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

I think we can dispense with your 1-4 at the beginning as us agreeing with each other. I simply substitute Kucinich because he's an example of a Democrat with overly religious ideas - it demolishes the argument as a D. vs R. one. I agree that all three branches of government should have equal bearing on the laws. However, the president himself doesn't wield as much power as the Legislative branch. The Judicial branch can only act if the law is challenged, which kind of puts the ball in the court of those who feel disenfranchised. I wouldn't put my argument against your point as you did (...most people in the US are Christians, then why is it so wrong that Christianity's mark is made on our legal system?) but rather as that the fact that Christianity's mark on the legal system is irremovable from basic human morals. It's not an issue of Christianity being responsible for the current system - it's more like Christianity was simply there for the ride. I'll accept your definition of morality for the purposes of debate. But I think it's important to draw another distinction for things that are socially acceptable. Neither category necessarily involves religion. Social acceptability differs greatly around the world, so I suggest we use the definition in the United States. In your case of sodomy, while this doesn't fall under immorality for non-minors (I hope we agree that sodomy concerning minors is immoral...). However, I believe it would fall under socially unacceptable. Even barring that, one could argue that actions like sodomy present a disrespectful image of dignity which isn't really a just state... Lets look at the laws you present... First - sodomy - I think I already made my point with sodomy. I haven't heard any strict definition like the one you mention, but then again, I haven't heard any really religious-based definition of it at all. I would agree, however, that laws against sodomy ARE unconstitutional. I'll concede the point here that laws against it are consistent with your argument. Second - gay marriage - I believe the main concern regarding gay marriage rests in tax law. Like the movie "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" it would be hard to enforce tax benefit laws if marriage is not defined as existing between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is becoming more acceptable in todays society, but I believe the majority of this nation would find open homosexuality (things like men kissing in public) to be socially unacceptable simply because it's not the model that they're accustomed to. The underlying problem here is that there hasn't been a law drafted to separate marriage from the religious meaning. Marriage is still a religious sacrament - the official legal binding is more like a civil union, which is really how it should be handled. As yet, though, there's no way to figure out who is actually a "couple" and who is just evading tax laws. Third - the war on drugs - I'm not sure what your point is with this one. Marijuana is illegal because of the potential for abuse and the actions that result from that abuse. People whose cognitive abilities are impaired by being high are generally a danger to society - not saying they ALL are... In this case, the man should be arrested - he's left evidence of illegal activity in a public place - the smell - and the officer certainly has probable cause to enter the house. It's exactly the same situation as if he walked by and heard a gunshot. (The Christian viewpoint concerning drugs would fall under respect of the self and the abuse of something (alcohol, food, drugs, etc...) - that's the best the bible can do to address this...) Fourth - the war on terror - I'll agree that most of the country is against the war, and at this point, I think the only thing really keeping us there is that we can't just LEAVE - that's not a moral action. Leaving a huge mess (albeit that we made) behind isn't just to the Iraqi people. The war is not a religious one per se. Hussein was a terrible dictator, perpetrating crimes against the Iraqi people. The war started under the pretense of WMD and possibly oil, but in a cover-you-a$$ movement, the government made it about removing a tyrant. Part of the justification for remaining there is the current instability of the Iraqi government and the fact that there are still members of the old regime capable of seizing power without the US presence. We are not overseas fighting Islam. We are fighting Muslims, yes, but we are not trying to destroy Islam. Radical Islam perhaps, because it IS dangerous - but then again, so is radical Christianity - as evidenced by (yes, him again, sorry) Kucinich's idea about bombing Mecca and Medina. I did not say that a religious president IS less likely to be involved in scandal - rather, that I would perceive one to be - as I think the majority of the population would (considering the majority is Christian...) Objectively, there probably isn't any real basis for supposing that other than social conditioning, but I believe it still holds for the majority of Americans. I feel like you are arguing that progress in environment, drugs, terror, and homosexuals is mutually exclusive to a religious president. These are important issues, yes, but they are not mutually exclusive with religion. Consider - we have made progress in these areas in the past, but we have always had religious presidents. Therefore, they cannot be entirely mutually exclusive. In politics there are necessarily two sets of people - winners and losers. In this case, I think what we're looking at is that Christianity has traditionally been the political winner, and non-Christians are generally the losers. But the United States is mostly Christian, so this makes perfect sense in the end. A Christian president might not HELP the country in the ares you mention - but I don't think it's a given that a Christian president will HURT the country either. To more directly answer your actual topic... I don't believe a religious president is the worst thing for this country - a president with extreme religious beliefs would be bad. But moderate religiosity is not an issue in the presidency - never has been historically, and probably never will.