RSS Feed
What Evangelicals Can Learn From The View
This past Friday marked the first time since John McCain's selection of a vice-presidential running mate that the Democrats actually "won" a daily news cycle.
Your weekend was eventful, so to refresh your memory: Sarah Palin did not exactly kill in her interview with Charles Gibson. Alaska lawmakers voted not to delay further inquiries into Troopergate until after the election. And most importantly, John McCain was taken to task on The View for recent attack ads on Barack Obama.
Watch the video and you will see the hosts pressing an uncomfortable McCain about two negative spots his campaign ran. One alleged that his opponent made porcine allusions in reference to Sarah Palin The other suggested that Obama voted in favor of providing five-year olds with sex education.
The McCain team was clearly playing dirty pool and the hosts of The View performed a public service by calling him on it. Maybe they could ask Obama one day about some of his own negative advertising (though to this point the GOP has retained its traditional lead in the categories of misinformation and nastiness). Which got me thinking. Could those who feel that faith must play a role in politics learn something from Barbara Walters and her colleagues (and gain some much needed public trust in the process)?
In the past few decades a variety of religious groups in the United States have come charging into the public sphere. Their objective has been to set governmental policies in accordance with their own doctrinal beliefs. Conservative Evangelicals and Fundamentalists have charged harder and faster than any other group in the land. If it weren't for them we wouldn't have a veritable industry of consultants, think tanks, demographers and pundits who describe their professions as "exploring the intersection between faith and politics."
Needless to say, the attempt to infuse religious beliefs into government upsets many Americans. These people are known as "secularists" and they are positively livid about the increased prominence that faith is playing in this selection. They deeply mistrust Conservative Evangelicals and have even been know to say unflattering things about them.
It might surprise secularists to learn that many Conservative Evangelicals are, in turn, puzzled as to why their compatriots consistently think the absolute worst of them (e.g., that they comprise an American Taliban, that they disrespect the Constitution, that they wish to subjugate all others to their theological worldview).
Knowing many good and decent Evangelicals, but also recognizing that secularists have legitimate cause for concern might I suggest that Friday's episode of The View offers the former a bridge-building possibility. What if Evangelical leaders were to adopt an ecumenical, as opposed to sectarian, approach to their actions in the public square?
Instead, of trying to influence public policy on issues like abortion, they would concentrate on helping to monitor the truthfulness of claims made by candidates in both parties. After all, honesty is every bit as much a Christian value as opposition to abortion. And honesty in public officials is a value that Evangelicals with their media sophistication, organizational infrastructure and sound finances are uniquely equipped to help the American public monitor.
This too is a way of letting religious values enter the public square. My proposal does not deny Evangelicals the right to express their views on abortion and gays. But it might help counter the widespread suspicion that when they speak of "bringing faith into politics," they really mean to bring their particular faith into politics and no other.
By Jacques Berlinerblau |
September 15, 2008; 12:57 AM ET
Share: Email a Friend | 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Sarah Palin and the Jews 101 |
Next: Boca Bubbies for Barack!
Posted by: DOUGLAS FIELD | September 21, 2008 5:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I am a born again christian prolife moderate republican woman in my 40s. I always voted republican because of the prolife issue without really thinking about issues like education, economy, energy and environment. But this will be the first time in my life I will vote democrat and really looking at the issues at hand.
I am guilty of that.
In regards to Christians, most vote like me.
Mr McCain has associated himself with Rod Parsley and he is a TV preacher who in my opinion puts a good show with shouting but no meat.
I like my church now because the pastor told us whether we vote democrat or republican to vote this election whereas I have visited some churches whose pastors say if you don't vote republican you are not a christian and that is intimidation. Nonetheless, many would vote democrat.
Posted by: blanca | September 19, 2008 12:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
History suggests that few things that are legal today will become _illegal_ in the future.
The only example I can think of is "illicit" drugs and while I don't personally approve of their use, I do wonder if we'll reflect upon them at some point in the future as we do upon prohibition.
Posted by: Chris H. | September 17, 2008 8:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
GeorgiaSon,
You argue:
"The Religious Right likes to cherry pick "wedge issues" that are "yucky" to get their followers excited. Hence they whine about gay sex and abortion, and ignore the rest of the Bible. These same "Christians" turn a blind eye to the horror of war, lies by their leaders, adultry by their leaders (have yet to see a Conservative Christian offended by Gingrich or Hyde's affairs), etc., because it's not convenient to offend their patrons."
You are right that abortion is "yucky" although I would use far harsher terms for the unmerited slaughter of innocent children. Moms killing babies is inherently a most disgusting, immoral and uncivilized act.
As to adutery by leading politicians, I would not vote for Gingrich precisely for that reason. If you want to make adultery illegal again, I wouldn't oppose that but think that is one on which you will not find critical mass. Critical mass, though, is being approached on abortion generally and it is probably there already on enormities like the Infant Born Alive Act (which Obama cravenly opposes) and Partial Birth Abortion.
As to a blind eye to War, the position of the (by far) largest Christian Group, the Catholic Church (more than half of Christendom), was that the War in Iraq was not just. I disagree on the ground that Terrorism is a different beast that requires new tactics (including beating up the biggest bully in the playground after giving him fair warning of the need to cooperate with the UN inspectors in the search for WMDs) but the condemnation by Pope John Paul II was unequivocal (albeit not purportedly infallible).
Posted by: patricksarsfield | September 17, 2008 5:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Folks,
Continuing his effort to get me to engage on a wild goose, Marc Edward writes:
"You might have actually tried to answer the question I asked. It is far easier catching a politicians lies today than it was in 1973, no? I can catch Sarah Palin lying with a simple google search. Again, how would it be "a wild goose chase" to hold your leaders accountable for lying to Americans? How would it take away from the fight against legal abortion (a fight in which Republicans are AWOL) to fight against lies? "
Marc Edward may believe he can catch Sarah Palin in lies with a simple google search, but many people who support her would disagree that he had actually caught her. And so, his "catching" her might prove more illusory than real...as in a wild goose chase. Sorry, Marc, I would rather call mothers who off the babes in their wombs killers than waste my time trying to prove that Obama lies when he says he'd like to make aborion less available...except in cases covered by the Infants Born Alive Act...or Partial Birth Abortion situations, etc. A clarion call to stop the slaughter should constantly be before the public.
Posted by: patricksarsfield | September 17, 2008 11:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Folks,
Alex Campbell suggests that a return to the status quo ante Roe v Wade would not result in much change in the number of abortions:
"Before Roe v Wade young and older ladies of wealth, never had an abortion. However there was an abundance of a medical procedure known as Dilation and Curettage or D&C.
Young and older ladies who could not afford the luxury of a D&C were forced to have a back alley abortion. By killing Roe v Wade as Sarah and John have promised,the D&C and back alley abortion will make a come back. Unless of course they will ban the D&C "
Notice: no statistics are given. How many illegal abortions or abortive Ds & Cs were done pre-1973? Surely far fewer than the death toll from abortions today. That means fewer mothers were offing their kids. That is a good thing.
Posted by: patricksarsfield | September 17, 2008 11:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Before Roe v Wade young and older ladies of wealth, never had an abortion. However there was an abundance of a medical procedure known as Dilation and Curettage or D&C.
Young and older ladies who could not afford the luxury of a D&C were forced to have a back alley abortion.
By killing Roe v Wade as Sarah and John have promised,the D&C and back alley abortion will make a come back. Unless of course they will ban the D&C
Posted by: Alex Campbell | September 17, 2008 10:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Here's a news clip why the Dems are the scourge of this country.
" The House voted late Tuesday to open waters off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to oil and gas drilling but only 50 or more miles out to sea and only if a state agrees to energy development off its shore.
Democratic leaders called it a step toward energy independence, but Republicans labeled it a "SHAM" because most of the estimated 18 billion barrels of oil believed to lie below off-limits coastal waters are within 50 miles of land and will remain out of bounds. "
Posted by: spiderman2 | September 16, 2008 11:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
patricksarsfield writes
In response to my earlier point that Berlinerblau's gambit of sending people opposed to abortion off to chase down politicians' lies instead is to send them on a wild goose chase. Marc Edward responds with this surprisingly contradictory analysis:
"Lying is up there with murder and theft on the 10 commandments. As catching lies and holding people accountable, isn't that rather easy with the Internet around? How is it a wild goose chase? ....
People of all political persuasions get abortions, and abortion is pretty much as legal today as it was in 1973...."
The same can be said about politicians' lying."
You might have actually tried to answer the question I asked. It is far easier catching a politicians lies today than it was in 1973, no? I can catch Sarah Palin lying with a simple google search. Again, how would it be "a wild goose chase" to hold your leaders accountable for lying to Americans? How would it take away from the fight against legal abortion (a fight in which Republicans are AWOL) to fight against lies?
"It is pretty much as widespread as it was in that year of 1973. And the idea that people on the Internet can hold politicians accountable for their lies is simply too naive. Perhaps in their own legendary minds but not in any meaningful sense."
You must be really out of touch. It is through the Internet and bloggers that people have been brought down. Look at Dan Rather. Politicians in Sweden and Israel have been brought down by bloggers. Frankly, if you think points made on the Internet have no meaning, why are you posting?
DOH!
Posted by: Marc Edward | September 16, 2008 2:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
To ceflynline@msn.com:
Every time I see someone quote GK Chesterton, I get a little happier. Thanks for brightening my day...
Posted by: Robert B. | September 16, 2008 1:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Folks,
In response to my earlier point that Berlinerblau's gambit of sending people opposed to abortion off to chase down politicians' lies instead is to send them on a wild goose chase. Marc Edward responds with this surprisingly contradictory analysis:
"Lying is up there with murder and theft on the 10 commandments. As catching lies and holding people accountable, isn't that rather easy with the Internet around? How is it a wild goose chase? ....
People of all political persuasions get abortions, and abortion is pretty much as legal today as it was in 1973...."
The same can be said about politicians' lying. It is pretty much as widespread as it was in that year of 1973. And the idea that people on the Internet can hold politicians accountable for their lies is simply too naive. Perhaps in their own legendary minds but not in any meaningful sense.
Posted by: patricksarsfield | September 16, 2008 12:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
patricksarsfield writes
"Sending evangelicals off on the wild goose chase of all time: trying to hold politicians accountable for their lies."
Lying is up there with murder and theft on the 10 commandments. As catching lies and holding people accountable, isn't that rather easy with the Internet around? How is it a wild goose chase?
"Meanwhile that would get them off the issue that won't go away. Forty years after Roe v Wade, there are still enough people who call abortion what it is (murder), that the left is not getting away with it."
People of all political persuasions get abortions, and abortion is pretty much as legal today as it was in 1973. Seems you are trying to let yourself off the hook - you do nothing to end abortion (and Republicans have done next to nothing, despite calling abortion "a holocaust") and you refuse to take the time to hold your leaders accountable for lying. How lazy and dishonest is that?
spiderman2 writes
"Economics are dictated by the people. If more people are greedy, the economy tanks"
Without greed, capitalism fails. You know less about economics than a cat.
2 GeorgiaSon -
The Religious Right likes to cherry pick "wedge issues" that are "yucky" to get their followers excited. Hence they whine about gay sex and abortion, and ignore the rest of the Bible. These same "Christians" turn a blind eye to the horror of war, lies by their leaders, adultry by their leaders (have yet to see a Conservative Christian offended by Gingrich or Hyde's affairs), etc., because it's not convenient to offend their patrons.
Posted by: Marc Edward | September 16, 2008 10:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
If you want honesty in the public square then the Christian leaders should first insist on dismantling the biggest stumbling block in civilization and that is the lie that an unborn child is less than human. Perhaps Christian leaders should not have any say in our public policy debates (or even have the right to vote!!) unless they agree to be more ecumenical about who is and who isn't human! As Mr Berlinerblau suggests, truth is as an important value as being against abortion and so Christian leaders like Dobson should not be quibbling about who does and who doesn't make outside of the womb until they tell us who is making those really bad mudslinging commercials. The commercials aren't very nice you know! That's what Evangelicals and Fundamentalist Christians should be talking about, not the other less important stuff.
Posted by: Nick | September 16, 2008 8:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
EKCLAHT-ARiAN movement for Gridarian Democracy & Trans{finite Civilization 2013+:
--
Vote: YES to California P R O P O S I T I O N-8!
Vote Yes Proposition-8! .... P R O P O S I T I O N-8!
--
And, Vote Yes to Florida’s Proposition-2
--
VOTE: To Undo what a Usurping Public ’Justice’ self served!
VOTE: “NO” to GLBT Marriage, zero sacred!
Contrary to not only against 'Separation of Church & State', but also against the ‘sanctity’ [if ye know what that Word means] Of MARRiAGE' between a Real Man & Real Woman, not a Mr. & a Mr., nor a Ms. & Ms.
Next thing we know they [non-straight vile folks] will want to marry their BEASTS, Chimps,Dogs or Pigs (with or W/out Lipstick)…, hence deliberateley (Jealously) destroying or Defiling, thee sacred word [real] “Marriage” (on Paper or by a knot & or by Word) that gives us parental Birth, not between a Mr. & Mr.s etc..
Posted by: Anonymous | September 16, 2008 8:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"After all, 'honesty is every bit as much a Chritian value as opposition to abortion'". Considering what myths religions have perpetuated on mankind over the centuries, it's difficult to believe that they would honor truthfulness above all. It is their desire to exist that drives them, because what they believe cannot be proven, despite their insistence that they can. Lies have always been at the heart of religion. Except when the Tooth Fairy speaks.
Posted by: Mando | September 16, 2008 8:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It's always soul-satisfying to see someone make an argument you have tried to make, but to do so better and with more eloquence. So my hats off to Mr. Berlinerblau's comments. I have asked this very question over and over again: Why do we rarely hear any of our holy roller voices weighing in on the accuracy of politicians' statements? Why do the guardians of our moral values, who so readily deliver their opinions on everything else under the sun, fail to deliver their opinions on honesty in political speeches and commercials? Why is it that the same evangelicals, who so eagerly pass judgment on people who have abortions or favor gay marriage or want to teach evolution, have nothing to say about the gutter into which John McCain is taking political discourse in this country?
In particular, where, oh where, is little Jimmy Dobson? Where is the mighty voice of Christian morality? Little Jimmy is usually front and center, wagging his finger in the face of those he believes transgress God's laws and Jesus' teachings. Why is that condemning finger not being wagged in the face of John McCain and Sarah Palin, as they transverse the country repeating the lies that have already been revealed as being lies?
Oh, does the Obama campaign also cross the line? Have at him! Be outspoken, but be fair and non-partisan.
Over to you, Little Jimmy.
Posted by: GeorgiaSon | September 16, 2008 5:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
We do not trust Conservative Evangelicals (i.e. Republicans) because you all are too stupid to know when you are being conned.
Time after time after time you all fall for some stupid moron running for office because they held up a cross and proclaimed, "Praise Jesus!"
You kooks get all excited and end up tripping over each other on election day trying to be the first to the polls to vote for him/her.
And NONE of them know how to govern.
All they know how to do is lie, cheat, and steal. Praise Jesus, indeed!
The Republican Party has taken Christianity and turned it into the biggest joke of a religion on the planet.
Posted by: chasemonster | September 16, 2008 1:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
well, spidey 2- that's my question as well. the point is the republican administration did it. Haven't you been reading the papers? You and I agree on the greed of the financial market- but not who's to blame. Look to your pals for that. They wanted less regulation so here we are.
Posted by: sparrow | September 16, 2008 12:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Did Jesus really say " Matt 19:21/ him, "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."
According to many historic Jesus exegetes, no he did not. http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb253.html
But no problem, if a Wiccan witch spouted said passage, it would be gospel.
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | September 16, 2008 12:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Sparrow, why would the government bail out Bear Stearns if it fails on its SPECULATIONS. They have to pay for their greed and not the taxpayers.
Posted by: spiderman2 | September 15, 2008 10:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
spidey2:"You make a survey and see who runs these banks who are failing. I think they are democrats coz they believe in evolution and its mantra SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST.
Abort the child if not fit to survive. Foreclose the house if the owners are not fit to pay high interest rates. The list goes on.
These people have NO VALUES. "
where have you been for the last 8 years? where have you been while the republicans kept easing up on restrictions and regulations and pandering to corporate greed? You honestly think that believing in evolution makes banks fail? I hate to point out to you but it was the present administration that had no qualms about bailing out Bear Stearns but had to have their arms twisted to even consider helping homeowners keep their houses.
It's the "No values" people who worry about those who will get hurt the most. And it's your republican, religious right, corporate CEOs who have the golden parachutes, and if want furhter proof, I have one word to say to you- Halliburton.
Posted by: sparrow | September 15, 2008 9:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
OK, if I am going to take the time to dig up a quote from GKC, I want credit.
Posted by: ceflynline@msn.com | September 15, 2008 8:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Unfortunately, for all of us, the Radical Religious Right is watching the truth from its own point of view. Like G. K Chesterton's General, “Sir Arthur St. Clare, as I have already said, was a man who read his Bible. That was what was the matter with him. When will people understand that it is useless for a man to read his Bible unless he also reads everybody else’s Bible?."
They read in their Bible what they see in their candidates. Truth is whatever agrees with what they see, and what they read. So for them to test the truthfulness of candidates is meaningless. Could they test the correspondence of the candidates statements with reality, it might help, and could they test the correspondence of candidates statements with what the candidate properly should know of reality.
Truth long ago became dialectical materialism, favored first by the Communists, but found to be acceptable to their enemies the American Conservatives. We don't need the truth, we need objective reality.
If the clergy would give us that, then it would be a blessing.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 8:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Honesty be damned. All that is important to Dobsonites are their political wedge issues of gay rights and abortion. If I were Jesus, I would change my last name.
Posted by: Roy | September 15, 2008 8:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Folks,
Berlinerblau writes:
"Instead, of trying to influence public policy on issues like abortion, [evangelicals] would concentrate on helping to monitor the truthfulness of claims made by candidates in both parties. After all, honesty is every bit as much a Christian value as opposition to abortion."
What a neat trick that would be!! Sending evangelicals (and the Catholics who opposed Abortion even in the Early 1970s when the Southern Baptist Convention was supporting it) off on the wild goose chase of all time: trying to hold politicians accountable for their lies. Meanwhile that would get them off the issue that won't go away. Forty years after Roe v Wade, there are still enough people who call abortion what it is (murder), that the left is not getting away with it.
Naah, Jacques, we aren't buying this ham-handed redirection.
Posted by: patricksarsfield | September 15, 2008 7:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Economics are dictated by the people. If more people are greedy, the economy tanks. The financial market (stock market) are now set up to soothe the wishes of the SPECULATORS.
The interest rates just moved along with the speculators. The banks, if they used their proper judgments, need not follow but they did follow because of THEIR GREED.
The government can fix it and bring back the interest rates back to normal. They can if they want to.
The point is NEVER KILL THE GOOSE WHICH LAY THE GOLDEN EGG. That is how the economy should be run.
Posted by: spiderman2 | September 15, 2008 7:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
What are you going to do, just wave the magic interest rate wand?
Man, you really don't know a dam thing about numbers do you?
The foreclosed houses are NOT the source of the problem, they are a symptom of the problemS.
It's that faith-based economics we've been stuck with since Reagan took over. I don't claim I know a better way, but to deny these idiots don't know anything about the economy we trusted them to manage is foolish partisanship.
You are right about the greed. All those fine republican business managers who couldn't see past the next quarter's dividend, past the next shareholder raise in their salary.
I once thought I was a republican, I voted for them, I voted for Reagan twice. But it looks like I take too good care of my finances to actually be republican.
Too bad the democrats are such thieves, I might have a viable alternative to vote for.
Posted by: geez | September 15, 2008 6:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You make a survey and see who runs these banks who are failing. I think they are democrats coz they believe in evolution and its mantra SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST.
Abort the child if not fit to survive. Foreclose the house if the owners are not fit to pay high interest rates. The list goes on.
These people have NO VALUES.
Posted by: spiderman2 | September 15, 2008 6:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I've said it before and I'll say it again. All these bank foreclosures are a result of their greed. There was a time when homeowners where DRIVEN OUT of their homes because OF VERY STEEP INTEREST PAYMENTS. The banks could have intervened for the sake of mercy and could have restructured the payments that will allow the homeowners to stay. BUT NO, they didn't. For them it's the LAW OF THE JUNGLE. Survival of the fittest. Now that law has turned agains them coz they have killed the goose which lays the golden eggs. They have shut off OR SHOO OFF the people who feeds them in DROVE.
People don't realize that in a true survival of the fittest world, NOBODY LIVES. All these banks who has exposures to mortgages will surely die even how big it is and it is now happening. BRING BACK THE MORTGAGE PAYMENTS BACK TO NORMAL AND ALL WILL BE WELL AGAIN. GIVE BACK THE FORECLOSED HOUSES TO ITS PREVIOUS OWNERS and let them pay their mortgages at previous low rates. The government can INITIATE this because they now own FANNY MAE AND FREDDIE MAC. The rest of the banks could follow suit.
This crisis won't end unless the source of the problem is solved and the problem is the foreclosed houses. Give it back together with a SANE (not insane) interest rates.
Posted by: spiderman2 | September 15, 2008 6:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I've said it before and I'll say it again. All these bank foreclosures are a result of their greed. There was a time when homeowners where DRIVEN OUT of their homes because OF VERY STEEP INTEREST PAYMENTS. The banks could have intervened for the sake of mercy and could have restructured the payments that will allow the homeowners to stay. BUT NO, they didn't. For them it's the LAW OF THE JUNGLE. Survival of the fittest. Now that law has turned agains them coz they have killed the goose which lays the golden eggs. They have shut off OR SHOO OFF the people who feeds them in DROVE.
People don't realize that in a true survival of the fittest world, NOBODY LIVES. All these banks who has exposures to mortgages will surely die even how big it is and it is now happening. BRING BACK THE MORTGAGE PAYMENTS BACK TO NORMAL AND ALL WILL BE WELL AGAIN. GIVE BACK THE FORECLOSED HOUSES TO ITS PREVIOUS OWNERS and let them pay their mortgages at previous low rates. The government can INITIATE this because they now own FANNY MAE AND FREDDIE MAC. The rest of the banks could follow suit.
This crisis won't end unless the source of the problem is solved and the problem is the foreclosed houses. Give it back together with a SANE (not insane) interest rates.
Posted by: spiderman2 | September 15, 2008 6:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"honesty is every bit as much a Christian value as opposition to abortion."
Clearly not. The Christian right has decided that any and all tactics, including lying and cheating, are justified by the ends of outlawing abortion. This is an offshoot of the "just war" dotrine. The logic is that, because life begins at conception, abortion is murder. To stop murder, you can do whatever you want.
Posted by: Capncuster | September 15, 2008 6:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
SENATOR OBAMA,PLEASE LET AMERICA KNOW YOUR FEELINGS ON THIS US JUDICIAL INJUSTICE ???
***LETS ALL HOPE OUR INTERNATIONAL MEDIA FRIENDS ALSO SHOW AN INTEREST IN REPORTING ON THIS AMERICAN HORROR FACING THESE (TENS OF THOUSANDS) FORGOTTEN AND TRAPPED POORER AMERICANS, AND HOW THIS POSSIBLE FUTURE PRESIDENTIAL CONTENDER HANDLES THIS VERY SERIOUS ISSUE FACING AMERICA’S LATINO AND BLACK AMERICAN COMMUNITIES ????
**WITH 80% OF THE BLACK AMERICAN VOTERS SAYING THEY SUPPORT SENATOR OBAMA IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, IT IS ONLY FAIR FOR EVERYONE TO KNOW PRIOR BEING ELECTED OUR NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HOW THIS DEMOCRATIC SENATOR TRULY FEELS ABOUT THIS AMERICAN JUDICIAL HORROR CONTINUING TO INFLICT GRAVE HARM ON THE BLACK AMERICAN FAMILIES AND THEIR COMMUNITIES NATIONWIDE ??????
*** WHEN GOD’S FACE BECAME VERY RED ***
THE US SUPREME COURT GAVE ENEMY COMBATANTS FEDERAL APPEAL HC RIGHTS LAWYERS AND PROPER ACCESS TO US FEDERAL COURTS,AND POORER AMERICANS (MANY EVEN ON DEATH ROW) ARE DENIED PROPER FEDERAL APPEAL LEGAL REPRESENTATION TO OUR US FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL, AND ROTTING IN AMERICAN PRISONS NATIONWIDE ?????????
**** INNOCENT AMERICANS ARE DENIED REAL HC RIGHTS WITH THEIR FEDERAL APPEALS !
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE $LOWLY FINDING OUT HOW EA$Y IT I$ FOR MIDDLE CLA$$ AND WORKING POOR AMERICAN$ TO FALL VICTIM TO OUR U$ MONETARY JUDICIAL $Y$TEM.
****WHEN THE US INNOCENT WERE ABANDONED BY THE GUILTY ****
The prison experts have reported that there are 100,000 innocent Americans currently being falsely imprisoned along with the 2,300,000 total US prison population nationwide.
Since our US Congress has never afforded poor prison inmates federal appeal legal counsel for their federal retrials,they have effectively closed the doors on these tens of thousands of innocent citizens ever being capable of possibly exonerating themselves to regain their freedom through being granted new retrials.
This same exact unjust situation was happening in our Southern States when poor and mostly uneducated Black Americans were being falsely imprisoned for endless decades without the needed educational skills to properly submit their own written federal trial appeals.
This devious and deceptive judicial process of making our poor and innocent prison inmates formulate and write their own federal appeal legal cases for possible retrials on their state criminal cases,is still in effect today even though everyone in our US judicial system knows that without proper legal representation, these tens of thousands of innocent prison inmates will be denied their rightful opportunities of ever being granted new trials from our federal appeal judges!!
Sadly, the true US *legal* Federal Appeal situation that occurs when any of our uneducated American prison inmates are forced to attempt to submit their own written Federal Appeals (from our prisons nationwide) without the assistance of proper legal counsel, is that they all are in reality being denied their legitimate rights for Habeas Corpus and will win any future Supreme Court Case concerning this injustice!
For our judicial system and our US Congressional Leaders Of The Free World to continue to pretend that this is a real and fair opportunity for our American Middle Class and Working Poor Citizens, only delays the very needed future change of Federal Financing of all these Federal appeals becoming a normal formula of Our American judicial system.
It was not so very long ago that Public Defenders became a Reality in this country.Prior that legal reality taking place, their were also some who thought giving anyone charged with a crime a free lawyer was a waste of taxpayers $$.
This FACADE and HORROR of our Federal Appeal proce$$ is not worthy of the Greatest Country In The World!
***GREAT SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT PROTECT EVEN THEIR INNOCENT, BECOME THE GUILTY!
A MUST READ ABOUT AMERICAN INJUSTICE:
1) YAHOO AND 2) GOOGLE
MANNY GONZALES THE KID THAT EVERYONE FORGOT IN THE CA PRISON SYSTEM.
** A JUDICIAL RIDE OF ONES LIFE !
lawyersforpooramericans@yahoo.com (424-247-2013)
Posted by: DOUGLAS FIELD | September 15, 2008 6:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Marc Edward,
Please let this Christian commend you on your good commentary here.
On an aside, 'honesty' is not necessarily a Christian characteristic. But it should damn well be. Along with everybody else.
Posted by: Arminius | September 15, 2008 6:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I have to agree with GibsonPolk here, completely.
You believers who truly believe in this heaven and hell stuff ... grab on to that belief, that certainty, that "knowledge" and come down this path with me a little.
I don't know why you believe these things. I'm not in your head, I haven't had your experiences, I haven't been influenced by the people who influenced you.
But I do suspect there is a little bit of childish immaturity involved. It's a santa claus story, it's difficult for me to see it any other way.
You may be quite mature in all other ways, even more mature than I, but in this thing ....
But that's all I feel about that. I'm not really too worried about you, you have to do what you have to do to make it through this life.
What I do worry about are those who believe the earth is 6000 years old and the other ridiculous creation myths. This is more than just willful ignorance.
I believe, as strongly as you believe, that these people are desperately insane.
When I see one of them is about to be a heartbeat away from running my government, I feel like running around screaming at the top of my lungs that we are in desperate danger of losing our country if we let these people take over.
I'm not kidding, I'm not just saying it. I believe it.
Posted by: loki | September 15, 2008 6:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous writes
"Paganplace: It's all right to work for things, to have things, to make a nice life, this is part of America.
Jesus:Sell all that you own and follow me.
Changed a little in 2000 years"
You ought to change "Paganplace" to "Modern Christians". Plenty of "religious" leaders have made themselves rather wealthy, even newcomer huckster Rick Warren. I know a Christian here and there who actually live up to the "own as little as possible" thing, but I can count them on one hand.
Posted by: Marc Edward | September 15, 2008 5:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Paganplace:
It's all right to work for things, to have things, to make a nice life, this is part of America.
Jesus:
Sell all that you own and follow me.
Changed a little in 2000 years.
DIDN'T MEAN TO POST ANONYMOUSLY.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 5:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Paganplace:
It's all right to work for things, to have things, to make a nice life, this is part of America.
Jesus:
Sell all that you own and follow me.
Changed a little in 2000 years.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 5:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
OK, Brambleton, I get really tired of hearing what I think you're implying, as many Evangelicals and others do about 'secular' people:
"And how "sane" or "logical" is it for someone to work harder and harder and harder so that they can buy a family beach house, then a family lake house, then a bigger SUV, then a tricked out minivan, then money for their children's college, then money for their children's private school? I see and hear this from my neighbors ad nauseum. The kids are being raised in part by nannies because their parents are stuck in an illogical attempt to own everything imaginable under the sun."
Many secular people say the same thing, though you seem to imply that evangelicals are above this, when it looks to me they're the most right-wing people out there, economicswise and socially. In fact, it's the only economics they've *got,* as seen by the candidates they clamor, bully, and *lie* for every time.
These people aren't for *sharing,* or responsibility, in fact they like nothing better than to have this 'materialism' and pointless, exploitive overwork be the *only things in people's lives except them. And their hateful agendas.*
Rich parishoners feeling guilty about it to kick it back through church organizations and their political funding and free advertising never hurt, either.
It's all right to work for things, to have things, to make a nice life, this is part of America. Though it's been turned into an economy by the profiteers which produces less and less and works longer and longer to consume more... we're told jobs suffer when we don't continue the cycles of waste.
We can do better than that without being the 'Commies' secularists also get called by the same people, too. That's in our choices and in empowering the people, and the common wealth, not in blind ideology.
Consumerism isn't a religion, either, but you wouldn't know it the way some speak.
Posted by: Paganplace | September 15, 2008 5:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I like you Kert. I do. You make some good points. However, your point that countries with other religions are somehow less open than Christian nations is absurd. America was founded by Christians. Not saying it's a Christian country just stating fact. Self righteous, God fearing Christians. They committed genocide against an indigenous population and burned women at the stake for being able to add 2 numbers together. They valued loyalty to the Church above loyalty to your country or anything else. They didn't want a country free of religious persecution like the history books tell you. Just a country that only featured their particular brand of religious persecution.
of course, when England began it's full conquest of this country they sought the help of the Church to keep people placated. This is where the Founders come in. They took rights we all believe to be true, to be from a Creator and applied them to everyone. Not just nobles and religious clergy. What doesn't get mentioned a lot is how against the revolution churches were. Not on moral terms, but on purely selfish terms. A free country means free religion. If you are the "State sanctioned" religion you enjoy a lot of control on the people. When you preach that the king is a "divine figure" and that slavery is a GOD given right, freedom can be a problem.
Christianity didn't found or shape this country. Christianity fought tooth and nail to prevent this country's founding and for hundreds of years after has fought every major progressive movement to come out of it. Separation of Church and State, Abolition, Social Security, religious tolerance, and on and on. Christianity is a weight on this country. it's no different from any of the other countries you mentioned. Religion is a hindrance. It suffocates independant thought and action.
The Constitution is the greatest thing to ever happen to this country, and religion had absolutely nothing to do with it. religion fought tot keep it from happening. Don't call this a Christian nation. This is just a nation full of people calling themselves Christians. The biggest segment of poor people in this country are children. CHILDREN. Christians don't care. They're too busy persecuting homosexuals and trying to get nonsense taught in our schools.
Posted by: Luke | September 15, 2008 5:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"And how "sane" or "logical" is it for someone to work harder and harder and harder so that they can buy a family beach house, then a family lake house, then a bigger SUV, then a tricked out minivan, then money for their children's college, then money for their children's private school?"
Of what relevance is this argument? None, as far as I can see.
***
" 'critical thought is looked upon as a handicap' "
"---> What a bunch of rhetoric garbage. C'mon, you're better than that. How on earth can you chide someone for being "illogical, insane, and unrational" and then make that kind of comment?"
Not garbage at all, sweetheart. Try discussing evolution with a fundamentalist, or try getting a fundamentalist to prove that the earth is only 6,000 years old. You'll be chided for daring to doubt God's word.
Blind faith is the opposite of critical thought, and I'd say the former has caused magnitudes greater damage to humans than the latter, wouldn't you?
Posted by: castanea | September 15, 2008 5:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Current crises in the Protestant churches:
Adulterous preachers, "propheteering / profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology.
Current crises in the Catholic Church:
Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | September 15, 2008 5:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Sorry Kert, but that's not the kind of freedom our Constitution is about.
What you are saying in fact lessens the value of the word "Freedom" itself. I don't care if you believe you can still feel free even under a tyrannical government. Will we be able to count on you to resist the next tyranny trying to steal it from us, seeing as how you don't seem to find that loss of freedom to be a loss?
Can we count on you to be able to perceive the little thefts taken on the way?
Your big picture doesn't include my freedoms, it only includes yours.
Posted by: asdf | September 15, 2008 4:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
castanea,
"rather than as a result of sane, logical, rational discussion."
--> First, who decides what a "sane, logical, and rational discussion" is? You? Second, I don't need a thesis when I watch a friend of mine turn around his sorry, no-account life because of one reason and one reason only. And how "sane" or "logical" is it for someone to work harder and harder and harder so that they can buy a family beach house, then a family lake house, then a bigger SUV, then a tricked out minivan, then money for their children's college, then money for their children's private school? I see and hear this from my neighbors ad nauseum. The kids are being raised in part by nannies because their parents are stuck in an illogical attempt to own everything imaginable under the sun.
"critical thought is looked upon as a handicap"
---> What a bunch of rhetoric garbage. C'mon, you're better than that. How on earth can you chide someone for being "illogical, insane, and unrational" and then make that kind of comment?
Posted by: Brambleton | September 15, 2008 4:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Wow, apparently I chose the wrong place to post! No one is seems on my side today. Oh well, always good for a challenge.
I guess my final argument is simple. I can't make people believe in God but I can tell one of the reasons I believe in him.
I guess most people here believe that we have given ourselves our rights and placed them in documents that show our rights. This is obviously true to some extent, but I go deeper. I believe God has given us all freedom to do what we want. This is shown in this blog that contains everything from God haters to God lovers. Freedom being expressed! Sometimes government respects this freedom and sometimes it doesn't. We are blessed with a country that does.
Ultimately this country will end. Not country is eternal and this one will be no exception. When there is no constitution or bill of rights, what will humans stand on to be free. I believe if humans gave freedom then other humans can take it away, as they often do.
God has given me a freedom that no man can take away no matter what. If God is God then he is eternal, so the freedom always was and always will be. Even in persecution I can be free. This is the ultimately freedom I have and I can only believe it was granted by God.
Hope all enjoy this.
Posted by: Kert | September 15, 2008 4:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Well, just to throw one more burning log on the Kert pyre, he wrote: From what I see, countries without religion give you communism, Maoism, and Nazism. These were all based on reasonable policy of the time."
None of these countries were without religion. True communism and Maoism subdued and tried to eradicate religion, but Nazi Germany played on its Lutheran heritage. Nazism was not about no religion, it was about being Aryan and a great example of that old chestnut -"with G-d on our side." As for what kert means by reasonable policy? I can only imagine. I always equated it with rational, sane, logical. I don't think kert understand half of what he writes.
Posted by: sparrow | September 15, 2008 4:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As someone born in the early fifties, growing up surrounded by the wonders of modern science, astronomy, biology, physics, I remember at a young age thinking how lucky I was to live in a time when superstitions and make-believe had finally been tossed onto the dust heap where they belonged - fun for ghost stories around the campfire, but not to be believed. Our telescopes reaching to the edges of the universe may continue to raise more questions than they answer, but at least the questions are based on testable, logical demonstrations, not magic.
So today, in 2008, seeing how far we have come from our primitive beginnings, it is almost impossible for me to have any respect for someone who can think that the world might be 6000 years old. It’s is the very definition of ignorance – ignoring what is right in front of your eyes, like the Grand Canyon - trading the real wonders of natural world for childish superstitions and folklore. Such thinking ends all hope of honest, intelligent conversation before it can even begin.
Now, I suppose not all evangelicals believe the world is 6000 years old, but it’s not my problem to sort them out?
Posted by: GibsonPolk | September 15, 2008 4:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Kert: , they were more likely inspired by John Locke and Socrates than they were any god.
Since you assume your god exists, you will of course give it credit for all the good things you see, and being particularly christian (evil nasty man, bad man!) you will of course blame us for all the evil.
Whether your god exists or not, the idea of it has certainly inspired many. From great good, to great evil.
"Good people will do good things, and bad people will
do bad things. But for good people to do bad things -- that takes religion." -- Steven Weinberg Nobel Prize in Physics
I have never been able to convince myself that this statement is untrue.
Posted by: asdf | September 15, 2008 4:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Kert said:
"Also, proving God exists will accomplish nothing."
If you conclude that our rights come solely from a god, then proving that this god exists is indeed critically important. If our rights come from a god that does not exist, then our rights likewise do not exist.
Kert wrote:
"In fact, I would say it's impossible from a scientific view to prove God exists, but very possible from a personal point of view. Not much help though for our Constitution."
I agree. That's why I support the existing language ("We the people ...") of our central and legally binding founing document, the U.S. Constitution. It never mentions any god(s) whatsoever.
Kert, you said it very well yourself when you said:
"It is also a reminder that the American people did not think up freedom. It was gift from the beginning of humanity and truly can not be taken away. I think that is why it is important."
I would emphasize "from the beginning of humanity" ... i.e. long before Christianity or the god of the Bible ever existed.
Kert,
Our rights exist because we exist, plain and simple, regardless and completely independent of who created us.
Posted by: Freestinker | September 15, 2008 4:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Kert wrote: "I like equality but without God (aka religion) there is no basis for equality. Then it becomes might makes right and the powerful get what they want. The rest of us. Not really. This concept is also supported in our founding documents."
Your first statement is nonsensical. Equality is about everyone, regardless of race, creed or color having the same rights. How does that depend on G-d? As a human being I intuitively get it. I am free to practice my religion and you are free to practice yours. That's what's supported in our founding documents. Because most people don't understand that the constitution and the bill of rights isn't to enforce the will of the majority, it's to protect the minority from its domination.
You're arguing that point but for the opposite reason. There are humanists, secularists, agnostics, atheists- all deserving of the same rights and privileges as any believer and too many believers who rush to judgement, thinking only they have a handle on what G-d wants.
And as for this statement of yours: "As I see it, Christianity has granted other religions more freedom here than in any other country. Just ask all our immigrants."
number one- it is not Christianity's place or authority to grant freedom to anyone in this country. It is ours by right of our constitution and bill of rights. Your comment is not only offensive, it shows a complete lack of understanding of American history (look up the the Iroquois nation why don't you), American society and indeed, the history of Christianity. Christianity doesn't grant freedom- Christianity is about converting people and demanding adherence to its principles.
This country was founded by those seeking to escape persecution (by other Christians) and that is where the principle of freedom of religion came from- and not from christian beliefs. Just ask any Native American about the so-called freedom of religion Christianity has "granted."
Posted by: sparrow | September 15, 2008 4:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
wwhy: "I treat your religious habits like I treat your bathroom habits - it's more than I want know, keep it to yourself."
Yes!
Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 4:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
If I may, I believe the point of this article was to question why Evangelicals are not focused on hearing the truth from their politicians. Already we are at a disadvantage here. To ask a group who fervently believes the world was crafted in 6 days to discern truth in the political arena is absurd on it's face alone. To ask people who literally refer to themselves as "sheep', as a "flock", to think independently of their church is folly.
How did this turn to the Founding Fathers? They died over 200 years ago. They left us separation of Church and State. That's all we need, and all we need to read out of it. Yes they were religious men like most all people in their time. However they were far, far, from zealots while not exactly being secularists either. Washington and Jefferson were Deists but that is hardly the term to paint a broad stroke of the Founders. They were all very different. Franklin was as close to being atheist as you could get. They have no bearing on this discussion. Anyways....
Why do Evangelicals care so much about abortion and homosexuality? It feel the pews. It taps into a basic human need to feel better than the person next to you. It feeds into the xenophobic, homophobic side in all of us. These prejudices flow stronger in some, but not all. What better way to justify your bigotry and self-righteousness then with a book supposedly dictated by GOD? "GOD is on my side and he hates you". Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Never mind the fact homosexuality is barely mentioned in the Bible and abortion isn't mentioned at all, but charity and giving is mentioned hundreds of times.
Charity is alright, but that means you have to give away something of your own or deal with, GOD forbid, poor people. So much easier to hide in a group and shout your hatred to anyone who will listen. All the better if your politicians feed that hate. Evangelicals are easily led so what better group to take advantage of? Sure you never seriously push the legislature they want you to, but you can always mention "the scourge of homosexuality" and they're back in your pocket. Again, very easily led.
Truth is, most Evangelicals could care less about "the truth". Why? Truth is homosexuality isn't a scourge, and isn't a choice. Truth is GOD didn't create that fetus in your womb, you did. Truth is as much as you want it to, life does not begin at conception. Truth is we all evolved over billions of years. We weren't molded from clay 6000 years ago.
I blame Evangelical leaders. They know what they're doing. They know how easy people are to lead. They know the human spirit seeks what they're selling. I'm not saying there is no Heaven, only that they have no idea what it is, where it is, or what it's like. No one does, and if you believe a book written by some 600 year old religious figure who claims to have been to Heaven then you're part of the problem.
The truth. How can you sully such a word by putting it in a topic about Evangelicals? They don't care if McCain is lying about Obama. They hate Obama too. They simply want McCain to tell women what to do with their bodies and persecute homosexuals. That is ALL THEY CARE ABOUT. Don't believe me? Head out to your local Evangelical Church starting next month when it's "get out the vote" time. See what "fires up the base". Then ask yourself, "Are these people really worried about the truth?"
Posted by: Luke | September 15, 2008 4:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Freestinker,
One last thought.
Yes, of course the Constitution says "We the people". The people were the ones writing it. God did not dictate it to them. It then goes on to give what I would call Biblical objectives to the document. It is a secular document with Biblical influence.
Keep in mind our freedoms are stated to have come from our Creator in the Declaration of Independence. They were acknowledging what God gave them, not being forced into his will. Another example of freedom.
You can have different takes on the founders document but it seems clear that they were inspired by God.
Also, proving God exists will accomplish nothing. In fact, I would say it's impossible from a scientific view to prove God exists, but very possible from a personal point of view. Not much help though for our Constitution.
The real question is "Does God exist". If so and he has given us freedom, he will always be on the side of freedom. That is why it is important. It is also a reminder that the American people did not think up freedom. It was gift from the beginning of humanity and truly can not be taken away. I think that is why it is important.
Posted by: Kert | September 15, 2008 4:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thomas Jefferson's preamble is also an assertion, not a proof. He is asserting this as his premise, from there all other statements in the declaration are derived.
Posted by: dd | September 15, 2008 4:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Kert wrote:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
This quote from the Declaration was written by Thomas Jefferson, a self-described non-Christian who specifically rejected the Christian god(s). He cleverly used the ambiguous phrase "their Creator" to appease both the God squad and the enlightened in order to advance the cause of self-governance, religious liberty and freedom of conscience. It was a compromise word, otherwise he would have written "endowed by God" or "endowed by Jesus" but he didn't. What he meant was that our rights are self-evident, and exist simply becuase we exist (whoever we think our creator(s) happens to be). My Creators were my parents, my ancestors, and evolution so it works for me even though I'm an atheist. So to say that this phrase supports a specifically Christian perspective is to seriously misread Thomas Jefferson and American history.
Posted by: Freestinker | September 15, 2008 4:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Do you ever wonder why these people are so insistent that their religion control the government, that all must belong to it?
I do, I wonder why. I have some opinions, but never having suffered the curse of religion I have no way of knowing how valid they are.
I treat your religious habits like I treat your bathroom habits - it's more than I want know, keep it to yourself.
For some reason they can't seem to do that. Maybe they're exhibitionists ...?
Posted by: wwhy | September 15, 2008 4:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"a variety of religious groups"
These are not religious groups, they are proselytizing church groups.
"the attempt to infuse religious beliefs into government upsets many"
There is no need to infuse government with religion; it is already there. What is upsetting is for these misguided souls to insist that their church is better than any other and to try to get our government to force us to join it.
These churches need to understand that their efforts are more than misguided, they are extremely rude. Have they no fear that they will be held accountable by God for their actions?
Posted by: L.Kurt Engelhart | September 15, 2008 3:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Freestinker we see this a lot with the religious. They never had to develop a sense of right and wrong through trial and error, through commission and remorse. They had their sense handed to them.
They are incapable of seeing that anybody could have any ethics or morals that aren't derived from what was handed to them. They didn't earn it.
Posted by: asdf | September 15, 2008 3:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mike:
"So, the "secularists" and "are positively livid" about faith this election.
Good. Let them foam at the mouth."
Oh, Mike, it's simple: we just won't elect them. How's that? No foaming, no real worry. There's already been plenty of research done on Plain, and plenty more to come: she's a lying sleaze. She knows zilch about foreign policy. She sounds, when interviewed, like a soccer mom on Valium, smiling like an idiot and avoiding answering any single question with a series of blather that would bore Palin's mother. Her husband and her aides have been subpoenaed concerning Palin's firing of a peace officer. Her 17 year old daughter is pregnant out of wedlock. Normally, no one would care about the daughter. But Palin is additionally an anti-science creationist with no abilities that I can figure out, and apparently didn't much care what her daughter did with the pregnancy until Palin's nomination. Now the boy will be forced to marry Palin's daughter. How Christian!
Posted by: SteveCO | September 15, 2008 3:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Kert wrote:
"I like equality but without God (aka religion) there is no basis for equality. Then it becomes might makes right and the powerful get what they want. The rest of us. Not really. This concept is also supported in our founding documents."
The Constitution says our rights are established by "We the people ..." not "By the dictates of God ...". Why does it say "We the people" if the founders thought our liberties came from a god?
And even if the founders did think our liberties came from a god (as some of them did), what good would that be unless the god was proven to exist? If our liberties came a god that can't be proven, what good would they be then?
Posted by: Freestinker | September 15, 2008 3:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Faith was brought into politics with both Obama and McCain biting into the forbidden fruit. But, then Obama also talked at churches during the Primaries ... which turned me off from him ... that, and his crazy 'ol uncle Rev Wright!
Posted by: Francisco Cardenas | September 15, 2008 3:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hope is overrated :-)
in a million years some other species will sit atop the pointy apex, rotating slowly. I wonder if that species will have descended from ours.
Posted by: ILGL | September 15, 2008 3:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ILGL,
Thank you for your response. After reading your comments, my question to you would be this: Wherein lies your hope?
Posted by: Brambleton | September 15, 2008 3:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Actuall it's "their Creator". I agree is a secular document, but it seems to assume a higher power. It's meant to include all people, in spite of religion. But I would still make the argument they were basing this on Christian theology. Most of the founding fathers gave proof of this in writing. They wanted to include everyone, so they did. This is just more evidence of the equality the Christian wanted part of the nation.
From what I have seen nations that are founded on other religions have limited freedom. India is a great example. Hindu dominates the culture and the persicution of Christians, Muslims, and others. They simply vote for it. It may be a democracy but the fundametals are still at least a little off. It goes to say that most other nations are worse off.
It is possible that people could grant equality based on some other means. I don't deny this. It's just that our nation I'm not sure if any nation has every successfully done this. As nations change the laws can also change and take these freedoms away. From what I see, countries without religion give you communism, Maoism, and Nazism. These were all based on reasonable policy of the time.
I can't really defend Natural Law more than you did. You seem to agree with it in all ways except to say it exists. Suffice it to say that we all seem to know there are basic laws, we all must follow. They give us a civil society. This is Natural Law and what government should strive for. This is what abolitionist called for to end slavery and King Jr called for to end segregation.
It's good to have debate, but I must go offline. I have other things to do. Hopefully someone got something out of this. Someone else is free to chime in.
Posted by: Kert | September 15, 2008 3:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Current crises in the Catholic Church:
Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!
Current crises in the Protestant churches:
Adulterous preachers, "propheteering / profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology.
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | September 15, 2008 3:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Brambleton, I said it was a dream, given the state of mind of most humans I know it to be a pipe dream.
From the days of the paleolithic human to today's modern faithist we have been infested with religions. all claiming not only that there was an absolute paradiee but that only they could know it.
Each set of humans, each culture lived within the window of history in which they grew. That today's modern faithist considers his/her religion valid and all others that humanity has believed to be invalid ... just astonishing how short sighted we are.
There is no such thing as utopia, there never was, there never will be. Anyone who believes this will change is delusional.
Utopia, another name for heaven.
Posted by: ILGL | September 15, 2008 3:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ILGL,
"Maybe one day we can free ourselves of religion too. I have a dream."
--> Sadly, your dream is called the myth of progress. That grand utopia you believe we are all marching towards is a mirage, my friend.
Posted by: Brambleton | September 15, 2008 3:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Can some one help me tell the so called American Evangelicals or Conservatives to hide their faces in shame, they have become nothing less than hypocritical and fanatical as other known extremists; You frowned against abortion legality, yet you voted twice to a war monger who went all over the world killing innocent Children and adults, don't you read the hand writing all over the world? Now you have finally got your excuse to push yet another war monger with illogical intelligent to keep your ethnocentrism. The Triune God, their Angels and the entire world are observing with rapt attention to see how wise American electorates are; Trying to sacrifice a metaphoric David for Goliath; A symbol of Wold peace for one whose hand is full of blood; Epitome of wisdom with articulate judgment for Radicalism; May be your time is finally up, watch it, you can't continue to fool God
Posted by: Jonas Okemiri | September 15, 2008 3:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Honesty is not a christian characteristic. Christianity is a way to get around honesty.
People that support McCain are not honest.
Posted by: Randall | September 15, 2008 3:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It's a fascinating thing to listen to and read the christians claiming that we are a christian nation because our founding fathers were all christian.
Dispensing with the fact that many of them were deists and decidedly non-christian, this kind of logic leads one to say: They were all white men, so this is a country founded by white men for white men.
Perhaps our early history, certainly until the civil war, led one to believe this was true. But we've come a long way since then. Maybe one day we can free ourselves of religion too. I have a dream.
Posted by: ilgl | September 15, 2008 2:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The religious types think our freedoms in this country are a mandate from their gods. The secularists are more of the opinion that our freedoms are a mandate from ourselves, we require our freedoms, they aren't given to us.
Over the past 2000 years there have been how many different interpretation's of the will of the gods?
If you think your god runs our country, then we are dependent on the latest interpretations of the will of the gods rather than our constitution.
That is why I do not trust religious people when they bring their religion into politics. They believe they have a greater right to the benefits won for us by our ancestors ... listen to them. I'm going to hell because I don't believe what they believe. What right do I have to expect equality under the law in this christian nation?
Holding your god over my constitution is a foul treachery, and I will resist it.
Posted by: types | September 15, 2008 2:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"When your entire view of the world is based on falsehoods and magic, you have little if no ability to detect lies on your own."
Amen. I'm always more than a little disturbed when rightwing fundamentalists play the victimization card and claim that liberals think they are dumb hicks. It is a bastardization of the typical American common man/everyman theme, and all it does is satisfy their need for self-pity, allowing them to wiggle off the hook when called upon to explain the foundation of their beliefs.
Few liberals I know, including myself, think of fundamentalists as inherently dumb. However, we do question the basis for their beliefs, and we are more than a little bothered when that basis is found in the interpretation of the Bible, as promulgated by the select few, rather than as a result of sane, logical, rational discussion.
Ah, but the rightwing mindset has always been one that thrives on authority--either giving orders or blindly following them--and critical thought is looked upon as a handicap.
Posted by: castanea | September 15, 2008 2:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Reply to Kert:
"I like equality but without God (aka religion) there is no basis for equality. Then it becomes might makes right and the powerful get what they want. The rest of us. Not really. This concept is also supported in our founding documents."
Please explain to me how equality is impossible without god. Our government is based on the idea that the government rules with the consent of the governed. There is no god required for a individual to grant this consent to his or her government.
In return for this consent, the government agrees to be accountable to its population. The democratic (technically republican) system is merely the mechanism that the population uses to control the government. Any (vigilant, involved, and active) population can ensure, through purely secular means, that 'Might makes Right' does not supplant a government that is bound to treat every person equally.
Also, I like to know what you base your statement that "[t]his concept is also supported in our founding documents" upon. The word 'God' does not appear in the Declaration of independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.
(Actually, that's not technically true. One of them is dated 'the one thousand seven hundredth and ninty-whatever year of our Lord. Still, that's not a ringing endorsement of the idea that the United States was founded on Christian ideals.)
The Founding Fathers were wise men. They could have said that we were endowed by God with our rights. They could have said that we were endowed by THE creator with our rights. But they didn't. They said that we are endowed by OUR creator. That certainly leaves plenty of room for each person to define that creator for themselves.
The idea that just because the Founding Fathers were (nominally) Christians that they founded a Christian Republic is false. Many were good Christians. Many would not be judged 'good christians' if the standards of today's Evangelicals were applied. Thomas Jefferson's religious convictions would certainly disqualify him from public office today.
Posted by: Gavin082 | September 15, 2008 2:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Reply to Kert:
With all due respect, I think you've made some false assumptions. I have no desire to prevent any person from practicing their religion (so long as it neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg) and as such, my position on the rightness or wrongness of religion is neither here nor there. That said, I do assume that all religions are equal in the eyes of the government.
If all religions are equal, the government cannot pick favorites - even based on one religion's population - when it comes to enacting legislation and/or collecting or dispensing funds.
Would you care to define 'Natural Law' for those of us who see the term as a less alarming way to say God's Law.?
Certainly we can agree that murder, theft, etc. are detrimental to society. That is a universal assumption shared by all cultures, regardless of religion or lack of religion. One doesn't need our founding fathers to find that in the Bible. In fact, the society from which they drew their inspiriation for our republic, the Ancient Greeks, had no access to the Bible yet they managed to figure out that murderers and pick pockets were bad for society.
Also, I'd love for you to provide some evidence for your opinion that Christianity is responsible for the proliferation of freedom in America when compared to other nations with other religious traditions.
Certainly there are 'christian nations' where freedom was/is curtailed. Franco's Spain springs to mind. Many non-Christian nations manage to provide an equal amount of freedom to their people without Christianity as well. Japan, for one. In fact, the world's largest democracy, is India, a non-Christian nation.
The West is, as a collective, one of the most 'free' collection of nations in the world. I contend that this freedom has more to do with a tradition, the 'Western Tradition' begun in the city states of ancient Greece, that predates Christianity.
As an aside, I think that you've inadvertently made a rather telling observation. You say that the nations that are based on Islam and Hinduism provide less freedom for their populations. How do you know that this is because they're based on the wrong religion and not that these nations are are based on religion full-stop?
Posted by: Gavin082 | September 15, 2008 2:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Sparrow,
I disagree (obviously, I already wrote it). I am basing my remarks on the first amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Seems pretty clear to me the first part is about religious freedom. What are you basing your remarks from.
I like equality but without God (aka religion) there is no basis for equality. Then it becomes might makes right and the powerful get what they want. The rest of us. Not really. This concept is also supported in our founding documents.
I also want to point out that I would appreciate more honesty from Evangelicals. It will make government better. In truth several Evangelicals have critisized the commericials, as they should. It is just really hard to expect much when both sides lie and everything is used against you. I am definitely a realist.
Also, tone down the retoric. If you are going to comment on Obama's wife and Palin, back it up.
Posted by: Kert | September 15, 2008 2:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dave Curtis writes
"And as a McCain supporter, I agree that the sex ed ad at least went over the line. I agree that honesty is a Christian characteristic (who wouldn't?)"
You don't know many Christians, do you? Most of the loud, self proclaimed Christians lie every time I see them, especially in OnFaith forums.
Kert writes
"First off, "The View" is a very liberal show.Of course they took McCain to task, as they should. I do agree the claims were lacking and McCain should back off them. But what about when Michelle Obama came on. Did they drill her on why she only now "proud to be an American".
Michele Obama isn't running for President. But as you seem to think a spouse's positions matter, shouldn't we disqualify Palin as her husband belongs to a "Hate America" group? His little gang is openly treasonous - so what does that make Palin?
Posted by: Marc Edward | September 15, 2008 2:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Why Evangelist Republicans hate America….
1. The US Constitution claims that all men are equal. Which, for an evangelist, is ridiculous. The evangels pray daily for the death of the sinners and non-believers. They pray for Jesus to return, so that he can kill at least 90% of humanity. Which I find weird, the Vice Presidential candidate praying in public for the violent deaths of billions of people.
2. The USA was founded on religious freedom and separation of church and state. The problem being that Evangelists believe that no law is above God's law. They are allegiant to the Bible, not the Constitution. We fought the Cold War for freedom’s sake, not to be able to ban the books some folk don’t like. The US Constitution protects the books that Palin believe should be banned. For that, the Evangleists are allegiant to the Bible, not the US Constitution.
3. The U.S. Constitution allows woman control over their bodies. The Evangels would take control of the female womb in the USA. The insist that the female body is public property. If my daughter was raped, she would be forced to carry the rapists child., To birth the rapists child. Whether I, her mom, or she liked it or not. The Evangels would rather protect a conglomeration of four microscopic cells, a blastocyte, than they would my daughter. Sounds a bit fascist to me.
4. The U.S. Constitution has not used its nuclear arsenal to fulfill God’s Plan. I mean, c’mon, what’s all this waiting around? It’s up to us to do it. Apocalypse Now!
Evangelicals, if the truth be told, hate their Country. Patriots? Please. I think it’s called scoundrels. The Bible is where their allegiances lay. Which brings up the old Sinclair Lewis quote. The bell ringer of the day, “ Fascism will arrive in this country carrying a bible and draped in flag.” Sadly, it was my old party, nee the Grand Old Party, who let it in.
When Sarah Palin leads her Church's Congregation in praying for the End Of Days, praying for the fiery annihilation of all non-Christians and sinners, a total of maybe 5.5 billion human beings, shouldn’t most us a little worried?
Albert Einstein described belief in God as "Childish superstition…..The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.)
The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion.
Arthur C. Clarke
“Religion is a symptom of man’s infancy.”
Arthur C. Clarke
Posted by: Rob L. | September 15, 2008 2:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
What's most disturbing about McCain is what a wimp he's become. He hides behind Palin, calling any attack on his positions "sexist". McCain is like a naughty little boy who throws mud and hides behind his mother's skirts.
The View women were tough on McCain, and they put the gelded national media to shame.
Posted by: Marc Edward | September 15, 2008 1:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
dave Curtis wrote: "I agree that honesty is a Christian characteristic (who wouldn't?) "
I disagree. There are plenty of us who aren't christian and we're just as honest or more so than self-delusional, smug, right wing "christians" like yourselves.
Get over yourselves. You don't have the monopoly on honesty, morality, enlightenment or compassion. How's that for honesty, gentlemen?
Posted by: sparrow | September 15, 2008 1:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Kert said: "We don't wish to run government but we do try to shape government to be the best it can be. We do this the way we are supposed to by voting, petitioning, getting involved in the issues and running for office. I can't believe that people would talk against us because our motives come with religious conviction. I always remind people that our first protection in the constitution is religious freedom. It is really the freedom that all other freedoms are based."
Absolutely wrong. Our first protection is equality for all and that is the overriding concept for every other freedom we have. You aren't trying to shape the government to be the best it can be- you're trying to shape it to your idea of what's best and that's a very different thing.
You also said "Evengelicals aren't responsible for pointing out lies against a candidate. It honestly makes much more sense to try to get your cadidate elected."
This is impossible to reconcile with your point above about trying to shape the government to be the best it can be. You can't have religious responsibility if you don't take responsibility for your candidate. The view may be a liberal show, but McCain is running for president. If you won't take responsibility for him, shouldn't they? As for Michelle Obama- she isn't running for President, and her words were a matter of personal feeling. what a fake fight the republicans made out of it- like you don't have much more important things to be concerned with in this country? Frankly, she'd make a hell of a better VP than Sarah Palin.
Posted by: sparrow | September 15, 2008 1:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dobson is every bit as representative of his organization as the American Petroleum Institute and the National fisheries Institute have been for their clients. For years the API and NFI have denied, respectively, global warming and the decline of the marine environment - veiling each issue under the guise of “a debate” and “scientific uncertainty”. Each organization has been single minded in advocating free market approaches to their industry unencumbered by any extra-internal self regulation, and, without a smidgeon of concern for the health of the planet. Profit now and worry about the planet later.
Mr. Dobson and his organization is essentially no different, the strategy is the same - divide and conquer. Facts have no meaning, both rhetorically and philosophically when the fuzzy relativism of religious “truths” are custom fit for a particular agenda. That agenda is power, maintenance of power, and acquiring more power over the ideological underbelly of American society - those who willingly associate themselves with the herd mentality, e.g. flocks of men and women bleating for a shepherd to guide them.
No, Mr. Berlinerblau, the reason de etre of Mr. Dobson and those like him “is” to bring their particular faith into politics. Mr. Dobson, et al, has too much to lose by taking your sensible advice and will ignore it as so much liberal blabber. It’s not the religious leaders wherein the answer lies, but the men and women within their sphere of influence who are concerned about the future of this Nation and are willing to stand up and do their own thinking for themselves.
Posted by: Edmond | September 15, 2008 1:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacues:
And as a McCain supporter, I agree that the sex ed ad at least went over the line. I agree that honesty is a Christian characteristic (who wouldn't?) So, turning the tables, it would be good if Barack was honest about his relationship with Rev. Wright and cease with the attempts to insult our intelligence when he says "he never heard the Rev. make these remarks". Wow. An absolutely faccid respeonse. No one is more consistently and acutely aware of anything/everything that's said and done around him on a daily basis than Barack Obama. He didn't miss the Rev's comments in 20 years.
Why do we all have to be so partisan? so one-sided? so stupid? Common sense tells us that bias can be either black or white, but most often, reality is grey.
DC
Posted by: Dave Curtis | September 15, 2008 1:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
GAVIN082,
I think you are making some wrong assumptions. First you think all religions are wrong and hold no truth. Second you think all religions are equal and therefore equally wrong. This would lead the assumption religions just remove freedoms.
The fact is I am not for imposing religious laws on people. These are for personal relationship and church. People can choose to follow any reigion or lack of religion they want. I hope people follow what I believe (or at least the important points), but I would never force them too. Forced religion doesn't work.
However, I do belive that natural law should be enforced in the land. These are basic laws imposed in society that give order to society. Without them, there would be chaos. This is the duty of government to seek these out and implement them as law.
Our founders believed in this concept as well and it is no secret that they used the Bible to find these natural laws and set up a democratic republic. I belive our government generally follows natural law but we have some flaws currently and in the past. In other countries that are based on Hinduism and Islam you are denied many of the freedoms you get in the US, because they use other religions as their base. Often you aren't allowed to practice any other religion. That is why I believe the Bible is the source of true freedom. As I see it, Christianity has granted other religions more freedom here than in any other country. Just ask all our immigrants.
I do believe that much that people call religion is not religion at all. Suicide bombers and religious oppression from countries is never in natural law. I think this shows the nature of what their religion has to off and conversely what Christianity has to offer.
I belive Christianity has give us the most freedom in the world. I have no intention of removing any true freedom or removing my religious fervor.
Posted by: Kert | September 15, 2008 1:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I think everyone understands that when Evangelicals want to bring religion into politics they means their specific religion. Certainly they don't want to bring into schools the concepts and beliefs of Buddhists, Hindus, Jews or even Catholics. After all they believe that God blessed America to be a Christian nation. I am not sure if they believe that blessing came before or after the settlers killed most of the Native Americans and pushed them on to Reservations. It would appear that they will only be happy when all those living in America share and participate in their in their religious beliefs. It is perfectly acceptable to them that all non-evangelicals move to another country if we don't like what they want to do with America.
Posted by: rclab | September 15, 2008 1:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
So, the "secularists" and "are positively livid" about faith this election.
Good. Let them foam at the mouth. Dig up some quotes. Nothing better than a good quote from a liberal-leaning religion basher to get some press attention - and to get the Democrats nervous.
That's the last thing the Obama campaign needs - anti-religious secularists rallying to support him. He could care less about that demographic, and for good reason. This isn't a Republican-Democrat thing. Neither party wants to touch those sour, angry, paranoid activists with a 10-foot pole. That's what really has them ticked. No one ever wants them.
As for the aptly named "The View," they showed themselves to be what everyone: a bunch of left-wing hacks, minus one.
As for the typical insistence that pro-lifers get back in their prayer closets ("Instead, of trying to influence public policy on issues like abortion, they would concentrate on helping to monitor the truthfulness of claims made by candidates in both parties"), I have an even better thought. How about they continue doing what they have been doing, considering that religious people have been politically active in this country for 200 years?
Religious conservatives have evolved over the past 20-30 years from one-issue voters to mointoring tax policy, education reform, national security and sensible health-care reform while they're at it.
Now if we could just get the liberal Christians to stop obsessing about homosexuals and partial-birth abortions.
Posted by: Mike | September 15, 2008 1:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"It might surprise secularists to learn that many Conservative Evangelicals are, in turn, puzzled as to why their compatriots consistently think the absolute worst of them (e.g., that they comprise an American Taliban, that they disrespect the Constitution, that they wish to subjugate all others to their theological worldview)."
Maybe its the way they subvert science in our government agencies (FDA, EPA, NOAA) to prevent the truth from being disseminated to people about global warming, air, water, and ground pollution, over-the-counter approval for plan b, etc.
Posted by: rb-freedom-for-all | September 15, 2008 12:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Reply to Kert:
"We are simply a group of people that agree on many issues. We don't wish to run government but we do try to shape government to be the best it can be. We do this the way we are supposed to by voting, petitioning, getting involved in the issues and running for office. I can't believe that people would talk against us because our motives come with religious conviction. I always remind people that our first protection in the constitution is religious freedom. It is really the freedom that all other freedoms are based."
You're not trying to shape government "To be teh best it can be." You're shaping it to reflect your personal religious doctrine. And yes, you do that by voting, getting involved, petitioning, etc. Have you ever stopped to consider that by YOUR efforts, you're denying other American's their constitutionally provided freedom of religion?
Can you imagine how insulted you would be if, as a Hindu, you walked into a court room and found a list of commandments from a religion to which you do not subscribe? Can you imagine that an Atheist may have his or her freedom of religion (and freedom from religion) infringed upon if his or her child is taught a religion-based pseudo science in a public class room? Can you imagine how insulted you would be if your government was making policy based on a religion that wasn't your own?
Posted by: Gavin082 | September 15, 2008 12:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques:
You always seem to turn everything back into your favorite gripe; that the most important thing in our lives and our democracy is separation of church and state, and that conservative evangelical Christians are undermining it. You also seem to paint with too broad a brush with your generalizations. All of us suffer from myopia and monomania at times.
So, admitting that, let me get this off of my chest. There are a lot of Christians who believe that the most important thing in life is to help their fellow man. There are a lot who are, as you say "ecumenical," or open minded. And even most of the conservatives realize that good works, including helping the poor, is crucial to their faith.
Jacques, do you volunteer regularly or in some other way help the least among us? Do you give a significant amount of money to charities? Do you help homeless people that you see on the street? Have you ever volunteered at a refugee camp? Do you make it a point to visit developing countries and say build houses or dig wells with your pown hands?
If not, you (or other "secularists") can probably learn a lot from these dangerous evangelicals you consistently bash. Despite their flaws, many of them at least get this good part of their faith right.
Posted by: faithfulservant3 | September 15, 2008 12:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
J.B.; You said,
"What if Evangelical leaders were to adopt an ecumenical, as opposed to sectarian, approach to their actions in the public square? ....
.... This too is a way of letting religious values enter the public square. My proposal does not deny Evangelicals the right to express their views on abortion and gays. But it might help counter the widespread suspicion that when they speak of "bringing faith into politics," they really mean to bring their particular faith into politics and no other."
An Ecumenical Approach?
Let Biblical Morality, not Modern Morality, enter the Public Square?
My Proposal..will Publically let Bible folk say yes or no to Non-straightys & Abortion.... issues?
Bring their Faith Morality (not our) into the our modern Moralist Public? LIKE NO OTHER????
Posted by: By the American Born-Again Secularists Party | September 15, 2008 12:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Carolyn,
So what will you do when Obama lies or tell less than a truth?
I am not condoning lying but I've seen lies in every major political race. It just seems like your justifying your position for what you already decided. What about issues like abortion and finishing the job in Iraq. Shouldn't these come into play too.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 15, 2008 12:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Reply to Nada:
"Why does Dobson want this power? Why did he get his flock(ed) to pray for rain on the democrats but did not get them to pray to protect Texas from Ike?"
Maybe because in Denver it didn't work...
Posted by: Gavin082 | September 15, 2008 12:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
First off, "The View" is a very liberal show. Of course they took McCain to task, as they should. I do agree the claims were lacking and McCain should back off them. But what about when Michelle Obama came on. Did they drill her on why she only now "proud to be an American". My recollection is they practical gave her an answer that they knew would go over well.
The truth is "The View" is just another group that is supporting one candidate and detracting another. They have every right to do so and I hope honestly comes from it. Just don't pretent they are some kind of pious group looking only for truth. I have yet to hear anything but blind praise for Obama from them.
I'm also unsure how you can insult James Dobson's name in the sub-title and then not even mention him in the article. James Dobson is not Evangelicals nor the opposite. As far as I know he hasn't even endores McCain yet, he just knows Obama stands on the opposite side he does.
I think we have to keep in mind the political climate we live in. We know there are lies on both sides and we need to work them out. Evengelicals aren't responsible for pointing out lies against a candidate. It honestly makes much more sense to try to get your cadidate elected. I would welcome more truth also but I know "The View" isn't the standard I am looking to.
I also thinks Evangelicals get painted in a bad way here. We are simply a group of people that agree on many issues. We don't wish to run government but we do try to shape government to be the best it can be. We do this the way we are supposed to by voting, petitioning, getting involved in the issues and running for office. I can't believe that people would talk against us because our motives come with religious conviction. I always remind people that our first protection in the constitution is religious freedom. It is really the freedom that all other freedoms are based.
Posted by: Kert | September 15, 2008 12:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dobson doesn't care about truth, right, wrong, any of those things we like to think we are concerned with ourselves.
His only interest is in how to get his chosen people into positions of power through manipulation of the gullible, then blackmailing those politicians with threats of withdrawing support.
Why does Dobson want this power? Why did he get his flock(ed) to pray for rain on the democrats but did not get them to pray to protect Texas from Ike?
How is it that he's not been laughed into the nuthouse?
Why does anybody pay attention to this madman?
Posted by: nada | September 15, 2008 12:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This is very well stated. As a christian corruption, honesty and justice are issues that are forefront in my mind. To ignore these issues over the past several years is like defending a group of repeat offenders. Everytime someone brings up their crimes we defend them by saying they believe in family, defend the unborn and want smaller government. Even as they expand the government, refuse to testify, use conservatives to push their agenda, and place a financial debt on our family for the next generations.
Christians need to stop following these people and look at the head of the line to see they are not leading us in any positive direction.
Posted by: ben lee | September 15, 2008 12:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The Christianist Right's inability to live up to their own professed ideals, that government should be run according to Christian teaching (which I assume would include 'bearing false witness') reveals the movement's true nature. If it were about Christianity or at least bringing Christianity to government, weekly church goers wouldn't be voting two to one for the one candidate that not only lies, but laughs at the beatitudes.
Clearly, the 'movement' that we call variously 'Value Voters' 'Christian Conservatives' and the 'Religious Right' is in reality a profoundly political movement draped in the clothes of religion.
Posted by: Gavin082 | September 15, 2008 12:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Barack Obama was for age appropriate sex education.
Age appropriate education for 5 and 6 year old centers on being aware that there are bad strangers.
It is wrong to warn children not to get in the car of a stranger to help him look for his "puppy"?
Not to go inside a stranger's home without telling mommy or daddy first?
As far as I am concerned McCain's attacks show that he's out of touch and has poor judgment.
Obama showed poor political judgment by not picking Mrs Clinton.
McCain has shown poor judgment by picking someone totally unqualified.
Obama recovered by picking the second best VP out there Joe Biden.
We are still waiting on McCain to recover.
Posted by: Jack | September 15, 2008 11:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Thanks to their separatist education system, churches, and lifestyles, most hard-core fundamentalists in the USA have a worldview founded almost completely on lies. They think Jefferson was a evangelical who opposed religious freedom. They think their god created the universe millenia after the rise of the Sumerian civilization, and that dinosaurs were vegetarians that co-existed peacefully with lions and elephants until someone ate a illicit magic golden delicious.
When your entire view of the world is based on falsehoods and magic, you have little if no ability to detect lies on your own.
Posted by: Ash | September 15, 2008 11:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I'm an old man from a strickly democratic southern family. By high school I realized how many sleazy democratic political organizations ran big city and state politics.
A well known businessman in Tampa, Florida told me that he bought 2,000 half pints of whiskey every election as his contribution to the democratic party voting machine. Every time I read a statement opposed to my patriotic views, it came from a Democrat.
Yes, sleazy is the right adjective. When the terrorists attack again, and it will happen, listen to the cowardly rats squeal. Thank God that some people still love America and will defend her.
Posted by: Marvin Walker | September 15, 2008 11:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Your opinion is swayed by your radical left wing bias. I do not but what you are selling. You have no credibility.
Posted by: Joyfully Clinging to Guns and My Religion | September 15, 2008 11:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
My problem with many religious fold is they often are not rational. They seem to want to make decisions for everyone else but, do not want others to make decisions for them. Many are against abortion and that's "OK" for them but not for me. I want the same right as
sarah Palin . She made the decision to keep a Down Syndrome child. I would not have made that decision. She made the decision to have a 17 year old keep her baby that is obviously by a teenage jerk. I would not have made that decision for my daughter. Sarah Palin is opting for Marriage withe this jerk to her daughter. I would advise my daughter strongly against marriage to any 17 year old even if she made the decision to keep her baby. I would strongly advise my daughter to not keepin the child . Her choice would also include carring the pregnancy to full term and keeping it or terminating the pregnancy. For me I lean toward terminating the pregnancy. But, thisis my choice. Many Republicans think it is their God given mission to make me keep a child that I and my family choose not to keep.
For me this is so hypocritical and for me it tells me that they know what's best for everybody because they feel that life begins at conception. I don't feel that way.
Why is it that many of these same people don't feel the same compuction to help these young girls after the child is born9especially if the child is Black.) You make your choice and I will make mine.
The issue is not abortion for it is about education and letting young people know that their choice to have sex without protection could alter their lives in not only a unwanted pregnancy but also in sexually transmitted diseases.
Posted by: Letha Barrett | September 15, 2008 11:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I have taught my children to tell the truth.
They are old enough now to recognize that John McCain is lying in his ads. They cannot understand how we Christians can support him.
I concur. I cannot tell my children one thing and then support another. McCain will no longer get this Christian family's vote.
Posted by: Carolyn | September 15, 2008 10:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Great article. I am a Pastor and you are exactly right. When the right wing fanatical Christians portray that they are ordered by God, they become the US Taliban. What is the difference? What ever happen to helping the poor and being truthful. These are Christ-like values. The Christians in power seem only to focus on lesbians, gays and abortion. These people are not too concern about pursuing the truth. It is funny? The same people who are extremely passionate against abortion, are equally as passionate for the death penalty. Jesus once said, "if they are not against us they are for us". This statement shows an act of tolerance, something the fanatics do not have. They would rather be like George Bush, "if you are not for us, you are against us". Thanks!
Posted by: Alex | September 15, 2008 10:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Alas, if only it were possible. (you did have tongue in cheek, did you not?)
Naturally we are in a culture that forsakes process for product; dismisses means over desired end. Therefore the goal of most evangelicals is to get their candidate in the White House. The relative morality plays out something like this--one chooses to lie or support liars if this will get the Pro-life candidate in the White House.
And I'm certain we non-evangelicals have our own "rationale" for getting around incongruencies in our thinking. But as you said--we're probably not as practiced at contortionist thinking and under-handed tactics meant to serve our end.
Posted by: eeosj | September 15, 2008 10:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Good points. I will venture to say the the fundamentalist will never do anything suggested here as they are the American al-qaida and taliban! They are cowards just like their muslim counterparts. All religious extremism is alike. They are the same.
The moderate religious (all faiths) leaders need to step up, cooperate and eliminate extremism amidst their peoples. This is possible since all extremists are psychotic and neurotic to be doing what they do!
The christian Fundamentalists are worse than their muslim or hindu (caps lower to make a point)counterparts as they have the finances, technology and infrastructure to do more damage just like hitler and nazis did. The American Social conservatives are using the very same tactics, verbiage and strategies as the nazis did.
It is time that the moderate religious leaders combine their efforts with secularists and combat the disease that is fundamentalism regardless of religion (I include atheism as a religion).
We need to concentrate humanity to face:
- Universal health care
- Peace initiatives
- Universal education
- Technology to solve the global warming
- Moderatism! (we need this first)
Who amongst you has the guts to join me in spreading this message? What if I am the One with the most reasonable message?
P.S. Is the message not almost the same that the religion founders of old said? Is that what religions are supposed to do?
I call all the fundamentalists especially the christians to heed Christ's words as they are liars if they don't
Posted by: sydney | September 15, 2008 9:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
What the Evangelicals, the View commentators, the BOers and the JMers really need to know:
Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded/opined that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.
The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. www. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".
Current crises:
Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!
Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).
Current crises:
Adulterous preachers, "propheteering / profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology.
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | September 15, 2008 9:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
WHERE ALSO ARE AMERICA'S RELIGIOUS LEADERS ???
SENATOR OBAMA,THIS JUDICIAL INJUSTICE HAS BECOME AN AMERICAN ART FORM,AND NO LONGER CAN BE KEPT HIDDEN OR SECRET FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE !!!
WHEN AMERICANS WERE TOLD THE TRUTH BY THIS HONEST BLACK LEADER,WHO WENT ON TO BECOME A US PRESIDENT ???
LETS ALL HOPE OUR MEDIA FRIENDS CONTINUE TO SHOW AN INTEREST IN REPORTING ON THIS AMERICAN HORROR FACING THESE (TENS OF THOUSANDS) FORGOTTEN AND TRAPPED POORER AMERICANS, AND HOW THIS PRESIDENTIAL CONTENDER HANDLES THIS VERY SERIOUS ISSUE FACING AMERICA?S LATINO AND BLACK AMERICAN COMMUNITIES ????
WITH 80% OF THE BLACK AMERICAN VOTERS SAYING THEY SUPPORT SENATOR OBAMA IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, IT IS ONLY FAIR FOR EVERYONE TO KNOW PRIOR BEING ELECTED OUR NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HOW THIS DEMOCRATIC SENATOR TRULY FEELS ABOUT THIS AMERICAN JUDICIAL INJUSTICE CONTINUING TO INFLICT GRAVE HARM ON THE BLACK & LATINO AMERICAN FAMILIES AND THEIR COMMUNITIES NATIONWIDE ?????
*** WHEN GOD?S FACE BECAME VERY RED ***
THE US SUPREME COURT GAVE ENEMY COMBATANTS FEDERAL APPEAL HC RIGHTS LAWYERS AND PROPER ACCESS TO US FEDERAL COURTS,AND POORER AMERICANS (MANY EVEN ON DEATH ROW) ARE DENIED PROPER FEDERAL APPEAL LEGAL REPRESENTATION TO OUR US FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL, AND ROTTING IN AMERICAN PRISONS NATIONWIDE ?????????
**** INNOCENT AMERICANS ARE DENIED REAL HC RIGHTS WITH THEIR FEDERAL APPEALS !
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE $LOWLY FINDING OUT HOW EA$Y IT I$ FOR MIDDLE CLA$$ AND WORKING POOR AMERICAN$ TO FALL VICTIM TO OUR U$ MONETARY JUDICIAL $Y$TEM.
****WHEN THE US INNOCENT WERE ABANDONED BY THE GUILTY ****
The prison experts have reported that there are 100,000 innocent Americans currently being falsely imprisoned along with the 2,300,000 total US prison population nationwide.
Since our US Congress has never afforded poor prison inmates federal appeal legal counsel for their federal retrials,they have effectively closed the doors on these tens of thousands of innocent citizens ever being capable of possibly exonerating themselves to regain their freedom through being granted new retrials.
This same exact unjust situation was happening in our Southern States when poor and mostly uneducated Black Americans were being falsely imprisoned for endless decades without the needed educational skills to properly submit their own written federal trial appeals.
This devious and deceptive judicial process of making our poor and innocent prison inmates formulate and write their own federal appeal legal cases for possible retrials on their state criminal cases,is still in effect today even though everyone in our US judicial system knows that without proper legal representation, these tens of thousands of innocent prison inmates will be denied their rightful opportunities of ever being granted new trials from our federal appeal judges!!
Sadly, the true US *legal* Federal Appeal situation that occurs when any of our uneducated American prison inmates are forced to attempt to submit their own written Federal Appeals (from our prisons nationwide) without the assistance of proper legal counsel, is that they all are in reality being denied their legitimate rights for Habeas Corpus and will win any future Supreme Court Case concerning this injustice!
For our judicial system and our US Congressional Leaders Of The Free World to continue to pretend that this is a real and fair opportunity for our American Middle Class and Working Poor Citizens, only delays the very needed future change of Federal Financing of all these Federal appeals becoming a normal formula of Our American judicial system.
It was not so very long ago that Public Defenders became a Reality in this country.Prior that legal reality taking place, their were also some who thought giving anyone charged with a crime a free lawyer was a waste of taxpayers $$.
This FACADE and HORROR of our Federal Appeal proce$$ is not worthy of the Greatest Country In The World!
***GREAT SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT PROTECT EVEN THEIR INNOCENT, BECOME THE GUILTY!
A MUST READ ABOUT AMERICAN INJUSTICE:
1) YAHOO AND 2) GOOGLE
MANNY GONZALES THE KID THAT EVERYONE FORGOT IN THE CA PRISON SYSTEM. ** A JUDICIAL RIDE OF ONES LIFE !
lawyersforpooramericans@yahoo.com
(424-247-2013)