I would be amused by Davenport and those like him if I didn't conider them so darned dangerous. They seem to think that their religion is so wonderful that it needs to be followed by everyone, yet so weak that it needs the power of government to support it.

They're not satisfied with the fact that the government already supports them financially, removing any property their churches own from the taxation rolls. No, they want everyone to have God in the government buildings, in the laws, in their wallets, in the schools. Theirs must be some weak and ineffective sort of god that it needs that sort of help.

Well said Gloria. I have been saying for a long time, I am not against a person's right to believe what they want to believe...I just don't want their beliefs forced on me. I have my own beliefs!

Gloria,

When was the last time you had a gun to your head telling you to accept Jesus or die?

Gloria, I could not have said it better. As Voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Unfortunately, the prevalent point of view these days is to question the patriotism, morality or character of anyone who dares to question the political or cultural beliefs of the current administration. This country is becoming less tolerant of our differences and more tolerant of our fears, with assistance of faux intellectuals like Mr. Davenport.

Yo, truth... are you saying that legislating religion is only a problem if naked force is used? What about addressing the concerns Gloria actually mentioned in her letter? Would you be behind the sort of laws we saw in Afghanistan if the majority approved of them? Just wondering...

I agree Gloria. For some reason the Christian right has become so self-righteous that they believe everyone must think and believe as they do. Unfortunely these people have learned nothing from history and how this is so dangerous to society. There is completely no balance anymore between church and state and really the solution is simple. If you don't believe in abortion - don't have one. If you don't believe in homosexuality - don't be gay. If you believe in the golden rule...well then start practicing it!
The funny thing is, that if the Muslims were pushing their adgenda in this country the way Christians are, those very Christians would be up in arms and fighting it every step of the way. So why is it that they can't understand the frustration of so many? It is very simple, believe as you wish, but respect the fact that others my hold different beliefs. End of story!

Max:

What a silly saying "if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one". I could counter with a saying: "If you don't believe in life, don't have one!"

By the way, what kinds of "threats" are we talking about?

There are alot of people here not happy about the direction this country is going in reference to the influence of the religious right. I have my problems as well but they are only doing what we all have the power to do. They have organized and let our esteem politicians know what happens if they dont listen to them. And given the voting clout they carry why would any politician not listen if they dont have a viable alternative.

Many years ago I told some arab friends they could change US policy in the middle east via israel and the palestinians by being as organized as the jewish lobby. And give the politicians a viable choice.

If you dont like what you see happening via the christian right then organize and form a counter balance,in either party, and let the politicians know there is an active and vocal voice of christians and non-christians who dont believe in what the christian right is pushing and let them know if they choose to stand up to the CR they will have some support. If not why should they be concern about your fears.

The irony of all this is that those in disagreement with Davenport here believe that the Christian Right are the ones trying to enforce their way of life on others.

Let's go back a couple hundred years...prayer in school was the norm, there were no gay marriages, there were no abortions and there was no fear of mentioning God or the ten commandments. And since the inception of "under God" in the pledge of allegiance in the 40's or 50's, there was no uproar until just the last few years.

These are the values that this nation was built on. The librals are the ones who want to remove these values one brick at a time. To say that the Christian Right is the one trying to make all these changes is laughable. All the CR is doing is trying to maintain some of what made us great in the first place.

And to what someone said about the Muslim influence...Islam had no voice in the establishment of this country. Only because we were built on Christian values do we allow everyone to worship as they wish- not so in Muslim nations. Their role in policy here should not and cannot be recognized.

Michael
I was waiting on a reply like yours. I have many friends who hold your opinion and also say what you have said. They see this as a chance to retake what was taken from them. The see this as a new "war" to bring back the values they think this country was built on; many of the ones you pointed out. Actually I am not bothered by this and on some topics in agreement.

What I dont like is this talk of a "war". It make it sound so much of an us against them and if we dont "win" then they "win". I still think the discussions on the religous topic is being driven by extremes on both sides forcing people to take a stance they are not 100% comfortable with.

I think most americans have a milder,lack of better word here, approach to how the follow their christian beliefs. Simple example is that some of the themes you mentioned,prayer in school, I belief the same, gay people maybe different,as i dont know your complete position.

My point earlier was that for me there is one big bus that emcompasses the wide range of christian beliefs. In my opinion the driver of this bus has now become the christian right and they are defining or redefining what it means to be a true christian. And though on some level I belief what they do I am still nervous about how far they will take this.

Muslems is another topci for another time

Hayes, never heard or used the word "war" as it pertains to this...but I understand the use of it.

But I fail to see how people who wish not to change everything as extreme. If you have had success with one foundation- there's no guarantee that one that doesn't resemble the first will work. Libs want to CHANGE it. The Christians are not the ones trying to change the system. To have an honest discussion about this topic, we should all agree with which side is the one trying to make changes.

But beyond that, I'd really like to know, specifically, how these dastardly Christians are tormenting these individuals who claim the Christians are ramming things down their throat. What is it? How does it effect you? Just curious.

Not sure what you were getting at with the Muslim thing...but to reiterate...they are welcomed in this country, they have every right to worship as they please but they have no recourse in this country to change our ways except through voting or running for office (good luck) like everyone else.

"But I fail to see how people who wish not to change everything as extreme. If you have had success with one foundation- there's no guarantee that one that doesn't resemble the first will work. Libs want to CHANGE it. The Christians are not the ones trying to change the system."

You claim that this country was founded on Christianity and the Ten Commandments, but I seriously doubt it. The nation was founded as a secular republic. The first commandment in the Bible is diametrically opposed to the first amendment of the Constitution, for instance.

What the "Christian Right" is trying to do is regain its de facto dominance in places it should never have had it in the first place. What they are trying to do is remove the first true taste of religious liberty we've seen in nearly 200 years. I hope that doesn't happen. That sort of liberty pretty nice to have.

Micahel
Wasnt trying to stir anything up about the muslem comment. Just felt the role of muslems in our society and the topic of CR as two seperate topics thats all. But your comment on the last post I can accept and would even apply that to anyone and everyone living in our society.

The war word has been by only a few but others have used words like "this is a battle" leaving the impression they see it as a war.

I see this as a country built on christian beliefs, our constitution has many of its foundations. I belief strongly this is a good foundation so dont get me wrong. I am nervous when we call us a christian nation. I know christians dominate the population but this phrase reminds me to much of how Israel calls itself a jewish nation and how non jews are treated as outsiders. I may have to go into this more later; I dont think I am coming across clear here.

For me it is not so much about ramming their views but more that i have to defend my christian beliefs because I dont hold their beliefs. From the terry shiavo case, stem cell research, position on gays, and etc. I had the feeling that if I didnt share their views then I wasnt a good christian. Also the case about the pharmacy that refused to give a prescription. To me that is getting in my face about religion. What I find timely is I am currently reading t´he DRIVEN LIFE and the part about how true christians stand up for their beliefs even they are attacked for it. How timely??

Understand again I agree with most of the positions of the christian right as well as their right to see their beliefs brought into policy. I am not so comfortable of the take no prisoner mentality some of the more vocal seem to have. religion to me is a private issue.

As far as who is changing; to me the bible has been interpreted and reinterpreted so many times that everyone has brought changes. Question is which interpretation do you accept.

Let me try this another way, because I understand both sides of the issue and I don't want a "Christain-only" society, either. Well, actually I would but I respect those who do not share my beliefs.

But nobody disputes that it was the Bible that brought our pilgrims over here. That being said, it is the same Bible that dictates that we are to be tolerant of others. Country's that are "based" on other faiths, like Islam, make no room for freedom of worship or much of anything else.

The religion of "tolerance" is what makes us free! Sometimes in spite of itself. Those who believe in the faith and those who are able to recognize the influence and out-right mention of it in our founding documents, fear that the removal of anything that relates to it- will destroy it!

I believe that liberals, in general, believe that our nation is so strong that nothing can destroy it. I don;t believe that- AT ALL. I believe that the foundation can crumble due to outside terrorists who want to destroy us and that it can crumble due to its own citizens legislating against all that made it great.

I understand all those who want to change this and that, just try to understand those of us who recognize that a lot of this-and-that will eventually erode the values of the foundation.

Blogging is a nice forum but it restricts the ablility to really get into details effectively. I dont think I always make myself clear.

But due to Michael Jackson and bedtime I will only react to one point and carry on tomorrow.
Your use of tolerance is good. In a nut shell where I see the CR going is a less tolerant nation and I dont trust this. I know you may ask for examples so I will take advantage of my six hours ahead to prepare an answer.

Blogging is a nice forum but it restricts the ablility to really get into details effectively. I dont think I always make myself clear.

But due to Michael Jackson and bedtime I will only react to one point and carry on tomorrow.
Your use of tolerance is good. In a nut shell where I see the CR going is a less tolerant nation and I dont trust this. I know you may ask for examples so I will take advantage of my six hours ahead to prepare an answer.

Yep, Hayes, I will need some examples. I believe it very important to frame the discussion properly. You state that the CR is going less tolerant and that you do not trust this.

My view is that the Christian Right isn't "going" anywhere. We are here and more importantly- have always been here. Perhaps you have some other examples, but I can't think of anything that we might be discussing that isn't a result of the left trying to change something that has been a tradition all along.

I think the distinction is too stark to ignore without specific examples.

If folks would actually read about the discussions our founding fathers had about putting religion in our Constitution and government, they would understand that God and Jesus were intentionally left out. When the Constitution was being discussed by the different states during the ratification process, many a person stated that our country could not last without acknowledging God. With that on everyone's minds the Constitution was ratified without any religious language or intent.

And no, the Bible didn't bring the Pilgrims here, they brought the Bible.

Please tell in what way is our Constitution and government are based on the 10 C's or the Bible. Seriously. People state it all the time but never back it up.

A few points: 1-Our country is dedicated to freedom, yet the Bible requires slaves and women to obey their "masters."
2- Where is freedom of speech encouraged in the Bible?
3- Are you suggesting that the Bible allows or encourages freedom of religion?
4- Our country was founded in part to ensure trade for American businesses. We find that the New Testament promotes poverty, not riches.
5- Article VI(3) of the Constitution says in part. "...But no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Had the founding fathers wanted to base our government on the Bible or the Ten Commandments, I think this and other phrases would have been omitted.

Tony,

If you have any doubt as to what the intentions were of the founding fathers, look no further than the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence. Unlike "the separation of church and state", my argument exists.

To your points:

1) My recollection is that the slaves and masters bit is limited to the Old Testament-which in those days you did not have industries and great trade or even workman's comp! The only way they could create a society is with slave's. The New Testament asks only that you follow Christ

2) Don't recall Jesus ever telling anyone to shut up. Don't recall him enslaving anybody or forcing them to do anything. Those around Him had the freedom to do whatever- He just simply told them what He thought they should do.

3) Yes. Unlike the Quran, you are not instructed to cut the heads off of those who do not believe. A Christian talks to and prays for the non-believer, but understands their freewill.

4) Depends on if you want to pick and choose your scriptures. Liberals believe that you always give a man a fish. Conservatives believe the part where you give 'em a fish and then TEACH them to fish. God blesses some people so that they can give more. Neither the Old or New say that being wealthy is bad- it's what you do with it (which you worship).

5) Exactly, for all the above reasons it should not be a test. That is up to the voters. Such a test would be futile as there is no way of enforcing it.

"Let's go back a couple hundred years...prayer in school was the norm,"

And members of minority religions were restricted from clubs, jobs, government; beaten and terrorized on certain "holy" days; lambasted with "blood libel..."

"...there were no gay marriages,"

Gay men and women in positions of power led semi-secret lives; J. Edgar and his partner dressed up in government buildings; gay citizens without power were beaten and murdered by "Christians" and others in the streets...

"...there were no abortions..."

And women died as victims of back alley murders

"and there was no fear of mentioning God or the ten commandments."

And the majority religious community became used to the comfort of being unchallenged, of being unquestioned, of waging war or writing law without another voice heard; not the rule of majority envisioned by founding fathers...

"And since the inception of "under God" in the pledge of allegiance in the 40's or 50's, there was no uproar until just the last few years."

Lift every voice and sing...

Sue,

Your points are way, way over-simplified and way too generalized to be taken seriously. Which Christians were beating whom on Holy days? How many? Was this condoned or encouraged by Jefferson, Hamilton, who? Who wrote law without another voice heard? How many back alley abortions- under what circumstances?

Was this a generally recognized Christian behavior or was it the action of a few rogues? Makes a big difference. The law of averages dictates that there will always exceptions in large numbers.

If jesus was the single most important man ever born, then why does his geneaology change from book to book in the bible?
You'd think they could get at least that part right.
I have read the bible and can't believe that people actually buy into this stuff. The bible is so full of errors and contradictions that it hard to think anyone would take it seriously.
But if you wanna believ in impossible fairy tales and goofy fables, go right ahead. This is America and you have the right to believe any crazy thing you want to!

Mostly thoughtful discussion. Thank you all.

Michael says:
"My recollection is that the slaves and masters bit is limited to the Old Testament-which in those days you did not have industries and great trade or even workman's comp! The only way they could create a society is with slave's. The New Testament asks only that you follow Christ"

I suggest you re-read the New Testament, if your recollection is that bad. Not only was there no place where it stated that slavery was bad morally, it positively supported it, urging slaves to avoid freedom and serve even abusive masters happily and faithfully. But this strays from the main subject.

You claim that separation of church and state doesn't exist. If church and state must be joined (the apparent point of your claim), then I ask you how true freedom of religion can exist?

Brian,

I'm very sorry you feel that way. But you obviuosly are seeing something that I am not. My understanding is that Jesus is the son (earthly) of Mary and Joseph. Where are you getting something different?

Michael:

How do you define Liberal? Conservative? What do you think Liberals believe and want to achieve?

"The librals (sic) are the ones who want to remove these values one brick at a time."

"Liberals believe that you always give a man a fish."

Are these defining characteristics of a Liberal? Based on what?

I do agree with your assertion that Liberals want to change this nation. "If you have had success with one foundation ... Libs want to CHANGE it." If this change leads to more equal rights and responsibilities for ALL, what is wrong with that? Perhaps the reason Liberals want to change this foundation is because it does not work for ALL people.

Slippery slope arguments do not work very well. " ... it can crumble due to its own citizens legislating against all that made it great." In what ways are Liberals attempting to legislate against the things that made this nation great? Perhaps they are attempting to restore the things that made this country great, such as promoting the rights of individuals. How does ensuring that individual rights are protected and individual responsibilities are fulfilled lead to the eventual collapse of this country?

I return to my original questions: How do you define Liberal? Conservative? What do you think Liberals believe and want to achieve?

----
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine

Excellent remarks! I always love to hear it when people actually use common sense and have respect for one another and the differences we all have.

And for the comment by "Tony"...This isn't about putting guns to people's heads. It's about respect and equality for all without setting the "standard" as the Christian Right thinks they do.

Gal 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened by a yoke of slavery.

1 Peter 2:6 Live as free men...

2 Cor 3:17 The Lord is the spirit and where the spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

Many examples are found from Luke, 1 Cor, Gal and Ephesisans about freedom. The only real reference I can find to actual slaves was in 1 Tim 6, where he encourages them to be content with themselves and for the masters to not show disrespect for the slaves.

Again, without big commerce and the ability to pay all the worker-bees, infrastructures could not be built. But as Jesus said, being a master does not give you the right to treat your slaves with any less respect. Then again, even if Jesus wanted all the slaves free, he wouldn't FORCE any of it. Which verse does He encourage happiness and faithfulness to even the abusive masters?

To the other point: ALL governments have been born of either religious beliefs or the individual beliefs of certain men who were dictators. If you have any exceptions to that claim- I'm all ears.

The origin of any rule of law came from somewhere, hundreds or thousands of years ago and I'd have to challenge you to find one where the founders of the nation were divorced from any religious beliefs. The greatest examples are in the middle and far east.

But just as people have never lived free in a Muslim-led nation, there is not a single country on the planet where the people live hostage under a Christian dominated population or individual Christian leaders. Doesn't happen.

A Chrisitan-nation is a "freewill". No one dies for not believing- or believing a certain brand of religion. That's why the pilgrims came over her. They wanted everyone to be able to choose. That was their mindset. Their mindset came from their understanding of the Bible. These are the ROOTS and the FOUNDATION that make everything else possible- such as true freedom of religion

D. Lewis,

I'm very glad you asked the question. Got a bunch to do today. I'll do my best to get back to you later. Please check at the end of the day anyway!

Your quotes are regarding spiritual freedom from the slavery of sin, or were you unaware of the context, of your quotes?

"A Chrisitan-nation is a "freewill". No one dies for not believing- or believing a certain brand of religion."

I guess you have a bad case of the "no true scotsman" syndrome. People were killed here in America, Michael, for not being Christian enough. If your version of theocracy doesn't include punishment for heresy, it'd be about the first.

How, exactly, does having the Ten Commandments engraved in stone and sitting in a public building fortify one's belief system? How does having "under God" in the pledge of alligence promote a firmer belief in God? How does having Christian prayer aloud at public functions, schools and in the legislature facilitate the message of Jesus Christ if one is not Christian?

And how is trying to dictate a specific belief to others assisting you in witnessing and testifying for the very beliefs you claim to have? You lead people to Christ by being an example of love, tolerence, compassion and forgiveness.

Personally I don't need to tell others how to live their lives in order to have a fullfilling relationship with God. And I don't need symbols in public places to sustain my beliefs. All I need is personal faith and I can have that without relying on combining church and state or others telling me what to believe.

When Jesus met the harlot at the well, He did not condemn nor judge her. He also did not tell her she had to believe as He did. He showed her by example. What kind of example are you, who believe you have the right to impose your beliefs on everyone else, setting? Certainly not one of Christianity, IMO.

Eric,

I listed many references. Some are obviuosly metaphorical. If you read it more carefully, the context, I stated that the only real reference I could find was in 1Timothy. My statement was in reference to a previous post claiming that Jesus was a proponent of slavery.

But, yes, Christians throughout history have done awful things. They are people like anyone else. But you seem to imply that the "Christian government" was sanctioning the beating of certain groups of people for their beliefs. I don't recall that.

The modern day version of what you are referring to is the KKK. But that would hardly pass the test for what you are claiming was the norm way back when.

You're right Yvonne, we don't need all the symbolism to be Christians. But that is where the other side has gone too far. Teachers are afraid to mention Christ. I read a story the other week about a kid getting suspended for possessing a Bible out on the playground. And the same arguments for doing these "little" things translates into the redefining of marraige, changing Christmas to WinterFest and on and on and on.

It's the incrementalism that I fear. One brick at a time....

Michael
Hate to go back to a theme from last night as the recent postings sound interesting but I left with my points incomplete and maybe misunderstood.

Let me explain what I see as the Christian Right. First a footnote, I speak here about the CR as an outsider but in the end I feel I fit somewhere in the CR. There has always been people who voted with their faith as a guiding standard. But there was no unifying structure or agenda until for Ralph Reed. You could go back to Pat Robertson in trying to put a political voice behind those of christian beliefs but it was and is Reed who turned into what we see today. Reed was, for me, the unsung and unknown X-factor in getting Bush reelected.. He has two sound principles. One the christians have a right to be heard in Washington. NO problem here as I agree all groups do. Also and more important his strategy was to forget who won the presidency but focus on the grassroot politics. Control city hall and you control washington. Simple but extremely effective. You are right the CR hasnt gone anywhere but through Reed they acquired a political voice with an agenda. Again no problems here. Actually agree with many of his goals.
I dont agree with taking out the pledge of allegance and am troubled when I read things like the child being dismissed from school.

But in all groups even the CR their are people who take things to far, if you want to call them extreme so be it. What I have seen in the language and the threats is a growing minority within the CR dictating what the CR is. My opinion.

Quick examples. Delays call for the removal of judges because he didnt like the verdict. A little over the top. The Terri Shaivo case had people making statements about what is life and if you are a true christian then there is only one position who could have in that case. And probably the clearest example of where I am bothered and concerned is abortion. Many in this "extreme" part, for the record I hate using the word extreme, want to abolish abortion on all levels and accepting no reasons. I want get into abortion but my problem here is that when a womans life is endangered or she has been raped that woman should have all options, I mean all in case of life threatening situations, and noone especially from any religious groups has a right to take that away from her. And many from the "extreme" CR want to take that away. And many felt they that Bush is in the office because of them and they have chips to cash in. I could go into more but I think this is a good start to a long night.

Hayes,

Sure, both sides find verdicts way over the top and try to remove those judges. The CR believes that judges should judge-not legislate. I agree. I don't agree with doing away with abortion, entirely, and I believe that the CR is doing what the left have done so well in recent times and shoot for the moon and reach a compromise somewhere.

Personally, I'd like to do away with late-term abortions. I'd like to see the number of abortions that the government will pay for limited. Some women use it as birth control (7, 8 times or more).

I think there should be some cut-off point in the term where you can have one. I don't believe in not allowing one for rape, incest or if the mother's health is in jeopardy. I've lived through that in my own house (but all turned out well).

But the other side want no restrictions. I think that if we could all agree on some limitations that the whole issue would be over with. I guess I'm just not aware of which members of the CR you are referring to that are so extreme as to want to outlaw it for say, danger to the mother.

Micahel
I will sound alittle dumb here but I have never understood this argument about judges who legislate. All judges on some level bring in their biases whether it is conservative or liberal views. They see the laws through these lens and make their decisions accordingly. Right or wrong for me this is nothing new. Now if this is not what is meant by active judges then here I am in the dark.

As far as the abortion most of what you said I agree with. The late term abortion should never be an option except when the mothers life is threaten and you are right about stop the use of abortion as birth control. I am a little uneasy with parental notification. Parents should be informed of this but what do you do in the rare cases when the girl was raped by family members.

AS far as CR people I will admit most of what I heard came from interviews on TV with various people and from some of the newly elected republicans. So names at the moment I cant give. Some of the new politicians supported the idea of banning all abortions. Now if they excluded life threatening situations I did not hear it. The words were "all abortions". Now maybe I could research it get some names here. My ASSUMPTION here is that given their position here and on some other topics they were CR people or heavily supported by them. I dont know how you label Jerry Falwell but I have heard him on more than occasion support banning ALL abortions.

Again I dont see the CR as some monolithic group. It is also diverse in its range of beliefers and I include myself somewhere in this spectrum. I dont fear the CR for obvious reasons but I do get nervous from some who seem to now define at first glance what the CR is.

Now again I must take leave. I want to watch the NBA game and that means 300 in the morning for me so early to bed tonight. Would like to carry this on later.

Michael, Common ground alert! As you can gather by my posts I am a "liberal" but I agree with your statement about late term abortions. In fact, I made the post some time back that I supported Bush with regard to LTA. So, as you can see, there are those of us liberals willing to compromise.

I also agree on limiting the number of abortions that are paid for by the American taxpayer. As plentiful as birth control is, there is no reason for repeated unwanted pregnancies.

But in as far as not knowing any folks who would not support abortion, even in cases of endangering the mother's health, I would suggest you look no futher than this forum. There are quite a few vocal folks who have stated they would not support it for any reason. Now, whether these folks are part of the CR or not, I cannot say.

I'm glad things turned out well in your own situation. I do love to hear of positive occurances. May God continue to bless you and yours.

Thanks, Yvonne.

Haven't been here that long and haven't heard those arguments (all abortions). But if that is their philosophy-fine, they don't have to have one under any circumstances. You just wonder how many have been up that creek.

But to what Hayes said...I did forget to mention the part about parental consent. Yes, sometimes girls get pregnant because of the parent (yuk) but surely there is some reasonable common ground on this as well.

If my little girl got pregnant at a very early stage in life, freaked out, took the advice of a friend who told her it wasn't all that bad, walked into an abortion clinic- and I weren't notified!!! Whoa!!! I'm not a violent person but that doc would not want to meet me.

Then again, if a little girl was raped by a parent, do we not need to find that out? I think so. Then you take that father, handcuff him, strip him naked, tie one end of a rope around his unit, the other end to your bumper and just drive about 15 mph until....

oh that's right, I'm not a violent guy. nevermind!

Well done Gloria.

I dont think that Gloria's article mentioned any religion that specifically threatens meddling into governmental law and affairs. Her article instead shines light on the fact that it is dangerous for religion to mix too closely with government.
The note written by "truth" above is a clear display of the apathy someone with deep religious convictions would have toward this topic. That someone would be perfectly happy to impose their religious beliefs on the whole population.
"Truth", you are wrong and blatantly so. Gloria may be a model Christian, Muslim, or Jew. She may have deep religious beliefs ---as do I. -But at least I recognize the dangers that are presented when government follows any particular religious doctrine too closely. History has shown us that path leads to ruin.

Great post by all...

P.S. Michael, you're the man. Best counter arguments I have seen in a long time.