The reason we have the Establishment Clause in the Constitution is because our Founders were extremely weary of an excessive entanglement between government and religion. The Pilgrims that landed on Plymouth Rock were fleeing the oppressive King and Church of England and wanted to practice their religion with persecution. That is why there is no official religion of America, no matter what right-wing religious leaders would have you believe.

Therefore, it is very American to keep church and state separate.

Obviously my first comment didn’t penetrate Billy’s understanding, so let’s move on to his latest tautology.

Who is trying “to remove Christianity from America”, other than Daniel Dennet and some other strident atheists, and from where in hell did Billy hallucinate the idea that the entanglement of Christianity with government is “natural”?

Forbidding the posting of religious texts like the Ten Commandments in a courthouse is neither an attack on anyone’s faith, nor a limit on his freedom— if his definition of personal freedom respects my right to be left alone from religion, especially when I interact with the State in the conduct of my life.

Need it be said that these cheerleaders for unwelcome religious intrusions in our government have no such concern for religions other than Christianity?

As I said, I am not a fan of either pastor you mentioned. That said, making the jump to assume that they represent mainstream Christians isn’t fair, nor is the notion that faith should be removed from political institutions. It’s actually more harmful to take excessive measures to remove Christianity from America than it is to simply allow the natural entanglement.

In sum: It would be totally and utterly unnatural to remove one’s faith from one’s politics.

Instead we place them in order as if one type of hatred is better than another. The excessive entanglement between government and religion has done significant harm to this nation and needs to be stopped.

And Vince, I never called Obama a terrorist. What I did do was point to solid evidence that morally bankrupt individuals support his candidacy. This is undeniable. And I never claimed that readers should hate him. I simply warned and asked voters to question his policies and character.

You really don’t think Hagee, Robertson, etc. aren’t racist? Don’t you find their close proximity to the decision makers of the Republican Party somewhat disturbing?

This lead is the perfect crystallization of that clarion false note struck by right-wing apologists when they want to smear Democrats as terrorist-friendly traitors.

I don’t doubt that Ann Coulter thanks the Prince of demons every night that Obama has ‘Hussein’ in his name.

And of course neocons try their best to taint Obama with the odor of terrorism, even in such dud stinkbombs as this little homily.

It’s a simpleton’s fallacy in logic to maintain that if a politician is favored by entities deemed to be evil, then by some Mephistophelian alchemy he is transmuted into an evil person himself or at the very least tainted by this “association”, and should be abhorred.

It’s the FOX News approach to political commentary— where the yellow “journalism” that made Rupert Murdoch rich finds its natural home.

In terms of the other wing-nuts like Farrakhan and Wright — they hold horrifically racist viewpoints and they connection to Obama is nothing short of scary.

I also think there is a chance these nuts aren’t as dumb as we think. They know that by supporting Obama, they are rallying people to support McCain, who has said he will keep us in Iraq for the forseeable future. The presence of our soliders in the Middle East is the greatest recruiting tool Al Qaeda has ever had.

Furthermore, Wright’s focus is on race, not religion, so the mention of these pastors is irrelevant.

This argument is more than valid. You’re missing the point. Something is making these hate mongers vote “yes” to Obama. Doesn’t that concern you in the least – that there are qualities in him that appeal to these nuts?