Forum Post: Religion; a test of faith? Or political acumen?
Posted 12 years ago on Aug. 31, 2012, 6:22 a.m. EST by Builder
(4202)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Is there a candidate in the current election who does not espouse some kind of religious standpoint?
Is it political suicide to say that you are an athiest or agnostic?
Can the job description of politician actually hold any credibility without some kind of religious conviction?
Interested to hear your viewpoints on this.
Religious freedom can also be freedom from religion - so to hear politicians invoke religion as the dogma of our nation is alienating those who are seeking freedom from religion i.e. "religious freedom." Also absence of religion does not = absence of morality. One can still be moral and have no religion. To hear politicians speak about religiosity as a campaign plus feels to me like they are stating that somehow they are superior in moral character because of their own superior religiosity. I'd really like it if they would leave religion out of politics and keep a separate church and state - to do otherwise is pompous and ignorant and stepping on the constitution and a put don to all others who may not hold the same beliefs about what happens when you die or about what one imagines god (or the universe) wants, or about our purpose here. To me seems the more limited we recognize our time is, the more we will value this life here on earth. When there is no redemption or second chance - people may live differently. In effect religion gives people a sense of immortality. Life after death, a chance to be forgiven. Personally I would like to see more people live like there are no second chances. Then maybe they wouldn't start wars for commodities and bomb the shit out of children for a wealth gain that won't mean much when death comes to call or tolerate a life less than what it should be because of the greed of others.
Politicians do not believe in the Bible or God or this world would be run a whole lot differently - they pretend - so that folks who do believe will vote for them - it is just lip service - the same that they are handing out to the people in their campaign speeches/promises.
[Removed]
..... as we all know, reality has a well-known liberal bias.
(Stephen Colbert)
This should raise a little hell on the forum. Please excuse me for butting in on your post - but it seemed apropos.
Hi—Clint Eastwood's "Empty Chair" speech was funny (and really weird), but the bigger story coming out of the Republican Convention is Paul Ryan's lies. Click here to add your name to my petition urging the mainstream media to call out candidates' lies, and then pass it along.
Paul Ryan lied to the American people in his convention speech. Add your name to my SignOn.org petition demanding that the mainstream media expose the truth.
"Mainstream media: Fact-check and call out candidates when they lie. You have an obligation as journalists to educate the public on the facts of the major campaign issues."
Sign the Petition!
In his convention speech, Paul Ryan lied to the American people. Some journalists and outlets covered Ryan's lies. But others failed to check the facts and didn't call Ryan out on his brazen lies.
In this crucial election, news reporters have an obligation to educate the public about the facts regarding the major issues and call out the candidates every time they lie.
That's why I created a petition urging the major news corporations—ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, and MSNBC—to live up to their obligation to report the truth. The petition says:
Mainstream media: Fact-check and call out candidates when they lie. You have an obligation as journalists to educate the public on the facts of the major campaign issues.
Click here to add your name to this petition, and then pass it along to your friends.
Here is a list of five lies that Paul Ryan told when he gave his speech at the Republican National Convention. Every single news outlet should report on these lies.
Truth: Obama didn't make any cuts to Medicare benefits; he made cuts to provider reimbursements, to improve cost efficiency and extend the fiscal security of Medicare by eight years. According to the Medicare actuary, "[Obama's] Affordable Care Act makes important changes to the Medicare program and substantially improves its financial outlook."1
But Ryan actually does want to cut benefits. He proposed dismantling Medicare and replacing it with a voucher system, leaving millions of seniors to come up with more money to pay for care out of pocket.2,3
Truth: First, Obama wasn't even in office when the GM plant closed. Second, Obama never made a promise to save it.4
Truth: Paul Ryan actually sat on that commission. And he led Republicans in voting down the commission's own recommendation. So the commission never gave a report to Obama, because Ryan himself voted to kill the report before it could.5
Truth: House Republicans, including Paul Ryan, held the full faith and credit of the United States hostage to try to ransom it for trillions of dollars in cuts to social programs without increasing taxes on the wealthy one dime. Standard & Poors said specifically, "We have changed our assumption on [revenue] because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues." That's why our nation's credit rating was downgraded.6,7
Truth: Ryan's biggest feat in his political career was proposing a budget with dramatic cuts to programs benefiting the poor. He'd cut Medicaid by one third, take away health care insurance from 30 million Americans, and cut Pell Grants for 1 million students. All so that he could give more tax breaks to the rich.8
Click here to add your name to my SignOn.org petition urging ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, and MSNBC to call out candidates when they lie, and then pass it along to your friends.
Thanks!
–Brenda Witt
Sources:
"Fact check: Paul Ryan at the RNC," USA Today, August 30, 2012 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=279602&id=50381-23748677-9tjQE9x&t=8
"Undoing Obama Medicare cuts may backfire on Romney," The Boston Globe, August 18, 2012 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=279597&id=50381-23748677-9tjQE9x&t=9
"Romney-Ryan Medicare Plan Would Cost 29-Year-Olds $331,200: Report," Huffington Post, August 27, 2012 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=279596&id=50381-23748677-9tjQE9x&t=10
"Paul Ryan Misleads With GM Plant Closure Tale," Huffington Post, August 29, 2012 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=279598&id=50381-23748677-9tjQE9x&t=11
"Fact Check: Paul Ryan misleads on debt panel's spending cut plan," CNN, August 30, 2012 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=279608&id=50381-23748677-9tjQE9x&t=12
"Top 5 Fibs In Paul Ryan's Convention Speech," Talking Points Memo, August 30, 2012 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=279595&id=50381-23748677-9tjQE9x&t=13
"Paul Ryan Address: Convention Speech Built On Demonstrably Misleading Assertions," Huffington Post, August 30, 2012 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=279604&id=50381-23748677-9tjQE9x&t=14
"4 Ways Paul Ryan's Budget Would Devastate The Poor," ThinkProgress, August 17, 2012 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=279605&id=50381-23748677-9tjQE9x&t=15
This petition was created on SignOn.org, the progressive, nonprofit petition site. SignOn.org is sponsored by MoveOn Civic Action, which is not responsible for the contents of this or other petitions posted on the site. Brenda Witt didn't pay us to send this email—we never rent or sell the MoveOn.org list.
Want to support our work? MoveOn Civic Action is entirely funded by our 7 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.
Pity the poor rightist. Racism: verboten. Sexism, not allowed. Homophobia, losing that one too. Can we still demonize Islam? What's left? Advocate for war, but Obama has usurped the role of Warmonger. I got it. Attack crime. But that might damage gun rights. Well at least there's religion. But even here atheism is growing and all you have to do is look at Europe to see where we're headed. No wonder the Trickle Down Bullshit is so important. It's just about all that's left. Even meat eating is going bye bye.
It may be changing, but at this tim eI still believe a majority of the population want an official as much like them as possible. For now that means showing some faith in a higher power.
The US is "religulous" Yes of course it is political suicide.
The question has been put before the American people and it has been decided: We are, always have been, and always will be: a Christian nation. We are One Nation Under God and unto death we shall answer, to no corrupt authority, for on Judgement Day the rich shall meet the poor and I must answer to the Highest.
Dawkins was dismissed...
If you don't believe me ask the African American or the Hispanic; ask the Irish Catholic, the German Catholic, or the Italian Catholic; ask the Southern Baptist.
29000+ religions in this world; only one known non-religious culture that has ever been discovered, and even they are "spiritual"; still science seeks to deny... the reptilian core.
Whether "true" or not is irrelevant; religion serves the living only, the dead have no need of our Gods, they are dead - it's the living that fear and actively resist the ultimate evil.
As long as our gods are "righteous" gods (as opposed to evil gods), we can never fully remove God from the law; nor is necessary to remove that symbolism as that which humbles us before the law.
I don't believe in ostentatious display but our Public God, nonetheless, is here to stay.
And it's Ok to be casual in belief... but the atheist is a person so obviously of shallow philosophy, who would vote for those who misrepresent to present as a liar?
PS: Like the dilemma without 'di', I am but lemon in your eye: God has won.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vVVPSowWNc&feature=related
[Deleted]
The Gods most readily at your disposal... are Catholic, no? No matter, label them as you will, we all are "Christian" in America.
Well I may be condemned to it, but I'm anti religions, I invented my spirituality, and I believe it make far more sense than any religion.
Your statement speaks volumes... and I rest my case.
Actually freedom of and from religion says otherwise.
We're not talking about freedom of conscience, we're talking about the freedom of mind. Despite all attempts to alter, very few have ever achieved an unbridled success.
While it is true that the metro male in particular has largely secularized, he is yet a Christian - there is so much that is derived of past religious belief, as the "rules" of society, that lies just outside living memory... it effects even our science to this day.
Quit trying to pin your nonsense on me. Christianity has held us back by encouraging blind faith over critical thinking. I'm still hoping people will realize that faith is no a good thing.
It absolutely has not... in fact, it is quite the opposite and all you do with such statements is reemphasize your ignorance of everything in the world around you.
God is dead! And we killed her!
Religion is bronze era philosophy written by men to control other men and explain the unexplainable.
It has been misused & abused to further oppress whol populations. It is time to recognize it for what it is? A fairytale, Myth, Just as we once dismissed the greek, roman, norse mythology so must go the christian mythology.
It ain't trye, It ain't real. It is childrens stories. The enlightenment is centuries old. Time we embraced it and become enlightened!
God is dead
Historically that's probably one of the most juvenile statements I've ever encountered online.
I guess you disagree. 'sok I think like 80% of the country believes in God.
You don't have to resort to insults though. I didn't make up the God is Dead line that is from a famous Time magazine from the '60's.
In any event I realize that it is a very emotional issue for many but I AM still correct. We are a grown up civilization now. We can put aside our childrens stories and deal with reality.
"imagine no religion" JL
Yea but see this is where your argument begins to pale. We are not grown up; on the emotional and intellectual level we are the exact same creature that walked the planet 10000 years ago. And our gods are evolutionary... there is no other possibility. To deny these things is to embrace an anatomical evolution while denying the evolutionary development of mind.
And I'm not sure it's fair to say we can deal with reality, either. I am thoroughly convinced that a perfect rationality cannot and does not exist. In fact, I'm not even certain that "reality" exists; philosophically I tend to believe that it does not.
That's pretty deep. Obviously, I disagree, reality does exist, "perfect rationality"? is not necessary nor therefore relevant, we are not exactly the same as 10000 yrs ago, not the same as 2000 yrs ago! We are grown, can and MUST put aside our childrens stories.
Peace
haha... yea... I have bad news for you. We're currently undergoing another round of religious revival.
"permit the gays"? Wow. Why don't we apply the rules regarding sex in public for straight people against all people (gay included of course).?
Isn't that obvious. No sex in the street allowed. Have you everheard of a straight couple having sex in public? Have you ever? (You don't have to answer, that's personal) I have. (Movie theater) Illegal, but I wasn't caught. So.
Hows that? Good guideline. Treat them equally. They deserve it. It is their ......God given right!<------ OOOOOOOh Hoo Hoo, see what I did there.?
I guess you've never been to Cherry Grove, ehh? It becomes a question of where we draw the lines. We all have differing views regarding the perfect equality - mine is here, yours is over there... left, center, right... it's all over the place.
I don't see any confusion. We can't hide things from our kids. Betterv they see, ask questions, and be taught!
Men in dresses, married in the church, teaching in schools, Islam, atheism, science all are ok with me.
Is this a list of what you are against?
If we could let's just address: Teaching in our schools! Why not?
Don't you think heterosexual adolescence is confusing enough without cross dressers teaching in schools? At what point does our sense of justice, incite to justice, in the defense of the heterosexuality of both child and adult? A perfect equality, as expressed through some maximum freedom, cannot exist due to conflicting interests.
So if you do not define, and you don't specify what you have problem with then what is there to discuss.
Equality is equality! Time we all had it.
Men in dresses, married in the church, teaching in our schools, that God Is Dead and you shall worship the microscope instead... while Allah Lives! ... for many this is a "perfect equality" - ok, so let's run it up and see...
America's peripheral vision was never good; as we face left, you better hope none now come up in our sights.
never heard of it. You wanna define it?
haha... let me put this another way, the microcosm of Cherry Grove has long been considered a community of Gay-ism freely celebrated and expressed. It is Gay rights and equality... it becomes a question of where we draw the lines between one person's view of the perfect equality and another's. And this is something we must decide by majority consensus.
Never heard of chery grove. What is the problem with cherry grove?
What the Cherry Grove represents is the quintessential essence in microcosm of the Gay movement in America; is this where we draw the line, is this a perfect equality?
I have specified science as a target of the religious fundamental cases (because they ARE) and so I WILL include scientists whatever their religious beliefs are. I can tell you many discriminated women, and LGBT are still opposed to being targeted by religious wackos.
So I will submit to your command "not to include scientists" Because they are targets and they are against that religious abuse/misuse.
Thx
Nah... gather their opinions first; that's what I did. You can't include the scientists.
Tell me something... you see the religious right fundamentalist as a threat but at what point do we say, we've had too much of this public display of Gay? Are we going to permit the Gays and transgendered to have sex in the streets? And if so, what about in our schools? Are we to draw lines and if so where do we draw them? How we resolve these questions is central to this discussion. While one seeks to draw them here, the other seeks to draw them there. Where do you suppose the Gays would draw them given a choice? At what point do we permit a majority opinion to enter this discussion? If we deny the majority opinion, deny a majority decision, then to what effect?
I suppose some women ARE brainwashed (by religious zealots) into believing it is ok to discriminate against women. But I think that is a small percentage. Most women think for themselves and know it is wrong. Most of those womens men (fathers, brothers, partners) agree with them. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender people, and their supporters of course are against discrimination against them. And if we add the scientists and people who agree with scientists who are targets of the knew religios revival (halleluyah!) I think you wind up with more the 70% of the population.
Can I get an Amen in here!
Don't include the scientists - many if not most are religious themselves.
Oh I see, Women are a very small segment? Aren't they more the 50% in American? Add the LGBT community and you probably have upwards of 70% Isn't that a large majority.?
Maybe religious peoples discriminatrory view that women and LGBT Americans are less than humans has led you to believe that they represent a small segment?
And we can also add to that the male non LGBT people who care for other people and are also dismayed. In the end I think the people who want to oppress women and LGBT are the very small segment of our society.
Windmill boy!
The women whom you have claimed en mass do not exist; those that you trumpet for are but a very small percentage of our women. Some women, believe it or not, actually have their own minds, which belong to none other but the realm of women. I suspect they will remain there, despite our elective efforts.
Women and what? LGBT??? wtf? Are they like a separate being or something? That mysteriously manage existence outside humanity?
Left needs a new face... you do not wear such derision well; it's just unfitting.
Much to the dismay of all the religious fundamentalists targets. (women, gays, science,)
Windmills of your mind...
Yes, much to the dismay of a very small segment of our society that has acquired the command of all media... they are not representative of America.
It's NOT all women, and all Gays, or all science that is "dismayed."
Everytime someone answers a question with because god made things that way that encourages intellectual laziness. It gives a false sense of knowledge which causes people to not question the world around them. I'm sure there are many christians who rise above this but that has more to do with the person then christianity itself.
Yea, except that historically and philosophically you're arguments are inaccurate and intellectually flawed. They say that those who have lost all cultural memory can only suffer dementia. And that is exactly what has occurred in America.
Not inaccurate at all. Science is about reaching the cutting edge of our knowledge and pushing into the unknown fully aware of your ignorance. When you have the illusion of knowledge then you don't question the world. There have been great christian scientists in the past who did question what they were taught but that was accomplished despite their religion not because of it. The church has given science at best grudging acceptance if not outright hostility. Even to this day such concepts as cloning, evolution, the origin of life and the universe are attacked by fundamentalists.
Historically your statement is absolutely false.
historically literacy and available culture history has never been higher
I have very little respect for our cultural history as presented to the masses; it's a disaster.
problem solvers record the negative
Speak for yourself.