Candidates' church chat erodes U.S. principles

[Nonno]

Candidates' church chat erodes U.S. principles -- chicagotribune.com


At the risk of heresy, let it be said that setting up the two presidential candidates for religious interrogation by an evangelical minister—no matter how beloved—is supremely wrong.

It is also un-American.

For the past several days, most political debate has focused on who won.

Was it the nuanced, thoughtful Obama, who may have convinced a few more skeptics that he isn't a Muslim? Or was it the direct, confident McCain, who breezes through town hall-style meetings the way Obama sinks three-pointers from the back court?

 

[Lenny]

Obama and his people ==> desperation

Candidates' church chat erodes U.S. principles -- chicagotribune.com


At the risk of heresy, let it be said that setting up the two presidential candidates for religious interrogation by an evangelical minister—no matter how beloved—is supremely wrong.

It is also un-American.

For the past several days, most political debate has focused on who won.

Was it the nuanced, thoughtful Obama, who may have convinced a few more skeptics that he isn't a Muslim? Or was it the direct, confident McCain, who breezes through town hall-style meetings the way Obama sinks three-pointers from the back court?

Once again. The winner doesn't usually complain about the loser cheating.

 

[ylexot]

Yeah, only atheists are allowed to question them!

 

[Lenny]

I dont know about that, could you be more dramatic?

But the post does have merit.

The questions, because of how our Government was designed, should remain Secular. The faith and beliefs of the President are neither valid nor should be a basis for disqualification. This belief that a President or Government representitive MUST discuss their belief structure runs against what the Founding Fathers wanted or created.

The institance is that Candidates have to pander to Religious Leaders, which in itself should make you question ALL Candidates intentions. If its THAT important, yet you know they are Pandering (and they are), doesnt that belie the importance? If they Pander to one faith (and be honest they were with this debate), shouldnt they Pander equally? If they dont, doesnt that also call into question the Importance of it?

Both candidates have made (or have had made for them) their religion a BIG DEAL this year. Both candidates were asked to participate and both had the opportunity to decline. The factors that made it important for each to accept the invitation are obvious, but there is nothing unconstitutional about that happended Saturday night.

 

[Nonno]

From the article;

"This is about higher principles that are compromised every time we pretend we're not applying a religious test when we're really applying a religious test."

 

[aps45819]

The faith and beliefs of the President are neither valid nor should be a basis for disqualification.

I'm sorry, but being a long term, active member of a cult that espouses the United States as evil and all white people are devils seems relevant.

 

[Larry Gude]

And that's...

From the article;

"This is about higher principles that are compromised every time we pretend we're not applying a religious test when we're really applying a religious test."

...a bunch of new wave, touchy feeling, moral relativism cyberspace horsehit.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In no way, shape or form do candidates speaking in church's and with private groups of people of a given faith constitute an establishment of religion.

 

[ylexot]

The questions, because of how our Government was designed, should remain Secular. The faith and beliefs of the President are neither valid nor should be a basis for disqualification. This belief that a President or Government representitive MUST discuss their belief structure runs against what the Founding Fathers wanted or created.

Nobody forced them to go.

The institance is that Candidates have to pander to Religious Leaders, which in itself should make you question ALL Candidates intentions. If its THAT important, yet you know they are Pandering (and they are), doesnt that belie the importance? If they Pander to one faith (and be honest they were with this debate), shouldnt they Pander equally? If they dont, doesnt that also call into question the Importance of it?

This is no different than them going to a homosexual forum where they would answer questions relating to that group or a black forum where they would answer questions from that group. And yes, they will pander. BFD.

 

[ylexot]

So why did they?

Because free people are allowed to do what they want :shrug:

If johnny jumped off the bridge would you? Your excusing Pandering while showing other Pandering? It doesnt work when you (proverbial) make the argument "Yeah well Clinton did XXXXX" and its no different with the above statement

Huh? I have no problem with candidates pandering to any group. Its what they do. You are saying that its ok to pander to all groups except for religious groups. I disagree.

 

[Larry Gude]

So...

You could make the argument, one reason Obama took on the debate was to show Obama was "Christian" enough

?

...what?

That still doesn't constitute a governmental establishment or approval of one religion over or as regards any other. At all. Even if Obama stated that he went specifically to make himself look better to members of that congregation in particular and Christians in general that still does not violate the constitution.

 

[This_person]

It's funny, but the American voter gets to decide what is and is not important in a candidate. :shrug: As Slick Willie said when asked whether Barry was "qualified" to be president, the Constitution sets the qualifications. Other than that, it's up to the American voter to decide what factors to use.

If they want to vote for Barry because he dishonestly claims to be black, so be it. If a voter votes because McCain seemingly demonstrated decades of service to his country, so be it. If it's because they share at least some religious views with the voter, so be it. If it's because voting for the opposite party of the voter's parents will really piss off their parents and that would be fun, so be it.

There is nothing more wrong in having a discussion of "moral" questions than there is of foreign policy, tax policy, domestic policy, patriotism, etc., etc. The president can do virtually nothing alone, just like every other representative, so there will always be checks and balances over whatever is actually done. We can debate Barry's tax plan against John's six ways to Sunday, but NEITHER ONE will ever be implemented, because of the 500+ people that ALSO get to put into the plan. So, their tax plans are as meaningless to being president as their religious beliefs.

People ask the questions to get into someone's head and see how they think, not because they expect that specific thought to be the rule of law.

 

[ylexot]

Because of the insistance today that we should Pander to religious leaders.

...and tomorrow they will pander to Muslims and the next day they will pander to the military and the next day they will pander to...

No you implied i said its ok to Pander to anyone, i've actually posted negatively about any Pandering.

I'm sorry. I guess you have a problem with politicians pandering to anyone. My bad. Maybe you should be anti-campaign because that's all a campaign is...one huge pandering-fest.

The implications that a Potential Political representitive has to show he's Christian enough in order to be Viable, if your honest you will admit this is the uphill battle Obama has been fighting, should make any (Honest) American wonder where we strayed from the Founding Fathers ideals.

The Founding Fathers would/did allow the people to choose whomever they wanted based on whatever they wanted. Is it any worse that some people will vote for/against Obama for the simple fact that he is black? No, but it happens. Welcome to America, home of the free. You are free to be as ignorant and bigoted as you want to because the Constitution and the Founding Fathers made it that way!

 

[Larry Gude]

Insistence...

Because of the insistance today that we should Pander to religious leaders.

No you implied i said its ok to Pander to anyone, i've actually posted negatively about any Pandering.

The implications that a Potential Political representitive has to show he's Christian enough in order to be Viable, if your honest you will admit this is the uphill battle Obama has been fighting, should make any (Honest) American wonder where we strayed from the Founding Fathers ideals.

...by who? How? Where? What? When? Show me the government establishment of a religion in this.

By your argument, we're establishing a requirement to be married. To have a college degree. To have kids. To be a lawyer. To have served in the military. To be able to lie as though you mean it.

 

[This_person]

To be able to lie as though you mean it.

 

[ylexot]

I'm sorry, it sounds like a religious test.

To some voters, maybe the candidate does have to pass a religious test. That is the right of the people. The government is not allowed to have a religious test, but the people can decide based on whatever cockamamie thing they can come up with.

 

[Larry Gude]

I see...

I'm sorry, it sounds like a religious test.

...the point, but there is no constitutional prohibition that precludes the INDIVIDUAL from requiring you to be the pope before they will vote for you.

 

[chernmax]

Candidates' church chat erodes U.S. principles -- chicagotribune.com


At the risk of heresy, let it be said that setting up the two presidential candidates for religious interrogation by an evangelical minister—no matter how beloved—is supremely wrong.

It is also un-American.

For the past several days, most political debate has focused on who won.

Was it the nuanced, thoughtful Obama, who may have convinced a few more skeptics that he isn't a Muslim? Or was it the direct, confident McCain, who breezes through town hall-style meetings the way Obama sinks three-pointers from the back court?

NObama should stick to 3 pointers, he sucks at running for president and it's absolutely clear why he scurries away from any head to head debate. When NObama loses, maybe Pelsoi will be nice enough to rock the crying baby to sleep before laying him in John Kerry's arms...

 

[SamSpade]

I'm sorry. I guess you have a problem with politicians pandering to anyone. My bad. Maybe you should be anti-campaign because that's all a campaign is...one huge pandering-fest.

Pandering is a pejorative term. You call it pandering when it's a group you don't agree with or when it's a person you don't like.

Nobody calls it pandering when they do it to YOU (unless it's, as I said, someone or a group you don't like).

 

[ylexot]

And thats the point, I am not stating anyone should be told what their requirements are to vote for someone. But as a social commentary on the Electorate, it is sad that Religion has turned into a litmus test

But the litmus tests you use are ok.

 

[Larry Gude]

What...

And thats the point, I am not stating anyone should be told what their requirements are to vote for someone. But as a social commentary on the Electorate, it is sad that Religion has turned into a litmus test

...exactly, should ones 'test' be as regards choosing a candidate? Similar ideas? Similar thought process as to dealing with problems? Perhaps would should all just vote for folks we can't relate to?