One more time:GLENN BECK IS NOT A CHRISTIAN HIMSELF! The tenets of mormonism are incompatible with Christianity. Having said that, a true Christian, one who uses the Bible as an authority of faith will note Paul wrote the Book of Romans where in chapter 13 Christians have a duty to honor secular authorities and back then they were PAGAN. For more see my blog at http://padreallenpsblog.blogspot.com/

Another pertinent reminder: Article 6 of the Constitution of the United States says, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

That includes President Obama.

And regarding civil authorities, the Bible tells Christians:

"Every person should obey the government in power. No government would exist if it hadn't been established by God. The governments which exist have been put in place by God. Therefore, whoever resists the government opposes what God has established. Those who resist will bring punishment on themselves. People who do what is right don't have to be afraid of the government. But people who do what is wrong should be afraid of it. Would you like to live without being afraid of the government? Do what is right, and it will praise you. The government is God's servant working for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid. The government has the right to carry out the death sentence. It is God's servant, an avenger to execute God's anger on anyone who does what is wrong. Therefore, it is necessary for you to obey, not only because you're afraid of God's anger but also because of your own conscience. That is also why you pay your taxes. People in the government are God's servants while they do the work he has given them. 7Pay everyone whatever you owe them. If you owe taxes, pay them. If you owe tolls, pay them. If you owe someone respect, respect that person. If you owe someone honor, honor that person." (Romans 13:1-7)

"I call on you to make petitions, prayers, intercessions, and prayers of thanks for all people, for rulers and for everyone who has authority over us. Pray for these people so that we can have a quiet and peaceful life always lived in a godly and reverent way. This is good and pleases God our Savior." (1 Timothy 2:1-3)

"Place yourselves under the authority of human governments to please the Lord. Obey the emperor. He holds the highest position of authority. Also obey governors. They are people the emperor has sent to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. God wants you to silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing what is right. Live as free people, but don't hide behind your freedom when you do evil. Instead, use your freedom to serve God. Honor everyone. Love your brothers and sisters in the faith. Fear God. Honor the emperor." (1 Peter 2:13-17)

The apostles Paul and Peter wrote these words while they were living under the rule of the Roman Empire, in which the Caesars were thought of as gods, pagan idolatry was the state religion, the emperors ruled as dictators and the government was persecuting church! Even so, they said the civil authorities were God's servants, whether or not they were Christian, and were to be lawfully obeyed, respected, paid and prayed for. If Paul and Peter can say this about a pagan ruler, then why is there so much disrespect for President Obama among people who describe themselves as Christians -- in a social order where we have not a dictatorship and state-enforced religion, but a democratically elected government of checks and balances, freedom of conscience for all citizens and a constitutional law that says no elected official, including the President of the United States, ever has to pass a religious litmus test to qualify for governing?

Holding a negative attitude against the President over his/her religion doesn't square with biblical teaching or constitutional law, so it's neither good religion nor good patriotism. People would do better to worry as to whether or not they themselves are in fact "Christian enough." How well do those identifying themselves as Christians practice (if they do at all) Jesus' gospel values of selflessness, nonpossessiveness, nonviolence, forgiveness, compassion, nonjudgmental treatment of others and sacrificial generosity to the least valued and most neglected of society? That's the real question we're all going to have to answer before God -- he's not going to ask us about the President.

Gregory Orloff

In one very limited sense, Beck et al have a point. Often we hear about, "issues" especially in campaigns. The truth is I think that issues are not the correct subject.

What I know is that whomever Illinois elects to be senator this Fall, the actual issues that person votes on won't be the ones discussed. Times, controversies, issues change. What will matter is the sort of person and the sort of political philosophy we choose.

To some extent, one's religion or lack of religion contributes to the sort of person and the sort of political philosophy a person brings to the electorate. And that matters.

But(!) saying that is different than saying it is ok for some idiot (cf. Beck) to design a religious test. Rather it means that in coming to understand the whole person it is reasonable to ask her / him how religion is or is not part of their formation. It may be, in fact I consider it likely, that the same religious background can produce different indeed sharply different viewpoints.

Ultimately voters should judge the integrity of the person, the process she/he follows, its reflection of their intellect and ability and the resulting political philosophy. What voters should not do is say, "you are in X theology so you are wrong."

Getting to that understanding may be beyond the simple minded (cf. Beck, Palin et al) but it is where we should point.

Or so it seems to me.

FWIW
jimB

Note to Fr. Peyton,

You and I may not think of LDS as "Christian" but do not forget that is what they think of you. Judging another's faith is perilous!

In any event, any theology or lack of it, may lead to exactly the same poltical conclusions as another.

FWIW
Jim Beyer (added by ed.)

The United States is not a theocracy (at least yet). And, if we were, that religion would be highly unlikely to resemble anything with which most Episcopalians would be comfortable. As a woman and a fan of Jefferson and Adams (who though religious was primarily a child of the enlightenment), I can only say that the thought of a theocratic US is frightening. It is only the true believers who want the comfort of rigid rules to replace the uncertainty of reason.

I care what a leaders driving passions are. A leader who values justice over individualism will be a far different leader than one who believes the reverse. That is far more important to me than how they choose to define themselves religiously. The fact the Franklin Roosevelt and George HW Bush were both Episcopalians shows me that religious identification is not a particularly useful gauge for understanding the philosophy of a potential leader.

If there is a criticism of President Obama for me, it is not that I don't know what his religious views are - it is that I cannot figure out what his driving passion is.

Pam Alger