"Nothing is more normal than the invocation of God in our public life." / / Nothing was more normal in Imperial Rome either, so what's your point? That politicians throughout the ages have used appeals to God(s) as a cynical tool in their efforts at persuasion, manipulation, and oppression? / / In the name of 'God' untold millions have been killed throughout history, and more millions more are marginalized and murdered today. Alas, dropping one word from a party's platform won't change that, but it will signal that they are at least trying to remove that superstitious rationalizations and justifications from their public discourse.

The bible was one of the most readily available pieces of literature in Colonial Times. It supplied the metaphors to describe decisions and the mood of the people. If Benjamin Franklin, a deist, used the word "providence" in his writing it was not to invoke some godly inspiration. It was a metaphor for wisdom. Many of Lincoln's aphorisms contained religious language but he was not a religious man. Again he was using the force of such words to make a point. "God must have loved the common man, he made so many of them." Even in his second inaugural he invokes Godly language to make a point, stating that when 2 sides pray to God for their victory, they are committing a folly. He returns quickly to the human condition that if a behavior(he called it a "woe") is leading to suffering then it is the work of fellow human beings to relieve it or face dire consequences. Of course he was talking about slavery. So Jeff one has to understand the allegorical nature of using such language. Religion was not any guiding light on how to govern. We came together in a society to improve our lives and in doing so it is a corollary that human suffering is to be diminished and human achievement promoted. Our form of government is dependent on the fact that the rules serve the many and no one should feel social discomfort because of their government or religion. Your implied writing today reveals your theocratic view of the State of Israel. Lincoln's words in the second inaugural, one of our wisest leaders, is a warning as to the strict limits of religious practices in running our government. It is sad in 2012 we still have not heeded his prescriptive words.

This column should be Exhibit A when Mr. Jacoby is tried for journalistic malfeasance. Nowhere - NOWHERE! - does he mention the sheer vulgarity of recent intrusions of religious belief into the public discourse, much less theology's pernicious, retrogressive pressure on public policy. Has Jacoby never heard of creationism/'intelligent design' - the bald attempt to insinuate primitive origin stories into the teaching of science in public schools? How about lifesaving stem cell research grinding to a halt over the purely metaphysical belief that the few cells of a budding zygote have a 'soul'? Has Jacoby examined the Republican platform, in which 'god' is not merely mentioned but serves as the rationale for more than one of the party's positions? The Democratic omission of 'god' would not have been an issue, and Jacoby wouldn't have been able to get away with submitting this column, if it weren't for the undue influence evangelicals and other religionists exert on our elected officials. This tension has long existed in American politics, of course, but the tired old references to the Founding Fathers are nothing but a red herring. Does anyone really think that these men - who were among the brightest, most intellectually acute and forward-thinking of their generation! - would hew to childish nonsense (evolution is wrong/the Earth is 6000 years old/hurricanes and AIDS are divine retribution) if they were alive today? 

Like the founding fathers I have no problem with the idea of God and like the founding fathers I have no love for religion.  This is where Mr. Jacoby and his ilk lie to the public and to themselves.  The founding fathers often referenced the "creator" they also spoke dismissively of religion.  It is not the imposition of the idea of God into the public conversation it is the imposition of religion into the public conversation that is the problem.  It is the pious preaching of those who say they know what God is thinking because their religion has the answer.  Belief in something greater than ourselves can for some people be an important guidepost for compassionate thinking.  Belief in the absolute truth of a specific religion leads to intolerance, bigotry and violence.  So lest anyone be fooled even most atheists and agnostics have no problem with God, if you wish to call it that, what they, what I fear is religion.

If Romney is elected will the dinnerware in the White House be "golden plates"?

Jeff Jacoby's body of work during his tenure at the Globe are a testament to the fact that morality and religion are two entirely separate concepts. One can be very religious with hardly any morality and one can be very moral without being the least bit religious. Millions of Americans choose to love in a country where the governing document (The Constitution of the United States, not the bible or the torah) states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion and that their understanding of the truth that the concept of god is a man-made fiction carries equal weight under the law.

This simple concept completely and utterly eludes Jacoby.

Religion  will always "work" better for a person like King because the religious message matched what he was attempting to do politically. (Even though he wasn't technically a politician).

Actually helping out your brother instead of figuring out sneaky and esoteric ways of cheating him with banking rules, insurance rules, voting rules etc. is going to make more sense in the long run with respect to justifying religion in the public sphere.

Republicans run aground with their religious message because they have too much worship of the individual with all of this "superior morality of democratic markets" Ayn Rand stuff, and the exclusion of all of the hundreds of religious beliefs out there that run counter to their twisted view of Christianity.

ARTICLE STATES, "Religious Americans these days may be more likely to vote Republican." When author refers to religious Americans, is he referring to those who adhere to Christianity and Judaism or to any religion including Islam, Hinduism, etc? Hopefully it's the latter. Otherwise, one would need to change his/her religion to become a Republican. Having said that, I wonder how many religious Americans who aren't Christian or Jewish are affiliated with the Republican party. 

Jacoby really needs to read "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" for a more objective view as to whether God or religion has some kind of monopoly on moral behavior. History shows it is often just the opposite. If he wants state-sponsored religion, he'll have to choose a different country.

If religion makes government better, then feudalism is the best form of government.

There are just two bsic approahces to problem solving. 1) the application of intelligence and critical thinking; 2) pray to God. 1) seems to get better results. Of course, you could always pray to God to grant you intelligence and critical thinking. 

"If religion makes government better, then feudalism is the best form of government."

And, if that's true, then I guess JJ would have to agree that Iran has the best government around today.

Sectarian religion in politics is bad for everyone because it's nearly always an attempt to restrict the freedom of of non-believers or those in other sects. God doesn't mean the same thing to everyone.

I see nothing wrong with references to a generic god, but I can't see much good in it either. A generic god stands for nothing. It's just meaningless window dressing. "In God we trust" on money is somehow reassuring to some, similar to restricting bar hours on Sunday, but if it wasn't there, few would miss it.

Of course, he neglects to mention the multitude of relgious denominations such as the largest baptist denomination in the world, that used religion to justify segregation.  That aside, presumably even the writer of this article understands the difference between private organizations and individuals making relgious arguments in support of policies and the GOVERNMENT using religion to enforce its policies.

This is exactly why I am an Independent! God help AMERICA.

Religion and "faith" have nothing to do with each other. Do watching a Hollywood movie and feeling verious emotions mean that you have "faith" that what is presented is real and factual?

If a politician is a person of faith, then that politician will find the practice of that faith personally enriching. It has no bearing on politics.