A religious president like Huckabee is the worst thing for this country right now.

Aside from the fact that I don't believe Huckabee will actually win the election based on the nation's disgust with the Republican party and the recent partisan tide in congress.... I'll argue this point... Let's take a look at your first paragraph with one substitution: "It looks like DEMOCRATS will be overwhelmingly more likely to put an extremely religious man into power once again, who is aimed at sending our progress in civil rights, foreign policy, and environmental efforts back into pre-1980's levels." The substitution for Democrats represents Kucinich, who argued for bombing Mecca and Medina if there was another terrorist attack on US soil. The point I make here is that it is not an issue of Democrats vs. Republicans, but rather an issue of Christians vs. Non-Christians in political ideology. Most of the politicians in the United States are Christian (or claim to be - there are undoubtedly a number of closet atheists in Congress). So it would make sense that laws get passed that reflect a Christian ideology. The problem I believe you're trying to identify is that the Single Member Plurality District model we currently use disenfranchises the non-Christian members of the population. I identify 2 main points in your argument - first, that congress passes laws that are dependent on and reflect a Christian ideology, and second, that this constitutes the establishment of Christianity as a national religion. On the first point, the laws congress passes reflect the opinions and desires of the representative's constituents. It just so happens that these constituents are of a Christian PLURALITY - not majority necessarily, but still probably a majority. On top of that, these laws are not dependent on or reflective of Christian ideology - they simply agree with it in much the same was as "The enemy of the enemy is my friend." The laws I believe you argue against have to do with morality. Morality is not a religious construct - it arises out of biological tendencies and basic social contract theory. So in the end - the laws do not in and of themselves benefit a religion - they benefit society. On the second point, this by no means establishes a religion. It simply means that this is the most common religion. In a democracy, the laws will follow the will of the people. The United States is a majority Christian nation - thus, the laws reflect this. It is not establishment at all. In any event, the clause regarding the establishment of religion is to prevent religious persecution. So in order to use that clause in your argument, I think you need to show the persecution of a (major?) religious group before that's a valid argument. And by major, I mean that I don't consider the illegalization of marijuana to be a persecution of Rastafarianists. For your first disclaimer, I think you should provide an example of such a law before I attempt to figure out what you mean by that... As far as a religious president like Huckabee goes... I'm not sure that's actually a bad thing. Granted, I believe the best president for this country would be an atheist president... I would much rather see a religious president like Huckabee in office than a religious president like Kucinich. On average, I believe you could say that religious persons are generally good people. I would view a religious president as less likely to be involved in a scandal than a non-religious president. Historically, the United States has always had a religious president (again - or one who claimed to be). If you can honestly say that the past 43 (I think... 42, 44?) presidents have FORCED or COERCED the nation into a religious lifestyle, I challenge you to provide legislation that proves this. I believe the United States needs a religious president, but not necessarily Huckabee. Actually, from a religious view, I think Obama is a much better choice (even though I'm conservative) because it's hard in the international arena of religion and politics for the Arab world to demonize someone like Obama - he has an Arab name, Arab features, was raised partially Muslim, etc... But that's beside the point. Provide me some evidence that a Christian president is bad. Your move.