I'm shocked. Unlike pretty much every other disqus comment section I've seen, almost everyone is being civil and sensible.

I'm going to be controversial and suggest that a good way to do eliminate the harmful effects of religion in politics would be to impose an IQ test (or other measure of intelligence, preferably one relating to politics), and say that you have to pass it in order to vote. This wouldn't eliminate religion from politics, but it would ensure that most of the negative effects of religion in politics are removed, while having the bonus of retaining sensible religious views and also removing stupid secular views.

The only problem with an IQ test is that some people who have a high IQ have been known to be unable to tie their own shoes.
A test to see that you at least know what the issues are and who the candidates are that you are voting for would make some sense until people start monkeying around with the test to eliminate voters they don't like. Plus, all of the lawsuits for voter disenfranchisement would clog up our legal system for decades.
Besides, getting religion out of politics is impossible. A person's beliefs are who they are, and thus the only way to get religion out of politics is to eliminate having people involved. There would be no people to vote; there would be no people holding office- just machines. (but even machines are programmed by people, so they may even need to be excluded.
The only real way to get rid of ideas that you or I may deem stupid or foolish, would be to convert them away from their ideas on the fields of debate and discussion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015...

I'm not sure this piece contributes to the real issue at hand ... I guess it's satire, but it's aimed, or it seems to me, and I would say, poorly aimed, at folks who seriously want to maintain the fragile wall between government and those who would turn our democracy into a theocracy.

Why not try again? Write something that addresses the issue and its complexity.

I agree that religion is always going to be a part of the social and political fabric - that can't be helped. But there's a huge divide right now between folks who are devoted to Biblical Justice, the opening of society to all, putting some brakes on runaway hyper-capitalism, the maintenance of our schools and cities, opportunity and employment, etc., and those who are fixated on women's sexuality as the root cause of all ills, and who, often, are proponents of the death penalty and war, too.

I'm merely pointing out the foolishness of crying "Get religion out of politics!" I get tired of utopians calling for something that can't be accomplished — and that would result in a much worse situation than we have now.

Isn't each religion its own prescription for utopia as defined by specific rules and goals? None of these Utopian fantasies is more likely than another. I can't speak for Bill Maher, but I doubt that even he would be so irrational as to think the exercise of religion shouldn't be protected - but (and this is the key) that it could not and must not infringe on the rights of others, damage public health and welfare, compromise national security, and so on. We all know that religion is all over the map, from letting children die of preventable diseases because of religious objections to standard medical practice, to forcing businesses to close on Sundays, to circumscribing the rights of others just because of who they are, to slaughtering live animals and filling neighborhoods with their anguished screeches just because of some primitive religious belief about ritual butchering. It would be impossible to even have a civil society without at least somewhat circumscribing these "free exercise" practices. And don't even get me started about the religious kooks who claim tax-exempt status and refuse to pay income tax or breakaway Mormons who have 20 kids, exposing the public to enormous potential welfare and education costs. In my view, secularists are not calling for anything Utopian - but they are willing to push back against overreach and the establishment of a defacto theocracy.

It has often seemed to me that we really only need one law:
"Everyone shall have the right to live as he sees fit, so long as he refrains from interfering with, threatening, or endangering the lives, safety, property, or honor of others or their right to do likewise."

I think that about covers everything, including theft, murder, rape, slander...

I was just reading some of the things you have written in DISQUS and like a lot of your opinions & the things you have said! They are well thought out and rational (in my mind anyway). I kinda felt uneasy, like I was snooping tho, and didn't mean to be.. but it's out there for the world to see, so I did ;-)

I guess we tend to gravitate towards others who generally think in or near the same ball park as ourselves. Sadly, it's so uncommon anymore to read someone's opinions without them calling others names, or telling them what a jerk they are, even when many times it is soooo hard to resist!

I like! The problem with any of it though (as I see it of course), is that there will always be scumbags who will find ways to get around anything and everything. Children, the severely injured or handicapped and the mentally ill will always need more specific 'humanity' laws to protect them, as do animals, because most of these groups cannot speak for themselves.

At this point in human history, you would think we would have evolved to a much more intelligent, peaceful, humane, moral, kind, accepting and civil group, but I think it has gotten worse instead of better. The ultra religious insist that's because we took Jesus out of the equation, which is a load of crap. A persons god is something personal, a belief within themselves, not something that should be rammed down someone else's throat or used to brainwash or control others with.

Being a decent, moral, respectable and responsible American does not require being religious or being a Christian. I accept human life as the only and primary basis for morality. If something enhances humanity, it is good. If it hurts or threatens it, it is not good or acceptable, and must be appropriately dealt with and fixed.

Morality is the human response that allow us and the people we live and must share life with, to gain the greatest measure of fulfillment. There is the morality of family, of community, the daily playing field of life, the work place, and in our economic life. The morality of our national coexistence and of a universal, human coexistence is practiced my most people, regardless of religious affiliation, or none at all. If someone can only be a decent, responsible and moral human because their bible tells them to be, something is wrong with them. Living in a healthy society dictates those things by virtue of being a human with a brain capable of making choices.

A parent who smacks their kid on the butt with their hand without inflicting pain, cannot be treated the same as a parent who beats their child to death...but they do need parenting help. (I do not condone any hitting, slapping, physical punishment, derogation, neglect or or mental abuse of any child)

When those who break the laws of civility hook up with a lawyer, every act has to be broken down into a million pieces to see to which degree the offender caused harm. If someone steals a lawn ornament, or a bottle of milk to feed their baby because they didn't have the money to buy it, they obviously cannot be thrown into jail with hard core murderers. I wish the rule of law was that simple. Maybe flogging people, or tar & feathers should come back...I don't know.

Then there will always be the religious people who think that LGBT people are not entitled to the same rights they themselves enjoy, and will continue to make a stink. So with that, I also agree that we all must have the same rights. But, no rights or freedoms can ever infringe on the rights and freedom of others, so yes, everyone must be reasonable... but here we go again... who decides what is reasonable? Personally, I think that as long as those who use religion (whether they truly believe the hooey or not) to deny others the same rights that the rest of us enjoy, there will never be peace and true equal rights in America.

I'm afraid that society, humans, common sense and law will never be simplistic. To force simplicity might even make things more complicated.

"At this point in human history, you would think we would have evolved to
a much more intelligent, peaceful, humane, moral, kind, accepting and
civil group, but I think it has gotten worse instead of better."

That's because nobody has yet figured out how to disconnect what I call the Lizard Brain. It's the part of us that says, "This creature is Not Like Me, and therefore cannot be human. It deserves no courtesy from me. It may even eat me! I have to kill it NOW!"

"Being a decent, moral, respectable and responsible American does not require being religious or being a Christian."

Absolutely. Anyone is "moral" who can manage to live by the behavioral code of his society AND MEAN IT. Why he does this doesn't matter; it matters that he does it.

Your three choices remind me of the kid who begged and begged for a tattoo. By the time she asked for pierced ears, her parents allowed it.

Obviously the only viable choice is #3. The other two are simply tattoo requests.

Took me a couple paragraphs to see the satire. I would "argue" with the last paragraph though. North Korea has not eliminated religion from the public square; it has made the public square into the state religion.

Number 3 works for me.

This article was utter tripe and missed the point and was riddled with so many factual errors, I'm amazed this was put to print.

Getting religion out of politics is about making sure that the Teabaggers and Religious Right don't take over this country and turn it into the theocracy they so desperately want. There's another country that we despise that has the policies against women and LGBT people:

It's called Iran.

OK, so how do we ensure that tebaggers and the religious right don't turn the country into a theocracy? I'm waiting for even one person to suggest something other than the three options I put out there...

Fortunately, we have groups such as the Freedom from Religion Foundation and the ACLU who stand ready and willing to bring lawsuits against those who attempt to violate the Constitution in an effort to impose their religion on others. Let's look at some common examples: Installing religious monuments or displays on public property. Using taxpayer dollars to support religious-themed events such as a "prayer breakfast" or a parade. Prayer/religious indoctrination/religious displays in public schools. All of these have been attempted in the last year, and all of the proponents have either backed down once they received sensible legal advice informing them that they would lose in court and have to pay, or they have foolishly gone to court and lost, and then must pay the resulting court costs and fines. Successful lawsuits are a great way to keep religious zealots at bay.

LOL

So the folks who fret so histrionically about theocracy, champion secular issues of statuary and parades.

Good grief. Meanwhile, people are dying where there are real theocracies.

What we don't have is a quality public education system.

As education goes up religion goes down- well known in academic circles. You want religion out of politics? Disallow religion for the first 14 years of life. At 14 young adults will be exposed to talking snakes and magic bones and make their own decisions.

Since religion cannot survive the scrutiny of science perhaps science IS the answer??

Could anyone point me to which "teabaggers" or "religious right" people want to turn the U.S or any Western nation into a theocracy?

Your pretext is absurd. Religion in politics has to do with enacting laws enforcing dogma, not whether voters or legislators are themselves religious

The problem is that those voters and legislators who are "religious" (by which we usually mean the more extreme kind of Christian) have a way of trying to impose their ideas on everyone else, just as they think everyone else should believe exactly as they do.

Again, I agree with you. Here's my take from my perspective:
I loath any favored or dominant religion being mixed in with, used or twisted to justify anything government related. I dismiss and ignore politicians who insert their religion onto a nation that was also founded on freedom of and freedom from religion, and for many religions. EVERYTHING should be based on common sense, respect for life, dignity and honesty to begin with, which are practiced among people of all faiths and beliefs, and certainly not dictated or demanded only by Christianity.

Humanity and morality are not the ownership of any single religion, but of all people who desire to be free, who are willing to fight for it, work for and honor it so they can enjoy living in a civil society. Governance and political actions based on or favored by religion - or a dominant religious group not only alienates other Americans, it has no place in American government as they are supposed to represent ALL American citizens EQUALLY.

When our elected officials side with or allow their personal belief system to exclude and segregate some groups of people due to cherry picked bible verses that are so often misunderstood or twisted to suit someone's personal desires, it spits in the face of what our Founding Fathers created for our nation. No political figure should bring their religious beliefs into anything relevant to American government or life, or pander to voters who are of the same religion. This is what our Founders tried to avoid, not promote.

"Pastor" We cannot be true Christians if we do not seriously consider the boat our very actions place others in especially in this melting pot, we must be known as Christians by our love. This is not to say that we have to agree with all legislation nor partake in all that is available but GOD is and will always be the final judge, our job is to minister, and hopefully convert people but we will never do this simply by enacting laws any more than Augustus of the Roman empire did or Pilate did by their edicts to eradicate Christianity. Think people, you will never ever win people over at least not more than 5 or ten per one hundred thousand if you are very lucky, there is a more excellent way. Read Mathew.

Is the Christian's only role in the world to be an evangelist? Not a citizen as well?

H. Richard Niebuhr's models of Christ and Culture are important in conversations like this. Are Christians obliged to fall into just one way, or are we free to walk that spectrum?

While you roll over and die in the name of being loving (when actually all you are doing is pandering to pagans and assisting in their evil.) Those of us who truly serve the Lord will not go down without standing firm for the holiness of God.
Did David allow the philistines to just run over Israel in the name of tolerance? NO, the Lord trained his hands for war and he went out and fought the good fight.
Now I am not advocating violence, but we sure as hell are not supposed to lie down and let these heathens destroy this nation without a battle. Our cases are waiting to be heard by the Supreme Court. If they do not rule in favor of God's Law, then we hold a constitutional convention and let the will of the people be heard.
If you back down to these heathens, then you are helping them and being used as a tool of Satan.

You're nuts. Stark raving nuts.

You are the poster child for clearly illustrating how religion turns people into irrational borg.

"God's Law"?? God does not exist.

You ARE advocating violence. You are suggesting war if the icky homosexuals are allowed to make a life-long recognized commitment to the government.... a formula YOU are NOT involved in.... so I have to ask why you are so obsessed with the sex other men are having. Is there an internal issue with you that makes this issue particularly personal for you?

You need to bone up on the Separation of Powers. You also don't seem to understand that civil rights NEVER go to popular vote. EVER.

Wait.... you are a POE!!!

First, what is a POE?
2nd, I am suggesting a Constitutional Convention. That is not the same as war.
I am not obsessed with men having sex. Your perversion is between you and God. But when you start attacking marriage and sueing my people, I tend to get a little unruffled. You guys are the ones obsessed with sex.

Please identify one marriage that ended because two other people got married somewhere else. Demonstrate any harm that would follow from a so-called "attack".

A marriage is a picture of Christ and His Church and is a proclaimation of the Gospel. The man represents God and the woman represents the Church.
Man + woman = God and Church - valid representation
Man + man = god + god- that is polytheism and no one gets saved- thus invalid.
Woman + woman = church + church, that removes God, and thus is a picture of Atheism- not valid.
Asking Christians to acknowledge or recognize same-sex marriage is asking them to accept a picture of the gospel that is untrue. According to Galatians 1, that would be preaching another Gospel and would be a denial of the faith.
Recognizing SSM is denying Christ and His Church. You are forcing us to choose between God and You.
We choose God.

No one is forcing you do to anything, and Christians do not have to recognize anything they don't want to. If you don't like it, don't marry someone of the same sex. No one is forcing you to choose a damn thing, or to marry a gay couple, or to eat at the same table if it bothers you. The point you all miss or don't care about is when you have the arrogance to think you have the right to make the rules for others who do not believe as you do, and that you do not speak for America and all Americans. I'm a non religious Jew, you sure as hell don't speak for me!

READ THIS CAREFULLY; The bible is not the governing legal document of the United States. The Constitution is.

If you are going to vomit bible verses and quotes, how about sharing some of the horrific ones too? Rather than cherry picking what you like, follow EVERYTHING the bible says. Good luck. BTW, How do you know Jesus wasn't gay? Hundreds of books were kept out of the bible, so who knows what was in them. Humans made those decisions, just like humans made up the bible. I'd bet you don't believe that Jews have a right to ask you and all Americans to impose their religiously grounded preferences on all of us. But you think you have that right.

The argument in favor of same-sex marriage is straightforward: if two people want to make a legal commitment to each other and enjoy the same rights that I do as a married woman, they should be permitted to do so because excluding one class of citizens from the benefits and dignity of that commitment demeans them and insults their dignity. But you don't care about that. I just can't imagine your god would approve of treating "some" people badly unless they were a direct threat to your safety and well being.

If someone is not religious, or a Christian, what your bible says about marriage is completely and utterly irrelevant. In the USA, which is secular whether you like it or not, marriage is a legal status established by statute, and Jesus has no say in it unless the couple believes it does and wants a religious union in addition to the legal one .. which is their business and no one else's. That's the basic part that narrow minded, arrogant zealots who want everyone to believe as they do don't seem to understand. God doesn't make the laws. Our legislatures make the laws.

Some Christians love to talk about how loving, dutiful and compassionate they are, but what they really mean is as long as the rest of us kowtow to them. Denying someone the right to enjoy the same rights they have because they think their god won't approve is the most arrogant and obnoxious form of hypocrisy to the highest degree. You will never change your mind and neither will I. But maybe I shouldn't jump to conclusions either. After all, Christians used to think black people were subhuman at one time. Maybe there is still hope.

A marriage is a union between two human beings who (at the time, anyway) love each other.

All human societies, including those that don't believe in the Christian version of "God," have (and have had, throughout history) some sort of ritual recognizing the union of such persons. Therefore, marriage (having been around since long before there was a Christian Church, and being indulged in by people of all faiths and none) cannot "represent" anything, It is itself.

Once upon a time, most marriages (at least in the upper levels of society) were entered into for dynastic reasons. This is no longer done--even Prince Charles and Prince William married commoners.

Christians [claim they] believe that "God is love." If this is true. then God must approve of love, regardless of between whom or how expressed, and must be present in all loving relationships. That's logical. For a Christian to claim otherwise is to be both illogical and inconsistent (which, of course, most established religion is, which is why I don't subscribe to any of it).

BRAVO! Homosexuality was considered as normal as heterosexuality in some ancient cultures. Gays and lesbians were a respected and revered by the Lakota culture and other indigenous North American tribes. They were called "Two Spirit" people. Rather than emphasizing the homosexuality of these persons, Native Americans focused on their spiritual gifts. American Indian traditionalists, even today, tend to see a person's basic character as a reflection of their spirit. Since everything that exists is thought to come from the spirit world, androgynous or transgender persons are seen as doubly blessed, having both the spirit of a man and the spirit of a woman. Thus, they are honored for having two spirits, and are seen as more spiritually gifted than the typical masculine male or feminine female. Seems to me they are a lot more civil and human about it than many other people. What a shame their cultures and beliefs were beaten out of them by the loving Christians and forced to bow before a god that sure as hell didn't do anything to make their lives better.

In the Cheyenne tongue, the word was "heemaneh," and you had to go through training to become one, just as you had to train to be a warrior or a shaman.

Your understanding of Christianity is flawed. God is love, but He isn't just love. He has many other attributes that you seem to be ignoring. Plus you seem to be confusing love with nice and fluffly; there is a huge difference.
As far as marriage is concerned, the church started when God promised a Messiah after Adam and Eve fell into sin in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were the first members of what is now the Christian Church and their marriage was the first marriage. Marriage belongs to God.

God is love?
If you have a good life, does that mean your god likes you better than the millions of children who die in car accidents, from neglect and child abuse, from cancer, and from disease and starvation? I can't imagine they felt very loved. Sounds like they were denied free will too. Maybe the devil was stronger & had more power than god when these things happen.
I'm sure you have more ridiculous things to say that will defend a god who watches such things and has yet to do anything to help innocent children. Oh wait... I know. God wanted them to be with him. I get it. He loved them so much that he ripped them away from fulfilling their lives so he could selfishly have them for himself. Sure, that sounds reasonable.

I notice you don't mention any of those other societies. And how can there have been a Christian Church prior to the appearance of Christ on Earth? A church, by definition, is made up of people who follow a certain faith. If Adam and Eve were anything, they were Jews. Jews were the only monotheists around until Jesus came along (he was one too).

You can't reason with a brainwashed zealot.

Our faith has had its name changed many times over the course of History. The Faith of Adam and Enoch and Noah was later called the faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Then we were called the people who followed the God of Israel after Jacob's name was changed. After the split between the Northern and Southern Kingdom under Reheboam, the northern nation kept the name Israel, and apostacised under the reighn of Jereboam I, so our faith was named after Judah, thus Judaism. After Jesus was raised from the dead, our group was considered a sect of Judaism known as the Way, and then we got nicknamed Christians at Antioch and thus were sonsidered Christian Jews. After the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, the part of Judaism that rejected the Messiah refused to be associated with us because we did not stay and fight to preserve the Temple (there was no use for it after Jesus' sacrifice) and so Jew was dropped from the name and we were called Christians. (Modern day Judaism rejects the Jewish Messiah, and thus is a completely different religion from ancient Judaism.)
After Constantine merged Roman paganism with Christian titles, the Christians refused to join. The Roman system started calling themselves Christian and nicknamed us Anabaptists, cause we re-baptized people who converted from Romanism to Biblical Christianity.
You see, over time our name has changed, but our belief that one can only be saved by accepting the once for all sacrifice of the Messiah on our behalf, as He died to pay the penalty for our sins, and based on that sacrifice, ending our rebelion against God and giving our lives to Jesus has never changed. Not since the days of Adam. Before the coming of the Messiah, people were saved by looking forward to His coming and so by definition, all those who waited for Messiah before Jesus were Christians (they just had a different nickname then.)

So, you're unable to identify a marriage that ended. Thanks, you've proved my point. Against marriage equality? Don't marry a gay person. What other people do is none of your business.

"What other people do is none of your business."
Unless you have been brainwashed by a religion that you believe demands you to save the soul of others, gives you the right to butt into other peoples lives, and that you should think, act and do what they want you to do according to their scriptures, which they all cherry pick of course.

a marriage that ended has nothing to do with the debate.

Can you name one Assyrian King that was an American. You can't!!! Well, then that proves there was once life on Mars.

The problem is that you are demanding the Church to recognize marriages that it cannot recognize.

Once more, very best wishes with pursuing your education in the U.S. Constitution and how it works.

You're not advocating violence. Yeah, it just kinda sounds that way, so I'm gonna rework the blood runes on my trident and sharpen it up some. You want a rumble, padre, you're gonna get one. And we will kick your godly asses all the way to the River Styx.

Removing Christianity from politics is not possible.
We refuse to leave.
We came across the Atlantic on the Mayflower with the intent to build a Christian nation. We will accomplish our goal.

The Muslims want to take over just like you do. This should be an interesting battle of the delusional zealots. You said, "We came across the Atlantic on the Mayflower with the intent to build a Christian nation. We will accomplish our goal."

You must really hate our American Constitution then, because it was created to make sure that never happens, and to make sure people who think like you cannot do to the rest of us what Christians did to the native Americans, and to Africans who were kept as slaves, and what ISIS is doing to Christians now, or what Germany did to the Jews. Some people have learned from history, some haven't. Hint-hint....

do the current batch of "christians" want someone with the name Carlos in the United States? Hmmmm???

Most Christians are too polite to tell you the truth. David's next article deals with some of that. You guys don't scare me though. So I'll give it to you straight.
and, your hints of racism are telling. It is the Liberals that use racism to try to keep minorities down. It is the conservative that sees the problem and is trying to fix it. Don't think that the Hispanic Population and the Black population are not starting to see it more clearly. The moment the LGBT community co-opted the civil rights movement as their own, they alienated many Black voters. You can not equate not being able to marry as an equivelent to hundreds of years of slavery.
But, you people lack vision, sense and according to Romans 1 are afflicted with a depraved mind, so you will never understand.

Heh. You mean those asshole Pilgrims who left the UK because nobody liked their grim, judgmental, self-righteous demeanor? When they caused the theaters and music halls to close down because, sin, people reacted negatively to the removal of this entertainment from their daily struggle.

And then you slaughtered the native people who helped you survive your first winter, did you forget that? And now, you assholes are poised to destroy the very planet we need to survive. I'm sure the Kochs consider themselves good Christians.

You hypocrites are all going to Hell, you know. We have prepared a special place for you.