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.

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…)

leinie @ 153
…

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!!!

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

So, what’s to prevent some organization from doing a broadcast of a discussion with candidates about the Constitution?

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.

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:

Sam ends his book with a chapter that can best be described as Buddhism light. His spirituality, which apparently includes life after death and telepathy, fuels our narcissistic obsession with our individual unconscious. I am not against solitude or meditation, but I support it only when it feeds the moral life rather than serves as an excuse to avoid moral commitment. The quest for personal fulfillment can become an excuse for the individual to negate his or her responsibilities as a citizen, as a member of a wider community.

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:

In other words, the task of Christians — and, I would argue, all religions — is to make themselves more relevant in the short term by being a site of such political and moral engagement, with the goal of ensuring their ultimate irrelevance. The task of religion, paradoxically, is to bring into being a world based on the universal values that underlie most major theological and philosophical systems — compassion, empathy, solidarity, dignity. Such a world would be truly based on love and real solidarity, a world in which we would take seriously the claim that all people have exactly the same value.

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:

authentic religion, is that it is not, in the end, about us. It is about the other, about the stranger lying beaten and robbed on the side of the road, about the poor, the outcasts, the marginalized, the sick, the destitute, about those who are being abused and beaten in cells in Guantanamo and a host of other secret locations, about what we do to gays and lesbians in this country, what we do to the 47 million Americans without health insurance, the illegal immigrants who live among us without rights or protection, their suffering as invisible as the suffering of the mentally ill we have relegated to heating grates or prison cells. It is about them.

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.

TribeScribe: ITA with this:

People who require you to “pray” and “practice” as they do
are not Christians, they’re narcissists.

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?

Chris Hedges speaks powerfully for those of us on the religious left:

http://www.truthdig.com/report….._atheists/

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.

I would also submit to you Robert Jensen, an atheist, who joined a church:

http://alternet.org/story/33236/

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.

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!

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.

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.

If we are going to get our government back,
we need to drum RELIGION NOT = MORALS&ETHICS
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