Now Democrats Embrace Fundamentalism

[Carrera]

I was watching ABC News last night and the reports should leave nobody in any doubt regarding this fundamentalism issue and it's basically scary.
It seems like the Democrats are now being forced to prove their Christian credentials in order to stand a chance of unseating the fundamentalist Republicans.
The implications are frightening and I can only raise one question: How on earth is Schwarzennegger going to bypass the current reality within the U.S. that stipulates serious politicians must be Christian evangelical? O.K., in a State such as California you can scrape by but in a state to state election...???
So, there you have Hilary Clinton taking the stand and talking about her faith while Obama also tries to get across he also believes in God.
To quote Hilary:
"At those moments in time when you are tested, it is absolutely essential that you be grounded in your faith," she said."
Why is it "absolutely essential" you be "grounded in faith" in a supposed democracy as she puts it? Does she kind of wish this is to be taken on a personal level or should we really suspect that just maybe no U.S. politician stands a chance of getting elected as a non believer? I suspect it is indeed the latter.
John Edwards tried to outdo Hilary and declares, "I have a deep and abiding love for my Lord, Jesus Christ!"
Fine! All well and good but why does he need to broadcast that? Why shouldn't any politician be free to keep his own beliefs to himself without a whole political career depending upon belief or lack of belief in God?
I rest my case.
"Edwards revealed that he prays — and sins — every day. The crowd gasped loudly when moderator Soledad O'Brien asked Edwards to name the biggest sin he ever committed, and he won their applause when he said he would have a hard time naming one thing.
"I sin every single day," said Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee. "We are all sinners and we all fall short."

 

[wolfix]

Carerra....... I need to buy you a ticket to the US so you can see for yourself that the info you read about here is way screwed up....... The fundamentalists would never embrace Hilary. You do not need to satisfy the Christian Right [CR] to get elected. Very few of the politicians actually use their choice of religion in their running for office.
Abortion rights is a issue, although not as big as it once was in this country.And gay rights is an big issue right now. Those issues help define the way the CR/liberals vote in many cases. Many of the canidates state their position on these issues in order to pull votes from those who think those issues are important.
In the last Presidential election we had a guy named Kerry who ran fom a Catholic background. Not much was made of it.

People in this country are starting to wake up to some of the problems we have here... We see schools with metal detectors and police security guards. So we ask ourselves "what went wrong?" Then we read where prayer is not allowed in school and it is a insult to Muslims to have nativity scences. So there is a movement back to what we grew up with.
America does not cater to athiests. We tolerate them, but we really do not take them seriously. But to go as far as saying America is a fudalmenatlist state is far from the truth.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Why shouldn't any politician be free to keep his own beliefs to himself without a whole political career depending upon belief or lack of belief in God? I rest my case."

Why shouldn't a politician be free to state his own beliefs without being attacked by you for expressing them? Perhaps John Edwards is proud of the fact that he considers himself to be Christian. Maybe he wants other's to know he has and believes in Christian values.

 

[Carrera]

But was Edwards being forced to make that declaration? Do you not suspect he's after votes - the votes that Bush attracted from the Bible belt due to his own proclaimed convictions.
I mean, put it this way: The U.S. is a secular country, right? In a secular country a politician shouldn't have to broadcast his or her beliefs when running for office.
I keep asking myself how vulnerable this may make, say, Schwarzennegger if he goes further up the ladder from governor. What happens when they find out about the dope, the abandonment of his parents' religion as a teen, his philosophy of self-belief.
I figure the Democrats are trying to outwit the Repubs by passing themselves off as Godly too. Hilary's quiet faith may be less "in your face" but she's trying to convince the doubters she's a believer. Even Obama is at it to some degree. I also think it was sad to see Clinton (Bill) grovel on T.V.and confess his sins.

Why shouldn't a politician be free to state his own beliefs without being attacked by you for expressing them? Perhaps John Edwards is proud of the fact that he considers himself to be Christian. Maybe he wants other's to know he has and believes in Christian values.

 

[wolfix]

I don't know for sure, but I don't think Arnold can go any higher politically . I think the Presidency is the only place higher and he is not a born citizen. Does anyone else have more info on this?

 

[Carrera]

Personally I think Arnie is about the best hope for the U.S. and could make an excellent President. Basically, he's practical and in some ways similar to Lance (organised and practical) but with more political acumen.
How does he get round all the religious hype, though? Yes, it seems to matter he's not a Christian and that could go against him, especially with charges of groping secretaries with pretty legs.

I don't know for sure, but I don't think Arnold can go any higher politically . I think the Presidency is the only place higher and he is not a born citizen. Does anyone else have more info on this?

 

[Bro Deal]

I don't know for sure, but I don't think Arnold can go any higher politically . I think the Presidency is the only place higher and he is not a born citizen. Does anyone else have more info on this?

He cannot be president without changing the Constitution. He could become a senator or congressman, but he would not be more influential than he is now. A lot of people consider being a senator a sweet gig, and Arnold could stay there for two or more decades.

 

[Bro Deal]

Why shouldn't any politician be free to keep his own beliefs to himself without a whole political career depending upon belief or lack of belief in God?

It is a standard thing in U.S. politics that you have to make a token show of religious belief. Candidates arrange for the press to film them going to church on Sunday, so that everyone will know that they are a believer. This usually is not done to court the fundies; it's to court the regular voter.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

But was Edwards being forced to make that declaration? Do you not suspect he's after votes - the votes that Bush attracted from the Bible belt due to his own proclaimed convictions.

Are you really this ignorant? He is a politician. Everything that is said or done is designed to get votes. Whether he is giving a speech to a union, or the NCAAP, or a photo op, everything is designed to get him the maximum votes.
I'd still like for you to explain just why is it bad for a politician to tell people about his faith.

 

[Carrera]

"I'd still like for you to explain just why is it bad for a politician to tell people about his faith."

I don't have a problem with anyone embracing a belief system. It's the political context of the situation that I found to be over the top.
First of all, I lose count of the times Bush has openly stated at conferences that such and such a person is going to heaven. He made this remark with regard to Reagan adding a shining palace awaited.
This would be unusual for a European prime minister. In Turkey it would raise real alarm bells if an elected Prime Minister spoke of Allah in public as Turks fear a possible drift towards an Islamic State.
What struck me on ABC News was this: The Democrats seemed to me to be forced to bring God into their career aspirations and my question is why should they be forced to proclaim a particular ideology. This is very dangerous terrain if you look back at history. It's a drift towards a believers and non-believers society. Where will it end? I heard some teachers of evolution were being forced to keep a lower profile or were even asked not to teach evolution in some states. For the time being, Democrats now feel forced to prove their Christian credentials but could this extend to even job applications in the future? Could there be a box you have to tick asking, "Do you believe in God?" to prove your credentials as a decent individual?
I think all these belief systems such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Krishna e.t.c. are interesting but the secular state must be preserved if people wish to be free to make up their own minds.
So, what I heard on ABC I found worrying.

Are you really this ignorant? He is a politician. Everything that is said or done is designed to get votes. Whether he is giving a speech to a union, or the NCAAP, or a photo op, everything is designed to get him the maximum votes.
I'd still like for you to explain just why is it bad for a politician to tell people about his faith.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

What struck me on ABC News was this: The Democrats seemed to me to be forced to bring God into their career aspirations and my question is why should they be forced to proclaim a particular ideology.

Then I suppose you think that there should be no Christian politicians. For a true Christian it is impossible to not bring those values to every aspect of your life.

I'd prefer to know what a politician believes. I want to know what values guided them to their decisions.

 

[Carrera]

Hmmmm, but do you mean politics and religion should be considered jointly? I figure religion is personal and the public shouldn't have to know what religion someone adheres to.
The problem today seems to be that religion is being used in the context of politics.

Then I suppose you think that there should be no Christian politicians. For a true Christian it is impossible to not bring those values to every aspect of your life.

I'd prefer to know what a politician believes. I want to know what values guided them to their decisions.

 

[Carrera]

Hmmmm, but do you mean politics and religion should be considered jointly? I figure religion is personal and the public shouldn't have to know what religion someone adheres to.
The problem today seems to be that religion is being used in the context of politics.

Then I suppose you think that there should be no Christian politicians. For a true Christian it is impossible to not bring those values to every aspect of your life.

I'd prefer to know what a politician believes. I want to know what values guided them to their decisions.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Hmmmm, but do you mean politics and religion should be considered jointly? I figure religion is personal and the public shouldn't have to know what religion someone adheres to.
The problem today seems to be that religion is being used in the context of politics.

Why shouldn't the public know what religion a politician adheres to? He is representing those people and those people have every right to know that information.
The problem seems to be that you think every single person who believes in God and Jesus Christ is some crack pot fundamentalist.
All John Edwards was telling the audience was that he tries to live his life by Christian values.

 

[Carrera]

Rider, you don't strike me as a crackpot fundamentalist. Myself, I do find aspects of Christianity interesting but....
Now, take Muhammad Ali. At one time he was in an organisation that taught that white folks were devils and there was this crazy doctine of a UFO that was supposed to land.
However, later on, Ali split with the Nation Of Islam and started to read the Koran for himself. He made close friends with practising Jews and Christians. Before he was political but later on religion became peaceful and personal. I figure that's how it should be - private. I'm not really bothered what a politician believes so long as he's in favour of freedom and liberty and is tolerant.

Why shouldn't the public know what religion a politician adheres to? He is representing those people and those people have every right to know that information.
The problem seems to be that you think every single person who believes in God and Jesus Christ is some crack pot fundamentalist.
All John Edwards was telling the audience was that he tries to live his life by Christian values.

 

[limerickman]

I try to read as wide a spectrum of newspaper - in terms of their political stance - in order to try to arrive at "the truth".

The Daily Telegraph (centre/right and conservative) states that US politicians
and candidates for the Presidency have to state what their religious beliefs are, to the electorate.
The Guardian (centre left and liberal) states the same thing.
The Sunday Times ditto.
The Irish Times ditto.

Therefore, I think Carerra is correct - religious affiliation of the candidates does influence the candidates "electability" with the electorate.
For example, I read that Romney is Mormon and that this could be a factor as to why he isn't as popular as other candidates.
I read that Guilliani is nominally Catholic - but with several divorces behind him and his stance on abortion makes him less palatable to the electorate.
Clinton is Methodist and this has the potential to make her more compelling to
some voters.

In other words, religion does seem to be a factor with the elctorate - it may not be a decisive factor but it is a factor nontheless.

In my country, Britain and Europe, the religious belief of a candidate going for office is irrelevant.
In fact, it isn't even commented upon.

 

[CDAKIAHONDA]

I'm not really bothered what a politician believes so long as he's in favour of freedom and liberty and is tolerant.

Well, why don't we run an election on that platform? "Freedom and Liberty for all!" Anyone want to raise a dissenting opinion? Who's not for the Big "F" and "L"? Why don't we all run on a platform of "responsible government," " social reform," and "equality? A chicken in every pot?"

Riddle me this, if religion is just a belief system, how does it differ from Party Affiliation? Plenty of fanatical Labor Party members and socialists, bully pulpit and all. Most terrorist groups have a political as well as religious agenda. If, as in America, the basic issues, like "F" and "L" are pretty darn indivisible, how does a party set itself apart? How does a candidate as an individual?" How does a religion? How do you?

Any guess as to why the controversial issues of abortion, gay marriage, etc...come to the fore in America, while suicide bombers make headlines in the Middle East?

 

[wolfix]

Therefore, I think Carerra is correct - religious affiliation of the candidates does influence the candidates "electability" with the electorate.


In other words, religion does seem to be a factor with the elctorate - it may not be a decisive factor but it is a factor nontheless.

The thing is that religion has become political in the last few decades. So when a person religious affliation is announced, the voters have a feel for what he may believe in.

The last election saw Kerry run. But it caused Kerry to think about if he should make a big deal of his faith. Even though the CR seems to have the political reputation of radicalism, many see the Catholic Church as the same. The anti -abortion stance that the Catholic Church stands for would alienate many of Kerry's voters. If he would have announced a anti-abortion platform his faith demands, we would not even know who he is today. I think there were bishops that denounced Kerry in the last election and stated they would not serve him communion.

But, it is not as Lim says a decisive factor. Every election has a single issue that determines an election. The last election was the war.
Religion scares the liberals. They try and paint the canidates as nutcases if religion pops up in a political speech. Even though the Catholic Church is as liberal as it gets, it goes against the big issues of the liberals.
The next election is going to be interesting concerning religion. I'm thinking illegal immigration is going to be a big issue. With the majority of immigrants of legal status being Catholic, the tide could swing towards the softening of the immigration laws to appease the voters. And the Democratic voting base and the Republican voting base is against softening of the laws. It might be a bad time to be a Catholic canidate. Which is kinda strange with Bush being seen as soft on immigration while his hardline buddies are for stricter laws.

 

[CDAKIAHONDA]

The thing is that religion has become political in the last few decades. So when a person religious affliation is announced, the voters have a feel for what he may believe in.

The last election saw Kerry run. But it caused Kerry to think about if he should make a big deal of his faith. Even though the CR seems to have the political reputation of radicalism, many see the Catholic Church as the same. The anti -abortion stance that the Catholic Church stands for would alienate many of Kerry's voters. If he would have announced a anti-abortion platform his faith demands, we would not even know who he is today. I think there were bishops that denounced Kerry in the last election and stated they would not serve him communion.

But, it is not as Lim says a decisive factor. Every election has a single issue that determines an election. The last election was the war.
Religion scares the liberals. They try and paint the canidates as nutcases if religion pops up in a political speech. Even though the Catholic Church is as liberal as it gets, it goes against the big issues of the liberals.
The next election is going to be interesting concerning religion. I'm thinking illegal immigration is going to be a big issue. With the majority of immigrants of legal status being Catholic, the tide could swing towards the softening of the immigration laws to appease the voters. And the Democratic voting base and the Republican voting base is against softening of the laws. It might be a bad time to be a Catholic canidate. Which is kinda strange with Bush being seen as soft on immigration while his hardline buddies are for stricter laws.

If you change the first line from "last few decades" to "always has been," I do believe you nailed it! Bush is from Texas, immigration is the backbone of the "Tejas" agricultural economy.

 

[wolfix]

I try to read as wide a spectrum of newspaper - in terms of their political stance - in order to try to arrive at "the truth".

The Daily Telegraph (centre/right and conservative) states that US politicians
and candidates for the Presidency have to state what their religious beliefs are, to the electorate.
The Guardian (centre left and liberal) states the same thing.
The Sunday Times ditto.
The Irish Times ditto.

Therefore, I think Carerra is correct - religious affiliation of the candidates does influence the candidates "electability" with the electorate.
For example, I read that Romney is Mormon and that this could be a factor as to why he isn't as popular as other candidates.
I read that Guilliani is nominally Catholic - but with several divorces behind him and his stance on abortion makes him less palatable to the electorate.
Clinton is Methodist and this has the potential to make her more compelling to
some voters.

In other words, religion does seem to be a factor with the elctorate - it may not be a decisive factor but it is a factor nontheless.

In my country, Britain and Europe, the religious belief of a candidate going for office is irrelevant.
In fact, it isn't even commented upon.

Your post has it nailed. Except to say that Romney is Mormon and could be a factor. It is stronger then "could be"...... It is a death sentence politically nationwide. Mormons seem to be misunderstood by many in the USA. I am not that familiar with the belief system, but I do know many people that are wary of them. I don't why.