Good point--also, Christians tend to exist in well-organized groupings, whereas atheists may be free spirits who don't tend to look for groups to with which to affiliate. And, secular groups can have believers or non-believers--it is impossible to tell their make-up, because they don't use that as their mission statement.
But . . . we will have the perfect chance to check this out when Gustav hits landfall. Next week, let's compare what we see on, let's say, CNN, which has no great love for Christian groups. If they report a majority of the groups heading into New Orleans or Houston are faith-based, will you agree that that says something?
By the way, what are we personally going to do to help after Gustav? Our church doesn't send an additional vehicle to clog the roads--we join with a group of similar churches and a company that owns a heavy-duty vehicle, load it up, and send it down. Cheers, MGM

Mary, just because you didn't hear of secular groups helping out in New Orleans doesn't make it so. A large contingent of Veterans for Peace has been active there as have student groups and quite a few progressives that I know. A belief in deities is not the only motivation to do good work any more than it has anything to do with patriotism.

If the people who come to New Orleans to clean up and rebuild come with a secondary motive to spread the gospel (you say: proselytize), what of it? At least they are there clearing the rubble. As I said, I didn't hear of many atheist/secular groups doing the same, with or without an extra (not hidden) agenda. Cheers, MGM, who wonders who will be there if the current hurricane hits N.O. again

You will find that much of these religious good works are done as a way to proselytize.

I would submit that the Age of Reason led to the *French* Revolution, not the American Revolution. Some Enlightenment thinking influenced both, but the Americans maintained faith-based structures, while the French threw them out. It is interesting to study these two revolutions from the same age side by side. Cheers, MGM

ranks 2 in aid as a percentage of domestic economy, along with high scores for quality of aid as far as distribution directly to the poor, bypassing government corruption and not tying aid to a specific agenda. They also take in a great deal of political refugees. As a matter of fact, they have taken in more Iraqi refugees than the US, a point of embarrassment to be sure. I am not denigrating Christian charities, but after all, that is a mandate from Jesus, to help the least of us, and with about 1 billion Christians, there ought to be an amazing amount of charity worldwide. There are a large number of secular organizations locally and worldwide, run by people for a variety of reasons. Op Smile, Doctors without Borders, Hope House Foundation (local), CHKD, Shriners (belief in higher power, but not necessarily Christian) to name a few. Also, I am glad you are getting good treatment at Portsmouth Naval, after all, that is the dreaded government run health care.

The founding of this republic was in large part a result of the Age of Reason and the rise of rationality over mysticism. The idea that an informed people were capable of ruling themselves through reasoned, democratic government instead of relying in God-Kings was revolutionary. Patriotism has nothing to do in any way with religion, or mysticism but the emotional pull of those forces can be exploited for support of deleterious agendas by the worst kinds of leaders where reason may lead in other directions. A problem with "people of faith" is their arrogant aggression in trying to force their beliefs on others. Our form of republic guarantees freedom to buy into and practice any form of mysticism or religion one chooses and that it be kept a personal matter. As for our leaders, I prefer that they be rational, well informed, cool-headed, and loyal to the concept of a democratic republic.

My only comment on the "believer vs. atheist" debate is that I often watch the relief efforts flood into places like New Orleans and Myanmar and note how many *groups* going in are faith-based. All the way back to the Middle Ages, the founding of hospitals, schools, orphanages, etc. have been related to faith-based organizations, often of the Christian faith. Now, if we put every Christian under a microscope, we will find that no one except Jesus Christ was perfect, but I think you could stack the good works of Christian organizations against the good works of secular organizations and compare the Christians most favorably in that arena. Maybe other religions are good at charity/relief efforts, too (the Buddhists, perhaps?). And maybe someone who is an atheist can show stats for atheist/secular based organizations that paint them favorably, too. But it seems from news sources that the first people in after a disaster are usually Christians. Cheers, MGM

Patriotism and faith can be related but are not needed to mutually co-exist. You say educators are the enemy of patriotism and faith, but yet knowledge is the only way to a free and open society. So if you feel those who seek to spread knowledge are being enemies of state, that is rather startling. As for an athiest dying for one's country-that has already happened I am sure. But the scenario you describe of an athiest taking from society and giving nothing back and running to save himself..well that describes Bush perfectly. He was born into privelege, has always taken, giving nothing back to anyone outside his inner circle, avoided the draft, and shirked his duties to country by going awol less than half way through his legal olbigation. So even the "pious" can be less than stellar citizens.

Is that the original author did not realize that there is no restriction on professions or discussions of faith in politics, but there are restrictions in government.

"Can anyone imagine an atheist dying for his country?"

Obviously you do not know many atheists. I am not an atheist, nor do I belong to any kind of dogmatic religion like Christianity. From my perspective, Christians, by their Biblical standards, should hold God and thier faith above their country, atheists, however, are not held to any such treachings and would fight to defend principles. Keep in mind that very few of the founding fathers were Christians and many held Christianity in contempt, they fought for principles, not some dogmatic teachings of the church.

Mr Lane, please re-read the Constitution. May I direct you to Article VI. “…but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Would you care to rethink your second paragraph?
We are in fact a nation founded on principles of faith in God.
That is why our fore fathers found it prudent to protect the free exercise of religion for the citizens, however, they also found that making religion an issue in the function and operation of our government was detrimental to the tenets of the Constitution and our government.
I have said it before, I will say it again…politics has absolutely no place on the pulpit. The pulpit should never, ever be a place for anyone to advance their political agenda. The pulpit is used only and for the sole purpose of advancing God’s Kingdom.

I would say the religious right has a tight grasp on the mantle of patriotism. Those who challenge any overreaching of religion in the workplace, schools, marketplace (think O'Reilly's attack on "happy holiday" greetings) are regularly attacked by the lapel pin patriots who insist that we are a Christian nation, and not, a nation with a lot of Christians in addition to just about every other religion in the world.

It seems to me that faith and patriotism go together. I sense that both are attacked in our modern secular society. By my perception, the worst enemies of patriotism and faith are found in academia, university professors.

I tend to believe that most enemies of patriotism and faith are atheist.

Can anyone imagine an atheist dying for his country? I can’t. An atheist is more likely to exploit the country for selfish reasons and bail out at the first sign of trouble and harm to himself.

That’s how I see it.

There is much more to be said on this matter to describe my sentiments but editor is not likely to allow it. Just try to imagine.