<p>Back to Hillary for a minute. The comment about the possibility of the Republicans exploiting Barack Obama’s drug use was actually made by Bill Shaheen, not by Hillary, and he has since apologized for the comment, as has Hillary.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html</a></p>
<p>This is Obama’s pastor. Leal, you can read his speeches and philosophy online. I wonder what your viewpoint is. Obama certainly seems to be distancing himself.</p>
<p>“Back to Hillary for a minute. The comment about the possibility of the Republicans exploiting Barack Obama’s drug use was actually made by Bill Shaheen, not by Hillary, and he has since apologized for the comment, as has Hillary.”</p>
<p>Which is why it was worded this way: What do you think of Clinton supporters’ “concern” about Obama’s past drug use?</p>
<p>Bullet:
</p>
<pre><code>JFK’s speech was great because Democrats believe in the separation of religion and state. Republicans don’t believe in that In Romney’s so called comming out speech he was cool with attacking certain groups i.e. Atheists as long as his group the LDS Church is not attacked.
</code></pre>
<p>Zooser:
</p>
<p>Clinton and Romney both get the medal for running the dirtiest campaigns for their respective parties. Clinton’s concern about Obama’s drug use and the whole deal about Clinton’s staffers trying to say that Obama is a Muslim are two examples. Romney is doing some of the same, although Huck isn’t a saint. As a Democrat, if Clinton is nominated I will vote for Nader/the Greens.</p>
<p>"JFK’s speech was great because Democrats believe in the separation of religion and state. Republicans don’t believe in that "</p>
<p>Who says? </p>
<p>“In Romney’s so called comming out speech he was cool with attacking certain groups i.e. Atheists as long as his group the LDS Church is not attacked”</p>
<p>Quote please. [Governor</a> Mitt Romney’s “Faith In America” Address](<a href=“http://www.mittromney.com/News/Speeches/Faith_In_America]Governor”>http://www.mittromney.com/News/Speeches/Faith_In_America)</p>
<p>this is why I try and stay focused on issues and not candidates- I want to vote “for” somebody- not “against” somebody else</p>
<p>We have friends who attend United Church of Christ and it seems to be a welcoming and inclusive congregation.
I have the impression that Obama isn’t “distancing” himself from this church but perhaps not “emphasizing” it as much as some candidates have been.
Perhaps he believes, religion is personal.</p>
<p>from Romney speech</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>;)
hmm who would that be?</p>
<p>I don’t see why religion shouldn’t be relevant when it impinges on the public sphere. If Romney was taught from birth and weekly thereafter that dark skin is sinful, and served as stake president in preaching and upholding the doctrine of his church, I sure as heck want to know for sure that he’s flipflopped. </p>
<p>And that’s why Romney’s speech was “off”. If he didn’t want the speech to be about his beliefs, he didn’t have to say that “Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and My personal Lord and Savior”. But HE (not Huckabee or anyone else) made it a point to indicate where his beliefs are the same as Evangelicals, but then lacked the courage of his convictions to say where those of his doctrine are different. And then - to top it all off - he put forward the notion that freedom cannot exist without religion - that was about the most offensive notion I’ve heard out of a major party candidate in my lifetime. </p>
<p>He’s a panderer - and I just hope that when he flipflops next, he ends up on the right side.</p>
<p>“hmm who would that be?” </p>
<p>I posted the link. What is the attack on athiests? I’m not a Romney supporter and I still don’t see it?</p>
<p>“Quote please.”</p>
<p>That would be where he said that freedom cannot exist without religion. Romney might have meant that atheists and agnostics don’t value freedom, or that we don’t do enough to protect it, or even that we aren’t free. But every interpretation I can think of is a slap in my face. Feel free to volunteer other interpretations if I’m missing them.</p>
<p>“That would be where he said that freedom cannot exist without religion. Romney might have meant that atheists and agnostics don’t value freedom, or that we don’t do enough to protect it, or even that we aren’t free. But every interpretation I can think of is a slap in my face. Feel free to volunteer other interpretations if I’m missing them.”</p>
<p>I saw him on tv later explaining his point. Again, I’m not a supporter and don’t care what anyone thinks of him. What he said was that he was referring to was that in a society without religion, freedom couldn’t flourish. Not that each citizen had to be religious, but that each person in a particular society had the right to have or not have religion as he or she saw fit. Continued to say that his point was that in a society where any religious faiths were prohibited, then no one could be free. That you could be an athiest or an agnostic but the fact that your neighbor could be something, anything, or nothing else was what made you free.</p>
<p>“his point was that in a society where any religious faiths were prohibited, then no one could be free.”</p>
<p>But a society where religious faiths are prohibited is totally different from a society where religion does not exist. There isn’t even that much overlap between the two; plenty of the most repressive societies have had flourishing underground religion. Conversely, there are societies that are far less religious than the U.S., but have comparable freedom. I would remain just as free as I am today if my religious neighbors all became heretics tomorrow.</p>
<p>If this is indeed what he meant, then he expressed it very poorly (and this in a major speech that was carefully planned over a period of time, probably with a lot of expert input, not an off-the-cuff remark).</p>
<p>In the future, if he wants to express an idea like, “Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right and one of the pillars of every free society,” I hope that he’ll just say so.</p>
<p>oh sorry that was another rhetorical question</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>so if we call “god” mother earth- Romney is OK with that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My top concern is the way we are despoiling the planet & consuming its resources, watching plant/animal populations go extinct which is exacerbated by population growth.
[Emissions</a> of CO2 - selected countries (1995) - Climate Change](<a href=“http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/11.htm]Emissions”>http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/11.htm)
How many kids does Romney have anyway?</p>
<p>[America’s</a> atheists | Believe it or not | Economist.com](<a href=“http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10277230]America’s”>Believe it or not)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/07/religion_presidency/[/url]”>http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/07/religion_presidency/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t speak for the Democrats (I don’t identify with either political party) but the reason I think huckabee’s religious beliefs are more of an issue than, say, Hillary’s or Obama’s or Romney’s is that there is a question about that religion using political manipulation to start a major war. This is far, far more serious than merely influencing one’s judgment.</p>
<p>It’s safe to say that Romeny’s speech does no good in a party that says the separation of church and state is wrong and should be abolished.</p>
<p>Romney’s in a difficult position. He knows that to win the Republican nomination, he must appeal to the Christian conservatives. But many of the evangelicals do not consider the LDS church to be Christian. They consider it a ‘cult’ so he is in a position far more challenging than any other candidate, much more so even than what JFK faced. So he is trying to emphasize that he’s Christian while not drawing any attention to theological differences.</p>
<p>“It’s safe to say that Romeny’s speech does no good in a party that says the separation of church and state is wrong and should be abolished.”</p>
<p>Huh? Which party says that?</p>
<p>For some reason my browser is telling me that the connection is refused for me to go to page 6 of this discussion, so if I am being repetitive, please excuse me. I only got through page 5…</p>
<p>As a Christian who is pretty much heartsick at how most Christ-followers have tended to live out their “religion” by judging others (completely NOT what we are to do, IMO), I was dismayed to “hear” about Huckabee’s supposed jab at Romney’s faith. I really like Huckabee’s support of the Fair Tax, so I was beginning to think he was someone I could support. </p>
<p>Shame on me, however, for not digging deeper into what was actually said and the context of the remarks. Then, today I saw a brief interview of Huckabee on GMA in which he explained that the quote about his asking if Mormons believed that Jesus and the devil were brothers was a very, very small part of a much larger conversation with someone who is, in fact, well-versed in the Mormon faith. He honestly didn’t know the answer. </p>
<p>However, he stated repeatedly and clearly (in today’s interview) that a person’s faith should NOT be the issue here. He is the candidate that is looking to establish why people should vote for him, not against someone else. More substantive issues are what this dialogue should center around…not that person’s “fatih” or how it is different from mine or yours. In truth, nobody can truly know what is in another’s heart anyway (that last is my own contribution to the conversation, not Huckabee’s).
I was very impressed with the guy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you mean distancing himself from the fact that there are Muslims in his family? Understandable.</p>
<p>As for Obama’s pastor, he seems very feisty. Other than that, I don’t see an issue. Certainly not anything on the level of that previously discussed on this thread.</p>
<p>I liked Obama alot when I first heard him talk at the Democrat Convention. I almost ordered an ‘Obama 08’ bumpersticker right then and there. I thought that’s who I’d be supporting, until more recently, when his views on the war seem to be sounding more and more homogenized.</p>
<p>Zoosermom, my comment #61 was in reply to lealdragon’s comment:</p>
<p>“Yeah me too. Slimey. She should be applauding Obama for admitting he inhaled when Bill didn’t have the b***s to admit it. Then again, some time has passed since then, and Obama can admit it now partly because Bill PARTIALLY admitted it then. Which is all the more reason this should not be a divisive issue and she should not be attacking Obama on account of it. Wrong battle to pick.”</p>
<p>…not to your initial comment. The above clearly was directed at Hillary making the comment about Obama, and she did not. For some reason, I’m having a problem with the quoting, which doesn’t seem to want to work for me today.</p>