I found this article regarding McCain and faith. It is well written and very interesting. Please read the full article and share your thoughts.

Full article is at http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/election08/519/john_mccain:_no_god_but_country/

John McCain: No God But Country
By Kathryn Lofton
October 6, 2008

The president’s faith, according to John McCain, is "[the] number one issue." For most politicians, God is littered about their speeches and writing like verbal pork barrel; yet prior to 2008, John McCain never spoke of God in public. Having scoured the public record, the author reports back with a startling proposal: John McCain may not believe in God.

I tried to read the article, but it's way out of my league for comprehension. I'm an airhead sometimes.

The article about Sen John McCain is too long and not structured well. What I understood from it is that the senator does not really believe in Jesus or God, and that he never spoke about this until the 08' Election. Even now, he doesn't really bring the subject. His choice of Gov Sarah Palin, a Christian Conservative was for political gain.

**I don't know what is going in the senator's head, but as americans, we choose a president that is capable to function in the office of the president, and the Senator can handle the position, and has a track record working thru politics, internal and externals affairs.
**The senator is 1 of 2 choices we have, and he seems to be the best choice for the country during this portion of world's events.Gov Palin is a great choice that adds to the ticket what it lacks.
**The other option is that of senator Obama, who claims to be a church goer, but his belief system does not line up with the Bible. This includes his friendships, and his voiced plan for the country that includes suppression of speech on the airwaves (called the Fairness Doctrine).
**Both candidates say that they believe in God, and Jesus. Anyone may believe anything, but what counts is if the person actually have a personal relationship with Jesus as personal Redeemer of the penalty for sin. This is the new birth.
** It is always better to have leaders that have at least the belief in the Judeo-Christian system, which is traced in the Bible, and was the essence of our Constitution and intended by our founders to lead our Republic form of Government.
**Mr McCain does not like to talk a lot about his faith. Does he, or does he not believe?
God knows, and we will find out if his walk will show this. For sure, if he is anti-Christ, he will first have problems with his VP.
As for you, please check the following site. I think it is great and have true, simple, and useful information:
http://www.notreligion.com/
Mike

Sorry for not reading the entire article. It had way too much "spin" for me. To many "hot" adjectives and adverbs and too many purposefully demeaning metaphors. So as far as an instrument for conveying any sort of reasonable argument, it fell completely flat from my perspective.

I haven't read the article either.

However, I think it's utterly disgusting that anyone would choose a politcal leader simply because of their religious beliefs. Wouldn't that ultimately amount to religious discrimination of the other candidate?

Moreover, I seriously believe that if there is a benevolent God he would prefer Obama to be president.

I say this because I feel that without a doubt Obama would be the best possible choice for world peace. Where McCain truly represents more of the same of what we've been seeing.

The outcome of this election will indeed affect the whole world (just like the outcome of the last two elections have).

Obama would be a much better choice for foreign affairs and world peace.

I think Obama is a man who could truly bring diplomacy into action in the world arena where McCain would be much more likely to just continue the iron fist - no diplomacy concept of the previous administration.

To me, Obama represents a positive outlook for the future.

McCain represents more of the same that we've alread seen.

Obama = positive change

McCain = continued idiocracy

JMHO

Maybe this thread should be moved to the "Political" forum?

If people are voting for govemental leaders based on religious discrimination, doesn't that make religion political?

There's supposed to be a seperation of chruch and state. But if people are voting for govenmental leaders based on religious discrimination then where's the separation?

Exactly.

On the other hand, how can we truthfully claim a separation between church and state when we’ve had things like "One Nation, under God" in our pledge of allegiance, and still have "In God We Trust" printed on our money?" And even "All men are endowed by their Creator..." on the founding document for our nation.

Hypocrisy from the very beginning.

From the crapola I have heard espoused in some of the political threads, a lot of the conservative right is voting for McCain solely because he's an anti-choice candidate. That seems to be a big concern to them. Not only is Obama not an old white guy, he wont support that agenda. So in other words, he's the anti Christ.

That's the problem with the religious right. They are more concerned with pushing their bigoted beliefs onto other people via the law that they couldn't care less about world peace.

That is such an arrogant selfish attitude. What a bunch of self-centered hypocrites.

The hypocracy lies in the modern day cliche "Separation of church and state" taken totally out of context from an obscure Jefferson letter. Read the ist amendment for yourself. It says that the state shall make no Laws governing religion. Says nothing about religons attempt to do anything to the state - be it through politics or otherwise. Without God - this country would have a King - not a three beanch ruling system.

World Peace??? What's that?

You live in a dream world. There hasn't been one day of world peace in your life time - and you'll die without seeing it. Bet the house on that.

"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose."

Thomas Jefferson The third president of the United States
- to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes."

John Adams-Second President of the United States

- letter to John Taylor
.

You should know this stuff Eljay! You are a yankee!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

The fundamental precept of religion is a belief in God.

The printing on our national currency is done under law created by Congress.

That currency has printed on it "In God We Trust".

This is not rocket surgery. You don't have to be a mental giant to figure this out. You only have to be able to look and see what's there.

Mccain does not care for you,this nation, or God. selecting Sarah Palin is proof of this

Just because you're a pessimist doesn't mean everyone needs to become on.

However, you might be right. Our closest relatives are the Chimpanzees, and they are quite hostile and war-like they are always making war with neighboring groups of Chimps, and they also are very patriarchal.

However, our next closest relative, the Bonobos are actually much more peace oriented. They hardly ever fight and they make love all the time. Their society is more matriarchal.

It appears that genetically we're hard-wired for war and male-chauvinism for the most part.

I think that opens up a whole new can of worms for religious people. If these kinds of traits are hard-wired in genetic that means that the Biblical God played a really nasty dirty trick on man by hardwiring him to be aggressive and male-chauvinistic and then threatening to chastise him if he behaves that way. What a jerk that God would be!

Clearly we have seen in nature that it is possible to create peaceful loving animals. Therefore, if we have a creator who created us with a disposition to be at each other's throats, we have no one to thank for that but that very creator!

If you believe in such a God it's no wonder you have such a pessimistic view of life. We never had a chance.

Of course I know this stuff - especially Adams - I'm a native Mass-hole. That does not change anything I wrote about the 1st amendment. It says what it says. Of course you are aware that
Adams was a devote Christian and Jefferson is the one who established tax exemption for all churches. Though later in his life - Jefferson became a Deist - it is not true that he was so when the Declaration of Independence was drafted - or the Constitution was created. Also - it was Franklin who called for a halt of the discussion over the Constitution, as they were getting nowhere, in order that the Congress might devote themselves to prayer in order to find favor with God in the creation of that ever important document. I'm sure you came across that in your research as well.

Context - not pretext is the path to truth.

There's no religion being established by stating "In God we trust". The Declaration of independence states that "All men are created equal". And that is not the only reference to God in that document. A belief in God is not an establishment of a religion. You are s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g your middle to make the ends meet.

There's a word for that - it's called "Pretext".
You have constructed your argument to support your premise.