Obama v. Huckabee: The silver lining, as I see it, is an important discussion of faith.

Although Obama is certainly a "status quo" guy and not my choice, his willingness to address religion and issues of faith both mirrors and stands in contrast to Huckabee's "Christian" branding. As I have posted here before, I believe that matters of God and the unseen world are such an important part of life - both on the individual level and in societies - that to simply banish them from public discourse, while allowing Mammon, in the form of corporate marketing, to flourish at all levels of government, is to throw our culture dangerously out of balance.

Huckabee's fundamentalist kind of religion will start to show up, in the general election, as the limited and fearful world view it offers. If Obama can sustain a true message of inclusion as he explains his vision for America and the world, perhaps the ideas of spirit, faith, charity, love - whatever OUGHT to occupy the realm of religion in human existence - can be employed in healing, not warring.

and there aren't as many evangelicals in NH. They got no-body! Well, McCain, the pro-war guy.

:cry:

This shitty election hasn't even happened yet and already it makes me want to shoot myself.

Considering Obama's extreme leveraging of religion and Clinton's considerable (if less public) use of it, if Edwards isn't the nominee, the general election is going to be one big godfest, especially if Hucky gets the nod...

cross the line of separation. If you are religious, fine but I don't need to hear about it and I don't need to here a candidate say he is going to make law based on his faith. Law should be based on the common good and the Constitution. It should not matter what faith someone has or doesn't have.

Christian religion is not an important part of my life and I represent a great many voters. I am Buddhist and I don't want some candidate to run his campaing based on Dharma.

And frankly, I'm sick of those 'religions" which dictate that they must "witness" or "recruit" or they aren't "practicing" their faith. . .they chose that lifestyle and could choose any number of religious beliefs which do not require daily broadcast and domination of others. I am disgusted enough at this year's candadates as they posture over who is more "christian". . .apparently the rest of us don't exist.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Maybe some puckish liberal person of faith could start an "ex-fundie ministry" based on this principle? :P

Huckabee did a great job hiding his fundamentalist nature last night. A clear sign he can morph himself for the occasion.

In the real world if you need to build a levee you either pray to God in the unseen world to not flood you or you build the levee. I want politicians that actually use my public offices created to actually run social institutions like levee building, rather than politicians that tell me to pray for rains and give my money to their corporate friends.

of New Orleans deserved to be flooded because they didn't pray to god enough for their Levee to hold? So God to you is a self centered bastard, who created people just to kiss his butt? No enough butt kissing and the levee breaks. I got yah.

You stated that in real life you could build a levee or pray, i pointed out there was a third option of doing both, New Orleans when i checked was not mentioned in your post so to be honest i didn't actually make the leap of linking it to that(which in hindsight i should have done and for that i apologize)

Personally i don't believe in god and for me it was merely pointing out that there was an third option, in that just because somebody are religious does not mean they don't act in a sensible manner(build a levee if there is a chance of a flood).

i was thinking more of a house by a river myself due to some relatives of mine living by a river that very very seldom flooded over its limits(their protection have failed twice)

I don't need a Democrat to put religion in politics so much. We have Republicans for that. I can't stand it. I don't think the unseen world is a big part of life, since well, it's unseen. What matters to me is that someone running for office focus on running the country, not matters of faith.

Also, I dislike the focus on Christian faith by any leader. There are too many people of other faiths, and nonbelievers, in this country to have a leader who makes policy decision based on Christianity.

Religion is a dialog killer and all it does is serve up pissing contests where people argue about how their god is better than your god.


Why in this so called enlightened age we are supposed to be living in, have we not learned from history that religion is the root of most, if not all, of the problems the world has ever had?! :argh:

Especially considering the whispering campaign that we can expect about Obama (madrassa, Muslim, Hussein, etc).

Religion and philosophy might mix well, but religion and politics usually ends up as a toxic brew.

my hope will be that people drag some comparative religion out into the open, at least enough to take a larger and less sectarian view of these matters. The more these things are talked about objectively, the less subjective preaching there will be.

I guess I am a bit of cynic, though.

his muslim background will be swiftboated, of that I have no doubt. I'm just very afraid that he will take the bait and get into a "I'm a Christian, really I am, let me prove it to you" mode.

and all the other imaginary superfriends OUT of politics. It's simple.

is an "imaginary superfriend," that's probably pretty much what they want you to think.

"Mammon" is religious language, which I believe has no legitimate place in American politics. I also firmly believe that the material wealth represented by the religious language "mammon" has no place in American politics, but thus far the Supreme Court appears to disagree with me, equating such material wealth with "speech." Either way, two wrongs don't make a right. Money is entrenched in American politics. Religion, since the founding fathers, has not been. I'd hate to see it become so, as it is a terribly destructive force.

"greed" with "religion," to complete the model. That way it's not really about two wrongs making a right, but a reasonable balance between our "higher" and "lower" selves. I believe the founding fathers fully recognized this.

Where do I sign up?

No good will come of mixing religion and politics. It is a wedge issues that only does harm.

A discussion of faith belongs in the church, not in the political arena.

What part of separation of church and state do you not understand?

It's easy to say "separation of church and state," but that's just a phrase. The actual issue is complex, with cultural, historic, moral, legal and economic factors galore. Religion and politics will always be mixed, as long as so many people are religious and human beings are running for office.

My view is that we can no more eliminate issues of creed and faith from the public sphere than we can get rid of money in politics. My hope is that these belief systems can be seen for what they are: myths, varying in benefit or harm, but an indelible part of human existence, and with the possibility of improvement.

Some of the posts in this thread are so dogmatic about the "separation of church and state" as to have a kind of fundamentalist quality about them.

:wow:

W/an unbelievable comment like that, there really is nothing further I can say to you, nor do I want to.

You tell me exactly what that means, and exactly how that relates to the "separation" of church and state, and I'll grant you're a lot smarter than all the legislators and judges that have gone before us.

Not only are you hawking an invisible man in the sky and those that believe in fairy tales, but you ignored what I said.

Normally, I try to stay out of religious threads, but you have pissed me off.

I don't give a good goddamn how you interpret our 1st Amendment. I know what it says and I know what it means.

Keep your fucking god out of my country's politics!

no thanks....

I really don't want to hear about their imaginary friends. I'd like to hear about issues. Civil rights for our GLBT brethren and medical care for all. Those are real issues. The real moral discussions.

it needs to be used as a political point.

The worst thing that's ever happened to this country is the infusion of religion in the political arena. Instead of being inclusive...it's decisive and locks people out who have different religions or have no religion at all.

Gawd belongs in a church and at home. Keep it out of government and politics. Period.

I think there's a good reason to keep religion out of politics. Throughout history, any government, totalitarian, democratic, authoritarian etc. that mixes in religion ends up persecuting someone. That's why the founding fathers wrote what they did in the Constitution. They were men of the Enlightenment. They knew their history. Within religions people cannot agree. Therefore, a consensus is never reached by all participants. My grandmother, a devout Christian, staunchly believed that the public sphere and the church should be separate. I agree with her. Taking on corporate greed is a good thing. That is a secular goal. I think religion should be left out of it.

I agree that mixing religion into government is a mistake, but the point I'm trying to make is that most people care about knowing the candidates they're voting for as human beings. Part of this knowledge, I believe, is what sort of philosophical or spiritual tenets have informed the views and policies of the candidates, just as our government is informed both by noble and base ideas. Although the founding fathers invoked the "Creator" when asserting inalienable rights, at the same time they had no intention of letting folks without property (or of the wrong sex or the wrong color, for that matter) into the government. This nation was founded in commerce, but with a very high-minded spirituality at its core. 250 years later commerce has run amok, but spirituality has been fractured into talking points and hucksterism.

My OP simply hoped for something positive, in the way of a meta-discussion about faith, to come of a match-up between Obama and Huckabee. I hope Obama won't be the nominee, because I consider him to be a compromiser in the wrong ways. But I think it's interesting that he's played the "faith card," and I'd like to see the pundits put Huckabee's fundy ideas up beside what would be a more ecumenical approach from Obama.

Huckabee pound a Bible during the campaign and get 30 percent of the electorate.

America is sick of this.