Automobiles and Christians
It seems odd to me that people seem to be concerned with Howard Dean as a secular president. This because he doesn't want to talk about religion. I read recently where Dean is caving to the pressure and will be more open about his beliefs, more so if he makes it to a general election. Honestly, I don't see why it matters.
For one thing, Dean is campaigning to be President of the United States, not the Pope. In the United States we have this thing about separating church and state so a leaders religious views should, it would seem to me, be less important than his political views. Does he go to church every Sunday or does he favor lower taxes? What does church going have to do with anything? George Washington didn't attend church much. (According to one biographer, he was doing good to sit in on a service three times in a year.) Thomas Jefferson had no use for religion, but had a abiding belief in God. We revere these men as wise and even heroic. Sleeping in a garage doesn't make you a car. Going to church doesn't make you a Christian.
Dean's attempts to speak about religious matters have been awkward at best. So he has only a vague idea about religious dogma. So what? Bill Clinton was Southern Baptist. He could talk the talk, but I don't think anyone could say he walked the walk and keep a straight face. JFK was Catholic, but his womanizing is not only undisputed, it's legendary. So are the American people saying all our president needs is to appear religious? Doesn't that fly in the face of the right's own (heavily Christian) religious traditions? "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness." That's the New Testament, Matthew 23:27, for those of you not familiar with The Bible.
I could perhaps understand a desire to have the leader of our country acknowledge a power higher than himself. A megalomaniac certainly isn't the type of person one wants running one's country. Just ask an Iraqi. On the other hand, let's take a look at a few historical figures who professed religious convictions:
Pope Nicolas V - In 1455, Pope Nicholas V congratulated King Alfonso of Portugal for his conquest of Guinea and expressed his hope that "...many...negroes, taken by force, ...or by other lawful contract" would be "converted to the faith." He also authorized King Alfonso "to invade, search out, capture, vanquish and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, ... and to reduce their persons to slavery." This papal bull was the basis for the displacement and subjugation of Native Americans in the U.S. 400 years later.
King Ferdinand V of Spain - Ferdinand decided that his country needed unity and that unity could be achieved through religious hegemony. Thus began the infamous Spanish Iquisition. He began by driving out Jews, Protestants and other "unbelievers." It is believed that some 2,000 Spaniards were executed in the first 15 years of the inquisition's history. Originally authorized by Pope Sextus IV in 1478, the Catholic Church later tried to intervene, but was unsuccessful. The Inquisition's history spans over 300 years, finally ending in 1834.
William Stoughton - Appointed by Governor Phips of Massachusetts, Stoughton presided over the now famous Salem Witch Trials. Stoughton had a degree in theology, but no legal education of any kind. During the trials, many questionable courtroom practices were allowed including the allowing of spectral evidence against the accused. Twenty people were executed and four more died in prison during the year long investigations of 1692.
For my part, I'd be much more comfortable with a President who keeps his religious beliefs private instead of parading them about for the world to see. It's not what a man says that makes the difference in the end, it is what he does. "By their fruits ye shall know them." Sorry. I don't remember who said that.