You know what's interesting is that faith is always involved in politics, it's just not always a Christian faith. If you think about it, even those who are secular humanists, they are importing their secular humanist faith and religion and morality and imposing it on everybody else through the laws that they make. So the idea of faith in government is inescapable; it's always going to be somebody's faith, even if it's faith in atheism.
Even the most ardent atheist has faith that there is no God - and that's a blind faith; you have to ignore all of the evidence - but he nevertheless holds his position by faith and that faith informs his decisions. So don't let anyone ever tell you that faith doesn't belong in politics because you can't get away from it even if your faith is atheism.
It's just a question of which is the best faith to have. Do you put your faith in the idea that we all evolved from slime? Or do you put your faith in the revelation that we were created by God in his image and he loves us and has given us a life manual called the Bible?Kirk, I don't consider myself an Atheist, but the collective group is not as monolithic as Christianists like to portray them. All Atheists do not 'have faith' that there is no God, nor do they all deny the existence. Many Atheists simply acknowledge that they don't believe in a God because the overwhelming lack of evidence [in their eyes at least] to confirm the existence of some higher power.
Many sacred books have been penned about many deities, but somehow merely longevity and popularity have reduced the playing field a select few competing candidates, not unlike the current campaign season.....except in this case, the election never takes place.
Kirk's diatribe speaks to the definitions of Positive and Natural laws. His vision of America, where we all abide by his [and others] interpretations of an unprovable deity, is an example of positive laws. He would restrict the actions of American citizens based upon interpretations [there's that word again] of a 2000 year old-ish tome. He is merely one of many who have the unfortunate habit of not only believing that this nation was founded on that tenets of that book, but actively interpose the concepts of liberty and freedom with religious values, irrespective of the belief systems of all Americans. Never mind the fact that two people of the same gender committing their love and loves to each other does not impact another's commitment to an opposite gender partner, Cameron, Barton and their ilk would deny the very privilege bestowed upon other Americans merely because a cherry picked excerpt from Leviticus says so.
Kirk may want to come to terms with not advocating for all portions of God's "Life Manual" to be adhered to by this allegedly Christian nation.