Got feedback on the new design? We're Listening! Send us Feedback

Politics, God, and Blue Devils »

Posted by: Spadecaller 7 months, 4 weeks ago

8.4

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 34

Propped: 79

Comments: 53

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

Lessons from Duke: how to choose a president. "In America, citizens are free to vote for a candidate based on whatever criteria they choose, be it hairstyle, taste in music, foreign policy or religion." The question remains; what are the best reasons to choose the next President of the United States?

Read Full Story at article.nationalreview.com

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 53

0%
Spadecaller7 months, 4 weeks ago

(from the article)
"Contrary to the question asked during the recent YouTube Republican debate, knowing what someone believes about the Bible does not "tell us everything we need to know" about that person as a candidate for president. Questions about piety and doctrine do not violate the Constitution's prohibition of a religious test for office, but they may be questions best left on the bench."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9F9IT35eG0&watc...
Politicians usually believe in whatever gets them elected; how do you know when a candidate is sincere about their convictions?
I believe when a politician does not hide under generalities and is willing to answer direct questions from the "ordinary" people in person, we can get a better glimpse at who they actually are.
This religious litmus test provided during canned debates when each candidate proclaims, "I believes," does not cut for me.

Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  Natureboy7 months, 3 weeks ago
  
  "I believe when a politician does not hide under generalities and is willing to answer direct questions from the "ordinary" people in person, we can get a better glimpse at who they actually are."
  I believe when you have a bunch of skillful dissemblers seeking to persuade you, you are well advised to give little weight to what they say, much weight to what they have done in the past.
  Reply
0%
Amazing17 months, 4 weeks ago

I don't really care about a politician's religion. The fact that he/she is a politician to begin with is proof enough for me that he/she has something seriously wrong with their head. How these mental problems are manifested in relation to their religious tenets is a debate too esoteric for serious consideration.
I do not believe they do it for the PEOPLE. They seem to do it for their self-agrandizement. Certainly Pelosi seems puffed up with her own self-importance and Bush swaggers around like the king of the hill. Even when they talk about their religion, I don't believe they believe.
To be fair, there are a few who are idealistic. But those citizens are few and far between. Politicans, as a class are societal sycophants who are best regarded as the slimey leeches they are.
The article did make some good points. We should not ask "what" religion but "how" that religion influences them.
Reply
2 Replies
- 0%
  cowboygrandpa7 months, 4 weeks ago
  
  Amazing1:
  I agree we should ask how their religion affects them, and how they will let it affect us.
  I also agree that most politicians claiming to have a morality based on the Bible and God is a joke. They have shown an ability to lie, cheat and steal while claiming God's way.
  The last true Christian we had in the Whitehouse was Jimmy Carter. Things didn't work out to well for him because true Christians don't make deals with the devil.
  Look at Reagan, Bush, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, GW Bush... Which one of them would you call a true Christian leader?
  Why don't we just tell them that they are all liars and that the truth shines thru. Now tell us what you plan to do to help America regain her strength, stop the wasteful war and get over yourselves. Without the people of the United States the President is worthless.
  Reply
- 0%
  icono17 months, 4 weeks ago
  
  I truly believe that all politicians are sociopathic. So lying has no consequences for them. Everything they say and do is just a means to an end; them in office.
  Reply
0%
getreal17 months, 4 weeks ago

Spade I'm looking for the one that is most practical at being able to get our country back to the way it should have been. More parties need to added I don't think there are enough elected to hear what the people want. Our leaders are going to have to face the fact that what the people of America want is important.
Reply
0%
Neophile7 months, 4 weeks ago

Anyone who invokes article VI of the constitution to suggest we shouldn't talk about a candidate's religion is trying to stifle legitimate, relevant conversation in a most dishonest manner.
Christopher Hitchens had a similar article in Slate recently:
http://www.slate.com/id/2180159/
Reply
13 Replies
- 0%
  Spadecaller7 months, 4 weeks ago
  
  How true. I want people to have access to candidates and to engage them in discourse about who they received support from. As the electorate, we have the right to know if Huckabee agrees with the Chrstian Fundamentalists and Dominionists who support him. Of course, the same is true of McCain and Jerry Falwell.
  
  Reply
  12 Replies
  - 0%
    hyperbola7 months, 4 weeks ago
    
    Well, we should certainly ask candidates if they support zionist ethnic cleansing of christians and moslems. Amyone who does so certainly does not believe in the principles of American democracy. Here is an israeli jew that seems much more in tune with american democracy than any of our presidential dandidates.
    The ethnic cleansing of Palestine
    by Ilan Pappe
    University of Haifa
    The book shows that in 1948, the Zionist movement waged a war against the Palestinian people in order to implement its long term plans of ethnic cleansing. The Arab world tried to prevent this cleansing, but was too fragmented, self-centered and ineffective to stop the uprooting of half of Palestine's native population, the destruction of half of its villages and towns and the killing of thousands of its people....
    
    Reply
    2 Replies
    - 0%
      hyperbola7 months, 4 weeks ago
      
      And since that ethnic cleansing was successfully implemented in almost 80% of Palestine without any global or regional repercussions - the ethnic cleansing policy continues ever since 1967 in the remaining 20% of the country. Creating a Jewish state in historical Palestine cleansed of Palestinians is still the ideolgoical infrastructure on which the state of Israel is based....
      ... The book uses the accepted scholarly definition of Ethnic Cleansing to show its academic as well legal applicability to the case of Palestine and argues that since in the eyes of the world - including the State Department and the UN - ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity, this how we should view the Israeli actions in the past and ISrael's policies in the present.
      http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?Ite...
      Reply
    - 0%
      triizine7 months, 3 weeks ago
      
      That's it in a nutshell. A true leader believes in democracy. What their religious beliefs are should be of no consequence. Democracy is not about religion. Democracy is about equal voice.
      Reply
  - 0%
    hyperbola7 months, 4 weeks ago
    
    We should also ask them if they are accepting money from foreign agents.
    Rudy or Hillary: Pick Your Poison
    Politics â;; Meet the Only Two Candidates Worse Than Bush and Cheney. Both Hillary and Rudy are committed to war. Both refuse to rule out expanding war to Iran and beyond. Both are totally in the pocket of the Israel Lobby. Both defend police state measures that "protect us from terrorism." Neither gives a hoot for the US Constitution.
    http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2007/11/29/r...
    
    Reply
  - 0%
    Spadecaller7 months, 4 weeks ago
    
    I have hyperbola's comments blocked from view; but by the typical placement of his posts (directly under mine), I expect they consist of anti-Semitic content cloaked in anti-Zionist rants. If I am wrong, my apologies.
    Reply
    6 Replies
    - 0%
      hyperbola7 months, 4 weeks ago
      
      Well Spade, why don't you tell us why you think it is acceptable to talk about the influence of christians of various kinds on american politics, but not to talk about the influence of zionist jews on american poltics? Are you trying to censor americans?
      Here is what an israeli jew says about your attempt at censorship and how it damages both the US and Israel.
      Two Knights and a Dragon
      The Power of the Israel Lobby
      There are books that change people's consciousness and change history. Some tell a story, like Harriet Beech Stowe's 1851 "Uncle Tom's Cabin". Others take the form of a political treatise, like Theodor Herzl's "Der Judenstaat", which gave birth to the Zionist movement. Or they can be scientific in nature, like Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species". And perhaps political satire, too, can shake the world, like "1984" by George Orwell.
      
      Reply
      3 Replies
      - 0%
        hyperbola7 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        The impact of these books was amplified by their timing. They appeared exactly at the right time, when a large public was ready to absorb their message.
        It may well turn out that the book by the two professors, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy", is just such a book.
        THE TWO professors take the bull by the horns. They deal with a subject which is absolutely taboo in the United States, a subject nobody in his right mind would even mention: the enormous influence of the pro-Israel lobby on American foreign policy.
        In a remorselessly systematical way, the book analyzes the Lobby, takes it apart, describes its modus operandi, discloses its financial sources and lays bare its relations with the White House, the two houses of Congress, the leaders of the two major parties and leading media people.
        
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        hyperbola7 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        ... the book shows how the Lobby uses its tremendous power in practice: how it has prevented the exertion of any pressure on Israel to for peace with the Palestinians, how it pushed the US into the invasion of Iraq, how it is now pushing for wars with Iran and Syria, how it supported the Israeli leadership in the recent war in Lebanon and blocked calls for a ceasefire when it didn't want it.
        Each of these assertions is backed up by so much undeniable evidence and quotations from written material (mainly from Israeli sources) that they cannot be ignored.
        MOST OF these disclosures are nothing new for those in Israel who deal with these matters.
        
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        hyperbola7 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        .....The two professors are, of course, accused of anti-Semitism, racism and hatred of Israel. What Israel? It is the Lobby itself that hates a large part of Israel. In recent years is has shifted even more to the Right. Some of its constituent groups--such as the neo-cons who pushed the US into the Iraq war--are openly connected with the right-wing Likud, and especially with Binyamin Netanyahu. The billionaires who finance the Lobby are the same people who finance the extreme Israeli Right, and most of all the settlers...
        ... If this is anti-Semitism, then we here are all anti-Semites. And only the Christian Zionists--those who openly demand the return of the Jews to this country but secretly prophesy the annihilation of the unconverted Jews at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ--are the true Lovers of Zion....
        http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery10042007.html
        
        Reply
    - JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
      - 0%
        Spadecaller7 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        JQP I agree with you; but that should only apply to hyperbola, but it clearly doesn't.
        Reply
  - 0%
    amazed7 months, 3 weeks ago
    
    Isn't Jerry Falwell dead?
    Reply
0%
Radiofreeeuropa7 months, 4 weeks ago

Religion has been made an issue by the candidates own pandering. Candidates and voters can discuss whatever they choose, The law clearly applies to actual government qualifications for the job as stated in the article. Since a fair amount of these candidates think evolution is bunko (at least when they think it's what an audience wants to hear), I wonder how many believe in Santa Claus? (Don't they realize we are recording this stuff?) You can't be a Baptist in S. Carolina, and be an Episcopalian in Michigan anymore.
Reply
0%
Francisca7 months, 4 weeks ago

Thanks Spade! I am very impressed by the video...It's the confirmation that Religion needs to stay OUT of the Politic.I must admit also that Society can't live without some rules and Morality ( too much liberties kill Liberty! )Unfortunately, it's in Religion we can find the best rules. Not easy!!
Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  Francisca7 months, 4 weeks ago
  
  I just was thinking of some communist Countries where Religion absolutely is forbitten. It's not a good way either.LOL
  Reply
0%
Will13137 months, 4 weeks ago

Didn't God tell Bush to invade Iraq.... ????
based on that alone.. God is not a foriegn policy expert...
Reply
2 Replies
- 0%
  cowboygrandpa7 months, 4 weeks ago
  
  Will1313:
  No that was Cheney, who told Bush to invade Iraq. Bush just thinks he's god because of how screwed up his thinking is.
  Bush is not a good choice of people to be shown as a believer. He believes I just don't know in which god. It seems more like mammon than God to me.
  
  Reply
- 0%
  namecritic7 months, 4 weeks ago
  
  Yes, he wore a monocle and looked like the penguin from the batman movie . . . oh wait . . . that was cheney.
  photo supplied
  http://www.blogs.pn/images/blog-images/politica...
  Reply
0%
Spadecaller7 months, 4 weeks ago

I want to know if McCain agrees with Falwell and if not, why he accepts his support. To use the constitution to stifle free speech is reprehensible.
I find it worrisome that several of these candidates accept support from Christian extremists, who advocate a nation under their "God" and advocate abolishing public schools.
If they accept money and support from these leaders and their congregations, why shouldn't Americans be free to question their allegiance to these factons? When we put the next man in office, we should know what his or her real agenda is.
Reply
12 Replies
- 0%
  scriblerus17 months, 4 weeks ago
  
  Has Falwell been communicating with McCain from the Great Beyond? That bourne whence no traveler returns? ;)
  Reply
  10 Replies
  - 0%
    Spadecaller7 months, 4 weeks ago
    
    From this side of the great divide is Brownback, who is supporting McCain. Pat Robertson is supporting Guiliani.
    Reply
    9 Replies
    - 0%
      Spadecaller7 months, 4 weeks ago
      
      I have hyperbola's comments blocked from view; but by the typical placement of his posts (directly under mine), I expect they consist of anti-Semitic content cloaked in anti-Zionist rants. If I am wrong, my apologies.
      Reply
      8 Replies
      - 0%
        hyperbola7 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        Well Spade, it seems that you cannot provide any arguments about why jewish zionist influence on american politics should not be discussed. Seems rather hypocritical of you.
        Why don't you tell us why you think this israeli jew is wrong? Why not tell us why you think the US should keep pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into ethnic cleansing of millions of christians and moslems?
        Why Israel Has No "Right to Exist" as a Jewish State
        Religion â;; The Annapolis meeting is a con. We should say loud and clear that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state. To claim such a right to be racist must come from a being whose victim's face must hide very dark primordial aggression and hatred of all others.
        http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2007/11/21/w...
        Reply
        7 Replies
        
        0%
        hyperbola7 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        ... only by individuating cases of injustice, by extending claims for injustice to all historic Palestine, by fair address of them without creating another injustice for Jews and finally by ensuring the elimination of all racist laws that stems from the Jewish nature of the state including that nature itself, would justice be, and with it peace, possible.
        .. The path of two states is the path of separation.... Such a scenario is sure to provoke more violence as it would establish the realisation and legitimisation of Zionist racism and imperialism.
        A recognition of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state means the silencing that would breed more and more violence and bloodshed....
        We must see that the uncritically accepted recognition of Israel right to exist is to accept Israel claim to have the right to be racist or, Israel's claim to have the right to occupy to dispossess and to discriminate.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        hyperbola7 months, 4 weeks ago
        
        To claim such a right to be racist must come from a being whose victim's face must hide very dark primordial aggression and hatred of all others.
        As an egalitarian argument we should say loud and clear that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state.
        Only a single egalitarian and non sectrarian state over all the whole of historic Palestine will achieve justice and peace.
        http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2007/11/21/w...
        Reply
        
        ML2007Comment removed: User banned.4 Replies
        
        0%
        hyperbola7 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        Nope ML, I am a 14th generation American that still believes in this:
        ""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.""
        See anything there that suggests zionists have the right to ethnic cleanse millions of christians and moslems?
        It is an entirely legitimate question why Spade (and others) exclude those strains of judaism that advocate ethnic cleansing, and especially american support for that cleanisng, from discussion with chants of "anti-semitism".
        Frankly your response borders on the same sort of censorship. It would have been more appropriate for you to address the racism of zionism that an israeli jew has posed in his article and its consequences for America. Many american jews do:
        Israeli Repression and the Language of Liars
        http://www.alternet.org/story/13087/
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        ML2007Comment removed: User banned.2 Replies
        
        0%
        hyperbola7 months, 3 weeks ago
        
        Sorry ML. but you are simply dodging the issue again. America has an extremely shameful history of supporting zionist ethnic cleansing of millions of christians and moslems in palestine. I wish to know whether any presidential candidate will continue this relgious/ethnic discrimination or if he instead places the principles of american democracy above such discrimination. I will vote for any candidate that promises to end american support for the ongoing zionist ethnic cleansing.
        As for your question about my religion, my personal background is actually irrelevant to the principles of the discussion and of american democracy. In fact, posing such a question suggests that your own understanding of american democracy is faulty.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        ML2007Comment removed: User banned.
- 0%
  hyperbola7 months, 4 weeks ago
  
  Why not ask them all if they are accepting money and support from christian zionists or from the zionists in the democratic party.
  The DLC and Israel
  Zionist Democrats
  ... the Democratic Leadership Council published a statement celebrating "Zionism" and condemning Islam. If their publication had not come from a man who purports to be a leader of the political opposition to the deeply unpopular right-wing Republican regime one might be inclined to surmise that it had been issued by the so-called Israel Lobby....
  ... These neoconservative Democrats include: Governor Tom Vilsack, Senator Evan Bayh, Senator Joe Biden and Senator Hillary Clinton. These Democrats are committed to the DLC vision of America's future as defined by Mr. From, most recently in his glowing account of Zionism and its Manichean conflict with Islam....
  http://counterpunch.org/carmichael05302006.html
  
  Reply
0%
ciera-marie7 months, 4 weeks ago

What bothers me about most politicans (both sides) is when they say they support one issue to one group that is for it, and are against when speaking to a group that is against it. I can not give an example right now, but we all know it's happened.
Also, one of my absolute favorites, is when they are asked a question and don't answer it. They're talking, you can hear them, but they're not answering it.
Unfortunately a candidate's spiritual/religious beliefs have now become a factor. It's not just for the presidential elections. It's Governor/Lt. Governor, and the rest of the state cabinet down to the state auditor. Worse it now includes judges.
Which reminds me I have to add research on judges up for re/election this year to my list.
Reply
0%
Mdiar7 months, 4 weeks ago

I think alot of people ask about religion because they somehow think that this shows a moral standing in the person. "Of course a Southern Baptist has better morals then a Mormon!" sort of mentality. These people think that because someone calls themselves something that means they have the moral high ground. I read something on Mike Huckabee recently about his accepting many "gifts" while governor in Arkansas and while it was ethical from a legal standpoint... do we really want someone susceptible to "gifts" as President, even if they do say there a Southern Baptist? Certainly a person has a right to ask questions about certain groups that support a candidate, be they religious or otherwise. Also any question they please, relevance doesn't matter, at least legally. But to vote based on what someone says there religion is, rather then a record or something even more important, like the ability to unify people? That just seems like asking for trouble.
Reply
0%
Klarissa7 months, 4 weeks ago

Great article
I like this quote"
"The key is to understand those areas where religious commitments are most likely to influence an individual's capacity to fulfill the responsibilities of political leadership, and to focus the conversation there."
Reply
ML2007Comment removed: User banned.5 Replies
- ML2007Comment removed: User banned.
- ML2007Comment removed: User banned.
- ML2007Comment removed: User banned.
- 0%
  Natureboy7 months, 3 weeks ago
  
  1.) How do you think God communicates with mankind today?
  In morse code transmitted by farts and tap-dancing.
  Reply
  1 Reply
  - ML2007Comment removed: User banned.
0%
Obaku7 months, 4 weeks ago

How a politician views and interprets their religion may also tell us about how they view and interpret the secular law as well.
If they profess to be 'Christian' and yet openly commit adultery, one might reasonably feel that they would feel no more bound by the Consitution than they were by the Ten Commandments.
If their faith leads them to disbelieve the facts and the evidence in the case of the age of the Earth, what other facts might they disregard, in favor of a blind faith in an ideology? Would they invade another country, killing tens of thousands, even though there was no real evidence of danger?
Ya' think?
If they have sworn a religious oath, to place their religious beliefs above all else, and yet still claim that they would put the law and the Consitution first when serving in office, perhaps they would be just as ready to ignore the oath of office as well!
(Google: Melchizedek Priesthood)
Reply
lovermanComment removed: User banned.2 Replies
- 0%
  amazed7 months, 3 weeks ago
  
  yes, but when we "politely" didn't discuss the religion of politicians, it was assumed (and unofficially demanded, even) that they all be male WASP's. The first time religion became an issue in a Presidential race was with Kennedy-- a Roman Catholic and the first viable non-Protestant Presidential candidate. We pretty well went back to WASP's until Lieberman -- and his deal was not (as Kennedy's) don't worry about me being Jewish, it was all about how Jewish he is and how morally upstanding that made him (although he collected his pay for not doing his job (Senate) in order to try to get a better job (V.P. then Pres) twice.
  Reply
  1 Reply
  - lovermanComment removed: User banned.
0%
Natureboy7 months, 3 weeks ago

Maybe we should also consider the virtues of "none of the above."
One of the primary functions of elections is to legitimize government and preserve the illusion that the will of the people reigns supreme.
So my choicein the coming presidential race is between candidates who do not represent my values, and who if elected will simply serve the military/industrial/financial Moloch while claiming to serve us. Should I pick a marginally "least bad" among them, and legitimize the farce by voting, or should I boycott the ballot box and encourage others to do likewise?
Reply