It's so hard to know where to begin.

David Cox, the editorial writer for the ultra-conservative Paducah Sun, has done it again. Upon the heels of the hate spewing, fact challenged editorial on Al Gore that Mark Donham so eloquently debunked, we now have the revisionist history of religion in America in his recent editorial entitled "Faith".

Cox goes through the usual pablum of talking points handed down from the Pat Robertson school of thought in an effort to prove that our Constitution is wrong in prohibiting a religious test of any candidate for office.

Without inflicting his editorial on the readers here I'll hold my nose and offer some short quotes that address and summarize the central points from his misbegotten piece of trash.

"Does a president’s religion matter? It matters immensely." Does this mean that an athiest or agnostic is not capable of holding American values dear or that they could not adequately serve as POTUS?

"Debate moderators are asking the candidates, the Republicans anyway, religious questions — if they believe the Bible is true and whether they accept the theory of evolution." It's worth noting that the questions are less about religion but more about the candidates ability to separate science from superstition. And since Republicans seem to have a particular problem with this distinction, they should be asked the question. The American electorate has a right to know if a candidate doesn't believe in gravity or any other proven scientific theory including evolution.

"...Americans are a religious people. Religion — particularly Christianity, with its many sects and denominations — was central to the founding of this country." This is a myth that fundamentalist sects have been trying to sell even before Republicans became joined at the hip with religious fanatics. The law of our land says otherwise. First off, our Constitution, which Cox never brings up anywhere in his editorial, is a secular document. God is never mentioned in it.

Secondly, Art. 11 of The Treaty of Tripoli states "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...". For those, like Cox, who are ignorant of the law, treaties ratified by Congress are law as defined by the Constitution. The Treaty of Tripoli was negotiated during George Washington's tenure and signed into law by then President John Adams. It was unanimously ratified by a Senate made up of many of the Founders of our nation (imagine obstructionist Mitch McConnell endorsing such a treaty).

Moreover, the public of the day was well aware of the negotiations through the periodicals of the time and there was no public outcry. All of the signers were returned to public office.

As the writer, Ed Buckner, Ph.D., so eloquently stated, "From our perspective these men may be heroes, but in truth the vote they cast was ordinary, routine, normal. It was, in other words, quite well accepted, only a few years after first the Constitution and then the First Amendment were ratified, that "the Government of the United States of America was not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

Another statement by Cox, "The combination of religious devotion and religious tolerance is uniquely American, and that gives the question of our leaders’ religion unique relevance in America." is little more than a demonstration of ignorance of American history. (Where do the Paxtons' find these people?)

True, during the 1500's and 1600's many theists came to America to escape religious persecution but by the time our nation was founded in the late 1700's and early 1800's this had changed and the nation was rift with religious intolerance. Many states, like Virginia and elsewhere, required every citizen to pay taxes to support a particular religion. Fundamentalists burned "witches" at the stake. Politicians had to run on a religious platform, not unlike what Cox now advocates. Article VI (...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.) was specifically written to address these abuses and Cox conspicuously avoids any mention of this in his editorial. Instead he cherry picks quotes from various writers in an attempt to prove a fundamentalist perspective that has no foundation in the Constitution.

David Cox and his handlers in the Paxton Media Group come from a long line of conservatives who use religion as a political weapon. But as our Founders wisely knew, when politics and religion are mixed, both are corrupted which is why they drafted a religiously neutral Constitution and nation.

To give the man credit, he did get one point right, "While the strength and character of some American leaders reflected their religious convictions, others by their actions betrayed their religion. A president’s religion has not always been a reliable predictor of his competence." George W. Bush is a case in point.

The opinions of writers are not the same as the law of the land and thankfully so. Otherwise, David Cox would be a dangerous man instead of just another historically challenged, ultra conservative on the Paxton payroll.