okie
 
  1  
Sun 16 Jul, 2006 06:27 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
The following from today's Chicago Tribune (section 2, page 2;

Quote:
FINE POINT
A look at the week in Washington

Linguist has message for Democrats

By Michael Tackett.

Instead, Lakoff says, Democrats must change the nature of the debate, starting by rejecting the premise that America is in fact at war. The war, he says, ended when President Bush said it did with his "Mission Accomplished" stunt on an aircraft carrier. Now, Democrats should refer to the conflict as an occupation. They should say U.S. troops were not trained to be occupiers and that they were betrayed by administration policy, with the U.S. weakened as a result.


I picked out the above out of the entire article because I thought it illustrated a very important point: It is a great example why many Democrats lack credibility in the minds of so many. They said the war did not end when Bush did the "Mission Accomplished" on the aircraft carrier. Now, the proposal is to change their message, that the war is over, and now we are occupiers, not because they believe it apparently, but because it might win more votes. Lakoff sounds like another phony. His proposals are based on what he thinks the people want to hear, not what HE actually believes. Conclusion, the Democrats must wake up everyday and say, "how do I fool the people today?"

Actually, I don't know where Lakoff has been but this mantra has been going on for quite a while. So we are left to ask out here, what do the Democrats really actually believe?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Mon 17 Jul, 2006 05:46 am
soz

Perhaps you ought to spin off a separate thread for the language stuff and put the related posts there, leaving this one for its original purpose.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Mon 17 Jul, 2006 07:11 am
<shrug> I don't mind too much, it's related in that a) I said in the first post that this could become about the Dems in general and b) it relates to Obama in that he stands out from the Democratic pack in this respect.

As long as it stays roughly on THAT topic and doesn't devolve into the personal poo-flinging stuff.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Mon 17 Jul, 2006 10:01 am
soz, I understand your points and agree with you.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Tue 18 Jul, 2006 08:16 am
Following is copied/pasted from the print version of today's Chicago Tribune (18.07.2006, section one, page 11, Commentary). The online version is to be found here.

Quote:
THE RELIGIOUS DIVIDE

http://i1.tinypic.com/20acm7r.jpg

In his keynote address last month at the Call to Renewal's conference on ?'Building a Covenant for a New America,' Sen. Barack Obama told fellow Democrats they could no longer ignore the connection between religion and politics. Following is an excerpt from his speech:

During the 2004 U.S. Senate general election I ran against a gentleman named Alan Keyes. Mr. Keyes is well-versed in the Jerry Falwell-Pat Robertson style of rhetoric that often labels progressives as both immoral and godless. Indeed, Mr. Keyes announced toward the end of the campaign that "Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama. Christ would not vote for Barack Obama because Barack Obama has behaved in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved." I was urged by some of my supporters not to take this statement seriously, to essentially ignore it. To them, Mr. Keyes was an extremist, and his arguments not worth entertaining. What they didn't understand, however, was that I had to take Mr. Keyes seriously, for he claimed to speak for my religion, and my God.

I answered with what has come to be the typically liberal response in such debates?- namely, I said that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can't impose my own religious views on another, that I was running to be the U.S. senator of Illinois and not the minister of Illinois. But Mr. Keyes' implicit accusation that I was not a true Christian nagged at me, and I was also aware that my answer did not adequately address the role my faith has in guiding my own values and beliefs.

A national dilemma

My dilemma was by no means unique. In a way, it reflected the broader debate we've been having in this country for the last 30 years over the role of religion in politics. Indeed, the single biggest "gap" in party affiliation among white Americans today is between those who attend church regularly and those who don't.

Conservative leaders have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church. Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that?-regardless of our personal beliefs?-constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith. Now, such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when our opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people's lives.

Finding a faith

We first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. Ninety percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than in evolution.

It wasn't until after college, when I went to Chicago to work as a community organizer for a group of Christian churches, that I confronted my own spiritual dilemma. I was working with churches, and the Christians who I worked with recognized themselves in me. They saw that I knew their book and that I shared their values and sang their songs. But they sensed that a part of me remained removed, detached, that I was an observer in their midst. And in time, I came to realize that something was missing. And if it weren't for the particular attributes of the historically black church, I may have accepted this fate. Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the biblical call to feed the hungry and clothe the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street on the South Side of Chicago one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany.

Reaching for glory

That's a path that has been shared by millions upon millions of Americans?-evangelicals, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims alike; some since birth, others at certain turning points in their lives. It is not something they set apart from the rest of their beliefs and values. In fact, it is often what drives their beliefs and their values. And that is why as progressives, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse. Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations toward one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome?- others will fill the vacuum. In other words, if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Tue 18 Jul, 2006 08:17 am
Continued from above

Quote:
Conservatives' to-do list

http://i1.tinypic.com/20acmki.jpg

While I've already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do?-some truths they need to acknowledge. Given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?-a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our Bibles. Folks haven't been reading their Bibles.

Making policy

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religionspecific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state.

Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation?-context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the "Pledge of Allegiance" feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God." I didn't. Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the high school Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs?-targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers?-that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems.

So we all have some work to do here.

But I am hopeful that we can bridge the gaps that exist and overcome the prejudices each of us brings to this debate. And I have faith that millions of believing Americans want that to happen. No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool of attack. They don't want faith used to belittle or to divide. They're tired of hearing folks deliver more screed than sermon. Because in the end, that's not how they think about faith in their own lives.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Tue 18 Jul, 2006 08:35 am
Thanks for posting that, Walter. I'd heard a lot about that speech, but hadn't tracked it down yet.

This is long for a sig line, but I absolutely adore it:

Quote:
Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religionspecific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.


I do wince a bit at the part about "under god" in the pledge of allegiance. I didn't like it, when I was a kid. But to go back to what I just quoted, there are non-religious reasons to remove "under god," such as the fact that those words were only added in 1954, 62 years after the pledge was written.

However, I think the underlying ideas are stellar, and happy to see him talking about them.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Tue 18 Jul, 2006 08:49 am
sozobe wrote:
I do wince a bit at the part about "under god" in the pledge of allegiance. I didn't like it, when I was a kid.

This is a tangent, but I'm curious: How did you feel about the ritualized "I pledge allegiance" to begin with? The whole pledge has a decidedly East German feel to it that I find absolutely repulsive. And I'm sure it's not just me -- few of us in school would have stood for it if our teachers had tried to make us say a pledge of allegiance to Germany. Obviously our nations' different histories play a role here -- but were you, personally, fine with the pledge itself, and was the "under god" part your only problem with it?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Tue 18 Jul, 2006 09:02 am
That's a good point -- no, I didn't like any of it.

To be more precise, my school didn't do it at all, so I only encountered it occasionally -- camp, say. I knew the words and everything but I hated the whole business. I do remember "under god" standing out though -- I'd just kinda meaninglessly mumble that part, then start up again after it.

Sozlet recently had a class that was objectionable in all kinds of ways, and at their graduation they did the pledge and I was grumpy and stood but wouldn't do it. Sozlet glared at me and jogged my elbow so I'd do the hand over heart thing, but I wouldn't say the words. Probably unnecessarily contrarian -- Im not downright anti-America or anything -- but yeah, I dislike the whole thing.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Tue 18 Jul, 2006 09:11 am
Thomas wrote:
The whole pledge has a decidedly East German feel to it that I find absolutely repulsive.
Exactly - that's what a always thaught .... at a time when you were still playing with some toys the storks through in some pond.


Thomas wrote:
And I'm sure it's not just me -- few of us in school would have stood for it if our teachers had tried to make us say a pledge of allegiance to Germany.


I doubt that any teacher would have even tried to do so at my time .... if he wanted to stay in her/his job.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Tue 18 Jul, 2006 09:13 am
sozobe wrote:
Sozlet glared at me and jogged my elbow so I'd do the hand over heart thing, but I wouldn't say the words.

Laughing I told ya, yer raising a little Republican there. Maybe you could ask her if Obama would swing her vote, and let her compose a country song for him if she likes him.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Tue 18 Jul, 2006 09:16 am
Heaven forfend! Laughing
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Tue 18 Jul, 2006 09:34 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Thomas wrote:
The whole pledge has a decidedly East German feel to it that I find absolutely repulsive.
Exactly - that's what a always thaught .... at a time when you were still playing with some toys the storks through in some pond.

Difference is, you probably liked East Germany back then, you old socialist you. Wink

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Thomas wrote:
And I'm sure it's not just me -- few of us in school would have stood for it if our teachers had tried to make us say a pledge of allegiance to Germany.

I doubt that any teacher would have even tried to do so at my time .... if he wanted to stay in her/his job.

Just to give our American correspondents some impression of most Germans' allergy to organized patriotism: Fifteen years ago or so, in the state of Baden-Württemberg, the "Kultusminister" (secretary of education) wanted to make it mandatory that children learn the national anthem in music classes -- including the text. A majority of constituents thought this disqualified him as a far-out right winger, and he almost lost his party the next election over this.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Tue 18 Jul, 2006 09:47 am
Back to the subject: Walter's link points to a speech that's in many ways typical for Obama. If you read it rationally, he isn't really saying anything mind-boggling. But he manages to express even ordinary messages in a way that inspires people. If I was a Republican candidate facing a presidential TV debate with Obama, I'd be very, very afraid.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Tue 18 Jul, 2006 11:30 am
Thomas wrote:
Back to the subject: Walter's link points to a speech that's in many ways typical for Obama. If you read it rationally, he isn't really saying anything mind-boggling. But he manages to express even ordinary messages in a way that inspires people. If I was a Republican candidate facing a presidential TV debate with Obama, I'd be very, very afraid.


I think so too, walter. He's the best thing I've seen come over the horizon for a long while.

For what it might be worth, he's got Warren Buffet in his camp.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Tue 18 Jul, 2006 11:47 am
Don't mix me up with this Baden-Würtembergish-Bavarian liberal, blatham, although I sometimes (like here and re patriotic anti-Dutch football sentiments) agree with him!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Tue 18 Jul, 2006 11:55 am
walter

You've seen one german...etc.

But I was referring to Thomas' sentence re some Republican finding himself in a debate with the fellow.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Tue 18 Jul, 2006 11:56 am
Oh, I see...I addressed the post to "walter"...duh. It must be the heat (and my god it is hot here)
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Tue 18 Jul, 2006 02:13 pm
Thomas wrote:
Back to the subject: Walter's link points to a speech that's in many ways typical for Obama. If you read it rationally, he isn't really saying anything mind-boggling. But he manages to express even ordinary messages in a way that inspires people. If I was a Republican candidate facing a presidential TV debate with Obama, I'd be very, very afraid.


Hey, thomas-
Do you resemble Phil Collins in person? Because that's who your avatar reminds me of...
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 18 Jul, 2006 02:18 pm
blatham wrote:
Oh, I see...I addressed the post to "walter"...duh. It must be the heat (and my god it is hot here)


So...you are promoting Obama in the forum also.

Thought it was just for my pleasure and education last night.

Okay....we'll see where it goes.

Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 41
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 03/21/2026 at 02:29:48