religious revelation above public reason. Otherwise, they are completely deceptive for the sake of gaining power – and in that case, talking more about religion wouldn’t be any better.

    Back in #20 you asked “What if we had a Democratic candidate who made no bones about the fact that their religion is none of our business and it’s not appropriate to inquire after it?”

    Yet you point out so well in #26 that politicians must be able to put aside their beliefs for the good the people. 2.) How do these statements fit together?

    I’m at a loss as to how they would be perceived as conflicting. Then again, you are leaving out a relevant portion of #20: “what if we had a leading Democratic candidate who, whenever asked about religion, insisted that while they do not hide the fact that they are religious they will also not discuss it because their religion simply isn’t relevant to their candidacy or ability to hold political office.”

    If their religion is irrelevant to their candidacy or ability to hold public office, it’s because it plays no (relevant) role in how they execute their public responsibilities (or, if it does, it doesn’t cause them to choose policy A over B – perhaps it simply makes them feel better or worse about having to do B). If it plays no role in such matters, then either their religion never plays any significant role in things they do, or they are able to set aside potentially conflicting religious beliefs when it comes to acting on behalf of the people.

  • The comments here reflect the common atheist ignorance or distortion of the significance of a candidate’s religious beliefs.

    EVERY candidate has — or should have — a personal philosophy that informs and guides their lives and their politics. For some, that philosophy will be grounded in religious faith. For those people, who by demographics in this country are most likely to be Christian or Jewish, that philosophy/theology will be grounded in the Judeo-Christian ethic. I would be astounded if a non-believer were to say that their personal philosophy had nothing to do with their politics — such a person would be a hipocrit at best.

    Every candidate should thus be asked what that philosophy or theology is, and how they believe that it impacts their view on public policy issues.

    The problem with the right wing is not so much that they claim a Christian faith, but that their politics bears so little relation to the social justice witness of the Old Testament prophets, and to the actual teachings of Jesus as set out in the gospels (i.e., the first four books of the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John).

    One reason Judaism has been so crucial to Western thought was that it was the first religion to claim that true worship of God had as a vital component ethical treatment of other people. It stated that God cared deeply about whether Jews exploited their employees; how they treated aliens, orphans and widows; whether impartial justice was administered by the government.

    Further, whether atheists acknowledge it or not, the Judeo-Christian ethic in its fullest sense still provides the main basis for progressive ethical thought in the West. I don’t mean the 10 Commandments. I mean the very idea of social justice; of non-despotic government; fair treatment. Indeed, a great deal of the progressive agenda can be found in the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah, the two greatest prophets of the Old Testament, who were both passionately committed to the principles of justice.

    Interestingly, Jeremiah’s experiences closely match those of today’s anti-war protesters. He warned the king not to get involved in the wars of Babylon and Egypt. But the king’s advisor’s argued that they had to be tough, show toughness, and ally themselves with the strongest military machine. As a result of his protest, many called for Jeremiah’s death, and he was thrown into a pit for months.

    Further, until very recently, evangelical Christians were at the vanguard of many progressive issues. They were the mainstay of the abolitionist movement, starting in the 1820’s. William Wilberforce, an English Methodist, led the fight to ban slavery in the British Empire (although, unfortunately, he did not let his Christianity inform his views on the class system). William Jennings Bryan, sadly remembered most for the Stokes trial, was a champion of the working class, calling for a silver standard instead of gold, to boost the economy and jobs. Indeed, he was the Democratic candidte for president in 1896.

    And in modern times, the United States’ foremost prophet of social justice was Martin Luther King, Jr. His civil rights beliefs cannot be separated from his Christian faith.

    And whatever else atheists may care to believe about Christians, every survey on the subject shows that charitable giving, even to non-church charities, is is highest among those who attend church regularly.

    Finally, atheists should be ready to tell us what ethical system they will put in place if we dispose of the Judeo-Christian ethic. The fondest argument of atheists — at least the one I have seen most often — is to look at religious wars. This is undeniably a valid issue, one that religion has to answer for. And yet, probably the majority of the time, religion has merely served as a proxy for the real issues behind the conflict, whether it be nationalism or class conflict.

    Moreover, the worst murderers in history all lived during the 20th century — Hitler, Stalin, and Mao — and all three were atheists. Hitler despised Christianity. Stalin sought to extinguish Christianity — except when he needed church support in WW II. Mao also persecuted the church, and other religions as well.

    So when a candidate proclaims their religious faith, the question to ask is what that faith means to them, and how it affects their political and policy positions. When Bush famously stated that Jesus Christ was his favorite philosopher, he was rightly derided for it — not because that would be a bad answer, but because he had so little understanding or knowledge about the teachings of Jesus. Al Franken has demonstrated that Bush’s alleged intensive bible studies, overcovered in the media, had a large element of farce to them.

    Bush wore a wrist band bracelet with the letters, “WWJD” on them — “What Would Jesus Do.” But he obviously did not read the Bible in attempting to follow that precept, asuming that the wrist band was any more than a political ploy to start with. Had he read even just Chapters 5-7 of the Book of Matthew — the “Sermon on the Mount” — we and the world would not have been subjected to the horrors of Guantanamo and Abu grabue. Indeed, Gandhi made those teachings a centerpiece of his philosophy of nonviolence. They were also at the root of King’s civil rights philosophy.

    Further, some of the best progressive thinking comes from Christian thi thinkers, such as Jim Wallace (“God’s Politics”) and Tony Compolo, people who seriously apply the teachings of Jesus and the prophets.

    The right wing’s Christianity is all too often nothing more than nationalism grafted onto their religion. That, rather than Christianity itself, is the true problem.

    Finally, I have no problems with people who espouse atheism. I have no desire to impose any religious faith on anyone. That would indeed be counter to our civil traditions in this country. But why are the atheists so intent on actively and intentionally trying to alienate those of us who espouse the Christian faith? Large numbers of Christians espouse progressive politics. And many more would be open to them were not so many progressive proponents so openly and loudly antagonistic to Christianity.

    There are so many areas that we can work together on; these attacks are counter-productive.

    Ross Taylor

  • The comments here reflect the common atheist ignorance or distortion of the significance of a candidate’s religious beliefs.

    That’s a pretty serious accusation given the complete absence of any specific examples or citations of anyone being ignorant or engaging in distortions.

    Finally, atheists should be ready to tell us what ethical system they will put in place if we dispose of the Judeo-Christian ethic.

    Humanism.

    But why are the atheists so intent on actively and intentionally trying to alienate those of us who espouse the Christian faith?

    If you need people to be obsequious to your religion in order not to feel alienated and in order to be willing to work with them on some other matter, then the problem is entirely yours. I don’t need you to agree with or say nice things about atheism in order to work with you on some unrelated matter, so don’t insist on that from others.

  • Comments are closed.