We have received feedback on this issue from people all across America. Review the graph to the left for a quick snapshot of the responses received to date, or read the responses below.

... imposed religious establishment ...

February 05,2004

When the original settlers set up camp on the east coast, this was an effort to escape the divinely imposed religious establishment in England. This establishment, which the English viewed as divinely inspired, was not subject to critical reason, skeptisism or rejection without severe consequences. Our founders had the insight that our new nation be governed by men, not subject to divinely inspired laws but open to debate and reason. The affaris of government, one in which is open to critical inquiry is a more rational form of government which is antithetical to dictates from superstition, myth or divinely inspired directives. Keep in mind that if a particular brand of religious belief come to power, anyone who is not considered a "believer" by the currently elected establishment would be considered a heretict. Our current form of govenment is designed to avoid this not only for the protection of government as we know it but also for the continued protection of the religionists. The bottom line, just because someone calls himself inspired or considers himself a "christian" does not imply that his decisions will be considered moral. It is time that our culture recognize that the history of religion is full of injustices, e.g. at one time supporting slavery, currently supporting a ban on gay marriage, believed in a flat earth, diagreed that genetic characteristics are passed on to succeding generatins, raise people from the dead; should i continue on the the plethoria of myths ans superstitions. It is beyond me how rational people can support this and at the same time use this to support a moralistic nation. I question those who subscribe to any form of religion because I question their judgement and their discernment regarding important matters of government.

... should not use public ...

February 05,2004

The president and all public officials should not use public office to spread their religion.

... be true to himself ...

February 05,2004

He needn't be blatant about his beliefs or inflict them on others, but to be true to himself he surely will make his decisions based on the whole of who he is and that includes all of his beliefs. He should, also, keep in mind that he is the representitive of the people who elected him and reflect them as well.

... plain and simple ...

February 03,2004

There is a reason why you don't find clergy in the House or Senate or politicians at the pulpit.

Government should be run by the people and not God - plain and simple.

For all those who said the Taliban is a controlling and evil entity (who we needed to stop), the same holds true of any religious organization or person who seeks to put their personal religious interests, beliefs or practices ahead of anyone outside their religious circle.

... CLEARLY FOBIDS ANY RELIGIOUS TEST ...

February 02,2004

THE CONSTITUTION CLEARLY FOBIDS ANY RELIGIOUS TEST AS A METHOD OF QUALFICATION. THOUGH IN TODAY'S SEPARATION SPIRIT MANY FEEL THIS IS A JUST DEFINING FACTOR TO DETERMINE IF A CANIDATE IS QUALIFIED. ONE ONLY HAS TO LOOK AT THE SENATE TO SEE THE STALL TACTIC USED TO EVEN GIVE A UP AND DOWN VOTE ON CANIDATES FOR JUDICIAL SEATS. WHILE WE THE PEOPLE ARE DENIED JUDICIAL REVIEW FOR THE JUDGEMENT SEAT IS EMPTY, SPIRIT OF THE PARTY SETS (SOCIAL ETHIC STANDARD)TEST MANY TIMES TIED TO RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLE OF CANIDATE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE. JUDICIAL ISSUES IMPORTANT TO PARTY ARE THE RULE OF ACCEPTENCE OR DENIAL WHICH MAKES IT CLEAR WE ARE NO LONGER UNDER LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY AS A POWER REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE THE RECENT LAW BANNING LATE TERM ABORTION IS ALREADY UNDER JUDICIAL REVIEW. THIS HAS BECOME THE NEW ORDER FOR THE SO-CALLED NEW DAY.

... constitution does not mention God ...

February 02,2004

Many of our founding fathers were fleeing religious persecution. They were of many different faiths. All were well aware of the bloody history of religous wars in Europe. So the agreement the thirteen colonies made in forming a counrty was to keep religion out of politics, there would be a strict separation of church and state. The constitution does not mention God. So our country was not founded as a "Christian nation" as is so often cited, rather it was founded as neutral to religion or lack of religion. Politicians attempting to alter this formula which has worked so successfully for 300 years are rekindling the dangers of religious persecution which our founders tried to prevent. This important principle was not put forth in your show. The non-religious perspective, held by 14% of your viewers, as your polls show, was not represented porportionally. One of seven panelists interviewed should have been a spokesperson for atheists and agnostics.

... should be inclusive ...

February 02,2004

Leaders should be inclusive of everyone they represent when they are speaking publically.

... founders intention to keep religion out of politic ...

January 31,2004

Your moderators should do their homework. An early draft of the Constitution contained a reference to God. This was struck out in the final version. This tells us clearly of our founders intention to keep religion out of politics.

... Of course they should ...

January 31,2004

Should our leaders use their best moral judgment to fairly and effectively govern us? Of course they should.

Should they cite fairy tales as reasons to take away our freedoms? Should they amend our country's constitution to penalize citizens who don't believe that said fairy tales are true? Probably not.

... framers were not Christian ...

January 31,2004

It is very clear that we are supposed to be a secular nation. The framers were not Christian, they were Deists and Masons and they would abhor the infiltration of overt Christianity in our laws and government.

Our sister nation, France, who went through a revolution motivated similarly to our own seems to have a very educated understanding of secularism. Anything less than a complete separation of church and state continues to prove to the rest of the world how stupid we are and how we cannot read and interpret our own laws.

I strongly suggest that politicians refrain from ever using the saying "God Bless America" or "God Bless You". They have no right doing this when they are a public serving and I am paying their salary.

... Religious beliefs should not reduce the freedom ...

January 31,2004

Of course religious beliefs will influence policy statements or decisions. But so should ethical beliefs. Religious beliefs should not reduce the freedom of those who do not have formal religious beliefs.

... responsible to the people whom s/he represents, ...

January 31,2004

This is a very complex issue; I believe that when a political office holder makes a decision based on religious/spiritual beliefs, s/he is perillously close to a conflict of interest. The office holder is responsible to the people whom s/he represents, therfore has an ethical duty to present the policies of the majority and to also present the desenting views of the minorities.

... The first issue that must be put to rest is that m ...

January 31,2004

The first issue that must be put to rest is that morality is somehow innately tied to Christianity or spirituality. Christians have been trying to claim copyright to morality for hundreds of years. This claim is completely untrue, and people like me are living proof of its fallacy: I am a non-believer, yet have strongly held moral values that are the equal of any Christian's.

There also seem to be two kinds of morality, in fact: a social morality and a spiritual one; the latter tends to be specific to particular beliefs and cannot and should not be forcibly applied to anyone that does not share that belief. The former, however, is virtually universal, and we can and should identify those common principles and apply them broadly; one of those principles, as outlined in our nation's bylaws, is the right of every citizen to choose and hold religious beliefs without influence or intervention from government or public institutions.

It is deceitful for public officials to invoke their Christian faith as "proof" that they occupy that (social) moral high ground, and that they have the strength and conviction to uphold those values for the good of all. The two have virtually nothing in common... social morality does not trace its heritage to Christianity or even to faith, and such a correlation cannot be proven.

It is time for all public leaders to stop abusing this misconception for their own political betterment; that is especially true of our current President, who constantly invokes God and faith as proof of his good intentions and abilities. If a person, politician or not, is truly moral and ethical then their DEEDS alone will stand in evidence, not the fact that they attend Church every Sunday and put money into the basket.

... politics has enough divisions ...

January 30,2004

I like to reduce things to equations if I can. One such would be: indivisible + under god = oxymoron

The sphere of politics has enough divisions, and from it comes the decisions upon which progress in the widest scope is made. Enter something as subjective and devisive as religion and progress slows with consequence. We should have a sphere of human interplay where only the tangible should be negotiated. There is nothing inherantly evil about this and since humanity benefits, any god worth his salt should view this as good.

... should not be in politics ...

January 30,2004

An elected official is supposed to represent his or her constituents, ALL of the constituents. A politician needs to understand this prior to taking on the responsibility of the elected position. If there is a moral conflict between what ALL the constituents want and what the politician’s religious beliefs are, it is that politician responsibility to protect the rights and do what is best for ALL of the constituents regardless of the politician’s religious beliefs. If they cannot handle this, then they should not be in politics.

... beliefs coincided ...

January 29,2004

Political leaders should rely on their secular convictions of honesty, justice, honor, fairness, etc, to make policy decisions that are good for the citizens, the nation, and the world.

It would be nice if their religious beliefs coincided with this position, but that's not always the case.

... nothing new ...

January 29,2004

How much sense does that make. We are who we are and what we experience is what helps to mold and shape us as humans. You cannot legislate God out of politics. He created them. Look to the founding fathers. They understood this clearly. Why are some having such a time with this issue? Some are threatened in some way because they have no relationship with God, and do not understand he came not to condemn us but to save us from our own self destruction. There is nothing new about that type of thinking, it's been around since time began.

... Which god ...

January 29,2004

Which god should go to bed with government?

... it is not possible ...

January 29,2004

It's a ridiculous statement because it is not possible. You can no more ask a religiously committed political leader to vote conscience-less than you can ask bird to fly backwards.

... If I am truley a christian ...

January 29,2004

If I am truley a christian then what I believe is who I am. So therefore YES, it would influence policies that I would agree with.