“All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.”

You tell em Tom!

As these men profess their lack of conviction in God you cling to their writings and try to FORCE upon the masses your beliefs.

You rail against that which you yourself do.

Welcome to the world of hypocrisy.

“I simply don’t believe that questions of personal faith or theological interpretation should be playing such a visible and out-sized role in our presidential politics.”

However to the extent that a candidate’s religious views will (or have the potential to) influence the actions that candidate might take as President, then we have every right to know and ask questions about religion. There are some decisions a President will make (and which policies and programs to support) that will more than likely be made based on his religious beliefs.

For instance abortion. The religious right, and from what I can tell most (but not all) Republican leaders oppose abortion. And many of those candidates who oppose abortion will cut funding to family planning clinics and appoint judges to the bench who agree with them. They may even disagree with Roe v. Wade and seek to overturn or otherwise undo it.

However other people (including myself) might oppose abortion but remain pro-choice. So my personal views (at least in this case) would land me on the side of the religious right. But how I would act (being pro-choice and believe in the right to privacy) firmly puts my views on the left. Personally I don’t have all the answers to this question and can only live by my own beliefs. And in order to continue my own freedom to practice my own beliefs, I am going to fight for that freedom for all. But I do not believe I should force my views down others’ throats. This freedom is essential to our country.

So it’s important to understand a candidate’s religious views and how he will balance those views with the competing responsibilities of elected office. Remember the Terry Schiavo case and how the Republican leadership, for their own political benefit, interfered in what is probably the most personal private decision? (The decision to continue or discontinue life support of a family member?) And Bill Frist, even went beyond the religious pandering and used his credentials as a doctor to examine Terry, via video tape, and declare that she was alive and should continue on life support! How can any reputable doctor, when making a life and death decision, base that decision on a videotape?

Anyway, I agree that questions of a personal nature should not play such an outsized role in the presidential selection. But that only assumes the candidates truly will not let their faith influence them. Unfortunately most of the candidates (and how many of them have conveniently switched positions, now that they are running for Prez.?) will allow their religious beliefs to “interfere” with their duties as President.

Not “God” as the concept is understood today, not by a long shot.

Yes, religion was present in their society just as it is in ours, and absolutely all the early presidents referenced religion in their inaugural addresses (and Congress has opened its sessions with a prayer, &c. &c.). It’s true that the Framers weren’t concerned about the exact same things we are – that’s because they didn’t have to deal with the presence of “In God We Trust” on the money or nativity scenes on courthouse lawns. They had different issues (fast days, oaths, and the like) to contend with.

Their fights did, however, concern the question of “removing the ‘religious’ from public view” (witness the great uproar when Adams declared an official “fast day” in 1798). Even many religious groups refused to support that action, which probably helped cost Adams reelection in 1800. This example, as you note, also concerns the question of compulsion – which is an important one, and one that has not faded with the centuries.

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.

He is even suggesting the Almighty has some special connection to the United States! The fiend!

Hopefully Adams with e beeter:

And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing upon this nation and its Government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of His providence.

SONOFA….

Surely Jefferson will be better:

And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity.

OK..Madison?

In these my confidence will under every difficulty be best placed, next to that which we have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best hopes for the future.

Monroe?

Relying on the aid to be derived from the other departments of the Government, I enter on the trust to which I have been called by the suffrages of my fellow-citizens with my fervent prayers to the Almighty that He will be graciously pleased to continue to us that protection which He has already so conspicuously displayed in our favor.

Crap. He’s the worst since Washington!! He’s even praying???????!!!!!!!

OK…I’ll stop, since every inaugural address will invoke the almighty. Jeremey you are not entirely wrong…but you wildly overstate the case. Religion was not a purely private matter in the way you mean the term. Religion was pervasive in society. The “private”-ness of religion was more about what could and couldn’t be compelled of individuals in a democratic society. It has nothing of the modern concern with removing the “religious” from public view.

I agree 100% with this statement from the article:

“I simply don’t believe that questions of personal faith or theological interpretation should be playing such a visible and out-sized role in our presidential politics.”

Article VI of the US Constitution shows us the founding fathers were clearly of a similar mind on the matter.