"The Muslims do not recognise Jesus Christ as God,” [Rep Metcalf] declared indignantly, and said he would vote against the resolution." Actually, neither do Christians. He is regarded as the Son of God. I wonder how many other American politicians like Metcalf are ignorant of their own religion as well as others.

Anyhow, it's an interesting but hair-raising article in that it shows some in American society are unduly focused on the religious beliefs of their president - as opposed to the ability to do the job. Give me a competent Wiccan anyday rather than a flaky evangelical Christian.

Of course, we've had this all before. Al Smith, candidate for the Democrats in the 1920s, lost partly because he was Catholic. John Kennedy had similar problems. I don't know about the reaction to Joe Liebermann who was Al Gore's running mate in 2000. But anti-semitism is not unknown in the US so there would have been some in the electorate who didn't vote for him on religious grounds. And the influential Christian fundamentalist Pat Robertson once lambasted Hindus so any Hindu presidential candidate would probably have a tough time.

I can only assume an atheist such as myself would have a snowball's chance on Mercury.

I can't speak for the US but I have seen the greatest bigotry here in Australia demonstrated by the Secularist. The former Health Minister's powers were stripped from him because he is Catholic. A Governor General is forced to resign because he was Anglican. At the time of resigning we had a State Labour pollie fiddling with kids and no doubt others covering for him.

The author makes a lot about this man (of whom I have never heard of) voting against a resolution. Big Deal! Surely the voters will have their say. After checking out his website I wonder could it be that this Republican man is anti abortion and defends the rights of people to have arms that gets up the nose of the author. Looking at the authors previous topics I would not be to quick to judge this Republican as a bigot. I would imagine that anyone disagreeing with the author might be labeled the same. In some peoples eyes anyone who defends the traditional family is a bigot. So be it!

Ahh so that's why Cardinal Hollingworth got the boot. He was religious! Not to mention covering for certain low-lives elsewhere in his church.

Americans are a weird lot, the most religious and the most irreligious of all. Bible in one hand, gun in the other. Let's just sigh and say,

"only in America"

Cardinal Hollingworth? I missed this one. When did he become a Catholic, even a Cardinal?

Separation of Church and State hey?

I think we need to be clear that Western Governments might not have the constitutional fortitude to establish state religions, but, the basis of their foundations come historically from both the Church and reactions against it.

Western government may be secular in purist practice, but, it has its root in the Judeo-Christian worldview with a serve of 'enlightenment'.

Religious freedom (and freedom from religion) is the most basic right; the difficulty is how to exercise this with and embrace those belief (and non-belief) systems that do not practice it!?!

Western governments and those of New Zealand and Australia may once have had their roots in the Judeo-Christian traditions but that has run its race now and should no longer be the case and will not be the case in the future as the global village takes hold firmly and irrevocably... and just as well. There are other relevant faiths like Hinduism,Sikhism,Buddhism,Islam and atheistic materialism or scientific realism that will form the paradigms that are evolving.

socratease