MyFox
 

Charles_Jaco's Blog

by Charles_Jaco from St. Louis

Last Post 134 days, 16 hours Ago


Faith? None of Your %^$#! Business!
Aug 16, 2008 | 1:47 PM
Category: Political
Report This Post

Let's start today's sermon with a quote from the good book, also known as the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article VI, Section 3:

 

"no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States"

 

That seems clear enough. It also seems clear enough that Saturday night's "faith forum" featuring televangelist Rick Warren grilling both John McCain and Barack Obama at Warren's opulent mega-church in California is just that kind of religious test and, therefore, unconstitutional.

 

Disguised as an exploration of the candidate's "character", this televised inquisition is nothing but a spiritual litmus test that goes like this--you can't be moral unless you believe in god and worship regularly. Therefore, since we all want our presidents to be moral, we can only elect people who believe in several thousand year old superstitions.

 

None of this is new. Lawmakers in ancient Greece and Rome were often censured, and sometimes driven from office, for failing to show the proper respect to the gods. They, too, believed that morality was a direct result of believing in the deities. This is just the sort of nonsense the founders hoped to avoid by seperating church and state.

 

According to the American Religious Identification Survey taken by the City University of New York, 14% of Americans are non-believers. That's larger than the American population of Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, Jews, and Muslims combined.

But in this political-religious feeding frenzy, none of those people exist. And the un-American--and dangerous--rationale for ignoring them is that non-believers must be immoral. That, of course, is delusional, but no more so than pandering to voters by appearing as part of Rick Warren's song-and-dance act.

 

"

29 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 29
Page 1 of 2
1
2
 Last
dannbetty read my blog view my photos
Aug 16, 2008 | 7:18 PM

The operative word here is 'required'. Neither of them are required to do this. It is something they agreed to do. Whether they agreed independently, that is, without threat or force from the other is, not known to me. I'm sure some wrangling had to be done, and I'm not sure the questions will be pre-arranged, or screened and approved.
And again the founder's did not separate church and state, the Supreme Court did. Jefferson's opinion was not in the majority of the founding fathers, but was the only vote that counted to the Supreme Court in the year that decision was made.
downtowner read my blog
Aug 16, 2008 | 9:03 PM

I look up that 14 percent in the Time Alamanac
2008 on Religious Adherents United States of America,1900-2005.Just as I thought another statement of facts construe to misrepresent the truth .
Jaco ,don`t you read your own Blogs.
Before you forward me your political E-mail..
Chickenkiller read my blog
Aug 17, 2008 | 8:24 PM

I can't believe this, but this is the second time this year I've actually agreed with Charles Jaco.

While faith is important I'd much rather see it manifested in how one acts as opposed to how someone answers a list of questions. You can come up with the acceptable answers of answering the question, but its hard to fake your actions. IMHO both candidates should have refused the invite, and given that neither had the sense to do so, the media should not have covered the meeting.
jimbobbob read my blog
Aug 17, 2008 | 9:35 PM

Well said Danbetty, you took the words out of my mouth. I watched this debate, and really enjoyed it. McCain wiped out Obama in this debate. I gained respect for McCain, and found him to be decisive and more credible!!



I occasionally watch the Jaco Report, and his bias comes through loud and clear. Typical Liberal drivel!! Here is a challenge for you Mr. Jaco "OBJECTIVE REPORTING"
Mutatis-Mutandis read my blog
Aug 18, 2008 | 12:15 AM

I'm in the Twilight Zone right now, because I actually agree with CK. . .
downtowner read my blog
Aug 18, 2008 | 1:03 AM

chickenkiller.

I agree with your statements , but thats not what I see Jaco blog line is about ..

This is what I think he is saying and I will take it a step farther, there is no God, no Creator just several thousand year old of reliqious superstition ...

If that was true and there were no invisible Creator ,no God , mankind would had to create one , superstition an all, its goes with the times of "the Ages of Men" and being a student of history "we" have done a dam good job of creating one..

The movie is just a better never ending story than the book...

So sat back and enjoy its got one hell of a Ending...We got a couple of new writers

You would not believe what "we" have plan 500 years from now and no ,theres no peeking...

Hey, if Jaco can have his rewrites, I can have mine...
kkmmuurrpphhyy read my blog view my photos
Aug 18, 2008 | 12:19 PM

I don't see the logic in your complaint and I agree with Dan Betty's response.

In addition, so what if 14% of the population are non-believers? The majority of people are believers and would like to hear what the presidential candidates have to say about faith and morality.
mechany144 read my blog view my photos
Aug 18, 2008 | 12:26 PM

We some times make choices by the fact that someone has the same beliefs or values that we have. Neither of them were forced to participate, although they might have been looked on differently if they did not.
Just one more part of the BS that surrounds this campaign. It is starting to get pretty dang funny if you ask me. Comic relief at its best!
dannbetty read my blog view my photos
Aug 18, 2008 | 12:34 PM

Let's end this arguement with a quote from the document that made our Constitution possible.
'All men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator, with certain inalienable rights.'
The 14% that don't believe, are allowed these rights in spite of their disbelief, because it doesn't change the origin of these rights.
Our Creator is not subject to our belief.
kkmmuurrpphhyy read my blog view my photos
Aug 18, 2008 | 2:21 PM

BTW, Jaco and one more, dannbetty. Jaco mentions that this was disguised as an exploration of the candidate's "character". Religious or non-religious beliefs are part of mental and ethical traits, which by definition makes up ones character. His argument is biased and lacking practical significance.
FYI - Merriam Webster On-line Dictionary:
2c: the complex of mental and ethical traits marking and often individualizing a person, group, or nation 2d: main or essential nature especially as strongly marked and serving to distinguish
jimbobbob read my blog
Aug 18, 2008 | 8:34 PM

I want a President with a genuine faith in God. True faith produces good works and moral behavior. What is the big deal? What are we afraid of? Superstition.....there is no other book that can compare to the bible!! The bible has stood the test of time, numerous authors at different times in history reconcile with each other. Archaeologist continue to confirm the accuracy of biblical history.

Now I can agree that there are many False Religions, as prophesied in the bible, but the bible cannot be proven to be a lie!!

Bottom line...both candidates chose to participate, and it was beneficial to the voters. I favor the format in the future, the religious theme is not required, but the format should be!
dannbetty read my blog view my photos
Aug 19, 2008 | 10:12 AM

The more I pass by this blog the more I wonder where Jaco gets his bonafides to call himself a reporter.
He starts with using the unprintable word to express some outrage, I suppose, that someone's constitutional rights are being violated by two people participating in their freedom of speech.
I guess they violate his right not to believe in 'superstitions' by mentioning them or having them mentioned by the mediator of the forum.
He then asserts that people who do have faith are judging the ones (14%) whose view differs, as being immoral.
Jaco, you have a right to blog your opinion as any one else does, but you describe yourself as a reporter. Stick to the basics of who, what, where, and when, you might grow up to be a journalist.
jimbobbob read my blog
Aug 19, 2008 | 5:39 PM

That would be called OBJECIVE REPORTING!!!!
jimbobbob read my blog
Aug 19, 2008 | 5:40 PM

OBJECTIVE......Excuse me
kdubken read my blog view my photos
Aug 19, 2008 | 7:36 PM

You got to be nuts jaco----You can't ban religious people from politics. That is what you are suggesting. All because BO got his butt kicked into next week. Better get some new slants because he is going to let ya down every time he opens his mouth with out a script.
kdubken read my blog view my photos
Aug 19, 2008 | 8:32 PM

By the by a person can go to hell even if he don't believe in it.
memobo read my blog
Aug 20, 2008 | 1:00 PM

Jaco, once again, you're off on the wrong track within the first 3 sentences.

"no religious test shall be required..." The operative word is required. Congress in no way, shape or form demanded that these gentlemen make any announcement on their faith.

These men willingly voiced their religious beliefs in order to garnish votes. That's it, plain and simple they are vying for the religious vote. Politics!

The government had nothing to do with what they did, it was not a requirment it was a choice and we as Americans do have the freedom of choice. That sir is constitutional.

Be a reporter if you can Mr. Jaco, not someone who twists words for his own end. Or, you might consider going into politics.
memobo read my blog
Aug 20, 2008 | 1:02 PM

Jaco, once again, you're off on the wrong track within the first 3 sentences.

"no religious test shall be required..." The operative word is required. Congress in no way, shape or form demanded that these gentlemen make any announcement on their faith.

These men willingly voiced their religious beliefs in order to garnish votes. That's it, plain and simple they are vying for the religious vote. Politics!

The government had nothing to do with what they did, it was not a requirment it was a choice and we as Americans do have the freedom of choice. That sir is constitutional.

Be a reporter if you can Mr. Jaco, not someone who twists words for his own end. Or, you might consider going into politics.
jimbobbob read my blog
Aug 20, 2008 | 2:14 PM

He is a typical liberal reporter. As Gus Hall would say, "they are useful idiots that help advance their (enemy) cause"
statueman read my blog view my photos
Aug 22, 2008 | 6:49 AM

Maybe TD Jakes will offer to hold the next two debates. After that Sung Young Moon maybe... Then we can hold a couple of debates at Bringham Youngs University... Then Oral Roberts University... then Jimmy Swaggarts no no... then Harvard! You know... that first university to accept that debate team like in that movie with the Jack Lynch letter or whatever?
Page 1 of 2
1
2
 Last


Write your comment below:




Charles_Jaco

I'm a reporter for Fox 2 and host of The Jaco Report, seen Saturdays at 6:30 p.m. and Sundays at 8:30 a.m.

Member Since: 9/13/2006


 

View All Photos