Newsweek gets religious with Dean....

Sorry for the link's lately, as I know they annoy some, but I found this disturbing and I wanted to get some other points of view on this. Yod's and Gol, I would would like to hear your points if you have time, as I know you both will have some clever remarks, probably from different sides of the street that I stand in the middle of over here.....

Of course other people should comment as well if interested...

Do you believe....

_S

__________________

I'll try and keep mine short so they can

The whole christian predominance thing is always a bit weird to us brits, seeing as how, for a nominally christian country, we're totally secular in practice, and christians here are probably the least strict in observing religious practices (church-going etc - i.e. only 1 million of the 26 mil proclaimed christians actually go apparently).

The big thing we percieve over here is a greater readiness to use terms like evil and good in the US (Blair deliberately avoids that kind of thing most of the time, despite being a devout believer). There's always a worry that there might be a bit too much simplification in those areas (which often leads to the stereotypical view of americans as simplistic)

One worrying thing that did come out recently over here is that only 50% of brits wouldn't have a problem with a jewish prime minister (the new conservative leader is jewish). I don't know how big the sample was, but that's a worrying stat. It might reflect a dislike of Israel's policies possibly - but that type of confusion between judaism and israel is pretty damaging.

I'd say it's worrying that a clear statement of belief was required in a political interview. And that Dean's advisors feel it's necessary to paint him as the classic-christian that he's obviously not (he's already lost a lot of face with his tack changing). He should stick to his guns. There's nothing wrong with being a broad-interpreter of his faith, or even being a faith-floater/secular. Surely only the most dogmatic/fundamentalist christian would actually have a problem with it (and hopefully they're in the minority, yeah? )

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

You're evil Golgot.

Oh good

Yeah, I'm with Golgot on this one. The christian element in american politics has always felt very awkward to me. As a swede I'm not used to any discussions revolving around faith or religion at all on the political arena. Not even the Kristdemokraterna (The Christian Democrats - the swedish "christian right") talk much about it since they no it would render them many points in secular Sweden. It seems like that for a presidential candidate to appear as good (as opposed to evil) in the eyes of several americans he must simply be an active christian. If he is not, then he will probably be viewed as up to something fishy, or even as evil.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

What? You're not with me on burning GM crops, the "evil" of petrodollars, and US/UK activities potentially causing as much death and suffering as Saddam? I am the new messiah of left-wing liberalism since Django's demi-departure! You must agree with everything I say, and take it literally! Bow down and worship me!

Oh well then I guess it's time for me to start reading your posts.

I wouldn't go that far!

Just worshipping me unquestioningly is enough (and burning the occasional GM crop in my honour)

Consider yourself ignored!

Yay! I've emulated my god Django! I am the second coming! (or is that going?)

Ok, maybe i should stop b4 i offend someone? Even our own holier-than-thou ghost who's still hanging around

(dammit i've gotta stop aiming kicks at that well-meaning incontinent puppy. I'm from the same litter after all )

this is just my own little girl insignificant opinion:

Bringing up religion in politics- while very awkward to some countries, and becoming more and more seperated in America, actually isn't as unusual when you look at America's history.

Think about it, when the colonists first settled in America, there were two main reasons why they came from Britain 1) The new land provided new hope for financial security and a chance to make dreams happen 2) Religious Freedom. Now when the constitution was written, this theme of religious freedom stayed intact with the Bill of Rights, in the first ammendment, this is stated;

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. '

Now take note that the founding fathers were raised in a christian-Dominant society, does that nesscarily mean that they as politicians wanted to force their beliefs on united states citizens? No. But did the way they were brought up and what they were taught affect the way they as politicians acted? Yes. Now does that rule still apply to today's politicians, the way of thinking that they are raised in do? Yes of course.

It is very well known that Howard Dean's views side more with secular views. Now for a political magazine to do an interview with a Presidential canidate that is trying to "sell" himself on the fact that he is going to uphold the american value they have a basis for those types of questions. When we go back and look at how strongly the christian religion influenced the way the government came into being, which now sets the tone for america's values, it is not suprising that they would ask such a question (however oddly they put it).

This definatley isn't very well put together and very scattered brained, but this isn't an explanation of why it's justified just an explanation to why they might have asked it.

__________________
I am moved by fancies that are curled
Around these images, and cling:
The notion of some infinitely gentle
Infinitely suffering thing.
T.S Eliot, "Preludes"

Cool. Although i'm not sure religion and politics are "more and more seperated" in recent years in the US. I'm guessing that the article in Seda's link is right when it says that there's been a shift back towards christian-led politics (especially under Reagan and the two Bushs, as far as i can tell. Nothing wrong with good links btw Seds )

I think you've covered the problem in all this as well tho. I think the constitution says that you should be free to follow whatever religion, and as much as politics shouldn't supress religions, they shouldn't be overly strongly tied to one specific one either. (or at least, i think amendments to that extent have been added. It's all a mystery to me. I live in constitution-less anarchy )

Therefore, the question in the interview is a bit off in modern terms. Why didn't they also ask him if he believed Mohammed was the one true prophet then? Or if Buddha achieved enlightenment to show us the way?

Politicians will always try to appeal to the majority, but as Yods has pointed out previously, the "god" in the pledge etc is now supposed to represent any god in theory. The close ties between one religion and political policy making and canvasing is a bit worrying in a theoretically secular country.

Which would then very much explain why a political magazine would like to know a canidates religious standing and then compare him to former presidents and other candidates.

Yes it does, and the fact that they have freedom for all religions makes the U.S a very diverse and argumentive country. Now a politicians job is to represent the citizens in a way that the people have voted was best at the time. The whole basis of our democracy is to give the people a voice in their choice of a politician. Now if a politician was to be the voice of every american he would have to be almost hypocritcal, but that does not mean he would have to be tied to every religious group in existence. No, in fact it would be best if he DIDN'T affiliate himself with any certain religious based groups, so then later when asked if a certain view was sourced from a type of religion he would then be saved from any public outcry.

Who knows? In all political correctness they should of. But the fact that they didn't isn't justified but only explained by the current leadership America is under.

I think that as time has evolved, people have become more worried over not "offending" people then doing whats right.

This isn't piffle, it's probably true. This is the author's own opinion. Who gives a crap about what Hitchens believes? Other than that the article is interesting.

I guess you're right, but I have to agree that it's piffle, as I disagree with the statement as well. Rabbi Boteach (Hitchens?) is a person who speaks in front of others about how they should live their lives, and if he is spreading prejudicial ideas about 40-50% of the populace, I think that should raise at least a little concern with someone.

Non religous people are more evil. For instance, they like abortion and gays. Adultery and porn are ok too. Etc... etc.. They are more tolerant of people's behavior and therefor you can say they have a problem taking a strong stand against evil.

My view on this is simple: there's nothing wrong with asking Dean that question, for two reasons. 1) it's an important issue to a significant number of American voters (if 60% say it doesn't influence their decision, then apparently it does for the other 40%...and that's more than enough to justify the question), and 2) Dean's waffled on the matter a bit in the past, and the purpose of such interviews and, indeed, the campaigns themselves, is to establish what the candidate stands for.

Yes, there will be a bit too much simplification sometimes. America's generally opinionated view of right and wrong, like all good things, has its inevitable downsides. It is also, however, one of our greatest strengths, in my mind.

Laurence Peter said that America "doesn't know where it is going but is determined to set a speed record getting there." I think that's a (mostly) fair little jab. Say what you will about our occasional stubornness, arrogance, and moral dichotomies, but the fact remains that you cannot remove them without simultaneously removing our persistence, perseverence, and confidence.

I don't see what should be worrying about asking a candidate about their religious affiliation. Voters have an interest in it, and it speaks to the nature of the man. Of course, I agree that he should stand by his beliefs, whatever they are (if he can't stand by them, he shouldn't be holding them in the first place), but I see nothing wrong with the fact that he was asked about it.

What's "off" about the question? The government cannot endorse any specific religion, and it hasn't. That is wholly seperate from an individual's own beliefs. A person can be as devout as they wish. They can even promise that, if elected, they will uphold the standards and ideals of their religion. Running on a specific moral platform, religious or otherwise, is perfectly fine, so long as the rest of the country is not unfairly compelled to change their minds.

As for Mohammed, or Buddha; they probably didn't ask him because 1) he's not proclaimed himself to be a Muslim or a Buddhist in the past (he has proclaimed to be Christian, however), and 2) they're simply not as widespread here. It's not a coincidence that they asked him whether or not he believed in America's most popular religion. In my mind, the question was asked purely because some people want to know the answer. We've got a fair number of Christians here, and some of them think that it is important that their leader share their core beliefs. What's wrong with that?

I disagree. Show me a man whose core beliefs do not effect a great many of his decisions in life, and I'll show you a man who has no business calling those his core beliefs to begin with.

Moreover, isn't this sentiment a bit of a contradiction? You say that the prescence of faith in politics is troubling, but you do so shortly after implying that we shouldn't be asking candidates about their faith to begin with. But seeing as how you clearly believe it influences policy, wouldn't that make it a perfectly valid question to ask a prospective candidate?

Who gives a crap about what Rabbi Boteach believes?

Thanks for backing up my point with your actions again Sunny

People of a strongly religious disposition are often more likely to think they know what's good and evil to begin with. What if being against homosexuality and abortion is actually "evil" across the board? You see, it's coz of opinions like that that a lot of secular europeans find religious-driven politics worrying (in the US or elsewhere). There's just too much "that's obviously evil (so my was is obviously good)" thinking that goes on.

Yods seems like a Christian that does go into depth about what his faith would have him do and analyses the details of it. You, my lovely little sunbeam, seem to be a Christian who'll jump on a religious-bandwagon near-unquestioningly (notice your previous posts about gays etc, although you seem to have realised they might be human since then - altho you still seem to be "anti" them in general).

I'd say it's true that widely secular societies are more likely to embrace a wide range of "rights-n-wrongs" and so may have trouble taking strong stances on things, and will embrace bad habits too (you could argue that the promiscuosness in britland, which is almost a social-rejection of religions' rules etc, is a problem - i.e. the STD/clymidia problem we have here). But we can also change our minds more readily too if the evidence requires it concerning strongly held beliefs (just as we'll happily stick with dogma too, as is only human ). I now agree with you that condoms shouldn't be pushed as the sole solution to AIDs in Africa, thanks to the info you posted here. I changed my mind. You should try it some time

But holding an iron rod of good-n-bad up to life can be equally damaging as being flexible in your appraisal. I'll get to why in my next post...

I kind of agree with Yoda about that since it is America, the question is valid. What is troubling with it isn't the question itself, but the fact that Dean felt nervous about being labelled secular and tried to come up with a christian phony image. If he had some balls he would have stood up for what he believes in instead. The problem is that even though he speaks and says he is fighting for "the weak" (who don't vote anyway), he is in fact fighting for the votes of the decent going-to-church-on-a-regular-basis middle class.

The good vs. evil theme, that seems to be everywhere in american politics, philosophy and culture is the reason to all this. Yoda says it is the strength of America - I think it holds America's social change back. The more to the right of the political scale, the more important this "good/evil" reasoning seems to be. As Golgot said, it is very simplistic and I think it only contributes to a wideing of the gap between the social classes in USA and alienating USA from the rest of the world. But it fits well with the rest of the american conservatism/protectionism, so it is totally logical.

All lot of time when this discussion is going the fact that America has freedom of religion comes to surface as an argument for America being more open minded than most of their critics. In general, the right wing always use the old Constitution (which was before its time in its time but not in our time ... you follow?) as a proof that America today is the flagship of freedom. USA is today by no means an unique nation when it comes to freedom of religion. It is, however, unique in the western world since it is few countries that can compete with USA when it comes to the impact of religion in political discussions. There just can't be no room for a secular candidate. At least not if he wants to win the presidential election.

It is statistically proved that the election system that US is using, the proportional system, leads to fewer people voting. The system has made the Democrats and the Republicans powerful, it's like a political oligopoly bordering to political monopoly, and it does not serve democracy well. There just isn't a political alternative for the majority of the american people since the issues they care for are being eaten up by the two big elephants. When it then comes to politics on the highest level, the presidency, these issues are politically too uncomfortable to have on a candidate's agenda. They are too radical and it would be political suicide to propagate for them in a presidential campaigne.

It is statistically proven that the proportional election system that USA is using leads to fewer people voting. The Democrats and the Republicans practise political oligopoly, bordering to monopoly, in USA and it does not serve democracy very well. There are just too few alternatives and whether it's a Democrat or a Rebulican in the White House, there is a tiny clique that wins every time. Conservatism as a philosophy at work...

Sigh, I had 6 paragrahs of respose ready but my browser just jumped off MoFo when I opened my messanger and it all got lost!!! ARGGGG!!!!

Here we go again....

Basically the main problem I have with religion is that it exploited too easily. There is no error correcting mechanism in place. To me this is another example (along with evangelist money scams, brainwashing of children, burning people at the stake, torture sessions) of religion being used for the wrong reasons. I have stated before and will state again, I think religion can teach many valuable life lessons, but I have seen it go astray far to many times to base my life upon it (Iraq also comes to mind, scope out those bathtubs full of acid!).

I believe this is another instance of this happening, they way it was used in this instance, by the reporter of Newsweek. The way I understand politics (how they are supposed to work anyway) is that multiple candidates compete on an even playing field, approaching the same issues from different political angles (platforms) and participating in campaigns and debates to convince the voters which side is best and whom to vote for to represent them, again based on political issues. I believe religious issues, because of their very nature, skew this even field. By swinging the debate into a character study using a set of non-political standards that not all of the candidates believe in, I believe other candidates can gain an unfair advantage. Not to mention the fact that this flies in the face of the constitutional mandate of separation of church and state. The fact that this can put one or more candidates on the defensive about issues they know nothing about can make them look foolish and unprepared. If this is done at the right (wrong? time (say, a newsweek article)these actions can tank a candidates chances (this is not neccesarily a bad thing in Dean's case, but it's the principle I am talking about here ) in the race, and all over issues that had nothing to do with the political concerns that should have been driving the publics decision.

As for tolerance and recognition of evil, I'll stop by the archdiocese of Boston after work today and see what they have to say about it, because in my eyes, they have been shown far too much tolerance.

I believe people can grow up and become a good person, and still not be religious, as long as they are shown good values by their parents and peers and understand what good community is. I stand by this belief and am living proof these ideals work (so my friends tell me anyway )

As for the statement that a religious question speaks of the nature of a man, I disagree. It can speak about his nature, which could be a caring man who puts family and community first, as I know many religious people who are exemplary humans with cheery dispositions and exceptionaly good values (in my eyes). It could also mean he has a incredibly warped, fanatical view of the world, where people who go to his church are good people but everyone else is a devil-worshiping heathen, as I have met these people as well. Just the fact that he is religious shows me nothing of his actual nature. I saw a special recently about a woman who was the head of a certain chapter of some religion where they put small children in a circle of adults and scream at them for hours on end at the top of their lungs. This is to cleanse them of the evil spirits. Who will cleanse them of the mental instability caused by years of sonic torture inflicted by their families and the other parishoners? These children were also told that if they disclosed this treatment to anyone outside of the church, they would burn in hell or some other such finality. Luckily, one of the kids, upon reaching adolesence, went to the press. This woman went as far as to say she didn't know this stuff was going on in her church and was just horrified....until the footage from the hidden camera worn by said teen was revealed, with this woman in one of these yelling circles. These are the situations that drive me up the wall about the misuse of religious ideals.

Alas I digress again...

enough for now....