Obama defends his stance on Christian right 'hijacking faith

[seventil]

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_def ... _0730.html

Sounds like my type of guy.

Any thoughts on this article?

How do you think this stance will affect him in the election?

Do you agree with what he says?

[micatala]

I would largely agree with Senator Obama. I think he is trying to acknowledge the role of faith in his life, as well as the role it plays in others' lives even if they do not agree with him. He is also, though, trying to be clear about the problems caused by some pushing religious causes. I think he understands that this is necessary, and that "running and hiding" from the CHristian right might be politically expedient, but it is ultimately bad for the country. When the Christian right is out of line, they need to be stood up to.

Brody's analysis I though was also reasonable. Out of several statements, this one stood out.

As for no longer being "just a Christian nation", that's not going to sit well with fundamentalists. They believe that this nation was indeed founded on Judeo-Christian biblical principles and shouldn't be watered down. But then again, Obama isn't going after the fundamentalist crowd. It's broader than that.

Yes, Brody is right that many do not want to hear that "this is no longer a Christian nation" but they need to hear it anyway. This attitude is at the root of a lot of the problems caused by the Christian right. To the extent that some want to drive us towards their view (mispercieved IMO) of the past, they need to be opposed. We should not be measuring public policy against a conservative interpretation of the Bible.

[Goat]

I would largely agree with Senator Obama. I think he is trying to acknowledge the role of faith in his life, as well as the role it plays in others' lives even if they do not agree with him. He is also, though, trying to be clear about the problems caused by some pushing religious causes. I think he understands that this is necessary, and that "running and hiding" from the CHristian right might be politically expedient, but it is ultimately bad for the country. When the Christian right is out of line, they need to be stood up to.

Brody's analysis I though was also reasonable. Out of several statements, this one stood out.

As for no longer being "just a Christian nation", that's not going to sit well with fundamentalists. They believe that this nation was indeed founded on Judeo-Christian biblical principles and shouldn't be watered down. But then again, Obama isn't going after the fundamentalist crowd. It's broader than that.

Yes, Brody is right that many do not want to hear that "this is no longer a Christian nation" but they need to hear it anyway. This attitude is at the root of a lot of the problems caused by the Christian right. To the extent that some want to drive us towards their view (mispercieved IMO) of the past, they need to be opposed. We should not be measuring public policy against a conservative interpretation of the Bible.

I think in general, that won't matter for the popularity of Obama anyway. The ones that tend to think like that are very conservative politically, and wouldn't vote for a democrat anyway. While I think Obama is not electable anyway, it won't be because of his statement about the religious right.

[MikeH]

Any thoughts on this article?

How do you think this stance will affect him in the election?

I think it's pretty good evidence that he's going to jump on Hillary's ticket as VP.

[sledheavy]

I would largely agree with Senator Obama. I think he is trying to acknowledge the role of faith in his life, as well as the role it plays in others' lives even if they do not agree with him. He is also, though, trying to be clear about the problems caused by some pushing religious causes. I think he understands that this is necessary, and that "running and hiding" from the CHristian right might be politically expedient, but it is ultimately bad for the country. When the Christian right is out of line, they need to be stood up to.

Brody's analysis I though was also reasonable. Out of several statements, this one stood out.

As for no longer being "just a Christian nation", that's not going to sit well with fundamentalists. They believe that this nation was indeed founded on Judeo-Christian biblical principles and shouldn't be watered down. But then again, Obama isn't going after the fundamentalist crowd. It's broader than that.

Yes, Brody is right that many do not want to hear that "this is no longer a Christian nation" but they need to hear it anyway. This attitude is at the root of a lot of the problems caused by the Christian right. To the extent that some want to drive us towards their view (mispercieved IMO) of the past, they need to be opposed. We should not be measuring public policy against a conservative interpretation of the Bible.

I think in general, that won't matter for the popularity of Obama anyway. The ones that tend to think like that are very conservative politically, and wouldn't vote for a democrat anyway. While I think Obama is not electable anyway, it won't be because of his statement about the religious right.

More than likely he'll get my generations vote. And that won't be much thus far to ensure anything. I like his stand on religion, I don't see much of a problem, but he's no golden boy amongst a divided nation.

Funny enough that a hypothetical vote for rep. canidate popularity posted 'none of the above' leading 35%. LOL.

[sledheavy]

Any thoughts on this article?

How do you think this stance will affect him in the election?

I think it's pretty good evidence that he's going to jump on Hillary's ticket as VP.

Yeah that I like too, regardless of the media proclaming their 'feud' between one another.

[MikeH]

Any thoughts on this article?

How do you think this stance will affect him in the election?

I think it's pretty good evidence that he's going to jump on Hillary's ticket as VP.

Yeah that I like too, regardless of the media proclaming their 'feud' between one another.

Of course. They're playing it up now so they can raise almost double the amount of campaign funds, then they'll join up last second and try to gain huge momentum at the end.

[sledheavy]

Any thoughts on this article?

How do you think this stance will affect him in the election?

I think it's pretty good evidence that he's going to jump on Hillary's ticket as VP.

Yeah that I like too, regardless of the media proclaming their 'feud' between one another.

Of course. They're playing it up now so they can raise almost double the amount of campaign funds, then they'll join up last second and try to gain huge momentum at the end.

It's so far from now. Political standings change so often. Not like they're going to go mit romney crazy on a pf blowout, but it takes just one conversation to get the undecided voter going. I need to do more homework on the whole situation. The whole democratic campaign doesn't sit right with me.

[seventil]

I think in general, that won't matter for the popularity of Obama anyway. The ones that tend to think like that are very conservative politically, and wouldn't vote for a democrat anyway. While I think Obama is not electable anyway, it won't be because of his statement about the religious right.

What do you think the reason for him not being electable is? His age? Race? Another standpoint?

From what I've heard, the thing they criticize the most about him is his lack of experience. Honestly, I find it a bit refreshing, as another codgey old guy isn't a good thing, in my opinion.

I think if he beats Hillary in the primary race, he's the top candidate for the Presidency, just because of the lack of a good Republican candidate.

[seventil]

Any thoughts on this article?

How do you think this stance will affect him in the election?

I think it's pretty good evidence that he's going to jump on Hillary's ticket as VP.

I think they have a lot of different views on key subjects. I'd hate to see Obama as the VP and Hillary in charge. Perhaps the other way around, though.