John Kerry Interview on RELIGION & ETHICS

[whometense]

http://www.religionnews.com/press02/PR092306A.html

Don't know anything about where this might be seen, but...

John Kerry Interview on RELIGION & ETHICS
*** MEDIA ADVISORY *** MEDIA ADVISORY *** MEDIA ADVISORY ***


In this week's edition of RELIGION & ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY, to be distributed Friday, September 22 at 5 p.m. ET (check local listings) correspondent Kim Lawton talks with Senator John Kerry about his spiritual reawakening after years of searching for the faith he lost in his youth.

Sen. Kerry outlined his vision of how faith can - and should - play a role in public life at a speech he gave earlier this week at Pepperdine University in California. Quoting frequently from the New Testament, he described how his Roman Catholic beliefs shape many of his policy positions. And he suggested a moral agenda he believes many people of faith can share. In his interview with Lawton, the Senator spoke candidly about his own spiritual journey. "It really changed how I was thinking about myself and God and my relationship to the church," Kerry observed. "And answers came that hadn't been there previously."

If you would like transcript copy of this interview, please e-mail Mary Schultz at [e-mail] or contact her at 202-216-2394.

Mary Schultz
Director of Communications
Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly
[e-mail]

[ProSense]

1. This is awesome!

Cool organization, secular perspectives on religion and ethics!

Kerry's speech is getting broad coverage!

[Mass]

2. That is an interview I will definitively skip. No offense, but I hope

this is not going to be a recurrent theme.

We need somebody who presents PROGRESSIVE VALUES in a SECULAR agenda that can be accepted by ALL. If people of "faith" cannot recognize themselves in a progressive agenda, too bad for them.

All this is going to do is to alienate a part of the base, which, whether they have a religious belief or not, want religion to be out of politics.

[TayTay]

3. Ah, the little warning bell in my head just went off

This PR said: Kim Lawton talks with Senator John Kerry about his spiritual reawakening after years of searching for the faith he lost in his youth.

It is my understanding from that speech at Pepperdine that the Senator's crisis of faith and belief happened about 20 years ago, not yesterday. Ahm, this could sound like an election year conversion unless it is handled truthfully.

Ahm, anyone see this?

[ProSense]

4. I saw it, but

it's typical of how people misinterpret statements as they try to write around quotes. This happens too with media spin. The speech was terrific and it should get the broadest coverage possible. I hope more people actually seek out and read the speech or listen to it!

[Mass]

6. Honestly, I am not sure why? I wished that Kerry would do the same

thing about a progressive agenda and let the religious part out. This would be a speech everyone could easily rally around. Promoting this speech, particularly the way it is promoted, will simply alienate those of us who think that politics and religion do not mix too well.

Once again, this speech was aimed at a given audience and was probably excellent given this audience. It is not necessarily great for a broader audience, who is not interested in the nuance of catholicism.

[ProSense]

8. Bush Kerry has given several

great speeches about a progressive agenda

John Kerry's Speech to the Campaign for America’s Future
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2006_06_13.html

I'm sure there will be more!

[Mass]

9. I just wished this country could go back to the notion of secularism (dont

mix religion and politics) and that politicians would not feel obliged to make speeches like that.

I understand that he could think he needed this speech, but I cannot consider this speech a great speech. It just does not speak to me and to millions of other americans. The only good news is that it is not offensive, contrarely to other speeches that I have heard from Democrats. I will never forget Landrieu explaining that the people who got struck by Katrina were good people: they went to church every sunday.


I want a speech where Kerry talks about ALL his values and his global vision from the future, not where they come from.

[ProSense]

15. That's fine!

That's your opinion. The speech will appeal to many millions of Americans, and I truly don't believe it will turn off that many people.

[beachmom]

21. I understand your lament, Mass

Dr. Ron agrees with you, too, except that he doesn't fault Kerry for the speech. He said the problem is with our society, that in order to get elected POTUS, you have to talk about God, and he really doesn't like that. I'm not sure how it is where you live, but I know people, including folks who mostly vote Dem, for which church and bible study and Wed. Church spaghetti night and so on is the center of their lives. They talk incessantly about God, Jesus, the Bible, their church politics, and on and on and on. I kind of got into a little spat with one of my friends here about . . . you guess it, religion . . . even though she voted for Kerry, even saw him speak when he came to our area. Yet her life is completely enveloped by God. I came home afterwards extremely angry that I was drawn into a totally stupid argument about religion when I would MUCH rather talk about the state of the world, for which this friend and I totally agree.

If these are the liberals, can you imagine the independents and conservatives? I think JK may have been in your place for many years -- he didn't want to do it (talk about God) and said as much in 2004 in his convention speech. And you know what? He lost the damned election, and now soldiers not unlike himself are being sent to a war that's already lost and they're getting maimed and killed, not to mention that we're engaging in state approved torture. On a personal level, I'm sure the carnage of the Iraq War has had a profound impact on him, coupled with his losing the election of his life. He looked into the abyss, and decided (was not forced into it), I'm ready to talk about God and my faith. And, I thought he did a fine job, and I really thought you liked it initially, too.

[karynnj]

22. I think we will get that - as it seems what he is leading to

In fact, it may well be the speech where he says he is definately running.

I didn't think the Dissent speech as given could be beat. This was a speech that I as a 60s anti-war person really wanted to hear, both for the strong 2006 statement and the affirmation of 1971. But, the strongest parts of that and the strongest parts of other speeches, including the list of Democratic values that were put together in both the Grinnel and American University speeches were fuller and better. For months, I posted links to the AU one, rather than the Dissent one - that I still love - when I hoped to get someone to understand where he was.

Now, I would be split between that one and the Real Security one now. I would imagine that the Pepperdine one would not figure much in a future value/global vision speech because it is way to detailed on religion. It would exist primarily as an underpinning for other speeches that mention morality. It also may signal, like a few other speeches this year, a much greater openest in showing who he is.

[ginnyinWI]

38. I agree with you, Mass

I think he saw the need to do a speech like this, and did it, but the fact that it seems necessary now is what is really sad. A person's core values and religion will help a politician form their policies and ideas, assuming they're not just in it for power and fame.

But it shouldn't need more than a passing mention! Just the kind of mention JK did during his campaign. It's just sadder than sad what the religious right has done, making themselves the Republican base and acting like they are the only ones who are good and right. (and there are oh, so many Bible verses warning them against that kind of pride and arrogance. It's almost like an idolatry, setting themselves up as God.)

I'm not faulting him for the speech, I'm faulting where this country is right now, thanks to Rove and the politics of division.

[TayTay]

11. I am very glad that Kerry gave this speech

The Wall of Separation between Church and State is a legal wall enacted to protect religion. That was the thinking behind the First Amendment guarantee that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

I think it is right for Democrats and especially right for Sen. Kerry to bring this up. Religious belief forms a part of the character of a person, like it or not. I think it serves the public trust when elected officials talk about their beliefs and that this is illuminating, not restrictive. I thought the Questions and Answers at Pepperdine were excellent and a dialogue that Democrats should be having with people of faith.

A lot of people confuse the action taken with the motivation behind it. I see absolutely nothing wrong with bringing up the question of motivation. There is no reason to be afraid of religion, there is a reason to be afraid of religious despots who try to impose their views on others and enact laws based on religious edicts. Knowing the difference implies a vigorous debate and dialogue that is content-rich and pointedly discusses belief, motivation and purpose. We need more of this kind of dialogue in America, not less.

There is something deeply offensive about ceding the talk about moral values, faith and belief-inspired action to the Religious Right. That has not worked for Democrats. There is also something fundamentally wrong with asking John Kerry to keep this to himself because 'good people don't talk about religion or morality in public.' If anything, his life at critical moments has been focused and crystalized around moral arguments. What made that speech in April of '71 so powerful anyway? It was, as much as anything, a call to conscience. Okay, what does that mean to him?

Sen. Kerry has repeatedly used the term 'immoral' to describe this Administrations actions in their War on Terror and in their actions in Iraq. I would like to know what Kerry means when he says and action is not just incompetent, not just cyncial and not just wrong; he plainly stated that it is 'immoral.' In what forum, in what place, and in what time do you think he could actually discuss what is a moral and what is an immoral action? His speeches lately are, again, as much calls to conscience as anything else. What informs that talk? What is the background?

What is meant by 'immoral'? Doesn't the answer to that imply a searching of the soul and a searching of conscience? Again, what forum is appropriate to you to discuss these searing topics? It's not as simple as 'we can't talk about religion in public.' We are implying religion, like it or not.

[Mass]

13. Obviously, we have very strong differences on these issues.

[ProSense]

18. One of the most illuminating statements

was: the church has a position, my job is to make policy.

That is a clear dinstinction: positions aren't policies.

[whometense]

23. A few days ago I might have disagreed with you,

but after seeing the Pepperdine speech, I think this is an essential and right thing for Kerry to do.

He made it clear that one of the ways he was smeared in 2004 was by allowing himself to be defined - negatively - by immoral republican operatives. In a perfect world there might be no need for this kind of revelation, but I thought Kerry's speech made an excellent case for why he needed to give it.

He explicitly talked about how his natural reticence to talk about something so personal allowed the right wingers to describe him as a godless New Englander. This speech laid out exactly why that was a smear, how it was untrue, and why he in particular needed to say it.

As a jew I'm pretty sensitive to talk about this being a "christian nation." In fact, every time I hear anyone talk about christian values it makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up a little. That's why I was so impressed with the speech he gave the other day. He somehow managed to describe his personal convictions and how his public stands are compatible with his private beliefs. He managed to be inclusive without being PC or phony. And I was genuinely moved by his determination to make himeslf understood. Everything he said in that speech was a perfect illustration of why he is such a fine human being and such an exemplary public servant. And in doing so I thought he made the administration look like the immoral fakers they really are, for all their god talk.

I agree with what you say about morality. Hearing him speak made me look at my own beliefs in a different way; I've always said that as a jew think I'm a better christian than most of those rightwing fascist types. And he showed a knowledge of scripture that I'm sure impressed the people at Pepperdine. This was clearly a speech given from the heart, and on a subjct he's given a great deal of thought to. (I've never before heard him refer to his divorce in public - that's how personal this speech was.)

I applaud his courage in saying what he said in a forum that would be naturally hostile to his politics.

[whometense]

25. check out this article:

How can anyone possibly read this and not understand what he's trying to do?

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/nation/15576682.htm?source=rss&channel=twincities_nation

Kerry speaks openly about his faith
Observers say he's shown Democrats a 'third way' to discuss religion and public life.
BY G. JEFFREY
MacDONALD

One of America's best-known politicians captivated a crowd at an evangelical college Monday with his intimate tale of being spiritually lost as a young adult — and then having a dramatic awakening.

"Suddenly and movingly, I had a revelation about the connection between the work I was doing as a public servant and my formative teachings" as a lifelong Roman Catholic, he said.

"Indeed, the Scriptures provided a firmer guide about values applied to life — many of the things you are wrestling with now today."

While that kind of speech may be routine — even obligatory — for many Republican politicians, the testimony at Pepperdine University on Monday came from Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee whose hesitance to discuss his personal faith came to symbolize his party's discomfort with faith-based politics.

Now some observers say Kerry has shown Democrats a "third way" of discussing faith and public life that comes across as genuine and heartfelt.

With Monday's speech, Kerry joined a growing group of prominent Democrats who have recently articulated how their religious beliefs came to shape their political visions...

[wisteria]

36. I agree with you.

His religion is a part of who he is and he felt a need to share this part of himself. I always felt he was hurt that people didn't see him for all of himself and some didn't believe he was a good man. Not that it is necessary to have faith in order to be good. I see nothing wrong with any politician speaking about his beliefs as long as he or she is honest about them. I question President Bush's faith though. He doesn't at all strike me as a very religious man, in his actions or his deeds. I think of him as an opportunist, willing to evoke God when necessary in order to win something.

Our political leaders from the beginnings of our country has mentioned God, in their speeches and writings. It was how our country was formed- "one nation, under God"....

[ginnyinWI]

39. I think some people like * see it as a kind of a club

You become a Christian, and then you are a "good guy" and better than the others. You don't say it, but you think it. And your fellow club-members feel that way too: smug and superior.

Of course this is exactly the opposite of what Jesus taught! He hung around with thieves and prostitutes, because they were the ones who most needed his message. Sigh.

But *'s kind of Christianity is the proverbial "bless-me club" where you go to keep away from the "taint" of those unsaved ones. And of course that means staying in your own denomination of Christianity, because all the others aren't as spiritual as yours!

Sorry to rant--this subject awakens a lot of old resentments in me!

[Mass]

5. This and other things throughout the media and the blogs.

Once again, this speech has been emptied of its substance, at least the one that was accessible to all of us (that people of faith should join and join others around a progressive agenda) and, people have only kept what interested them.

So, depending who was talking about it, it became:
- something on how Democrats were softening their view on abortions,
- something on how the Democrats were pandering to Christians,
- something about spirituality,
- and, even more bizarrely in two Boston Globe editorials, linked to the Kampf story (I still have not figured this one out, but..).

But calling for a progressive agenda was generally either absent of the reports OR relegated as a side point.

Once again, I was not offended by Kerry's speech, but, if I had not read the speech, I probably have sent him to hell.

[ProSense]

7. See that's the problem!

How on earth are Democrats going to be free to be themselves if they can't speak? It's all fear, all the time. Democrats need to speak up and be true to themselves and let the chips fall where they may. I'm not saying be stupid about it (which if it's genuine I can't see how that could be), but anything Kerry says will be pandering to some people, even with the speech in front of them.

I'm so pissed off right now watching this Clinton genuflecting from people who have long been accusing Kerry of pandering and being DLC! There is even a thread in GD with someone denouncing the Democrats for not speaking up and claiming they need to follow Clinton's lead.

Puke! Puke! Puke!

[Mass]

10. They can be themselves. The problem here is that Kerry has never spoken

about religion in his political life for the last 20 years and it was fine. Apparently, he thinks he HAS to speak about it here. This is not being who you are. This is being forced to do something you would not do normally, and this is where the problem lies.

No issue when it comes to Clinton and the reaction on GD. It is purely ridiculous.

[ProSense]

12. That is part of

being yourself: making decisions about your actions and standing by them. How can you say he was forced to do something he decided to do? That's an assumption that his decision was not his own!

He felt it was time and he stated why at the start of the speech. It was his decision, it's not our right to decide for him and label his decision as being wrong.

[Mass]

16. No, but it is our right to decide if we agree or not, rather than simply

saying it is great just because it is Kerry.

Some people will like it, some will not. That is all. Both are as respectable one as the others. It is tiring to see people attacked on GD because they dont think this speech is as great as you think. This is also perfectly counterproductive.

[ProSense]

19. I agree! We can agree or not on

how to characterize the speech, but we have no right to say his decision wasn't his own. I didn't attack anyone for saying the speech wasn't great. Saying the speech is pandering is not pointing out the flaws in the speech. Someone went so far as to say Kerry is "saying what people want to hear." Hmmmm! So it all about trying to portray this as pandering!

[TayTay]

14. I profoundly disagree with this

I completely agree with the Senator that, as a New Englander, he has not been explicit in his talk of religion. However, he has framed arguments in a moral context and has taken as a focus questions about morality. The government should not lie to it's people. The government should not fund terrorist groups who trade arms for hostages, espeically when they have explicitly said they weren't doing this. The government should not deal with dictators or act to uphold despot regimes that abuse their own people and commit torture and ignore poverty and despair in their populations.

I completely differ with you on this. More so than any other politician I have ever voted for or seen, Mr. Kerry's arguments are framed within a moral universe and his actions are taken when moral precepts are violated. There is nothing wrong, zero, zip, nada with exploring what that means, where he is coming from in his beliefs and so forth.

Kerry has explicitly disavowed making religious dogma or doctrine the law of the United States. This disavowal was complete and said many times. He is obviously not trying to impose his religious views on anyone. Why the attempt to censure him then? I don't get this. This fascinating politician is fascinating partly because he seems motivated by other things than just getting re-elected and seeking out what is popular and going with that. I, for one, would love to hear what those are. The Republic is in no danger of being overthrown by John Kerry's ideas of religious tolerance. What then is so damned dangerous about exploring those ideas in a public forum?

[MBS]

26. why Kerry has to do this

Sorry this is so long, but I felt the need to comment, and I hope that Mass reads this before he takes his break.
From my observations since 2003, Kerry has struck me as someone who takes his faith seriously, but that he's also someone (thank goodness) who's considered his religion a private matter, not to be trumpeted about. And that , as he doesn't take his religion lightly, he doesn't talk about it lightly. However, as his faith is a deep part of who he is, it is appropriate for him at some point to explain how they are connected.In my opinion, Kerry had to make this speech to (1) counter misunderstandings about who he is, and, especially to change the specific conversation about him (as preventive defense against being swiftboated by right-wing Catholics again) (2) to change the general conversation on faith and politics (see my comments on Danforth below) (3) to try to counter the fiction that the Dem party is "anti-religious".

John Danforth (whose approach to faith and politics is similar to Kerry's, even though he's a Republican) said today on Meet the Press that religion should not be used as a wedge issue, should not be the province of one political party, and that no political party should be the province of one religion or a single religious point of view. Danforth thinks that the polarization of politics is connected with the rise of the religious right. If a person says or thinks, "I know God's will, and you don't", that makes it impossible to have a conversation or to find common ground. (no kidding! ). I think that Kerry made this speech in order to point out that religion does not have to be (in fact should not be) synonymous with right-wing thinking, that is, it should not about intolerance, ultra-judgmentalism and the like, but instead should be a force that drives us to help each other, a force for respect of diversity of points of view, a force for peace. And that, whatever one's religious persuasion , America should be directing itself to priorities like these, helping each other, respect for diverse points of view, for stewardship of the environment, and for peace.

Everything I've heard Kerry say, from 2003 onwards, is adamantly in favor of separation of church and state, and not only tolerant of, but welcoming of , the value of multiple religious perspectives . I've never heard even a whisper of a thought from him that suggests that one religious "flavor" is more acceptable than another(In fact, he went out of his way in his security speech to Islamic terrorism as distinct from Islam, that Islam is an honorable way of life)., or that religious people are "better" than people who don't consider themselves religious (If nothing else, the last ghastly 6 years have certainly demonstrated the ridiculousness of THAT outmoded ideas!!).

From what he says, and what he does, I would say that Kerry's religion is all about deeds, not about mere words or "faith". Certainly, that walk-the-walk philosophy should resonate with all of us Democrats, regardless of religious (or non-religious or anti-religious) persuasions. The Democratic Party should be able to include religious and non-religious progressives within its boundaries. What we all have in common is a commitment to Democratic principles, which transcend any one religious (or anti-religious)persuasion. to put it bluntly, we'll never win a national election.

Here's an anecdote about Kerry that explains a lot about who he is, and his approach both to faith and politics.

In January 2003, the Paulist Center in Boston (more or less John Kerry's parish, and a church which has long emphasized social justice, and outreach to disaffected Catholics) gave an award to a priest, Thomas Doyle. Originally a church lawyer , working for the Vatican Embassy in DC, and , destined, by his own description, to advancement in the church hierarchy, was sent to New Orleans about 20-25 years ago to investigate reports of sexual abuse by priests there. He and two colleagues wrote a stinging report, and he continued to push , urgently, for reform. As a reward, he lost his Vatican job, and was sent abroad, to be chaplain at a US Air Force base in Germany. Doyle continues to be speak out against sexual abuse to this day.

Recognizing Doyle's courage and truth-telling, The Paulist Center gave Doyle its Isaac Hecker award in January 2003.
A friend of a friend of mine told me that he saw John Kerry at the awards ceremony that night. Remember that Kerry had declared his candidacy, or was about to declare his candidacy at this point, so a lesser person might have used this as a campaign/PR opportunity.
Did Kerry announce his presence to the press? Did he sit conspicuously in the front row, to Be Seen?
No. He arrived quietly, and sat in the balcony , in the back, just bearing witness.

Here are the important bits. He was there to witness that award. He did not call attention to himself, rightly deciding that the evening was about Doyle, not him.

Folks, whatever your attitudes toward religion, this is a good man. And he's the kind of guy who, for once, gives religion a good name.

[whometense]

27. very nice post!

Thank you! I love that anecdote about the award, which jibes with everything I've ever heard about him. What hurt the most about 2004 was not being able to break through the media noise to show what a good - and honest - man he is.

And you're among longwinded people here, so you should never feel it necessary to apologize for the length of a post. ;-)

[ProSense]

29. That was absolutely

captivating! Thanks for sharing!

[karynnj]

30. Wonderful post

All these things make what we lost in 2004 harder. Thank you so much for posting the story of the waard ceremony.

[MBS]

31. sorry for typos

you guys must be smart to have figured out what I was trying to say in my forest of glaring typos! AARGH!

[karynnj]

33. As one who makes many of my own, I didn't even notice any

typos - just a story I never heard and some great comments.

[TayTay]

34. I completely agree.

It is very sad, in a way, that those of us in Mass keep bringing up these small things that happen that get no notice. And yet, to respect those things that happened, you can't hype them either, that would destroy their intent. Sigh! We posted here about that wonderful reply Sen. Kerry gave to the Vietnam vet on the DKos post and how that was a really great thing to do. (And very consistent, from what I know of the good Senator.)

We posted, oh so quietly, about that poor woman in Boston who was brutally murdered when she went to place flowers at the spot her brother had been shot to death. We know who paid for the funeral here. (And again, you can't hype this stuff; it is, in some sense, not a decent thing to do.) I know a lot of stories like this. Hell, I even know that Sen. Kerry came out to meet a bunch of 'wild women' in Boston who came to see him speak last year, mostly, I think from curiosity and to genuinely say thank you. (I honestly think that. And I think it was damned nice of him to do so.)

I completely agree with you, this is a very decent human being. I think I am lucky to have someone of this quality as a Senator. I also know, despite the Globe snarkiness and the Herald nastiness and so forth, a lot of people in Massachusetts feel this way. This is indeed a good and decent man.

[_dynamicdems]

35. What a great post!

Thank you for that story about Thomas doyle. The senator is for real and his faith is real. I cannot even imagine how it must infuriate him to have other politicians use God and religion to perpetuate their intolerance, greed and lust for power. These certainly weren't things I was taught to worship in Sunday school.

[kerrygoddess]

40. Thank you MBS

That was so well put. I think the interview really sheds some light on JK thoughts around giving this speech last Monday. It wasn't something that he gave lightly and his faith, as he said during the campaign is not something that he wears on his sleeve.

I can only say again, I'm glad he gave the speech, it was honor to be in the room. Again, thanks MBS, your post put tears in my eyes.

[kerrygoddess]

32. Actually he has spoken about it

He did give a speech in October '04 that had similar themes, and he has referred to the scriptures in other speeches. I don't get for one minute that he was forced to give this speech - it came purely from the heart.

Speeking as someone who left the Catholic church in my teens, who has a business based on new age philosophy and has studied everything from the Tao, to Buddhism, to Wicca, to Shamanism and A Course In Miracles, I think John Kerry is light years beyond others in the party talking religion. He gets that all faiths and all beliefs count.

In his intereview in Windsurfer Mag in 03 he spoke about his spiritual beliefs and it epitomizes his the fact he is extremely open-minded and all encompassing:

AW: You mentioned spirituality with windsurfing. Tell me your views on that.

JK: Spirituality is a fundamental for us. I mean, it's the-it is the overpowering, driving foundation of most of the struggles that we go through here on earth, in my judgement. I am a believer in the Supreme Being, in God. I believe, without any question in this force that is so much larger and more powerful than anything human beings can conceivably define.

I think the more we learn about the universe, the more we learn about black holes and the expansion of the universe and the more we learn what we don't know about: our beginnings and-not just of us, but the universe itself, the more I find that people believe in this supreme being. I'm a Catholic and I practice but at the same time I have an open-mindedness to many other expressions of spirituality that come through different religions. I'm very respectful and am interested-I find it intriguing.

I went to Jerusalem a number of years ago on an official journey to Israel and I was absolutely fascinated by the 32 or so different branches of Catholicism that were there. That's before you even get to the conflict between Arabs and Jews. I have spent a lot of time since then trying to understand these fundamental differences between religions in order to really better understand the politics that grow out of them. So much of the conflict on the face of this planet is rooted in religions and the belief systems they give rise to. The fundamentalism of one entity or another.
So I really wanted to try to learn more. I've spent some time reading and thinking about it and trying to study it and I've arrived at not so much a sense of the differences but a sense of the similarities in so many ways; the value system roots and the linkages between the Torah, the Koran and the Bible and the fundamental story that runs through all of this, that connects us-and really connects all of us.

And so I've also always been fascinated by the Transcendentalists and the Pantheists and others who found these great connections just in nature, in trees, the ponds, the ripples of the wind on the pond, the great feast of nature itself. I think it's all an expression that grows out of this profound respect people have for those forces that human beings struggle to define and to explain. It's all a matter of spirituality.

I find that even - even atheists and agnostics wind up with some kind of spirituality, maybe begrudgingly acknowledging it here and there, but it's there. I think it's really intriguing. For instance, thinking about China, the people and their policy-how do we respond to their view of us? And how do they arrive at that view of us and of the world and of life choices? I think we have to think about those things in the context of the spiritual to completely understand where they are coming from. So here are a people who, you know, by and large, have a nation that has no theory of creationism. Well, that has to effect how you approach things. And until we think through how that might effect how you approach things, it's hard to figure out where you could find a meeting of the minds when approaching certain kinds of issues.

So, the exploration of all these things I find intriguing. Notwithstanding our separation between church and state, it is an essential ingredient of trying to piece together an approach to some of the great vexing questions we have internationally.

AW: Do you think that we are headed for more enlightened spirituality or are we doomed to crawl back to the caves?

JK: That's the test! That's exactly what the challenge of life is all about and some people find that. I mean, look at the Dalai Lama who I've spent some time with and who is absolutely intriguing. Extraordinary person. He is certainly telling us there is life from enlightenment-here and hereafter, but I think, whether or not we're going to be is the great test that all of us are struggling with. That's part of what makes life so challenging and so much fun.

http://www.americanwindsurfer.com/MAG/BACK/issue5.5c.html

[wisteria]

37. Your assuming he is being forced to talk about a part of who he is,

when, maybe he is ready to actually share this personal part of himself with others. There was a time when it was not seen as proper to bring up ones religious beliefs in the contex of politics. The space between the two, has become smaller in recent years and this has made others feel more comfortable speaking up.

[Mass]

17. OK, I will take a break from the forum. I can see the differences are too

deep right now.

[beachmom]

20. Too late, I missed it!

It was shown here at 12 PM. Are they going to put it up or podcast it?

It is noteworthy that all of those Sunday PBS programs (every last one of them) are run by conservatives and all have a right wing bias.

Did anybody watch it?

[whometense]

28. Video and extended interview links

Boston shows it at 7am!

Here's the link: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week1004/newsfeature.html

Video here: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week1004/newsfeature.html#

Extended interview: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week1004/excerpt2.html

[karynnj]

41. Thanks for the links

The extended interview is really worth reading. He does address some of the concerns of Mass and others, saying this would not be an appropriate speech in a campaign and speaking in a more inclusive way on belief.

[karynnj]

24. This article may show part of the motivation

I went to look at Belivenet.com because it was a reasonable balanced site during 2004. My daughter (the 18 yr old who wrote the comments I posted) had shown this site to me in 2004. They have nothing on Kerry's speech, but they do have this analysis of 2004.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/167/story_16763_1.html

Imagine how this reads to Kerry, a genuinely religious person. Although more subtle by far, Kerry's image on religion and morality, was nearly as distorted as his service record. Given who they really were, Kerry should have won this group:


"Kerry may well have lost the close contest among the "Convertible Catholics," white Catholics with moderate beliefs and practices. Earlier in the campaign, Kerry led in this swing group. But Bush edged out Kerry, 55% to 45%, on the basis of foreign policy concerns.

Clearly, Democrats who are planning a comeback for 2008 or in the 2006 congressional elections need to absorb both the impact of the Religious Left and the devastating effect of having lost the moderate Catholic vote. It will be very hard for a Democrat to win without realizing that a big chunk of the party is not secular."

If there is one group this speech will appeal to it's convertible Catholics - people from Kerry's own heritage.