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.

... Every individual bases their decisions on their pe ...

January 28,2004

Every individual bases their decisions on their personal worldview, be it a theist, humanistic, aethist etc... Stating that Political leaders should put aside their personal religious beliefs forces them to make decision on a humanistic worldview. Every politician makes value decisions of right or wrong, good or bad, these decision will ultimately be based on what they perceive to be an objective truth based on their worldview. A persons worldview cannot be set aside when making decision and rightly should not.

... Religion should have no role in our government. ...

January 28,2004

I agree. What if a muslim put verses from the quran on the courtsteps? would the evangelical get angry? Of course!

Religion should have no role in our government. And if somehow the two intertwine, human rights will be violated.

... positive purpose ...

January 28,2004

Thanks to Ifill and Gumbel for discussing religion and politics. I believe the founders of America knew, with so many freedoms, that our new nation required a moral foundation based on a "creator for positive purpose". They did not want to endorse any religion but felt a need for belif in a generic concept of a God with a positive purpose for humanity. Judge Moore seems to not understand that The Ten Commandments are representative of a particular religion's interpretation of God's intent. Gays need to understand that some of us believe the "intent of nature" is part of God's law. I reported on an effort to re-write Ten Commandments into a first-person moral code more in keeping with today's culture than in keeping with any specific religion. Thank you for the diversity of your interviews on Flashpoints.
See my report to the nation, my Forty Flags of Columbine report, at www.schweitzberger.com.

... based on current understanding ...

January 28,2004

The decisions made by public officials should be based on the common morality of fairness to all, including minorities and on what does or does not harm individuals or society.

"Harm" should not be equated with "offend". No public act can avoid offending the religious beliefs of some religion or sect.

Policy should be based on current understanding of nature and the nature of humans, not on the misunderstandings of someone who wrote a dogma hundreds or thousands of years ago in an age of ignorance.

Finally, officials and the general public must stop thinking of everyone as religious. Some of us believe in no religion, but are extremely moral citizens. There are probably more atheists than African Americans in this country, yet we are the most forgotten and ignored minority. For some to think the government has the right to decide for us that there is a God, that we must pledge allegiance to a God in order to pledge allegiance to our country, to have "in God we trust" emblazoned everywhere etc. is to ignore the constitutional prohibition of establishment of religion.

... no problem with it ...

January 28,2004

As far as a politician using his beliefs to make decisions as to what policies he will endorse, I have no problem with it. What I DO have a problem with is when a politician cloaks himself with some religious talk here and there while supporting policies and taking stands (i.e. making war in haste, failing to acknowledge his own mistakes or those of his subordinates, purposely misleading voters in elections) that go against the religion he espouses. While I understand that some issues fall under the realm of "that's just politics", I believe that a principled and moral man should own up to what he does wrong. Perhaps that's why the Founding Fathers made church and state separate? Maybe they knew that religion and politics are like oil and water...there's food for thought.

... That's impossible ...

January 28,2004

That's impossible.

... start pushing ...

January 28,2004

Policy makers should only allow religion to influence their decisions if religions are being persecuted. But what we have today is an expansion of religions into government and that needs to be stopped. People are OK with it now, because only the generic term God is being used, but wait until they start pushing specific religions on us.

... the government should stay out of strictly moral q ...

January 28,2004

If politicians allow religious beliefs to influence policy and legislate morality, then what purpose will churches provide. Churches should teach morality, people should live by morals and the government should stay out of strictly moral questions.

... when one decides to become a leader in the politic ...

January 28,2004

I believe that religious beliefs like all belief systems are endoctrinated from birth. If one never questions such beliefs and their environment propagates and enforces such beliefs, then this is how one defines oneself. However, if one is not subject to such subjugation, one has the freedom to choose a philosophy to define one's being. One's politics is the expression of these belief systems and does influence all decisions. However, when one decides to become a leader in the political arena, I believe one needs to be evolved to that altruistic level of human development and awareness to separate individual beliefs from universal ideals and democratic principles.

... If you are convicted to live by faith, and believe ...

January 28,2004

If you are convicted to live by faith, and believe that what is moraly right for the good of the people that you represent, is good and true for the people. How is it then, that you could cast a vote, for something that you,"and those you represent", which is moraly wrong?

... The wall between religion and government must rema ...

January 28,2004

Many politicians today feel that the founding fathers desired a religously based government in the United States. They state that they were all religous and used religion in their writings. I say we don't need to guess at what their intentions were, because they spelled out their intentions in the Constitution and it clearly does not include references to God or Religion. The first admendment specifically allows for freedom of religion or no religion at all. The various religions enjoy tax free status and other benefits and I feel that is enough. The wall between religion and government must remain solid or it will lead to conflict in the future and I fear the potential for a civil war. We need only to look at the mess Iran finds itself in today to see why a religiously based government is bound to fail. I have no doubt that a Christianic Republic would deterioriate just as fast as this Islamic Republic has. The separation of church and state is one of the great strengths of this country and what has sustained it as the world's longest running democracy. Let's don't screw it up now.

... beleifs imposed ...

January 28,2004

Political leaders work for everyone. Their constituents should not have the political leader's religious beleifs imposed on them.

... reflect a true understanding ...

January 28,2004

Political leaders are elected by their constituents to effectively run affairs of government - not church or religion. It is important for the public to know that the records of their political leaders reflect a concern for ALL the people. I would prefer that politicians belong to no organized religion(most of these religions seem to have leaders that advise their followers on how to live their lives) but rather reflect a true understanding of human nature. Just because an elected official espouses to be moral and religious does not mean he/she will make the right decision for us.
We are currently sending our young adults to fight in Iraq, and, our religious president's goal is to encourage democratic elections. Who will the majority vote for? - most likely Ayatollah Sistani who Mr. Bush claims to be a pretty nice guy. One theocracy to another? I hope common sense prevails and the religious leaders stay in their churches.

... The US Constitution (which, by the way, is NOT bas ...

January 28,2004

The US Constitution (which, by the way, is NOT based on the Bible or the 10 Commandments) is the document that should inform laws and policy decisions. Leaders are entitled to their personal relgious beliefs but they cannot allow those beliefs to supercede the law of the land.

... RATHER THAN ON WHAT HIS/HER INDIVIDUAL RELIGION ...

January 28,2004

I GET VERY SCARED WHEN I HEAR POLITICAL LEADERS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CURRENT PRESIDENT BUSH, SPEAKING ABOUT THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS GUIDING THEIR POLITICAL DECISIONS. I DO NOT WANT POLICY DECISIONS THAT COULD AFFECT MY LIFE AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN TO BE BASED UPON A POLITICIAN'S RELIGIOUS VIEWS. THIS COUNTRY IS COMPRISED OF MANY DIFFERENT PEOPLE WHO FOLLOW MANY DIFFERENT FAITHS. POLITICAL LEADERS SHOULD FOCUS ON WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE COUNTRY'S CITIZENS RATHER THAN ON WHAT HIS/HER INDIVIDUAL RELIGION SAYS IS RIGHT FOR PEOPLE.

... related to the mystical rhetoric ...

January 28,2004

In a time that we should all be united within our own community of America and with the larger community of the world here we sit separated internally and externally. In my opinion it appears to be very related to the mystical rhetoric of the current leadership of the United States. What a huge missed opportunity to gather unity instead of distrust and separatism.

... not allow objective ...

January 28,2004

I have nothing against anyones belief in God, however, leaders should use their moral beliefs not their religions beliefs to guide policy. Religions do not allow objective interpretation of reality. Instead they impose a rigorous demand that we suspend logical belief and believe the impossible by faith. Examples abound of how dangerous this can be.

The "leaders" who imposed Apartheid in South Africa were "religious christians"

In the southern USA, religious-based policy dictates that teachers must be arrested for teaching evolution yet there is more objective evidence that evolution occurs than there is proof that a God exists.

Most of the conflict in the world is due to "leaders" who promote religiuos ignorance instead of human enlightenment.

1 out of every 3 human beings is Christian. Are we willing to allow the 2/3 majority to pray for their Gods in our schools? If the answer is no, then we are merely engaging in a hypocritical attempt to impose a christian-based policy on an entire society.

... We can not separate ...

January 28,2004

When our faith in God is the very center of who we are, how can we take a poll to determine the concensus of the people when making policy? George W. Bush is a man of integrity and honesty and his values, derived from God, influence his policy making. We can not separate the two, for if we do, we are hypocrites. We will all, eventually, stand before God and give an account of how we lived on earth.

... most important attribute ...

January 28,2004

A truly religious person cannot help but use their beliefs to make decisions, but recently we have seen pandering to religion as if it were the most important attribute of a civil leader.

... less religious belief ...

January 28,2004

In my opinion the less religious belief a leader has, the more fit he is to lead.