The title you give to this post in confusing. Democrats and other opponents, including the many military leaders, scientists, and statesmen who are republicans are dominated by believers. In contrast, there is the Bush cult which is dominated by people whose faith is known by their acts. John O'Neill isn't a Christian. Bill Bennett isn't a Christian. They are hypocrites.

Its probably confusing to you that America is by definition a secular country. It was created to provide a place for free people to not be ruled by Kings then and now.

John O'Neill isn't a Christian. Bill Bennett isn't a Christian.

Cuz pete said so.

America is by definition a secular country.

And yet, we're the most religious Western nation. Funny, that.

just pete:

It is by definition not secular, however the many secularists do need and will have a political party. If that party isn't going to be the Democrats then the Democratic Party will cease to matter.

If I'm not mistaken, O'Neill isn't even a Republican.

You're not mistaken, OJ. He voted for Gore in 2000, but I believe he voted for Bush in 2004. Don't know what his religious beliefs are, nor does pete, but I do know he gave one of his kidneys to his wife at the beginning of the year. Seems like a Christian thing to do.

America had a perfectly good relationship between organized Christianity and the State prior to the 60s. It strikes me that we should just return to that era and many of our current horribles would solve themselves.

Both my parents went to public schools that had readings from the KJV and prayer every morning. My mother's audition piece when she was admitted to Juilliard was an alto solo from Handel's Messiah. She also used to earn cash when she was in high school performing at weddings and funerals where inter alia she would sing traditional Christian favorites. It didn't stop either of them from being devoted Jews. Anyone who feels threatened by such things is such a wet noodle that his concerns are beneath contempt.

I've attended more than a few football games involving public institutions where a Christian invocation preceded play. The notion that I should somehow be importuned by this is just loony. I live in a country that is more than 90% Christian and their cultural manifestations should be respected.

Bart:

You need to go back further. FDR and the New Deal Left intentionally made the State a competitor of society (and therefore, mostly, of the Church). The classic American balance won't be restored until that's reversed.

Bush is fine for me. When a reporter asked him, after the election, about the religious divide in the country, he said "The great thing about America is that it doesn't matter how you worship... you don't have to worship." There were probably quite a few of his Christian supporters who winced at that phrase, but Bush has been vocally tolerant of non-believers on other occasions, which is a direct difference between him and his father, who said once that athiests could not be considered patriots or even citizens!

As demonstrated by the discussions on this blog, there are quite a few secular conservatives and libertarians who support Bush and the Republicans. If you aren't interested in promoting identity politics about being a non-believer, then there is no reason that you can't find a home in the Republican party, despite all the noise that some religious conservatives make. Let them have their say - in the end, the Republicans are more supportive of religious freedom than the Democrats are.

Bart, I wouldn't bring back the days of mandated school prayer, but you are right that many of the church/state challenges brought by the ACLU and Liberals against schools are much ado about nothing. My daughter sings in the school choir, and much of their repertoire, especially for the Christmas concert, is religiously oriented. It is just a fact that most of the good choir scores are religious.

Robert:

Conformity makes anyone tolerable.

Robert,

I taught university level mathematics for a decade and let me assure you that, ACLU and Supreme Court aside, when exam time comes, there is prayer in school.

As a matter of law, if it were my choice, I agree with you that it is more than a tad dopey to require prayer. However, most Americans feel that there should be prayer in school and my attitude is like the woman who upon seeing a cadaver says that they should give him some chicken soup. Upon being informed that he's dead and it would do no good, her response is 'It couldn't hurt.' If millions of Americans feel that a morning prayer will enhance their ability to do schoolwork, then I'm all for it regardless of its impact on the seriousness of my own behavior.

Bart:

Regarding your 'It couldn't hurt story,' and assuming you have heard it in Yiddish, is it as funny in Yiddish as it is in English? Cracked me up. Thank you.

As a Christian, agree with your point. If I lived in Israel, Jewish custom in public institutions wouldn't bother me (much less scare me), so long as I could worship my faith and I didn't get rounded up by Jewish authorities.

Jennifer Granholm says Democrats have to learn how to say "God". But if they get caught laughing about it when they think the cameras are off, does it count?

Could any prominent Democrat today say it without being suspect (even in the media)? Black leaders (Jesse, Rev. Al, etc.) 'say' God all the time, but most people know they are hucksters and are not serious.

Heck, a lot of Republicans 'say' God and don't know what they are talking about. Bush is different, and that is why he got millions more votes this time.

The church-state relationship that existed in W. Europe (1700 years) and N. America (500 years) is finished.

That quote about Richardson dressing Kerry up like some honcho Ken Barbie doll is what cracked me up.

RH:

It's back, after a brief interlude of extreme secularism, here. That's why we're rising while they fall.

Jim,
That is the down side of the focus on God talk in politics, it is just one more lie that politicians will say to get elected. God can mean whatever the believer wants it to, hearing the candidate talk about God tells you nothing about his/her values.

Robert:

It provides the yardstick by which to judge them, as does the disavowal of a God.

That's the problem. God is not a yardstick, it is a build your own yardstick kit. Anyone can measure up when they build their own yardstick.

robert:

That's quite wrong. Kerry's protestations of faith were measured ahgainst his support for abortion, gay marriage and the like and so he was not viewed as religious.

Robert:

OJ is correct. Bill Clinton tried to score 'God' points by carrying his Bible to church. Did he convince anyone (or upset any on the left)? No.

Reagan rarely went to church and was attacked by some conservatives and many liberals for being a hypocrite because he was divorced. But as his term(s) of office went on, his genuine faith became known. Later, his remorse and sadness over the divorce became public knowledge, and by the time of his funeral, only the haters on the left denied his spiritual power (for lack of a better word).

jim:

I disagree. I think Clinton's faith is genuine.

"and so he was not viewed as religious. "

By whom? All of his religious supporters viewed him as religious? Of course Kerry and Clinton's religiosity is sincere, since when did sincere religiosity drive out moral error? That's the problem, it doesn't. You sorely want to treat it as some kind of mark of distinction, but all it really is is a mark of familiarity. Southern religious conservatives voted for Jimmy Carter because he talked like them. The same with Clinton. The Bible says to judge the tree by its fruit, but you would have us judge the tree by its proximity to a church. Look at the personal values and the character, not the gloss of religiosity. Religiosity gives you no window onto these.

The key factor for the Democrats is how to fashion the party to accomodate certain key constituencies that already exist and win back voters who no longer support Democrats.

It would be easy except that the current groups in charge would be relegated to second place, and no one wants to give up power.

Bart has the right idea on this. I have spent some time in countries which were predominantly Bhuddist. While I may have felt that my Bhuddist neighbors would have been happier if their religious persuasion matched my own, you must believe that my wish, failing that, was for them to be the best Bhuddists who ever walked the face of the Earth

I will never measure up to God's yardstick. No Christian, Jew, Muslim, Bhuddist, etc. can. Anyone who claims they do has built their own yardstick. God loves me the way I am, though he wants me to strive to be the best I can be. He created me in his image afterall.