Readers’ Responses to Our Question (96)

It's part and parcel of the vulgar trend in our society of wanting to know the intimate details about everyone with fame or power. JFK, a man of little or no faith (his Catholicism was nominal) probably averted nuclear war with the Soviet Union by acting prudently during the Cuban missile crisis. Would our current president have? - a man who wears his faith on his sleeve. Lyndon Johnson, a man of no religious bent, seems genuinely to have grieved over the loss of life in Vietnam. Bush, frankly, seems indifferent to the unnecessary death he has caused. A reckless certainty, among those who have faith, that their lives are being guided by God, is far more common and more dangerous than the largely mythical creature, the nihilistic atheist.

Our politicians are elected to serve ALL the people of the USA. Stating religious beliefs is a spurious attempt in currying votes. Better that they let their actions speak on behalf of their beliefs.

Also, how one views GOD/ALLAH/SHIVA/BHUDDA changes over time and the relation thereof. Taking a literal translation of any text of faith is foolish action. We see through the lens of our time and place, we are not living during the time of the writers, we do not live under the same social and cultural restraints or truly know the circumstances that evoked the missile. A literal application will lead us astray. However, we can look toward these writings as words of inspiration and guidance in the type of person we want to be in dealing with life.

So, how does one choose a person to be President? Not by what they say, but how they live day by day. Actions not words. How they treat people, react in emergency situations and how they react to life in general. Are their reactions based on self agrandizement or truly actions that work for the betterment of the people of the US? Is it based on a religious directive that has little to do with reality. Analyze that reality -does it help or hinder the growth nation.

I personally do not base my vote on what they say, but how they have behaved and reacted to situations and issues related to the US and me.

Tonio--

I'm not familiar with either DeLay's declaration or the mission statement of Regents University. As to DeLay, I can say nothing of use, since without knowledge of context, intent, and so forth, I'd be just guessing, assuming, and reaching conclusions based on a flimsy knowledge base. I don't mean to dodge the issue, I simply can't find a way to address it. I guess I can say that if he stated that as some sort of absolute, then I would have to agree that it was an inappropriate comment.

As to Regents University, I'm not sure how that might be relevant. Since we've been rather explicitly discussing public politics, I don't immediately see why the policies, goals, and mission statements of a private university (I assume they're private, anyway) matter.

That said on both accounts, I guess I would finish by saying that perhaps these are the exceptions that prove the rule. Might that be the case?

Lepidopteryx--

I appreciate your response; thank you. I must differ with you regarding the accumulated evidence about family stability, child development, and such, however. The notion that the arguments I mentioned have been "debunked" by "peer-reviewed" studies is at the very least debatable, and in my eyes, simply untrue.

Although peer-reviewed scientific literature is alleged to be the gold standard method by which the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge is undertaken, I'm sure you will agree that there are hugely varying standards amongst the innumerable societies, institutions, academies, and so forth that publish, post, or print "peer-reviewed" literature. Many of the articles (on both sides of this question) are of minimal scientific value, having been performed by persons with a heavy axe to grind, using sloppy techniques, poor analysis, and slanted discussion.

The reality is that the overwhelming evidence remains that children do best, overall, and in just about every category of concern, when raised in a traditional family. Is being in a "loving family" better than being in an "unloving family"? Certainly. But that's not something that precludes choices regarding family structure. And are there examples of children who have grown up to be wonderful people by every measure despite coming from other/disadvantaged/undesirable/problematic circumstances? Sure. But that doesn't mean the circumstances from which they came are the sources of their successes, nor that such settings are to be recommended.

Even in the midst of the worst wars, great and selfless acts of heroism and valor are performed. But that hardly is a recommendation for war, is it?

Back to the point about separating "religious" and "secular" beliefs: Given the discussion hereon, I found it ironic that the Daily Bible Verse RSS feed to which I subscribe had Exodus 20:16 as today's verse: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." This would seem to count as both secular (in that the majority of folks, regardless of religious orientation, would agree on it) and religious (it does comprise one of the Ten Commandments, after all). But the secular bit holds, really, only because it's not just a majority, but probably the vast majority of people that are in favor of this principle. But that beggars the question--how big of a majority is necessary to establish something as "secular"? In some societies, and in many through history, slavery is and has been a part of the structure of society, and is accepted and at least tacitly approved of by a sizable majority. Does that make slavery, at least in those societies, an acceptable "secular belief"?

In the English-speaking world, slavery was an accepted practice through the eighteenth and into the nineteenth centuries. The strongest opponents were quite often those who found it wrong from a religious basis. Had they chosen instead to follow the majority secular beliefs instead of their own conscience and religious beliefs, Wilberforce and friends wouldn't be spoken of today, and slavery might still be with us.

Because of examples like this, I think that the notion that individuals can be expected to leave their beliefs behind is a false one; instead, I think we as a people should try to elect those whose beliefs merge with and strengthen and develop policy positions and public actions we think best for our city, state, nation, and world.

"I think, though, that your opposition to a politician 'whose position on any issue begins and ends with God' is taking a stance against a bogey-man; I cannot honestly recall the last time a prominent politician, local or national, did such."

Perhaps not explicitly, Perry. However, many of the fundamentalist politicians come very close to such a position. Tom DeLay once equated people who disagreed with his politics with the people who killed Christ. And outside of electoral politics, Regent University's stated mission almost certainly equates to that position.

Ben,

I thought the filth of Nazism was buried during WWII. What grave did you arise from??

"The bolshevik Revolution in russia was the work of Jewish planning and Jewish dissatisfaction. Our Plan is to have a New world Order. what worked so wonderfully in Russia, is going to become Reality for the whole world." -- The American Hebrew Magazine, 10, Sept. 1920

Hammar, chief Zionist money raiser, said, 'When the blood flows,
the money flows.'"
(Lawrence Mosher, National Observer, May 18, 1970)

"Israel won the war [WWI]; we made it; we thrived on it;
we profited from it. It was our supreme revenge on Christianity."
(The Jewish Ambassador from Austria to London, Count Mensdorf, 1918)

"Zionism was willing to sacrifice the whole of
European Jewry for a Zionist State. Everything was done to
create a state of Israel and that was only possible through a
world war. Wall Street and Jewish large bankers aided the war
effort on both sides. Zionists are also to blame for provoking
the growing hatred for Jews in 1988."
(Joseph Burg, The Toronto Star, March 31, 1988).

"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"...Voltaire

Perry:
I don't think I "fluttered" around anything, but my totem thanks you for the nod.

I am fully aware that action and motive are intertwined. I believe that if I help another only for my personal gain that I will have to pay the karmic debt I create with my selfish motivation. But that karma is mine alone to bear. I cannot read another's mind and know the motivation for his actions - I can only see and evaluate the action. If you push a child out of the path of a speeding train, I have no way of knowing whether you did it out of selfless concern for the child's safety, because you were a stockholder in the railroad and wanted to avoid a lawsuit, or because you were hot for the child's mother and thought your act of heroism would get you laid. I really don't care which reason it was - I care that you saved the child's life at the risk of your own.

Let me clarify my response to your blackmail question. The assumption I made was that blackmail for past political corruption would be in the form of political favors, which would make it a public concern, but that blackmail for a high school sexcapade would be more along the lines of "pay me or I tell your wife" and would involve only the person's private funds,and the only part of that scenario that would be a public concern would be prosecution of the extortionist if the victim chose to press charges. The behavior that had led to the blackmail would not really be any of the public's business. Any time political favors are being bartered for personal gain, it is a public concern.

Those values that do not require the backing of religious dogma to be valid are fine to carry into office - equality, fair play, patience, etc. But to enact laws based on one religion's concept of sin and to hold everyone else to those laws, regardless of whether or not they practice that faith is unconstitutional. To go back to our example of DOMA. The non-religious reasons offered for banning same sex marriage have been debunked by numerous peer-reviewed studies. I know many promiscuous homosexuals, as well as many promiscuous heterosexuals. I know many homosexual couples who have been faithfully monogamous for decades, and many who practice serial monogamy. I know many heterosexual couples who have been faithfully monogamous for decades and many who have practiced serial monogamy. When my husband and I married, neither of us was quizzed by the clerk of court as to how many previous partners we had had or whether we intended to be faithful after we married. So why is homosexual promiscuity or relationship stability a reason to forbid marriage for them but not for heterosexuals? Children have been shown to do best in homes where they know they are loved and wanted. Eveything else, including number and gender of parents is negotiable. I know happy well-adjusted people who were raised by a married mom and dad, by two moms or two dads, and by single parents. I also know miserable people who had rotten childhoods in each of those kinds of households. And no one at the clerk's office asked us about our plans for children either.
If you believe homosexuality is a sin, no one will force you to marry a man. But your belief that it is a sin does not give you the right to forbid those who believe differently to marry.

You are being disingenuous when you say that I expect Chriatians to not act like Christians. What I expect is for Christian politicians to legislate based on the Constitution and not the KJV. And if those two are in conflict over a matter of law, then the Constitution trumps scripture.

**But don't misunderstand; that I feel compelled to behave a certain way by my religious beliefs is not necessarily something that should be promulgated upon the populace such that all are compelled to behave exactly as I do, or as I ought. The extremely difficult challenge is determining what things can and should be translated into public policy and which should not. And that's why clear, sound, reasoned discussion amongst all is necessary. And why, in their wisdom, the founders gave us a representative democracy. It's messy as can be, and never as successful as we'd like, but it's pretty clearly the best we're gonna get.**

On this point, I agree with you 100%.

HANK--

From whence comes knowledge of "the right thing to do"?

BIG DADDY STEVE--

Are the unborn human beings? If so, on what basis do you decide that it's okay to provide them with less rights and protection than others? Can you articulate a reason why infanticide is not okay, but late-term abortions are?

Moral choices ultimately are traced back to one's beliefs. How does one--or a populace--decide which beliefs are enforceable upon others and which are not?

I am not an ordained minister, but I am a Christian. As an American, I feel free to choose my political affiliation based on my beliefs about what things are important and how. A godless, soul-less government cannot ever completely meet my desires or expectations, since compromise with things other than good and perfect must occur. Being therefore in favor of limited government, I am a Republican, that party being for the moment the home of those wishing government to intervene the least in our lives. Your statements would have one come to the conclusion that I am somehow less of a Christian, or less of an American, or both, than you. While I do not wish to claim the ability to measure your faith or the width of your patriotic streak, I do think that I can rightly claim that it is both arrogant and erroneous of you to conclude that those with whom you differ are, because of those differences, less deserving to lay claim to the titles you cherish, those of Christian and American.

Moral codes come either from God (or some other supernatural being[s]) or from some perception of convenience. The latter, based as it is, and only can be, on "reason" and its examination of what one, some, or all perceive as "good" and how "good" might be obtained, ultimately runs aground on a reef of problems with definitions. What is "good"? "Bad"? Is reason something deeper than a generally repeatable series of chemical reactions? How do we know? Why do we generally classify "pleasant" and "happy" as good? Are they any more than somewhat particular examples of chemistry in action in specific areas of the brain? Why is pain bad? Because it helps us avoid things that may shorten our lifespan? Is prolongation of life good? Why? Can any question that begins with "why" be answered? With what?

Anyone willing to say what someone else should do, under any circumstances whatsoever, must be prepared to state why anyone should listen and heed. Simply saying "It's the right thing to do," does not suffice. Even the post-modernists can then rightly respond, "Oh, yeah? Says who?"

Involving faith in a secular society or any society for that matter can be misleading to common folk. Faith is a personal matter. Political nominees should present their policies to public for the sake of clarity and good governance not hide behind faith or a holy book. One man's holy book could very well be another man's book full of holes.

Even Christ said: "Give the Romans what belongs to Romans, etc.", and "My kingdom is not of this world".

Politics is a dirty game and if it is to be cleansed at all, then those very politicians should not hide behind secrecy, holly books, skull-duggery or any such righteous-than-though scheming policies. Be frank, plain, open, and spell your policies out for the ordinary folk to understand and if selected stick to your promises.

A civilised society is one that treats its weakest members with dignity and equal status. It is an inclusive society and not an exclusive club.

Whats with some readers here bringing crazy news from Afghanistan/Iraq to taint Muslim image. What is this has got to do with the price of fish? Comment on the question posed in the article. If I want to hear desperate news from Afghanistan or Iraq, I would go to other more balanced websites.

Cheer:-)

One big reason why Democrats may need to explain the faith factor behind their politics is:
--To balance out the right-wing's monopoly of the religious dialog, and its consequent cynical exploitation and caricature of religious thought, eg: God, Guns, Gonads, and Goofy creationism science. It has been an extreme detriment to the American dialog and understanding of religion.

While politicization of religion is not necessarily a good thing, balance should be restored.

Personally, I believe that while organized religion has been often been corrupted and has often been an abusive force in history, the humanistic principles and ideals of religion have been greatly helpful in advancing civillization, de-tribalizing positive human socialization, and in inspiring people towards exploring, pondering, advancing, and following moral & ethical ideals.

Religious ideals and its descendant humanistic ideals go beyond left or right politics. The diversity of such ideals, of and moral & ethical thinking, have helped human civillization flourish. A balanced dialog between conservative and liberal thinking on the matter of religion, morality and ethics is necessary for a healthy society.

--jsp akha Volt Rare

It does take faith to spend other people's money on charity - faith that the tax payers will not catch on before they go broke. Rather than printing money and moving it around - through the Federal Reserve where the Big Rich take their hefty cut - they should look at the monetary policies and extravagant government spending that are shrinking the middle class and adding to the rolls of the poor. There was a time not too many years ago in this country when a milk man could raise a family on what he earned. As a bonus, people got their milk delivered to their houses daily. Something happened. The politicians need to see what it was. Ron Paul does. The others do not.

It does take faith to spend other people's money on charity - faith that the tax payers will not catch on before they go broke. Rather than printing money and moving it around - through the Federal Reserve where the Big Rich take their hefty cut - they should look at the monetary policies and extravagant government spending that are shrinking the middle class and adding to the rolls of the poor. There was a time not too many years ago in this country when a milk man could raise a family on what he earned. As a bonus, people got their milk delivered to their houses daily. Something happened. The politicians need to see what it was. Ron Paul does. The others do not.

I think we would all be better served if those of faith spoke from the heart and those who had no faith just kept quiet.

I'm not sure how to react. i'm glad for this new attention being paid to faith. I just want to make sure its real. If I am being treated like just another constituency, then that makes the whole thing very full of 'ick.'

Don't study how I'll react. Dont add words to your vocabulary so that people of faith will nod. Just live it.

Check out this good discussion on the newfound faith in politics....

http://redletterbelievers.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html

I think we would all be better served if those of faith spoke from the heart and those who had no faith just kept quiet.

I'm not sure how to react. i'm glad for this new attention being paid to faith. I just want to make sure its real. If I am being treated like just another constituency, then that makes the whole thing very full of 'ick.'

Don't study how I'll react. Dont add words to your vocabulary so that people of faith will nod. Just live it.

Check out this good discussion on the newfound faith in politics....

http://redletterbelievers.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html

The exclusion of the only Unitarian running, Senator Mike Gravel, raises very serious questions about the sincerity of thos sponsoring the event. These questions should be answered. The absence of the Senator should be explained.

The exclusion of the only Unitarian running, Senator Mike Gravel, raises very serious questions about the sincerity of thos sponsoring the event. These questions should be answered. The absence of the Senator should be explained.

Thank you, Big Daddy Steve, for your wonderful post.

I am dismayed to hear so many otherwise intellegent politicians say thay they believe there is a God.

Lepidopteryx--

Nice job of fluttering about the questions without dealing with their substance.

You seem to think that action and motive can be completely separated. That, frankly, is absurd. Motive--the why behind the what--not only leads one to consideration of a given action, but also often determines the ardor with which it is undertaken.

In the cases given, the actions, or proposed actions, stem directly from beliefs. The actions wouldn't exist were it not for the beliefs. Hence, artificial separation of the two is just that--artificial.

Your response to the blackmail question was interesting; that a public official is being blackmailed, say, for a favor here, a vote there, is not only news (or so I would think), but of import to the political process regardless of whence the blackmailing stems.

The fact that the beliefs listed aren't unique to Paganism is part of the point. As I said, it's not ALL beliefs you wish to see shed at the door, only those with which you disagree. If everyone happens to agree on a particular belief, of course it's not controversial. One of the things I noted from my discussion (quite amicable, by the way) with the pagan acquaintance I mentioned is that in her listing of some of the "cardinal beliefs" (my request) of (her brand of) paganism, none were outside of that group I'm sure you would call "secular beliefs". When I mentioned this, she said that was one of the things that had attracted her to paganism--the fact that none of the beliefs were controversial or, as she put it, "limiting". I'm still not sure what she meant by the latter. But you mention that you're pagan; can you share with me a "religious belief" or two that you think should not accompany you into your office, should you ever be elected to office?

I happen to consider homosexual behavior wrong; whether it be a sin, illness, or both, I find interesting, but not easily settled by rational discussion. For simplicity's sake, let's say I believe it a sin. You believe it's not. Now let's say we both sit on the city council. Which belief should be shed? Yours? Mine? Why?

To say that those beliefs held by religious persons that happen to coincide with "secular beliefs" need not be cast aside, but that those not so coinciding should be still leaves us with a slightly sticky problem. Who gets to decide what list of "secular beliefs" is the one to which we should refer for guidance on the matter? You? Me? Peter Singer? Hannibal Lecter? Shamu the Whale? By saying that these "secular beliefs" need not be discarded, you've agreed with my point on that matter, at least. The problem arises when we try to decide who gets to decide what should be on the list and what shouldn't.

Your choice of the DOMA, and your characterization of the (ostensbily only) reason why Christians are in favor of it are interesting. For what is essentially the totality of human history, marriage has been considered to be between man and woman. Sometimes there have been multiple wives, less frequently multiple husbands. So it's not like the notion of such restrictions is exactly a new idea.

What is new is the notion that gays can and should marry. In the case wherein longstanding law, tradition, and societal norms are all to be cast aside or changed, the primary burden for making the case lies not with those who wish to maintain the status quo, but with those who wish to change it.

But in addition to that, and in addition to the fact that many Christians oppose gay marriage because it (gay behavior) is a sin, there exist other reasons to oppose gay marriage, and these have often been articulated quite clearly by both Christian and non-Christian. Issues such as family stability, child development, encouragement of social norms, establishment of sexual identity and roles, and more are all of legitimate concern. Male homosexual relationships, for instance, tend to be much shorter, and prone to promiscuous misbehavior, than "permanent" heterosexual relationships. Marriages are yet more stable. Children, developmentally, educationally, and behaviorally, do best when raised in "traditional" families. So is it possible you've greatly oversimplified the "Christian" position on DOMA?

You say that you wouldn't withhold a vote for someone simply because he is a Christian--but you do expect him to act as if he's not. Should a Christian act like a Christian, would he or she get your vote?

The bottom line to all this is that there simply does not exist any line of demarcation indicating what beliefs--and their associated and/or resulting actions--are "religious" and which are not. Nearly all my motivations for every conscious act I undertake stem ultimately from religious concerns. It is simply part of who I am. You ask me to leave "that part" behind in public. What I'm telling you is that I see no way that can be done.

But don't misunderstand; that I feel compelled to behave a certain way by my religious beliefs is not necessarily something that should be promulgated upon the populace such that all are compelled to behave exactly as I do, or as I ought. The extremely difficult challenge is determining what things can and should be translated into public policy and which should not. And that's why clear, sound, reasoned discussion amongst all is necessary. And why, in their wisdom, the founders gave us a representative democracy. It's messy as can be, and never as successful as we'd like, but it's pretty clearly the best we're gonna get.

Dear Jim Wallis: I too am gladdened that faith, values and poverty appear to have become part of our political conversation. I only wish you had been the interviewer on Monday for the CNN candidates debate and not Ms. O’Brien, who was clearly not at ease with the topics. I am concerned, however, that in the push to bring the issue of poverty to the top of the political agenda, a “hot-button” issue (your words) like abortion appears to have been left behind by Sojourners. I am not a single-issue voter but I am unabashedly pro-life, and I hate to see this issue marginalized as one that some progressives contend leads to poverty. Ergo, abortion-as-usual is OK to achieve progress in this other, more important arena. The greatest poverty, however, is the one that diminishes life for any of us, be it material well-being or otherwise. I don’t understand the political calculation that Sojourners appears to have made that poverty is bad (I agree) but abortion is merely a terrible tragedy (it’s much worse). I apologize if I have misrepresented your point of view, but that’s the impression I’m given when the protection of all life is reduced in your rhetoric to a “hot-button issue.” I believe our friend Ron Sider has it right with ESA’s consistent ethic of life. I believe any assault on the dignity of life ought to merit our moral concern. While I love the work that Sojourners is doing, I can’t support a “prophetic voice” that fails the Biblical test of Christ’s call to care “for the least of these”—be they the poor or those yet to be born. Please be willing to speak clearly and vigorously for all those who suffer, whether they’re old enough to vote or not.

I believe the candidates are pandering to the religeous biggots in this country. So many americans simply won*t vote for anyone who doesn't believe in god. They can't bring themselvs to believe that you can be a decent, honest and careing human being just because it is the right thing to do. I don't need the teachings of any religion for me to believe that treating my fellow man with decency, caring and fairness is the right thing to do, so a candidates faith is irrelevent to me. I judge people by thier actions, not what they say. George Bush claimed to be a man of faith and he lied to the american people and started a war where americas finest are dying every day.

Dear Jim Wallis: I too am gladdened that faith, values and poverty appear to have become part of our political conversation. I only wish you had been the interviewer on Monday for the CNN candidates debate and not Ms. O’Brien, who was clearly not at ease with the topics. I am concerned, however, that in the push to bring the issue of poverty to the top of the political agenda, a “hot-button” issue (your words) like abortion appears to have been left behind by Sojourners. I am not a single-issue voter but I am unabashedly pro-life, and I hate to see this issue marginalized as one that some progressives contend leads to poverty. Ergo, abortion-as-usual is OK to achieve progress in this other, more important arena. The greatest poverty, however, is the one that diminishes life for any of us, be it material well-being or otherwise. I don’t understand the political calculation that Sojourners appears to have made that poverty is bad (I agree) but abortion is merely a terrible tragedy (it’s much worse). I apologize if I have misrepresented your point of view, but that’s the impression I’m given when the protection of all life is reduced in your rhetoric to a “hot-button issue.” I believe our friend Ron Sider has it right with ESA’s consistent ethic of life. I believe any assault on the dignity of life ought to merit our moral concern. While I love the work that Sojourners is doing, I can’t support a “prophetic voice” that fails the Biblical test of Christ’s call to care “for the least of these”—be they the poor or those yet to be born. Please be willing to speak clearly and vigorously for all those who suffer, whether they’re old enough to vote or not.

I believe the candidates are pandering to the religeous biggots in this country. So many americans simply won*t vote for anyone who doesn't believe in god. They can't bring themselvs to believe that you can be a decent, honest and careing human being just because it is the right thing to do. I don't need the teachings of any religion for me to believe that treating my fellow man with decency, caring and fairness is the right thing to do, so a candidates faith is irrelevent to me. I judge people by thier actions, not what they say. George Bush claimed to be a man of faith and he lied to the american people and started a war where americas finest are dying every day.

Look, JUDGE NOT, and all that.
But how does Hillary, for example, lie her fool head off, whenever it's advantageous, is greedy beyond measure and a money grubber (the nice word for it) (remember Arkansas? her phony registering as a "bride" as she left the WH? Travelgate? Make your own list...and still fall in the path of the religion she bleets?
Which of the tenants of her religion does she exhibit?
Here's a judgement. She's a major phony. She knows how to push and climb. Foreign leaders will despise her. Probably already do. So will Americans. She'd be a disaster. And you know it. There'd never be a day of consensus of anything.

Look, JUDGE NOT, and all that.
But how does Hillary, for example, lie her fool head off, whenever it's advantageous, is greedy beyond measure and a money grubber (the nice word for it) (remember Arkansas? her phony registering as a "bride" as she left the WH? Travelgate? Make your own list...and still fall in the path of the religion she bleets?
Which of the tenants of her religion does she exhibit?
Here's a judgement. She's a major phony. She knows how to push and climb. Foreign leaders will despise her. Probably already do. So will Americans. She'd be a disaster. And you know it. There'd never be a day of consensus of anything.

I am a Christian and an ordained minister. I am also an American and therefore, a Democrat.

A lot of Christians I know think this is insanity. However, as an American, how can I be anything else?

For example: I personally hate abortion. I wish it never had to happen. This has to do with my belief about when life begins. I freely admit that this is a religious belief. For this reason, I would never vote to end abortion. That would be contrary to the religious (or non-religious) beliefs of others. As an American, I cannot vote to restrict the beliefs of others simply because they differ with my own. THAT is UN-American.

I think it is fine to have faith in God (or something else) if you are running for office. BUT, if elected, you should never, ever let your own beliefs interfere with your elected duty to maintain and support the rights of EVERY American. To do otherwise is a breach of the public trust. You have been elected to represent EVERY member of your constituency, not just the members of your own political party, and certainly NOT just those of your own race, religion, sexual orietation, or whatever.

American law should treat everybody the same. Unfortunately, it does not at this time. Shame on America, and shame on Americans for allowing this condition to exist.

I am a Democrat because I feel that they are closer to this ideal than the alternative. I repudiate any persons of asy creed who seek to force the rest of the population to follow their religious views. A true American will never do that.

Perry:
**Let's say that a candidate claimed to be a devout Shiite Muslim, and as such agreed that the fatwa calling for the assassination of Salman Rushdie was appropriate. Would that not be worth knowing? What of the treatment of women under sharia? Would you not want to know that a given candidate agreed with that?**

If a candidate publicly called for a murder, that would be the issue with which I had a problem, whether he did so for religious or other reasons. Likewise, if a candidate proposed to eliminate women's rights, that would be the problem, whether his motives were religious or otherwise.

**Would you not wish to know that a candidate was being blackmailed for something in his past?**

If it was corruption in a previous public office, yes. If it was having gotten a cheerleader pregnant in high school, no.

**Would you not wish to know that a given candidate had close ties to a company like, oh, let's see....Halliburton?**

Since Halliburton has contracts with the Defense Dept, and the candidate would stand to personally profit from a war, that would constitute a conflict of interest and therefore should be a matter of public record. But last I heard, Halliburton was not a religious organization.

**No, I think that the protestations aren't being made solely on the basis of "I don't want to hear about faith"; instead, I suspect that as often as not, the motive is more akin to "I don't want anyone believing X (or Y or Z, or any of the three, maybe) making any decisions for or about me."**

I don't want legislation being made based on one particular religion's view of "sin." Take DOMA, for example. The whole reason for DOMA is that Christians consider homosexuality "sin" and therefore feel justified in denying same sex couples the right to legally marry.

**If a Christian were to say "I don't want a Pagan president making decisions for our country," I'm certain that the cries of bigotry and such would be deafening.**

I am pagan. I would never refuse to vote for a candidate simply because s/he was Christian. Nor would I vote for a pagan candidate solely because s/he was pagan. I don't want MY religion to become the basis for federal law any more than I do Christianity, Islam, or any other religion. I take the First Amendment and the Jefferson's concept of separation of churh and state seriously.

**Examples given to me by a Pagan acquaintance of commonly held beliefs: Everyone is equal. All people deserve respect. Positive energy combined from all of us can be used to solve our problems.**

These are hardly beliefs unique to paganism. In fact, no one religion can claim exclusive right ot them. Atheists also hold these beliefs. They are secular values. Treating all people equally is not basing law on
religious beliefs. DOMA is.

**By extension, then, it's easy to see that people don't wish to see Christians (or anyone else) leave (all) their beliefs at the door, either. Let's take a few: Love your enemies. Treat others as you would be treated. Judge not, lest you be judged. Be slow to anger, and quick to forgive.""

Again, these are not solely religious beliefs. They are also secular values that require no religious backing in order to be valid.

So, really, the religion of a candidate doesn't matter?

Let's say that a candidate claimed to be a devout Shiite Muslim, and as such agreed that the fatwa calling for the assassination of Salman Rushdie was appropriate. Would that not be worth knowing? What of the treatment of women under sharia? Would you not want to know that a given candidate agreed with that?

Whether or not one agrees with such beliefs, knowledge that a candidate carries them can be, it would seem, useful information.

And no, asking that they leave their faith at home doesn't work. That's an idea that only works for those who have no faith of which to speak, or with which to be concerned.

We elect people to office, not platforms or position papers. Knowing how and on what basis those people make decisions and what motivating forces are at play seems the only intelligent route to take.

Would you not wish to know that a candidate was being blackmailed for something in his past? Would you not wish to know that a given candidate had close ties to a company like, oh, let's see....Halliburton?

If close (perhaps even strong) ties to something like Halliburton are important to know of, why are not close (perhaps even strong) ties to something like, say, Islam? Or Christianity? Or Shintoism?

No, I think that the protestations aren't being made solely on the basis of "I don't want to hear about faith"; instead, I suspect that as often as not, the motive is more akin to "I don't want anyone believing X (or Y or Z, or any of the three, maybe) making any decisions for or about me." Hmmm. If a Christian were to say "I don't want a Pagan president making decisions for our country," I'm certain that the cries of bigotry and such would be deafening.

Now, the instant critique of the above comment will be along the lines of "No, we just don't want the person's beliefs affecting their decisions in office." Well, is that really true? Or is it more along the lines of the following? "We don't want office-holders with beliefs with which we disagree allowing those beliefs to affect their decisions."

The reason I suspect the latter is because the public confession and even enforcement of beliefs with which we agree happens all the time. Common Pagan feel-good polytheism, for instance, which comes most often without any organizational urge to proselytize--or perhaps even any organization to speak of, has no distinct theology with which to argue, or in many cases even be concerned about, although it is sometimes thought to be an umbrella term covering other, perhaps (at least in the eyes of some) more nefarious practices and beliefs. But because of the no-offense-meant nature of modern suburban Paganism, many would be comfortable with the beliefs, such as they are, being put into play. Examples given to me by a Pagan acquaintance of commonly held beliefs: Everyone is equal. All people deserve respect. Positive energy combined from all of us can be used to solve our problems. Surely no one expects a Pagan office-holder to leave these beliefs at the door?

By extension, then, it's easy to see that people don't wish to see Christians (or anyone else) leave (all) their beliefs at the door, either. Let's take a few: Love your enemies. Treat others as you would be treated. Judge not, lest you be judged. Be slow to anger, and quick to forgive. Should President Bush forget about these when he walks through the door of the Oval Office tomorrow morning? Of course not.

So, the reality is that nearly all of us wish that our political leaders leave behind, when they go to work, any beliefs which we find disagreeable or inconvenient. As for the rest, well, I guess anarchy and chaos suit some folks.

All--

Although we may differ slightly as to why we share these thoughts, DOCTORTODD and I agree nigh unto completely as to the appropriateness of the questions put to the forum participants, at least as described in DOCTORTODD's posting below. The two examples given are egregiously offensive, and deserve a polite refusal to answer them, though I gather that such was not forthcoming.

There is one point on which I may differ, however, and that is regarding the notion that the function the other evening served as a "religious litmus test" for office. That is poppycock, pure and simple, nothing more than the hoisting of a banner to which virtually all claim allegiance in order to strengthen a point. A point which, by the way, did not need the help.

I (and I hope all others favoring a civil and respectful public discourse) agree that "no candidate should . . . be asked such . . . obnoxiously intrusive questions." I also agree, as I hope again most all would, that they are "utterly inappropriate in the public arena". The only thing I would add is that with rare exception they are equally inappropriate in private settings as well. Whether moreso than asking "briefs or boxers" I leave to others to discuss.

But to represent the forum as a "litmus test" is to make it out to be something it was not, nor strived to be. That the vast majority of candidates find it expedient to claim some form of conventional religiosity is unsurprising--they are, after all, trying to win the votes of people who overwhelmingly claim such characteristics for themselves.

Since the very first election, winners have most often been those who have most successfully portrayed themselves as "just like" the voters. It's now called identity politics, but it's also the oldest game in politics, and should surprise no one. We see and hear the same when people discuss which candidate can best identify with "the black vote", or the "pro-life vote" or whatever. I am absolutely certain that if someone could isolate the defining characteristic of "the majority vote", no politician would ever be slated that didn't have it in his genes.

The Democratic Party for too long downplayed religious concerns, in essence gambling that the conventional soft-mouthing of the topic as evidenced by everyone from Clinton to Kerry would suffice. It was perhaps understandable, since the last time a national Democratic leader wore his faith on his sleeve, it was the ineffectual malaise-monger from Plains, Georgia, and no one wished to be identified with him until the screen from Habitat for Humanity blocked the view of his astonishingly bad stint in the White House.

That, combined with a too-easy marriage of convenience with the mushier parts of post-modern philosophy, left the Republicans free to gambol in the fields with traditional conservative thought almost without competition. That effectively ceded that portion of the landscape to the Republicans, who eagerly took advantage, some with the best of intentions (and all that comes along with that), some with a cold, calculating, and exceedingly utilitarian eye.

Now the Dems are trying to get back in that game; some, no doubt, harboring only the best of intentions, but some just as assuredly dressing up on Sunday only for the cameras.

It will force Republicans to reconsider the degree to which they can count on "the religious vote", and how they might court it, but . . . since human nature is what it is, the game of politics will still most often be won by the calculating cynic. Whether Democrat or Republican we shall have to see.

Get YOUR god out of MY government!!!!!!!

It should be against the law for any politician to mention their faith at campaign events, or while serving in office.

PERIOD.

Why?

1. Because without the separation of church and state we will be looking for a new home free from persecution just like the pilgrims did.

2. Because the military has now been indoctrinated in evalgelical christianity at its highest ranks by a president who is forcing his beliefs into our national policies against the will of the majority and there is no stopping it.

3. Because white collar criminals are liars who always claim religeon before committing their crimes. Then they claim redemptiopn from god, and ask us to follow in god's path by forgiving them. Then they commit another crime later.

4. Because churches violate the seperation of church and state while simultaneously violating tax law every time they tell their flock to vote in a certain way with voter guides, preaching at the pulpit, and "gotv" drives.

5. Because polticians who loudly wear their faith upon their sleeve always say their's is the only true faith, thus disenfranchising and persecuting every othewr citizen in the union who disagrees with them.

SHUT UP ABOUT YOUR RELIGEON IF YOU ARE IN GOVERNMENT AND ARE PAID VIA MY TAX DOLLARS!

Gaby,
I'd be interested to see what Starhawk's take on this is as well.

I'm looking forward to the day when we have no idea what religion (if any) any of the candidates are. Because it shouldn't matter.

The flack over Romney's Mormonism and Rep Ellison's Islam are reminiscent of the baseless concerns voiced by Protestants at Kennedy's Catholicism. As someone said on another board, we're electing a chief executive, not a chief priest.

Lep,

I can't wait for Starhawk to pipe into this conversation. I's really like to hear what she has to say about this hullaballoo!

While by itself the recent event hosted by Sojourners would hardly be newsworthy, because every politician understands the necessity of at least paying lip service to the piety of most American voters, it should concern every American – religious or otherwise – the types of questions these candidates on that night were posed.

Any citizen with ambitions for dog catcher or the presidency is acutely aware that standing for public office most anywhere in America requires pledging heavenly allegiance almost as necessarily as filing the hellish paperwork. Advertising belief early is as crucial to a candidacy as gathering signatures and paying the filing fee.

But no candidate, no matter how genuine their faith, should, in this nation that is while religious by choice nonetheless secular by law, be asked such personal and obnoxiously intrusive questions as: “What was the greatest sin you ever committed?”, and “Did your faith help you with your husband’s infidelity?”

Such questions are utterly inappropriate in the public arena, under the less-than-heavenly glow of media lights and cameras. Certainly within the un-surveilled sanctuary of a house of worship a candidate who would preach from the pulpit must also expect to sit in the confessional. But the increasing trend towards public interrogation of candidates on matters of faith in their private and most intimate lives crosses a line over which it will be very difficult for any present or future candidate to retreat.

After all, public interrogations of piety and faith amount to a sort of religious litmus test for public office, something, lest we forget, our Constitution in Article VI explicitly forbids.

It is one thing, more often a phony thing, for a candidate to wear their faith on their sleeve in attempt to gain political advantage. It is quite another for the faithful to invite candidates into the public arena, and then try their piety in the court of public opinion. Which candidate bore the heavier cross should not determine which candidate gains the keys to the White House.

This is not at all to say that faith does not or should not matter in this country. While America is staunchly secular, it is also resolutely religious. The great majority of Americans derive many if not most of their moral insights from their religious beliefs, and that is largely the way America has always been.

But religion and politics, while allowed to mingle, must never be permitted to marry. The awful offspring of such a marriage have perpetrated some of the worse crimes of history, and we must do everything in our power as religious Americans or secular to prevent such a union from ever taking place here.

Gaby,
I will hoist a Guiness Stout in your honor.

It is actually good to hear that the Democrats are asking "What Would Jesus Do?" when addressing social and economic issues.

For too long Republicans have, hypocritically, claimed to be the party of morality while ignoring the poor and supporting wars in which millions of people are maimed, killed, and rendered homeless.

This hypocrisy was patently obvious in the case of Terry Shaivo, where the Republicans were claiming to support a "culture of life" while at the same time starting the Iraq war in which thousands have died.

The Republicans seems to be reading a version of the Bible I have not seen, a version which has an asterisk next to the first of the Ten Commandments.

Lepidopteryx,

As long as you have the beer, I have the thirst. <:o)

I want my candidates for President to be cool-headed analysts who will uphold the Constitution and the rights of EVERYONE in this country.

If they have a personal faith so be it, but I would hope they leave that in their church, mosque, or whatever other forum and run the country intelligently, fairly, and without hidden agendas instead by religious conviction.

I'm a practicing mainline Protestant, and a Democrat, and I'm sick of the Dem candidates talking about their faith.

The Republicans/Christian Coalition used religion as a battering ram to consolidate power. "Christian" was code for claiming membership in a gay-hating, anti-abortion, low-taxes, defense-loving group. Which was slimy, but their prerogative.

No one in the conservative south is going to vote for Barack or Hillary for talking about faith, and the conversation is just going to skeeve out the rest of creation.

Perry:
There's no "problem."
As I said in my post, the topic question carried an implicit question about the effect of a candidate's professed religious persuasion on the voter's choice. I responded as to what effect it would have on my choice - none.

LEPIDOPTERYX--

Thanks for the clarification. It seems I did understand you correctly; motive, for you, is unimportant. I think it an unwise position to take--I would suggest consideration of both policies/plans and the means by which they were reached, but it is of course yours to decide upon.

One point of clarification I'd like to make: I didn't suggest that your change THIS channel; I was referring instead to the televised forum that served as the prompt for this thread. And, indeed, you indicated that if/when you come across such, you do indeed change the channel. So, that said, what's the problem?

Tonio--

Thanks for your comment. I don't think I have any significant point of disagreement, as far as I can tell. I agree that a candidate's positions and/or plans should stand on their own merits, derived through reasonable processes informed by moral values.

I think, though, that your opposition to a politician "whose position on any issue begins and ends with God" is taking a stance against a bogey-man; I cannot honestly recall the last time a prominent politician, local or national, did such. As for your willingness to abide "a religious politician who remakes the position in secular terms and is willing to compromise in secular terms", I think that a reasonable position to take. One query,however: Just what constitutes a willingness to "compromise in secular terms"? I truly do not understand what is meant by that. Do you hear people bargaining and bantering about compromises in "faith terms"? Do you mean simply that they must be willing to compromise in general? If so, then it seems you're describing what politicians in general do--compromise in order to gain what they can.

Every time Pol's or POTUS gets to mucking around with Religon , It's God's will, nothing good ever, EVER comes out of it.
Let's keep religon and the rest person, with in their own house. I am tired of this clowns beating everyone on their over taxed, over worked heads with their person blend of religon.

---30----

Gaby,
I was wondering when you would get here. I brought the beer....

They are just pandering to the superstitious and the gullible like the Republicans have done for years.

GO LEPIDOPTERYX, Go GIRL! YOU ROCK!

You may wonder......

Why can Israel obviously surround a sovereign peoples, shut off their economy, water, electricity, and then bomb them without fear of reprisal from the World Governments?

Here is what it is.

The Khazars and Kenites are an evil race. Those of Adam are not this evil race ...or generation. The children of Light is a spiritual metaphor for those who wish and hope for good, and disdain evil deeds, such as many of you. This law written in your hearts by the Light itself, the Love of God. Now..and the children of "this world" or...darkness, have spirits from the Darkness itself, The Hate or Wrath of Elohim, for all things are Elohim, and God is dividing the Light from this darkness, the division of himself.

Jesus himself tells us who is wiser (smarter), and cunning in the ways of this world (of which David spoke of as the "valley of darkness").

Luke 16:8
And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9509/mass_graves/

To expand on Lepidopteryx's comments, I see a practical distinction between a religious politician whose position on any issue begins and ends with God, and a religious politician who remakes the position in secular terms and is willing to compromise in secular terms. My feeling is that such a position should be defensible on its own merits, whether the politician believes that the position is what his or her god wants.

Perry:
**If I understand you correctly, you're saying that you don't care why a candidate believes any particular thing, or what moral/ethical framework the candidate relies upon to form plans, opinions, etc. Is that true?**

I care about his actions, not his motives, if that's what you're asking.

**Does it then follow that as long as the plans presented are ones of which you approve, you'd vote for that candidate, even if he claims that he takes his positions because his astrologer, his shaman, God, and the deep-fried entrails of the FSM told him to?**

Yes. If the actions he plans to take are ones that I approve of, I will vote for him, regardless of what spiritual path he follows or doesn't follow.

**If so, then why not simply ignore discussions in which others find interesting and noteworthy the motivations and thought processes candidates use to reach their positions. Just because you aren't interested doesn't mean others cannot be, or that they should be denied any opportunity to freely discuss such subjects. If it's of no use and no interest to you, why not just change the channel?**

If I recall correctly, this is an open forum. Implicit in the topic question "How might this new direction by Democrats change the conversation on faith and politics?" is the question of how a candidate's religious professions might influence voters. As a voter, I simply stated what influence a candidate's professions of faith would have on my vote. Nowhere in my post did I attempt to tell anyone else what subjects they could or could not, should or should not discuss. And when candidates start giving interviews about their religion, I DO change the channel.

LEPIDOPTERYX--

You state the following: "I don't want to hear about a candidate's faith. I want to hear what s/he believes regarding the issues facing our country, and concrete, specific information as to what s/he plans to do about them."

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that you don't care why a candidate believes any particular thing, or what moral/ethical framework the candidate relies upon to form plans, opinions, etc. Is that true?

Does it then follow that as long as the plans presented are ones of which you approve, you'd vote for that candidate, even if he claims that he takes his positions because his astrologer, his shaman, God, and the deep-fried entrails of the FSM told him to?

If so, then why not simply ignore discussions in which others find interesting and noteworthy the motivations and thought processes candidates use to reach their positions. Just because you aren't interested doesn't mean others cannot be, or that they should be denied any opportunity to freely discuss such subjects. If it's of no use and no interest to you, why not just change the channel?

GaryD says: "However the refusal of the left to contenance the notion that a small proportion of Islamic Radicals mean us and much of the rest of the world including other Muslims harm and that we really ought to do something about it and that the only choices are to try and change the paradigm of governance in the Middle East that seems to give birth to these nuts or to slaughter however many it takes to get the rest to leave us alone."

First of all, it is false to say that "the left" (whatever that is in America) doesn't recognize the threat of terrorism. The debate is over what should be done about it. Since the goal of the Jihadists themselves is to "change the paradigm of governance in the Middle East" it seems like a bad idea to have helped them along that road by invading Iraq.

You are right to point out that it is a small portion of Islamic radicals who seek to harm to the West; reacting to their provocations with a full scale military invasion of an Arab country was an over-reaction; attacking a wasp with a sledgehammer. This is, in fact, exactly what they wanted us to do.

Of course we need to do something about the problems that give rise to terrorism, and deal with the terrorists themselves, but an army designed to fight the Soviets in Europe is not the tool for doing that. Causing more needless death and destruction and humiliation of Arab peoples makes the problem worse, not better. Cultivating real ties with progressive, moderate Muslims and demanding reforms from the dictatorial regimes we have supported in places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt would make us, and the Arab peoples, safer. You can't do that with bombs and guns.

Regards

A Hermit

I think we would all be better served if those of faith spoke from the heart and those who had no faith just kept quiet.

I dont want to be pandered too. I dont care how many consultants they have and how they study the buzz words and language — true believers can smell a rat.

Hey, check out this blogpost for more about real faith and politics and the political party's new rush toward faith —

http://redletterbelievers.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html

Its a natural and completely predictable convergence. Christianity and socialism are completely similar and easily harmonized. The only significant obstacle to the Democrats usurping the Republican sway over the devout Christian voters is the abortion issue.

I don't want to hear about a candidate's faith. I want to hear what s/he believes regarding the issues facing our country, and concrete, specific information as to what s/he plans to do about them.
I don't care if the candidate worships JHWH, Allah, Gaia, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, ET, or Fred Flintstone. I care about that candidate's intent and ability to uphold the Constitution of this country and to protect the rights of all its citizens.
I don't care what a candidate beleives her/his god has done for her/him. That's between her/him and her/his deity. I care what s/he will do for this country.

It is not possible, in today's climate, for a non-churchgoing candidate to get elected, no matter how moral, ethical, competent, experienced, and skilled in leadership they may be. that's a shame and puts a lie to our so-called value of diversity.

But perhaps this too will pass, just as 10 years ago we could not imagine a woman or person of color being taken seriously as a candidate.

CLINTON AND OBAHMA,

GUILIANTI (WHATEVER THaT PARASITES NAME IS),

MCCAIN,

THERE ALL GODLESS FOLKS LOOKING TO GAIN POWER.

VOTE RON Paul.

RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT