Whether you believe in my Judiac/Christian God does not matter in the least to me, although I would prefer that you do! However, the "founding fathers" of our country did believe it was important enough to include it in our Constitution and spoke of him in almost every "document" regarding our rights. Almost to a man, they considered "faith based" religion to be essential for the "moral health" of a nation where we would be governed by a set of laws and not by emotions or passions. So it does make a difference to me if our President believes our country was founded as a Christian nation, "One Nation Under God", who recognizes other religions have a Constitutional right to exist under our rules.
Our first President was a "Free Mason" and a president of his the first "lodge" in Alexanderia; however, if you read his writings, he was a devote Christian who professed Jesus as the "Christ" while not "disrepecting" the beliefs of his fellow "patriots" whom many were "diest" at best. Ben Franklin, who had a background as a member of the Quaker faith, was a "deist" with several "founders" who ranged from "ordained ministers" to "agnostics" who were undecided to the end.
Separation of Church and State was not the issue, considering King George and the "Church of England", the greater issue was that there would never be established a "State Church" as many of the European nations had done by previous governments.
I also believe our rules are more "just" than other nations who "majority" religion is not Christian, regardless of "sect". You do not have to know "my" god (in the secular tense) if the rules are fair to all religions and are equal under the law. It does make a difference if "your" god does not recognize the laws and allows you to disregard them according to your religious beliefs. If that's the case, you can either seek to change the law or move to a government who is "in accordance" with your prescribed religious laws. (I believe Joeseph Smith did this, as well as Mohammand and others.)
Contrary to the "History Channel", Allah was an Arabic "moon god" with Mohammad as its "prophet" who, according to the Quaran, states that Jesus was a prophet much like "John the Baptist". The Quaran further states that the "trinity" is defined as "father, son, and mother Mary" to the "infidels" (non-Muslims); Abraham was the father of Ishmel and Isacc was of no importance. Mohammad "converted" followers by the sword, had many wives (even one "pre-teen"), considered it OK to lie and deceive all "infidals" for religious gain, and sought a "Holy War" of "Jihad". I hardly think this would pass the "muster" of our concept of "Yahweh" and his son Jesus who willingly died for "mankind".
The Buddhist do not believe in a "supreme" god and considers Siddhauthe Gautamo ("Buddha") to be the "great teacher" of the faith (died 400BC) of "spritual enlightenment" where one ascendes the "evolutional chain" of greatness through "reincarnation". The most violent of the bunch "douce" themselves with gassoline in protest to "social injustices" (if we could only convince "environmentalist" and "animal rights" activist this is a good practise
).
The Hindus believe in many gods that exists in every part of "nature" or "inanimate" objects. If you care to read their "scriptures", the "Srnti" "Smati" you might recognize "Greek mythology gone wild". While peaceful Hindus do exist, contrary to British conflicts to the contrary, they do not coexist as peacefully as when they are in the "minority". Consider the Indian/Paskistian conflict that has been on going since the British left them to their own devices. (I believe we have some active "sects" of this religion in the guise of "tree huggers".)
Muslim conflicts have existed since their 7th century beginnings and they do not permit "apostasy" of other religons without persecution of that religion. Muslims, like Hindus, have peacefully coexisted with other religions for short periods of a time until they can gain "political" status. Once they gain an upper hand to the "reins of power", their "theocracy" begans and religious freedoms cease. Their toleration of other religions can be witnessed anywhere in the "near east" and the many war torn countries in "North Africa". Their "apologest" only kid themselves at best, and try to deceive us in the least. The "Holy War" may have ceased for us when the "Crusades" officially ended, but it has not for them. Separation of state does not apply to "Shira Law" and is not even an item for discussion item for a Islamic nation.
Buddists have been the most peaceful of all the religions, but they have never come close to their "Nirvana" except in their "minds". "Tibet" has only been a "sancuary" due to its isolated location. They don't make good soldiers, are not normally engaged in commerce, and require a government to feed and protect them (I think the Chinese government has decided not to).
If you want to believe all these religions believe in the same god, you are given that freedom by our form of government that protects that "God given right" and backed up by our Constitution. It doesn't even tell you which version you have to believe to understand the rights you are entitiled to partake. However, I don't advise you move to another country under one of the other "major" religions and expect the same freedoms and protections.
When our God is abandoned, along with our Constitution, the strongest religion will "fill the void"! You better hope that that void will not be filled by one of the other great religions like Islam or we will all find out how their version of America not only does not accept Christianity, but they certainly don't accept Atheist or Agnostics!
Dee, you and I agree about much; but I will never agree with you that there was no difference between a Bush or a McCain compared to Obama. No, I did not agree with Bush's accessment of Islam, nor did I agree with McCain's version of "appeasing" socialism; however, I would take either's view regarding the Constitution or the definition of Capitalism and religion over Obama's any day! Just like there is a differences between Socialism and Communism there is a major difference between Christian leaders of either party than a Muslim masquerading as an American who is quickly distroying our economy and its institutions.
In 70 days we have spent more money than all the "administrations" combined from President Washington to the last President, and we are letting government "forceably" take charge of our banking system, oil industry, car industry, faith based charities, and health care industry. At least "Creeping socialism" was better than tyranny! Sorry for the length of the post; I'm just trying to catch up.
