All Comments (24)

Brambleton,

I've just caught up with your post of yesterday afternoon at 2:37 p.m.

You wrote:

"Norrie,

Are you from the same area that gave us Ted "I swear the car just crashed on its own" Kennedy? Or how about John Kerry, who along with Al Gore, might be the two biggest presidential goofs in the last 30 years."

No, Brambleton, I'm not from Massachusetts. We in northern New England consider Mass. to be benighted and in the same dire need of divine intervention as Alabama or Mississippi.

You're not from either of those places, are you?

Regards.

>> I would add that Christians are less informed than many other voters when they base their conclusions about life and the universe on irrational (or no) evidence. <<

A man standing in the Alaskan tundra spies a huge shiny rock lying on the ground, using both hands he pry's it up and immediately recognizes it as a gold nugget. Excitedly, he grabs his cell phone and calls his friend in, let's say, Missouri (the show me state), and shares his discovery. His friend unexpectedly responds: "since I personally cannot see the gold nugget you claim to have found, I deny its existence, and furthermore you are irrational for thinking you have even found gold." Dumfounded, the man in Alaska exclaims: "What do you mean you deny its existence - I'm holding it right here in my hand?" To which his friend replies: "But I can't see it, so there is no way for me to be certain it exists." Exasperated, the man in Alaska offers: "I know you can't see it, you're not where I am. Tell you what, I'll fly you up here so you can personally see it." To which his friend in Missouri counters: "Even if I saw it, it does not prove you found it in Alaska. And it might not even be Gold - it could be iron pyrite. And even if you had it assayed, the assayer is not infallible, he could be mistaken. Tell you what, save your money on your offer to fly me up." The man in Alaska finally laments: "But, I wanted to split it with you," and slowly folds his cell phone shut.

Which man is irrational?

The Bible says: "For [God's] invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly made known ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they [all mankind] is without excuse [in denying God's existence]." Romans 1:20. In other words, God has painted the fact of His existence on the canvas of His wonderful, intricate, and infinite Creation.

But there are many who still claim: The paint could have just spilled on the canvas that way," Or, "What canvas? I don't see any canvas," ...and call those who have eyes to discern it -- irrational -- and are content to stay in Missouri.

It is an intellectually dishonest proposition to claim (as atheist do): "There is no God," for that is an absolute statement. To honestly make that claim one would have to possess absolute knowledge - omniscience. Since man is not an omniscient being, the best claim he can make is: "In the infinitesimal finite knowledge I [personally] possess, I see no evidence for God," in which case he would be an agnostic, and not an atheist.

The Bible is clear "The man without the Spirit cannot accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them, for they are Spiritually discerned," 1st. Corinthians 2:14. It is no mystery, then, that those who are intent on denying the existence of God, are blind to the evidence of His existence.

Is it not "telling"--in and of itself--that candidates who present themselves as Christians, must hire "faith gurus" to guide them in how to "communicate" in the language of the religious (so, hopefully, they won't be seen as fakes)?

Someone posted that the religious [Christians] were "lowest common denominator among the electorate." I am assuming the poster was referring to intellect.

However,

On Judgment Day, the "wisdom" claimed by the
Intellectual elite who put their faith in the god of Science and Philosophy — will be shown as less than those who once claimed the earth was flat. For the latter did so out of ignorance, but the former out of rebellion.

Bruce Cullom

The use of psuedo names such as 'enlightened atheist' on this post is the epitome of all oxymorons and are really the ones who should go to their own blogs..such as 'Off Faith'. How can a being be enlighented if they believe they came from an amoeba? Are they so enlightened that they can explain to us how millions of integrated parts of the human eye 'evolved' into one, whole working mechanism..and if one of those parts ceased from working correctly, it would affect the whole mechanism. Well, Darwin couldnt explain that..ever. Atheists will always discount God and faith as fake..but they will never admit the source of the fakery is not God...but man. And yes, to them, all these people of faith over the multiple millenia of man's existence were just duped, unintelligent people. Millions, yea billions of them thru the ages. Atheists have an inherent intelligence just like all the rest of mankind so that, if they put their mind to it, they could sit at a workbench and create/invent an object formulated in their mind. The only difference between the atheist and those with faith in God is that the atheist doesnt believe there could be one that sat at a proverbial workbench and formulated and made possible their existence. Puny thinking..when you really think about it.

I have to agree with the comment above to the extent that the opinion insists that the media adapt an "objective" point of view on this issue and of course it never does.

Although, I'm quick to add that is it a real opportunity for the public to take on the "religious leaders" who comment here. There's a certain leveling of the playing field on line, one's comments, use of language directly, either make sense or not; and, to that extent, I find this blogg a helpful success.

Thank you.

I was disappointed when the Washinton Post introduced the 'On Faith' section on their front page, and the above article supports my initial disdain.

Regardless of my own beliefs, no expression of faith can be made genuinely when the mainstream media will make it front-page material, as you are doing.

'On Reason' would have been a better forum, because making religion a political football in support of the Post's bottom line is a losing strategy. Especially for a news organization that needs to be perceived as neutral.

Comment after comment, viewers deny the validity of the hocus-pocus, dogma, and medieval indoctrination you posit as legitimate discourse.

Perhaps the Post has faith that God can save their pathetic reputation from further flushing?

I suggest you get this garbage off your page before you lose the little bit of journalistic credibility that remains to you in this town.

in response to Brambleton

you asked:

"Is your post making the statement that Christians (or other religious sects) are the lowest common denominator among voters? Probably not, but that's how I read it. Don't see how a Christian is less informed or more informed than any other voter."

By lowest common denominator I mean people who make a decision to vote for a candidate based on their interpretation of the candidate's ability to make the voter feel comfortable and secure in the vote's religious belief.

Voters are free to vote for any candidate for any reason, but voting based on feeling comfortable about the candidate's religion is simply stupid.

Do all Christians vote that way? I don't think so. Mr. Bush, for example, lost his first election by 500,000 votes, most of them Christian; and he won a second term (a sitting wartime president) by less than 3%. He approval ratings are under 30% today. So probably only the least educated, and least informed, most ferverent Christians voters would constitute the lowest common denominator. But don't they always? You know, people who would be impressed enough to vote for a man solely because he says, "my favorite philosopher is Jesus Christ."

I would add that Christians are less informed than many other voters when they base their conclusions about life and the universe on irrational (or no) evidence.

Thank you

Why, pray tell, are virtually all those tainted by scandal in this administration, both elected and appointed officials, are all so professedly religious, so publicly devoted to the principles of Christian morality and ethics, so horrified by the personal inclinations of the rest of poor benighted jerks and so completely oblivious to their own cardinal sins? Especially greed and sloth.

"Not only is it appropriate and important for political candidates to express their religious views but it is becoming necessary in order to win elections."

That is an absolutely ridiculous statement.

It is NOT appropriate. It is NOT necessary.

You may WISH this to be the norm....and sir, my reply is

"IN YER DREAMS".

"a Washington-based think tank dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to public policy issues."

And THIS explanation of who you represent says VOLUMES as to the MONEY, HONEY, behind this push for "religion-based" politics.

ALL ORGANIZED RELIGIONS AND THEIR FOUNDATIONS SHOULD HAVE THEIR NON-PROFIT STATUS REMOVED - you CAN'T have it both ways.

I got it I think. Candidates that are not sincere in their professions of faith will lose because voters will see through their insincere words and deeds. Candidates need to practice kissing the bishop's ring, kneeling before the pope and above all else faking feeling the spirit of Jesus by properly falling down at the Pentacostal feel Jesus event. That's to say nothing of how one dips the fingers into the holy water befor making a sincere sign of the cross at the proper angle for the newsman's camcorder.

I can see the TV smear adds right now. With a clip of the candidate kissing the bishops ring the voice says, "can you trust this man with the worlds nuclear arsenal. Look at that insincere kiss!" And with the candidate on his knees before the pope, "yes but does he really mean it?"

Thank God their sacred scriptures are now a proved hoax. Bubba deserves a better campaign for dog catcher.

Morality Has NO Dependence on Religion

Morality predates religion by thousands of years.
Many studies show atheists are at least as moral as believers.

I heartily agree with Norrie:
Religion should be kept private.
Like Eisenhower did.

When politicians,like Bush, DO make it public, it then clearly becomes an issue.

It is virtually always a BAD sign when the politician makes it an issue.

Pandering, hypocrasy, exploitation.

In my opinion if you are voting simply because you want to hear your candidates opinion on religious dogma then maybe you shouldn't even be voting at all . There have been thousands of gods and spirits and each one has been spookier than the one before . All are ghosts and spirits who, as long as I've been alive, could give a hoot less about mankind or his ilk . God is your imagination. Each person has differing imaginations related to his/her concept of "GOD".When you consider voting for a president vote for him because he is a rational , reasonable person who uses sound judgement and pass on the hocus pocus nonsense

Bob,

Is your post making the statement that Christians (or other religious sects) are the lowest common denominator among voters? Probably not, but that's how I read it. Don't see how a Christian is less informed or more informed than any other voter.

Norrie,

Are you from the same area that gave us Ted "I swear the car just crashed on its own" Kennedy? Or how about John Kerry, who along with Al Gore, might be the two biggest presidential goofs in the last 30 years.

Since the theists seem so hell bent on establishing a religious test for political candidates, especially those running for high office like president, then let me suggest that test:

Judge a candidate's religious beliefs as showing their suitability for office, but base it on the job the present cabal of self-identified, born-again, Bible-thumping, prayer-group-meetings-in-the WH Xians have done running the country.

I remember reading somewhere that "by their works ye shall know them."

Seems to me, if anything, that professing to be a Xian should disqualify a candidate for higher office, at least if the works of his fellow Xians squating in the WH are any indication of what Xians do when they grab the reigns of power.

And please, none of thw whining that bush and his cronies "aren't real Xians." They profess to be, and I take them at their word. Certainly, they're not professing to be atheists! Let's not even get into the profile that Xians in power have firmly established for themselves in the historic record.

Jesus’ Attitude Toward the State
When Jesus Christ was on earth, he set higher standards for his followers, and he refused all involvement in political or military matters. After Jesus had miraculously fed several thousand people with a few loaves of bread and two small fish, Jewish men wanted to seize him and make him a political king. But Jesus avoided them by quickly withdrawing to the mountains. (John 6:5-15) Regarding this incident, The New International Commentary on the New Testament states: “There were fierce nationalistic longings among the Jews of that period, and doubtless many of those who saw the miracle felt that here was a divinely accredited leader, who was just the one to lead them against the Romans. So they set themselves to make him king.” It adds that Jesus “decisively rejected” this offer of political leadership. Christ gave no support to any Jewish insurrection against Roman domination.—Luke 21:20-24.

John 18:36 “Jesus answered:”My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought.”

Sincerely,
Marilyn

I agree with those, here, who think that being "sincere, genuine and authentic" does not mean much , in terms of protecting the Constitution and the rights of all citizens.
As Gerry mentioned, with some help from Nietzsche, people of conviction, very sincere in their beliefs, can be very dangerous indeed. The list is long and GW Bush, far from being the worst, is still representative of this kind of behavior.

"Not only is it appropriate and important for political candidates to express their religious views but it is becoming necessary in order to win elections."

Well, winning elections have increasingly influenced by the Media and by the candidate's ability to pay for it. The result is twofold: one; it removes the democratic nature of free choice and informed decision, and two; it allows it for anyone to win an election irrespective of background. The rich can put a face in the public to become president, while they control everything else from closed doors.

Not all media campaigns are objective; they usually perpetuate propaganda of controversies and scandals to tarnish the image of a likely contestant. It is non principle, non religious, non democratic and outright nasty!

The religious element therefore in this race may well backfire by a reflection of hypocrisy.

It's all to do with winning, and it seems there are no rules....

Mr. Cromartie,

Further to my earlier post above:

You wrote: "Expressions of religious faith by candidates must be sincere, genuine and authentic."

Actually, the first six words of the quotation together with the last four constitute an oxymoron.

It makes me so sad to witness again and again the misconception that morality depends on a religious belief, although the most superficial glance at history shamefully disproves this untenable idea.

You are right, of course, that things being as they are in the present phase of American politics, a politician has to appear religious in order to be elected, but your caveat "expressions of religious faith by candidates must be sincere, genuine, and authentic. Otherwise they will be perceived as politically calculating and will backfire" sounds incredibly naive. I like especially your words "must be" in this sentence. There we are: "You must be spontaneous, or else...". Who, of the voting crowd, does have the slightest possibility of knowing the degree of honesty or dishonesty of a politician, if even a lie detector in a given single case is utterly unreliable?

I don't think there is one president in history who has brought so much damage and international disgrace on the US as stay-the-course Bush, the "honest" believer. The captain of the Titanic stayed the course.

Nietzsche: Conviction (=unfalsifiable belief) is much worse than lie. Lie can be detected, corrected and reversed, conviction cannot.
If Bush were less convinced of his born-again status and had used his brain and common sense just a little more than his "conviction", the world would not be in the miserable state it is now. The most dignifying difference between an animal and a human is the possibility of the human to think and adapt to changing conditions and necessities.

i dont think anyone has suggested that candidates have theological debates- but it IS important to know a candidates- i couldnt disagree more that knowing a candidates religion gives us no knowkedge of how theyll deal with issues- bush is the poster boy of predictable evangelist mentality- and we certainly are able to predict where hell stand on issues specifically BECAUSE of his religious affiliations-

to fail to take this basic insight into his policy making and decisions isnt really very wise-

i can state categorically i have never heard even the lowest level politician debate which ethnic or social group they feel most comfortable in-
thats an extreme oversimplification-

and theres alot more to america than the bible belt- intelligent people everywhere discuss religion- its not relegated to bible thumping rednecks in the belt buckle of the heartland-

one thing i might suggest is that if one has an identifiable religious system - when they do not act i accordance with it- they can easily be identified as acting hypocritically-

if one doesnt have a codified ethic system-(that is measurable publicly) we would all probably measure their sincerity of purpose through our OWN religious (or moral) yardsticks whatever they may be-

it might make some people uncomfortable as they dont really have any way to gauge a persons moral compass- (from their own perception)

atheists may consider this a tenable insecurity that might preclude theists from knowing where they (hypothetical atheist candidates) stand or will stand on issues of importance-

while it is easy to mock or invalidate in ones mind the intelligence of the religious- is is not wise politics and could alienate the people who would have the power to vote one into any office.
(as the majority of americans are identified statistically as theists)

as a muslim- i find myself constantly defining my beliefs to the majority of non-muslims that simply are misinformed about what islam actually is-

it requires a great deal of patience and repeating myself and showing RESPECT for those who are open minded enough to learn-

atheists must also show this common respect in their dealings with theists-
and realize that many people simply dont know what atheists believe and hence their fear or hesitancy-

it is work- but if one lives in a society where one is in the minority- sometimes the extra effort is necessary.
and as pointed ou by the panelist- this country IS heavily identified with its religious self definition-
salaams

Up here in northern New England, it's considered bad form, inappropriate, and reprehensible for a political candidate to talk about his religious affiliation and religious beliefs. Any candidate who does talk about them is almost certain to lose more votes than he gains.

There are good reasons for this Yankee disparagement of religion-talk by politicians.

First, political campaigns are supposed to be about public political issues, not theology.

Second, whatever a candidate's religious beliefs or affiliation, knowing them will tell the voter nothing about how the candidate will deal with particular issues, and so that knowledge is irrelevant to an evaluation of his candidacy.

Third, a candidate's mentioning his religious beliefs or affiliation turns the discussion away from public issues and to a debate on the merits of various religions. The candidate is basically saying. "Vote for me, I'm a (for example) Catholic, not one of those (for example) Blue-nosed Protestants."

Instead of debating the best way to fix potholes, the debate becomes "Which ethnic or social group do you identify and feel more comfortable with?" This is not good for politics, as centuries of religious warfare have shown. Not to mention that fixing potholes never gets discussed.

Fourth, just as patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, religiosity is the last refuge of scoundrel politicians.

I'll never vote for any politician who voluntarily starts talking about his religion. Fortunately most of the people in northern New England feel the same way.

Let the clap-trap of political religion-talk stay in the Bible-belt.

You don't sound too saddened by this dismal state of affairs you're describing. It must be comforting to know that our society has come to this.

You said this:

"Of course, an important caveat is this: Expressions of religious faith by candidates must be sincere, genuine, and authentic. Otherwise they will be perceived as politically calculating and will backfire."

Who gets to judge the candidate's religious piety? You? Or does each Jew, Muslim, Catholic, Hindu, etc., get to vote based on their comfort level with the candidate religious ferver?

Would you call this an irrational religious litmus test for high office?

I think you're wrong. I suggest this is the last president who will get away with this sort of cheap pandering to the lowest common denominator among the electorate.

Don't you hope I'm right?

Thank you.