Bill,

I agree 100% with the referenced (Title: re:) article  . . . . HOWEVER, God(Jesus) may still bring US A through this as it says in:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.  (KJV)

We all need to get on our knees an pray and turn to Him - - -  an additiona thought  - -  it is an oxymoron to even utter Christian and democrat together  - - - may our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ be with us.

Rupert, I've heard estimates that something above 74% of Americans are Christian. How is it then, that Democrats ever get in power? {;^D)

The whole point is that religion has nothing to do with the ethic of freedom on which this country was founded.

 One race, human. One right, freedom.

Jerry

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
"We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries."
 

-- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808). This is his second use of the term "wall of separation," here quoting his own use in the Danbury Baptist letter. This wording was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 U.S. at 164, 1879); Everson (330 U.S. at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 U.S. at 232, 1948)

Jerry seems to be statistically correct.  But rather than religions having nothing to do with politics and political elections, their theological differentiation does mediate ideological preferences.  Those individual preferences are reflected in election outcomes.  However, Chicago is exempt. In Chicago the physical dead often vote.  Likewise, by analogy, in America the mentally issue-less comatose also vote.  Regardless, individual freedom must be paramount in this country.  We are destined for mob rule as the decades come - and go (Alexander Tyler).

As for Rupert, the appeal to an OT quote for NT times is trite and quite worn-out.  Worn-out in that, "If my people" (Israel Only)....."I will heal their land."  (A land geographically situated and specifically allotted to the descendants of Jacob (Israel), cannot, within context, apply to any people or nation outside those boundaries so specified in the OT book of Joshua.  However, if one uses allegory to interpret texts, interpretation is limited only by the constraints of ones imagination.

Gary, glad to see you participating. I am late with my responses because of my activity as a moderator on a T@B travel trailer forum  http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/tabtrailers/ and haven't been active here.

A point about my previous post--I certainly would not make the claim that one's religion does not have an influence on a person's political perspective. Many people who claim Christianity as their religion have very different interpretations among themselves as to what that means for their ethical philosophy. Most Christians I know are good, hard-working, and otherwise intelligent people. But then again, that holds true of most all people I know.

I support their right to their personal beliefs, but my experience with most modern-day evangelicals is that they do not hesitate using goverment to impose their personal religious views on others. For example, the words "under God" in the Pledge surely is in support of the Judeo-Christian God. (If any old god would do, then it has no meaning at all.) That takes the Pledge away from many good Americans who can not in good conscience repeat the Pledge without being hypocrites. 

I would equally oppose any atheist who would replace "under God" with some phrase such as "without God" in the Pledge, or "IN GOD WE TRUST" on our currency. As Jefferson put it, 

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545