Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[CamEdwards]

Dear Obama supporters,

Please keep talking about Governor Palin's religious views, her pastor, etc. That means conservatives can keep bringing up Jeremiah Wright and Obama.

Thanks,

The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

[DaddyTorgo]

lol

[Arles]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Pastor: GOP may be downplaying Palin's religious beliefs - CNN.com

Good story and about half was interesting. Outside of having a pastor named "Tim McGraw" , not sure what really would worry most Americans there. In all seriousness, it seems to talk more about people in her former church (left it in 2002) than any of Palin's statements or beliefs. It's somewhat odd that they reference a comment made by a pastor at that church in 2004 when she left in 2002 as some kind of reference point for her. But, given the hatchet jobs done to this point, it was actually an interesting read (although nothing really different from what I already knew about her).

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Dear Obama supporters,

Please keep talking about Governor Palin's religious views, her pastor, etc. That means conservatives can keep bringing up Jeremiah Wright and Obama.

Thanks,

The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

i think in terms of whackadooness they pretty much even out

[SirFozzie]

No no no.. not WhackaDoon... WhackaLoon! What the hell are they teaching kids these days!

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Arles

Their main anchors are Sheppard Smith and Chris Wallace and both of them are miles ahead of Olbermann and Matthews on coverage.

Wallace gets a bad rap from the lefties, but he ripped Donald Rumsfeld a new one when he had him on for an interview while Rummy was still Secretary of Defense.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i think in terms of whackadooness they pretty much even out

Well, there's the fact (as Arles pointed out) that Palin left her church several years ago and Obama left his THIS year... after defending and comparing Rev. Wright to a member of his own family. But if you think they equal out in terms of whackadooness (great word, btw) that's fine by me. I just have a feeling that you're incorrect.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

i think in terms of whackadooness they pretty much even out

Man, first McCain and now Palin. If you run for office in as a republican (esp pro life), you are going to come into contact a few times with some questionable pastor/preachers. Still, neither McCain or Palin had a "spiritual adviser" or close friend that can even hold a candle to Wright.

And, the more the left tries to make some kind of morale equivalency between attending a church that had a loon (for Foz) guest preacher or questionable pastor, the more most Americans are going to remember how uncomfortable Wright made them. It's best to just drop the issue and let it be.

It's almost like the left is the husband arguing with his wife (American people) after the husband was caught kissing another woman. Bringing up how the wife said an old boyfriend was hot once doesn't help the husband. Just let it go and hope it's never brought up again.

[Vegas Vic]

Yeah, the type of venom they spew from the pulpit about their candidate's political opponents is reprehensible. These guys are clearly whacked:

Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Trinity United Church of Christ

“Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton ‘because her husband was good to us.’ That's not true, he did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky." (thrusting hips for dramatic effect)

“Hillary Clinton ain’t never been called a n_____!”

Pastor Larry Kroon, Wasilla Bible Church

He asked the 300 congregants at the first of two morning services to pray for all of the candidates for president and vice president, and to be thankful that all four are willing to provide the nation with their public service.

He urged churchgoers to "pray for the press." Kroon said the media are to be "cherished and respected," citing 19th century philosopher Alexander de Tocqueville's works describing a free press and freedom of religion as essential pillars of democracy.

[DaddyTorgo]

well FTR i'm less interested in the pastor-stuff and more interested in the fact she says faith doesn't influence her politics and then cnn provides a direct quote of at least one place where it does.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

well FTR i'm less interested in the pastor-stuff and more interested in the fact she says faith doesn't influence her politics and then cnn provides a direct quote of at least one place where it does.

I'm not sure what the point of this is. Most fairly religious people are impacting in some manner by their faith. So, I think you can say that you don't govern based on religious "rules" but that your religion has helped make you into the person that people voted for (and elected in her case).

Also, Charles Gibson of ABC News got the first interview with Palin. It should be running in the next week:

ABC News gets first Palin interview - Yahoo! News

If I'm McCain, I'm leaking out a story about Palin and a drunken priest when she was 15. The more people talk about Palin and the left hooks on, the less people actually do what will impact the election ( attack McCain and attach him to Bush).

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Did Hillary Clinton want to be Vice President?

No. She would have never accepted the role. I think she would have loved to have been asked, and would have courted the option so she could turn it down. That would have made her look good, and probably hurt Obama.

[JPhillips]

I'd leave the religious stuff alone personally, but all the concern trolling is rather less than sincere.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Arles

I'll give him credit for taking the correct stances on this, drilling, staying in Iraq and the surge. But, again, you have to wonder why he was against these 6 months ago given very little has changed on the issues of the ecomony/taxes/energy and the situation in Iraq.

IMO, it's quite obvious. He was taking more left leaning positions in the primaries to beat Senator Clinton and now he's reversing those for more moderate positions in the hope to beat Senator McCain.

Not that that is unprecedented, but when you hear from the left that McCain has flip flopped on X, Y, Z to appeal to the far right, this sort of thing tends to raise my eyebrows (the same people say this shows Obama is prudent in the face of changing circumstances... what a crock!)

[albionmoonlight]

this might not be the right place to ask this question because I am looking for a practical and not a political answer (to the extent that they can be separated). But here goes:

What advantage did Obama get by opting out of public financing? Assume for purposes of this question that he will raise the amount of money that he was expecting (probably not true, actually, but not the point of my question).

I note that McCain is still raising money online for his "compliance fund" and that the DNC and RNC can still raise money hand over fist with no regard to the matching funds spending limit.

So, seeing how the spending limit seems to just be a matter of putting money in the right boxes (as opposed to slowing down fundraising at all), didn't Obama just give McCain $84 million for nothing?

What advantage--practical not theoretical-does opting out of the system have?

[JPhillips]

That may be what happens. The kind of coordination between McCain, the RNC and state parties has never been done before and while legal is certainly against the spirit of McCain-Feingold. There are some practical coordination issues as the party isn't supposed to get marching orders for ads from the candidate, but everyone ignores those regulations.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

, not sure what really would worry most Americans there. In all seriousness, it seems to talk more about people in her former church (left it in 2002) than any of Palin's statements or beliefs.

again, Im not sure people fear someone's belief's as much as said person's willingness to let said beliefs guide one's legislative decisions and foreign policy interactions. Im sure we have had many a president with strong religious beliefs (we have one now) but it's their ability to conciously place those feelings aside when doing analysis, taking advice, thinking about all of the options and their ramifications, making statements (axis of evil), and making a "move", etc. Palin seems to not be able to do any of the above (at least in her dealings in her own state, her statements in the past, and I surmise her actions in the future (hopefully not as President). I could be wrong but what do I have to go off of thus far?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

again, Im not sure people fear someone's belief's as much as said person's willingness to let said beliefs guide one's legislative decisions and foreign policy interactions.

Do you think any Christian/Muslim (Clinton, Gore, Kennedy, etc), leaves his values and beliefs at home when they go to work? It's impossible. It goes against the whole point of religion. Why are Republicans expected to became athiests at the workplace but the same isn't expected of Democrats? Clinton in particular referenced God quite a bit.

I''ll pretend I'm JPhillips - prove to me Clinton never used his beliefs to guide his legislative decisions and foregin policy, and also that Obama wouldn't as president (and hasn't as Senator or community organizer) If you can't, I'm obviously right.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

Do you think any Christian/Muslim (Clinton, Gore, Kennedy, etc), leaves his values and beliefs at home when they go to work? It's impossible. It goes against the whole point of religion. Why are Republicans expected to became athiests at the workplace but the same isn't expected of Democrats? Clinton in particular referenced God quite a bit.

Exactly. Every single politician ends a speech with 'God bless the United States of America'.

1. It openly shows a pandering for the religious voters.
2. It openly shows that religion plays a part in politics whether you like it or not.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

this might not be the right place to ask this question because I am looking for a practical and not a political answer (to the extent that they can be separated). But here goes:

What advantage did Obama get by opting out of public financing? Assume for purposes of this question that he will raise the amount of money that he was expecting (probably not true, actually, but not the point of my question).

I note that McCain is still raising money online for his "compliance fund" and that the DNC and RNC can still raise money hand over fist with no regard to the matching funds spending limit.

So, seeing how the spending limit seems to just be a matter of putting money in the right boxes (as opposed to slowing down fundraising at all), didn't Obama just give McCain $84 million for nothing?

What advantage--practical not theoretical-does opting out of the system have?

I think the articles citing Obama's financial demise is campaign spin.

I don't believe they're doing as bad as they say they are. I think they're just trying to squeeze more juice out of the lemon.

Conversely, it took a hell of an effort for them just to beat Clinton and so, it was probably foolhardy for him to sip his own Kool-Aid and believe he could continue to raise at that level.

But the campaign finance system would've taken them off familiar playgrounds and put them in territory they don't know well.

I suspect McCain knew the holes of the campaign finance laws and used it as an exploit, whereas Obama and Co. don't as well and saw the flaws enough to saw what it did to Kerry.

The problem isn't matching McCain + RNC dollar for dollar, it's the 529s who support their cause that the Dems are really worried about. But the absence of them making a dent in this race so far, has people thinking he was seeing a ghost back when he talked about taking on the GOP's money machines as to why he opted out.

I don't think if he loses, it'll have had anything to do with opting out. And given how much they've invested in their ground infrastructure, plus the boatloads they've spent already...I think the real issue is simply waiting until the last 30 days or so of the race and pushing hard on people who will get their momentum back to fuel him to the finish line financially.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Do you think any Christian/Muslim (Clinton, Gore, Kennedy, etc), leaves his values and beliefs at home when they go to work? It's impossible. It goes against the whole point of religion. Why are Republicans expected to became athiests at the workplace but the same isn't expected of Democrats? Clinton in particular referenced God quite a bit.

I''ll pretend I'm JPhillips - prove to me Clinton never used his beliefs to guide his legislative decisions and foregin policy, and also that Obama wouldn't as president (and hasn't as Senator or community organizer) If you can't, I'm obviously right.

Here's the difference. I ask that people prove the accuracy of what they say. You ask people to prove the accuracy of things they didn't say.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

Do you think any Christian/Muslim (Clinton, Gore, Kennedy, etc), leaves his values and beliefs at home when they go to work? It's impossible. It goes against the whole point of religion. Why are Republicans expected to became athiests at the workplace but the same isn't expected of Democrats? Clinton in particular referenced God quite a bit.

I''ll pretend I'm JPhillips - prove to me Clinton never used his beliefs to guide his legislative decisions and foregin policy, and also that Obama wouldn't as president (and hasn't as Senator or community organizer) If you can't, I'm obviously right.

You said Republicans while I say ALL, and I think that that speaks volumes. The job of Pres., VP, Senator, etc. requires, IMO, a check of religion at the door. If not you run the risk of becoming a Theocracy and having a religious minority being tread upon which goes against the fabric of our country. Once again, my opinion but I believe that religion gets checked at the door when you go to hold public office....at least in this country, not in Iran.

[Vegas Vic]

Intrade Market shares are now trading at about 50/50. As I mentioned earlier in the summer when McCain shares were trading at 30, you would virtually be guaranteed a profit after the Republican convention (unless McCain died before then).

[JPhillips]

The high point of the Palin drop out contract also seemed like free money IMO.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

You said Republicans while I say ALL, and I think that that speaks volumes. The job of Pres., VP, Senator, etc. requires, IMO, a check of religion at the door. If not you run the risk of becoming a Theocracy and having a religious minority being tread upon which goes against the fabric of our country. Once again, my opinion but I believe that religion gets checked at the door when you go to hold public office....at least in this country, not in Iran.

How is that possible? Christianity is all tied in with everday values. It makes up who you are. Why would you want anyone to check that stuff at the door (values like integrity, work ethic, looking out for those less fortunate). I'm sure Obama learned about strength and Compassion through his wacko church. Should he shed those values, just because he were established in a place with a cross out front?

I guess maybe I don't understand what you mean by bringing your religion to work. Can you give an example of an actual politician doing that in a way you object to?

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The high point of the Palin drop out contract also seemed like free money IMO.

Big time. But I think the problem was that that particular "stock" debuted high, only after the controversy. It's not like you good have purchased "McCain fires his running mate" for pennies a year ago and cash in now. Anyone who bought the Palin thing when it debuted is a moron, because they'll own it forever.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

Why would you want anyone to check that stuff at the door (values like integrity, work ethic, looking out for those less fortunate).

Because not everyone in our country is a Christian and the things in parenthesis are not mutually exclusive to Christianity.

As an example, Palin saying that the "Iraq Mission was a mission from God".....thats scary shit to a lot of people man. Maybe not Christians (although I think a lot of Christians are able to take the blinders off) but to a majority of the people who aren't Christian or perhaps aren't any religion, that is some seriously scary shit.

But having one side fighting a "jihad" (and Im not using Iraq in this statement) and us saying we're the moral high ground but then have "leadership" (a General made similar statements) state that we're fighting on a mission from god, or "jihad" equivalent is super duper scary shit.

[JPhillips]

I thought it debuted in the mid singles. Seeing where it debuted there were only a few hours where you could have sold at a profit.

[ace1914]

For my government buffs, got a couple of questions.

1. I hear a lot of things from republicans about democrats raising taxes and spending more of that tax money. For those that have been around awhile is that generally true?

2. Ideologically, I know the difference between R and D. However, historically, has there been a significant difference between a republican controlled government vs. a democratic controlled?

I ask because being relatively young, I was just going to college during end of the Clinton years and then Bush came, and my sample size is likely smaller than some of you guys. Any light to share?

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

But having one side fighting a "jihad" (and Im not using Iraq in this statement) and us saying we're the moral high ground but then have "leadership" (a General made similar statements) state that we're fighting on a mission from god, or "jihad" equivalent is super duper scary shit.

+1000

Crusades 2008.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Because not everyone in our country is a Christian and the things in parenthesis are not mutually exclusive to Christianity.

As an example, Palin saying that the "Iraq Mission was a mission from God".....thats scary shit to a lot of people man. Maybe not Christians (although I think a lot of Christians are able to take the blinders off) but to a majority of the people who aren't Christian or perhaps aren't any religion, that is some seriously scary shit.

But having one side fighting a "jihad" (and Im not using Iraq in this statement) and us saying we're the moral high ground but then have "leadership" (a General made similar statements) state that we're fighting on a mission from god, or "jihad" equivalent is super duper scary shit.

But the mutually exclusive thing is my point - do you really think Palin is in favor of the war exclusively to please god, or do you think there's overlap with her own foreign policy views?

I'm sure politicans talked about World War II as being some kind of holy war of good v. evil. But the war wasn't really fought to please god. When someone invokes religious/spiritual rhetoric after the fact, I lump it in with the general, American, bland, "Christianity" where god has to do with everything. Palin (like most politicans on both sides), supported the war at first (and like a much smaller number, still does). I don't believe that that opinion really has anything to do with god.

Compare it to say, if Bush decided to invade Norway tomorrow because God told him to, and he found some code in the bible that said it was a just action. That's be a tad scary, because there's no non-relgious reasons to invade Norway.

Do you think McCain, or any presidential candidate, would wage a "jihad" war? That seems like a pretty unreasonable fear, and just fearmongering by Obama supporters. Is the Iraq war about jihad? I haven't heard even the biggest Bush opponents claim that.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by molson

But the mutually exclusive thing is my point - do you really think Palin is in favor of the war exclusively to please god, or do you think there's overlap with her own foreign policy views?

It certainly can push what I believe to be bad fundamental decision making and bad "attacks". For example, book burnings, teaching of a non-scientific issue in publicly funded schools, etc. Its not always about war.

I dont want you to think that i dont see your point that a pol could make a decision without consideration of religious faith and than afterwards, in soundbites, attach some religious belief to it however I think that that is an awfully convenient way to hide said motivations if need be. Which do you choose to believe? On the one hand you have the "you cant remove religion from decisions" and on the other you have the "religion didnt play a role in the decision but we'll throw some religious and faith based verbiage on it afterwards" (or at least not a big enough role to have an affect on the direction chosen). Ill go with your first argument that a person with Religious faith, so strong that it invades their public speak should stand behind their religion and never give it up....but that certainly, IMO, precludes them from holding public office no matter their religion. I guess we could argument semantics about where that line is but based on the quotes Ive read thus far, Palin has crossed that line in my book but perhaps not in yours or others. I would expect the same from Lieberman, Romney and others and will consider this one facet of a ticket's full picture when casting my vote and hope that others do too.

[larrymcg421]

As a Christian whose faith leads him in an opposite direction as Palin, the only thing that bothers me is her inconsistency. Either her faith influences her political decisions or it doesn't. If she's said that in the past as she's been quoted, then why is she afraid of admitting it now? She needs to make up her mind, and then we can have a discussion about it.

[larrymcg421]

dola

I'd add that it also bothers me for many reasons that she asked Alaskans to pray for an oil pipeline, mainly because it makes Christians look silly.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

You said Republicans while I say ALL, and I think that that speaks volumes. The job of Pres., VP, Senator, etc. requires, IMO, a check of religion at the door. If not you run the risk of becoming a Theocracy and having a religious minority being tread upon which goes against the fabric of our country. Once again, my opinion but I believe that religion gets checked at the door when you go to hold public office....at least in this country, not in Iran.

Flasch,

When George Washington stepped down as president, he wrote a farewell address to the American people. While it's just one man's opinion (and I'd say his section on foreign policy is a bit dated due to the advances in technology), here's what he has to say about religion and public office. Just some food for thought.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

dola

I'd add that it also bothers me for many reasons that she asked Alaskans to pray for an oil pipeline, mainly because it makes Christians look silly.

Well, then all the athletes who pray for a win are silly as well.

FWIW.......I'm a moderate republican who thinks all religious people looks silly. My theory is that man created God in his own image. I don't hold it against anyone who chooses to be religious. I think a moral foundation is a great thing. I just don't think you need religion or a fear of going to hell to create that sound moral foundation.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Flasch,

When George Washington stepped down as president, he wrote a farewell address to the American people. While it's just one man's opinion (and I'd say his section on foreign policy is a bit dated due to the advances in technology), here's what he has to say about religion and public office. Just some food for thought.

I dont care what GW said 200+ years ago as times have changed and I live in the here and now. Our country was not founded on Christianity and I know you'll argue this to no end but I truly believe that the founding fathers wanted religious freedom for all even if it means having no religion at all, and having religious decisions play a role in our countries legislation and decision making is an affront to that foundation and scary scary scary shit. If you disagree with this than IMO you are ok with opening a door to second class treatment of those who arent homogeneous with the religious ideals held by those in power. Throughout history this has been an ingredient for failure.

I have faith that our greatest achievements by our elected leaders are done when religion isn't leaned upon in the decision making apparatus.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Well, then all the athletes who pray for a win are silly as well.

FWIW.......I'm a moderate republican who thinks all religious people looks silly. My theory is that man created God in his own image. I don't hold it against anyone who chooses to be religious. I think a moral foundation is a great thing. I just don't think you need religion or a fear of going to hell to create that sound moral foundation.

agreed...for once.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

agreed...for once.

Just for the record, this is actually the third time you have agreed with me in this thread, though you have used the terms 'for once' in each agreement as though it were the first time.

[ISiddiqui]

He has a reputation to uphold .

[Flasch186]

well Im like a new Xbox 360 each time

[molson]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I dont care what GW said 200+ years ago as times have changed and I live in the here and now. Our country was not founded on Christianity and I know you'll argue this to no end but I truly believe that the founding fathers wanted religious freedom for all even if it means having no religion at all, and having religious decisions play a role in our countries legislation and decision making is an affront to that foundation and scary scary scary shit. If you disagree with this than IMO you are ok with opening a door to second class treatment of those who arent homogeneous with the religious ideals held by those in power. Throughout history this has been an ingredient for failure.

I have faith that our greatest achievements by our elected leaders are done when religion isn't leaned upon in the decision making apparatus.

The Constitution protects against "opening a door to second class treatment of those who aren't homogeneous with the religious ideals held by those in power".

Religious is fading in America, not growing. It seems strange to me, that in 2008, you're somehow scared of (I guess), John McCain coming in and making religious-based decisions. No matter who is president, they'll be less religiously motivated than ANY other president in history (can't prove it, just an opinion, and an observation of the decline of religion in this country).

It's up to the voters of course. If they want a Satantic president, they can vote for one (though he'd still be limited by Constitution). But every president has been Christian, and usually pretty overtly so. Americans aren't scared of that, because we know about Christiantiy. American Christianity isn't really very scary (and it's actually pretty shallow in the sense that it doesn't drive people's lives like to contradict regular American values). Is a good Christian all that different than a good atheist? The Christian values aren't very desctructive, for the most part.

I guess I don't understand why you think McCain is any "scarier" than Obama in this regard, if that's what you're saying.

[JPhillips]

Religious beliefs only matter to me when they compel actions or goals that are in contrast to ideals of the founders. I don't care if she speaks in tongues from time to time. I do care that she was interested in banning books. Same for Obama, I don't care that he went to Trinity, I would care if he said he was promoting Wright's worldview.

The good conversation that could come from all this, but won't unfortunately, is that in churches all across America people hear what the majority would likely consider an extreme message. Religious beliefs, by their nature are "crazy" to those who don't share the same beliefs. To a non-believer there really isn't a craziness difference between people who believe in a Holy Ghost and people who believe in Xenu.

That's why it's important for public officials to put the ideals of the nation as expressed in the Constitution above the ideals of one's own religious beliefs if they are in conflict. It's only when an official can't place their religious views subservient to the Constitution that I have a problem.

[Fighter of Foo]

In the same speech, Washington also said this:

"Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ?"

Clearly, we have lost our way.

[Flasch186]

I didn't say McCain, I said Palin and Im one of the few people who says they vote for a ticket not one individual and as a ticket Im less afraid of the Obama/Biden ticket than the McCain/Palin ticket on this one facet we're currently discussing.

I had a fear of Obama's tax platform during recessionary times although I believe that tax changes are a necessity for our long term health of our country, ie. infrastructure, schools, etc. and am very very pleased that Obama's ticket has stated clearly that they recognize the current status of the economy and the need to bend their ideals for the here and now. I LOVE any leader who can see the forest for the trees and be able to make changes to their direction for the betterment of the country. We've been devoid of that, IMO, for the last 7 years.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That's why it's important for public officials to put the ideals of the nation as expressed in the Constitution above the ideals of one's own religious beliefs if they are in conflict. It's only when an official can't place their religious views subservient to the Constitution that I have a problem.

The Constitution is the check on all of this, you can't be in conflict with that whatever the reason, religious or otherwise. But if the voters vote for an overt Christian, why can't he act like a Christian in office (whatever that means).

When has any politician put their religious views ahead of the Constitution? Are you talking about abortion? Is being pro-life bad for a politician if it's motivated by religion? That seems un-American.

Hypothetical from a state level - If "the people" are religious, and are pro-life because of that religion, should the politican they elect ignore that just because it's a religious view? Are "the people" not entitled to a politican that is pro-life because once any leader gets in office, they shouldn't have religious beliefs anymore?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I dont care what GW said 200+ years ago as times have changed and I live in the here and now. Our country was not founded on Christianity and I know you'll argue this to no end but I truly believe that the founding fathers wanted religious freedom for all even if it means having no religion at all, and having religious decisions play a role in our countries legislation and decision making is an affront to that foundation and scary scary scary shit. If you disagree with this than IMO you are ok with opening a door to second class treatment of those who arent homogeneous with the religious ideals held by those in power. Throughout history this has been an ingredient for failure.

I have faith that our greatest achievements by our elected leaders are done when religion isn't leaned upon in the decision making apparatus.

I think you probably know much less about our elected leaders than you think. Frankly, you're coming off as the type of person who never would have voted for Kennedy in 1960 because you didn't want the Pope running the country.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by molson

I guess maybe I don't understand what you mean by bringing your religion to work. Can you give an example of an actual politician doing that in a way you object to?

This doesn't happen. Fear of religious views for McCain/Palin is no different than the "vote for Bush and a black church will burn" crud that was peddled out there in 2000. As far as I can tell, no president has ever made a major decision based solely on region since before JFK. Clinton, Reagan, Bush, Carter, Ford, W and JFK were all much more overtly religious than McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden. Yet, now we are "afraid" that McCain and Palin will step in on day 1 and start a new crusades under the guise of religion.

Nearly every electable political leader in today's climate has a religious base that is so watered down that (even if given free reign) they wouldn't make judgments solely based on it. And, to be honest, that doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing and it's certainly not something to be afraid of. Both McCain (outside of the war) and Obama have shown that one thing guides them during this election - internal polls and the desire to be elected. That alone should put all the "we are going to have Jerry Fallwell as president if one side wins" people at ease. Of course, it will make numerous others (myself included) a little worried for other reasons.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

The Constitution is the check on all of this, you can't be in conflict with that whatever the reason, religious or otherwise. But if the voters vote for an overt Christian, why can't he act like a Christian in office (whatever that means).

When has any politician put their religious views ahead of the Constitution? Are you talking about abortion? Is being pro-life bad for a politician if it's motivated by religion? That seems un-American.

Hypothetical from a state level - If "the people" are religious, and are pro-life because of that religion, should the politican they elect ignore that just because it's a religious view? Are "the people" not entitled to a politican that is pro-life because once any leader gets in office, they shouldn't have religious beliefs anymore?

I'm ambivalently pro-choice at best, so it has nothing to do with the abortion issue.

Banning books is a serious concern IMO. So is the desire to ban birth control. Hiring discrimination and editing out scientific information that contradicts a religious viewpoint matter to me.

It isn't about acting like a Christian, but about compelling someone else to live under the tenets of my religious beliefs. Like I said, I don't really care whether someone's a Mormon, a snakehandler, a Pentecostal or whatever. As a mainline Christian they all seem extreme to me, but I'm sure my religious beliefs can seem wishy-washy to them. So long as my beliefs don't hinder them and vice-versa everything works fine. If I tried to ban speaking in tongues or a Mormon inserted founding beliefs into an American History text that's too far.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by molson

The Constitution protects against "opening a door to second class treatment of those who aren't homogeneous with the religious ideals held by those in power".

Religious is fading in America, not growing. It seems strange to me, that in 2008, you're somehow scared of (I guess), John McCain coming in and making religious-based decisions. No matter who is president, they'll be less religiously motivated than ANY other president in history (can't prove it, just an opinion, and an observation of the decline of religion in this country).
.

I disagree - if anything, American religious ferver is growing, similar to that in Africa/India/Latin America as opposed to a more secular Europe. I'd guarantee that the next GOP president after McCain for example, will be far more religously motivated than a Gerald Ford or a Nixon before him.