. . . God created Republicans in His image. I know because they all said so in last night’s Republican debate when Wolf Blitzer asked about Biblical creation versus evolution (watch CNN’s Huckabee and Brownback videos). They seemed to agree with Mike Huckabee’s explanation that he’s not sure when this divine creation happened, or how long it took, but none confessed any doubt that it really happened.
Creationism can be imposed in schools, while An Inconvenient Truth or Sagan’s Cosmos can be banned, as long as it’s done, as McCain suggested, by local governments. Romney bravely insisted that no one was going to separate him from his Book of Mormon, but only Ron Paul seemed to understand that the supremely secular 1st Amendment was the inspired principle that protected Mitt from the Romans.
Given the original perfection of Eden, it logically follows that Democrats weren’t there at the beginning; I suspect they evolved later, after the fall, though it’s possible Tancredo and Brownback think they’re just aliens from somewhere, and we should weed out the ones with brown skin that don’t speak English before they pollute America’s precious bodily fluids. But despite their darker than God-like nature, Democrats are still expected to be persons of faith and to be explicit about the role God plays in their lives and prospective administrations.
Over the past three nights, CNN came about as close as the media has in my lifetime to imposing a religious litmus test on U.S. presidential candidates. During those nights, every candidate tested so far claimed to turn the religiously correct color. But it wasn’t just the debates where candidates were asked about religion versus science.
The worst was Monday night, when CNN televised an hour long forum promoted by Sojourner founder Jim Wallis in which the top three Democratic candidates were “invited” to answer questions about their religious faiths. (Others, including Republicans, will get their turn later.) John Edwards, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton spent 15 minutes each answering questions from Soledad O’Brien before a live audience and CNN’s national television audience.
Being the pious politicians they are, all three Democrats “passed.” We heard Edwards talk about how Jesus is his personal saviour, how he had once strayed but had returned to the fold, how he struggles with sin every day — that was his answer to the question, “what’s the worst sin you ever committed?” — but he uses daily prayer to deal with it. It was a chance for Edwards to showcase his commitment to helping the less fortunate, his concerns about New Orleans, and humanitarian efforts and how they were all grounded in his faith and Baptist upbringing. He seemed pleased to have the opportunity, and the crowd was in near rapture.
Obama and Clinton seemed a little less comfortable with the dunking they were getting, though both did well enough. Obama acknowledged that terrorist attacks could be “evil,” but to his credit, he reminded his audience that so was torture at Guantanamo. Both stressed their commitment to social justice and linked it to religious upbringing.
Methodist Hillary slipped in a veiled dig at Baptist John by recalling that her upbringing tended to take a dim view of those who wear their religion on their sleeves, and all the Methodists applauded. Since she was asked about her husband’s infidelity (!!), she took the opportunity to explain that without her faith, she might not have gotten through that, a response that made the CNN headline. Okay, she gave them something, but it was safe. But my eyes were about to roll out the back of my head by now.
Except for this (h/t RevDeb for this UPDATE), I like Jim Wallis and respect his efforts to reintroduce evangelical Christianists to the beatitude teachings of Jesus and their relevance in defining a just nation and humane government policies. More power to him and others who remind Christians that Jesus did not call for wars, let alone preemptive ones, and was the victim of torture, illegal detention, a phony trial, and brutal hanging as a terrorist threat to the state; he wasn’t the perpetrator. And I understand the tactical political benefit Wallis is trying to achieve and why the Dems might see this in their interests.
But I’m seriously uncomfortable with how this event was staged, because it seemed the candidates really had no choice but to appear and give religiously correct answers not just before a likely pro-religious audience but before a national television audience. They were expected to demonstrate their religion. As a confirmed non-believer, I find this incredibly offensive and ultimately dangerous to the 1st Amendment.
National candidates know that strong majorities of voters identify themselves as “religious,” and so-called evangelical Christians appear, in some polls, to make up as much as 40 percent. No candidate can ignore these numbers, but it does not follow that it is a good idea for the national media to pressure candidates to appear for what is little more than a religious examination at an event organized by religious leaders — and it doesn’t matter that the organizer here is perceived as “liberal.” Given CNN’s sponsorship, no candidate could risk saying “heavens no, what are you thinking?” But I wish they had.
Beyond that, what are we to think of these presumably devout professions of exclusively Christian faith from candidates who, less than 24 hours later (or before) calmly told the American people that Americans killing innocent Muslim civilians is acceptable “collateral damage” (Clinton) if bin Laden is the target, or nuking Iranian cities is just fine (most of the Republicans) or should at least not be taken off the table (almost everyone) while we continue to rain unspeakable horror on civilians with our expanded bombing campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan? Excuse me, but if I can find someone who will condemn these actions and promise to stop them, it’s just fine with me if they get booed off the stage for renouncing this demeaning assault on reason or simply refuse to appear at CNN’s next religious inquisition.
For more on the Republican debate, read digby. UPDATE: C&L has more on Giuliani’s embrace of preemptive war.
CNN photo from Monday’s religious forum.
Related posts:
- A Public Option in the Democratic Platform?
- Frank Gaffney’s Cowardly Backtrack: It Doesn’t Matter if Obama’s a Muslim, Even Though I Just Methodically Detailed Exactly Why He Probably Is
- Frank Gaffney: Obama is America’s First Muslim President, and Just Like Hitler. Also.
- Bill Clinton: “I Was Wrong About Gay Marriage”
- Teddy Kennedy’s Faith, Active in Love





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

nil!
is it “zed”?
Zed is a lolo(’s) number!
i was absolutely INFURIATED by all the religious clap-trap being bandied about by the SCUM (SoCalledUnbiasedMedia).
nobody has the right to inquire about the religious credentials of candidates, and no candidate SHOULD answer them!
./
posted at the bottom of the last thread:
Good Morning!
Its most curious to compare the coverage of the Schlozman testimony here and at Talkinpointmemo and the cursory story at the Washington Post:
http://tinyurl.com/2dbpp6
It’s as if the reporter was told to soft pedal the story, which I had to search for on the Post site.
They ignored Bradley’s constant evasions and “I don’t knows..” and ended in an anonymous quote from a Justice official. The last two paragraphs are classic, and show just how far up the Administration’s butt these jokers are:
“Under Justice Department rules, prosecutors “must refrain from any conduct which has the possibility of affecting the election itself.” A department handbook also says that “most, if not all, investigation of an alleged election crime must await the end of the election to which the allegation relates.”
A department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the policy “does not mean . . . that the department forbids the filing of any charges, ever, around the time of an election.” The Missouri case involved voter-registration efforts, rather than the election itself, the official said.”
Hey Scarecrow. Glad that you had whatever it takes to watch the Rethugs whining last night and the Sojourner stuff Monday. I just can’t bring myself to watch such stuff although I know it goes on all the time.
Yesterday was a good day though what with Scooter getting his comeuppance.
And I hope for his sake that Bradley (AL-VIN!) Schlozman has a better lawyer than Scoots did as he is going to need it after his abysmal performance in front of the SJC yesterday…
so, scarecrow – how many of the candidates and participants (including wallis) do you think are faking it?
part of me hopes it’s all of them.
Just what we need, more bullshit religion in our government. Do people still believe Bush when he says that it was a “higher power” that told him to go to war in Iraq? And that he listened to this voice over the voice of his father, the former President who might have had some real experience with Iraq?
Republicans are the Terri Schiavo party.
Remember, Bush flew back specially to sign the Terri Schiavo bill, but didn’t show up for days after Katrina.
GeorgeSimian @ 8
Oh, come now. You know that a “missing white girl” story of any kind beats “missing city filled with persons of color” any day.
Besides, the Schiavo bill happened in the off-season; Bush had to keep his powder dry for the rest of the hurricane season in 2005.
/snarky rage
Scarecrow: A truly excellent post. I was feeling what you obviously felt, but was not able to articulate it. Thanks for getting that into the discussion.
Let me count the ways the media and politicians use each other to make fools of each other while diminishing sane government.
GeorgeSimian @ 8
Of course! He was listening to the Amighty Dollar. You know how money talks. ;-)
selise @ 7
You are a dangerous woman, Selise. I would never suggest such a thing!
Good morning everyone.
Wouldn’t it be lovely, or at least an interesting experiment for one of the lower-tier candidates, to take the position of Alan Alda’s character of the last season of The West Wing, where he simply refused to answer any questions pertaining to his own religious beliefs?
That candidate might crash and burn – or might gain respect for the position. At any rate, he/she would have truly done a service to the country in trying to dilute the false issue and helping a return to the real ones.
Sally @ 12
but how to break free? a politician who tells the truth is shamed and ignored. a tv reporter who tells the truth is fired.
this morning, i feel really badly for all involved.
Very nice post, Scarecrow, especially since it accords so closely to my beliefs, but this was the best:
“As a devout non-believer, I find this incredibly offensive and ultimately dangerous to the 1st Amendment.”
Never thought of it before, but I guess “devout non-believer” is not such an oxymoron as it at first sounds (actually sounds like me!). Thanks.
-MS
Never having cottoned on to the phantasmagoric I have a real problem trying to figure out just why a belief in something nonexistent is a positive. In fact it annoys the bejazus out of me. As a youth growing up in Ireland I saw first hand the evil that the church does, the bigotry, the hate, the violence, the misogyny, the buggery and the damned righteous arrogance. My father was one of the authors virtually exiled by the pontificating pricks in their gold lame dresses and we, as his children, were the recipients of their bigotry. Nope, gimme a secularist, a person that deals with reality and not fantasy and I will feel a lot more confident in their humanity and their ability to deal with problems from an objective point of view.
Scarecrow,
I couldn’t bring myself to watch Monday night’s fiasco. And I’m a MINISTER!!!
All of this makes me crazy. And as for Wallis’ so-called progressive cred. PLEASE read moiv posted either at DailyKos or Talk2Action. Believe me, she knows.
He is the BANE of our existence. Even more so than the wingnuts because the press thinks he’s one of us and he ISN’T.
Yes, I’m shouting.
good morning all… coffee is ready.
“Jail Time for Libby”: The Times thoughts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06…..6wed2.html
I hadn’t heard about the CNN god fest. Thanks for informing us. How truly sickening. And terrifying. This is the way to counter the right??? My vote goes to the first candidate who refuses to answer questions about his/her religion.
RevDeb @ 20 –
i was hoping you would show up, revdeb, for this thread… and set the record straight on wallis.
How many of you are reading Assault on Reason?
Gore speaks about what has been done with religion that the founders warned about. What a book! Explanations of what we all have talked about so long.
Article VI:
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.
Rack up one more impeachable offense, by the way. Clearly there were religious tests in the appointment of USAs.
When a candidate is asked about religion, I’d like to hear “my religion is private – period.”
Not sure how well that would go over with the public but . . .
Maybe I’m alone but I found most of the responses in the Republican debate frightening. One size doesn’t fit all.
you know, the entire “intelligent design” vs “evolution” is nothing but a tool, the debate is synthetic, it doesn’t exist
as the pope has already told us the two are not exclusive from each other
this is too simple to have to even write but here I am doing it;
god uses tools, evolution is one of his tools
TAHH DAHHHH
the very debate is moronic, if we believe god creates the rain we understand the way he creates the rain is in the form of a cloud
TAHH DAHHH
if we believe he causes light the tool he uses is the sun
TAHH DAHHH (a simulation of horn section and fan fare in case you didn’t know it}
to get unlimited power for his light he created fusion in the sun
TAHH DAHHH
EVOLUTION AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARE NOT EXCLUSIVE OF EACH OTHER
and the debate is synthetic and moronic
THAT is how the progressives need to frame the synthetic debate the neo cons are TRYING to use as a wedge
perris @ 27
let’s take this further
I can show you a virus evolve before your very eyes…there is clearly evolution…does this mean that evolution was not cauased by the hand of god?
of course not
you can believe in both, there is no reason on the planet a person who believes in creationism doesn’t also believe in evolution
none
snowbird42 @ 25
haven’t started it yet. but, have it and am looking forward to it. maybe this weekend.
god set “let there be light”
and created the sun to provide that light
god set “let there be night and day”
and created the revolution around the sun for that very purpose
etceterrra, etceterrra, etceterrra
RevDeb @ 18
Interesting — I was reacting to how he’s been portrayed as a contrasst to the right-side fundies
James Carville and all these other Republican crooks, liars, and hypocritters can go to hell.
In one of Ursula LeGuin’s novels, there is a religion that has as a principle, “Praise, then, Creation Unfinished”.
I’m waiting for Christianity(and religions, in general) to embrace Evolution as seeing that creation is ongoing…
perris @ 28
you wanna salvage the ‘belief’ in god with ‘intelligent design’, or ’special providence’ or the flying spaghetti monster, y’all go on right ahead…i don’t care…
but i don’ wanna hear about it in the context of the elections of public figures in a fucking SECULAR state…
.
Very important post, Scarecrow. Thank you. These plastic “show debates” are becoming an absolute mockery of our modern sham of an electoral system, never mind of the separation of church and state. As for the implicit racism and Exceptional American Superpower “master race” arrogance behind our violent attempt to colonize Iraq, there was a very welcome development yesterday:
GOOD NEWS FROM IRAQ, for the morning readers:
Http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/53230/
Bush’s puppet, the Vichy Prime Minister al-Maliki, may well try to veto this, but “the people” have finally spoken in Iraq, through their elected parliament: the Democratic Congress (never mind the United Nations) ought to JUMP on this news, and proudly join with nationalist Iraqis to promptly cede Iraq back to those who inhabit it and who are now peacefully attempting to reclaim their country from its invaders.
Carl Levin and Dick Durbin: The Iraqis just stood up. It’s time for you and all of your colleagues in our Congress to acknowledge this vital democratic progress in Iraq that has just been made and that you claimed to be waiting impatiently to see.
i don’t care what magical thinking a politician participates in. i care about moral foundation and, when it comes to their job, i want to know that real world thinking will prevail.
perris @ 29
I sympathise with your view, but would go one step farther (maybe two):
1. Evolution is just fine without creationsim;
2. When positing the existence of God, there is no particular reason to use pronouns and adjectives such as “he, “she,” “his,” or “her.” These words buy into particular organized religious dogmas.
Perhaps there IS a God, but what many find objectionable is some particular Creation “theory.” I’m not meaning to come down on anyone’s particular beliefs (all should be free to worship as they see fit, of course), but it’s organized religion that’s especially just what’s got to be kept out of the political discourse.
-MS
That CNN program with Sojourner, I had no idea.
insidious, disturbing, outrageous are a few words that popped into my mind. I wonder why this GOD guy is plaguing me with unpleasant thoughts this morning.
Bush has demonstrated that just pretending to be religious is all that is required to gain evangelical support.
here’s the first thing democrats need to learn;
THE POWER OF INDIGNATION
the democrats need to get INDIGNANT when someone challenges their faith, they need to say things like “what kind of REDICULOUS attack is this on MY faith” and then go on with why anyone that challenges their faith is a tool.
the power of indignation…strong stuff…we should use it EVERY time a wedge issue is raised
we should get indignant EVERY time someone has the NERVE to claim bush’s policy in Iraq is fighting terrorism, EVERY time the republicans MAKE BELIEVE they have some kind of strong national security track record, every time they MAKE BELIEVE they are for small government and EVERY time they MAKE BELIEVE they are for the constitution…and every time they MAKE BELIEVE they are for religous freedom
I have one word for this post. AMEN.
Scarecrow @ 31
Precisely my point. He’s a self-promoter who sounds sane and reasonable. He doesn’t eat puppies head’s for breakfast. BUT he is totally anti-choice and tiptoes around so much of the rest. His issue is poverty. I’ll give him credit for that. End of story.
The people who have consistently stood up for progressive and liberal religion are Rev. Jim Forbes from the Riverside Church in NY (Where William Sloan Coffin held the pulpit for eons), Rabbi David Sapperstein, Rabbi Arthur Wascow (often discounted because he looks and sometimes sounds like a DFH) Rev. Katherine Ragsdale, Dan McGuire, and lots more. You rarely, if ever hear their names.
Oh and Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United and of course Rev. Bill Moyers!
If “Occam’s Razor”–that the simplest answer is probably the correct one–is of any use, it should be used to shave ‘god’ out of ontological speculation. ‘god’ is an unnecessary complication.
.
nomolos @ 17
Elmer Gantry rules still. Scopes was for naught. At least in Ireland, people still have their wits about them, the church there lives with consequences for failure of responsibility, barely 50% admit to regular attendence, and toleration of belief is the norm. The humanism that has resulted in Ireland is something to have pride in. I distinctly recall the insertion of “under god” in the pleadge and as a child decided it was wrong and would have unforseen consequences. But that was what Ike wanted, too bad he never saw the outcome. All the best……..
wgg: tokin lib’rul @ 34
I agree with your position, however when the oponent creates a wedge issue that doesn’t exist but for them creating it we have to put it in perspective
religous debate DOES belong in political debate if the oponent makes it a wedge issue, we HAVE to nueter their tool, it DOESN’T belong in secular government and we have to make certain we remain a secular state
You got it wrong! John Edwards is a Methodist.
on the topic of immigration (which is what got me to turn off the tv during the debates last night)… two very good posts. here’s the first one….
from david sirota (via kevin hayden), “Notice What’s Not Talked About on Immigration“:
I want REASON in the White House, I want REASON in my government, not Jim Wallis or Billy Graham or any Elmer Gantrys. Just clear intelligent thinking. That’s my design.
second article on immigration – from mother jones, “M.I.A. from the Immigration Debate, Creating Economic Opportunity in Mexico“. after a discussion of NAFTA:
Good Morning Scarecrow, earlybirddawgs.
I couldn’t agree more, Scarecrow. I’d be surprised if you didn’t have nightmares last night.
Events such as these are not just disturbing and uncomfortable to watch. They are frightening in their implications. The mainstream media essentially leading an assault on the Constitution, and applying a litmus test to candidates for the highest office in the land.
Is this where we’re heading, or have we already arrived? rapture? entrap-sure!
Up till now, I’ve been trying hard not to apply a litmus test of my own to any but the most extreme candidates. Thanks to CNN. I now found one, or several.
All candidates for public office need to answer a WHOLE lot more questions – about their beliefs concerning our Constitution and our nation’s founding principles.
Selise @ 15, I am puzzled why truth has very little value today and I have no solution for it. A parade of attorneys in the Justice Department–sworn to tell the truth–lie by omission to cover for the lies of the Attorney General of the United States and of the White House, and the truth cannot be pulled out of them.
The Libby saga is an example of the hurdles Mr. Fitzpatrick was forced to go through in a search for the truth yet those in powerful positions are saying Libby’s lies don’t matter. And their insistence on a pardon is likely to come from the liar who should be the conscience-in-chief.
Yikes. Are we gonna have to send Scarecrow on the campaign trail to keep all these bastards honest?
(I just loved the idea of New Hampshire…”Hi, my name is Scarecrow, I’m here with Firedoglake…)
I’m uncomfortable with the emphasis on religion in politics too. History has shown that religion has been the veil behind which hate and violence has festered. Where are the healers of the folks that have upheaval in their lives every day? Where is fellowship and tolerance? It’s only good to lift up the “true believers” because misery loves company.
Bill R. @ 46
Perhaps, but he claimed he was raised as a Baptist.
Jane Hamsher @ 52
Yet another dangerous woman on this thread.
Adie @ 51
Now there’s a novel idea!
Good morning Scarecrow. I heard you mention dangerous women :)
Elliott @ 56
are you writing this novel?
I don’t think it will be fiction though so it is no longer a novel
“documentary” would be more appropriate..I will buy a copy and hope you sign it
egregious @ 57
is egregious female too?
/never knew this
As a believer, I am deeply, profoundly offended (by the religious litmus tests). This crap started in 2004 when the media started picking Dean apart on religion, never daring to put the same detailed questions to the President.
Right-wing evangelicals are going to help ruin this country. And what the Republican candidaes, save for Ron Paul, are advocating has absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ. (See Obery Hendricks’ The Politics of Jesus.)
I’m not saying that religion should be brought into the political sphere at all, but if these people are determined to put it in there, they need to get their sh*t straight because what they are advocating is decidedly un-Christain and just plain evil.
CNN is trash. Pure, unadulterated, puke-worthy trash.
Last night’s event had all the color and excitement of the Nebraska State Morticians Convention.
I was mortified to be watching it.
Dangerous women??? Here’s one…
[raises hand and waves ferociously]
Sally @ 53
agreed. the truth is valuable, not for it’s own sake, but only when it’s useful in helping forward an agenda.
in addition, i don’t think it is limited to, or even primarily from, our political culture. i’ve seen it in industry, academia and even my own family…. but not much until the late ’80s. was i just missing it before then, or it is getting worse?
Jane Hamsher @ 52
Actually, I never told anyone (except Laura from Dkos) that I’m scarecrow. I just said, Jane Hamsher sent me. It was more effective.
egregious @ 57
Oh jeeze! ;)
Jane Hamsher @ 54
if you’re counting votes…. (and if scarecrow’s willing)….
YES!!
Jane Hamsher @ 52
Will donations be earmarked with .08?
I’m appalled at this one. I believe that these people are a sham. However, I find it interesting that none of these true believers were asked about the immoral acts of war or the retribution for supporting the same. 600,000 and climbing. So, Religion (registered trademark of the Republican Party) truly has become a litmus test for the top job. So much for separation of church and state, soon to be under the same name, perhaps we can call it sturch. I wonder what the rest of us “infidels” (you know, we are the majority) are going to do? When do the witch hunts start again?
Let the Republicans solidify their base this is going to be a high voter turnout election because of the war the power of the Fundies high turnout numbers will be diminished. Average Americans will turn out in high numbers and more than offset their votes, by appealing to the fundies a stategy which does work in low turnout elections they lose this time. Average Americans don’t share their concerns and are turned off by them but not enough to vote. The war has changed that the war and APPEALING to the fundies will get the blame for the Republicans loss this coming election. Leaving the Business wing of the party free of blame to rebuild.
I do hope Scarecrow, Jane, Marcy, TRex et al will be hitting the campaign trail to keep this ass race in perspective. It’s time for the MSM representatives to begin fielding questions from the reality based world. The MSM has to be exposed for their hypocrisy, shallowness and their evident lack of understanding of the Constitution.
C&L has a video clip of Rudy G talking about Iran. I put it in an update.
EPU’d from sunrise
raven @ 252
Did anyone else notice the contradiction of all the ‘religious’ Republican candidates seeming to endorse unilateral preemptive nuclear war as a preferred option?
And did any of the mainstream media give the Schlozman testimony any play?
Scarecrow @ 71
I’m scared to look
Scarecrow @ 65
Doncha just LOVE the dangerous women from the left? It sure beats the hell outta the cr*p like Hactackular Howie’s lede in Media Notes today talking about the Rethug wives’ yabos…
Scarecrow, thank you for such a thoughtful review of the “event”. I am a former fundamentalist. To be truthful, these displays are offensive to me as well. I don’t care to know what someone’s religious faith is. What I do need to know, however, is the fact that their actions do not back up their rhetoric. In the least.
So, in other words, “suffer the little children,” just as long as they don’t live in a country the USA has a current bombing campaign in? It boggles the mind.
-S
I really, really wish that, in addition to refusing to answer the question, they would turn it around and make the asker justify the question.
“Religion is private and personal. I’m not going to answer that. Why do you think it’s appropriate to ask me that question? The Constitution specifically forbids a religious test for office, and my respect for the Constitution, which SHOULD be what is important to you, precludes me answering.”
Yeah, I know, too long an answer. Still, it pisses me off that candidates are complicit in this bullshit.
I don’t like Jim Wallis. It is a disgrace that he has parlayed himself as a high-priced pundit, but not really surprising.
Scarecrow–your.Best.post.ever. I really needed this.
I think Rudy has a devinely inspired campaign song. One of the worst ten songs ever recorded-Lou Christie’s ‘Lightin’ Strikes.’
It makes sense that things have come to this when you think about it all, I suppose. The average voter these days tends to be aging, increasingly muddleheaded and scared of dying (white the next generation is too busy watching American Idol to care).
More from pre-war intelligence reports warning bush/cheney about consequences in Iraq — from Bob Geiger.
Elliott @ 74
Duck and cover first.
I was blown away by all the religion in the 60 minutes piece on the Iowa National Guard 2 weeks ago. It almost left me thinking, “ok, if they buy this bullshit then let em go at it”.
perris @ 40
I’m with you. Why can’t they just say that their faith is a private matter? Why can’t they just admit that the media is trying to drag religion (right-wing religion, might I add) into the political sphere because the Republicans invented dragging religion into the political sphere. Stop playing by their rulebook, which you had nothing to do with creating. Get a frikkin spine, for God’s sake (no pun intended).
Repeat after me slowly, all Dem candidates (except for Kucinich): “We . . . are . . . Democrats, we . . . are . . . not . . . Republicans.”
The whole point of not being is Republican is to be DIFFERENT from Republicans.
GOT IT?
All this talk of war with Iran why? Are the republicans grasping at the hope that an other war will raise their poll numbers or do they know there is going to be another war? Unless there is a HUGE terror attack by Iran and not Al Quieda I don’t see how an another war would help them. In fact do see another war giving us the extra push we need to impeach the Chimp am I missing something or is Karl’s doing ” Math “again while mainlining Kool Aid.
old gold @ 80
That’s not the Frankee Vallee song is it?
I had to hear Klaus Nomee’s cover to understand that it’s a paen to the old double standard:
i.e., I can carry on with women but my woman better not.
MR. Bill @ 73
ABC’s Nightline didn’t even bother to cover the Libby sentencing. Clueless and useless.
old gold @ 80
Hey, Lou was bad to the bone! I saw him at the Chicago Amphitheater in the summer of 66. “Two Faces have I YI YI YI YI YI” might be a good song for these clowns too.
Science is enough to convince me that there are forces greater than me and my short stint on earth. I don’t understand why folks need magic when science provides so much more bang for the buck.
My definition of god makes god a fact. But my definition is more along the lines of Linus Pauling, Einstein, Roddenberry and the humanists. When I read about black holes or string theory or the beginning of the universe, I am certain that there are unknowns about life and the universe. Those unknowns are my concept of God.
We still talk about jesus…in that sense it is a fact that “jesus lives”. I don’t need no stinkin “magic”. I also believe that the patterns of effectiveness, the greatest leaders on earth show us some invariant behaviors that bring peace and serenity. In the end it will be our “god given-nature given, bioligical given-ability to distingish facts from judgments and theories that will save us. Otherwise we are doomed just like all the other civilizations that refused to accept reality.
I just don’t get why humans need magic when science is so totally satisfying and yet so mystifying.
All the Republican bravado about war with Iran will evaporate in a nano second when the military says that the only way is if the draft is reinstated.
Good morning from L.A. Excellent post, Scarecrow.
What is CNN brass thinking w/all the sudden religious questioning of candidates? CNN barely competent in their pre-election coverage of imp. issues w/out introducing this (IMO) total non sequitur.
Having coffee & watching TIVO of last night’s Repub potentials w/cousins visiting from Ireland. Remarks around my breakfast nook indicate the religion questions are laugh-worthy. Also, they want to know why SJC hearing & the hide peeling Leahy gave Schlozman are getting next to no MSM tv attention this a.m…
That’s not the Frankee Vallee song is it?
old gold @ 80
Really? That’s very funny and ironic, because Rudy’s mic apparently went out in the midst of his response on why he’s pro-choice–because of a lightning strike.
Bluetoe @ 92
Since when do Reps listen to the military when it tells them something they don’t want to hear?
selise @ 36
I watched this CNN show too, and my hope was to see more of that “moral foundation” on which these three would govern.
*sigh*
What kept going through my head was Jesus’ words about prayer (paraphrasing here): “When you pray, don’t get all high and mighty about it, doing it in public where everyone can see to gain the approval of the masses. Pray in private, and keep it to yourself.”
Instead, we got this.
It is important, IMHO, to check out the moral foundations of anyone running for office. The lack of moral foundations got us Gitmo, torture, extraordinary renditions, military tribunals, etc. (Great last paragraph, Scarecrow!) I am sick of values and morality being reduced to abortion, and want to hear more about the bedrock on which candidates stand.
But there’s got to be a better way than this CNN/Sojourners forum!
Thanks, Scarecrow.
You know I think Bradley Schlozman could cover
Lou Christie’s songs.
Badwater @ 39
SO TRUE!! Just Google: “bush attend church”
Peterr @ 98
as a start, you and RevDev asking the questions?
Marie Roget@92
The lack of MSM coverage of Schlozman, the Republican Party functionary, is not surprising. The MSM has morphed into an American version of the old Soviet news agency TASS.
Got a reminder via e-mail that Senator Leahy’s SJC will be voting on restoring habeas corpus this Thursday. Time to contact our Senators.
So it isn’t a Frankee Vallee song?
And check out Nomi’s cover of it: it’s unearthly… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELknoJC2WEQ
Gotta leave the threads for the day. Packing up my office and getting ready to blow this pop stand.
See you later tonight!
raven and others—
When you use a quote please make sure there is the following at the end, thanks:
[/blockquote]
with the carats over the comma and period in place of [ and ]
Peterr @ 96
And thank you, Peterr — excellent points.
Scarecrow @ 83
Now that I’ve seen it, I’m going back under the bed, someone sound an all clear when REASON returns.
Where are all the grownups?
RevDeb @ 103
Save drive, Deb.
Elliott @ 106
Uh, . . . we’re the grownups. Come out.
As detailed today on DailyKos, Jim Wallis endangers women’s reproductive rights. He’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing and should not be trusted. There is nothing “progressive” about him, and our candidates should not be sucking up to him.
Scarecrow @ 107
Sounds like Dick Biondi!
Holier than thou, isn’t that the world’s biggest excuse for starting crap such as crusades and such? The more holy the more intolerant in many cases. You would think that we will see all these yahoos getting their various gods into a heavenly cage fight to see which has the most macho religion. If god exist She is probably disgusted. Christ would have been repelled with these money-changers. Christ would have been too liberal for all these jerks.
Working on a 2 volume biography of A. Hitler. It’s fascinating to see the parallels in the methods of governance in the 3rd Reich and the current Administration. The use of party functionaries and ideologues that were given a free hand in promoting Party ideologies and policies without direct orders from above. Being true believers they know what is expected of them and act accordingly. Interesting to see how the media was corrupted to serve the interests of the ruling party.
raven @ 110
OMG Haven’t heard that name in . . . . lifetimes ago.
With the possible exception of Ron Paul, each and everyone of the Repubklan candidates gives me the willies, on evolution, on everything. Sorry I missed, Rudy Giuliani’s crazed, look a ferret in the eye stare.
selise @ 15
You are so right. I fear that netroots is our only hope. That, and perhaps Al Gore. I find it interesting that polling on Hillary and Obama includes Gore as well.
At any rate, they’ll smash netroots if at all possible.
Mandrake @ 85
nicely done…yet attack THEIR beliefs when we ask them what nerve THEY have TRYING to claim they have some kind of moral highground, their ENTIRE party has proven to be DEPRAVED and has PROVEN they USE religion for their own DEPRAVED agenda
they can easily challenge ANYONE who claims a “religous highground” by simply quoting Christ and pointing out those teachings are NOT the teachings that would follow republicans
pretty simple stuff
marjo @ 109
I put a link to the DKos post in the main post. RevDeb pointed it out.
Mandrake @ 98
OH BABY…take THAT into a debate and watch your polls SOAR
Sounds like Dick Biondi!
OMG Haven’t heard that name in . . . . lifetimes ago.
The Wild Itralaino on DOUCHE LS!
Scarecrow @ 103
the bill is: S. 185, Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007
from the schedule, thursday’s a big day:
Thursday, Jun. 7, 2007
9:30 am
Senate Armed Serivces
To consider the nomination of Lieutenant General Douglas E. Lute, USA, to be Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan. [war czar]
10 am
Senate Judiciary
Business Meeting to consider Bills, Nominations and Resolutions.
Bills include: S. 185, Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007
2 pm
Senate Judiciary
To hold hearings to examine S.453, to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.
2 p.m.
House Judiciary
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
Oversight Hearing on the Constitutional Limitations on Domestic Surveillance
Peterr and Selise, this insistence on the “moral foundation” is part of the problem. Not because I think we don’t need morals, or a moral basis in policy, governing, etc., but because morals is defined or at least implied to mean religion – and you’ve just opened the door. Now you MUST ask about religion – and the way you’ve defined it, if you aren’t religious, you are immoral.
Which infuriates me – and as a non beliver, insults me. Because you don’t need religion to be a moral person, or behave in a moral way – in fact, you can look at tons of examples of the opposite, people who claim to be very religious and then act very immorally.
I’m not sure what the answer is to unhooking the two concepts, because for many believers, their belief *is* their moral base, and it leads them to good works. I just know that there has to be a way to pull back from this religious test cliff we’re heading for.
selise @36: Yes, why can’t the Dems respond with that very convenient Biblical scripture that you just paraphrased? I just have so many “whys” – what is their problem – are they just that terrified? Remember JFK, anybody? Helloooo, Dems, JFK?
***crickets chirping***
Scarecrow @ 54
I believe that Mr. Edwards was indeed raised as a Baptist and it was Mrs. Edwards who was raised as a Methodist. When they hooked up John went with her. It’s my understanding that one of the main differences between the two faiths is that Methodists believe in prevenient grace. Grace for everyone, always, equally. Methodists also have a think and let think policy. Their motto is Open doors, open minds, open hearts. Now, of course, just how open we are varies from person to person and from congregation to congregation. I worked in the office of a Methodist church here in the valley that was overall as closed minded as any of the other scarey religions I’ve studied. I attend a different Methodist church which has a very, very cool, progressive pastor. On Easter, we distributed energy saving light bulbs to everyone. Not everyone there is open minded, but we try to listen to each other and not point fingers.
Now, I also say that religion shouldn’t be a benchmark in anyway in politics. I agree that it shouldn’t be an issue in the debates and for God’s sake, not something use as a reason for making political decisions!
God justifies what ever the “Leader ” does people surrender their freedom and indivuality to the leader in return for a promise of protection the leader however needs to keep his people scared in order to maintain control. Bush however has pushed our tolerance for that trick people are angry about being lied to Another war against another country THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 is only going to make people ANGRY VERY VERY ANGRY!
Christy has a new post/thread ready. You’re gonna like this.
perris @ 116
I know, I know – it’s MADDENING! I just can’t stop venting on this subject. It drives me insane. They need to stop dancing to the Republican tune like a bunch of clowns because that’s exactly what they look like, clowns.
All 3 candidates should have refused to sit for that ridiculous piece of CNN trash just like Obama refused to appear on FOX. They could do at least THAT much for their party, even if they are competing with each other. For God’s sake (again, no pun intended) have at least that much decency. Especially considering the fact that WE ARE WATCHING and you do want our money and votes, right?
Geebus, Rudy Giuliani on Crooks& Liars! I wish we had a *real* moderator. Or someone to butt in and say, “you can’t use that alleged crap to try and win a debate, dimwit.” I don’t think the “terrorist” of JFK was “Islamic”. I saw on KO he was from the Islands. Second I saw someone talk about the improbability of the purported plan on KO as well, because “the alleged terrorists” didn’t know much about nothing. How facilely these Repukes use that “incident.” Grasping at straws, stating it in the positive, turning “alleged “into a “genuine threat.” No, I am pissed. There is not a single straw of honesty among any of these Repukes. They should go back to their bunkers. All of them.
the wingunts are already setting the stage for a libby pardon guys, bush is already indicating it’s going to happen just not yet
we need to start our own marketing campaign, every single democrat needs to start calling libby a traitor and they need to start getting indignant anyone suggests traitors be pardoned
we have to do something like;
“this depraved man kept us from finding out who breached our national security and the republicans actually want him pardoned?
what kind of idiot wants this CRIMINAL pardoened, a man who DELIBERATELY kept us from finding out how much damage was done to this nation”
we need to start that dialogue IMMEDIATELY
indignation, that’s exactly what we need and we need it fast otherwise libby is gonna walk
leinie @ 121
sorry if i wasn’t clear. i don’t link “moral foundation” to religion. hope it didn’t sound like i did.
mui @ 114
Dear God, I simply cannot look . . . nightmares.
Selise at 120 — thanks for the hearings updates. Very helpful.
dmoore — thanks for the background on Edwards, Methodists etc. Sounds right to me; I grew up in Methodist Church — my dad was Methodist, mom Baptist — and I heard a lot about both, especially after I started rehearsing catechism quizzes with my friends and later dating a Catholic girl. I am steeped in it all.
hey guys, the republicans are starting to get it!
got this from think progress, it has a video, go watch it;
Scarecrow, seriously, thank you for this post in particular.
Where is Madalyn Murray O’Hair when one needs cutting the BS?
Katie Jensen @ 90
Exactly. Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox, entanglement and “spooky action at a distance”…we don’t need to resort to “magical thinking” when there is so obviously plenty of magic to be had without it.
One of the issues I take with the Christian fundamentalists is that they presume to know God; they can quantify Him, assign Him a gender, explain His biases, give him magical attributes.
I say bullsh*t; we cannot know the nature of God because we are like the cells of brain tissue inside the brain itself, the leaves on a tree, a star in the sky. We cannot know anything except where we end and something else begins, and even that’s pretty nebulous if one groks quantum physics. The God in which I believe is computationally irreducible.
the republicans are actually starting to get it…from think progress;
Arnie @ 135
iirc, she was murdered by her son, who ‘got’ religion, innit?
Katie Jensen @ 90
nor is your concept exlusive from religous concept, you can have both…for instance it’s simple for any theologion to easily claim he “big bang theory” is nothing if not a recount of the events of god’s creation of the universe
perris@136.
Hmm. I always had Tancredo pegged as a vicious racist. Did he follow up with substance? Because I think he’s to the right of Bush if that is all posssible. It might be called off the scales.
mui @ 139
did not follow it up just read it and thought it’s interesting to post
if even the farthest to the right of bush is slamming him who does bush have left?
(hehe…I used “left” in a sentence referring to bush…hehe)
selise @ 129
Likewise. I don’t equate them, but they are related for many people. Religous or not, I want to know what makes candidates tick, where their boundaries are, how they would relate to their neighbors (personal and national), how they would care for the poor and the needy, etc. To me, those are moral questions. If someone IS religious, then they may answer questions of morality in religious terms. If someone is not, they likely won’t.
wgg: tokin lib’rul @ 137
no she wasn’t murdered by her son
wikipedia
leinie @ 121
There are universal ethics and values — or morals, if you will. They underpin most human religions and the actions of most societies with or without religion. We don’t need to specify a religion to understand their importance. Here is a reasonably good framework:
Personal ethics
Concern for the well-being of others
Respect for the autonomy of others
Trustworthiness & honesty
Willing compliance with the law (with the exception of civil disobedience)
Basic justice; being fair
Refusing to take unfair advantage
Benevolence: doing good
Preventing harm
Professional/Business ethics
Impartiality; objectivity
Openness; full disclosure
Confidentiality
Due diligence / duty of care
Fidelity to professional responsibilities
Avoiding potential or apparent conflict of interest
Global ethics
Global justice (as reflected in international laws)
Society before self / social responsibility
Environmental stewardship
Interdependence & responsibility for the ‘whole’
Reverence for place
UNESCO also worked on a universal ethics project during the late ’90’s, although I didn’t see final results of their efforts; I suspect they look a lot like these and might even have been drawn from them.
My skin is crawling right now, thinking about the enormity of the gap between these universal ethics and the practices of our government. For lack of a better explanation, I’d call it a visceral response to imagining evil.
must…go…to…work.
c all L8ter
Elliott @ 143
i was going off memory…din’t look it up…thanks…
./
Peterr and Selise – first, let me clarify something. Kinda new to this posting thing.
I was painting with a broad brush – not specifically speaking to you to personally, but in general terms – most believers looking for that “moral base” and opening the religion door. Used your names because I didn’t want to take the time to quote you, and I can see that was a mistake, because it made the remarks seem to be addressed to you, personally, that YOU were equating morals and religion. So sorry for that.
Because in reading your comments, I think we agree that they aren’t equated for everyone.
But my point was that looking at a larger them, for many believers, they are equated. So if they are looking for the moral foundation, the religion door just got opened.
And that feeds into the agenda of people who are looking to insert THEIR particular religion. The test just became an important part of “what you need to know.”
I hope that makes sense. Thanks for replying – I’m not accustomed to having someone do that, it’s kinda fun!
The Wallis event might have been acceptable if the questions had been about values and practices that are important to the Sojourner people – like not bombing people, or providing decent health care, or eliminating the death penalty. – rather than religious beliefs. (assuming these are indeed Wallis’ values) But as it was done, not at all acceptable.
Rayne @ 143
That is an extraordinary list, Rayne. Just writing them down is progress. Thanks.
leinie @ 146
uh oh. now you’re hooked! (i hope)
p.s. i don’t think the answer is to refrain from discussing morals/values/ethics… maybe, it’s to teach that morals can exist outside of religion?
gotta run, catch you later.
The very sad and idiotic thing about this “issue” is that everything is couched in xian terms. NO ONE is acknowleding metaphysical truth, not even so-called progressives, for that matter. We should all be very ashamed at how gutless the whole charade is.
Fern @ 147
yep. another reason not to think well of wallis. (although i didn’t watch it myself… so, i’m depending on your take)
leinie @ 146
It makes sense to a certain degree, but “not talking about morality” (or religion) won’t keep someone from projecting their religious stuff onto the candidates. To me, it is more important to push back and make them (or at least others who are watching) own up to their projections.
Glad you’re getting the hang of commenting. Don’t be a stranger!
Rayne,
Thank you for reinforcing my point that religion doesn’t equal morals or ethics. It’s one of my hot buttons, and that list is, as Scarecrow said, extraordinary.
I believe that most of the people on this board understand that concept – my concern is the people out there who don’t understand this concept. They legitimize the asking of the question, and the compulsion for politicians to answer the question, just because it was asked, and if they don’t, Pat Robertson is going to call them the devil.
dakine01 @ 75
oh DANG!
Spew warning next time, please…
that’s an absolute howl!
howie’s sneakin’ into the little girls’ room again?
naughty howard! no go sit in the Constitutional Principles Room till you’ve learned your lesson!
Peterr, not saying don’t talk about morals. I wish the conversation could include something other than abortion and gays when we talk about morals, but I’m not saying the conversation shouldn’t take place.
What I’m searching for is a way to have that conversation take place without making it explicitly about religion. It might be too culturally entrenched now, I don’t know, although I believe the reports that I read about this country as a whole being less religious. My issue is with the equating of morals with religion – which leads us to a half an hour on CNN of candidates attempting to pass an UNCONSTITUTIONAL religious test.
The simple fact is that an atheist can’t get elected in this country. The religious test already exists, to a certain extent, but they are making it more blatent, and more accepted, by pulling this crap.
wgg: tokin lib’rul @ 137
That is one theory mentioned in Wiki, the other an employee was responsible, stole the money, lost the treasure to another gang after killing Madalyn and family.
Does Hill showing up hint that she’s gonna pull a liarman on the voters?
Does Obam/Edwud showing up indicate they’re just tag-a-longs, or [see above]?
Whut happens when Murdawk buys that lil’ bawble of a journal/perks he’s flirting with?
I don’t like this parade.
Someone needs to fuss with some-a those faux street barricades the bigcheezes have set up & make it more obvious to that this parade’s marchin’ in a circle to nowheregoodseville.
Nosiree! I don’t like it one bit!
Scarecrow @ 54
Below there is an explanation of John’s switch to Methodism. It is a mistake, however, to stereotype Baptists in a certain light. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore are Southern Baptists, one of those “scarey” religions to many people who post here. Al Gore has said he grounds his commitment to environmental work in his Baptist, biblically based beliefs about the stewardship of humans over the earth.
Your post is well taken. However, I think it reinforces a stereotype of progressives that they are anti-religion. I believe that the lack of clarity in this discussion about terms, as well as a lack of understanding and respect in our civic culture about personal and public boundaries makes this whole discussion fraught with misunderstanding and conflict.
For many, John Edwards confession of a love for his personal Savior, is an embarrassment, as it is a disclosure in a public forum of an intimate relationship with the Divine. In Evangelical culture, such is not the case. Such a confession might be appropriate in an Evangelical church setting, but is it appropriate in a public political forum? My view is that we need to distinguish between adherence to the beliefs of a religious tradition (which may inspire the values we bring into politics, values that are an appropriate focus of discussion), and religious faith, (which is a personal exercise of trust and commitment to relationship with the Divine in the context of a religious tradition), and spirituality (which is a personal practice of conscious contact with the transcendent ultimate, i.e. as expressed in the 11th step of Recovery- conscious contact with Higher Power, without any necessary adherence to a religious tradition.)
Public and private boundaries matter, and we in this country, in the age of “reality” tv shows and preoccupation with the private lives of politicians and celebrities, need to bring back respectful boundaries in civic culture, as well as in our private and public lives.
For many the deepest experience of connection to human community and to human values arises from religious belief and the practice of religious faith. It is both wrong to attack a leader for being so inspired and for speaking to that inspiration, and it is also wrong to try to impose a standard for political leaders adherence to some sort of religious belief and practice of religious faith. We vote for someone because they share our values, not necessarily because they share the same source of inspiration for those values, whether it be a public connection with a religious institution of belief that promotes those values, or because they have a private practice of relationship with the Divine that inspires those values.
In this dialogue, and it should be a dialogue, I am hoping that progressives can lay aside their knee jerk reactions to religion as much as the right wingers can lay aside their knee jerk reactions to secularists and progressive religionists.
I woul have hoed that someone would have pointed out ATB THE VERY LEAST that the Constitution says that no religious test@ shall be required of any elected or apointed government official..an point out that CNN and the other networks seem to be imposing JUST SUCH A STANDARD.
The Networks should be asked why they think that such a topic is essential to even be asked when our Constitution states that it shoul NOT be an issue used for such judgements.
Why are the Networks asking other questions that essentially place candidates in the position of violating US and International Law Is it now manatory that candidates announce their willingness to act as immoral criminals to get elected?
Why aren’t the canidates caloing these media A**holes on this?
What is happening to our country?
I would have hoped that someone would have pointed out AT THE VERY LEAST that the Constitution says that no religious test shall be required of any elected or appointed government official..and point out that CNN and the other networks seem to be imposing JUST SUCH A STANDARD.
The Networks should be asked why they think that such a topic is essential to even be asked when our Constitution states quite clearly that it should NOT be an issue used for such judgements.
Why are the Networks asking other questions that essentially place candidates in the position of violating US and International Law? Is it now mandatory that candidates announce their willingness to act as immoral criminals to get elected?
Why aren’t the candidates calling these media A**holes on this?
What is happening to our country? It’s simply pathetic.
I’m half way through Assault on Reason and it is very scary – we just get snippets of the idiocy from day to day but all in a lump is way disconcerting.
As a lifetime atheist I am really pissed at the religious nonsense being shoved at us. CNN has sunk to a new low “inviting” the top three Democratic candidates to a “forum” on religion. Like they were going to say no thanks?
Its high time someone got up and said (like Rove did haha) I have no faith but you can do exactly what you want and the government will never interfere. However the government will not be run according to religious dogma of any stripe.
Bill R. @ 157
what knee jerk reaction? !!!
two of the commenters (that i know of) participating in this discussion are ministers. and there are plenty of us religious (in however we understand that).
this drives me nuts!
Just a quiet “Thank you Mods” for handling my tresspass earlier. All the best…….
A great off-the-cuff line from author Sam Harris:
“If you don’t know that cruelty is wrong before you read the Bible, you’re not going to learn it’s wrong *by* reading the Bible.”
We learn right from wrong from our upbringing and we have some moral senses in our DNA (nobody has to teach a wolf mother to protect or feed her cubs!). Anyone who thinks they get their morality from the Bible should explain to us why they think slavery is wrong.
Arnie @ 156
Yup, that’s the story as I understand it. I believe they found his bones in the desert (??)
Anyway, she would probably be placed in jail were she alive today.
Bill R. @ 158
Bill…I enjoyed reading your comment. You said a lot and you said it well. And, by the way, I heartily agree.
I also have to agree with the commenter who said an atheist cannot be elected. I’m afraid that people see atheists as hopeless or the-glass-is half-empty people. Personally, I don’t know because I don’t know any atheists to have this conversation with. But, I’d love to chat one up to see what they think. And, I don’t mean the I’m mad at God, so I don’t believe ones, I mean the thinking kind. I assume they exist.
One small correction. In the creationist view, there was a Democrat there in the beginning. It offered Eve a bite from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Otherwise, Darwin would have been as curious as George Bush.
I agree with Andrew Sullivan that the hour long recitation of the top Dem’s devotion to God was one of the most pandering, sickening pathetic excuses for religious dialog that I’ve ever seen on television.
There was a time when religion was a private concern, and not one that every politician dragged into the political arena to show how much he(she) loved God. JFK and Gerald Ford were there, and were respected for it.
The time when the religious right can control the political dialog in this country is fast fading, but the major candidates don’t realize that yet.
I will save my respect for the candidate who when asked about his relationship to God simply says..”That is between God and myself”.
what knee jerk reaction? !!!
**********************
The dialogue I am referring to is the national conversation we need to have as a culture, a society. Looking across the breadth of progressive blogs, however, those who frequently contribute present, at least the impression, of being hostile to religion, and religiously inspired values in politics.
That is a mistake for progressives. Is there anyone here who really wants to repudiate the religious witness of Martin Luther King, not only about racial equality, but his vision of “beloved community”? His life and work, he saw as an extension of being a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Is there anyone who really wants to repudiate the Christian social justice of the early American feminists? I marched in peace and justice demonstrations of the 60s, where priest and nuns, ministers and congregations, rabbis, and Buddhist monks marched and sang together the African American spirituals of our common culture.
Sadly what I see in the progressive blogosphere is a hostility toward religion in general. I saw the video of the questioning by Jim Wallis of the candidates on their commitment to end poverty. Asking them to respond, and the desire to hold them accountable to their religiously inspired values, is not wrong. I would do the same if they were Buddhist or Hindu.
I’m sorry to see such a groupthink in the progressive blogs. I would also hope that those who write comments or post as bloggers begin to inform themselves more about the breadth and depth of religious tradition in the U.S. and elsewhere. Ignorance breeds bigotry on any side of a question. The Jerry Falwells of this world are not the sole proprietors of bigotry.
I don’t understand why so many on the Left are so hostile to religion. I found the tone of your post very disrespectiful. I didn’t see a litmus test in what was televised by CNN with Sojourners sponsorship.
You would think that non-believers on the Left would show the same sophistication they do when analyzing political and social justice issues, when considering a candidates religious faith and how it’s looked at in our society. We on the religious left are nothing like those on the religious right – nothing like them.
I like this blog but think you and others who have posted here on this issue are really mistaken about what this religious analysis is about.
Chris Hedges speaks powerfully for those of us on the religious left:
http://www.truthdig.com/report….._atheists/
I would also submit to you Robert Jensen, an atheist, who joined a church:
http://alternet.org/story/33236/
Please inform yourself more before reflexively disrespecting the contributions people of faith make to this country and to advancing the causes of peace and social justice!
Patrick,
Please explain my desire to not have a religious test applied to candidates (an UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRACTICE) equates to a “hostility” to religion.
I didn’t say there should be no religion – I said religion was private, and personal, wasn’t necessary to be moral, and shouldn’t be a deciding factor in who can hold public office.
leinie @ 153
If we are going to get our government back,
we need to drum RELIGION NOT = MORALSÐICS
every day!!!
Rayne – thanks for the list of universal ethics and values – and your comment on irreducibility (I heart quantum too)
I’d much rather see the Constitution front and center, and candidates can feel free to tell us how their religion/personal code of ethics/values actively support the Constitution, which is the denominator common to us all!!!
How about THAT for an approach???
By that standard, I bet 2/3 of them would struggle mightily.
But again, Dems, always couched in “as close to 360 empathy” as possible – we meet people on their terms and almost consider it rude to contradict someone else’s starting points.
It’s high time we shifted our conversational stance and dictated the starting point and let others do their 50% heavy lifting to meet halfway.
The CONSTITUTION is the umbrella NOT RELIGION!
Our Founding Fathers already did the legwork,
based on the history of common threads of human struggles.
It’s the blueprint for the fabric of our society.
Not a “g*ddamned” piece of paper.”
/rant
I can see the point raised by some of you that CNN blundered by having this forum on faith. It is obviously a command performance for any candidate in light of how the GOP has forced religion into the political process. On the surface however, I think it offered an opportunity for the Democrats to demonstrate to the public that many Democrats also are people of faith and that we are not just a bunch of Hollywood drug induced loose moraled Amrerican Idol fans, as we are protrayed. I thought Edwards and Obama were particularly good when they linked their beliefs to lifting up the poor and less fortunate as being a Christian value. The GOP has made Christianity an issue of personal peity (abortion, gays) and it is time to expand the religious conversation to a broader set of topics. I want to hear how the Republican candidates address the topics of helping the poor, social justice, peaceful resolution, etc. The GOP debate, the all the candidates preaching “free market” healthcare was a disgrace. Let them bury themselves. The Christian Community is way ahead of the GOP at this juncture. The most conservative evangelicals are now addressing global warming for the first time.
Patrick Briggs @ 171
Chris Hedges opinion on meditation denigrates
the sanctity of my personal practices.
He does not speak for me.
I meditate religiously
I am on the left
I am therefore a part of the religious left
and Chris Hedges does not speak for me.
People who require you to “pray” and “practice” as they do
are not Christians, they’re narcissists.
Robert Jensen may be willing to tie himself up into a pretzel in order to call himself a Atheist-Christian (whatever that is).
But I am not. I have church-shopped and never found a brick building or rite of service that wholly captures my beliefs. UUs come close.
I find spiritual sustenance in thoughtfully minded activists such as those who post here.
Thank you for indicating that you are still hooked on the “four-walls as evidence” dogma.
A symbolic “Christian sacrifice” on your part would be to LET GO OF IT.
There was no disrespect in Scarecrow’s post.
A just and legitimate concern for how the discourse is taking shape.
A just and legitimate concern for repetition of history, which gave birth to the Constitution and our nation in the first place.
A just and legitimate concern for the egregious errors of torture, slaughter and violation of sovereign rights and civil rights as have been based on religion.
You showed more disrespect in your posts by dismissing the legitimacy of a thoughtfully framed argument and in essence saying, “get thee to a church.”
Sad to see you base your sense of security (and righteousness) as a matter of sheer numbers. Something you have in common with all evangelists.
The lowest form of self-esteem, imho, and the easiest to obtain.
Slacker.
Wow, sometimes it really bites to be living on the left coast cuz I just missed a really great conversation here. This whole topic gets my juices going.
TribeScribe: ITA with this:
Absolutely. It kinda flies in the face of free will doesn’t it? There are many traditions that lead to God (however and whatever God might mean to one). I mean, I think God is going to accept me as I am whether or not I’m praying the same way another person is. Or if I pray at all.
There is spirituality and there is religion and there is religiosity. I think it is the religiosity that is being injected into the political forum that is so vomitrocious and offensive.
It is just too tempting for the nefarious to overlook such a useful rhetorical tool as the all powerful God concept. And that’s all it is in their mouths, a rhetorical tool.
Yes, there are many good people religious or not. There are many codependent, dominating people religious or not who would tell others how to live their lives. They really bug me. And I want them to back off.
I don’t care what you do in your bedroom. I do care about ethics, fairness, and the rule of law. So can we forget about God’s law for the moment and just focus on the existing laws we have at hand? Will you (presidential candidate) swear to uphold the law of the land?
Tribescribe,
Religion means nothing if it doesn’t inform you towards peace and justice action. I personally don’t care how people get their inspiration. I do find a lot of beauty in other religious practices. Perhaps one of the most spiritually uplifting and meaningful moments in my life was at a Buddhist temple in Pusan, Korea on Christmas Eve.
I’m a Christian who doesn’t assume my faith is the only way to understand this world/creation. See George Regas’ sermon at Washington National Cathedral:
http://www.cathedral.org/cathe…..50424.html
Hedges is right about the typical attacks that atheists like Sam Harris make all the time against religion. I certainly didn’t mean to say Hedges is the end-all-be-all for defense of religion but he does a darn good job of it – your nitpicking aside.
The part you seem to take issue with is actually valid and nuanced enough that those who do meditate or are Buddhist could never be offended – unless they had some insecurity about whether their practice had peace and justice relevance outside of themselves.
Here’s what Hedges wrote:
I would add that religion comes in all shapes and sizes. At All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena for example, there is room for standard and non-standard liturgies. Neither is a requirement for being a welcome member of the church.
You must be referring to churches which are primarily found on the right – something I was clearly differentiating myself from.
Regarding Jensen, you should read more about why he as an atheist made himself a member of a church (did you bother to read the link?). His goal is the same as that church’s goal in large part. He states:
It doesn’t sound like he’s tying himself into a pretzel at all.
Regarding consigning myself or others to “brick buildings”, you made that assumption. I find God in a lot of other places besides a church. I find Him most relevantly though in community. My faith would mean nothing if it were strictly private because (as Hedges describes in his opening monologue in his Sam Harris debate), it has public peace and social justice implications. So whether it’s inside 4 walls or at a park or sometimes privately in the quiet of the dawning day, as long as:
I would add that it is about us too. It is about us in such a way that we each are able to find our authentic selves – the unique gift from God “where the world’s deepest need meets our greatest happiness” (loosely quoting Frederick Buechner).
Finally, I come back to the overall tone of the post by Scarecrow. It and many of the comments that followed are hostile, suspicious or defensive about the role faith is playing in the political realm. The CNN hour with the candidates on faith was imperfect (anything done by our major news media will be) but it’s still worth trying. I’m happy it took place and I hope that more nuanced and interesting public discussions on the role of faith in public life can take place more often.
Tribescribe, don’t you think you’re post is just an example of how quickly you and others like you are quick to project false assumptions about people of faith? Sure keep alert (I am) about people like Jim Wallis jumping into the vacuum left by silent mainline churches who until recently have lost much of their peace and social justice relevance. But please show a little restraint and respect with your progressive fellow citizens who are inspired in their own equally valid way by their faith. I wouldn’t dream of pushing my faith on anybody; the same should hold true for you regardless of your faith or non-faith practices.
Wow, Firepups and fellow leftists! I read all the comments (much too late to be part of the debate here), and it does look like there is a tendency to knee jerk. I think it is easy to become knee jerky out of fear that the next commenter is going to pronouce what was offered up as weak and not anti Republican/evangelist right. So it would bespeak more of our true nature to think out what we write (Engage brain before pounding keys). We all know and even admire some great people who profess belief in God – some have even been mentioned here. We all know some hateful parasites who loudly profess belief in God. The sin that was committed was the arrogance of a “tv debate” on candidtate’s religous positions; an invitation they couldn’t refuse because of the blowback a refusal would cause. Now they’ve done it, and nothing surprising came of it. We knew what their religious beliefs were. What was apalling was the invasion of their privacy once again. And, of course, we will have to hear double digit how the Repubs will answer.
This display is one of the disadvantages of a long primary season – how many of these cattle calls/beauty contests must we have?
I didn’t watch this program, but after reading about it, wish that our candidates had mentioned abhoring the sins of genocide (Iraq, Darfur, et al), the sin of poverty, the sin of ignorance, the sin of greed, the sin of wastefulness of our planet, the sin of racism, and all the other sins which religious icons (Jesus, Bhudda, Allah, et all) have proclaimed against.
Also, I would remind everyone that the founding fathers of our country were mainly Deists, not necessary Christians.
TribeScribe @ 173
So, what’s to prevent some organization from doing a broadcast of a discussion with candidates about the Constitution?
I’d welcome a broadcast on a discussion with the candidates specifically on our Constitution. That is vital to the health of our democracy!
GUYS! Debate at the Johns Hopkins Institute for Advanced Foreign Policy Studies tonight. (Hope I got the name right.)
90 minutes! and get this: ONE subject. Iraq.
No bailouts to talk about abortion, or immigration, or health care. Those things matter, or course, but we’re not being dragged closer and closer to a regional (if we’re lucky!) war by them. Just the nasty old “I” word.
And guess what?
So far, ALL of the “three Amigos”, Hillary, Edwards, and Obama, have declined to appear.
(Edwards: earlier this year:
“I’ll debate anyone; anywhere; any time.”)
Evidently not, John.
And Hillary and Obama have both refused to answer phone calls ABOUT their refusal. It’s safe to assume to Edwards doesn’t want to discuss THAT, either.
To the shame of the entire country, it’s not even being televised, but if Hil and John and Obama HAD agreed to show up, a few days in advance, you can bet your ass, there would at least have been some PBS coverage. Instead, we get Biden and Kucinich and Gravel, and whomever. Well, Good for them.
I think this little…subject…could stand at least as much discussion as the “faith” of the candidates.
(barfing smileface…)
Finally, I come back to the overall tone of the post by Scarecrow. It and many of the comments that followed are hostile, suspicious or defensive about the role faith is playing in the political realm.
This post really has several parts, and at least the first is snarky and probably will offend some.
But after that, the main thrust of the post was to question the appropriateness of a nationally televised forum that seemed to be structured in a way that, given the political pressures of our times, required candidates for public office to display their religious credentials. The concern was the implication that we have, in effect, a kind of religious test for office. It is subtle, implicit, but still warranting concern. It is a constitutional 1st amendment concern. I admit to being opposed to such a test or anything that smacks of it, because I believe such tests undermine much I hold dear in the American system.
It is not a hostility to anyone’s faith or even the “role of faith,” but rather to the dangers of requiring that one must have faith at all, or a faith only within a relatively narrow band of faiths. I oppose such notions.
At the end, I also point out that the participants (in both debates) all claimed to be Christians of one denomination or another, but then make statements about public policy — especially war and killing — that seem inconsistent with that profession. The implication is that even passing the litmus test does not appear to ensure we are moving towards a more just and humane society. It was a way of refocusing on the advocated policies and their real world implications, rather than insisting that candidates reveal their faiths and explain how they drove their policies.