<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?hp[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?hp</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh-oh. :)</p>
<p>You know, I just read this and frankly, you and those who read this stuff have alot to worry about. </p>
<p>“Self described Christain”? Aren’t they all? </p>
<p>As I read trying to find the point, all I found was the village gossip, trying to turn an ear against this man for knowing other men whose lives he did not lead. </p>
<p>To me, the oh-oh means somebody’s worried and is willing to smear, even if it’s ever so slightly.</p>
<p>Your problem is with what the NYT is trying to insinuate; I intended no “smear.”
I have no idea what the intent is of the Times in making this a three-page, front-page story.</p>
<p>My oh-oh was meant as irony for all those who have grave fears of potential candidates speaking from church pulpits–separation of church and state, don’tcha know.</p>
<p>It’s somehow okay for Hill and Bill and Barack and Rev. Al to speak from church pulpits, but better not catch Guiliani speaking from a Catholic church pulpit! Or Romney from a Mormon church pulpit! And as we all know, Bush speaking from a Methodist pulpit is Theocracy in the making. :)</p>
<p>It’s pretty clear that the people trying to downplay the drive toward state religion have a vested interest in slipping it in under our noses and trying to make us feel insecure about standing up for your country.</p>
<p>The Republican Party of Texas lists ending the separation of church and state as one of the planks in its platform.</p>
<p>Let me say that again, in case you missed it:</p>
<p>The Republican Party of Texas lists ending the separation of church and state as one of the planks in its platform.</p>
<p>These are hardly just idle cranks who are no threat to our liberty. Members of the Republican party of Texas have ascended to the highest offices in this land.</p>
<p>Other trends:</p>
<p>25% of our soldiers in Iraq have reported being pressured by superiors to convert to evangelical Protestantism.</p>
<p>“Ministers” with followers in the millions preach that Christians are to have “dominion” over our government, and prominent politicians go out of their way to cater to them–even the ones, like Hagee, (who calls for an unprovoked declaration of war against another country in order to accelerate the Rapture), have individuals like McCain and Brownbeck attending his “conferences.”</p>
<p>Graduates of a fourth-tier, barely accredited “faith based” law school make up 10% of this administration.</p>
<p>Okay?! ARe you kidding, HH? The NYT is totally pro-Hillary; they will smear Obama at any opportunity.</p>
<p>And I haven’t heard anyone say any candidate should check their religion at the door.</p>
<p>Bush is an interesting example–his religion seems more self-serving than sincere, and it is not Methodism, in any way more than in name.</p>
<p>Guiliani is about as far from Orthodox Catholicism as Hitler was from Orthodox Judaism.</p>
<p>MK, I don’t think Roman Catholics use the term “Orthodox Catholic” because of the possibility of confusion with the Greek Orthodox church.</p>
<p>But you’re right, he’s hardly rigorously observant of all the strictures. Guiliani is an example of what Maureen Dowd and other right wing pundits call a “cafeteria Catholic.” He picks and chooses what tenets he will follow and which he won’t.</p>
<p>It’s kind of surprising that the bishops haven’t called for communion to be withheld from him; they’ve done it for other politicians who have taken pro-choice stands.</p>
<p>conyat I only use the term Orthodox Catholic to distinguish the hard-line Catholics who follow Church’s rulings as compared to the fake Catholics like John Kerry. </p>
<p>Good term with “cafeteria Catholic”. I think bishops should withhold communion from him. I believe the modern more passive Catholic Church is boring its members into looking for more active faiths. As a Catholic myself this deeply distresses me.</p>
<p>You raise a good point. In the 1960s, the Church in the US had a strong orientation toward brotherhood and social justice. It inspired people like Paul Farmer. A lot of those folks left as the Church priorities changed.</p>
<p>Garland–I really didn’t know that. I suppose that will explain much in the year to come. </p>
<p>Btw, if you haven’t heard anyone say a candidate should check their religion at the door, let me introduce you to conyat. 
</p>
<p>I’m off to watch the PBS Mormon special now.</p>
<p>Maybe bringing it here insinuates something, ya think? My ma taught me long ago if it looks like poo, smells like poo, for crying out loud, don’t pick it up and bring it in the house, you’ll get it all over yourself. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As a lifelong supporter of freedom of religion, I find this remark deeply offensive.</p>
<p>No articles on Obama allowed.
Gotcha.</p>
<p>Y’all let the NYT know 'bout this now, ya’hear? </p>
<p>Then us po’ folks won’t be tainted by the poo. </p>
<p>Thankee, Opie.</p>
<p>P.S. Articles on that Mormon okay wit’ya to post here?</p>
<p>conyat: GET A SENSE OF HUMOR BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE</p>
<p>If only the Catholic church would spend less time ranting and raving about the immorality of everything under the sun and spend more time preaching brotherhood, tolerance, and so forth, they might have a larger, more active membership today.</p>
<p>Hereshoping, please stop addressing your offensive remarks to me. The “Honest, teacher, he just can’t take a joke” tack isn’t likely to fool anyone here.</p>
<p>1of42, have you read Mountains Beyond Mountains? I think you would enjoy it a lot.</p>
<p>Rule of CC postings:</p>
<p>Before post 20 the Catholic church will be referenced in any discussion of candidates or religion, no matter that it has absolutely no relationship to the OP whatsoever.</p>
<p>Special thanks, as always, to conyat.</p>
<p>MK99, a Catholic, brought up Catholicism. Obviously s/he thought it added something to the discussion. </p>
<p>What is your objection to MK99 discussing his feelings about a politician of his own faith?</p>
<p>At least he was wasn’t providing erroneous information about one of the most cherished prayers in the liturgy.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=256542&page=28&highlight=Lord’s+prayer[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=256542&page=28&highlight=Lord’s+prayer</a></p>
<p>Posts# 412.e and 416 and 419 and finally, 421.</p>
<p>hh–lol.<br>
BTW, those Catholics who follow church teachings do often refer to themselves as “orthodox Catholics”–(with a small “o”).</p>
<p>I agree with opie. As I read the story I kept looking for a point besides the obvious one. And…while I believe all the oddball criticism of the NY Times from the right is often not credible (see O’Reilly, Hannity, etc.), the Obama piece did strike me as a not too subtle hit job made that for whatever motivation, seems intended to rough him up for Senator Clinton. With these Obama stories (“Is he Black Enough” etc.) the NY Times seems to be saying “this isn’t the junior varsity, fella and we’re not just going to give you a starting position.”</p>