R&G ADDENDUM

Most bloggers who post an opinion blog receive commentaries from readers all too often the writer is "anonymous". Some bloggers chose not to post any of these comments which is their right since their blog is private and not public platform for free speech. Others will post most, rejecting only those that may cross the line into libel or vulgarity.

Many comments posted are worthy of further discussion but since days may have passed they become ignored. There is also the problem with what to do with the comment received that has nothing in common with the particular blog post to which it is submitted.

I am toying with solutions to these dilemmas. One and I am doing it today with one to Monday's "Religion and Government" is to copy something as part of a new post. The other is a possibility of having a special posting perhaps monthly devoted to readers comments that they would desire further discussion. The mechanics of "U SAID IT" would have to be worked out. I could not post something from anonymous without assuming legal responsibilities, thus there must be a way of my knowing the author while keeping it confidential if so desired.

A "anonymous" wrote "Deep religious conviction is not exclusive to clergy. If one were to expand your apprehensions then everyone imbued with faith would be excluded from public office. Nor does every clergyman seeking office do so with the motivation of converting the population ti his faith. That cerics may come to public office with moral standards inspired by their religion is a reasonable assumption. Those standards of moral conformity are for the most part the same as those endorsed by your friends Madison and Jefferson ( and while a great man in many respects President Jefferson's subversion of Washington's administration was somewhat less than admirable...but who's perfect? ). On the more contentious issues of, say, paying for contraception, abortion, these are issues on which reasonable men may differ irrespective of the genesis of their motivations. I see (far less trivial the) "threat" from having clergy in office than the threat from lay extremists on both sides of the spectrum" ( I added the words in blue)

The writer is absolutely right religious zealots could be a danger in office but Articled VI does not exclude them. I did not write that I would exclude ministers etc but "I felt that there is an ethical question of bypassing the “separation of Church and State concept”. A Minister, Rabbi, Priest Imam etc are an official representative of an organized religion and would in a public office have great difficult not to practice what they teach.

On the issues of contraception etc. we continue to have restriction on their dispensing written into laws including punishment for those who deliver those services in spite of the law. The so called Obama-care laws with its anti contraception/ anti abortion provisions. The restrictions on Insurance paying for contraceptive material certainly has nothing to do with health care but was a bow to religious dictates. Fortunately this has been deleted. These are examples of religious beliefs being used to defeat the right of individuals of personal choice a right which is given in the Constitution and the Amendments.

Your last statement about the greater danger from radicals from either the far right or left of the political spectrum is true. However, they can be obvious and it would take a complete moral breakdown of the American electorate to put them in power . God (who he) help us if that should happen., The religious leaders impact could be more sinister because few would ever even have any thoughts about their input unless they ran on a platform that proclaim their stance.