Egypt, a nation of Muslim Clays.

Last I heard you could still buy alcohal in Egypt. While they restrict public Catholic worship they have not eliminated it in private.

Egypt is far too liberal for Clay.

A big difference however is that you will never hear me say that someone should be killed or punished severely for not being a Christian. Hell is bad enough, and it isnt and wont be full of Clays.

Clay - You are every bit as clueless as the hard line Muslims in Egypt. Religious fanaticism is the same no matter what stupid gods are involved. Guess what Clay, when you die you won't be going anywhere, you will be dead........Period.

This is a survey open to all bloggers here. The question is, are there more people on these blogs who are for the Lord or against Him? Leave your answer on this blog and I will count the responses. Thanks.

Clay,

I will abstain from your poll. You might just have well have asked me if I was "for" or "against" Paul Bunyon, Bugs Bunny, or Aunt Jemima.

OK ... if I was a less cynical frame of mind, I would say your poll might as well have asked if I was "for" or " against" Bahá'u'lláh, Vishnu, the Kunula, or Zeus. Each of these embodies a myth that is (or was) as powerful and as meaningful as your "Lord."

Ok. So far it is one (myself) for the Lord and one against. Anyone else?

The answer to your question would really depend on when you take the snapshot. If you took it during the last few weeks those who are “for” the Lord would be a small majority. That's because not many people have been posting here regularly. So our two angry atheists, Robert and R-Anon, represent a greater proportion than, say, if pattycakers, and ravensfan were posing.

BankStreet is a non believer but he has never said anything against “the Lord,” only against some culturally dangerous and bigoted practices. So we can put him in the 'abstain” category. You casting him as “against” is a show of your own foolishness.

We had two Rabbi's recently join us, we can take it for granted that they are on G-d's side in your survey.

You, Robert and R-Anon are the only ones who have mocked or attacked people based on their religious beliefs on a regular basis. So I guess you three would be the worst offenders.

Stop setting yourself up as some kind of authority on God. You are not.

God, Dana, is the reduction of all that is illogical to the simplest possible non-answer.

One for God and three against. Anyone else?

Clay, Robert Littel is the only person in this discussion who claims to be against God.

Nobody wants to play your stupid little game. If you had placed it in just one thread then maybe. But you are just being an obnoxious little brat now.

I gave you the answer above: "You, Robert and R-Anon are the only ones who have mocked or attacked people based on their religious beliefs on a regular basis. So I guess you three would be the worst offenders."

Dana,

I'm sure you realize that, in Clay's little-utilized mind, he is the only one "for" the Lord. All others fall short, because they have not signed on to his particular version of Christianity. Clay is unique and better than all the rest of us.

I thought vanity was a "sin."

Dana - Any and all belief systems based on delusional belief in made-up fairy-tales deserves to not only be mocked, but eradicated, so as to not infect what we should become, a species that deals head-on with reality from a rational perspective. Archaic infantile rationales for existence will not serve us well in a world that needs flexibility of thought to adapt to rapidly changing conditions and religion, in all its forms, is a anchor dragging in the muck while the currents of history threaten to swamp the boat. People like Clay do not count at all, as they are too stupid to understand what is real and what is rubbish. In light of that, you have to decide what side of the fence you are on, and from my perspective, you are clearly over on the other side with Clay, waving 'bye-bye' to reality.

BankStreet, vanity is a sin for other people, not for fundies.

Robert. While I will never agree with you on anything I must curtsy to you with great affection for you have never posted anything as vile as Clay in his Chick tract mode.

Littel since we've already covered the definition of the word delusional and that to be delusional would require believe in something which has been proven to be false maybe you can share that proof.

I think everyone here knows you can't do that which is why you resort to personal attacks and ridiclue in an attempt to put others on the defensive. For someone who keeps talking so much about reason and logic you seem to have great difficultly applying the concepts yourself.

Clay if you really are for the Lord you might want to consider how your actions serve the Lord. From what I can see it only seems to serve your arrogance that your way is the only way.

(Clay) Anonymous - I know you like to think of yourself as occupying the center ground between the extreme absolutism of the brainless twit Clay, and the "evil heathens" on the other end of the spectrum, but you have far more in common with the twit absolutist. The center is occupied by the fence sitting cowards (agnostics) who keep one foot on either side of the fence that divides us, with you clearly and deeply entrenched on the delusional superstitionist side of the fence along with your ersatz friend Clay. Either side of the fence is populated by the mass of marginal believers, or just on the other side, the slightly skeptic leaning rational. You share the same intransigent beliefs as Clay, with his being just a bit more intransigent than you, and which you argue with him over the minor points of minutia that separates the two of you.

There is no hope of reaching Clay, because he has already committed himself to the most absurd and inflexible perceptions of reality, that are part and parcel of what makes up your core beliefs as well. You may perceive yourself as more enlightened than Clay, but that is just part of your delusional state, with the difference between the two of you being more along the line of having syphilis, or just having a little bit of syphilis, either way you are both infected with the same disease. That you both condemn, and hate, those solidly on the other side of the fence is to be expected considering the intolerance you show to fellow "believers" who deviate from your doctrinaire limitations.

There is a great mass of people though, who have never given any real thought to the beliefs handed to them as children. They accept their heritage without ever examining them, but aren't wed to these myths when push comes to shove. My presence in this forum shows them that there are alternative views that are not based on the rubbish they were spoon fed while young, by a priesthood that has a vested interest to get as many of them programed as they can before the age of six. Left to you and Clay, they would have no perspective at all here. Now lets hear you again define my attacks against the absurdities of your beliefs as personal attacks against you. I grant that I don't have a lot of respect for people who are lunatic fringe in their beliefs, but it is no different than your treatment of Clay's even more lunatic fantasy world.

Robert, I haven't seen where anonymous has written anything that could be construed as “condemn, and hate, those solidly on the other side of the fence.” That's just silly.

You and Clay are the only ones here who think your way is the only way. You're a step ahead because you don't use comic books to prove your point. On the other hand you once did get very bent out of shape when I disagreed with your assertion that Southpark was profound commentary on our culture. But hey, your an atheist. I don't object to your atheism, I object to the way you talk to people.

An atheist, like Torquemada likes to say, is a helluva lot safer than a heretic on judgment day.

Robert,
Anonymous is not Clay. Anonymous is your old friend Ravensfan. He is prone to this disease called Anti-Littelitis. It causes a profoundly pedantic opposition to your agent provocateur role in these blogs. From beginning to end this man or woman has been asking you to prove the negative--that is god does not exist. In this he has been consistent and rips up his own cloak of anonymity. Say hello to your nemesis Ravensfan Robert-alias Abstenonymous alias Anonymous--but not Clay--never Clay. Let's not insult Ravensfan. The man may be a polite bore but he is not a head hunter for the lord.
R Anon

R Anon - He is, nonetheless, on the same side of the superstitious fence as Clay, and only marginally less delusional by only a matter of degrees. His intolerance of the very idea that someone should speak out against his absurd beliefs, is every bit as rooted in the very nature of delusionalism, that claims a monopoly on 'Ultimate Truth' while at the same time not even being to show any truth in what they blindly believe. Clay is more automotonic in his responses to criticism of religion, but again, only by a matter of degrees from (Clay) Anonymous, or whatever name he is too much of a coward to stick to.

R Anon I guess you believe you share Littel’s gift for reading minds. Sorry to say your ability at that is about as flawed as Littel’s Your attempt to misrepresent proving the negative as the logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance) in order to discredit my argument while a different approach that Littel’s is still nothing more than a smoke screen to hide the reality that your beliefs and opinions are just that beliefs and opinion nothing more.

Maybe you’d like to answer the question Little keeps ducking.

According to Websters delusional is “a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary”

Little’s claim is belief in God is delusional

That would mean that there is indisputable evidence that God does not exists.

I am simply asking for Littel or you if you like to provide that evidence.

You and I both know that neither Littel nor you can provide any. That’s why he resorts appealing to ridicule and personal attacks. Since Little continues to ignore the question and post his own ideas as logical it makes me wonder if the delusional one here might not be him.

And as always, (Clay) Anonymous demands that we break the rules of logic by proving a negative does not exist. I think the definition of delusional encompasses demanding that which can never be provided, due to the laws of logic, to counter ideas that have no demonstrable basis in fact, is in fact delusional.

Littel all I'm asking is you follow the rules of logic. If as you say belief in God is delusional then based on the definition that would mean there is indisputable evidence that would validate such a claim. If it can not be provided then there is no logical basis for calling belief delusional.

"to counter ideas that have no demonstrable basis in fact, is in fact delusional." Since there are historical texts that indicate God does exists, regardless of what you personally think of them the comment that there is no demonstartable fact is not accurate. Add to that the fact I am not asking you to disprove anything. I'm asking you to prove belief in God is as you claim delusional which is a positive statement. Making the statement that God does not exist is in fact a positive statement. Keep spining Littel maybe if you repeat it enough times you will convince someone besides yourself and your buddy R Anon.

One last point you are making up your own definition for delusional. I guess we can put you on the same level as Clay who makes up his own definitions and doctrines.

(Clay) Anonymous - If you believed that the center of the Earth consisted of vanilla custard, you would be considered delusional. What you believe, in regard to god creatures, is EQUALLY as absurd and delusional as believing the custard scenario, and for the exact same reason. Delusional is believing something to be "Ultimate truth" based on NOTHING but your willingness to believe it .

Littel you are right and in that case you would be able to provide the indisputable evidence that would validate such a claim based on geological studies and data. In this case however you can't make such a claim. Delusional is believing something dispite indisputable evidence to the contrary. A good example would be your continued use of the word delusional when you have nothing to back it, or your admittance of the possibility of God's existence while calling those who believe delusional simply because you don't believe.

(Clay) Anonymous - If that sorry bit of twisted illogic is all you have, then this discussion is over. You lost!

Littel I guess since ridicule and smoke screens didn't work you are declaring victory. Let me see if I understand what you are saying. According to Webster’s delusional is belief in something despite indisputable evidence. Your indisputable is that belief is that belief us illogical since no proof of God. Wait I forgot you made up your own definition of delusional to be believing something to be "Ultimate truth" based on NOTHING but your willingness to believe it. Using that definition people such as Galileo, Columbus, Einstein, Edison could have at some point in their life been considered delusional since all held beliefs based on nothing before they were able to support them. Since you appear to want to ignore the established meaning of the word in favor of your own made up one I guess we could say you are delusional. You also seem to forget you yourself admitted the possibility of God's existence albeit grudgingly. Keeping that in mind to call someone who believes in God delusional seems a bit irrational as well as delusional. The need to declare victory is a tactic used by someone when it's apparent they are backing a lost cause. That’s why it isn’t surprising faced with the reality of the weakness of your own position you would use the tactic.

(Clay) Anonymous - You are correct, you don't understand, and never have.

Littel I understand all too well. Your declaration of victory is about as meaningful when Bush declared victory in Iraq.

What about the freedom of speech, doesn’t it mean anything nowadays? Why one can’t say what he thinks? What is this? If someone express opinion that is different from conventional one he should go to jail at the same moment? Do we live in lithic age?

In the US you can. That is unless Littel has his way then all us believers would have to keep quiet. The AP article is referring to a situation in Eqypt not the US.

(Clay) Anonymous - I find it interesting that you are trying to portray yourself as a potential victim of "evil Atheists", who have , throughout history, been so often put to the stake, burned and butchered, by people waving your particular flag. We don't demand you keep quiet, we just don't want your kind in control, because we have plenty of examples of how that plays out.

Littel I never said evil athiests I said you. I don't hold all atheist accountable for the words of one deluded person. You are the one calling for and end to religion. For it to be stamped out. Unless you've become the atheist pope what you say hear applies only to you. You might want to learn some humility.

When were atheists “throughout history, been so often put to the stake, burned and butchered,” Robert?

While it is true that the Church and secular governments with church approval have done such things in the past it has never been the fate of atheists. People who were a threat to the established order suffered such fate. Joan of Arc and Jacques de Molay come to mind. You and your ilk, on the other hand, were never a threat to the established order.

You are just an angry little old man.

Dana & (Clay) Anonymous - Give me a break!!!!! The Church had no trouble putting to death anyone who fell outside the narrow dogma they pushed, even when they worshipped the same god concepts. Atheists, not being an organized group upon which an identity in history could be established, were swept away whenever any of them were foolish enough to raise their voice. It didn't matter which side of the Jesus cultists held power within a population if someone dared to challenge the established order du jour. Had there been an actual Atheist movement to be repressed, perhaps there would be a record of that repression, but in as much as there wasn't, they were pretty much swept away and the history, written by the Church, did little to publicize the notion that there even existed people who did not believe in gods at all. A smart Atheist at that time, kept their mouth shut if they knew what was good for them. Today we do not have to remain silent, but the intolerance of the idea that the notion of their not being a god at all, still is as strong as it was then, only now we can tell you where to stuff your bigotry and hatred, and not mince words about it.

Some pretty big “ifs” there Robert.
If Atheists had been organized.
If Atheists had raised their voices.

The Church has historically converted heathens and punished heretics. You can't rewrite history based on how it would have been if you and your ilk had shown a little backbone or organizational ability in the dim past. You didn't on both counts.

Now all you do is whine, pout, and stamp your feet like a foolish schoolboy. But the sad (very sad) fact is that you are a bitter old man.

Littel maybe you could prove your persecution of atheist claim. Since you are making the claim I do believe that puts the burden on you.

No one has said anyone even you needs to remian silent. All anyone here is done is challenge you to make the rational reasonable arguements you claim as the domain of atheism alone. Maybe you practice what you preach and stuff your own hatred and bigotry.

(Clay) Anonymous - In as much as the Church (your church) kept few public records of those they murdered, either outright or after conversion (the dispatch of Native South Americans after they were "saved" at the point of a sword, as one example), we have only the surviving testimony of underlings involved, to paint the picture of horror committed to further the imperatives of your "sainted" Church. The individual Atheists, when discovered, would be subject to the same respect your Church showed to any other group or individual who posed a threat to their power. I need to prove NOTHING when it comes to alleging atrocities you know damn well were part and parcel to the normal operations of your church, that killed millions over the centuries.

I make no apologies for my position regarding the non-existence of gods, and I sure as hell will not back down over the horrors that have been committed by any religion in service to the fraud that is represented by the imposition of god concepts on the totality Humanity. You are on the wrong side of the ethical argument because you are standing on a foundation of the piled bones of your Church's victims.

Bobbles, where did you get the mistaken notion that the Church kept few public records?

The Catholic church kept extensive records. You can read, for instance, every utterance of Joan of Arc and her inquisitors from her trial. The same is true of Galileo. These are just the famous cases, but the Vatican Secret Archives is available for any serious researcher to study.

Frankly Robert you don't seem to know even a little bit about the things you write about.

Littel it sounds like you have no proof and what to blame that on the church?

“I need to prove NOTHING when it comes to alleging atrocities”

According to you the person making the positive claim has the burden of proof. That would be you. Wikapedia defines is a “When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim” Why is it you demand others prove what they say yet feel what you say requires no proof. That actually sounds more delusional than anything I’ve seen here. Added to Dana’s post and you really sound like someone just making stuff up in a desperate attempt to convince the world he has reason and logic on his side. Of course what you were asked to prove was persecution of atheists. Your attempt to generalize into more is simply further evidence that you can’t support what you believe. No one ever asked you to apologize for anything. What you believe or don’t believe is your choice. What is expected you to follow the same rules of logic you demand of others. To do otherwise is hypocritical on your part. You are pretty much on the wrong side not only of any ethical argument but any logical and reasonable one as well with such nonsense as you just posted.

Church sources claim that "only" 6000 citizens of the French city of Beziers were butchered when the Bishop in charge of rooting out heretics said in response to the General of the Papal Army's question, "How do I tell the heretics from the true Catholics?',and he replied, ......."Kill them all, God will sort them out later". The figures from other sources put the Papal butchery more at 60,000, but the true figure was probably not that high, but certainly not as low as the Church claims.

The Church has kept copious records, and has made many of them so highly restricted that only the most senior of those in charge of perpetuating the con get to see them, and only when they present an acceptable reason, or are assigned to digging out information to support dogma. Much of the records of the Church have been purged, altogether or altered to fit dogma, like the former allowance of abortion up to the moment of quickening (until 1869) which curiously was set at 40 days for males and 80 days for females, with any abortions performed in between those numbers presumed to have been female. (See: "Who Shall Live" 1970, presented by the Quakers) Evidently females were not prized enough by your Church to warrant the earlier protection afforded to male fetuses.

(Clay) Anonymous - I don't have anything that needs to be proven TO YOU. YOU are not worth the effort because YOU do not have the ability to see beyond your Cathoholic programing. To you, dogma is immutable and unchallengeable and in as much as that clashes with the skeptical nature of open intellectual inquiry, there is no basis for common ground. THAT is why you are every bit as valueless and clueless as Clay, and why you are not going to get the level of respect from me, that you have clearly not earned .

Littel as usual you make a lot of accusations but provide little to back it. Hardly the response of a rational logical person. Instead you make baseless pointless personal attacks on me. You no nothing about me yet make baseless accusations to blow smoke around the fact that you can not support any of your claims. That’s to be expected since you are so caught up in your own dogma nonsense. You are correct you don’t need to prove anything unless you want to be taken seriously as a rational logical thinking person. That requires a rational, logical intelligent argument. Something you have never shown the ability to do. There is nothing open or intellectual in anything you write. You are dug in to your own dogma to look objectively at anything. You are the only person here saying your views require no proof. As for your respect you confuse being told how reasonable people act with my caring about having your respect. You have nothing that I want including your respect. I’m simply pointing out the sheer hypocrisy and lack of logic in your rants. Something that to be honest is really no challenge at all.

(Clay) Anonymous - BIOYA

The Vatican Secret Archives are open to qualified researchers from September 16th to July 15th (8:15 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.) from Monday to Saturday. Any legitimate researcher with at least a four year degree is admitted following enrollment by the Admissions Secretary. Documents may be consulted until the end of the papacy of Pius XI (1939). The Vatican Library has greater access and more of the kind of information that would interest historians.

You have been reading too many Dan Brown novels Robert. The only information that is “highly restricted” is personal information and more recent records. Access to someone's marriage annulment records, complete with psychological report, are the sort of thing that is closed to you. Medieval studies and the history of the crusades or the Inquisitions are open to anyone with legitimate academic credentials.

The quote you provide was attributed by the Prior of the former Cistercian Heisterbach Abbey as having been said by the Abbot of Citeaux. Considering that the quote was provided by a church official it speaks as evidence contrary to your theory that the church is involved in some sort of cover up of medieval history. Our current Pope has written about the excesses of the crusades also.

As usual, you are grasping at straws.

That said, I am pleased that the Albigensian and the Cathar heresies were defeated. We seem to have failed at eradicating the Protestant heresy, however.

Mr. Littel can order testosterone cream on the web if that is what the problem is. The bible is of course a better answer. We all get older and have to leave this earth. The idea is to go out as happy and secure as possible for what comes afterward.

Littel hardly the type of response of someone using logic or reason or claiming that intellect and rational thinking is on his side. I should thank you. Nothing proves whatt I've said right anymore than that type of response.

Dana based on his last response it's pretty obvious that Littel is not interested in facts or even discussion. He rants on about " dogma is immutable and unchallengeable and in as much as that clashes with the skeptical nature of open intellectual inquiry" after spouting his own dogma. When challenged with skepticism and open intellectual inquiry he responds with ridicule, personal attacks and petty name calling.

Yikes, Clay...

Turns out your Muslim President is ... Jewish!!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/02/remarks-president-a-hanukkah-reception

He must be -- he didn't mention Jesus once in these remarks!

What the president is is not on fire for Christ even though he says he is a Christian. He balked at Christmas decorations in the White House. That not only is not on fire, it is completely dead. We all need to be man or woman enough to be something besides politically correct in order to please the highest percentage of voters. Otherwise we are dead ourselves.

Clay,

So ... early Christians observed the Birth of thier Saviour by dragging trees and branches into their homes? Every Christian today is compelled by the Church of Clay to observe Christmas in exactly the same way?

Arrogance and hubris don't seem to be compatible with Christian humility, Clay. Enjoy your eggnog.

No one said anything about dragging trees. What God does say is how important it is to have Him in our hearts, and that isnt only at Christmas. Thanks.

Clay what exaxtly does Christmas decorations have to do with being on fire for Christ. Aren't you the one who attacks the Catholic Church over statues all the time. Now you are making claims against the president because he doesn't put up decorations?

The truth Clay is you are judging a man you never met and know very little about. Pardon me but that hardly sounds like following the words of Christ. Do you remember the words of Christ regarding judging others? Are you without sin? If not maybe you should put the stones down.

Clay,

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you (liturgically speaking) are a direct descendent of the Puritans who came over on the Mayflower to found the Massachusetts Bay Colony at Plymouth.

You do know, don't you, that the Puritans prohibited ANY observance of Christmas. They certainly didnt "decorate." Were they "on fire for Christ"?

No one has to put up decorations to be on fire for Christ. My point is that the track record of the president with his attitude towards these things, like having "IHS" covered at Georgetown before giving a speech and saying that America is not a Christian nation is not supportive of what he claimed before and during the election, that he is a Christian. Christians who love Christ dont do these things. He may call himself one, but actions speak louder than words. As I said above, what is important is what is in our hearts. When I hear Christ coming out of the president and I see him doing things that support Christ to set an example for our citizens, like saying that our young people need to recognize God and to be saved, then I may change my opinion. Of course some may say that isnt a requirement to be president. I agree. My point however is that the president shouldnt say that he is a Christian and then do what he does. He should be more honest. He tried to please Christians, but he really supports Muslims at least as much if not more. According to the bible, if you do these things you are a hypocrite. Romney isnt a tremendous improvement over who we have now, but he has to be better than this. Thanks.

BankStreet, until recently I would not have guessed you to be a puritan sort of fellow. Perhaps you'll be interested in my recent research on the topic:

http://www.baltimoreoutloud.com/k2-fetch-latest/city-desk-a-view-from-mt-vernon-as-i-see-it/item/171-the-puritans

Clay this isn't a Christian nation. It never was. It was a nation founded by men many of whom were Christian. One does not need to declare this a Christian nation to be a Christian. Who are you to cast judgement on the president Clay. You seem perfectly willing to ignore Christ's words on casting judgement. You also seem willing to forget that he commanded us to loev everyone including enemies. For someone who claims to hold the bible as the only thing needed you appear to be willing to ignore many parts of it. Where exactly does it say that a Christian who tries to please all people Non-christians as well as Christians is a hypocrite. You must have a different version than I have.

"actions speak louder than words"
Clay I agree with you which is what saddens me because I see little Christian love in your actions.

Clay - it's people like you that make me grateful our forefathers had the wisdom to put the establishment clause into the constitution.

Same here, rino, but Clay and his ilk would like nothing more than to remove or weaken that protection .... failing to realize that they are protected as much as the rest of us, Eternal vigilance by the people is, after all, the price of liberty.

Dana,

No Puritan here ... but I probably don't decorate for Christmas as much as Clay would want me to. Come to think of it, I probably do a lot of things that fail Clay's standards.

Not that there's anything wrong with that ...

I put up very few decorations myself. My point about the president was that he perhaps saw the putting up of decorations as supporting a religion that he really wasnt part of. He didnt want to offend Muslims, etc. The bible doesnt say that a Christian who tries to please many people is a hypocrite. What it says is that someone may call themselves a Christian and really not be one. The president's actions lead us to believe that is the case. And yes the clause in the constitution may keep some religion that doesnt really follow God and Christ from passing laws, etc. However it also keeps the real God and His Son in check also as far as our system goes. Thanks.

Clay,

Your "point" about the President was simply that he chooses to live his life (and his faith) in a manner of which you do not approve. As I think I said last Christmas season, you must be aware that many, many Christian families observe the holidays in many, many different ways. This is their right. Many other families observe the holidays in an entirely secular fashion. This is their right.

Moreover, you continue to ask our government (in the person of the President) to prefer Christianity over other faiths professed by countless Americans. This would not only be contrary to our Constitution, it would be detrimental to your own religious freedom,

Rest your jets, Clay. The President is not your enemy. Nor is he an enemy to your faith.

If the president was misleading about his faith during the election, it isnt just a matter of his living his life in a way that I dont approve. It is a matter of being dishonest. Most of us disapprove of that. If he wants Christian symbols covered before a speech he is absolutely an enemy to my faith. We cant have it both ways. Thanks.

Clay,

I don't know what more the man can do to convince you he is not a Muslim. You have drunk too deeply of the kool-aid purveyed by Mr Beck, Mr Limbaugh, and Ms Palin for you to see or hear reason. The fact that he acknowledges (and honors) Muslem tradition -- as he does Jewish and Christian tradition -- in his role as the leader of all Americans is not evidence that he is not a Christian (or that he deceived anyone about his faith).

The fact that the White House staff (and not the President personally) had religious symbols removed or shrouded when he spoke on a foreign-affairs matter at Gaston Hall on the campus of Georgetown University (a Catholic school) was an (I admit clumsy) attempt to remove visible religious symbols from a national TV audience, in deference to his being the secular leader of a secular state, speaking on secular matter. It was NOT an attack on religion. I would have preferred the White House have found a more appropriate venue for the talk, altogether.

Clay the president's faith is really none of your concern. You really shouldn't be commenting on anyone's faith. What you should be doing is focusing on your own.

Not when the bible says to convince, rebuke and exhort. I do focus on my own faith also. Thanks.