Religion in the Race, A Double Standard?

[StrykerFSU]

Anyone remember when Mike Huckabee recorded a campaign spot in front of a bookshelf and the media exploded because they said he was appearing before a cross and he was an evangelical and he's be just like Bush???

Well now we have this:
http://race42008.com/2008/05/12/barack-obamas-pitch-in-kentucky/ Cue outrage...

Why does Obama get a pass from the secularists when he talks about his need to go out and do the Lord's work? Obama is an Evangelical, why does no one on the left seem to care in his case?

[Zeuslax]

He doesn't get a free pass, because the right has consistently tried to paint him as a muslim. There's a large portion of the population that still believe this, but fortunately most of them will never vote for a black man anyway! Now Hannity and others are planting that he's a "sleeper". What ever that means.

[Jay Wisnieski]

He doesn't get a free pass, because the right has consistently tried to paint him as a muslim.

It seems to be working, too. It starts 16 seconds in:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNbLQ6DC8mw[/youtube]

[StrykerFSU]

I will rephrase, why was it so horrible that Huckabee allegedly used Christian imagery in a commercial but no one cares about Obama's flyer? Why is it okay that Obama is an Evangelical but it was a strike against Huckabee and has been consistently used against Bush?

I have yet to see that addressed by the media and therefore, I think he is getting a free pass. I also think it's hypocritical that so many on the left have used religion against Conservatives over the past 8 years but now are so comfortable with faith being front and center in a Democrats' campaign. Anyone recall the fallout after Bush made comments that God had given him instructions? How is that different from Obama saying that he must do God's will? I can only hope that this will become an issue during the general election.

And I completely disregard anyone that makes any allusion to Obama being a Muslim.

[Adam Gamradt]

Is that a real image from his campaign?

Looks like it's part of someone's photobucket website.

I'm not saying it's photoshopped, but I can't find the image anywhere on the link www.ky.barackobama.com

If this is a real campaign photo, I will agree it's pretty ridiculous. If it's not, it's just more right wing idiocy.

Not that anyone would want to make up something that wasn't true about the man with a funny name. On our trip to Texas, I actually had a conversation with a woman who complained that Obama was a Muslim, and that his Pastor was a bigot. Some people are incredibly stupid. We've certainly not heard the end of the anti-Obama zealots. Racism is still very much alive in this country. On CNN the other day, in Kentucky, a man was asked what Obama needs to do to get elected. His response? Try not to be so black.

Again, if this is a real campaign photo, I will speak out against it. If it's not, Cliff owes me a coke.

Here's a couple of links to the ongoing smear campaign if you're so inclined. I'm only pointing these out to make a point. You simply don't see this kind of virulent attack coming at McCain.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/b ... muslim.htm

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2008/04/ ... m-new.html

Obama, Black, White, or Yellow
http://laotze.blogspot.com/2008/02/obam ... ellow.html

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

[Adam Gamradt]

Perhaps it is a real image. I didn't complain about Huckabee, even though I find his religiousness unappealing.

Looking through these quotes, it seems that god or God has always played a role in politics.

http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln78.html

One of my favorites has always been:

"Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right."

So far I haven't seen Obama use the pulpit to claim political points. Perhaps this image is proof that he's doing so.

Although from this link, it's clear the ad was intended only for faith based groups, which in my opinion, does change the argument slightly.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... -cros.html

Not to move the goal posts here, but look at the number of urban legends against Obama, vs. the number of urban legends about McCain.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp#anthem

http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/mccain.asp

[DRich17]

One of my favorites has always been:

"Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right."

I heard this within the last 72 hours on a movie I believe... I can't think of which one.

It's all bogus that religion, or lack there of, is taken into account. First amendment says not only is one free to choose his religion, but that he is also free to choose not to have one. I personally will not vote for someone because he is or is not of similar religious faith, but I refuse to accept some radical who believes god is "on his side"

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited."
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922

I almost would prefer a person without religion

[Steno]

Cliff -
See, I have a problem when someone from the Right says that two men can't marry because of the Bible, but if someone says that it is God's work to help the poor, then it's just fine. I don't care where your humanitarian streak comes from, so long as it's there. You can evangelize all you want, but using God as a tool to say no to gay marriage and the right to privacy is evangelizing hate, not love. Obama spreads the gospel of love and tolerance, and that is why he gets his 'free pass.'

However, it should be noted that the media is a souless group of jerks and who cares what they say anway.

[DanGenck]

Matt,

I would play on your ultimate frisbee team any day.

Cheers,

[StrykerFSU]

Thanks for the answer Matt. I do think that if Obama is going to use this kind of imagery then he needs to clearly define what his religion means to him. How does he balance his faith with issues such as abortion, same sex marriage, etc? You can't just appear under a cross to pander to the religious without backing it up...that is if the media is doing their job.

Adam, I agree that Obama has faced some pretty fierce and in some cases unfounded attacks. But I think as the future rocket scientists from Texas so clearly illustrated, the people that fall for that stuff are idiots. That is not to excuse those who perpetuate the rumors. I guess the Internet is a double-edged sword (and not just a bunch of tubes). However, I think a lot of these rumors feed on the ignorance that is a direct result of Obama's low profile before this election. Much of the electorate doesn't know his story and what legislative and voting record he has on the Federal level is exceedingly liberal creating ample opportunity for those that oppose his politics to use innuendo and lies in some cases to cast doubt about his background. It is certainly not right, his policies are enough to make me not vote for him

[Jac Coyne]

Obama, as well as Clinton, have delcared they are against gay marriage.

Here is a quote from Obama in the Chicago Tribune. I'll assume it's part of the same "gospel of love and tolerance" mentioned above.

"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

You can evangelize all you want, but using God as a tool to say no to gay marriage and the right to privacy is evangelizing hate, not love.

Ooops!

Interestingly enough, Obama supports civil unions for homosexuals.

So essentially what he is saying is: Because I am a left-wing politician it is important for me to pander to the gay community because it is part of the Democratic constituency, so I'm in favor of civil unions. However, I don't want them in my church on Sunday.

That's okay with the liberals though. Just don't call him a Muslim.

[wheelz33]

Not that anyone would want to make up something that wasn't true about the man with a funny name. On our trip to Texas, I actually had a conversation with a woman who complained that Obama was a Muslim, and that his Pastor was a bigot. Some people are incredibly stupid. We've certainly not heard the end of the anti-Obama zealots. Racism is still very much alive in this country. On CNN the other day, in Kentucky, a man was asked what Obama needs to do to get elected. His response? Try not to be so black.

Racism is still alive in this country, but whites being racist isnt the biggest problem...

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewa ... race-11379

"To put the truth plainly: far from there being a racial stand-off in the United States, relations between blacks and whites have never been better. According to virtually every survey of racial attitudes taken over the last several decades, only about 10 percent of whites report generally unfavorable views of blacks. In a 2007 Pew Research Center poll, the relevant figure stood at 8 percent—lower, interestingly enough, than the percentage of blacks reporting similarly negative views of their fellow blacks."

Article is lengthy, but makes some great points on certain points of the race issue Obama seems to ignore...

[Steno]

Jac, you need to stop looking and facts and face the truth. Sorry, been watching too much Colbert.

But seriously, Obama needs to bring the Christian God to the forefront of his campaign in order to garner any votes in this hysterically Puritanical country.

In his interview with The Advocate, Obama said:

So I strongly respect the right of same-sex couples to insist that even if we got complete equality in benefits, it still wouldn’t be equal because there’s a stigma associated with not having the same word, marriage, assigned to it. I understand that, but my perspective is also shaped by the broader political and historical context in which I’m operating. And I’ve said this before -- I’m the product of a mixed marriage that would have been illegal in 12 states when I was born. That doesn’t mean that had I been an adviser to Dr. King back then, I would have told him to lead with repealing an antimiscegenation law, because it just might not have been the best strategy in terms of moving broader equality forward.

That’s a decision that the LGBT community has to make. That’s not a decision for me to make.

He goes on to talk about how even Kennedy didn't push to overturn antimiscegenation, but still provided ground for Civil Rights to be a moral issue in the country.

Obama is just being politically smart - I'd rather have someone as thoughtful as him in office than that Teutonic Twit McCain:

John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.

That's from John McCain.com. Yep, drugged out single mothers are WAAAYYYY better at raising a family than a couple of dudes with steady jobs. I can see this logic taken to the next level of outlawing divorce. 16th-century England, here we come!

Also, look at who McCain.com and Obama.com are stuctered - the family 'issue' takes center stage on Mcain's and you have to hunt for it on Obama's. I just feel like Barack has is priorities on the issues straightened out more than McCain, who is constantly having his life dictated by an outdated Middle-Eastern moral code written at a time when we all lived in tents and were 2,000 years closer to our monkey ancestors.

Final thought: Obama is pandering, McCain is a fire-eyed zealot.

[StrykerFSU]

Just so I understand... John McCain, the man who coined the term "agents of intolerance" to describe Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, is a fire-eyed zealot?

I just feel like Barack has is priorities on the issues straightened out more than McCain, who is constantly having his life dictated by an outdated Middle-Eastern moral code written at a time when we all lived in tents and were 2,000 years closer to our monkey ancestors.

I don't see where you get this. You go from a quotation that discusses the traditional gender roles of mother and father and first twist them to say something about drug addicted single moms to something about divorce that I didn't understand. And then McCain is a zealot even though there was nothing about religion in the quotation at all.

Obama has been using his faith on the campaign trail to a far greater extent than McCain. I see what you are trying to do by trying to paint McCain as the crazy religious zealot and therefore the Evangelical Obama is more palatable to secularists. Unfortunately, it's just not true. Isn't one of the big concerns regarding McCain's nomination that he won't be able to inspire the Evangelical wing of the GOP? Isn't that why Huckabee's name has been kicked around for VP?

And thanks Jac, for pointing out Hillary and Barack's positions on gay marriage. I don't think that social issues are important at the Federal level so I haven't been following that aspect of the campaign and had just assumed that liberal =pro gay marriage.

I think this just goes to show that Obama's Evangelicalism is palatable to the left because he's their Evangelical and he's just pandering...he doesn't really think these things. But Republicans who are Evangelicals are evil because they really believe what they say.

[Adam Gamradt]

Cliff,

I think I see your point. We're able to ignore religious pandering as long as it runs parallel to our world view.

I'd like to commend the message boards on the fact that we've had a substantial discussion about something important, and no one has insulted anyone, or said anything really egregious or offensive. Kudos!

Gay Marriage is an interesting debate. The notion that the definition of marriage has remained constant is a farce. Even 30-40 years ago, the term meant something completely different than it did today. I promise to obey my husband? I don't know how things work in your house, but in mine, that crappie doesn't swim.

However, the word marriage has recently lost some of it's religious connotations. The choice of the term civil union to redefine the relationship between two people of the same gender is distasteful. Especially given the fact that the use of such terminology is intended simply to appease people who demand the law no longer discriminates against homosexuals. Also, the term civil union is used as political neutral ground, a safe harbor if you will, allowing for otherwise reasonable people to duck the issue. Quite frankly, I find it demeaning all all people, married or otherwise, to have a separate but equal definition just for gay people. As someone with gay friends, it's abhorrent to think they could be deprived access to their loved ones in a time of crisis. I think of the story of my friend, who is a certified minister. When one of his friends fell ill, he was allowed in to see her, but her partner was not, unless he was present. Can you imagine a doctor ever prohibiting you access to your partner of 30 years, because we as a society do not officially recognize their relationship as valid. That we have allowed this to be is embarrassing. If we allow this to continue, it is truly shameful.

Personally, I believe the state has no business regulating what is essentially a religious commitment. The state should only recognize a civil commitment, which is now commonly referred to as marriage in our culture. Maybe the religious folks should change their terminology to accommodate the more restrictive view of love that they choose to prefer?