Wow, had no idea you were so anti-religion. I can quit reading now; that's a help, actually, since I already don't have time to read everything I would like to.

[Btw, the constitution is a magnificent document, but it's for structuring a gov't, not one's life.]

BRAVO! And that, in a nutshell, is what is REALLY meant by the separation of church & state. I don't need anyone to legislate my morals or my ethics, thank you very much. Very well-said.

Amen, Bob. Regarding the last 2 paragraphs, I like your statements about political leadership. I'm afraid, however, that those who aspire (conspire) to lead us have no such agenda. It's a much shorter path: lying to the entire country about what they believe and as little personal responsibility as they can get away with. Grab the cash and power for as long as you can BS the public, and write a book when the other cash cow runs out. Come to think on it, corporate "leadership" does the same dance......

ScottPletcher says that the constitution is for structuring a government, not a life. That is precisely the point. I want our political "leaders" to structure our government, NOT my life.

If I see Bob Lewis on the ballot next year, I'm pulling the lever.

We are living in one country (joint) that needs, first and foremost, to "get running" before it can be kept running. And ignoring the original precepts that our country was founded on will not get us anywhere. Sectarian violence the world over should have shown us the error of clutching onto faith statements instead of working with the values that we already have the framework for. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a great place to start. Therein lays a good reason why the U.S. was once very well respected globally.

I nominate you, Bob. I know that you can get us back on course.

"Those who have gone the "do the right thing" route generally invoked a general-purpose deity as the authority that justifies their values, imagining that all religions teach the same values. This is a notion that is emphatically not the case. Worse, their invocation of their deity (and denomination) can and sometimes did offend those who worship differently."
Re: ScottPletcher's comment
This does not strike me as anti-religious. Rather, I see it as an uncommonly candid and cogent observation about how some people behave. There is no assertion that there is no deity or that any religion is wrong. Just the observation that religions can be different enough that one can offend the sensibilities of another.

And, you seem to miss the obvious fact that a politician is supposed to be structuring government and not structuring our lives.

I certainly do not need a politician to interpret the Bible for me.

Since the US Declaration of Independence and US Constitution are the easiest to identify of the founding documents of our "American Experiment", that is, the U. S. of A., I would wholeheartedly vote for a person who declared and governed according to the Constitution.

Neither Democrats or, lately, Republicans pay any attention to the Constitution. They have their own supra-constitutional agendas and are governing in opposition to the founding documents. (For instance, the "spoils system" that is now in place displayed the practice of competency. The Federal government replaced states with regions. Income taxes joined user taxes. Taxpayers replaced Citizens. And on and on.)

It would be nice if all the founding documents of our "American Experiment" would be included but I would be satisfied with the two I mentioned above.

The Constitution presents a culture that is user and religion friendly whereas our current culture is exploitive of its people, religious and moral underpinnings, and Christianity.

Religion is a nice way to run ones life, but not always the best way to run a business. Bob, keep on keeping on. I like the way you think.

Bob wrote "political leaders pointed to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution and said, "These are the values through which I will lead this country."
I would interpret that as the way they would run the government, not their (and my) personal lives
Too bad you can't vote for GW again next election Scott.

Unfortunately, your last full paragraph proves the futility of your argument. The last decade or two have seen special interests dismantle what the Declaration of Independence and Constitution declared by divorcing them from the founding document (the Bible) and objective authority (God) upon which they were based. Our founding documents are now perverted to support values, actions, and attitudes which would have been abhorrent to their authors -- because we are no longer allowed to appeal to the authority upon which they were constructed.

Besides ... without objective authority, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are merely the opinions of a small group of American males -- why are they any better than the opinions of a small group of Iranian males?

I don't see anything in Bob's article that says he is anti religion. I see that he has an objection to flaunting ones personal personal religious beliefs as a banner to prove ones moral superiority. (instead of them remaining PERSONAL.)

I think he was quite clear that a public political personality should express political beliefs instead of sectarian beliefs. They are supposed to work for everyone regardless of their personal religious feelings. Using a religious belief to make yourself appear better then someone else is unconscionable.

Hmmm, there are no ethical absolutes?

Is it right for me to:
- Kill baby humans for sport?
- Take anything I want that without paying?
- Rape women?
- Cheat on my wife?
- Tell others you do all the above?

Now you may find those who would say yes to some, but not if it was done to them.

Dead-on again. The Constitution shows you how to life your life in conjunction with other people living theirs. Religion just claims it has how to live your life personally, but doesn't have any objective truth. Kill the infidel, no forgive him.
Similar to Libertarianism. Those folks despise the United Nations--the only actual libertarian org in the world (if they pass a resolution, you don't have to care about it). The reason they hate it is because they want _everyone_ to believe the same thing they do. Just like religion.
The Constitution shows us how to start getting along without requiring us to share a complete belief system ahead of time.

You are supposed to take responsibility for your actions and stand by your convictions (i.e. personal values).

Politicians never take responsibility and have no convictions unless they can't find anyone to pardon them.

As long as a business's values are not based on any objective absolute, why should I think they're going to adhere to them when the going gets tough?

If all moral codes (yes, business values are moral codes) are relative "choices", why should a business continue to hold to one particular one when it will hurt their bottom line, make them "look bad", or etc.?

Amazing article and comments. Seems that everyone just skated by the obvious. Trading one set of values for another. Why would using the declaration of independence or the constitution as a moral compass be any better or worse than using the bible or other set of values? Were the authors more inspired? Do you suggest we put our faith in the goodness, rightness or the intellegence of the authors of these documents? This is proof of the ability of people to stick their heads in the sand (or somewhere else) and blindly follow what someone else came up with as "guiding values". No wonder we are in the mess we are in.

We must dance with those we disagree with, including those that we regard at mythical but others regard as real. To dismiss centuries of the world's joint religions and the millions of diverse minds that reflected on them and then revere some mythical figures and events of American history seems far too casual. The makers of the Constitution were dancing to the tune of ideas around them--with religion frequently a part of the music. To deny the need to continue to do so now is unwise. Do you think our voices will be calling the tunes for the generations that come after?

Re: M. Marvinski - I don't see Bob advocating a "blindly follow" approach to anything. My personal, subjective belief is that the value of these texts - whether sacred/religious (e.g., the Bible) or secular/political (e.g., the U.S. Constitution) - rests not with the fallible human individuals who authored them, but rather with how well they help the rest of us fallible human individuals to function in groups of various types and sizes. Religion and politics will always interpenetrate, and we are an ongoing experiment to discover better ways to manage that phenomenon. It may be worth recalling here that (as Bob has pointed out in a different context) to optimize the performance of the whole entails sub-optimizing the performance of the parts.

Dana J:

Regarding "... without objective authority, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are merely the opinions of a small group of American males -- why are they any better than the opinions of a small group of Iranian males?"

That's a cop-out. You're attempting to marginalize the accomplishments of an inspired, and inspiring group. It's not just any random group of American males versus any random group of Iranian males. Billions of people in countries around the world (not just American) admire and wish to emulate the behaviour and works of the U.S Founding Fathers.

Just look at the relative accomplishments of the U.S. versus Iran. Adjust for size. Look at literacy, public health measures, lifespan, human rights, income levels, due process, citizen's ability to influence government, public discourse, the whole gamut. The U.S. is way ahead.

In fact, compare Iran to any other country of it's size if you wish. Iran does not look particularly good in that comparison. And it's not due to lack of culture, or history, or resources, or passion, or energy.

The plain fact is that the U.S. has, along with other First World countries, figured out that certain governmental concepts provide long-term (indeed perpetual) benefits to the population. Other concepts drag a country down. So do you want more success in your world, or less?

M. Marvinski : "Why would using the declaration of independence or the constitution as a moral compass be any better or worse than using the bible or other set of values?"

Is that what Bob said he'd do? Let's see ...

Bob Lewis: "My personal preference, not that it's relevant to the discussion, would be that ... instead of pointing to the Bible, political leaders pointed to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution and said, 'These are the values through which I will lead this country.'"

He's not saying anyone should use the Constitution as a moral compass. He said it's the way to run the country. Use whatever source you want for the moral compass that guides your life. Bob didn't have anything to say about that.

Some people would rather live at war than live in peace with people who hold different beliefs. This country's founding documents express the belief that "all men are created equal". That is supposed to be the guiding principal of this country.

Brian: 1st, understand that "... without objective authority, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are merely the opinions of a small group of American males -- why are they any better than the opinions of a small group of Iranian males?" is not intended to demean our founding fathers. Rather it puts in stark relief the dependence on an absolute moral authority in order to evaluate their accomplishments. If you ask the "group of Iranian males" what opinion they have of the US' accomplishments, they (that is the government leadership, not a random sampling) would not agree with your assessment.

In fact, your entire argument is based on the belief that "literacy, public health measures, lifespan, human rights, income levels, due process, citizen's ability to influence government, public discourse" are the most important qualities to use when evaluating a government. Unless you can appeal to some absolute standard, I can easily dismiss your claim of US supremacy by appealing to the rate of violent crime, the average time from arrest to imposition of sentence, the stability of government (ours keeps changing every 2 to 4 years), strong ideoligical cooperation among the people.

Let me clarify, I agree that the US has the best government devised. However, the US' continued pre-eminence is predicated on an understanding that there are absolute truths undergirding our constitution. Abandoning not only those beliefs, but the idea that any belief can be absolute will inevitably lead to anarchy.

If you question the existence of absolute truth, spend whatever time you need to convince yourself, that you can float and then step out the second story window of your home. I think the injuries to body will provide overwhelming evidence that some things are true (the earth's gravity pulls you) no matter what opinion you have of them.

"However, the US' continued pre-eminence is predicated on an understanding that there are absolute truths undergirding our constitution. Abandoning not only those beliefs, but the idea that any belief can be absolute will inevitably lead to anarchy."

When ones values are based on reflection and thoughtful consideration, those values can be just as strongly held as the beliefs of people convinced they know "absolute truth". But values can be reevaluated in the light of new information. This isn't anarchy, it's reason.

Besides, all sides in the middle east bloodbath firmly believe they are acting in service of "absolute truth". All but one side has to be wrong, and it could be that all of them are. I don't see how the current situation is worse than anarchy.

As for your floating out the window strawman, I don't see anyone claiming that something is true because they believe it. What I see people saying is, "Because I believe this to be true, this is how I will act."

This is a really good article!!!!!!! One of the best by far.

It's not anti-religious nor anti-government as some seem to think, although it may appear so by those who are locked into their ideology instead of thinking things through.

Keep up the good work Bob!