Or maybe you can put those visions of airborne bacon to rest because our point of agreement has nothing to do with politics, merely that Washington, DC is actually a city in which you can truly enjoy walking from neighborhood to neighborhood. Does anyone actually enjoy doing that in Seattle?
Maybe it's the unique nature of the architecture of the nation's capital, perhaps it's the historic feel of the city itself even as you move beyond the traditional tourist attractions, the city just wants to make you look around...like nothing you'll find anywhere in the West.
In less harmonious news, sometimes Horse's Ass poster Darryl hates Mitt Romney. Who cares? Fair question. But the reason for Darryl's upset is troubling. He doesn't like this exchange Romney had with NPR.
After reading the portion of the interview in question, then Darryl's commentary, I'm left wondering why any Presidential candidate should be expected to go down the path of doing a line-by-line on what parts of the Bible they agree with and which they don't.
Would Darryl like the Democratic candidates to have to go down through that exercise? Would he have expected Joe Lieberman to do such a thing in 2000?
I doubt it.
Posted by Eric Earling at December 04, 2007 10:29 PM | Email ThisActually, I DO like walking in Seattle. Call me crazy. I spend every Saturday wandering around. No, there isn't much architecture. But I can take the bus virtually anywhere and find a pleasant view, a nice neighborhood, or something interesting. I will say that it's none of the default of Seattle's planning though. This is a damn beautiful area and Seattle is in a pretty place. It's also a well-educated, fairly affluent, generally safe city. All things considered, it could defintiely be better.
But there are aspects of it that I can't totally blame Seattle for. The most interesting (vibrant?) walk in Seattle for me is the Cap Hill hillclimb. Emphasis on "hill." Emphasis on lots of hills. I'm not sure that Seattle is a city made for walking. And honestly, its less hilly parts to the point are unwalkable for totally different reasons (Aurora Avenue cooridor, anyone?)
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on December 4, 2007 10:34 PMAll presidential candidates should refuse to answer questions about their religion. Why? Two reasons, the Bible, and the Constitution.
1) The New Testament has Jesus criticising the Pharises, who pray aloud in public, for the purpose of demonstrating their piety. He says instead that we should pray in a private place in our houses, not in public. When presidential candidates proclaim their faith in public, they are using their religion to promote their quest for power. This should make all Christians oppose each candidate who prays or proclaims his faith in public. To do so uses religion for personal gain. Doing so should disgust us.
2) Article IV, the last substantial part of the Constitution says "...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Presidents swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, and to the extent that their religions are incompatible with the Constitution, they are to support the Constitution instead. To the extent that it can be inferred that the media is colluding with government in order to set up a sort of religious test, such questions by members of the media subvert the Constitution.
JFK dealt with this issue when he ran as a Catholic. Was his loyalty to the Pope greater than that he owed to the Constitution? Does Romney's Mormonism compromise his ability to uphold his oath? Ron Paul is a Baptist. Giuliani is probably not really religious at all. Should we be concerned?
It does not matter. Ours is a predominantly Christian nation, but we have a totally secular government. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." First amendment.
Religion should not be debated in presidential races. It is not seemly to do so. It violates the spirit, if not the letter of the Constitution as well. If we care about the free exercise of our religion, or our freedom of conscience, we must be very careful about the topic of religion in presidential races.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 5, 2007 12:44 AMI do think it is good to know where someone is coming from however, not necessarily on religion alone, but religion does play a factor in decision making. Take Joe Lieberman, for example, is a pretty devout Jew. He tries his best to observe the Sabbath and should be commended for not working seven days a week and actually spending time with family, but it also has an impact on his working relationships. On the negative side, he also has an attitude, at times, of putting Isreal first in all decision making (at least regarding the Middle East). He was elected as an American representative, not an Isreal representative.
So, I have no problem when Hillary states that she is a Methodist, or Barack state that it was his work in an Urban UCC church that spurred his service. I have no problem with Edwards stating how his faith helped him through the death of his son. On the Republican side, McCain, has stated how his faith has helped him through. Huckabee has stated that he is a Christian, which means he is willing to stand up an admit that this is who he is (his primary value system is based here). I don't see this as pandering. It is letting us know who they are. It makes them more human. To keep one part of a person's life hidden away would be a disservice. We elect people to govern us, we should know, as best we can, who they really are.
Posted by: tc on December 5, 2007 07:42 AMSeeing how the Ds are the party of whatever, they must feel they have to triangulate to try to point their party as the party of morals. They use the Rs getting rid of their trash, while they keep their trash- BTW- as examples why the R party is not the party of morals.
Interesting play we see developing in this campaign. I wish I had more confidence with the R leadership to counter the D scam.
Posted by: swatter on December 5, 2007 08:10 AM1. The principle is you will know them by their fruit.
2. Many candidates have a deep personal faith and I, personally do not doubt their personal faith.
I believe Hillary, Obama, Romney, Paul, Mc cain, Edwards and Huckabee when they tell me that.
3. Now for the fruits of that faith. If one takes a literal view of the Scriptures, then some things will not be permissable and one who is in authority is not permitted to promote those ideas.
In my opinion, gay marriage and abortion.
4. Another of the fruits is associations. While it is true that Jesus dealt with publicans and sinners, he also exhorted them to change their ways. There is the story of the woman at the well who had several relationships. Jesus forgave her and this part is key, he exhorted her to sin no more. This is the point of disagreement with the Paul associations. There is no telling the unsavory elements that they are unsavory.
5. If a candidate is on their fifth wife or she has an attractive assistant who clings to her like velcro while her husband spends 3/4 of his time on the other side of the world, slapping me on the head with a Bible does not demonstrate fruits of the Spirit.
6. I think that once the media gets an inkling that a candidate is claiming a religious faith, they sterotype and begin a particular line of questioning. I am more interested in issues, associations, and where they get their money. Some one needs to follow the Chinese money to Hillary, for example.
If a person is religious, the fruit will be there.
Posted by: WVH on December 5, 2007 08:26 AMOnly stating my interpretation which is why I say that I don't question any candidates statement of personal faith. I believe that at one time Mc Cain attended the Episcopal Church, but now goes to the Baptist Church. An Episcopal running for office would be within their church's doctrine allowing gay marriage and I believe that Evangelical Lutheran Church of America as opposed to the Missouri Synod are in agreement as well. I don't know their stance on abortion.
If a candidate says nothing about his or her faith, then I just look at their platform. If a candidate remarks about their faith, then there should be congruence with that faith. I haven't heard either Rudy or Thompson remark much specifically about their faith, others have.
Even without a statement of faith, one can observe the fruits of the person's life.
So, I agree with you. I read the Bible literally and I understand that others don't. That doesn't mean we are all Christians, we just interpret Scripture differently. If I don't like the choices, then I'll vote for Nader again which means none of the above. The only way I would vote for Hillary is if Paul got the republican nomination and then it is vote for the crook. I look at the candidate's positions on the issues, their associations and where they get their money. Hillary's Chinese money connection is of interest because the Red Army is so involved in the commerce of China. Hua just pled to some charges. I wonder what is out there. I don't know much about Thompson or Huckabee. Many democrats are in the pocket of the NEA and we will never get school reform. The kind of dems I would vote for like Evan Bayh of Indiana would never get through the primaries. I am researching the candidates and haven't made my mind up.
Posted by: WVH on December 5, 2007 11:08 AMthe answer to your question: "I'm left wondering why any Presidential candidate should be expected to go down the path of doing a line-by-line on what parts of the Bible they agree with and which they don't" lies in the last 20 or so years of the republican party increasing pandering an electorate partially comprised of christians.
when the likes of gary bauer and ralph reed, not to mention leaders of the (tax exempt) mega-mall churches, can become significant players in the republican party, the unintended consequences of the blurring of the separation of church and state will be many.
asking a bunch of bible questions on the campaign circuit is one such example.
in 2007, asking candidates if they believe in evolution is another.
Posted by: dinesh on December 5, 2007 11:31 AMAnyhow DC is actually so walkable because it's so small and relatively flat. Seattle is fairly large and hilly.
Anyhow, I have some affection for my new place of residence, it's got some things I like about it, but I wouldn't wish Seattle to turn into it.
Posted by: Cliff on December 5, 2007 02:47 PMEither he is lying, in which case he is a hypocrite, or he is telling the truth, in which case he is using his religion to gain power, which is something that Jesus forbade.
The certainty is that they are trying to gain votes.
I think the mainstream media asks questions about faith and evolution of Republican candidates because it thinks that such discussions hurt them.
Such public professions of faith definitely make me think less of a candidate.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 5, 2007 03:22 PMThey lie a lot. So when they profess their faith, you don't know if they are posing or telling the truth.
Actions speak louder than words. Let them join churches and go each Sunday. Let them contribute money. (But I have greater respect for those who donate anonymously...) Let others report their actions and attest to their character via endorsement statements. But when politicians directly profess their faiths, and wax eloquently about how it affected their upbringing, I say it is time to get cynical. Much more often than not, you will be right to be.
There are ways for you to get your information other than professions of faith from the mouths of the candidates themselves.
And my arguments @ 4 still stand. Such professions of faith are against the teachings of Christ and violate the spirit, if not the letter of the Constitution. If you care about either document, you don't respect candidates who profess their faith in public.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 5, 2007 06:11 PMYou're right that Christians are taught to pray privately, but nowhere does it say that we're to keep our faith secret. On the contrary, Matthew 5:14-16 says, "Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."
While I agree that there should be no religious test for public office, and that religious issues should not be debated in campaigns, we cannot expect people of faith who are active in public life to keep completely silent on something that is at the center of their lives. It's pretty clear, though, that at least some athiests would prefer to see religion banished entirely from the public square and put off limits in all public discussion. Don't forget that the 1st Amendment includes the free exercise clause right alongside the establishment clause.