COMMENTS: 115
Inquisition 2008: Candidates Get Grilled by the Media's Holy Standards
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
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.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lector on Sep 1, 2007 2:00 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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: rinthy
» RE: Bless their pointy little heads
Posted by: Nedtheredhead
» RE: Bless their pointy little heads....each and every one!
Posted by: peridot
» RE: Bless their pointy little heads....each and every one!
Posted by: Nedtheredhead
» RE: Bless their pointy little heads
Posted by: scootenat65
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ellie1 on Sep 1, 2007 3:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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-
Posted by: c.e.stokes on Sep 1, 2007 3:35 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
» A General Strike Has Been Called For 9/11/07
Posted by: Bladerunner2020
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Moonray on Sep 1, 2007 4:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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: lesterliu
» RE: Religious beliefs spawn terrorism
Posted by: hagwind
» Non-belief in imaginary beings hasn't killed anyone, as I recall . . .
Posted by: Moonray
» RE: Non-belief in imaginary beings hasn't killed anyone, as I recall . . .
Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Non-belief in imaginary beings hasn't killed anyone, as I recall . . .
Posted by: outsideagitator
» RE: Non-belief in imaginary beings hasn't killed anyone, as I recall . . .
Posted by: hagwind
» RE: eligious beliefs spawn terrorism
Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
» RE: Religious beliefs spawn terrorism
Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Religious beliefs spawn terrorism
Posted by: particle
» I agree with you, but
Posted by: bluebirdella
» RE: religious beliefs spawn terrorism
Posted by: leerhok
Comments are closed-
Posted by: operdoc on Sep 1, 2007 4:30 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Those were the days
Posted by: vasumurti
» Andrew Johnson was the only pres to claim no affiliation,
Posted by: Bic Pentameter
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wisewebwoman on Sep 1, 2007 4:54 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» RE: Frightening and delusional
Posted by: leerhok
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Suzon on Sep 1, 2007 5:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: religion is mostly conjecture (which is why it's called "belief") and we shouldn't place
Posted by: JoAnne
» RE: religion is mostly conjecture (which is why it's called "belief") and we shouldn't place
Posted by: leerhok
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ricki on Sep 1, 2007 5:53 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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: clvngodess
» RE: eally refutes the liberal media thing
Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
» RE: eally refutes the liberal media thing
Posted by: mazel
» RE: eally refutes the liberal media thing
Posted by: c.e.stokes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Sep 1, 2007 6:36 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: wawa on Sep 1, 2007 6:57 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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: Lauren
» RE: Spiritual vs. Religiosity
Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Spiritual vs. Religiosity
Posted by: Schroeder
» Excellent comment, Jeffrey.
Posted by: mazel
» 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-
Posted by: ray burchard on Sep 1, 2007 8:23 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 1, 2007 8:43 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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....More than just a casual rejoinder....
Posted by: peridot
» RE: MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS
Posted by: c.e.stokes
» RE: MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS
Posted by: peridot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 1, 2007 9:13 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Sep 1, 2007 9:23 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: Doug Indeap on Sep 1, 2007 9:45 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Schroeder on Sep 1, 2007 10:13 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: When our Presidential Candidates are asked about religious issues
Posted by: alternetrose
» RE: When our Presidential Candidates are asked about religious issues
Posted by: jmoore
» Schroeder, you hit the nail on the head.
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Upset on Sep 1, 2007 10:53 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» Religion is a very Personal Matter. It has NO place in the politics of a democratic society.
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: left-leaning-libertarian on Sep 1, 2007 10:56 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: sabr on Sep 1, 2007 11:17 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Sep 1, 2007 12:32 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: morticia on Sep 1, 2007 1:18 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wireup on Sep 1, 2007 2:15 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Sep 1, 2007 7:03 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: silverwizard on Sep 1, 2007 10:03 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: bluebirdella on Sep 1, 2007 11:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lgrf4evr on Sep 1, 2007 11:17 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: herbal on Sep 1, 2007 11:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: rg on Sep 2, 2007 12:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: talkville on Sep 2, 2007 3:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: Philip Newton on Sep 2, 2007 5:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"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-
Posted by: Schadenfreude on Sep 2, 2007 9:51 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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-
Posted by: MLMrev on Sep 2, 2007 11:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» RE: A better way is possible!
Posted by: MLMrev
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Blondinista on Sep 2, 2007 2:28 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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-
Posted by: snarlah on Sep 2, 2007 4:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Sep 2, 2007 11:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lesterliu on Sep 3, 2007 1:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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-
Posted by: paddyge on Sep 3, 2007 2:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: donneek on Sep 3, 2007 12:15 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: Mr. Heathen on Sep 3, 2007 1:51 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: luckypuck on Sep 3, 2007 3:08 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: bob t on Sep 4, 2007 6:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: talkville on Sep 6, 2007 12:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lector on Sep 1, 2007 2:00 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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: rinthy
» RE: Bless their pointy little heads
Posted by: Nedtheredhead
» RE: Bless their pointy little heads....each and every one!
Posted by: peridot
» RE: Bless their pointy little heads....each and every one!
Posted by: Nedtheredhead
» RE: Bless their pointy little heads
Posted by: scootenat65
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ellie1 on Sep 1, 2007 3:05 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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-
Posted by: c.e.stokes on Sep 1, 2007 3:35 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
» A General Strike Has Been Called For 9/11/07
Posted by: Bladerunner2020
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Moonray on Sep 1, 2007 4:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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: lesterliu
» RE: Religious beliefs spawn terrorism
Posted by: hagwind
» Non-belief in imaginary beings hasn't killed anyone, as I recall . . .
Posted by: Moonray
» RE: Non-belief in imaginary beings hasn't killed anyone, as I recall . . .
Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Non-belief in imaginary beings hasn't killed anyone, as I recall . . .
Posted by: outsideagitator
» RE: Non-belief in imaginary beings hasn't killed anyone, as I recall . . .
Posted by: hagwind
» RE: eligious beliefs spawn terrorism
Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
» RE: Religious beliefs spawn terrorism
Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Religious beliefs spawn terrorism
Posted by: particle
» I agree with you, but
Posted by: bluebirdella
» RE: religious beliefs spawn terrorism
Posted by: leerhok
Comments are closed-
Posted by: operdoc on Sep 1, 2007 4:30 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Those were the days
Posted by: vasumurti
» Andrew Johnson was the only pres to claim no affiliation,
Posted by: Bic Pentameter
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wisewebwoman on Sep 1, 2007 4:54 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» RE: Frightening and delusional
Posted by: leerhok
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Suzon on Sep 1, 2007 5:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: religion is mostly conjecture (which is why it's called "belief") and we shouldn't place
Posted by: JoAnne
» RE: religion is mostly conjecture (which is why it's called "belief") and we shouldn't place
Posted by: leerhok
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ricki on Sep 1, 2007 5:53 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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: clvngodess
» RE: eally refutes the liberal media thing
Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
» RE: eally refutes the liberal media thing
Posted by: mazel
» RE: eally refutes the liberal media thing
Posted by: c.e.stokes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Sep 1, 2007 6:36 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: wawa on Sep 1, 2007 6:57 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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: Lauren
» RE: Spiritual vs. Religiosity
Posted by: hagwind
» RE: Spiritual vs. Religiosity
Posted by: Schroeder
» Excellent comment, Jeffrey.
Posted by: mazel
» 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-
Posted by: ray burchard on Sep 1, 2007 8:23 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Sep 1, 2007 8:43 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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....More than just a casual rejoinder....
Posted by: peridot
» RE: MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS
Posted by: c.e.stokes
» RE: MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS
Posted by: peridot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 1, 2007 9:13 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Sep 1, 2007 9:23 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: Doug Indeap on Sep 1, 2007 9:45 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Schroeder on Sep 1, 2007 10:13 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: When our Presidential Candidates are asked about religious issues
Posted by: alternetrose
» RE: When our Presidential Candidates are asked about religious issues
Posted by: jmoore
» Schroeder, you hit the nail on the head.
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Upset on Sep 1, 2007 10:53 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» Religion is a very Personal Matter. It has NO place in the politics of a democratic society.
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: left-leaning-libertarian on Sep 1, 2007 10:56 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: sabr on Sep 1, 2007 11:17 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Sep 1, 2007 12:32 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: morticia on Sep 1, 2007 1:18 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wireup on Sep 1, 2007 2:15 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Sep 1, 2007 7:03 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: silverwizard on Sep 1, 2007 10:03 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: bluebirdella on Sep 1, 2007 11:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lgrf4evr on Sep 1, 2007 11:17 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: herbal on Sep 1, 2007 11:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: rg on Sep 2, 2007 12:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: talkville on Sep 2, 2007 3:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: Philip Newton on Sep 2, 2007 5:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"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-
Posted by: Schadenfreude on Sep 2, 2007 9:51 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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-
Posted by: MLMrev on Sep 2, 2007 11:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» RE: A better way is possible!
Posted by: MLMrev
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Blondinista on Sep 2, 2007 2:28 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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-
Posted by: snarlah on Sep 2, 2007 4:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Sep 2, 2007 11:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lesterliu on Sep 3, 2007 1:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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-
Posted by: paddyge on Sep 3, 2007 2:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: donneek on Sep 3, 2007 12:15 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: Mr. Heathen on Sep 3, 2007 1:51 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: luckypuck on Sep 3, 2007 3:08 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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-
Posted by: bob t on Sep 4, 2007 6:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: talkville on Sep 6, 2007 12:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
One Company Thinks They've Created Fast Food With a Conscience -- Are They Right?
ACORN Smear Collaborator Claims Persecution to Raise Money for Her Legal Troubles
When Will Obama Stop Trying to Work with Republicans?




