comments_imageCOMMENTS: 115

Inquisition 2008: Candidates Get Grilled by the Media's Holy Standards

Presidential candidates are getting barraged by the media on questions about their prayers, their sins, and their beliefs on religious doctrine -- and some of them seem to enjoy it.
September 1, 2007  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 
Democratic presidential contender John Edwards was in a tough spot.

Participating in a CNN debate on "faith and values," Edwards was confronted with a question that can best be described as the theological equivalent of "Are you still beating your wife?" Host Soledad O'Brien pressed Edwards to discuss the "biggest sin you've ever committed."

Edwards dodged the question, telling O'Brien, "I'd have a very hard time telling you one thing, one specific sin. If I've had a day in my 54 years that I haven't sinned multiple times I'd be amazed. We all fall short, which is why we have to ask for forgiveness from the Lord."

During the same June 4 event, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) was asked to explain how her faith got her through her husband's marital infidelity, and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was asked if he believes God takes sides in wars.

Many Americans might be surprised that such questions are being asked at all, given the pressing international and domestic issues vying for the candidates' attention. With a war in Iraq raging, health care in crisis and energy costs spiraling, lots of voters are interested in hearing the candidates' specific policy positions on key issues, not bromides on how often a candidate prays and what he or she prays for.

Yet many candidates remain convinced that millions of voters are fixated on religion -- and the media apparently agrees. Although the general election is more than a year off, the topic of faith has been unusually prominent so far. Indications are that will continue.

The phenomenon is bipartisan. As some Democrats seek to add a little more "God talk" on the stump, Republican contenders are frequently heard talking about religion -- an attempt to sway voters aligned with the Religious Right, a well-funded, well-organized presence in the GOP that always flexes more muscle during the primary season, when more ideologically minded voters are active.

Why is religion so prominent in the race so soon? Several factors are at work. Among them is what may be a sea change in the way the Democratic Party deals with religion. Democrats are being advised by moderate evangelicals like Jim Wallis to talk more openly about faith and God. (A Wallis group, Call to Renewal, sponsored the June debate on CNN. A similar event is planned for the top GOP candidates.) In the 2006 elections, some Democrats won seats after raising religious themes. Some advisors want the party to exploit this trend.

Time magazine reported July 12 on the efforts of one of those strategists, Mara Vanderslice, who worked on John Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004 and advised various Democratic campaigns in 2006. Last year, it was reported that Vanderslice, who was raised Unitarian but converted to evangelical Christianity as an adult, advised candidates not to use the term "separation of church and state," arguing it alienates some voters.

Vanderslice has more advice for the Democrats in 2008.

"It has to be authentic," she told CNN.com recently. "This is not about 'Jesus-ing' up the party, so to speak .... It just won't work if it's seen as a cynical ploy."

Leading Democratic officials are paying attention to this type of advice. On Capitol Hill, Time reported, Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked U.S. Rep. David Price (D-N.C.) to oversee an effort to reach out to religious voters.

According to Time, Price chastised his colleagues for their stands on some church-state issues. For example, Price argues that Democrats missed an opportunity when President George W. Bush launched his "faith-based" initiative.

"We should have said, 'Welcome to the fray, Mr. President. Where have you been? Because we have been at this a long time. So we want to work with you on that,'" Price said. "Instead, Democrats took a dim view of it almost in principle."

Oval Office aspirants like Clinton, Obama, Edwards and others are taking the advice to boost talk about religion as well. As the newsweekly noted, "Clinton has hired Burns Strider, a congressional staffer (and evangelical Baptist from Mississippi) who is assembling a faith steering group from major denominations and sends out a weekly wrap-up, Faith, Family and Values. Edwards has been organizing conference calls with progressive religious leaders and is about to embark on a 12-city poverty tour. In the past month alone, Obama's campaign has run six faith forums in New Hampshire, where local clergy and laypeople discuss religious engagement in politics."

As party strategist Mike McCurry told Time, "What we're seeing is a 'Great Awakening' in the Democratic Party," invoking a period in early American history when evangelical forms of religion became popular.

Talk about God reverberates on the stump. On the campaign trail, Obama has perhaps exploited this most skillfully. The junior senator from Illinois came to national attention largely because of a speech he delivered during the 2004 Democratic Party convention. During the speech, Obama uttered a line that has since become famous: "The pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states -- red states for Republicans, blue states for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states."

On the hustings, Obama is often upfront about his faith, sometimes mentioning his conversion and his longtime membership in the United Church of Christ. His Web site contains a special section titled "People of Faith for Barack" that includes personal endorsements from several members of the clergy and excerpts from speeches the Illinois senator has given about the role of religion in his personal and public lives. (Obama, however, has also endorsed the separation of church and state, noting that many evangelicals fought for it in the colonial era.)

The media has picked up on this trend and, in fact, fueled it. A spate of "Democrats-get-religion" stories has appeared, as well as religious profiles of specific candidates. In early July, The New York Times ran a lengthy front-page article focusing on Clinton's religious life. The New York senator talked of how she carries a Bible on the campaign trail, reads commentaries on the Scripture and how she has felt "the presence of the Holy Spirit on many occasions."

Clinton added that she believes in the resurrection of Jesus but is less certain that Christianity is the only path to salvation.

But there are dangers to such an approach as well. At least a third of the Democratic Party base is composed of voters who attend church rarely, if ever. Many of these secularists are wary of the new emphasis on God talk and are concerned that the party might be moving away from its stand in favor of church-state separation.

Some analysts say the Democrats' success in 2006 came because the party captured a larger percentage of voters who say they don't go to church. Exit polls showed the Democrats' share of this vote rose from 60 percent to 67 percent. Analysts argue that this bloc provided the margin of victory and assert that attempts to win over conservative evangelicals are bound to fail.

Polls show most Americans are wary of basing policy explicitly on a politician's interpretation of the Bible. A poll released by Time magazine in July asked, "Do you think that a president should or should not use his or her personal interpretation of the Bible to make decisions as president?" A solid majority of 62.2 percent said no. Less than half that number, 28.7 percent, said yes.

Even most self-identified Republicans were wary, with 46.4 percent saying they disagree with Bible-based policy, and 42.6 percent agreeing.

Nevertheless, religious themes have frequently driven the Republican campaign this season as candidates seek to curry favor with the Religious Right.

Many Religious Right activists are horrified at the thought that former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani will win the nomination. Giuliani is pro-choice on abortion, favors some gay rights and has been married three times. Candidates like former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) and U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) are closely identified with the Religious Right, but concerns linger that they would be weak candidates in the general election. Some Religious Right leaders hope to stop Giuliani by promoting an alternative, such as former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.).

James Dobson, the Religious Right powerhouse who founded Focus on the Family, has been clear about Giuliani.

"I cannot, and will not," he said, "vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision."

The right-wing evangelical magazine World reported that Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said something similar: "I wouldn't even consider voting for him." Meanwhile, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council (FRC) has also blasted Giuliani.

With the GOP front-runner failing to inspire enthusiasm, other candidates are seeking the Religious Right vote. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has been making a strong play for it. However, political observers say Romney has two strikes against him: He ran as a moderate on social issues when seeking office in Massachusetts, and he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons).

Romney now claims his positions on issues like abortion and gay rights have changed. Some evangelicals accept that transformation, but others remain wary. In addition, members of a hardcore faction that considers Mormonism a cult often challenge Romney about his membership in the Mormon faith during public events.

Influential Religious Right leaders have spurned Romney's overtures as well. In mid July, Max Blumenthal of The Nation reported that Romney was being "swift-boated" through a coordinated effort.

The assault began July 5 when Focus on the Family attacked Romney in a press release, asserting that Romney did nothing to stop Marriott Hotels from offering pornographic movies in rooms during his tenure on the hotel chain's board from 1992-2001.

The FRC soon piled on, blasting Romney's supposed tolerance for porn to the Associated Press. The assault was also distributed to various right-wing Web sites.

Donald Wildmon's American Family Association (AFA) quickly joined the attack. The AFA's right-wing news service, OneNewsNow, ran a video clip of FRC President Tony Perkins criticizing Romney.

"This carefully sequenced attack on Romney over hotel porn is just the opening volley in what appears to be a concerted effort to doom his candidacy," wrote Blumenthal. "Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association's Michigan chapter, told me, 'This is just part of a broader pattern of concern over Mitt Romney's record of aggressively promoting abortion on demand, the homosexual agenda and gun control. We are judging Romney by his record.'"

Blumenthal also reported that the FRC is promoting Thompson to Religious Right activists behind the scenes.

"Less than two weeks before Focus on the Family launched its attack on Romney, the Family Research Council began an informal campaign to rally support for Thompson," he wrote. "Without fanfare, the Family Research Council's director of web communications, Joe Carter, and the group's web editor, Jared Bridges, founded 'Blogs for Fred,' a website that alternately shields Thompson from criticism and promotes him as the Great Right Hope. When Carter and Bridges are not plumping for Thompson, they blog on the website of the Family Research Council, advancing the causes of faith, family and freedom for the purportedly nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization."

Hoping to deflect the attacks, Romney continues to play up his Religious Right friendly views. He recently released a new television commercial that attacks popular culture as violent and over-sexualized. Romney promises to clean up Web-based porn but does not say how.

Romney can also point to support from a few prominent Religious Right figures. His "Faith and Values Steering Committee" includes TV preacher Pat Robertson's top attorney Jay Sekulow, Religious Right public relations wizard Mark DeMoss and California gay-bashing minister Lou Sheldon. One of Sekulow's sons, Jordan, serves on a similar Romney committee.

Brownback has had to make do with a lesser light. "Christian nation" advocate David Barton has been making campaign appearances on behalf of the Kansas senator.

Thompson, meanwhile, is making a big play for the movement's vote as well. U.S. News reported July 15 that Thompson has hired Bill Wichterman, who served as liaison to conservative groups for former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and Joseph Cella, president of the ultra-orthodox Catholic group Fidelis, to lead an effort to reach out to religious conservatives.

Reported Dan Gilgoff, "The aides are arranging more meetings between Thompson and conservative Christian leaders and have launched a rapid-response operation to fend off attacks on Thompson's conservative credentials."

Romney and Thompson aren't the only GOP hopefuls wooing the Religious Right. Others are stressing religious themes as well. At one Republican debate, the candidates were asked if they accept evolution. Three candidates -- Huckabee, Brownback and Tancredo -- said they reject it outright, and many of the others dissembled.

U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who blasted the Religious Right as "agents of intolerance" in 2000, has been eager to make amends this time around. After saying he accepts evolution during the debate, McCain quickly issued a statement backing the teaching of "other theories," a move that was seen as a sop toward "intelligent design."

Even Giuliani has been scrambling to find ways to move to the right. He has promised to appoint Supreme Court justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia, and he has appeared at TV preacher Pat Robertson's Regent University. While there, Giuliani sat down for an interview with Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network.

Asked about the Supreme Court's school prayer rulings, Giuliani said, "I thought some of them went too far in the direction of over-emphasizing separation of church and state, and underemphasizing the free exercise of religion."

But there's a risk in all of this. A recent poll of Republican voters, conducted for the Republican Main Street Partnership and three other moderate GOP organizations by Fabrizio, McLaughlin and Associates, found 53 percent saying the party "has spent too much time focusing on moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage and should instead be spending time focusing on economic issues such as taxes and government spending." Seventy-two percent said the government should not interfere with legal abortion, and nearly 80 percent backed employment protections for gay people.

Results like this have infuriated Religious Right leaders. Texas preacher Rick Scarborough, who longs to take the late Jerry Falwell's place, blasted the poll results in a message to supporters, calling on his backers to sign a petition to the Republican National Committee demanding that the party "remain true to its pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Biblical morality base."

Scarborough also vowed to hold a series of rallies called "70 Weeks to Save America," claiming he hopes to reach two million "values voters."

Aside from making it clear that Giuliani is unacceptable, Scarborough has been coy about the GOP field. Other Religious Right leaders have not been so reticent.

The SBC's Land has spent the past few months acting as a Republican powerbroker, despite his denomination's tax-exempt status and alleged non-partisanship.

Land looks to be solidly in Thompson's camp. He has called the former senator a "southern-fried Reagan" and gushed about Thompson's ability to connect with a crowd. In May, the Southern Baptist lobbyist introduced Thompson before a meeting of the secretive Council for National Policy, an influential war council of far-right leaders. During his remarks, Thompson blasted the Supreme Court for its rulings upholding church-state separation.

Thompson hasn't won over everyone. FOF's Dobson has suggested that Thompson's commitment to the Christian faith is weak. Thompson is a member of the fundamentalist Church of Christ denomination, but some critics have noted that he doesn't seem especially active. Thompson and his second wife, Jeri Kehn, were married in the United Church of Christ, an unrelated denomination that is theologically liberal.

In an attempt to pose as even-handed, the Family Research Council plans to hold a national conference called "The Washington Briefing 2007" Oct. 19-21 in the nation's capital. The FRC claims that all of the 2008 presidential contenders have been invited, but Democratic candidates are unlikely to spend time speaking at such a hostile venue. In fact, FOF and the FRC have made their disdain for the Democratic field clear. Leaders of the groups seem infuriated that the Democrats are daring to raise religious themes this time.

Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and public policy for Focus on the Family, attacked Obama in a July 5 column that was distributed through WorldNetDaily, a right-wing Web site.

Minnery called Obama "thoroughly misleading about the proper roles of religion and government" for suggesting that government should play a bigger role in the provision of health care and aid to the poor.

Minnery's boss, James Dobson, has been hosting meetings with GOP contenders and is expected to issue an endorsement closer to the election. He has not bothered to meet with any Democrats. Dobson, who has formed a political arm called Focus on the Family Action, claims to endorse candidates as an individual, which the law allows.

But other efforts undertaken by Religious Right groups and leaders are legally questionable. FRC's attack on Romney and its tacit support for Thompson appears to be an attempt to affect the outcome of the race. Such tactics skirt the legal line and may, in fact, lurch over it.

As the election season plays out, Americans United (the organization which publishes Church and State magazine) has re-activated its Project Fair Play to assure that houses of worship and non-profit religious groups abide by the law. The Internal Revenue Service has signaled a crackdown on abuses as well.

Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn has criticized the overemphasis on religion in both parties, discussing the issue frequently in the media.

At a recent forum on religion in public life in Austin, Lynn blasted candidates in both parties for "hiring ethics and religion advisers -- that is to say, spin doctors." Lynn added, "It suggests they are not really comfortable themselves knowing whatever it is they do believe.

"This is pandering," Lynn concluded.
Rob Boston is assistant editor at Church and State magazine.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: media, religion, church and state, 2008 election


Comments are closed-

Bless their pointy little heads
Posted by: Lector on Sep 1, 2007 2:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all the “pressing international and domestic issues” to talk about, media and voters are still stupid enough to worry over things they think matter. Our present “religious” administration seems to disprove that simply because our leaders are religious our country will be the better for it. In this case, the opposite seems to have occurred. The “sins” of Republican leaders seem to have emerged almost on a daily basis. The trash they dump is hard to keep up with and distracts with the running of this country.

Robert Lightfoot

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bless their pointy little heads Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» RE: Bless their pointy little heads Posted by: Nedtheredhead

Comments are closed-

I am mad as Hell
Posted by: Ellie1 on Sep 1, 2007 3:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and I am so sick of the "religious" role in our leadership. F' religion, get it the hell out of my government and my bedroom. Keep your g.d. priests and ministers out of the decisions that effect our country and if you are a born again, you are a born again idiot! All you have done for me is absolutely despise you, your religion, and Christianity, which has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus Christ. Damn you all to hell. If there is one, you will surely end up there together for the destruction you have caused.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I am mad as Hell Posted by: civilized european
» RE: I am mad as Hell Posted by: fluffmuffinmom
» Thank you- Posted by: Ellie1
» Sad Posted by: openhouse

Comments are closed-

All liar's
Posted by: c.e.stokes on Sep 1, 2007 3:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
priest's and politician's are all liars. they molest everybody.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: All liar's Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: All liar's Posted by: c.e.stokes

Comments are closed-

Religious beliefs spawn terrorism
Posted by: Moonray on Sep 1, 2007 4:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's odd that the primary cause of terrorism -- belief in supernatural deities and their associated dogma -- is rarely discussed in the media as the main culprit. Indeed, those who routinely slaughter others as part of religious struggles are depicted as somehow misguided, the implication being that they can be reformed in only they learn to believe "correctly." (Of course, there are other causes of politically inspired violence, but religion tops them all.)

The scariest aspect of all this is that the fervent belief in imaginary entities is not only still respected in the Western world (which should know better) but is required of politicians. In effect, only people who share or pretend to share a popular delusion are electable. No wonder the merry slaughter continues worldwide.

Not much will improve globally until the United Nations embarks upon a serious campaign to protect children from religious indoctrination and limit the influence of religion on governments worldwide. And with nuclear weapons proliferating, humankind doesn't have much time left to get it done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eligious beliefs spawn terrorism Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
» I agree with you, but Posted by: bluebirdella

Comments are closed-

Those were the days
Posted by: operdoc on Sep 1, 2007 4:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe someday, we will have another president like Jefferson who was as close to being an atheist as one can be without actually stating so. Not in my lifetime though. Thank Dog that the separation of church and state amendment exists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Those were the days Posted by: vasumurti

Comments are closed-

Frightening and delusional
Posted by: wisewebwoman on Sep 1, 2007 4:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These great distractions that fend the downtrodden away from the real issues, economic collapse, no health care for millions and millions, Katrina, more prisoners in jail and infant mortality than any other First World nation, invasion of sovereign nations, a bought and paid for compliant media who keep telling you how great thou art and if Britney is wearing knickers today, etc. etc.

Keep focussing on the non-issues like the Great Invisible Cloud Being and where one puts one's private bits and why you are not allowed to marry if you don't put them in the proper place and in the proper gender.

When will Amerika grow up and join civilization???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» When our worries are abated Posted by: Bic Pentameter

Comments are closed-

religion is mostly conjecture (which is why it's called "belief") and we shouldn't place
Posted by: Suzon on Sep 1, 2007 5:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a high value on it. I've been there and done that and I respect the real fundamentals of Christianity and other religions, but do not consider that preachers and priests are great role models.

In my view, all this pressure has created a false conformity for many. Given that there is no proof that any religion has discovered the true identity of a supreme creator, religious belief can (note the use of the conditional "can") be a sign of gullibility or a second-rate intelligence, not exactly great qualifications for public office.

(The English call evangelists "God-botherers" and, given the fact that there are other important ways to spend your time, I have some sympathy for that view.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Really refutes the liberal media thing
Posted by: Ricki on Sep 1, 2007 5:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The traditional media is clearly bought and paid for by the
right and the focus on the candidate's religious belief's instead of more substantial issues clearly illustrates this.

I don't need to know about their religious belief's, as long as it does not influence their policy making.

I want to know what they are going to do about global warming, Iraq, etc.

But this disturbs me, since it does point to a candidate's religious belief's influencing policy making.

Article is titled "Hillary's Prayer" from the Sept./Oct. 2007 Mother Jones.



The prayer group has been called "secretive", (former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said that this group "made a fetish of being invisible" and is called the Fellowship or the Family. They do have one public event called the National Prayer Breakfast.

It's members include Sam Brownback, Rick Santorum, James Inhofe, Tom Coburn, Mark Pryor and Joe Lieberman. Former members of the group include such lovlies as George (Macaca) Allen, Tom DeLay, General Suharto (Indonesian dictator), Honduran general and death squad leader Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, "a Deutsche Bank official disgraced by financial ties to Hitler", "dictator Siad Barre of Somalia"... you get the picture. The group is led by Doug Coe, who's friends include John Ashcroft, Ed Meese and Rep. Joe Pitts.

This group is not out to convert liberals into conservatives. Instead they use shared faith to persuade politicians to go above left and right politics. "Only the faith is always evangelical, and the politics always move rightward. This is in line with the Christian right's longterm strategy."

Hillary "graduated from the political wives' group into what may be Coe's most elite cell, the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast." The prayer groups, or cells, are sex segregated.

Hillary has supported a ban on flag burning, she has co-sponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act and has been a supporter of faith-based funding of social services. She has also supported the Defense of Marriage Act.

I really don't care if she prays, hell, I pray. I just don't like who she prays with.

You can tell A LOT about a person by the company they keep.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eally refutes the liberal media thing Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon

Comments are closed-

How important is religion anyway?
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Sep 1, 2007 6:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who really cares if the 'approved' candidates are religious or not? Who cares if they have sinned? No one seems to get away from that one. Who really gives a damn if they're penetant. If we start playing the religion game we're going down a very dark road indeed. Everyone has a different way of being 'christian'. Fact is if The Christ himself showed up,he'd be labled a Hippie Bum and treated accordingly.
When you proudly thump your chest for your particular religion,you've missed the point. You've taken you faith and turned it into an ad campaign. To use faith as a vote getter is to say God's only as good as the money you can raise with him. Lucky God's a forgiving kind of dude. Folks have raised billions for him,fought wars for him,burnt buildings,villages and people. All in His name,with His Blessing and by his Divine guidance. Basically we use God as a scapegoat for all the evil we visit upon eachother then attempt to buy our way back into the fold. With all the candidates proclaiming such great faith and piety,should we not believe they feel they can pull anything and flip the Big Guy a tip and everything gonna be alright?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Spiritual vs. Religiosity
Posted by: wawa on Sep 1, 2007 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion gives us the rules, doctrines, dogma,

Spirituality connects us to the Divine within ourself, all others, all of creation and to the Mystery we call God, for lack of a better word.

According to the 1987 classic, The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace, Dr. Scott Peck defines the spiritual life as fluid and that one may pass back and forth repeatedly through any of the four-probably more-stages of the soul.

Stage one upon this journey -that begins from within-is essentially our infancy in the spiritual life.

Stage two souls seek to "let their light shine" and will live virtuous lives and do many good works. They also can be judgmental of others, self-righteous, rigid of thought, cold of heart, legalistic concrete literal thinkers and may even be guilty of a lukewarm faith. They want to do right and they even may desire to love and please God, but have not yet fully opened up to the Inner Light, as Joan of Arc did when she challenged church and state and persisted that she had intuited God within -even while being fried.

Stage two souls have not yet been set fully free and prefer the security of a higher human authority than themselves for guidance. They submit to institutions, scripture, dogma, ritual, ministers, or gurus. This is the most appropriate stage for older children and most adults who live busy lives just trying to keep bread on the table and a dry roof above.

Most theologians would agree that the opposite of faith is not disbelief: the opposite of faith is FEAR!

Stage three souls have not just fearlessly awoken, they have evolved!

Stage three's are seekers, doubters, skeptics, atheists, agnostics and frequently adults who grew up disenchanted with institutionalized religion. Their inherent intellectual curiosity leads them to seek their own way towards the Mystery of the Divine through philosophy and the study of multiple faith paths choosing and discarding according to their "inner light."

Stage three souls often become activists for social justice and reform...

the rest:
MYSTICS in the MARKETPLACE, under Eileen's Editorials on WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» woo woo Posted by: civilized european
» RE: woo woo Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Spiritual vs. Religiosity Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
» RE: Spiritual vs. Religiosity Posted by: Schroeder
» RE: Spiritual vs. Religiosity Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Spiritual vs. Religiosity Posted by: Schroeder
» RE: Spiritual vs. Religiosity Posted by: Jeff Hoffman

Comments are closed-

Religion is the avenue of last resort
Posted by: ray burchard on Sep 1, 2007 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the temporal plateaus of knowledge and governance are commandeered and manipulated by the forces of greed (the selling of Academia and America’s leadership allegiance to corporate America’s form of unfettered capitalism), the only avenue open in the public’s frustrated search for immutable justice is a belief in a mythical deity.

These are the last steps before a populace insurrection I.e. Theodore Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, David Koresh, etc… do you really think this shit happens in a vacuum?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I respectfully disagree. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: I too respectfully disagree. Posted by: ray burchard

Comments are closed-

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 1, 2007 8:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What politicians believe, is no one's business as long as is doesn't interfere with upholding the Constitution and honest representation. Stop wasting our time prying and making people squirm. It's boring and I don't care. Between religion and sex the country has lost sight of important things. We are being treated like children being given trash to talk about while the important questions go unanswered. WHAT'S THE PLAN FOR IRAQ? Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS Posted by: c.e.stokes
» RE: MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS Posted by: peridot

Comments are closed-

Voting for the LEAST religious
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 1, 2007 9:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From: The Brights' Net
Reply-To: the-brights@the-brights.net
Date: Saturday, September 1, 2007 12:04 AM
Subject: [The Brights] September 2007 BULLETIN

THE BRIGHTS' SEPTEMBER BULLETIN -- 2007 August 31

=======================
ANNOUNCING THE NEW TAGLINE

Seventy-six Brights emailed Brights Central with their ideas for
suggested catchphrases to succinctly represent The Brights' Net's
mission. We now have our official tagline! It is: ELEVATING
THE NATURALISTIC WORLDVIEW, a motto submitted by
Robert R. (California, USA). This phrase quickly rose to the top
of the heap as it satisfied a multiplicity of BC's screening criteria.

It is positive / It is short. / It presents no trademark problems / It
distinctly emphasizes what the Brights' endeavor is all about / It
contains no reference to religion / It meshes well with the three
aims of the movement / The "ing" form (elevating) represents
action!

Brights Central has already added the phrase ELEVATING THE
NATURALISTIC WORLDVIEW to accompany the icon on its
email signature line. We would ask Brights to please memorize
the short slogan and consider varied ways of incorporating it
within communications regarding the movement.

=======================
ATHEISTS "OUT" & BRIGHTS "UP!"

Urging more atheists to come out of the closet and be active,
Richard Dawkins has started a campaign for atheists called
"OUT!" The atheists within the Brights' constituency will want to
take a look at the solicitation at:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1471,The-Out-
Campaign,Richard-Dawkins

The Brights has an "OUT & "UP!" campaign. This civic campaign
operates across a spectrum of self-identity labels: agnostic, atheist,
Buddhist, freethinker, humanist, Jew, skeptic, and many more.
Any individual fitting the definition of a bright ("a worldview free
of supernatural/mystical elements") is suited to this movement.
More people who have a naturalistic worldview need to come
OUT and say so!

We also have an "UP" purpose. The Brights movement seeks
brights of many stripes to work in their varied ways, whether as
individuals or cooperatively, to enhance the social acceptance and
civic involvement of persons who have a naturalistic worldview.
We go UP as more of us step forward to present ourselves more
affirmatively for who we are - people whose worldview is free of
supernatural/mystical elements of all sorts.

THE BRIGHTS - ELEVATING THE NATURALISTIC
WORLDVIEW
http://www.the-brights.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

RELIGIOMATICS
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Sep 1, 2007 9:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The sort of stepfords who are conned by those who are "in charge" of religion are the same sort of not-able-to-think-for-themselves who are fixated on the brittney spears of the world, etc.

They are overwhelmed by anything sexual and, consequently, unable to understqand that sexuality is a legitimate part of being human.

Likewise, they are fixated on a candidate's "religion' as being a legitimate basis for holding office.

It is clearly total bullshit superstition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Practicality means voting for the least worst religionist
Posted by: Doug Indeap on Sep 1, 2007 9:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those of us who see religion as a danger to civilization and seek to elevate the naturalistic worldview typically find no candidates representing our point of view and thus are left to choose the least worst of the religious candidates available to us. While this is frustrating, we should not despair and shrink from the political arena altogether. A two-part strategy suggests itself: (1) In the broader social arena, we can and should make our voices heard and promote fundamental change. (2) In the political arena, we should recognize that, with an electorate currently as religious as it is, only so much can be expected of politicians. It is for this reason that we should not expect electoral politics to be the vanguard of fundamental change. That needs to begin elsewhere. In the political arena, we should realistically press for the best we can expect--typically a candidate who is largely silent about religion or acknowledges religious views but does not promote them and who appreciates and protects the separation of church and state.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

When our Presidential Candidates are asked about religious issues
Posted by: Schroeder on Sep 1, 2007 10:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I only want them to respond by giving us their very clear ideas about the need for separation of church and state.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Deal with it!
Posted by: Upset on Sep 1, 2007 10:53 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can whine all we want but the fact is America is a very religous country. Tens of millions of Americans are religous. It is an important part of their lives.
It is something that cannot be ignored.
If you do not want to be religous you have every right not to be religious, but I am shocked by all the hate I am reading here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Deal with it! Posted by: outsideagitator
» RE: Deal with it! Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Deal with it! Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Deal with it! Posted by: Schroeder
» RE: Deal with it! Posted by: Upset

Comments are closed-

Pathetic and utterly pointless
Posted by: left-leaning-libertarian on Sep 1, 2007 10:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really could care less what any of the presidential candidates believe personally as regards religion. I wish we could question them as intensely about their faith in (and willingness to defend) the Constitution of the United States of America. Now THAT would be useful!

As Barry Lynn once observed; an elected official places his or her hand on a holy book and swears to uphold the Constitution; he or she does not put his hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.

Can we puh-lease focus on something that MATTERS????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Candidates Grilled by Holy Standard
Posted by: sabr on Sep 1, 2007 11:17 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The candidates should be able to specify what their personal beliefs are, they should not be opposed to disclosing their religious affiliation and they should be able to answer direct questions without hiring media men to speak for them to give polically correct answers. Why are they afraid to tell you what they believe and what they think? Because they are all hiding things. If they were honest and forthright they should be able to answer simple questions, directly. But they won't. So we have another election to vote in where the outcome does matter. The faces change, the crap goes on with no real changes in our country, foreign policy. If Edwards does beat his wife, he should answer the question put to him 'do you still beat your wife?' and his answer should be 'yes I do'. But you will never hear that. If Hillary is asked 'does your husband still cheat on you' and she is aware of anything she should answer that too. None of them will ever answer a direct question. That's for the publicists and media people to construct their image. That's why nobody wants to vote anymore. Rather than doing that, we need to create a new policital party, called the Constitutional Party who will stop the nonsense and get out the dead wood who do nothing more than collect big salaries and sit in their Senate and Congressional Offices doing nothing but wasting our tax dollars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Religions Are All False
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Sep 1, 2007 12:32 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"God" is NOT a being! This is probably the most fundamental flaw in the beliefs of religious people. The original, and only credible, meaning of God is the concept of the meaning of life; that is, belief in God means you believe that there is some reason behind life, not just Darwinian or other randomness.

Religious texts, such as the Bible, were never meant for lay people; they were meant for monks who spent long hours studying these concepts. Due to this lack of study, lay people cannot possibly understand the vast majority of these texts, yet religious fanatics use them as reasons to pass laws, to start wars, and to attack other people. (This applies equally to all "major" religions and their texts, but Christianity has done the most harm because it has been backed by the most powerful militaries.) It would be highly comical how lay people misinterpret religious texts if not for all the harm it's caused. Start with this: the vast majority of the Bible is symbolic and figurative, not literal, with the exception of genealogies in the Old Testament. For example, heaven and hell are not what can happen after one dies, but instead descriptions of how your life will be if you make certain choices.

Unfortunately, the U.S. is filled with religious fanatics, starting with the ones England was happy to get rid of. As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, the U.S. has declined to a level of a medieval peasant society with idiotic religious beliefs that are NON-REALITY BASED, which is one of the main problems of not keeping religion to oneself. If you want to believe something, fine, but don't foist your non-reality based beliefs upon others, ESPECIALLY CHILDREN. Religion is one of the most destructive forces in the world, and it's too bad that the presidential candidates with the highest chance of winning have to spew religious nonsense in order to feel they have a chance to win.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eligions Are All False Posted by: c.e.stokes
» RE: religions Are All False Posted by: leerhok

Comments are closed-

Recommended reading:
Posted by: morticia on Sep 1, 2007 1:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AMERICAN FASCISTS--The Christian Right And The War On America, by Chris Hedges, Harvard Divinity School graduate and longtime foreign correspondent for the NYT.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

So disgusted I could vomit!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: wireup on Sep 1, 2007 2:15 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A few years ago I happened to be reading an article about a speech that Hillary gave in upstate NY - at the time I lived in NY State and had voted for Hillary for senator.

In the article it was mentioned that she discussed her "faith" during the speech. Well, I was mad as hell when I read that and promptly fired off an email to her office expressing my displeasure - as her constituent - in her muddying the wall that separates church and state.

Needless to say, I never received a response to my email.

I am FED UP with this disgusting collection of politicians that supposedly passes for Americans who believe in and support the Constitution. They are all liars, pandering to the lowest common denominator which - in modern day America - is the establishment of the new Inquisition.

Woe unto him or her if either doesn't bow down to the fucking hypocrites now running this country.

I believe in the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE and will NEVER EVER EVER vote for a politician who panders to any and every attempt to take down that wall. The wall that separates church and state MUST REMAIN AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE. Give these lowlifes their way, take down that wall or lower it even a bit and we have had it. Period.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

What it's all about
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Sep 1, 2007 7:03 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What are elections about?
Issues? Don't make me laugh (or rather. cry). Elections are about three things. Image! Image! Image!

Oooh, let's cast Hilary as a spiritually strong woman, tough but oozing with compassion. How about Obama as a sincere but non-threatening Southern Baptist? Then we can cast Edwards as the guy next-door pleasant but rather inexperienced and bungling. Dennis of course, is the cute but unelectable midget. And the Democratic Party can run again as "the lesser of the evils" I think that will fly. Don't you?
Bob Reichenbach,
Sirector, The Lincoln Initiative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Who cares
Posted by: silverwizard on Sep 1, 2007 10:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...whether any of these liars, thieves and murderers go to "church"? It is all just stage dressing anyway. There is not one single person running for president (or ANY other office) who can truly be trusted.
Don't believe me? Do some actual research, dig deep...we have the ability, right in front of you at this moment, to do just that.
Folks, it is WAY beyond time that we took back our country. Professional polititions have run things for far longer than you can believe.
Do you LIKE the way things are going? If no, wake up. If yes, you are a traitor.
Cut and dried, no shades of gray, no BS.
Oh well, most of you are going to just roll over and take it where the sun don't shine. You're going to go back to watching the well scripted "reality" shows and the country is going to continue to spiral down into non-existance. Enjoy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

it IS a cynical ploy
Posted by: bluebirdella on Sep 1, 2007 11:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course it's pandering, but I do enjoy the idea that right-wingers don't like Democrats stepping on their religious turf, the same way they don't like Democrats to wave the flag. That has entertainment value. But nothing about an election should be entertainment. No politician should talk about religion other than to reinforce the principle that in this country we believe in religious freedom. It's fine if you're in politics and you've had a spiritual experience, but why do I have to hear about it? The continuous parade of personal nonsense, whether it be about their hairdos, religious beliefs, drug histories, infidelities, pets, diseases, etc. disgusts me and is irrelevant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

bush faith base crap
Posted by: lgrf4evr on Sep 1, 2007 11:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if i remember correctly, bush use the faith base thing for political gain, paying money to his cronies so that the preacher can convince them to go vote for bush because he is such as good guy, not only that, david kuo, number two guy in the office, who later left in late 2004 came out with a book call tempting faith, where he talks about this kinda corruption in the bush white house.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Defender of the Faith Hillary
Posted by: herbal on Sep 1, 2007 11:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For peace activists there is no more urgent issue than this concerning the Primaries:

Hillary addressing AIPAC (3 min.):



"The Israel Lobby (excerpt from Tikkun newsletter)
In this Issue Tikkun Editor Rabbi Michael Lerner responds to the recent publication of The Israel Lobby by John Walt and Stephen Mearsheimer by giving an in-depth analysis of one of the most important issues in U.S. politics today: The power of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to control the relationship between the United States and Israel.

"He comes to one conclusion: AIPAC is bad for the Jews, bad for the U.S., and bad for the world and he tells why.
This is not only a Jewish issue. Lerner presents ideas for how the Network of Spiritual Progressives can become the interfaith alternative to the Israel Lobby and shows that it can only do so with the help of non-Jews as well as Jews.

"Walt and Mearsheimer will be speaking at a series of Tikkun forums. The first will be held September 19th in Berkeley, California at 2345 Channing Way at 7:00 p.m. (reservations through Cody's bookstore)."

Editorial comment: Will US foreign policy continue to be directed by AIPAC under Hillary Clinton? All the candidates need to be asked if they have accepted donations from foreign agencies and lobbies like AIPAC. It is time to join with the Jewish peace activists here and in Israel, and not fear the Lukid zionist backlash of AIPAC. Israelis are deeply divided over war and peace issues; we simply don't get their news past the US corporate media censors. Hillary Clinton represents a travesty of an added 4 to 8 years of the same world hegemony as Bush Jr. Let us not forget her perfect Bush agenda voting record up until the day her campaign began! There should be no options left on the table to defeat Hillary Clinton in the Primaries. We certainly must remember the Republican media campaign to declare all candidates as "unelectable" with the exception of Kerry (Yale, Skull and Bones, Wall St.) in 2004. This article seems to be cast in that mold that we see being cast in the TV "debates"; downplaying the most progressive candidates while focusing on the least threatening to the status quo. What do Carl Rove, Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton have in common? Invasion of Iran fixation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Democrats and the "religious" debate
Posted by: rg on Sep 2, 2007 12:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Presidential candidates are fielding more religiously tinged questions because media, not the people have decided the direction of the questions. Media is in the control of a very few with an agenda that has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with control.
What baffles me is why aren't we asking; "Why must we chose from this selection of candidates?"
No matter what your political leanings, can you honestly say that these candidates speak to your concerns?
I think that the real slippery slope for democracy isn't solely based on the religious enroachment in government and its influence on candidates, but that the people seem to accept the candidates as the only ones with the skills to represent them and steer the nation.
Government has become the rich and powerful's polo game; a field reserved for the elite - hoi polloi, that's us, not even invited near the field.
The people in power in this country will always balk at sharing power and wealth, and will say anything to convince voters that they are the right person for the job.
If you really believe that Hillary Clinton reads the bible before going to sleep, that John Edwards prays for moral guidance and doesn't get it from lawyers, or that Mitt Romney is tailoring his persona because he's having a change of heart, and not because it's sinking in that being a Mormon is guaranteed to lose him the race to power, aka the White House, then they've all won at the one thing that moves them - power.
As long as these are the only horses in the race, the result will be fixed.
It's not news that the well organized religious hijackers, the psuedo-christians are a well-oiled machine, set on creating a theocracy of hate. But, whether you're religious or not, you should be thoroughly indignant that these candidates can so readily mold their creedos to the audience of the moment; even a child can smell a lie.
America needs and deserves better leaders than this crew.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Where is democratic living?
Posted by: talkville on Sep 2, 2007 3:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are we now to elect candidates in order that they PREACH to us? Are our elections now for positions in a CHURCH or in a STATE? It matters. It matters for democracy and for living in this particular society of ours.

The word "faith" encompasses a vast region of discourse; it has a particular relation to knowledge. There are 300 million or so CITIZENS in this particular country, but there is not ONE particular faith. It seems strong forces would like to impose on us all a particular version of a particular faith in order to make us live in accordance with their particular scale of values (and valuations) as determined by whom? Why by themselves of course.

The particular beliefs of our representatives, even throughout all of our history have been NO GUARANTEE that they will carry out their duties any better or any worse than others. In politics as in other parts of life there have been very pious scoundrels.

That the media is involved in this massive shift of focus from addressing the urgent problems (social and cultural, economic and political) currently besetting us (great thanks to the religions of Capital and "Free Enterprise") to matters of Theology and Belief is a sorry indictment on anything that might still be called a republic.

It is not personal cosmological beliefs that will determine the best candidates for the many ELECTED offices. There's a numerous amount of "god-fearing" folks in office right now and who were there in 2005 when Katrina demolished New Orleans -- yet look at New Orleans even today and what's been done for the thousands of people still waiting. There's many a religious person in Transportation Departments, yet look at the state of our bridges and roadways. Let's not even mention Iraq and foreign policies!

Democratic elections (e.g. 'popular government') are carried out to put fellow citizens in power who will address the problems in THIS society.

If there ever was any such thing as government that rested on the people, the chances of it are (once again) fading.

The problem is we are human, all too human. And facing that fact means facing our fallibility. No one human or group of humans can determine the "Correct Faith".

Our social relations (and thus our social relation-ships) are not well served by the powerful forces sweeping over this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Evengelical does not = conservative
Posted by: Philip Newton on Sep 2, 2007 5:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The writer once again makes a telling error:

"Analysts argue that this bloc [secular voters] provided the margin of victory and assert that attempts to win over conservative evangelicals are bound to fail."

My guess is that few Democrats are trying to woo conservative evangelicals. But there are plenty of moderate and progressive Christians (many of thyem evangelical) who have been offended by the Left's hostility to faith and who would welcome the perfectly acceptable discourse on faith in the commons.

That said, I do agree with the inferences made here that such discourse is likely pandering on the part of politicians, be they of the Right or the Left.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Schadenfreude
Posted by: Schadenfreude on Sep 2, 2007 9:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jimmy Carter was a man of faith and a fine President.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Schadenfreude Posted by: leerhok
» RE: Schadenfreude Posted by: Schadenfreude

Comments are closed-

A better way is possible!
Posted by: MLMrev on Sep 2, 2007 11:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all this catering to religious fundamentalism, I would highly recommend some incredibly prescient talks by Bob Avakian, Chairman of the RCP, which can be downloaded for free from BOBAVAKIAN.NET

Insightful, to the point, and liberating.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A better way is possible! Posted by: Schadenfreude

Comments are closed-

Weary of religious fanatics
Posted by: Blondinista on Sep 2, 2007 2:28 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would happily vote for ANY candidate of any party who had the backbone to answer such questions with, "My religious beliefs are IRRELEVANT to my position as a public servant." We are a secular nation. Period.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Weary of religious fanatics Posted by: Schadenfreude

Comments are closed-

About the Democratic Party going after the religious vote
Posted by: snarlah on Sep 2, 2007 4:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This should not surprise us, as offensive as it is. Time magazine ran an article this past summer with (I think) that same picture of our religious front-runners. Apparently the deism that our founding fathers mostly followed and used as part of the basis of the Constitution just isn't sufficient, nor do most people know that these men were by-and-large diests, not religious and certainly not Christian.

So now the Democrats are going after the Bible belt vote, just like the Republicans have for some time. This is not separation of church and state and is no one's business but the individuals who are running.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

"Beatitudes"
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Sep 2, 2007 11:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only religious attribution worthy of adoption is Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. Everything else is a tent show.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Democracy is failing
Posted by: lesterliu on Sep 3, 2007 1:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This only demonstrate that Democracy, winning by popular supports, is not an ideal way of raising leaders anymore. the whole notion of liberal economy mode needs to be revisited if we really wanna see some real changes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Democracy is failing Posted by: Schadenfreude
» RE: Democracy is failing Posted by: luckypuck

Comments are closed-

PaddyG
Posted by: paddyge on Sep 3, 2007 2:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sadly, very few members of the news media (religious and otherwise), most Americans and our politicians do not understand what they are talking about when it comes to religion and theology. Politicians only say what they think will get them votes. Questions like Soledad O'Brien's to John Edwards only reveals a sleazy tabloid style of questioning which has nothing to do with the real issues with moral implications. Most Christians (including the so-called Christian politicians, be they left or right) make up their theology as they go along in order to suit whatever need they currently have. Their understanding of who Jesus/Yeshua was and what he taught and stood for does not go beyond their image of a 'sweet Jesus' who gladly died for our sins, 3rd grade Sunday School class.
Bill Moyers is perhaps the only serious commentator in America today who has both the understanding and perspective on this issue.
The bottom line however is, that one's religious views should not make any difference but is used as part of the smoke and mirrors in today's current political climate that spins so many uniformed Americans away from the issues that really matter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: PaddyG Posted by: Schadenfreude

Comments are closed-

none of this really matters
Posted by: donneek on Sep 3, 2007 12:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
donneek wrote:
I am amazed at the people who actually sound hopeful that things will change for the better when Bush and his mafia are gone.

Those in office are just the front men for those really in power and thanks to those nifty Diebold machines and other completely illegal tactics to keep voters from exercizing their Constitutional right to vote, it will take a huge commitment on a grass roots level to effect any change that benefits the masses. The government won't change on it's own, they like the way things are, with all the buck passing, war for profit mongering and nepotism. they are in power and won't give it up easily.

Until we take to the streets in mass, boycott their businesses, and cut the purse strings, they won't listen. If the possibility of living in another Zimbabwe doesn't wake people up and incite them to action, I don't know what will.

The system of checks and balances has been severly eroded and must be put back in place, I wonder how many in Congess can't act as promised because they have a gun to their heads, and know the dangers of being the squeaky wheel. One doesn't get to high places without someone digging the dirt at their feet looking for nuggets of feces to use against them later.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

WHY?!
Posted by: Mr. Heathen on Sep 3, 2007 1:51 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why don't the candidates get together and agree not to dignify such loaded, bigoted questions with replies other than "NO COMMENT."? Because some answer, the others think they have to. Or maybe they are each arrogant enough to think it will help their own image more than the others'. At what cost?
I find it too embarrassing to watch.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: WHY?! Posted by: luckypuck
» RE: WHY?! Posted by: Mr. Heathen

Comments are closed-

rigan
Posted by: luckypuck on Sep 3, 2007 3:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, Rob Boston writes that Mara Vanderslice says that “this is not about 'Jesus-ing' up the party, so to speak .... It just won't work if it's seen as a cynical ploy,” because “it has to be authentic.” And, “as party strategist Mike McCurry told Time. ‘What we're seeing is a 'Great Awakening' in the Democratic Party,’" Both of these statements make it crystal clear that what we really are seeing a “Great PANDERING” in the Democratic Party.

It IS cynical. How can it not be? And how can something be authentic if someone says to you, you absolutely, positively MUST do this? “Be religious” said by right-wing conservatives is the same as saying “love Jesus.” It’s a demand. No one can love on demand. If someone says to you, “You better love me or you’re going straight to hell,” do you instantly become smitten? Or, if you believe in hell and don’t want to go there, do you instead give outward signs that you truly do love that person, oh, my, yes, halleluia? Or maybe you agonize with your conscience for the rest of your life about being such a hypocrite and hoping that somehow, sometime, someway you actually will love that person.

This whole situation is as big a threat to our freedoms as the entire aftermath of President Cheneybush’s theft of their first election. While the methods may be more benign at present, the mindset of fanatical Christians is so scarily similar to the Talibanis that it should be enough to convince Democratic candidates for president that they ought to be shoring up and plugging holes in the principles of the separation of church and state.

Unfortunately, the current crop of candidates of both parties seem only interested in doing what will get them elected, not what is the right thing to do for the country. I get the sense that they think (arrogantly) that they have to get elected in order to do the good they promise even if they do it by being dishonest. Lie to the people, get them to vote for you, then, by God, you can start doing all that good stuff for them, uh, once you pay back all those big money and special interest dudes who gave you campaign donations.

Proof? Since Democrats took over Congress they haven’t really accomplished anything more than the twisting and turning of their phony efforts to fulfill all those wonderful campaign promises they made to us rank and file. I’m a life-long Democrat and, though it’s too bad for all of us, the Democrat’s dishonesty and hypocrisy is still lots better than Republican’s dishonesty and hypocrisy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Spanish Inquisition...
Posted by: bob t on Sep 4, 2007 6:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...rides again and is still with us, and being promoted by the right wing nuts. Religious demagogery is now running rampant in america

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Prepare to be shunned and shamed
Posted by: talkville on Sep 6, 2007 12:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since a straight-forward requirement cannot be placed on those elected to positions in the State, the choosing, selection and viability by religious test is made, as well described in this article, ahead of time. This has varied from minimal to maximal since the first administration by Washington. There is more than one way to secure "acceptability" to prominent and influential people in every age.

The current state of social relations and cultural themes is currently turbulent (as it has been since the Reaction to the 60's-- a vastly mis-understood and over-simplified cliche by now). But our social relations are inter-related to other spheres of living such as economics and politics which have brought much dis-location, distress and insecurities into our midst. Large sectors of our population will, by tradition and design, reach towards divinity in order to cope with it all, much to the contentment of comfortable and secure leaders, movers and shakers. None of THEIR actions and policies have anything to do with the current state of affairs -- why, it's Theos who brings all this distress to us; and it's Theos who will solve it all. We are not responsible at all!

So give Dominion to those who, by some mystical and mysterious process, have direct communications with the Deity! Elect the "Elect"!

Our Destiny is Manifest. Those of us who rely on Constitutions and Declarations of Independence best prepare to be shunned, shamed and judged. There was a Town named Jamestown and others like it; soon there'll be a City on the Hill, ruling 300 millions of us. We get the government we deserve; whoever goes up in 2008 will base his actions on the "American People". And legislate accordingly.

The State may not be able to establish a Church or make laws to regulate religion, but the Establishment can certainly determine the State and make as many laws as they please. The next few years will be interesting in so many ways.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Bless their pointy little heads
Posted by: Lector on Sep 1, 2007 2:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all the “pressing international and domestic issues” to talk about, media and voters are still stupid enough to worry over things they think matter. Our present “religious” administration seems to disprove that simply because our leaders are religious our country will be the better for it. In this case, the opposite seems to have occurred. The “sins” of Republican leaders seem to have emerged almost on a daily basis. The trash they dump is hard to keep up with and distracts with the running of this country.

Robert Lightfoot

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bless their pointy little heads Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» RE: Bless their pointy little heads Posted by: Nedtheredhead

Comments are closed-

I am mad as Hell
Posted by: Ellie1 on Sep 1, 2007 3:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and I am so sick of the "religious" role in our leadership. F' religion, get it the hell out of my government and my bedroom. Keep your g.d. priests and ministers out of the decisions that effect our country and if you are a born again, you are a born again idiot! All you have done for me is absolutely despise you, your religion, and Christianity, which has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus Christ. Damn you all to hell. If there is one, you will surely end up there together for the destruction you have caused.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I am mad as Hell Posted by: civilized european
» RE: I am mad as Hell Posted by: fluffmuffinmom
» Thank you- Posted by: Ellie1
» Sad Posted by: openhouse

Comments are closed-

All liar's
Posted by: c.e.stokes on Sep 1, 2007 3:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
priest's and politician's are all liars. they molest everybody.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: All liar's Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: All liar's Posted by: c.e.stokes

Comments are closed-

Religious beliefs spawn terrorism
Posted by: Moonray on Sep 1, 2007 4:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's odd that the primary cause of terrorism -- belief in supernatural deities and their associated dogma -- is rarely discussed in the media as the main culprit. Indeed, those who routinely slaughter others as part of religious struggles are depicted as somehow misguided, the implication being that they can be reformed in only they learn to believe "correctly." (Of course, there are other causes of politically inspired violence, but religion tops them all.)

The scariest aspect of all this is that the fervent belief in imaginary entities is not only still respected in the Western world (which should know better) but is required of politicians. In effect, only people who share or pretend to share a popular delusion are electable. No wonder the merry slaughter continues worldwide.

Not much will improve globally until the United Nations embarks upon a serious campaign to protect children from religious indoctrination and limit the influence of religion on governments worldwide. And with nuclear weapons proliferating, humankind doesn't have much time left to get it done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eligious beliefs spawn terrorism Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
» I agree with you, but Posted by: bluebirdella

Comments are closed-

Those were the days
Posted by: operdoc on Sep 1, 2007 4:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe someday, we will have another president like Jefferson who was as close to being an atheist as one can be without actually stating so. Not in my lifetime though. Thank Dog that the separation of church and state amendment exists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Those were the days Posted by: vasumurti

Comments are closed-

Frightening and delusional
Posted by: wisewebwoman on Sep 1, 2007 4:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These great distractions that fend the downtrodden away from the real issues, economic collapse, no health care for millions and millions, Katrina, more prisoners in jail and infant mortality than any other First World nation, invasion of sovereign nations, a bought and paid for compliant media who keep telling you how great thou art and if Britney is wearing knickers today, etc. etc.

Keep focussing on the non-issues like the Great Invisible Cloud Being and where one puts one's private bits and why you are not allowed to marry if you don't put them in the proper place and in the proper gender.

When will Amerika grow up and join civilization???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» When our worries are abated Posted by: Bic Pentameter

Comments are closed-

religion is mostly conjecture (which is why it's called "belief") and we shouldn't place
Posted by: Suzon on Sep 1, 2007 5:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a high value on it. I've been there and done that and I respect the real fundamentals of Christianity and other religions, but do not consider that preachers and priests are great role models.

In my view, all this pressure has created a false conformity for many. Given that there is no proof that any religion has discovered the true identity of a supreme creator, religious belief can (note the use of the conditional "can") be a sign of gullibility or a second-rate intelligence, not exactly great qualifications for public office.

(The English call evangelists "God-botherers" and, given the fact that there are other important ways to spend your time, I have some sympathy for that view.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Really refutes the liberal media thing
Posted by: Ricki on Sep 1, 2007 5:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The traditional media is clearly bought and paid for by the
right and the focus on the candidate's religious belief's instead of more substantial issues clearly illustrates this.

I don't need to know about their religious belief's, as long as it does not influence their policy making.

I want to know what they are going to do about global warming, Iraq, etc.

But this disturbs me, since it does point to a candidate's religious belief's influencing policy making.

Article is titled "Hillary's Prayer" from the Sept./Oct. 2007 Mother Jones.



The prayer group has been called "secretive", (former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said that this group "made a fetish of being invisible" and is called the Fellowship or the Family. They do have one public event called the National Prayer Breakfast.

It's members include Sam Brownback, Rick Santorum, James Inhofe, Tom Coburn, Mark Pryor and Joe Lieberman. Former members of the group include such lovlies as George (Macaca) Allen, Tom DeLay, General Suharto (Indonesian dictator), Honduran general and death squad leader Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, "a Deutsche Bank official disgraced by financial ties to Hitler", "dictator Siad Barre of Somalia"... you get the picture. The group is led by Doug Coe, who's friends include John Ashcroft, Ed Meese and Rep. Joe Pitts.

This group is not out to convert liberals into conservatives. Instead they use shared faith to persuade politicians to go above left and right politics. "Only the faith is always evangelical, and the politics always move rightward. This is in line with the Christian right's longterm strategy."

Hillary "graduated from the political wives' group into what may be Coe's most elite cell, the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast." The prayer groups, or cells, are sex segregated.

Hillary has supported a ban on flag burning, she has co-sponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act and has been a supporter of faith-based funding of social services. She has also supported the Defense of Marriage Act.

I really don't care if she prays, hell, I pray. I just don't like who she prays with.

You can tell A LOT about a person by the company they keep.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eally refutes the liberal media thing Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon

Comments are closed-

How important is religion anyway?
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Sep 1, 2007 6:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who really cares if the 'approved' candidates are religious or not? Who cares if they have sinned? No one seems to get away from that one. Who really gives a damn if they're penetant. If we start playing the religion game we're going down a very dark road indeed. Everyone has a different way of being 'christian'. Fact is if The Christ himself showed up,he'd be labled a Hippie Bum and treated accordingly.
When you proudly thump your chest for your particular religion,you've missed the point. You've taken you faith and turned it into an ad campaign. To use faith as a vote getter is to say God's only as good as the money you can raise with him. Lucky God's a forgiving kind of dude. Folks have raised billions for him,fought wars for him,burnt buildings,villages and people. All in His name,with His Blessing and by his Divine guidance. Basically we use God as a scapegoat for all the evil we visit upon eachother then attempt to buy our way back into the fold. With all the candidates proclaiming such great faith and piety,should we not believe they feel they can pull anything and flip the Big Guy a tip and everything gonna be alright?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Spiritual vs. Religiosity
Posted by: wawa on Sep 1, 2007 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion gives us the rules, doctrines, dogma,

Spirituality connects us to the Divine within ourself, all others, all of creation and to the Mystery we call God, for lack of a better word.

According to the 1987 classic, The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace, Dr. Scott Peck defines the spiritual life as fluid and that one may pass back and forth repeatedly through any of the four-probably more-stages of the soul.

Stage one upon this journey -that begins from within-is essentially our infancy in the spiritual life.

Stage two souls seek to "let their light shine" and will live virtuous lives and do many good works. They also can be judgmental of others, self-righteous, rigid of thought, cold of heart, legalistic concrete literal thinkers and may even be guilty of a lukewarm faith. They want to do right and they even may desire to love and please God, but have not yet fully opened up to the Inner Light, as Joan of Arc did when she challenged church and state and persisted that she had intuited God within -even while being fried.

Stage two souls have not yet been set fully free and prefer the security of a higher human authority than themselves for guidance. They submit to institutions, scripture, dogma, ritual, ministers, or gurus. This is the most appropriate stage for older children and most adults who live busy lives just trying to keep bread on the table and a dry roof above.

Most theologians would agree that the opposite of faith is not disbelief: the opposite of faith is FEAR!

Stage three souls have not just fearlessly awoken, they have evolved!

Stage three's are seekers, doubters, skeptics, atheists, agnostics and frequently adults who grew up disenchanted with institutionalized religion. Their inherent intellectual curiosity leads them to seek their own way towards the Mystery of the Divine through philosophy and the study of multiple faith paths choosing and discarding according to their "inner light."

Stage three souls often become activists for social justice and reform...

the rest:
MYSTICS in the MARKETPLACE, under Eileen's Editorials on WAWA:
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» woo woo Posted by: civilized european
» RE: woo woo Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Spiritual vs. Religiosity Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
» RE: Spiritual vs. Religiosity Posted by: Schroeder
» RE: Spiritual vs. Religiosity Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Spiritual vs. Religiosity Posted by: Schroeder
» RE: Spiritual vs. Religiosity Posted by: Jeff Hoffman

Comments are closed-

Religion is the avenue of last resort
Posted by: ray burchard on Sep 1, 2007 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When the temporal plateaus of knowledge and governance are commandeered and manipulated by the forces of greed (the selling of Academia and America’s leadership allegiance to corporate America’s form of unfettered capitalism), the only avenue open in the public’s frustrated search for immutable justice is a belief in a mythical deity.

These are the last steps before a populace insurrection I.e. Theodore Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, David Koresh, etc… do you really think this shit happens in a vacuum?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I respectfully disagree. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: I too respectfully disagree. Posted by: ray burchard

Comments are closed-

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 1, 2007 8:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What politicians believe, is no one's business as long as is doesn't interfere with upholding the Constitution and honest representation. Stop wasting our time prying and making people squirm. It's boring and I don't care. Between religion and sex the country has lost sight of important things. We are being treated like children being given trash to talk about while the important questions go unanswered. WHAT'S THE PLAN FOR IRAQ? Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS Posted by: c.e.stokes
» RE: MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS Posted by: peridot

Comments are closed-

Voting for the LEAST religious
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 1, 2007 9:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From: The Brights' Net
Reply-To: the-brights@the-brights.net
Date: Saturday, September 1, 2007 12:04 AM
Subject: [The Brights] September 2007 BULLETIN

THE BRIGHTS' SEPTEMBER BULLETIN -- 2007 August 31

=======================
ANNOUNCING THE NEW TAGLINE

Seventy-six Brights emailed Brights Central with their ideas for
suggested catchphrases to succinctly represent The Brights' Net's
mission. We now have our official tagline! It is: ELEVATING
THE NATURALISTIC WORLDVIEW, a motto submitted by
Robert R. (California, USA). This phrase quickly rose to the top
of the heap as it satisfied a multiplicity of BC's screening criteria.

It is positive / It is short. / It presents no trademark problems / It
distinctly emphasizes what the Brights' endeavor is all about / It
contains no reference to religion / It meshes well with the three
aims of the movement / The "ing" form (elevating) represents
action!

Brights Central has already added the phrase ELEVATING THE
NATURALISTIC WORLDVIEW to accompany the icon on its
email signature line. We would ask Brights to please memorize
the short slogan and consider varied ways of incorporating it
within communications regarding the movement.

=======================
ATHEISTS "OUT" & BRIGHTS "UP!"

Urging more atheists to come out of the closet and be active,
Richard Dawkins has started a campaign for atheists called
"OUT!" The atheists within the Brights' constituency will want to
take a look at the solicitation at:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1471,The-Out-
Campaign,Richard-Dawkins

The Brights has an "OUT & "UP!" campaign. This civic campaign
operates across a spectrum of self-identity labels: agnostic, atheist,
Buddhist, freethinker, humanist, Jew, skeptic, and many more.
Any individual fitting the definition of a bright ("a worldview free
of supernatural/mystical elements") is suited to this movement.
More people who have a naturalistic worldview need to come
OUT and say so!

We also have an "UP" purpose. The Brights movement seeks
brights of many stripes to work in their varied ways, whether as
individuals or cooperatively, to enhance the social acceptance and
civic involvement of persons who have a naturalistic worldview.
We go UP as more of us step forward to present ourselves more
affirmatively for who we are - people whose worldview is free of
supernatural/mystical elements of all sorts.

THE BRIGHTS - ELEVATING THE NATURALISTIC
WORLDVIEW
http://www.the-brights.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

RELIGIOMATICS
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Sep 1, 2007 9:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The sort of stepfords who are conned by those who are "in charge" of religion are the same sort of not-able-to-think-for-themselves who are fixated on the brittney spears of the world, etc.

They are overwhelmed by anything sexual and, consequently, unable to understqand that sexuality is a legitimate part of being human.

Likewise, they are fixated on a candidate's "religion' as being a legitimate basis for holding office.

It is clearly total bullshit superstition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Practicality means voting for the least worst religionist
Posted by: Doug Indeap on Sep 1, 2007 9:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those of us who see religion as a danger to civilization and seek to elevate the naturalistic worldview typically find no candidates representing our point of view and thus are left to choose the least worst of the religious candidates available to us. While this is frustrating, we should not despair and shrink from the political arena altogether. A two-part strategy suggests itself: (1) In the broader social arena, we can and should make our voices heard and promote fundamental change. (2) In the political arena, we should recognize that, with an electorate currently as religious as it is, only so much can be expected of politicians. It is for this reason that we should not expect electoral politics to be the vanguard of fundamental change. That needs to begin elsewhere. In the political arena, we should realistically press for the best we can expect--typically a candidate who is largely silent about religion or acknowledges religious views but does not promote them and who appreciates and protects the separation of church and state.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

When our Presidential Candidates are asked about religious issues
Posted by: Schroeder on Sep 1, 2007 10:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I only want them to respond by giving us their very clear ideas about the need for separation of church and state.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Deal with it!
Posted by: Upset on Sep 1, 2007 10:53 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can whine all we want but the fact is America is a very religous country. Tens of millions of Americans are religous. It is an important part of their lives.
It is something that cannot be ignored.
If you do not want to be religous you have every right not to be religious, but I am shocked by all the hate I am reading here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Deal with it! Posted by: outsideagitator
» RE: Deal with it! Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Deal with it! Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Deal with it! Posted by: Schroeder
» RE: Deal with it! Posted by: Upset

Comments are closed-

Pathetic and utterly pointless
Posted by: left-leaning-libertarian on Sep 1, 2007 10:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really could care less what any of the presidential candidates believe personally as regards religion. I wish we could question them as intensely about their faith in (and willingness to defend) the Constitution of the United States of America. Now THAT would be useful!

As Barry Lynn once observed; an elected official places his or her hand on a holy book and swears to uphold the Constitution; he or she does not put his hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.

Can we puh-lease focus on something that MATTERS????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Candidates Grilled by Holy Standard
Posted by: sabr on Sep 1, 2007 11:17 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The candidates should be able to specify what their personal beliefs are, they should not be opposed to disclosing their religious affiliation and they should be able to answer direct questions without hiring media men to speak for them to give polically correct answers. Why are they afraid to tell you what they believe and what they think? Because they are all hiding things. If they were honest and forthright they should be able to answer simple questions, directly. But they won't. So we have another election to vote in where the outcome does matter. The faces change, the crap goes on with no real changes in our country, foreign policy. If Edwards does beat his wife, he should answer the question put to him 'do you still beat your wife?' and his answer should be 'yes I do'. But you will never hear that. If Hillary is asked 'does your husband still cheat on you' and she is aware of anything she should answer that too. None of them will ever answer a direct question. That's for the publicists and media people to construct their image. That's why nobody wants to vote anymore. Rather than doing that, we need to create a new policital party, called the Constitutional Party who will stop the nonsense and get out the dead wood who do nothing more than collect big salaries and sit in their Senate and Congressional Offices doing nothing but wasting our tax dollars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Religions Are All False
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Sep 1, 2007 12:32 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"God" is NOT a being! This is probably the most fundamental flaw in the beliefs of religious people. The original, and only credible, meaning of God is the concept of the meaning of life; that is, belief in God means you believe that there is some reason behind life, not just Darwinian or other randomness.

Religious texts, such as the Bible, were never meant for lay people; they were meant for monks who spent long hours studying these concepts. Due to this lack of study, lay people cannot possibly understand the vast majority of these texts, yet religious fanatics use them as reasons to pass laws, to start wars, and to attack other people. (This applies equally to all "major" religions and their texts, but Christianity has done the most harm because it has been backed by the most powerful militaries.) It would be highly comical how lay people misinterpret religious texts if not for all the harm it's caused. Start with this: the vast majority of the Bible is symbolic and figurative, not literal, with the exception of genealogies in the Old Testament. For example, heaven and hell are not what can happen after one dies, but instead descriptions of how your life will be if you make certain choices.

Unfortunately, the U.S. is filled with religious fanatics, starting with the ones England was happy to get rid of. As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, the U.S. has declined to a level of a medieval peasant society with idiotic religious beliefs that are NON-REALITY BASED, which is one of the main problems of not keeping religion to oneself. If you want to believe something, fine, but don't foist your non-reality based beliefs upon others, ESPECIALLY CHILDREN. Religion is one of the most destructive forces in the world, and it's too bad that the presidential candidates with the highest chance of winning have to spew religious nonsense in order to feel they have a chance to win.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eligions Are All False Posted by: c.e.stokes
» RE: religions Are All False Posted by: leerhok

Comments are closed-

Recommended reading:
Posted by: morticia on Sep 1, 2007 1:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AMERICAN FASCISTS--The Christian Right And The War On America, by Chris Hedges, Harvard Divinity School graduate and longtime foreign correspondent for the NYT.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

So disgusted I could vomit!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: wireup on Sep 1, 2007 2:15 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A few years ago I happened to be reading an article about a speech that Hillary gave in upstate NY - at the time I lived in NY State and had voted for Hillary for senator.

In the article it was mentioned that she discussed her "faith" during the speech. Well, I was mad as hell when I read that and promptly fired off an email to her office expressing my displeasure - as her constituent - in her muddying the wall that separates church and state.

Needless to say, I never received a response to my email.

I am FED UP with this disgusting collection of politicians that supposedly passes for Americans who believe in and support the Constitution. They are all liars, pandering to the lowest common denominator which - in modern day America - is the establishment of the new Inquisition.

Woe unto him or her if either doesn't bow down to the fucking hypocrites now running this country.

I believe in the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE and will NEVER EVER EVER vote for a politician who panders to any and every attempt to take down that wall. The wall that separates church and state MUST REMAIN AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE. Give these lowlifes their way, take down that wall or lower it even a bit and we have had it. Period.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

What it's all about
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Sep 1, 2007 7:03 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What are elections about?
Issues? Don't make me laugh (or rather. cry). Elections are about three things. Image! Image! Image!

Oooh, let's cast Hilary as a spiritually strong woman, tough but oozing with compassion. How about Obama as a sincere but non-threatening Southern Baptist? Then we can cast Edwards as the guy next-door pleasant but rather inexperienced and bungling. Dennis of course, is the cute but unelectable midget. And the Democratic Party can run again as "the lesser of the evils" I think that will fly. Don't you?
Bob Reichenbach,
Sirector, The Lincoln Initiative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Who cares
Posted by: silverwizard on Sep 1, 2007 10:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...whether any of these liars, thieves and murderers go to "church"? It is all just stage dressing anyway. There is not one single person running for president (or ANY other office) who can truly be trusted.
Don't believe me? Do some actual research, dig deep...we have the ability, right in front of you at this moment, to do just that.
Folks, it is WAY beyond time that we took back our country. Professional polititions have run things for far longer than you can believe.
Do you LIKE the way things are going? If no, wake up. If yes, you are a traitor.
Cut and dried, no shades of gray, no BS.
Oh well, most of you are going to just roll over and take it where the sun don't shine. You're going to go back to watching the well scripted "reality" shows and the country is going to continue to spiral down into non-existance. Enjoy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

it IS a cynical ploy
Posted by: bluebirdella on Sep 1, 2007 11:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course it's pandering, but I do enjoy the idea that right-wingers don't like Democrats stepping on their religious turf, the same way they don't like Democrats to wave the flag. That has entertainment value. But nothing about an election should be entertainment. No politician should talk about religion other than to reinforce the principle that in this country we believe in religious freedom. It's fine if you're in politics and you've had a spiritual experience, but why do I have to hear about it? The continuous parade of personal nonsense, whether it be about their hairdos, religious beliefs, drug histories, infidelities, pets, diseases, etc. disgusts me and is irrelevant.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

bush faith base crap
Posted by: lgrf4evr on Sep 1, 2007 11:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if i remember correctly, bush use the faith base thing for political gain, paying money to his cronies so that the preacher can convince them to go vote for bush because he is such as good guy, not only that, david kuo, number two guy in the office, who later left in late 2004 came out with a book call tempting faith, where he talks about this kinda corruption in the bush white house.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Defender of the Faith Hillary
Posted by: herbal on Sep 1, 2007 11:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For peace activists there is no more urgent issue than this concerning the Primaries:

Hillary addressing AIPAC (3 min.):



"The Israel Lobby (excerpt from Tikkun newsletter)
In this Issue Tikkun Editor Rabbi Michael Lerner responds to the recent publication of The Israel Lobby by John Walt and Stephen Mearsheimer by giving an in-depth analysis of one of the most important issues in U.S. politics today: The power of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to control the relationship between the United States and Israel.

"He comes to one conclusion: AIPAC is bad for the Jews, bad for the U.S., and bad for the world and he tells why.
This is not only a Jewish issue. Lerner presents ideas for how the Network of Spiritual Progressives can become the interfaith alternative to the Israel Lobby and shows that it can only do so with the help of non-Jews as well as Jews.

"Walt and Mearsheimer will be speaking at a series of Tikkun forums. The first will be held September 19th in Berkeley, California at 2345 Channing Way at 7:00 p.m. (reservations through Cody's bookstore)."

Editorial comment: Will US foreign policy continue to be directed by AIPAC under Hillary Clinton? All the candidates need to be asked if they have accepted donations from foreign agencies and lobbies like AIPAC. It is time to join with the Jewish peace activists here and in Israel, and not fear the Lukid zionist backlash of AIPAC. Israelis are deeply divided over war and peace issues; we simply don't get their news past the US corporate media censors. Hillary Clinton represents a travesty of an added 4 to 8 years of the same world hegemony as Bush Jr. Let us not forget her perfect Bush agenda voting record up until the day her campaign began! There should be no options left on the table to defeat Hillary Clinton in the Primaries. We certainly must remember the Republican media campaign to declare all candidates as "unelectable" with the exception of Kerry (Yale, Skull and Bones, Wall St.) in 2004. This article seems to be cast in that mold that we see being cast in the TV "debates"; downplaying the most progressive candidates while focusing on the least threatening to the status quo. What do Carl Rove, Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton have in common? Invasion of Iran fixation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Democrats and the "religious" debate
Posted by: rg on Sep 2, 2007 12:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Presidential candidates are fielding more religiously tinged questions because media, not the people have decided the direction of the questions. Media is in the control of a very few with an agenda that has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with control.
What baffles me is why aren't we asking; "Why must we chose from this selection of candidates?"
No matter what your political leanings, can you honestly say that these candidates speak to your concerns?
I think that the real slippery slope for democracy isn't solely based on the religious enroachment in government and its influence on candidates, but that the people seem to accept the candidates as the only ones with the skills to represent them and steer the nation.
Government has become the rich and powerful's polo game; a field reserved for the elite - hoi polloi, that's us, not even invited near the field.
The people in power in this country will always balk at sharing power and wealth, and will say anything to convince voters that they are the right person for the job.
If you really believe that Hillary Clinton reads the bible before going to sleep, that John Edwards prays for moral guidance and doesn't get it from lawyers, or that Mitt Romney is tailoring his persona because he's having a change of heart, and not because it's sinking in that being a Mormon is guaranteed to lose him the race to power, aka the White House, then they've all won at the one thing that moves them - power.
As long as these are the only horses in the race, the result will be fixed.
It's not news that the well organized religious hijackers, the psuedo-christians are a well-oiled machine, set on creating a theocracy of hate. But, whether you're religious or not, you should be thoroughly indignant that these candidates can so readily mold their creedos to the audience of the moment; even a child can smell a lie.
America needs and deserves better leaders than this crew.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Where is democratic living?
Posted by: talkville on Sep 2, 2007 3:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are we now to elect candidates in order that they PREACH to us? Are our elections now for positions in a CHURCH or in a STATE? It matters. It matters for democracy and for living in this particular society of ours.

The word "faith" encompasses a vast region of discourse; it has a particular relation to knowledge. There are 300 million or so CITIZENS in this particular country, but there is not ONE particular faith. It seems strong forces would like to impose on us all a particular version of a particular faith in order to make us live in accordance with their particular scale of values (and valuations) as determined by whom? Why by themselves of course.

The particular beliefs of our representatives, even throughout all of our history have been NO GUARANTEE that they will carry out their duties any better or any worse than others. In politics as in other parts of life there have been very pious scoundrels.

That the media is involved in this massive shift of focus from addressing the urgent problems (social and cultural, economic and political) currently besetting us (great thanks to the religions of Capital and "Free Enterprise") to matters of Theology and Belief is a sorry indictment on anything that might still be called a republic.

It is not personal cosmological beliefs that will determine the best candidates for the many ELECTED offices. There's a numerous amount of "god-fearing" folks in office right now and who were there in 2005 when Katrina demolished New Orleans -- yet look at New Orleans even today and what's been done for the thousands of people still waiting. There's many a religious person in Transportation Departments, yet look at the state of our bridges and roadways. Let's not even mention Iraq and foreign policies!

Democratic elections (e.g. 'popular government') are carried out to put fellow citizens in power who will address the problems in THIS society.

If there ever was any such thing as government that rested on the people, the chances of it are (once again) fading.

The problem is we are human, all too human. And facing that fact means facing our fallibility. No one human or group of humans can determine the "Correct Faith".

Our social relations (and thus our social relation-ships) are not well served by the powerful forces sweeping over this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Evengelical does not = conservative
Posted by: Philip Newton on Sep 2, 2007 5:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The writer once again makes a telling error:

"Analysts argue that this bloc [secular voters] provided the margin of victory and assert that attempts to win over conservative evangelicals are bound to fail."

My guess is that few Democrats are trying to woo conservative evangelicals. But there are plenty of moderate and progressive Christians (many of thyem evangelical) who have been offended by the Left's hostility to faith and who would welcome the perfectly acceptable discourse on faith in the commons.

That said, I do agree with the inferences made here that such discourse is likely pandering on the part of politicians, be they of the Right or the Left.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Schadenfreude
Posted by: Schadenfreude on Sep 2, 2007 9:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jimmy Carter was a man of faith and a fine President.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Schadenfreude Posted by: leerhok
» RE: Schadenfreude Posted by: Schadenfreude

Comments are closed-

A better way is possible!
Posted by: MLMrev on Sep 2, 2007 11:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all this catering to religious fundamentalism, I would highly recommend some incredibly prescient talks by Bob Avakian, Chairman of the RCP, which can be downloaded for free from BOBAVAKIAN.NET

Insightful, to the point, and liberating.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A better way is possible! Posted by: Schadenfreude

Comments are closed-

Weary of religious fanatics
Posted by: Blondinista on Sep 2, 2007 2:28 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would happily vote for ANY candidate of any party who had the backbone to answer such questions with, "My religious beliefs are IRRELEVANT to my position as a public servant." We are a secular nation. Period.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Weary of religious fanatics Posted by: Schadenfreude

Comments are closed-

About the Democratic Party going after the religious vote
Posted by: snarlah on Sep 2, 2007 4:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This should not surprise us, as offensive as it is. Time magazine ran an article this past summer with (I think) that same picture of our religious front-runners. Apparently the deism that our founding fathers mostly followed and used as part of the basis of the Constitution just isn't sufficient, nor do most people know that these men were by-and-large diests, not religious and certainly not Christian.

So now the Democrats are going after the Bible belt vote, just like the Republicans have for some time. This is not separation of church and state and is no one's business but the individuals who are running.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

"Beatitudes"
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Sep 2, 2007 11:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only religious attribution worthy of adoption is Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. Everything else is a tent show.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Democracy is failing
Posted by: lesterliu on Sep 3, 2007 1:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This only demonstrate that Democracy, winning by popular supports, is not an ideal way of raising leaders anymore. the whole notion of liberal economy mode needs to be revisited if we really wanna see some real changes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Democracy is failing Posted by: Schadenfreude
» RE: Democracy is failing Posted by: luckypuck

Comments are closed-

PaddyG
Posted by: paddyge on Sep 3, 2007 2:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sadly, very few members of the news media (religious and otherwise), most Americans and our politicians do not understand what they are talking about when it comes to religion and theology. Politicians only say what they think will get them votes. Questions like Soledad O'Brien's to John Edwards only reveals a sleazy tabloid style of questioning which has nothing to do with the real issues with moral implications. Most Christians (including the so-called Christian politicians, be they left or right) make up their theology as they go along in order to suit whatever need they currently have. Their understanding of who Jesus/Yeshua was and what he taught and stood for does not go beyond their image of a 'sweet Jesus' who gladly died for our sins, 3rd grade Sunday School class.
Bill Moyers is perhaps the only serious commentator in America today who has both the understanding and perspective on this issue.
The bottom line however is, that one's religious views should not make any difference but is used as part of the smoke and mirrors in today's current political climate that spins so many uniformed Americans away from the issues that really matter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: PaddyG Posted by: Schadenfreude

Comments are closed-

none of this really matters
Posted by: donneek on Sep 3, 2007 12:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
donneek wrote:
I am amazed at the people who actually sound hopeful that things will change for the better when Bush and his mafia are gone.

Those in office are just the front men for those really in power and thanks to those nifty Diebold machines and other completely illegal tactics to keep voters from exercizing their Constitutional right to vote, it will take a huge commitment on a grass roots level to effect any change that benefits the masses. The government won't change on it's own, they like the way things are, with all the buck passing, war for profit mongering and nepotism. they are in power and won't give it up easily.

Until we take to the streets in mass, boycott their businesses, and cut the purse strings, they won't listen. If the possibility of living in another Zimbabwe doesn't wake people up and incite them to action, I don't know what will.

The system of checks and balances has been severly eroded and must be put back in place, I wonder how many in Congess can't act as promised because they have a gun to their heads, and know the dangers of being the squeaky wheel. One doesn't get to high places without someone digging the dirt at their feet looking for nuggets of feces to use against them later.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

WHY?!
Posted by: Mr. Heathen on Sep 3, 2007 1:51 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why don't the candidates get together and agree not to dignify such loaded, bigoted questions with replies other than "NO COMMENT."? Because some answer, the others think they have to. Or maybe they are each arrogant enough to think it will help their own image more than the others'. At what cost?
I find it too embarrassing to watch.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: WHY?! Posted by: luckypuck
» RE: WHY?! Posted by: Mr. Heathen

Comments are closed-

rigan
Posted by: luckypuck on Sep 3, 2007 3:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, Rob Boston writes that Mara Vanderslice says that “this is not about 'Jesus-ing' up the party, so to speak .... It just won't work if it's seen as a cynical ploy,” because “it has to be authentic.” And, “as party strategist Mike McCurry told Time. ‘What we're seeing is a 'Great Awakening' in the Democratic Party,’" Both of these statements make it crystal clear that what we really are seeing a “Great PANDERING” in the Democratic Party.

It IS cynical. How can it not be? And how can something be authentic if someone says to you, you absolutely, positively MUST do this? “Be religious” said by right-wing conservatives is the same as saying “love Jesus.” It’s a demand. No one can love on demand. If someone says to you, “You better love me or you’re going straight to hell,” do you instantly become smitten? Or, if you believe in hell and don’t want to go there, do you instead give outward signs that you truly do love that person, oh, my, yes, halleluia? Or maybe you agonize with your conscience for the rest of your life about being such a hypocrite and hoping that somehow, sometime, someway you actually will love that person.

This whole situation is as big a threat to our freedoms as the entire aftermath of President Cheneybush’s theft of their first election. While the methods may be more benign at present, the mindset of fanatical Christians is so scarily similar to the Talibanis that it should be enough to convince Democratic candidates for president that they ought to be shoring up and plugging holes in the principles of the separation of church and state.

Unfortunately, the current crop of candidates of both parties seem only interested in doing what will get them elected, not what is the right thing to do for the country. I get the sense that they think (arrogantly) that they have to get elected in order to do the good they promise even if they do it by being dishonest. Lie to the people, get them to vote for you, then, by God, you can start doing all that good stuff for them, uh, once you pay back all those big money and special interest dudes who gave you campaign donations.

Proof? Since Democrats took over Congress they haven’t really accomplished anything more than the twisting and turning of their phony efforts to fulfill all those wonderful campaign promises they made to us rank and file. I’m a life-long Democrat and, though it’s too bad for all of us, the Democrat’s dishonesty and hypocrisy is still lots better than Republican’s dishonesty and hypocrisy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The Spanish Inquisition...
Posted by: bob t on Sep 4, 2007 6:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...rides again and is still with us, and being promoted by the right wing nuts. Religious demagogery is now running rampant in america

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Prepare to be shunned and shamed
Posted by: talkville on Sep 6, 2007 12:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since a straight-forward requirement cannot be placed on those elected to positions in the State, the choosing, selection and viability by religious test is made, as well described in this article, ahead of time. This has varied from minimal to maximal since the first administration by Washington. There is more than one way to secure "acceptability" to prominent and influential people in every age.

The current state of social relations and cultural themes is currently turbulent (as it has been since the Reaction to the 60's-- a vastly mis-understood and over-simplified cliche by now). But our social relations are inter-related to other spheres of living such as economics and politics which have brought much dis-location, distress and insecurities into our midst. Large sectors of our population will, by tradition and design, reach towards divinity in order to cope with it all, much to the contentment of comfortable and secure leaders, movers and shakers. None of THEIR actions and policies have anything to do with the current state of affairs -- why, it's Theos who brings all this distress to us; and it's Theos who will solve it all. We are not responsible at all!

So give Dominion to those who, by some mystical and mysterious process, have direct communications with the Deity! Elect the "Elect"!

Our Destiny is Manifest. Those of us who rely on Constitutions and Declarations of Independence best prepare to be shunned, shamed and judged. There was a Town named Jamestown and others like it; soon there'll be a City on the Hill, ruling 300 millions of us. We get the government we deserve; whoever goes up in 2008 will base his actions on the "American People". And legislate accordingly.

The State may not be able to establish a Church or make laws to regulate religion, but the Establishment can certainly determine the State and make as many laws as they please. The next few years will be interesting in so many ways.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS