>>>>>>>>Hello hello - you are aware of the history of presidents and presidential elections and religion are you not? We are a country of religious freedom. However, every president and presidential candidate throughout history (unless you can show me evidence of one who did not) has declared their religion publicly. Obama gets to be the first to not have to? If he was a satanist would you still have voted for him? It certainly does play a part in the presidential election. He certainly is free to worship (or not) as he sees fit. The public also has the right to vote (or not) for him based on his church affiliation (or none thereof).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Isn't it a prerequisite to "believe in God" for many public offices in the US ? If so, declared atheists like Kevin would be barred from office, which in my eyes fits not with real religious freedom - even if citizens are free to "practice" their non- or other religion, some of them are left out of government for religous reasons ONLY... And what would happen to followers of Mitra, or Kali and Shiva running for office ? Shintoists ? Who decides if "belief in God" has been met ? [memories of old "proofs of God's existence" in Latin resurge...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>No.
>>>>>>Article 6 of the Constitution: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
>>>>>>However some state constitutions when first written required a belief in God (for public office at the state level).
>>>>>
>>>>>Thx for the clarification.
>>>>>
>>>>>regards
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's accurate but you better not run for office here and say that. If you do not offer your Christian beliefs like a double smorgasbord you better not run. That's just the reality. We have always been a little crazy when it comes to religion. Bear in mind that we were founded by religious fundamentalists specifically because of religion. They said fine, if we can't have it at home we will take it to a new world.
>>>
>>>For the most part, that is the reality. However, it is not the entire truth. At least TRY to do a little research:
>>>
>>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Stark>>>
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/05/local/me-beliefs5>>
>>But back to my point about professing religious belief as a matter of manners rather than testament. If I am in a conversation where I need to say which baseball team I root for, unless the tenor of the whole conversation is about the relative merits of one sport or another I don't tell them what I think about baseball, I just say "The Tribe" - which is a polite way of saying I don't care enough about the subject to take any kind of controversial stand on it and detract from any other points I am trying to make as people try to decide just what kind of weirdo doesn't care passionately about baseball.
>>
>>I think for many in our secular society religion pretty much falls into that category. If one knows others care about the issue far more deeply, it is often the path of least resistance.
>>
>>Amazing how long Stark - who is otherwise a very colorful and outspoken character - took to actually articulate atheism. Unitarianism gives you a lot of wiggle room there and declaring oneself a Unitarian ( as I have done myself on occasion rather than launch into an explanation of my own particular brand of transcendental non-anthropomorphic agnostic paganism ) is uncomplicated as it doesn't sound threatening and is sort of fuzzily understood to be some kind of "Christian" ( though its tenets are as directly a refutation of the Apostles' Creed as is Islam or Judaism )
>>
>>Those who think the whole question of religion is either personal, ineffable or silly have usually learned how to not offend those who don't feel that way unless they are pushed and even then the extreme is usually only losing restraint on being rude.
>>
>>Remember Oscar Wilde's observation that "If Jesus we to come today we would not crucify him. We would invite him to dinner, listen politely to what he had to say, and make fun of him."
>>
>>But especially in fields requiring the approval of others, one has to tread carefully around subjects that are for them both existential and eschatological.
>
>Like politics :o)
You should both read "All the King's Men" again.Not a bad idea in any event -- IMO the best American novel of the 20th century. "Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption and he passeth from the stink of the didie to the stench of she shroud. There is always something." The young rassoneur, Jack Calloway, found it and found out Judge Irwin's secret. A very gothic novel. What a book.
http://www.amazon.com/All-Kings-2006-Movie-Tie/dp/B000V5WH7S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282760167&sr=8-1
