Obama '08?

Yep, I agree with revel. I think religion was huge and will continue to be.

However, I think we need to be more inclusive when it comes to religion, rather than exclusive. Great discussion on this on the Newshour last night, one comment is that separation of church and state, fine, separation of church and society, not so much. Rev. Jim (?) Wallis, who was quoted in Ron Suskind's article and seems to be an especially interesting voice on this subject, pointed out that religious issues are often Democratic issues as well. I don't think he said this part, but the clear implication was that Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot by not allowing this part of religion/ churches to be part of the Democratic agenda. For example, he pointed out that the "culture of life" doesn't only refer to abortion, but the Iraq war. He pointed out that Bush defied he Pope in going to war with Iraq. Also, helping the poor is a huge part of many ministries. Bush has not been strong on that, at all.

I referred earlier to the very progressive religious tradition in Minnesota, where I grew up, and while I am not religious myself, I can see how embracing that tradition could help the Democrats a lot.

I've been seeing some great stuff on Newshour, it's weird though because I'm used to being able to find whatever I read online and excerpt it, not happening with this. I'll have to start taking notes or something. Smile Did anyone else happen to watch yesterday? There was some really good comment about what a candidate would have to do/ be to get 80% of the vote, but I just can't remember what it was. I do remember thinking Obama fit the bill.

Wow!!! How'd you find it, Jes? Mwah!

Quote:

RICK WARREN: Well, Gwen, as Jim pointed out, the Bible talks about lots of values, and there are social values, which have to do with justice and poverty and equality and things like that, and then there are personal values, which have to do with personal morality. And, historically, liberals have championed the social values, and conservatives have championed the personal morality values.


Well, the truth is the Bible talks about both of them, and if ever there was a candidate that really espoused both he'd probably get 80 - 90 percent of the vote because what people don't understand is there are a lot of people in America who really do believe the Bible, and they're not just "religious right" or "evangelical." There are Catholics and there are main line Protestants and there are many who voted in this election.

-snip-

[Wallis]So what could happen here, I think Rick's right, if there was a candidate running with a strong set of personal values and then was very pro-poor, questioned, like many evangelical theologians did this time, a theology of war, they said, emanating from the highest circles of power in the country, these are evangelicals who said this, there could be a whole different kind of response to a vision that had personal ethics, very strong, but then a social justice and a commitment to peace, as well. So this doesn't go left or right. It begins to build bridges between two constituencies.


Whatever happened this time, we knew that half the population would feel crushed by the result. So maybe there is - it becomes a kind of finding common ground. How do you do political healing around what the moral values are, not just one or two, but all of our values.

I think there was some really important stuff there. Obama seems to really embody the more wide-ranging values -- the social values as well as the personal morality values.

Obama or not, I think that's the way to go.

Between Obama and McCain, who's more likely to support faith-based initiatives?

cicerone imposter wrote:

Between Obama and McCain, who's more likely to support faith-based initiatives?

Have you seen the thread titled "Obama Wants to Expand Faith Based Programs"?

Lets cut to the chase here, does anyone want to support somebody like Reverend Wright with tax dollars?

I don't, end of story.

H2O_MAN wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Between Obama and McCain, who's more likely to support faith-based initiatives?

Have you seen the thread titled "Obama Wants to Expand Faith Based Programs"?

No. Does it answer my q's?

I think that's actually the beginning of the story. I don't remember who had what position and when, so can you tell me how you feel/felt about Bush's faith based initiatives?

Me personally, I can see the value in supporting churches which are already doing a lot of work in communities to help people. I don't see the value in subtly promoting certain religions with tax dollars that are supposed to be used to help the poor. So my position is: need more information. But I'm not surprised at all that Obama took this position as he has alluded to it before. I don't think this is a departure at all for him.

For okie, I think you confuse politics with public service. Obama's church is very involved in the community and public service and I agree that many of his ideas now probably have something to do with his experiences there. But its not politics, it's community activism. For the life of me I don't see why conservatives would have a problem with the kind of work that Trinity does. It's the very epitome of "bootstraps".

FreeDuck wrote:

I think that's actually the beginning of the story. I don't remember who had what position and when, so can you tell me how you feel/felt about Bush's faith based initiatives?

Me personally, I can see the value in supporting churches which are already doing a lot of work in communities to help people. I don't see the value in subtly promoting certain religions with tax dollars that are supposed to be used to help the poor. So my position is: need more information. But I'm not surprised at all that Obama took this position as he has alluded to it before. I don't think this is a departure at all for him.

For okie, I think you confuse politics with public service. Obama's church is very involved in the community and public service and I agree that many of his ideas now probably have something to do with his experiences there. But its not politics, it's community activism. For the life of me I don't see why conservatives would have a problem with the kind of work that Trinity does. It's the very epitome of "bootstraps".

Thats all fine, Free Duck, but it is inappropriate for the government to support this "work," as invariably this "work" seems to increasingly have a political vector to it. We must be very careful here. Hospitals and feeding the poor are admirable, but we should be very careful not to support entities that include political vectors in their charitable works. I for one do not trust Obama any further than I can throw him in regard to this issue, not after listening to a few Wright tapes. And I do not trust him after reading his book, in this regard. I do not want to see government intruding upon things it has no business intruding in. That is why I suggested the possibility of a trojan horse strategy here.

"May" is not good enough.

Thats all fine, Free Duck, but it is inappropriate for the government to support this "work," as invariably this "work" seems to increasingly have a political vector to it. We must be very careful here. Hospitals and feeding the poor are admirable, but we should be very careful not to support entities that include political vectors in their charitable works. I for one do not trust Obama any further than I can throw him in regard to this issue, not after listening to a few Wright tapes. And I do not trust him after reading his book, in this regard. I do not want to see government intruding upon things it has no business intruding in. That is why I suggested the possibility of a trojan horse strategy here.

He could also be a Russian assassin. You should consider that possibility strongly.

Cycloptichorn

So my original questions remains then. How did you feel about Bush's faith based initiatives?

To tell you the honest truth, I haven't even delved into the subject, probably because I trust Bush, whereas I don't Obama.

cicerone imposter wrote:

"May" is not good enough.

Obama "may" make a decent president.
"May" is just not good enough.

Understood.

H2O_MAN wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

"May" is not good enough.

Obama "may" make a decent president.
"May" is just not good enough.

Understood.

FYI, that's the gamble all voters take; there is no guarantee a president will be good.