I'm a freethinking secularist, who believes the most important aspect of the US constitution is the separation of church and state. My complaint is that in this Christian religious fundamentalist era of US history, where religion is safe, cozy, and secure from the state, the state is not safe and secure from religion.

The mixing of religion and politics leads to governments like Iran. The religious wars of Europe. Inquisitions and Crusades.

I find it incomprehensible that in a nation where the founding fathers and mothers were so adamnant about the separation of church and state, that in 2004, this dicussion of ethics was immediately reduced to a former president's standing as a Christian by one of the forum evangelizers, and no one challenges it.

That to me suggests the conventional wisdom of the majority here only embrace those who profess a belief in conventional religion, and that only they have a right to the high moral ground.

We are living in an era of unprecedented hostility towards secularism, and in a democracy with the separation of church and state as one of it's main tenets, that isn't a good thing.

I'm sorry Bobert, I like you and we usually agree on most things. But not on the religion thing. Like I said in my initial response to you, the editorial had nothing to do with religion, and I still resent your bringing religion into the conversation.

We need to respect, uphold, and defend human rights and the rule of law, not because we are a Christian nation, or the only people who can be elected president are Christians, and not because one must be a religious believer to be moral and ethical. We need to respect, uphold and defend human rights and the rule of law because it is the right thing to do as human beings, for our own safety and security, as well as for the safety and security of others.