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

Perhaps it was an error on my part to try to provide social acceptability as another means of evaluating a situation. Let me put forth a situation that I believe better represents what I mean... The 2nd Amendment reads thus: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." In the time that it was written, a militia would have been considered as such - "The entire able-bodied male (and perhaps female) population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms." Which is indeed what was happening during the revolutionary war. Therefore, by the standards in place when the law was written, I am part of a militia. But let us suppose I am a member of the National Guard - a "well-regulated" militia. Therefore, there is NOTHING that can infringe my right to bear arms. By the terms of this law, I should be allowed to keep a nuclear bomb in my basement. This is, of course, socially unacceptable. By your definition, it would be immoral for me to be prohibited from keeping the bomb, because it would infringe my rights and create an unjust state of living. Now, it is unETHICAL for me to keep a bomb because of the fact that it could go off accidentally and destroy an entire city. I believe I have shown a distinction here between morality, ethics, and social acceptability. Morality being that which defines a just state, ethics being that which defines proper conduct, and social acceptability being that which defines a majority-accepted state - or social acceptability = social contract. 1) We shall dispense with the case of sodomy - we are in agreement in this case for the most part. I would favor the following definition of sodomy: "Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality." In this case, the same laws regarding sodomy would probably apply to bestiality - which is an entirely different debate concerning the animals' right to not be violated. (Baaa!!) 2) I think we agree here that a clear definition of both the tax law and what constitutes evasion is necessary. True, a man and a woman could do this, but I believe that is far less likely than for two members of the same sex. For example - take a man's point of view. I don't think the tax break is worth living with a woman who I don't love. But I would certainly apply for a tax break living with one of my current roommates. The point is that there's no way to tell if two people are LIVING the American Dream or CHEATING the American Dream. 3) The abuse of marijuana would refer (reefer?) to it's potential as a gateway drug. While you yourself might not abuse marijuana, it IS abused by some. Granted the historical reasons for illegalizing marijuana are not particularly compelling... However, the effects of marijuana make it dangerous if presented to society. Use of a gateway drug CAN (not does...) lead to the use of other, more dangerous drugs - heroin or cocaine are drugs that sometimes make a user a danger to others. If illegalizing marijuana creates fewer cocaine users (I really don't know if that's the case or not) then isn't that a benefit to society? A man would not be capable of safely driving a car while high. Should the officer in your example come into the man's home and take his keys until he isn't high anymore? The laws are not in place to unjustly punish people - they're in place to protect the rest of society. It's the same as the case where the one kid talks in class and gets recess taken away for everyone. Because the potential for societal harm exists, the society must protect itself, not the individual. This is the heart of social contract - and I believe that by your definition of morality, social contract can be found to be just. 4) By your own definition of morality - Hussein was immoral - how can the idea that laws in the US are unjust for things like smoking marijuana POSSIBLY be construed to mean that Hussein was not unjust in his laws and practices?!? His practices in Iraq weren't even socially acceptable as you misunderstood my definition to be (albeit my fault there...) - they were only acceptable to those with power, which was not society. I'm not sure where this comes from: "We are over there right now because we believe they have archaic religious beliefs and we need to police them! It's not much different than the guy smoking weed in his house, and the officer bursting in and hauling him off to jail." That's an assumption that I believe is not warranted - we would do the same thing if this situation of this scale were talking place among other Christians. In the case of the man in his house, when he takes place in an activity that is known to be potentially dangerous to society, he gives up some of his right to freedom to the judgment of society. "I will forget you mentioned that a Christian president will be less likely to be involved in a scandal." Here you are still twisting my words... I believe a religious president will be less likely TO BE PERCEIVED as possibly being in a scandal. As for Reagan... let's take a closer look at what he actually said... not that "trees cause pollution" - but that "trees cause more pollution than automobiles do" - which, as it turns out is true - "Because the eminent Max Planck Institute in Heidelberg, Germany, has just reported in Nature magazine that plants, trees, forests, emit 10 to 30 percent of the methane gas into the atmosphere." So I think a more in-depth look at this is needed before presenting it in a debate about religious presidents... Huckabee is not inherently powerful because of his religious background. Actually, with him being Southern Baptist, we might expect much of his religious sway to be lost on a nation that is nearly 80% Christian, but where Baptists (general Baptist, not S. Baptist) compromise less than 25% of that. Baptists as a whole are less than 18% of the United States Population. Hardly a majority, or even a plurality. For religious views to have any weight at all, they must agree with a majority of the nation or else they will be shot down. I think the reference you made (or so I interpret it) to abortion in your closing paragraph is unfounded - seems to me that the current law making abortion legal in the US is contrary to Christian beliefs - why else would thousands of them gather in DC every year for the Right to Life March? People struggling with drug addiction? Again - where potential for societal harm exists (causing an unjust state to society) the individual must either sacrifice freedom to judgment by society or leave the society. There's nothing immoral with an island of druggies who are stoned 24/7 - I just don't want it in my backyard. Much of what you interpret as Christian influence may be the elitist NIMBY philosophy that the United States culture promotes - "We're too good for this - I won't have it - Not In My Back Yard." Homosexuals... this is a tough case - In principle, I would tend to agree that they should have the right to be happy and create a life together. In this case, I believe that the problem is not with Christianity and its influence, but rather a flaw in the governmental system. If there was no tax benefit from being married - and individuals simply got taxed differently on joint property, then this probably would not be an issue. Having a religious president for our 44th (?) president will not change things for the WORSE. It may not change them for the better either. I argue that there is nothing inherently bad about a religious president. We've had them in the past, and we're making progress - things used to be much worse from a religious persecution perspective (witch burning, racism, WASP philosophy, etc...). Our government is biased towards maintaining the status quo. And isn't that much better than a change for the WORSE? You decide.