Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

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

By Rob Boston, Church & State Magazine. Posted September 1, 2007.


Presidential candidates are getting barraged by the media on questions about their prayers, their sins, and their beliefs on religious doctrine -- and some of them seem to enjoy it.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Rob Boston

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Democratic presidential contender John Edwards was in a tough spot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vanderslice has more advice for the Democrats in 2008.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: media, religion, church and state, 2008 election

Rob Boston is assistant editor at Church and State magazine.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

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

Robert Lightfoot

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

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

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

» RE: I am mad as Hell Posted by: civilized european
» RE: I am mad as Hell Posted by: fluffmuffinmom
» Thank you- Posted by: Ellie1
» Sad Posted by: openhouse
All liar's
Posted by: c.e.stokes on Sep 1, 2007 3:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
priest's and politician's are all liars. they molest everybody.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When will Amerika grow up and join civilization???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE BRIGHTS' SEPTEMBER BULLETIN -- 2007 August 31

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is clearly total bullshit superstition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mick3
Posted by: mick3 on Sep 1, 2007 2:11 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion, such as it is--modern mythology--should be a private and personal thing, along with sex, love, and whatever people choose to ingest. Instead, thanks to the religiosos who think they know everything, these private issues have been made subject to government intrusion. How? By cheap, pandering politicians chasing votes. Utterly sickening, especially now when rational thought and intelligence are so desperately needed both in the Congress and the White House.

It is the ultra-religious (so-called, but watch their acts) who, having spent their lives believing six impossible things before breakfast, could easily and even willingly believe the blindingly-clear lies of the Bushies, crowing, "We support our president" and feeling all righteous about it--instead of feeling stupid and ignorant and deluded. Willful ignorance of actual fact is much prized among the religiosos. As the Bushies claim, reality-based governance is off the table.

Maybe we who haven't drunk the Kool-Aid should all communicate our distaste (revulsion) of religious pandering to the candidates. They could at least shut up about it rather than disrespecting non-believers. We are expected to respect others' religions, but those religions not only don't respect the non-deluded but get laws passed that go against our own strong beliefs. I say, down with all religions and their silly tales concocted for (1) male glory, (2) female subjugation, and (3) control of the populace.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bush faith base crap