Hopefully President Elect Obama will consider the value of preserving a more definitive separation between chuch and state. The incoming President Elect would be smart to drop the invocation with Pastor Rick Warren altogether and opt for a nonsectarian moment of silence.
We have had enough division and polarization because the lines of separation between church and state have been sullied and blurred due to political exploitation of religion. Let's talk about real change! Here is a video on this very subject.
This video presents excerpts from a speech delivered at The University of Notre Dame by former Governor Mario Cuomo (NY) on September 14, 1983 on the subject of religious belief and public morality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUWU3MGS2bY
There is a big difference between rival opinions and bigotry. Sharing a stage with those with opposing views is tolerance, sharing it with bigots is complicity.
I am not gay, but according to Rick Warren, as a secular Jew, I am going to hell anyway. According to Warren so would Obama’s own mother. The tone is gentel, the words are pure hate mongering.One quarter of Evangelicals voted for Obama, Jews, atheist, agnostics, gays and other liberal heretic voted for him in the 90% range. We are all insulted. We already had a president for the Christian Nation, Obama was supposed to be the president of the whole nation; Warren’s voice is insulting, embarrassing, his gentle manner belies the white cloak of his beliefs.
On an even more basic and fundamental point, lets start with the irony of swearing on a bible to protect and defend the Constitution, separation of State and church excepted. Religion, not spirituality, but fundamentalist organize religion playing a staring roll in the inauguration is an abominable distortion of the fundamental principles of the constitution and democracy itself.
Let me start off by saying that I do have an issue with Sen. Obama's support of abortion rights. However, this election has always been so important, that we CANNOT allow failed policies to continue because of a difference of opinion of such a divisive issue, with so many other issues to worry about.
Today, I was at church. It was a Catholic church, not some "witchcraft healing" pro-Palin church, but a church which is supposed to encourage independent thought. Although the Church itself has an issue with Sen Biden supporting abortion and remaining an active member, Church policy is clear that as long as abortion is not the deciding issue, a "good Catholic" can vote for the candidate of his choice.
When the speaker took the alter for a post-homily speech, I thought nothing of it. Yes, we often hear about the evils of abortion, and regardless of your stand on the upcoming vote of Washington's assisted suicide bill, you would expect the Church to be vocal in its opposition to it.
I sat there dumbfounded as the guest speaker (a prominent member of the medical field, a doctor who dealt with family issues) not only expressed his support for Sen McCain, but indicated that anyone who couldn't vote for Sen McCain should "find something else to do" on election day.
Now, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who takes the right to vote more serious than me. I have encouraged countless people to register and vote. My overriding view on this is, I don't care WHO you vote for, but if you do not excercise this right, you have no business complaining about the state of..... well, anything. I am very clear in my beliefs. I would assist someone in voting for the opponenet of my favoured candidate, because I feel the right to vote is that important, and belongs to everyone, even those who I disagree with. That is one of the most profound and beautiful things about this country; that your vote is secret, and yet you have nothing to fear by discussing this vote.
The idea of someone speaking from the pulpit, and endorsing disenfranchisment left me cold. Is not the support of a candidate from the pulpit a violation of Church and State, and grounds for losing tax-exempt status?
What to do? If this is happening in progressive Oregon, I can only assume it's going on all over the country.
It is the strikingly black and white Pentecostal view of good and evil that makes it dangerous for these religious zealots to be in positions of such power. The Pentecostal religion (and lifestyle) has a long history of intolerance for all things 'not Pentecostal'. Sarah Palin has already shown the world that she is prepared to put a religious spin on the country's foreign dealings as demonstrated by her comments on Iraq. This brand of intolerance could spell trouble for the US around the world. Whatever happened to good old fashion separation of church and state?
-Greg
There has been a lot of reaction to Senator Obama’s recent speech on Faith Based and Neighborhood partnerships. But much of this reaction has been just that – reaction. I wonder how many people who are expressing their disagreement have actually read or watched the speech. (I’ve posted links to the text and the u-Tube video in the extended area for this posting.)
It seems to me that what this campaign offers and demands of us is a new kind of politics, where the citizenry is actively engaged, open to dialog and to action to improve the lives of all people. That’s different because it requires us to engage with ideas rather than simply noting our likes and dislikes, agreements and disagreements. If our only engagement is to agree or disagree, we are left as consumers of what’s available and prone to manipulation in the mass media and, yes, in the blogosphere.
So let’s have a real discussion of Senator Obama’s proposal. If you read or view it and then disagree or have concerns, make your argument in response.
I’ll post my thinking as the first comment here. Let’s talk.
McGovern, former Clinton backer, urges her to drop out
SIOUX FALLS, SD: Former Sen. George McGovern, an early supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, urged her to drop out of the Democratic presidential race and endorsed her rival, Barack Obama.
McGovern said he had no regrets about endorsing Hillary Clinton months ago, [which he did] even before the Iowa caucuses.
"She has run a valiant campaign….but Obama has won the nomination "by any practical test" and is very close to a majority of the pledged delegates.…It's time to unite the Democratic Party. Hillary, of course, will make the decision as to if and when she ends her campaign. But I hope that she reaches that decision soon so that we can concentrate on a unified party capable of winning the White House next November”, he said.
This new endorsement from Mr. McGovern is, of course, encouraging support for our candidate!
Thank you North Carolina, and thank you Obama supporters in the Great Hoosier State!
Hillary Clinton probably won't drop out of course, but with influential support being added almost weekly from honorable statesmen such as Ted Kennedy, Bill Richardson, and now George McGovern, the un-pledged Superdelegates are surely getting the message if they haven't already. I, for one, plan to take the time to contact as many individuals of influence such as John Edwards - as well as uncommitted delegates, and Superdelegates - and ask for their public support for Barack Obama, and I hope you fellow Obama supporters will as well.
Still, the potentially problematic issues that remain unresolved and that concern me are twofold.
First - For some unexplained "reason" there is still the possibility of Hillary Clinton being allowed to change the rules and have Michigan and Florida counted, which change she began clamoring for only when she realized that the groundswell of support for Barack Obama posed a decided threat to her ascension to the throne, excuse me, the Presidency. I know I am not the only person who would be VERY UPSET if that were to occur, and IMHO that would be an extremely DIVISIVE act on the part of those who have the POWER in that arena.
This nomination contest has morphed into an (extended) historic event that, from my perspective, seems not unlike a second Civil War, only one without physical weapons. I deplore the fact that the racial divide in the U.S. remains as wide as this election year is revealing to everyone, not just to people in this country but to people around the world
Secondly - There is the problem of the "association" with one J. Wright, to whom some are determined to keep our collective focus diverted.
Like others, I was stunned and outraged myself when the media circus came to town again and Wright was its star attraction. I don't know beans about public relations, but I am hoping that people who do will get to work disarming the opposition so their continued use of this absurd distortion of the Senator's LOYALTY (which is a virtue, not a vice, the last time I looked) in A PERSONAL, NOT A POLITICAL CONTEXT will be to their disadvantage.
Barack Obama has a heart for people. A person like that is not cutthroat and calculating and is not going to kick someone to the curb just because that person's views DIFFER from his. He is also is intelligent enough to know where boundaries exist in terms of what part of his public service career people are in, and whether they have a part in it at all, especially when it comes to his political office. I have a feeling that he is keenly aware of the separation of church and state.
I saw a page in today’s issue (May 7) of the L.A. Times online this morning, one that featured ONLY politicians and others who are DIRECLY involved in politics. In the most prominent position on that page were the photos of (from left to right): John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and, would you believe, Jeremiah Wright!
Would someone please inform the media that HE IS NOT A POLITICIAN? HE HAS BEEN ENTICED BY THE SENSATIONAL MEDIA (and others whose motives are impure) TO THRUST HIMSELF INTO THE POLITICAL SPOTLIGHT even though he has no place there. Clearly if this man had been as all-inclusively involved in Senator Obama’s life outside of the traditional religious rituals of marriage, baptism, and (basically obligatory) Sunday services, Barack Obama would have observed these attention-seeking aspects in a context outside of his religious activities. But Barack did not have this man as a “bosom buddy”, or an advisor to his political decisions, contrary to what the opposition would like people to believe.
But I insist that Wright be put into context. If the “sins” of the clergy are to be attached to anyone who won’t drop his or her “association” with a person or a church, then every person who, like myself, was baptized and raised as a Catholic “should” be expected to cut their ties with that church when we began to be aware of not only words, but the actions of the now infamous among those clergy. What when JFK and later Bobby Kennedy sought the Presidency? Looking back, if those cases of child molestation by priests had been made public prior to their bids for the highest office of the land, would we have expected JFK, or of Bobby Kennedy to leave the Catholic Church?
If someone who is Catholic wants to become the Presidential nominee in the future, what if, at some point, people learn that his or her priest had molested children, and the candidate-to-be had had that person as a friend? Would we assume that he or she condones pedophilia? How far are some people going to take this “association” thing?
And what of Hillary Clinton’s choice (which, by the way, I agree with) to not end her “association” with ‘that man’ whose actions were definitely immoral when he elected to commit adultery? There were those who criticized Mrs. Clinton for staying in her marital relationship with Bill Clinton even though his actions were illegal - as in sexual harassment - if my understanding of that law is correct. Her association with him goes back quite a number of years, and, if memory serves me, there was at least one other young woman with whom he was, let’s say, inappropriately involved.
When the Lewinsky affair nearly caused the impeachment of Bill Clinton I found the graphic description of their illicit behaviors to be a total embarrassment. I’m sure Hillary Clinton did not agree with what the person with whom she was associated for more than 20 years did, or, for that matter what he said when questioning about the affair began. I found the whole thing distressing and I just wanted it to go away. I find Jeremiah Wright distressing and likewise, I want him to go away and live his life somewhere other than on the political center stage.
Hello America: J. Wright, as well as the lapel pin silliness both need to be relegated to a backwater of our national consciousness, so THE REAL ISSUES THAT ARE PRESSING IN ON US CAN BE DEALT WITH…AND SOON! It's the economy, sweetie. And housing that is affordable at EVERY income level, or homelessness “will be with us always”, and its numbers will swell exponentially. And healthcare, or rather the lack thereof, as I personally know. And education, before America falls even FURTHER BEHIND THE REST OF THE "DEVELOPED" WORLD. And Mr. Bush's war in Iraq which has not made the U.S. safe (or even any safer?) from KNOWN terrorists (not to mention incipient terrorists). Is anybody concerned about the price of food and of gasoline? I don’t care about what someone inconsequential said in the past, I care about what is going to be done in the very near future.
Hillary Clinton IS hanging on in this nomination contest by a slender thread. This FACT has been reported on by credible experts – people who are presumably impartial and who know how to run the numbers. Mr. McGovern's restatement of that numerical reality should be a wake-up call for the wife of the former President. But she wants to win badly; it’s my perception that saving face is more her style than facing facts. But what I and many other Americans want, and will insist upon, is significant change in the way things are done. From where I sit it goes without saying that John McCain won’t take us there…and neither will Hillary Clinton.
My having been inspired – or I should say “fired up” – enough to connect with fellow Americans about this political process and to take the time to WRITE THOUGHTFULLY (a task which had become distasteful to me post-Master's thesis) says a lot about the persuasive nature of Senator Obama's sustained commitment to changing the way things have always been done.
“I don't contribute money to political candidates”, says I, yet I have made modest contributions into Senator Obama’s campaign coffers. “I don't participate in partisan politics”, I add, and I am passionately involved in communicating by phone and in writing about this nomination process to an extent to which I have never before been motivated in any of my MANY years as an adult.
I believe that the participation of ALL Americans is vital at this point in this country's history if the U.S. has any hope of thriving as a nation. I also firmly believe that it is any nation's fatal flaw to fail to include any group that resides among it. In unity there IS strength, and, make no mistake about it: divided we will fall.
We, the people, are the ones who are building the momentum behind the leadership of the ONE CANDIDATE - in the person of BARACK OBAMA - who has the unique combination of abilities that are needed if America is to come up out of the pit into which the past eight years has placed this country.
We stand behind and beside Barack Obama and pledge our support to the HOPE and POSSIBILITY of achieving The Dream that we all have of being a Great Society.
2-18-07. I've just watched and listened to Barack's speech on Faith and Politics (found as subcategory of 'Issues'). Each time I have the opportunity to witness him, I know increasingly how important this man is. He recognizes the connection we all have, and speaks with language that has universal tone. The following is hope for the individuals in this country (and for the world) in regard to seeing the strength and heart of Barack Obama...
Simply listen - with a mind that considers new possibility. Your heart will let you know what is true for you. When the two come together, your intuitive wisdom has prevailed.
