I think it's highly unfortunate that in 2007, a candidate for the highest office in the land feels compelled to defend his religious beliefs.

The Christian Right needs to be reminded that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees Freedom of Religion. As Americans, we are free to worship whenever and however we choose. Indeed, we are free to not worship at all if we so choose.

Abraham Lincoln handled a religious litmus test perfectly in his congressional campaign of 1846. When challenged by an evangelical preacher to take a stand, Lincoln basically told the man that his (Lincoln's) religious beliefs were no one's business. The story may be found at:

http://abrahamlincolnblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/abraham-lincolns-own-reli...

It's time that our modern-day candidates tell those on the Christian Right the same thing.

Largely I agree with the "ain't nobody's biz" folks -- except I want to understand something from a candidate whose religious views are so very "other" from mine, especially given the history of Mormon beliefs. I expect that is an openly Wiccan or pagan or Druid or militant atheist ran for office I might also want to understand what relationship they saw or did not see between their belief and their politics. I am not limiting my curiosity to those groups, just that they came to mind first as groups that would make me wonder. Remember, until Mitt was 31 years old, his church was still refusing to ordain people (i.e. men)of color because their skin color was seen as a punishment from God, and intermarriage among races was forbidden..

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs relentlessly at Time's Fool

OK...I'm an evangelical Christian. My take is that Romney made a huge mistake in that speech. It was directed towards winning over the Religious Right, but he did it in such a way that I think it will alienate everyone else with a pulse.

The speech he should have made should have acknowledged his beliefs and then explained about how they wouldn't interfere with his presidency or upholding the Constitution. It should have said..."Yeah, I'm a Morman...so what?"

Instead, he spent way too much time trying to convince the Right that he's just like them--a very dumb tactic in my opinion.

The public has to feel as if the president is watching out for the best interests of the country, not just a particular group that holds a lot of sway. I think that speech will sink him in the long run.

Wheat Among Tares

Mata, a very interesting post. It's one of the most interesting commentaries I've seen on the speech, and since I live in Utah and have a family that is mostly Mormon, I've seen a lot of comments about it!

Kalyn Denny
Kalyn's Kitchen

The only things worse than a punditocracy is a Satirically-reinterpreted-punditcoracy. Especially if we are foolish enough to vote based on it.

The clip above, from "Faithful Progressive" terrifies me. How many times have you tried to have a discussion with someone, in which you were completely misunderstood and your words were twisted and retold to others. And, frustrated as all hell, you said, "they totally twisted my words." That is precisely - literally and openly - what is happening in that clip, a nd we are using it for both entertainment and to persuade others..... While i know YOU didn't say it, at some point we have to collectively stop using such vitriole as a dialog and certainly not allow it to form the basis of "informed" voting. It's dangerous. It's a schoolyard game of telephone played by creative manipulators who want to get something from you.

I think that ANY organized religion has a lot of explaining to do, if you ask me. Why should, in EVERY major religion, sex between a man and a man be illegal? Why, in the strict reading of any religion, should a woman not have the right to choose to abort and unwanted pregnancy? Why, in the strict reading of any major religion should women be subjegated to men? Strict reading of religious doctrines to judge the followers of that religion is dangerous stuff. (Stuff, I might add, that starts wars.)

That said, every major religion is filled with people who practice that religion in a wide variety of ways. There is no reason to believe that, because until recently the mormon church didn't look at black people as equal means that Mitt Romney Holds that view. You can certainly fine equally inflammatory examples in both Christianity and Judaism, and would be hard pressed to show that all followers of those religions shared and practiced those views.

And the secular world isn't so swell either. Many of us live in States in which oral sex is illegal, are we to be assumed prudish and bigoted? Or callous law-breakers, as the case may be?

The point has to be that we need to judge individuals for who they are, what they say (not what people twist their words to say) and what they do. There is not a single candidate on either side that fits the bill for me and aligns with my own world view and moral compass 100% of the time. But I will continue to try to dig through the diatribe and find some compromise that gets as close as i can politically, and then make up the rest by continuing to work for change with non-profits and other community groups.

Politics are messy - we need to find ways to clarify things, not obfuscate them.

And really, ALL of them - EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM - are playing politics as usual. The speeches are the same ones we heard last time, the fighting between parties is as bad as it ever has been. And as they fight for playground superiority in their little glass sandbox, it's the rest of us who get the shaft as the very real workings of a large country are ignored in favor of vituperative tirades about whatever red-herring is currently fashionable. (or is it always sex and religion that are fashionable?) The further you get to either side, the truer it is. The Faithful Progressive could not prove that point more clearly.

(For the record, I've always considered myself to be progressive, but i am faithful to the idea that this country can and should serve all of it's citizens, not be forced to match my own social views. When everyone has food, shelter, health care, education, it is a lot easier for EVERYONE to practice their religious and personal freedoms. The ability to even worry about that is so elitist. If you walk down the street and ask the people int eh food bank line what they think about any candidate's religion, they'll tell you they don't give a damn, they want to know when they will have the basic necessities to live, so that they can find the time and space to care about religion, sex, and anything else that doesn't come into play when you are homeless....)
___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com

... and that side is the ever dreamy concept of "equality and justice for all." including those who want to worship the god of their choice in private. i certainly did not intend to lash out at YOU personally, but to try and get ALL OF US to start looking at larger issues...

Your point about sects of religions is the same as mine.... Every major religion in the strictest reading of their texts espouses beliefs that are ripe with subjugation and persecution. But there are MANY people within them who disavow those strict readings in favor of a faithful spirit that elevates and supports a wide variety of people. And even within those sects, there are vast personal variations. Of course it's a fair question. Of course. BUT, to ask someone "how can you be a member of a religion what subjugates black people" does feel "unfair," as it is a question that could be asked to ANY religion. We could ask every Christian how they could be part of a religion that supported the crusades, or that still, in many cases doesn't' allow homosexuality. Same is true of Judaism, in large part. My point is simply that by focusing on the specific and easily inflamed issues obfuscates the large question - which is at once simpler and more complex - of "how do you reconcile personal beliefs with your belief in the constitution of the United States, which explicitly allows religious freedoms?" Indeed, all of us are allowed to practice our religion freely, what we cannot do is force others to do the same.

So by keeping the dialogs on religion, we, well, keep the dialog on religion.

As for elitism..... I dare say, someone who is living on the street is not sitting around pondering the subtleties of interpretation of religious doctrine. That freedom of mind is a blessing that a blessed few have. For me, it gets back to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In the development of a person, one cannot self-actualize until all of the base needs are met. We must feel safe and secure physically before we can begin to bond with those around us. WE must feel safe with those around us before we can pursue intellectual explorations that are not related to the acquisition of food and shelter. We must feel comfortable in our own ability to think and reason before we can ponder the even more abstract things like art and religion. And it is not until we can safely let our minds and souls wander in those places that we can fully self actualize.

As parents, I am sure that most of us raise our children in that way. We feed and shelter them. We introduce them to peer groups that can help them bond. We give them academic experiences that will teach them to think and explore. And we give them cultural pursuits that will allow them develop into their own unique selves. But non of that is possible, really, without basic needs - shelter, food, health, etc.....

I guess that i refer to that same hierarchy when i look at seeming intractable social problems.... People need to feel safe. They need shelter & food. Then they need community. Then they need education. Then they need the opportunity to grow...

Those of us who have the luxury of sitting with our friends and discussing the fine points of religion and politics, much less art, culture, love and society, are lucky. Very lucky. And we can do it because our other needs are met.

But what about those who's needs are not met?

In this case, a president is the parent of a country..... We must look at the basest needs of all of our citizens before we can ask the government to support our cultural development. Now, i would NEVER advocate a lessening of funding for things like art and culture..... BUT, i want the primary concern of our president to be meeting the needs of our country as a whole. We should be safe - here and abroad. We should be healthy - individually and as a country. We should be educated - about life and the "tools" necessary to succeed in our society.

I want all of us to elevate the dialog away from religion and sex and back to things like the economy, foreign policy, education, health care etc..... And to stop making ad Hominem attacks when we should be engaging in really gritty conversations about more important issues.

How will you make sure that children are educated, because without education it is impossible to get a job (and for businesses to thrive), to make informed decisions about lifestyle choices (which causes spikes in both crime and health care prices) and to think broadly enough to embrace the diversity that is the United States. How will you make sure that our environment is protected. Even if we, as individuals, are not yet able to make intelligent choices about environmental impact of our lifestyles, what tough choices will you, as president, make to legislate change? How will you ensure that we all have access to the healthcare that we need to be healthy, which is what allows us to work, and think and care for ourselves and our family - because without that there is a drain on our economy in everything from lost wages to increased cost of "emergency" healthcare that could have been avoided? All of those things are more important to the health of our country than the social / personal / religious issues that mean so much to all of us. (even to me!) And I am sick to death of the fact that everyone seems to focus on on these issues of religion and sex rather than the more important issues of our country's health. It's selfish, if nothing else.

We are asking for religious freedom, but are not allowing that of our politicians. We are asking for gender equality, but are not granting that to our politicians. We are asking for racial equality, but continue to focus on race.

in some ways, i could not be more thrilled that right now, our 3 most viable candidates for president are a woman, a black man and a mormon. My god, that's incredible! That seems like progress. But by looking at them that way, we are keeping the dialog firmly planted in religion, race and gender. There is nothing progressive about that. Those are the same things countries have been waring over for centuries.

When do we get to move past this?

Whether you look at this country as a family or as a business, we are hemorrhaging money, destroying our environment and allowing our most vulnerable citizens to languish in obscurity while we "grown ups" sit around discussing whether or not we have the right to marry whoever we want, or what religious books we like to read...

Picture that as a scene in a movie, it's not pretty. A group of intellectuals sit around a dinner table, waving their arms discussing this nuance of a religious text, or the depth of love of this couple, or .... while a homeless family shivers on the sidewalk, looking in, wondering if they will at least get the scraps from the garbage, after the party is over. You can imagine it with lightly falling snow, if that makes it prettier. But it won't change the fact that that is what so many of these discussions sound like.

Yes, I know we're on the same side. I really do. I think, that in most of our hearts of hearts, we have more common ground that we share, but i want to see the conversation go there. I want us to stop attacking our political candidates with these little barbs so that they can feel safe to discuss the big issues.....

I did NOT mean to lash out at you personally (though i did at the person who wrote the "faithful progressive" post. as a faithful progressive, i do not want that to be the voice that speaks for me!) My skin was just worn thin - and continues to be - with discussions about issues that don't address the most important problems we face as a country.

I can't wait until enough people are safe, healthy and educated that we can afford for our politicians to debate the nuances of intellectual ideals.... But until then, I want them to heal the country. People like you and i can carry the torch of culture, love, expression and wild personal freedom (which I'm happy to do in any way possible.)

___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com

No, I'm as jaundiced and worn thin as you are. BUT, i don't really listen to things like that for their actual words as much as for what it says about what politicians think we want.

Yes, taken on it's own, the comment about militant Islam scared me. (if bush had said i would swear he was laying the groundwork to, i dunno, go to war or something.) The thing is, any thinking person can tell that MILITANT ANYTHING is dangerous. Militant Christians bomb abortion clinics. (As do others) Militant jews bomb things in the Mid East.(As do others.) Militant ignorance fights these things with more violence.

The thing that frightened me is that these candidatges clearly believe that fear mongering is what wins elections. So that's what they give us. They think that the only way to unites us is against a common enemy, so they run around making enemies of everything. (It's like the opposite of Don Quixote and his windmills.) Enemies of political parties, religious ideas, fern-ers.

All of them have made comments that frightened me just as much. Really. I took it with a grain of salt because i think it was blatant political pandering (really bad strategy, in my opinion.) My guess, if he was speaking to a more "liberal" group, he would have said, "militant i slam poses a threat, but by working together we can find common ground and a future that can unite us...." Which I would also take with a grain of salt, for the same reason.

I've almost given up, to be honest. As far as I can tell, they never really do what they say. AND their speeches are written by crack teams and designed to appeal directly to the specific constituency to which they are speaking.

Sigh.

That's why I want to get away from the diatribes and onto the common ground. Things on which everyone agrees. Then rather than fighting over what to agree on, we can discuss how to achieve it.

Let's be real.... We all want to have a country that is safe, with an environment that is healthful, a population that is educated and cared for, children with a future, businesses with a thriving economy..... So let's figure out how to do that. I wish more people had those conversations. (I started a company to facilitate that. But I didn't invite politicians - though they may well show up - because i want people to talk about it, and see what we come up with. Then we can take it back to the politicians and say "look, this is what we think, this is what we talk about.... stop scaring us and pandering to us, WORK WITH US!")

I take back what I said about being jaundiced. I am woefully idealistic. I still believe. I'm just really fed up with the whole lot of 'em!

___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE
make some good news!
www.JustCauseIt.com

I keep thinking that the current political machines have just ground themselves (on both sides) too far into the muck and mire. I find myself wishing for a viable third party alternative. (key word: viable)

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs along at Time's Fool

Does anybody else feel like Women's issues are being effaced by a strict focus on Middle East and War conflict issues? I think the predominant logic of the election is that the war is THE single issue to vote on; but what about abortion, birth control, marriage rights, education spending, etc?

Finally, how do women feel about Ron Paul?

Just a few questions I've been thinking about a lot. My name is Kylie, by the way, and I'm a new web developer trying to focus on women's issues.

~Kylie Stone,
WomenCo producer
http://www.womenco.com

HI Mata,

I liked your analysis and your follow up rhetoric. So...just curious, what candidate are you supporting?

Blog Mama
http://www.gratitude365.blogspot.com/

Do you support Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney's position that Roe v. Wade should be overturned?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1324

DBlake.