Obama, Clinton, Edwards to speak on faith

[Professor]

Next Monday (June 4) Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards will discuss their views on faith, values, and poverty in a forum organized by Jim Wallis. It will apparently be carried by CNN. This may provide some information on where these candidates stand on the separation of church and state.

Clinton, Obama, Edwards to Debate Faith and Poverty (http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=8992)

"This is the first conference where faith and values are the focus, the first one where poverty is a focus," Wallis said. The candidates will be asked about the role of faith in politics and what values politicians should uphold, according to the evangelical leader.

[proudliberal]

Yes american needs to be saved by jesus (like I was )from the left wing lies.

[Ruiner]

My hope is that one of them will state as a matter of fact that religious faith is unnecessary for governance, progress, reasonableness and rational thought. In fact it impedes those very things. Unfounded dogmatic beliefs have and are still leading to treachery, barbarism and regressive human rights. One only need to look to the global news to see that the husbandry of faith with politics is antithetical to a free society. That is to say that such a marriage of convenience for politicians is inconvenient for the swaths of opposition. Faith should play no role in ruling a country. Rationality, common sense and facts should rule the faculties of the mind if we are to progress as a Country, as a People and as a World.

Feel free to write me in on election day '08. ;)

[dettus]

eww pandering

[Magnus Armstrong]

I'll be happy if they just plain support separation of church and state. I'm sure all three of them are going to fall all over themselves trying to prove how gawdly they are.

[crazyfingers]

I'll be happy if they just plain support separation of church and state. I'm sure all three of them are going to fall all over themselves trying to prove how gawdly they are.

That's how I see it. Separation of church and state protects religious freedom for everyone. I'd be happy if they just pointed that out.

[theyeti]

I get extremely annoyed when "faith and values" get put together as a single term, as if you can't have one without the other. As far as I can tell, faith adds little or nothing positive to a person's value system, and in many cases serves to rationalize and codify downright horrible value systems.

It's gotten so bad that the Religious Right now refers to themselves as "values voters", a term that is self-righteous to the point of being offensive. The media, not surprisingly, credulously repeats it at every opportunity, and never pauses to ask if the premises on which the term is based (namely that everyone who is not a fundamentalist whack-job must be a nihilist) are the least bit valid.

If there's anything that I would like to see the Democratic candidates say, it would be to reject the ridiculous belief that all values somehow flow from religion. There is nothing wrong with expressing your values in religious terms, but the mere act of doing so does not make your value system superior.

theyeti

[Bill Z. Bub]

Jesus told me that since none of the above will actually be the next president we don't have to pay attention to what is said, and that we may want to tune in for entertainment purposes only. Apparently He reverse Tivo'd the show.

Thank you, Jesus!

[mac_philo]

My hope is that one of them will state as a matter of fact that religious faith is unnecessary for governance, progress, reasonableness and rational thought. In fact it impedes those very things.

Saying the former won't improve their electability. Saying the latter will just preclude them from being elected.

I say, pander away and get the Republicans out.

[Draconis]

Oh they're politicians they'll say they believe in the tooth fairy if it got votes.

[Ruiner]

My hope is that one of them will state as a matter of fact that religious faith is unnecessary for governance, progress, reasonableness and rational thought. In fact it impedes those very things.

Saying the former won't improve their electability. Saying the latter will just preclude them from being elected.

I say, pander away and get the Republicans out.
But it does open the channels of discourse such that the mere utterance of opposition in the political arena to the pandering of the religious will stir the minds of our more rational countrymen. If just one of the money-grubbing, power hungry douchebags in the Dem party would commit political suicide for the greater good it would be worth it - but they're not concerned with right and proper, just getting the power they think they deserve. In doing so they ignore the issue altogether allowing it to keep rearing it's ugly head.


Eta: meh, maybe i'm being too optimistic about the amount of reasonable and rational people there are in this country... 72% believe in angels... 28% natural evolution.

[MilitantModerate]

Only in the US. :rolleyes: Other canucks feel free to correct me; but I have no recollection of any such faith testing "candidate's forum" in any election, at any level of government, in my memory.

[espritch]

No doubt they will all talk about how important their belief in their imaginary super friend is to their life. After all, they are trying to get elected (or get their wife elected in one case), and in this country, you don't get elected President if you call religion nonsense.

It is a sad commentary on our society that you can't even have an honest discussion of the place of religion in public life by any serious politician. It would be political suicide.

[Secular Elation]

It is sad when politicians feel like they need to stick their beliefs out there to make everyone happy. When McCain was asked if he believed in evolution or not, after saying yes he also added at great length that he had been to the Grand Canyon and knows that god is there (paraphrasing). It's hard not to roll one's eyes when our own politicians feel it necessary to pair rational responses with religious excess.

[Professor]

The forum will indeed be shown on CNN's The Situation Room (http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/situation.room/) on Monday, June 4. The time will be 7-8 pm Eastern Time (4-5 pm Pacific Time).

[Oresta]

In a sense, the Democrat candidates are being blackmailed into an issue-created program by CNN - which is no slouch at creating "news" out nada. It would be political suicide for any of them to refuse to "share" their religious beliefs with the public, even if they strongly believe in a strict observance of CSS.

Whoever of them dares to quote, from memory, the First Amendment gets my campaign contribution check. Whoever dares to assert the genius of founding a secular government which derives its soverignty from its people gets ... but I guess that's too much to hope for.

[rnrstar]

The founding fathers must be rolling in their graves. For presidential candidates to have to compete to demonstrate whose faith is stronger is about the most un-American thing I can think of. I can see this happening in any Middle East country but not in the US of our founding fathers.

When we fought the cold war it amazed me how much we became like the Soviet Union in terms of government secrecy. Now we are becoming like Middle East countries in terms of theocracy.

[Oresta]

It's 7:45pm E time and I just walked out on the CNN candidates' "faith" thing. Hilary was answering the question, "What do you pray for?" We're in deep dooddoo, folks if this is what the "premier news team" intends to give us as presidential campaign coverage.

WWJD? What do you think Jefferson would have done in response to such silly, irrelevent nonsense regarding presidential qualifications and vision for a young Republic at the crossroads between the Monarchist Federalism set by Washington and Adams and the emerging Jefferson/Madison democracy? It's deja vu all over again, but but I'm not so sure the cavalry is going to show up in the final reel this time.

[False Fable]

I understand why the Dems are re-casting themselves as religious, but it still makes me sick.

These are my choices? The party that panders to the religious, or the party that desperately wants to pander?

I may have to sit this one out.

[Oresta]

As one of countless smart-ass liberals in the New Left years who cast "protest" votes for president and governor in my state (we got Reagan and Engler,respectively), who succeeded in starting us down this disastrous path, I urge you not to "sit it out".

Hold your nose and vote. We need veto-proof majorities in Congress to begin the long, hard slog to regain so much of what we have lost.

[Professor]

For those who missed the show, the transcript (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/04/sitroom.03.html) is online.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

Read the transcript and the pandering is just nauseating. It is also a shame that these candidates have to face such an inquisition in the first place. I'm more interested in what they think about real issues not this make believe horseshit. They might as well be asked who their favorite character from Lord of the Rings is. It would be more meaningful to me.

[Oresta]

I read most of the transcript. Thanks, professor. It's easier to stomache this way than to watch. What is really upsetting is that these candidates were subjected to demeaning and intrusive questions; a ritual of humiliation that they were blackmailed into since it would be political suicide to have refused to participate.

BTW, Edwards looks better and better to me.

[tjakey]

Having read the transcript I can't help but think that this country of our is sinking ever deeper into the morass of religious idiocy. It is getting very hard to hold onto any hope.

[Cross_]

BTW, Edwards looks better and better to me.
Have you read the transcript ?? To me he seemed like the worst of the bunch. I was actually pleasantly surprised that Obama was talking about important social issues as opposed to making stuff up about prayers (Clinton) & faith (Edwards).

O'BRIEN: Up next, Senator Hillary Clinton is going to join us live.
Plus, at the top of the hour, we've got Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich. We've got Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson, as well.
Anyone know where I can find a transcript for these guys? Were they asked faith questions too or did they get a real interview?

[Atrus]

As a Canadian I can't believe that its allowed to ask politicians questions of this sort of intimacy. I don't remember a single time in our most recent elections where religion was even an issue, everyone spent their time on the issue and focussed on key party weaknesses to exploit.

It makes it impossible for someone to dance around the questions without lying, thereby making it a requirement for someone to not only be religious, but Christian. No closet muslims, buddhists, or non-theists allowed.

[Ruiner]

JOHN EDWARDS (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I believe in evolution. O'BRIEN: What do you say to all the people -- and there are millions of people who go to church every Sunday and who are told very clearly by their pastors that, in fact, the Earth was created in six days, that it's about creationism? Are those people wrong? Are their pastors wrong?

EDWARDS: No.
This is ridiculous. YES THEY ARE FUCKING WRONG! [/rage] The beliefs are contradictory unless taken as a metaphor, in which case, they are still wrong - because it's not even right metaphorically! [/realrage] Ok. My bad.

[Oresta]

Cross:Have you read the transcript ?? To me he seemed like the worst of the bunch. I was actually pleasantly surprised that Obama was talking about important social issues as opposed to making stuff up about prayers (Clinton) & faith (Edwards).

Yes, I did. Carefully. What impressed me about Edwards was how he stuck to his distinction between his faith and the mandates of his secular office. O'Brian clearly was baiting him, but Edwards didn't flinch. Look at this section of the transcript with me again:

JOHN EDWARDS (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I believe in evolution. O'BRIEN: What do you say to all the people -- and there are millions of people who go to church every Sunday and who are told very clearly by their pastors that, in fact, the Earth was created in six days, that it's about creationism? Are those people wrong? Are their pastors wrong?

EDWARDS: No. First of all, I grew up in the church and I grew up as a Southern Baptist, was baptized in the Baptist Church when I was very young, a teenager at the time. And I was taught many of the same things. And I think it's perfectly possible to make our faith, my faith belief system consistent with a recognition that there is real science out there and scientific evidence of evolution. I don't think those things are inconsistent. I think a belief in God and a belief in Christ, in my case, is not in any way inconsistent with that.

O'BRIEN: There are some people who say, well, it's actually -- isn't it mutually exclusive? I mean, either man was created by, you know, from Adam's rib or, in fact, that man came evolution-wise from apes? Aren't the two mutually exclusive?

EDWARDS: No, I don't think they are. Because the hand of God was in every step of what's happened with man. The hand of God today is in every step of what happens with me and every human being that exists on this planet.

O'BRIEN: You had a question during the debate yesterday about gay marriage. And with all due respect, I thought you dodged it a little bit, so I'm going to ask you...

EDWARDS: No. No.

(LAUGHTER)

O'BRIEN: Maybe it's just me.

EDWARDS: What a ridiculous...

(LAUGHTER)

O'BRIEN: But I will -- so I'll just ask it again, maybe more pointedly. Do you think homosexuals have the right to be married?

EDWARDS: No. Not personally. Now you're asking about me personally. But I think there's a difference between my belief system and what the responsibilities of the president of the United States are. It is the reason we have separation of church and state. And there are very good people, including some people that I'm very close to me, my daughter who is sitting in the front row here tonight, feels very differently about this issue. And I have huge respect for those who have a different view about this.

So I think we have to be very careful about ensuring that the president of the United States is not using his belief system and imposing that belief system on the rest of the country. So what that... O'BRIEN: But if it's...

EDWARDS: So what that -- I'm sorry. All I was going to say is I think what that means in this case is the substantive rights that go with partnerships, civil unions, for example, and all the subsequent rights that go with that, should be recognized in this country, at least in my judgment, should be recognized. And I think it is not the role of the federal government to tell either faith-based institutions, churches, synagogues, what they should or should not recognize. Nor should the federal government be telling states what they should recognize.

O'BRIEN: If you think something is morally wrong, though, you morally disagree with it, as president of the United States, don't you have a duty to go with your moral belief?

EDWARDS: No, I think that, first of all, my faith, my belief in Christ plays an enormous role in the way I view the world. But I think I also understand the distinction between my job as president of the United States, my responsibility to be respectful of and to embrace all faith beliefs in this country because we have many faith beliefs in America. And for that matter we have many faith beliefs in the world. And I think one of the problems that we've gotten into is some identification of the president of the United States with a particular faith belief as opposed to showing great respect for all faith beliefs.

O'BRIEN: Do you think this is a Christian nation?

EDWARDS: No, I think this is a nation -- I mean I'm a Christian; there are lots of Christians in United States of America. I mean, I have a deep and abiding love for my Lord, Jesus Christ, but that doesn't mean that those who come from the Jewish faith, those who come from the Muslim faith, those who come from -- those who don't believe in the existence of God at all, that they don't -- that they're not entitled to have their beliefs respected. They're absolutely entitled to have their beliefs respected. It is one of the basis for which our democracy was founded.

Look at the pitfalls set by O'Brian again and again. Edwards never dissembled.

I never expect to get a president -or a legislator or even a measly City Councilperson, for that matter - in my lifetime who is, like me, a stone Establishment Clause Atheist. But I do think it is possible to have a president who understands completely that his/hers is a secular role and he/she is bound by oath (or affirmation) to defend a government of secular, i.e., man-made, laws.

Look again with me at how O'Brian asks an egregious question and how Edwards resolutely answers it. In the religio-political climate today created for political gain, Edwards answers are pretty courageous. Like it or not, this is the only tip tier Democrat who is setting up bis campaign in what is left of the tattered left wing of the party.

O'BRIEN: If you think something is morally wrong, though, you morally disagree with it, as president of the United States, don't you have a duty to go with your moral belief?

EDWARDS: No, I think that, first of all, my faith, my belief in Christ plays an enormous role in the way I view the world. But I think I also understand the distinction between my job as president of the United States, my responsibility to be respectful of and to embrace all faith beliefs in this country because we have many faith beliefs in America. And for that matter we have many faith beliefs in the world. And I think one of the problems that we've gotten into is some identification of the president of the United States with a particular faith belief as opposed to showing great respect for all faith beliefs

[ForensicAtheist]

EDWARDS: No. Not personally. Now you're asking about me personally. But I think there's a difference between my belief system and what the responsibilities of the president of the United States are. It is the reason we have separation of church and state.

I think this is a very good answer and agree that, in the times we're in, it's the best we're going to get. My concern is that he keeps bringing up the "I'm a Baptist" and "my lord Jesus Christ" and all that. The concern would be that if he's elected those core beliefs are still there and might effect his policy. However I suppose we have to take him for his word that he also believes in the separation of church and state.
Honestly, I don't think that we can believe what any of these people say they believe. I don't think there's any more honesty in politics in America, if there ever was in the first place, but it just seems like its continued to erode over time. The best we can hope for is, I guess, at least someone that says they think there is a separation.

[crazyfingers]

Yes, I did. Carefully. What impressed me about Edwards was how he stuck to his distinction between his faith and the mandates of his secular office.

Thanks for posting that exchange. I agree. My opinion of Edwards just went up.

[Cross_]

Yes, I did. Carefully. What impressed me about Edwards was how he stuck to his distinction between his faith and the mandates of his secular office. O'Brian clearly was baiting him, but Edwards didn't flinch.I agree with you that O'Brien was going after Edwards- but I still found his dancing around to be rather weak. If he really believes in keeping his faith out of office then why not focus on those issues that actually will inform his decisions instead of going on how pious he is but that this will not affect his office as a president?
Theistic evolution might be a nice easy way out for Edwards but I doubt it will satisfy either theists or scientists.

Again, I was more impressed with Obama who twice reflected the question towards history and cultural revolution while at the same time providing some concrete goals. I had expected him to be more along the lines of "my faith tells me ...". However, he did get the easiest questions of all 3 candidates.

[Oresta]

I agree that Obama was more impressive, but Edwards made an important distinction between personal belief and executing a secular office. It was difficult for any of them to turn silly questions about faith into an opportunity to discuss substantive issues.

Once again, I think CNN has egregiously contributed to the erronious belief that this is a Christian nation, religion is a crucial criteria for public office holders, etc. They have done so for no other reason than to manufacture news. The presidential hopefuls had no option but to be subjected to demeaning and intrusive grilling.

I wish there were some way to severly sanction CNN.

[Joan of Bark]

It would have been great if one of the candidates responded with: "My faith is none of your business." Why not ask how they feel about oral sex or how often they masturbate?

And on a side note, why is 'faith' always about monotheism? One can have faith in anything ridiculous, by definition. "I have faith that Attila the Hun will rise from the grave and lead us into utopia."

[PHarrigan]

EDWARDS: ...my responsibility to be respectful of and to embrace all faith beliefs in this country because we have many faith beliefs in America. And for that matter we have many faith beliefs in the world. And I think one of the problems that we've gotten into is some identification of the president of the United States with a particular faith belief as opposed to showing great respect for all faith beliefs
No mention of non-believers.

[crazyfingers]

No mention of non-believers.

The the above post by Oresta

EDWARDS: No, I think this is a nation -- I mean I'm a Christian; there are lots of Christians in United States of America. I mean, I have a deep and abiding love for my Lord, Jesus Christ, but that doesn't mean that those who come from the Jewish faith, those who come from the Muslim faith, those who come from -- those who don't believe in the existence of God at all, that they don't -- that they're not entitled to have their beliefs respected. They're absolutely entitled to have their beliefs respected. It is one of the basis for which our democracy was founded.

[aa5874]

Honestly, I don't think that we can believe what any of these people say they believe. I don't think there's any more honesty in politics in America, if there ever was in the first place, but it just seems like its continued to erode over time. The best we can hope for is, I guess, at least someone that says they think there is a separation.

I, too, get the impression that politicians are expected to be less than truthful about their actual beliefs. They are giving the best possible answers but, sadly, these responses do not reflect reality.

Why is it so difficult for a politician to say that human beings are responsible for their own survival, and it has been so as long as the history of mankind has been recorded?

As far as I know, faith in Gods has played no role in the advancement of mankind or knowledge of his environment and the politicians know that yet, for votes, these same polticians will imply the opposite.

[Oresta]

Something else about this excerpt requoted in post #35: This was an answer to O'Brian's question, clearly intended to trap Edwards, whereby he loses points with the audience no matter how he answers to, "Do you think this is a Christian nation?"

He didn't dissemble, back into his answer or give a non-answer. The first word out of his mouth was, "No."

[PHarrigan]

No mention of non-believers.

The the above post by Oresta

EDWARDS: No, I think this is a nation -- I mean I'm a Christian; there are lots of Christians in United States of America. I mean, I have a deep and abiding love for my Lord, Jesus Christ, but that doesn't mean that those who come from the Jewish faith, those who come from the Muslim faith, those who come from -- those who don't believe in the existence of God at all, that they don't -- that they're not entitled to have their beliefs respected. They're absolutely entitled to have their beliefs respected. It is one of the basis for which our democracy was founded.
Ah, thanks. It's nice to sees some acknowlegement, even if it follows pap about his abiding love for his Lord Jesus Christ, and embracing all faith beliefs in America.

[Magnus Armstrong]

I'll be happy if they just plain support separation of church and state. I'm sure all three of them are going to fall all over themselves trying to prove how gawdly they are.
Good for Edwards! He said the magic words!

Seeing as he is a theist, his gawdly statements are honest. He comes off as a liberal Christian, which is the best we can hope for nowadays. Sure, I'd prefer a rational President, but as long as Edwards can keep his irrationality separate from his job, I don't care what he believes.

[Dick Springer]

It would have been great if one of the candidates responded with: "My faith is none of your business." Why not ask how they feel about oral sex or how often they masturbate?

In 1980 Bill Bradley, who was running for the Democratic nomination and whom I supported, gave exactly the response you suggested. Think of how different our history would have been if he had become president.

[Joan of Bark]

Something else about this excerpt requoted in post #35: This was an answer to O'Brian's question, clearly intended to trap Edwards, whereby he loses points with the audience no matter how he answers to, "Do you think this is a Christian nation?"


"... and when did you stop beating your wife?"

[Oresta]

Exactly, and more succinctly said than my post!

[KidBaize]

How long has faith been a platform issue in US elections?

Seriously, I don't ever remember it being the central issue in any other election. It seems every other issue has its solution or stance tied to it as well.

[Oresta]

KidBaize:How long has faith been a platform issue in US elections?

I think it has always been a latent concern in that presidents were expected to be members of and attend a church. Gore Vidal tells of hearing Kennedy, following inauguration, groaning about the four years ahead of him wherein he would have to go to church every Sunday. (I always doubted that such and urbane, superbly educated man could believe all that hocum about pergatory and transubstantiation. Catholic, my ass.)

Sadly, the faith/values of presidential candidates has become a qualification for office. This has come about because the Republican Party has worked mightily to co-opt the far religious right as part of its core base; to do so it has hammered on wedge issues in its platform. These issues - abortion, gay marriage, etc. - bring religion into play in an unprecedented way.

That is certainly my observation, and I have been voting since the 1950s.