effing eff! it's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion!

american politics...such a sad state of affairs. all this talk of religion in a country supposedly founded on the separation of church and state.

mitt romney is as scary of a candidate as obama and hillary and mccain. i hope someone reasonable comes out of the woodwork at the last minute a la bill clinton in 1992.

Quoted from McCain: I think that Governor Romney’s religion should not, absolutely not, be a disqualifying factor when people consider his candidacy for President of the United States, absolutely not.

No, no absolutely not. But this is definitely more of a reasonable disqualification in my opinion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfm8Zs3V22U

Hmmm...I don't suppose McCain has ever heard of Philadelphia...? This just frosts me. It's like the language issue. There is NO official language, either, surprise, surprise. Nor should there be. While it's true in its daily and often institutional behavior this country acts very Christian (and let's be clear on this - that's Protestant Christian, none of that papist behavior you find in SoCAL and among them Irish types)- and, recently, has embraced its inner Crusader- there still remains the fact that the Constitution openly does not advocate a state religion nor does it openly advocate Christianity. And, for Mr. McCain's info, Muslims have been in the US since its inception, as have Jews and those pesky papists, with a smattering of others.

For fun and games, drop by my blog and read my friend Khalil Bendib's announcement of his candidacy as the first Muslim candidate for president. He makes McCain sound like a rabid dog. The slogan: Fez for Prez! If you're in SoCal, we're kicking off the moussem (haouche for any Maghrebis out there)in late Oct. Oct 28 for LA and either the 27 or the 30 for San Diego. Fez's for all who come and maybe a t-shirt!

well, religious minorities should look on the bright side: Atheists still more hated than Mormons & Muslims.

effing eff! it's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion!

it's both.

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

razib,

with all due respect...jefferson also kept slaves all the while espousing, "we the people..."

we celebrate christmas as a national holiday in this country...can we really expect anything else from american politics?

with all due respect...jefferson also kept slaves all the while espousing, "we the people..."

so? his attitudes and opinions and actions re: religious freedom (personal and public) were totally consistent.

we celebrate christmas as a national holiday in this country...can we really expect anything else from american politics?

the nature of christmas is debatable. it was originally a pagan holiday and not widely celebrated and often banned by christians themselves (easter was the archetypical christian holiday, though even it has had paganized accretions). the first famous 'war against christmas' occurred during the british civil war when puritans banned 'pagan' holidays. their cousins in new england did the same of course.

what is the point of believing in relgious freedom when you don't believe in freedom as an overarching concept?? sorry, i don't really buy it myself.

the man was complex, as all humans are...but this is a fundamental disconnect in my mind.

what is the point of believing in relgious freedom when you don't believe in freedom as an overarching concept?? sorry, i don't really buy it myself.

there are two points

1) the founders were constructing what was basically an oligarchic republic. remember that only 10% of white males were initially eligible to vote. this is an old story, remember that in athens you have universal male suffrage for citizens, when most of the population were females, metics (non-citizen residents) an slaves. or recall that caesar's assassins were objecting to his dictatorship not because the common people felt oppressed (they didn't, caesar was popular amongst the populace) but because he was removing avenues for personal glory for the nobility.

2) humans aren't consistent. i just spent the per capita income of many third world nations in the last 2 weeks saving my cat's leg since he got it run over by a car (lost only two toes!). in theory i do believe that we should give aid and ameliorate suffering, but in my personal life i do live a middle class consumer life in the USA, which includes medium-prized wines and enormous vet bills for my cat-owners. how do i justify it? well, that's a long story, but the point is that we all do such lives, live lives of triviality and frivolity in the midst of a world with gross injustice and unimaginable suffering.

Hindutvavadi!

But younger Americans are disillusioned with Christianity and its relation to politics. Americans are becoming more Hindu (in the sense of pluralistic acceptance of varying religious doctrine) than Hindutvavadi - claiming the nation is founded upon a singular cultural essence.

A few points (i.e opinions)

1.) McCain is behind and his campaign is floundering. The only way he can revive his chances are to appeal to the Republican base who are going to be in large part Christian. That's why he identified himself as "a Baptist" when he probably is Episcopalian. He has to secure the nomination first and then he can worry about whether he needs to appeal to the populist masses. Just wrap yourself in GodSantaEagleFlagChristmasJesus and you can't go wrong if you're trying ti win the REpublican nomination.

2.) Although it is not explicitly written into the Constitution that the United States, the founders of the US were Christian. While they wanted freedom of religion I don't think they envisioned the multiple faiths and religious pleuralism that exists today. I think they wanted a Christian faith that was not dominated by a central authority, be it the Pope and the Vatican or the King and Church of England.

3.) The Constitution is clear in some instances and intentionally vague in other areas so that there is room for interpretation. The "Well regulated militia" is interpreted by the NRA as the right of every citizen to carry a automatic weapons anywhere he or she pleases.

4.) The US is selective in defense and interpretation of the principles upon which it was founded upon and the freedoms we enjoy. There are dictators in Mynamar and Zimbabwe but we are not invading those countries to bring democracy to the people.

Well off to the swimming pool with Asha. That's my way of defeating the terrorist. They hate might right to swim.

nm
mn mn n
98 on ixzvxx dvbk xch lvkk odmxcjcs,vb mn (Asha's thoughts on the subject)

Ugh.
This Republican field is scary... and McCain is the sanest one of the bunch.
Indira Sonia Benazir Hillary Clinton is looking better and better...

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

One of the few things I learned in Constitutional Law was that the phrase "respecting an establishment" (as opposed to just "establishing") was intentional. The framers chose that phrase so they could cover the establishment AND dis-establishment of religion. Remember, America already had a history of settlers who were escaping persecution from their homelands because of religion. The establishment clause was designed to not make the same mistake.

Re: Asha's Dad 11. I disagree. I think the founding fathers were well-aware of the existence of different faiths in the colonies. Pennsylvania, in particular, allowed monotheistic non-Christian groups and Rhode Island colony was specifically founded on the principle of separation of Church and State. In addition, the first independent entity to recognize the US was the Muslim Sultanate of Morocco (Marrakech), with whom the US has had the longest standing unbroken treaty.

As for the NRA and guns. I am not a fan of the NRA, but given the way things are going, I like the 2nd amendment more and more. The military is sworn to uphold the constitution and defend the US against all enemies foreign and domestic. They are not doing well on the foreign ones and I have yet to hear of the US Army marching on Washington and taking back the White House in the name of the people. So, if you don't mind, I am off to target practice.

Although it is not explicitly written into the Constitution that the United States, the founders of the US were Christian. While they wanted freedom of religion I don't think they envisioned the multiple faiths and religious pleuralism that exists today. I think they wanted a Christian faith that was not dominated by a central authority, be it the Pope and the Vatican or the King and Church of England.

that is debatable. they spanned the gamut from orthodox christianity toward non-christian deism (though some, such as john adams, viewed themselves as christians even if most christians did not view him as such because of his anti-trinitarianism). some did want a decentralized christianity, perhaps most, but some of the founders were often very negative toward christianity, jefferson and paine most importantly. you should read the godless constitution for the complicated back story.

The US is selective in defense and interpretation of the principles upon which it was founded upon and the freedoms we enjoy. There are dictators in Mynamar and Zimbabwe but we are not invading those countries to bring democracy to the people.

? are you trying to say that the USA should impose its constitution and bill of rights on every nation or we're hypocrites?

nm mn mn n 98 on ixzvxx dvbk xch lvkk odmxcjcs,vb mn

jsdfpkaskf k fdskl;'a s a ,;l'

I'm with Asha and Manju. dltjeoriter p43o345 indeed.

Although it is not explicitly written into the Constitution that the United States, the founders of the US were Christian. While they wanted freedom of religion I don't think they envisioned the multiple faiths and religious pleuralism that exists today. I think they wanted a Christian faith that was not dominated by a central authority, be it the Pope and the Vatican or the King and Church of England.

In 1796, towards the end of Washington's term, the US signed a treaty which said:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion[Link]

Thank you Ennis

what!!!??? the man who embraced and supported the opponent who ran a racist campaign against him in south carolina, and stood side by side with "agent of intolerance" jerry falwell in his second go-around is a desperate hypocrite! stop the presses!

In 1796, towards the end of Washington's term, the US signed a treaty which said:

hey, that treaty is pretty controversial. last i checked it seemed most likely that it reflects differing opinions among the american founders and that it was pushed through by the anti-clerical faction (which madison, jefferson and paine were the most prominent members). i'm saying this because that is what i read on internet infidels years ago, an atheist site. the take home point is that people saying "most of the founders were christian" or "most of the founders were deist" really need to take a step back and look at it on a case by base. consider thomas jefferson, who drifted toward christian deism late in life, while his personal views were probably more in line with anti-christian deism during his presidency. or john adams, who considered himself a christian though most christians wouldn't consider him one (shades of mitt romney?). the founders had complex thoughts and ideas. i think both atheists and christians are wrong to "claim" them, when 1) they differed in their views 2) their personal views were often filled with evolution, ambiguity, and a sort of deism which is not particularly popular today

p.s. though i do want people who say "most of the founders" were christian to name which ones they mean. some were quite clearly, i believe benjamin rush for example, but many were not by a orthodox christian definition (e.g., protestant & catholic), e.g., jefferson, madison, adams, like monroe and washington. others such as benjamin franklin were or weren't depending what you quote or who you believe or what stage of his life he was at (i think he'd average out to being a very liberal christian). there is a large body of scholarship which would contend that andrew jackson was the first president of the united states whose religious beliefs reflected the majority tendency on religious issues; that is, orthodox nicene christianity.

internet infidels on the treaty of tripoli.

while we are it, is anybody else completely befuddled by this general rhetoric of intent of the founding fathers/constructionist interpretation? maybe i am reactionary, but i'd like to say the world now is a tad different from what it was in 1776. shouldn't the interpretation of the principles of liberty, freedom etc. move on?

it will sure be amusing to see constructionist interpretations and debates of the ethics of cloning and genetic treatment based on the omniscient intent of the founding fathers. i am sure the founding fathers expected people to live only 35 years on average, so should we do some planned culling too? (on the plus side, it might help social security in the short term).

also, excellent book, The Faiths of the Founding Fathers.

whenever people start talking about the founding fathers of the US or about the (unofficially) official religion of the country, things come to a screeching halt in my head, because then i am forced to ask that most obvious of questions, that one question that is so easily overlooked: and what do the indigenous peoples of America have to say about this?

while we are it, is anybody else completely befuddled by this general rhetoric of intent of the founding fathers/constructionist interpretation? maybe i am reactionary, but i'd like to say the world now is a tad different from what it was in 1776. shouldn't the interpretation of the principles of liberty, freedom etc. move on?

Amen. I do not think the founding fathers had ever envisioned anything like the world we currently live in. While it's good to respect their memory and the genius in their collective work, it's also good to remember that what they created was, above all else, a flexible and free infrastructure for government that allowed people as much choice as they could get while still providing for the common welfare.

Strictly speaking, they enshrined the principles they all agreed upon very explicitly, right there in the Constitution. And "America is a Christian nation" is not in there anywhere. Nor is the "right to bear arms" (that was added later, you know?). Insinuating that America is moving to a wholly Christian destiny, or that Christians have some kind of unique right to govern by invoking the name of the founding fathers and their putative beliefs is disgusting.

While saying this kind of thing is currently in vogue politically, that doesn't make it true. Or right.

and what do the indigenous peoples of America have to say about this?

you think they speak with one voice? some of the iroquois confederacy sided with the british and some sided with the americans. and that was when the iroquois weren't raiding groups like the alquonquin and sending war parties as far as illinois. there has been 10,000 years of habitation of the new world, and the extant record in places like mesoamerica suggest the expected rise and fall of peoples. the only "indigenous" claim that natives of north america have is over the english settlers who replaced them is that they replaced another group before them hundreds of years earlier (these weren't static cultures which showed 10,000 years ago and never evolved or moved).

btw, jefferson's declaration of independence hints at the religious sentiments common among the founders
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

"Nature's God" is of course the deist god.

While saying this kind of thing is currently in vogue politically, that doesn't make it true. Or right.

there's a lot of stuff made up in america's churches. i've talked to many christians who repeat the line that "america's founders were christian," with the implicit assumption that they were christian like. forget the fact that most of the early presidents are on the record rejecting the divinity of christ. most of the people who repeat these talking points haven't checked up them, so if you ask them what the founders said which implies that they're christian it is amusing to note they repeat stuff about religion which is often a) very general b) in line with the deistic phraseology of the late 18th century. they don't know the historical context so they simply put it through the christian filter.

Razib, I think Fathima is talking about moral authority here.

It's disingenuous to say that the current inhabitants of America inherited the land via legitimate means. They did not, no matter how you cut it.

The real question, then, is what is OUR moral authority? Each generation seeks to define itself anew, keeping that which is good from those previous, learning from their mistakes, and passing forward the best of its own.

America was also a slave-owning society. It is not any longer. Before WWII, America had a deeply-ingrained anti-Semitic streak. Before the 1960s, America was very much male-oriented. In this day and age, gay people face many of the same hurdles that black people, Jewish people, women, Hispanics, and Indians (native born or otherwise) have faced in the past.

I do not say that these problems have all been fully addressed. But at least they've been admitted to, and at least our government, and our society has taken steps to remedy at least the most obvious and egregious of its failings.

My point is that America continues to evolve morally. And now is not the time to stop. You may question the moral underpinings of America's founding, but as Razib points out, that's because you have the luxury of historical perspective on your side. No country or society that I'm aware of has origins that are wholly innocent, or even partially so. There's always plenty of blood and blame to go around.

No country or society that I'm aware of has origins that are wholly innocent, or even partially so.

exactly. all post-hunter gatherer cultural systems are predicated on an aspect of coercion, and that coercion often reflects values which are alien to our modern perspective.

right, so my phrasing of that question did imply that i believe indigenous americans have a single version of american history - which i don't actually believe.
but my point was, phrased now less obliquely, that all this talk of "founding fathers" bothers me because it presumes a beginning point to american history that is easily disputed. in fact, it not only presumes it, it strengthens it. to talk of a basically Christian country, however critically, is to neglect a vast chunk of continental history, however problematic or uncertain that history may have been (and so yes, razib, i do agree with you that violence was not endemic to the colonisers - that violence is something easily spotted in all cultures).
as to the other issues of moral evolution - with certain qualifications (because straight-line 'progress' is an iffy concept for me), i do agree with you, Salil. i'd never meant to imply that i don't think the US hasn't changed since the Civil War or the civil rights movement or any of its other historical moments, but i wasn't really talking about all those things. it's this whole discourse that surrounds the creation of the nation-state that is america now that i find problematic. because my personal interests do not limit themselves to nation-states or to pre-approved textbooked histories. discourses involving 'founding fathers,' however, do.

but i think i am straying off-topic here. apologies for the previous careless throw-away line.

I think the republicans are getting too much credit here, the more one thinks of it the more it seem like the party of Lincoln is no longer for you unless you are rich or white or a Christian. Wasn't it just two days back that not a single republican lead candidate attended a debate at a black college! Sure the African Americans wont bring much money or votes for republicans but politicians used to at least pay lip service to multicultarlism previously, not anymore.

And McCain is just desperate, he is rotting in the sidelines and trying whatever he can. The sad thing is not what he said but that he is saying exactly what the republican base would like to hear.

Looks like conservatives are also looking at third-party candidates, since they are fed up with the current GOP front-runners.

Looks like conservatives are also looking at third-party candidates, since they are fed up with the current GOP front-runners.

yes, mccain has to run against his erstwhile (now ancient) sanity, giuliani against his homosexual-loving/pro-immigration/multiply-marrying record (at least, he loves shocking terrorist genitals), romney against his mormonism. fred thompson - well, thanks to his laziness, he doesn't have much of a record to speak of, and he is trying to bolster his religiosity claims by saying he goes to church in tennessee when he visits his mom (awww, loves christ. and parents! except, nobody in his mom's parish has actually seen him in that church). huckabee, who has a stellar record of losing weight, cracking jokes, and supporting creationism unfortunately is not a front runner, so maybe the loonies have to turn to the pat robertsons of the world.

a sorry sorry field that makes me want to throw up.

... so maybe the loonies have to turn to the pat robertsons of the world. a sorry sorry field that makes me want to throw up.

Hey, maybe they can support Nader. :)

a sorry sorry field that makes me want to throw up.

But then the good out this mess will be a better chance for a woman a democrat in the white house. I just love em republicans when they are like this.

But then the good out this mess will be a better chance for a democrat in the white house. I just love em republicans when they are like this.

one can only hope. although, in the past, a personal emetic reaction has not been indicative of what a majority of people want (bush 04). whenever i go back and see how the definition of the political centrist position has moved so far to the right, it only makes me depressed. the terms of the debate have been changed so significantly that barely playing defense is considered a victory for the "left".

Let's wait and see if Bloomberg throws his hat in the ring. That would make the situation very interesting.

internet infidels on the treaty of tripoli.

Interesting link, Razib. I had no idea that Godel's Theorem, which kicked up dust on SM recently, was a standard theist argument.
The atheist-theist arguments have become so predictable you could pretty much have them by argument number. ;)

Haha, that's funny Sakshi. Something like

Theist: Arg #13
Atheist: Arg #52
Theist: In that case, #27

Actually, the quoted portion above is joke #31 in my list of jokes. Unfortunately, the effect would be totally lost if I just said "thirty-one" on SM, 'cuz, you know, the delivery is important and can't by conveyed except in person.

any comment on whether Paine (founding father) was actually an Atheist?

reading this right now http://www.amazon.com/Faiths-Our-Fathers-Americas-Founders/dp/0742531155/ref=pd_bbs_2/105-2797178-3466850?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191222752&sr=8-2 but perhaps the one razib mentioned is better

Interesting link, Razib. I had no idea that Godel's Theorem, which kicked up dust on SM recently, was a standard theist argument. The atheist-theist arguments have become so predictable you could pretty much have them by argument number. ;)

Very clever.

Is it just me, or is McCain making a veiled attack against Barak Hussein Obama, thus managing to pound (quasi) Muslims and (half) blacks in one go?

The Straight Talk Express continues to take a detour through Bullshit Town... (thanks, Jon Stewart!)

a sorry sorry field that makes me want to throw up.

The sad thing is, the Dems will probably *still* find a way to lose the election.

The Straight Talk Express continues to take a detour through Bullshit Town... (thanks, Jon Stewart!)

Pshaw! The talk from that express is about as straight as Senator (Past September 30! I love him! No, not enough to be in the same restroom as he is) Larry Craig.

This sounds awfully like the Hindutva rhetoric coming from fundamentalist politicians in Hindustan. They claim that Hindustan is a Hindu nation and all rest must assimilate or be wiped out sort of like how the Buddhists were pushed out.

Seven years ago, McCain railed against the Christian Right during his bid to win the Republican candidacy.

Now he is licking the boots of the Evangelicals.

I used to hold a lot of respect for McCain and now he is like a fallen Jedi. Sad to see McCain go through this path.

I'm just curious, Sakshi. What would argument #1 be in the atheist-theist debate?

The atheist-theist arguments have become so predictable you could pretty much have them by argument number. ;)

Let me try my hand at creating the numbered list:

#1: There is no God.
#2: Yes, there is.
#3: No, you're wrong.
#4: You're kind of stupid. Here, read this book that some old hoary so-and-so wrote umpteen thousand years.
#5: That book is way boring and stupid, and it was written umpteen thousand years ago by a person whose decendants also went on to invent crack cocaine.
#6: You are a bad person, and your mother dresses you funny.
#7: Why are your eyes crossed like that? Is it because your cousins had carnal relations?
#8: Once, in reading this very old text, there was a proverb about people like you, wherein this God dude pretty much killed you all.
#9: Once, in this book I'm writing here, I said that people like you are the reason people like me make so much money on book tours.
#10: I hate you.
#11: I hate you, too. Can we be friends on Facebook, though?

Separation of church and state is such a powerful concept that you don't always realize how well its working in this country. Have you ever heard for 'separation of mosque and state' ?

What McCain is saying actually makes some sense. This is a Christian nation, but it is truly secular in many ways. Our saffron banner waving desi brethren will shout about India's pluralistic, secular society. But a country where Hindus and Muslims have their own set of laws, where we openly discriminate (ok, reverse discriminate) against (for?) Dalits ans SC/STs is hardly secular. But I digress.

McCain is appealing to his core base saying things which are essentially true:
- Most of this country will never want a Muslim president. Face it. If either party (ok, it will have to be the democrats) select a Muslim as their nominee, we might as well save money by not having elections. A black, gay, Jewish woman would be more 'acceptable'.
- This country WAS founded on Christian principles. That is why they had to establish separation of church and state. All the founding fathers were, if not professed believers themselves, at least brought up in Christian families. But either through fear of the power the Church of England could wield or through genuine smarts established an important divide.
- Mormonism is much closer of Protestant Christianity than Islam. So long as you accept one of the bible based religions, which one doesn't matter that much.

McCain was an unknown politician till his primary victories in 2000. He had a story to stick that time. The 'What were you doing when I gave six years of my life as a POW for my country?' factor made him a media darling.

After that, and especially in this campaign, he has tried to be all things to all republicans.... His pundits have convinced him no way can he go on further banking only on the independent vote.

Just an attempt to shore up a floundering campaign. Sad to see his fall to this.

I really don't know if this was founded on Christian principles. u could say this country has a Christian culture. but that does not mean the ocuntry was founded on Christinaty. More like Enlightenment Principles which coincided with Christian Principles.

a book I've read:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0805077766/sr=8-3/qid=1191258029/ref=dp_proddesc_0/104-3128978-4383124?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&qid=1191258029&sr=8-3

Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism

Book Description
"Jacoby accomplishes her task with clarity, thoroughness, and an engaging passion." Los Angeles Times Book Review At a time when the separation of church and state is under attack as never before, Freethinkers offers a powerful defense of the secularist heritage that gave Americans the first government in the world founded not on the authority of religion but on the bedrock of human reason. In impassioned, elegant prose, celebrated author Susan Jacoby traces more than two hundred years of secularist activism, beginning with the fierce debate over the omission of God from the Constitution. Moving from nineteenth-century abolitionism and suffragism through the twentieth century's civil liberties, civil rights, and feminist movements, Freethinkers illuminates the neglected achievements of secularists who, allied with tolerant believers, have led the battle for reform in the past and today.Rich with such iconic figures as Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Paine, and the once-famous Robert Green Ingersoll, Freethinkers restores to history the passionate humanists who struggled against those who would undermine the combination of secular government and religious liberty that is the glory of the American system.

This sounds awfully like the Hindutva rhetoric coming from fundamentalist politicians in Hindustan. They claim that Hindustan is a Hindu nation and all rest must assimilate or be wiped out sort of like how the Buddhists were pushed out.

Those Hindutva people are useless. But even those guys appointed a Muslim President(yeah, not the same as a PM, but still better than what any of these religious Christians would tolerate over here).

Those Hindutva people are useless. But even those guys appointed a Muslim President(yeah, not the same as a PM, but still better than what any of these religious Christians would tolerate over here).

They didn't have a choice. It was foisted on them by their allies TDP (and others non-saffron partners of NDA).
He was a last minute, bolt from blue, compromise candidate much like the current president, after the allies vetoed hardcore saffron candidates.

Hindutva

whats the difference between being "Hindutva" and being "right wing". are the "Hindutva" the indian equavalent if the US christian right?

I used to hold a lot of respect for McCain and now he is like a fallen Jedi. Sad to see McCain go through this path.

Same here.

Doesn't McCain have a Bangladeshi child? His attitude seems discordant with his adoption practices.

His attitude seems discordant with his adoption practices.

he doesnt mind the bangladeshi child coming, as long as he understands hes coming to a country founded on christian principals. doesnt seem discordant to me. He will probably raise the kid christian.

McCain's bizarre pronouncements are just another installment of the wingnut right's attempt to Christianize the USA by rewriting history. Yes, the founding fathers were Christians, but there wasn't anything else for them to be. It's not as if it was ever a choice to enshrine Christianity in the constitution. Yes, the document is based broadly on Judeo-Christian notions about the equality of individuals (as opposed to groups or classes) and the right to profess or not profess a faith, but McCain is just being willfully stupid. The USA is a Christian nation? The senator should at least be able to pass a high school civics class.

Oh, and one more thing--you could just as easily argue that the USA was intended by the founding fathers to be as much a Freemason nation as a Christian one.

Some of you should have followed the link to read that McCain also said this;

After the interview, Mr. McCain contacted the Web site to clarify his remarks, saying, “I would vote for a Muslim if he or she was the candidate best able to lead the country and defend our political values.”

And this:

“But I say that in the broadest sense,” he added. “The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn’t say, ‘I only welcome Christians.’ We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here, they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.”

Asha's Dad you might want to read this ( again from the link );

Mr. McCain, an Episcopalian, said he regularly attends a Baptist church and described himself as a “practicing Christian.” He said he has been in regular discussions with a pastor about converting to Baptist. But he said that he would not convert during the campaign because of the perception that he was doing it for political reasons.

“I would not anticipate going through that during this presidential campaign,” Mr. McCain said. “I am afraid it might appear as if I was doing something that I otherwise wouldn’t do.”

The biggest reason his campaign is ' floundering ' is because he is no opportunist and he stood up to the bigots in his party's base and called for comprehensive immigration reform. The man has a stellar record of fighting corruption ( corporate, big oil, lobbyists ) and has been calling the administration out on its flawed Iraq policy for the last two years including for the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld. John McCain is the proud father of an adopted South Asian child who has gravely risked his presidential ambition by fighting for the rights of hardworking undocumented immigrants. I'd think South Asian immigrants should be lauding this guy. If some of you commenters have a bone to pick with Republicans there are targets much more deserving of your wrath - like that chameleon Mitt Romney, lazy ass Fred Thompson or that son of a bitch Tancredo.

The biggest reason his campaign is ' floundering ' is because he is no opportunist and he stood up to the bigots in his party's base

funny. he is only principled in comparison to the rest of that slippery bunch. and tancredo? really? tancredo is a sorry excuse for a human being, leave alone as a candidate. saying that mccain is better than him is not saying anything at all.

No I am not comparing him to Tancredo. John McCain is one of the most principled people in public service irrespective of his reconciliation with Jerry Falwell - a singular about turn in an otherwise excellent, decades-long service to this nation.

McCain is better than anyone else currently running on either side. The only other person who can be compared is Guiliani. If aguiliani can complete a sentence without saying 9/11, I will think about voting for him. Otherwise, I am in McCain's corner.

Hillary is so programmed I do not know anything baout her. She might be competent but she gives us no idea as to what she will be competent at. Obama has shown neither the experience nor the toughness to take on Hillary and I do not think he will be a competent leader. Edwards is the real liberal but somehow his campaign is tuck in neutral.

Thompson, I have no idea. But if this is the "new Reagan" then the Republican party is in lot more trouble than I thought. Romney's resume is impressive but he seems to be running away from the moderate positions that made him look attractive to me . Guiliani, I get you are tough but there are other issues. Other than talking about his toughness and taking phone calls in the middle of a major speech he has not convinced me that he is ready for primetime. He should be the next AG.

McCain in spite of his pandering and stubborness regarding the Iraq war has the experience to handle foreign affairs. He has worked with Kennedy on immigration (inspite of knwoing that it might cots him in the primaries) to get a sensible policy. Although all right wingers hate his camapign finance bill, I think given the influence that big money had on politics it was a sensible step. It amy not be the final solution.

This is the primaries and he has enough time to come back home to his more sensible positions in the general election. So let us get him elected.

Doesn't McCain have a Bangladeshi child? His attitude seems discordant with his adoption practices.

Yeah, where "anonymous opponents used "push polling" to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child", according to the Boston Globe, in the 2000 Republican Primaries.

I do wished he was President in 2000, but now, I cannot in good conscience vote for him.

And for the love of God, don't even attempt to compare McCain to a loud-mouthed chickenhawk coward like Tom Tancredo, who did not even go to Vietnam citing depression problems lol

McCain fought for his country and was subjected to the worst torture unimaginable to any servicemember in Vietnam. Despite his diminished standing, I still think he is much more of a man of integrity than many other politicians.

posterity, sure he was honorable in the past, but his track record in the last 7 years has been pathetic, to put the most charitable face on it. i expect politicians to compromise on principles, but when a guy's only distinguishing feature is that he doesn't, he better maintain that position.

I wish that one of these dudes would actually take the step of elucidating what exactly they mean by "Christian principles." The treatment of other humans as chattel? The denial of basic civil rights to homosexuals? The embrace of Zionism as a means of furthering some bizarre apocalyptic future spelled out in a religious text? Misguided opposition to the dispersal of condoms in the developing world? The acceptance of global climate change as just part of God's divine plan for the earth?

I wish that one of these dudes would actually take the step of elucidating what exactly they mean by "Christian principles."

Exactly... which Christian principles are we talking about, here? Should we be stoning adulterers in the public square? Or for that matter completely redistributing wealth to the poor, as Jesus seemed pretty fond of doing? Actually I remember seeing Bill Maher do a hilarious riff on the time when George W. Bush said his favorite political philosopher was Jesus... Maher was like "Uhhh, wasn't Jesus basically a hippie socialist?"

The entire war on Iraq is a racist, anti-Muslim affair that John McCain has endorsed from the get-go. The perpetrators of the war relied on American ignorance about the Middle-east and Islam and peoples' assumptions that all Muslims could potentially fly airplanes into our skyscrapers. So, I am not surprised at all about his comments - His actions have spoken louder than words for the last 4 plus years.

McCain is an idiot. I think he needs to stop reading the constitution and venture out into a book or two...or, hey, maybe the New York Times, even!...and slowly, it will start to seep in that this thing called 'America' was BUILT by immigrants....all kinds of immigrants - christians, jews, muslims, hindus, sikhs...immigrants who had a work ethic the day they arrived, they didn't learn it by reading the constitution...and, mostly, they were not let in because of Uncle Sam's mercy, but because America had its economic needs...sometimes for increased manual labor in special industries...sometimes for brain power (go H-1B's!)....need...it's been a two way street, McCain, wake up and smell the Tazo Chai Latte....and quit bringing religion into the picture, because it only pisses people off.

I'm sure someone has the details on this but if Pearl Jam had campaigned for Al Gore instead of Ralph Nader would George W still be President?

This evangelical Christian mentality has recently been reincarnated in the military to an alarming degree, as outlined by retired Air Force Office, Mickey Weinstein (Jewish, with several generations of his family serving in the military.) His book, "With God on Our Side", shows how careers may be stymied if the officers and grunts do not conform. Doubtless this results not only in religous bigotry but enormous religious hypocracy in many of those who do outwardly accept conformity. http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/20642

The intent of the American founders was that religion was clearly not to play a MANDATORY role in education or public life. Many studies have been done on this subject and the country become more publicly religious during the evanagelical years of the early-mid 19th century.

I'm sure someone has the details on this but if Pearl Jam had campaigned for Al Gore instead of Ralph Nader would George W still be President

I think democrats need to stop blaming Nader and look within themselves for why they blew an election against a spoiled self entitled brat like Son of Bush and Darth Cheney. If Buchanan got more votes, i doubt Repubs would have any case to blame him. Dems lost more votes because of overpaid lousy consultants who had no firm convictions. Lieberman was a total failure in the debate and failed to show Cheney for what he was. Democrats got lazy and expected to automatically win. Nader did not cost them the senate or house either. But I see Dems blame Nader for all the problems they have had since then. Even now, for 2008, they seem to be running hoping Bush keeps messing up instead of trying to offer any concrete solutions. Right now, i am resigned to Madame Hillary winning.

I'm sure someone has the details on this but if Pearl Jam had campaigned for Al Gore instead of Ralph Nader would George W still be President?

Yeah, I wonder along the same lines too. What if Clinton had remained zipped up in WH? What if Gore had actually won his home state Tennessee? What if the Democrats had actually done more about the disenfranchised black voters and vote fraud in FL? A Democrat senator had supported the black congressional caucus when they raised the issue of voter fraud? So many variables and they had more control over many of those variables than Nader.

Why focus on and hate one guy who actually has the balls to take a stand against corruption? If more people actually supported people like him instead of saying "Yeah, I agree, but he can't win" (I'd be rich if I got a penny every time I heard that), maybe, just maybe things would be different. But it's easier to blame others than to look in the mirror (though we can easily sing about it) - that's a universal human nature, so I can understand why this canard still continues to live on, 7 years on. But I don't agree with it. :)

Apologies for the Christocentric expression, but hallelujah AMEN, Pravin!

Just an aside, an Indian muslim named Raja is a finalist at the SaReGaMaPa challenge.

Senator McCain is close. I wouldn't want a Wahabbi Muslim for President. But when it comes to Mormonism, he apparently doesn't know about the Mormon temple oath, where Mormons swear to do EVERYTHING they can to establish their church on earth. See the Featured Post "A warning from someone inside Mitt Romney's cult" and also "Do you want a Raelian - or a Mormon - for President?" at

romneyforpresident.townhall.com

Like Mormonism, the blog isn't what it seems.

(Funny photos too.)

At the very least, overt religiosity (even to the mildest extent) would rule out any Muslim candidate, or for that matter people of most other religions. It'll take major changes in the US and elsewhere to change perceptions, but a presidential candidate, someone who would be responsible for protecting rights saying this is downright pandering. Even Hollywood toes the line on how a President looks like, most of the time. I'm not sure though that even liberals will find easy to vote for a Muslim candidate, unless he/she has an exemplary record of defending freedoms (of course, conversatives will have their own views on how to defend freedoms and America), and he/she may actually be held to a standard higher than the norm.

""I wish that one of these dudes would actually take the step of elucidating what exactly they mean by "Christian principles."""

I'll bite, though I'm not one of those dudes.

People fail to neglect that Jefferson and them were a small minority in their deism -- and that the country never was nor should be "theirs," which even they would agree with. If the people want a religious country, they should get to have one. Most of the country in the eighteenth century was fiercely religious at the time, especially following the Great Awakening of the 1730s and 1740s. Much of what drove the independence movement and its fighters had nothing to do with taxes or issuing currency (which is really what the constitutional framers and writers of dec of ind had in mind) but with their idea of God's covenant with the people of this land. Complete independence from England and its church (and of course Rome and its) would finish what those separatist calvinists had in mind when they left the netherlands and came to plymouth-- divorce from a corrupt materialist society and the establishment of one dedicated purely to Christian principles, Winthrop's "City upon a hill." Whenever people get all flushed up about America, that is what they're getting flushed up about, and that is, even for a hindu in america, a celebration of protestantism. To pretend that Protestantism is not central to the founding of America is plain wrong; America is nothing but an experiment in radical Protestantism. The "separation of church and state" is primarily a way to keep power away from clergymen and the pope.

Everything from the celebration of plainness in speech to the lack of ornamentation in architecture (other than for those pagan-loving people that made DC) in America is pure protestant.

tume sab log phokat ho kya?