Guidelines for Candidates to Avoid Abusing Religion

xbkpcujag wqgfcdbn pfeyozuk gonbp zurlo dpltsr xztwj

xbkpcujag wqgfcdbn pfeyozuk gonbp zurlo dpltsr xztwj

hpxvidz upmj yghpok apeiogb xaju dsjfnq bukzo

Is members of the Christian Religion expecting Jesus to return to Earth? Why are they involved in Killing and polluting their planet with nuclear bombs. Is this the planet God and Jesus made, and we were to be the Caretakers?

Do we really want them to return to such a dirty planet with our Eco System about destroyed, nuclear bombs planted on land and sea, and wars and rumors of wars the lifestyle today? Does Christians pre-emptive war in Iraq, really show God and Jesus how we follow their rules for us, on how to Live?

Peace when there is no peace, does not make war right for Christians. Is it Time to start cleaning up our Home and get ready for our visitors?

Peace.

Is it religious beliefs or resources, that has the USA in Iraq? Iraq did not terrorize us.

K.C. Star, 1/29/07. "Despite risks, contracting positions get filled quickly" Houston -
"Laboring in a war with no discernible front line, more than 770 civilian contractors have died in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion began in March 2003. Fatalities for American firms escalated rapidly late last year, with at least 301 dying in 2006 - including 124 in the last three months.

Star, 1/29/07. Baghdad - Iran's ambassador to Baghdad outlined an ambitious plan on Sunday to greatly expand its economic and military ties with Iraq. The proposal - including an Iranian national bank branch in the heart of the capital - will almost certainly bring Iran into further conflict with American forces who have detained several Iranian operatives here in recent weeks. The ambassador, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, said Iran was prepared to offer Iraqi forces training, equipment and advisers for what he called "the security fight". In the economic area, Qumi said, Iran was ready to assume major responsibility for the reconstruction of Iraq, an area of notable failure on the part of the United States."

This would be a good reason for our troops and contractors to come home, after the USA deaths are more than 9/11. Unless there is more to the war, than setting up a new government, which does not look like it is wanted, after 4 years. Who is making all the money off the oil involved? Iraq or Big Oil Business? Iraq does not seem to have very much money.

Rabbi Saperstein, short, sweet, and to the point: Optional Religious Disclosure when announcing candidacy. Separation of Church and State. Representatives are free to discuss as they choose, but the further they stray from the time tested doctrines of Separation, the more skepticism should be accorded them. Taboo is usually long established for good reason. There must be equally meritorius reason(s) for breaking taboo tradition. imho. God Bless you and yours Rabbi. Thank you for sharing your considered views with other learned Faithful. Probably the best reason to adhere to the K.I.S.S. principal, that is Keep It Short Sweet is some deceptive situations depend upon speed and bullying for compliance.

Ann O.,

I'm glad that I'm not the only one with this WaPo internet problem. I think it's got to be the WaPo's problem. I know nothing of the details of internet workings, but WaPo's been the worst site I've ever encountered over several years, and it's getting worse all the time. They must know about the problem - why doesn't WaPo do something? Maybe they don't want to spend the money to get sufficient capacity or speed of some kind.

Regards.

NORRIE says: QUESTION: DO YOU FIND, AS I DO, THAT THE WAPO HAS THE MOST INEFFICIENT SITE IN CYPERSPACE?

ANN O. replies: I find it very erratic. Sometimes a post appears in a flash, but sometimes it takes a long time, almost a day. I have a Mac and I often have odd things happen like that, so I figured that's my problem, but maybe not.

Ann O.

Patricia and others,

SORRY TO HAVE TRIPLE POSTED. My computer screen said my post hadn't gone through, so I posted again, with the same result - hence the third post. Apologies.

QUESTION: DO YOU FIND, AS I DO, THAT THE WAPO HAS THE MOST INEFFICIENT SITE IN CYPERSPACE? IT TAKES FOREVER FOR ITS PAGE IMAGES TO LOAD AND CHANGE? I HAVE A SATELLITE CONNECTION BUT THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM - THE NY TIMES IS JUST FINE.

IT'S BEEN THIS WAY FOR YEARS, WITH DIFFERENT COMPUTERS AND INTERNET ACCESS, BUT LATELY IT'S GOTTEN MUCH WORSE.

WAPO: IF YOU READ THESE POSTS, PLEASE DO SOMETHING! THANK YOU.

Patricia,

Northern New England, despite its voters' lack of interest in its political candidates' religious beliefs, is, paradoxically perhaps, "God's Country".

Religious affiliations of candidates here are certainly known - it's just that we don't want our candidates to talk religion-speak and try to use their religion for political gain.

Vermont's new Senator, Bernie Sanders, has no known religious affiliation and is widely thought to have no religious (as opposed to moral and ethical) beliefs. He got more than 60% of the vote in November. So much for Bill Press's statement in his current "Panelist View" that a non-believer can't win an office higher than sewer manager.

You say that in the Heartland you need to know a candidate's beliefs so you can predict his future actions. Did George Bush's proclamation of his Born Again status lead you to believe that he would be a torture enthusiast? What would Jesus say?

P.S.: I was born in the Heartland (Illinois) and identified with it in my youth (my mother came from Minnesota, grandmother from South Dakota). Lots of nice people there, and they speak better English than the rest of the country.

Patricia,

Northern New England, despite its voters' lack of interest in its political candidates' religious beliefs, is, paradoxically perhaps, "God's Country".

Religious affiliations of candidates here are certainly known - it's just that we don't want our candidates to talk religion-speak and try to use their religion for political gain.

Vermont's new Senator, Bernie Sanders, has no known religious affiliation and is widely thought to have no religious (as opposed to moral and ethical) beliefs. He got more than 60% of the vote in November. So much for Bill Press's statement in his current "Panelist View" that a non-believer can't win an office higher than sewer manager.

You say that in the Heartland you need to know a candidate's beliefs so you can predict his future actions. Did George Bush's proclamation of his Born Again status lead you to believe that he would be a torture enthusiast? What would Jesus say?

P.S.: I was born in the Heartland (Illinois) and identified with it in my youth (my mother came from Minnesota, grandmother from South Dakota). Lots of nice people there, and they speak better English than the rest of the country.

Patricia,

Northern New England, despite its voters' lack of interest in its political candidates' religious beliefs, is, paradoxically perhaps, "God's Country".

Religious affiliations of candidates here are certainly known - it's just that we don't want our candidates to talk religion-speak and try to use their religion for political gain.

Vermont's new Senator, Bernie Sanders, has no known religious affiliation and is widely thought to have no religious (as opposed to moral and ethical) beliefs. He got more than 60% of the vote in November. So much for Bill Press's statement in his current "Panelist View" that a non-believer can't win an office higher than sewer manager.

You say that in the Heartland you need to know a candidate's beliefs so you can predict his future actions. Did George Bush's proclamation of his Born Again status lead you to believe that he would be a torture enthusiast? What would Jesus say?

P.S.: I was born in the Heartland (Illinois) and identified with it in my youth (my mother came from Minnesota, grandmother from South Dakota). Lots of nice people there, and they speak better English than the rest of the country.

Religion these days is used to carry out political smear campaigns.

Just look at recent (and now completely discredited) Fox News reports on Barrack Obama. Even if the reports were true (and they turn out to be deliberate lies) so what? The perpetrators know that they are tapping into a deep vein of prejudice to attack someone they fear.

Religion is a very very negative force in American politics.

In a perfect world, Norrie Hoyt, which northern New England may be, there is no for information about a politician's religious affiliations.

However, here in the Heartland, it's important to know so as to assess alignments and predict future voting actions.

To be frank, it reveals ulterior motives and undesirable prejudices.

BA'AL, and anyone else that is interested in High Tech Science Colonization of a planet, my web site, Eternal Physical Life, has this in the Creation section.

http://home.kc.rr.com/hightech/home.html

Peace.

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.

BA'AL.
High Tech Science Colonization is done by Intelligent Humans so the 6 Days of Creation were done by Intelligent Design by our High Tech Ancestors. With Space travel time, Each Day was 1000 years. So the Creation took 6000 years, not 6 Earth Days.

Now Fallen Man has been destroying our HTAs Balanced Eco System for 6000 years, and we are about the destroy the Eco System and all Life on Earth, with our Pollution, Global Warming, and Nuclear bombs.

Intelligent Design people do not use High Tech Science as an explanation for their Intelligent Design, but the 6 Days of Creation is an understandable blue-print to Colonize a planet. Life may have evolved somewhere in space up to High Tech Pure-bred Humans, and they Colonized Earth. Life on Earth did not evolve.

Earth was not here first with Life, before the Universes.

Peace.

If a candidate takes concrete positions on a wide range of issues the voter has everything they need to know. That should be more than sufficient to determine if you agree with them or not. What tends to happen in practice is that deeply religious people make up their minds on the basis of policy positions and then find religious reasons to support or reject a candidate after the fact. I mean, come on -- do any of you really believe Ronald Reagan was a born again Christian?

One thing you said did make me question that a bit though: I would most definitely want to know if a candidate was a supporter of Intelligent Design so I could vote against them. Fortunately, most of the people in that camp are very outgoing with the religious rhetoric. That particular type of wacko is usually not stealthy.

Saperstein's guidelines are basically good as partial attempts to balance religious beliefs with reason. However, he avoids two really important questions in political campaigning, "What should be the relationship between candidates and churches?" AND "What should be the relationship between candidates and religious lobbies?"

In Kansas, we lived through Attorney General Phill Kline's re-election memo to get him into pulpits and we've watched as many church-candidate relationships devolve into essentially church sponsored campaigns.

Saperstein is also completely avoiding the issue of religious politicization of candidates by political lobbies, which begin forging relationships before the election. He does not suggest that candidates openly reveal relationships they may have with those lobbies.

Saperstein also decries requiring a candidate to apply a religious test but as a religion's lobbyist, I'm betting that he applies one. It's just behind the scenes and under the table.

Institutionalized religion is a powerful lobby in Washington today. I wonder what political life in Washington would be like without religion (not religious) lobbyists? Just wondering.

Eternal Pure-bred Physical Life is possible in a High Tech Science Human Society. Is there really life as we know it After Death, the result of religious teachings about our High Tech Pure-bred Ancestors, after Humans fell to Body Birth?

Many Governments and Religions are a product of the Original Sin of Humans. Until we understand the mystery of why we are on Planet Earth, and why we lie and kill, religion cannot give anyone a reason to be truthful. Mouth worship in temples made by Human hands does not make people truthful. Especially in politics.

We know we are of the Human Species. We are up to the High Tech Science knowledge to know Humans can fly in Space, and how we would go about Colonizing another planet. The same Equal Sharing Lifestyle lived in spaceships, are lived on planets. How can Unequal Sharing Humans that kill on a planet, live an Equal Sharing Lifestyle for long periods in spaceships?

The Christian Bible is made up of many different writings from many past religions and with the Christians religion of today. In Genesis, the Creation of Human Life on Earth has the steps of how to Colonize a Planet, not the Creation of the Universe.

In the past people thought the Universe, sun, moon, and stars, were Created on Day 4. Our sun and stars are the same thing. How long have we known our Sun was a star? How could a planet have an Eco System set up, and grass, trees, on Days 1-3, and then have the Universe created on Day 4? We know today, with our High Tech Science knowledge, that is not possible.

The writings have supernatural Gods, that look Human that Created this Life, along with fish, fowl, animals and humans. A male human was created supernaturally, and the female was made from the male rib. This made a male and female Clone Soulmate. Male and female Clones were Equal Helpmeets, not mates.

In High Tech Science reproduction, there is no sex or marriage, and no Mis-bred Humans. All Clones are Equal and have one Government, and one set of Rules for the whole planet, and travel in Spaceships, and Colonize other planets. For some unknown reason the new Colony 'fell' to Heterosexual Body Birth, and Mis-bred humans have been made by Mis-bred Body Birth, Unequally, like Cain and Abel ever since.

In the past, Humans lost this High Tech Science knowledge, and have religions and Holy Books about the supernatural Gods that look like Humans. High Tech Science is 'super'natural.

Today we know with High Tech Science the steps to be taken to Colonize a planet would follow the 6 Days of Creation. And we also have the High Tech Science knowledge on how to reproduce Humans supernaturally by High Tech Science. We do join the seed in a dish, and correct a few genetic deseases, and then put the fetus in the female womb. This still causes birth damage and death to the female and child.

The sex act is not necessary for reproduction on Earth today. We need to make a High Tech Science Womb, and Humans can again 'create' Pure-bred Humans again, like Adam and Eve, by watching the process in a High Tech Womb, and removing all flesh lusts and genetic diseases in the process.

This is how our Human High Tech Ancestors, called Man Gods in religion and myth, Colonized Earth with a Balanced Eco System, and reproduced all the Life forms, and Pure-bred Human Clones 'in the beginning', of Life as we know it on Earth.

The Original Humans, 'fell' to Heterosexual Mis-bred Body Birth, for reasons still unknown. Since Cain and Abel, all Humans on Earth were born in Mis-bred Bodies that had the flesh lusts, and we know the rest of the history of Inherited Genetic Defects and Killing on Earth. All the problems Humans have had ever since. Heterosexual Mis-bred reproduction is the Original Sin of Pure-bred Humans, and politicians are just one of the many categories of defective Humans.

No one born by Body Birth can completely tell the truth, nor can politicians. Look at all the problems that all governments and religions have, because of all the defects and lying in all people.

Religion was started as a crutch to help people live in these Mis-bred bodies, and no one knows what defects the seed that make them contained. Some get different sexual preferences, some get more defective killing genetics like Cain, and become killers, some get talents and succeed in making money.

Another Evil is a monetary basis for all the necessities that leads human to lie and cheat to get the basic food, housing, clothing, etc. Jesus brought the teaching of Sharing All Things In Common that the early Christians practiced, but this 'Common'ism Lifestyle did not continue. Since Humans have tried different Commonustic Lifestyles, but they do not succeed with a monetary basis.

Life is for the Living, not the Dead, and can be had in a Pure-bred High Tech Science Lifestyle of Equal Birth and Equal Sharing of the Resources on Spaceship planets and in spaceships. It is time for Spaceship Earth to return to its roots, before our Killer Nature, blows up our planeet with our nuclear bombs planted on land and sea.

United We Live - Divided We Die

I think you have a good point that what a person believes is indicative of their nature, and we need to know their nature if we're going to elect them to represent us.

However, I don't believe that what religion a person says he joined actually tells us much about what decisions he will make. Two examples - pretty much every pres in the past (except Lincoln & Jefferson) has claimed Christianity as their religion. But most of them have sent troops to die in wars, while Jesus refused to take sides in wars. Bush & most Republicans refuse to "give alms to the poor", except when it is politically expedient, & even then they try not to. Many Republicans would completely dismantle the social programs that are already in place, if they could.

It worries me when someone actually says God or Jesus is on their side with certainty. Jesus died 2000 yrs ago, & God - well, that is not even an issue - unless they hear voices, of course.

Religion can help us form our value system. We use everything that we come across to help us make sense of the world. Religion affects our emotions, our ability to make decisions, and at our core, our value systems. We decide what is good & bad based on not only what we feel, but what other people feel & think & say. Religions give people contact with other people's value systems, which can promote changes in one's own value system. But people don't adopt wholesale another's value system, not usually. If they did, for instance, every person who proclaims him/herself a Christian would sell all they have & live on the street like a Mother Theresa, caring for the worst-off around them. But they don't.

I think in the end, it's as my great-aunt told me when she found out I was doing genealogical research on my family. I asked her a question about an ancestor, & she said the past didn't interest her, that only the present & future mattered. "It is by our fruits that we shall be known, not by our roots", she said very emphatically. And I agree, it is by our fruits that we will be known. But it's also our past that stays with us, that is never completely erased, that makes us create our "fruits". Most people do not become completely reborn, even when they adopt a new religion.

That is why, to me, religion is never the answer to who a person is.

Rabbi Saperstein,

You wrote: "Could you really understand George Bush, Bill Clinton, or Joe Lieberman without understanding how religion shaped their lives?

Yes, absolutely. I understand them totally as political beings without any reference at all to the place of religion, if any, in their lives.

Joe Lieberman's milieu has produced many wonderful people, but he is a narcissistic, arrogant, pompous jerk who is totally self-centered. How is knowing "how religion shaped his life" going to help me understand those attributes any better?

There are some thoughtful "born again" Christians. George Bush shares many of Joe Lieberman's traits, but is also thoughtless and effectively brain-dead. What's his religion got to do with that?

Bill Clinton's stated (but is it real?) religious affiliation has a number of things in common with George Bush's, but what a world of political difference!

Rabbi, I'm afraid that this time you're barking up the the wrong tree.

BOB - you're ahead of me again. Let me finish your job.

"Issues like school prayer..." I'll play that game. Who's version of Devil worship shall we treat the children to anyhow? I can't argue against it. Faith moves mountains so they say. It clearly knocks down tall buildings and ruins people's lives, the one's it doesn't kill.

Before further union of church and state I insist that the public be informed that the sacred scriptures are one of two things. It's multiple choice. Either the Bible is a hoax. That's the best choice in my opinion but I only get one vote.

Then there's, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul that proves Moses sold his soul to Devil. That's assuming the Bible is not a hoax and is the word of a supernatural being. It answers the question, which one was it, God or Devil. The overwhelming evidence says it's Devil.

So issues like "school prayer" and tax supported education at "Devil indoctrinating schools" should be debated with ALL the facts on the table.

If you're going to bring sacred scriptures into government then don't be surprised when they are attacked by the government, of, for and by the people. This is not yet majority rule and will require a bloody civil war to make it that way. Same thing going on in Iraq I understand, who's version of what the sacred scriptures actually say will be the law of the land. None is the answer for the USA when the constitution is protected and defended as sworn to by all public officials.

RABBI SAPERSTEIN tells us: First, in discussing policy, it is inappropriate to suggest that one should support or oppose a policy solely because of religious beliefs. Something that must be taken by faith alone does not allow itself to be tested in the free marketplace of ideas, a quality that is essential for democracy to work and for any kind of meaningful public policy debate to take place.

ANN O. comments: This is a crucial point, I think, when we are trying to discover what is relevant in political discussions and what is not. A belief that is *purely* a matter of revealed religion and which is NOT a matter of common experience is NOT, I think, an appropriate basis for a political decision.

But it is also true that some principles of religious belief overlap with moral principles gained from common human experience. For instance, Jews, Christians and Muslims, accept the commandment "Though shalt not kill" on the basis of the Bible, but most of us *also* accept this principle based on our common experience of human living. This principle is a matter of *both* faith and reason, and this is why some matters of belief are also appropriate matters for political debate. And just because a person happens to accept that principle solely on the basis of revelation is no reason to eliminate the topic from public debate.

The test should be: can this principle be known through common human experience?

This distinction is ultimately the distinction between faith and reason. They need not be opposed

ISTM that this is also why it ss important to know a candidates religious beliefs -- they might also be appropriate topics for political debate.

Ann O.

Any candidate's first and most strident statement regarding their faith should be that it will not influence their secular decisions. I have heard it said that "freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion," but I dispute that assertion: I say we have the rights and liberties we claim and exercise, and I claim the right to be free of religion - yours, the president's, and anyone else's. I say further that we lose those liberties which we fail to defend and allow to languish - and offer as proof the constant, sinister erosion of our civil liberties as residents and citizens of the U.S. purportedly in pursuit of security.

"First, in discussing policy, it is inappropriate to suggest that one should support or oppose a policy solely because of religious beliefs."

Great stuff, your guidelines are. Let's look at the examples you selected:

George Bush, born again fundamentalist on a crusade (for oil and Jesus) which god told him he will win. Will reshape American government to fit his beliefs.

He fails your test.

Joe Liberman, a nice guy who agrees with Bush's monstrous failure in Iraq because it's good for Israel. He will shape foreign policy to fit his beliefs.

He fails your test.

Bill Clinton, good old boy, fake piety, just havin' fun, can always have breakfast with ministers who will pray with him.

He fails your test.

"If candidates hewed to these guidelines, discussion of religion in our elections could illuminate candidates and policy rather than be, as they are so often these days, a source of discord and division."

It's not possible to illuminate anything through irrationalism.
Thank you.