Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

McCain's Stand on
'Christian Principles'

Be careful what you say about God and gays.

Two of the leading Republican candidates for president are feeling the heat for comments they made about the sensitive subjects of religion and gay marriage.

Arizona Sen. John McCain has been backpedaling all weekend from seeming to suggest that the next president should be a Christian. In an interview with Beliefnet, a religion-oriented website, McCain said that America was "founded primarily on Christian principles" and said he would prefer a president who shares that faith.

Almost immediately, the comments were criticized. The American Jewish Committee declared itself "deeply troubled" by McCain's claim that the U.S. is a Christian nation, a concept that American Jews often recoil at.

"We urge Senator McCain to withdraw his troubling remarks," said Jeffrey Sinensky, the group's general counsel. "Our individual rights cannot be secured if the government promotes one religion over others."

His spokeswoman on Sunday issued a statement clarifying the senator's remarks, saying that "The senator did not intend to assert that members of one religious faith or another have a greater claim to American citizenship over another." She added that noting the country's Judeo-Christian roots "is hardly a controversial claim."

Asked to comment on McCain's claim about a Christian nation, his rival, former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson said that "Factually, the Judeo-Christian heritage of the United States is certainly factual." He added that many Muslims are "good citizens" and said that "I can't say I would vote for or against anybody in any category."

Meanwhile, Thompson himself remains in hot water over his position on gay marriage. He says marriage should be between a "man and a woman" but he does not favor a federal ban on gay marriage, preferring to leave the question to the states.

That has earned him the scorn of some conservatives in his party, for whom the gay marriage ban is a key issue. Campaigning in Iowa on Monday, Thompson sought to ease concerns, telling reporters that he has met with conservative leaders who accept his position on the issue.

"They understand that and appreciate that and I think they think I have a good approach," the Associated Press reported Thompson saying. "I can say they think they have a better approach."

Under Thompson's plan, a constitutional amendment would bar judges from legalizing gay marriage, leaving it to the state legislatures to decide what rights homosexuals have to marry. But he argues that the principles of federalism and state's rights require the federal government to let legislatures make the final decision.

"Good friends can differ on the details of any approach," he told reporters in Iowa.

--Michael D. Shear

By Washington Post editors  |  October 1, 2007; 4:40 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Edwards Took in $7 Million
Next: In First Lady Race,
Romney First Online

Comments

Yrggghhhh...The Bill of Rights does not state that you can be any kind of CHRISTIAN you want to me...it talks about FREEDOM OF RELIGION....

What about all the Native Americans who were being oppressing by the Founding FATHERS...(some of whom were Deists NOT CHRISTIANS)........were the Indians Christians? Not until they had Christianity literally shoved down their throats...!

Posted by: SusanGSMcGee | October 3, 2007 12:48 AM | Report abuse

My comment on McCain: he needs to become Johnny OneNote, and keep screeching about how the Democrats will "weaken America" (Note to McCain: if Bush hasn't weakened America, I don't know who has.. but who cares.. give them what they want to hear). Keep pushing for more troops and more killing of huge swaths of innocent Iraqis, Iranians and Pakistanis... people in America like that stuff, it makes us feel superior. Remember Bill Clinton's unofficial motto from Begala and Carville? "it's the economy, stupid". Here is your campaign motto: "in the land of the tone deaf, a one-note man is king".

Posted by: steveboyington | October 2, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

rmcnicoll, do you have any original thoughts or are you merely capable of plagarism?

What proof is there of the existence of god? The bible? The koran? Written by men, those books were. Why is god great? Becasue endless repition tells me so? Oh, I forgot: merciless indoctrination proves god's existence. If there is as god, he/it puts its pants on one leg or tentacle at a time, just like the rest of us. So I will be danged if I will worship just because some intolerant zealot tells me to do so. Besides, what kind of "all powerful god" (as many hymns shout forth to the world) allows children to be abused or die painfully of cancer? Where is all the love that christians are so fond of hollering about? Oh, I forget yet again....it is all part of his great plan. Yeah, right. Then explain to me how 8,000 plus species of trilobites fit into "his" plan.

As for this being a christian nation, the Constitution seperates church and state. And for good reason, too. Religious extremism/intolerance is not the way to govern a country, it always seems to run amuck. Ask the victims of the Spanish inquisition, or those oppressed by the Taliban, or those slaughtered during the Crusades.....the list goes on and on and on......

if a politician's lips are moving, he/she/it is probably lying. The only god politicians worship is in the shape of a ballot box. Thus, if a politcian claims to be a god fearing christian, well, you figure it out from there.

You puritans make me sick. You expect office seekers to pander to your particular brand of intolerance. What gives you the right to tell a woman what to do with her body? What gives you the right to define and regulate matrimony? Let me remind you of televangelists Jim Bakker and Billy Graham, two god fearing religious politicians who were caught with their hands in the cookie jar and panty jar, respectively. Good Christian men, they were. I dont know who is worse, the religious right or those who suck up to them in order to get elected. At least Fred speaks his mind without pandering to the zealots.

As for Iraq, I dont know if Saddam had ties to al-Queda, but I do know that at one point in time he did indeed possess chemical weapons (ask the Kurds if you dont believe me)and he did have ambitions to possess nuclear weapons, with said program brought to an abrupt sudden end by Israeli bombs (good job, IDF,Iran, better look out...). My personal opinion on why the US invaded Iraq is that Shrub (aka GWB) was retaliating for the assasination attempt on his daddy and that all the other reasons given, such as our national desire to obtain oil reserves, were merely disinfromation strategeries.

And as for the US stealing Iraq blind, let me remind you of the 80 to 100 billion we are pouring into the country every year. Our marines and soldiers are over there killing those who would otherwise be seeking to do me and mine harm here in the U.S of A., and I very much aware of and appreciate their efforts and sacrifices.

Posted by: marine81mm | October 2, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

"Intelligence Failures The Past Few Years"?
From Jan 20, 2000 to Sept 11, 2001, to March 2003 Iraq War of Choice (3+ Years) = GW Bush Pres, and Condo Rice National Security Advisor Failures.

Posted by: rmcnicoll | October 2, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

With Ray McGovern's liberal views, its no wonder our national defense and intelligence has suffered so much the past few years. I would really like to know which side this guy is on.

Posted by: pettyfan1949 | October 2, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

If I believe in the principles and fundamentals espoused in "The Little Prince" by Saint-Exupery, would that make me a Baobabtist? McCain should stay in his element, and not talk about religion. He is most liked when he wraps himself in the flag and talks about how he survived his run-in with the "Gooks". His popularity is derived from his appealing "slightly off-kilter Uncle" persona. The more he is forced to get off message, the more trouble he will get in.

Posted by: steveboyington | October 2, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

To marine88mm: A 105 RR back- From a Feb-Aug 1964 PI Marine to Feb 1972.
I suggest you examine the following historical, verifiable records and data.

On oil . . . and moral bankruptcy
Posted on Mon, Oct. 01, 2007
By RAY MCGOVERN http://www.miamiherald.com/851/story/256360.html

So why did the Bush/Cheney team invade Iraq? I mean, really.

The truth can slip out when erstwhile functionaries write their memoirs (those of George Tenet being the exception). Kudos for the reporting side of The Washington Post, which on Sept. 15, was the first to ferret out of former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan's new book the gem that the Iraq war was ''largely about oil.'' But that's okay, said The Post's editorial side the very next day. Dominating the op-ed page is a turgid piece by Henry Kissinger, in which he described as a ''truism'' the notion that ''the industrial nations cannot accept radical forces dominating a region on which their economies depend.'' Curious. That same truism was considered a bad thing, when an integral part of the ''Brezhnev Doctrine'' applied to Eastern Europe.

What's going on here is a concerted effort to get us accustomed to the prospect of a long war. The Bush policy toward the Middle East is at the same time consistent with and a marked departure from the U.S. approach since the end of World War II. Given ever-growing U.S. dependence on imported oil, priority has always been given to ensuring the uninterrupted supply of oil, as well as securing the state of Israel. The United States was by and large successful in achieving these goals through traditional diplomacy and commerce. This administration is the first to start a war toward those aims.

Just before the March 2003 attack, Chas Freeman, U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia for President George H.W. Bush, explained that the new policy was to maintain a lock on the world's energy lifeline and be able to deny access to global competitors. Freeman said the new Bush administration ''believes you have to control resources in order to have access to them'' and that, with the end of the Cold War, the United States is uniquely able to shape global events -- and would be remiss if it did not do so.

This could not be attempted in a world of two superpowers, but has been a longstanding goal of the people closest to Bush the younger. In 1975 in Harpers, then-Secretary of State Kissinger authored under a pseudonym an article, Seizing Arab Oil. Blissfully unaware that the author was his boss, the highly respected career ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins, committed the mother of all faux pas when he told a TV audience that whoever wrote that article had to be a ''madman.'' Akins was right; he was also fired.

In those days, cooler heads prevailed. Nevertheless, in proof of the axiom that bad ideas never die, 26 years later Kissinger rose Phoenix-like to urge a spanking-new president to stoke and exploit the fears engendered by 9/11, associate Iraq with that catastrophe, and seize the moment to attack Iraq. It was well known that Iraq's armed forces were no match for ours, and the Soviet Union had imploded.

Some, I suppose, would call that Realpolitik. Akins saw it as folly, steeped as he was in the history, politics and culture of the Middle East after serving in Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait and Iraq, as well as Saudi Arabia.

The renaissance of Kissinger's influence in 2001 on an impressionable new president, together with faith-based analysis by untutored ideologues cherry-picked by Vice President Cheney, explain what happened next -- an unnecessary, counterproductive war in which 3,800 U. S. troops have already been killed, leaving Iraq prostrate and exhausted.

It was, it is about oil -- unabashedly and shamefully. And that means that as far as this administration is concerned (and as Kissinger himself has written), ''Withdrawal [from Iraq] is not an option.'' This was Greenspan in a recent interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now:

``Getting him [Saddam Hussein] out of the control position . . . was essential. And whether that be done by one means or another was not as important. But it's clear to me that, were there not the oil resources in Iraq, the whole picture . . . would have been different.''

Ray McGovern was an analyst with the CIA for 27 years and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals
rrmcgovern@aol.com for Sanity.


Posted by: rmcnicoll | October 2, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

"Senator Fred Thompson is the only major candidate that gets it. He makes decisions based on principles."
RIGHT, THE PRICIPLE TO TAKE MONEY TO FORWARD THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE AGENDA!

"Principles don't change"
FRED'S DO, ALL THE TIME!

"You have to stand for something and not change who you are based on the polls."
FRED JUST ANNOUNCED HE'S RUNNING, GIVE THE MAN TIME TO FLIP, JUST LIKE MITT, RUDY AND JC!

"That is what Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have done and all of the Democrats do it."
REALLY? ALL THE DEMOCRATS, NOT ALL POLITICIANS? YOU SOUND YOUNG, LIKE A CHILD.

"Give me a leader that will stand by his principles anyday versus someone that stands for everything."
WELL WE HAVE THAT TYPE OF LEADER RIGHT NOW, AND WE'RE IN A MESS. WHAT IS NEEDED IS A PERSON WHO REACTS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES, NOT IN WHATEVER FASHION THEY CHOOSE OUT OF PERSONAL, SELFISH REASONS.

"I know many, many Republicans that will stay home if Rudy Giuliani is the candidate."
DON'T WORRY, HE HASN'T GOT A CHANCE, JUST ASK HIS KIDS.

"He does not represent our values as Conservatives, and never will."
BULL, HE'S BEEN TROTTED OUT AT FUNDRAISERS SINCE 9/11 LIKE A PRIZED PONY, HOW DARE YOU DITCH HIM NOW!

"Mitt Romney is a RINO (though a very nice man) that simply has everything else and nothing to do. "I guess I'll just try to buy the presidency"."
SO? I THOUGHT THIS WAS A FREE COUNTRY AND THAT EVERYTHING HAS IT'S PRICE?

"Conservatives will simply stay home and the Democrats will pick up additional seats in the House and probably get the 60 seats in the Senate they need to completely destroy our Country."
HMMM, LET'S COMPARE THE CLINTON YEARS TO THE BUSH YEARS: BUSH SQUANDERS OUR COUNTRIES FINACIAL FUTURE AND SECURITY BY STARTING A WAR IN IRAQ. HE HAS NOW SPENT MORE MONEY THAN ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT IN HISTORY. IN ONLY EIGHT YEARS HE HAS DESTROYED THE WORLDS FAITH IN THE US AS A FAIR AND JUST COUNTRY. BUT HE'S AGAINST ABORTION, SO I GUESS THAT GETS HIM A "PASS" ON EVERYTHING ELSE, EH?

"However, I think Fred can bring America back together"
PLEASE, HE COULDN'T BRING "LAW & ORDER" BACK TOGETHER!

"America needs a rebirth of patriotism and honor."
AMERICA NEEDS TO FIRST UNDERSTAND WHAT PATRIOTISM IS. IT IS NOT HANDING THE KEYES TO THE COUNTRY TO A CABAL OF OIL MEN FROM TEXAS WHO WRAP THEMSELVES IN THE FLAG WHILE LOOTING THE TREASURY.

"Republicans also need a rebirth."
THEY NEED SOMETHING.

"President Reagan was our last rebirth and he can never be duplicated."
HE WOULD BE SICK TO HIS STOMACH AT WHAT BUSH HAS DONE WITH AMERICA AND HIS LEGACY.

"Fred Thompson will bring his own down-to-earth common sense to this Country and strength back to our party."
NO HE WON'T. WATCH "FACE IN THE CROWD" A FEW TIMES, ANDY GRIFFITH CAPTURES PERFECTLY WHAT FRED THOMPSON IS ALL ABOUT.

"A little of the good old days of faith and family would do well for this Country."
WE NEED TO TAKE OFF THE ROSE TINTED GLASSES, STOP LOOKING TO THE PAST AS SOME KIND OF PERFECT PAST. THE PAST IS THE PAST, LETS MOVE ON.

"If a Conservative runs as a Conservative, he will win!"
GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.


Posted by: YourFriendInMalibu | October 2, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

In another response to a previous comment, Deism certainly does not equal Christianity.

One objective sources says, "Deists compare God's act of creation to that of a watchmaker who builds a watch, sets it in motion, and then refuses to intervene in its actions."

I look forward to McCain's forthcoming evidence of an interventionist God in this current mess the world is in....

Posted by: kshe7 | October 2, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

In the same interview McCain indicated that he agreed with a statement purporting that the CONSTITUTION established a Christian nation.

One can say that the United States is 80% Christian or break down the religious affiliations of the Founding Fathers, but that is irrelevant; the reality is that the Constitution established an explicitly secular national government. It didn't just prohibit the establishment of particular Christian denominations - it prohibited the establishment of any religion period.

Posted by: certop | October 2, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

This is why religion is so evil, and why it is so important that it not pollute the public sphere. Anyone who is at all familiar with the founding of this country would know that:

A) Many founding fathers including Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin considered themselves Deists, not Christians at all.

B) Several states refused to ratify the Constitution without a guarantee of separation of church and state, and in fact the 1st amendment is a compromise. That it is 1st says it all.

Posted by: ethanquern | October 2, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

John McCain is a coward who at this point will say anything to try and win votes. However the truth of the matter is. John is to old to even be considered for the job of president. His pandering has become a joke. He should put on a George Bush mask and parade around the country. I undersand his loyalty by surviving POW status. However, this does not give him the right to send our children to a ungodly war in the middle east. Shame on Mr. McCain.

Posted by: ktpllrd | October 2, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

To rmcnicoll, who thinks that the US is merely involved in Iraq for the money, I suggest you re-examine the issues. The people we are fighting in Iraq are mostly not Iraquis, but discontented saudis and other nationalities. They are answering the wahabi call to martyrdom, running to the sound of the guns in Iraq. Would you rather we fight them there or on our own soil?

What I like about Fred Thompson is that he seems to want to leave "powers that are not granted to the federal governemnt" to the seperate state legislatures, such as the issue gay marraige. The Federal Government was not expressly granted the power to regulate the private lives of consenting adults. However, I dont think we need to waste billions creating a 28th amendment.

As for the religious right in this country, these people are extremists. I wouldnt be surprised if they take up arms and try to form an American "Taliban" to force the rest of us to adhere to thier warped view of reality. What's next...will we be caned for not attending Sunday services? I find it offensive that they think they have the right to force all of us to adhere to their "Christian" principles. As I recall, Jesus advocated love, not hatred and intolerance. At least Fred doesnt seem to be sucking up to these nuts.

Personally, I believe religion to be the greatest hoax ever pulled on mankind. Think about it: more death and destruction has been commitetd in the name of "god" (in whatever form fashion or shape) than any other reason. Keep going to church or mosque, o ye poor misguided masses.

Posted by: marine81mm | October 2, 2007 10:54 AM | Report abuse

There is no religion named "Christian". There is no such thing as "Christian Principals". There are presbyterians and babtists and congregationalists and a variety of other protestants, who all believe in different principals, and Roman Catholics who believe in others, and Mormans and their various sub-sects, and who nows how many others. People who claim "Christian Principals" usually mean that they (whatever they are) are superior to others who aren't like them. Oh, that's the definition of a Republican too!

Posted by: stationakl | October 2, 2007 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Please observe that the "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary." Which was Ratified by the United States June 10, 1797 indicates clearly the following:

"ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..."

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm

Senator McCain misspoke. It is obvious to all of those who know him he did not mean to imply anything of a biased nature.

Posted by: allegra | October 2, 2007 9:08 AM | Report abuse

In an age when we are staring at environmental collapse, starvation, genocide and war, it is absolutely amazing to me that we are expending so many words and energy on who marries who or what a person believes will happen to them after they're dead.

Perhaps it's time to put all that aside and worry about what we're going to do to save the people and place God (who or whatever that may be for anyone) created.

If we fail in that, I fear we'll all end up facing the Fire.

Posted by: ChuckTerzella | October 2, 2007 7:59 AM | Report abuse

Senator Fred Thompson is the only major candidate that gets it. He makes decisions based on principles. Principles don't change. You have to stand for something and not change who you are based on the polls. That is what Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have done and all of the Democrats do it. Give me a leader that will stand by his principles anyday versus someone that stands for everything.

I know many, many Republicans that will stay home if Rudy Giuliani is the candidate. He does not represent our values as Conservatives, and never will. Mitt Romney is a RINO (though a very nice man) that simply has everything else and nothing to do. "I guess I'll just try to buy the presidency". Conservatives will simply stay home and the Democrats will pick up additional seats in the House and probably get the 60 seats in the Senate they need to completely destroy our Country. Nice picture huh?

However, I think Fred can bring America back together, if that's even possible. America needs a rebirth of patriotism and honor. Republicans also need a rebirth. President Reagan was our last rebirth and he can never be duplicated. Fred Thompson will bring his own down-to-earth common sense to this Country and strength back to our party. A little of the good old days of faith and family would do well for this Country. If a Conservative runs as a Conservative, he will win!

Think of it this way: Eight years of another Clinton White House? Now if that is not a sufficient enough reason to pull together as a party, as a Country, and fight this socialist liberal takeover of our government, what is? It is not impossible to take back the House and the Senate. We are winning in Iraq--they know it. The best they can do now is stop our progress and choose defeat, just like they did during Vietnam. We lost because Congress chose defeat. History repeats itself when not learned from.

Folks, we are in for the fight of our lives, just as our young men and women are fighting for our freedoms in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must fight for our Country right here and now! I truly believe Fred Thompson is the one man who can pull this party and nation back together! Rudy Giuliani will just tear us apart as a party. Liberal is liberal every day of the week.

Really tick off the leftists and contribute to Fred Thompson: https://www.fred08.com/contribute.aspx?RefererID=c637caaa-315c-4b4c-9967-08d864cd0791

Posted by: fkpaxson | October 2, 2007 2:32 AM | Report abuse

Partisanship is the bane of Progress.

Posted by: styles1 | October 2, 2007 12:28 AM | Report abuse

Of course it is not a Christian nation. The fact that most citizens are Christian does not mean that you can call it that. Most of the people who work at the Washington Post are Christians, that does not make it a "Christian newspaper." When you call something "Christian" it means that it espouses that religion over others, and the US does not do that, and should never do that. The US is a nation that treats all religions the same, it espouses no relgion over others, here we are all free to worship, or not, as we wish. The job of the US government is to levy taxes, wage war, build highways -- these sorts of things -- and the role of the churches is to tend to their sheep. The government is not about religion, and if McCain wants a religions role, he should be a pastor, not a president.

Posted by: johnnormansp | October 1, 2007 9:37 PM | Report abuse

It could be bramptonbryan you are correct SIR. without there belief system then what, It keeps the herd steady and quiet. Glad to see another American.

Posted by: RaferJanders | October 1, 2007 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Deists are Christians.

Posted by: DrColes | October 1, 2007 9:09 PM | Report abuse

>>>>> The religion of the founding fathers:
Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%, Presbyterian 30 18.6%, Congregationalist 27 16.8%, Quaker 7 4.3%, Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%, Lutheran 5 3.1%, Catholic 3 1.9%, Huguenot 3 1.9%, Unitarian 3 1.9%, Methodist 2 1.2%, Calvinist.

I don't know the original source of this oft-cited set of figures, but it is clearly nonsense. People are being counted as if they had stayed loyal to the church in which they were baptised, or as if they were believers in the doctrines of the church which they attended occasionally. I assume that the list was produced by someone like David Barton, who denies any separation between church and state.

Thus, there is no category for Deists or atheists. If we take some of the most famous among the people who must have been included --- George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton --- we find a slew of non-Christians.

"Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself." -- Jefferson's Journal, 1800

John Adams: "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

Samuel Adams was a Congregationalist.

Benjamin Franklin: "Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."

Hamilton kept a seat warm in a Presbyterian church when young, but was very publicly an unbeliever during his adult life, until the French Revolution gave him a chance to use Christianity as a weapon against Jefferson and democracy. Thereafter, he was a churchgoer, but hardly a believer.

Hancock came from a clerical family, and occasionally referred to the hearers "as men and Christians", but even the Rev. Charles A. Goodrich, writing the lives of the Signers, attributed no religious beliefs or practice to him.

Thomas Jefferson: "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

James Madison: "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

>>>>> Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%

40% of Americans tell pollsters that they go to church regularly. 25% of Americans actually go to church regularly, community surveys have revealed.

Polls taken by the Barna Group have indicated that most of even those who describe themselves as "evangelical" or "born-again" have no understanding of the most basic Christian doctrines, such as the Incarnation and the Trinity. Presumably, they are "social Christians", rather than believers, although they can be relied upon to answer polls and even vote as they think they should, in response to "family issues".

Like attendance at church, the religiosity of Americans is much overstated, by those who have a political reason to do so, by those who see belief as an essential part of national identity and their own place in the nation, and by foreigners who are surprised by the constant references to religion by national politicians, ever since the days of Carter and Reagan.

The religion of America is Mammon, which is why Ayn Rand declared it to be the only good and moral country ever. Politicians look for reasons to portray self-interest or sectional interest as somehow compatible with Christian doctrines of social justice, or else denounce the doctrines as un-Christian.

Posted by: bramptonbryan | October 1, 2007 9:01 PM | Report abuse

I'm agnostic so I have no dog in this hunt.

Just the facts.
United States
Religions:
Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)(Statistics:CIA Factbook)

McCains right. Thompsons right. By the numbers the USA is overwealmingly a Christian country. Period

Posted by: eteeuwe | October 1, 2007 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Rome was founded by deists, not Roman Catholics! The N. American Continent Had several 100,000 Native Americans in 1780s..
So, by your northern white european Bias not wthstanding, the subequent nation should practice Native American religions - if We Follow your "Presedence Model" that Ignores Contemporary (today) freedom drom religion as Founders Legislated?

Posted by: rmcnicoll | October 1, 2007 7:21 PM | Report abuse

The U.S. is a Christian nation, in that the predominate religion in the U.S. is Christian. The nation was founded on Christian principals (The Ten Commandments). (Jesus Christ was a Jew and perched to the Jewish people) In the minds of the founding fathers, everyone is free to believe in any form of Christianity they wish and that the state could not mandate or endorse any form of religion. . The religion of the founding fathers:
Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%, Presbyterian 30 18.6%, Congregationalist 27 16.8%, Quaker 7 4.3%, Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%, Lutheran 5 3.1%, Catholic 3 1.9%, Huguenot 3 1.9%, Unitarian 3 1.9%, Methodist 2 1.2%, Calvinist.

Posted by: DrColes | October 1, 2007 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Under our constitution, everyone citizen is equal under the law. Shouldn't some take a high school civics class? http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl

Posted by: DrColes | October 1, 2007 6:45 PM | Report abuse

The further he falls behind in the polls, the more he pulls towards the right and adopts extreme stands trying to please the Republican Evangelical Christian base. It's very sad. I'd always thought of Senator McCain as someone who wouldn't fall into that trap and would stay above it but it goes to show what desperate presidential candidates are willing to do.

Posted by: cpatwork | October 1, 2007 6:16 PM | Report abuse

McCain Is NOT A CHRISTIAN, because He Wants to (continue) Killing Innocent People in a country that never injured US, and we are occupying only for Silver and Gold We Are Stealing!

Posted by: rmcnicoll | October 1, 2007 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Christian Nation? The fact is Thomas J., who wrote the D of I, make his own version of the Bible that cut out most of the Mumbo Jumbo fantasy about water walking, back from the dead spirits. The FF's knew what they were dealing with and made sure that there was separation of religion from government. Anyone who argues otherwise is pandering to the extreme right-wing fanatics who helped elect the current idiot and chief. We've seen what happens when you allow an evangelical test to be used for federal employment. This country is in the deepest hole it's been in in 60 years and I blame the Christian Right for most of it.

Posted by: thebobbob | October 1, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company