The issue of race in presidential elections has been put to rest with the election of Barack Obama. That would seem obvious. What doesn't seem obvious is our commitment to the constitution. President Obama is not a natual born citizen therefore he is ineligible to be president

(V): Most Americans understand the political motivations behind elections here. Only some fall for the hype that filters through into foreign markets. Whether they speak up or not, I think most Americans are savy to what their own free press does with that freedom.

(V): The families you say? Are their apparent fanancial/investment instincts genetic?

Artful Dodger: Comparing two time dates with a 44 year gap without the relevant background data explaining aspects of demographics and vote swings due to dynamic changes in Democratic Party and Republican Party core policies...

.. Do all Americans really fall for empty figures like that?

Iamon_lyme: The families. Great thing to have a constitutional Monarchy.

Horse walks into a bar. The bartender looks up and says "Why the long face?" Horse says "My human care giver continues calling me an old nag, even after leading academics have condemned such insulting stereotypes. He continues to promote the ever widening rift between humans and members of the aminal kingdom." Bartender looks nervously around, sees John Kerry coming in and says "Norm!!"

Artful Dodger: It's amazing that people waste such time worrying about something like this.
Makes me wonder if anyone got paid to do it.

"leading academics"

Please!

(V): I don't watch reality TV shows, so I don't know if the royal wedding has started yet or not. Will they be serving Coca Cola? Will Coca Cola be sponsoring the event? if not, then who is paying for it?

(V): lol I don't know. Would they?

Iamon_lyme: By all standards a lizard (if you know your Douglas), then there is the turkey... But at least this time side shows over birth certificates might be avoided.

... At least some cracks have been made in rip off America where the rich get richer and the rest of Americans pay for it.

Coca Cola were on UK TV tonight claiming that UK citizens would rather have a cheap t-shirt for their reward points than say a i-pod nano.. or a cheap hat rather than a nice 12MP camera.

They know us so well ..... and I bet the t-shirt and hat are made in China.

.. they wouldn't lie would they??

if past elections are any indication we might see 6 years of lame duck presidency instead of only 2. After the photogenic Clinton won his second term I gave up making predictions. Who knows what may happen this time? Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice shame on me.

"credible" is the opperative word.

It was not a rhetorical question. I would really like to know.

(V): .. mmmm slight problem with crack party/democrat election plans... who is their credible candidate?

.. mmmm slight problem with tea party/republican election plans... do they have a credible candidate.

Übergeek 바둑이: All righty then, Honor Diverse Uniformity will be my new bumper sticker. It's fun being cheeky when I'm talking physics, but when talking politics it just seems like the right thing to do.

Artful Dodger: My main goal will be to make sure he doesn't have another 4 years to destroy us even more. So, that means I won't necessarily vote in the primary for the person I personally like the best, but the person that I think has the best chance to beat the anointed one. If they are one in the same, PERFECT. But goal #1 is to get rid of this guy. It's sad, but it's SO important.

I tend to go for the more Libertarian. But they don't usually have much of a chance.

Artful Dodger: And let's not forget Thugs at polls intimidating people.

Artful Dodger: I'm afraid if that was the ticket, it might be a sure win for Mr. Incompetent.

Iamon_lyme:

> Do I place my Honor Uniformity bumber sticker next to the one that says Honor Diversity, or over it?

Cultural melting pot or cultural mosaic? I suppose some people think that a centralized world government would lead to a disappearance of all cultures, a cultural melting pot. In that sense the USA is a good example of cultures meeting and melding together. I think that in such cases people change, although they do retain some of their own cultural identity. Think of Irish Americans or Italian Americans. While their culture is transformed, much of the culture of their original homeland remains.

Iamon_lyme: Or do I replace both with one that says Honor Homogeneous Diversity?

Do I place my Honor Uniformity bumber sticker next to the one that says Honor Diversity, or over it?

Artful Dodger:

> What's so scary about Trump is that he's actually gaining traction! I don't see any of the top picks for the Republican party as hopeful for anything. I'm getting completely disappointed in both parties. (I love the Tea Party though - seriously)

According to the latest poll (I think it was done by Reed), Donald Trump has a slight lead over Mike Huckabee. I am not entirely sure about whether he can keep this up. Notoriety is helping him, but Barrack Obama made a good point today. Obama said that instead of focusing on important issues, they turned the birther issue into a side show.

I am not entirely sure how Donald Trump would fare if he has to talk of fixing the economy, tackling the healthcare issue, fixing the foreign trade deficit, handling terrorism and hostile foreign governments, and keeping peaceful relations with Russia and China.

So far he has been successful in distracting the public from the real issues (like balancing the budget), but sooner or later he has to show his mettle in how he would deal with real problems that extend far beyond a birth certificate or a college degree. It will be interesting to see whether he can transform himself from provocateur to real contender.

Iamon_lyme:

> I don't like what is hapopening to the U.S. because this is where I live, but after putting personal feelings to the side I can't ignore the fact that it has served its purpose in the world, and now will be part of an effort to create stability through uniformity.

I think that the biggest challenge that the USA will face in the future is not terrorism or a financial meltdown, but the slow degradation of American life through inaction. If Americans (or any country) want their life to be better, they have to accept that change is necessary in the political and economic system. I am not talking about catastrophic change or revolution, but changes that ensure that every citizen gets an equal chance at a good life. As things are, the power structure is skewed in favour of big monopolies and wealthy businessmen. That means that big numbers of the population are having their lives slowly eroded away. For this to change, Americans will have to accept that pursuing capitalism at all costs will not solve the problem, but merely aggravate it.

Americans don't like anything that feels like socialism (the current healthcare debate is a good sign of that). However, only through "socialist" measures can the lives of the average working class citizens improve. The 20th century is a sign of that. All that we have to do is look at the European community after WW II. The socialist measures taken there greatly improved the lives of many of Europe's citizens. Americans will have to accept that these socialist measures are not a sign of big government, but of a humane government. The USA (and other countries) needs not intrusive socialism but efficient socialism. That means a balance between the social safety net and the freedom of companies and businesses to operate. Unfortunately Ameican polticis has become polarized in bipartisanship, and that means that measures that could help the working class (like healthcare reform) are torn apart to the point that they become a failure. Big companies and lobbyists feed on that bipartisan system and exploit it for political and economic gain.

The USA also needs to do some soul searching in respect to its foreign policy. The USA has suceeded in building big army, navy and air forces. The Cold War and terrorism have skewed American foreign policy to one of preemptive action. What Americans politicians see as promoting democracy thorugh force is perceived differently outside of the USA. The increasing costs of keeping such a large military force are staggering and they are eroding away at the life of the American working class. If the USA could reduce its military budget in half, then it could provide free university education and free healthcare for everybody. Instead the money is being spent in enterprises which drain the American economy under the guise of keeping Americans safe. Somewhere in all this the USA has to find a balance between peaceful coexistence, self-defense, and the economics of war. It is difficult in our world, but the hawks that say that military might is the way to go are doing a disservice to taxpayers who front the money to pay for the wars. They are not the ones paying for the wars, and it is not their families that get killed in the bombings and the fighting.

Artful Dodger: Bachman/Palin 2012

Übergeek 바둑이: I think you are misunderstanding my point. I don't like what is hapopening to the U.S. because this is where I live, but after putting personal feelings to the side I can't ignore the fact that it has served its purpose in the world, and now will be part of an effort to create stability through uniformity. I assumed Brave New World was intended as a warning, not a road map for getting there. My assumptions are rarely correct. I can agree with much of what you say. except for your question why is uniformity a bad thing. And the fact that we are becoming increasingly dependant on foreign goods and services is as comforting to me as knowing that if my business fails because of goons demanding their protection money (seriously, what is the difference?) I can always come crawling back to those goons and ask for some of it back in the form of governmental goods and services. Yes, America will decline and get absorbed, because no nation has ever managed to avoid the event horizen of moral degradation after acheiving stability and wealth. History has proven this over and over. But it is interesting to me how those who don't believe in Biblical prophesy are the ones working their tails off to make it come true. Just because I don't like where we are heading to doesn't mean I don't believe we won't get there. As I said once before, I don't like unpleasant surprises.

Donald Trump, politics newest Bozo, must have nothing better to do than distract the president with useless crap. The "birther" issue was laid to rest today when the White House released the president's long form birth certificate. Since Bozo Trump has nothing better to do, he is now questioning Obama's education. I suppose graduating Magna Cum Laude from Harvard is not enough for the Bozo. He figures that Obama somehow cheated his way into Columbia and Harvard. I think the Republicans should distance themselves from the Bozo. If he keeps this up he will do more damage than good to the Republicans. In a way, the Democrats must be loving this. Bozo Trump is handing them Obama's reelection on a platter. I supose Mike Huckabee must be happy too. Huckabee's lack of charisma looks much improved when compared to Bozo Trump.

Iamon_lyme:

> The melding of nations into a centralized one world governing body is what globalization will invariably lead to.

Is that bad? If it is bad, why? There will never be a world governing body because everybody is too selfish to relinquish their power to some form of centralized government. The American and European public would never stand for that either. In any case, a centralized governing body might mean that there might be uniformity in how laws are applied. If some Fascist decides to bomb another country, he would be made to pay. If some businessman cheats workers of their wages in another countries, he would be made to pay. A centralized government for the world could have decided advantages. No more of this: in my ocuntry only these kind of people are allowed, and if you are not like them, I will kill you. A centralized government could ensure greater equality and justice if the laws are fair and well-enforced.

> U.S. losing it's influence is necessary for achieving that goal, because our strengh and independance has up until now resisted that effort. For the "ideals" of globalists to be realised, the U.S. needs to lose power and influence in the world.

This is what a lot of people don't get. The USA is becoming the world's central government. The USA is not resisting the creation of a central government, but as the dominant empire the USA is becoming the central government. There is not a corner of the world where the USA is not controlling the financial system, commodities production, weapons production, etc. The few countries that are not under American control are those that are too big and too hostile, and even then those countries depend on American capital and consumption to survive (China and Iran are two good examples). The USA has the largest military force and uses it to promote its political and economic interests and to enforce its version of international law (for example, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, etc.) The USA has also used dictators to advantage in order to gain political and economic control of other countries (e.g.: Latin America, Africa). When countries refuse to comply with American demands, they get crushed (Vietnam, Grenada). The USA also uses military might to impose its version of democracy on other countries (like Lybia, Iraq). That means that slowly world governments are being shaped into the American model.

It must be noted that the USA is not the only empire to do this. The British Empire did it, as did the French, the Spanish, the Romans, etc. The difference is that now the scale of control is much greater because the armies and weapons used are formidable. The USA is becoming the world government, and rather than American influence decreasing, it is increasing more and more every day. Americans shouldn't be afraid of a world government, because the USA itself is becoming that world government.

> So, we should sell our debt to China so they can lend money to us at an obscene interest rate, and at the same time allow intellectual property be stollen from us (by them).

This always makes me laugh. Americans complain of selling debt to China, but how is this happening? The answer is thorugh consumption of goods manufactured in China. As long as the American public wants cheap goods, companies like Walmart will manufacture them in China. Then we will see a flow of capital from consumers to producers. In other words, from American consumers to wealthy Chinese manufacturers. Americans are not selling their debt, they are consuming their way into debt. I found this little snippet:

"In 2008, the total U.S. trade deficit was $695.9 billion, which is $1.8 trillion in exports minus $2.5 trillion in imports. The deficit on petroleum products was $386.3 billion. The trade deficit with China was $266.3 billion, a new record and up from $304 million in 1983. The United States had a $144.1 billion surplus on trade in services, and $821.2 billion deficit on trade in goods in 2008.["

In 2008 the trade deficit was $695,9 billion. With China it was $266.3 billion. That means that in 2008 38% of the American trade deficit is with China alone!

Who should be blamed? China? Voracious consumers? American companies that took all the manufacturing overseas? The government (both Republican and Democrat) that allowed it all to happen?

> Tax the hell out those evil mom and pop enterprises that employ people who also don't pay enough taxes, then complain how there are fewer businesses to tax because those fools weren't willing to work for nothing anymore..

People forget that the bigger the company, the less taxes they pay. Most people would be surprised to know that General Electric paid no taxes in 2010. That's right, not even one cent in taxes, and they are one of the largest companies in the world. Walmart pays very little to, as do Exxon, Intel, etc. The reason is that the entire taxation system exists for the benefit of big monopolies. Big companies can afford to hire good accountants and lawyers. Genereal Electric has a full time team of accountats and lawyers and their job is to make sure that the companies deducts everything from their taxes. Small companies can't afford to do that. Who should be blamed? The big monopolies? Their crooked accountats? The corrupt government that passed tax breaks and loopholes in taxation law?

> Everyone understands how any one moving high volume of stuff can make a profit selling at low prices.

That is how American companies became the biggest and most successful in the world. It is also the source of American political, economic and military power. It is not something that American are going to give up. The American public would not stand for giving up the lifestyle they have become accustomed to.

> But for some reason the government doesn't understand this principle. It wants to kill and eat the goose laying the golden eggs, instead of incouraging the goose to lay more eggs. More eggs laid, more tax revenue to suck off. But if no more goose, then no more eggs. Then what?

This is the one things that governments don't want to do. To encourage small business sounds nice during election campaings, but the government is heavily influenced by big monopolies, and those monopolies want as little competition as possible. If the government cared about small businesses, they would tax the big monopolies and use that money to make sure that more businesses succeed. Instead we have a situation in which over 80% of small businesses go bankrupt.

Iamon_lyme: The tax rates in the USA are low compared to 40-50 years ago. America's golden age was more to do with that Europe/Japan/China & Russia were rebuilding, for if it were taxation.. then why with high rates back then was America apparently doing so well?

As for globalisation..... multinational firms have been more hell bent on that, and have added more to the fall of small firms than any government has.. imho.

Sorry for how my last message ended. politics annoys the hell out of me.

Übergeek 바둑이: Sorry, I thought you knew what I meant. The melding of nations into a centralized one world governing body is what globalization will invariably lead to. U.S. losing it's influence is necessary for achieving that goal, because our strengh and independance has up until now resisted that effort. For the "ideals" of globalists to be realised, the U.S. needs to lose power and influence in the world. So, we should sell our debt to China so they can lend money to us at an obscene interest rate, and at the same time allow intellectual property be stollen from us (by them). Then let's print lots and lots of money to dilute its value, which was getting lower anyway. Tax the hell out those evil mom and pop enterprises that employ people who also don't pay enough taxes, then complain how there are fewer businesses to tax because those fools weren't willing to work for nothing anymore.. They could have applied for food stamps, like everyone else, so what's their problem? Everyone understands how any one moving high volume of stuff can make a profit selling at low prices. But for some reason the government doesn't understand this principle. It wants to kill and eat the goose laying the golden eggs, instead of incouraging the goose to lay more eggs. More eggs laid, more tax revenue to suck off. But if no more goose, then no more eggs. Then what? You see where I'm going with this? Do you really want someone like me to expand on this, after I left the door open for any fool to walk in? I didn't think so.

Übergeek 바둑이: I know they were, but the whole point of the Protestant movement was freedom away from the RCC and such abuses of religion I thought. I'll have to see if I can catch that prog on UK TV on how with a little training someone can get and be a minister healin' and preachin' in the name of God and raking in 'donations'.

Iamon_lyme:

> Obama is a willing tool to get what he wants. Doesn't care what people will say
> about him when he's gone. He is not the anti Christ. He is just one of many warm up
> steps before we see the real deal emerge. Doesn't matter if he is really a bona fide
> U.S. citizen or not, because he slipped in under the radar, and now we are stuck
> with him until the next election.

Isn't this true of every president? (or prime minister, if you are in a different country) Every president has been an egocentric, self-serving tool. They start promising in some way, then as time passes the public's enchantment dies off and people can't wait to put the next tool into power. Every president starts deeply loved, and ends up in a hole. Look at the Bush administration. At its height it had over 80% approval ratings, only to finish so despised that even Republicans themselves abandoned the president like rats leaving a sinking ship.

> U.S. will continue losing influence in the world

Empires rise and fall. The USA is not the exception.

> the push towards setting up a global economy will be realised

But we already have a global economy. The gasoline in my car comes from crude oil from Alberta. The cotton in my clothes was grown in the USA, but the clothes themselves were made in Bangladesh. Half of the components in this computer were made in China. My car is Korean. Etc.

The economy of our planet has been global at least since the late Middle Ages. I recommend a book called "Manias, Panics and Crashes", by Charles P. Kindleberger. It covers the subject of economic cycles and how they spread around the world. The only difference is that today the information is passed on instantly. Before electronics were invented economic information moved slowly, but it moved nevertheless.

(V):

> America turned Christianity from a religion into a business.

I don't think we can blame America for that. The papacy was making a ton of cash well before America was discovered. Christianity has been big business from the time when Crhistianity became the dominant religion in the Roman empire to the present. A good 1,600 years of fattening the coffers.

But then, all religions do the same. All those nice, big mosques cost money, as do synagogues, Hindu temples, Buddhist temples, etc.

Organized religion needs money to grow and cement its power. The only difference in our present era is that religious goods are manufactured in China and sold in Walmart.

Übergeek 바둑이: They tried to introduce grandparents day here... it failed.

btw you missed out St George's day.. but it's not really celebrated as much as St Patrick's day.. especially via the shops and beer sales!!

Iamon_lyme: We don't seem to have the problems you guys in the USA regarding religion, paganism and all the division's. But as the old saying goes.. America turned Christianity from a religion into a business.

Iamon_lyme: I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather did. Not yelling and screaming like the passengers in his car.

Obama is a willing tool to get what he wants. Doesn't care what people will say about him when he's gone. He is not the anti Christ. He is just one of many warm up steps before we see the real deal emerge. Doesn't matter if he is really a bona fide U.S. citizen or not, because he slipped in under the radar, and now we are stuck with him until the next election. Clinton slipped in under the radar too, we didn't really know him until we had to deal with him. The left simply learned from that lesson and found another tool we didn't really know. We heard him give us hope in who knows what, and listened with rapt attention to him singing songs of praises to himself. U.S. will continue losing influence in the world, the push towards setting up a global economy will be realised, and tension in the Middle east will be resolved by the so called savior the world has always really wanted. Good luck with all that. I sincerely hope I am long gone before that day comes. I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather did. Not yelling and screaming like the passengers in his car. See yall next Easter. Maybe.

Iamon_lyme:

> More important to pagan idealists who feel compelled to exchange gifts because it's expected of you?

We have to remember tht in capitalism holidays are in essence retail experiences. Christmas is about buying gifts and giving them. St. Valentine's day (chocolate, flowers, jewelry, etc.), St. Patrick's day (green clothing, beer) , Easter (chocolate and candy), Thanksgiving (food), Christmas (every imaginable consumer good).

Of course, the true believers say to themselves that the gift-giving is not really the reason why they celebrate. However, if for some reason nobody was able to buy gifts, somehow Christmas would not be the same. Advertising has been so pervasive, that people can't tell where consumption ends and religion begins. The funniest thing of all, atheists I know celebrate Chrismas, not to remember Jesus, but so they can exchange gifts and gorge themselves with food. Some people go to Chrismas eve mass so they don't have to feel so guilty about worldy shopping and consumption.

In capitalism everything is for sale, even religion.

(V): More important to who? More important to pagan idealists who feel compelled to exchange gifts because it's expected of you? There is more religious "tollerance" around Easter time than there is at Christmas. I can get away with talking about God up until Easter, without hearing all the hate talk I hear at Christmas time. The day after Easter, and you all get back to the business of saying what you really mean.

(V): "I thought the birth of Christ was more important"

Übergeek 바둑이: Mmm without the birth and the declaration within of a child born of God... ... anyways... this whole debate over needing it recognised seems to be very idolatry. Using Easter as just another reason to get angry for no real reason than just wanting to being angry at Obama yet again.

(V):

> I thought the birth Of Christ was more important...

Not for Christians. While Christmas celebrates the arrival of the Saviour, the true miracle, the one miracle that defines Jesus as the Saviour, is resurrection. Easter is supposed to be a solemn celebration of that. Easter eggs are a German late medieval invention, possibly dating from earlier pagan traditions.

Artful Dodger:

> You need to look at the immediate history of the US and what exactly the early leaders of this country did PUBLICALLY with respect to faith. Seperation (as a concept - remember it's NOT in the constitution - ) doesn't mean silence. To say that it does mean silence is to put meaning into the constitution that never was there (again, history shows us the way).

We also have to remember that when the Constitution was written the USA was a small group of colonies. The early presidents and leaders did not have to contend with the world as it is today. The influx of immigrants as well as 19th century philosphy means that today 25% of the American population are not Christians. The 75% who are Christian are divided into 50% who are Protestant (in a wide variety of denominations) and 25% who are Catholic.

The early legislators did not have to conted with the influx of Irish, Italian, Mexican and other immigrants who brought Catholicism with them. They did not have to deal with MIddle Eastern and African immigrants who brought Islam with them. There are also Hindus and Buddhists.

When the First Ammendment was written the intention was to avoid one Christian denomination having more influence or power than another. The state had no business in favoring one denomination over another. This was the main point of the "wall of seaparation of church and state" that Jefferson alluded to in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

At that time the Danbury Baptists were concerned with the political and economic dominance of the much larger Congregationalist church in Connecticut. They wrote to Jefferson asking why their state constitution had no articles that protected a religious minority from a more powerful religious majority. It was out of that concern that Jefferson wrote his letter in reply to them. Jefferson saw the state as having no business promoting a religion over another.

To insist that the American government promote or favour Christianity over other religions is akin to the situation in those days. The Christian majority over the non-Christian minorities is akin to the Congregationalist majority over the Baptist minority. It is for this reason that the American governments will never make Christianity the state religion, but it is implied that Christianity is very influential due to the fact that the large majority of the polulation is Christian.

Another interesting fact is the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams. The treaty was signed in late 1796 and ratified by the Senate in 1797. The treaty was written as part of a larger effort to stop piracy in the Mediterranean. Article 11 (a subject of controversy) states that:

"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 tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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."

Although issues of translation and wording in the Arabic original have been raised many times, it seems that the early senators saw the separation of religion and politics as important in avoiding wars of religious motivation. It was written at a time when Al Qaeda and their extremism did not exist, but our present leaders could learn from the wording of the treaty.

Clearly the founding fathers wisely realized that religious harmony and tolerance were important in peaceful relations between peoples both at home and abroad. By promoting a religion over others, the state could potentially tilt power in favour of a religion at the expense of minorities. Today the minorities are non-Christian and whether the state favours Christianity is important in continuing the early spirit of the law. People forget that "one nation under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance in 1952 when the Cold War was starting and fear of Communism made people fear the loss of their religious beliefs. Under the current environment there are those who wish the president would come out and say "one nation under a Christian, anti-Moslem God". It would make Christian radicals happy, and it would also destroy the integrity of the First Ammendment.

Artful Dodger: I thought the birth Of Christ was more important... or maybe that it was just a replacement for various pagan holidays celebrating the coming of the new year.

ie The winter solstice.

anyway.. with the amount of Easter eggs and Easter displays by various companies selling Easter products I'd thought it would be hard to miss.. So why do we need a President confirming an event exists we already know about?

Bwild: No. Because there is a big difference between a galaxy being the universe and 100's of billions of galaxies being the universe, each containing 100's of billions of stars.

Iamon_lyme: I find the use of the words.... overused. If God is then God is a natural being and not supernatural. As to the word paranormal.. I find it woefully overused and abused.

.. Then that must be spiritualist in me!!

(V): so you admit that this(""seeing as less then a hundred years ago we did not know there was one."") statement was indeed wrong!

Further to my previous post, from Article 6 of the Constitution:

"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."

The law is clear. There is no requirement for the president (or any public servant) to be a Christian. Out of tradition presidents swear upon a Bible during their inauguration, but technically speaking, a president could refuse the Bible and merely affirm the oath. That would be his constitutional right.

Artful Dodger:

> By comparison, the White House has released statements recognizing the observance of major Muslim holidays

From a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists Association:

"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."

In Jefferson's view, freedom of worship is a right of every citizen, and the state has no business in interfering or promoting a particular religion (hence his term: establishment). The United States is a society that claims to be based on the separation of church and state. This is a claim that most wertern countries do. If that is the case, the White House should release NO statement on ANY religious holiday. The president and all members of the cabinet and the house should issue no religious statements at all.

Insiting on having the president be a Christian goes against the separation of church and state. Otherwise, it is little different from Iran expecting its president to be a moslem, or Israel expecting its president to be a Jew. We should leave the integration of church and state to those countries that insist on thinking that religious scripture and the law are the same thing. Western culture abandoned that idea during the Enlightenment.

> I don't think church going every once in awhile qualifies one as a Christian. Especially when church attendance is done for purely political reasons.

Is it different from politicians that boast of being religious in order to court the vote of the religious right? There are politicians that boast of being really good christians just to gain votes (c.f. the Tea Party and other religious conservatives). Are they not using religion for political gain?