Miscellanea Agnostica

I’ve already blogged about the militant Religious Rightist and walking train-wreck, Christine O’Donnell, who’s running for US Senate from Delaware. As one might expect, she continuously spews Religious Rightist talking points. Recently she hammered away at one which is especially used by theocrats. The New York Times Caucus blog reports on her caterwauling (WebCite cached article):

Christine O’Donnell, the Republican candidate for Senate in Delaware, on Tuesday appeared to question whether the First Amendment to the Constitution imposes a separation between church and state.

Here, the Times is much too circumspect and generous toward O’Donnell. It cannot reasonably be said that she only “appeared” to question whether separation of church and state is called for. The truth is that she did, in fact, very clearly question it.

“Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” Ms. O’Donnell asked [her opponent, Democrat Chris Coons], according to audio posted on the Web site of WDEL 1150 AM radio, which co-sponsored the debate.

I’m no Constitutional scholar, nor even a lawyer, but I can answer that. Those words are not in the Constitution at all … but that admission does not mean the Bill of Rights does not call for it. Her audience, of course, knew this:

The audience at the law school can be heard breaking out in laughter.

It’s quite clear — from these words which she said, of her own volition — that Ms O’Donnell does not think “separation of church and state” is Constitutional. However, that hasn’t stopped her campaign from backing away from this position:

Matt Moran, Ms. O’Donnell’s campaign manager, wrote in a statement after the debate that “Christine O’Donnell was not questioning the concept of separation of church and state as subsequently established by the courts.”

“She simply made the point that the phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution,” Mr. Moran said.

But there is no rational reason for her to have pointed out that those words are not in the Constitution, except to suggest that “separation of church and state” is not Constitutional. This attempt at backpedalling, then, simply doesn’t work.

For the record, the man who wrote the First Amendment, James Madison, clearly stated his intentions; he definitely wanted there to be a “wall” dividing church and state, even if he did not happen to have included the phrase when he wrote it. Here are his own words on the subject (cached), written a couple decades later (c. 1817), providing his perspective on the principle and on a couple of ways he believed it ought to have been applied (all spellings per Madison’s original text):

The danger of silent accumulations & encroachments by Ecclesiastical Bodies have not sufficiently engaged attention in the U. S. … If some of the States have not embraced this just and this truly Xn principle in its proper latitude, all of them present examples by which the most enlightened States of the old world may be instructed; and there is one State at least, Virginia, where religious liberty is placed on its true foundation and is defined in its full latitude. The general principle is contained in her declaration of rights, prefixed to her Constitution: but it is unfolded and defined, in its precise extent, in the act of the Legislature, usually named the Religious Bill, which passed into a law in the year 1786 [i.e. the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom]. Here the separation between the authority of human laws, and the natural rights of Man excepted from the grant on which all political authority is founded, is traced as distinctly as words can admit, and the limits to this authority established with as much solemnity as the forms of legislation can express. The law has the further advantage of having been the result of a formal appeal to the sense of the Community and a deliberate sanction of a vast majority, comprizing every sect of Christians in the State. This act is a true standard of Religious liberty: its principle the great barrier agst usurpations on the rights of conscience. …

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. …

Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion. The object of this establishment is seducing; the motive to it is laudable. But is it not safer to adhere to a right pinciple, and trust to its consequences, than confide in the reasoning however specious in favor of a wrong one. …

Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed.

Altho’ recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.

The objections to them are 1. that Govts ought not to interpose in relation to those subject to their authority but in cases where they can do it with effect. An advisory Govt is a contradiction in terms. 2. The members of a Govt as such can in no sense, be regarded as possessing an advisory trust from their Constituents in their religious capacities. They cannot form an ecclesiastical Assembly, Convocation, Council, or Synod, and as such issue decrees or injunctions addressed to the faith or the Consciences of the people.

To be clear, then, Madison — the author of the First Amendment — believes that Congressional and military chaplaincies are impermissible, as are executive proclamations of thanksgiving and holy days.

Also, I will reiterate Madison’s opening line in this document, which outlines what he addresses in the rest:

The danger of silent accumulations & encroachments by Ecclesiastical Bodies have not sufficiently engaged attention in the U. S.

He was concerned that “Ecclesiastical Bodies” were encroaching on the states … and considered that the First Amendment, which he had written, was supposed to have prevented it. I’m not sure how much clearer this principle can be. Even if the First Amendment does not contain the precise phrase “separation of church and state,” there can be no doubt — based on what Madison himself had to say about the matter — that this is what he had intended it to provide.

The bottom line is that Ms O’Donnell is wrong to want to have it both ways: She wants to convince Religious Rightists, especially of the dominionist/theocratic variety, that she opposes separation of church and state, yet at the same time concede to the rest of the country that the courts have, in fact, ruled that it does exist, even in spite of that exact phrase not being found in the Constitution. But this is irrational. She cannot logically hold both of these positions … even if she would like to.

Photo credit: Gary Emeigh/MCT via Christian Science Monitor.

Tags: 2010 campaign, chris coons, christian, christian right, Christianity, christians, christine o'donnell, delaware, first amendment, gop, james madison, religious right, republican, right, senate, Separation of church and state, socas, thomas jefferson

The news that “tea partier” and vehement Religious Rightist Christine O’Donnell won the Delaware Republican primary for Senate has been all over the news for several days. Most of those stories have been punctuated by tales of her Christian-puritanical weirdness, e.g. her hatred of masturbation and assertion that viewing pornography equates with adultery (WebCite cached article). It also turns out that she’s a paranoid conspiracist, having claimed that scientists are cross-breeding humans and animals (locally cached).

But perhaps the strangest thing of all about O’Donnell, is this ABC News report (based on footage released by Bill Maher) that she claimed to have dabbled in witchcraft in the past (cached):

On Friday, Maher released on his new HBO show, “Real Time,” an unaired clip of O’Donnell admitting to a brief dalliance with witchcraft.

“I dabbled into witchcraft — I never joined a coven. But I did, I did. I dabbled into witchcraft. I hung around people who were doing these things. I’m not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do,” she said.

“One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn’t know it. I mean, there’s little blood there and stuff like that,” she said. “We went to a movie and then had a midnight picnic on a satanic altar.”

Here’s the Bill Maher show video segment in question, courtesy of ABC News:

Thus the walking freakshow which is Christine O’Donnell became even freakier.

When I read this, I was immediately reminded of another fervent evangelical Christian who likewise had claimed to have dabbled in witchcraft and the occult: Mike Warnke. His story grew more elaborate as he told it; he claimed to have been a Satanic “high priest” (whatever that may have meant), and that he’d taken part in some hair-raising, if not obscene, profane Satanic rituals. Through the late ’70s and the 80s he made a career as a preacher and Christian comedian, telling stories of his action in Vietnam and then his Satanic tenure. He wrote The Satan Seller, a memoir which was a best-seller in avid Christian circles. But in the early ’90s, he was exposed as a fraud by a series of articles in the (Christian) Cornerstone Magazine. Despite the Cornerstone exposé and the evidence it was based on, Warnke initially insisted he’d been telling the truth. He subsequently conceded having stretched the truth on a few points, but to this day has never really admitted having lied about his past. Nevertheless, despite his attempts to make a comeback, his once-thriving career as a preacher is pretty much dead. (Unreasonable Faith blog has an excellent encapsulation of Warnke and his scandal.)

I can’t help but wonder if O’Donnell is playing the same game that Warnke had. If so, given that she’s been active in evangelical Christianity for several years by the time she said this, I can only assume she’s aware of Warnke and how his career and life unraveled, and am forced to wonder … what the fuck was she thinking?

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: bill maher, christian, christian right, Christianity, christians, christine o'donnell, delaware, gop, mike warnke, occult, political candidate, religious right, republican, republican party, senate, senate candidate, tea party, witch, witchcraft, witches

The news out of Iowa these days isn’t good. There’s the salmonella-tainted eggs, which have hit a second producer in that state (WebCite cached article), of course. That’s been news for the last few days. The other Iowa news you likely have not heard about, is the religiofascist bellyaching that’s been going on there, over gays. This story is taking on a life of its own … sad to say.

It all started with a Republican legislative candidate’s idiotic rant about AIDS being God’s retribution against gays, as reported by the Iowa Independent (cached):

When the Bible says homosexuals should be “put to death; their blood shall be upon them,” the blood is really AIDS. Or so says Jeremy Walters, Republican legislative hopeful, in a series of posts on his Facebook. …

Walters uses the old Leviticus 20:13 to support his claim. Evangelicals love to trot out this and other verses as “proof” that God has condemned gays. What they forget is that other Leviticus passages also forbid a great many other things, including the eating of pork (Lev 11:7-8) and shellfish (Lev 11:10-12). Yes folks, that means no shrimp scampi or baby-back ribs for good, dutiful Christians!

As adamant as Walters is about this matter, it hasn’t previously been a cornerstone of his campaign:

On his campaign website, Walters makes no mention of same-sex marriage or gay rights at all, focusing instead on economic issues like property taxes, the estate tax and the state budget, as well as gun rights and education.

To its credit, the Iowa Republican Party has disavowed Walters’s words, again as reported by the Iowa Independent (cached):

Statements by a Republican candidate for the Iowa House that AIDS is punishment for the sin of homosexuality have been officially denounced by Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Matt Strawn. …

“Mr. Walters’ comments are inappropriate and in no way represent the beliefs of the Republican Party of Iowa,” Strawn said in a statement to The Iowa Independent. “HIV/AIDS does not discriminate and our hearts and prayers go out to any Iowa family facing this disease.”

That, at least, is pretty clear and unequivocal. This same story, however, reveals that Walters plans not to back down on his claim:

Walters told The Des Moines Register that he has no plans to remove the posting from his Facebook page, saying it’s only offensive to gay rights advocates, “because they know it’s the truth. Truth does hurt.”

Nonetheless, Walters’s remarks on gays and AIDS have been removed.

Even with the state Republican party clearly weighing against Walters, however, the matter still will not die. A radio host has angrily called bullshit on Strawn’s claim that “AIDS does not discriminate” … again reported by the Iowa Independent (cached):

The gay rights movement has worked hard to convince society that AIDS does not discriminate, but that is a lie, conservative radio host Jan Mickelson said on his WHO-AM show Thursday. …

“For the chairman of the Republican Party to say, ‘AIDS doesn’t discriminate,’ well of course it does,” Mickelson said. “It discriminates against people who engage in stupid behavior.”

“Lung disease doesn’t discriminate, but it’s probably a good idea to stop smoking,” he said. …

Mickelson said it all comes down to God’s law, or natural law, which “also applies to sexual disorders.”

Mickelson’s lung-disease scenario doesn’t quite work as well as he probably thinks it does; there are people who’ve been afflicted by lung disease, caused by environmental factors outside their control. Musician Warren Zevon, for example, died of a form of lung cancer which is triggered by asbestos; as near as anyone can figure, his exposure came during childhood, from his family’s carpet business (asbestos was a component of some carpet fibers until just a few decades ago). He didn’t ask to get lung cancer, and my guess is that no one knew his exposure to carpet fibers would cause it. So Zevon’s cancer cannot be called any kind of natural consequence of willful, “stupid behavior.”

At any rate, Mickelson may have realized he was stepping into a steaming load of manure of his own making, because his remarks after that point are almost incomprehensible:

So, does God punish homosexuality? Does he punish sodomy? Well, no, he doesn’t get off his throne and say, ‘Hey, I’m gonna get that guy.’ Well not directly,” he said. “Most of God’s laws, which another way of saying God’s law would be natural law, that is, law that is consistent with the nature of the universe because it was built in such a way, most of God’s laws are self enforcing. God doesn’t have to do anything. So if you skydive without a parachute, does God punish people who do that? No, but one of his inventions does. Gravity. If you skydive without a parachute, you’re going to die. Should you blame God for that?”

Mickelson kept spewing gibberish, even after callers challenged him on various points around this topic; read the article if you wish to see the depths of stupidity and inanity he stooped to in order to hold onto his religiously-motivated bigotry.

Folks, this is just another sterling example of “the Religion of Love” in action.

Hat tip: Unreasonable Faith.

Photo credit: Marshall Astor.

Tags: AIDS, candidate, christian, Christianity, christians, christofascism, christofascist, des moines IA, gay, gays, gop, hiv, homosexual, homosexuality, homosexuals, iowa, iowa 67th district, iowa gop, iowa legislature, iowa republican, iowa republicans, jan mickelson, jeremy walters, matt strawn, religiofascism, religiofascist, religion of love, republican, republicans, sodomy, wrath of god

Missouri Congressional candidate Ed Martin has declared that President Obama and other Democrats are preventing people from acquiring their salvation from Jesus Christ. Yes, folks, he really said it. Fired Up Missouri has the story, as well as the audio (WebCite cached article):

Speaking on the Gina Loudon radio program this afternoon, Congressional candidate Ed Martin told listeners that “we have to be very, very aware” of policies pursued by Barack Obama and Russ Carnahan that will “take away” the freedom to be a Christian. …

MARTIN: … And part of that freedom — when you take a government and you impose, and take away all your choices. One of the choices you take away is to find the Lord. And find your savior.

And that’s one of the things that’s most destructive about the growth of government. It’s this taking away that freedom. The freedom — the ultimate freedom, to find your salvation, to get your salvation. And to find Christ, for me and you.

If you wish, you can listen to the recording, directly from YouTube:

Now, I’m not sure how this works, exactly. If salvation comes from God through Jesus Christ, I don’t quite understand how any human being — not even a president of the United States — could possibly get in the way of it. I know I’m just a cynical godless agnostic heathen, but I just don’t see how anything in the universe can thwart the will of a truly omnipotent being.

Do you?

… Didn’t think so.

Update: The Riverfront Times in St Louis reports that, although it appears Martin lost by nearly 4,500 votes, he’s alleging “voting irregularities,” refuses to concede defeat, and promises to fight on to get his Congressional seat (cached article). This is in spite of the fact that his margin of loss is above the amount that might allow him to call for a recount. Can you say “sore loser”?

Hat tip: Pulling to the Left.

Photo credit: Ed Martin campaign Web site.

Tags: barack obama, christ, christian, Christianity, christians, congress, congressional, congressional candidate, ed martin, god, gop, jesus, jesus christ, missouri, missouri 3rd district, obama, politics, president obama, republican, salvation

A “social conservative” Republican Congressman from Indiana, Mark Souder, resigned from Congress today. The reason? He had an extramarital affair to which political operatives were tipped off recently, as the Washington Post reports (WebCite cached article):

Indiana congressman Mark Souder’s resignation, announced Tuesday, came after anonymous tipsters called his aides and his opponents in a Republican primary to say he was having an extramarital affair with a part-time staffer, according to sources familiar with the calls.

The conservative Christian congressman’s chief of staff, Renee Howell, confronted him last week over the rumored affair with Tracy Meadows Jackson, according to a source in the office. …

The affair began after Jackson was hired in 2004, according to the source in the office. Jackson, who is married, was to be a guest host with Souder for a daily radio spot he recorded for WFCV, a Christian radio station in Fort Wayne, Ind.

Souder is not your garden-variety ardent Religious Rightist, however. As pointed out by Avi Zenilman at Vanity Fair, once railed against extramarital sex during a hearing where Zenilman’s father — then a doctor working for the CDC — testified (WebCite cached article):

Souder ultimately responded by saying that teen sex needs to be aggressively confronted, like date rape, because out-of-wedlock sex always leads to pregnancy and ruins lives.

Once again, a Religious Right politician shows he can be a Hypocrite for Jesus — in spite of Jesus’ own clear, unambiguous, explicit orders to his followers never to be hypocritical.

What makes Souder’s resignation even worse, however, is his “I’ve sinned” version of the classic non-apology apology (as transcribed by Fox News, with a cached version):

I sinned against God, my wife and my family by having a mutual relationship with a part-time member of my staff.

In the poisonous environment of Washington, D.C., any personal failing is seized upon, often twisted, for political gain. …

The ideas we advocate are still just and right.

America will survive and thrive when anchored in those values.

Human beings, like me, will fail, but our cause is greater than individuals.

It is based upon eternal truths.

Gee, I dunno … a sitting Congressman who advocates forcing Puritanical behavior on American adolescents, having an extramarital affair and thus engaging in incredibly hypocritical — and therefore thoroughly non-Christian — behavior, while at the same time claiming to be a warrior in a “right” and “holy” cause which is inarguably and incontrovertibly true, for all eternity … doesn’t seem like some tiny little thing that’s being “twisted for political gain.” It seems, instead, like a very serious personal moral collapse! It also suggests that, perhaps, these “eternal truths” somehow aren’t quite “true” enough to get people who claim to hold them, to actually obey them.

What a creep. Good riddance.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: affair, christian right, extramarital affair, extramarital sex, gop, house of representatives, hypocrisy, hypocrite, hypocrite for jesus, hypocrites, mark souder, religious right, republican, republican party, republicans, resign, resignation, resigns, sex, washington DC

Virginia’s attorney general recently had an attack of zealous Puritanical prudishness, which caused him to try to modify his state’s seal. The Norfolk (VA) Virginian-Pilot reports on his efforts to change it (WebCite cached article):

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli apparently isn’t fond of wardrobe malfunctions, even when Virginia’s state seal is involved.

The seal depicts the Roman goddess Virtus, or virtue, wearing a blue tunic draped over one shoulder, her left breast exposed. But on the new lapel pins Cuccinelli recently handed out to his staff, Virtus’ bosom is covered by an armored breastplate.

When the new design came up at a staff meeting, workers in attendance said Cuccinelli joked that it converts a risqué image into a PG one.

Here is the only image of the Cuccinelli’s proposed new seal that I could find, courtesy of the Virginian-Pilot, so please pardon the small size:

Note that the goddess Virtus is not only now clothed, she is armored — as in, ready to march off to war. It’s eerily reminiscent of my characterization of a Religious Right group (the FRC) as making themselves into Crusaders ready to go to war, in Jesus’ name, against the vile forces of secularism. I wonder if Virginia’s A.G. is a member of said organization, and if so, perhaps he views himself and his commonwealth as being Crusaders in the cause of Jesus Christ?

The Virginia state seal is, in any event, quite old … it dates to around the same time that the U.S. was founded. So it seems odd that, well over 2 centuries later, some Puritanical nutcase decides to object to it as “too revealing.”

I expect Cuccinelli is aware his move will be ridiculed, as this isn’t the first time something like this has happened:

If the jokes start to fly, Cuccinelli can’t say he didn’t see it coming, [U. of Va. political scientist Larry] Sabato said – not after what happened in 2002, when U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered drapes installed to cover partially nude statues at the Justice Department. “Ashcroft had one excuse: it hadn’t been done before and he wasn’t prepared for the critical onslaught that he faced,” Sabato said. “Cuccinelli has no excuse at all. He knows what’s coming because of what happened to Ashcroft. You can only conclude that he enjoys being the center of pointless controversy.”

He was, in short, appealing to his peeps … i.e. the Religious Right which now controls Virginia, after the 2009 elections. I’m sure they’ll slobber over him for having done this, for having struck a blow for Christ against those wicked secularists.

But that only forces me to ask why he’d bother leaving a Roman goddess on the seal at all? What about the First Commandment, Ken? Or did you forget about it in your zeal to make Virtus more military?

P.S. If Virginia is a commonwealth, why is its seal referred to, by the media, as a “state” seal? Just wondering out loud.

Hat tip: Skeptics & Heretics Forum at Delphi Forums.

Tags: christian right, commonwealth of virginia, gop, ken cuccinelli, prudish, prudishness, religious right, republican, state seal, virginia, virginia state seal, virtue, virtus

State representative Leo Berman, who hails from — where else? — Texas, has declared that President Barack Obama is a “punishment” that God has chosen to inflict on the country. The remarks were part of a massive Texas confab of blathering mindless religionists, as the Tyler (TX) Morning Telegraph reports (locally cached version):

Berman told the crowd, “I believe that Barack Obama is God’s punishment on us today, but in 2012, we are going to make Obama a one-term president.”

I guess this places Obama in the company of such other notable “scourges of God” as Attila the Hun (of whom this phrase, in its Latin form of Flagellum Dei, was originally used) and Timur “the Lame” (in his famous two-part play about him, Christopher Marlowe had Timur assign himself this appellation).

The rest of the Telegraph story is about these insipid Religious Rightists worshipping at the altar of Glenn Beck. Yes, in spite of scriptural admonitions against idolatry. (After all, Christians could hardly be bothered actually to obey the words of God himself?)

Update: A participant at my Skeptics & Heretics Forum made an excellent observation about this:

I mean, if Obama is punishment from God and they were the ones running the country BEFORE he got elected, what should that tell them about the way they were running the country?

Zing! The Religious Right … which owned the White House at the time Obama was elected … must have been the targets of God’s wrath!

Hat tip: Skeptics & Heretics Forum at Delphi Forums.

Photo credit: Huffington Post.

Tags: attila the hun, barack obama, christian right, glenn beck, gop, idolatry, leo berman, obama, religious right, republican, republicans, rick perry, scourge of god, tea party, timur lenk, timur the lame

The nation’s apparent religionist-in-chief has declared the United States “a Christian nation.” The Washington Post Under God blog reports on her claim (WebCite cached article):

In a speech last week, Sarah Palin promoted belief in God as a form of patriotism, dismissed notions that “America isn’t a Christian nation,” and denounced a federal judge’s ruling that it’s unconstitutional for government to declare a National Day of Prayer.

“God truly has shed his grace on thee — on this country. He’s blessed us, and we better not blow it. And that’s why I talk about politics,” Palin told the 16,000-member choir at a Women of Joy conference in Louisville, Ky., last Friday.

“Lest anyone try to convince you that God should be separated from the state, our founding fathers, they were believers,” she continued. “Hearing any leader declare that America isn’t a Christian nation . . . It’s mind-boggling to see some of our nation’s actions recently, but politics truly is a topic for another day.”

Mrs Palin, of course, is alluding here to Barack Obama, who — as the Post explains — didn’t actually say what she suggests he said:

Palin’s reference to “any leader” was a clear reference to President Obama, who in a 2006 speech said, “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation — at least not just — we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers.”

Those comments — especially the truncated sound bite “We are no longer a Christian nation” — were deployed across the Web to depict presidential candidate Obama as a non-Christian or an anti-Christian.

Once again Mrs Palin displays an astounding penchant for not letting facts get in the way of a sanctimonious diatribe.

The Religious Right’s continual mantra that “the U.S. is a Christian nation” has, of course, one ramification, if taken to its logical conclusion: That every American must be a Christian. To this, I say — to Mrs Palin and to any other ardent Christian who believes as she does — as the godless agnostic heathen that I am: Go ahead. Make me a Christian. Please. By all means, give it your best shot, and don’t hold anything back.

How Mrs Palin — or anyone else — goes about this, will tell me everything I need to know about Christianity. And if they refuse to attempt it, this means they’re just going to have to accept that I’m a godless agnostic heathen … and stop demanding that I become a Christian.

It really is that simple.

So, is this truly “a Christian nation”? Are Christians who think so, actually willing to do whatever it takes to make it happen? Time will tell.

P.S. It’s not as though Sarah Palin actually understands what it means to be “Christian” … her command of the teachings of Jesus himself is tenuous, if not non-existent, as I blogged just a little while ago.

Photo credit: Thomas Roche.

Tags: barack obama, christian, christian nation, christian right, Christianity, christians, conversion, convert, gop, louisville, louisville KY, national day of prayer, obama, palin, religious right, republican, republicans, sarah palin, Separation of church and state, socas, united states, united states is a christian nation, US, women of joy