Original story The problem with the seperation of church and state in a democracy is that it breaks down when the people reject it. In much of the US the majority of the population would prefer a Christian theoracy instead of the secular republic dictated by the constitution. This wasn't such an issue when the populace was more homoginized, but now that we are becoming more and more diverse many people are getting mad at having to deal with people who are different.
The problem with a separation from church and state is religious people, remove them and you have no problem. ALL of the westernized nations are multi-cultural societies now, you cannot advocate one religion over another.
This is why religion should be irrelevant in elections, and politics as a whole. Don't confuse that with the separation of church and state, as that's a rather different thing (though no less important - in fact, much more). My take on religion as a whole is that it's supposed to be something very personal. You should use your beliefs as a way to guide your daily choices, and limit it to that. Religion isn't something that's meant for you to enforce on others, or to try to get them to convert. If your religious beliefs say that I'll spend eternity in hell, chances are that mine say the same about you. But that's my problem, not yours. I don't need or want to be saved any more than you want me to save you (because my saving you according to my beliefs will, in fact, send you straight to hell). Pester not thy neighbor. Now apply this concept to a larger scale. I respect your religious choices, so long as you don't expect me to make the same choices. Do your thing on Sunday morning, and let it guide you. Don't decide that your guiding principals need to become law. This is just as true for Joe Shmoe as for the town clerk as for the President.
What part of the US do you live in? I know very, very few people who actually think that, and I run in fairly religious circles in the first place. I wouldn't put it past some, but I doubt they're a majority. Historically 'mainstream' Christians (if such people exist) have a problem with Mormons because they add on to the Bible - they put the writings of Joseph Smith on a par with it - which is the usual definition of blasphemy. And historically, Mormons have trouble understanding why this is a problem. Mr. Romney is going to have to figure out how to deal with that if he's going to run a successful campaign, it'll be interesting to see what happens. This has what to do with the rest of the article? I think they're scaremongering here. The big nasty 'fundamentalists' are not going to take over the world and make condoms illegal...
I live in Northwest Washington State, but I was speaking mostly of the deep south where I spent time in 2004 and 2005. My impression is that this feeling is held by the majority in those areas. Up here I personally know a lot of people who feel this way, though they certainly not what I would consider a majority. Nationwide, my feeling is that a large and growing percentage of the population feel this way. Put another way, It seems to me that Americans are getting dumber as time goes on.
I'm also in the Pacific NW, can't say I have the experience with the deep South to compare notes with you there. I went to college in the rural East, which was politically conservative but fairly apathetic about religion, from what I could pick up. Meh. Freaking huge country, way too many subcultures to draw easy generalities. Maybe we're just getting smarter by comparison. If the trend really is in that direction, yeah, that would be one of the stupidest things we could do right now. The last thing the world needs is a more and more 'Christian' America in opposition to a more and more 'Islamic' mid-East. It's bad enough already. But I guess I'm not convinced we're heading further in that direction, it's more likely we're becoming a post-Christian nation like much of Europe. We'll find out, I suppose.
Because, heaven forbid anything be added or removed form the Bible. Where have you been? Do you really think that the one you are reading today hasn't been edited and re-written at least a dozen documented times? And can you really refute that other texts might be as important as the Bible? I mean, the Koran is a literal transcription of the word of God through the Arch Angel Gabriel. The Bible is a bunch of stories written years later; teachings but not the word of God. It is the word of man, what they thought God wanted. At least the Muslims acknowledge the divinity of other texts. I mean, what happens when it turns out that Joseph Smith was right? Boy will they look like they are in a South Park episode. To discount their belief is to open your own to ridicule.
Please show me documentation on some of those rewrites. Most published bibles today have several pages at the front explaining precisely what documents the book was translated from, by whom, when, and so on. In all the cases that I'm familiar with, they specifically went back to the earliest reliable documents they could find. Oh, and by the way- the Koran wasn't written by Muhammed. It was written a generation after he died. As such, it's "a bunch of stories written years later."
The bible was a compilation created in late Roman times, where various books were decided to be kept or droped (burned). It was later reproduced by half blind monks in dark rooms working by candle light rewriting words they didn't really understand, inconsistencies are inevitable given the circumstances. The bible is much older than printing presses and pages at the front explaining this that and the next thing. I'm not saying the Koran is any better mind mearly that its much newer and less likely to have suffered the creep that the bible has. The Korans biggest problem now is interpretation but give it a few hundred years if history repeats it'll bear little resemblance to the one read now.
Where did I discount their belief? I was attempting to summarize the conflict for anyone who might have missed the point. Looks like it's been missed anyway. Edited to add: If you're really interested in the topic, please read the Wikipedia article on textual criticism for a good overview of how modern Biblical translastions are handled. There's a lot more going on than monks in dark rooms (romantic as that image is). Back on topic: It'll be interesting to see how the values/religion/tolerance game gets played in this election. It's going to be messy.
