Amazingly, Thomas Aquinas read the very same Bible you do. Likely in Latin, so I’ll allow for some translation errors, but you both are reading the same gospel of Christ and yet are taking completely different moral directives from it: you say practice tolerance and love; Aquinas says if you don’t believe as I believe, you deserve death. Isn’t it interesting how you, a Christian, can take a completely different message from the Bible than another Christian? Don’t you think it’s possible someone from your own time could read the Bible and take a very different message from it than you do - and still be a Christian? It’s not like it’s the most contextually consistent book.

The question is: is it better to jeopardize the salvation of many than to whack a few heretics? We don’t have the same perspective nowadays, because heresy is widespread, and secular governments, no longer believing in salvation, have gotten out of the habit of executing heretics. But I think in Aquinas’s time, heretics were worse than serial killers: a serial killer ended people’s earthly lives, but a heretic endangered people’s eternal lives.

All one requires to meet the mantle of title ‘Christian’ is to self-identify as one.

Suuurrre. Let’s try this out: I believe in drowning kittens, but I’m still a Christian. I believe in cutting off the heads of homeless people and using them as soccer balls, but I’m a Christian, just because I say I am. No, this isn’t working for me.

I would say that to be a Christian, you would first have to respect Christ’s teachings, and make a good faith effort to adhere to them.

Denial, denial, denial.

And I have yet to meet an atheist on this site who’s “anti-theist” as that would indicate the person is somehow “against” people who practice a religion. I, for one, am not and would not be, as that would alienate me pretty badly from my familyand many people I care about. I do, however, think belief in deities is absurd and will criticize such practices frequently.

Obama is not responsible for the actions of his supporters, but if one group of supporters is disturbed by the actions or beliefs of another group of supporters and seeks to criticize Obama for it, well, that’s politics. If Obama had hired this guy, we’d have Marcotte-Edwards the Sequel.

These are not identical positions. There are even those who’d argue that they’re incompatible, depending on whose interpretation of ‘christian’ is being used at the moment and which historical context is being applied. In any case, the state of Obama’s soul is irrelevant when considering whether he’ll be an effective Executive. Wasn’t Jimmy Carter a good christian?

Here’s some basic Christian doctrine. Which of you identifies this doctrine with Bush? Who disagrees that this would be a good basis for public policy?
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 3)
Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land. (Verse 4)
Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted. (Verse 5)
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. (Verse 6)
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Verse 7)
Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. (Verse
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Verse 9)
Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

My problem with him isn’t his religion as we could get much worse in any Republican. My problem with him is his continued pandering to the religious ’sensibilities’ of voters of any race. We’ve had such a torrent of religion in the White House and we all have seen its effects. I think the absolute *last* thing this country needs right now is more religious evangelism in politics or more definition of our nation’s moral direction through Christian scripture. I want a politician who, whatever his (or her) religion, basically rejects invoking gods as a means to appeal to the public, and as a basis for public policy. THAT would be progressive. And that’s one of the big reasons why I support Chris Dodd. He practically never mentions his religion or invokes the name of god or Jesus when talking about public policy. I love him for it.