I was very disappointed to read this thread about Lieberman. I was hoping that as a Jew, one of the most persecuted peoples in all of history, he would tolerate all views.
The problem is, if freedom of and from religion is key to you, who do you vote for? I thought I read that it was likely that there would be some Supreme Court justices retiring in the next term (I will have to verify this), and I sure as shit don’t want a conservative administration appointing new justices if I can help it. (Not even a “compassionate” conservative).
If it turns out that it’s likely there will be new Supreme Court justices appointed, I’m going to have to still go with Gore/Lieberman. My gamble is that long-term this will be better for freedom of/from religion than if Bush appoints new justices.
You know what I think the problem is? As an observant Jew, I am used to politicians saying religious things that I don’t agree with.
I mean, yeah, I agree with you in theory… politics and religion shouldn’t mix. But, I’m more pragmatic about the whole situation.
And, I don’t see why Leiberman’s remarks offend and frighten you more than Bush’s. Or Buchanan’s. Or Carter’s. Or any other politician’s.
Also, remember to whom Lieberman was speaking at the time. This address was given to a Church audience… I think you can cut the man a little slack. When speaking to Church groups, he emphasizes religion. I’ll bet that if he was invited to DavidB’s house, his tune would be different. That’s politics.
Ignoring his beliefs, what do you think of the man’s stand on issues?
As unpleasant and distasteful Joe’s speach was to me, I find that I can rationalize his motivation for making these statements. Politics is a dirty game and not a single successful politician exists that cannot speak out of both sides of his face. I think this was simply a calculated attempt at trying to win over the undecided leftish conservative voters. Perhaps even an attempt to lure away some left leaning republicans.
I find it crass. Disgusting. Immoral. And entirely political. You cannot trust any of these bastards farther than you can throw them. They’d sell their mother for a hundred votes.
Thanks, Nen, you explained it better than I could.
This whole thing is very depressing—like Revtim, I just don’t know what to do. I guess Gore/Lieberman ARE the lesser of the evils, but still . . .
Sdimbert—His other views? Well, I don’t like how he was the first Democrat to attack Clinton, and I don’t like his voting for the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act. But that just puts him in league with just about every other pol.
I repeat, I want to lobby for a “none of the bastards!” choice on the November ballot . . .
Sure, Lieberman was speaking to a religious congregation, but does a politicians platform change as a result of the audience to which he addresses. Lieberman stated, “As a people, we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God’s purposes.” I’d be damn confused if Lieberman felt that the nation needs to dedicate itself to god only while he addresses the theistically oriented. His stance on the nation and god seems like an issue which is an integral part of his platform. You can’t ignore his beliefs in that regard.
Speaking for me. They don’t. they do illustrate that atheists and those who favor not having prayer in schools can’t trust him anymore than they can trust bush. It simply shows how much the two canidates and they’re Veeps are alike.
Also fairly conservative, moral, and scary. His stand on the entertainment industry is frightening.
This statement was reported in the Washington Post immediately after Gore named Lieberman as his VP pick:
“He (Lieberman) believes, as I do, that the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof,” Mr. Gore said…“And as I stand next to him today, I believe in my heart that we are one step to truly being one nation under God.”
One Nation Under God???
I bet it doens’t stop the ACLU and the People for the American Way (et al.) from contributing to the Gore/Lieberman campaign, however.
As an atheist, Izzy, I bet I have to deal with a lot more politicans saying religious things I don’t agree with than you do. Most politicians go for a generic “God” reference, which is not antithetical to your beliefs, but it is for mine. I’d like to think that if a major politician implied that Jews couldn’t be moral, you’d be up in arms, and rightfully so–and I’d stand beside you. And if Bush, Carter or Buchanan makes comments excluding a group from genuine morality based on their religion, I’ll be pissed at them too. I’m mostly angry at Lieberman because I expected better from him; I already know Buchanan’s an ass.
Gaudere:
Nice to see you! Haven’t debated with you in a while. Here goes…
First of all, politicians have been saying things just like that for a while. See my earlier post to Eve - I’m used to it.
Secondly, while your theoretical point is a good one, it is only theoretical. John Adams and George Washington never said those things. And, if they had, the 200+ years of American political history since them would have dealt with the issue already.
**
I’m not going to touch that one with a ten-foot pole. I’ve been over that with you before. Suffice it to say that, yes, Lieberman is a religous candidate. I would love to see a Jew on the ticket despite his religion instead of because of it. But, I believe that he’s a more reasonable man than the media is making him out to be. I am willing to wait and see. After all, I have been warily watching religious politicians for a long time. At least this time he’s my kind of religion! Nen:
**
Honestly? I don’t think so.
I read his statement to be saying that religion is not a taboo in politics despite what some hard-line Seperationist might believe.
**
Honestly? I don’t think so (again).
Look, this is a county where schoolchildren recite, “One nation, under God…” isn’t it? Nobody clamors over the Seperation of Church and State on that one, do they?
Don’t get caught up in his rhetoric. As I said earlier, politicians have been saying things like this for a long time. This time, it happens to be a Jewish one. BFD.
**
No, literally, it excludes them from the group of people for whom the Constitution was made. Whatever that means. :rolleyes:
Look - The statement isn’t Leiberman’s, it’s Adams’. You got a problem with John Adams? You’re blaming the wrong person! For better or for worse, that statement is part of the cannon of American Political Literature. If you’re unhappy with that, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
**
It implies that George Washington felt that morality can not be maintained without religion. The fact that Lieberman used it in a speach implies that he is like-minded.
Good thing he’s not running for the office of Vice-President of Morality.
**
No. It implies that Lieberman wants more people to be able to feel comfortable with their religions. Did you skip the part where he said, “all people who are moved”?
I don’t mean to be rude, but I think you’re taking an alarmist viewpoint here, reading too much into his statements. Again, nothing he said here is new. It’s just Jewish this time.
**
Sarcastic much?
**
Yes, it does. It illustrates that if one takes every statement at face value, ignoring those that are inconsistent with one’s thesis and ascribes an evil motivation to ideas that are as old as the US itself, one might take offense.
Sdimbert—you may think I am just getting hysterical over Lieberman, but I get upset when ANY politician tries to cram religion down my throat (ANY religion).
As someone else here pointed out, it’s particularly disappointing coming from a Jew and a Democrat. Just reminds us atheists how really despised and alienated we are in this country, still.
If they’ve been saying that a person can’t be moral without worshipping Christ, they were wrong to say that, and if I were you I’d be pissed off. I’m “used” to having atheism blamed for everything from pot-smoking to murder, but I’ll be damned if I let politicians go on their merry way denigrating other religions or the irreligious without me making my opinion of that rather loudly known. Why do you allow politicians to imply that non-Christians are less moral than a Christian, and not only do you not do anything about it yourself, you counsel others to do nothing either? Remember, “turn the other cheek” is a Christian tenet–us atheists and Jews can fight for respect. And I think we should.
I thought he was a reasonable man; I’m no longer terribly impressed with him. It’s not “the media” that said those things–he did.
Huh? I know you’re Jewish–I was saying, “Speaking as I am as an atheist, Izzy, blah blah blah blah…” I was not saying you were an atheist, I was simply referring to you by name. Sorry if I was unclear.
Nothing Lieberman has said even approaches suggesting that he despises atheists. Or anyone else for that matter.
He didn’t cram religion (or anything else) down your throat.
Hell, he wasn’t even talking to you.
EVERYBODY CALM DOWN!
[ul]
[li]Stop labelling.[/li][li]Stop ascribing motives and motivations that are not obvious.[/li][li]Stop reading things into other people’s statements.[/li][li]Stop alarming others when no alarm is justified.[/li][/ul]
All of these things are exactly what the media does wrong. Gaudere,
First of all, just for clarity’s sake, you mentioned Christ, not Joseph Lieberman.
**
Look - Joe Lieberman doesn’t need my permission to say anything. I didn’t “allow” him to say what he said any more than I “allowed” the sun to rise this morning.
I reiterate the first point I made in this post (to Eve): Calm down. Lieberman wasn’t talking to you when he said the things he said.
Of course you have the right to frame your opinions of him based on everything he says and does. But do yourself a favor and stop End-of-the-Worlding every statement he (and others) make.
USA Today and TV Newsmagazines do a good enough job of over-reacting, reading out of context and reading into people’s remarks. Let’s let our discussion here be of a more civilized nature.
(And, BTW, Izzy was pointing out that the remarks to which you originally responded were mine, not his.)
[/quote]
It implies that George Washington felt that morality can not be maintained without religion. The fact that Lieberman used it in a speach implies that he is like-minded.
[/quote]
Since you touched it with your ten-foot pole, as it were, you have stated that Lieberman maintains Washington’s belief, ergo, Lieberman believes atheists are immoral.
That’s a valid interpretation; however, I believe in complete separation of church and state, so I still find it offensive.
I sure as hell do. I got reprimanded for not pledging my allegiance.
I don’t care what his religious orientation is, I just don’t want it interfering with government.
And the Constitution was made for whom?
Lieberman implied that he adhered to Adams’ beliefs in the same fashion as he did Washington’s.
Lieberman mentioned nothing of comfort. I personally have no problem with people being comfortable with their respective religions; however, executive mandates regarding religions in a public forum are unnecessary and offensive.
Regardless of whether or not it is “new”, it is unsettling. I am very critical of politicians. Their words bear heavily on the future of this society. Politicians should be capable of placing precise meaning into their statements.
Frequently, but how is that relevant to my statement?
I utilized all quotations availble from the referenced media. I ignored nothing; moreover, I ignored nothing inconsistent with my thesis.
Yet another reason to vote Libertarian (and I’m not referring to the poster by that name). I just looked at their website and their position on religion is acceptable to me, and I’m an atheist.
::slapping self in head:: Ok, I get it. Forgive me, I’m a moron. I always get confused when two people argue the same side, since I rarely look carefully at who is posting, and you two don’t have distinctive enough “voices” that I can tell you apart without your SNs. I could use my Secret Moderator Powers to fix the name, but I can’t do that invisibly. Curses, I guess I’m left looking like a twit.
Well, I’d hardly expect him to. You said you were used to religious politicians saying things like Lieberman, except denigrating your beliefs instead of mine. I then stated that it would be wrong for a person to imply that either non-Christians or non-theists cannot be truly moral. I’m not sure why you are pointing out that Lieberman did not mention Christ, except to note that he is not excluding Jews from being capable of genuine morality–just atheists, agnostics, Buddhists…
No, of course not, but if someone was implying that you couldn’t be moral without worshipping Christ, I’d expect you to get a bit peeved. Since politicians have actual power over our lives, a belief that non-whatevers cannot be truly moral seems a dangerous belief for them to hold, and I feel we should point out to them that their voters do not all agree with them on that issue. It may make them less likely to do things to help make non-whatevers into whatevers, for the good of society of course, since non-whatevers can’t really be moral.
Dammit, don’t argue with my attempt to look slightly less clueless! Ok, I guess I just must have been thinking of you since I was just reading your posts in GD and so I used the wrong name. This’ll teach me to pay better attention.
And I think we should.