Religious Questions for the Republican Candidates
Sunday, August 28, 2011 at 6:00AM 
The New York Times' BILL KELLER wants to ask some interesting religious questions of Republican candidates. I think answering them for myself might be helpful, or at least fun.
1. Is it fair to question presidential candidates about details of their faith?
Absolutely. Obama got such questions.
2. Is it fair to question candidates about controversial remarks made by their pastors, mentors, close associates, or thinkers whose books they recommend?
Yes. It is fair to ask the question, but stupid to think that anyone really agrees with everything that someone else says. The reason Obama was surprised by the Jeremiah Wright quotes was that he had not attended that church enough to know what "his" pastor believed. I find it funny that the quotes from Wright that gave Obama the most trouble I agreed with. 9-11 was indirectly caused by our foreign policy since WWII. "Chickens coming home to roost" fits the situation as I see it.
3. (a) Do you agree with those religious leaders who say that America is a “Christian nation” or “Judeo-Christian nation?” (b) What does that mean in practice?
The early American founders were not Christians, although they claimed to be. If you define Christian as someone who says they are Christians, then we are a Judeo-Christian Nation. This question is often linked to other questions about supposed "dominionists"—usually misrepresenting what they teach and assuming that all dominionists agree. Most of the dominionists that people love to quote, the radical ones, do NOT believe that we are a "Judeo-Christain" nation. Most of them want us to be. This would require, in their view, a new constitution. Many of the "dominionists" would remove the "Judeo" part. There is some truth in the anti-dominist propaganda that has been appearing of late, but it is a minority position among dominionists. Gary North is a dominionist and he advocates that someone should not vote unless they swear an oath that they believe in the Trinity. The radical dominionists have absolutely nothing to do with Bachman, for example, she is a woman.
4. If you encounter a conflict between your faith and the Constitution and laws of the United States, how would you resolve it? Has that happened, in your experience?
It would seem to me that such conflict is rare. As long as we are allowed to home school, and not forced to join the military, I can see few potential conflicts. There are such conflicts in other countries. But yes, if there is a conflict, one's faith, whatever it is, should come first.
5. (a) Would you have any hesitation about appointing a Muslim to the federal bench? (b) What about an atheist?
I would appoint a Muslim, but probably not an atheist. Anti-social people with the medical condition of Asperger’s should not be in politics. So, no, I would not appoint Karl Rove to the Supreme Court. Most of the mass murders of the last century were committed by atheists or de-facto atheists. (My tongue is a little bit in my cheeck on this answer)
6. Are Mormons Christians, in your view? Should the fact that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons influence how we think of them as candidates?
These are two separate questions confounded into one question. This is, to a degree, equivocation. Can an individual Mormon be a Christian? Yes. Can the Mormon Church be considered a Christian denomination? No. The Mormon world view is just too goofy. They think that "god" used to be a human being on another planet. As good Mormon boys and girls learn, "God once was as man now is."
Their founders, and this has not been repudiated officially, think that there is a Mrs. "god" with whom god has sex and that this produces souls. Another founder thought that god the father had sex with Mary and the result was Jesus. I doubt I would vote for a person who wears secret magical religious underwear.
7. What do you think of the evangelical Christian movement known as Dominionism and the idea that Christians, and only Christians, should hold dominion over the secular institutions of the earth?
I am aware of exactly one dominionist that holds this view—Gary North. No doubt there are others. I think that many Americans do not want serious Christians in politics, and that is their goal with this dominion meme.
8. (a) What is your attitude toward the theory of evolution? (b) Do you believe it should be taught in public schools?
Which version of the theory are you talking about? My biologist friend Henrik and I had an interesting Facebook discussion on this. I will not repeat it here but the bottom line is that the way he defines evolution, I do not have much disagreement with it. For example, micro-evolution is clearly proven. The issue I have is a subset of evolution—materialism. No one can be a theist of any stripe and believe that. There are things apart from the physical creation.
9. Do you believe it is proper for teachers to lead students in prayer in public schools?
Absolutely not, but then again I do not believe in public schools either.
Bill Kellers Questions are "making the rounds" in the blogosphere, here and here, for example.
This is the post I wish I had written on these questions.
There is another question Keller wants to ask Bachman that I will talk about tomorrow.
Reader Comments (3)
I feel obligated to add this footnote regarding the rather lengthy discussion between Dennis and myself on the evolution debate... Evolution is a fact. How it happens is the question. Darwin contended it happened by natural selection. Others can and do contend it happens by divine selection. That is what Dennis means by "not apart from physical creation." I cannot prove him wrong, but I am most persuaded by Darwin's explanation.
The Catholic Church also does not have a problem with this definition, as long as scientists admit that God gave humans a soul at some finite point in history... again something that I cannot disprove.
I also believe that the whole evolution debate is caused by lousy semantics on the part of scientists who should know better. Darwin wrote "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection." Scientists should ALWAYS refer to the full name when referencing Darwin's idea: "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection." Not the "Theory of Evolution." As I said, evolution itself is just a fact.
National selection is obviously true and a major factor in whatever happened. But there are things it does not explain well, and there are things it can't explain, if there is more than just the material universe.
As a lay person on biology matters, didn't I read somewhere that Lysenko was making a comeback?