What do religious leaders want for Obama’s next four years?

[cbayer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/what-do-religious-leaders-want-for-obamas-next-four-years/2012/11/07/0fbce930-2921-11e2-aaa5-ac786110c486_story.html




By Adelle M. Banks| Religion News Service, Published: November 7

WASHINGTON — Addressing poverty. Seeking reconciliation. Protecting religious freedom. Religious leaders already have their wish lists ready for President Obama’s second term. Here are 10 officials’ thoughts about what they’d like to see in the next four years. Some responses have been edited for length and clarity:

Salam Al-Marayati, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council

It’s an opportunity to build on the foundation built the last four years, one of engagement and more inclusion of American Muslims in policy-making, both on the domestic and international fronts. Key issues will be bolstering partnerships with law enforcement for national security, working within faith-based government programs, and building bridges with the Muslim world that will help the U.S. navigate new frontiers of democracy and old battlegrounds of violent extremism.

Kathryn Mary Lohre, president of the National Council of Churches

As followers of Christ, we hope and work for a world in which people have nutritious food to eat, safe water to drink, affordable places to live, access to quality medical care, and opportunities for fulfilling work. Recent figures show that more than one in seven Americans — and one in five children — are living in poverty. President Obama, we now join others in calling you to account for this commitment ... to adopt and implement bold policies that will provide for “the least of these” (Matthew 25), addressing the root causes of poverty, and creating life-giving vocational opportunities. Eradicating poverty is a moral issue. As we join you in partnership, we will join you also in prayer.

The Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference

President Obama’s re-election offers an opportunity for the gifted motivator to convert rhetoric into action. My prayer is that our president advances an agenda that protects life, strengthens the family, protects religious liberty, while globally advocating for religious pluralism, especially in Muslim nations. In addition, I pray that our president engages his Christian optics in the spirit of reconciliation for the purpose of healing our nation. This will require him to provide not just political but moral leadership that refuses to sacrifice truth on the altar of political expediency. Let President Obama re-emerge with the spirit of his 2004 keynote address at the Democratic National Convention, resulting in a collective understanding that the kingdom of God is not red state or blue state, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.

more at link

[MynameisBlarney]

1. Do we care?

I've about had it with religious leaders getting involved in politics.

[cbayer]

3. I care. I see the rise of the liberal/progressive religious leaders happening and

the marginalization of the religious right.

Also, I think Obama cares.

[MynameisBlarney]

12. That is a good point

But I'd still feel a lot better if religion stayed out of politics completely.

[cbayer]

13. Not going to happen, imo, but at least I can support the religious leaders who

are trying to take it back from the fundamentalists.

[MynameisBlarney]

15. Why don't you think it will happen?

While it may not happen in my lifetime, I am confident that as science progresses, and the quality of education in our schools increases, that many more people will view organized religion in a similar way as I do.
That it is no longer relevant in the modern world. (and that's putting it as nicely as I possibly can)

[cbayer]

16. It may not be relevant to your world, but it remains highly relevant to many people's

worlds.

Religion will always be here and will always be a force to be reckoned with. No matter how far science advances, it will never replace religion.

The question is how religionists of all stripes and non-religionists co-exist and work together to make the world a better place.

IMHO, we are moving in that direction.

[MynameisBlarney]

19. Quite true.

But I didn't mean to imply that science and education will replace religion, just that it will one day make it obsolete.
The smarter people get, the less likely they are to believe in or need mythological deities.

[cbayer]

20. Some of the country's best and brightest are religious people...

like our President.

The critical point is in how their religiosity or lack thereof guides them, not whether they are religious.

That's the beauty of this country.

[MynameisBlarney]

24. I would say that is a matter of opinion

In my opinion, our nations best and brightest are people like Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson, who I am reasonably sure are not religious.
As for the Prez...he's quite obviously very very smart, but not sure about how religious he ACTUALLY is.
Not saying that one can't be both religious and very intelligent, I'm just saying, the more religious a person is, the less likely they're going to have any critical thinking skills at all.
And the more critical a thinker one is, the less they'll see religion as necessary or relevant.

[cbayer]

29. We do disagree here on some points.

I don't think there is any science to substantiate your position that the more religious a person is, the less likely they are to have any critical thinking skills at all. If there is, I would like to see it.

Both Bill Nye and NDT have similar views about religionists who reject indisputable scientific fact in favor of nonsense like creationism. I believe Bill Nye has identified himself as atheist, while NDT has declined to do so, favoring the term agnostic.

Religion and science are completely different things, imo. Being strong in way does not make necessarily make one weak int he other.

[MynameisBlarney]

32. I did say it was my opinion

Not fact.
But I do believe there was a recent study making similar claims, but I could be wrong.

As for your last sentence.
"Religion and science are completely different things, imo. Being strong in way does not make necessarily make one weak int he other."

Religion and science both try to explain how the universe works. Science does it with...well, science. And religion does it superstition and truly laughable explanations of why things happen.

[cbayer]

34. Many believe that there are things that science will never explain.

To write them off as laughable is a mistake, imo.

[MynameisBlarney]

40. Many people also believe

that the earth is only 6000 years old.
I can't help but laugh at that.

[cbayer]

41. We can share that laugh, then

[MynameisBlarney]

45. Indeed.

Cheers!

[cleanhippie]

67. Like what, exactly?

And many believing something means nothing at all about its validity. But you know that.

[socialindependocrat]

33. Two stories about intelligence and religion

I have heard these a long time ago and will try to be accurate but somone my correct me

!) There was a priest/minister who studied religion for many years and
decided that he would become agnostic because of all his studies.

3) Albert Einstein said that after all the research he'd done it seemed to him that
this universe must have some organizing/centralized power.

I believe that science will prove religion where religion is true and that
science will disprove religion where the beliefs have been altered by man
in order to suit the needs and wishes of those in control. It will just take
time for this to happen. Then, your religion will be based on scientific proof
and can then, be argued.

[cbayer]

36. There is no argument that "proves" religious beliefs.

That is what makes them religious and those that believe them faithful.

Many scientists have struggled with religion. Some have rejected it, while others have found compatibility. I

In the end, it's not a competition, imo. I argue for co-existence and support both scientists and religionists when the paths they are following lead to what I believe to be the better good.

[socialindependocrat]

47. Example: A flaming chariot is not driven across the sky every day...

Until the existence of God is proven it is a belief.

A belief is based on faith.

One either has faith or they do not

To force someone's adhearance to an unproven belief is unreasonable

Some people follow the commandment "Thou shall not kill"
Others just feel that killing is not the "right" thing to do.
You come to the same conclusion but you don't necessarily need to be religious.

[cbayer]

48. Who wants to force someone's adherence to an unproven belief?

It's a choice, a leap of faith.

And I totally agree that morality and ethics and doing the right thing have nothing to do with religiosity. Some are guided or inspired by it, others guided and inspired by something else.

In the end it doesn't make any difference, so why attack anyone who is doing the right thing because of where they do or do not find their direction?

By the way, while I know that there is no flaming chariot being driven across the sky, it's hard to not be in awe of the night sky and see the pictures that our ancestors saw laid out there before me.

[cleanhippie]

25. I applaud your efforts, but cbayer refuses to accept the trend you outlined.

You were quite clear that it is the trend of people shedding religion that you are talking about, yet cbayer is unable or unwilling to accept this reality for what it is.

Most call that denial.

[MynameisBlarney]

28. Thanks

Yeah maybe...at least cbayer is not getting frothy and mean about it.

[ladjf]

2. It's time we start following the lead of the Constitution with regard to the

separation of Church and State. In recent years, that separation has been all but
non-existent.

[cbayer]

4. While not non-existent, there has been significant encroachment

and I agree that that needs to be addressed.

Not sure how that pertains to this article, however.

[ladjf]

18. 1. I said "all but non-existent" and 2. My comment about separation of Church and State

relates directly to the OP. I meant, regardless of what the Religious leaders want from
the Government, they should get the reminder that there is supposed to be a separation between Church and State and recently, that hasn't been happening.


I don't quite get why you went to the trouble to "nit pick" my simple statements.
Are you a self styled DU editor?

[cbayer]

21. Was just responding to you. Not nit picking, just making my own point.

I'm a big advocate of separation issues, but my main focus is in defanging the religious right, and I think progressive/liberal religionists are in the best position to do that.

[rrneck]

53. Have you seen "Gangs of New York"?

It's one of my favorite movies. Here's a quote:

McGinn: "I've got forty- four notches on my club. Do you know what they're for? They're to remind me what I owe God when I die. My father was killed in battle, too. In Ireland, in the streets, fighting those who would take as their privilege what could only be got and held by the decimation of a race. That war is a thousand years old and more. We never expected it to follow us here. It didn't. It was waiting for us when we landed. Your father tried to carve out a corner of this land for his tribe. That was him, that was his dead rabbits. I often wondered... if he had lived a bit longer would he have wanted a bit more?"

[ladjf]

55. I agree with your focus to the "defanging the religious right". However, I not at

all certain that the "progressive/liberal religionists" are a lot better. I believe that
the "progressive/liberal religionists" are more subtle and therefore, a bit less objectionable to general progressives. However, IMO, the subtlety doesn't negate
the fact that behind their relative progressiveness, they still represent the religious position in politics.

No need to rebut me on this. I've made up my mind about the role of religion in Government and it is that there should be no direct religious connection to the Federal or State Governments. I certain, and I'm not being sarcastic, that as an adult "progressive/liberal religionists", you have a well worked out rationale for your position and it's working for you.

[cbayer]

59. I am certain that they are better. Much, much better.

You make assumptions about what I am, while I have only shared what I support.

[ladjf]

61. OK. You aren't a "progressive/liberal religionists". nt

[rrneck]

5. Money. nt

[cbayer]

7. BS. Did you get past the headline?

[peace13]

6. Well I know my congregation at, 'The House of Peace13' would like...

for religion to take a back seat, sit down and take care of their sheep. Let's get down to the business of taking care of the problems this country faces. Oh yes and by all means, keep the Holy ghost in the loop!

[cbayer]

8. I think a lot of progressive religious leaders would agree wholeheartedly

that it is time to start taking better care of the flocks, particularly the poor, and the problems that face them.

[socialindependocrat]

9. Preserve religious FREEDOM

This is also incumbent on each religion!

Freedom to choose your religion
Freedom to practice your religion (without interfering with the rights of others)
Freedom to not choose religion

Without interfering with the rights of others

WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH THE RIGHTS AND DECISIONS OF OTHERS

Think long and hard before you try to impose your beliefs on another or
interfere with someone else's life

My own thought - Let s/he who interferes with the free choice of another
first give up their own freedom to choose.

[cbayer]

11. Well put. Freedom of and from religion both deserve focus.

[trotsky]

10. Depends on which religious leaders you're asking. The Southen Baptists want him to:

* Defend the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death in all laws and all medical programs, government and private;

* Respect and protect religious freedom and freedom of conscience for all Americans in any medical delivery and health insurance programs;

* Defend the sanctity of marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman in federal and state law;

[socialindependocrat]

14. Again: Imposing beliefs on others is not preserving freedom of conscience

They have to stop trying to make others believe the way they do...

or we will have no freedom

[trotsky]

17. Forcing others to provide tax dollars to fund programs to benefit "the least of these"...

is also imposing your beliefs on others, isn't it?

Or is it only imposing when it's the religious right who justifies policies based on their religion?

[socialindependocrat]

22. If you take the religion out of that sataement leaves you with this...

Do we let people die because they are poor
or do we choose to help the poor

The problem is that we are in a situation where we have poor people
We now need to figure a way to educate and find poor people jobs so they can pay their own way.

Some people just want to snap their fingers and have the poor disappear
Ain't gonna happen.
Leaves us with the question of how to resolve the problem over time.

[trotsky]

23. False dilemma.

Many conservatives truly believe that while the poor should be helped, it should NOT be by the government. They believe that if goverment shrank, and taxes were cut, that people would have more money to donate to churches and charities to combat poverty more effectively than government programs.

To say that they want to impose their religious beliefs on us, but that we aren't doing the same thing to them, is dishonest to say the least.

But when you both advance your position using religious reasoning, what's what we get.

[socialindependocrat]

31. Good point about combating poverty more effectively-

"donate to churches and charities to combat poverty more effectively than government programs."

I see your point here. I would rather my money went to the organization
that provided the most cost-effective help.

On the other hand - I am very cheep (truly) and would contribute less to charity
than is taken out in taxes. I would rather pay taxes that are automatically given
to the churches to provide help to the needy

[socialindependocrat]

27. Afetrthought - I should specify -Religious beliefs

You are correct about "imposing beliefs"

I don't think people should impose their religious beliefs on others because
taey come from variuos sources that may have conflicting ideas and
no one can proove who's right/correct.

When we have questions about feeding the poor, our beliefs are all
related to how we were raised and what we've learned over the years
but the basic question is Do you choose to let poor people die or
do you choose to help them. Everyone votes and the majority gets to
choose the path foreward.

Alternatively we could have state rule where some states let their poor die
and other states that help their poor. then, I guess, you can live in the state that
has the laws that you support.

Whatever...

[trotsky]

57. If only it were that simple.

"Do you choose to let poor people die ordo you choose to help them."

Seriously, only a few sociopaths would want people to die. Everyone else wants to help. It's *how* we help that causes the political conflict. When either side attempts to argue their method is better because of religious reasons, efforts to compromise are thwarted. The other side becomes anti-god. Giving any ground means I'm turning away from my god. And so forth. If the only reason you can give to take a political action is religious, then you, by arguing for that action, are trying to impose your religious beliefs on others.

[socialindependocrat]

63. O.K., so here's a point

Let's take your staement:
"If the only reason you can give to take a political action is religious, then you, by arguing for that action, are trying to impose your religious beliefs on others."

Understood - I'm on your side.

But if you have other "logical" reasons for an action that's o.k.

Now, if you justify your desire for an action with a "logical" motivation
you still may have a religious reason but that's not the point.

The point is what you said before - if you do have a "logical" motivation
then people are just discussing the best way to deal with a problem.

At some point you just have to be able to have a discussion or nothing ever gets resolved.

So I do agree with you. If the ONLY reason you have for doing something is religious
and it's just based on faith then the other person has the right to either agree or disagree
with the motivation for the action.

An example: I don't want someone to tell me if I can use contraception or have an abortion
or eat meat on Friday or if I can eat pork or whatever because of religious beliefs. Now, if
someone says I shouldn't eat beef because we have a mad cow outbreak then, it is still
my choice but I have a reason that is based in logic.

Sorry, I'm out of wind on this one...later

[trotsky]

66. What if someone were to tell you that you can't eat that burger...

because it's contaminated by E. coli? Should you still have the choice to eat it, and/or feed it to your family? Or should we have an inspections system that allows government officials to make that choice for you, and shut down a plant that's producing tainted beef?

[socialindependocrat]

68. Sure I should have the choice to eat it.

but it would be kind of dumb to eat it after you'd been told.
I'd ask questions as to why he thought that.

and we should have inspection systems that identify problems.

Story: I worked with a guy who would come to work and about once a month he
would warn us not to eat at some restaurant because he got sick there last
night. Finally, I told him that I'd eaten at all the places he'd mentioned, for years,
and never had a problem. I still had a choice and I still ate at all those restaurants.
There are degrees of believability.

[trotsky]

69. So let me get this clear:

You believe there should be an inspections system to identify tainted/dangerous products, but you don't think that system should be able to stop said products from being in the marketplace?

Wow. You may want to reconsider your choice of avatar.

[socialindependocrat]

71. That's not what I said.

You asked two guestions

Do I eat a hamburger that some guy says has e-coli?

Second, do I think we should have an agency to test for food contamination
to which I said, yes.

You may want to either read more slowly or get your glasses checked.

Why do you think I said that?

[trotsky]

72. There's no need for personal insults. I assure you I am not stupid, nor do I have bad eyesight.

Here's what I asked in post #66:

should we have an inspections system that allows government officials to make that choice for you, and shut down a plant that's producing tainted beef?

Here's your answer in post #68:

Sure I should have the choice to eat it.
but it would be kind of dumb to eat it after you'd been told.
I'd ask questions as to why he thought that.
and we should have inspection systems that identify problems.

You said that an inspection system should "identify problems" but said nothing about having the power to deny you your choice.

That's why I asked for clarification. So, do you believe a governmental agency should have the right to deny you your choice to purchase a product?

[socialindependocrat]

73. You misunderstood my answers

First you asked if a person told me that a hamburger was tainted, would I still eat it

and I answered - Sure I should have the choice to eat it.
but it would be kind of dumb to eat it after you'd been told.
I'd ask questions as to why he thought that.

Then you asked - separately - should we have an inspections system that allows government officials to make that choice for you, and shut down a plant that's producing tainted beef?

And so I added - we should have inspection systems that identify problems.
I didn't say that I would not follow the advice of an inspection system with professional
equipment/labs that could identify various problems. And - YES, I think that a governmental
agency finds something that would hurt the public then I would want them to stop the sale of the product.

You then asked why I would give you the answer I gave and said I should find another Avatar.
So I was a bit miffed that you seemed to be laughing at my answer in a condescending manner.

I hope we're back on track now...

[trotsky]

74. Yes, I'm glad you finally answered the specific question I asked.

It wasn't a matter of me being stupid, or unable to read. You missed the key part of my question.

Because if you truly did feel the government should not have the power to remove harmful products from the marketplace, you WOULD have made a poor choice in your avatar.

Which is why I asked for clarification. I don't think it warranted having my comprehension abilities or visual acuity insulted.

[socialindependocrat]

75. Here is the specific question you asked...

"66. What if someone were to tell you that you can't eat that burger...

because it's contaminated by E. coli? Should you still have the choice to eat it, and/or feed it to your family? Or should we have an inspections system that allows government officials to make that choice for you, and shut down a plant that's producing tainted beef? "

Part 1:
What if someone were to tell you that you can't eat that burger...
because it's contaminated by E. coli? Should you still have the choice to eat it, and/or feed it to your family?

My answer: Yes, I should have the choice to eat it because how do I kano what proof this "man on the street" has that the burger is tainted?

Part 2:
Or should we have an inspections system that allows government officials to make that choice for you, and shut down a plant that's producing tainted beef? "

and my answer is yes.

You had two parts to your question which I did answer "specifically".
You never said that the man in the first part of your question worked for the government agency
that you brought up in the second part of your question.

Tell you what; go ask some friends for their opinion on the confusion you're having and
maybe that'll clarify things. I'm tired of typing...later

[trotsky]

76. No, your answer to part 2 wasn't "yes."

It was: "we should have inspection systems that identify problems."

Go back and read your post #68 again. You did not - I repeat - did NOT answer "yes." You acknowledged the need for an inspection system - to "identify problems," but you said nothing about the powers it should have to prevent you from exercising this power of choice that you were stressing.

I asked for clarification. You insulted my reading ability and/or eyesight. And now you insult me again. Sheesh.

[socialindependocrat]

77. I knew Leon personally, you know

Again, the second part of your question said

"Or should we have an inspections system that allows government officials to make that choice for you, and shut down a plant that's producing tainted beef?"

and I answered:
and we should have inspection systems that identify problems

I would think that this answer inplies a YES
and do I necessarily have to confirm that the last part of your question is included?
After all, why would an agency identify tainted beef without stopping the supply
from being sold and hurting the public?

You take things very litterally.
My suggestion still holds - go ask your friends tonight.
Do you have friends you can ask or have you pissed off everyone else, too?

See, you've turned me into a very frustrated and uncaring person!

Go away and leave me alone!

No more. This is it! I'm outta here!

Leon Trotsky LIVES! (but only in the hearts of his countrymen...)

[trotsky]

78. What you are saying now sounds a lot like "Look what you made me do!"

I do not wish to interact with someone so abusive. Good day.

[socialindependocrat]

79. Hey Trot - I'm sorry

I was just trying to ruffle your feathers

I didn't mean to make you feel bad (I know - badly)

Forgive me?

[rrneck]

26. Yes.

From your excerpt:

" ..Key issues will be bolstering partnerships with law enforcement for national security, working within faith- based government programs..."

"As we join you in partnership, we wil join you also in prayer..."

"In addition, I pray that our president engages his Christian optics in the spirit of reconciliation for the purpose of healing our nation. Let President Obama re-emerge with the spirit of his 2004 keynote address at the Democratic National Convention, resulting in a collective understanding that the kingdom of God is not red state or blue state, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost."

That is the rhetoric of the religious right that seems unable to differentiate between Christian loyalty and political ideology, inspiration and the exercise of power.

Wapo is crashing the browser on my handheld, but I would expect to see much the same from the rest. Just because they're "your tribe" doesn't mean they're right.

[cbayer]

30. My tribe? What tribe is that?

Christian loyalty and political ideology are not mutually exclusive, and, in fact, can ideally be synergistic and result in much good.

[rrneck]

35. Point taken.

I was working from an unfounded assumption. My apologies. Although, would it be fair to assume you support the involvement of some religious organization's involvement with the development and implementation of public policy?

Christian loyalty claiming a moral imprimatur is one of the oldest ways the ends justify the means for the despotic exercise of power. Political parties are bad enough. Add to the mix the idea that "God wills it" and there is not a rational, civilized check or balance known to man to counter it.

[cbayer]

37. It would be fair to assume that I support progressive/liberal leaders and followers

who are working on agendas that are consistent with my own. It would also be safe to assume that I wish to marginalize the religious right, who I feel have been a cancer on our political system.

Agree with you last paragraph, but also believe that the best people to counter this or prevent it's rise are others within the religious tent. The left wing christians were asleep at the wheel as Rove and his minions successfully mobilized the christian right. It is time for them to take it back.

And it looks like that may be happening.

[rrneck]

39. "Take it back" assumes the exercise of power.

That sounds to me like the on ramp to the road to hell.

[cbayer]

42. Yes, it does assume the exercise of power.

As long as there is power to exercise, and there is, my opinion is that it should be exercised by those who promote the greater good, social justice, caring for the least fortunate and equality for all.

[rrneck]

44. Because "god wills it"?

Now, you may be able to differentiate between those subtle distinctions. But how are you going to motivate thousands, or even millions, of people with that kind of clarity? In the country that gave us "Survivor" and the "Tickle Me Elmo" craze?

[cbayer]

46. Lol. Those that believe in god and think they know god's will are contradictions to me.

In general, when I hear that term used I usually hear a secondary agenda.

One thing I find interesting is the burgeoning interest within some evangelical communities in environmental issues. Some are interpreting god's will as wanting humans to be custodians of the planet. That is the kind of thing I think it is worth supporting.

[rrneck]

50. Yes, they're condradictions to you

and any other thinking person. And people who are able to make that distinction are few and far between.

The success of religion in this country has been more a function of consumerism and wealth than faith. Or, more to the point, faith as a product. It has been for thousands of years. The most successful religions are the best at exploiting emotional markets. Prosperity Gospel will continue to control the market until the end of prosperity, then repentance and sacrifice will rule the day. And religion will be right there to guide us on how to properly achieve that. With the help of government of course.

[cbayer]

51. Can't disagree with that, but I still believe it is worthwhile to support the countervailing

forces.

My experience is not unique, although it may not be the norm. I saw the civil rights and anti-war movements through the eyes of progressive religious organizations. This has clearly colored my view of what these organizations can do. That's why I continue to support and promote them.

[rrneck]

56. I have serious doubts about the continued efficacy

of identity politics. Sociological and environmental trends point to a conflict between the haves and the have nots, not who is or who is not.

The term "liberal" refers to cultural change. Clinging to old, entrenched powers that be won't work for us. It's time to build new coalitions of people to face new challenges.

[cbayer]

58. As long as there are civil injustices there will, and probably should be, identity politics.

As long as mosques are being burned and GLBT people being denied marriage equality, there will be and should be identity politics. As long as the GOP wants to infringe on the rights of women to control their own bodies..... etc.

No doubt that there is conflict between the haves and have nots, but that's not the only conflict.

By the way, I never did hear about the poor in this campaign. Just the middle class. Talk about needing to change focus.

[rrneck]

62. The need for justice for women and minorities will never go away.

But as the lynch pin for a political movement resource equity will be the primary cultural focus in coming years. I think self identity usually suffers under a scarcity of resources. I'm, if I recall correctly, reminded of Maslow's heirarchy of needs.

[cbayer]

65. Woosh, you are now starting to fly over my head.

But I have really enjoyed talking to you about this.

[rrneck]

70. Always a pleasure. nt

[dmallind]

38. Most of them? His untimely death would be tops on their list.

What a few token liberal pastors want for their dozen-member churches might be worth considering, but the screaming theocratic juggernaut that speaks for the majority who actually put their money and effort into movement politics just want him gone preferably, and powerlessly submissive to the Dominionist House if that can't be arranged by one of their pet doctor-killers.

[cbayer]

43. Sometimes hyperbole and exaggeration can be very telling.

[dmallind]

49. It's worked for the theocrats for decades yes

That's why they have the power and the influence and liberal believers, however many or few there may be, have fuck all.

Want an illustration?

Stop 100 random people and ask them if they have heard of any of the three people you cite.

Ask the same people if they have heard of any of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and James Dobson

If the number who answer yes to the first set is as big as the number who say no to the second set (because nobody with a functioning brain would even dream the yes votes would be comparable), I'll donate $1000 to a church of your choice.

[cbayer]

52. It works for both theocrats and anti-theists.

I don't know what the results would be in a random survey, but it would be an interesting poll. My anecdotal experience would be very different, but that's about my environment and who I associate with.

Thanks for the offer of donation. If I did do this, I would ask that you donate to All Saints in Pasadena.

http://www.allsaints-pas.org

[dmallind]

54. You think so? Knowing that your dogwhistle refers to any nonbeliever, I don't see much working

in the US at least. We've tried silence, we've tried reason, we've tried academic discourse, we've tried humor, we've tried shock-jock ridicule, and the good ol' Christian majoritarian machine keeps on crushing us everywhere in every aspect. About all I can ever dream of us at least holding back outright theocracy. A fair and rational body politic on belief issues is a laughable fantasy for centuries to come.

You DO know the meaning of random I am sure of it, so please reconsider why you would suggest a different result to mine.

Let me know if you want to rake that survey - I'll be there with bells on; I suspect my money is safe though.

[cbayer]

60. We can knock them down together or you can throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[trotsky]

64. You mean as you are doing, rejecting nonbelievers' concerns?

That is not a very progressive or tolerant thing to do.

[dimbear]

80. IMHO, Obama's next four years will be a fabulous opportunity for rightwing preachers to

fatten their coffers by shearing their sheeple with the usual blather. Plus they don't have to explain why they walked over onto the dark side by giving Mormonism a day pass. O's re-election to them is just more proof that Satan is the Prince of this world.

They don't have any real problems any more than do the RW pundits, who are laughing all the way to the bank. (Except Beck, he's apparently headed for an asylum.)

[MineralMan]

81. IMO, what religious leaders want for the President is irrelevant.

The POTUS has his own religious beliefs, I'm sure. They may or may not guide him in his decisions. Religion has nothing to do with our government. Religious leaders are free to express their opinions, but they carry no weight whatsoever, or should not.

Let them speak to their followers about what their followers should do. Then let them keep their peace. If they attempt to tell the POTUS what to do, they are simply wrong to do so.

This is not a religious government. In fact, it is specifically not to be a religious government. That is part of our Constitution.

You want religious rule? Move to a theocratic country. That's not the USA.