This really burns me up:
"Presidential contender Howard B. Dean, who has said little about religion while campaigning except to emphasize the separation of church and state, described himself in an interview with the Globe as a committed believer in Jesus Christ and said he expects to increasingly include references to Jesus and God in his speeches as he stumps in the South.
Dean, 55, who practices Congregationalism but does not often attend church and whose wife and children are Jewish, explained the move as a desire to share his beliefs with audiences willing to listen. His comments came as a rival, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, chastised other Democrats for forgetting ''that faith was central to our founding and remains central to our national purpose.''
The move is striking for a man who has steadfastly kept his personal life out of the campaign, rarely offering biographical information, much less his religious beliefs. But in the Globe interview, Dean said that Jesus was an important influence in his life and that he would probably share with some voters the model Jesus has served for him.
''Christ was someone who sought out people who were disenfranchised, people who were left behind,'' Dean said. ''He fought against self-righteousness of people who had everything . . . He was a person who set an extraordinary example that has lasted 2000 years, which is pretty inspiring when you think about it.''
He acknowledged that he was raised in the ''Northeast'' tradition of not discussing religious beliefs in public, and said he held back in New Hampshire, where that is the practice. But in other areas, such as the South, he said, he would discuss his beliefs more openly."
http://tinyurl.com/3yqgz
It's not that I blame Dean for doing this. Actually, I do. I think it's an atypical cave-in. But I understand why he's doing it. What bothers me more is that we've entered an age where unless a candidate publicly "confesses" his or her religiousity, that candidate is suspected of being a "secularist," or "anti-religion." This goes against the notion, embedded in the Constitution, that there should be no religious test for high office. It's also totalitarian in nature. What's next, are you now or have you even been a secularist? Someone's religous belief, or lack of same, is that person's business and no one else's. They should not be required to "confess" merely because the media or the self-appointed judges of morality believe they should.
It appears that the religious right has won while the founding fathers have lost.