Do you understand why mixing religion and politics may be the only thing that can save our country?

PO1 Steven Kuhn — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 11:57:36 -0400

Many people feel that the First Amendment calls for the separation of Church and State. No where in the Amendment do these words appear, but many people feel that is what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote our Constitution. One of our Founding Fathers stated "Christians should vote for Christian Leaders" (paraphrased) and you can look it up to prove its validity. When I speak of mixing religion and politics I am speaking of the ethics and integrity of people who know they must answer to a Higher Power (I call Him God). We need people who know that the greatest among us must be the servant of all. The First Amendment prevents government from setting up a mandatory national religion and prevents the government from messing with each citizen's individual right to worship as he or she sees fit. Look it up and read it before you argue with me. I just want to know how you all would feel about having elected officials that were honest, had integrity, and lead our country with those qualities. I am also enclosing a copy of an article I found in our newspaper (which surprised me as they tend to be pretty liberal!)! I am eager to hear your responses. Let's pick up this topic and run with it! it would not let me post the Newspaper article, but it basically says we need to stand up for people who truly stand up for God.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 27 at 2014 12:40 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:40:35 -0400

I think what you propose is a GREAT idea, PO1 Steven Kuhn! It gets my vote and two thumbs up. I think that honest and ethical leaders who are guided by Christian (or - insert religion/belief system here) principles are just what our country needs.

Now, there will be atheists who disagree with the "God part," but I bet they won't disagree with the ethical part and the principled leadership part.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 27 at 2014 1:49 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:49:59 -0400

I agree too. We need more leaders who truly come FROM the people and serve the people instead of themselves. There are way too many elitists in government which is why we are drowning.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Oct 27 at 2014 3:24 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:24:11 -0400

You are correct in that the 1st Amendment was intended to prevent the creation of an official state run religion. Our Founding Fathers were living in the world shaped by the religious strife (and subsequent wars) found in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation in the mid 1600s. They saw the devestation that contention of religion could cause, and I fully support the wisdom of their decision.

I see no problem with a politician being frank about how his religous beliefs affect his character and his decisions. However, that policitian needs to be careful in that his beliefs may not fully represent his constiuency, and that his job is not to represent or push his belief system, but to represent the people who voted him into office. And sometimes that may mean keeping his religious leanings closer to the vest. But also don't confuse being religious with being ethical. Those two are not mutually inclusive. Someone can be ethical and have integrity without being religious. Not all ethical systems are rooted in Deontological principles.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 27 at 2014 3:28 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:28:11 -0400

ISIS is a mixture of religion and politics. Go have fun with that. If you want a theocracy, there are plenty of countries that have them, so go there and leave the rest of us alone.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 27 at 2014 3:35 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:35:43 -0400

I think you are mixing together two different (albeit related, for some people) concepts. On the one hand, I agree completely with your call to have "...having elected officials were honest, had integrity, and lead our country with those qualities." Personally, I would state in more actively "We need elected leaders who are honest, have integrity, and are guided those qualities in their leadership decisions." Regardless, honesty and integrity do not solely originate from a religious basis - that's where you mix the concepts.

Some people do get their ethical system from religion, and I have voted for some who do. Nonetheless, as I remarked above and as others have also remarked (e.g. - PO1 Ernie Foster , SFC Private RallyPoint Member , and LTC Paul Labrador ) you do not need a religious system (or a belief in/knowledge of a deity) to have a firm ethical foundation.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 27 at 2014 4:01 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:01:14 -0400

I hate getting badgered into these troll conversations... but...

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 27 at 2014 4:20 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:20:23 -0400

Implying atheists have no moral value.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 27 at 2014 4:53 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:53:53 -0400

PO1 Steven Kuhn I'm gonna have to say I am against ANYTHING resembling what we see ISIS trying to create - even if it's wrapped in Christian ideology - for a government. History shows us that time and again that wrapping oneself in a religious ideology for a government ends badly (can any spell jihad/crusades?). I'm all about someone who has scruples, honesty, integrity and true leadership. I am NOT willing to say the only way someone can have those principles is through a mandated religion. NOT GONNA BUY IT.

I personally know some of the most disgusting, perverted, sick, demented s.o.b's on earth - each of them is a christian pastor, preacher, or some sort of christian religious leader. Everything they do in public is all about their version of "god" and how if we don't follow their tenet's we are all doomed to their version of hell.

There are lots of folks that are honest, hard-working people that have no religion or religious affiliation. It's not religion our leadership needs - it's adherence to honesty, integrity and true leadership. I don't need someone in Congress, the white house or any other position telling me that because their religion doesn't agree with a certain issue they are going to automatically vote no. Our national leadership decides for ALL of us in America - atheist, christian, muslims, hindi, etc. Deciding national issues based solely on a personally held religious tenet implies that other religions / non-religions are wrong or don't count. One of the very reasons our founding fathers did NOT want a mandated religion in our country was because they experienced the vagaries of those in leadership positions and their decisions based solely on their religious belief. Our founding fathers did NOT want that repeated in their new country because they'd BTDT and found it DID NOT WORK.

So, now, over 200 years later...we want to undo what our founding fathers decided was WRONG?

Response by SPC Andrew Smith made Oct 27 at 2014 5:40 PM

SPC Andrew Smith — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 17:40:03 -0400

Even ignoring the first amendment, the constitution clearly states the following:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

What the founding fathers "had in mind" and statements they made regarding Christianity are irrelevant; what ultimately matters are the principles they endorsed by signing them into law. As much as I respect, and am grateful for our founding fathers, their words are not infallible. Bear in mind, these are the men who agreed to allow slavery, and for voting purposes, counted African-Americans as 3/5 of a human being. Not to mention, they assumed control over lands where Native Americans had been living for generations, pushing them further west, and either forced them onto reservations, or fought them outright in a series of wars in the 19th century. I struggle to see how integrity, honesty and ethics, guided these actions. Nevertheless, I am proud of the nation they created, making it possible for us to evolve as a society, grow with the times, all while avoiding religious issues and conflicts that have plagued other nations throughout history. This was possible by absolutely not mixing religion and politics, and today is no more a time for it than was 200 or more years ago.

With that said, if you choose to vote for a candidate who runs on a Christian platform, that is your right as an American. It is my right to vote for whomever I choose as well. But to imply that only Christians are capable of being led by the virtues of ethics and integrity is ridiculous at best, and dangerous at worst. It is no more valid than the idea that a soldier always lives up to each and every Army value (or any other branch-specific creed) simply because he or she is a soldier. We all know it's not true, and humans are imperfect, regardless of religion, service, race, gender, or any other label we choose to apply to ourselves.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 27 at 2014 6:04 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:04:21 -0400

Science gets you the ability to fly planes. Religion gets you the desire to fly them into towers.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 27 at 2014 6:10 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:10:24 -0400

With all due respect I disagree. Belief in a supreme deity does not make someone a good person, or a good leader, neither does being an Atheist make someone a bad person.

Were I to go a step further just to play devils advocate, one could argue that a good Atheist is more valuable to society than a good religious man, on the grounds that the good Atheist became such on his own, without reading the manual.

Response by PO1 Steven Kuhn made Oct 27 at 2014 6:59 PM

PO1 Steven Kuhn — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 18:59:44 -0400

We hold these truths to be self evident...that all men were created equal. God did the creating and gave us the truths. From the very start, our Constitution was against slavery. I hope that nips the slavery in the Bible and in America argument in the butt! God's Love and Peace to all of you!!!!!

Response by SFC Melker Johansson made Oct 27 at 2014 7:25 PM

SFC Melker Johansson — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 19:25:57 -0400

I think we need to stand up for people who truly stand up for humanity regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

Response by CPO Tim Dickey made Oct 27 at 2014 8:42 PM

CPO Tim Dickey — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 20:42:18 -0400

The Founders were concerned about what they had witnessed in Europe; keeping government out of religion.

Having a strong moral foundation is integral to maintaining a civilized society. By deconstructing the very fabric of our nation through the process of taking religion out of the public discourse, we undermine our ability to determine what is right versus what is wrong.

General consensus across religious lines is simply, "Treat others the way you would want to be treated." Once that standard is removed from the body politic, anything goes. People will allow themselves liberty to declare, "I would not be offended if you did xyz." Deep in their soul, their conscience would say otherwise but for the fact that the moral compass has been removed from their soul.

Response by SPC(P) Thomas Beliveau made Oct 28 at 2014 12:44 AM

SPC(P) Thomas Beliveau — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:44:13 -0400

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2014 1:24 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 01:24:09 -0400

Ethical behavior isn't dependent on religion. In fact, in many cases religion is a direct cause of unethical behavior. The Bible, like almost every other holy book, is filled with abhorrent behavior that would be unacceptable in today's society. Incest, slavery, rape, and murder were committed by many of the "good" guys in the Bible. The only way the Bible can be looked at as a good moral guide is if you ignore 90% of it and only read the gospels and a few other sections.

How many wars have been started over religion? How many minds have been closed to science because it doesn't conform to the mythology they were taught as children? I have no issue with people who are religious and want to practice their religion, but religion and politics have no place together.

On a side note, you should check out the Jefferson Bible if you think all of our founding fathers supported Christianity. Jefferson edited the New Testament to remove all passages depicting Jesus's divinity or miracles while still leaving his moral and ethical lessons.

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." Thomas Jefferson to John Adams 11 April 1823.

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2014 8:30 AM

LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 08:30:13 -0400

I think we should stand up for people who stand up for other people, regardless of their beliefs. Adding any religion to our government makes any war/conflict a religious crusade, so I will have to say that ensuring a clear separation between our political leaders and our religious leaders is paramount.

Response by SSG Tim Everett made Oct 28 at 2014 10:17 AM

SSG Tim Everett — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:17:46 -0400

My question to you is, whose religion is "the one"? Because if you say Christianity, then everyone who isn't a Christian is probably going to have an issue with it. If you say Judaism, I can think of a lot of people who will object. And if you say Islam, well we all know how that's going to go here in America.

The best answer is to continue a separation of church and state in the truest sense -- keep your religion out of politics, and keep your politics out of religion.

Response by SGT Rodger Armstrong made Oct 28 at 2014 10:31 AM

SGT Rodger Armstrong — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:31:16 -0400

The problem I see with mixing religion with the government.

It is already there every politician plays the, I love God my family and my country car all the time. How many Senator, Governor, Mayor use this as a campaign speech. That there morals are the bible. But down the road (not all) they get caught extramarital affairs, homosexuality ( I am not the bit homophobic, but if you have your family on the left of you on the campaign stage, but behind closed doors you are breaking your marital vows ) Then being on the forefront of anti-gay campaign. The problem is people pick and choose what they want to believe in from the bible.

Then you start throwing in which religion is the one that needs to follow. Which religion has better morals. Each religion in this great nation of ours is different. Which one is right which one is wrong. Which should we follow which should we banish because they dont follow our religion. The way I see it is we are just screwed no matter what religion you are.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 28 at 2014 1:55 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 13:55:55 -0400

PO1 Steven Kuhn, I would challenge your original post. However, I would rather this conversation not turn into a proverbial pissing contest. At any point either one of us feels offended or anything of the nature, I implore that person to gracefully and tactfully bow out.

While I agree that religious texts are a great source of some morals and principles that would make for a great political figure, there are also those religious extremist that take their respected texts to a degree that is way to far. Let's take some recent examples like the Westboro Baptists Church. I would not want someone of that sort as my Commander and Chief.

As somebody who was raised Roman Catholic, I was indeed instilled with the moral code of the Catholic God. However, during high school I fell away from those specific teachings. It was at this time that I began researching other religions; Muslim, Hinduism, Buddhism, Toaism, etc. My findings: they were pretty much all the same basic principle. What was that principle, you ask? Don't be an asshole (mind my language.)

However, I would argue that you shouldn't need an old as time text to tell you that if you see a mother with 4 kids, ages ranging 18 months to 7 years, trying to load up groceries and them into the car, you should offer her a hand. You shouldn't need to refer to the Tao Te Ching to know that killing somebody out of Envy is wrong.

So, in summary, my argument is this: regardless if the person is a Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Wiccan or a Jew, should not be the defining point of whether they are a good person, or even the right person for the job.

Response by SP5 Michael Rathbun made Oct 28 at 2014 2:19 PM

SP5 Michael Rathbun — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:19:30 -0400

My view on this issue is colored largely by my heritage. I am descended from Edward Wightman, believed to be the last man in England to be burned alive for his religious opinions (April, 1612).

My family settled in RI in about 1654. In that general era, in the neighboring Massachusetts colonies, revealing that you held heterodox opinions could net you exile (my ancestor Roger Williams, a founder of Rhode Island and the first Baptist church in North America), jail time (Shakers, my ancestor Valentine Wightman Rathbun) or hanging (Quakers). My family supplied a large number of Baptist pastors in New England during the colonial era; my 6th Great Grandfather, in addition to being a pastor, was a delegate to the MA Constitutional convention. All of them had a deeply personal interest in keeping religious opinion out of the doings of governments at every level.

It is ironic how many of the religious groups today decrying the supposedly Liberal/Atheist-inspired notion of the separation of church and state are the heirs of some of the religious groups who fought the hardest to create and maintain such a separation.

But a lot gets forgotten over a century or two.

Response by CPT Jason Torpy made Oct 28 at 2014 6:11 PM

CPT Jason Torpy — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:11:07 -0400

No separation of church and state in the Constitution. Neither is the Air Force or the Internet. Does that mean they don't exist? You've been watching too much Fox News. If you have any understanding of law, you'll find it in the first clause of the first amendment, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That's from memory so hopefully I got the words right. That means you can have all the religion you want but you can't enforce your religion with laws or use your government position to enforce your religious practices, beliefs, or laws. It's really very simple, unless you want to take over the governmetn for your personal beliefs.

Response by CPT Jason Torpy made Oct 28 at 2014 6:15 PM

CPT Jason Torpy — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:15:50 -0400

And be careful what you wish for. Official government religions reliably go one of two ways: Europe, where religion is a joke, and the Middle East, where religion is a terror. Which do you prefer? Only in these United States, where we have neutrality toward religion by the government do we get this thriving morass of competing and powerful religious beliefs.
And you can bet that your "Higher Power" won't be the one your government official believes in. It's fantastically naïve to think that whatever your beliefs are, presumably some version of Christianity, have any relation whatsoever to the crazy version of Pentecostal, Baptist, Mormon, Shi'i, Sunni, Baha'i or whatever religion might prevail in the civil war that would result from enforced religious laws.
So be honest. Be very specific about the beliefs you hold and the laws you personally choose to enforce. Because just like everything else in religion, your new theocracy will be a personal expression of the dictator that happens to be in charge at the time. "God" or Jesus or Allah or whatever will have nothing to do with it.

Response by Cpl Sabrina L. made Oct 28 at 2014 8:59 PM

Cpl Sabrina L. — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 20:59:42 -0400

RELIGION & POLITICS IS WHAT FOUNDED OUR COUNTRY...A DEEP ABIDING RESPECT FOR GOD'S HAND IN THE LIFE'S OF LEADERS WHO CAME OVER ON THE MAYFLOWER WITHOUT SLAVES, WHO TREATED THE TRIBES OF MASS. AS EQUALS UNDER THE LAW...WHO WROTE UP THE GUIDELINES OF THEIR COMMUNITY, "BEFORE" STEPPING FOOT ON LAND...

SO YES A NATION WITHOUT GOD...WHAT HAPPENS...LOOK ACROSS THE BIG POND...NOT "YELLING" BUT MAKING IT CLEAR... NOTHING HAPPENS WITHOUT FAITH IN SOMETHING OTHER THAN OURSELVES...

CONGRESS PRINTED & DISTRIBUTED BIBLES FOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEMS...
JEFFERSON HELD PRAYER IN NATIONAL MONUMENTS...
MANY (29) OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE ORDAINED MINISTERS...

SO WITHOUT DIVINE GUIDANCE...HOW DID WE GET SUCH A BEAUTIFUL & TIMELESS DOCUMENT...THAT THE GOD-LESS KEEP TRYING TO WIPE THEIR BACKSIDES WITH...AND TRAMPLE ON IT LIKE A DOORMAT...UGH~

Response by PFC Mickey Wellmon made Oct 29 at 2014 12:57 AM

PFC Mickey Wellmon — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:57:21 -0400

After reading the comments on this topic, I see the same rhetoric that we see everyday in society. The media and people's opinions seem to pit one religion against another or one religion, usually Christianity, against atheism. I am a Christian and hold my faith very near and dear to my heart, but I won't for one second think that someone that doesn't go by the same belief system is less of a human being than I. That's for God to decide. When it comes to matters of the State, we are governed by our laws. There are some out there that feel that God's laws supersede the laws of man. Once again, that its for each person to decide where they stand on that. The facts are that the Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' This simply means that the citizens of this great country can practice any religion we wish and government cannot say otherwise. Of course if in practice a religion violates the rights and liberties of others, then government can step in. Just because someone interprets a religion in a manner that it causes them to do harm to others, it does not mean that all followers of that religion interpret it the same way. Church and State are indeed separated. If crazies somewhere in the world say they are killing others because their religion calls for it, the religion is not to blame. It is the individuals themselves. I for one could not care less what religion someone practices, or doesn't practice. What matters is that a person is humane and caring of others.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2014 7:26 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 07:26:22 -0400

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2014 10:23 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:23:51 -0400

Why is God a Him? Why is it not an It?

For the Government to sponsor a religion it would be telling all people what they should believe in. It would be a slippery slope into, only those who hold the faith of the Government may serve in its ranks. Except during drafts, then we'll accept the heathens. Not to mention that it would provide other religions a massive target. Lastly, your personal beliefs do not apply equally to all people. I despise religion and all the fear and control that it exercises over people in dominion of them. What happens when religion starts churning out laws to reflect their beliefs?

How are you NOT seeing this disconnect? Our country is more polarized now than ever before. You are suggesting that because you believe this was the true intention of the founding fathers and the constitution, that is the right choice for us 240+ years later. We are not the same country we were, we have amended the original constitution to the effect of shredding it.

I'll propose a counter argument that I think would solve more political problems than state-decided politics:

A) Limit Congressional and Senate office to no more than 2 terms.
B) Make it illegal for former congressmen and senators to lobby (unfair advantages).
C) Stop allowing corporations to run our political system through obscene funding.
D) Create laws to ensure corporations can still be taxed but are not afford the right of being a person.

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Oct 29 at 2014 11:20 AM

CW2 Joseph Evans — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:20:17 -0400

PO1 Steven Kuhn,
I find your question to be an offensive and blatant troll. In a day and age where men and women of valor, guided by ethical and moral principals (regardless of origin), need to stand together for the greater good of humanity, you incite discord among the ranks.
Jesus was a Jew that brought a philosophy of compassion and caring to the gentiles. Your good book had him healing the sick regardless of the gods they worshiped. He also insisted on a separation of the secular and the church by casting the moneychangers from the halls of the Temple of Herod. In the day of Jesus, the gentiles worshiped all the gods of man and every idol. He did not walk into their temples smashing their idols, he set the standard by the life he led and his displays of compassion for men and women alike.
What you have now, is good men, thoughtful and compassionate men, fighting over religion and ideology rather than discussing ways to bring all men to equity, an equity on earth as all men are seen in the eyes of God. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." - Galatians 3:28
You sow discord where there need be none.

Response by SPC Charles Brown made Oct 29 at 2014 12:36 PM

SPC Charles Brown — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 12:36:11 -0400

My opinion is this: the only thing that can save this country is ethical leadership. The problem as I see it is that ethical leadership cannot exist in a country that allows lobbying by big corporations in the halls of power. Religion can be used as a guidepost, but should never be used as a means of leadership for a nation.

That being said, my problem with mixing religion and politics is that there are far too many religions in existence to ever get a consensus. In order for a religion to come into power that one religion would have to have enough power to eradicate every other religion in existence. Obviously that cannot and most likely will never happen, it failed with the Hebrew/Jewish and Catholic religions. Not even the Islamic nations can say they have complete control of their governments. Shia and Sunni Muslims are killing each other for no good reason. Government and religion will never and should never mix.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2014 12:52 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 12:52:16 -0400

You know what's funny - many of you saying that you require a God or something else to live a moral life. Here ya go - and you tell me if I need an invisible man beyond this to live properly:

Many people know what the words Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage mean. But how often do you see someone actually live up to them? Soldiers learn these values in detail during Basic Combat Training (BCT), from then on they live them every day in everything they do — whether they’re on the job or off. In short, the Seven Core Army Values listed below are what being a Soldier is all about.
Loyalty

Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit and other Soldiers. Bearing true faith and allegiance is a matter of believing in and devoting yourself to something or someone. A loyal Soldier is one who supports the leadership and stands up for fellow Soldiers. By wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army you are expressing your loyalty. And by doing your share, you show your loyalty to your unit.
Duty

Fulfill your obligations. Doing your duty means more than carrying out your assigned tasks. Duty means being able to accomplish tasks as part of a team. The work of the U.S. Army is a complex combination of missions, tasks and responsibilities — all in constant motion. Our work entails building one assignment onto another. You fulfill your obligations as a part of your unit every time you resist the temptation to take “shortcuts” that might undermine the integrity of the final product.
Respect

Treat people as they should be treated. In the Soldier’s Code, we pledge to “treat others with dignity and respect while expecting others to do the same.” Respect is what allows us to appreciate the best in other people. Respect is trusting that all people have done their jobs and fulfilled their duty. And self-respect is a vital ingredient with the Army value of respect, which results from knowing you have put forth your best effort. The Army is one team and each of us has something to contribute.
Selfless Service

Put the welfare of the nation, the Army and your subordinates before your own. Selfless service is larger than just one person. In serving your country, you are doing your duty loyally without thought of recognition or gain. The basic building block of selfless service is the commitment of each team member to go a little further, endure a little longer, and look a little closer to see how he or she can add to the effort.
Honor

Live up to Army values. The nation’s highest military award is The Medal of Honor. This award goes to Soldiers who make honor a matter of daily living — Soldiers who develop the habit of being honorable, and solidify that habit with every value choice they make. Honor is a matter of carrying out, acting, and living the values of respect, duty, loyalty, selfless service, integrity and personal courage in everything you do.
Integrity

Do what’s right, legally and morally. Integrity is a quality you develop by adhering to moral principles. It requires that you do and say nothing that deceives others. As your integrity grows, so does the trust others place in you. The more choices you make based on integrity, the more this highly prized value will affect your relationships with family and friends, and, finally, the fundamental acceptance of yourself.
Personal Courage

Face fear, danger or adversity (physical or moral). Personal courage has long been associated with our Army. With physical courage, it is a matter of enduring physical duress and at times risking personal safety. Facing moral fear or adversity may be a long, slow process of continuing forward on the right path, especially if taking those actions is not popular with others. You can build your personal courage by daily standing up for and acting upon the things that you know are honorable.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2014 1:25 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:25:07 -0400

No, I really don't understand, but I'm willing to keep an open mind. Saying that this "may be the only thing that can save our country" is a big statement to back up. Can someone explain to me how this would work in a pluralistic society? Which religion wins? What is this immutable religious morality people keep talking about? How does it (do they) have anything to do with copyright laws, foreign affairs, traffic laws, anti-discrimination, fair employment, etc.?

Response by SFC Harry (Billy) Tison made Oct 29 at 2014 1:52 PM

SFC Harry (Billy) Tison — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:52:28 -0400

As I read the Constitution, freedom of religion means we are free to worship God in any fashion we like. Not Allah as the Muslim's understand him, but God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. I believe the founding fathers messed up by leaving God Himself out of the Constitution by name.

Response by PO3 Anthony Farhner made Oct 29 at 2014 3:17 PM

PO3 Anthony Farhner — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:17:08 -0400

Both are personal views and you can not separate the two from the individual.

Response by CW4 Juan Morales made Oct 29 at 2014 3:44 PM

CW4 Juan Morales — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:44:10 -0400

One can cherry pick sources and farm quotes all day long to support an argument. A nation that requires its leaders and legislators to adhere to faith becomes a nation of fundamentalists. We are a great nation because of our diversity not despite it. I see a Christian leader legislating his faith over my family and myself as an equal attack on my freedom as someone legislating Sharia law. Maybe your upbringing leads you to believe that religion is the only source of morality, but of all my acquaintances, friends and family the freethinkers, humanists and atheists seem to be the least disruptive to society. Most secular people I know volunteer, are supportive of their fellow citizens, and are in general much more law abiding than so-called religious folk.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2014 5:43 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 17:43:13 -0400

People can all agree about religion, race, and politics. By all means let's do this.

Response by PO1 Jose Roman made Oct 29 at 2014 7:15 PM

PO1 Jose Roman — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 19:15:46 -0400

I don't believe honesty and integrity in politicians is synonymous with a particular religion. Far from it. When you say God in your original post are you referring to the Shia or Sunni representation of a higher being? Islam is the fastest growing religion in the country. So why not keep that safeguard in the constitution that protects invidual Americans freedoms to their own ideas? There are Muslims in the world that stand up for God, they kill and have no qualms about sacrificing themselves for their God. Theocracy has to be the most corruptible system of government you only have to look to Iran or the history of the Vatican and some of the systemic scandals there.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2014 10:13 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 22:13:11 -0400

Well, religion is what fuels most of our political ideologies, so...until we can manage to separate them, we have a long row to hoe.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2014 10:15 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 22:15:20 -0400

Here we go down the rabbit hole...

Response by Sgt Israel Zinns made Oct 30 at 2014 12:34 AM

Sgt Israel Zinns — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:34:00 -0400

You can be ethical and moral without religion, period. To think you need religion to be ethical or moral is delusional. Very religious people have done some pretty terrible things.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2014 9:45 AM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 09:45:09 -0400

So...who's religion do you think we should mix with politics? And are you advocating that atheists have no place in our political process?

Response by LCpl Steve Wininger made Oct 30 at 2014 12:05 PM

LCpl Steve Wininger — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:05:14 -0400

The greatest problem with finding someone with the qualities you mention is... Power corrupts.
The problem with politicians, they are who you want them to be in public and tend to be different when they are in private.

I agree, Christians should vote for Christian leaders. Problem one, who is really walking with God and who is just blowing holy smoke up our behinds. As long as the Christian electorate continues to take a politicians word just because he/she can quote a few scriptures, or says God occasionally,than chances are we will continue having wolves in sheep's clothing as leaders.

Here is a news flash, for those who don't know. The devil knows scripture better than most Christians, and he knows how to twist it to deceive the masses. Is that Christian politician just talking, or does his record show he has at least attempted the walk. We all fall short and are imperfect. Holding an fallible politician to infallible standards does not serve the masses very well.

Is it possible that a politician can give a press conference and be totally honest about how bad things are without blaming everyone and everything else? If you find the one, they are probably a true Christian.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Oct 30 at 2014 12:15 PM

CPT Zachary Brooks — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:15:33 -0400

Faith as defined: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
Religion as defined: a particular system of faith and worship.

Faith is a wonderful thing, it is personal and it is individual. I feel that everyone should have faith.

Religion is a man made and mostly ugly thing that drives people to commit heinous acts as we have seen throughout history. Religion can be a good thing as it allowed like minded individuals to come together to preach and practice their faith together, but as a whole I feel its a destructive and disgusting thing that is in place for a few to climb to power.

I left the church sixteen years ago and I have been back a few times throughout the years, but I continue to have a strengthening faith in the absence of religion as that is only between me and God, the Supreme Architect of the Universe, the Creator, etc.

Response by PO2 David Reilly made Oct 30 at 2014 12:50 PM

PO2 David Reilly — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:50:12 -0400

First, which religion do you believe will "save" our country? What if that only works for half of the population, because only half of the population is a part of that religion (percentage used only to illustrate a point, as I do not know what percentage of the United States follows which religion).

Second, just because someone claims to be "religious", does not mean that they are honest and have integrity or honor. How do you know they are actually being "honest" about their religious beliefs and not just using the facade of piety for political gain? How do you sort out the actual honorable politicians from those who are only masking their dishonesty pretending to practice their religious preference?

Third, how do you sort out the different interpretations of what IS honest and honorable? What do you do in the case of someone who is devoutly following a religion and believes that it is honorable to purge the world of all other religions? To them, that is "honorable", because it is the interpretation they have decided is correct for their particular religion.

Fourth, there are countries which have decided to mix religion with politics. They are referred to a "THEOCRACIES". You may have heard of Iran? That is a perfect example of a country that has mixed religion with politics. It doesn't matter what the religion is, because there will always be those that come into political power under that kind of system who believe that they can, not just decide what you have to think and act like, but what you must believe to remain a member of that society. When I say, "remain a member of that society", I am not referring to exile, but to execution. ISIS, ISOL or the Islamic State is a religious political movement and they truly believe it is honorable and moral to kill or enslave anyone who does not follow their belief system, or convert to it. Once you put religion directly into government you open up a huge can of worms.

While I agree that having politicians be honest, honorable and moral would be great, how do you tell? I personally base my decision on who to vote for on their entire life history, not on whether they appear to be "religious". I think about their campaign and score them on positive and negative campaigning. If they attack their opponent, they lose points, if they stay with the issues and suggest solutions for the issue (not vague statements like, "I have a plan", but actual substantial solutions). You can never know what is in a politicians heart until they are in office. Politics is, "the art of the lie". There is an old joke that goes, "How can you tell if a politician is lying?" The answer to that is, "Their lips are moving". Promises from a politician are smoke on a windy day. Once the wind changes, the smoke changes direction.

Our legal system was pretty much based on three of the Ten Commandments. "6. Thou shalt not kill" (or in some interpretations the word murder is substituted for the word kill). "8. Thou shalt not commit theft" (or steal can be substituted for 'commit theft', if you prefer). "9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor" (this is where the perjury laws spring from, though in several translations it is sometimes stated as 'thou shalt not lie'). There are certainly laws based on several of the others ("7. Thou shalt not commit adultery" and "10. Thou shalt not covet" come to mind). We follow 4. Keep the Sabbath Day Holy, not by law, but by tradition. We even account for the different Sabbath Days of the different "major" religions by having a "weekend" that lasts for two full days.

What I have shown in the above paragraph is that our government is HEAVILY based in religion already. Just because it is based in religion doesn't mean that it is always "good", per se. Again, it all comes down to interpretation of the laws that we already have when held up to the light of the US Constitution. The final interpretation of which, we leave up to nine "wise elders" who are scholars of the law and the Constitution. If they are all scholars, shouldn't this mean they have had the opportunity to use the same research materials and sources to make their decisions? If they are using the same resources, shouldn't that mean they would come up with unanimous decisions each and every time? Again, it comes down to personal interpretation, not a "cut in stone" foundation.

If our legal system, which I have shown to be based in one of the most fundamental religious principals for two, if not all three major religions in this country, can be interpreted differently by each and every one of the "learned elders" (if you haven't figured it out, I am talking about the Supreme Court of the United States), how is it that making certain that our government being run with strict religious principles would be any different than it is now? Would each and every politician agree on everything? I contend that would not be the case at all, because as with each and every decision you and I make is colored and led by our PERSONAL experiences and beliefs, so would those of the "religious politicians".

I am, personally, very devout in my faith, but I would never try to force my belief system on anyone else, because I believe in our Constitution and the First Amendment of it. Making the government follow strict religious guidelines, would by default, cause to come to pass a de facto State Religion. The religion would be that of the majority of the voters, because that is who would ALWAYS get elected and those elected would follow what THEIR religion says. This would disenfranchise all of those in this country who have a different belief system, because they would have no representation in the government.

Yes, our government has become immoral and dishonest, but more religion is NOT the answer. Having an educated electorate is. How many people do you know that say, "I always vote Democrat, so I have to vote Democrat again", or, "my parents were Republicans, so I vote Republican". It isn't about the ISSUES, but about following tradition. Until we can get the voting public to actually focus on the issues and solutions we will always have the same problem. And until politicians are actually punished for lying to the public we will continue to be mislead. Religion enters into it, not at all.

Response by SrA Joshua Faust made Oct 30 at 2014 1:37 PM

SrA Joshua Faust — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 13:37:39 -0400

The separation between church and state is purely legislative, the amendment to the constitution states that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This basically means that a congressman can have religious views to guide their morals, but laws cannot be passed to hinder the free practice of religion in the United States. They may vote on laws in the way that their religion tells them, but they may not make laws to stifle anyone else from doing so as well.

So yes, it is constitutional.

Response by MSG David Bridge made Oct 30 at 2014 2:06 PM

MSG David Bridge — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:06:14 -0400

Separation of Church and State is a good issue to discuss. First of all you have to look at it from the point of view of our forefathers. In their time the major political parties were also the religions or religious parties of the time. The church handled gathering of taxes and held courts much like our government does today. If a person was of a different religion of the individuals holding the court then they didn't stand much of a chance of winning their case. There was a need for courts and government to operate based solely on laws rather than on the whims of religious leaders. Our current system is based solely on laws agreed upon by the majority of parties interested. Separation of Church and state has nothing to do with taking God out of everything as is evident on the currency we use. "In God We Trust" I think it is important that individuals vote for people that best represent their religious values, social status, and that has the vision of America that they share. Many ultra liberals take the meaning way to far to the left and many ultra conservatives take it way too far to the right. People have a right to freedom of religion wherever they are in our country and some seem to forget that point. Just because teachers shouldn't be using their position as a pulpit to preach their religion to students, doesn't mean that we take God out of the schools, nor the ability of students to gather privately on their own time to study their religion, pray or discuss it among themselves. Students should be able to form religious clubs if they want for after school activities or for gatherings within the schools whenever schools allow time for clubs to meet. Keeping a separation of church and state in our government doesn't mean we take God out of everything either, a President should be able to express his religious views as long as it is during appropriate times, like memorial ceremonies, letting it be known where he attends church and what religious leaders he most admires. It is ok to pray for our country, God knows we really need it right now with all the division being preached at us from both sides. "Together we stand, divided we fall." America needs to come together on issues rather than remaining forever separated. This will take moderates from both major parties to achieve. Voting in ultra liberals or ultra conservatives will only further divide our country. We need legislators that can work together and that can compromise to achieve equitable legislation for all Americans, not just an elite few. Like I said earlier vote for those who best represent you and your needs, don't worry about everyone else. Everyone is so concerned about everyone else or losing what they think are rights that they forget that the issue really doesn't even affect them. Whatever your politics make sure and vote in every election because if you don't then you are truly sending the message that you really don't care what happens to your country. Keeping a separation of church and state is necessary because Christians may not always be in the majority. So pray and pray often because the nation really needs it.

Response by Sgt Charles A Vroman Jr made Oct 30 at 2014 2:41 PM

Sgt Charles A Vroman Jr — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:41:10 -0400

The First Amendment clearly states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What this literally means is that it prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court drew on Thomas Jefferson's correspondence to call for "a wall of separation between church and State", though the precise boundary of this separation remains in dispute. Commonly, and unfortunately I might add, this is thought by the masses to mean that the Separation between Church and State is written into the Constitution. Plainly and clearly it is not. I am not a man of God, rather a man of science and reason. That being said, people need to actually read the documents they are referencing, just like MM1 Kuhn is suggesting.

Response by SSgt Tyler Mollenhauer made Oct 30 at 2014 2:51 PM

SSgt Tyler Mollenhauer — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:51:23 -0400

This is really interesting discussion. Sooo....just trying to understand your point, you think anyone in a political position should "acknowledge" some type of higher power? What about acknowledging the citizens they serve as the higher power? Would that count in your opinion?

The original question is fallacious at best; it poisons the well of possible answers, suggesting that if you don't believe that the ONLY way to save America is to implement subjective religious beliefs on all citizens, and that the Constitution is some how ok with or can endorse that, then you want America to fail. You need a lot more than a random quote from a random Founding Father to back up that assertion.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2014 3:03 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:03:54 -0400

A few more thoughts on this topic...

1) When I took my oath of office, I used the word "God". To me, "god" means what it means to me, not what it means to you.

2) One of my best friends post-deployment is the chaplain where I'm stationed. At the end of every meeting I've had with him we've prayed. But I'm praying to MY God, not yours.

3) I've been to church often over the last few years and many times throughout my life. I like the ritual and I like the people. My son was a topic of a mormon's talk (retired COL) who was going on a mission and asked me to attend his speech before leaving. I'm not a mormon, but I attended and it was great and the speech brought tears to my eyes.

4) It's arrogance to assume that atheists don't have something they consider a "God". And you compare me to many of the top televangelists and I'll be willing to put my moral credentials up against their's any day.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2014 3:06 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:06:57 -0400

I would love to have elected officials that were honest, had integrity, and led the country with those qualities. I'm just not sure that religion will provide them with those qualities.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2014 3:38 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:38:14 -0400

I would rather keep them separate. Not having a "National religion" is what makes us unique in this world. It is one of the few things that allows each and every one of us to keep our identity. Mixing the two would give politicians easier access to making laws based solely on some national religion, rather than on what should be universal. I do not and will not serve a country under a theocracy because that is what we will become. We will lose our ability to choose and it will be forced upon us. The more laws that take away a people's right to choose for themselves without repercussion the more this country goes the way of the Roman Empire.

Response by PO2 Steven Erickson made Oct 30 at 2014 4:26 PM

PO2 Steven Erickson — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:26:43 -0400

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member I am going to bypass all the previous comments and post one item, which addresses PO1 Steven Kuhn's original post.

"Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams
2nd President of the United States
1st Vice President of the United States
Delegate to the 1st and 2nd Continental Congresses
Co-author of the Declaration of Independence
Here's one we forget:
Successfully defended the British Soldiers accused of murder in the Boston Massacre.

Oh. I lied... One more thing:

Whenever you realize you're in an argument with someone who disputes your initial assumption (i.e., the existence or identification of a single Truth), just STOP. One of my professors taught me this Absolute Truth: First thing you do when you find yourself in a hole is to STOP DIGGING!

Here ends the lesson...

Response by SFC Jeff L. made Oct 30 at 2014 4:30 PM

SFC Jeff L. — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 16:30:07 -0400

I agree with the premise that leaders with traditional Judeo-Christian values would be a huge step in the right direction for our country. Regardless of the label with which they identify themselves (Catholic, Methodist..), I think a solid Christian background is highly desirable. Of course it's not just a background or foundation, but the commitment to living your beliefs every day. The values upon which our country was founded have been diluted at best, and discarded at worst.

There was originally no "wall of separation", and the phrase has been co-opted to further an atheistic agenda. Our founding fathers, yes even Ben Franklin, were religious men, and crafted our founding documents and the government bodies designed to administer those documents with God in mind. I think our government and country benefit greatly from having religious men and women elected and appointed into those offices.

Response by SPC Eric Kubik made Oct 30 at 2014 6:03 PM

SPC Eric Kubik — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:03:45 -0400

They should be separate institutions. In America our 1st Amendment states that we have the freedom of religion. Understanding that there are several religions that guide many of us through life must recognize that one sole religion does not reign supreme. That Amendment was written this way so that you and I may raise our children under our own religious beliefs and congregate with others of the same belief and be free of ridicule. We shouldn't rule based on religious grounds unless it is completely universal. This is why we have a government for elected officials to gather and set moral standards of society. People vote officials in to represent their assumed beliefs. The system we have works. That is why the US is the best nation in the world.

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2014 8:10 PM

LT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:10:46 -0400

This topic is a tender one. To sum up my take on the matter, I'll quote a bumper sticker I have on my Jeep, "American by birth, Christian by choice."

That is the key point there; Christian by choice. As God's creations, we are all imbued with free will, be it to acknowledge Him or deny Him. How can we then, as subjects of the King of Kings, impose upon others? It is my desire to serve my King as an instrument of His love and show it to others through my life, which I would hope would spread His Gospel and provide opportunity for others to realize their desire and need for His love and grace. If all the world could come to know Christ and establish His kingdom on earth, I would be elated! This however, will only come to pass in the end of times when God casts Satan into Hell. This is also my preference as a man of free will.

Just as I want to see the world become a Christian one, Muslims wouldn't mind it if the world was entirely Islamic. Atheists would prefer a world in which science is "god." This is violently exemplified in both the Crusades and the current effort by ISIS to re-establish the Caliphate. The United States of America was indeed founded by God-fearing men living in a rather exclusively Judeo-Christian society. The Founding Fathers did not establish this country as a theocracy in order to avoid one denomination reigning supreme via government (as the Anglican Church ruled Britain). This was both what made America great and is now leading to its fall. America is what We the People decide it to be. In the early days of the Republic, it was a Judeo-Christian nation. The onset of globalization has enabled the diversity of the world to weave itself into the fabric of our country, thus changing the very nature of We the People. Today, there are many more ideas and religions contending to define America.

As much as I want to see a resurgence of Christ in America, another Great Awakening, we cannot impose upon the free will of His creation. If mankind chooses to stray, then it will stray. If We the People decide we are no longer a nation of religion whatsoever, then as much as it breaks my heart, it will be so. Remember this: what transcends the rise and fall of nations? God. Israel was brought up under His providence and when the Israelites turned from God, He allowed Israel to fall. The tides will flood and ebb, as will the nations that serve God. As much as I love my country and call myself a patriot, I am first and foremost a subject of the Kingdom of God. That supersedes everything else that makes me who I am. Guess where Christianity is growing fastest in the world right now? China! If China becomes a God-fearing nation, then He will lay the foundations for them to defeat communism and He will surely lift China to prominence...as America turns from God and falls. If America falls and one day I am faced by a Washington that rounds up Christians, I will be heartbroken. I will also cling to God and seek refuge both in Him and somewhere else in the world where I can find freedom to pursue Christ. That was what brought the United States into existence in the first place. When God-fearing people found themselves in danger and persecuted, they colonized North America and founded this country.

Finally, given what I have written above, my only genuine concern is to attend to my own relationship with Christ. I cannot "convert" people to Christianity. I don't want to. I want others to be in relationship with God, but that is between them and God. It is not my charge to make the world Christian, but to spread His Message. Once I have communicated that to you through my actions and words, the decision is yours. It isn't my worry.

I hope this response helps all who are viewing this topic. If anyone has a comment or question, I am standing by!

Response by SFC Ronald Burris made Oct 30 at 2014 8:12 PM

SFC Ronald Burris — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:12:28 -0400

I agree with PO1 Kuhn,
To know that we are getting people in Congress that will do a fair and honest days work I feel they should have Christian values. I know a lot of people don't agree with this but lets look at what we have in there now before You all close your eyes to this reading. We have a lot of personnel in Congress now that could care less about the American people. They get elected so they can build their nest egg for the time they serve while Americans are suffering for their past decisions. As an example, One of the biggest decision made was when Congress decided to take the interest from Social Security so they could make it look like our budget had been balanced all these years. Now, not only is the deficit gotten bigger but Social Security is in trouble. Their solution to this is to raise the age so Americans get their earned Social Security benefits at a later time, or to go and have people invest in 401K retirement instead of Social Security. If Congress would have left Social Security alone with the interest it was getting, it would be solvent and we wouldn't be having this discussion. But since Congress is on a different retirement system then the rest of America, the American people get the shaft. And it has been Congress that has been making the decisions that have affected Social Security and the present trouble it is in. There are too many people in Congress that are thieves, adulterers, and just down right lazy. I don't see any of them concerned with the present mess we are in on the Deficit we have, nor any other real issue affecting our Great Country. The only time we hear from them is during re-election speeches about what they did, which amounts to basically, doing what they got elected for in the first place. Nothing impressive at all. We always hear about saving the Middle Class, telling us how they are going to fix the budget, more jobs.... and nothing gets done after they are reelected except, their pockets get bigger. As PO1 Kuhn, pointed out, get Christians in there, they know who their Master is and they know will be more honest and trustworthy. I agree with His assessment. I can understand there are a lot of people out there that disagree but I don't see a lot of them coming up with a better solution to the mess we are in. Look at all the personnel being cut in the Armed Forces. We were supposed to have an Armed Forces to defend our Country. All we think about is having enough troops to sustain several Wars but nothing being mentioned about sustaining Wars to protect our Country. It's always someone else we are protecting. The American people also paid a high price for Iraq and Afghanistan which has caused our deficit to grow to 13 trillion dollars with no relief in sight and within the past 4 months we have started talking about getting involved with Iraq which is a terrible mistake. We can go in and save this Country time and time again, but this Country will never be able to take care of itself. They will listen to anyone that is willing to die for their Country where they don't have to. Why aren't we letting the UN decide who goes and defends these Countries instead of the US sticking their nose into these domestic Countries while the American people continually pay the price for this. If we are going to fight in another Country, they need to pay us to do it. It should be the American people funding these Wars. Again, as long as we have the type of Congressional idiots we have in there now, we will never be able to have a better America.

Response by CPO William Hughes made Oct 30 at 2014 8:47 PM

CPO William Hughes — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:47:24 -0400

Where do you get the idea that one must be religious to be moral? I would much rather vote for an atheist than one who relinquishes control to his or her god. How many crimes against humanity have taken place, and are indeed, still taking place, based on religious beliefs? This country seems to be more sharply divided between those who would have us become a theocratic state and those vehemently opposed. We do not need to mix religion and politics. History has taught us that and is primarily the reason this country was founded in the first place. Do you know that a recent Pew Research survey showed that the second largest denomination in this country behind Catholics were "Nones"? And you can look that up. The nones constitute almost 22% of our population and is the fastest growing segment of all "denominations". I hate using that word because having no religious preference is not a denomination. So, let's not regress but move toward electing people based on their qualifications and character and not on their religious beliefs.

Response by PO1 Steven Kuhn made Oct 30 at 2014 11:22 PM

PO1 Steven Kuhn — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 23:22:37 -0400

While many of you are voting me down with no explanation as to why, I would like to remind you that I posted facts from our own American History that are easy to look up. The references I mentioned are Washington's farewell address, and the bibliography of our Founding Fathers. Also, the first two acts of Congress were to print up Bibles for use in our schools to teach our children morality and discipline and to print copies for each member serving in each branch of government. This can be looked up in the annals of Congress. The Supreme Court upheld Bibles and prayer in our schools for almost 200 years using legal precedent until the Supreme Court using no legal precedent changed direction in 1962 and voted the way they did just because that was their opinion. They cited zero legal precedent. So check the sources I have repeatedly given you and then respond. I have not tried to offend anyone, just tried to open their eyes to true facts in our American History.....that we can take pride in.

Response by PO3 Julia Perry made Oct 31 at 2014 9:16 AM

PO3 Julia Perry — Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:16:32 -0400

no, I don't. Voting recommendations never belong in the pulpit.

Response by SN Brian Riter made Oct 31 at 2014 9:27 AM

SN Brian Riter — Fri, 31 Oct 2014 09:27:20 -0400

i don't really think mixing religion with politics. i mean politics are already screwed up as is and mixing religion in with would be like [ and no offence ] pouring gasoline on bonfire. it would be more messed up then it is now.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 31 at 2014 10:31 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:31:11 -0400

Arguing religion or politics is generally a waste of time. For the most part, people have their minds made up and can't be influenced by YOUR facts (and let's be clear and say that's just what YOU think are facts.) However, I have two suggestions:

1) Regardless of which side you are on, quit thinking that you have the right to not be offended. Put on your big girl panties, suck it up, and try to make a semblance of a real life for yourself.

2) If you are religious, read 2 Chronicles 7:14. Now remember the story of Lot. According to that story, God would have spared Sodom if only 5 righteous people were in it. So quit bothering everyone else, find 4 who believe as you do, and do what your own book tells you to do. If you don't, quit blaming everyone else for the failure.

Response by SGT Patrick McCullough made Nov 1 at 2014 12:02 PM

SGT Patrick McCullough — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 12:02:00 -0400

While I identify with Christian values, always repeated the pledge of allegiance, always take my hat off and stand to the national anthem and put my hand over my heart. I am not a Christian. I do identify with protestants as the morals in the various gospels meaning is still relevant today. I do not believe that politics and religion are the cure for anything. Cultural shift back to a word, a word we used to use every day when I was growing up. A word which holds no meaning anymore. A word that you hear in military service, but very often doesn't have a great of impact as it should. A word that will be the rise or fall of our entire culture. A word that stands for an ideal of freedom and portrays meritocracy and reward for hard work and ownership. That word is Accountability. Our culture, our nation and the world have left that word behind 15 years ago.

Response by SPC James Mcneil made Nov 1 at 2014 9:45 PM

SPC James Mcneil — Sat, 01 Nov 2014 21:45:29 -0400

I am a Christian. When I vote, I do so according to my beliefs. In other words, I vote for the person I believe will be the best "godly" leader for this country. According to Proverbs 29, "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn."
However, taking the text of the question directly I have to say no. I think the general idea of the text of the question itself is a bad one. BUT after reading the rest of the question, I see your point. But I have a question. If we are so bent on finding good qualified candidates to run for office, why is it that when someone runs for office, we automatically see that person as a crook just after money and power? Just a little food for thought...

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2014 6:18 AM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 06:18:55 -0500

The question I would have to this would be who's religion would we use in regards to adding into politics? Why is one religion better than any others? Are we then going to exclude people who are Muslim, Jewish, Pagan, or any other religion because it is Christian? That is one of the things that is great about our country is that we don't have to worry about things like that here. If you can name me a country that has Religion and politics fused together that has stood the test of time than that would be a discussion that I would be willing to have with you. Things like that don't work, because there are vast differences in the way that religions are viewed. If we were to go solely based on the Christian religion, which interpretation would we go with? I am a Catholic, so would we go with that, or would we be using one of the Protestant religions?

Response by SGT Scott Curtice made Nov 2 at 2014 11:24 AM

SGT Scott Curtice — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 11:24:43 -0500

not going to deep into this, keep it simple:

Morals, ethics, and integrity have nothing to do with religion in the United States when politics is involved.

Which religion? if Christianity, which of the 33,000 denominations will rule the day?

Why is it some of the most religious states, Alabama, Mississippi, basically the south, heavily conservative areas, are some of the worst places to live, take such poor care of each other, and are supplemented by money from liberal states?

Why is it that the supposed heavily Christian party, GOP, against socialism? Jesus was a socialist?

Finally, reference the Vatican, the Catholic church 1000 AD - 1700 AD and it's role in politics for further reasons it's a bad idea, then move on to most the middle east, and most current ISIS for more of the same, though on the extreme side of course.

Religion seems to be great at community level, but when power comes into play, something goes wrong

Response by SCPO Albert Lee Smith made Nov 2 at 2014 11:40 AM

SCPO Albert Lee Smith — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 11:40:53 -0500

Here's the issue I see with mixing the two. Who's religion are we mixing with the politics? Yours? Mine? Cousin Larry's? The Druid up the street?

As most who present this arguement are Christian (taking the same latitude you did by paraphrasing the Founding Fathers), where does that leave the rest of us in the arguement? I'm a Jew. Does my religion count towards the political decisions? Drill deeper into that. Which Christian is the right Christian? The Catholic? The Lutheran? The Southern Baptist? That list itself is endless. Are Muslims allowed to have a say? What about the Aethists? Do they not count because, by their very nature, they are "God-less?"

Most bothersome, you stated in your original post, "I just want to know how you all would feel about having elected officials that were honest, had integrity, and lead our country with those qualities." By this definition, those who are not religious, or don't subscribe to the religion you have invisioned in your head, are not honest, have no integrity, and cannot lead out Country. Be careful of the slope you decide to take.

Seriously, you can get an "amen" from me when you decide which God you wish it to be spoken to.

Response by SA Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2014 12:23 PM

SA Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 12:23:16 -0500

I don't understand- save our country...from who or what exactly? The aliens from Quintonia? This is America, we took an oath to serve and protect the Constitution, not to change it, right? In my opinion, when I've observed religion and politics mixing, it made me throw up a little in my mouth. There's probably a really good reason why it's separate. To me it's like watching the devil do good deeds. Let the bad continue to be bad and let us stay good and be do-gooders. There are more do-gooders, so eventually more good will come of it. So there you have it. Why reinvent the wheel? It's already round :)

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2014 1:47 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 13:47:08 -0500

Just to add to the fun...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2776194/Jesus-never-existed-Writer-finds-no-mention-Christ-126-historical-texts-says-mythical-character.html

Jesus NEVER existed and was a ‘mythical character’, historian claims

Writer Micheal Paulkovich has claimed that there is little evidence for a person known as Jesus (illustrated) existing. He is thought is to have lived from about 7BC to 33AD in the Roman Empire.

Response by LTC Dr Richard Wasserman, LTC (R) made Nov 2 at 2014 7:17 PM

LTC Dr Richard Wasserman, LTC (R) — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 19:17:19 -0500

We need to believe in Something!

Response by MSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2014 11:15 PM

MSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 02 Nov 2014 23:15:45 -0500

True religion can't survive in politics so has no place there. I think more aptly you mean government. Politics is unethical and dishonest by its very nature. The government and the U.S. cannot survive as a "pure" country. Too many filthy things need be done to survive in this world. Religion has no place in governmet because no matter how religious someone is, or how much the constitution says we can all practice equally, as soon as the government was populated by a majority of one religion over others, those others would be allowed only at the whims of the majority. Sooner or later they minorities would cease to be allowed to exist. I would illustrate examples but they so numerous to mention. Even in this country. Now, if those that worked in government actually held dear the beliefs they profess to the masses, then this question would be moot.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2014 1:01 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 13:01:54 -0500

Always a topic of contention! I believe I understand your thinking, PO1 Steven Kuhn, and I appreciate the position you take, but I can't help but wonder: doesn't that already happen? Don't some Christians already vote for Christian Leaders on their religious preference? If I wasn't a Christian, but running for office, I doubt I would get many votes from Christians. I obviously want leaders that are honest and have integrity, but if they aren't Christians (or at least don't mention whether they are or not) does that automatically make them lesser leaders? It is my firm belief that leaders work for their subordinates as much as those subordinates work for their leaders; the same should be true for elected officials, regardless of their religion or lack thereof. I feel as though if ONLY Christian leaders were elected into office, then eventually a theocracy would rule, though it certainly wouldn't happen overnight. And what would happen to those that don't want to follow Christianity, or have no religion at all? And don't get me wrong; the same could be said if only Atheists or other religions were elected into office. I feel that the best course of action is to continue to allow all eligible individuals, regardless of religious views/culture/gender, to run for elected office. It seems to me that this is the best way to encourage open-mindedness among leaders.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2014 4:09 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 16:09:05 -0500

It should be separate plain and simple. People who have religious views aren't bad people but if left unchecked end up thinking that they have a moral right to set laws for those of us who don't believe.

Response by Sgt Kirk Maple made Nov 3 at 2014 4:07 PM

Sgt Kirk Maple — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 16:07:29 -0500

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians, your Christians are so unlike like your Christ" m. gandhi

Response by Cadet 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2014 10:58 PM

Cadet 1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 22:58:09 -0500

Ehtics based in religion is all good and dandy if they apply to the changing ethical society. Case and point: homosexuality was a practiced thing in both Greece and rome (I'll point this out later) but is spurned by the Abrahamic religions (judiasm, Christianity, islam). Why it's spurned is because of the inherent animosity between ancient rome and the jews (crucifixion, burning) there's a lot. In fact, much of the roman culture was spurned by jewish, and as a result the corresponding religions of muslim and Christian religions. Examples being gluttony, fornication and coveting wealth. These things permeate today. Why? residual from our roots in the Christian religion of course.

That being said, ethics are very, very subjective and as a result cannot be adhered to by a state, especially in the form of a religion or promotion of a religion. This will infringe upon the liberty to choose your own morality. (utilitarianism was a big philosophical theory around this time)

Also, things that were ok in the bible would not be ok now. Stoning a woman for adultery, killing an architect for a collapsed roof resulting in maiming or death, etc. all of these in Leviticus (and Hammurabi as well [theme here]).

Case and point, let morality change with the times. We may not agree as a population, but that's just how we work as humans. we change. I'm by no means saying that religion is bad. In fact, the writing of morality somewhere is good, but now with a set of laws coming from man now and not ... well... man...(many men wrote the bible[council of Nicaea], no matter how divinely inspired it was and as a result is fallable just as we are) we can accommodate change within the guidelines of writing and still maintain order among ourselves. (I promise, there will never come a time when the movie 'purge' becomes a non-fiction.)

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2014 12:07 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Nov 2014 00:07:08 -0500

The issue here is not in combining religion with politics. It lies more with what people believe. The US military, as with any official or unofficial organization, is made up of people. These people have certain beliefs. These beliefs may not be the same as yours or mine. I think that the purpose behind this amendment was to ensure that a difference of opinion on religious matters would not be the deciding factor in a debate that could affect millions of lives with its outcome. The respect we give to each other on our various religious views, but at the same time, the expectation that we develop our responses to serious issues that affect many lives are not based on religious factors, is, in my opinion, part of what makes this country, and our United States Military so great!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2014 12:25 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Nov 2014 00:25:02 -0500

This is so true. People with character make great leaders. But people of character can come from all walks of life. The freedom to convey ones opinions is a double sided dagger in that it demands you to also smell, look and listen for yourself. God bless America

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 4 at 2014 1:29 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Nov 2014 13:29:15 -0500

Ultimately, religion will not change anything as long as the hearts of men are evil. There is a saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is true of even the religious leaders of our time. I completely agree that those on top should be servants of all men, but I understand that when money and influence get in the mix, you will have morally weak individuals buckling under the pressure. And even the best of us is not nearly as "straight and narrow" as we deceive ourselves into believing we are, or that we portray to the public. Nothing made of men is not failed in some way. be it church, state, family, infrastructure, technology, NOTHING. We have to be the change we seek. PERIOD!!!

Response by SGT Suraj Dave made Nov 4 at 2014 11:04 PM

SGT Suraj Dave — Tue, 04 Nov 2014 23:04:49 -0500

Here is the Issue, everyone has different scales of morality. The group with "lower" moral's attack's the group with "higher" morals, because the ones with "higher" moral's tend to have some kind of divine belief, compared to those with "lower" moral's usually having a blatant hatred for divine belief, is indifferent toward divine belief, or is fair-weather in their divine belief. Naturally, those with the "lower moral's" will naturally attack those with the "higher" moral's by accusing them of imposing their religious belief's on those with "lower morals".

Should religious moral's be an element of our government? Thats a tough question, mostly because if you say No.... you are saying its alright to go around stealing, pillaging and raping... (As you remember, many of those thing's are forbidden in religion, as are they general crimes which have a victim, but saying No to ALL religious morality means even saying no to the things both sides agree upon for mutual safety) which is pretty much the complete absence of government. If you say yes, well then you pretty much have the Taliban Regime or some other extremist psuedo-theocracy. Ofcourse we looked at "Yes" and "No" being extreme absolutes, but I think you get the point that we need moderation.

Whomever is the majority culture (be it Athiests or Religious folks) should have an influence on the law's, that's the point of Democracy, the group with the most people get the most say, i.e. "Mob Rule"... Dont want to piss of the Majority of your country, they can cause a major inconvenience to your government .... but at the same time dont trample on the rights of those who don't believe in the same thing as you.

83% of American's are Christians (Acording to ABC http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90356). Logically that shouldn't be confusing to you as to why there is Christian overtone within our government and in our history. If 83% of America believes in a certain faith, it would only make sense that the majority of individuals within our government would also have the same faith as the 83% of America.

Thats why we have religion in politic's, and why its a good thing.

Poll: Most Americans Say They're Christian

Ask Americans their religion and you'll get an earful — 50 individual answers in an ABCNEWS/Beliefnet poll, ranging from agnostics to Zen Buddhists. The vast majority, though, have something in common: Jesus Christ.Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Most of the...

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 6 at 2014 4:57 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 06 Nov 2014 16:57:06 -0500

I am very surprised and at the same time very grateful that someone decided to post a question such as this one. I believe whole heartedly that our countries leaders should be Christians. Our constitution and laws a based off of God's commandments. I believe that our country is having the troubles that we are having because we are moving away from its foundation. We are giving so many rights and authority to aetheist and we are forgetting about the rights of those that believe in God. They are taking God out of everything, but my child is still asked to celebrate halloween in school. But they cannot celebrate Christmas in school, it must be called a winter festival. Also they are actually working on a new religion that combines Christianity with Islam, what sense does that make? Who compromises on religion? It is a way of life and not up for compromise. I wish for once that this country would not just consider the rights of those that do not believe, but those that are believers as well. I believe that if this country would stand up for people who truly stand up for God, God will once again bless this country and bring it out of this hole that it is currently in.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Nov 7 at 2014 10:21 AM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Fri, 07 Nov 2014 10:21:56 -0500

Jefferson and madison both wrote letters and papers about the seperation of church and state and why that is important.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 14 at 2014 11:01 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:01:08 -0500

As a Christian myself, I think that when it gets down to the nitty gritty, god is the only one that can save my ass through the men and women fighting alongside me. They are blessings even if they believe, or see it that way. As to politics I am not sure how to approach this topic. I however do not believe religion should be forced on anyone. It all comes down to free will. I could go on a rant about religion but will not do so as it is an infringement on others free will and rights. But let me ask this, If religion wasn't meant to fit into politics, then why on our Bills do we place "IN GOD WE TRUST"? or the all seing eye on the one dollar bill?

Response by PO2 Gerry Roberson made Dec 27 at 2014 1:24 AM

PO2 Gerry Roberson — Sat, 27 Dec 2014 01:24:04 -0500

When politics and religion are mixed, all hell breaks loose! The Founding Fathers knew that all too well, which is why they designed our constitution the way they did. The sad chapters of European history where this occurred drove their thinking inducing them to create something that breaks away from it. Now, there are forces in our beloved country trying to drive us back to the system that our country was created to relinquish it.

Response by PV2 Abbott Shaull made Dec 28 at 2014 4:24 PM

PV2 Abbott Shaull — Sun, 28 Dec 2014 16:24:28 -0500

Really as has been pointed out I am sure, by reading any holy book, one can find all type of corruption in them. These books are to be used as Moral guide, it is tool to help you in life to make decisions that challenge in life. I have seen plenty of 'Christians' who were totally unethical, and were expecting me to do things that were highly illegal, to which I told them in no I wouldn't do that. How many Religious Leaders in the pasted have been exposed for having shady dealings?

So just because a person say they are Religious, and have the Moral high ground. It doesn't make it so. You still have to investigate and keep them honest. Yes I don't mind what person religious view are as long as they don't shove them down my throat. All I expect from someone running for elected office is to be honest, and watch out for the people who elected them. It not the Corporations the Top 1% who run the Country. It the people of the this Nations who run this Country.

Response by SGT Justin Singleton made Dec 31 at 2014 9:17 AM

SGT Justin Singleton — Wed, 31 Dec 2014 09:17:05 -0500

I find it interesting that some in the comments are mentioning ISIS as a comparison to modern Christianity (but no one mentions the crusades). In all aspects of the word, ISIS is quite radical—even Al Qaeda believes them to be radical—and have no comparison to the modern church in the least. That said, it is expected that the average person will draw information from their own surroundings (making choices based on the socio-economic climate in which they live). This is seen all throughout history. People base their decisions upon their accumulated knowledge within their given sphere of influence. ... Basically, we are slaves/puppets to the Zeitgeist of our idialectical natures.

Modern America is quite secular, and therefore it is natural for modern Americans to oppose anything having to do with the church. This is a post-Christian nation, and some of the accumulated knowledge comes from bad experiences with the church in childhood: maybe some pastor was preaching (spewing?) a "fire, hell, and brimstone" message that turned someone off? maybe an "idiot" Christian was making claims that contradicted things learned in school? God forbid, maybe some pervert within the church had his/her way with someone?

Most people are anti-Christian not because the tenants of Christianity are bothersome, but because the spirit of the times (zeitgeist) moves in a direction opposed to Christianity, but also because of personal memories that stain the mind. We have to remember, though, that we don't judge a religion by its members but by its teachings. Every religion has bad members (or as a dear friend always says, "There are always wolves hiding in the fold"), and we can look to ISIS as proof, but that doesn't mean that we throw Christianity out the door because of these individuals.

Instead, the religion of Christianity should be explored by systematically ejecting all American syncretized aspects on the religion (weird "Left Behind" beliefs, total abstinence of alcohol, etc.) in order to discover what a "pure" Christianity would look like based solely upon the teachings of the Bible—biblical Christianity.

(If you are interested in learning more about what I am talking about [Syncretism and Cultural Translation], see my paper titled "Hybridization Versus Syncretism: A Moral View of Cultural Translation in Israel During the Exilic Period and How That Relates to the Modern Church" at the following link: http://goo.gl/9EOs8G)

JustinSingleton.com

Digging for the truth...to set you free. Online CV/Résumé and blog. Find published and unpublished papers, etc.

Response by SPC Scott Simpson made Dec 31 at 2014 11:14 AM

SPC Scott Simpson — Wed, 31 Dec 2014 11:14:19 -0500

Well PO1 Steven Kuhn that is a excellent question and one that requires the exhaustive study for history especially in the 16th and 17th Centuries. Are you ready? OUTSTANDING!

First we really have to look at what the Protestant Reformation did to Europe and how it affected the regional Monarchs who ruled inside what today is Modern Germany but back then was call the Holy Roman Empire and was nominally ruled by Electors who were German Princes that elected the Emperor (Normally a Austrian Hapsburg). The reformation allowed these German Princes (for example the Hohenzollerns in Brandenburg) to renounce Catholicism thus cutting the power of the Hapsburg's and the Catholic Church out of their country's power structure, taking the wealth of the various monasteries and churches of the area and turning it into the personal wealth of the Monarch.

Now we come to Henry VIII, we all know the story of WHY he wanted to break with the Catholic Church (The Pope wanted to maintain influence with the Charles of Spain who was a Hapsburg and also Emperor of the HRE and so when Henry wanted to divorce Charles' sister the Pope denied it thus causing the rift) but, after Bloody Mary, Elizabeth I, The Glorious Revolution, the reinstallation of William III. This WHOLE time period people were fleeing like refugees and were indeed refugees trying to escape this mad Europe filled with ever changing religions, wars, and chaos so they came to the English Colonies.

The English Colonies had their own problems but you could worship and feel confident that some king wasn't going to change his religion (and thus yours!) to get a divorce, forge an alliance, or use your spiritual wellbeing as some coin that he could spend in the name of politics. That my friend is why we have a SEPARATION of Church and State, that is also why I will shed my blood to keep it that way.

As to your last statement. No politician having gained substantial power in a nation has ever done it through honesty and integrity. There is always blood somewhere and always lies to be found. If you believe otherwise I advise you to read some history on your own.

Response by SGT(P) Gloria Francis made Dec 31 at 2014 5:02 PM

SGT(P) Gloria Francis — Wed, 31 Dec 2014 17:02:03 -0500

History have shown over and over again that mixing religion & politics are a dangerous combination.
I am a wholehearted Christian woman but I do know without a shadow of doubt that I could find many people who are honest, had integrity, & good moral characteristics who were not Christians.
We should be seeking a person/leader who represents humanity. There's a difference between FAITH & RELIGION. Even Jesus Christ shun religion. Jesus Christ was a humanitarian. He understood that he was a Servant Leader. Although He was above ALL, He was humble enough to serve ALL. I do disagree with those who argue that religion killed many. Religion killed no more than guns, cars, or bombs. What am I trying to say? They all have a controlling factor....HUMANBEINGS!!! Some of are good seed, while others are manipulating, self serving radicals. Yes, I am a wholehearted faithful woman who happens to be a Christian. A humanitarian woman of Christian values!!!
We could learn from humanitarian like Mother Theresa, Ghandi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Although Mother Theresa doubted her faith some of her life she remained a humanitarian. Ghandi (true humanitarian) believed in treating other people of faith from their stand point, not his. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr preached no violence to resolve our differences because was above all, a humanitarian.

Response by SSgt James Stanley made Jan 1 at 2015 2:11 AM

SSgt James Stanley — Thu, 01 Jan 2015 02:11:08 -0500

PO1 Steven Kuhn, we are in agreement about the First Amendment. In no way can it be screwed with to mean separation of church and state. It makes a simple statement,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". It simply means that the government was not going to recognize any religion as the state religion as was done in England and Mexico. This amendment cannot be used as authority for the restrictions that have been heaped on Christianity concerning the removal of the Ten Commandments, the crosses, the Manger scenes, or any other religious symbols be they Christian or Jewish from public property. Our religious freedoms are not to prohibited. The First Amendment continues, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jan 1 at 2015 11:34 AM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Thu, 01 Jan 2015 11:34:11 -0500

I believe you couldn't be more wrong, religion of any kind no matter what should never be in politics, politicians corrupt religious views and force them on people who don't want them. It's entirely possible to be a good "ruler" and understand the importance of ethics and being good to your fellow man without needing a deity as a crutch and reason to believe in them.

Response by CW3 William Couch made Jan 1 at 2015 12:37 PM

CW3 William Couch — Thu, 01 Jan 2015 12:37:11 -0500

If we do not put God back in our government and back in our schools we are are going to suffer even more. I didn't fight a war in other countries to see it fought in our own borders.

Response by PO3 John Jeter made Jan 1 at 2015 3:38 PM

PO3 John Jeter — Thu, 01 Jan 2015 15:38:20 -0500

My 'knee-jerk' reaction shot my blood pressure up and the foam started to form......Then I read what you had written. *grin* It's true that we desperately need someone with integrity to lead us.....but given the type of "religious leaders" we have running around these days, I'm not certain religion holds the answers we seek. The last leader we had that had my unrestricted belief in his faith was Reagan. Seems like all it takes to get elected these days is to promise everyone everything they want for nothing. We're going to have to start at grass roots and build a movement that won't accept anything but integrity on the part of our leaders. That will be a long hard road to travel indeed.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2015 4:23 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 04:23:32 -0500

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't we fighting a war against people who base their politics on their religion? Last I checked, we were.
As a Roman Catholic with a Wiccan wife, I worry about how religion mixed with American politics would adversely affect my family. I have this odd feeling that my wife and I and our co-religionists would not be favored by the mixing of religion with US politics.
And yes, I am aware that the Founding Fathers (and Mothers) based the US Constitution on Protestantism in part. I'm ok with that.
I remind everyone that (and note the first right protected by the US Constitution):

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

As well as for me I am still under my oath of enlistment, wherein, "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Response by PO1 Steven Kuhn made Jan 2 at 2015 1:54 PM

PO1 Steven Kuhn — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 13:54:43 -0500

Capt Gregory Prickett and CPO William Hughes whilke it is in your power and right to downvote me, I would appreciate an explanation that backs up your differing point of view. I believe that downvoting is edifying only when accompanied with an explanation; otherwise it is either laziness or cowardice to not provide an explanation (in my humble opinion). Please do not think that I am calling you both lazy or cowardly as you have served our country and have my respect. I am asking for an explanation for the downvotes as only then will I learn something from your responses.

Respectfully,

Steve

Response by MSG Mitch Dowler made Jan 2 at 2015 3:46 PM

MSG Mitch Dowler — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 15:46:33 -0500

Our nation was established by The Declaration of Independence and the purpose was to protect the rights granted by our Creator and separate us from King George who was hostile to our God-given natural rights. The Constitution implements that new government and the Bill of Rights while not granting or creating even a single civil right affirms certain of the rights granted by our Creator will be protected by the new government (or least were in the day).

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2015 4:43 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 16:43:53 -0500

"Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -US Constitution

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. -Thomas Jefferson

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries" -Treaty of Tripoli

I think a better study is needed here. The first amendment has nothing to do with the separation of the church and state. It was one of the founding fathers that said it.

It was Thomas Jefferson, who was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence. He advocated for the separation more than anyone else. He knew what it could do to a nation. He even rewrote the bible. You may want to look up the "Jefferson Bible."

He was Deist. Many of he founding fathers were. It is not widely understood and many are labeled Christians, as was Jefferson. He did go to church and prayed. But he understand the role that God played.

He also wrote.

“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry...”

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

― Thomas Jefferson

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2015 8:03 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Jan 2015 20:03:22 -0500

Which religion would be the ruling religion? Who decides this? What happens if that ruling religion happens to not be something you believe in?

I'd rather have a secular gov't that based its decisions on sound logic and rational thought.

Response by Sgt Kirk Maple made Jan 28 at 2015 1:27 PM

Sgt Kirk Maple — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:27:49 -0500

Response by PV2 Abbott Shaull made Feb 4 at 2015 1:09 PM

PV2 Abbott Shaull — Wed, 04 Feb 2015 13:09:10 -0500

Of course, Politics and Religions have mixed in many cultures forever. In Western Europe the Late Roman Empire and Eastern portion of the Empire once it split, as well as many other States used the Catholic Church as the way to help bring order. In many cases, the Bishops of the certain areas also served as Prince of certain Cities due the fact that church itself were the largest land holders at the time. When we speak of One World Government or One World Religion that the Roman Catholic Church may not have been an originator in either idea, but they have in since when they became the Official Church of the Roman Empire, that the Pope of Roman Catholic Church has had that as their overall goal. Much like, many Jews and Muslims believe their Religion should be the only Religion practice on Earth. Regardless that Roman Catholic Church isn't the only Christian Church out there, and that Muslim and Jews religions are closely related.

Religion believes have always been based for law. All one has to do is look at the Ten Commandants and you will see that they are currently in our current law system. No it shouldn't matter which religion a person practice when it come in regards when they are in politics. If they are good person and moral standing, they will not waver from their ethics. On the other hand, if they haven't been brought up in environment where they were taught the difference from right and wrong. Well then we get politicians that we get today, who see no difference on playing both sides, who continue to let the poor and middle class to suffer. While the Rich get richer, and conduct their unethical business practices.

Like I said, I have seen some people who call themselves "Good Christians", but because they had to live under suppressed government in Iraq for years, their moral and ethic base had been compromise. Yes, at one time, they were very good people, and they do try to do the right thing. Yet, at the end of the day, all that matter is they make quick buck, at the expense of people, off of many who don't have the extra money to spare. In Iraq, yeah they were praying off the Iraqi elite, who surrounded Saddam, while here they are largely praying off the Middle Class who aren't getting further behind every year. Pulling tricks, by advertising rooms at a low rate, and then having only 4 rooms for that rate, while we 30 other rooms that were all the same, but we weren't suppose to sell them for that rate. Which being illegal, is unethical, and not very Christian like.

So no just because the politician happens to be Christian, is no indication that he may have the same believe system that you have, will have the same values you have, when it comes to voting for laws that you are passionate about. That is almost as silly as voting style as voting for person because they are Republican or they are Democrat. There is reason why we as citizens and voters are held responsible to know who we are voting before we go to the voting booth. Just saying.

Response by SSgt Mathew Cummings made Apr 13 at 2022 9:08 AM

SSgt Mathew Cummings — Wed, 13 Apr 2022 09:08:15 -0400

There are so many examples of why you don't mix religion and politics, I cannot think of a single one where it worked well. To be as direct as possible, with the horrid education system right now, it would lead to extremist ideals and be another failed example. Don't see it? Snorting condoms, eating TIDE pods, vaping, AOC, "amen and awomen", etc... If society thinks the same people that believe in the previously mentioned items can intelligently wade through every religion and its incorporation into government, they have not an understanding of history. If you select a specific religion as a representation of this country, you are criminalizing every other religion. If you do all religions, you are creating insurrection due to disagreement or lack of equality. People individually can be smart, humans as a group are remedial at best.