1. Leaders on the religious right often say that America is a “Christian Nation.” Do you agree with this statement?
America was unquestionably a Christian nation -- the U.S. Supreme Court has said so many times, notably in a lengthy opinion in an 1892 case, Holy Trinity Church vs. United States. Not a single person who signed the Constitution would disagree with those declarations, nor agree with efforts in the 20th century to transform America from a Christian nation to a secular nation.
2. Do you think Houses of Worship should be allowed to endorse political candidates and retain their tax exempt status?Yes, and the provision of the IRS code that warns against this should be repealed. It was added by Lyndon Johnson in 1954 to undercut opposition to his campaign by certain conservative non-profits. The amount of "political" activity which a church can engage in is fairly broad, limited only with respect to endorsing or opposing particular candidates or legislation. In an attempt to stifle free speech, the forces of secularism (like the ACLU and Americans United) often threaten to sic the IRS on churches who speak out on conservative or religious issues as they apply concretely to political issues. What politicians and candidates need is more free (and critical) speech and more investigative journalism, not less. Churches should not be put in a position of having to choose between speaking the truth and suffering government sanctions.
Not only do I believe churches should be tax-exempt, I believe General Motors should be tax-exempt.
3. Do you think public schools should sponsor school prayer or, as a parent, should this choice be left to me?I'm against government-operated schools, just like I'm against government-operated grocery stores. Parents should be able to choose from a wide variety of food and education for their children, a variety which only the Free Market can provide.
Every single person who signed the Constitution believed that the primary function of government-operated schools was to teach religion and morality. The main purpose of learning how to read was to read the Bible. Knowledge of math and science was valuable to "exercise dominion over the earth" under God.
The first thing America's Founders did after creating the Constitution was call for prayer. Both houses of Congress and nearly every state legislature "sponsor prayer." If politicians are allowed to pray, why not students?
4. Would you support a law that mandates teaching creationism in my child’s public school science classes?I'm against public school science classes, for reasons explained above in question 3. Most problems in this area are caused by the fact that the government has an unconstitutional monopoly over education, denying parental choice in the education of their children.
I would support a law that permits teaching creationism, and permits analyzing Darwinism and encouraging students to question all theories, subject all theories to scrutiny, and not to accept a theory on blind faith -- something secularists cannot tolerate.
Most creationists want their children to know about the theory of evolution -- and be able to refute it. Most Darwinists feel threatened if scientific evidence against the Darwinist faith is presented.
5. Do you think my pharmacist should be allowed to deny me doctor-prescribed medications based on his or her religious beliefs?This is a truly ridiculous question. Should the government force Jewish pharmacists to sell Zyklon-B to Nazis?
Every worker in every field should be able to do as she pleases based on her religious beliefs (unless her religion requires the initiation of force). The government should not force a pharmacist to sell anything other than what the pharmacist wants to sell. If a pharmacist wants to sell snake oil exclusively, she should be free to do so, and consumers should be free from government subsidies for "America's snake-oil industry," laws "protecting" consumers from foreign snake oil "dumping," and tariffs on snake oil imports designed to create a "level playing field."
6. Will you respect the rights of those in our diverse communities of faith who deem same-gender marriage to be consistent with their religious creed?What are those "rights?" Two people of the same gender have always had the "right" to call themselves "married." Nobody else has a legal obligation to accept their definition of "marriage." If a couple are committing acts which I consider to be an "abomination," I have the right to "discriminate" against them, by evicting them from my property, for example.
Since its inception, the United States of America has acknowledged a "law above the law," or a "higher law," called "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Every single person who signed the Constitution believed that homosexuality was contrary to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This means that if Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones want to call themselves "married," they are free to do so, but Mrs. Wilson is also free to reject their claim. The federal government is obligated to reject that claim, as well as every state in the union. This is because the U.S. Supreme Court has correctly declared that every government official who takes an oath to "support the Constitution" is pledging support for "the organic laws" of the nation, which includes the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution does not require the government to acknowledge that same-gender relationships are morally legitimate.
7. Should “faith-based” charities that receive public funds be allowed to discriminate against employees or applicants based on religious beliefs?"Public" (i.e., taxpayer) funds should not be confiscated or given to charities. Such funds do not belong to politicians to give to charities. If the government is going to confiscate money from taxpayers and give this money to charities, the government should appropriate revenue only to charities that uphold "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." If a charity wants to withhold food from someone who refuses to work, that charity should not be discriminated against by the government. If a charity refuses to hire a member of the church of Satan as a counselor, the government should not discriminate against that charity.
8. Do you think one's right to disbelieve in God is protected by the same laws that protect someone else's right to believe?A person is free to believe anything, but that person may not act in a way consistent with the belief that there is no God and no obligation to obey "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." The government has consistently ruled against the First Amendment claims of those who wish to violate Christian laws which run contrary to their own false religion. If God is dead, "all things are permitted" -- but not in a Christian nation.
9. Do you think everyone’s religious freedom needs to be protected by what Thomas Jefferson called “a wall of separation” between church and state?The Supreme Court (see question 8 above) has ruled that the "wall of separation" does not protect the Aztec worshiper in his desire to sacrifice virgins to the sun, because this is a Christian nation (see question 1 above). Modern deviations from this Constitutional understanding and the creation of a "wall of separation" are dangerous and unconstitutional.
10. What should guide our policies on public health and medical research: science or religion?This is a false dilemma. Should religion guide our policies on human experimentation? Of course, otherwise we become Nazis. The Christian religion, with its belief in a rational God and a knowable, orderly universe, is the foundation of modern science, health and medical research.