Posts
Question about religion and politics - Democrats are constantly yelling about how religion shouldn't be brought into politics. They hate it when Bush references God or whenever there is any religious tone to something political.
Yet, their candidates can go into churches and give speeches which are nothing more than campaign speeches on Sundays? Hillary Clinton is constantly in black churches on Sundays.
Why is this allowed???? Someone please explain why Democrats are allowed to campaign in churches, but if President Bush says "God bless America," Democrats go nuts!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I think you know the difference. What democrats don't like about Bush and religion is that he uses his religious beliefs to shape his policies and to try to make amendments to the constitution. It is completely fine for a politician to be religous but they must seperate their religion from their politics. God bless America is fine. God govern America is unconstitutional.
For Bush (either of the Bushes or Reagan for that matter) to play the “I’m so religious” card is also completely hypocritical.
Can’t you imagine the conversation the presidential Bushes must have had just before he became Born Again?
Sr.: “W, given your past behavior you need to do something to bond w/the religious right*”
W.: “that won’t be easy –given my well-documented coke use and drinking”
Sr.: “that’s where you’re wrong, my least intelligent child –if you get yourself “Born Again” it comes w/an automatic “forget everything I’ve ever said or done –I’m a new man” component –so you can almost make it seem inappropriate to talk about, meanwhile once you say those magic words, nobody who is actually religious will question anything about your sincerity from that point on and will back you blindly no matter how inconsistent the majority of your policy is w/ “Christianity” -the teachings of Jesus especially”
W: “gee dad you’re smart. Maybe you should be president someday”
{etc.}
Announcer voice: “Tune in for next week’s installment –figuring out how to make it so a military deserter can actually convince veterans and other conservatives that he’s a better and more patriotic soldier than a decorated war hero”
Sr.: “wha? -Oh Shiiiit!”
* And of course that isn’t the sense of ‘right’ that means ‘correct’
1. I'm failing to see how campaigning during church isn't mixing religion and politics? If Bush, or any Republican for that matter, campaigned in church they'd be blasted.
In fact, I seem to remember Rep. Michelle Bachmann being endorsed by the head of a mega church here in town and it being front page news. And she was blasted by Democrats.
Yet Hillary, Obama, Edwards, etc. can go into church on Sunday and give a campaign speech and be applauded for it????
2. I hope Democrats are going to be as hard on Barack Obama for using drugs as they are on Bush for "supposedly" using drugs. There has never been any proof that W. used drugs. There has been proof that Obama did.
If you're offended by a President "supposedly" using cocaine then I hope you're just as offended by a candidate who actually DID use cocaine.
3) I love the "lack of military" thing. Especially because the three Democratic candidates - Hillary, Obama and Edwards (and let's throw in Hillary's Vice President Bill Clinton for that matter) - have NO military experience whatsoever.
I guess it's okay when a Democrat such as Clinton brings you into a war that doesn't go as planned (Somalia, Bosnia, etc.), even though he has no military experience.
I'm interested in seeing how you'll defend the lack of your candidates military experience and how that qualfies them to be Commander in Chief??
One more thing - when did Bush try to make an amendment to the Constitution that involved religion???????
I must have missed the news that day.
I think that endorsing a constituional amendment banning same sex marriages would qualify.
I agree with the first comment. It is one thing to give a speech at a church about politics or to say god bless america, but it is another if i candidate lets religion decide their policies. Issues like evolution education, rights for homosexuals, and abortion should not be decided and defended by religous arguments. The teaching of creationism should not be allowed just because the bible says so. The separation of church and state should mean that politicians don't use religion in government arguments, not that a politician can't go to a church and talk.
Where is the cutoff between religion and morals? If you develop morals from the community you grew up in, can you push for public policy based on those morals? Now how about if those morals were developed through religion? Shouldn't our leaders push policies base on morals? Why is it such a big deal where those morals came from? The only issue on Separation of Church and State is if policies encourage religion or punish lack of religion. Why is it that someones morals automatically mean it's a religious issue?
I think that morals are a personal thing and a way to live your life, they should not be pushed onto other people by politicians any more than religion should be. The way you feel about homosexuals, no matter what those views are based on, should not affect their lives. Any public policy should have a good reason or a cause. I just get annoyed when politicians use what the bible says or what their religion believes as part of their argument.
I definitely agree that you can have morals without religion, but I don't know of a situation where it would be good to push for public policy based on them. do you have any examples?
I would say that equal rights and "Entitlement Programs" are moral issues. Income tax rates also have a hint of morality thrown in. Probably 90% of our laws have some sort of moral basis. It's just the ones that are believed to have come from a religious basis that get condemned.
This article goes back to my original point - why can these churches organize rallies for Democratic candidates and why can the candidates give speeches every weekend.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4179475&page=1
If Michelle Bachmann is going to get ripped apart for giving a speech at a church and being endorsed by the leader of the church, then all these churches and candidates should be ripped as well.
Aren't these Democratic candidates promising to carry out the wishes of these church goers? How is that different than a religious conservative carrying out the wishes of his fellow church-goers?
As much as we all wish social issues weren't such a big part of politics - they are. And they are on both sides, it's not just Republicans pushing social issues. What about the ACLU? They try and shove their agenda down everyone's throats. What about tax dollars going towards "prayer rooms" for Muslims in colleges and hospitals? Isn't that shoving a form of religion down out throats? I highly doubt if a Catholic prayer room would be allowed at a college.
Maybe gay marriage, abortion, etc. shouldn't be a part of the political system, but it is and everyone has their views. I don't see how someone who is brought up going to church and who develops beliefs and morals from church and family should be precluded from using those beliefs in their decision-making.
The government should not endorse religions or support them, but that doesn't preclude a lawmaker from following their beliefs that they may have developed in the Church in deciding how to vote on an issue. What are they supposed to do - check everything they believe in at the door?
And what about Minnesota's Rep. Keith Ellison? He's constantly portrayed as the Muslim politician and he's praised for it!! When he won they celebrated at his campaign by shouting "Praise Be to Allah". Imagine Bachmann shouting "Praise be to God" over and over. She would have been thrown out of office by now! Ellison has said how his Muslim faith guides him in his day-to-day life. So why can't W. or other politicians allow their religious beliefs to guide them?
Once again - I understand that church and politics can't be mixed in that you can't pass a law that favors a religion. But I see nothing wrong with politicians, Democrat or Republican, allowing their faith to guide them in decision making.
One other thing - I have a hard time with the bashing of "born again Christians." Yes, I tend to think that some of them are fake and go overboard. And some use it to mask other things. But for a lot of born-agains it has helped them get past demons in their lives. If it helped W. get past his alcohol problems, then why criticize him for that? I don't think it had anything to do with politics seeing that he was still drinking when he first started running for office.
If a born-again Christian wants to go that route, then more power to them. I'd rather have a person do that then stay on drugs and alcohol. I'm not a big fan of people preaching religion or the pushing of religion in my face. If someone wants to believe, they'll choose to believe. But that's their choice and I don't think they should be criticized for it.
Just like I don't think someone that doesn't believe or who doesn't care should be criticized. That's their choice as well.
The constant making fun of religious people in this country is getting out of hand. I don't see these people making fun of Muslims or Jewish people? There's no criticism of other countries that allow religion to play a much bigger role in politics than our country does.
Post a Comment