The Democratic National Convention or Revival?

The government can't require a religious test, but the people have been doing that since they came to this continent. The Democrats have finally realized this. However I expect they will overdo it. At some point it quits becoming a display of faith and moves into a caricature of faith.

No religious test is required, not by the constitution anyway, it's not written down anywhere.
But the great American electorate certainly has religious tests.

1) You have to be religious, or you're out.
2) you have to be christian, or you're out.
3) you have to be the right kind of christian, or you're out.

Given the never ending count of denominations and mutually-heretical competitors for the description of "real christian" within the christian taxonomy, the two parties have to reach for bumper sticker sloganeering to rise above it all, in the hope that the believer electorate will spend all their time worried about (1) and (2), and forget about (3).

As well, believers are fed what they believe. There is a real tendency to follow what their parents and neighbors do, rather than endure and consideration of the viability of the ridiculous premises upon which all theistic faiths are based.

It's all an emotional response anyway, a set of comforting delusions to salve the painful knowledge of their ignorance. Give them easy to remember slogans, tell them how they can say that they love their enemy while at the same time giving them just cause to hate their opponents.

Thoughtful consideration is a complex process, often revealing a poor choice among poor choices as the only answer. Give the believers a 5th of faith, and they'll vote you in every time.

Right . . . and the American communist party filled their halls with U.S. flags. This is simply more form without substance.

The very fact that the authors question the discussion of faith in politics suggests they are liberals trying to limit the power of faith in American life.

Americans are a religious people. People came to this land because it offered religious freedom. Americans want to know that their President is beholden to a higher power. Those leaders in the last century who were not men of God killed tens of millions of people.

The smear on Rove is uncalled for. The destruction of human life in the womb is an issue for the ages. It will never go away as long as women exercize their recently-created right to slaughter children before they are born. Many people in this country feel that an abortion mill is the moral equivalent of a death camp. They don't want one in their state, much less in their neighborhood.

OPA,

Neither McCain or Obama have reached so far as to declare that they are God's Chosen One. Both candidates have given evidence of how their faith has formed them and hints that faith will inform their decisions if elected President. As for your ill-informed conclusions about people of faith I invite you to services where I am the pastor in North Carolina. We don't claim to know all the answers. Sometimes, I don't even know all the questions. We just believe that living a life formed by the core beliefs of the Bible informed by centuries of Christian tradition explained in the light of our culture and informed by our experience in today's world gives us the ability to live life abundantly. We invite cynics, atheists, agnostics, and seekers to come and see what God has given us and will give you if that is your heart's desire.

Blind faith in religion is one of the most ungodliest of acts. I'm still stunned by how well some people around now would fit in well in the Barbarian Europe from centuries ago.

A question: whotheheck appointed "evangelicals," whoever the heck THEY are, to be the arbiters of American life and American values? Whose "base" is this? Not mine! Most of the people I know are not Bible-toting, slogan-screeching, doomsday-threatening, astonishingly shallow and narrow-minded individuals, but thoughtful citizens, most church-going, who are pillars of the community, sensible and thoughtful, who don't engage in public religious hysteria. There is a reason that the 1st Amendment allows the free exercise of religion, because implicit in that is the idea that the rest of us can be free from the religious zealotry of others, however well-intentioned. I don't need some Bible-thumper to tell me what's right or wrong, I don't need some religious zealot to impose upon me his sense of virtue or his notion of proper political thinking. Theocracies never work, ever: the last thing we need in this country is a political process careening out of control because the religious nutcase right, smugly secure in their sense of invincible rectitude because "Gawd" don' tol' them what to do/say/think, believes they are entitled to have the final word in selecting a president. Obama, many of Warren's questions were entirely inappropriate for that forum, and I cannot imagine why you thought you had to respond. McCain, did you say anything meaningful beyond the practiced and well-rehearsed one-line responses to astonishingly complex questions, evidently uttered to ingratiate yourself with these people? Shame upon any candidate to panders -- panders -- to these people to get himself elected!

If anyone wants to know the real Obama and just how self serving he is then read this article: http://tinyurl.com/5gubz6 He lets his own brother live in squalor (on ONE DOLLAR A MONTH!) in the slums of Kenya while he earns over a million dollars a year. Where the heck is his humanity for his own flesh and blood? Obama is a phony plain and simple. I can't see how anybody could vote for this selfish a person. I'm ashamed for this country for having this hypocritical person as the Democratic nominee.

Kennedy in 1960 told those Baptist bigots gathered in Texas that he would not take orders from the Pope. Now candidates are submitting to Inquisitors and promising anything they want. We have come a long way into stupidity and ignorance.

If anyone wants to know the real Obama and just how self serving he is then read this article: http://tinyurl.com/5gubz6 He lets his own brother live in squalor (on ONE DOLLAR A MONTH!) in the slums of Kenya while he earns over a million dollars a year. Where the heck is his humanity for his own flesh and blood? Obama is a phony plain and simple. I can't see how anybody could vote for this selfish a person. I'm ashamed for this country for having this hypocritical person as the Democratic nominee.

Atten: David Waters. Re: Your column of 08-20-08. Any debate about religion wil be futile,
unless we hear the truth directly from God. Otherwise, we are depending on interpretation of the bible by imperfect humans. However, our attempt to follow the meaning of Christian living can only be of benefit to our nation, and its people.In the meantime, "God Bless this Nation".

Rev. jh, I find religion to be a silly waste of time, and as much as I'd like to see our species free of this nonsense I'm also dead set against anybody forcing it to happen.

Religion is none of my business, I'd like to keep it that way, as a matter of personal respect.
I find the religious command to proselytize however violates that respect, it assumes the believer has a right to bother me with his nonsense.

If you stay in your neighborhood, and you help your flock, your people, do what you can to make the world a better place ... I never have anything to say about that. As soon as you start demanding that I listen to your religious rules and that your religious tenets become laws .. then you've crossed the line.

You say it's real, I say it's delusional, let's leave it that way ok?

Barack Obama's 'lost' brother found in Kenya

”Senator Barack Obama's long lost brother has been tracked down for the first time living in a shanty town in Kenya, reports claimed.”

Obama met his brother in 2006. That’s just two years ago. His brother is currently living in a shanty town on about a dollar a month.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2590614/Barack-Obamas-lost-brother-found-in-Kenya.html

So this is compassion? This is The Messiah that is going to unite the world?

When it comes to his own money, Obama doesn’t even have enough compassion to help his own brother. Now when comes to your money, of course, he can be most generous.

No, he’s not an empty suit. He’s a liar and a hypocrite.

THEDUKE, my ancestors were among the first to come to America from Europe, settling in the Virginia tidewater in the early 1600s, and they did not come here for religious freedeom - they came here to make money.

I'm surprised there aren't more questions from Christians about the beer-brewing McCains.

I wonder if "homesower" thinks it is a caricature of faith when Republicans make a great show of their faith, like say, McCain, a lifelong Episcopalian, suddenly becoming a Baptist when he runs for President, although he has had to admit that he doesn't attend a church when in Washington.

the puritans didn't come here in the 1600's to practice religious freedom - they came here to escape religious oppression at home and to practice religious oppression here.

as an atheist i truly object to the religious take over of both parties...rev warren notwithstanding...there should be separation of church and state and no religion in politics...we are moral, ethical people, loyal to the democratic party...but the party is not loyal to us...

BETTER BE CAREFUL OR TOO MANY ATHEISTS MAY NOT GO TO THE POLLS IN NOVEMBER....DO NOT BE SO SURE OF OUR VOTES.....

"THEDUKE" states that "Those leaders in the last century who were not men of God killed tens of millions of people." It was a Christian nation, Germany, aided by other Christian nations, that killed millions of Jewish people last century. Its leaders bear much of the responsibility, of course, but the Nazis came into power in 1933 through an election and subsequent alliances with other political parties. It was a Christian people that voted the Nazis into office, supported their efforts to separate and isolate Germany's Jews through the 1930s, and either supported -- or failed to denounce -- Germany's mass murder of the civilian Jewish populations in the neighboring Christian nations invaded by Germany.

It appears that THEDUKE believes that secular humanists, or some other label for the reality-based, were responsible for the Holocaust. One reason our Constitution has the "no religious test" clause is to keep "faith" (select another euphemism, if you like) out of politics to reduce the possibility that the demonization of non-believers (a by-product of faith) becomes government policy.

When you consider that Bush won largely by mobilizing through churches, why are you surprised that candidates suddenly got religion? If Bush had won by mobilizing the homeless, Obama and McCain would be sleeping in refrigerator boxes.

What happened to separation of church and state?

Do we have to settle for these weak-willed fools who pander to radical Christian theology rather than telling the American people that in order to represent all the people, the Constitution prohibits them from letting their particular religious views influence decisions and policy?

Have Americans have become so fat, lazy and stupid that they are willing to give up a fundamental principle upon which their rights are secured?

Are Americans happy to be ignorant of the differences between religious myth, morality and human rights?

Are Americans no longer capable of the intellectual vigilance required to reject a self-serving theocracy and maintain a constitutional democracy with the goal of equal freedom for all?

This is what I call pimping religion.

whatawonderfulworld, stop pushing your atheistic beliefs on all the people of faith.

This is a sad commentary on where politics have gone.

There should be a clean separation between church and state. I will be at the Democratic Convention but I assure you I will not be attending inter-faith service.

I believe that this is clear pandering and not what Barack Obama does on a regular basis. After all he claims he didn't go to any of the sermons that the Reverand Wright gave that were at all controversial so I am assuming he rarely went to church at all.

Obama will not get the evangelical vote because he is pro-choice and couldn't even give an answer as to when he believes life begins. So stop the pandering.

Americans are as dumb as rocks, to allow the evangelicals to make personal faith a requirement for election. That's what they have done. The conservatives and the evangelicals are destroying democracy in this country. Goodbye, America, the home of the free.

Religion is the root of all evil in this world.

AMA wrote: "It appears that THEDUKE believes that secular humanists, or some other label for the reality-based, were responsible for the Holocaust."

That is what is called a non-sequitur in the study of logic. I know who was responsible for the Holocaust and the genocide in the USSR and China. They are called national socialists and communists. They were essentially godless people. The communists were devout atheists. The Nazis essentially infiltrated the churches and killed those who opposed their rule. Only churches that embraced national socialism were left. It was a condition for their continued survival. Many of those who were killed in the Holocaust were Christian dissenters.

It is true that Hitler's anti-Semitism was fed to him through the church. But it was only after anti-Semitism was mixed with socialism and eugenics (the "settled science" of the 30s) that it became a killing machine in a peculiarly German kind of way.

Peter,
Why criticize Obama for saying he doesn't know when life begins? NO ONE knows that! What would you prefer? John McCain's pandering stump-speech reply? I've had enough of dim-witted presidents who make fun of nuance and "professorial" minds.

Anonymous makes many idiotic statements regularly. There is no such thing as a devout atheist, devout is a word one uses for true believers, particularly christians - it's a word they use to describe themselves. Devout nazis, devout communists, and devout christians.

The communists and nazis were as much a bunch of true believers as any christian. It isn't just what is believed. It is the blind faith that is the disease, that which animates the religious hysteria among Anonymous and his kind also animated the nazis and the communists.

There is a great deal of frustrated hatred brewing in Anonymous, we need not look far for a finer example of the modern evangelical, how they think, how far they'll be willing to go to kill off the hated enemy.

Anonymus:
(referring to the Nazis) You said that "only churches that embraced national socialism" were not destroyed.
Given that, don't you see a parallel, and doesn't it worry you that only those churches, or ministers, or congregatons that "embrace" the GOP and their "values" are deemed "real Americans"? Others are "godless," "secular humanists," or "unAmerican."
Don't you see the danger?

What did we expect? If you check out the July 20th issue of the NY Times Sunday Magazine, there is a story about Leah Daughtry (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/magazine/20minister-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin), who is the CEO of the Democratic Convention. She was deliberately placed there to try to capture the evangelical vote. She's a Pentecostal pastor, which I consider to be an extreme religion. I was hoping that the Democrats wouldn't go down this road. Once the Democrats start to compromise their core principles (separation of church and state), they become nothing more than marketing execs.

Have no fear. All this demonstrates is the Democrats are acknowledging and not ignoring and/or disparaging that religious practice plays an important role in the lives of millions of American voters. If it's any consolation to progressives, the Democrats' choice to treat evangelicals as citizens and not as nuisances or enemies this year will make this moderate evangelical voter more likely to vote for Obama in the fall.

Jody, do you really think the democrats are doing anything other than seeking to acquire the successful pandering skills of the republicans?

Do you really, honestly, abjectly believe that either of these parties gives a damn about what you believe?

They don't care any more than I do. Your belief is a like a ring you've placed in your own nose, a collar around your neck. The right words said with the correct smarmy tone about what a wonderful person you are for being a christian ... you walk right up to them, present that ring in your nose, and they hook you up in line.

You think this is about what it is that you believe, you see it as validation of that belief - well it's not, it's taking advantage of your inability and perhaps even unwillingness to see the difference.

As Kathleen Parker says elsewhere, Thomas Jefferson would not have passed today's faith tests that are being administered to our candidates.

It all makes me want to throw up!

I have a Pentacostal minister brother who drives me nuts with his unreasoned faith. And the fact that we permit him to teach in a Christian school (a US version of the madras?)is terrifying.

Now we want non-thinking people to be in charge of running the country. What happened to America's appreciation of thought provoking education and reasoned dialogue. Have we all been Bush-whacked?

Undercut The Constitution with the FISA vote.

Pander to the religionistas by promising federal support of faith based crap.

Get 60 million bucks or so for the convention from lobbyists.

Load up those church buses.

Dash to Denver singing "Kumbya...."

Keep the protesters in a corral.

Rah-rah stadium party.

Dash home singing "Everything's gonna be all right...."

Back to ignoring and undercutting The Constitution and Progressive principles.

Obama, Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Axelrod, Goolsbee, Brazile, et al. are far more dangerous than McCain, Pelosi, Reid, ....

Regarding this:

"As On Faith panelist Susan Jacoby points out in her latest post, "Article VI of the U.S. Constitution declares that 'no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.'

So why do both candidates and both parties feel so compelled to pass one this year?"
=============================================

So what? It is the ELECTORATE posing this test. Not the government. The Constitution is the ducument that tells the GOVERNMENT what to do. It does not tell the VOTER what to do. This is a Democracy and we can vote for who ever we want. We can impose whatever tests our conscience dictate to us.

So there.

And then some.

Let's hope this pandering by the democrats marks the end of the road for this kind of thing.

The nazis would never have come to power if enough people spoke against them in the early days.

Now is the time to speak against the party pandering to the evangelicals. Now is the time to speak against the evangelicals as well.

Anonymous states that "It is true that Hitler's anti-Semitism was fed to him through the church." I think that this statement applies to all who participated in the Holocaust, whether or not they later renounced their church's teachings and became "godless people." Christianity, through its anti-Semitism, provided the Nazis with the "demon" to be blamed for Germany's and Europe's problems. The Nazi's social engineering solution (mass murder) to this problem seems extreme to us, but we do see genocidal activity in other parts of the world today. I wonder whether any of it (Rwanda, Darfur) was/is justified on religious grounds.

In any event, one danger I see in the increasing evangelism of our politics is that, once firmly in power (see 1930s Germany), they will demonize the non-believers whose mere existence purportedly delays the messiah's return.

Anyone who carefully reads the Bible or studies history will find that faith and politics are like water and oil. Constantine's ruling Christian faith was in fact, worldly politics dressed in a Pope's robe. Jesus told pilot "My Kingdom is not of the world," because he knew full well that no human government could really follow in his footsteps. Would Jesus declare war or support a system that cuddled the rich while debasing the poor? Think of the different social status we give to military service as opposed to those on welfare.

The danger of combining church and state is that the state convinces people it is the church. Let the political parties talk about faith and then let's see how their faithfulness translates into reforming their politics. Jesus never forced anybody to believe in anything.

One thing is for certain: a Christian could not possibly be a Republican.

Thats for sure. If a religion does not give a manual how to run state affairs, then democracy is the only choice. This is valid as far as non-muslims are concerned. But for Muslims, Islam has given the problem of each and every problem of a human being. The people of the world are being grinded gruesomely by the jaws of Capitalism and Islam is the only alternate that is implemented via the Caliphate.

Monty says:

"Jesus told Pilate "My Kingdom is not of the world," because he knew full well that no human government could really follow in his footsteps."

Thanks, Monty, you rock! The State is not in the business of legislating private morality. The State is not and should not be bound by morality. The State is only bound to act for the common benefit of its citizens. Only Utilitarianism - "the greatest good for the greatest number" can guide the State.

"What happened to separation of church and state?"

What happened is that politicians realized that their chance of getting elected increases greatly when they cater to religious groups. People vote for politicians who are most inline with their own issues - and for many Americans, faith is a large issue.

If a politician announced that he is an athiest, religious groups won't vote for him. At all.

If a different policitian announces that he is a man of faith, people of that faith will automatically vote for him, people of other beliefs will say, "Well, at least he is isn't a godless freak like that other guy," and athiests will shrug their shoulders because they couldn't care either way.

Athiests will vote for people regardless of their religious affiliation, the same can not be said for people of faith voting for a non-believer.

Both candidates having to pander to bully neochristians and rotely having to say their secret club passwords, is clear evidence of the evangelical theocracy America has become.

I suppose it works that way in American business, too. Please by my product (psssst: Jesus Christ is my personal lord and savior and I am redeemed through him).

Like a World War II test of true patriotism (Who won the 1942 World Series?) Americans returning from abroad should chant these religious passwords to Heimatland Security or have their laptops seized and their names put on a terrorist watch list for fifteen years. (psssst: the Cardinals in five games).

Oh yeah, the Phoenix Cardinals?

No, you're too young and progressive. You must be a black Muslim, Mexican, gay, bed-wetting, liberal commie, Democrat. You fail.

Daniel, atheists vote for faithists because we don't have any other choices if we're going to vote.
I don't know exactly, it's not like there's a church of atheism anywhere where we gather together and compare notes. But I know I wouldn't want to run for political office, why screw with all that straight up BS?

Tell the believers that you're a christian even though you're not, mouth the words, you can google the stuff you'd need to say. The believers are quite gullible (a prerequisite state), it could easily be done. Yet none of us seem to be doing it.

It sounds like a camp meeting. Here is some amusement for the mess from NC. Laugh and grow fat. Don't forget the choir to preach to.
" --The Rev. Mr. Cookman, who was lost in the ill-fated steamer President, once preached to a congregation in Baltimore which had an excellent choir to do their singing. The members of the Church, however, thought they had a right, and, in fact, that it was their duty to join in the choral services, and, consequently, gave their "powerful aid" to the trained choristers."

" ENNUI is a disease which the entire human family is subject to. It appears to constitute one of the evils that came out of the wonderful box of Pandora, and, from its first essay into the world, spread its drowsy influence far and wide, causing a fixed tension of the muscles of the face an elongation of the features, and a staid soberness in man's demeanor which seemed to write "suicide" upon his brow. To counteract the baleful effects of this opiate of our nature, wit and humor were created in order that man might sometimes bask in the sunshine of happiness, and shake off the lassitude caused by his having sucked green persimmons in the early days of life. We are the children of impulse, and always act according to circumstances. Tickle our nerves and we laugh, wound them and we cry. Good humor is always a sure antidote for ennui, and whatever administers to our happiness in this world, must of course tend to sweeten, if not to lengthen life. "Laugh and grow fat," as a jolly old English saying, and if appearances are fair indications, John Bull acts nobly up to his favorite motto."
http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/jester/jester.html

What about that, the christians won't vote for atheists but the atheists will vote for christians.

What do you call someone who is against you simply because you're different?

Bigot.

I'm facing a root canal, so I'm thinking drill squad.
--An Irish conscript having been found to be too awkward, was placed in the "awkward squad," where he was all alone by himself. The drill master commenced his labors:

"Squad! attention!"

Paddy stood erect, but looked indignant.

"Squad! front!"

He fronted, but being no longer able to smother his rage, exclaimed.

"Look here, mister, my name's Pat Mahoney, and by the mother of Moses, I won't be called "Squad" by any man."

We got rid of squad cars and gave them cruisers. I got pulled over and was told to go cruise the park instead of the city.

Dot cake 47. Something to be happy about is always something.
This is a wild looking cake.
http://www.42idonline.com/gallery4/d/477-2/SMG+EWINGS+B-DAY+EGYPT+O7.jpg

I don't forget old friends and dear hearts in my world of happy faced warriors. Until later, don't get fooled again.

UMMMM. Seems like overkill on the religious thing. Don't go to church, so this seems boring. How is this going to be exciting. I'd stay home.

Maybe he'll take a lie detector test at the convention to prove he's not Muslim.

Then again.....................seems like over kill.

Kind of looks like he is guilty as charged.

Nowandthen says:
"Now is the time to speak against the party pandering to the evangelicals."

Which party *isn't*?

Religion as one more useful piece on the political chessboard?

Interfaith an even greater piece, an even better strategy?

Means to a political end?

Every religious group want their president to be to say all the right lines they want to hear and the candidate is merely obliging them?

Isn't that how politics is done? Votes are gathered?

How much genius does it take to quote a few appropriate verses from the Bible or any other Scripture depending on the audience one is addressing and get the voters to say WOW! WOW! in response?

It is the voters who are a bunch of fools who demand such performance from their political candidates.

Democratic politics is a numbers game. How about some numbers? Numbers _always_ help.(Source is the Pew Religious Survey).

A: Religious Breakdown (%)of US population
Catholic 24
Evangelical 26
Historic Black 6
MainlineProt. 18

Total 74

B: % Saying "religion is very important to them"

Catholic 56
Evangelical 79
Historic Black 85
MainlineProt 52

Assuming that above are all voters we can multiply A by B and sum to see how many voters are "very" religious.

US Population for whom religion is very important:

Catholic 13.44
Evangelical 20.54
Historic Black 5.1
MainlineProt. 9.36

Total: 48.44

Now folks, that is almost 1 out of every 2 voters! If a political party chooses to alienate half of the population, it is not going to be in power very often. This is the mistake the Dems. made when they sold out the soul of the party to the siren appeal of secular humanism and lost most of their Catholics.

Mary Cunningham is right, the catholics want their fair share of pandering the same as any other religious group.

Well, pope,no. What you call "pandering", I would call one of the features of democracy: generally pols succeed when they bare a slight resemblance to those they profess to serve.

As the Dem.s o/d'd on "rights" for all (except for one of their core constituencies), many of the Catholic working class departed.

It's not pandering, it's democracy in action. The Dems seem finally to have learned. "Unaffiliated" to *any* religion number
about 16%, and these tend to be lukewarm about many issues Christians care about fairly deeply. Law of averages suggest the latter will prevail. Eventually.

Let the Democratic Party show that there is a Christian population in the country that is not trigger happy and respects and practices the teachings of Jesus. Let the country know, as Obama did last Saturday night, that Jesus is a name that we know. McCain certainly messed up on that one. Imagine a conservative Christian not mentioning Jesus' name once in a church when asked questions that would normally elicit a response containing "Jesus" in the answer.

The Democratic Party has been a party of inclusion for a long time now. Along with being a party of inclusion has come a plethora of differences which makes forming a consensus a very interesting proposition. However, the Republican Party alternative has proved time and time again to be a disaster. Over time, the party in which one may disagree but still have some leverage over the future is the better place to be. It is better to have some of the pie than none of the pie. The Republicans have shown for years that they can pander to make the populace think that it is going to get some pie, but actually only the fat cats get the pie. Like a baby that doesn't get what it wants, the fat cats cry when it comes their turn to pay up.

So the Democrats "tax and spend." The Republicans "borrow and spend." It is time for the American public to understand the difference and how this difference affects their pocketbooks. The economic situation in which we find ourselves has come about because of Republican policies. We have been flat and sliding into recession for 8 years now. If you do not believe me, just check out the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Nasdaq for the past 8 years. Not sure yet, just check out how many times dividends have been declared on the average mutual fund during the past 8 years.

But, the Republicans now say that the real reason for voting for them is because they are prolife, anti-gay marriage, and the like. All of these issues are smokescreens designed for the specific purpose of garnering enough "single-issue" voters to allow them to win elections and continue to plunder the U.S. Treasury. Their big issue this year is "experience," which is a ploy to avoid the "race card." Yet, it has been the Republicans who have saddled us with inexperience since 1980. The proof is in the pudding, "my friends." From a grade B actor to a government employee to "W," all have not had the experience that Obama has had in his time working in the southside of Chicago. The same party that is yelling that it wants experience has given us 8 years of incompetence. The same party that is giving us John McCain started an impeachment drive against Bill Clinton for alleged infidelities before he took the oath of office, I know because I saw the bumper stickers. How can this same Republican Party stand with John McCain whose infidelities are documented? Hypocrites is the only word to use for the Republicans.

Blowing chunks.
Within days, it was also discovered that, while a first year law student at Syracuse Law School, Biden had plagiarized a law review article in a class paper he wrote. Though the then-dean of the law school, as well as Biden's former professor, played down the incident of plagiarism, they did find that Biden drew "chunks of heavy legal prose directly from" the article in question. Biden said the act was inadvertent due to his not knowing the proper rules of citation, and Biden was permitted to retake the course after receiving a grade of F in the course, which was subsequently dropped from his record when he retook the class.

Mr. Biden, who graduated from the law school in 1968, was 76th in a class of 85. Not the brightest bulb, but it's dark Camelot.

It's the Village People in the Navy.
They want you, they want you
They want you as a new recruit
But, but but I'm afraid of water.
Hey, hey look
Man, I get seasick even watchin' it on TV!
The convention should get you seasick, so keep the TV off and the lights on.

I do not want government representatives who are influenced by the views of religious organizations.

A church or other religious group is the opposite of a democracy, in practice and philosophy.

In practice, most religious organizations have sermons without debate. The preacher preaches, the flock passively listens. (Or they moan, chant, weep, speak in tongues, holler amens, etc.) But they generally do not get to raise their hands during or afterward, to ask questions, or to state disagreement. It is not their expected role in the group.

The flock is not asked, "Now you've heard what this preacher thinks, what are your views? Research this topic, then write a paper on it, with basic facts and arguments on both sides, then give your position on the issue. Everyone will present their papers next Sunday, and we will discuss and debate the topic. You are encouraged to use your critical thinking skills, and develop your own viewpoint."

In philosophy, religious groups are based on shared viewpoints. (Dissent is discouraged or grounds for rejection, if divergent enough from the group view.)

The foundation of a democracy is pluralism; dissent is its yeast, what makes it grow stronger. Pluralism is inclusive; dissent challenges everyone to refine and move their thinking - their reasoning - forward. It is through respect for and discussion of different viewpoints that provides the cohesion: valuing the debate process and the participants, not requiring agreement.

I do not want a representative making decisions on my behalf who is sitting in a pew absorbing ideas about which s/he is being discouraged from thinking critically. When people sit in pews, discouraged from thinking critically, from analyzing, from noting points of disagreement and discussing them, they begin to eventually absorb the messages they initially disagreed with. They tire of, or forget, their initial disagreements, as they hear the message repeated over time. They become attached to the rituals, and to the people there. They don't want to break those attachments, so they quiet the dissenting thoughts in their heads.

I do not want a representative whose views grew out of such a process, or politically influenced by others whose views were formed in such a manner.