Excuse me, but is this faith-based panderfest necessary?

[Bluebear]

Obama, for instance, just said that faith needs to inform our policies and talking about Biblical injunctions.

No thank you. Morals and values are not exclusively faith-based commodities.

[Duer 157099]

1. No shit!

I immediately reject anyone who says something like that.

Facts, how about Facts informing our policies??

[Terri S]

54. believe it or not, faith is important to a lot of people

I think it is a big mistake to let the fanatical right-wing evangelicals completely discount a spiritual (or moral) foundation that most people have. Perhaps 'faith' is too ecumenical a term, but clearly most people are guided by some sense of morality, and for many, many people, that morality is based on something 'greater than themselves' and many define that as 'faith'.

There is a video on Obama's site that is a little more explanatory about his views on politics and 'faith'. Faith isn't automatically a word deserving of derision. It was Dr. King's faith that propelled much of what he did, and much of what many of us so admired him for. The same with Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama.

I think what these candidates are doing is trying to remind people that fundamentalist extremists do not define what faith means to a majority of Americans. Not everyone needs a 'God' in their lives to be decent human beings. But many do find a connection with a higher being a strong motivating force for good in their lives. Not all people 'of faith' are nutjob fanatics using their interpretation of 'God' to justify their horrendous actions and hatreds. And these candidates, who happen to have a sense of faith in their lives, are simply stating that. From what I've heard, that seems to be the case, as opposed to people who use the 'faith' thing to reach a certain base.

But that's just my take.

on edit: oops... I meant this to go as just a general remark to the topic, not meant to anyone in particular.

[eridani]

149. Dr. King never gave a rat's ass about other peoples' faiths--

--he was concerned with their actions.

Why can't people of faith just lay off the faith talk and deal in ethics, which is what they have in common with people of different (and frequently diametrically opposed) faiths, and people without faith?

[H2O Man]

223. Agree & disagree .....

Actually, Rev. King did care about other people's faith. A person need look no further than the 10 point Commitment Card that he had people sign in the Birmingham campaign. The #1 of his "10 commandments" is: "MEDITATE daily on the teachings and life of Jesus."

However, Rev. King advocated respecting people of differing faiths and belief systems, including those "people without faith."

[eridani]

251. I mean publicly

Where did King ever denounce anybody for unbelief, or threaten segregationists with hell? Never, as I recall. He wanted people to behave ethically, whether or not they were motivated by faith.

[H2O Man]

260. Perhaps better:

In the wonderful "Letter From A Birmingham City Jail," Martin responded to the 8 "concerned" religious leaders who had attacked him for investing his faith in social action, rather than in fattening a collection plate. But you are absolutely correct about him not threatening, etc.

[LSparkle]

2. He's disappointing me -- I thought Edwards handled his segment better

I thought the intent of this forum was more to allow us to see what these candidates are like as people and what role their faith plays. Edwards didn't go into what policies he'd implement regarding faith, he just stuck to what his faith means to him, as a means of an introduction to what kind of person he is.

[Bjornsdotter]

3. Count me out

....have faith, great leave it at home.

I think we should look at faith like porn.....everyone's idea of porn is different, we can share it with important people in our lives, but it's not always suitable to share with everyone.

Cheers

[KatyaR]

21. Nice analogy--

I'll have to remember that one.

Any talk of religion is a big turnoff to me. I'll stand for an acknowledgement of faith, but anything more than that is a no-goer with me. We've had enough religion in politics--time to go the other way.

(edited to add link to article)

This is a good article a friend sent me today--fits in somewhat with what we're discussing here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070604/cm_usatoday/godgoesgreen;_ylt=AjbBiFH3TAhjFEy0HjrGp2EE1vAI">God Goes Green

[Bjornsdotter]

32. Excellent article

....and I never thought of the earth as God's. It is sort of surprising that the religious aren't afraid of polluting God's earth.

I think it's just another way of some making the Bible fit whatever they believe.

Cheers :toast:

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. KEEP RELIGION OUT OF MY GOVERNMENT! WTF? What are they doing?!

Are they NUTS? We do NOT need the fundie wacko nut job religious vote to win elections!

[MonkeyFunk]

5. These aren't fundie wacko nut jobs

they appear to be very liberal Christians.

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. I don't care what they are. That crap need to remain in their CHURCHES.

I can't believe they're pandering to the religious wacko nut job fundie religious right. What a CROCK. We don't NEED to pander to them.

[Perky]

68. Now who is intolerant?????

:shrug:

[Bluebear]

70. SURPRISE!!!

[Madspirit]

138. haha

Yeah...us wacky "keep church and government separate" people and our intolerance. :rofl:
Lee

[in_cog_ni_to]

224. We're so RADICAL!!! That damn Constitution gets in the way of our logical thinking every time!

Sheesh.:eyes:

[Perky]

263. Your post

" I can't believe they're pandering to the religious wacko nut job fundie religious right. What a CROCK. We don't NEED to pander to them. "


They are not pandering to "those guys".. they are pandering to liberal to moderate church goers. Like me.

I think your post is about as ugly a straw man as I have seen.

[in_cog_ni_to]

264. Who cares what you think? I don't. You're perfectly happy letting religion into our government and I

think it's one of the most dangerous things we could ever do. Want to live under a Theological Government? Move to Iran.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. It exists in the CONSTITUTION for a reason.

And they most certainly were pandering to the wacko nut job fundies. Why do they need to pander to religious Democrats? They already have their vote! sheesh!

[Perky]

265. No I am not.

Not in the least.

I do not think in any shape of form that religion should be part of our government.... You can not find a single post by me ever that would validate such a ridiculous assertion

[PaDem]

78. well..............

I think there is an effort here to reach out to thoughtful, moderate Christians. Honestly I know many Christians who vote GOP but aren't lock and step and aren't dead set on continuing to support the Repubs. There is a healthy sliver out there in the Evangelical world that's in play. Now, if the Dems and groups like Sojourners start to pander to the Falwell crowd, they've overstepped and are wasting their time and resources. I'm fine with reaching out to faith communities provided that the Dems always know who their audience should be in the Evangelical community.

[immoderate]

211. So, you know "thoughtful, moderate Christians,.."

"...who vote GOP..."(!?):rofl: And a "healthy sliver" of them might be drawn over, with the proper demonstration of "faith," where good policy, effective government, saving the environment, and restoring peace just won't quite do it.

What makes these people thoughtful and moderate?

--IMM

[mzmolly]

79. They're not pandering to wacko's.

They're speaking the majority of Americans guys.

[Perky]

99. You are terribly misinformed about Sojourners if that is what you believe.

[in_cog_ni_to]

126. I know who they are. I'm on their email list. I get emails from them weekly. This crap does not

belong in politics. Period. We don't like it when the Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobsons do it. Why should it be acceptable by Democrats/Progressives/Liberals? There's NO PLACE for religion in politics, schools or our Government.

[hfojvt]

161. really, why don't we just kick them all out?

Starting with Carter and Elizabeth Edwards.

[in_cog_ni_to]

222. They never shoved their religion down our throats...that's why. n/t

[Perky]

191. Why not?

I agree it should not be in our govenment or in our schhols (interms of organizaed official classesor prayers), but why not our politics? Not as a dominant part but as a stream of influence?

[in_cog_ni_to]

221. Why as a stream of influence? Why does a politician have to be 'religious'

to have an influence? Is being CHRISTIAN or JEWISH or BAPTIST or NAZARENE better for policy than...say...being an Atheist? Agnostic?

Religion belongs in CHURCHES and SYNAGOGUES and MOSQUES and IN YOUR HOME...not in our Government, Schools or Politics. This stunt on CNN was nothing but pandering to the religious wacko nut job RWers. Even the CNN hosts today were saying the same thing! They said the Dems were trying for the EVANGELICAL VOTE. It's ridiculous. I'm beginning to think the Dems care more about what the wacko religious RWers want than the "LOONY LEFT ANTI-WAR" in their own party. Those people will NEVER vote Democratic....REMEMBER...PRO-CHOICE AND GAY RIGHTS?

[Perky]

252. No there should be no religioujs requirement

and I never said there should be.

Having said that. if you tacke that tact does it not also follow that athieism belongs in the home as well andnot in our public square?


I also think your broudbrush treatment of the evangelical vote is for from accurate. The last election suggested that Dems got about 40% of the self defined eveangelical boat.

[spoony]

188. No, we DO need religious people's votes

Thankfully the candidates do not share many DUers' frothing opposition to any mention or recognition of belief.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

206. no, we DO need to educate religious people. Period.

the higher the level of education, the less likely they are to become "fundementally" flawed.

[Bake]

218. Maybe they could even learn to spell "fundamentally."

Oh, the irony.

:rofl:

Bake

[ChairmanAgnostic]

230. oops. i intended fundiementally, but

my lack of speeellling is due to a lack of
a) tea
b) scotch
c) one of the above.

[Donnachaidh]

17. then perhaps they need to review the separation of CHURCH & STATE.

I don't care WHICH side they are on.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. What violation

of Church and State does this forum commit?

Come on, you'll be hard-pressed to find someone as anti-religion as me, but this in no way violates the principle of Church/State separation.

[Cerridwen]

30. "no religious Test shall ever be required"

Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

<snip>

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

By their actions, they have just subjected every other candidate to a religious test which they must pass or fail in the eyes of the electorate. They just implied a religious test is required by giving tacit approval by submitting to one themselves.

Falwell wins.

[Bluebear]

31. 'a religious test is required by giving tacit approval by submitting to one themselves'

Exactly, and it is a disgrace.

[MonkeyFunk]

37. Discussing one's faith

is not submitting to a religious test.

[Cerridwen]

45. Discussing one's faith on CNN sure as hell is.

And it's a big fuck-you to their non-Christian "base."

[MonkeyFunk]

48. How is it a religious test?

I'm an atheist, and I don't consider it that way at all!

Come on, this whole argument is silly. A candidate discussing his or her faith is NOT a religous test by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it a violation of the separation of church and state.

[Perky]

71. Here here.

I completely agree.

[w13rd0]

129. I myself am an atheist...

...but I do not suffer under the delusion that the "base" is non-Christian. This is a majority Christian country. It will be GENERATIONS before the stigma of being a skeptic is lifted such that a non-believer in the great and powerful Oz will be elected President. And these aren't right wing whackadoos they are talking to. Sojourners is an exceptionally progressive, forward thinking Christian fellowship/association. As it pertains to matters of faith, I would gladly work side by side with them to accomplish good works/progressive agenda.

[The Straight Story]

34. They made a Choice - it was not required nor is it for any other candidate

They see a base, an series of issues, and they have found it important to their attempt to win to discuss the topic.

[Cerridwen]

43. Yes they did. I hope we can live with it.

The snake oil salesmen of "christian religion" on the right have made a candidate's religion an issue. In spite of the fact it was of enough concern during the construction of the Constitution - that it was one of the few things explicitly stated.

I hope the base they see is large enough to carry the vote for them. I hope it has enough Christians. Because they've just alienated quite a bit of their non-Christian base.

Falwell wins.

[me b zola]

130. Like hell that's a choice

Anyone who follows politics know that any politician would give their right arm for air time like that, and when they are running for president they would give their first born.

How would the media treat a candidate who declined an invitation? Do you really believe that that candidate's campaign wouldn't be lampooned if they declined? What about a candidate who was an atheist? Do you really feel it is your right to know that? Do you really believe that if a candidate were outed as an atheist that would not be cruxified? Please. This forum was nothing less than a unconstitutional test of their religious beliefs.

Furthermore, it is only an important topic to win because the media has been willing to drive this "issue" for the right. The "importance" of faith in political debate has been greatly misrepresented since * was installed. The media facilitated the rw lunacy by making it seem as though this is how most Americans felt. The media wouldn't show 1/2 million+ Americans marching on DC to end the war in '05, but they were camped out at Terri Shiavo's hospice filming hours upon hours of the lunacy of 2 dozen rw nuts.

[hfojvt]

162. you have contradicted yourself

"The "importance" of faith in political debate has been greatly misrepresented since * was installed."

"Do you really believe that if a candidate were outed as an atheist that would not be cruxified? Please."

The Constitution prohibits 'religious tests' established by the State, not those established by the voters. Voters must be free to follow their own conscience, and make their own decisions for their own reasons.

[me b zola]

172. So please tell me why propaganda is illegal?

Why is a free press guaranteed under the constitution?

My answer to those questions is that voters are not free to make an informed decision without the guarantee of freedom of the press or freedom from propaganda. That takes us back to the point that I made.

[hfojvt]

175. is it? My companion to SCOTUS says nothing about it.

I did not see a mention of propaganda in your previous post either.

edit: okay I re-read your post, but I did not think I was responding to that portion of it. Not sure that I agree this is media driven. Some of it is demand driven. DU was arguing about Schiavo for weeks and did not talk nearly that much about the march on Washington.

[MonkeyFunk]

176. propaganda is not illegal

Not sure where you ever got that notion.

[MonkeyFunk]

35. Sorry

a candidate discussing his or her faith does not constitute a religious test. That's just silly.

[Cerridwen]

47. I'll repeat my other post - discussing one's faith on CNN is

letting the electorate know that a candidate's religion is up for debate - it can be used as a litmus test.

[MonkeyFunk]

50. oh please

In this instance, the government isn't involved at all, so it can't possibly be a religous test as defined by the constitution, nor is it a church/state separation issue.

Do you think candidates should be forbidden from going to church?

[Cerridwen]

56. Watch for it.

You and I don't agree. So replying to two different posts is rather ludicrous on both our parts.

And please, don't conflate how I think a candidate discussing their "faith" in a public forum which opens the door to a public debate about a candidate's religion, with practicing their "faith" in a private forum intended for that purpose.

[MonkeyFunk]

61. well

there's disagreement, and then there's the notion that this forum violates the constitution.

That's less subject to interpretation than you think. There is absolutely NO violation of the constitution in a candidate publicly discussing faith.

I agree with you that the forum was silly, and such things ought NOT be given such attention. But to claim it's unconstitutional is just flat-out factually wrong.

[Cerridwen]

108. The letter of or the spirit of the Constitution?

Since we're talking "faith" here, let's talk the "spirit" of the Constitution.

Do you think the Founders put in that little snippet about no religious test required on a whim? The Rev. Luther Martin (I believe is the name) refused to sign the Constitution when that little snippet was put in place. One of his issues was he thought there should be a religious test. His signature is not on the original document. But his letters complaining of this are out there.

And our Democratic candidates just threw away the protection from religious testing the Founders stated explicitly in our Constitution.

Watch for it. It will be quite entertaining; if you like train wrecks.

[MonkeyFunk]

115. You're being ridiculous

It was put there so that no person would have to belong to a particular religion or denomination in order to hold office.

Candidates volunteering their thoughts on matters of faith have absolutely nothing to do with that.

[Cerridwen]

204. And you're being insulting. eod n/t

[Critters2]

209. Martin Luther?! Martin Luther had nothing to do with the Constitution

He was a 16th Century German--the Constitution was signed by 18th Century Americans.

So, really, what the hell are you talking about?!

[charlie]

215. Luther Martin

Not Martin Luther.

[Critters2]

219. Oh, never mind

:)

[hfojvt]

164. to restrict faith to 'private practice' is unconstitutional

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Therefore, every American has the right to practice their religion in public, as long as such religion does not violate other laws (i.e. human or animal sacrifice, sacred copulation, etc.)

Combine that with this:

"or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"

and every American has the right to talk about their religion, or to create a religious newspaper, website, or TV station.

To prohibit a candidate from talking about religion would also be a restriction on free speech, would it not?

[Cerridwen]

205. How the hell did you make that leap?

From my posting that this will be used as a litmus test to I'm for restricting freedom of anything?

Let me say this once again...watch for it. These candidates have given tacit approval to the electorate to debate/discuss/and perhaps, require proof of their worthiness as a faith based candidate.

I said, watch for it.

And now I have a house to dust and vacuum.

[spoony]

189. But people might photograph them entering a church

and then voters might use it as a litmus test... :crazy:

[Perky]

101. but that is hardly the case here.

[RB TexLa]

216. Getting votes from the electorate is not a qualification. No one's name was removed from the ballot

[Bake]

220. The Const. never said anything about "in the eyes of the electorate"

That particular clause only refers to an official test or requirement to serve in government. In other words, a law.

People can vote for whoever they want, for whatever reason they want. For a lot of people, that includes knowing a bit about their personal faith experience.

I'm as big on separation of church and state as ANYBODY, because I respect the Constitution. But don't try to make the Constitution say something it doesn't.

It's not a religious test.

Bake

[scarletwoman]

226. Yours is the most right on post in this thread -- which I have read in its entirety.

By their actions, they have just subjected every other candidate to a religious test which they must pass or fail in the eyes of the electorate. They just implied a religious test is required by giving tacit approval by submitting to one themselves.

Abso-posi-fucking-lutely! You have utterly nailed this issue! I'm heartily sorry and disappointed to see that so few people on this thread get it.

Brava, Cerridwen, you definitely speak for me!

sw

[Bluebear]

6. If they are trying to out-GOP the GOP, forget it.

I'm sure the fundie contingent thinks that you are not properly Christian if you are a Democrat anyhow. This will not win over their vote and is distressing to those of us who do not want "fiath" in the White House.

[NYCGirl]

8. The sponsors, Sojourners, are LIBERALS

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=home.skip

[Bluebear]

9. They well may be, but I don't need faith to be liberal and moral.

Also, where are the other candidates? Do they not have "faith"?

[NYCGirl]

11. That's fine for you, but there are lots of religious LIBERALS. Our party is a big tent.

As far as the other candidates, I have no idea.

[Bluebear]

12. "Our party is a big tent." As if an atheist could get the nomination. nt

[NYCGirl]

14. In time, that will happen. NT

[Donnachaidh]

20. NOT when you have religious groups on BOTH sides vying for power

they need to leave that OUT of the political arena.

[Perky]

112. AH but I think that is the difference between the Christian Right and the Christian left

The Christian Left is not vyuing for power. We alrasdy have it . We have it when we build houses and inprove literacy when we oppose the war, when we vork for civil rights and when we oppose slavery and the slave trade.

Our power is not not political it is merciful, helpful and effective. We try to do what Jesuse calls us to do... and we have never needed a political powerbase to achieve great things.

We are not motivated by earthly power structures.

[Perky]

103. They were all invited.

Funny thos my faith directly informs my liberal politics and my morality.. but to each his own.

[charlie]

173. No they weren't

But one organization is trying to draw a line. Sojourners, a liberal Christian organization, will sponsor a Democratic presidential forum, but has invited just three of the nine Democratic contenders — Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards – based on their double-digit standings in national polls.

“We have put together a forum seeking to have a thoughtful and substantive conversation with each candidate – with each of the leading candidates – about faith, values and poverty,” said Jack Pannell, the organization’s press secretary...

...

Mr. Pannell said the campaign of one Democrat who was not invited tried to get past the rope (he wouldn’t name him), but to no avail. “We are not interested in the debate business as we are interested in having a substantive conversation about what matters,” he said.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/harnessing-the-large-2008-field/

[Perky]

190. WELL DAMN... THEY SHOUL;D HAVE BEEN

I can only assume that it was to accomdatate the time crucnh created by TV.


I understtod differntly when I got my invitation to attend as a spectator. Glad I couldn't go now.this was handled poorly if everyone was not invited

Botom ine for me is still that is was a far moe authentic representation of faith and how it can meld with policy then anything that the GOP could ever muster. .

[bobbolink]

15. And also the only ones pushing POVERTY ISSUES!!

If the rest of you don't want to hear about faith, then put some push behind poverty issues without the faith!

This is why the Dems are losing so many voters.... they have dropped their core issues, and left it to churches.

[Bluebear]

18. Yes, we know. No gays or atheists support poverty issues.

:eyes:

[bobbolink]

36. I figured you'd want to fight about that.

Whatever floats your boat.

While people suffer and die.

Peace.

Out.

[Bluebear]

39. Whatever.

It's getting tiresome hearing you determine who is & who is not fighting poverty issues.

[muriel_volestrangler]

196. Wow - that's a cheap shot

you make a false claim (that Sojourners are the only people who care about poverty), and then when someone calls you on it, you come back with "while people suffer and die", and accuse them of 'wanting to fight about it'. And then you follow it up with a passive-aggressive 'peace'. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. If you join a forum, you ought to debate honestly, not try to be holier-than-thou.

[Critters2]

212. Gay and Christian are not mutually exclusive.

I'm living proof. Okay, I'm bi, but you get the point.

[jonnyblitz]

7. THANK YOU!!!

:applause: :applause:

I won't watch this pathetic fucking charade. :puke:

[Maat]

13. Neither will I and ...

I'm a believer - just not a Christian or a Jewish one (or a Muslim one).

[Bluebear]

16. Here, I'll help. Clinton was just asked what she prays for.

This is supposed to help people decide on a candidate.

[Mika]

19. Next question: What's your favorite color?

:puke:

[Maat]

28. Oh, yuck!

:puke:

[OwnedByFerrets]

136. The proper answer.........

An America in which an atheist can be president.

[eridani]

154. Not everybody, even in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, does petitionary prayer

Some medieval rabbi once said "Prayer makes the mind and soul stronger in belief, but alters not one leaf falling from the tree."

I think petitionary prayer is ethically sleazy myself. Sure, praying for the recovery of a sick child is harmless enough, but then you're on the primrose path toward praying for your team to win the big game, and then for your army to successfully commit genocide against your enemies and steal their real estate. Make things better for us and worse for other people.

Your more morally sophisticated kids won't pray for a pony or a Gameboy without adding something about "make me a better person" and "help the starving children of the world." They instinctively know that petitionary prayer is a dicey thing at best.

Wonder what would happen to any of the candidates who quoted the rabbi in answer to that question.

[Raksha]

174. I pray for Al Gore tto declare his candidacy

and then go on to win the 2008 election by a landslide. It's not a formal kind of thing. I do it quickly, casually and often while reading DU, but I find myself doing it at least once a day. If someone wants to call that "petitionary prayer" then SO BE IT!!! I'm not going to apologize to anyone and I'm not going to stop doing it either. As far as I'm concerned, I'm praying for the future of my country and my planet.

[jonnyblitz]

57. everybody would be snarking if it were the religious wingnuts

holding this panderfest, why should it be ok just because it's the liberals? keep this stuff OUT OF POLITICS! that is all.

[Bluebear]

69. Paula Zahn: The church says homosexuality is WRONG!!!

How do you reconcile YOUR VIEWS with that?

The church says abortion is MURDER!

How do you reconcile YOUR VIEWS with that?
===

yeah, this is working out great for the candidates. :sarcasm:

[eridani]

155. Since when do ALL churches say those things?

Unitarians don't, anyway.

[Bluebear]

156. Fine. Find me a Unitarian candidate. nt

[Critters2]

233. Obama is the closest you'll find in this election cycle.

He's UCC.

[Critters2]

214. Neither does the United Church of Christ

of which Barack Obama is a member.

[Critters2]

225. Clinton and Edwards' church may say homosexuality is wrong

Obama's doesn't. Doesn't say abortion is murder either.

Broad brushes are never a good idea.

[Mojambo]

22. Just one of those annoying little aspects of American Democracy

Got to get down on your knees for Jesus or you can't lead.

I'm used to this BS. It ain't changing anytime soon.

[shenmue]

23. "No law respecting an establishment of religion"

Why is that so hard to remember?

[MonkeyFunk]

27. and what law

is being passed here?

Come on, I think this faith forum is pretty silly, but it's not a violation of the first amendment by any stretch.

[MadBadger]

100. Please tell me how having a forum on faith

has any bearing on the establishment of religion?

[Perky]

106. Gee....I guess it doesn't.

:)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

124. Well Kudos On Being Able To Quote Things. But You Realize That Has Nothing To Do With Anything Here

right?

If you think otherwise, I challenge you to provide reasoning for your position. I'll await your explanation.

[me b zola]

167. Will you be drumming your fingers & tapping your toes?

I challange you to await your answer while tapping your toes and drumming your fingers to the theme song from 'The Berverly Hillbillies'.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

25. I consider myself religious and this thing infuriates me. it's so insulting

I think it's insulting to be talked down to like that. We have no way of knowing what's in their hearts. only God knows. They shouldn't do this. No one buys it.

The Dems should run with what they're good at: bread and butter policy issues.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nashville_brook]

26. big k 'n r

[BlooInBloo]

29. To Americans it is.

[murloc]

33. If they want to win it is.

and appearing to be a faithful person is a winning strategy.

Like it or not, no aThiest will win any presidential election in the foreseeable future.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. The biannual circus is in town and the clowns are in the center ring.

“Now, the man on the stand he wants my vote,
He's a-runnin' for office on the ballot note.
He's out there preachin' in front of the steeple,
Tellin' me he loves all kinds-a people.
(He's eatin' bagels
He's eatin' pizza
He's eatin' chitlins
He's eatin' bullshit!)”

Bob Dylan

[More Than A Feeling]

41. WTF? Is it just me or is Jesse Jackson disconnectedly rambling?

[ddeclue]

42. I think it is a chance to take a tool out of Republican hands

in the South and midwest where they call us heathens.

Doug D.

[mzmolly]

80. Exactly right. I for one got sick of the RW co-opting "God."

:shrug:

[JANdad]

44. Hey folks...

Let's calm down a bit here OK?

When was the last time we as progressive/liberal Dem's had an audience like this one....

Thinking...

Thinking...

Thinking...

Oh Yeah...The Sermon on the Mount...

Remember, love thy neighbor, what you do for the least of mine and all that stuff????

Like it or not, a majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians and given that we now have an opportunity to challenge *'s faith and show what real faith and morals are...well I am all for it!

[Bluebear]

49. Yes, this will attract the "God made Adam & Eve, not Steve" crowd.

And those that say that abortion stops a beating heart, etc.

Also, I can love my neighbor without being told to.

[JANdad]

52. Oh for Chisakes...

Do you REALLY believe that that crowd would vote for a Dem? Come on...

There are millions of liberal Christians (me included) who think it is OK to profess your faith and speak to a crowd that the Dem leadership has ignored b/c they had been hijacked by the GOP and considered lost.

Your response is about as close minded as those you diparage...

[Bluebear]

55. 'Your response is about as close minded as those you diparage.' Baloney

You said we can challenge Bush's faith, as if we would attract those Bush voters. Ain't gonna happen.

[JANdad]

64. Bush won on Faith

And I use the term "won" loosley...

Listen...my point is that we for the first time in a long time have the chance to dispel that notion that all Liberals are "ungodly"...

Why not take that opportunity? What do we have to lose? What are you afraid of?

What would you do if your candidate showed up at a NASCAR event? Or went duck hunting? Would you chastise them for that or recognize that they are trying to appeal to the widest possible base b/c Lord knows...we are not all the same!

[Bluebear]

65. If people think liberals are "ungodly", so be it.

Those that believe that will not vote for our side anyhow. This whole Soledad O'Brien-Paula Zahn line of "do you pray every day" questioning is nauseating to me.

[JANdad]

72. Then don't watch it...eom

[Bluebear]

74. Thank you, that's very helpful. Meanwhile, Edwards lost my vote tonight.

nt

[donco6]

135. What do we have to lose?

Well, as a gay man, I get to lose the chance of being considered something less than destined for hell. Evangelical Christians, such as Sojourners, still believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, after all. Why pander to that bullshit?

[OwnedByFerrets]

142. And, if you recall..........

the last time they showed up at a duck hunt, a nascar event or a tank parade, they were riduculed endlessly. Hell, the tank and duck thing are still brought up. The right-wingers will be all over this tomorrow.....hell, even Jon will probably make jokes about it tomorrow nite. These democrats and their "advisors" will never ever learn.

[bobbolink]

73. "I'm all for it"... and so are poor people!

We're so very tired of being chopped liver.

It's high time for this to happen!

:bounce:

[LeftyMom]

109. Not this poor person. I could use some talk about policy, I don't need pie in the sky when I die.

If somebody wants to get my vote they can talk about improved student aid policies or getting the price of gas down or something else that might actually do somebody some good, because mumbling at the ceiling isn't going to improve my situation or anybody else's.

[OwnedByFerrets]

143. Thank you, ditto for me.

[bobbolink]

253. There are candidates who *HAVE* been proposing policy.. especially Edwards.

For the rest, this is probably showing their "pie-in-the-sky"

Unless/until they know that people want POLICY, they're going to continue wandering in the desert, and we'll just vote anyway, because what else ya gonna do....

[Lars39]

81. I want somebody in office that will help put the breaks on our rising theocracy,

not help it along.

[Bluebear]

82. Amen.

As it were :)

[trashcanistanista]

243. Amen to that!

I watched this forum and it was very disturbing to me on a gut level. I'm rethinking all of them, it was that disturbing.

[nam78_two]

46. Recommended.nt

[tabasco]

51. Totally agree. It is un-American and irrational.

Religion is a personal matter and should have nothing to do with government.

[slipslidingaway]

53. K&R n/t

[Bluebear]

58. Biden now: "We're the only nation founded on the fact there is a God!"

Very helpful, Joe.

PS, did Jesus inform your vote about the bankruptcy bill?

[dysfunctional press]

63. not that i ever would have considered voting for the fuckwad...

it's now a certainty that i never will. for anything.

[AnnieBW]

89. Blessed are the poor

For they won't be able to declare bankruptcy any more, thanks to Biden!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

125. Fact? The existence of God is not a fact.

And anyhow, Joe, we weren't founded on that "fact," or even that belief.

Oh, well; I wouldn't have voted for him anyhow.

[slowry]

59. Vomitous n/t

[seriousstan]

60. Once again, a minority is swept aside because....who you going to vote for otherwise?

Get in line with the other people waiting until the "more important issues are settled first". Take solice in the fact that they are keeping their powder dry.

[KG]

62. funny how those 'more important issues' never quite get settled.

[Bluebear]

67. I now know they all "pray every day", but not what they will do about gas prices.

Wonderful.

[lonestarnot]

66. Yes.

They are voters, and so am I. I want to know every fucking thing possible about every candidate running.

[anitar1]

75. Why don't they just dunk all of them,as in the old

Salem trials? No one should have to prove their faith to run for office.
This smacks of the RW wacko's having pushed debate to the point where everyone feels they have to mouth the "faith" words. Makes me want to barf.I would like to never hear this stuff again. So false.

[Bluebear]

77. Don't give them any ideas. nt

[lonestarnot]

122. If they believe in nut'n but fuck'n nut'n I want to know that too.

[AndreaCG]

76. That's one big reason he's not getting my vote in the primary

Jimmy Carter was as devout a President as there has been, but he didn't pass judgment on other religions or those who lack religious belief. I always get the feeling that Obama thinks of non-believers as inferior.

[Telly Savalas]

123. Do you have a rational basis for this feeling about Obama?

Or is it just a matter of faith for you?

[mzmolly]

83. I think unless we want An Coulter defining "God" it is necessary, unfortunately.

For example, one point that was mentioned tonight is that God does not hold Gays in any lesser light than anyone else. "We're all God's children" as Kucinich stated. That meme was the overwhelming message, and I am glad to see it after being told for years that Liberals are "Godless."

Also, the event was sponsored by Sojourners which is a leftist Christian group.

I understand the valid concerns here, but we can't give "God" to the Right Wing unless we want them defining who/what God is. And, regardless of our individual belief system, that is a dangerous proposition.

:hug:'s to you BB.

[Bluebear]

87. Hugs back, hon...

I will say that my choice of primary candidate changed, so all in all the debate did help me :)

[mzmolly]

91. LOL,

You sweetie you. ;) Well in the sense that you got a better feel for the candidates it was a good thing!

I'm primarily Gore supporter so I'm neutral at this point. Lucky me!

[Bluebear]

92. Edwards ----> Kucinich for me...

...but I am hoping Al Gore saves us all :)

[mzmolly]

93. That's my personal plan!

You think he'll start taking my calls? :crazy:

[Perky]

84. Where does all this anger come from?

I swear some of you are so full of anger over the zealots on the right that you are not even willing to give an inch to the evangelical left as they try and regained ground that has been seeded. And at the same time, you say the Christian left is not speaking out against the right... You seem to want us to just shut up if we will not go away.

It is unreasoned imbecilic arrogant and intolerant, to expect people of faith, whether candidates or voters to sit down while the likes of you get to determine the will of the party, Democratic Christian have demanded nothing. Not One blessed things from our party, its candidates, its platform or its members. We have not asked for a single litmus test of anyone.

Nobody here on DU is persecuting you. No one Sojourners is persecuting any group. Why blast away at the candidates for stating what they believe? If you don't like what they say, that's fine. but there is no cause to shotgun hate speech at fellow democrats or demand fidelity to an agenda of hate.

Some of you sound remarkably like the the zealots you hate.


You are welcome to your opinion of course but how about just a little bit of grace for those who spring from a differ nt tradition but wind up agreeing with you politically on 90% of the issues.

[Bluebear]

90. Oh, blow it out your ass already.

Angry enough for you? :)

[Perky]

96. Ok.... and here is my other ear too

Not yet. not nearly anygr enough. I will let you know when you get closer.

[Jonathan50]

116. Frankly, I strongly suspect that none of the candidates are persons of faith.

People with real faith couldn't do what it takes to get elected these days.

If you believe in God, which I do not, then one must also believe that only God can truly know what is your heart.

I know that Hillary and Edwards are very wealthy, I really haven't paid enough attention to the candidates yet to know how the others stand financially but I rather suspect they are all at least more than comfortable.

Matthew 6:24
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Mark 10:25
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Becoming wealthy is not a Godly pursuit, to do what it takes to become wealthy implies a lack of Godliness.

[Connie_Corleone]

120. Becoming wealthy does not imply a lack of Godliness.

Or else God, according to the bible, wouldn't have blessed some of his followers with riches. It's what you do with it that counts.

For instance the story of the rich man who never gave to the poor man he walked passed everyday.

[Jonathan50]

127. What you have to do these days to become wealthy is what implies a lack of Godliness.

One becomes wealthy by stepping on the faces of others while climbing up the ladder of success.

As the old saying goes, nice guys finish last.

[OwnedByFerrets]

145. That is a very good point and one which

the rich love to ignore.

[donco6]

139. Sojourners are Christians, right?

They're evangelical, right? (Nod your head yes, because they are).

They believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, right? (They aren't evangelical if they don't - it's de facto).

They believe there's only one path of salvation, right? Through belief in Jesus dying on the cross as payment for the penalty of sin. (Pretty much the cornerstone of Christianity).

They believe that anyone who doesn't believe this is sent to hell, right? (Just add the "ergo" between this and the statement before).

So who the hell needs them? They believe I'm going to hell. I believe they're full of shit. And I don't want any of that influencing my government.

[Perky]

193. Evangelicals do not necessarily believe in inerrancy

those are the fundamentalists.

But you are being dismissive on theological grounds that has little influnece on liberal political thought. You seem to be saying that the intesection come faith an oliticcs necessarily comes at the Atonement. I think it comes at the Seromn on The Mount. where CHrist calls us to help the poor and the needy and the sick and the homeless; Where he says blesed is the Peacemaker.


Is there no difference in your view?

[donco6]

254. If you're saying that . . .

the cornerstone of Christian thought is not the Atonement, you need to do some soul-searching.

[Perky]

258. I was referring specifically to the intersection of faith and Politics

for Fundies I think the intersection may well be with the giving of the Ten Commandments
for the evangelical tight i, ,t is probably the Cross
For the Evangelical Left it is the Cross but it is also the Sermon on the Mount
For the non-evangelical it is simply the Sermon on the Mount bequeathes Cross for any number of reason is difficult for them.


For me there is deep and abiding purpose in my liberal politics. For me it starts with the Sermon on the Mount but Christ and the Cross is central because I reckon that there is nothing I can do in my own strength to merits acceptance". Faith without works is dead, but likewise work without faith is also dead (not for everyone....but certainly that is true for the believer).

Anywho.....:shrug:

[muriel_volestrangler]

197. Not quite right, I think

'Evangelical' means they believe its their duty to spread their religion (literally it means 'good news'). There can be a large overlap with literalist bible believers, but neither one implies the other.

Many Christians think that non-Christians can go to their heaven.

He surprised some at the three-day Greenbelt festival in Cheltenham, Glos, by declaring that Muslims can go to heaven.

Dr Williams said that neither he nor any Christian could control access to heaven. "It is possible for God's spirit to cross boundaries," he said.

"I say this as someone who is quite happy to say that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except by Jesus. But how God leads people through Jesus to heaven, that can be quite varied, I think."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/30/narch30.xml

Many sects of Christianity think there's no such thing as hell. The official position of the Church of England, for instance, is "Hell is not eternal torment, but it is the final and irrevocable choosing of that which is opposed to God so completely and so absolutely that the only end is total non-being". And, as an atheist, I do believe I will cease to exist when my body dies. My difference with them is they think they have a (potentially immortal) soul. That's not a problem for me.

Having said that, I don't know whether Sojourners has particular views on salvation, hell and so on. But you need to find their explicit views before lumping them in with a stereotypical Christian.

[donco6]

255. "Many" does not apply to evangelicals.

Sorry. Evangelicals believe in hell.

[spoony]

178. That's as well as it can be said.

Nicely done, Perky.

[AnnieBW]

85. Biblical injunctions???

Obama just lost my vote. I'm a Wiccan. I stopped following the Christian Bible when I left Catholicism.

BTW, isn't "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" a Biblical injunction?

[Art_from_Ark]

141. Speaking of injunctions,

What about all those injunctions against eating pork and shellfish, sleeping with a woman during her time of the month, and working on the Sabbath (punishable by death)?

[The Straight Story]

179. It's a jewish one

OT style stuff ;)

[Swamp Rat]

86. Totally gross!

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[mopinko]

88. al, al, al. please save us al

can we have our circular firing squad now, and start over?

[WiseButAngrySara]

97. Is this Al Gore you seem to be praying to? Baptist Al Gore? ....n/t

[mopinko]

131. baptist al gore who

is horrified at the mixing of church and state, and all the other degradations of the constitution that we are knee deep in these days.

[WiseButAngrySara]

133. So is Edwards. And Clinton. Did you listen tonight? ....n/t

[1932]

195. You know that Al Gore went to Divinity School, don't you?

And I've never heard him express horror about faith informing politics.

[Pastiche423]

94. This is pathetically sad

The United States was founded as a secular nation. It still amazes me that too many citizens are either willfully ignorant of our history, or just plain stupid.

Damn. Obama was on my short list. To be fair, he was edging perilously close to it w/his health care stance.

[Connie_Corleone]

95. Did the rest of you on here actually hear what Obama said

or are you just going by what the OP wrote?

[MadBadger]

98. I heard what he said. I dont understand what all the fuss is about

I thought he sounded great, especially when answering the question about Good vs. Evil, and his lone question from the panel.

[Connie_Corleone]

102. It's just frustrating when I see posts reacting to one sentence

the OP wrote and they exclaim, "That's it! I'm not voting for Obama."

Well, they might as well take Edwards and Clinton off the list since they were at this forum too.

On edit: Also acting like Sojourners is some rightwing organization when it is clearly liberal.

[MadBadger]

104. Im annoyed by this entire thread and others like it

Look, many people here including myself probably are not people of faith. But that doesnt mean there are not millions of voters in this country who are, even in the democratic party. They are an important voting bloc, and this forum is something right up their alley. This event also shoots for the idependents who can vote in the NH primary. So I think it is idiotic to write off this event as worthless, and going against Separation of Church and state.

[Bluebear]

110. Sorry you're annoyed, but I am a New Hampshire primary voter too

I now know what Hillary Clinton prays for, but not what her stance is on gas prices. I will wager that New Hampshire independents care far more about the war in Iraq and health care, and not about faith-based morals and values.

[MadBadger]

111. Did I ever say that they didnt care more about one thing or the other?

You can care a lot about more than one thing. I will wager that it is important to religious voters, who do matter.

[jonnyblitz]

117. Many of the people on these threads complaining about this

obnoxious charade ARE religious voters. they can see this pandering for what it is.

[MadBadger]

119. Well that audience sure enjoyed what they were getting.

And on pandering, all politicians pander every single minute of every single day. I am not religious at all, and I thought this was very interesting because we dont really here about these issues that often in democratic circles and I wanted to hear what they had to say on these things.

[spoony]

259. ...

Why don't you PM me which ones you think are "religious voters," I could use a giggle.

[Bluebear]

107. Are you saying I misquoted him?

[Skip Intro]

105. I totally agree!

I was thinking that watching the last few minutes of it. wtf???

[Warren DeMontague]

113. Only if the "Values Voter" is as all-fucking-powerful as the M$M wants you to believe.

I mean, they must be, right? That's why Terri Schiavo was such a winning issue for the GOP. :eyes:

That's why the DLC pooh-bahs and Bob Shrum types always win elections on their never-fails "court the heartland" conventional wisdom...


...right?

I mean, certainly it would be utterly nucking futs to suggest that far more powerful than the "values voter" (and certainly more in play) are the millions of socially libertarian, educated, un-aligned voters who can't figure out which party is less interested in micro-managing their shit.

Oh, it's all about the numbers, right?

Well, there are something like 45 million Americans with no health insurance. Why are none of our candidates (except maybe Kucinich) coming out for a SPHC system? Millions of Americans work for the minimum wage. Why no drive for a liveable one? Hey, here's a question- something like 80 Million Americans smoke pot. Think CNN will have a candidate roundtable on ending the farce that is the drug war any time soon?


No, of course not- but perpetuating the meme that the whole damn country needs to be in thrall to 100 or so "heartland values voters" is a fun way for them to propogate a lot of bullshit noise while avoiding any discussions of substance.

[Bluebear]

114. You said it. nt

[Raksha]

180. That's very perceptive:

...perpetuating the meme that the whole damn country needs to be in thrall to 100 or so "heartland values voters" is a fun way for them to propogate a lot of bullshit noise while avoiding any discussions of substance.

I agree with both the conclusion and the examples you gave. Wouldn't it be something if one of the front-runners actually admitted that the "War on Drugs" is bullshit and should be abandoned?

[Warren DeMontague]

181. It'd be nice if they could adopt some brave stands on a lot of things, wouldn't it?

Frankly, I think there's a solid "get government out of people's bedrooms, bodies, and personal lives" contingent in both parties that isn't being effectively spoken to.

[progressoid]

118. I'd rather have facts inform our policies.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

121. Nothing Wrong With It. Not Sure I Understand The Level Of Feigned Outrage At It Or Anything Though.

But I guess I don't need to. To each their own.

[Dukkha]

128. pandering to the naive and gullible

:eyes:

truly pathetic. what century are we living in?

[Madspirit]

132. k&r He lost my support the last time he invoked his mythology

Obama lost my support a long time ago with his religious garbage. I will vote for him if he gets the nomination but I will do whatever needed to prevent that.
Lee

[EFerrari]

134. Whatever happened to IDEAS?

:shrug:

[LittleClarkie]

137. It's not a pander if he believes it

and has demonstrated, and talked about, his faith before.

[Madspirit]

140. WE ALREADY HAVE A THEOCRAT IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!

How's that working out for you guys?

Obama has lost me.
Lee

[cui bono]

144. Yeah, fuck that. I refuse to watch that shit.

Sorry, but I just read the thread that informed me it's okay to cuss because W and Cheney do it. :)

[ComerPerro]

146. people want a candidate who will tell them the same lies they tell themselves

this is especially true when it comes to religion.

Frankly, though, I am damn sick of all this pandering to the Christofascists.

[AnnieBW]

147. Did they happen to ask their opinions about non-Christian religions?

Did any of the candidates actually bring up anything about non-Christian religions? Like, did they say anything that would make a Hindu, Moslem, Buddhist, etc. want to vote for them?

[donco6]

151. You mean cults?

No I didn't hear any questions about those Satan worshipers. :sarcasm: and a little :puke: thrown in for good measure

[Bluebear]

153. No, they aren't "real" Americans.

:sarcasm:

Or is it?

[treestar]

148. Too bad nobody has the guts to say: I'll just pursue my faith and

you'll pursue yours and it will have nothing to do with government.

[Rex]

150. Dam Pandas!

They've taken an 'interest' in your thread. Beware.

[Bluebear]

182. Paul Tsongas used to carry a "pander bear" around with him on the campaign trail :)

[mmonk]

152. It's called letting others direct you about what the important issues are.

[Perky]

192. Not necessarily

Yes that is certaionly going on on the right, but the evangelical left is way to unrganizaed and the party's base to is way to intellectual to be told what to think.

[mmonk]

198. With the major issues before this nation

it seems to be what I suggested in my opinion. I'm not saying having a discussion about it is bad. I'm saying we've been inundated with religious discussion in the last six years while this nation burns with no corrective measures and a ton of media misdirection.

[Perky]

200. Actually

tgo paraphrase Jim Wallis, who organized this thing last night, It has not been a discussion, it has been a monologue. And the notion here is to boldy suggest that the GOP is not the safeguader of that intersection.

[Perky]

201. Actually

tgo paraphrase Jim Wallis, who organized this thing last night, It has not been a discussion, it has been a monologue. And the notion here is to boldy suggest that the GOP is not the safeguader of that intersection.

[CAG]

157. Of the six billion people on this earth, the majority claim a religion, be it

Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc, etc. All of these billions are just stupid, stupid, stupid people according to some all-knowing atheists, some of which gleefully ( and repeatedly) can't ever waste a second to ridicule and bemoan the "naive," "gullible," "mythology"-believing religious people.

I'll never understand how otherwise bright people can't seem to understand that christians aren't just all a bunch of Jerry-Falwell-lovin' right wingers wishing to take all of their rights away from them. They never seem to realize they're being duped by that good ol' librul media which CONTINUALLY portray christianity as a bunch of, well, Jerry-Falwell-lovin' right wingers wishing to take all of their rights away from them. They fall into the same trap that we gripe about right-wingers going lockstep with Fauxnews O'reilly and oxycontin limbaugh.

However, when the CNN's of the world finally realize that all christians aren't RW loonies, and spend some time with them, this type of thread comes up on DU berating any democratic presidential candidate for, oh the horror, taking 15 minutes out of a 2 year campaign to mention that, oh by the way, they're a christian, and things like "love thy neighbor", "love thine enemy", are actually in the new testament, despite the fact that you never hear that from RW christianity.

[Bluebear]

185. I never said they were stupid. I said it doesn't apply to me.

Also I don't need to hear the "marriage is for one man and one woman" schtick from people like Edwards, who I liked just fine going into the evening. Show me where I, the all-knowing atheist, called Christians naive and gullible.

[Hekate]

158. Actually it is, in these times. I thought Hillary did very well; got lots of applause.

I thought Hillary did very well. She was raised to not talk about her religion in public, and this has been a hard transition for her.

When Bill ran for his first term as president, someone wrote about the differences between the two of them in how they were raised and how they practiced their religion. He has that Southern emotionality -- she's a Methodist, influenced by ministers who believed in doing good works and fostering social justice rather than talking publicly about one's personal relationship with Jeeeezus. Her tradition included lessons on the Pharisees, those who pray in public places to gain favor with men, rather than alone with God. But reporters noticed that wherever she traveled, she had a well-thumbed and well-read Bible with her.

I remembered that, and have always thought how unfair it has been for the Religious Wrong to castigate her as barely-Christian because she's socially liberal.

As Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners has pointed out, God is not a Republican or a Democrat -- and as many others have pointed out, the Repubs have loudly claimed the "moral high ground" on many issues, and they have loudly claimed that God is on their side and their side alone.

As much as I agree with those who practice their religion privately and don't parade it in the public square, the Publicans need to be called out on this, and I'm glad it's being done early in the game.

Hekate

[Hekate]

160. Btw, does anyone know when the re-run will be? I missed most of the live broadcast. nt

[johnaries]

159. Yes, it is.

Like it or not, the majority of Americans are Christians - or members of some other faith-based religion.

The Republicans made many people believe that if they voted against Republicans they were voting against Religion. Even though the Democrats better represent the core values of most of those religions (feed the hungry, etc.)

We need to counter the Republican spin. So, yes, the "faith-based panderfest" is necessary.

Any other questions?

[zulchzulu]

163. Got link?

Let's see the full statement.

[MadBadger]

165. Well, this topic originated from a live forum going on at the time

So I wouldnt expect the OP to have a link by their sides.

[zulchzulu]

168. A transcript perhaps?

If you're going to trash a candidate, at least get off your ass and use the exact quote and a link to prove your point...or just be an ass.

[MadBadger]

169. Talking about the OP right?

Btw, I dont think the OP quoted him right. Im just trying to play nice here.

[zulchzulu]

170. Yep...

Like you said, I don't think the OP was anywhere close to what Obama was referring to. That was my point. If you have something to say negatively about a candidate, do a little homework and provide a link.

I was not directing anything at you.

:hi:

[MadBadger]

171. Okay. I was watching the forum

Mainly for Obama. I am an Obama supporter and I thought he rocked in every way.

[Bluebear]

184. Yes, I did, and I did it right as the forum was going on.

I had nothing against Obama and am on the NH mailing list for him as I was very interested in his candidacy, but I see that I am just "trashing him".

[Bluebear]

187. For your convenience :) Transcripts now available

OBAMA:... "And that's the kind of faith that I think has to inform, not just our international policies, but also domestic policies, as well."

====
OBAMA: There's a biblical injunction that I see to make sure that...

(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: ... those young men and women -- to make sure that those young men and women have an opportunity to right their lives.

====
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/04/sitroom.03.html

You're welcome :)

[Bluebear]

183. Don't you fucking call me an ass.

I wasn't trashing your candidate, I was trashing the whole show. Which was live at the time so I don't have a 'link'.

But as you don't need to be talking to an "ass" anymore I will wish you a nice life as we won't be running into each other here again and good luck to your candidate.

[donco6]

256. It's a live event, dumbass.

You need to read first, post second.

[zulchzulu]

166. Reality check: What Obama REALLY has said about faith and politics

Please note that I personally believe in the peaceful teachings of the Celts, Buddha, Christ, the Great Spirit and Tao along with those that don't believe in "organized religious institutions" that reap millions from the poor.

I do like what Obama has said about faith and politics:

"I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology—that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. Some politicians come and clap—off rhythm—to the choir. We don’t need that. In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they’re something they’re not.

What I am suggesting is this: Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King—indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history—were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. To say that men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of “thou” and not just “I,” resonates in religious congregations all across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal."

http://www.christianethicstoday.com/issue/062/The_Role_of_Religion_in_Politics_By_BarackObama_062_05_.htm

Name me one politician who has said they are an aetheist...

[eridani]

177. Well, can we ask believers to leave the faith part behind--

--and focus on the ethics that they hold in common with believers in different traditions and people who don't see any particular belief as connected with their ethics?

[Perky]

194. thanks for posting this

OBama really gets it.

[mzmolly]

203. That statement

kicks ass.

:hi:

[alarimer]

186. I am so sick of this crap too

I did not even watch. So sick of sanctimonious politicians trying to out-hallelujah each other.

Faith should not have a goddamn thing to do with policy.

[JTFrog]

199. I guess I'm in shock.

Why does this seem to be an issue that the left will immediately blast the right for, but when the left does it, it's different because "insert your reason here".

This is not ok. Please put the Kool-Aid back in the fridge.

Seriously, no matter how many will reply in protest, if Romney/Brownback/Thompson held a similar forum, DU would explode with fury.

There is no place in politics for religion. To make an argument that there is, IMHO, is the ultimate poking of the wasp's nest. Do you really want to do that?

[Bluebear]

202. Thank you. nt

[HowHasItComeToThis]

207. BEAM ME UP, SCOTTY

RELIGION IS IN ITS LAST THROES.
:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

208. "Faith" is creeping back into policy, and not just fundies

They don't come much more liberal than the governance of Univ of Mich, but they are spending some state bucks on religion:
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007706050368

[muffin1]

210. Seems to me

That if we learn anything at all from the Middle East, it would be that government mixed with religion is a VERY BAD THING INDEED!:think:

[northernsoul]

213. Hasn't this past 6-year experiment in Faith-Based Governance taught us something?

I'm ready for public policies based on reality, please and thank you.

[donco6]

257. I think the phrase is "taught us nothing."

At least, that's what I got out of this disgusting display.

[DancingBear]

217. It's part of Pandering 101

You know, right up there with all the lies about putting people first and a new vision for America and all that crap.

The big money strategists tell 'em all to lay the whole moral high ground bullshit on thick - smudges the corporate lifeline that they all cling to.

Just another step to whoredom...

[dmallind]

227. Well from my atheistic POV

SHOULD it be necessary for anybody running for anything above dogcatcher to go out of their way to show how much they want to flatter Jesus? Nope.

IS it necessary? Yep. fully half the population - including at least some goodly number of Democrats - would not vote for a qualified politician of their own party who was not a believer. Stupid? Medieval? A damning indictment of the absence of critical thinking in today's society and education? All of the above, but true too. Do you want our nominee to have to get absolutely every single vote that's potentially up for grabs for a nobnbeliever - not losing a single one - and still barely tie? That's what you;re asking for if they don't pander to the believers.

Yes there could have been some more inclusive answers but ANYTHING wishy washy such as "I'll keep my faith and politics separate as everyone else should" would be a tacit acknowledgement of non-mainstream Xian beliefs and as such trumpeted from the rooftops every day from now till the general. Can you imagine:

"Hillary refuses to say she's a Christian!"

"Edwards won't say the name of God!"

Obama ducks question of whether he believes in Jesus or Muhammed!"

The sunday sheep would never listen to another word they said, and it's eight more years of neocon theocracy. Frankly I suspect few of the candidates are all that driven by faith - not just the Dem ones either. I'm pretty sure all but the Borwnbacks and Hunters are mouthing the words to curry votes. I care what they will DO not what the say, and if candidate X wants to say they pray every day and attend church every week and then still keep the country secular and the government out of our bedrooms, then I'm fine with their charade. And spare me the diatribes about honor and honesty and not being able to trust a candidate who is not true enough to their own beliefs to say what they are. Any candidate who does not pretend to be a Christian whether they have all the Robert Ingersoll speeches memorized and take off Darwin's birthday every year or not is toast and you might as well not bother running anyone who won't BS about this.

Heck if I ran for local office *I'd* pretend to be a Xian. One reason among many I am completely unelectable is that there are dozens of hours of Atheist Talk cable shows and dozens of Atheist newsletter articles floating around that would show that to be bogus. Of course everyone loves a convert so maybe.... ;-)

[Tesha]

228. Hillary and Obama both pander their "faith". (NT)

[mconvente]

229. What would happen if Al Gore decided to run and then decided to talk about his faith?

Would there be as large of a problem then, since he is the dream candidate to many of us?

[Critters2]

231. And a Baptist. nt

[Bluebear]

232. I don't know, let's see if he does.

I can't imagine his attending this program yesterday, though, with as another poster put it, everyone trying to out-hallelujah the other.

[Critters2]

237. He's a Baptist. why wouldn't he talk publicly about his faith? nt

[THUNDER HANDS]

234. calm down, folks

it was just a forum. Some people (like myself) might be interested in hearing their thoughts on this subject.

And to note, I'm not a religious person at all, but I'm curious how they answer questions relating to faith. Like it or not, it's a huge part of America and an even bigger part of the voting electorate.

[Bluebear]

238. Let me know when they address gas prices, health care & HOW they will end the war.

Instead of "what they pray for".

[THUNDER HANDS]

239. that was what the forum was about

don't blame the candidates for not choosing the format of the forum. They have tons of debates to discuss those issues, plus, I think they have answers on their individual websites to address those topics.

[Bluebear]

240. So, Americans have to go to individual websites for those answers,

yet, their Christian faith is handily displayed on a TV forum? You don't see anything odd about that?

[THUNDER HANDS]

242. what do you want?

It was a forum sponsored by a faith group. A liberal faith group. That gave the candidates as much time as they wanted and treated them with much more respect than MSNBC or the CNN debates did.

By the time the election rolls around, this will have been forgotten, but for one night, it was interesting to watch and listen to. You never really see Democrats talk about faith, so it was a nice change of pace.

[Bluebear]

244. 'That gave the candidates as much time as they wanted'..unless they were Kucinich, Dodd, etc

But I digress.

[THUNDER HANDS]

250. I'll rephrase

They gave the candidates most democrats are interested in hearing from, as much time as they wanted.

[JoePhilly]

241. Agree ... I'm not religious, but many of those who vote are ...

And I don't care if one believes in God or not.

I don't find any religion cornering the market on MORALITY or GOODNESS.

Each seems to impose as much pain as it relieves.

Still -- many in the US "believe in a God." Its no surprise that most candidates do.

My immediate question is whether they would attempt to impose their religious beliefs, dogma, etc, on the rest of us.

My sense is that the Dems are much less likily to do so.

[bamacrat]

235. As the five myths about America clearly stated..

The founding fathers did not base this country on Christian principles, or any religion for that matter. That was the whole reason for us fighting England for our freedom, no religion should be considered when making law or policy, only the fairness to mankind and the betterment of our society. This idea that Christian values govern our politicians is what has destroyed our country.

[AtomicKitten]

236. It's apparently "necessary" for some folks, or so I hear.

It's not to me so I usually just ignore it.

If you invest in the notion that you can't please all the people all the time, then you won't be disappointed with stuff like this and will learn to just let it slide.

[bling bling]

245. Misleading OP. Shame on you.

None of the Democrats, including Obama, (who you singled out) would disagree with your soapbox statement about morals and values not being exclusively faith-based commodities.

[greiner3]

246. I have heard Abama speak several times;

And he does play the religion card heavily. In my opinion, we're just trading one fundy for another one.

[Evoman]

247. Of course it necessary...how are we going to vote if we can't determine who loves Jesus more?

It seems to me, that the amount you love Jesus is directly proportional to how good a person you are. You can't be a good person if you don't drink the Jesus Juice (tm).

[Beelzebud]

248. Republican Lite

[NMMNG]

249. It shouldn't be

But apparently nobody believes in Separation of Church and State anymore and the theme of the election is 'suck up to the religious voters and screw the GLBT voters'. :shrug:

[Perky]

261. Do you think it is possible to do do both?

I understand your sentiment and am not the least bit dismissive. I think at the same time the fundies would look at it as suck up up to the GLBT voters and screw the religious voters.

So the question in my mind is there a way to suck up to both religious voters and GLBT voters?

I mean GLBT voters do no vote solely on GLBT issues and voters who are religious do not vote solely on the basis of their religious sentiments.

Though I suspect the most fervent members of either groups may vote solely on the basis of those issues most come to the decision making process with many other concerns and I suspect they would agree.

[leftofthedial]

262. the religiously insane bible thumper voting bloc is in play

for the first time in a generation.

politicians, as amoral a bunch as there is on earth, know no approach to them save pandering.

[porphyrian]

266. And many South Floridians wear too much cologne.

It's irritating, but what are you going to do? (And, yes, I know that too much cologne hasn't caused hate crimes against homosexuals - at least, I don't think so.)