All Comments (61)

Breathtaking hypocrisy. I don't give a damn how Mrs. Clinton coped with her husband's screwing around; there's a wide range of what people will put up with and for all I know she may not have cared, either. It's NOT relevant to the question of her qualifications for the presidency.

As for the greatest "sin" Senator Edwards has ever committed -- do you seriously think for a second that he answered THAT one honestly? As a former Catholic, I've given histrionic confessions that were pure fiction; there's nothing easier.

What a complete waste of valuable airtime and brain cells. Shame on you and CNN.

>>>How different would the last 6 years have been if we had known just how powerful a conservative way of looking at God led our current leaders?<<<

Yes, if we had known that George Bush believed he was being led by God to invade Iraq, we might have been able to impeach him before he set us on this disasterous course.

As for the "debate", I now know that Mr. Edwards subscribes to the pointless blather that "we're all sinners" and that Mrs. Clinton appreciates "prayer warriors". That leaves him at about the same place in my estimation of him. It leaves her down a few notches.

Susan Ring said:

>What Jim did was wake up the reality of faith in >other leaders who seemed to share honestly. This >does not make religion the government, but shows >where these politicians are.

What if we'd had an atheist candidate, what about the Unitarian candidate who wasn't included in this debate?

This was a religious test for candidacy. Religion is a private matter and has no business being discussed in political debates.

Thank you, Jim for that evening of openness about the impact faith has on those seeking office.
No matter where most of these writers are, it remains that for our leaders-to-be or current leaders, faith has been in the language speaking different things to each. We have heard predominately one point of view in the past from our current government.
What Jim did was wake up the reality of faith in other leaders who seemed to share honestly. This does not make religion the government, but shows where these politicians are.
How different would the last 6 years have been if we had known just how powerful a conservative way of looking at God led our current leaders? This is a fact and we must face the impact of how faith does affect our candidates if they use their faith to back their decisions.
This must matter to all of us whether we believe in a God or a religion.

Mr. Wallis is old enough to remember back when religion played a bigger role in most people's daily lives and personal behavior. The most salient point he should gather from those memories is that religion was rarely, if ever, mentioned by politicians. It worked then, it needs to work that way again.

The core problem is that few people understand Jesus' real message and the churches don't teach it, either. He never claimed to be the son of God and he got angry with Peter who was still looking for an earthly king, savior from the oppression of Rome. And Jesus never claimed to be the sole savior, only pathway to salvation, etc., either. The truth of the matter is that everyone (and I mean everyone!!) is already "saved", or don't you guys read Romans, Mark, etc. The other truth is that we are spirit, in a fleshly body. We may even live many lifetimes as a method of learning how to love (agape').

No, Jesus (And Buddha, Lao Tzu, etc., (not Mohammed)) came to show humans what living a life was meant to encompass. Compassion, love, sharing, caring, equality of expression, opportunity, relationship, etc.; not grasping, not 'cock on dunghill' (politics), not all the striving, racing, chasing, trying to get rich, etc. All the great teachers say that is the road to ruin, a sure loss of life's purpose. The world works hard to keep you unconscious of your true spiritual (not religious) heritage, selling you distraction for your birthright.

I think Jung got it right. "I don't believe in God, I KNOW!!" (Interview by the BBC). That is what is necessary for our world to survive, for which I have significant pessimism.

The Discoverer

I am a devote Episcopalian and attend services weekly. And frankly, the Democratic event with Jim Wallis made my skin crawl.

We have witnessed 25 years of the religious right trying to push their personal religious beliefs through the force of government on 300 million people in a highly diverse and religiously pluralistic society. In my opinion, it has cheapened our political discourse and their own religious faith.

We live in a free and diverse country where (I know that this is shocking to some folks) not everybody agrees. If you want to help poor people as a Biblical imperative, then go do it. Nobody is stopping you. If you do not believe in abortion or gay marriage, then do not have one. Nobody is going to force you to have an abortion or marry someone of the same sex. I am sick and tired of people not content to live out their religious values within the context of free society. It seems so many religious folks on both the right and left are so absolutely sure that they have all the answers, and my golly, they are going to force their answers on 300 million other people.

I have been repelled by the Republican Party's embrace of the religious right with its muli-ringed circus ("intelligent design", Terry Schiavo, ten commandments in public buildings, etc., etc., etc.). The last thing that I want to see is a liberal version of the same intent on self-righteously pushing a overtly religious political agenda, further dividing Americans and cheapening religious faith. Is not one American Taliban enough?

I was looking forward to LESS religion after Bush gets the boot. Please don't push the Democrats in this giddy Godly direction.

The Democratic Party has become the refuge for those of us who do not want the USA to become a Christian theocracy. If the Democrats begin to pander to religious groups, they will lose far more support than if the Republicans began to denounce the Religious Right. It would be time for a third party that believes in Separation of Church and State to form.

Seeing John Edwards wear his faith on his sleeve made me ill. Democrats lost in 2002 and 2004 by trying to be GOP-lite. If Edwards hasn't learned that lesson yet, then he is wasting his time campaigning.

The Democratic Party has become the refuge for those of us who do not want the USA to become a Christian theocracy. If the Democrats begin to pander to religious groups, they will lose far more support than if the Republicans began to denounce the Religious Right. It would be time for a third party that believes in Separation of Church and State to form.

Seeing John Edwards wear his faith on his sleeve made me ill. Democrats lost in 2002 and 2004 by trying to be GOP-lite. If Edwards hasn't learned that lesson yet, then he is wasting his time campaigning.

Oh good grief. How I long for the days of Jimmy Carter, a time when our leader could be a devout Christian but not feel compelled to openly spout Christian ideology every time he opened his mouth. Whatever happened to the notion of separation of church and state? Of not requiring religious tests of our leaders? Of discussing the Constitution and actual policy instead of what a person's biggest sin was? I am simply horrified that religion has crept so deeply into our political system, especially since most Christians like to forget that we are a multicultural nation composed of people of ALL faiths (or no faith). I'm a religious person but I am offended by all of the recent blathering about faith in the midst of a presidential election. Stop talking about religion and pandering to the religious right, and let's get back to discussing how to make our country a better place for all of us--Christian and non-Christian alike.

Those who spoke so openly about their piety and who shouted how pious they were for everyone to hear had a name in the bible, they were pharisees who prayed in the public square. Jesus repudiated them.

Jesus also said to render unto caesar what is caesars and unto god what is gods. To me that would simply mean, there is man's law and god's law and both are seperate.

This pandering by the left shows just how little reason is left in this country, one that was indeed secular and rightly so. If this is a sign of things to come then we have not learned our history with regard to where we come from, namely the middle ages, the reformation, and the rennaissance.

I describe myself in many ways – progressive, woman, pet lover, baby-boomer, middle-class, caucasian – but I make a practice of avoiding admitting in public my religious beliefs. The reasons are complicated and I have to admit that some of it has to do with wanting to avoid being lumped in with the so-called christians shouting their hatred on TV these days.

The word “Christian” today has been twisted like 1984 newspeak. I don’t want anyone to mistakenly confuse me with the newspeak version of ‘christian’.

My version of Christianity – Sermon on the Mount, Beatitudes, Luke 18 – “sell all your possessions and give to the poor”, James 2 “words versus actions” – is completely opposite to the christianity I see shouted by these so called “values voters.” I don’t want to be identified with them and their hatred of gays, lust for wealth, greed, scorn for women, un-charitable ways, suspicion of other cultures and people, cynical assumptions, cheating, power grabbing, and lying -- so I refuse to call myself Christian in public. I don’t trust anyone who identifies themselves as “christian” because the ones who profess it the loudest do not model it in their behaviors. I want someone to lead this secular Country who models christian behaviors and I don’t care if they are agnostic, atheistic, Jewish, Islamist, Hindu, Chinese folk religion, or Buddhist. It’s the works and attitudes they live, not the sect they identify with.

When candidates think it’s more important to explain their faith than the provision of the constitution that says:
“ ...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. ”

I wonder why they are seeking a position where they will have to pledge that they will support and defend the Constitution. Why don’t they seek a job that will support and defend their religion? I suspect their motivations.

Here in England our leading politicians seem to have tended to talk about their faith lately but not because the public want them to. Indeed I would far rather that it stopped and I have certainly never heard anybody -demand- it.

The whole notion of the "Faith-Off" seems bizarre and more than a little unsettling to me. I was hoping that after Bush departed America might get some sensible, rational leadership...

I want to hear politicians discuss religion about as much as I want to hear my grandmother discuss sex. Blech! I found everyone's responses unbelievable.

David Tate says: “[Jesus’] desire was that we freely give our own money to the poor...not that we all be required to give it through government bureaucracy. Jesus preached a kingdom to be established in human hearts...and that kingdom can't be imposed.”

That may be what Jesus preached, but because the US is a democracy, not a theocracy, decisions are made by elected legislators who are required to address and resolve present day issues, not to uphold the teachings of an ancient, possibly mythical, Jewish carpenter who thought he was the Messiah.

Faith continues to creep into government and elected office. What a bunch of rubbish - THERE IS NO GOD - just millions of "believers" starting wars, and creating divisions amoung the world's population over which version of the fairy tale to believe, and plotting how to impse their beliefs on others. It is arrogant to think that in the universe where earth is a grain if sand in a sea of infinity that "God" chose to be here. Obviously if there was a true faith then the religion with the "real" God would have fewer deaths from any misadventure, instead everyone dying at the same rate - oops with one exception - the beleivers die faster because they have wars with each other or self destruct over which is the "true God". Wake up - get over it we are just creatures in the cosmos, derived from prmordial soup - nothing more, nothing less. The good news is that faith worldwide is in decline. When faith dies off the world will be a much safer place.

Between them, Akeisha and Maurie bring up a good point.
If we elect leaders who fail to mouth the teachings of the most numerous and vocal religious sect, does that mean that as a society we have abandoned G-d? Is it possible to abandon G-d: would He let us? Or do you believe that He has abandoned us, because he allows us to vote for candidates who don't recite the right lines? Just how weak do you think He is -- and how weak is your faith?
This was a dumb question. Wallis and the other columnists have managed to find something interesting to say about it, which is a credit to them....

Oh, spare me your pious, paternalistic "concern," Moderate. I'm not about to get sucked into a disingenuous debate about abortion with you, especially considering that you began by mouthing the same old discredited lies and distortions that the Christian Right have invented and repeated for decades in order to scare women from exercising their legal rights as adults and autonomous individuals.

The point of my post, which you have conveniently ignored, is that if Wallis wants to become the Jerry Falwell of the Left, that's his business, but he should at least be upfront about his real agenda instead of throwing up his own blizzard of catchphrases.

Rich Kolker, Corinne, Maurie Beck, Rich, Parker, E Favorite, terrific points. I am in total agreement.

In 1960 Jack Kennedy found that he had to reassure a nervous electorate that he wouldn't let Catholic dogma shape his policies. He must surely be laughing (or shaking his head ruefully) from the great beyond at the spectacle of Democrats now coming hat in hand to the religionists for their imprimatur.

In years past, Christian Republicans have been villified for "imposing" their religious views on others in their effort to end abortion. But now, with regularity, Democrats cite their own faith as motivation to end poverty and provide health care through entitlement programs. See the irony? I thought we weren't allowed to impose our faith on others.

Many Democrats say things like, "I think my Christian duty as a politician is to help end poverty." Ending poverty is a noble endeavor, but are we allowed to disagree on how we should do it? Am I allowed as a Christian to believe that government is not the best way to help the poor? Apparently not.

Yes, Jesus spoke a lot about the poor, and helping, feeding and clothing the poor, but He said nothing to governments about starting entitlement programs. His desire was that we freely give our own money to the poor...not that we all be required to give it through government bureaucracy. Jesus preached a kingdom to be established in human hearts...and that kingdom can't be imposed.

Jim Wallis seems to be a closet Marxist. Just because Jesus had his inner circle of disciples live communally does not mean that Jesus wants us to implement a socialist/Marxist/communist form of government. If Wallis paid attention to his Book a little bit more he might notice the parts about Man being naturally degenerate and depraved. Why, then, would a Christian ever want to put so much power in the hands of men? Aren't 100 million dead people in the 20th century at the hands of Communism enough?

As a Christian it is my duty to help the poor. It is NOT my duty to pass laws that take my neighbor's money to help the poor (which doesn't even work anyway). The Lord wants a cheerful giver, not a coerced one.

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

Sharoney:

In what way is being pro life being anti woman? Would not half of the people saved be women? Almost one fourth of the pregnancies in the US end in abortions. That is horrifying. Abortion is being used as birth control. What happened to “Safe, Legal, and Rare”?

Moreover, the effects of abortion on the women involved is very often profoundly traumatic, so those who care about women should be very concerned about effects of close to two million abortions in a bad year. There has got to be a better way.

GJKBear, Jim Wallis wants nothing more to become another religious powerbroker, and to accomplish that he is willing to gloss over his real record wherever and whenever it would be likely to turn off true progressives and Democrats.

Let's drag this out into the open, shall we, Mr. Wallis? The right of a women to determine her own reproductive destiny, or for gay couples to receive the benefits that the state confers on hetero couples is BASIC to any kind of progressive thought.

That you contemptuously dismiss the struggle to achieve both as a "narrow two issue agenda" speaks volumes about both your credentials as a "progressive" and your ongoing attempts to gloss over your own record whenever you think it would hurt your ambition to be the left's kinder, gentler version of Pat Robertson.

The folks reading this article should go here if they wish to see the real Jim Wallis at work, and see what his real agenda is for progressives:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/5/2189/58282

And go here to read the appalling document that Jim Wallis signed, and has yet to repudiate:

http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/americaweseek.html

Jim Wallis put his name to this this repellent, anti-woman, antichoice document, along with Concerned Women for America harpy Beverly LaHaye, neocon nutbag William Kristol, Christian Coalition pretty boy Ralph Reed, serial hypocrite James Dobson, convicted Watergate felon-turned-preacherman Charles Colson, and Ann Coulter fan Richard John Neuhaus, among others.

This is the man who is trying to set himself up as religious kingmaker for the Democratic Party. This is a man who claims to speak for all Christian progressives. Wallis has yet to explain his endorsement of that document, and plays Artful Dodger when the question is put to him about whether he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. Perhaps he wishes it would go away lest it burst the fantasy of himself as the de facto leader of yet another religious movement that seeks earthly power.

Rev. Jim, you don't speak for me. You have no business inserting yourself into electoral politics. You have no business setting yourself up as a stealth version of James Dobson and Jerry Falwell disguised as a progressive. Jesus warned about hypocrites who parade their piety in the public square, and anyone who thinks Jim isn't using faith to promote himself and himself alone should read His warning in Matthew 7:15-23 about false prophets.

I doublele-dare you to leave this up, Jim, but my guess is that you won't.

If there were a just God, She would have smitten the Republicans for abuse of religion.

I found the whole concept of religious vetting troubling. As I'm sure the millions of citizens in this country who are of non-Christian faiths or no "faith" did too. The thing feels like a move toward a Christian theocracy, the same as Iran or the Taleban Afghanistan are Islamic theocracies. God's law prevails there too. I keep waiting for them to start and end every sentence with a version of "God is Great".

By law, America is, indeed, a secular nation. However, we are one of the most religious nations on earth. This is an interesting paradox that essentially means that while an overwhleming majority of people profess belonging to some form of organized religion, our goverment cannot adopt a religion for all people. Now, why is discussing religion important in debating who our next president will be? Well, take a look at current events, such as terrorism (which has its roots many times in Islamic extremists) or the hot button issues or abortion or gay marriage (causes which conservative christians hold dear). Furthermore, throughout the history of this nation religion HAS mattered. Unfortunately, in today's society people have become shockingly ignorant about religion in general (yes, even many church-goers). For many in this nation, religion has become more of an emotional-psychological experience rather than a spiritual journey where one reads the Bible (I'm obviously referencing Christianity here) and attempts to wrestle with difficult issues instead of relying on what ever pastor may appear of television to tell you what to think. I personally recommend that you all read Steven Prothero's "Religious Literacy," for it is a remarkable book that while explain, in detial, the shocking ignorance about religion in this nation and why this is such a dangerous trend that needs attention.

By law, America is, indeed, a secular nation. However, we are one of the most religious nations on earth. This is an interesting paradox that essentially means that while an overwhleming majority of people profess belonging to some form of organized religion, our goverment cannot adopt a religion for all people. Now, why is discussing religion important in debating who our next president will be? Well, take a look at current events, such as terrorism (which has its roots many times in Islamic extremists) or the hot button issues or abortion or gay marriage (causes which conservative christians hold dear). Furthermore, throughout the history of this nation religion HAS mattered. Unfortunately, in today's society people have become shockingly ignorant about religion in general (yes, even many church-goers). For many in this nation, religion has become more of an emotional-psychological experience rather than a spiritual journey where one reads the Bible (I'm obviously referencing Christianity here) and attempts to wrestle with difficult issues instead of relying on what ever pastor may appear of television to tell you what to think. I personally recommend that you all read Steven Prothero's "Religious Literacy," for it is a remarkable book that while explain, in detial, the shocking ignorance about religion in this nation and why this is such a dangerous trend that needs attention.

These were not 3 candidates "telling how real faith was to them", these were 3 candidates scripting responses to an interrogation forced on them.

The most important question regarding religion in public life in the present moment is how to get the religious to respect the separation of church and state built into the Constitution because it creates a public space where those of us who don't want to participate in their religion can be involved with public life making the reasonable assumption that science and reason will be the guiding factors in shared political process. People like Wallis can't even imagine that there are people out there who don't agree with them or think like them, and that's what makes their theocratic project so dangerous.

Adam Cole??? Religion and government are inseparable. Kings shall be crowned by the pope. No law shall be passed that does not conform to God's law so laws are actually redundant.

Where would the world be without religion to govern us? Just a pack of hell bound heatherns.

It's government that's unnecessary. All we need to do is relax the ban on the ministry spolling and ordering the spilling of blood so criminals can be executed. Then there is not need whatsoever for government.

Muslim are so advanced their ministers DO order the spilling of blood, American blood at present but certainly not limited to Americans. Any infidel will do.

Sheessch

I read Sojourners. I do not always agree with Jim Wallis, but I believe him to be impartial and fair minded. I do not think God`s laws should be above our Nation's laws. This is because not every American believes in GOD. This does not make them unethical or immoral. America should be governed by ethics. I personally do not care what religion or non religion a canidate is nor do I think that a candidate should be judged by their religion. But it does matter what someone believes! When a candidate makes reference to their faith it does not turn me off. There are many voters out there who are not like myself. They want to know where a person stands religiously. For many years now, those people have voted for Republicans. The Democrats have been painted as the bad guys because they did not believe in talking about their faith or what they believed in. The Republicans have taken great advantage in this - so, I think it is good to level the playing field a bit. Where someone worships should not be a litmus test for the Presidency, and I do not agree with Mrs. DOGOOD and Akeisha. Personally, if someone starts telling me that GOD wants them to run for President, I am going to run the other way as fast as I can. But, if someone recounts how their faith sustained them when their son died, or how people helped them get through a tragedy or even that they feel that eithcally this is the way something should be - I am going to listen. These accountings tell me how they believe or even what they believe in - even if it is only themselves and those things are part of their personalities. Perhaps, if some people had really listened and heard in 2000 and 2004 we would not be where we are today.

I read Sojourners. I do not always agree with Jim Wallis, but I believe him to be impartial and fair minded. I do not think God`s laws should be above our Nation's laws. This is because not every American believes in GOD. This does not make them unethical or immoral. America should be governed by ethics. I personally do not care what religion or non religion a canidate is nor do I think that a candidate should be judged by their religion. But it does matter what someone believes! When a candidate makes reference to their faith it does not turn me off. There are many voters out there who are not like myself. They want to know where a person stands religiously. For many years now, those people have voted for Republicans. The Democrats have been painted as the bad guys because they did not believe in talking about their faith or what they believed in. The Republicans have taken great advantage in this - so, I think it is good to level the playing field a bit. Where someone worships should not be a litmus test for the Presidency, and I do not agree with Mrs. DOGOOD and Akeisha. Personally, if someone starts telling me that GOD wants them to run for President, I am going to run the other way as fast as I can. But, if someone recounts how their faith sustained them when their son died, or how people helped them get through a tragedy or even that they feel that eithcally this is the way something should be - I am going to listen. These accountings tell me how they believe or even what they believe in - even if it is only themselves and those things are part of their personalities. Perhaps, if some people had really listened and heard in 2000 and 2004 we would not be where we are today.

Parker

Loved that quote from West Wing. Wouldn't it be wonderful if REAL politicians could talk like that?
And get elected! What a wonderful world it would be.

Where is Sen. Arnold Vinick when we need him? The fictional Republican presidential nominee on “West Wing” said it best:
"I don't see how we can have a separation of church and state in this government if you have to pass a religious test to get in this government. I want to warn everyone in the press and all the voters out there. If you demand expressions of religious faith from politicians you are just begging to be lied to. They won't all lie to you, but a lot of them will, and it will be the easiest lie they ever have to tell to get your votes. Every day until the end of this campaign I'll answer any question anyone has on government. But if you have a question on religion, please, go to church."

"You are what you mock"? What is that, a grown-up version of I'm-rubber-you're-glue? An empty response, regardless of who coined it.

Acts of governance are supposed to have nothing to do with religion. Yet all the decisions are made by subjective humans, so they must come from somewhere.

When candidates make public statements about personal "faith", the most innocent interpretation is that they want listeners to infer that their governance will be generally informed by their shared mythology, and hence MORAL.

The obvious corollary grates on atheists (to say nothing of other sects): "Had I not this common faith, I would be just as likely to make AMORAL decisions. I would be unlike you, and unworthy of your trust." To suggest, even implicitly, that there can be no morality without faith is offensive--not to mention patently ludicrous to anyone who's been paying attention recently.

Instead of "taking Christianity bipartisan", I'd much rather candidates avoid such divisive pandering altogether, and state their intentions in terms of concrete policies and POLITICAL philosophy. Then we can all privately interpret the morality of such proposals by the light of whatever creed, or lack thereof, may suit us.

Funny how these presidential candidates are throwing their religious beliefs onto the American people in this presidential race in order to sway votes. I know freedom of religion, but I also thought government and religion are separate. I thought thats what our country was founded on? OR was it founded on having a great tan at presidential debates?

This is not a matter of whether these presidential candidates believe in GOD, it's a matter of if they get that extra vote. This is just a political strategy. IRRELEVANT, AS IS THIS FORUM. We should focus on the issues; Iraq, foreign, and domestic affairs not religion. I have not heard a single solution to any of our problems. If we're gonna have a forum, why not talk about something thats relevant. We should be focused on issues that matter, not strategies to get a vote, nor to criticize each other. How about this be a forum of solutions, everyone give a solution to a problem, instead of debating on who's right. This is a email I wrote my representative in my state. I believe this how the majority of the US feels. what do you think? How do you think we can solve these problems?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/06/AR2007060602297.html?hpid=topnews

This Article is just another example of
the sly, fishy activities going with our countries leaders. It is very odd. From

- "Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil announced that the Bush administration had planned to attack Iraq long before 9/11"... in 2004
odd

to

- Libby's revelation of Valerie Plame's CIA employment... AND a possible pardon by the president?

to

- Gonzales firing attorney generals and his actions used in wiretapping?

to

- Iraq where we are trying to impose democratic and Christian values on a people of enormously different ideals than us.

to

- Cheney and wiretapping? and the actions towards Ashcroft (getting Gonzales, and other W.H. reps to confront Ashcroft after he had gallbladder surgery) seems a little needy to me...

to

- even the president today who has more power than England's monarchs back in the ottoman empire.

to

- presidential candidates throwing their religious beliefs onto the American people in this presidential race in order to sway votes. I know freedom of religion, but I also thought government and religion are separate. I thought thats what our country was founded on? OR was it founded on having a great tan at the presidential debates?

It just seems these 4 to to 8 years have been backed by suspicion. I feel our country has the best moral values in the world, the right to make your own decisions, the right to figure out what is wrong, and to come up with a civilized answer. And I also feel, our country is taking advantage of this moral power. Through our journalists, who I feel have lost their hunger to tell the truth, to politicians who's eyes are fixed on becoming a world power. I feel we've lost focus on ourselves in order to achieve something of lesser moral value, power. I see it transcend into everyday people, on the road driving crazy and rude, to the fact that people show each other no common courtesy, to the fast pace life everyone has been suckered into, I feel the American people are losing their souls. Our country is losing this battle to ourselves, and what I want to know is, why isn't anyone putting this into new light, it seems our lights are going out, and we don't care. There's no real point to this email, except the fact, I need to know why isn't anyone taking action? Why the American people whether they know it are not, are slowly dwindling into a society of 'idiocracy'?

Reading theese post, I wonder if this is a good sampling of us. (thats Americans) Can we all be this angry and repressed?
Personaly I like Jim Walis, I don't always agree with him, but I think his goals are fair.
I'm not sure why anyone has a problem with Democratic politicos expressing their views on God. If they are truly influenced in somway by their faith would you not want to know? You still get to decide for yourself if they are honest about it, as in any other topic they might speak on.
If your goal is a secular government,( as is mine) could it be that if some Democrats express their faith openly, it helps balance the Christian Right?
Thats all I have. Everyone can now resume bashing.

I used to think there were only two Parties of God, Hezbollah and the Republican party. Apparently I was mistaken. Now the Democrats are pandering to the religious crazies, while most of the front-running Republicans are either running away from Bush's Christian Right, or are at least not mentioning it.

It seems that the Democrats have concluded that there is a religious vote out there that in the past might have gone to the Republicans or who felt unwelcome anywhere. According to the political calculus, the Democratic candidates, by pandering to this vote may pick up a segment of the voting population that was previously inaccessible, while not alienating the many secular constituents that are longtime Democrats. The advisers running the various campaigns for the contenders figure that the secular Democrats have nowhere else to go. They might want to recalculate. The few religious votes they hope to pick up could be swamped by the potential losses as much of the large secular segment jumps ship or doesn’t vote at all.

When the Republicans made the devil’s bargain, fusing big business and Christian fundamentalism, each side thought they could control the other. However, it has proved to be a real devil’s bargain that the country is now paying for (For further reading on this subject, check out Kevin Phillips’ American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century). Perhaps the Democrats might want to reconsider such a bargain. Playing the religious card is dangerous. After hearing some of the comments by the three Democratic frontrunners at Monday night’s Sojourners presidential forum on faith on CNN, I declare myself up for grabs.

In the New York Times article “Edwards, Clinton and Obama Describe Journeys of Faith” by Patrick Healy and Michael Luo, they write, “The participants sought to walk a fine line between appealing to religious voters, while not turning off secular voters, who represent a crucial constituency for them.” For me and that crucial constituency, the train just ran off the tracks. See ya.

Above I mentioned religious crazies. I do not mean just any religious person or any Christian, Muslim, Jew, or Pagan who believes in a god or gods. There are quite a few individuals on this site who are religious and also believe in a liberal secular democracy of the kind founded by the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, et al. Religious crazies refer to people who think they have to choose between reason and faith or they will go to hell or some other unpleasant place.

How does that saying go?

Replacing one tyranny for another...Jim doesn't care about America...he cares about instilling a LEFT WING THEOCRACY...b/c as he has said in the past "bad theology replaced by good theology"

James Dobson moveover...a new theocratic dog is moving into the whitehouse.

Every candidate in every party will pander to the masses. They try to make themselves look like the average American in every possbile way to garner the most votes. I know that it is sad to grill candidates to make sure that they believe in God or don't. If they are elected into office, it will blantantly clear what they believe by how they do their job. Their belief in God or not in God is a pretty big deal, just as their views on foreign policy and terrorism are vital to know. Was this the best forum for that? No. But, as it seems for most in these posts, you now know who you want or don't want to vote for because of it. It is all part of this political game.

Akeisha Johnson - It is funny to me how people believe that the law of the land is higher than the law of God. How is it that this country has moved so far away from knowing their is a ruler higher than any we could elect?

That's the problem, Akeisha, god is not elected, so we can't get rid of him when he acts badly. You obviously don't believe in democracy. If we applied biblical law, you would probably be among those stoned to death for numerous infractions that no one in their right mind would agree with.

I have no problem with you believing in your god, just don't lay him and his weirdness on me.

DOUG;

Who cares what Jim Wallis says? And why on earth would anyone want to read a book by him when there are so many great books that we really ought to be reading.Watching Wallis on CNN was hard enough on my gag reflex and didn't exactly leave me panting for more.
Read Dawkins and Hitchins and Sam Harris and Bertrand Russell and Carl Sagan and Einstein and Aayan Hirsi Ali,and Voltaire and Mark Twain and Albert Camus and Sartre and Darwin and Shakespeare and Dostoevsky and others who enlighten us with brilliant insights into the mysteries of life and the larger questions which we all try to understand and grapple with.
Religion impedes this and always has.All it offers is a magic world of gods and devils and angels.
In other words-fiction.No help at all.

If the only way Democrats can win elections is to flaunt their god and their religion in my face, then they lose my vote. How are they different from Republicans in this respect? This is not the party I knew and supported these last 20 years.

If Mr. Wallis could only be as great a champion for the First and Greatest Commandment as he is for the second.

With audiences in print and on television, Wallis could be evangelizing the lost to develop vertical relationships with God, as Jesus did...and His disciples do.

Mr. Wallis knows that we are to Love the Lord our God with all of our soul, strength, heart and mind.

That is the first and greatest Commandment for a Jew or a Christian.

Doug
Right! I haven't read the book. So, sue me. There must be millions of books in the world. What's the chance that any one of us may have read any obscure and random book whose author's views we might see in a forum such as this?

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

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

Want to see your polling numbers sink even lower than those currently for President Bush? Simply let it slip that you doubt the divinity of Jesus, or the existence of God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

I was at Monday's forum and thought it a shame how many people were uncomfortable with the opening praise section. I LOVED it!

It is funny to me how people believe that the law of the land is higher than the law of God. How is it that this country has moved so far away from knowing their is a ruler higher than any we could elect? It's frightening to see how people ditest God. If any of these people read the Word they would know the attitudes of following man's word over God's leads to wrath that no man can treat. (SEE 2 Chronicles 36:14-21)
I have read that 80% of Americans believe in God. If more of these people get to KNOW God then perhaps they would see the true relevance in Monday's forum.

A quote from that noted American philosopher Mel Brooks, to be pondered by all of the rude and intemperate fanatical atheists/agnostics who post dreck after any column that dares to be the least bit favorable to religion:

*YOU ARE WHAT YOU MOCK.*

Militant atheists may claim to be areligious, and their religion comprises denial rather than affirmation. But they are no less intolerant religious bigots than the most extreme Bible-thumping Appalachian televangelist.

Obviosuly, the ones commenting on this article have not read Jim Wallis' excellent book. No where in his book or in this article did I see him write that you must believe in God to become president. All he is saying is that if you do profess your faith in God, as I do, then your actions should match your faith. If you feel that God would want us to feed and clothe the poor and provide homes for the homeless, then we should take actions that lead to this. No one is saying that you MUST believe in God.

As far as saying the most intellectual people could not believe in God, I would argue that the most intelligent people would admit that they could not KNOW either way, but that those of us that do believe do so out of faith. By the way, belief in God does not necessarily mean that you don't believe in evolution.

look where all this religiosity has gotten us -- this country is getting dumber by the minute -- THREE republican presidential candidates who don't believe in evolution? the fact that they haven't been laughed off the stage is profoundly disturbing. but that's the end result of pandering to a religious base. i'm beyond disgusted to see this now happening to this degree to the democrats.

Like snakes trying to swallow elephants, the hopeful nominees of the party which seeks to give speial rights and priviledges to the illegals, the deviants and the former convicts, tried to make nice to the very Conservative Christians they demean, hate and are critical of in their fund raising.

Vauge platitudes from Hillary about how her 'faith' [note she never tells us what she has faith in, certaintly not the Biblical God of righteousness] helped her, is supposed to take away the sting of her demeaning and cynical anti-Chrsitian bigotry? I don't think so.

I'm glad to see the democrats standing up to the religious right for once, but I really wish they would find a better way to do it then play holier then thou. Sadly, I think we are still a long ways off from the day when a presidential candidate has the guts to stand up on stage and say: "I don't know the truth and you sure as hell don't either!" Of course that would be a candidate being honest with the public and when was the last time that happened? I think it is rather telling that we as a country are more okay with a gay politician then an atheist one. I would think it would be the other way around.