Presidential Forum on Faith, Morals and Poverty

[toscano]

Well you made this generalization, so I presumed you did:

Where did I make this assumption ???? "To assume those that don't care of their potential leaders religion aren't people of faith is ridiculous"

 

[Irvine511]

Well I suppose that's true if you want to judge all Christians by one Christian.

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.

 

[Irvine511]

The democrats should have won the LAST election easily. An incumbent President fighting an unpopular war in a down economy. The dems forgot to read their copy of "fighting elections for dummies" and got their lunch eaten.

Voters of Faith are a part of the electorate they just ignored. A huge part.

i sort of agree -- except that in 2004 the war wasn't as much of a clear failure as it is today, so it was really the democrats trying to oust an incumbent in a time of war. not an easy thing.

what's also more significant about Bush is that the economy is doing really rather well, we're at nearly full employment, but he's at 28%. astonishing.

 

[toscano]

but i can also say that putting a premium on the professed faith of a potential candidate is bad for democracy and bad for the country.

Expressed as your opinion, sure. To some faith-based voters, that may not be true.

but the conflating of Republicanism with Christianism has done significant long term damage to the party, particularly in the view of those under the age of 40.

so it's not just bad for America, it's bad for Republicans.

Let's hope you're right !

 

[anitram]

i don't think this is as much about how people should "vote for their faith" as it is attracting the "faith based" voters. the democrats could win this election easily if they were to even earn the vote of just some of these types of voters.

I guess what I find odd is that in no other Western democracy do you need to talk in code to "faith based" voters of any stripe. I am pretty sure that if you had this kind of gathering on TV in Canada or Germany or Sweden, the public would respond with "You can't possibly be serious." And if we are able to elect candidates with what seems to be a far better moral compass than your current offering, then I guess I don't really understand why this is necessary.

I'm not saying it's wrong - it's perfectly fine to have this debate. It's just culturally entirely foreign to probably the entire rest of the Western world. And I really believe religion nor faith based voting has any place at all in politics. JMO.

 

[BVS]

Where did I make this assumption ???? "To assume those that don't care of their potential leaders religion aren't people of faith is ridiculous"

I showed you, if I'm wrong then I stand corrected. But you stated:

The funny thing about people of faith, is that the depth of faith of their potential leaders matters to them. It's (gasp) part of their faith !

Well I'm a person of faith, but I do not fit in the statement you made above. Maybe I shouldn't have used religion and faith interchangably, but it always bothers me to use the same word over again in a sentence.

 

[coemgen]

okay, so, if faith matters, and what one says about one's faith is an accurate representation of their "moral compass," then, based upon the last 7 years, i can only ever vote for atheists, agnostics, jews, buddhists, and hindus.

no christians. ever again. christians like to torture. christians like to politicize the justice department. christians like to allow disasters like 9-11 and Katrina to happen under their watch and do absolutely nothing. christians like tax cuts for the rich. christians scapegoat gay people like the nazis scapgoated jews. christians invade middle eastern countries using intelligence fabrications and then don't have the competence to effectively manage the postwar and will then turn around and blame the occupied for being no good at democracy.

if faith matters, then this is precisely how it matters.

This is exactly why many of us who have faith are excited to hear the democrats share their faith perspectives. Bush has not only gotten things wrong, he's given Christianity a black eye in the process.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

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 understand that-but Jim Wallis is all about countering that. So if forums like this can make people see that it can be countered and remind them that it needs to be, well I think just that makes it worth it. Religion doesn't belong in the Oval Office, but that doesn't mean it can't stay in someone's heart who occupies that office and inform their concern for social justice (which is the main message of Jesus and anyone else that any faith believes in as far as I'm concerned-and as far as many Christians and people of other faiths are concerned). The real challenge is to keep it properly checked and balanced and to know the line that should not be crossed.

 

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

I don't know when you all are going to realize we can't believe a word any of these people say and we have no viable options

 

[Vincent Vega]

^Maybe we shouldn't take every sentence as an absolute. I don't think toscano meant to say "The funny thing about all people of faith...", but rather in a way of "The funny thing about some/many/whatever people of faith..."

 

[toscano]

I showed you, if I'm wrong then I stand corrected.

corrected you are

 

[BVS]

^Maybe we shouldn't take every sentence as an absolute. I don't think toscano meant to say "The funny thing about all people of faith...", but rather in a way of "The funny thing about some/many/whatever people of faith..."

This is why qualifiers are so important in communicating with the written word.

 

[toscano]

^Maybe we shouldn't take every sentence as an absolute. I don't think toscano meant to say "The funny thing about all people of faith...", but rather in a way of "The funny thing about some/many/whatever people of faith..."

this is fym, I am a slow learner, I haven't yet grasped that qualifiers are needed at all times lest one leaves oneself open to misinterpretations, can't assume (or presume) common sense is always present

 

[BVS]

and we have no viable options

So we're just doomed?

 

[toscano]

I understand that-but Jim Wallis is all about countering that. So if forums like this can make people see that it can be countered and remind them that it needs to be, well I think just that makes it worth it. Religion doesn't belong in the Oval Office, but that doesn't mean it can't stay in someone's heart who occupies that office and inform their concern for social justice (which is the main message of Jesus and anyone else that any faith believes in as far as I'm concerned-and as far as many Christians and people of other faiths are concerned). The real challenge is to keep it properly checked and balanced and to know the line that should not be crossed.

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

 

[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.

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.

 

[coemgen]

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.

 

[Irvine511]

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.

 

[Liesje]

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.

 

[BVS]

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.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

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/06/05/democrats.religion.ap/index.html

 

[Irvine511]

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.

 

[coemgen]

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.

 

[hotpepper]

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.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

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]

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/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/04/pzn.01.html

 

[BVS]

and if they take Communion, etc.

That's exactly why this thing scared me...

 

[anitram]

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.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

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]

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.