McCain Kicks Obama's Butt at Debate

[Boz]

Aug 20, 2008 14:24:20 GMT -5 Coast2CoastHoya said:

True on all points, Boz. My point was simply that, from having been there, it can be intimidating even if you're not talking---there are some very opinoned and vocal folks at Saddleback. I can only imagine being a Democratic candidate and speaking there. By all accounts the congregation and Warren treated both candidates very well. Cool format; I'd like to see more non-traditional debate venues like that.

Well it could have been worse.

Obama could have shown up on stage to this!

;D

[The Stig]

The "debate" did highlight one of the aspects I like about Obama - he doesn't change his message based on who he's speaking to, and he's not afraid to tell an audience something they don't like. He agreed to go into a megachurch and told the congregation he's pro-life and pro-civil unions. A lot of politicians won't do that.

As much as I fear the crumbling of the separation of church and state that we've seen under the current administration, I don't really have a problem with having this sort of event. It was privately organized, Warren invited both candidates, they both agreed to show up, and as others have said Warren played fair. Frankly, I'd like to see more events like this in front of different sorts of audiences (maybe a trade union gathering, a Latino gathering, or a womens' group).

If they had one of the official debates in a megachurch, then I'd be very upset. But that wasn't the case.

[SirSaxa]

Aug 20, 2008 12:19:47 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Speaking of typical ... Bando once again illustrated how it is ok for the left to play the race card, while entirely inappropriate for someone on the right to do so.
....
And since you are the one who can't see the difference, I wonder if sirsaxa would feel as scared if the debate featrued Jeremiah Wright in addition or even instead.

HiFi,

It seems once again you have it 180 degrees backwards, as Bando already pointed out.

The person who introduced race into the thread was Easy Ed. Now he has since said he didn't mean to. But, that doesn't change that he indeed did, equating African American churches with Democrats and Evangelical churches with white people and Republicans. Bando correctly pointed out that many African Americans are evangelicals and many evangelicals are African American.

I have yet to see you, HiFi, apologize for flying off the handle with completely unsubstantiated accusations regarding the "left" and the "right", especially to Bando.

As for your second question HiFi, you obviously totally miss my point if you think Jeremiah Wright, or Billy Graham or The Pope would be a suitable substitute or addition. It is the very idea of religious leaders conducting some kind of interrogation of political leaders that is disturbing.

Religious leaders should stick to religion and stay out of politics. They shouldn't be telling people how to vote or for whom. And they shouldn't be making judgments about others and conveying their imprimatur of approval. It is not their place, and it is beyond their ability. No man, no matter how religious, is able to judge the spiritual life of another.

Want a little reminder? How about GW Bush looking into Putin's eyes and seeing his soul? We know how that turned out right? Bush couldn't do it, and neither can religious leaders.

Couple additional points,
- Churches' tax status is related to their mission and requires they stay out of politics. If they want to get involved in politics? THen call themselves political organizations and stop hiding behind "God" to try to give themselves some undeserved credibility.

- The Bush team has been courting the Christian Right, even bestowing millions of dollars to their "charitable" functions. That is wrong. Why does it happen? Because the Churches help turn out the vote for Republicans.

[SirSaxa]

Aug 20, 2008 12:27:16 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Because of your possible biases, perhaps you are unable to comprehend that there is no difference between them as all are consistent with the free exercise of religion granted by the constitution. My questions:

1. Is the practice of Democratic Presidential candidates speaking from the pulpit (repeat, from the pulpit) of predominantly African American churches (or Moslem churches) something that sits well with you? You seem to indicate you're okay with this.

2. Second question: in your opinion, is such a practice consistent with your views on the separation of church and state? Again, you seem to say you're okay with that.

3. Third question: was the forum at Saddleback church consistent with the constitution's provision that the government impose no restrictions on the free exercise of religion?

4. It's also funny that no one seemed to out of sorts with the Saddleback forum until after Obama bombed in his responses. So the problem was obviously the forum itself. Yeh, right. If Obama had performed well in that forum, I doubt anyone would be objecting to it at all.

Question #1... well, maybe we should start with the "Moslem Churches". They are called Mosques. Perhaps you remember that soon after 9/11, Bush actually spoke at one.

Question #2. Speaking at a Church, Synagogue, Mosque or other place of worship? I don't have a problem with it, but personally I think it is better not to mix politics and religion.

Question #3. Did I say somewhere that I thought it was illegal? I don't recall that.

Question #4. No comments on this issue until after the forum? There was no THREAD on this issue until after the forum. Once the thread was up, I and others commented. "yeh right".

Let me add another point.
I am old enough to remember, so I am sure Ed is too, when JFK was elected the first Catholic President. I'll make a wild guess and say he was never one of Ed's faves. But that isn't the point.

During that election, there was a serious effort to slander JFK and cast doubt about him due to his Catholicism. The country had never had a Catholic President. He was going to take orders from the Pope. He would be more loyal to Catholic theology than the Constitution, etc. I guess only a good solid Episcopalian, or maybe in a pinch a Methodist, was qualified to be president.

This cozying up of one political party to the religious right, and claiming to be the party of family values, and all this other "Holier than thou" BS is insulting and thoroughly without support. To suggest someone has to be a Christian to be a good president? Disgraceful.

One has to be a good person, with good values, with good judgement, and with the ability to look at facts and science and reality without some kind of religious bias. We have the President of the USA saying the evolution is just a theory and we should teach "intelligent design" in science class. THAT is the kind of Travesty that this too close relationship encourages.

[EasyEd]

"- Churches' tax status is related to their mission and requires they stay out of politics. If they want to get involved in politics? THen call themselves political organizations and stop hiding behind "God" to try to give themselves some undeserved credibility."

"Question #2. Speaking at a Church, Synagogue, Mosque or other place of worship? I don't have a problem with it, but personally I think it is better not to mix politics and religion."

A little inconsistency here.

This is my last post on this subject but I would like to echo someone's earlier comment to the effect that your posts, Sir Saxa, reek of disdain for committed Christians. In your vocabulary "religious right" appears to be a term of contempt; "claiming to be the party of family values" distastefully seems to drip off your tongue; the idea that a higher being might actually be guiding the evolution process is obviously disgusting to you. It is this kind of insulting viewpoints of devoted Christians that has caused the Democrats to lose elections in the past and, hopefully, will lose the coming one for them. It's not very appealing to devoted Christians always to be viewed as ignorant, "holier than thou" puppets always trying to impose their will on others. Incidentally, I could go on for pages on things the left seeks to impose on devoted Christians.

Finally, your recollection of the Kennedy election is not accurate. I am told what you describe was in full bloom in the attempt earlier to elect Al Smith President but it was not very active in the Kennedy election. In fact, there was very little anti-Catholicism in his election partly because Kennedy made no attempt actually to be a Catholic.

[The Stig]

Aug 20, 2008 19:04:19 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

"- Churches' tax status is related to their mission and requires they stay out of politics. If they want to get involved in politics? THen call themselves political organizations and stop hiding behind "God" to try to give themselves some undeserved credibility."

"Question #2. Speaking at a Church, Synagogue, Mosque or other place of worship? I don't have a problem with it, but personally I think it is better not to mix politics and religion."

A little inconsistency here.

This is my last post on this subject but I would like to echo someone's earlier comment to the effect that your posts, Sir Saxa, reek of disdain for committed Christians. In your vocabulary "religious right" appears to be a term of contempt; "claiming to be the party of family values" distastefully seems to drip off your tongue; the idea that a higher being might actually be guiding the evolution process is obviously disgusting to you. It is this kind of insulting viewpoints of devoted Christians that has caused the Democrats to lose elections in the past and, hopefully, will lose the coming one for them. It's not very appealing to devoted Christians always to be viewed as ignorant, "holier than thou" puppets always trying to impose their will on others. Incidentally, I could go on for pages on things the left seeks to impose on devoted Christians.

Finally, your recollection of the Kennedy election is not accurate. I am told what you describe was in full bloom in the attempt earlier to elect Al Smith President but it was not very active in the Kennedy election. In fact, there was very little anti-Catholicism in his election partly because Kennedy made no attempt actually to be a Catholic.

I'm not speaking for SirSaxa here, but when I use the term "Christian Right" I don't mean all committed Christians. I just mean those who I think want to turn this country into a Christian theocracy.

I have some very close friends who are deeply committed Christians, and in a way I admire them for it. One in particular has been through some very difficult times in their life, and their faith played a key role in helping them get through it. However, despite the fact that their faith is so important to them, they have never, ever tried to convert me, even though they know full well that I'm not religious. They see my faith (or lack thereof) as none of their business. They don't have a problem with me being a non-believing crazed liberal. So even though they're deeply religious, and even though some of them probably vote Republican, I don't see them as being part of the Christian Right.

To me the Christian Right is the televangelists and their born-again crowd who think the entire world must live by their word (I deliberately put "their word" instead of "God's word" since I think they're two very different things). They see the separation of church and state as a hurdle that must be overcome, not as a founding principle of this nation. They want this country's policies to be guided by religion above common sense. They're a danger to the country, especially to those of us who would rather not be Christians.

I understand that the right to worship freely is important to most Americans, and I respect that right. In the same vein, I'm very happy that I have the right to not worship, and I know that many committed Christians respect that right in turn. However, there is also a large chunk of committed Christians who I firmly believe want to take that right away from me, and that's something I simply can't tolerate.

[DFW HOYA]

Aug 20, 2008 19:54:31 GMT -5 The Stig said:

To me the Christian Right is the televangelists and their born-again crowd who think the entire world must live by their word (I deliberately put "their word" instead of "God's word" since I think they're two very different things). They see the separation of church and state as a hurdle that must be overcome, not as a founding principle of this nation. They want this country's policies to be guided by religion above common sense. They're a danger to the country, especially to those of us who would rather not be Christians.

Your comments suggest you see this group through a television lens and not in daily life.

Maybe there aren't a lot of such folks where you live, but in 2008, more Americans now self-identify as "evangelical" than as "mainline Protestant" and candidates have to take notice. By and large, these aren't the Bob Tilton or Jimmy Swaggert crowd, but suburban voters in megachurches-- white, black, and Hispanic -- which can range from 10,000 to 27,000 a week in attendance. One church in Houston claims 47,000 a week, leasing the former Summit Arena for its services.

If they vote in numbers, it can make a difference, which is why Obama and McCain didn't appear at a Unitarian church last week, but a place called the Saddleback Church (whose pastor bears a resemblance to a younger Jerry Falwell with a goatee) because that demographic segment has some clout. McCain wins the group, but any inroads Obama can make would be a bonus in tight races.

[The Stig]

Indeed. I'm not denying that there are a lot of them, and that they have clout. That's a big reason why I'm scared of them. If they were just a fringe group I wouldn't pay any attention to them.

We don't have as many up where I live, but I've encountered more of them personally than I'd like.

[GIGAFAN99]

Aug 20, 2008 16:14:23 GMT -5 The Stig said:

The "debate" did highlight one of the aspects I like about Obama - he doesn't change his message based on who he's speaking to, and he's not afraid to tell an audience something they don't like. He agreed to go into a megachurch and told the congregation he's pro-life and pro-civil unions. A lot of politicians won't do that.

As much as I fear the crumbling of the separation of church and state that we've seen under the current administration, I don't really have a problem with having this sort of event. It was privately organized, Warren invited both candidates, they both agreed to show up, and as others have said Warren played fair. Frankly, I'd like to see more events like this in front of different sorts of audiences (maybe a trade union gathering, a Latino gathering, or a womens' group).

If they had one of the official debates in a megachurch, then I'd be very upset. But that wasn't the case.

Yes very bold of him to say he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. Gutsy. Sheesh, McCain came down on the side of states rights. That's almost as brazen.

Obama also said it the question of when life begins was "above his pay grade." Hmmm, really? Forty-seven years old, educated at the best schools, and a public servant and he has no opinion on this? Not even a little? Just doesn't think about it?

BS. Obama has an opinion and I bet it's the same as McCain's (I actually think Obama is pretty religious as a person). But instead of rousing a crowd who would wonder why he's "not defending that position in the legislature" and risk offending the older feminists who already can't stand him, he just falls back on "I'm for Roe vs. Wade but we need fewer abortions."

True guts. I think he was cautious and certainly did not define himself in any lasting way which has been his problem as the polls have slipped away from him.

[AustinHoya03]

Aug 20, 2008 20:28:47 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

One church in Houston claims 47,000 a week, leasing the former Summit Arena for its services.

Yeah, don't try driving anywhere on 59 or anywhere between Montrose and West U. on a Sunday morning -- it's a zoo.

For the record, that church's pastor preaches that believing in Christ will earn you money and success. If you're not rich and happy, you just need to believe/pray harder. (If anyone doubts this, feel free to watch the nationally syndicated broadcast.)

That message may cause tens of thousands of people in Houston to come out for Sunday service, but there are plenty of other people within the city limits who view Lakewood as a commercial enterprise that operates to put money in the pockets of the Osteen family.

[SirSaxa]

Aug 20, 2008 19:04:19 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

...your posts, Sir Saxa, reek of disdain for committed Christians. In your vocabulary "religious right" appears to be a term of contempt; "claiming to be the party of family values" distastefully seems to drip off your tongue; the idea that a higher being might actually be guiding the evolution process is obviously disgusting to you. It is this kind of insulting viewpoints of devoted Christians that has caused the Democrats to lose elections in the past and, hopefully, will lose the coming one for them. It's not very appealing to devoted Christians always to be viewed as ignorant, "holier than thou" puppets always trying to impose their will on others. Incidentally, I could go on for pages on things the left seeks to impose on devoted Christians.

Finally, your recollection of the Kennedy election is not accurate. I am told what you describe was in full bloom in the attempt earlier to elect Al Smith President but it was not very active in the Kennedy election. In fact, there was very little anti-Catholicism in his election partly because Kennedy made no attempt actually to be a Catholic.

I won’t respond to your vitriolic personal attacks except to say that you assume an awful lot and you don’t hesitate to ascribe words and thoughts to me that I never expressed.

That said, I never wrote anything, let alone anything negative, about devout people of any faith. As for the “Christian Right”, The Stig’s view of what that term means to him aligns pretty closely with what it means to me as well. And yes, I do find people who fit that definition offensive.

The “Family Values Party”? Did you know there are about 55 million registered Republicans in the USA? And there are 72 million registered Democrats? And another 42 million independents and others? That means there are 114 million Americans, repeat, Americans, who are not part of the Republican party, and the vast majority of them are Christians. That's twice as many Christians in the USA who are not Republicans as who are. Every time someone says the “Party of Family Values”, they are impugning the values, the integrity, and the devotion of those other 114 million Americans. If the subject is contempt and insults, that’s a pretty good place to start.

And that is just talking about Christians. What about Jews? Muslims? Hindus? Buddhists? They can be just as devout, just as committed to their families, just as honorable as any Christians in the Republican party.

Someone’s personal spiritual and/or religious beliefs are their own business. What house of worship they attend, if any, is a personal issue. How they pray is between them and God. The more people demand that others believe this or that, or act a certain way or pray a certain way, the more wary we should all be of them. Religious freedom is a sacred trust, a special privilege that all Americans have. Mixing that with politics is a cynical and shameful and dangerous marriage. If someone doesn’t belong to any religion and doesn’t hold those kinds of beliefs, that is his or her business and it doesn’t make them a better or worse person for it.

Now if someone believes their children should be taught that the Earth and the Universe were created in six days because they believe it is a proverb with an important underlying message, that is perfectly suitable to Sunday School or Theology class. But to deny Evolution and to insist on teaching “Intelligent Design” in Science class is today’s equivalent of the Catholic Church threatening to burn Galileo at the Stake if he didn’t refute his discoveries and teachings on Astronomy. Science belongs in science class. Theology in theology class. Render unto Caesar.

By the way, the comments about Kennedy’s presidential campaign and the strong anti-Catholic sentiments? It seems the Catholic News, the St. Thomas Library and others don’t share your views – see below. As for judging JFK’s personal religious beliefs, commitment and relationship to God? Apparently that’s within the scope of your abilities. It is far beyond mine.


EXCERPTS

CatholicNews

For much of the Catholic population of the country, Kennedy's nomination and election were a sign that Catholics had arrived, politically speaking. But Kennedy's name on the ballot also spurred a vicious anti-Catholic campaign which warned that the pope would be running the United States if the senator from Massachusetts were elected.

CarnegieEndowment

A 1958 Gallup Poll found that 25 percent of Americans said they wouldn't vote for a Catholic. And according to the Survey Research Center poll after the election, 40 percent of Democratic Protestants who regularly attended church voted against Kennedy.

MORE LINKS


[url=http://www.stthomas.edu/libraries/collections/special/collections/mEditedcript/anticath.html]St. Thomas University Libraries[/url][/b][/size]


JFK Library