The separation of church and state is BS. The assumptions being made now is that secular beliefs are perfectly fine, but anyone who has religious beliefs is unfit to serve because of this make believe separation of church and state. The constitutions says the congress shall make no LAWS regarding the ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or restricting the free exercise. The separation of church and state folks are pushing it to the extent that basically makes the church of secularism the established government religion and that is NOT what the founding fathers had in mind.

In other words, it doesn't matter if the beliefs are religious or secular, they should be judged strictly on their merits and not...

The separation of church and state is BS. The assumptions being made now is that secular beliefs are perfectly fine, but anyone who has religious beliefs is unfit to serve because of this make believe separation of church and state. The constitutions says the congress shall make no LAWS regarding the ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or restricting the free exercise. The separation of church and state folks are pushing it to the extent that basically makes the church of secularism the established government religion and that is NOT what the founding fathers had in mind.

In other words, it doesn't matter if the beliefs are religious or secular, they should be judged strictly on their merits and not their origins. Fighting against someone's beliefs just because they are based in religion isn't in line with the constitution, it is actually completely against the constitution.

Name one country that has complete separation of church and state.

Ah, complete isn't the point (but China is one, unless you want to define Communism as a religion, Cuba would likely be another, Probably a few African nations...).

The point is that a LEADER should leave his/her religion at the door & do what is right for the country as a whole (ALL of its citizens), and what the large majority of the population wants. If there isn't a large majority then he/she should get as much input on the issue and make a decision based on what they feel is best for the country in the long run, what goes along best with the principles the country was founded on and what would go in lin...

Name one country that has complete separation of church and state.

Ah, complete isn't the point (but China is one, unless you want to define Communism as a religion, Cuba would likely be another, Probably a few African nations...).

The point is that a LEADER should leave his/her religion at the door & do what is right for the country as a whole (ALL of its citizens), and what the large majority of the population wants. If there isn't a large majority then he/she should get as much input on the issue and make a decision based on what they feel is best for the country in the long run, what goes along best with the principles the country was founded on and what would go in line with what others are doing.

Expecting a country like the US or Canada, etc to completely separate Church and state is retarded... at least for now... One of these days people will snap out of it an realize that there is no big fairy in the sky to save them

The point is that a LEADER should...do what is right for the country as a whole (ALL of its
citizens), and what the large majority of the population wants. If
there isn't a large majority then he/she should get as much input on
the issue and make a decision based on what they feel is best for the
country in the long run, what goes along best with the principles the
country was founded on and what would go in line with what others are
doing.

Scan your history books a bit deeper. The United States is not, nor was intended to be, a direct democracy. The founders recognized that mob rule is rarely prudent or of long-range perspective. We elect representives to exercise their be...

The point is that a LEADER should...do what is right for the country as a whole (ALL of its
citizens), and what the large majority of the population wants. If
there isn't a large majority then he/she should get as much input on
the issue and make a decision based on what they feel is best for the
country in the long run, what goes along best with the principles the
country was founded on and what would go in line with what others are
doing.

Scan your history books a bit deeper. The United States is not, nor was intended to be, a direct democracy. The founders recognized that mob rule is rarely prudent or of long-range perspective. We elect representives to exercise their best judgement, not to collect polling data. Whether I agree or disagree with an official, I have more respect for the man who follows his convictions than for the man who simply sticks his finger in the air to test the wind.

Perhaps people are just scared witless, and they are looking for any help they can get. I don't know how they would have been able to phrase the question where the answer would mean much. What is "Religious" supposed to mean ? They want someone who will get their prayers answered. I have as much faith in democracy as statistics, TV ratings, and Pop music charts. So they want god to do their work for them. If a problem is not solved by those that create it, the same mistake will be made again. We have the freedom to make as much mess as we like, if we are responsible enough to clean it up our selves. Politicians should be elected on their talent and open mindedness. Only a fool will elect som...

Perhaps people are just scared witless, and they are looking for any help they can get. I don't know how they would have been able to phrase the question where the answer would mean much. What is "Religious" supposed to mean ? They want someone who will get their prayers answered. I have as much faith in democracy as statistics, TV ratings, and Pop music charts. So they want god to do their work for them. If a problem is not solved by those that create it, the same mistake will be made again. We have the freedom to make as much mess as we like, if we are responsible enough to clean it up our selves. Politicians should be elected on their talent and open mindedness. Only a fool will elect someone because they are going to dictate the way they live, on the grounds that it is an attempt to relieve themselves of personal responsibility. If someone is honest it can become clear without them having to voice their opinions or beliefs, but they can be prepared to defend them if questioned without being prejudiced by the inquiry. I would hate to think there was a politician that didn't believe in anything.