My fight with Hypocrisy

[Sully]

So over the past couple of years, every time I've seen Barack Obama address religion, I've been excited and inspired. The problem I've had, internally, with this is that I really feel government and religion should be kept separate. When one candidate speaks of changing the constitution to include God just a little bit more, my skin crawls. So was it really just a matter of the guy I root for doing something... and it's okay, and the guy I don't like doing the same thing... and it's not okay?

I've really struggled with this. I feel I am smarter than to let such a childish thing happen to me.

But I finally figured it out. I finally figured out why it's okay.

Mr. Obama is making it okay to be liberal and Christian again. He often speaks in religious phrases. He speaks at churches. He almost sounds like he's preaching at some points. But the biggest thing, for me, is that Mr Obama doesn't use religion as a wedge. He doesn't use the Bible as a weapon against those who don't agree. While he may find common ground with those who say this is a Christian nation, he also goes on to say it is also a Muslim nation, a Hindu nation and an atheist nation (paraphrased). He couches his pride in his Christianity in terms that seem to say that, though he's proud of his religious beliefs, that doesn't mean that those with different beliefs don't have a substantial part in this country.

So, I guess, ultimately, his use of religion is 180 degrees different from how I've seen it used previously. His use is pride in it, Love based on it, but he stops short of condemnation due to lack of it...

The sooner religion is taken off the table as a wedge issue to use against we liberal secularists (especially those of us who are also proud to be devoted Christians) the sooner we can discuss things that really matter. We can no longer ignore religion, as liberals, or it can once again be used as a weapon. But we can re-route the discussion to those things which we are proud of, and shine the light on how our differences in belief can be had without hate or animosity.

[RJ]

That's a damn fine post right there. I have nothing to add, just wanted to express my admiration.

[Sully]

That's a damn fine post right there. I have nothing to add, just wanted to express my admiration.
Thanks.
I'm not sure where it came from... just something I wanted to get off my chest, I guess.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

"Every time I hear Republicans use religion as a way to differentiate themselves from the rest of the country, I find it to be completely obnoxious. God is not a Republican."

One of my poli sci profs said that in '04. It was on point then, and is now.

[patteeu]

Religion in politics is OK as long as it supports your kind of politics?

[Sully]

Religion in politics is OK as long as it supports your kind of politics?
Almost like you didn't even read my post.

:doh!:

[penchief]

Religion in politics is OK as long as it supports your kind of politics?

I'm thinking you missed his point. That's funny because I'm usually the guy that misses the point. Maybe you didn't miss his point but I'm thinking he was saying that he got turned off initially and then recongnized a difference in the way the message was being delivered.

[Cochise]

Personally I will never understand how someone can reconcile religion with supporting abortion. It seems to me and most that it's a logical impossibility.

I think that's a huge part of the 'wedge' in it being a wedge issue. If the democrats would drop their litmus test on that, then religious people would be a lot more open to them for consideration.

[Dr.Fine]

maybe it's because we are more comfortable with Spirituality, than Religion, and instinctively know the difference... :shrug:

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Personally I will never understand how someone can reconcile religion with supporting abortion. It seems to me and most that it's a logical impossibility.

I think that's a huge part of the 'wedge' in it being a wedge issue. If the democrats would drop their litmus test on that, then religious people would be a lot more open to them for consideration.
http://www.e-pix.org/data/media/77/not_this_shit_again.jpg

[Sully]

Personally I will never understand how someone can reconcile religion with supporting abortion. It seems to me and most that it's a logical impossibility.

I think that's a huge part of the 'wedge' in it being a wedge issue. If the democrats would drop their litmus test on that, then religious people would be a lot more open to them for consideration.
At the very least, when we have that discussion, we can discuss reasonable differences.

But the horseshit that has taken place over the past few decades that liberal=non-religious has to stop for that to take place.

[Cochise]

Well, if they want credibility on that issue, it begins and ends there.

Hillary probably claims to be a Baptist like Bill does. Why aren't people wondering aloud if she's religious? She claims to be too.

[Cochise]

At the very least, when we have that discussion, we can discuss reasonable differences.

But the horseshit that has taken place over the past few decades that liberal=non-religious has to stop for that to take place.

I think you can be a liberal and be pro-life, sure.

[Sully]

Well, if they want credibility on that issue, it begins and ends there.


That's not true at all.
There are probably millions of Christians who are pro-choice. It may rub you wrong, but it doesn't make their faith any less strong.

[Cochise]

That's not true at all.
There are probably millions of Christians who are pro-choice. It may rub you wrong, but it doesn't make their faith any less strong.

I have trouble putting much stock in it, is all. If I slew an infant a minute after it was born, I think that plenty of people would doubt the veracity of my religious convictions. Why is it not OK to doubt them if you support it a minute before?

[patteeu]

I'm thinking you missed his point. That's funny because I'm usually the guy that misses the point. Maybe you didn't miss his point but I'm thinking he was saying that he got turned off initially and then recongnized a difference in the way the message was being delivered.

That's what I thought he said. It's after he decided he liked the message that he decided it was OK to mix politics and religion. Right? :shrug:

[Sully]

I have trouble putting much stock in it, is all. If I slew an infant a minute after it was born, I think that plenty of people would doubt the veracity of my religious convictions. Why is it not OK to doubt them if you support it a minute before?
I think it's just best to say that no matter what anyone says or does, when it comes to Christianity, you are a one issue supporter of peoples' faith. So ultimately, no matter what any politician says, if they aren't actively working against that one issue, then you will never accept their belief. That's fine, and I doubt that hard line one issue folks like that aren't who he is speaking to.

[Sully]

That's what I thought he said. It's after he decided he liked the message that he decided it was OK to mix politics and religion. Right? :shrug:
I said government and religion.

Listen, I'm really in no frame of mind to get into your typical word-parsing pissing match with you. I fully believe you are smart enough to understand what I typed, and I fully believe if I were on your side of the political fence, you would be motivated not to play dumb. So please, make your snarky comment and move on... but move on knowing you are most likely mis-stating my intent, and most likely doing it intentionally.
That's fine... it's what you do... but I simply don't want, right now, to play your game.

[penchief]

That's what I thought he said. It's after he decided he liked the message that he decided it was OK to mix politics and religion. Right? :shrug:

Not saying that the intent of the messenger is true. But if the intent of the messenger is the true message, then that would be different than those times when the message is maipulated for the purpose of serving ulterior motives, such as greed and genocide.

[Cochise]

I think it's just best to say that no matter what anyone says or does, when it comes to Christianity, you are a one issue supporter of peoples' faith. So ultimately, no matter what any politician says, if they aren't actively working against that one issue, then you will never accept their belief. That's fine, and I doubt that hard line one issue folks like that aren't who he is speaking to.

If someone told me they thought the moon was made of cheese, I'd probably doubt they were an astronomer. They may own a telescope and sincerely consider themselves to be amateur astronomers, but that utterly irreconcilable position will leave me with lingering doubts no matter what degree of knowledge they display about the rest of the universe.

[Sully]

Not saying that the intent of the messenger is true. But if the intent of the messenger is the true message, then that would be different than those times when the message is maipulated for the purpose of serving ulterior motives, such as greed and genocide.
Although I agree with that, that's not where I was going.
I was mainly trying to get to the fact that when religion is not used as a wedge issue, it's a welcome change of pace, and wipes away one more obscuring factor from a discussion that should ultimately be full of meritable argument, rather than this sill shit that typically takes place.

[Sully]

If someone told me they thought the moon was made of cheese, I'd probably doubt they were an astronomer. They may own a telescope and sincerely consider themselves to be amateur astronomers, but that utterly irreconcilable position will leave me with lingering doubts no matter what degree of knowledge they display about the rest of the universe.
Yeah.
I think you are just restating what I just said in different words.
I get it. If that single issue isn't reconciled, you aren't budging. As I said, the message probably isn't for you, then.

[penchief]

Although I agree with that, that's not where I was going.
I was mainly trying to get to the fact that when religion is not used as a wedge issue, it's a welcome change of pace, and wipes away one more obscuring factor from a discussion that should ultimately be full of meritable argument, rather than this sill shit that typically takes place.

I know what you were getting at. And I agree with you. But I was responding to his response. I'm sure you can understand how that might take the conversation into a realm that you did not intend.

My initial post directed at pat was more in defense of you're position Even though, I may still have misinterpreted your stance, it is a better indication of my understanding of your initial post.

[Sully]

I know what you were getting at. And I agree with you. But I was responding to his response. I'm sure you can understand how that might take the conversation into a realm that you did not intend.

My initial post directed at pat was more in defense of you're position Even though, I may still have misinterpreted your stance, it is a better indication of my understanding of your initial post.
My bad if I sounded shitty there. I'm a little under the weather, and that may affect how I come across.

[Cochise]

Yeah.
I think you are just restating what I just said in different words.
I get it. If that single issue isn't reconciled, you aren't budging. As I said, the message probably isn't for you, then.

Democrats often say things wondering how republicans ever got a monopoly on God. Then you tell them why religious people find it hard to support them, and they spit in your face. Call you a bigot, a hate-monger, a one issue zealot, on and on and on.

Another reason religious people have a hard time siding with Democrats is that, by and large, they seem to view us with contempt. They say things like "my faith" and expect us to come running, but it's obvious they really don't like you at all.

Nobody is going to come running to people who it's abundantly clear feel you are morons. The message seems to be, we'll include you as long as you don't want representation for any of your views.

Go anywhere that you can find liberals. Go to a university political science class. For that matter, go to a philosophy class. As a religious person, talk to people you know who are democrats, go to places like Huffy or DU. Listen to the way Democratic leadership regards you. Come to ChiefsPlanet and see how liberals treat you.

They hate you. They deride you. They insult you. They regard you more or less as a lower form of life.

The quickest way to turn someone against you is to open the discussion with, "well, I realize you're stupid, so let me dumb this down to you in the interest of trying to gain your support."

[Sully]

Democrats often say things wondering how republicans ever got a monopoly on God. Then you tell them why religious people find it hard to support them, and they spit in your face. Call you a bigot, a hate-monger, a one issue zealot, on and on and on.

Another reason religious people have a hard time siding with Democrats is that, by and large, they seem to view us with contempt. They say things like "my faith" and expect us to come running, but it's obvious they really don't like you at all.

Nobody is going to come running to people who it's abundantly clear feel you are morons.

Go anywhere that you can find liberals. Go to a university political science class. For that matter, go to a philosophy class. As a religious person, talk to people you know who are democrats, go to places like Huffy or DU. Listen to the way Democratic leadership regards you. Come to ChiefsPlanet and see how liberals treat you.

They hate you. They deride you. They insult you. They regard you more or less as a lower form of life.

The quickest way to turn someone against you is to open the discussion with, "well, I realize you're stupid, so let me dumb this down to you in the interest of trying to gain your support."

I'm sorry your experience has been that.

I am a VERY religious liberal. I know an entre community of people whoa re religious and liberal. We've discussed whole denominations that are religious and liberal. So I apologize that your experience has been one way.

However, if you think that disdain hasn't gone both ways... hasn't been, at least an equal amount of the time brought about initially by those fundies, then you are looking at things through some very biased glasses.

[penchief]

Democrats often say things wondering how republicans ever got a monopoly on God. Then you tell them why religious people find it hard to support them, and they spit in your face. Call you a bigot, a hate-monger, a one issue zealot, on and on and on.

Another reason religious people have a hard time siding with Democrats is that, by and large, they seem to view us with contempt. They say things like "my faith" and expect us to come running, but it's obvious they really don't like you at all.

Nobody is going to come running to people who it's abundantly clear feel you are morons.

Go anywhere that you can find liberals. Go to a university political science class. For that matter, go to a philosophy class. As a religious person, talk to people you know who are democrats, go to places like Huffy or DU. Listen to the way Democratic leadership regards you. Come to ChiefsPlanet and see how liberals treat you.

They hate you. They deride you. They insult you. They regard you more or less as a lower form of life.

The quickest way to turn someone against you is to open the discussion with, "well, I realize you're stupid, so let me dumb this down to you in the interest of trying to gain your support."

Honestly? I'm not a religious person. But I am a liberal in the sense that I find the teachings of Jesus to be supremely inspirational when forming my opinions of every day life. What I find difficult to accept about those who call themselves religious is that they seem to defy the will of Christ in order to marginalize and hate those who don't agree with them. They seem more than willing to take the bait from those who wish to manipulate them in the name of the anti-Christ.

The only problem I have with organized religion is the consequences that have resulted from institutionalized hypocricy.

[noa]

Come to ChiefsPlanet and see how liberals treat you.

They hate you. They deride you. They insult you. They regard you more or less as a lower form of life.

Well, if you're talking about CP, there's plenty of that going both ways. Liberals do not have a monopoly on insulting the other side here, or in general for that matter. I think the behavior of some posters encourages similar reactions by people from the other side, and then it becomes a downward spiral.
But more importantly there are plenty of posters who avoid that type of behavior. I don't really think its fair to characterize liberals as people who hate religious conservatives. I consider myself a liberal and certainly don't hate you or insult you. I often ask your opinion and challenge your stances, but I've never called you stupid or posted insults about you.
I think some people come here to fight and get pleasure out of telling the other side how stupid they are, and some come here for the fun of debate and are open-minded and capable of listening to and internalizing and respecting what you say.

On another note, I still disagree with your use of someone the term pro-abortion for someone who is pro-choice. I still maintain that a person can be a good Christian and oppose abortion, yet still believe that it is not the role of the government to enforce one group's religious beliefs because there are other Americans out there who genuinely disagree that a life exists until at a certain point.

[Cochise]

Honestly? I'm not a religious person. But I am a liberal in the sense that I find the teachings of Jesus to be supremely inspirational when forming my opinions of every day life. What I find difficult to accept about those who call themselves religious is that they seem to defy the will of Christ in order to marginalize and hate those who don't agree with them. They seem more than willing to take the bait from those who wish to manipulate them in the name of the anti-Christ.

The only problem I have is the consequences that have resulted from institutionalized Christian hypocricy.

I can see how a religious person could generally be a liberal in believing in many aspects of a liberal idea of the purpose of government. In entitlements and all of that, that helping the disadvantaged as being a very high calling. I think most would agree on that.

My disagreements with liberals in that area are political and not religious. They are based on my own opinions on how government best works and how orderly society best functions. Some believe government is the best means of caring for the poor. Others may disagree. All religions are different, but the one to which I adhere speaks on some topics in the political arena but not on others. It's not, in my opinion, like you can find guidelines for trade policy somewhere, chapter and verse.

In fact, many people in 1st century Palestine expected at the time that the messiah would free them of the yoke of Roman occupation, but he did not come to be a political leader like they were hoping. He came to call people to repentance, to repair man's fractured relationship with God, and establish a higher standard for man following his blueprint.

But, anyway, there are other areas where I think it's logically impossible to reconcile my worldview with the viewpoint of the current Democratic party platform. Abortion may only be one issue, but when it's your opinion that it is an abominable human rights abuse, that's a big issue. Tax policy only makes most of us a little richer or a little poorer, but if your view is that lives are at stake and not just a few hundred dollars a year, that ratchets up the importance.

Liberals seem to believe that all your beliefs are based on religion, which for most people is not the case.

I meant what I said earlier, which was that to democrats, unwillingness to compromise on anything is what keeps these pig-headed religious nuts out of their party. But the democrats seem altogether unwilling to listen to anything a religious person has to say on issues that are important to them as well. We'll let you come along for the ride, just sit in the back of the bus and keep quiet.

[noa]

But the democrats seem altogether unwilling to listen to anything a religious person has to say on issues that are important to them as well. We'll let you come along for the ride, just sit in the back of the bus and keep quiet.

I think Democrats have religious Christians who are leaders of the party, but the problem is that these people are not viewed as religious Christians in the eyes of many on the right, including yourself, because of their pro-choice stances. Obama is a religious Christian. He goes to church, he speaks at churches, he is inspired by religion, and yet this doesn't pass muster with people on the right, so he is considered to be not religious.
While many Democrats can see how you can be both a practicing Christian and pro-choice, you do not, and this compels you to say they are not religious, and for that matter, no Democrats are religious, so therefore, Democrats exclude religious people. I don't think that's a fair conclusion, but I certainly will agree that are plenty of Democrats who need to be more religiously tolerant.

[noa]

By the way, in the last Congressional election, Dems won the Catholic vote and there was only a 12 percent gap between Repubs and Dems with the votes of weekly churchgoers.

So, I'm not so sure that religious people are being slapped down as severely as you portray.

[penchief]

I can see how a religious person could generally be a liberal in believing in many aspects of a liberal idea of the purpose of government. In entitlements and all of that, that helping the disadvantaged as being a very high calling. I think most would agree on that.

Thank you.

My disagreements with liberals in that area are political and not religious. They are based on my own opinions on how government best works and how orderly society best functions. Some believe government is the best means of caring for the poor. Others may disagree. All religions are different, but the one to which I adhere speaks on some topics in the political arena but not on others. It's not, in my opinion, like you can find guidelines for trade policy somewhere, chapter and verse.

When government is pure, it's intention should be to protect the interests of all. Government is intended to be a buffer between the interests of the peaceful and the will of the aggressive. It's job is to promote the interests of the majority in a way that facilitates a highly functional society. When government is corrupted by greed (which is the current situatation), it is disfunctional because it is turned on end by defying its own purpose in a way that amounts to a betrayal.

In fact, many people in 1st century Palestine expected at the time that the messiah would free them of the yoke of Roman occupation, but he did not come to be a political leader like they were hoping. He came to call people to repentance, to repair man's fractured relationship with God, and establish a higher standard for man following his blueprint.

While I agree that the first step is for each man to repent for his own sins before he can call into account society for its sins against his brothers, I also believe that society imposes upon the individual in ways that corrupt him to serve the anti-Christ (greed and genocide).

But, anyway, there are other areas where I think it's logically impossible to reconcile my worldview with the viewpoint of the current Democratic party platform. Abortion may only be one issue, but when it's your opinion that it is an abominable human rights abuse, that's a big issue. Tax policy only makes most of us a little richer or a little poorer, but if your view is that lives are at stake and not just a few hundred dollars a year, that ratchets up the importance.

Abortion is a dichotomy for anyone who believes in both humanity and liberty. It's a tough nut to crack and that's probably why it hasn't been cracked yet. Myself? I believe that if people were sincere about ending abortion they would advocate sex education and the use of contraception.

Liberals seem to believe that all your beliefs are based on religion, which for most people is not the case.

I don't think that. I believe that those who are conservative and believe in Christ are are being played by republicans in the same way that poor people who vote for candidates such as Reagan and Bush are being played when republicans are probably the worst possible thing for their financial well-being.

I meant what I said earlier, which was that to democrats, unwillingness to compromise on anything is what keeps these pig-headed religious nuts out of their party. But the democrats seem altogether unwilling to listen to anything a religious person has to say on issues that are important to them as well.

Democrats are compromising way too much. This president should be the epitomy of "lame duck" but democrats still lay down for him. The economic stimulation package is just the latest example. Bush should have been impeached along with Cheney a long long time ago. They're crooks and nothing more. But democrats have just let them roll along.

[mikey23545]

I was mainly trying to get to the fact that when religion is not used as a wedge issue, it's a welcome change of pace....

Pretty much you're saying as long as religion really doesn't matter to what you believe in, you're fine with it....

[penchief]

Pretty much you're saying as long as religion really doesn't matter to what you believe in, you're fine with it....

My interpretation of what he is saying is that when religion is used to unify people it is much more true to its orginal intent than when it is used as a wedge in the negative way that conservatives and republicans have used it since the onset of the Reagan Revolution.

[Brock]

My interpretation of what he is saying is that when religion is used to unify people it is much more true to its orginal intent than when it is used as a wedge in the negative way that conservatives and republicans have used it since the onset of the Reagan Revolution.

Like liberals never use religion as a wedge issue. Who was it whining about the ten commandments display again? Or spying on churches to make sure they weren't talking about politics? Get serious.

[mikey23545]

Like liberals never use religion as a wedge issue. Who was it whining about the ten commandments display again? Or spying on churches to make sure they weren't talking about politics? Get serious.

It seems to have gotten quiet in here.

[noa]

Well, the ten commandments was a stupid fight for them to pick. Even if libs were technically correct on that, it still wasn't worth it.
As for the spying on churches, I don't think that was used as a wedge issue. It was out of the concern that churches that are basically pulpits for Republican candidates (see Super Sundays I & II) don't have to pay taxes. If they are going to be political establishments, they should lose their tax-exempt status. Also, the IRS under this administration did go after one church when the preacher promoted Kerry at the pulpit and another that was very anti-war, so its a two way street. I think both parties are concerned about churches become venues for political endorsements while retaining their tax shelters.

[Dr.Fine]

I used to think that Dems/Libs were a little over-reaching on prayer in the schools until a friend whose 1st grade daughter came home from public school one day, very upset that the Teach had asked everyone in the class who attended church that Sunday to raise their hand. It so happened that my friend (who was a Republican btw) rarely missed church, but they had in fact that Sunday, but that did little to assuage the child's feelings of being singled out.

[Brock]

Well, the ten commandments was a stupid fight for them to pick. Even if libs were technically correct on that, it still wasn't worth it.
As for the spying on churches, I don't think that was used as a wedge issue. It was out of the concern that churches that are basically pulpits for Republican candidates (see Super Sundays I & II) don't have to pay taxes. If they are going to be political establishments, they should lose their tax-exempt status. Also, the IRS under this administration did go after one church when the preacher promoted Kerry at the pulpit and another that was very anti-war, so its a two way street. I think both parties are concerned about churches become venues for political endorsements while retaining their tax shelters.

Saying that freedom of speech ends at the door of a church is very much a "wedge issue". It's also wrong. And you're right, the administration was only too willing to heed the advice of liberals and start investigating churches. Only it wasn't the particular churches the liberals wanted investigated. Perhaps they'll be careful what they wish for in the future.

[stevieray]

As long as you continue put your label of liberal first, you're missing the message...

I think this has more to do with the man crush on Obama, than it does religion...

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Saying that freedom of speech ends at the door of a church is very much a "wedge issue". It's also wrong. And you're right, the administration was only too willing to heed the advice of liberals and start investigating churches. Only it wasn't the particular churches the liberals wanted investigated. Perhaps they'll be careful what they wish for in the future.

I'm sorry, but do you remember any of those tour vans that they used in the '04 elections that would help educate churchgoers on who to vote for based on their policies??

When organizations the size of the Southern Baptist Council decree who the congregation should vote for en masse, you start dancing on a dangerous line.

[patteeu]

I said government and religion.

Listen, I'm really in no frame of mind to get into your typical word-parsing pissing match with you. I fully believe you are smart enough to understand what I typed, and I fully believe if I were on your side of the political fence, you would be motivated not to play dumb. So please, make your snarky comment and move on... but move on knowing you are most likely mis-stating my intent, and most likely doing it intentionally.
That's fine... it's what you do... but I simply don't want, right now, to play your game.

I guess I don't understand what you're saying at all because it just sounds like a condescending take on how it's fine to mix religion with government/politics as long as it's a form of religion that doesn't embrace values that are conservative or non-liberal. What does it mean to say that this is a Christian nation and a Muslim nation and a Hindu nation and an Athiest nation anyway? I mean, is there really any religion left after you embrace every possible version? Is it a Westboro Baptist Church nation too or are they out because of their extremely non-liberal, whacked out beliefs? How does Obama use this multi-faceted, all-inclusive religious rhetoric in any meaningful way? Or is he just filling the air with empty happy talk that people of all faiths can imagine positive things into?

[Sully]

I'll try this again... for those who are trying their hardest not to understand something that is pretty easy to understand.

The reason I like Obama's take on this is because he is A) Showing his pride in his religion, something liberals have been far too afraid to do in recent times, allowing it to be used as a wedge by those who would do so, and B) He's showing his pride in it, but not to the detriment of those who would disagree with his religious beliefs. He's not embracing other beliefs, but he is embracing the diversity in America of varying beliefs, and saying those beliefs can all be a part of the same country, and we can learn to embrace those differences and find ways to live with them, rather than vilifying those who disagree.

To address some specific comments:


Brock- As far as I can tell, during the last election, I believe I saw just as many stories about our government going after churches that seemed to preach about the Dem candidates as did the Repub candidates.

Mikey- I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. ut I'm quite sure you are getting it wrong.

Elvis- Please... just once... quit trying to be an online psychiatrist. You almost always get it wrong. Just because I used, in the terms of this conversation, "liberal" in front of "Christian" has absolutely no bearing on how I view myself. If you honestly think that it does, you are vastly dumber than I gave you credit for. Please, I'm begging, just stop.

Pat- Obama isn't using "liberal" religion. For instance, he is against gay marriage, because of his religious beliefs. However, he is trying his hardest to make room for other beliefs as well as his own, realizing that there are myriad different beliefs in this country. It's not about liberal Christianity vs conservative Christianity. It's about not using religion at all as a door to close on those who don't want to take part in your particular beliefs. Like I said, I'm sure you are smart enough to get that, but are unmotivated to, due to the side of the aisle I tend towards.

[patteeu]

I'll try this again... for those who are trying their hardest not to understand something that is pretty easy to understand.

The reason I like Obama's take on this is because he is A) Showing his pride in his religion, something liberals have been far too afraid to do in recent times, allowing it to be used as a wedge by those who would do so, and B) He's showing his pride in it, but not to the detriment of those who would disagree with his religious beliefs. He's not embracing other beliefs, but he is embracing the diversity in America of varying beliefs, and saying those beliefs can all be a part of the same country, and we can learn to embrace those differences and find ways to live with them, rather than vilifying those who disagree.

To address some specific comments:


Brock- As far as I can tell, during the last election, I believe I saw just as many stories about our government going after churches that seemed to preach about the Dem candidates as did the Repub candidates.

Mikey- I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. ut I'm quite sure you are getting it wrong.

Elvis- Please... just once... quit trying to be an online psychiatrist. You almost always get it wrong. Just because I used, in the terms of this conversation, "liberal" in front of "Christian" has absolutely no bearing on how I view myself. If you honestly think that it does, you are vastly dumber than I gave you credit for. Please, I'm begging, just stop.

Pat- Obama isn't using "liberal" religion. For instance, he is against gay marriage, because of his religious beliefs. However, he is trying his hardest to make room for other beliefs as well as his own, realizing that there are myriad different beliefs in this country. It's not about liberal Christianity vs conservative Christianity. It's about not using religion at all as a door to close on those who don't want to take part in your particular beliefs. Like I said, I'm sure you are smart enough to get that, but are unmotivated to, due to the side of the aisle I tend towards.

I've openly admitted on several occasions that I'm not a believer and that, for example, I support gay marriage. Despite that fact, none of the conservative Christians around here have condemned me for those positions as you suggest they do in your OP. That's part of the reason I find your premise flawed. I just don't think conservative Christians are any less tolerant of contrary views than other types of people who have strong opinions whether those opinions are rooted in religion or secular politics. So while I can appreciate what you say about Obama's approach to religion, I can't appreciate what I interpret as your sweeping negativity toward conservative Christians.

[stevieray]

I'll try this again... for those who are trying their hardest not to understand something that is pretty easy to understand.



Elvis- Please... just once... quit trying to be an online psychiatrist. You almost always get it wrong. Just because I used, in the terms of this conversation, "liberal" in front of "Christian" has absolutely no bearing on how I view myself. If you honestly think that it does, you are vastly dumber than I gave you credit for. Please, I'm begging, just stop.

,.

condescending much?

I (mis)took it as liberal Christian versus conservative Christian, which you covered in your response to patteau...thanks for clearing that up.

"you are vastly dumber than I thought"...oooooooh sully is that supposed to hurt?...way to piss all over your thread.

[penchief]

condescending much?

Playing the 'victim' card, heh?