For me, the God quiz that Barack Obama endured with barely concealed sweaty palms and that John McCain breezed through with seasoned casualness has no place in American politics.~Deepak.

Dear Deepak...

For a guy who had made his living off selling nothing but spiritually and enlightenment this seems like a really odd statement. Especially given the fact your posts are nothing but political.

"Rick Warren is a feel-good preacher who softened the interrogation and administered no canings, but that's irrelevant".~Deepak.

This statement also struck me as a little like the pot calling the kettle black, since you yourself have made millions from the "feel good" aspect of your writings and teachings(preachings)! You yourself are a soft sell, are you not? I am sure their are those who if knew of your true nature(intent) would not be interested in anything you had to say.

" The implicit reason, well understood by the right and endorsed by fundamentalists, was that gays deserve what they get if they pursue a lifestyle that doesn't match right-wing Christian ideology. Minorities, women, immigrants, and progressivism in general were given the same back hand."~Deepak.
"Pandora's box was opened by the right wing in 1980, admitting not just inappropriate matters of religion into political life but also making acceptable a range of prejudice, bigotry, and divisiveness that had been banished by an era of liberal social legislation."~Deepak.

That era of liberal social legislation you speak of has only produced an era of hippie mentality which says,
"do what you want but for God's sake don't take responsibility for your actions and by all means send someone else the bill!"
If you look at nearly all of the "liberal mentality" based social programs they are a complete failure and have hurt minorities, women, etc. more than they have helped. This country in an effort to satisfy has been hijacked by the leberal idiots mentality---that is where one always makes an excuse for any action(at all costs responsibility must not be taken)and one expects bad behavior to be rewarded. There have been in this country things of the past which have surly needed fixing. Those things could not have been fixed by the fundamentalists or religious right, any more than they can be fixed by liberalism.
They can only be fixed by truth and people who are willing to find and speak the truth. That obviously is not you.
Deepak I am extreamly disappointed in you my friend.

I give up on politics, same old same old.

But you know the little peoople love Scareface McCain's story about the prison guard and him having a silent moment of prayer.

This country loves itself too much (funny watching Obama insist, "I love America, I love America!"

So let us get on with our Great Commission of speading the Gospel, "freedom," "democracy," yada yada yada . . .

Now how can a brother make some money out of the situation? Praise Jesus!

I am reformed man! Can a brother get more than simply flipping burgers? Alright, alright; I'll murder Iraqis' for you! Please boss let me up! Please! I won't backsass no more!

Post#2
empyrius... love your poetry! Make sure you copyright those.

Much compassion~paulisoso

To tell you the truth paulisoso I have not been too poetically inspired lately; thoughts about this certain redhead have taken their toll.

Alas, here is some Charles Bukowski for you:

- the con job -

the ground war began today
at dawn
in a desert land
far from here.
the U.S. ground troops were
largely
made up of
Blacks, Mexicans, and poor
whites.
most of whom had joined
the military
because it was the only job
they could find.

the ground war began today
at dawn
in a desert land
far from here
and the Blacks, Mexicans
and poor whites
were sent there
to fight and win
as on tv
and on the radio
the fat white rich newscasters
first told us all about
it.
and then the fat rich white
analysts
told us
why
again
and again
and again
on almost every
tv and radio station
almost every minute
day and night
because
the Blacks, Mexicans
and poor whites
were sent there
to fight and win
at dawn
in a desert land
far enough away from
here.

Deepak again speaks for the world-
"Everyone concedes that Obama's way is more mature, realistic, and ultimately right.

This statement takes the cake, bravo Deepak, Obama is certainly the way. I guess McCain loses in the label campaign, let's see here is what I find this time around:

-Warren-feel good preacher ( and apparently much more successful than other feel gooders)
-Predujice, bigotry and divisiveness
-the old standby-Fundamentalists
-Right wing Christian ideology
-Securalist Democrat(label for Obama even though he admitted that Christ died for his sins and he is saved)
-Reaganism (this is a new one that's been cropping up lately)
-Escapist Magical Morality (again this is a new one that needs to square with Deepaks' earlier comment about "Everyone agrees...

This is about average 7 labels that doesn't need any elaboration, because when one SIMPLY labels, that's enough to complete the argument.

Btw, I don't believe a gun was pointed to Obama's head forcing him to participate in this forum, it's called taking responsibility, you show up, you take the consequences. I guess placing blame on Reagon or Warren is the easy and simple way out.

I can't wait for the debates and the blame that will go when Obama palms begin to sweat yet again.

Cheers

Steve

hi Steve,
I am with you on this one - when you say Deepak overstates
'everyone' is in agreement about Obama's way as 'more mature, realistic and ultimately right'.

That is quite a claim. Time will tell ...

Faith is part of the American culture, and is a factor for some (perhaps many/most) Americans when choosing a candidate.

love,
~ Kate

hi dear Craig,
for you ...

I love your fiery work of art
You almost made me cry
With deep emotion of my heart
I cannot but reply

The flame-like cover of your head
Revives my passionate side
How great, you’re proud of being red
So I’ll support your pride

It’s red hair’s magic I adore
While mine resembles wheat
I’ll sing and frolic, yell for more
To match your temper’s heat

My hair is silver, yours is gold
We’ll make a pretty pair
We’ll ramble through the woods of old
And breathe your vivid hair
~Gereon the Shining Eagle~

“The reason that any contemporary presidential candidate is forced to suffer the indignity of confessing his religious beliefs in public goes back to the Reagan revolution”.~Deepak

Please correct me if I am wrong but the religious beliefs of the Presidential candidate were always concern of American public. Do not go further but to the following John F. Kennedy's Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association delivered 12 September 1960 at the Rice Hotel in Houston, TX. He spoke about his Catholicism, then…

And from author James A. Michener’s recollection – he felt quite startled when guests at publisher Bennett Cerf's early 1960 dinner party challenged John F. Kennedy's presidential candidacy on religious grounds. In an educated, professional crowd, Michener encountered "American liberals [who] ... had the most serious and deep-seated fears of a Catholic in the Presidency." One individual called the Vatican "dictatorial, savage[,] ... reactionary ... [and] brutal in its lust for power."

WHOH Kate.......careful now! I AM the red head!

Just joking...well...not really....but good night all.

WHOH Kate.......careful now! I AM the red head!

Just joking...well...not really....but good night all. I'm all good with it!

Kate...honesty...thanks for the kind words of the red head. Craig is a man of great pride, and has a true passion of EVERY word he speaks!

It's raining right now...down right storming...Dally is scared...and misses you!

Kate...honesty...thanks for the kind words of the red head. Craig is a man of great pride, and has a true passion of EVERY word he speaks!

It's raining right now...down right storming...Dally is scared...and misses you!

Dally . . .

My poor Dally . . .

Holy continental catfight Batman: from Tampa to Seattle "let's get rrrready to rrrrrrrumble!"

Har har, just kidding ladies.

Very nice poem Kate, me found where it was at: http://www.dougbarber.com/red/Poetry/poetry.html

Thank you.

Riversylph . . .: hmmmmm,

In my eyes you are all good!

Maya Angelou

Caged Bird

A free bird leaps
on the back of the wind
and floats downstream
till the current ends
and dips his wing
in the orange sun rays
and dares to claim the sky.

But a bird that stalks
down his narrow cage
can seldom see through
his bars of rage
his wings are clipped and
his feet are tied
so he opens his throat to sing.

The caged bird sings
with a fearful trill
of things unknown
but longed for still
and his tune is heard
on the distant hill
for the caged bird
sings of freedom.

The free bird thinks of another breeze
and the trade winds soft through the sighing trees
and the fat worms waiting on a dawn-bright lawn
and he names the sky his own.

But a caged bird stands on the grave of dreams
his shadow shouts on a nightmare scream
his wings are clipped and his feet are tied
so he opens his throat to sing.

The caged bird sings
with a fearful trill
of things unknown
but longed for still
and his tune is heard
on the distant hill
for the caged bird
sings of freedom.

It is not semantic sleight of hand to consider a person’s faith when voting. The state cannot establish a religion NOR prohibit the free practice thereof. There is nothing in any of our national writings that declares that a candidates religious beliefs are not fair game. I happen to think that as long as a candidate believes in a Higher Power then that is good enough. But can’t you see why to some people it is not that easy or simple? That they want someone who reflects their values?

Further, Deepak, every one of your blogs is endorsing Obama because he has the same spiritual views as you. How can you not see that? To say that “faith” is irrelevant is completely untrue, especially for you.

Moreover, you stated, that the despicable practice “confessing religious beliefs in public goes back to the Reagan revolution.” This is historically inaccurate. Kennedy was grilled about his Catholicism before the notorious Ronald Reagan was in office. And speaking of Reagan, the man you denigrate is the same Ronald Reagan who forgave the man who shot him in the stomach, nearly killing him. Reagan was a good man, with vision. He was a spiritual man, he just didn’t fit your permissive, 60s attitude. Which is fine, I love how you speak your mind. But all of your fellow bloggers simply ape what you say. It is a monolithic blogsite. There are different spiritual views on politics and politicians.

Back to your blog: Prejudice, bigotry and divisiveness did not stem from the involvement of religion in politics. Where is your evidence? That Reagan gave nothing to AIDS research because of his religious beliefs? That he left gays to their devices? This is total codswallop. It was his fiscal policy – he was of the Milton Friedman school. It was not a moral choice. He also gave NO FUNDING to the Statue of Liberty renovations. Was that because he thought the symbol of American might and power was in some way corrupt, and should crumble because of what it came to stand for? Your arguments, in my opinion, make no sense.

Further still, McCain is not a simplistic man (as you seem to portary him), but wisdom is often simple. In the face of evil you fight it. What the heck else would you do? Speak to it? Be diplomatic? That's craziness. Courage and standing up to real evil will never change. It is a man's duty in this world. Giving Saddam, the epitome of evil, 4 months to come clean before we "rushed into war" (How 4 months of asking Iraq to disclose its nuclear information is a "rush" is a mystery to me)was responsible. It was something that Clinton called for during his term.

We are not talking about inner demons; we are speaking real demons. Deepak what would you do if you were President? Imagine you were in charge of protecting 300 million people from evil people. It is an Islamic culture that straps bombs on retarded women and sends them into crowds of unarmed civilians to detonate them (this just recently happened). We are speaking about a culture that ties bombs to babies and explodes them (like the one before the one that actually killed Benazir Bhutto). We can speak of raising consciousness, but high consciousness is not merely flowers and thinking good thoughts. Courage and the willingness to fight to protect innocents is spiritual. Tell bin Laden and his cohorts your message and you will be laughed off the block. There are hordes of men on this earth who worship Death, they brag about it. There is no Barack Obama speech that will make them change their minds, and there is not foreign policy changes that will change their minds. That is simply what Islamic radicals say to present some sort of justification.

Note that oppression by religion is really happening in the Middle East and all you seem to focus on is the fact that gays are fighting (and winning in some cases) for gay marriage. Sorry, if I chuckle at the things that incense you, but the “wrongs” that upset you are not even in the same galaxy of severity as are happening in the Middle East. It may seem like the right thing to do to not offend Muslim countries by calling terrorism Islamic-Fascism. But this inability to call a spade a spade is cowardly in my opinion. In fact, I think it invites more violence - a passive approach triggers the kill instinct in the predator. Again, call a thing what it is. Where are the protest rallies against RADICAL ISLAM? Where?

And I may be wrong, but I sense that you think that the hatred spewing from the Middle East is merely a result of American foreign policy. This shows a complete nescience of history and global affairs plus human psychology. Can you seriously tell me that men in the Middle East blow up busloads full of children because the US’s economic and foreign policy? If that is so, were the Middle East countries killing each other off before the US existed? Further, why the terrorist acts in Malaysia – no USA involvement there?

Back to the blog: Obama has a year and one half worth of experience. The other two and a half years he has been campaigning. McCain’s story is just as, if not more, inspiration than Barack Obama’s. The lack of balance in your blogs is overwhelming and it leads your many followers into radicalism, and a distorted view of the United States, it’s people, and it’s deep spiritual tradition.

By the way, if Bush is “right” of Reagan as is McCain, why has Bush given more aid to Africa than any other President before him? Wouldn't the far-right let all the blacks in Africa die becaue of their moral depravity? Wouldn't that evil war-monger Bush rather take that money and start another war? Again, your arguments are based on prejudice, not on reason.

I can see the good in Obama, and the bad. I can see the good in McCain and the bad in McCain. Your blogs are rants of paranoia and seem to contain streams of religious conspiratorial thinking. Can't you understand that some American’s are a little nervous about other religions and new philosophies being imbibed into a society that so far has been the most successful of any on the planet? Give traditional religious people a break. They want marriage to be between a man and a woman - that is the definition of it anyways. I am actually okay with gay marriage but can't you understand why some people might be against it?

Further, to believe that life begins at conception is not “far right” but a legitimate belief! How dare you say it’s not?

I don’t even believe that life begins at conception myself, but I can certainly see how many people would believe at life at conception. That is not a right wing conspiracy.

Deepak, a man can be spiritual and be conservative; in fact, I am beginning to think that to being spiritual and liberal is at odds. You unwittingly, in my opinion, denigrate traditonal courage, healthy patriotism, and denigrate great men like Reagan, and men history has yet to judge like Bush. Indeed, the world would be in trouble if Bush rushed to judgment as you do.

Deepak Chopra is right.

Pastor Rick Warren indeed acknowledges his bigotry.

It was on the Larry King show yesterday. He did not admit to a prejudice against Blacks, Jews or Women. In fact he implied that he would vote for most anyone except one group.

Larry King posed a question, " Does a person have to believe in god to be president?"

Warren's answer:

"I would say so. I couldn't vote for a person who was an atheist, because I would think -- I think the presidency is a job too big for one person. I would think there's a little arrogance that says, I don't need anybody else. I could vote for someone of different religions than mine, but I don't know that I could personally vote for somebody who denies that we need somebody greater than ourselves to help us."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/18/lkl.01.html

No doubt this position of rejection of Atheists for the Presidency, and by logical extension, any position of public trust, was expressed in the content of his many books and public statements. The key for him is belief in any religion, as long as it acknowledges a higher being, one with wisdom beyond that available to humans and their cultural accretions.

And, of course this wisdom is always contained in a message from such a higher being, either the old or new testaments, or the golden plates written by the Angel Moroni discovered by Joseph Smith in 1827. Or it could be the wisdom of the Scientology, a religion certified by the United States through the Internal Revenue Service (the de facto agency that defines acceptable religions for our country.) This was not based on a conference of theologian who considered their beliefs and practices, but was the result of a legal onslaught against the agency and it's director that lead to his submission to their threats.

But this is a religion, just as Wahabi Islam fits Pastor Warrens minimum requirement for someone whom he would consider as qualifying for his vote. As a matter of fact, this religion of the Taliban and those who attacked us on 9-11 should fit comfortably in Pastor Warrens world view since they also "always oppose" infidels "in every way."

I have to question whether these two candidates would have appeared at a forum sponsored by someone who said he would never vote for a Catholic, a gay or a Jew. I could expect this of the Republicans, as exemplified by this purported statement:

"George H.W. Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_03/008488.php

And, of course, his son has been fostering evangelical Christianity, allowing it to take place in governmental settings never before accepted, although not overtly criticizing Atheists.

In a two party system we do not need a pro religious and and anti religious party. But we do need, as a minimum, a party that avows respect for those who do not believe in a higher being. This goes beyond demographics and even winning elections. Those with the world view to be creative, in fields as diverse as the arts to theoretical science, are often without religious belief. In fact their motivation to explore exists for the very reason that they seek answers that are not provided by any higher being.

Pastor Warren's forum had been described as an opportunity for Senator Obama to show that he speaks the language of Evangelicals. He certainly did this effectively. But in speaking this language in the company of a religious bigot it leaves the impression that he may agree with him. If he is to continue to have the enthusiastic support of the non-religious community, he needs to make a firm statement that his religion is personal; and while it may inspire him, others find their own source of inspiration outside of any spiritual belief.

The calumny of those such as Rick Warren and George Bush Sr. must not be allowed to stand any longer. Larry King asked the question and let the answer stand un-rebutted, as do most people in public life. Yet this is no more morally acceptable than the discriminatory attitudes towards Blacks in the 50s and Gays in the 70s.

If our nominee for President will not speak up for Atheists as full respected members of the American Community, then who will?

I don't think John McCain really understands that the United States was founded primarily on the ideals and principles of the Enlightenment, rather than simply "Judeo-Christian values.” Sure, such religious values played an indirect role in the founding of the country, but the fact remains that our founders were convinced that an official state religion should be avoided at all costs.

Indeed, several of our founding fathers - including Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin - were actually deists rather than traditional Christians. More importantly, the First Amendment guarantees “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

McCain, who graduated at the bottom of his class(895th of a class of 900) in the Naval Academy , probably doesn't even comprehend such important constitutional principles as the separation of church and state. His confusion was certainly evident at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in California last week, when he declared:

"Our Judeo-Christian principles dictate that we do what we can to help people who are oppressed throughout the world."

The problem with such language is his use of the collective “our,” which implies strongly that American values are synonymous with Judeo-Christian values. Of course, this was not the first time that McCain has used such exclusionary language, effectively rejecting the contributions and values of Americans that do not practice either Judaism or Christianity. As The Boston Globe observed recently, McCain uses such language often and in a variety of contexts. For instance, he recently praised small-town Americans by noting,

"The Judeo-Christian values that they hold are the strength of America."

www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/08/19/mccains_judeo_christian_values_reference_puzzles/

He has even used such language in reference to job training programs. Referring to laid-off workers this past February, he proclaimed,

"We've got to educate and train these people. It is a Judeo-Christian values nation and it's an obligation we have and we are not doing it."

Even more disturbing, McCain appeared to embrace a religious test for President in comments he made last year in an interview with Beliefnet, hinting very strongly that non-Judeo-Christians need not apply. As he stated:

"The number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the president of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo-Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?"

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/220/story_22001_1.html

On a practical level, McCain’s theocratic comments have potentially serious repercussions not only for the civil liberties of Americans, but also for U.S. foreign policy and international relations. For example, in justifying the U.S.-led “preemptive” invasion of Iraq, McCain said the following in 2006:

"This just wasn't the elimination of a threat to Iraq - this was elimination of a threat to the West, part of this titanic struggle we are in between western Judeo-Christian values and principles and Islamic extremists."

He made similar comments earlier this year about Iran at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire. In reacting to a new intelligence report that had downplayed the threat of Iran's nuclear program, McCain quickly listed other reasons to be distrustful of the Iranians. As he stated:

"And they sure don't share our Judeo-Christian values."

It’s really disturbing that McCain is identifying non-Judeo-Christian countries (with predominately Muslim populations) as problematic for the U.S, simply because of reputed differences in religious values. In effect, McCain is framing such countries as part of an ostensible “clash of religions,” as was noted in the Boston Globe article. Much to the chagrin of the Muslim world, McCain constantly conflates Islam in general with the war on terror. He has implicitly referred to Islam as an “alien” faith that is deemed to be threatening to the “Judeo-Christian” world.

Last week, as Christianity Today reports, McCain argued in favor of supporting Georgia in its conflict with Russia by noting twice approvingly that “Georgia is a Christian nation.”

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/08/georgia_the_chr.html

McCain seemed to be praising Georgia for adopting Christianity as its official religion, implying that predominately Muslim nations and breakaway provinces in the region - such as Chechnya and Azerbaijan – are not as deserving of U.S. support.

McCain's theocratic rhetoric is just one more reason why I am convinced that he is a very dangerous man who would likely start a war with Iran or other predominately Muslim countries for foolish, irrational reasons. Based on such imprudent and ignorant comments, McCain is not intellectually fit to be commander in chief.

RE. 14. Posted by DillonFreed

You've got to be kidding ... or delusional.

"By the way, if Bush is to the right of Reagan as is McCain, why has Bush given more aid to Africa than any other President before him?"

Because it greased a lot of wheels -- and palms -- for AFRICOM, which will enable the US to control lots and lots of oil fields.

See. www.thenation.com/doc/20071119/glover_lee

"Wouldn't the far-right let all the blacks in Africa die because of their moral depravity?"

Actually, in order to appease the religious far-right, Bush continues to do exactly that -- killing them softly.

See. http://tinyurl.com/6fsq92

"Wouldn't that evil war-monger Bush rather take that money and start another war?"

Once more, the word is AFRICOM --

www.africom.mil

-- coming soon to a war zone near you, should you live in any of several targeted African countries.

"Again, those arguments are based on prejudice, not on reason."

The only prejudice in these arguments is your own.

Let's see...

"and denigrate great men like Reagan,"

What did Reagan do that was so "great"? Reagan gave us 3 trillion in debt, made neoconservatism "mainstream", and supplied arms to terrorists. If your definition of "great" allows for those things, you need your head checked.

"and men history has yet to judge like Bush."

Why wait for history? We're feeling the effects now. The American Dollar is worth less than the Canadian Dollar. Gas is at $4.00 a gallon. We're in a recession. People are losing their homes. Our rights are being taken away. New Orleans is still in terrible shape. We don't have the time to wait for history to judge him. America is suffering now.

"Indeed, the world would be in trouble if Bush rushed to judgment as you do."

You think going to war with Iraq over WMDs they don't have and terrorists that aren't there is "rushing to judgment"?

We haven't rushed to judgment. We've had eight hellish years to decide what we think of Bush.

In conclusion, (and I say this with all the respect I can muster for you right now) fuck you.

mini, this guy's "arguments" are fun to rip apart.

I'll do some more...

"I happen to think that as long as a candidate believes in a Higher Power then that is good enough."

If that's your only requirement for a candidate, congratulations! You're a living example of what we call a "Straw Man" (a position that nobody holds, used to make arguments easier). That is not a good thing (for you).

Also, you might not have known this, but Abraham Lincoln was an Atheist, or at least an Agnostic. He is considered by many to be one of the greatest presidents.

"And speaking of Reagan, the man you denigrate is the same Ronald Reagan who forgave the man who shot him in the stomach, nearly killing him. Reagan was a good man, with vision. He was a spiritual man, he just didn’t fit your permissive, 60s attitude."

Forgiveness and spirituality don't mean you're a good leader. You can be a good person and be a downright shitty leader. I didn't know him personally, but I do know that Reagan was a shitty president.

"McCain’s story is just as, if not more, inspiration than Barack Obama’s. The lack of balance in your blogs is overwhelming and it leads your many followers into radicalism, and a distorted view of the United States, it’s people, and it’s deep spiritual tradition."

Balance, you say? This site's purpose is to help implement change on a personal and social level. Supporting better Democrats and to build a progressive community goes with that. We don't have to admire McCain's life story, because we're trying to defeat him. He's a terrible person (do some research on what happened to his first wife). Nothing to admire there.

"Give traditional religious people a break. They want marriage to be between a man and a woman - that is the definition of it anyways. I am actually okay with gay marriage but can't you understand why some people might be against it?"

Yeah, I understand why they're against it: it's because they're intolerant, backwards, self-centered, ignorant people.

One last one:

"I don’t even believe that life begins at conception myself, but I can certainly see how many people would believe at life at conception. That is not a right wing conspiracy."

Of course there's life at conception. There's life before conception, too. An unfertilised egg is a living cell. That cell dies if it isn't fertilised. Is that murder? No. Sperm cells are alive. Does that make it murder every time you masturbate? No. There's life after death, too. Bacteria feed off the rotting flesh. Whenever you get an infection, that's life inside you. You don't feel like a murderer when you kill the infection - you feel better. Sometimes abstention from sex or family planning using condoms etc and not having a baby is better than having a child that can feel and think grow up in a dysfunctional home. Just like it's sometimes better to die with dignity than to live in a hospital hooked up to machinery for the rest of your miserable existence.

And speaking of miserable existences, I'll leave you to yours. Peace out, motherfucker.

"Forgive Me, I'm Sorry I Got Caught"
http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2008/08/forgive_me_im_s.html#more

“Eventually, forgiveness cannot be accessed simply because you want to forgive. The essence of forgiveness is transcendent -- it lies in a domain of consciousness where the wound doesn't exist and the wrong never occurred” - Deepak Chopra

Faith Quizzes Get an F

“In short, McCain appealed to our escapist magical morality”; “Obama talked about the hard work and sacrifices we need to make”.

“Eventually, evil cannot be accessed simply because you want to defeat it. The essence of evil is transcendent -- it lies in a domain of consciousness where the evil doesn't exist and the wrong never occurred, so does not have to be defeated either.

And so the essence of good lies in a domain of consciousness where good doesn’t exist and the good never occurred, so does not have to be pursued either.”

This is my own conclusion reading those two threads as a mirror, being two sides of the same medal.

So in the end nothing remains than just plain faith in oneself. Both candidates have it, both present it and both are part of the same medal.

So again: Politics is a dirty game, perhaps only solution remains: a government of national unity and a council of male and female delegates willing to unite.

Mieke

"Further, to believe that life begins at conception is not “far right” but a legitimate belief! How dare you say it’s not?

I don’t even believe that life begins at conception myself, but I can certainly see how many people would believe at life at conception. That is not a right wing conspiracy. "

#14 Dillon Freed

Of course there's life at conception.

No one thinks it's a conspiracy that life begins at conception. who's disputing that? I certainly haven't read any Deepak Chopra or any "blogger" here who have.

I think... you're paranoid.

Although I probably wouldn't compare fertilized egg to life in a garbage disposal to make this point... I get so tired of the way abortion debate is framed and how intractable this issue is. I went and talked to lady at neighboring pro-life table at a county fair recently. I think a significant part of her agenda was influencing sexual morals of women. There really is little common ground to be found, even with a person like me who would be open to more restrictions on choice.

"Deepak, a man can be spiritual and be conservative; in fact, I am beginning to think that to being spiritual and liberal is at odds."

#14

Jesus as a Republican. Just think about it...

Or do you think he'd be buying Rich Warren's books? Or Jerome Corsi's? Or spewing hatred against Muslims? Or imprisoning and torturing random people collected from the fields of Afghanistan?

Or perhaps he would be a business owner, underpaying his illegal employees because they can't complain about it to anyone who matters?

Please. Conservatives as moral, spiritual people is a laughable idea. Not even liberals do it that well, because there is very little of the spiritual in politics.

#14

evil?

Spiritually speaking -- from a christian theological point of view -- it is not our job to defeat evil. That is the job of the messiah upon his/her return. McCain's answer denoted a lack of spirituality that recognizes the humanity in all peoples. It is with extreme hubris that man attempts to defeat evil outside while ignoring the evil that lives within himself.

To demonize the others is to deify ourselves. That is why it is hard for many to see anything redeeming about fundamentalists at both sides of the spectrum. Conservatives do not hold a monopoly on the GOOD. They only profess to know all the answers. I judged McCain less by the content of his responses than by the amount of thoughtfulness that was utilized to arrive at them.

DillonFreed,

You'll have to excuse me if I chuckle.

You're kind of like a country bumpkin that shows up in New York with an out-of-date guide book and then gets mad because Penn Station ain't like the pictures.

Take your dippy idea of what happened in the run up to war, "Giving Saddam, the epitome of evil, 4 months to come clean before we "rushed into war" (How 4 months of asking Iraq to disclose its nuclear information is a "rush" is a mystery to me)was responsible."

What you don't know is that prior to Bush unilaterally invading, all of his claims about Iraqi WMDs had been shown to be counterfeit-- in the case of yellowcake, 'literally' a forgery. You didn't read the UNMOVIC reports, you didn't know that the inspectors had searched every location the CIA gave them. Instead, you accepted Bush's blatant lie with doe-like complacency, then wonder why everything is all fuddled up. Now over 4,000 men and women have paid the ultimate price for your type of civic irresponsibility and mental laziness.

Hopefully, you're not too old. Maybe there is time for you to grow up and really question the world around you, rather than relying the easy-to-remember slogans, saws, and logical fallacies that float through your teevee. Best of luck.

DillonFreed

Being spiritual and being liberal is completely compatible. As Jesus said "What you do for the least of my brothers you do for me."

My two cents as a committed Christian
on my way to seminary, if that's still His will.

Salina

Freyja, I have to disagree on the "messiah" part. (#23)

(I'm Atheist), but you're right about it not being our job to defeat (external) evil. The best we can do is defeat internal evil within ourselves and help those that suffer due to the actions of the "evil". You don't have to be a Christian, or even religious to be a good person. I try my hardest to be compassionate, but I don't expect some eternal reward. I just find it more emotionally fulfilling than being an asshole.

#14 DillonFreed

Uh-huh

"I happen to think that as long as a candidate believes in a Higher Power then that is good enough."

So you believe in religious tests for public office?

In that case I'm going to give as much further attention to your diary as you give to the First Amendment, i.e. none.

Elsewhere you wrote:

"I read the Bhagavad-Gita, Yoga Sutras, Wayner Dyer books, Deepak Books, the New Testament, etc etc... and I will probably vote for McCain."

Good. Most Buddhists and Advaitic Hindus don't believe in a "Higher Power" so to speak. You know, their concept of God -- like that of New Age spiritualists like Chopra -- is a bit 'higher'(/evolved) than that of the religious fundamentalists and Bible literalists.

"My spiritual friends look at me as if I grew a second head when I tell them my political views - they don't even let me explain why I think my views are "more spiritual" than liberal views. There is no conversation."

Looking at your comment in this thread, I can sympathize with your friends.

94. Posted by DillonFreed [TypeKey Profile Page] on August 19, 2008

www.intentblog.com/archives/2008/08/when_illusions_1.html

#27

"In that case I'm going to give as much further attention to your diary as you give to the First Amendment, i.e. none."

I meant your "comment(#14)"

@14

Wow, let's talk about "values"

There is so much to argue against in your comments that I don't even know where to start. I am a "values voter" tho... let me share mine with you.

I believe that evil is all too human and often committed with the very best of intentions. (Barack said it better at Saddleback than I can.)

Jihad is a word for "fighting to the death for the good". The Muslim extremists are kind of like the Christian abortion protesters who strap bombs on themselves and blow up clinics full of men, women, and children. There are just a lot more of them.

By the way: The pentagon has been advised that the most effective way to deal with terrorism is a law enforcement approach; not war.

I don't think religion is a prerequisite for morality. I think morality is rooted in empathy.

I value life.

I believe that Muslim lives are just as valuable as Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and Atheist lives.

I oppose the death penalty.

I oppose war, except as an act of defense against an actual, immediate threat.

I don't consider the unwanted American zygote to be more important than the lives of living, breathing women who, as a matter of biology, commit their bodies to pregnancy, childbirth, and child raising, and deserve the right to choose when to become mothers. McCain, for example, supports legislation to ban early abortions for even underaged victims of incest rape.

I guess, you can find Bible scriptures to support or oppose the same issue.

Great men like Reagan? Who can forget Reaganomics?

I respect your right to practice your religion and experience your spirituality as you see fit. I reserve the right to practice a secular life.

The current Republican party is a theocracy, and if we don't fight to keep liberal judges on the bench, we're all screwed, big time.

"No one thinks it's a conspiracy that life begins at conception. who's disputing that? I certainly haven't read any Deepak Chopra or any "blogger" here who have.

I think... you're paranoid." Freyja #23

Yup. The issue isn't whether life begins at conception, or even whether that life is potentially a unique human being--but whether that life overrules the rights of the woman who is hosting that life which cannot exist outside her womb--in other words, whether she has to be turned into a uterus on feet because the fetus has more rights than her...

Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody:

"The fact that Barack Obama would show up at an Evangelical Church and take the tough questions is a credit to him. I mean he knew he was the visiting team so to speak yet he handled these questions like he has in the past: with relative ease [...]

Overall the night was a success for Obama. He didn’t get put on the spot too much with the abortion questions. He handled the "Jesus" question about his faith with ease and maybe most important he looked comfortable up there."

www.cbn.com/CBNnews/429349.aspx

This wasn't a night for Obama to "win", but to remind people that he's not a Muslim Manchurian candidate, and in that regards, he had great success.

Dear whoever wrote #25,

my puppy always gets upset and starts to bark when he looks in the mirror. Do you think I should tell him that he is looking at himself? I mean, if he wants to find real peace...

Been too busy lately to read or comment much here...but I've gotta say, this one's a hoot!

I don't like McCain, but I will have to hold my nose and vote for him.

I expect Obama to win this election....however, if he doesn't...it will be so much fun to log on here and read the 'bullshit'!

Deepak will become 'unenlightened'!

Yogi...well, he'll be screaming something about Diebold and stolen elections...

Baby D will be foaming at the mouth...

Ruth will be saying, "Y'all should have voted for Hilary!"

The IrvineChrisJohnMiniManiIndyFreeya Industrial Bullshit Complex will be apoplectic....theirs will be the fun reads! It's so fun to watch compassionate liberals spew venom...

I hope y'all have a great day...I'll go my way laughing....Deepak's depiction of Warren is just too funny!! And how do people see Deepak? That's hilarious...

:) Sorry Freeya...I did it again...

Been too busy lately to read or comment much here...but I've gotta say, this one's a hoot!

I don't like McCain, but I will have to hold my nose and vote for him.

I expect Obama to win this election....however, if he doesn't...it will be so much fun to log on here and read the 'bullshit'!

Deepak will become 'unenlightened'!

Yogi...well, he'll be screaming something about Diebold and stolen elections...

Baby D will be foaming at the mouth...

Ruth will be saying, "Y'all should have voted for Hilary!"

The IrvineChrisJohnMiniManiIndyFreeya Industrial Bullshit Complex will be apoplectic....theirs will be the fun reads! It's so fun to watch compassionate liberals spew venom...

I hope y'all have a great day...I'll go my way laughing....Deepak's depiction of Warren is just too funny!! And how do people see Deepak? That's hilarious...

:) Sorry Freeya...I did it again...

So much for a civil discussion. I actually live in New York City (I have for 7 years - in Midtown (54th and 7th), Spanish Harlem (with my girlfried who was born and raised there), Bay Ridge Brooklyn, Astoria Queens (42nd street and Ditmars), and off Gun Hill Road in the Bronx). I am not a country bumpkin. What is wrong with that if I am? Before this, I lived lived in Naples, Florida before that Ohio (where I was born - very democratic) and Denver, Colorado. I hold degrees in Psychology, Philosopy and Religion from Pace University (NY Campus). I am either going to NYU or Columbia for graduate school. I have completed ACIM. And attend Buddhist retreats and frequent Yogananda's SRF in Manhattan. I tell you this to impress you, but merely to let you know I am not a Bible Thumper at all. It is crazy how you assume that I am some kind of buck-toothed hill-billy because I support a conservative.

I used to be extremely liberal and right at home in this environment. But then I said to myself, "I have actually never read anything from the other side." So I began reading everything left, right and center. Chomsky, Hoff, Zinn, Friedman, Marx, Fukuyama, Adlermann, Huffington, O'Reilly, Sowell, Hanson, Hoffer, etc. etc. And I realized that there were great arguments on both sides. I started to become more conservative as I realized that the conservative theories seem to align with history more than liberal. HOWEVER, I see why liberals are against conservative values because they have little faith in the future. This is could be a civil disagreement. Could it not?

I respect all of life - I really do. Just because someone leans conservative on some issues does not make them heartless. I am not heartless. Not at all. I just strongly feel that this blog site hates the United States and is a bit irrational.

There is no balanced discussion on this blog site.

I do not have to be RIGHT and you WRONG. But to totally denigrate McCain and Republicans is closed minded, in my opinion. I do not want you to be wrong, not at all, I simply disagree with what Deepak writes concerning politics.

I certainly understand the support for Obama. Who is not enthralled by his speeches? I simply do not think he has enough experience and know-how. I would not lose sleep if he was elected President as I assume you would if McCain was. I am not attacking anyone personally, but this is really what I feel. I think we have two honest men running for President and feel that we are lucky to live in the United States where the two people running are good men. They have different world views and we are not dealing with "right and wrong" but what is pragamtic and utile for own visions of the world. Can't this be an honest debate on a spiritual website?

Reagan was a great man in my opinion. Even if you disagree with his politics, he was a man of integrity. What upset me was Deepak somehow paiting Reagan as an uncaring man. I don't agree with FDR's policies at all, but I respect him as a man and what he did for this country. I respect him a great deal.

I also oppose the Death Penalty, am for Gay Marriage, and am okay with abortion in the first month. Country Bumpkin? Hardly. I am not a monolithic conservative. I think these issues through.

I do think we should fight evil, especially when it takes such a proactive form. Every single non-violent option must be exploited before force is used, of course. War has ended fascism, Nazism, Japanese militantism, and slavery. I think it can end the ideology of Islamic terrorism. I just don't see any other way other than to fight them. (Unless of course we create a totally new fuel source, which will bankrupt their operations. However, I don't know if any one has thought about this, but creating an alternative fuel source will most likely lead to starvation and death throughout the Middle East for most ME countries have no other income source).

I absolutely believe that every life is equal. Who said that they weren't? Atheists have equal standing in my eyes. I simply said I feel it is important that canidates have a belief in a Higher Power. It shows a certain humility in my opinion.

Now, instead of attacking me ad hominim I'd rather you try to persuade with your arguments (as some of you have). I appreciate a healthy discussion.

I agree this country was not solely founded on J-C values, but tell that to the millions upon millions of people who live by those values more than anything else. And J-C values are great values, they align with the perennial philosophy. Sure, there are some areas of J-C values that are 2,000 years old and we have evolved beyond, and fine people like you will let those retrograde know which one's they are.

By the way, I assume most of you disagree with my worldview - that's fine. But why not be diplomatic with me - like you would with China, Russia, Iran, etc.? I will listen (I don't know if the above countries will) - and I will respond.

I don't think I'm paranoid. I have read many of Deepak's blogs and have a fairly good idea of his stances. It is not "Democratic" it is far left. I don't think that is merely an opinion. Please tell me if it is.

I understand that you want "one world" but does that not assume that everyone has good enough karma for that to work? Just a spiritual question?

McCain did do poorly in the Naval Academy. No doubt about that, but he may have done poorly for a number of reasons - not simply because his intellect is feeble. But on a side note, why won't Obama's handlers release his LSAT scores?

Again, let us be opened minded.

Post#17 Dillon Freed

Thank you for taking the time to share. Well I knew it wouldn’t be long before the “all knowing” would be on you like a pack of rats( I cannot give them the honor and distinction of being wolves). I appreciate the fact that you have the courage to come on here and speak your mind.
You can see this a very selective group.
You ask them to give traditional Christians a break. They will not.
However they will rant on incessantly about the religious intolerance of the far right and yet employ the very same ideals when speaking out against Christianity. If any one of them want to see religious intolerance first hand all they need do is look in the mirror.

Post#29 Indy ,
And yes I do believe you(they) would have us talk our enemies to death or send them flowers and poetry in an effort to kiss and make up. The logical conclusion always overlooked by the liberal lame is that in order for peace(or anything for that matter) to be accomplished 2 or more people must be of like mind and want the same goals. I don’t think world peace can be brought about at this time because we are all still in the human thought mode of “grab the bacon“. Most of those in the world are afraid of being without. Many places in the world they don’t give a shit about meeting you or compromising with you or the development of their spirituality, they just want something to eat. But alas if you feed them they just reproduce.(Long ago I used to feed the stray cats in my neighborhood, and lo and behold there were more and more of them and the many suffered. Then I realized my feeding of them was not enough, If I was going to feed them I must also take full responsibility for them, since they themselves could not. This meant I would have to dig deep in my own pocket and have them spayed or neutered. There are less cats, but all are happy, healthy and well. The liberal lames would have us feed them only, with no thought as to future consequences.

This one reason Africa has the problems it does today, ever heard of C.A.R.E?) Probably not, you too young.

Post#25 Intent Admin~
A truly spiritual person, in my opinion, is someone who realizes at the deepest level that each one of us is the same, therefore every single life is of value. I find it impossible to understand how you saber rattlers make peace within yourselves about the fact that you'd kill a Muslim man or woman whom you thought or even knew was going to do evil to others, but you'd do everything in your power to protect a sperm and egg that recently united. How do you know that sperm and egg won't grow up to be Charles Manson?

The key statement here is “ the fact that you’d kill a Muslim man or woman whom you thought or even knew was going to do evil to others, but would do everything in your power to protect a sperm and egg that recently united.”

Do you think you can justify anything by the dissection and disqualification of that thing? If I have eggs, sugar, flour and vanilla, I have only eggs, sugar , flour and vanilla, but if I mix those together and cook at a certain temperature I have a cake! Another point to be made is the babe in the womb is an innocent unlike the individual who has already given in tent to do harm. Liberal lame thinking ( and I don’t mean that derogatorily) is a mindset in which a line of logic based on fact is not carried to its full conclusion.( Liberal lame~ meaning a way of thinking in which the thought process is hindered.)

On Abortion:

The time for a woman to choose is prior to pregnancy. Today she can choose any number of contraceptives, over the counter, prescription, or(god forbid!) abstinence. One needs to take full responsibility for their actions(like me and the cats). If in a case of rape or incest, then of course the choice comes after the fact. I don’t know the exact stats but I don’t think there are too many of those.( The choice can be made because in many of these cases there is a health issue.) I say these things because I am a 54 year old fetus, and who will speak for me, if not me?
Abortion should never be the lazy woman’s way out. If you can’t have or raise a child then you should not do the nasty or make sure you use prevention. No reward of bad behavior. Of course liberal lames think that is exactly what we should do~ Never take responsibility and always send some one else the bill!

This is all I have to share today.

Much compassion~paulisoso

Hello Deepak and Everyone,

Deepak writes, "For me, the God quiz that Barack Obama endured with barely concealed sweaty palms and that John McCain breezed through with seasoned casualness has no place in American politics."

You are absolutely right about this and I do believe we will get back to where we once belonged...that being....the religious, faith, stuff being in the background on the political arena instead of where it is now...the #1 republican conservative god-toy, and listed under how to manipulate with "in god we trust" in thier political strategy handbooks.

In reality, the republican/conservate platform on religion, faith, and god is...."we are so f-ing moral we cannot contain it" so everyone better be as f-ing moral and as f-ing god fearing and as f-ing faithful or ELSE????? So, Barak Obama, are you are or are you not as "f-ing moral" as we are?

It is time the Democrats start drawing the "f-ing" line, on religion, faith and god conversations, there is a place and a time.

and what is truly disturbing is that people do not understand how inappropriate and down right manipulative that whole Saddleback forum was and is. Sooner or later....

now, I have to read the rest of the piece....but your first lines were too important to overlook.

ruth

hello again,

Barak Obama gave great answers to questions during the forum but his answers were too lengthy, only. His answers were great, thoughtful,
and honest.

have a great day all.....

The Saddleback forum was a crock and I hope Barak Obama and the Democrats start standing up to this "f-ing morals game" the republicans love to play......god, they siss me off....

have a great day all, ruth

Deepak, Ruth et al...

One more round on the Church thing--but perhaps from another angle.

As far as the Saddleback thing goes, couldn't Obama have pulled a Stephen Colbert/Press Club thing that night?

By that I mean, while McCain was speaking to the audience in front of him and ignoring the fact that the nation was watching, Obama was speaking to all of us.

I remember when Colbert's first reviews came out, everybody in the traditional media thought he had bombed. That's because they were taking their cues from the people in the room.

I also remember how much all of the progressive bloggers loved him, and I remember a comedian saying that every performer knows that there are times when you don't talk to your intended audience, you talk instead to the waiters standing in the back of the room. He said that's what Colbert was doing.

And sure enough, days and even weeks later, Colbert's performance was upgraded to brilliant. It is still remembered. It is memorable.

I think that by sticking to his guns on things like choice, Obama was "playing to the waiters" in that crowd. In this case, the waiters were all those pro-choice Republican women who were, by the very nature of patriarchal right wing religion, standing "in the back of the room" that night.

Already, this morning's Washington Post is trying to help McCain step back from his "unwavering" anti-abortion support, by saying that he might pick a pro-choice running mate:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/19/AR2008081903228.html?pid=topnews

And already, a Republican woman has gone on Chris Matthews' Hardball saying that she is for Obama because of the appalling way that McCain has thrown pro-choice Republicans under the bus--and she especially referenced Saddleback.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26300609#26300609

Now it's up to Obama--and to us, to solidify the victory, to make sure that we see his performance as memorable. We do this by saying Obama won in spite of advantages taken by silent coneheads or whatever. We do this by hammering McCain's unequivocal position against a woman's right to choose. We go on the offensive about Saddleback, we use it for our side.

So far, I'm not seeing that.

But Saddleback? McCain may have played to the crowd, but he may have also been rope-a-doped by Obama yet another time. How to make it so? It's up to us.

PS. As McCain was proudly proclaiming his anti-Roe v. Wade creds and naming all (half of) the Supreme Court Justices he would eliminate to reach that goal (followed by that creepy, fake grin), I was thinking, "Didn't he just lose every woman in America, except the most religiously extreme?"

DillonFreed: thanks for your reasoned posts. I, for one, am always inspired when I witness strong opinions being offered in a respectful manner, and I'm cheering on all posters that are willing to pick out the grain from the chaff and move the discussion forward in an enriching way.

Ruth Baby....your panties are getting all bunched up for nothing!

BO is gonna win...

Then with Pelosi and Reed firmly entrenched...y'all will get your way for four years!

Then...we'll all live in a utopia....Gas will only be $6 per gallon! Interest rates will only rise to 18%! Inflation will only run away with itself! Unemployment will only go to 11%!

All this brought about, because the Dems are gonna take care of the little people, Yeah! They're gonna go after the EVIL corporations! Yeah, take that...Big Oil! We, the government, are going to decide what is an excessive profit, and we're gonna take it away from you!

Oh yeah, and Craig will be happy...there won't be any jobs to find....so he won't feel guilty about being non produtive!!

Viva Revolucion...or some such nonsense!

luv ya,

:)

Nope, I am with you Norm: death to all poor people, I don't care what skin color they are.

Then they will make your ass work in the nig, uh, in the service sector!

Now would you like that McSandwich with or w/or pickles.

I's being productive mastah, I's being productive . . .

Well, Skinny, I really do not know what is going to happen if Barak Obama wins but we do know what will happen if John McCain wins, don't we. Oil Company profits will keep soaring everytime we fill our tanks and our saving accounts will keep dwindling because we need to withdraw a little to help pay for this winter's heating bills. John will need about a billion/trillion to surge, again, this time in Georgia. Drilling will begin ..everywhere....he, most likely, will give the okay for private drug stores to stop selling birth control....for god's sake of course....shall I go on....my friend?

luv...ya....:))

Craig...that's bullshit...nobody wants poor people to die...

As for you...of all the people I've ever conversed with, you are probably one of the smartest ever. These IrvineChrisJohnFreeya,et al., psuedo intellectuals wouldn't make a pimple on your ass....you think...they regurgitate what they've been told...

Having said that, (and we go way back) most of the time when I read your stuff I just want to wring your scrawny neck.... If you'd spend half the time looking for ways to contribute to your own well being and the well being of those around you, that you spend whining about the injustices of 'the man'....you'd be force to be reckoned with. It's about choices...it's about a little bit of pride...hell with your intelligence, flip burgers for a few months, work your way up to own the damn place...yeah it can be done...people come here from Mexico, Colombia, and wherever, risking their life to live the american dream, in two or three years they own a business... but you, blessed with more intelligence than 3 average people sit on your ass and want it all given to you....If I could get my hands on you I'd beat the hell out of you, then take you out for a nice dinner and pay next months rent for you...

Get a grip...your little Marxist dream ain't coming true...if BO wins they'll make a strong run at it...but in four years they'll be out on their asses...

norm

Hello All

Regardless of what most of the political pundits say on either side, I think most of the US electorate could be described as moderate in that it includes conservative liberals and liberal conservatives and the really nonpolitical, average, common-sense person who is simultaneously humanitarian but practical and not given to extremes, or feverish shrill ranting, finger pointing or childish emotional displays.

Perhaps what is being overlooked here is that both Mccain and Obama recognize that a successful political campaign rests on the major trends in society. This is a good thing not a bad thing. These trends are reflected by significant book sales,(e.g. Rick Warren's "The Purpose Driven Life,") and represent that people are looking for meaning, direction, self-fulfillment and spiritual significance. The majority is looking for a leader to be calm, rational, thoughtful and emotionally stable in order to pursue those goals. Neither the far left nor the far rightr represent any of those things but simply self-indulgence of emotionality.

Someone on another thread recommended reading George Lakoff. So would I, especially "Thinking Points: A Progressives Handbook," which reads like a 21st century sermon on the mount. Lakoff has out Jesused Jesus.

A review from Matthew Miller states:

"According to Lakoff, four political principles naturally flow from the progressive moral vision.

The Common Good Principle grounds individual flourishing in the larger social context. Consumer protections, firefighters, public schools and social security are examples of this principle enacted.

The Expansion of Freedom Principle can be inferred from the expansion of empathy. It is manifest in the provision of rights; worker rights, civil rights, voting rights.

The Respect for Human Dignity Principle follows directly from the core element of empathy. This principle implies opposition to torture and genocide but it also implies the positive duties of provision of food, shelter education, healthcare and transportation for all.

Finally, The Diversity Principle also follows from empathy as the appreciation of difference. Diversity as a political ideal is the full acceptance of the other's "otherness" even if the other wants to wear fairy wings and a Mardi Gras mask while parading down fifth avenue!"

It's my opinion that when progressives get off message regarding morals, faith and etc by using negative terms like "Faith Quizzes Get an F." and not recognizing the Diversity Principle, there will, rightly so, be backlash.

There's good and bad in each of these candidates. Neither one is going to be a "shoo-in." Whichever one is elected, this is a transition time to the new realities of the 21st century for all of us.

Respectfully,
Bonnie

P.S.

With all the nose holding before voting, there's going to be lots of windfall profits for nose doctors who treat sore noses come November 5.

:)

The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
(etc.)

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

The Constitution of the United States:

(A Transcription)

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
(etc.)

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(etc.)

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Deepak,

What is disturbing is how fast both candidates were swept into the Illusion, as you alluded to, each not daring to question the popular fiction.

CHURCH: a body or organization of religious believers

FAITH: a system of religious beliefs

There is no difference yet neither candidate questioned it and was able to see through the Illusion created by Rick Warren. In other words he was propagating a fiction.

RELIGION IS AN EGO CREATION NOT ONE OF SPIRIT - scripture says and we are warned that the Churches (institutionalized religion) are the Antichrist; which must be true if we have Faith in Scripture?

McCain with his understandable doubts about the existence of a God resulting from his experience in prison camp, and Obama doesn’t really buy the Jesus died for our sins crap.

Jesus was a Jew and not a Christian. Furthermore the Christians should be thanking the Jews for crucifying Jesus since their act actually redeemed Christians, Jesus could have just committed suicide to die for your sins.
What this character Jesus did was refuse to buy into the worlds fictions and he set the ultimate example of being steadfast in the truth.

Religion is one big fiction, and it was Religion that crucified Jesus because he questioned the fiction and saw through it.

So if anyone really wants to honor Jesus, start ripping the fictions apart with your rational logical discerning minds and live steadfast in the truth, don’t sell out to the ego empire.

"RELIGION IS AN EGO CREATION NOT ONE OF SPIRIT - scripture says and we are warned that the Churches (institutionalized religion) are the Antichrist; which must be true if we have Faith in Scripture?" ~ Richard

And where and what scripture does it say that? What book are you referring to? Understanding is lacking in wisdom .... Each of us is the temple and the church in and of ourselves, as the kingdom of God is within each of us. I don't call myself the anti-christ unless I go against Jesus' teachings of forgiveness, love, and compassion for all mankind.

Love, Char

Faith is Trust according to webster.com

Faith can move a mountain according to Jesus.

Trust is real in our illusions of this world.

Truth is behind it all....so close and yet so far away.

To live in the world, but not of the world our connection.

So many shadows.....

I hear you Norm.

peace

Yes, faith is a verb not a noun. The word has been perverted by the Ego.

"I don't call myself the anti-Christ unless I go against Jesus' teachings of forgiveness, love, and compassion for all mankind." -Char

Exactly and the Catholic Church hoards enormous gold and wealth while children starve. Exactly my point is that compassion or greed?

There is a big difference between spirituality and religion. Spirituality doesn’t have any dogma, fiction, or perversion. Spirituality is simply based on everything being connected and part of one body, with One Being behind it all. This is what Jesus A Christ was trying to communicate. It is that simple.

Politics being how various needs and wants are expressed and met or obtained how combined efforts are implemented and what joint ventures are formed and funded. Politics should include the view that we are all one; part of the same body. Religion should not be involved in Politics because it has become perverse in the eyes of the Lord it has become the house of hypocrisy not the House of God.

Sounds fine with me. However, I do not think it does anyone any justice to lump all Christians into one pot, as there are so many different sects. Organized religions within the Christian community are doing their best to live as Jesus taught, but no organization is perfect. I personally prefer not to be involved in any religious group and I do believe that experience of one's true self is the only real way to go, so maybe that's called spiritual. In short, I agree with what you have said, as it makes sense.

Love, Char

Hello Deepak and Everyone

Why Faith Quizzes get an F...

is really very grammar school learning, it is all about the separation of church and state, really, it is quite simple stuff most get it by the eighth grade level...

and, if one allows themself to forget it, it is most likely because of "one's own special interests" not another's and certainly not in the interest of our Democracy, as a whole which serves the interests of the whole and not the few and true diversity is served by respecting and revering the separation of church and state...

so, one can talk all the fancy dancy lingo one wants when their interest is in manipulating this most important aspect of our Constitution but when you "really got it," way back when it was taught....one understood it or you probably got an f in you social studies class...

I hope Barak Obama and the Democrats learn from this that they do not have to answer to or prove anything to the Rick Warren's of the religious right.

If they do not stand up to his kind of religious and moral intimidation now and get it over with they will have to down the line....the religious/political right will not stop. They want roe-vs-wade gone, it is their calling, they are not going away. The Democrats need to stand now and stop being afraid of losing votes because they understand the separtation of chuch and state and believe in it and because they back a woman's right to choose. Women will never go back...women will not allow a religion, a man, another women to send them back to the alley and the hanger....it ain't gonna happen....now, that does not mean, that, we, in this Nation, cannot do everything in our power to create an environment where women do not have to make that choice, at all.......

I would tell the Democrats to stand up now and be done with it....stay your course...quit being dragged into the game....as long as they play it they will lose...they can only win if they stand and stop.

that's my story and I am sticking to it....ruth

EEEEEEEEEEHHHEEEEEEEEHEEEE!!!!

I hadn't watched all of this 'Saddleback' Forum, but I had it DVR'd, and today sat down and watched it...I laughed my big butt off!

It looked like 'Baby Barry Obama' against 'Sir John, the Wise Elder'....My God, I knew he was a pipsqueak, but never saw the contrast like this! I bet Deepak had sweaty palms just watching it! This was classic....

There was a word the major media liked to throw around in 2000. It was 'gravitas'. Bush had to select Cheney for his gravitas..blah, blah, blah....

I have news for you snivelling Obamaniacs...'you done picked the wrong dude!!' Hillary had more gravitas in her pantsuit than this little feller has in his whole personage. He's good with a podium and a prompter...but other than that...he's toast!

Wasn't it funny when he almost said Clarence Thomas didn't have enough experience? This coming from a dude whose claim to fame is community organizing and 180 days in the Senate.... Yup...funny!

I think I may hear Republicans laughing in November...I think I may smell victory....I think I may have been a little premature in saying little Barry is gonna win...

I think...we need a man...not a lightweight...

:)

I guess, I had better watch the show, so will catch it over the weekend as it sound more entertaining than a movie!

Love, Char

Rick Warren energetically slimed Obama right out of the gate. His paws-on-top dominance maneuver was obvious, and obviously intended to intimidate Obama.

(I'd like to see Rick Warren speak at an inner city church to determine how he fares among those whom he considers jackels.)

The defining moment was McCain's "Defeat it" bellicose byte: Jesus said, "Resist not evil." So how exactly does RICK WARREN HIMSELF reconcile his parishioners' fever-driven zeal for a third Blitzkrieg across Iran with his own holy text?

The fact is that the US sponsored most of these bad cats back in the eights and well before. They promised Afghanistan "freedom fighters" their very own Holy Caliphate if the ousted the Soviets.

The fact is that we've supped with The Devil himself, and suddenly we're going to "defeat it"?

Come on. Obama was to kind in his response about our truculant call for Goodness. He should've just told it exactly how it is.

well, skinny, go ahead and enjoy yourself...

you write, "I think I may hear Republicans laughing in November...I think I may smell victory...." yeah, that's possible..... and, there are about 49 million oxygen masks on order in anticipation...I think it will be a national air alert day...

heheheheheheheheheheheheh

have a good one....ruth

And Rick Warren needs to lay off the bacon and eggs.

Shucks, I missed:

Rick Warrent needs to lay off the Freedom Fries.

Hi Dana...good to see you around...you've always been one of my favorites...i mean that sincerely...hope you get that Duramax Dually someday!

As for your assertions about Warrens sliming and dominating of Obama...Whatchu talkin bout, Willis? It was completely even handed...sweaty palms and all! As for that matter, how can a Messiah be dominated? He could've walked on water, he could've turned the water into wine, he could've taken all the fat and calories out of Pastor Rick's bacon, eggs and freedom fries....

Nawww....Dana....y'all had your chance...you could've nominated someone with a little bit of experience or 'gravitas'....but you're stuck with him...the pipsqueak!!

Ruthie Darlin.....Smells like honeysuckle! Even our Beautiful Kate hasn't smelled anything that sweet on one of her moonlight walks!

Hope you're having a good evening...

:)

Hey I just saw on MSN that little Barry has picked his running mate...he's gonna announce it Saturday by text....ain't that sweet....

In keeping with the sesame street, disney, mother goose theme....The VP candidate for the Democrat Party issss.....Little Boy Blue!!

Thanks, Skinny. That was heartfelt, and I appreciate your welcome!

Question, though, that you didn't address: Rick Warren's podium Bible states, "Resist not evil."

Now I know a lot of Bible scholars--the same ones who are Literalists about some passages in the Bible--will say, "WELLLLLL, son, you have to take it in context." They say the same thing about, "My Kingdom is not of this world, else my servants would fight" and they add to the end of the passage, "...the Romans". It doesn't say "the Romans", but suddenly it's inferred.

Of "God is Love", where Love clearly is the predicate nominitive in the translation, hence "Love is God" HAS to be true according to the rules of grammar at the time it was written, they answer testily, well there's a whole story leading up to that passage, and things that have to occur--like righteousness--first.

But the passage does NOT say, "God will be Love when you have realized His righteousness." It simply says in King James English, "God is Love."

So either the passage stands as written (predicate nominitive standing), or it's an error in a flawed book.

That's Rick Warren's Bible. Sitting on his podium, and I'm now playing by his rules: so how does he reconcile in his able mind the rabble-rousing "DEFEAT IT" chant with The Word of God? That's the question Obama ought to have asked, and probably would've were he not running for President.

The venue was flawed. These were not Christ's children, nor was this Christ's Word.

I believe that he is elected, McCain will adjure us on a path of self-defeat.

Because that's the only 'it' there is.

afternoon skinny,

you write, "Ruthie Darlin.....Smells like honeysuckle!"..... honeysuckle my.....

hmmmmm....I think it will on down in history as being called "the GREAT big stink of the 21st century" ...four years of one long phew and citizens of the globe constantly saying...."phew...you smell that?" "there is some nasty stuff" go in on in the USofA these days!.

enjoy yourself in repubville....btw, how many homes do you have?

:)

LOL

OK Ruth, OK....it wasn't honeysuckle...it was lilacs...but you get the picture....sweet...on the breeze...

Just one house....a humble little ranch style house, 'down on de fahm'!

great saturday to you and all!

:)

PS...Joe Biden...Hehehehe! Sound bite heaven!

In a two party system we do not need a pro religious and and anti religious party. But we do need, as a minimum, a party that avows respect for those who do not believe in a higher being. -nick

In a two party system we do not need a pro religious and and anti religious party. But we do need, as a minimum, a party that avows respect for those who do not believe in a higher being. -nick

As far as I'm concerned, the Democratic Party is the lesser of two evils with regard to religiosity.

Agree with spec3d and John.

Faith dialogue and prayers are going to be central in the Democratic convention starting tomorrow. They are stating that they are a party of "faith." It's been clear for the past four years that this was going to be the Obama strategy: try to recruit some religious wingnuts over from the Republican side. It's a strategy that has pluses and minuses.

I'm afraid compromises like this may be the only way to make any progress towards a more rational society. Many analysts argue that not talking about religion is partially what cost Democrats in 2002 and 2004.

Obama/corporate Dems are simply Goldwater/Eisenhower Republicans.

Are we surprised (given the Democrats' betrayal of most other progressive positions they, seems now, pretended to hold)? Also I happen to know a lot of religious, but genuinely progressive democrats who are equally disgusted with the party (for similar reasons; they abhor piety and religiosity being made into a spectacle). It seems that our options in November boil down to selecting between two giant coils of turd and voting for the relatively less stinky one.

George H.W. Bush said "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." I remember that. And I didn't hear a whole lot of religionists denouncing him for this idiotic statement. I was pretty much indifferent to him before I heard that, and then I started looking into his record a bit. He is a textbook example of everything that's wrong with the Republican party. It's a real shame that we didn't have Barry Goldwater around to denounce him.

I wholeheartedly agree with Gotham's post.

Hillary supporters are behaving EXACTLY like George W Bush's supporters in Florida when they eventually realized that they had lost the 2000 election. They were going to threaten and intimidate until they got their way.

And did.

But they could never ACT like real winners. Not once.

This time, however, it isn't going to be the loudest sector that is going to win.