|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 10/09/2007 : 03:55:51
|
The CNN.com headline reads: "Obama: GOP doesn't own faith issue." Barack Obama, trailing Hillary Clinton in polls with about 25 to her 45 percentage points, is trying to build a faith-based campaign machine. GREENVILLE, South Carolina (CNN) -- Republicans no longer have a firm grip on religion in political discourse, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama told Sunday worshippers.
Sen. Barack Obama speaks Sunday at
Redemption World Outreach Center in South Carolina.
The senator from Illinois delivered his campaign message to a multiracial evangelical congregation in traditionally conservative Greenville, South Carolina. "I think it's important, particularly for those of us in the Democratic Party, to not cede values and faith to any one party," Obama told reporters outside the Redemption World Outreach Center where he attended services.
"I think that what you're seeing is a breaking down of the sharp divisions that existed maybe during the '90s," said Obama. "At least in politics, the perception was that the Democrats were fearful of talking about faith, and on the other hand you had the Republicans who had a particular brand of faith that oftentimes seemed intolerant or pushed people away." |
No, the GOP doesn't own the faith issue. They've mortgaged their Party's future in order to hold a tentative title to it, though. I'd feel a lot better if Obama were running by making a stronger case for inclusive secularism in public affairs, rather than creating a spectacle by trying to put on religious vestments.
When Obama says, "I think it's important, particularly for those of us in the Democratic Party, to not cede values and faith to any one party," he is implying that values come only with religion. I find that old defamation offensive, personally.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 10/09/2007 : 11:12:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
When Obama says, "I think it's important, particularly for those of us in the Democratic Party, to not cede values and faith to any one party," he is implying that values come only with religion. I find that old defamation offensive, personally. |
It's not offensive unless you personalize it. The statement isn't directed at you, it's a response to conservative attempts to claim values and faith for themselves.
More importantly, it's an attempt to be inclusive of those people who find their liberal values to be a natural extension of their faith. These people should not be ostracized by the left, but embraced by them. This serves the dual purpose of increasing the ranks of the left and of creating a wedge between republicans and their religious supporters. |
 |
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2007 : 05:05:00 [Permalink]
|
| He didn't have to go there. He's not going to improve his standing in the Democratic party this way and those conservative southern evnagelical christians are not likely to vote for obama under any circumstance. All he's done is alienate the rationalists. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2007 : 08:45:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
He didn't have to go there. He's not going to improve his standing in the Democratic party this way and those conservative southern evnagelical christians are not likely to vote for obama under any circumstance. All he's done is alienate the rationalists.
|
I think it is important to point out the GOP is not god's party. And that there are people of faith who are also democrats. The idea that if you are Christian, you owe your vote the GOP because they will take care of you is rubbish. In many cases, for the blue-collar people of faith, for example, they may be actively voting against their own best interests based on the idea that the GOP is somehow more motivated to protect their rights, when, after all is said and done, the GOP is only in it for their votes.
I don't get that Obama was saying that the democratic party is the real party of Christian values. I think he was stating as best he could that the issue of values is not owned by one party, even if it is presented that way by the GOP. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2007 : 09:02:16 [Permalink]
|
Halfmooner wrote: | "I think it's important, particularly for those of us in the Democratic Party, to not cede values and faith to any one party," he is implying that values come only with religion. |
No, that statement itself does not imply that value come only with religion, only that they can for some people come with religion, which is true. MyCroft is right, you are personalizing this statement rather than seeing it within the context it is intended for. Politicians use vague and open wording to persuade as many people as possible. The only way to know what they mean is to look at their record and actions, and Obama is a genuine religious pluralist who believes in separation of church and state.
chaloobi wrote: | All he's done is alienate the rationalists. |
Any rationalists who feel alienated by a statement this vague and insignificant is being paranoid. They are reading into it and seeing things which simply are not there.
My husband is a hardcore atheist and he's leaning toward Obama because of the man's stance on actual church-state separation issues. So is Hemant Mehta, the "Friendly Atheist": http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/09/10/barack-obama-hillary-clinton-and-faith/
| Again, this is why I'm voting for Obama. He may be religious, but he understands and respects State/Church separation better than any other candidate. |
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/10/2007 09:03:12 |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2007 : 11:09:27 [Permalink]
|
| It's also important to understand that in ceding religion to the right, you also allow the right to define being religious as being anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-science and other right-wing negatives. It's important for Democrats to reach out to the religious left not only to increase its own support, but also to encourage open debate on these issues within the religious community. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2007 : 20:32:30 [Permalink]
|
Mycroft wrote: | It's also important to understand that in ceding religion to the right, you also allow the right to define being religious as being anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-science and other right-wing negatives. It's important for Democrats to reach out to the religious left not only to increase its own support, but also to encourage open debate on these issues within the religious community. |
Good point. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2007 : 20:59:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by chaloobi
He didn't have to go there. He's not going to improve his standing in the Democratic party this way and those conservative southern evnagelical christians are not likely to vote for obama under any circumstance. All he's done is alienate the rationalists.
|
I think it is important to point out the GOP is not god's party. And that there are people of faith who are also democrats. The idea that if you are Christian, you owe your vote the GOP because they will take care of you is rubbish. In many cases, for the blue-collar people of faith, for example, they may be actively voting against their own best interests based on the idea that the GOP is somehow more motivated to protect their rights, when, after all is said and done, the GOP is only in it for their votes.
I don't get that Obama was saying that the democratic party is the real party of Christian values. I think he was stating as best he could that the issue of values is not owned by one party, even if it is presented that way by the GOP.
|
The issue of faith should not even come up in the election. Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the constitution so no blue collar faithful should be worried about losing their rights. That worry is cultivated by the right to get votes and it ought to be illegal. And in the end, the real intent from the conservative faithful is to restrict rights based soley on their religous beliefs and that ethic is wrong. Discussion of personal religous faith should not be acceptable in any campaign for public office. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2007 : 21:17:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
The issue of faith should not even come up in the election. Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the constitution so no blue collar faithful should be worried about losing their rights. |
In a democracy all that is required for civil rights to be stripped away is the consent of the majority. Our system of checks and balances only slows the process, it doesn't stop it.
While I tend to agree that it's not a rational fear, I also recognize that it's not my place to make that judgment for someone else. I think the most important aspect of freedom is the freedom to decide for yourself what issues concern you most.
Originally posted by chaloobi
That worry is cultivated by the right to get votes and it ought to be illegal...<snip>...Discussion of personal religous faith should not be acceptable in any campaign for public office.
|
Except that political candidates have the right to free speech too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2007 : 06:31:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
Originally posted by chaloobi
...Discussion of personal religous faith should not be acceptable in any campaign for public office. |
Except that political candidates have the right to free speech too. |
I think he's saying that it shouldn't be ethically or morally acceptable. Right now, a candidate who spoke freely (and legally) about his kinky sexual escapades would be unlikely to garner many votes because such talk is largely unacceptable. In my perfect world, using faith as a political tool would be just as unacceptable. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2007 : 07:02:05 [Permalink]
|
chaloobi wrote: | The issue of faith should not even come up in the election. |
Of course it should come up – it is an important part of peoples' lives. The question is how is it brought up. In the case of Obama, it is brought up to emphasize that because of the variety and depth of various faiths we need religious tolerance and pluralism and thus the government must protect church-state separation and Democrats must speak up when conservatives falsely make religion and faith seem narrow.
| Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the constitution so no blue collar faithful should be worried about losing their rights. |
But the reality is that they are worried, thus it must be addressed 'cause it isn't going away all by itself. I'm not just talking about politicians talking. I'm talking about anyone who speaks publicly about politics and society.
| That worry is cultivated by the right to get votes and it ought to be illegal. |
It ought to be illegal for conservative politicians and pundits to express their narrow religious views? Methinks that would violate the First Amendment.
Dave wrote: | I think he's saying that it shouldn't be ethically or morally acceptable. |
Except that he used the word "illegal".
chaloobi wrote: | And in the end, the real intent from the conservative faithful is to restrict rights based soley on their religous beliefs and that ethic is wrong. Discussion of personal religous faith should not be acceptable in any campaign for public office. |
But it is, and good for Obama for dealing with that reality with grace, tact, and intelligence.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2007 : 09:13:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
chaloobi wrote: | The issue of faith should not even come up in the election. |
Of course it should come up – it is an important part of peoples' lives. |
Of course it should not. The only issue government should be involved in regarding religion is making sure government isn't involved in religion and religion isn't involved in government.
| Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the constitution so no blue collar faithful should be worried about losing their rights. |
But the reality is that they are worried, thus it must be addressed 'cause it isn't going away all by itself. I'm not just talking about politicians talking. I'm talking about anyone who speaks publicly about politics and society. |
The reality is they've been mislead by the right wing propaganda machine into believing hogwash like the 'Liberal War On Christmas.' There is no concerted drive (from the Center or the Left) to abridge American's right to practice their religion. There is nothing to address in that respect.
What needs to be addressed is the shameless deceptive fear-mongering and exploitation of religous belief by the right to garner votes. How do you address that? Certainly not by the left picking up the same practice, as Obama is flirting with now! How else then? There is no fairness doctrine anymore so conservative programming can go on and on without any way for listeners and viewers to get the truth. And if you're unwilling to abridge the freedom of speach then deception and the consequent mixing of religion in politics cannot be addressed.
| That worry is cultivated by the right to get votes and it ought to be illegal. |
It ought to be illegal for conservative politicians and pundits to express their narrow religious views? Methinks that would violate the First Amendment. |
Illegal was a poor choice of words. However, intentional deceipt and fear mongering to drum up votes should not be accpetable. If you can't make it illegal and you can't force the media outlets to balance their programming (fairness doctrine) then how do you fix this problem?
| And in the end, the real intent from the conservative faithful is to restrict rights based soley on their religous beliefs and that ethic is wrong. Discussion of personal religous faith should not be acceptable in any campaign for public office. |
But it is, and good for Obama for dealing with that reality with grace, tact, and intelligence. |
It is but it should not be. It is up to politicians on the left and those who adhere to the principles in the Constitution to refrain from discussing it in campaign forums. The line should be "My Faith is mine personally, not everyone has the same kind of faith as me, government is forbidden to be involved in matters of Faith, and so to discuss it in the campaign is flirtation with violating the constitution and offending the religious sensibiities of other Americans. So I will not bring it up." That's how it was prior to Reagan, that's how it should be now. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 10/11/2007 09:17:57 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2007 : 10:36:41 [Permalink]
|
chaloobi wrote: | Of course it should not. The only issue government should be involved in regarding religion is making sure government isn't involved in religion and religion isn't involved in government. |
That's a really simple statement that covers a lot of incredibly complex territory, and with each and every issue under this umbrella we are bringing up religious practice and faith with regards to politics. Thus, of course faith should be brought up in the election. What you mean is that it shouldn't be brought up in the way that social conservatives bring it up, which is to use government to favor or promote one religion (conservative Christianity). And on that point, I agree with you.
The reality is they've been mislead by the right wing propaganda machine into believing hogwash like the 'Liberal War On Christmas.' There is no concerted drive (from the Center or the Left) to abridge American's right to practice their religion. There is nothing to address in that respect.
What needs to be addressed is the shameless deceptive fear-mongering and exploitation of religous belief by the right to garner votes. How do you address that? Certainly not by the left picking up the same practice, as Obama is flirting with now! How else then? There is no fairness doctrine anymore so conservative programming can go on and on without any way for listeners and viewers to get the truth. And if you're unwilling to abridge the freedom of speach then deception and the consequent mixing of religion in politics cannot be addressed. |
First of all, Obama is not picking up the same practice. I defy you to point out where he has even flirted with using religion as deception, fear-mongering, or exploited religious belief. On the contrary, he acknowledges religion and faith as significant to most peoples' lives, and to his own, but has kept religion's role in politics neutral, which is what it should be.
Second of all, while I agree with you that Dems need to be on the offensive in terms of attacking Republicans for their deception and manipulative tactics, but it is not enough to criticize. A full political strategy for dealing with this problem must involve positive messages as well. Obama is trying to dispel the idea that faith stands for certain specific conservative values, acknowledge that for many people values stem from faith or religion, and paint the Democratic party as a true big-tent with regards to religion. I do not feel excluded by his rhetoric, and everything he has said or done implies that he supports true religious freedom and secular government.
| The line should be "My Faith is mine personally, not everyone has the same kind of faith as me, government is forbidden to be involved in matters of Faith, and so to discuss it in the campaign is flirtation with violating the constitution and offending the religious sensibiities of other Americans. So I will not bring it up." |
Government isn't forbidden to be involved in matters of Faith – that is so vague I'm not even sure what you mean by it. It is forbidden from establishing a state religion or prohibiting free religious practice.
Please show me where Obama has said or even implied that his faith is not his personally, that his faith is the same as everyones or that everyone should have the same faith as him, or that the government should establish an official religion or prohibit religious practice of any religious group.
Incidentally, it is ridiculous to end that statement with "So I will not bring it up" because everything said before that line is bringing it up!
You seem to be seriously splitting hairs, and I am truly confused as to what your beef with Obama is.
| That's how it was prior to Reagan, that's how it should be now. |
What history book are you reading? Plenty of politicians in America have always incorporated religion and faith to some degree with their political acts. Atheists were and in some states still are prohibited from running for political positions. "In God We Trust" has been on our money and "Under God" in our Pledge since the mid 1950's and started appearing on coins 50 years before that. Who was responsible for that? Why, politicians! The whole reason religion is mentioned in the Constitution is because we've always had people who want a secular government and those who want a Christian-leaning (or totally Christian) nation. This isn't anything new.
From Wikipedia's entry on the "National Day of Prayer": | There have been several national days of prayer in the U.S. before the day was made official in 1952. The Continental Congress issued a day of prayer in 1775 to designate "a time for prayer in forming a new nation". Thomas Jefferson argued however, that although individual religious organizations had the right to designate a day of prayer, the U.S. government should not have that right. |
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/11/2007 10:38:13 |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2007 : 11:28:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
chaloobi wrote: | Of course it should not. The only issue government should be involved in regarding religion is making sure government isn't involved in religion and religion isn't involved in government. |
That's a really simple statement that covers a lot of incredibly complex territory, and with each and every issue under this umbrella we are bringing up religious practice and faith with regards to politics. Thus, of course faith should be brought up in the election. What you mean is that it shouldn't be brought up in the way that social conservatives bring it up, which is to use government to favor or promote one religion (conservative Christianity). And on that point, I agree with you.
The reality is they've been mislead by the right wing propaganda machine into believing hogwash like the 'Liberal War On Christmas.' There is no concerted drive (from the Center or the Left) to abridge American's right to practice their religion. There is nothing to address in that respect.
What needs to be addressed is the shameless deceptive fear-mongering and exploitation of religous belief by the right to garner votes. How do you address that? Certainly not by the left picking up the same practice, as Obama is flirting with now! How else then? There is no fairness doctrine anymore so conservative programming can go on and on without any way for listeners and viewers to get the truth. And if you're unwilling to abridge the freedom of speach then deception and the consequent mixing of religion in politics cannot be addressed. |
First of all, Obama is not picking up the same practice. I defy you to point out where he has even flirted with using religion as deception, fear-mongering, or exploited religious belief. On the contrary, he acknowledges religion and faith as significant to most peoples' lives, and to his own, but has kept religion's role in politics neutral, which is what it should be.
Second of all, while I agree with you that Dems need to be on the offensive in terms of attacking Republicans for their deception and manipulative tactics, but it is not enough to criticize. A full political strategy for dealing with this problem must involve positive messages as well. Obama is trying to dispel the idea that faith stands for certain specific conservative values, acknowledge that for many people values stem from faith or religion, and paint the Democratic party as a true big-tent with regards to religion. I do not feel excluded by his rhetoric, and everything he has said or done implies that he supports true religious freedom and secular government.
| The line should be "My Faith is mine personally, not everyone has the same kind of faith as me, government is forbidden to be involved in matters of Faith, and so to discuss it in the campaign is flirtation with violating the constitution and offending the religious sensibiities of other Americans. So I will not bring it up." |
Government isn't forbidden to be involved in matters of Faith – that is so vague I'm not even sure what you mean by it. It is forbidden from establishing a state religion or prohibiting free religious practice.
Please show me where Obama has said or even implied that his faith is not his personally, that his faith is the same as everyones or that everyone should have the same faith as him, or that the government should establish an official religion or prohibit religious practice of any religious group.
Incidentally, it is ridiculous to end that statement with "So I will not bring it up" because everything said before that line is bringing it up!
You seem to be seriously splitting hairs, and I am truly confused as to what your beef with Obama is.
| That's how it was prior to Reagan, that's how it should be now. |
What history book are you reading? Plenty of politicians in America have always incorporated religion and faith to some degree with their political acts. Atheists were and in some states still are prohibited from running for political positions. "In God We Trust" has been on our money and "Under God" in our Pledge since the mid 1950's and started appearing on coins 50 years before that. Who was responsible for that? Why, politicians! The whole reason religion is mentioned in the Constitution is because we've always had people who want a secular government and those who want a Christian-leaning (or totally Christian) nation. This isn't anything new.
From Wikipedia's entry on the "National Day of Prayer": | There have been several national days of prayer in the U.S. before the day was made official in 1952. The Continental Congress issued a day of prayer in 1775 to designate "a time for prayer in forming a new nation". Thomas Jefferson argued however, that although individual religious organizations had the right to designate a day of prayer, the U.S. government should not have that right. |
|
Too much to reply to right now, but the reference to Reagan came from the practice of saying god bless america to close speaches and what not. I understand that Reagan was the first to do that. Again, an over broad statement on my part. Please disregard. :) |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2007 : 07:51:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
chaloobi wrote: | Of course it should not. The only issue government should be involved in regarding religion is making sure government isn't involved in religion and religion isn't involved in government. |
That's a really simple statement that covers a lot of incredibly complex territory, |
Yes, this is true. But the statement is no less valid - and it becomes increasingly valid with the current times.
| and with each and every issue under this umbrella we are bringing up religious practice and faith with regards to politics. Thus, of course faith should be brought up in the election. What you mean is that it shouldn't be brought up in the way that social conservatives bring it up, which is to use government to favor or promote one religion (conservative Christianity). And on that point, I agree with you. |
IMO religous faith should not be a part of the political process. It should be like sex - everyone does it (for the most part), it's intensely personal (for the vast majority), and it's usually only acceptable in privacy. So while our lives are all about sex on a visceral level, we don't run the political process based on it. If politicians follow the policy that religous faith shall not be legislated or regulated and government decisions won't be made based on religous ideology, then there's no reason for a politician to declare their religous stripe publicly. And there's no basis to feel your personal relgious practices are threatened by the political process.
The reality is they've been mislead by the right wing propaganda machine into believing hogwash like the 'Liberal War On Christmas.' There is no concerted drive (from the Center or the Left) to abridge American's right to practice their religion. There is nothing to address in that respect.
What needs to be addressed is the shameless deceptive fear-mongering and exploitation of religous belief by the right to garner votes. How do you address that? Certainly not by the left picking up the same practice, as Obama is flirting with now! How else then? There is no fairness doctrine anymore so conservative programming can go on and on without any way for listeners and viewers to get the truth. And if you're unwilling to abridge the freedom of speach then deception and the consequent mixing of religion in politics cannot be addressed. |
First of all, Obama is not picking up the same practice. I defy you to point out where he has even flirted with using religion as deception, fear-mongering, or exploited religious belief. |
The deception by the right needs to be countered, but IMO to do it by embracing the discussion yourself is a mistake. The counter should be something like "Faith is personal, not the realm of public policy."
| Second of all, while I agree with you that Dems need to be on the offensive in terms of attacking Republicans for their deception and manipulative tactics, but it is not enough to criticize. A full political strategy for dealing with this problem must involve positive messages as well. Obama is trying to dispel the idea that faith stands for certain specific conservative values, acknowledge that for many people values stem from faith or religion, and paint the Democratic party as a true big-tent with regards to religion. I do not feel excluded by his rhetoric, and everything he has said or done implies that he supports true religious freedom and secular government. |
In practical terms I agree. In principle though, I believe religous faith should not be discussed in the political forum at all other than to express and reinforce the policy that the government does not involve itself with religion.
| The line should be "My Faith is mine personally, not everyone has the same kind of faith as me, government is forbidden to be involved in matters of Faith, and so to discuss it in the campaign is flirtation with violating the constitution and offending the religious sensibiities of other Americans. So I will not bring it up." |
Government isn't forbidden to be involved in matters of Faith – that is so vague I'm not even sure what you mean by it. It is forbidden from establishing a state religion or prohibiting free religious practice. |
The statement I quoted is more or less what I'd like to hear, and believe is appropriate, from politicians about religous faith in the context of replying to the Right or to questions on the subject. That's all I meant by it.
| Incidentally, it is ridiculous to end that statement with "So I will not bring it up" because everything said before that line is bringing it up! |
How about: "And I believe that's all that is appropriate to say on the subject?" But said with more charm, of course.
|
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Obama plays the faith card
