Dr. Al Mohler's most recent post takes on the issue of secularism as the prevailing wind in America's sails. He simply concludes that any secular gust will not last for long and the nation as a secular nation with secular-minded people will not blow us into a fully secularized state.
In this post he takes on the ideology laid out by Katha Pollitt and demonstrates the flawed presuppostions of her position on the matter as it revolves around rational vs the religous.
Here is the quote Mohler cites and deals with in his post:
If we kept religion out of the election campaign, we could just debate the issues, like rational people. After all, which is less likely, that the HIV virus came out of a government lab, or that the dead will rise from their graves? That Israel is on a course that is not likely to end well, or that God wants more West Bank settlements in order to set off a world war and bring on Christ's return? Empirical claims we can discuss and debate like citizens; religious beliefs, by their very nature, claim immunity from rational analysis. When men whose profession is the latter weigh in on the former, why should anyone take them seriously?
As Barack Obama has perhaps belatedly learned, the Democrats had it right the first time: Awesome, blue-state, red-state, whatever -- keep God out of it, and the men who claim to speak for him, too.
You can read more here.
-Do you think Mohler is right or is Pollitt correct? How do you come to your conclusion?
-Do you think that secularism is the future of America?
-Does religion have a say in politics?
-Does politics play a role in religion?
-Do you think that Pollitt is correct in her assumptions about religion harming the Democratic candidates' position as it alienates them from the secular left?