Huh. I thought “pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right” was a bad thing…….

I would hardly put him in the “Secular” category, except when it is defined to mean not having a state religion.

In the Reasonableness Locke considered what it was to which all Christians must assent in faith; he argued that the answer could be found by anyone for themselves in the divine revelation of Scripture alone. He maintained that the requirements of Scripture were few and simple, and therefore offered a basis for tolerant agreement among all Christians, and the promise of peace, stability, and security through toleration.

And-

These different strands cannot be understood properly in isolation from each other: so the broader aim of this edition is to help towards an improved understanding of his religious thought in the context of his work as a philosopher, political theorist, and exponent of religious toleration.

John Locke

He was the heir to a Christian tradition, it was through the church received an education, and he was not opposed to Christianity, but to authoritarianism.

“I admire the Islam” indeed.

Especially the helpful hints in Sura 9:5-

“…slay the infidels wherever you find them, take them captive, beseige them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush…”

-right John?

People just choose not to mention the Greco-Roman roots and the influence of the W.European secular Enlightenment.

Syndic Nuruodo on October 1, 2007 at 4:10 PM

Obviously the Greek example of Democracy played a part by planting the seeds of an idea, but that experiment didn’t last too long, did it?

As for the W.European secular Enlightenment, I hope you don’t mean to include John Locke in that category. Just out of curiosity, who are you referring to exactly?

It did not exist at the time of our founding fathers. To hear the way it is justified to trash our sovereignty and plain common sense – our founders would have torn her down!

It is turning out to be a Trojan horse. I say we build a new statue and put a sign on it that says “send us your everybody, especially criminals”. Then we should send it to France.

Buy Danish on October 1, 2007 at 2:23 PM

All very good points.

I am not speaking of faith, but of traditions that we have all benefited from, regardless of our personal faith, or lack of it.

Obviously the Enlightenment influenced men like Jefferson, but that alone was not enough to create this Country which is unique in the world. Men like Governor John Winthrop and Governor Bradford also had an undeniable influence on our nation’s character, and Paine recognized the Puritan’s belief that America was a God-given refuge from tyranny in the pages of Common Sense.

In so far as carrying on Judeo-Christian traditions, I actually agree with McCain

In these videos McCain comes across as not believing very much of what he is saying. He looks pained by the pandering, but he really really wants to be the POTUS.

It is interesting how candidates are pressed to speak to the Judeo-Christian foundations of the country, but don’t often speak to the Enlightenment’s influence—most prominently Locke and Paine. Enlightenment thinkers were often in contention with monarchs and the church over the issue of limiting state power, and in the case of Locke using the concept of natural law as a justification for overthrowing a government.

While the Christianity had been around for some 1600 years at that point, there were important philosophical developments in the two centuries before 1776 that were essential to the founders’ thinking. Some of those developments were challenged, rather than supported, by the churches.

I still get angry at the image of Bill Clinton (at the height of zippergate) emerging from church waving his Bible like some sort of a prop with Jesse Jackson in tow. Little did I know at the time that “Reverend” Jackson was attempting to keep his mistress quiet about the existence of yet another bastard child. Christianity doesn’t condemn sinners but it doesn’t support using the faith as a photo-op either!

I simply don’t see faith as being a huge issue in 2008 and if it has any importance at all it will be in the GOP primaries. Among the Democrats you’ve got Hillary who seemingly has no faith but, more importantly, Obama’s faith history is so shady and so suspect the MSM will not bring up faith as an issue so long as he is poised to be on the ticket. Far too many unanswered questions about madrassas, Islamic relatives, and Obama’s middle name for faith to be an issue.

Sorry, train left and you weren’t on it…looks like you take the midnight train to loserville.

Allahpundit has a better chance of winning the nomination than Ron Paul.

Will AP then allow himself to be imaged? It’s hard to vote for a person you can’t see.

AP, if you win, I think Michelle would be the perfect nominee for the head of Homeland Security.

I define those “traditions” as the ideals of liberty enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, and codified in our Constitution and Bill of Rights – not to mention the cultural traditions our country has observed over the Centuries.

Now let’s not exaggerate. Allahpundit has a better chance of winning the nomination than Ron Paul.

And Allahpundit is at least 60-65% less crazy.

He’s going down, down, down! Stick a fork in his campaign already. Hell, Ron Paul is doing better than him.

mram on October 1, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Now let’s not exaggerate. Allahpundit has a better chance of winning the nomination than Ron Paul.