Not related, but any comments on this?

Inuca

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-28-06 08:59 AM
Original message

Not related, but any comments on this?

Edited on Wed Jun-28-06 09:00 AM by Inuca

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060628/ap_on_go_co/obama

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

wisteria

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-28-06 09:06 AM
Response to Original message

1. I have no problem with this suggestion as long as it is done from

the heart, and doesn't appear to be pandering. We have to reach out to them with our principles-not the Repub's.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

beachmom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-28-06 09:34 AM
Response to Original message

2. I don't necessarily disagree with Obama, but I found this part to be

a swipe at Kerry:

Obama coupled his advice with a warning. "Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith: the politicians who shows up at a black church around election time and claps — off rhythm — to the gospel choir."

Maybe I'm being overly sensitive (not a clue whether Kerry clapped off rhythm, but he did indeed go to black churches around election time), but I thought that remark was at the expense of hardworking Democrats, and will only be used by the Right, without ANYTHING changing.

This paragraph is the reality of this country -- secularists need to back off for the moment, because larger things are at stake than "Under God" in the pledge, like say a woman's right to choose:

At the same time, he said, "Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ProSense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-28-06 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #2

4. I don't think it was!

There are a lot of people who fit that category; he could have been talking about Bush or any number of Republicans.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

wisteria

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-28-06 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #2

8. I don't think you can associate this with Kerry. Senator Kerry has

been responsive and involved with the black community all along- not just during the election.
Actually, I don't care for O'Bama's reference which seems to play into a stereo type that white people have no rhythm.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-28-06 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #2

12. It also is a stupid comment

Edited on Wed Jun-28-06 10:39 AM by karynnj

I agree that if politicians are not religious, they shouldn't make religious references in their speeches, other than some that have "assimilated" into secular talk. An example of this is someone like Dean. I much prefer the way Kerry has done the "religious" part of his ever developing speech lately where he speaks more of moral values. Although I don't doubt for a minute that he is a religious moral man, the more overtly Christian comments seemed written to prove he was. (Aside: I was struck by 2 sentences in "NEW WAR" - "Crime has been with humanity since Cain slew Abel. And such crimes of passion will be with us until the world ends or man is redeemed." This was 1997 before Newsweek started having religious covers at least 4 times a year. These were the secular Clinton years. Cain and Abel may be cliche but "or man is redeemed" is not.)

Where I think Obama is wrong is that a white politician going to a black church is outreach - and the only point he could have is this should be done at other times. What would he or the black community say if a white politician declined all invitations to go to black churches? You can't have it both ways. The point is NOT primarily religious. I would be honored if a Christian politician attends a Jewish service.

One more thing, Obama is discriminating against the rhythm challenged, which I to admit to being. At my Jewish services where there is clapping to songs, I kind of what when others clap and try to follow as best I can to the amusement of my more capable kids. I am no less authentic because of it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Inuca

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-28-06 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #2

13. This was one of the things

that tickled me the wrong way, also... I do not know... an unpleasant gut feeling. Though I tend to give Obama the benefit of the doubt..

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

JI7

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-28-06 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #2

18. it's not a swipe at Kerry, but Kerry was criticized for NOT going to black

churches and whatever else Clinton and some other Dems did.

even though Kerry did attend black churches. but i guess it wasn't a huge thing he did. but that has more to do with his background . the same was true of his own religion and how he practiced it.

i liked him best when he would just go out into the streets, people's homes , neighborhoods etc and just to talk to them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

whometense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-28-06 09:37 AM
Response to Original message

3. I personally loathe

what he's saying, though I recognize the reality behind the sentiment.

The whole issue makes me queasy, which means, I guess, that I could never run for higher office and hope to win. Not that I want to, but it makes me ill that this would be a strike against a moral, progressive agnostic.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ProSense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-28-06 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #3

5. Understand the sentiment, completely disagree with this

"It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase `under God,'" he said. "Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats."

Obama is bugging!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

beachmom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-28-06 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #3

6. Yeah, I remember we had a discussion about this before

I think it was you or someone else who is not a Christian being forced to say the "Our Father" back in the '60s. That's wrong. What I actually prefer is a moment of silence after the pledge. Then people can pray, or just become centered or think about whatever they feel like. Silence is good, and inoffensive.

But even though I'm a majority "Christian", I feel very queasy with religion outside of church, the home, and difficult times (I had no problem with Bush evoking God right after 9/11 -- we were all shocked and it's normal after a tragedy for people to turn to a higher power). I also don't mind if a politician speaks sincerely about his religion -- like say, Tim Kaine, who was a Catholic missionary in Honduras -- but it has to be absolutely necessary to describe him/herself. I have no doubt that Kerry's faith had to do with his moral outrage at the Vietnam War, but that is private with him, and he shouldn't feel forced to talk about it, because then it will look contrived.

Prosense -- it was a swipe at Dems because they're the ones hunting for AA votes at election time. Republicans may go to black churches but it is not as common as it is for Dems. And, frankly, after Katrina, I think it would be tough for a Repub to go to a black church without being booed off the stage.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

whometense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-28-06 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #6

7. It probably was me -

that sounds like my story, anyway!

I just found this relevant story at http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/001473.php

Paul Harris of the Guardian Unlimited Observer reports on the resignation of the Kansas GOP Chairman Mark Parkinson and his candidacy for Deputy Governor --- as a Democrat. Writes Harris:

Could this be a harbinger of a nation-wide trend of substance-hungry Republicans becoming Democrats? (more...)

Food for thought.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ProSense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-28-06 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #6

10. What I meant is that

it's not a swipe at Kerry. It could have been a swipe a Hillary Clinton or the Republicans. One of the biggest controversies of the 2004 election is how Republicans tried to sway black voters away from Democrats using the church. With the GOP, it's about taking votes away. McCain wound up in one around MLK day. In fact, the GOP has a new approach pushing black candidates (Steele and Swann) who are now going to push their phony values.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

whometense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-28-06 10:22 AM
Response to Original message

9. Atrios comment:

Edited on Wed Jun-28-06 10:25 AM by whometense

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_06_25_atrios_archive.html#115150619430939889

Just Do It

Dear Senator Obama,

If you think it's important to court evangelicals, then court them. If, on the other hand, you think it's important to confirm and embrace the false idea that Democrats are hostile to religion in order to set yourself apart, then continue doing what you're doing. It won't help the Democrats, and it probably won't even help you, but whatever makes you happy.

Love and kisses,

Atrios

P.S. What Stoller says.(http://mydd.com/story/2006/6/28/104440/256)

Ouch.

Edited to add this delightfully (well, to me, anyway) snarky comment at mydd:
http://mydd.com/comments/2006/6/28/104440/256/4#4

I have faith in the belief that Obama deserves a divine can of STFU.

- Bay to the Beltway
by blogswarm on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 11:02:02 AM EST 9/div]

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ProSense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-28-06 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #9

11. I saw it as just that:

overreaching general comment that comes off like pandering!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Blaukraut

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-28-06 11:49 AM
Response to Original message

14. I find it extremely offensive on so many levels!

Obama has continuously underwhelmed me since he has been elected. Add to that now growing dislike and distrust.
First of all; competing for the support of evangelicals is fine; but do it by representing our true democratic values rather than pandering to them with religiosity.
To me; EVERY mention of god by a politician in a public arena is a breach to the wall of separation. Yes, context matters; but seriously, where, in any public appearance or speech, is it necessary to invoke god? This country has far more worrisome issues to deal with that can be addressed and there need be nary in mention of god in any of them.

This may upset some people, so I apologize ahead of time and ask you to see it from my perspective;
Reciting the pledge of allegiance is reminiscent of nationalism and forced pledges in Nazi Germany. There is just something inherently creepy seeing a group of people chanting in unison while clutching their bosoms.
(Maybe I'm overly sensitive to this, having grown up in Post Nazi Germany, where any type of overly nationalistic or patriotic behavior is now deeply frowned upon.)
Finally, the pledge bears little resemblence to its original, introduced by Baptist minister Bellamy in 1892.
The phrases ' of America' and 'under God' were subsenquently added and have turned a patriotic pledge into a public prayer.

Which leads me to Obama insisting that vlountary student prayer groups in school should not be a threat.
Well, yes they are. What part of separation of church and state does he not understand? Besides, the ten odd minutes spent on prayer could me used much more efficiently such as a ten minute question and answer session on, say, the constitution!!

So Obama has found his personal god, as have all religious folks, including, arguably, evangelicals. That's fine. Good for him and them.
However; when he is trying to tell me that I am wrong for asking that believers leave their religion at the door before entering the public square, I beg to differ.
If he believes in the bible, he must also believe that he should pray in his closet, and that shouting out his religiosity in public, regardles of how heartfelt it may be, makes him a pharisee and a hypocrite.
But instead of the bible, we only need to turn to the constitution that demands separation of church and state.
Public servants should pay attention to their job description before they enter into employment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Island Blue

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-28-06 11:51 AM
Response to Original message

15. This kind of thing makes me extremely uncomfortable.

I think for me it comes from my Southern experience. (I know you guys are probably tired of hearing about my "Southern experiences", but it is relevant here. :)) Anyway, I work for a program that is part of county government but that also receives funds from state government. I can not tell you how many times business meetings or social gatherings at the county or state level have felt more like prayer meetings (prayer that is, IF you're a Christian). While I do have my own religious beliefs, they are different from those of probably 95% of the people I work with. I consider them very private, and I do not feel the need to worship in public. (That being said, I'm also chicken and don't speak up about my discomfort even though I know I should. :-()

I fear it's a slippery slope (which we've of course already begun sliding down) when it comes to mixing matters of church and state, and unlike Obama, I DO NOT feel the need to pander to those who feel that the two institutions should not be kept separate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sandnsea

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-28-06 12:25 PM
Response to Original message

16. The debate has BEEN reconciled

It was reconciled when our founders wrote the Constitution. There shall be no law respecting an establishment of religion. There shall be no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Religion flourishes in churches and religious institutions. People develop moral values and character in those institutions (supposedly). They bring those values into public governance. The values. Not the prayers, not the doctrine, not the preaching. Simple.

Obama may be confused about what Democrats stand for but maybe that's because the Robertsons and Falwells have brainwashed him into believing liberals' moral values came from watching Teletubbies and maybe he believes that because he has been brainwashed just a bit by "under God" and thinks you can't have moral values unless you wax poetic about Jesus and unborn babies and Islamo-fascists and Sunday catfish dinner.

I know that people come before a stack of dollars and that's all the religion I need.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

beachmom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-28-06 08:14 PM
Response to Original message

17. Somebody just posted the whole speech which is more nuanced

than the excerpts we read. Here it is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1528922

It's a good speech, even if I don't agree with it all. It's certainly thought provoking -- check it out, and see if you feel a little differently.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Mass

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-28-06 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #17

19. I imagine that, given the public, it was a good speech. What bothers me,

Edited on Wed Jun-28-06 10:28 PM by Mass

whether it comes from politicians or public figures like Jim Wallis, is that they cant speak about values without adding religious, like the only source of our values was religious.

I am sure that I share a lot of values with Jim Wallis, but when I read his book, I could not avoid wondering why he was insisting about religious values rather than values, as if he did not believe that you could be non religious and have values. This has been bugging me throughout the book.

I guess it is what bothered me in this speech: Obama should be speaking about democratic values and hopefully, they will coincide with the Sojourners values, but do we really care if they got these values from their religion, their families, their culture, or "Marxism" (just joking, but why not).

This said, we have to remember the context. This was a speech for Sojourners, so I guess this is what it is about.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sandnsea

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-28-06 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #19

21. I agree completely

I'm pretty sure it was Jefferson who said that religion informs our values and then we bring those values into public life. I guess I can understand a theologian connecting the two, but I don't understand a Democratic politician not defining the difference. Not to mention, anonymity in charitable work is also a religious value, which is one of the tenets that informs Catholic values particularly, which is probably where the Democratic tradition of not dragging religion into public life came from. Democratic Catholic religious values. It's immoral to boast about your religion when you're doing good works. So they're asking Catholic Democrats to break their own values when they insist we have to verbally connect religion and values.

Seems to me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

JI7

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-28-06 10:33 PM
Response to Original message

20. people other than Evangelicals are not considered "religious:"

the way all of this always comes off to me is that the Evangelicals have become the religious "ideal" and anything else is something other than religion. if you do anything Evangelicals don't like then it's because you are against their faith.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TayTay

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-29-06 09:10 AM
Response to Original message

22. What we have lost:

Edited on Thu Jun-29-06 09:12 AM by TayTay

This is what Democrats once sounded like. This is how Democrats rallied the nation to a just and righteous cause. This is the progressive and forward-looking appeal of enlightened religion and religious tradition in this nation. It has nothing to do with converting people or with making someone wallow in someone else's religion. This is our Democratic tradition and Sen. Obama is right, we need to get it back and once again speak in the language that encourages inclusion, brotherhood, common purpose and the divine imperative to take care of the least among us. We once knew how to talk like this, we have to relearn it.

I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring." And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania! Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado! Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California! But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia! Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee! Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

http://www.mecca.org/~crights/dream.html

This is, to the very beating core of it, a fine secular speech that is steeped in the American progressive religious tradition. More please.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

beachmom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-29-06 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #22

23. What I'm looking for from Obama or any Dem for that matter is

to not talk about how we should be talking in the old progressive tradtion, but to JUST DO IT!! Obama had some great parts to this speech, but he spent too much time admonishing Dems/seculars and the religious right when he should have just launched into a speech of what he believes using his spiritual beliefs to explain it. I don't think anyone here, even those of us who may have objected to parts of the speech, would have a critique if he, say, spoke about Iraq, the environment, or the poor in a language reminescent of MLK. And, really, his keynote speech at the Dem Convention was just that. I am fearing that Obama is becoming too senatized. I was disappointed with his cautious Iraq speech. It was limiting. That's fine if he disagrees with Kerry/Feingold but please explain to me how another way can make things BETTER for America and Iraq.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 15th 2024, 09:06 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.