Presidential Forum on Faith, Morals and Poverty - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-04-2007, 10:47 AM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 08:53 AM
It's not only in FYM. Often I leave out qualifiers as well thinking that it should be clear that it's not meant as an absolute.
Rather to the opposite, if I'm talking about an absolute I use such qualifiers to indicate that.
But in 95 per cent of cases you can't speak of absolutes, and so I take it as a given that this is not meant.

However, sometimes I will fall about a sentence and take it wrong myself.

I think the difference about discussing faith is that in the US there are so many denominations and some differ like night and day.
In most European countries you would have either a Protestant, Lutheran in Germany, a Catholic, or sometimes a Muslim. That's it.
But it's also not up to debating here. Even though we have the Christian Democratic Union it's not as if they came with the bible or anything. The secularisation seems to be far more advanced. Someone like Bush who justified his politics with his belief wouldn't stand a chance here.

I would like to see such a discussion be broadcast here in Europe so that people say that over in the US not everyone went nuts about their belief.
Sorry, might sound a bit rude, but many got the impression that in the US religion did take an unfortunate turn backwards, so it would be a relief for some that there are liberal Christians as well.
__________________

__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 06-04-2007, 10:54 AM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 02:53 AM
I check www.sojo.net a couple times a week and today the first thing you see is a small pledge to sign to "Vote out Poverty."

After I signed, it took me to a page with this:

"Pledge to Vote Out Poverty
Martin Luther King Jr. famously warned that a "a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." Yet despite King's caution, we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a disastrous war in Iraq while 37 million Americans are living in poverty and 3 billion people worldwide live on less than $2 a day.

"This election season, we can answer Jesus' call to care for the "least of these" by demanding that candidates go on the record with real plans for addressing poverty in the U.S. and around the world."

To me, this is incredibly refreshing. That's the word I keep going back to. Plus, as a Christian, we're called to live out our faith and put it into action. Otherwise, our faith is a dead faith. It's exciting to see Wallis' push to change the discussion on what faith means to politics and to get back to what Christ really stood for: the poor and the marginalized. Not war and the wealthy.
__________________

__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 06-04-2007, 10:56 AM   #48
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by toscano


Like it or not some people WILL vote based on their RELIGIOUS faith , Wallis is giving the candidates an avenue to reach out to them, this is a good thing


that's an interesting thought -- Wallis practicing realpolitik for the Dems.

if it prevents bellicose, torture-lovin' Republicans from gaining higher office, then i suppose the ends justify the means.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-04-2007, 11:17 AM   #49
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 02:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




i agree with you, but the point i was trying to make is that George Bush predicated much of his presidency on the message that "i am a christian/person of faith/believer/born-again, i speak your language, i share your values, vote for me on the basis of that and that alone."

he was saying, in essence, that all Christians are the same, and if you are a Christian, then vote for one.
I agree, but we Christians can be really judgmental and picky and some of us would rather vote for a Satan worshiper than another Christian of a different denomination. I'm not saying that's necessarily true of me, but I do know plenty of Christians who simply cannot objectively remove religion and faith from political decisions who would rather vote for a hyena than G-dubs. For some, religion and morals will always come into play, but it doesn't mean they're going to vote for "The Christian" if it's not the Christian they want.

I don't let my theological convictions influence my political preferences, but if they did sneak in from time to time, I'd take offense to someone assuming I would vote for G-dubs or any Christian simply because he is The Christian candidate.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 06-04-2007, 11:24 AM   #50
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 01:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
It's not only in FYM. Often I leave out qualifiers as well thinking that it should be clear that it's not meant as an absolute.
Rather to the opposite, if I'm talking about an absolute I use such qualifiers to indicate that.
But in 95 per cent of cases you can't speak of absolutes, and so I take it as a given that this is not meant.

However, sometimes I will fall about a sentence and take it wrong myself.

This is a great approach and it would be nice if this could be practiced, but I've just seen too many here in FYM and too many in real life who do think they can speak in absolutes and do believe in their generalizations.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-05-2007, 09:09 AM   #51
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 02:53 AM
Did anyone watch it? I did, I thought it was interesting and I have to say I was impressed with Hillary's candor and her answers. Soledad O'Brien got on my last nerve though, Senator Obama shot her the dirtiest look when she shouted out his time remaining when he was in the middle of a complex answer.

There's a story and some video here

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/....ap/index.html
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 06-05-2007, 09:53 AM   #52
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
Did anyone watch it?


i saw the highlights on Anderson Cooper, and i was actually rather impressed with the candidates. they seemed to do well in this get-to-know-you forum, and in that sense, it was kind of interesting, and HRC continues to impress -- she did *very* well in the debate last week and she's becoming less of a robot with each appearance.

and it's interesting ... and i might be engaging in a bit of self-admitted hypocrisy here ... but listening to the answers, i still felt baffled as to why anyone would vote for anyone on the basis of their religious faith, or why that's even important. but when HRC said that she came from a tradition that was suspicious of people who wear their faith on their sleeve, i nodded in agreement. if someone is modest about their faith, if someone acknowledges their faith as a personal thing and really not a qualification for holding office -- or that faith itself is a qualification for holding office as Republicans continue to say -- then i would be more likely to vote for that person.

perhaps, in it's way, i'm just the flip side of a coin of someone who wants someone who's faith is flamboyant and public. so someone's faith might influence how i vote for them -- if you think that faith is an important qualification for hodling office, i'm probably not going to vote for you.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-05-2007, 11:37 AM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 02:53 AM
And to some degree it may just be that people of faith want to vote for other people of faith, and people who don't have a faith don't make a big deal about it.

I missed the debate becasue I was at work late, but I did see a few comments made by the three and it was a neat thing to hear them express where they're coming from. Of course, I'm a person of faith.
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 06-05-2007, 12:37 PM   #54
War Child
 
hotpepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: New York (I wish)
Posts: 739
Local Time: 12:53 AM
I thought it was interesting mostly from the perspective of getting to know the candidates better. I too don't understand how anyone would vote for anyone on the basis of their religious faith. I did like Clinton's candor about being suspicious when people wear their religion on their sleeves. With that said, I thought Edwards was wearing it a bit too loudly for me to take him as being genuine.

I was really (probably too optimistically) hoping to hear more interest about global poverty and some concrete solutions.
__________________
hotpepper is offline  
Old 06-05-2007, 05:21 PM   #55
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 02:53 AM
Well I consider myself to be a person of faith and I want to vote for the best person for the job, not for a person of faith. If they happen to have faith and/or religion that's a positive trait as long as it's deeds and not just words, as they were discussing last night. And as long as they walk what I consider to be the proper line as far as their religion affecting their job.

It will be interesting to see the comparisons and contrasts with the Republicans when they have theirs.

And I admit I'm curious about John Edwards sins
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 06-05-2007, 05:40 PM   #56
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 02:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by hotpepper

I was really (probably too optimistically) hoping to hear more interest about global poverty and some concrete solutions.
I guess they were too busy asking the Catholic ones how they reconcile their positions on abortion and gay marriage with the Pope's and if they take Communion, etc. That's more "juicy" or something I suppose. I'd much rather hear about poverty.

Here's a link for the transcript if anyone wants to read it.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...04/pzn.01.html
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 06-05-2007, 05:44 PM   #57
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 01:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen

and if they take Communion, etc.
That's exactly why this thing scared me...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-05-2007, 05:46 PM   #58
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 02:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen


I guess they were too busy asking the Catholic ones how they reconcile their positions on abortion and gay marriage with the Pope's and if they take Communion, etc. That's more "juicy" or something I suppose. I'd much rather hear about poverty.
Wasn't Paula Zahn ridiculous? The way she demanded that Bill Richardson tell her how he'll justify his pro-choice stance when he goes to meet his maker was truly repugnant. What a sham of a journalist! I thought they all actually answered her ridiculous questions gracefully.

It occurred to me last night that I have no idea about the religion of my Prime Minister. He's gotta be some kind of Protestant, but I have no idea nor do I care. I also don't know the religion of my MP although if I had to guess I'd say he is Sikh. I don't care about that either. And it's not because I'm not a person of faith, but because I just don't see it as relevant at all.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 06-05-2007, 05:51 PM   #59
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 02:53 AM
I think they probably asked that because of what happened with John Kerry- and I think they only asked one or two of them, not sure about that. But it was like some sort of inquisition. I applaud them for just answering the question in spite of the kind of question it was.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 06-05-2007, 05:58 PM   #60
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 02:53 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram

Wasn't Paula Zahn ridiculous? The way she demanded that Bill Richardson tell her how he'll justify his pro-choice stance when he goes to meet his maker was truly repugnant. What a sham of a journalist! I thought they all actually answered her ridiculous questions gracefully.
Well I was wondering if she asked that because she somehow feels that is "what the public would want to know". Which is hogwash of course. What happens between him and his maker is his business. I really liked his description of his Catholic beliefs, and as far as I'm concerned he doesn't have to justify them to anyone. It can be a tough road to hoe when you are a Catholic and a Democrat and hold certain beliefs. I have no problem with it personally, I hold my head high. I have reconciled them with God and with my understanding of what He wants and demands, and that's good enough for me.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com