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.

... WHAT HAPPEN TO FREE SPEECH ...

January 28,2004

(YES)WHAT HAPPEN TO FREE SPEECH?

... using the law to enforce ...

January 28,2004

The founders never intended for religion to be absent from our public lives. This is obvious, since the phrase "separtation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. What the founders tried to accomplish were two things: 1) for individuals to freely choose their religion without government sanction and 2) to protect religion from governmental law. The latter is what is being questioned (and threatened) in this country. The people who are offended by religious phrases or symbols are in fact using the law to enforce their "religion" on everyone else. The fact is this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values and we should remind others of this when they try to tell us our symbols and phrases offend them. Amen!

... boil down to the same values ...

January 28,2004

they say they want religon in the presidents politics.But what if that religon were something other than Christianity. What if the president happen to be Jewish, or Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu?? Would the same people arguing that you need this moral guidance reiterated everyday through the president, be as gung ho about it, if it wasn't THEIR religon he's talking about? Lets face it. All religons (other than perhaps Satanism) pretty much boil down to the same values and respect of a creator or higher power, humility, respect etc.So what if the president were a hindu, would they all be as adamant as they are now? I bet they're all squirming in their seats just thinking about it. And yet that is what the entire non-christian population of the U.S goes through everytime GW BUSH gets behind a mic.

... deal with the real world ...

January 28,2004

"Political leaders should not allow their religious beliefs to influence policy statements or decisions." The closer those "religious beliefs" are to being psychoceramic (i.e., "crackpot") beliefs, the more dangerous. Visualize Bin Laden. Ideally, political leaders need to deal with the real (not imaginary) world, and remain as objective, logical and rational as possible.

... join with a group ...

January 28,2004

As a person trained in the sciences, it is my belief that one can live a life of harmony with one's fellow humans observing guides to behavior that transcend the need for sanction by any religious cult. Regardless of how science may come to view what it is that animates the inanimate, the decision of whether to join with a group having a common set of beliefs about this question (that science has yet to solve) should be a matter of personal preference ... not to be forced on another thinking person.
When one becomes forced to join a religion, it then becomes a question of someone wanting to exert power over someone, and such a religion transforms itself into mob under the control of sanctioned bosses claiming special status. Almost inevitably it becomes divisive, breaking up into rival power factions that clash and fight over living space and resources. Thus the world seems forever doomed to endless conflicts, as we now witness with Muslims who believe that their version of "God" sent to a special man the directive that they convert everyone in the world to their cult, and, ultimately, kill anyone resisting. This is the principal source of problems in the world right now, and masks the very real conflict over what warlords control access to what resources as the world's population still burgeons.

... identical source documents ...

January 28,2004

the u.s. civil war was a fair example of religious belief influencing policy statements and decisions - diametric interpretation of often identical source documents ,
predict the killing of opposition viewpoints ; separation of church and state. . .has and will preserve the peace .

... we want real freedom ...

January 28,2004

Yes, yes, yes. Let us all act like we want real freedom.

... "Where is God?" ...

January 28,2004

What we believe, or who we put our faith in, strongly dictates our decisions. Either we stand firm for what we believe or why we believe it, or we will fall for anything! The people or panel that Bryant Gumbel interviewed, either were told not to discuss God, which is a violation of freedom of speech, especially when the subject matter pertains to it. Or they didn't have a clue about the Bible or God's word, they just sat and talked in circles about nothing. It's sad, how God is being thrown out of our country in many ways, and how our nation has suffered as a result. Only until 9-11, did many people say,"Where is God?" He is a loving, kind and compassionate God who wants to have a relationship with us, but more and more people have said, we don't want Him in schools, in our pledges, in our laws, in our families, and what has happened as a result. Just read the true statistics on crime, divorces, suicides, drug use, etc...........

... cause the people harm ...

January 28,2004

In essence, I think the question is whether religious influence will be used to cause the people harm. I want a political leader to use basic freedom-preserving morals when making decisions and/or policies, but refrain from their useing their religious beliefs in a way that would oppress the general public. A politcal leaders first responsibility is to serve the public, NOT themselves or their belief in a deity.

... Christian values become so unpopular? ...

January 28,2004

I voted for President George W. Bush BECAUSE he professed to be a Christian... When did Christian values become so unpopular? Our founding fathers based their decisions on their religious beliefs! It's the reason this country exists!
I was appalled at some of the statements in tonight's commentary regarding "separation of church and state". It seems the people in our country still don't get it... I for one, have always understood that our founding fathers only intended that the government not get in the way of the religious belief of the people, unlike the country they left behind: England and the King and Queen who forced a belief down their throat that was contrary to the true religion of Christianity.
It seems however, that history repeats itself. Our country is falling by the wayside. I do not understand why it is so difficult for others to understand: the religious beliefs a President has is what makes HIM a great person to be the President. And, in case it was totally unbeknownst to you, our GOD tells us that He, the Almighty God, chooses the leaders of the land and if that person fails, God removes him from the position.
Life has many choices. Eternity has only two. Which one are YOU choosing?
Think about it... I'm sure President Bush has. And I have a pretty good idea which choice he made. I think he is correct in allowing his religious beliefs into his decision-making. He must allow God to help him in his most difficult choices or there would be no point.

... isn't an endorsement ...

January 28,2004

Silly question. There isn't any way that political leaders could keep from having their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, from influencing or guiding their decisions. This isn't an endorsement one way of the other, this is a description.

... requires an areverent government ...

January 28,2004

The US Constitution does not require an atheist government; rather, it requires an areverent government. Look in any dictionary - any religion requires two conditions: 1) a belief in a deity, and 2) reverence to the deity. Mere acknowledgment of a deity by the government only meets the first condition and is therefore NOT unlawful. The framers of the Constitution perfectly understood this when they signed "in the year of our Lord" 1787. They acknowledged God, but did no worshipping - areverent. Same goes for "In God We Trust," "Under God," or "God Bless America." The government can acknowledge that there is a higher being without establishing a religion; thank God.

... question to our forefathers ...

January 28,2004

If I could ask that same question to our forefathers and those that took part in writing the constitution or those that were in government office in those days, this is what they would say,"God is our refuge and our strong high tower in him will we trust and have our being".

... founded on strong moral ...

January 28,2004

This is implying they should not allow their moral values to influence a decision... I strongly disagree. Our country was founded on strong moral values... Why would anyone want the political leaders to toss aside these values?

... characteristics I look for ...

January 28,2004

A persons religious belief are a prima facie indication of his or her core beliefs, morals, ethics and character. These are all characteristics I look for when choosing who I will vote for.

... should have the integrity ...

January 28,2004

I believe that it is inevitable that political leaders will be influenced by religious beliefs. But I feel that anyone entrusted with a position of power should have the integrity and presence of mind to invoke the use of the basic principles of all religions; the treatment of oneself and the world around oneself with respect, dignity, and love.

Unforturnately many political leaders, business leaders, and religious leaders are only interested in personal gains, with little regard for the effect their actions have on the world around them.

... established to protect ...

January 28,2004

Our Constitution created a government which recognizes and openly admits that rights come from God. This was at the time of the signing of the Unanimous Declaration & the Constitution....a new and unheard of idea in the history of man-made government and; I presume still to some, is to this day.

If one reads these documents and their personal writings, there is no question of the intent of the authors, that; this new government was established to protect those same rights acknowledged as a gift of the Creator. (and please don’t get side-tracked on the issue of slavery. That’s a whole other topic)

This government “of, by, and for the people” protects by Constitutional obligation the right of people to openly acknowledge and proclaim their religious beliefs, no matter what. These same people (i.e. American citizens) are then free to engage in their lives without government hindrance of any sort. That means any American is free to express their views; to be religious or...not be religious.

The 1st Amendment does not preclude a judge or president from openly admitting and professing their religious beliefs. The Constitution allows ALL to express their views? Every person makes decisions based on how they were raised or their beliefs. It is part of their “frame-of-reference.” You can’t separate the two.

In reality, what the 1st Amendment does do is prohibit CONGRESS from passing laws respecting the establishment of religion and forcing people (or States) to practice a certain religion. In other words...when it comes to the issue of religion, Congress has NO jurisdiction. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that any public official must stifle their views. The U.S. Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to declare that either.

The Supreme Court is also bound by the Constitution. Part of their restricted jurisdiction includes reviewing laws passed by Congress and hearing court cases by appeal. Any decisions made at an appellate hearing become case law. But new case law does not preclude anyone (including any public official) from expressing their views. Case law can always change.

The thoughts that I’ve expressed here are not lofty, “religious ideas” or pious thinking but are based on historical facts. Those facts can be found in the intentions and ideas of the people who helped create our government and are undeniably embodied in our many founding documents. If you take issue with that or you have never heard of it, then you have a lot of reading to do.

I’m an American protected by Constitutional mandate to be able to “speak out” and........I vote.

... all religions stand for ...

January 28,2004

We should know that a person who stands for nothing, falls for anything? i.e. Bill Clinton and others who mutter god bless this or that and don't have a clue who and what most of the god's of all religions stand for. This was indicative of his disloyalty to his wife. By his very act did he not state in who and what he believed? It spoke louder than any words and yet we kept him in office, someone we could not trust, though on the other hand we want to shut up another who is trying to earn our trust by standing true to his beliefs.

The reason people don't want to hear about another's god is because the name of God testifies to what is lacking in our own character. We are demanding, and like spoiled children, want to change the rules to suit us at whim. We do not want the name of God shedding light on our selfishness. The law says do not murder, then we decide for ourselves what constitute murder, and when a person is truly alive. We want to decide for ourselves what is natural and what is not natural, when all of nature reveals this truth; nature, natural, two words that should coexist. Even the plants and animals have this figured out. I've never seen two animals of the same sex being sexual partners. We are given the freedom to vote in a president but yet we want him to be our puppet as well and have no backbone; basically keep his mouth shut about what he believes. That is the kind of man we want to be our commander and chief, a man who can be bullied into submission. I think not.

We have been given freedom to choose; the freedom to voice our own belief system whether it be in action or word, should we not afford the president of our country the same freedoms that we enjoy? Why would we criticize a man who by his very words he could condemn himself, and by those same words lose him the next election, but yet he stands unafraid to proclaim his faith and be who he is at any cost. How many of us can say that we would do the same? It takes a strong, self-confidant person to take that kind of risk, a man of faith in something or someone bigger than himself. And this is exactly the kind of man I want making life or death decisions regarding this nation and the kind of man I want to be my President.

When we fall for every pleasure this world affords and stand for others who do the same so as not to be found guilty in our own sight, how can we say we stand for anything for which we can be truly proud. At least President Bush can look at himself in the mirror and in the face of his Creator without shame.

... so personal ...

January 28,2004

The only thing that this world can not strip from me is my relationship with Jesus. Why then should we ask a political figure to surrender something that is so personal, that makes him or her the person that they are.Practicing religion is simply conformity to a social institution. This is not to be confused with having a personal relationship with Jesus. This transforms the fabric of your very being and can not simply be laid down.

... stands firm on his religious beliefs ...

January 28,2004

I support a President who stands firm on his religious beliefs and demonstrates the courage to acknowledge there is One greater than he.