The Compassion Forum

[Technosoul]

For the first time a special forum of questions and answers (which are often debated about) was conducted today where Presidential canidates answered questions about politics, social programs, and religon which were directed at them by CNN hosts and by religious leaders from different faith groups.

McCain did not take part as he had other things to do.

Hillary Clinton came across as the most spiritural of the two and comprehended the felt experience of faith more so then Obama, who had a more matter-of-fact intellectural manner of answering questions. (my opinon)

None the less they were both crowd pleasers and got standing cheers.

If you missed it, in a day or so you might be able to find the whole transcript or video posted on the internet. CNN might post such a link on their webpage.

Topics covered: Abortion debate. Assested suicide. global warming, seperation of religion and state. Evolution verses the biblical 6 day creation. Domestic and global health. Poverty. Why would God allow suffering in the world. AIDS. Torture or misstreatment of POWs.
Does religion have too much influence over poltics? Does life begin at conception? And of course about the commets of Rev Wright.

No questions about Israel's role in the middle east. No questions about immigration as a morality issue. No questions about discrimination.

I will make some more personal comments about their answers later in follow-up postings, in order to leave this O.P. somewhat non-bias.

[Technosoul]

Some of the more interesting answers made by canidates.

Obama and Clinton both supported the right of choice concerning abortion. Both said that things can be done to make pro-life a better option when making that choice.

Obama supported the right of a person to terminate their own life when suffering from a terminal disease.

Obama accepted a challenge to cut domestic poverty in half within a time frame of six years after being elected. (Clinton was not asked that question).

But over all they both said about the same thing concerning questions they asked where the some when asked the same
questions.

Clinton said that "God does not tell her what to do" (out of context of a more expand explanation ).

[Jack]

Too bad all the candidates feel the need to pander to the religious. Why can't we have a ballsy candidate who answers, "Why do you need to know about my faith? I'm not running for Pope."

[Anmon]

Faith is an important subject to most voters in America, who are religious, and candidates for their own political survival should acknowledge this whether they like it or not.

[Technosoul]

[quote=Isherwood;495576]Too bad all the candidates feel the need to pander to the religious. Why can't we have a ballsy candidate who answers, "Why do you need to know about my faith? I'm not running for Pope."[/QUOTE)

For one reason is that they have such beliefs that are simular to the majority of other Americans and therefore those who are athiests or who are concerned about consitutional values have the right to know if or how those beliefs might influence their policy making, especailly realitive to social issues or those choices that should be done in private by our citizens. Would they push for religious agendas? would they appoint judges based on some bias that is motivated by religious goals?
And if so, how would they go about doing that.

They both went into detail about those very concerns. McCain refused to talk about his religious motivations although he pandered to the right wing religions in his view that abortion is immoral.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Isherwood Too bad all the candidates feel the need to pander to the religious. Why can't we have a ballsy candidate who answers, "Why do you need to know about my faith?

Because they have to court the theocratic vote. From what I understand, even Mussolini feigned to be religious. Politicians are crafty. To generalize what I mean, even Hitler would put aside his intolerance of other countries in his propaganda.

And, when politicians flipflop in our collective face, they can chalk it up as our misinterpreting what they previously said. That's the wonderful world of politics.

Grandpa h.

[Technosoul]

Here is the sum total of the Demcratic platform relative to the concerns of religion.

1. Government can work with religion to overcome social ills as long as the project is open to everyone and if the religion will focus on the problem (such as poverty) and do not use the program as a way to convert people to join a church.

2. People of faith have a right to bring thier ideas into the public square and to voice their concerns, and political leaders have a right to use religious terms when speaking at governmental gatherings.

3. Abortion should be legal and safe but the government should help to make abortions rare via educational programs. Such as the program Hillary Clinton authored for teens.

4. The two canidates feel that they do not know if life starts at conception. Obama said "A woman should not be punished with a baby for having dumb sex". (that was one of his top ten quotes).

5. Islam can be compatible with our society and our ideas of democracy.

6. The theory of evolution and the concept of creationism is compatable.

7. The ideas of morality should be promoted but by using secular terminology instead of with religious references.

8. As a nation we should not claim that God is on our side, but rather we should try to be on His Side. (whatever the heck that means?).

9. Obama said "I am a sinner like everyone else, and we should not expect our leaders to be 100 precent perfect".

10, Clinton has more experience when it comes to faith. She started when she was a little girl. Obama was educated in youth at a Islamic school but did not get interested in religion or in attending church until after he left law school, due to the social programs that his church was involved in. Obama's parents did not take part in organized religion because churches discriminated agenst mixed marrages (back then).

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

[Charlatan]

I don't think that religion should be used to get votes. People say what they think is right and try to play it down the middle as far as possible in all the things we have heard because then you get both votes, not just the one that you support, but the one that both sides of the voting people support, so to get real answers out of them you would need to be an undercover cop with a wire asking them questions when they are very angry, so as to avoid this lulled middle path they are walking.

Religion and politics, what are they to do with one another? We have religion for people that feel they need to get in touch with God, and also to compliment cultures of the world with more input from it. Is this a personality quiz? Why waste time finding out what the candidates think about religion when you have in all honesty seeing the system of religion change as much as nothing - there aren't going to be any notable changes to religious tidings here, as it works out for the majority. This is another one of those things where people want to get in touch with the candidates and see what they are liking and disliking, like a interview with a celebrity from People magazine. It is pointless.

Now what they said was that they want to see things not change, but people are voting for change. You hear it all the time from Obama, that he wants to change things, but can you see him changing any of the things that they discussed, except for the thing about decreasing the debt of the nation? How will that help anybody, they will still be able to borrow the same from the banks, so that will affect them very little. When people hear change they see their bank loan ability going up, their standard of living going up, so on. I don't think there will be a lot of change, excpet for the withdrawal from Iraq. Just how are the changes going to help the litle people, as I can see them helping the government more than the citizens.

[Milton Bradley]

I found this absolutely sickening.


I can't believe anybody actually believes this women, or anything she says.


She strikes me as somebody that like to talk just to hear her own voice.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I found this absolutely sickening. I can't believe anybody actually believes this women, or anything she says. She strikes me as somebody that like to talk just to hear her own voice.

Sort of like 80 percent of the people who debate things on this forum?

Sort of like the 80 percent of voters who feel no one is listening to what they say but thier own bio-feedbacks?

I did not find it sickening at all, but a rather refreshing change from all the non-personal yakking we hear most of the time in political debates.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Charlatan I don't think that religion should be used to get votes. People say what they think is right and try to play it down the middle as far as possible in all the things we have heard because then you get both votes, not just the one that you support, but the one that both sides of the voting people support, so to get real answers out of them you would need to be an undercover cop with a wire asking them questions when they are very angry, so as to avoid this lulled middle path they are walking. Religion and politics, what are they to do with one another? We have religion for people that feel they need to get in touch with God, and also to compliment cultures of the world with more input from it. Is this a personality quiz? Why waste time finding out what the candidates think about religion when you have in all honesty seeing the system of religion change as much as nothing - there aren't going to be any notable changes to religious tidings here, as it works out for the majority. This is another one of those things where people want to get in touch with the candidates and see what they are liking and disliking, like a interview with a celebrity from People magazine. It is pointless. Now what they said was that they want to see things not change, but people are voting for change. You hear it all the time from Obama, that he wants to change things, but can you see him changing any of the things that they discussed, except for the thing about decreasing the debt of the nation? How will that help anybody, they will still be able to borrow the same from the banks, so that will affect them very little. When people hear change they see their bank loan ability going up, their standard of living going up, so on. I don't think there will be a lot of change, excpet for the withdrawal from Iraq. Just how are the changes going to help the litle people, as I can see them helping the government more than the citizens.

The politics of compassion in action, and moral justice, played a hugh role in changing the culture of South Africa, but did it really boost that economy for the average citizen? How would you critic the politics of the location you live at to the current goals of our Democratic party here in America? Did it work for you guys?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Technosoul I did not find it sickening at all, but a rather refreshing change from all the non-personal yakking we hear most of the time in political debates.

Are you saying you believed most, or all of those answers?


If so, you are as misguided as she in the proper function of this government.


I just cannot respect somebody so detached from reality.


All of this effort put into the struggle for Utopia will only lead to Dystopia.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Isherwood Too bad all the candidates feel the need to pander to the religious. Why can't we have a ballsy candidate who answers, "Why do you need to know about my faith? I'm not running for Pope."

Because the president is elected by the majority and people who don't care about faith are still a minority.

Hillary seemed to hint the reason Kerry and Gore lost was because they failed to show they were religious enough :
"We had two very good men, and men of faith, run for president in 2000 and 2004," she said, referring to Al Gore and John Kerry. "But large segments of the electorate concluded that they did not really understand, or relate to, or frankly respect their ways of life."

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: HelioPrime Because the president is elected by the majority and people who don't care about faith are still a minority. Hillary seemed to hint the reason Kerry and Gore lost was because they failed to show they were religious enough : "We had two very good men, and men of faith, run for president in 2000 and 2004," she said, referring to Al Gore and John Kerry. "But large segments of the electorate concluded that they did not really understand, or relate to, or frankly respect their ways of life."

So you're comfortable with the concept of elected Representatives appealing to peoples ignorance to get elected?


Because the obvious implication here, is that appealing to their the relgious belief trumps the issues.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Obama supported the right of a person to terminate their own life when suffering from a terminal disease.

Hey if you want to kill yourself, thats your business, I just don't see why you have to bring a doctor into it, have the balls to do it yourself if you're going to do it.

Milton, we really can't blame the politicians as long as it ontinues to work because people are ignorant.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Milton Bradley So you're comfortable with the concept of elected Representatives appealing to peoples ignorance to get elected? Because the obvious implication here, is that appealing to their the relgious belief trumps the issues.

Wait.... don't PEOPLE decide the issues?

If the majority feel a presidents faith is an important consideration then clearly that has a factor in most people's minds as to how that leader might deal with whatever issues.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: HelioPrime Wait.... don't PEOPLE decide the issues?

toledoblade.com -- Clinton says she'd support Ford, GM, Chrysler bailouts


I guess not.


Looks like she is just like the crooks she seeks to replace.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Are you saying you believed most, or all of those answers? If so, you are as misguided as she in the proper function of this government. I just cannot respect somebody so detached from reality. All of this effort put into the struggle for Utopia will only lead to Dystopia.

I suppose a few Ron Paul people and handfull of antheists would not vote for her or Obama because of their religious ideas. But I do not think we should discriminate just because someone is religious as that would not sound very consitutional to me.

The forum was more about how they function individually and personally and not about how the government as in insitution should function.

However a number of religious people who do not like the radical ideas of the conservative right wing can now feel comfortable with liberals, the Republicans have always been the party for church going people and now that has changed, hey, Democrats can relate those people also.
They are now "in touch" with mainstream Amcrica rather then only with intellectuals.

So the Demos added females, blacks, and spiritual people to their "fold" as potential leaders. Where as Republicans are still stuck with traditional "old white guy" and their dinosaur politcs of bombs and fundamentalism religion.

"Utopia will lead to Dystopia"? Are you our new in-house prophet? Putting together a government that is of and for the people has nothing to do with a Utopia. I guess you are out of touch with the actural democratic platform.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Milton Bradley toledoblade.com -- Clinton says she'd support Ford, GM, Chrysler bailouts I guess not. Looks like she is just like the crooks she seeks to replace.

If people support that decision then she's following her role of supporting the majority opinion.

Doing what voters want is more important than clinging strictly to 200 year old guidelines.

If you'd rather stick to a candidate who only follows the constitution then you'll always be supporting a novelty candidate.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: HelioPrime If people support that decision then she's following her role of supporting the majority opinion. Doing what voters want is more important than clinging strictly to 200 year old guidelines. If you'd rather stick to a candidate who only follows the constitution then you'll always be supporting a novelty candidate.

I wonder, if Jefferson were alive today, could he win an election in our modern times? Could Madison win or even John Adams? If they presented thier original ideas?. Or would the bomb like Ron Paul and other such canidates?