Media bias against Democrats of faith.
By on Jan 4th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Media bias against Democrats of faith.
The Faith in Public Life blog observes, “The CNN entrance and NBC exit polls both asked Republican caucus-goers if they were ‘born-again or evangelical,’ and neither one asked that question of Democratic caucusers. Democrats instead were instead asked if they were union members. … So why are CNN and NBC still treating evangelicals as the Republicans’ property? Their polls don’t even account for the possibility that evangelicals can play a significant role in the Democratic caucus.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
They will.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:01 pmI’m a heathen. Did I spell it right? What’s a heathen anyway. All I know is I love the Lord my God with all my heart, mind, and soul, and love my neighbor (no matter what color, race, creed, political party) as myself.
Peace!
January 4th, 2008 at 9:07 pmPJ
The issue should not be so much that Democratic caucusers were not asked if they were evangelists. The focuse should be why Democrats were asked if they were union members, as if belonging to a union that sticks up for workers should be viewed in a pejorative light. Both CNN and NBC may wish to see the film Norma Rae as an example of why unions, long stigmatized in this country, are beneficial for the average worker in this country.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:09 pmOr — just as bad — why are they treating union members as if they are the Democrats’ property?
Neither party should take a group of people for granted, because within any group of people, you can find more than one ideology. This goes for evangelicals, union members, gays, blacks, women, and many others.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:10 pmDemocrats instead were instead asked if they were union members. … So why are CNN and NBC still treating evangelicals as the Republicans’ property?
Are we supposed to pretend that certain demographics don’t play a larger role in one party or another?
January 4th, 2008 at 9:13 pmexcuse the OT, but i just found this, and it needs shared and noticed, and as this is a new thread, a perfect time to call your attention to:
The Freepers attack Obama
By: John Amato @ 2:45 PM – PST
Here’s a sample of the kind of attacks Obama will be facing because of his win in Iowa. It’s pretty disturbing.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/04/the-freepers-attack-obama/
“It’s pretty disturbing.” is putting it mildly…
shame on the idiots…
January 4th, 2008 at 9:15 pmThis post doesn’t even account for the possibility that union members can play a significant role in the Republican caucus.
Comment by good_golly — January 4, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
If I use NBC’s logic, that’s also impossible. I know quite a few Union guys that are Republicans, and I just don’t get it. They are scared to death a Dem will raise all their taxes. Of course, the way Bush set it up…no new taxes to pay for the war, we are 50% owned by China (debt), they look good now and can blame the Dems when the money runs out.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:22 pmAnd I hit enter before I typed “they ignore or because of watching Fox they don’t know about the massive debt to China, and the taxes they will be paying because of the guy they supported”.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:24 pmGood golly
Unfortunately, with the rich receiving the bulk of tax cuts and CEOs making hundred of times more than the average worker, it is quite doubtful if the average worker will receive any succor from the conservatives and Republicans who are running for office and the ones who are currently in office today.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:24 pmAgain I ask, is this helping you all determine which Republican not to vote for ? Has TP’s helpful coverage allowed you to decide which Republican candidate to vote less for than another ?
Teh non-partisanness it burns.
Comment by Kilo — January 4, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
here, kilo, here’s a hankie for your tears, you whining little wuss. You GOP morons will need large towels to cry into as we destroy and bury your party of treason, mysoginy, homophobia and fear.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:28 pmI don’t think there’s anything sinister going on here. An entrance or exit poll has to have only a few questions on it because if it’s too long a lot of people will bail out early rather than stand there in the cold. So you can’t do a full demographic profile. Given that constraint, if you want to find out which parts of the R or D base went for which candidate, you ask if caucus-goers belong to this or that of the party’s largest segments. That includes evangelicals among the R’s but not the D’s; same thing the other way for union membership. IOW, #7 above had it right.
Exit polls don’t and can’t draw a complete profile of the electorate. Later, more extensive polling can do that, and I’m sure there will be plenty in the works right away.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:29 pmIt is up to us, when a pollster asks ‘intrapment’ questions like that……just smile and walk away, I’ve done it. “How long have you been beating your wife”……or “Who do you hate more….” Never answer these trick questions.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:30 pmA better question would be – Why are they asking anybody that question?
January 4th, 2008 at 9:33 pmAre we supposed to pretend that certain demographics don’t play a larger role in one party or another?
Comment by Keltoi at Night — January 4, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
Are we supposed to let the rightwing corporate media tell us what to think? only if you’re a braindead wingnut, I guess.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:34 pmBecause talking heads will say anything and nothing at all.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:39 pmLittle known fact: the Republican party purchased religion in 1980.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:43 pmBecause talking heads will say anything and nothing at all.
Comment by Guido OBGYN Lover — January 4, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
Mostly nothing…
January 4th, 2008 at 9:43 pmIt’s not their job to ask smart questions. Russert has already confirmed this, proudly.
It is the job of a talking head to move his lips and take money from whoever is paying.
Talk talk talk…
Lastnight, Brian Williams said we were attacked on 911 by a “foreign power”. What in the hell does that mean?
January 4th, 2008 at 9:51 pm8 – katy, thanks for the link.
Actually, if you read the comments, it’s pretty enlightening…a look into how “the other side” thinks.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:56 pmSomething’s wrong here. I’m getting posts from before the 2006 congressional elections showing up in 2008 thread.
Comment by Kilo — January 4, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
and that was only for practice. worked then, will work even better now. and you’ve been whining since then, to no avail.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:04 pmStop the personal attacks meant to suppress free expression. Stop it now
Comment by cLara — January 4, 2008 @ 10:04 pm
you first.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:05 pm220,000 Dems vs. 114,00 Reps.
It’s a bad year to be a Republican.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:05 pmThat kind of question will make a Progressive’s head explode.
Comment by good_golly — January 4, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
that’s funny talk coming from a person who refuses to acknowledge the existence of huck huckabee!
January 4th, 2008 at 10:06 pmthat’s funny talk coming from a person who refuses to acknowledge the existence of huck huckabee!
Comment by joe cantwell — January 4, 2008 @ 10:06 pm
gg’s head already exploded
January 4th, 2008 at 10:08 pmWhy didn’t they ask the Republicans if they were Satan worshippers? After all, they adore Bush.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:15 pmStop the personal attacks meant to suppress free expression. Stop it now
Comment by cLara — January 4, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
not until they work.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:17 pmWhy didn’t they ask the Republicans if they were Satan worshippers? After all, they adore Bush.
Comment by RUCerious — January 4, 2008 @ 10:15 pm
they really should poll them on the size of their closets.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:17 pmWhy didn’t they ask the Republicans if they were Satan worshippers? After all, they adore Bush.
Comment by RUCerious — January 4, 2008 @ 10:15 pm
LOL!
Then, they could ask, “When did you begin supporting pedophilia”? or,
January 4th, 2008 at 10:18 pm“Do you prefer human fleash rare, or, well done”?
When can we let congress know that you’re really ready to end the war and have finished practicing ?
Comment by Kilo — January 4, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
still excusing the warmongering, obstructionist, mass-murdering republican congress? shows your lack of character quite clearly. not that it hasn’t always been evident.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:19 pmAnd when did TP ever pretend to come of as non-partisan>>??
I missed the press release..
January 4th, 2008 at 10:19 pm“Do you prefer human fleash rare, or, well done�
Comment by Impolitics — January 4, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
Um, that’s supposed to be “flesh”.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:20 pm220,000 Dems vs. 114,00 Reps.
It’s a bad year to be a Republican.
Comment by Impolitics — January 4, 2008 @ 10:05 pm
U got that right. Can you spell avalanche! Evangelicons not withstanding, this is going to be fun to watch.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:20 pmWhew, for a moment I thought you were roasting fleas!
January 4th, 2008 at 10:20 pmgg, check this out dude!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX1rLv_hNeI&eurl=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/04/glenn-beck-rambles-about-_n_79833.html
January 4th, 2008 at 10:21 pmamazing… (via rachel maddow)
Q: Hey Giuliani, are you worried about finishing 5th in Iowa?
A: 9/11
how does he DO that?… … and get away with it…
January 4th, 2008 at 10:21 pmhow does he DO that?… … and get away with it…
Comment by katy — January 4, 2008 @ 10:21 pm
he won’t get away with it. he’s toast. they already hanged benito.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:23 pmU got that right. Can you spell avalanche! Evangelicons not withstanding, this is going to be fun to watch.
Comment by RUCerious — January 4, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
I’m, almost, starting to feel sorry for some of them. The misguided ones. Not the evil ones.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:23 pm’m, almost, starting to feel sorry for some of them. The misguided ones. Not the evil ones.
Comment by Impolitics — January 4, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
always the left’s weakness; we won’t kick the stuffing out of them when they’re down. We really should adopt their tactics for a bit, if we want to get our country back. The GOP should be destroyed and buried, their leaders jailed, and their funds used to bolster SCHIP.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:29 pm#41 Unfortunately, he’s running strong in NY, CA and some other states with lots and lots of delegates, so we shouldn’t come to bury JulieAnnie, yet.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:30 pmer, #43… duh..9/11 made me do it.!!
January 4th, 2008 at 10:31 pmWow, my book of ‘intrapment’ is filling up tonight!….’flesh, well done….etc.’…lol.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:32 pmComment by Lefty Patriot — January 4, 2008 @ 10:29 pm
Well, I did say “almost”. Don’t worry, I’m out for blood. But, I won’t go after the ones who self-destruct. I prefer a challenge.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:33 pm#41 Unfortunately, he’s running strong in NY, CA and some other states with lots and lots of delegates, so we shouldn’t come to bury JulieAnnie, yet.
Comment by RUCerious — January 4, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
He’s running strong in NY? Where are you getting that info, it’s not what I’ve seen.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:36 pmUm, it wasn’t the gummint asking, bartles, but the media. Does that make any difference?
January 4th, 2008 at 10:39 pm#52 My source:
http://www.presidentpolls2008.com/primary-election-poll-results/new-york-democratic-republican-polls.html
Republican Polls
Quinnipiac University Poll
12/7/2007
N=335
w/o Newt Gingrich
Rudy Giuliani 34%
January 4th, 2008 at 10:41 pmMike Huckabee 12%
John McCain 11%
Fred Thompson 7%
Mitt Romney 5%
Ron Paul 5%
Tom Tancredo 1%
Unsure 18%
Other 3%
Wouldn’t Vote 5%
Bartles, I disagree, that part of the constitution applies to the government only, not the media.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:42 pmAnd in CA
Survey USA
12/15/2007
N=497
w/o Newt Gingrich
Rudy Giuliani 28%
Mike Huckabee 20%
Mitt Romney 16%
John McCain 14%
Fred Thompson 13%
Unsure 3%
Other 7%
Source
The Field Poll
12/14/2007
N=322
w/o Newt Gingrich
Rudy Giuliani 25%
January 4th, 2008 at 10:43 pmMike Huckabee 17%
Mitt Romney 15%
John McCain 12%
Fred Thompson 6%
Ron Paul 3%
Duncan Hunter 3%
Tom Tancredo 1%
Unsure 18%
Source
Same
The complete Article
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
This clearly doesn’t mean the media can’t ask voters, or candidates about religious preference.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:47 pmWe want change. We want change. We want change. No more Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton spin cycle. Obama has exercised superior, unique judgment among all the frontrunners in not supporting our frolic and detour in Iraq from the start. He alone can unify our country. United we stand. Divided we fall. No unity, no change.
More on why Obama is the only candidate who can unify America to achieve real change: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/2/22840/86271/686/429523
January 4th, 2008 at 10:49 pmever be required as a Qualification (as in an oath or affirmation)
The case law on this is clear, and never once brings into question the media.
January 4th, 2008 at 10:50 pmJesus, Bartlebee, are you taking another weirdly principled stand?
How does the media asking voters about their religious affiliation constitute any kind of “religious Test… as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States“?
How do the two things even intersect in your mind?
January 4th, 2008 at 10:57 pmHow bout a wiki, bartles,
January 4th, 2008 at 11:02 pmThis has been interpreted to mean that no federal employee, whether elected or appointed, “career” or “political,” can be required to adhere to or accept any religion or belief. This clause immediately follows one requiring all federal and state officers to take an oath of support to the Constitution. This implies that the requirement of an oath, even presumably one taken “So help me God” (not a part of the presidential oath, the only one spelled out in the Constitution, but traditionally almost always added to it), does not imply any requirement by those so sworn to accept a particular religion or a particular doctrine.
I agree with TP that its unfair, and the media does ignore the people of faith on the left, but the fact is, they should NOT be asking the question in the first place!
Its illegal. The US Constitution specifically prohibits it. So its a no brainer. They’re breaking the law by even asking the quesiton in an offical political forum.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
So you were commenting on the media asking the candidates about issues of faith>? That’s certainly not what I thought you were talking about until I re-read this post.
This thread is about
“The CNN entrance and NBC exit polls both asked Republican caucus-goers if they were ‘born-again or evangelical,’ and neither one asked that question of Democratic caucusers. Democrats instead were instead asked if they were union members. … So why are CNN and NBC still treating evangelicals as the Republicans’ property? ///
So pardon me, but I still think that you are way off base with your assertion that the media asking politicians about their religious beliefs is covered somehow by Article VI. Way off base. Go read some law books.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:07 pmWhy don’t you try reading the comments again and find the part where I said anything about the media asking the VOTERS about anything?
Try that, then come back and launch your silly attack.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 11:03 pm
Um… that’s what the article is about, isn’t it? Exit poll questions? Of voters?
January 4th, 2008 at 11:09 pmPlease, Bart, explain where I have your point confused.
OK, Bart, your opinion is duly noted, peace!
January 4th, 2008 at 11:18 pmAnd New Hampshire should be a riot, with the huge number of Independent voters who can vote in either party primary! That’ll really be interesting..
January 4th, 2008 at 11:19 pmWouldn’t it be great if a candidate answered one of those questions, whether it’s legal/ethical or not, with, “It’s none of your business”, or, “Frankly, I don’t give religion a lot of thought”?
Said candidate would be eliminated, but, it would be nice to hear.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:24 pmAs we know Abramoff, Reed, Rove all college republicans who went on to dupe the evangelicals, the wackos they called them. The GOP is trying to figure out how many more they can dupe with their televangelist methodology.
And no Good Golly, I am a religious person and this does not make my head explode.
I would have answered the question quite simply, “I know my God and he is not into politics”
January 4th, 2008 at 11:32 pmWell there’s that, plus you think the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Americans. Which incidentally would have required the involvement of government officials serving under the last 2 presidents.
I wonder if there are white supremacists somewhere wondering if it’s the colour scheme of their “the holocaust was a hoax†pamphlets that’s the problem.
Comment by Kilo — January 4, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
All lies and bullshit, all the time from kilo. You’ll need to document where I said the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Americans, or admit to being a liar. And you’ll need to get the crap kicked out of you at the polls just because you have no idea what it means to be an American. It’s just something that is needed now, that your party is crushed and buried, and its leaders jailed, so America can get on with the business of being a free country again.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:36 pmEr… why do I need to do that ?
Are you disputing this is what you think ?
Comment by Kilo — January 4, 2008 @ 11:40 pm
Of course I’m disputing it; I’ve never thought or claimed that. You’re showing the limitations of the wingnut mind, ascribing ideas pulled from your ass onto people you don’t even know. I do know that the popular spin on the 9/11 attacks is incomplete at best, and that the forensic evidence was immediately destroyed, and that Bush and Cheney are socipopaths and neocon shills, so I can certainly understand if many Americans wonder how it could have happened, but I have never claimed that Americans attacked the WTC or the Pentagon. never. So, you are either a liar or an idiot, it makes no difference to me, you’re the one who has to live with it.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:46 pmSo why are CNN and NBC still treating evangelicals as the Republicans’ property? Their polls don’t even account for the possibility that evangelicals can play a significant role in the Democratic caucus.â€
Perhaps the CNN and NBC folks have read the anti-Christian comments here and thus were afraid to mention religion to the Dems lest they receive the same treatment. ;)
——
“Therefore, the offical public press, in an offical political public forum, required a religious test of each candidate for obtaining a public office.
Which is clearly not what the founding fathers had in mind.”
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 11:32 pm
“No religious test” means that religion can’t be a requirement for a person to hold office. The constitution doesn’t say voters can’t cast their votes based upon a candidates religion or lack therof. ;)
January 4th, 2008 at 11:46 pmComment by upright left — January 4, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
why do you have to proudly show us your total ignorance of the subject matter? what is it with rightards, that they can’t keep their stupidity to themselves? Did your mother stop beating you, and you miss the only attention you ever got from her? and what kind of Americans cast their votes based on religion? Only ignorant, gullible, easily-led wingnuts, that’s why the question was asked, becasue the media is well aware of the intellectual limitations of the average drooling, farting republican voter.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:49 pmand what kind of Americans cast their votes based on religion?
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 4, 2008 @ 11:49 pm
Ah yes, lefty. I’m sure given two Dems of equal ability who agreed on major issues, one a devout Christian and one an athiest, you wouldn’t give their religion a second thought, eh bud? ;)
January 4th, 2008 at 11:55 pmAnd you can shove your little wink up your inbred fatass.
You must think I have a short memory or something.
I don’t.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 11:52 pm
Quite a temper you have there, eh bud? ;)
January 4th, 2008 at 11:59 pmThe fact is a debate host asking a candidate about his personal religious beliefs when that host knows fully well that the candidate who professes the most mainstream religious beliefs will be victorious, while those with obscure beliefs will not be, at least in republican circles and some democratic ones, is a religious test of office.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 11:57 pm
No it isn’t. It just means people may not want to vote for him. He is not prohibited from holding office. ;)
January 5th, 2008 at 12:01 amAh yes, lefty. I’m sure given two Dems of equal ability who agreed on major issues, one a devout Christian and one an athiest, you wouldn’t give their religion a second thought, eh bud? ;)
Comment by upright left — January 4, 2008 @ 11:55 pm
You’re sure? You have no idea who I am or how I cast my votes, and you’re sure? Now I understand why you’re so consistently wrong about everything you think. it’s because you’re stupid, and you make assumptions based on the deep well of ignorance you drink from daily. I’ll bet you think I’m a Democrat, don’t you?
January 5th, 2008 at 12:03 amUnless he’s into animal sacrifice or something criminal and destructive then no, I wouldn’t give their religion a second thought.
Wanna know why?
Because it DOESN’T MATTER!
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 5, 2008 @ 12:00 am
Perhaps not to you. I’ve seen your tirades related to atheism. Hence the reason the comment was directed to lefty. ;)
January 5th, 2008 at 12:04 amAre you disputing this is what you think ?
Comment by Kilo — January 4, 2008 @ 11:40 pm
Kilo is the amazing Kreskin, who knew?
January 5th, 2008 at 12:07 amis a religious test of office.
But not one within the meaning of the Constitution. No Oath taking going on that I can see.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:08 amI’m sure given two Dems of equal ability who agreed on major issues, one a devout Christian and one an athiest, you wouldn’t give their religion a second thought, eh bud? ;)
Comment by upright left — January 4, 2008 @ 11:55 pm
Ah, yes — that wingnut fave — the outlandish hypothetical that is supposed to prove something. Kind of a kin to the “terrorist with the ticking bomb” torture scenario.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:08 amBartles, how would the First Amendment work into what you are proposing, that no candidate should be allowed to be asked about his/her religious affiliation, or beliefs?
January 5th, 2008 at 12:09 amAh yes, lefty. I’m sure given two Dems of equal ability who agreed on major issues, one a devout Christian and one an athiest, you wouldn’t give their religion a second thought, eh bud? ;)
Comment by upright left — January 4, 2008 @ 11:55 pm
You’re sure? You have no idea who I am or how I cast my votes, and you’re sure? Now I understand why you’re so consistently wrong about everything you think. it’s because you’re stupid, and you make assumptions based on the deep well of ignorance you drink from daily. I’ll bet you think I’m a Democrat, don’t you?
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 5, 2008 @ 12:03 am
Of course I’m sure. Since you expressed your disdain for those who would cast their votes based upon religion, surely I can assume that you wouldn’t do the same thing. I don’t assume you are a Dem. I assume you are a lefty patriot. Unless, of course, your user name is a pun. ;)
January 5th, 2008 at 12:10 amComment by Kilo — January 4, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
January 5th, 2008 at 12:10 amYou are right, I missed that one big time.
People choose a candidate based on affinity. Affinity can include lots of things, the ideas and planks of platform, religious or spiritual views.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:13 amIt is inane to say that no candidate can be asked about religious or spiritual beliefs, as that would remove a good part of who and what that person is about.
Voters will decide who to vote for based on lots of things, religion is more or less important for each voter. You are so far off base on this it is unreal.
Karma is God!!..oh wait its been changed back to recommend. Heh.
Oh, recommend you to the spirit in the sky
That’s where you’re gonna go when you die – when you die
When you die and they lay you to rest
You’re gonna go to the place that’s the best
-Norman Greenbaum
January 5th, 2008 at 12:13 amI’m sure given two Dems of equal ability who agreed on major issues, one a devout Christian and one an athiest, you wouldn’t give their religion a second thought, eh bud? ;)
Comment by upright left — January 4, 2008 @ 11:55 pm
Ah, yes — that wingnut fave — the outlandish hypothetical that is supposed to prove something. Kind of a kin to the “terrorist with the ticking bomb†torture scenario.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — January 5, 2008 @ 12:08 am
Ah, yes, the lib avoidance of the issue when presented in such a way as to force an answer. ;)
January 5th, 2008 at 12:15 amWhat if a candidate wants to talk about their spirituality?
January 5th, 2008 at 12:15 amShould they be prohibited from saying anything?
Who’s requiring the candidate to say anything. They can always decline to state, or tell the moderator to go fu(k themselves!
January 5th, 2008 at 12:16 amin offical venues
January 5th, 2008 at 12:16 amWhat’s an official venue?> A town hall meeting? A person standing on a street corner?> Define that please.
Ah, yes, the lib avoidance of the issue when presented in such a way as to force an answer. ;)
Comment by upright left — January 5, 2008 @ 12:15 am
It’s not an issue. It’s, in fact, none of your business. It’s an unAmerican insult as well. it’s a typical rightwing ploy, based on the wingnut inability to understand humanity. And it’s a loser for you.
But you’re getting used to losing, and that’s good.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:18 amIt’s not an issue. It’s, in fact, none of your business. It’s an unAmerican insult as well. it’s a typical rightwing ploy, based on the wingnut inability to understand humanity. And it’s a loser for you.
But you’re getting used to losing, and that’s good.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 5, 2008 @ 12:18 am
Apparently TP thinks it’s an issue since they posted this thread about it. The complaint was made that Dems weren’t asked the religion question, remember? So is it now a leftwing ploy? Stay with the discussion, bud. ;)
January 5th, 2008 at 12:22 amAh, yes, the lib avoidance of the issue when presented in such a way as to force an answer. ;)
Comment by upright left — January 5, 2008 @ 12:15 am
Your projecting your assumption there UL.
Your question does not force an answer, YOU are trying to limit the answer by YOUR pre-conceived assumption. Nice try.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:23 amApparently TP thinks it’s an issue since they posted this thread about it. The complaint was made that Dems weren’t asked the religion question, remember? So is it now a leftwing ploy? Stay with the discussion, bud. ;)
Comment by upright left — January 5, 2008 @ 12:22 am
I am right on point, bud. You’re incapable of couching your questions in a way that deserve answers, and if pollsters were to ask me my religious affiliation, I would tell them to f(ck off, like I’m telling you. TP is pointing out the rightwing media’s hypocrisy, not making a value judgment. It’s a bit over your head, bub, but that’s not surprising.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:25 amThe complaint was made that Dems weren’t asked the religion question, remember? -UL
Who said it was a complaint? There you go assuming it was.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:25 amAh, yes, the lib avoidance of the issue when presented in such a way as to force an answer. ;)
Comment by upright left — January 5, 2008 @ 12:15 am
Your projecting your assumption there UL.
Your question does not force an answer, YOU are trying to limit the answer by YOUR pre-conceived assumption. Nice try.
Comment by Xisithrus — January 5, 2008 @ 12:23 am
No, I’m simply pointing out that those who are saying how wrong it is to vote for someone because of their faith would do the same thing in similar circumstances. A number of lefties have posted that they would love to have atheist candidates for whom to vote. Believing that and deriding others for preferring to vote for a Christian would be hypocritical. ;)
January 5th, 2008 at 12:41 amThe complaint was made that Dems weren’t asked the religion question, remember? -UL
Who said it was a complaint? There you go assuming it was.
Comment by Xisithrus — January 5, 2008 @ 12:25 am
You don’t like the word complaint? We can change it if it will help you address the issue. TP posted:
“So why are CNN and NBC still treating evangelicals as the Republicans’ property? Their polls don’t even account for the possibility that evangelicals can play a significant role in the Democratic caucus.â€
Obviously TP wanted to know why the religion question wasn’t asked of Dems. I responded to that question. If you think it shouldn’t have been asked, complain to TP. I simply responded to their comment. ;)
January 5th, 2008 at 12:50 amTP is pointing out the rightwing media’s hypocrisy, not making a value judgment. It’s a bit over your head, bub, but that’s not surprising.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 5, 2008 @ 12:25 am
And I’m just pointing out lib hypocrisy. Apparently you can only see hypocrisy in others. Don’t worry, bud. It’s not uncommon and can be remedied if you so desire. ;)
January 5th, 2008 at 12:53 amObviously TP wanted to know why the religion question wasn’t asked of Dems. -UL
Wanting to know why is a question, not a complaint. I didnt say they shouldn’t ask it. You make it sound as if they are complaining about not being asked when that certainly is not the case.
It means you are assuming its a complaint.
And usually the reason to ask a question is to make comparisons and create statistics. With unbalanced questions whatever statistics they create as to religion will be wrong.
Lie, Damn Lies and Statistics -Mark Twain
January 5th, 2008 at 1:01 amObviously TP wanted to know why the religion question wasn’t asked of Dems. -UL
Wanting to know why is a question, not a complaint. I didnt say they shouldn’t ask it. You make it sound as if they are complaining about not being asked when that certainly is not the case.
It means you are assuming its a complaint.
And usually the reason to ask a question is to make comparisons and create statistics. With unbalanced questions whatever statistics they create as to religion will be wrong.
Lie, Damn Lies and Statistics -Mark Twain
Comment by Xisithrus — January 5, 2008 @ 1:01 am
I changed the word complaint to suit you, remember? But you then avoided the original comment that contained the word. Lefty said religion shouldn’t be an issue. I responded that TP apparently thought it was an issue since they asked the question. So my original comment that the question might not have been asked of Dems because the response might have been similar to responses of those here who attack religion was probably on target. ;)
January 5th, 2008 at 1:09 amor involving the government in any way as a determiner of religious beliefs or practices.
once again, it is prohibiting the government from applying a test as part of the OATH.
What is the title of the article?
Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
Not debates, elections, or any other context, just OATHS.
And yes, we should not have the GOVERNMENT determining religious beliefs or practices.
If a candidate comes to my house, knocking door to door, should I be prohibited from asking about the candidates religious beliefs?
January 5th, 2008 at 1:09 amWhere do you draw the line? There’s nothing forcing the candidates to speak out about their beliefs?
OATHS, OATHS, and OATHS is what Article VI is about. To extend it beyond is insinuating that for 200 + years the Supreme Court has missed this very important flaw in the intent of the Founding Fathers.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:13 amI don’t think so.
I would have loved to see you come up with this in our Constitutional Law class with Judge Lodge at UCSB.
You’d wind up fish bait.
I changed the word complaint to suit you, remember? -UL
Bwah. You changed it to suit YOU.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:18 amSo my original comment that the question might not have been asked of Dems because the response might have been similar to responses of those here who attack religion was probably on target. ;)
Thats just silly. If they wanted to find that out they WOULD have asked the question, not shy away from asking it.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:20 amI changed the word complaint to suit you, remember? -UL
Bwah. You changed it to suit YOU.
Comment by Xisithrus — January 5, 2008 @ 1:18
There you go projecting your thoughts on me. ;)
I’m not the one who had a problem with it, remember, bud? ;)
January 5th, 2008 at 1:20 amI’m not the one who had a problem with it, remember, bud? ;)
Comment by upright left — January 5, 2008 @ 1:20 am
Didn’t say I had a ‘problem’ with it nor did I ask you to ’suit’ me.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:21 amUL logic;
Lets not ask the terrorists if they are terrorists, lets not ask them because they might attack us, we’ll just say later that our assumption was probably correct.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:23 amSo my original comment that the question might not have been asked of Dems because the response might have been similar to responses of those here who attack religion was probably on target. ;)
Thats just silly. If they wanted to find that out they WOULD have asked the question, not shy away from asking it.
Comment by Xisithrus — January 5, 2008 @ 1:20 am
Or maybe they thought it would be more productive to ask about a constituency that commonly votes Dem rather than one that commonly votes Rep. ;)
January 5th, 2008 at 1:24 amOr maybe they thought it would be more productive to ask about a constituency that commonly votes Dem rather than one that commonly votes Rep. ;)
So why do more Jewish people vote democratically?
January 5th, 2008 at 1:26 amHey, maybe they didnt want to offend the Jewish people?
In my follow up post, I included the most meaningful part of the rest of the wiki. It refers to the government, not the media or anyone else, requiring an oath.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:28 amPlease see the following citations.
Congress may require no other oath of fidelity to the Constitution, but it may superadd to this oath such other oath of office as its wisdom may require
McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316, 416 (1819).
It may not, however, prescribe a test oath as a qualification for holding office, such an act being in effect an ex post facto law,
Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. (71 U.S.) 333, 337 (1867).
and the same rule holds in the case of the States.
Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. (71 U.S.) 277, 323 (1867). See also Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116 (1966), where the Supreme Court held that antiwar statements made by a newly elected member of the Georgia House of Representatives were not inconsistent with the oath of office, pledging support to the federal Constitution.
These are all the citations listed at the Cornell Law site.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:32 amYou’ve got something else to show the media should be restricted?
Some case law? Please let me know.
state, not media
January 5th, 2008 at 1:32 amstate, not media
state, not media
state, not media
state, not media
Your legal citations, supporting your position, as opposed to your opinion.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:33 amI agree with Jefferson, what the hell does it have to do with Article VI?
January 5th, 2008 at 1:36 amWhy do you insist that a televised debate is the government?
January 5th, 2008 at 1:36 amI also totally agree on the principle of separation of church and state.
But that has nothing to do with Article VI as it pertains to election campaigns, which it doesn’t.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:37 amUL logic;
Lets not ask the terrorists if they are terrorists, lets not ask them because they might attack us, we’ll just say later that our assumption was probably correct.
Comment by Xisithrus — January 5, 2008 @ 1:23 am
Of course we should ask terrorists if they are terrorists. Just because they kill people doesn’t mean they are liars too. That would just be wrong. ;)
——
So your response to TP as to why CNN and NBC didn’t ask Dems the religion question would have been:
“Thats just silly. If they wanted to find that out they WOULD have asked the question, not shy away from asking it.”
Comment by Xisithrus — January 5, 2008 @ 1:20 am
See how easy that was? No need to take the long way around to it. ;)
January 5th, 2008 at 1:39 amSee how easy that was? No need to take the long way around to it. ;)
Comment by upright left — January 5, 2008 @ 1:39 am
I was mimicking your illogic rational, glad you agree.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:47 am“Are you really sitting there saying you can’t comprehend the idea that compelling canditates in an offical public forum, by the offical state sanctioned press, to reveal matters of personal relgious beliefs prior to obtaining public office, is not requiring a relgious test for public office?
Do you honestly want me to believe that you think the constitution and the founding fathers intended this to occur?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 5, 2008 @ 1:40 am
There is no “official public forum” or “official state sanctioned press.” Debates are held by independent organizations in agreement with candidates. There is nothing official about them. They are offered to the candidates as a service, not required to be held for them nor required to be attended by them. The fact that questions are asked about religion is due to the fact that some voters deem it important.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:48 ambut SOME HAVE NOT.
Citations, or stuff it.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:49 amCite me one case where the Danbury letters support the extension of Article VI to include election speech.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:50 amSee how easy that was? No need to take the long way around to it. ;)
Comment by upright left — January 5, 2008 @ 1:39 am
I was mimicking your illogic rational, glad you agree.
Comment by Xisithrus — January 5, 2008 @ 1:47 am
Nice recovery. Didn’t want to be in the position of saying TP’s question was silly? ;)
January 5th, 2008 at 1:52 amP.S. My degree in Political Science is from UCSB, where’s yours from?
January 5th, 2008 at 1:52 amStay with Article VI, now Bartles, and show ONE citation from anywhere that supports the extension of Article VI to include anything but Oaths of Office.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:53 amAnd, by the way, my senior thesis was on separation of church and state, so don’t make me school you on this. Citations of court cases bolstering your extension, or stuff it.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:55 amNice recovery. Didn’t want to be in the position of saying TP’s question was silly? ;) Comment by upright left — January 5, 2008 @ 1:52 am
I didnt say it was silly, nor will you implying it make my opinion so.
Nice Try.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:55 amAnd as for the debates, they are officially sanctioned by the candidates parties, ie the DNC and RNC, and are accepted by the media networks as offical venues for the candidates to engage publically.
They are still not the government, requiring an oath of office, focus, bartles.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:56 amSo the FCC regulation of the media makes the media part of the government requiring oaths?
Please, that’s absurd.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:57 amOaths, bartles, that’s the only thing covered in Article VI.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:59 amAre the candidates taking oaths of office during the debates put on by the FCC authorized governmedia?
Goodnight Bartlebee, and
Nice Try.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:59 amThere is no “official public forum†or “official state sanctioned press.â€
Comment by upright left — January 5, 2008 @ 1:48 am
Bullsh$t. The government regulates the media. You’ve apparently never heard of the FCC. They also license media, and issue press passes.
And as for the debates, they are officially sanctioned by the candidates parties, ie the DNC and RNC, and are accepted by the media networks as offical venues for the candidates to engage publically.
Try again.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 5, 2008 @ 1:55 am
I’ll leave ya to your delusions, bud. You’re too far gone. ;)
January 5th, 2008 at 2:00 amWhat am I saying is that CNN and ABC asking different questions of the caucus, based on party, is illogical and cannot create any useful statistics or comparisons.
If any are being silly here, its CNN and NBC.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:00 amWhat am I saying is that CNN and *NBC….
January 5th, 2008 at 2:01 amI’ll leave ya to your delusions, bud. You’re too far gone. ;)
Comment by upright left — January 5, 2008 @ 2:00 am
Another Amazing Kreskin moment?
[kidding]
January 5th, 2008 at 2:03 am“Media bias against Democrats of faith.”
Big Corporations = Media = Republicans
The msm wants to divide and conquer. It’s just another hurdle for Democrats to overcome, we did it in ‘06 and we’ll do it again come Nov.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:10 amLook at Article VI. It pertains to Debts, Supremacy and OATHS.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:11 amSays so right at the beginning. Jeebus.
They should have changed it to read Debts, Supremacy, Oaths and anything else Bartlebee would like it to pertain to.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:12 amWell, I dont think anyone asking what someones religion is is a test.
Asking them to create a law based on religious belief would be.
Mr Huckabee whats your religion? No problem, here, with that.
Mr Huckabee, will you create a law, based on your belief, a biblical law proving your religious adherence, and allegiance to the X [religious group] ? Now that I would have a problem with.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:17 amWhat I can’t honestely believe is here is RUC, arguing for the mingling of church and state.
That’s not at all what I am arguing. You don’t need Article VI to separate Church and State. There is ample federal law that prohibits it in a wide variety of ways.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:23 amThere is NO case law that supports your expansion of the Oaths clause. That’s all I am saying.
So stop being disingenuous.
offical venues required to obtain public office.
There is NO case law equating public debates with official venues.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:24 amOfficial is restricted to mean government. You should know that.
I spelled out 100 times exactly how it is a religious test.
Do I have to spell it out again?
Umm, sure! [joking]
No Bartlebee you dont.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:25 amIf your argument is so compelling, why hasn’t it come up in at least one case that has been argued before the Supreme Court?
Why?
Are all the lawyers asleep?
No.
It’s because your statement -” If a candidate doens’t have the most popular mainstream religious beliefs, he is eliminated.”
is bullshit.
You would then presume to inform the American public on how they can and must vote for a candidate?
hosted by the offical mainstream media,
The mainstream media is not the government. Even if it has an FCC license. No oaths are being taken.
if he is compelled to attend a public debate No one is compelled to attend, nor answer any question they don’t wish to answer. See Thompson on how to do this.
then the candidates who pronounce the most popular mainstream relgions will receive the votes…
And if the voters use religion as an affinitive measure, who the hell are you to tell them it is against the constitution?
Do you think they won’t find out some other way? Please.
Your logic is so tortured, is such a stretch, that it amazes me that you continue to tout it.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:32 amSo, show me your case citations. Could it be that the Cornell Law School has its head up its ass?
January 5th, 2008 at 2:35 amWho got eliminated? And how do you prove that it was religious belief that got them eliminated.
Case citations, Bartlebee, or give it up. Show your legal acumen.
January 5th, 2008 at 2:36 amBarry Lynn should run for office.
January 5th, 2008 at 3:03 amJebus Christus, Bartlebee. Why are you always attacking liberals?
January 5th, 2008 at 3:04 amDid you win, Bartlebee? Congratulations!!!!
January 5th, 2008 at 3:05 amRU is no fan of Mitt or Huck, Bartlebee. But that doesn’t matter, does it?
January 5th, 2008 at 3:06 amRUCerious,
According to various polls 55 to 61 percent of America’s population simply will not vote for an atheist in office. That is pretty much a religious litmus test if ever there was one and there is nothing one can legally do about it.
Anyway…
It is not exactly like they hosted a panel discussion on religion without inviting any religious people onto it and then come to the conclusion that religious people deserve the abuse heaped upon them.
They simply didn’t ask religious people a religion based question. Big whoop.
January 5th, 2008 at 3:23 amActually, a fairness doctrine would work better than not allowing candidates to speak on their religion. Nobody should have to live as something they are not.
While a fairness doctrine still allows freedom of speech, is also ensures that the other side gets to put in there point of view, and while religion has had a free hand to demonise the non religious for going on twenty years now, a fairness doctrine would solve that.
The recent spate of atheist books, and the rise of the atheist backlash which BART refers to as fanaticism because he is a bigot, is primarily based on atheists getting sick of being treated like dirt – right down to the term “Godless” being used as an insult.
January 5th, 2008 at 3:43 am“Well then a good place for the atheists to start would be to stop treating the theists like dirt right down to the term “spaghetti monster†being used as an insult.”
LOL, we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you.
January 5th, 2008 at 4:06 amBarty, as soon as “Christians” stop “praying” for me at the same time that they condemn me to hell…well, you know.
January 5th, 2008 at 4:14 am“I’m a heathen. Did I spell it right? What’s a heathen anyway. All I know is I love the Lord my God with all my heart, mind, and soul, and love my neighbor (no matter what color, race, creed, political party) as myself.”
Wow, you sound like a tool.
January 5th, 2008 at 5:00 amYes, BART and the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument never had anything to do with religious people trying to bring creationism back into America’s schools despite a hundred years of it proving to be highly embarassing to America as a whole now did it?
Oh, wait…
It was all about that now wasn’t it?
January 5th, 2008 at 5:41 amGood_Golly was in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. He lowered altitude and spotted Bartlebee in a boat below and shouted to him, “Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am!”
Bartlebee consulted his portable GPS and replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon approximately 30 feet above sea level. You are 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.”
Good_Golly rolled his eyes and said, “You must be a Democrat.”
“I am,” replied Bartlebee. “How did you guess?”
“Well,” answered Good_Golly, “everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and I’m still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help to me.”
Bartlebee smiled and responded, “You must be a Republican.”
“I am,” replied Good_Golly. “How did you know?”
“Well” said Bartlebee, “You don’t know where you are or where you’re going. You’ve risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You’ve made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect ME to solve your problem. You’re in EXACTLY the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it’s MY fault.”
Good morning, everyone!
I figured if jokes were going to be said about posters here that I should get a chance to tell one as well. ;-)
By the way, the MSM discounts liberal Christians as the right-whiners and the “c”hristian Right have gone out of their way to tie anything to do with the Christian faith with the conservvatives, even though Jesus was a well-known liberal.
January 5th, 2008 at 7:13 amNot a big mystery. They asked that question of Republican voters because only Republican voters have overtly evengelical candidates. I’m not aware of any evengelical Democratic candidates for president, so it’s less of an important question for Democrats. There is really only a small proportion of Iowans who are “evengelical” anyway. And they all voted for Chucklebees.
January 5th, 2008 at 7:35 amEven so, I hate any assumption that Democrats and liberals are not “religious” or spiritual because many are and the media should ask them about it if they are going to ask Republicans about it!
modernist evangelicals tend to be Democratic.” Although evangelicals are currently seen as being on the Christian Right in the United States, there are those in the center and Christian Left as well. In other countries there is no particular political stance associated with evangelicals. Many evangelicals have little practical interest in politics.
According to recent reports in the New York Times, many evangelicals have tired of Republican politics and seek to expand their movement’s social agenda to include poverty, combating AIDS in the Third World, and protecting the environment.[6] Christian Right activist Terry Fox, who stepped down from his pastorate when his congregation told him to stop dwelling on right-wing issues in his sermons… -Wikipedia
January 5th, 2008 at 9:19 amThe recent spate of atheist books, and the rise of the atheist backlash which BART refers to as fanaticism because he is a bigot, is primarily based on atheists getting sick of being treated like dirt – right down to the term “Godless†being used as an insult.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — January 5, 2008 @ 3:43 am
Barty, as soon as “Christians†stop “praying†for me at the same time that they condemn me to hell…well, you know.
Comment by Sabyen91 — January 5, 2008 @ 4:14 am
Why does it bother an atheist to be called “Godless,” to be prayed for, or to be said to be going to hell? If you don’t believe in God, none of those things should be relevant. I don’t particularly care for derogatory references to God and Jesus, but atheist statements against me because I’m a believer don’t bother me as long as they are equally against all religions. I’m not ashamed of what I am. ;)
January 5th, 2008 at 9:42 am“…even though Jesus was a well-known liberal.”
Comment by Democrat Soldier — January 5, 2008 @ 7:13 am
Jesus was certainly liberal in regard to people caring for those who aren’t able to care for themselves. He was much more conservative regarding things like sin and responsibility. ;)
January 5th, 2008 at 9:46 amwow…
i didn’t read it all, but what an interesting, enlightening debate, guys…
no way am i chosing a side here though…
a change of subject, slightly… how about:
“Media (and TP) bias against John Edwards”
Hardball: Elizabeth Edwards Asks What’s It Going To Take To Mention John Edwards
By: Nicole Belle @ 6:30 AM – PST
Elizabeth Edwards appeared on Hardball Friday to give Chris Matthews a hard time about his continual ignoring of her husband’s campaign for the Democratic nod.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/05/hardball-elizabeth-edwards-asks-whats-it-going-to-take-to-mention-john-edwards/
January 5th, 2008 at 11:02 am.
Bartles, you are most entitled to your opinion about this, and I respect that. The Founding Fathers absolutely wanted a wall of separation.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:02 amBut if the American people choose to base their affinity for a candidate based on that candidate’s religious beliefs, how should we stop them>?
Comment by Bruce Gorton — January 5, 2008 @ 3:23 am
Exactly. If people choose to vett their candidate based on that candidate’s religion, the Constitution, especially Article VI, isn’t going to stop that.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:05 amWell I have been lurking and even posting a few times the last few days here but I think I am done here. I thought this would be a progressive website where progressives would decide how to move forward after we recover from what the right wing has done to our country.
Oddly, even republicans are welcome to engage…..well actually dominate the discussions here. Seems banter is all this blog is really about….wit and counter wit. Notibly without real tolerance for liberal ideas.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:12 amBye Fred, been nice readin ya.
January 5th, 2008 at 11:37 amI’m not ashamed of what I am. ;)
Comment by upright left — January 5, 2008 @ 9:42 am
Sociopaths never are.
January 5th, 2008 at 12:47 pmBartlebee, here’s a great article that sums up both our positions, it was nice debating you last night, and I appreciate your taking the philosophical approach, where I was taking the legalistic one…
January 5th, 2008 at 1:02 pmArticle VI
I’m not ashamed of what I am. ;)
Comment by upright left — January 5, 2008 @ 9:42 am
Sociopaths never are.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 5, 2008 @ 12:47 pm
Yet another excellent dodge, bud! ;)
January 5th, 2008 at 2:17 pmYeah, it was a good debate, but I’m still curious about where a line would get drawn in a law. There is some first amendment issue here, and it would have to be clear about the definition of an “official” debate.
January 5th, 2008 at 5:34 pmPax.
Yet another excellent dodge, bud! ;)
Comment by upright left — January 5, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
well, given your ignorance and lack of social skills, you’d need excellent dodges like the one you pulled. Of course, congratulating yourself for it is typical of your ego-driven pathology. I guess nobody likes you, or you wouldn’t feel the need to pat your own back.
January 5th, 2008 at 6:30 pmComment by Lefty Patriot — January 5, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
Dang, bud, I congratulated you and you think I’m congratulating myself? Perhaps you’ve confused lefty patriot with upright left and don’t know who you are? But seriously, bud, your post is awfully close to “I know you are but what am I” don’t ya think? ;)
January 5th, 2008 at 6:52 pmupright left
I am fine with being called Godless. That is fine. Using Godless the same way the Nationalism Party in SA used Kaffir makes me angry.
CNN having a debate on whether atheists are being discriminated against without even inviting an atheist makes me angry.
That a US soldier has to go to court to protect his right to not believe makes me angry.
That the same soldier had to be transfered out of Iraq because of threats of fragging being made against him by religious soldiers, makes me angry.
That the religious will argue that God is the basis of all morality, and then lie about atheists like Darwin converting on their deathbeds, that makes me angry.
Pray for me and state your belief that I am going to hell? That is mildly irritating. But use Godless as a general slur? That makes me angry.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:53 am#236 – “He was much more conservative regarding things like sin and responsibility. ;)” Comment by upright left — January 5, 2008 @ 9:46 am
Considering how anti-take-responsibility that the conservatives have become, Jesus was decidedly not conservative regarding sing and responsibility! ;-)
January 6th, 2008 at 9:47 amupright left
I am fine with being called Godless. That is fine. Using Godless the same way the Nationalism Party in SA used Kaffir makes me angry.
CNN having a debate on whether atheists are being discriminated against without even inviting an atheist makes me angry.
That a US soldier has to go to court to protect his right to not believe makes me angry.
That the same soldier had to be transfered out of Iraq because of threats of fragging being made against him by religious soldiers, makes me angry.
That the religious will argue that God is the basis of all morality, and then lie about atheists like Darwin converting on their deathbeds, that makes me angry.
Pray for me and state your belief that I am going to hell? That is mildly irritating. But use Godless as a general slur? That makes me angry.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — January 6, 2008 @ 1:53 am
You addressed several things that were not in my post. I agree that ahteists shouldn’t be discriminated against for their non-belief. Anyone who tries to force others to be Christian is not only wrong, but their actions are useless. Only God can call people to Him.
January 6th, 2008 at 3:45 pm#236 – “He was much more conservative regarding things like sin and responsibility. ;)†Comment by upright left — January 5, 2008 @ 9:46 am
Considering how anti-take-responsibility that the conservatives have become, Jesus was decidedly not conservative regarding sing and responsibility! ;-)
Comment by Democrat Soldier — January 6, 2008 @ 9:47 am
C’mon, bud, I didn’t say Jesus was like people who claim to hold conservative values. Jesus was conservative according to the definition of a conservative. ;)
January 6th, 2008 at 3:55 pmConservative values for the last 50 years have all included warmongerijng.
That procludes Jesus being defined as a conservative.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 7, 2008 @ 1:10 am
This is the post to which they were referring and it still stands:
“…even though Jesus was a well-known liberal.â€
Comment by Democrat Soldier — January 5, 2008 @ 7:13 am
Jesus was certainly liberal in regard to people caring for those who aren’t able to care for themselves. He was much more conservative regarding things like sin and responsibility. ;)
Comment by upright left — January 5, 2008 @ 9:46 am
January 7th, 2008 at 1:47 amupright left
Not really, he supported paying taxes (Give unto Ceasar), was anti materialism (It is easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle) rejected family values (Who is my mother?), was against the free market (In his father’s house at least) and favoured public education and healthcare (Suffer the children and his healing of the sick respectively.)
He even favoured public welfare – witness his feeding of the masses. We are, after all, supposed to be following his example.
He had no problems with people getting inebriated (Water into wine, and the last supper.)
He was a peacenik (The meek shall inherit the Earth, turn the other cheek etc…) opposed racism in his time (The Good Samaritan) and held that Government and Religion should be seperate (He refused to lead a rebellion against the Roman government of his day – despite him being “King of kings.”)
His concept of legal justice was rehabilition as opposed to retribution (Witness him keeping company with the dregs of society and how he justified it.)
Though he was a supporter of the death penalty, his other views put him definitely on the left of liberal on most issues.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:11 amComment by Bruce Gorton — January 7, 2008 @ 3:11 am
You’ve demonstrated His caring for those unable to care for themselves. I hardly think not wanting His Father’s house turned into a market means He was against the free market. I expect better than that from you, bud! He definitely supported govenment, but I see nothing in the Bible about govenment funded education or healthcare, though I support both to a certain degree. He was most certainly for rehabilitation since he came to save us all. But it does require that we confess and turn from our sin (go and sin no more). Again, somewhere between our current labels of liberal and conservative. ;)
January 7th, 2008 at 3:25 amupright left
My point was that one shouldn’t be as the Hypocrites and try to use your faith to justify your politics – Jesus can be taken to say exactly the reverse of your politics just by taking a selective view of his actions.
Instead vote for what you think is right. Keep it secular and vote for what you honestly think is the best path for America to take. You can’t say who Jesus would have really supported, you aren’t Jesus, but you can say what you think is the best direction for America.
January 7th, 2008 at 7:07 am#257 – “Jesus was conservative according to the definition of a conservative. ;)” Comment by upright left — January 6, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
I don’t think so.
Let’s look at the definition of “conservative from Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: 1con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1: preservative
2 a: of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism bcapitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism: as (1): of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2): progressive conservative
3 a: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional b: marked by moderation or caution c: marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners
Jesus was for preserving Christianity against the people who would fought against his faith, but he never was for maintaining existing views of the King being always right, conditions of the poor being kept the same, nor the instution of throwing Christians to the lions. Nope, Jesus couldn’t be a conservative based on the definition of conservative.
Main Entry: 1lib·er·al
Pronunciation: \ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date: 14th century
1 a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts barchaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a: marked by generosity : openhanded b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c: ample full
Jesus was marked by his generosity, openhandednes, and gave his love in a very liberal way. I guess Jesus has much more in common with liberals than he ever had with conservatives! ;-)
January 7th, 2008 at 7:34 amMy point was that one shouldn’t be as the Hypocrites and try to use your faith to justify your politics – Jesus can be taken to say exactly the reverse of your politics just by taking a selective view of his actions.
Instead vote for what you think is right. Keep it secular and vote for what you honestly think is the best path for America to take. You can’t say who Jesus would have really supported, you aren’t Jesus, but you can say what you think is the best direction for America.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — January 7, 2008 @ 7:07 am
I don’t use my faith to justify anything, but it is who I am and affects every decision I make. I agree that Jesus can be used by those seeking office, but not to the degree that you expressed in your previous post. Jesus didn’t address specific issues we face, but we can get pretty close to knowing what he would have us do. Take care of the poor, but not to such a degree that generations of them are dependent on government rather than realizing their God given potential. Jesus would not support obscene wealth, but he never advocated taking large amounts of money from the wealthy. He expected them to give as they had been blessed. I don’t think Jesus would have supported us going into Iraq when we did, but we know that His patience had limits and He never suggested that the world should be held hostage by evil men. And you cannot address Jesus’ desire that we take care of one another and ignore His admonitions against sin and His call to faith. I won’t vote for a candidate simply because of his religion. From what I’ve heard, I assume Huckabee is a good pastor. I don’t, however, think he is the best candidate for president.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:36 amComment by Democrat Soldier — January 7, 2008 @ 7:34 am
You know, bud, I fully expected someone to post a definition of conservative that omitted the commonly held view of political conservatism as meaning holding to traditional values. But I’ve got to say, you gave me a good laugh with that “supporting the King and throwing Christians to the lions” business. But back to the original post in this side discussion, I’ll even give you that Jesus was more liberal than conservative. Much like the many Americans who have been driven by extreme liberals to vote Republican within the last couple of decades. The point isn’t how liberal or conservative He was, but that Jesus was just as adamant about avoiding sin and having faith as He was about caring for the needy. That is the source of many of the problems between liberals and conservatives. ;)
January 7th, 2008 at 12:05 pmReligious Test
no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Article. VI
US Constitution
—-
They should never even ask the question, and the candidates, particulary the republican candidates who never stop blabbering about it, should stop talking about it.
No religious tests of any kind should ever be alluded to, and no religious bias should ever be spoken of by a candidate.
It has NO place in govt.
None.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
Believe you’re over-complicating this issue, BARTLEBEE.
And, interpreted in light of the information below, it would seem that your view is inaccurate.
Perhaps a clearer wording of the article would be the following.
bitblt rewrite:
To be qualified for any Office or public Trust under the United States one will never have to be a member of any one particular Christian denomination.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html
The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.
George Duffield, Congressional Chaplain
On October 1, 1777, after Jacob Duché, Congress’s first chaplain, defected to the British, Congress appointed joint chaplains: William White (1748-1836), Duché’s successor at Christ Church, Philadelphia, and George Duffield (1732-1790), pastor of the Third Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia. By appointing chaplains of different denominations, Congress expressed a revolutionary egalitarianism in religion and its desire to prevent any single denomination from monopolizing government patronage. This policy was followed by the first Congress under the Constitution which on April 15, 1789, adopted a joint resolution requiring that the practice be continued.
Proposed Seal for the United States
On July 4, 1776, Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams “to bring in a device for a seal for the United States of America. ” Franklin’s proposal adapted the biblical story of the parting of the Red Sea (left) . Jefferson first recommended the “Children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by Day, and a Pillar of Fire by night. . . .” He then embraced Franklin’s proposal and rewrote it (right). Jefferson’s revision of Franklin’s proposal was presented by the committee to Congress on August 20. Although not accepted these drafts reveal the religious temper of the Revolutionary period. Franklin and Jefferson were among the most theologically liberal of the Founders, yet they used biblical imagery for this important task.
Northwest Ordinance
In the summer of 1787 Congress revisited the issue of religion in the new western territories and passed, July 13, 1787, the famous Northwest Ordinance. Article 3 of the Ordinance contained the following language: “Religion, Morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, Schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged.” Scholars have been puzzled that, having declared religion and morality indispensable to good government, Congress did not, like some of the state governments that had written similar declarations into their constitutions, give financial assistance to the churches in the West.
More at the link.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:17 pmno religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Article. VI
US Constitution
—-
They should never even ask the question, and the candidates, particulary the republican candidates who never stop blabbering about it, should stop talking about it.
No religious tests of any kind should ever be alluded to, and no religious bias should ever be spoken of by a candidate.
It has NO place in govt.
None.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 4, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
Don’t people make their voting decisions based on their perceived understanding of a candidate’s character?
Don’t voters want to believe that the candidate will do what he promises – especially in the national defense?
Don’t voters want to believe that a candidate believes that the United States is important – especially its future?
Don’t voters want to believe that a candidate will be a President who is able to make a decision that is more in the interest of the country than in the interest of President?
How will voters know anything of a candidate’s character without asking and knowing about his religious beliefs, his marriage, and perhaps how he conducted himself in the past? Where else will they learn about character?
January 7th, 2008 at 4:31 pm