[tacticalogic]

Again, don't know the person. But if she's an advocate of good gov't she, of course, won't have a problem as long as the person continues to be an ally of the promotion of freedom.

The article appears to be an advocacy of good government only in the sense that the author advoctates a particular religion, and associates bad government with non-adherance to that religion.

[what's up]

But you're asking me what she would do in a particular situation. I can't tell since I don't know her. But christians who have harsh things to say about atheism do, in fact, make common cause with non-believers on political issues all the time.

My points were mostly about Paine...that the Founders did generally, in fact, denounce him based on his actions.

[metmom]

The article appears to be an advocacy of good government only in the sense that the author advoctates a particular religion, and associates bad government with non-adherance to that religion.

Certain religions DO tend to produce better or worse governments than others.

Show us one good government that has been established by islam or atheism.

If you really knew your history you would know that of all the religions, any government founded on the Judeo-Christian worldview is far more likely to produce a good government that operates by "consent of the governed". Or rather any government which operates by "consent of the governed" is only likely to work with a Judeo-Christian worldview.