Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Rise of the Religious Left

Rate this topic


Fireball
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hillary Clinton told the New York Times:

"I believe in the father, son, and Holy Spirit, and I have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit on many occasions in my years on this earth. I pray, I read the Bible, I read commentary on scriptures, I read other people’s faith journeys. That is, for me, at the real core of how I keep feeding my faith. And, I was lucky because, as I said at the faith and politics event, I was taught to pray and I inculcate it as a habit in my daily life."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democrats will say anything to get votes. There religiousness (is that a word?) is not an issue. They aren't going to ban abortion, gay marriage, or jail gays and atheists.

You guys are just looking for a reason to evade judgement of the Republican's for there religious fundamentalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democrats will say anything to get votes. There religiousness (is that a word?) is not an issue. They aren't going to ban abortion, gay marriage, or jail gays and atheists.

Maybe not, but we can be pretty sure that they are going to raise taxes to punish the wealthy, tell you what you can and can't do with your own healthcare, attempt to restrict our use of fossil fuels and therefore reduce our standards of living, and fall down in the war against radical Islam. The mixed up philosophy of the Democrats is going to lead to problems that equal or exceed anything the Religious wing of the Republican party might be able to accomplish under a McCain presidency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe not, but we can be pretty sure that they are going to raise taxes to punish the wealthy, tell you what you can and can't do with your own healthcare, attempt to restrict our use of fossil fuels and therefore reduce our standards of living, and fall down in the war against radical Islam. The mixed up philosophy of the Democrats is going to lead to problems that equal or exceed anything the Religious wing of the Republican party might be able to accomplish under a McCain presidency.

I disagree. Obama has a track record of getting nothing done. Judging strictly from past achievements, Obama would be by far the best candidate. Judging from a philosophical basis, the Democrats are also a better choice, because they don't have a coherent philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. Obama has a track record of getting nothing done. Judging strictly from past achievements, Obama would be by far the best candidate. Judging from a philosophical basis, the Democrats are also a better choice, because they don't have a coherent philosophy.

The office of the President has a great deal of power associated with it. Even if Obama or Clinton never get anything through Congress, they can still do tremendous damage to this country and to individual rights. You're right in that Obama doesn't have much of a track record. That makes him even more dangerous in my opinion. If you listen to him, he is a hard core leftist. Even Hillary seems to be constrained by the polls, whereas I don't think Obama feels that the same limitations apply to him.

In the current situation, if a Democrat gets elected, he/she will also have control of both houses of Congress. There is a much better chance of gridlock if we have a Republican president and a Democrat Congress. Sure the Republicans in the Senate might be able to hold things up, but I wouldn't bet that bunch of weak-willed unprincipled losers will have the backbone to stand up to a popular president and a Democrat majority in both houses of congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democrats will say anything to get votes. There religiousness (is that a word?) is not an issue. They aren't going to ban abortion, gay marriage, or jail gays and atheists.

You guys are just looking for a reason to evade judgement of the Republican's for there religious fundamentalism.

No one is arguing that Republicans and conservatives are secular, rational or good for the country.

It is important to document the increasing religiosity of the left. Why? For one, they are reaching for reasons to collectivize society: global cooling, global warming, the poor, the downtrodden, the declining economy. After spoon-feeding us religious bromides via the liberal media, it is not much of a stretch that leftist politicians might use the handy god/religion concept as a basis for collectivizing society.

In any case, it is interesting to observe the double standard of the liberal mainstream media. If a conservative such as George Bush or Mike Huckabee uttered the religious statements of Obama or Hillary, pundits in the liberal media would be up in arms, decrying those "religious fanatics" who are unfit to run America. Yet when a liberal such as Obama or Hillary utter those same religious bromides, the liberal media creates a context to imply that they simply are down-to-earth, wholesome people who can relate to the populous and thus are fit to run America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you listen to him, he is a hard core leftist. Even Hillary seems to be constrained by the polls, whereas I don't think Obama feels that the same limitations apply to him.

Can you please provide a few examples in terms of stated positions to illustrate how Barack Obama is more of a "leftist" than Hillary Clinton? Hillary Clinton is clearly worse in health care because she wants to make universal health care mandatory while Senator Obama's universal health care will not be mandatory. While both plans will be a disaster, Senator Clinton's plan will be even more of an abomination because of the extra layer of desired government control.

I cannot really tell the difference between them on any other issue besides that Senator Obama seems to be more sincere in his religion and will probably be significantly less competent as Commander in Chief. Furthermore, I think that President Clinton knows he made a mistake by not capturing Osama Bin Laden when he had the chance. He will advise Hillary to make sure that she does not make any similar mistakes.

In the current situation, if a Democrat gets elected, he/she will also have control of both houses of Congress. There is a much better chance of gridlock if we have a Republican president and a Democrat Congress. Sure the Republicans in the Senate might be able to hold things up, but I wouldn't bet that bunch of weak-willed unprincipled losers will have the backbone to stand up to a popular president and a Democrat majority in both houses of congress.

This will probably be my reasoning for reluctantly voting for John McCain in November against either Hillary or Barack. Things might change drastically if McCain takes Mike Huckabee as a running mate though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you please provide a few examples in terms of stated positions to illustrate how Barack Obama is more of a "leftist" than Hillary Clinton? Hillary Clinton is clearly worse in health care because she wants to make universal health care mandatory while Senator Obama's universal health care will not be mandatory. While both plans will be a disaster, Senator Clinton's plan will be even more of an abomination because of the extra layer of desired government control.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate. http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

According to the American Conservative Union ratings, Senator Clinton (D-NY) has a lifetime ACU rating of 9 (83rd place) and Senator Obama (D-IL) has a rating of 8 (86th place). So it appears they are pretty close, according to the ACU.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/mcc...cu_ratings.html

Of course these kinds of rankings aren't perfect and I probably wouldn't agree with some of the criteria they use to classify votes as "liberal" or "conservative".

I recently saw these Obama comments on the subject of nuclear weapon use:"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance" in Afghanistan or Pakistan, Obama said. He then added that he would not use such weapons in situations "involving civilians." "Let me scratch that," he said. "There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7080202288.html

One of the things that I find so bothersome about Obama is that he's essentially an unknown commodity. I wouldn't be surprised if as president he did some pretty radical things. For example, would it be inconceivable for Obama to decide to unilaterally disarm America and eliminate our nuclear arsenal? I don't think so.

I cannot really tell the difference between them on any other issue besides that Senator Obama seems to be more sincere in his religion and will probably be significantly less competent as Commander in Chief. Furthermore, I think that President Clinton knows he made a mistake by not capturing Osama Bin Laden when he had the chance. He will advise Hillary to make sure that she does not make any similar mistakes.
There's no doubt that Clinton and Obama aren't very different on the major issues. I just see the Clintons as more politically calculating, more aware of the importance of public opinion. The Clintons have radical dreams for America, but they know that they have to spoon feed them to the public.

This will probably be my reasoning for reluctantly voting for John McCain in November against either Hillary or Barack. Things might change drastically if McCain takes Mike Huckabee as a running mate though.

Agreed. I could never vote for a ticket that includes Huckabee. He's just a horrible person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the citations. I agree with you that those polls are probably not too informative in differentiating the two candidates. They both are ranked very similarly and we can both agree that "conservative" is a bad standard of value.

I recently saw these Obama comments on the subject of nuclear weapon use:"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance" in Afghanistan or Pakistan, Obama said. He then added that he would not use such weapons in situations "involving civilians." "Let me scratch that," he said. "There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7080202288.html

One of the things that I find so bothersome about Obama is that he's essentially an unknown commodity. I wouldn't be surprised if as president he did some pretty radical things. For example, would it be inconceivable for Obama to decide to unilaterally disarm America and eliminate our nuclear arsenal? I don't think so.

This is definitely a concern but my perception is that I cannot picture Barack Obama leading such an initiative. Unlike someone like Dennis Kucinich, Senator Obama has demonstrated that he is willing to cave into public opinion. For example, after being accused of being a dove when it comes to foreign policy, he blurted out how he would be willing to strike al Qaeda inside Pakistan without the Pakistani government's permission.

Nevertheless, I think Senator Obama more of a concern on this matter. If Nancy Pelosi spearheaded a nuclear disarmament initiative, I can picture President Obama be more willing to go along with it than President Hillary Clinton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Source: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...th-merchandise/

September 15, 2008

Obama campaign rolls out new 'faith merchandise'

Posted: 02:42 PM ET

(CNN) – The Obama campaign is preparing rolling out a new line of “faith merchandise” – the latest move in an ambitious effort to win over religious voters.

“Check out the Believers for Barack, Pro-Family Pro-Obama, and Catholics for Obama buttons, bumper stickers and signs….” says Obama Deputy Director of Religious Affairs Paul Monteiro in an e-mail obtained by the Beliefnet Web site.

“Believers for Barack rally signs and bumper stickers, along with all Pro-Family Pro-Obama merchandise, are appropriate for people of all faith backgrounds. We'll soon be rolling out merchandise for other religious groups and denominations, but I wanted to get this out to you without delay,” he adds.

Red highlight is mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Pew Research recently conducted a poll on religious & mystical practices in America. Prominent Objectivists have been denouncing Republicans because of their inclination towards religious mysticism while praising Democrats because of their inclination toward secular reality. Pew's recent poll results reveal the opposite:

Democrats believe in reincarnation more than Republicans (30% vs. 17%). Democrats believe in spiritual energy more than Republicans (30% vs. 17%). Democrats believe in astrology more than Republicans (31% vs. 14%). Democrats believe in Yoga spirituality more than Republicans (30% vs. 15%). Democrats believe in communicating with the dead more than Republicans (36% vs. 21%). Democrats believe in ghosts more than Republicans (21% vs. 11%). Democrats believe in fortune tellers more than Republicans (22% vs. 9%).

Source: http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=490

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note, Fireball, that every one of those things is anathema to a fundamentalist Christian. What does the poll say about christianity? What percentage of each party agrees with it?

That having been said, most people abandoning christianity will pick up some other nutter form of mysticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, atleast in Obama's case. Listen to him here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sy9kMxOEVs

He makes his position on the bible clear.

I haven't bothered to look, but I'd bet one can also find video clips of Obama talking about how he's deeply religious, etc... Let's face it, politicians like Obama play to their audience, saying whatever they think will resonate with the crowd. One minute he's secular and the next minute he's a committed religionist.

By the way, reading some of my earlier posts in this thread makes me look like friggin' Nostradamus. :) Obama is fulfilling all of my worst expectations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note, Fireball, that every one of those things is anathema to a fundamentalist Christian. What does the poll say about christianity? What percentage of each party agrees with it?

That having been said, most people abandoning christianity will pick up some other nutter form of mysticism.

I agree that organized religion -- in this case Christianity -- is a serious problem when admixed with government, and so I agree with Objectivists that Republicans should be punished by being ousted from the reigns of political power due to their explicit and genuine religiosity. But the more fundamental problem here is mysticism rather than one particular theology. In other words, if we drive Christians out of political power, but put in other mystics, what might arise could be equally bad...or worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that "praising" Dems is a little strong. We all recognize that their dedicaton to liberalism is irrational. They accept their dogma just as many of them accept other irrationalities. The question is, which of the two, the religious Republicans or generally, widely irrational Dems is the biggest threat. The Republicans are organized on two levels and have a common belief. At least the Dems vary and disagree in a lot of ways, and their political viewpoint is soundly discredited. Come to think of it, they also have environmentalism, which is a semi-organization. The Dems are certainly a threat. Who knows what will happen when Obama's promise is shown to be empty. They have their storm-troopers. The future is uncertain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, if we drive Christians out of political power, but put in other mystics, what might arise could be equally bad...or worse.
I don't see any evidence that this is possible, and I do see evidence to the contrary. The leftist New Age mystics don't have well-enough defined beliefs that they pose a serious threats to our rights, whereas the fundamentalist Christians do. Fundamentalist Christians have a profound feeling that they are right and that they know the word of God, whereas the mandala-shakers are drifting randomly in all directions. The few specific ideas that the candle-sniffers have (environmental fascism, pacifism, welfare statism) are now shared by the fundies.

The threat posed by theocracy does not come from fluffy belief in reincarnation, spiritual energy, astrology, seances, ghosts or fortune tellers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see any evidence that this is possible, and I do see evidence to the contrary. The leftist New Age mystics don't have well-enough defined beliefs that they pose a serious threats to our rights, whereas the fundamentalist Christians do. Fundamentalist Christians have a profound feeling that they are right and that they know the word of God, whereas the mandala-shakers are drifting randomly in all directions. The few specific ideas that the candle-sniffers have (environmental fascism, pacifism, welfare statism) are now shared by the fundies.

The threat posed by theocracy does not come from fluffy belief in reincarnation, spiritual energy, astrology, seances, ghosts or fortune tellers.

I agree, scratch the average new-age moron and you'll find an old hippy/leftist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is, which of the two, the religious Republicans or generally, widely irrational Dems is the biggest threat. The Republicans are organized on two levels and have a common belief. At least the Dems vary and disagree in a lot of ways, and their political viewpoint is soundly discredited.

I think you're giving too much credit to the Republicans. They aren't nearly as organized or as monolithic as some make them out to be, although they definitely do better at sticking together when they're out of power than when they're in-power. I don't know why people seem to think that the Dem's political viewpoint is soundly discredited. For being discredited, a lot of Americans sure did vote for that viewpoint in 2008. So many in fact that the Dems now control both houses of Congress and we have a far-left President leading the country in the wrong direction on almost every significant issue. If that's discredited, I'd hate to see what happens when their view becomes accepted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...