First of all, I was shocked that their first significant debate played out in a Church-like arena - well at least a church context.
Hope there is not too much flaming!
I thought it was good, although I'm an atheist, I think the format was good I realize most people are religious so that was fine. I think it was obvious that Obama was a thoughtful, intelligent person, with strong ethics and values, that understands the complex issues of our time deserve thoughtful complex consideration, there are many gray areas that deserve more than a yes or no response. McCain came across as he a shoot from the hip guy that will say anything to get elected.
I am wondering why the left has not gotten upset about the fact that Obama justifies his policy on Biblical grounds. In particular he cites Matthew "whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me."
He has cited to his religious background in the past for the inspiration for his policies.
I thought that the left did not believe that presidential politics should have a religous motivation. For 7 years all we have heard is that Bush is a theocrat who governs because of his religion, and that religion should not be something that influences presidential political policy.
Is there anyone here on the left that has taken this view of Bush's religiousity who has a similar problem with Obama.
Finally, preemmptive argument, before you say that Obama was responding to questions, if you look at the context of Bush's past remarks, when ever he brought up his faith, it was in response to interviewer's questions. You will not find one speech where he started raising Biblical authority for his policies, unless it was in response to a question.
The issue is not whether he (they) are responding to a question, but whether he (they) are governing based on their view of the Bible.
Interesting take. Unless, of course you actually think about what is being said.
Obama cites the bible to talk about how we can help one another. Bush uses it to justify killing those who do not agree with his version of faith.
Being an athiest, I really don't care about bible quotes. It's what the man (or woman) does with the power of their position. Bush has made us less safe, killing thousands of soldiers and civilians, and destoyed the ecomony by tilting the business playing field squarely toward the top earners.
And I STILL do not understand what a religious, right winger is doing on this board. I love you guys. You can't just follow "some" of the rules of your faith and party. You either follow all the rules or don't call yourself a conservative. At least, with all your divorces, affairs, scandals (gay and financial) you hypocrates are consistent.
Thanks for the entertainment.
What a huge distortion.
Your measurement of "less safe" is based on all those the recent terrorist attacks close to your home?
You too (like so many other liberals) confuse conservatism with religion.
First, if you are wondering what a "religous right winger" is doing on the board, and are referring to me, I should explain that I am not religious, although I am politcally conservative. Hard core agnostic. Don't know what to believe. (To clarify, I am more on the libertarian side of conservative, although I don't like their view of foreign policy.)
In any event, I dis't think the board is limited to the left wing.
In any event, Howyadoin3 makes a distinction based on what they (Bush and Obama) are using it for. This does not really hold up.
Even before either Afghanastan or Iraq, when ever Bush's faith as a motivating factor came up he was subject to severe criticism. At that time he wasn't using his faith to justify killing anyone. (parenthetically, I do reject this as what he is using his faith for.)
In any event, the argument wasn't that he was using it for an improper purpose. Rather, he was attacked because we are perceived as a diverse country that includes people other than Christians and therefore the inspiration for policies should not be Biblically based.
In all fairness to the left, when Carter ran for office the first time, many liberals were concerned because of his expressed faith. I don't see that concern here.
Actually, my point is that the left has a double standard. The Catholic Church is told to stay out of politics when expressing views on abortion. However, the church is also anti-death penalty, and when the church expresses those views, there is not criticism.
Finally, the failure to live up to standard is not hypocracy. Hypocracy is having different standards for others. This is a very important difference than holding a standard, but failing to live up to it.
Standards are ideals, and impossible to live up to them all the time. The only way to always live up to standards is to not have any.
It is good to have high standards, even if you are a person who is less than perfect and fails at times. The failure is not hypocracy.
If I may give one example, divorced from this board. I used to smoke for about 25 years. I wished I had never started, but had a hard time quitting. A friend once asked me to talk to his son who had started smoking. I agreed and told his son that it was stupid and bad for him and he should quit now while it was easier.
I wasn't holding out two standards, as I admitted it was stupid and bad for me also, but I was not strong enough to quit (then).
I too am often labeled as a right winger, and I too am an agnostic.
Not all people are that easy to categorize, although partisans like to look at it as "us" and "them". My view of partisans and religious zealot is pretty much the same, neither group thinks for themselves. they are all followers and joiners, and I have little respect for either.
I think you made a good point about the distinction between ideals and the failure to live up to them, vs. hypocrisy. I think too many people fail to implement a set of ideals for their life for fear if they fail they will be called hypocrites.
because I like to read all of the humorous comments that are made about religion. Whoever designed this board and put politics and religion together was either real smart or real dumb, because anyone knows that the two don't mix. The more posts I read, the more I think that you guys who are anti-religion get your information about religion from this board or the main-stream media. Also, Bush didn't attack the terrorists, they attacked us. And how has he used the Bible to justify killing anyone who doesn't believe the way he does? Has he used it to kill his own people? How has he made us less safe? Whenever a politician does something that isn't popular, there's a full-court press to blame religion. Just because one person uses the Bible improperly doesn't mean all religious people use it the same way. And do you really believe that Obama is going to "use the Bible to help everyone" if he gets elected? If you do, then I'll give you a good deal on these 5 lakes on the U.S./Canadian border. But that's just my take on it.
jhb
doesn't automatically make them a lefty who blames everything wrong in this world on Christianity. Howyadoin3 really needs to read Zin's post from earlier today, his statement "Obama cites the bible to talk about how we can help one another. Bush uses it to justify killing those who do not agree with his version of faith." is really one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.
I still think that all religions are nothing more than fairy tales, but I respect the right to believe or not believe as an individual right. Just remember that my stating that religion is ridiculous is much less offensive than a religious person telling me that I will burn in everlasting hell for not believing in his particular version of the fairy tale. It never fails to amaze me when people tell me I need to be sensitive to other people's beliefs, but it is perfectly acceptable for them to tell me that I am going to burn in hell for not accepting Jesus Christ.
Obama said one of the wisest persons he would rely on is his fucking racist wife in the SB forum 
MAC said GEN Petraus enough said
Warren is a piece of crap .I will never forget he said Terri Shievo's husband was evil and the idiot did not even ask Obama about REV Wright and the racist Black Liberation church Obama attended for 20 years.
-- Modified on 8/17/2008 2:43:23 PM
It couldn't be further from the truth. I stand up for religious views and attitudes because not many others will, at least not in the way that I do it. A very religious person’s method of defending their viewpoint is often not based on the type of logic that their "adversary" can understand. I haven’t attended any organized religion for many many years, but I am still very spiritual.
I do think that Christianity has been under singled out by many on the left for attack in a way that no other religion has recently experienced. I really don’t know why, but it seems to be based on two things 1) the forward and assertive nature of the religious right and 2) the nearly religious nature of the secularists in the left. I completely understand and appreciate the left’s political battles with those on the right that wear their religion on their sleeve to fight political causes. But the left should fight the political battle, not attempt to take down the religion itself. Religious people have as much right as anyone to try to infuse their values into the political and public spectrum. They don’t have any right to force others to join them in their religious practices (e.g. prayer etc.). It goes back to WHY a person believes what they believe is irrelevant. Only their actions matter.
BTW, your statement that “’religion is ridiculous’ is much less offensive than a religious person telling me that ‘I will burn in everlasting hell for not believing in his particular version of the fairy tale’”, is clearly an observation from your perspective. I’d ask you to consider that the religious person on the other side of that statement may very well believe that your statement is more offensive to him than vice-versa.
-- Modified on 8/17/2008 4:06:27 PM
It is very obvious that Christians are the subject of comments that would never be tolerated if directed at other groups.
For example, all religious beliefs are a matter of faith, none are "rational," and all are equally questionable. The Christian belief, or at least the strict fundamentalist belief, that the world was made is six days is often the subject of ridicule, and Christians are called stupid for believing it.
Likewise, the Christian view of the after life is often mocked.
However, you never hear anyone say (publicly) that an Indian creation story is stupid or the Buddhist view of reincarnation is silly.
Again, I am not religious and my family background is not Christian, so I have no dog in this fight (Excuse me Mr. Vick. Only mean that figuratively.)
But next time you hear someone bash religion in public ask two questions: 1) Is he referring to Christianity; 2) Would the listeners' reactions be the same if he was making the comment about Hindus, Buddhists, American Indians, or any other religion.
Final comment: In Los Angeles there are always efforts to remove Christian religious symbols from public land and view. However, on the corner of Western and Hollywood, in the heart of "Thai town," there are four huge golden statutes of Asian religious figures. There is no movement to have them removed from the streets. (I don't think there should be, as I enjoy them. But if it were a crucifiction scene it would have been long gone.)
This board being a microcosm of sorts, I have a tendency to bash christianity because the politicians we talk are almost always christians or jews, so that is the subject that comes up.
I absolutely assert that the Indian creation story is stupid and the Buddhist view of reincarnation is as totally nonsensical (I mean, there are more people alive right now than have ever lived).
When you think of it, a devout christian (just as an example) is 99% atheist. He doesn't only reject Hinduism (and all other religions)because his imaginary friend has ordered him to. He also rejects it because it makes no logical sense to him. If a christian honestly applied the same smell test to his own religion, he would reach the same conclusion.
One of the greatest PR victories the christian right achieved by the end of the twentieth century was to perpetuate the illusion that christians in the United States are an oppressed minority.
but when it comes right down to it, your side did start it.
Can you imagine an atheist or agnostic knocking on your door, telling you that your religion is bullshit and that not only will you suffer in this lifetime, but that you will pay through all eternity for the simple reason that you believe in Jesus Christ? Christians would have any such person arrested and thrown in jail.
Now put yourself in my position, not only is that type of behavior accepted, it is encouraged and granted tax exept status. I could give many other examples, but I hope you get my point.
If Christianity would leave me alone, I would be happy to reciprocate.
and told those things, I wouldn't try and have him arrested. I would invite him to have a Bible study. If he didn't want to do that, I would hear him out, then tell him to have a nice day. But I'm not going to condemn him to hell for his belief. He's doing a pretty good job of that himself. On the other hand, you're right; he does have the right to believe that and I respect that right, even if I don't agree with it. As far as Rick Warren, I put him in the same category as John Hagee and these other televangelists. They do not represent true Christians, but have started their own version of it. They certainly don't speak for me! I would call them "religious nut jobs," but you guys have already beaten me to it. But that's just my point of view.
jhb
That's simply not true. Are you saying this in some sort of hypothetical context?
If you read what I said, it isn't my guy. I am not Christian, and my family was not Christian. I have no stake in that.
Evangelicals may believe they should spread the word, and they knock on doors. When they knocked on mine I said, "No thank you, I am busy right now."
I was talking about the public discourse regarding religion.
You never hear anyone say }"Buddhism is sexist," even though one will not reincarnate into a male unless he has led a good life in the past, thereby establishing a religious basis for the belief that male is better (higher) than female.
You never hear anyone say Hindus are stupid.
You never hear anyone say the proponents of any New Age religion are dumb.
on New Age religion. "Anybody who subscribes to a New Age religion is dumb." There now I've said it.
To tell the truth I think all religions are dumb, but the only ones that bother me are the ones that believe in prostylization like the Christians or killing non believers like the Muslims. The rest of the religious world pretty much leaves the rest of us alone, and I return the favor. I could care less if someone wants to worship the "Great Pumpkin" as long as they leave me alone.
My earlier point can be summed up by saying. . .
If someone did everything you asked for and did it exactly the way you wanted AND did so because the Great Pumpkin told them to, you would be pleased.
p.s. Don't leave out those "great" Hindi's, the Hare Krishna.
-- Modified on 8/20/2008 2:55:22 PM
as long as they didn't try to convert me into a "Great Pumpkin" worshipper myself. lol
and yes I forgot about our friends the "Hare Krishna". If they were still clogging airports they'd be higher on my "annoying people" list.
Versus attempting to force those views on everybody else. Using your religious beliefs to help society be better is certainly different that using those beliefs to change laws or policies like the stem cell research stuff, and gay marriage rights.
There is a difference, which is too subtle for the right-wing idiots to understand.
Look, I am a non-religious person, but to qoute Matthew is not a bad thing in my mind since what it says is true. The issue is that the religious among us will say that I cannot possibly be a good person without religion. I beg to differ.
results of efforts matter and not the empty promises of persons less than honest.
the subjectively judged sports. Wrestling and gymnastics come to mind.
Maybe Obama would do well in Beijing after all. lol
I did not watch the idiot Warren either as I wanted to watch real history with Phelps.
Obama could learn from the athletes how to put your hand over your heart when the Pledge of Allegence is played
public announcements of what he would do, seem to be largely driven by polls - and what it is reported he SHOULD do by the media.... shall we recap...
His Grandma - thrown under the bus
Reverand Wright - thrown under the bus and run over a couple of times
His mom - and fully 1/2 his heritage - thrown under the bus.
His stance on drilling - thrown under the bus...
His take on the Iraq war - dangled from the window of the bus...
about the only thing he has NOT waffled on - TAXES - those he will raise....
yea.... heart - Maybe the problem with him putting his hand over his heart, is he is having a tad bit of difficulty finding his heart....
there is either a score or a time clock... lets face it - although the US is competitive, in a lot of the subjective judging.... many of the judges bend the scores away from the US team...
But I have to say, outside of a few calls, I've been impressed by the performances... You cannot get more exciting than the foot races... or the swim meets...
I found it very helpful. Anything that I can learn about either candidate that isn't from some stupid ad trying to define them, or from one of their surrogates on a talk show ticking off the party-lines talking points, is exactly what I'm looking for. There are many things I like about both candidates, and I think the differences in their styles came through very clearly.
Regarding the venue, so many of our citizens are religious, so it was not a problem to me that it was held in a church, nor would it be, if it was in a synagogue, mosque or other religious context, just as long as the questions are presented fairly to both candidates.
I think Rick Warren modeled a good approach in dealing with political dialog. Civility!
Nancy Pelosi said something at an Obama fund raiser last night that proved my point.
The said that Obama is the "leader that God has blessed us with at this time."
If a Republican claimed God has blessed us with who ever the head of the party might be at the time, people would go ape-poo. But I bet this doesn't cause a tiny stir.
Just curious - who told Nancy who got selected.
-- Modified on 8/18/2008 4:23:02 AM
Good point. It just goes to show that religion is too pervasive in this country.