I don’t really fit into either category, but of the two I lean more toward the secular humanist. (More exacting; an agnostic that would like to find faith in a higher power)
With relation to the US; a point I’m hearing allot lately is its not just to go against having God or more specific; Christian beliefs integrated in the government. (The Pledge of Allegiance, The Ten Commandments at the courthouse, the President using the word Lord in speeches, etc) This basis for this point being this country was founded on such values. I don’t argue that. but I think the US has changed since its conception.
I wonder how much the knowledge gained from science affected the expansion of Christianity through the years. The Puritans certainly didn’t have the knowledge we have now, nor did the Founding Fathers. I strive to find peace in meeting science and faith halfway the same in which ARTtelevsion has (I think that’s what I’ve interpreted from his comments) but I find difficulty in doing so.
My greatest concern with religion in political office:
is that one of the three main: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism will be practiced by someone in office. I’ve read the Bible and the Koran; and give both the weight of Homer's Odyssey. My religious background: raised Roman Catholic until 5th grade, worshipped Protestant, then Baptist --my second baptism, Jehovah Witness, Pentecostal, Judaism, and back to Baptist. After a year in the military I saw the Bible with a different perspective. It was then I began to see extreme contradictions within it.
This has brought me to a place where my interpretation of the Bible has left me with great concerns if world leaders base their value system on it. ***Before anyone gets offended I’m not saying Christians or Muslims have distorted values. I believe political leaders are in such positions where such beliefs should be set aside.
IMO The most important thing is the search for meaning and purpose with relationships and love, understanding and knowledge, experiences and emotions, or elsewhere.
There is no absolute Truth that applies to all people; ultimate knowledge of the nature of existence cannot be communicated, it can only be reasoned or experienced personally. The natural state of most individuals is uncertainty, motivating curiosity, open-mindedness and appreciation for the experiences and thoughts of other people.
Morality is relative to individual circumstances and relationships. Any action's intimate rightness or wrongness can only be determined by those involved in the action. Good and evil; are ideas that can be useful, but are inaccurate if used to describe the nature of the universe.
Social structures such as governments and institutions are useful insofar as they help individuals to flourish- that is, become and remain healthy and able to work toward their goals that do not interfere with the rights of other to work toward their own goals.
The only limitations against humanity's potential should be the physical laws of the Universe; instead I see the single biggest limitation is humanity itself with regards to itself. Globally I see that technology has evolved, with social evolution of Earth becoming stagnant if not regressing.
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear". --Thomas Jefferson
This subject was also raised in this TFP poll
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...0&pagenumber=1