The Jeffersonian Compromise

[Leela]

Hi all,

I have a nice compromise to offer you. The government will guarantee your right to have any religious beliefs and practices you want. No one will be able to impose their religion upon you. You and only you get to choose what church you belong to, or if you want, you can even choose to belong to no church at all. You will retain the same rights and voice in government no matter what you choose with regard to religion. In fact, the government will not even tax churches so long as churches don’t endorse any particular political candidates.

Nice, huh? In exchange we only ask one thing, that laws will be made based on justifications available to all people regardless of whatever other-worldy vision your religion might have. Our government will be secular, i.e., of this world. It must be in order to enable religious freedom for all where no religious group gets to dominate another religious group. A government is a set of laws and institutions, and for our government to be secular (of this world), the justification for the existence of all its specific laws and specific institutions must all be arguable based on premises referring only to this world.

It is necessary for democracy that every citizen ought to be able to ask for and receive justifications for all our laws that at least could be thought plausible without relying on the other-worldly vision of any particular religion. It’s not that religious reasons aren’t good reasons. They can be for those who subscribe to the religion of which the premises of such arguments are based. It is just that in order to ensure freedom of religion, religious reasons ought to be regarded as illegitimate in the “public square” for the purposes of promoting a public square in which everyone only forwards reasons that other people could, even if they do not, use in their own reasoning. That is how we will guarantee that one religious group cannot dominate others by imposing its particular other-worldly world-view upon those who don’t share the same ideas about God or gods.

If you have an other-wordly notion that doing or not doing certain behaviors endangers or profits your eternal soul, you of course will be free do to them or not do them as you see fit so long as your actions are within the law. You won’t, however, be able to impose beliefs about what is good for other people to do in care for their immortal souls, but in exchange you will be protected from having other people’s other-worldly notions imposed upon you. See how this works out best for all involved?

Only laws that can be justified in worldly terms will be enacted. A law is no mere sentence. It isn’t just a rule. It is also the explication of the reasoning behind the rule. Political views that are motivated by religious views are in no way ruled out, but the arguments made for those rules must be done in secular terms and must be arguable in such terms to be made law. No one is ever asked to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square to debate legislation. For example, If you support a certain bit of legislation, but can only argue for it in terms of a quote from Leviticus, but can argue for it in other secular ways, that’s great! But if you can only argue for it by claiming other-worldy authority for a passage of the Bible, that simply won’t do. If that law gets reviewed by the court system and the only justification for it they can find is your Leviticus, well, none of us want to see a judge using Leviticus in his official legal opinion, do we? We shouldn’t anyway.

You know why that is? Because even if you are religious, you probably have a lot of disagreements with other religious folks about just what authority that particular quote has and how it ought to be interpreted. We don’t want the Supreme Court deciding such matters. That would be a threat to your freedom of religion since the government would be taking sides on religious matters.

[to be continued]

 

[Leela]

[continued]

While the theocrats like to blame atheists for imposing some gag rule that prevents Biblical text-swapping and for their being unfairly hamstrung in the ability to argue, that just isn’t what happened. It can’t be what happened. Atheists are but a small, unorganized, and demonized minority. An un-closeted atheists can’t even get elected to public office. What makes the theocrats think that atheists have ever had the sort of political power to impose a gag rule on text-swapping? The reason politicians stopped doing so much of that Bible quoting as they used to is because there is no longer any consensus even among the religious about what exactly those texts are supposed to mean and what our obligations are with resect to them.

Religious arguments need to be restructured in secular terms today, not because atheists demand it, but because religious freedom demands it. In a religiously pluralistic society such as ours it is not only imprudent to use religious arguments (since they tend to only be convincing to those who happen to share the same religious premises) but it also ought not be done because it would amount to an attempt to impose one other-worldly view upon those who don’t share that view.

If you still don’t see why this compromise is important, that is, why exactly restricting legal justification to secular concerns is a small price to pay for religious freedom, you may need to read some history. This compromise I’ve outlined here is the moral that Jefferson, Franklin, and a bunch of others drew by upon reflecting on the centuries of conflict preceding the creation of the US government. It may be difficult to understand the need for it today without considering the misery caused by religious wars and the sort of religious oppression that drove people to the New World to begin with. It probably never should never even attempted to be understood divorced from European history.

At any rate, in order to protect our religious freedom, we certainly do still need it today. That is why we are fortunate to have this compromise written into the Constitution as part of the Bill of Rights.

What do you say? Deal?

Best,
Leela

 

[Areopagite]

I have a nice compromise to offer you. The government will guarantee your right to have any religious beliefs and practices you want. No one will be able to impose their religion upon you. You and only you get to choose what church you belong to, or if you want, you can even choose to belong to no church at all. You will retain the same rights and voice in government no matter what you choose with regard to religion. In fact, the government will not even tax churches so long as churches don’t endorse any particular political candidates.

There have been worse things that have been said.

I would, however, wish to see laws against religions who preach against natural law. For example, religions that seek to execute apostates (like traditional Islam), and who promote rape of women who disregard ultra-modesty laws (like traditional Islam), and others that actively seek to convince people to do very immoral things. I would not lawfully forbid the belief in such religion but only their practice and preaching.

Nice, huh? In exchange we only ask one thing, that laws will be made based on justifications available to all people regardless of whatever other-worldy vision your religion might have. Our government will be secular, i.e., of this world. It must be in order to enable religious freedom for all where no religious group gets to dominate another religious group. A government is a set of laws and institutions, and for our government to be secular (of this world), the justification for the existence of all its specific laws and specific institutions must all be arguable based on premises referring only to this world.

I agree that governments should enforce natural law … and if natural law means secular in this case, then I agree. However, if secular means to assume that no morality should be enforced, then I disagree. Governments should have laws (in some way!) against sodomy, abortion, and I would even say usury (that’s a controversial one isn’t it?). These things can be proven evil from natural reason (and have been so condemned by many non-Christian societies).

If you have an other-wordly notion that doing or not doing certain behaviors endangers or profits your eternal soul, you of course will be free do to them or not do them as you see fit so long as your actions are within the law. You won’t, however, be able to impose beliefs about what is good for other people to do in care for their immortal souls, but in exchange you will be protected from having other people’s other-worldly notions imposed upon you. See how this works out best for all involved?

This term “other-worldly” is in great danger of becoming very ambiguous. Catholics, for example, think that murder is bad for one’s immortal soul … so should it not be outlawed in a secular government?

Only laws that can be justified in worldly terms will be enacted.

And does “worldly terms” mean “natural law”? Because if yes, I agree.

A law is no mere sentence. It isn’t just a rule. It is also the explication of the reasoning behind the rule.

Well, no it’s not. A law is not necessarily the explication of the reasoning behind the rule. Sometimes it’s just a rule. There are plenty of laws written down that don’t explain themselves.

For example, If you support a certain bit of legislation, but can only argue for it in terms of a quote from Leviticus, but can argue for it in other secular ways, that’s great! But if you can only argue for it by claiming other-worldy authority for a passage of the Bible, that simply won’t do.

Hey, I think I can agree with this.

While the theocrats like to blame atheists for imposing some gag rule that prevents Biblical text-swapping and for their being unfairly hamstrung in the ability to argue, that just isn’t what happened.

Have you heard of public schools?

It can’t be what happened. Atheists are but a small, unorganized, and demonized minority.

And yet their philosophy is the primary thinking that are imposed in the world of academia. Most modern and postmodern philosophers are either atheist or agnostic. So, even if most normal people aren’t atheist, their power has nonetheless inclined many people to atheistic ways of thinking.

An un-closeted atheists can’t even get elected to public office.

But, man, have they taken over our education system.

What do you say? Deal?

Sounds good in theory … provided some details are hashed out a bit. In fact, I would agree with 90% of it … and maybe more if I thought about it more carefully.

But does this all mean that religious symbols are banned from public places?

 

[Leela]

There have been worse things that have been said.

I would, however, wish to see laws against religions who preach against natural law. For example, religions that seek to execute apostates (like traditional Islam), and who promote rape of women who disregard ultra-modesty laws (like traditional Islam), and others that actively seek to convince people to do very immoral things. I would not lawfully forbid the belief in such religion but only their practice and preaching.

There are certainly compelling secular reasons for which not every practice that claims to be religious ought to be allowed.

…, if secular means to assume that no morality should be enforced, then I disagree.

Of course not.

Governments should have laws (in some way!) against sodomy, abortion, and I would even say usury (that’s a controversial one isn’t it?). These things can be proven evil from natural reason (and have been so condemned by many non-Christian societies).

If arguments against these things can be made using premises that don’t rely on a particular religious view, then they ought to be made. And of they convince, they will cary the day.

This term “other-worldly” is in great danger of becoming very ambiguous. Catholics, for example, think that murder is bad for one’s immortal soul … so should it not be outlawed in a secular government?

The fact that murder or whatever is bad for the immortal soul doesn’t count against outlawing murder or what ever else. All secularism means is that the fact that you think it is bad for the immortal soul is not sufficient reason to outlaw it. They should be outlawed if there are secular reasons for doing so.

Well, no it’s not. A law is not necessarily the explication of the reasoning behind the rule. Sometimes it’s just a rule. There are plenty of laws written down that don’t explain themselves.

But all laws are subject to judicial review where the implicit justification for the law must be explicated to determine Constitutionality. If a law cannot be justified in secular terms it violates the First Amendment.

But does this all mean that religious symbols are banned from public places?

By public, do you mean the mall? Of course religious symbols can be there. It is only the state that can’t have the appearance of endorsing any particular religion.

The reason that stores are less likely to explicitly sell their goods in the name of Christmas rather than “the holidays” is not the result of militant atheists but of religious pluralism.

And why would you want stores to sell their stuff in the name of Jesus anyway?
That seems a sacrilege to me. The keep “Christ in Christmas” and the “keep materialism to yourself” movements seem to be at odds. Some people see it as a matter of respect for religion that there aren’t pictures of little baby Jesus surrounding the toy department displays for Grand Theft Auto: Sin City, while for some reason, other Christians are offended in seeing it as a sign that Jesus is banned from Christmas.

 

[Areopagite]

Well, Leela, I’m happy to say that we are in agreement with pretty much everything.

It is only the state that can’t have the appearance of endorsing any particular religion.

So, no Ten Commandments around court buildings?

The reason that stores are less likely to explicitly sell their goods in the name of Christmas rather than “the holidays” is not the result of militant atheists but of religious pluralism.

By “religious pluralism” do you mean “militant non-Christian religious people”? Or do you think stores shy away from X-Word because it’s more profitable for their business? Because I’m quite sure (based on some things I’ve read … which I can’t cite admittedly) that it turns out that “Christmas” is a much more attractive word in marketing than the illustrious “Happy Holidays.”

And why would you want stores to sell their stuff in the name of Jesus anyway?
That seems a sacrilege to me. The keep “Christ in Christmas” and the “keep materialism to yourself” movements seem to be at odds. Some people see it as a matter of respect for religion that there aren’t pictures of little baby Jesus surrounding the toy department displays for Grand Theft Auto: Sin City, while for some reason, other Christians are offended in seeing it as a sign that Jesus is banned from Christmas.

I don’t think business/marketing/selling (etc) is synonymous with materialism. I think one of the reasons why many businesses have become materialistic is that they’ve ignored the divine. When businesses actually aim to serve people and not make as much money as possible, then a crucifix looks really good on one of their walls.

 

[DL82]

Nice, huh? In exchange we only ask one thing, that laws will be made based on justifications available to all people regardless of whatever other-worldy vision your religion might have. Our government will be secular, i.e., of this world. It must be in order to enable religious freedom for all where no religious group gets to dominate another religious group. A government is a set of laws and institutions, and for our government to be secular (of this world), the justification for the existence of all its specific laws and specific institutions must all be arguable based on premises referring only to this world.

It is necessary for democracy that every citizen ought to be able to ask for and receive justifications for all our laws that at least could be thought plausible without relying on the other-worldly vision of any particular religion.

My only question or concern here is, do you mean by ‘this worldly’ that all laws and their justification must be materialistic, i.e. based on the idea that human beings are just bodies and nothing more? There are, I believe, good reasons, reasons not based on any one religion, but based on the realities of human existence, in which people need an outlet for something beyond the material in order to flourish - this goes for all religions, ‘spiritual’ experiences of nature or art, ideas in culture that don’t make sense in terms of mere bodily survival or happiness. A radical materialist (e.g. a Marxist) would argue that this ‘spiritual’ dimension is an illusion, something that inhibits true human flourishing, but this, too, relies on ‘other-worldly’ forms of reasoning (i.e. asserting as an article of faith that an other-worldly realm does not exist).

If the secular sphere is capable of accepting that humanity is more than the material that can be explained by our biology, that there are aspects of our humanity that are best served by encouraging people to be educated about art, religion(s) and culture(s), and to cultivate an interior wealth, then I am with you all the way. I believe that such an argument can be made without recourse to the sacred texts of any one religion.

 

[GratefulFred]

JOHN ADAMS: The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.1

The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation.2

Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell.3

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and His religion as He left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see.30

PATRICK HENRY: The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible.52

*Congress, U. S. House Judiciary Committee, 1854 : *Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle… In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity… That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.26

---

*Jefferson may not have been as attached to the practice of Christianity as other founding fathers, but he certainly understood and respected Christian values. Given the history of the Church of England, controlled by a King, Adams, Franklin, Jefferson and others found a way to establish our government based on Christian values without establishing control through the law. They relied on the Cristian morals of the people and those they elected to make CIVIL law that comports well with MORAL LAW. *

When you separate Moral law from Civil Law, you move to a Godless society. As JA said, that would be Hell.

 

[Leela]

JOHN ADAMS: The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.1

…

If you’ve played this quote exchange game before as I have, you’ll know that both us us will be able to find lots of quotes in defense of our positions. But we don’t need to do that since it is irrelevant what the Founding Father’s thought about religious diversity of the time. It is possible that to them religious pluralism meant different sorts of ways of being Christian or Deist or Quaker or Unitarian alone, but they also apparently thought “all men are created equal” referred only to white wealthy men. Just as human rights means all humans today, religion freedom today means all religions and the choice not to be religious.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

A government is a set of laws and institutions, and for our government to be secular (of this world), the justification for the existence of all its specific laws and specific institutions* must all be arguable based on premises referring only to this world**.*

No deal. The bold words indicate you want a godless frame of reference for our laws. Religious values do not count in your world, and you want that to be the official framework for all laws.

No deal. Religious values should be just as important as atheistic values in determining our laws. And if the majority of the voters are religious, that is too bad for the atheists. We live in a democracy. As Lincoln said, the majority should rule. What use will a democracy be if the minority rule the majority?

If and when the atheists become the majority, they will cancel out the Christian vote. Believe it! They might even demolish the !st Amendment. Until then, be grateful you are an atheist living in a dominantly Christian nation, rather than a Christian living among an atheist majority.

 

[GratefulFred]

they also apparently thought “all men are created equal” referred only to white wealthy men. Just as human rights means all humans today, religion freedom today means all religions and the choice not to be religious.

As I recall the history of 1776, certain compromises had to be made in order to establish the United States of America. The idea then was “let’s get ourselves UNITED and then let’s work on resolving the issues that tend to separate us.” A society never voted before. Voting did start with white land owners and in time expanded to non land owners, to women, to blacks.

W****e hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Creator means GOD. It does not mean Parents. It does not mean Government.

Trying to argue that God HAS TO BE LEFT OUT goes directly against why we became the USA. No government has the right to go against God, although some do.

I am not aware of anything in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution that goes against God’s Moral Law. I am aware, however, of Judges and intellectuals who assert novel ways to ignore Moral Law. We are in a battle on several fronts to preserve the Christian underpinnings of America.

No one in America has been forced to attend church or denied attendance by the government in the 1700s through today and into the foreable future. But also, no one is, or should be, denied the right to speak in support for civil laws that comport well with Moral Law as understood by the speaker.

A Muslim American may speak out for civil law that comports with the Sharia law in his faith, but the majority is under no obligation to make Sharia legal in Ameirca for Muslim Americans. If that were allowed then why not Nazi law for skinheads and Communist law for American Communists?

The American Experience, unique in the history of mankind, has been a balance between the rights & responsibilities of the majority and minorities. The majority does rule, with a decent respect for minorities. But as said by another Poster above, the minority cannot rule the majority.

 

[Leela]

The American Experience, unique in the history of mankind, has been a balance between the rights & responsibilities of the majority and minorities. The majority does rule, with a decent respect for minorities. But as said by another Poster above, the minority cannot rule the majority.

The Bill of Rights is there to ensure that democracy is not the tyranny of the majority. The majority does rule to an extent, but that extent is limited. The Bill of Rights ensures that the majority may not use the coercive power of government to prevent a minority from trying to become a majority. Maintaining majority status can only be done through remaining the most convincing position within the democratic exchange of ideas. Separating government and religion was one way in which the Founding Fathers tried to ensure that any religious majority may not establish dominion over the minority by using the coercive power of the government to enforce adherence to one religion’s other-wordly vision and limit the ability of minority groups, religious or otherwise, to try to convince enough others so that they may become a majority.

What seems to be missing from some of the majority/minority talk from Fred and others is the ability to imagine being in the minority. Catholics have been in that position in the past and suffered politically for it, and they could find themselves in that position again. In fact, if the theocrats win their current war against non-Christians, the focus of the Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell-types will switch to domination of Protestants over Catholics. Count on it. It is in your interest as Catholics to defend secularization of government.

The wall of separation serves to protect Catholics just as it protects Protestants and atheists from being dominated and coerced into following whatever the dominant religion of the day happens to be.

As philosopher of religion Jeffrey Stout said, “Wherever theocracy [the desire to have God’s representatives on earth dominate everyone else] catches on, even among a sizable minority, democracy is in trouble. Sooner or later, theocracy disintegrates into conflict over who God’s earthly representatives really are. Each band of theocrats takes itself to be God’s elect, claims for itself the right to hold earthly power over others, and declares its opponents deluded by sin” and perhaps by Satan himself.

Obviously at that point, the democratic process of exchanging reasons to try to reach a consensus has broken down. People deluded by Satan cannot be persuaded, only marginalized and dominated. Therefore, everyone who who is committed to democracy and freedom from such religious domination–that same desire for religious freedom which, as we were taught in grade school, drove many of the original settlers to the New World to begin with–has a stake in opposing theocracy.

Best,
Leela

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela
*
Obviously at that point, the democratic process of exchanging reasons to try to reach a consensus has broken down. People deluded by Satan cannot be persuaded, only marginalized and dominated. Therefore, everyone who who is committed to democracy and freedom from such religious domination–that same desire for religious freedom which, as we were taught in grade school, drove many of the original settlers to the New World to begin with–has a stake in opposing theocracy.*

You ought well to know, if you know any history of the 20th century, that the rampant crimes of that century were instigated by atheist governments opposed to Christianity. So I think you have the shoe entirely on the wrong foot. Atheists in the last century have not been persecuted. But plenty of Christians and Jews have been.

Please wake up.

As I said earlier, though I think you will not grasp it: you are safer as an atheist living among a majority of Christians than you would be as a Christian living among a majority of atheists. This is a dose of common sense, for those who can take it.

 

[edwest2]

First, in the United States, atheists are highly organized. There is an international atheist organization. Just a few years ago, atheists got their first lobbyist. This was just a random occurrence?

Things change because a group of people want something to change. The ACLU woke up one day and was shocked to discover religious monuments in public buildings. OUT! Get them out! What? They were placed there while no one was looking?

Please do not come here and tell us how to think. You can propose whatever you like, but our religion has been around for a while. It’s not going away. Each one of us gets a vote.

In the 1960s, a Nativity was in front of the local City Hall. But, later, the ACLU started yelling Unconstitutional! But, they offered us a deal: OK. Tell you what. You put up a plastic Santa Claus and some candy canes and reindeeer and it can stay. If not, we’re going to court!

Some crosses along a highway were recently declared unconstitutional. It’s difficult to believe that a small, unorganized group suddenly notices something religious and declares it unconstitutional. I’ve watched all of this happen, especially over the last 25 years. There is a definite pattern to it that is easily documented.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Is is interesting that Jefferson is invoked and Stalin is ignored. Aside from the Russians Stalin murdered who were against him, it was permissable and encouraged for children to turn in their own parents if they spoke against the Party. You don’t need a Theocracy when you have men in leadership that are willing to murder anyone who stands in their way.

After the simultaneous invasion of Poland by German and Russian forces, Polish General Anders was captured. On his way to Lubijanka Prison (a former luxury hotel), his Mary pin fell to the ground. One of the guards told him, “You think that *itch is going to help you in here?”

He survived and later discovered thousands of his fellow officers and soldiers had been murdered and crudely buried in Katyn Forest. The Germans alerted the International Red Cross who documented the crime. They also found the bodies of some religious.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Atheism became the official policy of Russia after Lenin and Stalin took over. To be a card-carrying communist, you had to be an atheist.

Don’t anyone kid themselves that atheists in America wouldn’t like to do the same thing if they ever got powerful enough to do it. Official slamming of the Christian Churches and their symbols will be the first wedge tried, as it already has been.

However, we have six Catholics and three Jews on the Supreme Court. That ought to count for some protection from encroaching atheism and secularism. However, if these six Catholics are not really Catholics, and the three Jews are not really Jews, our nation is possibly doomed.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

In exchange we only ask one thing, that laws will be made based on justifications available to all people regardless of whatever other-worldy vision your religion might have.

What’s a “person”? Do we have any acceptable secular definitions?

 

[Leela]

Atheism became the official policy of Russia after Lenin and Stalin took over. To be a card-carrying communist, you had to be an atheist.

Don’t anyone kid themselves that atheists in America wouldn’t like to do the same thing if they ever got powerful enough to do it. Official slamming of the Christian Churches and their symbols will be the first wedge tried, as it already has been.

It is a good thing that enforced atheism and theocracy aren’t the only choices. Thank goodness there is also secular democracy which protects the individual’s right to practice whatever religion one wants and prevents members of any particular religion from enforcing their view on everyone else.

 

[Leela]

What’s a “person”? Do we have any acceptable secular definitions?

In most political conversation, this is not a point of contention. In the case of abortion of course it is. Part of the democratic process in such cases is hashing out agreement on such definitions. What is ruled out of the discussion, however, is appeals to Holy Books to settle the matter for us. They can’t serve as legal justifications given the First Amendment which protects your freedom of religion.

 

[GratefulFred]

As a Catholic American I am for the separation of Church and State. By that I mean that Church Leaders should NOT be endorsing candidates. Church leaders should NOT be funding candidates. The government should NOT fund one religion over another or any religion.

Church leaders should preach to their flocks about PERSONAL MORAL RESPONSIBILITIES. Then it is up to the churchgoers to decide what candidate they back.

I think America has done very well in keeping Church and State separate and maintaining a reasonable degree of tolerance for all religions and non regilious people.

But I also think it imperative that we voters look to the underlaying MORALITY of our candidates when we vote. I cannot in good conscience vote for candidates that say they will support laws I believe to be immoral.

I am not aware of those who adequately explain how something many of us tthink o be immoral is in fact moral. All they have is, "It’s my right. "

Good Civil Law must comport well with Moral Law. In American that Moral Law is Christian, not Sharia, not Amoral.

 

[Leela]

As a Catholic American I am for the separation of Church and State. By that I mean that Church Leaders should NOT be endorsing candidates. Church leaders should NOT be funding candidates. The government should NOT fund one religion over another or any religion.

Church leaders should preach to their flocks about PERSONAL MORAL RESPONSIBILITIES. Then it is up to the churchgoers to decide what candidate they back.

I think America has done very well in keeping Church and State separate and maintaining a reasonable degree of tolerance for all religions and non regilious people.

But I also think it imperative that we voters look to the underlaying MORALITY of our candidates when we vote. I cannot in good conscience vote for candidates that say they will support laws I believe to be immoral.

I am not aware of those who adequately explain how something many of us think o be immoral is in fact moral. All they have is, "It’s my right. "

Good Civil Law must comport well with Moral Law. In American that Moral Law is Christian, not Sharia, not Amoral.

Most of this post in great. Only that last sentence concerns me. Morality is not the possession of any particular religious tradition. There really ought to be no such thing as Christian and Sharia morality any more than there ought to be Christian physics or Sharia genetic theory. When we actually have good reason to believe something, such as that E=mc**2 or that it is good to avoid inflicting unnecessary suffering on others, then such knowledge transcends any particular cultural or religious tradition.

Best,
Leela