Secondly, there would be no Christmas message on National Television from Huckabee, Guiliani, Romney or any other candidate if they were not running for office. Therefore to contend, that these are holiday messages is almost ridiculous – nor is it about their convictions. These messages were clearly designed to inform the Christian right neo-consevatives, that they weren’t afraid to stand up and wear their “Christian values” as it were, regardless of the diversity of the electorate. These ads were paid for by the campaigns.

These were not Christmas or faith relevant ads, despite the settings or theatrics. One doesn’t need to spend millions of dollars to wish a television audience a blessed Christmas. In fact, many acts of ransom kindness and charity could have been a much better use of the millions of dollars without anyone taking credit. Now that would be a Christian or for that matter, a generally faithful Holiday message.

Sorry, these were political ads that have a created an argument that doesn’t exist. There is no distinction necessary except the fact that these candidates didn’t go as far as to dress up in short skirts and spike heels and cruise the docks. That whirring sound you hear is Madison spinning in grave as though he were on a runaway rotisserie.

It is an important distinction.

Two things.

No reinvention necessary. A lot of serious minds consider that such a separation was the original intent of the writers of the First Amendment. And this analysis is by no means recent. May I point you to Madison’s famous Remonstrance against Religious Assessments as one such document from that era.

Faith, the possession or lack of it, has nothing to do with analysis of how the Establishment Clause is to be taken. Co-religionists can come to opposite conclusions on this.

If one’s religion is used as a marketing tool, or vote-getter, than is it not fair game for that most American of political discourse, critical humor? Professor Turley’s was very gentle (and indeed, even-handed)as such go….

For one, this was a Christmas ad. Huckabee is a Christian. I would have absolutely no problem with Lieberman putting up an ad at Hanukkah time about remembering that the holiday is about how God sustained his people or Moses or something like that. He wants, at Christmas time, to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ.

Also, to call George W. Bush the most Christian candidate…that is the candidate making his faith the biggest part of his campaign…is wrong. Actually, the way you put it, that he is the candidate to make the most “faith-based appeals” is inherently and obviously wrong. Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, etc…all of these candidates made at a minimum a comparable number of such appeals, and the majority of them ran their campaign on their faith. I would argue that Bush did not do that. Also, if I remember correctly, I don’t think the question was “political philosopher,” rather simply “philosopher.” And if you are right, if a political philosopher is defined as someone who thinks and teaches things that are or could be related to politics, as Jesus did, then Bush’s answer is fine.

There is no candidate who has a sounder, both practically and constitutionally, view of religion in politics than Barack Obama.

Finally, I feel as though some use a candidate, particularly a Republican (someone they don’t agree with), talking about his or her faith, as a justification to condemn them because of the more peculiar elements of their theological doctrine. Mormons and their “magic underwear” is a perfect example. Everything the media is attacking Huckabee with is applicable is well.

Faith should be examined, but secularists and people who have reinvented the “separation of church and state” should only critique that which is applicable to policy as noted by the candidate.