I remember a time, not long ago at all, when it would seem absurd to ask a candidate something like “Do you think the U.S. Government should torture people”? Lately I keep feeling like I’m living in a near-future political satire.
That’s because we used to do stuff like that in total secret. Do you really think that torture wasn’t used during WWII or Vietnam? n.b.: I’m not justifying torture, but I think it’s naive to suggest it didn’t happen in the recent past, especially during wartime.
Yeah, I think it’s generally a good thing that technology and social changes have opened up questions like that to public discussion, as opposed to a bad sign that we’re talking aobut it at all.
As annoyed as I get by the blinkered rabble rousing (and there is a lot), the blogosphere has really helped to remove the filter on what we discuss, and this massively distributed fact-checking thing that happens as a result seems to be working OK too.
Not sure why that would surprise. He’s a Yankee, isn’t he?
I couldn’t agree more. Romney is the most disingenuous candidate running for president. Does he even know what he stands for? I don’t think he does. He is a sell out.
Both the Republican and Democratic debates were an embarrassment and emblematic of our culture that is defined by mass media control. The dysfunctional political process has reached an all time low. The debates were ridicules and neither party discussed the real issues impacting American lives.
The bible question may not have been technically unconstitutional but it was mighty close and a slippery slope that could backfire on Republicans. I believe most voters are tired of religion in politics.
There is an article in The Nation that explains how the debates have become an orchestrated event similar to a game show. CNN even had a producer running around the stage to manipulate the audience. The only thing missing was an applause prompt.
Here is the full article. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071210/alterman
If she shows a picture of someone wearing a shirt for a specific candidate and openly promotes same on her site then that’s not opinion. Either her information is accurate or it’s not.
I"ll take that as you can’t refute the information. You don’t get to dismiss assertions without some shred of evidence to the contrary.
No, it’s not remotely close to being unconstitutional-- quite the opposite. And a slippery slope argument (in this case) is a logical fallacy. The constitution expressly acknowledges the right of the people to freely exercise their religion. If some people want to apply a religious test in voting for president, they are constitutional protected in doing so.
Yes, I do. You made the assertion and did not back it up. Michele Malkin is not a “cite”-- not in GD. Neither is my cousin. I will dismiss it until and unless you do.
It’s the cite I gave. If you don’t like it then too bad. Saying you don’t like the cite is not an argument unto itself.
I’m not trying to make an argument. I’m just trying to see if yous is a good one.
BTW, I went out of my way to tell you that I wasn’t assuming you were wrong, just that your "cite’ isn’t convincing. It isn’t. Give us an original source news cite, and I’ll gladly accept your assertion. You’re just wrong here, dude, and you’re digging yourself deeper in that hole. Michele Malkin is your cite? Honestly, Magiver, that is just laughable.
Notice how the debate has shifted from the Republican candidates–who, to be charitable, are running to see who will get buzzsawed in the general election–to a worthless argument over the relative merits of Michele Malkin, a shameless (and rather obvious) media whore.
John Mace, I can appreciate your position, and wholeheartedly agree with it. However, IMHO you’re falling for the oldest trick in Karl Rove’s playbook. Of course the Republicans want to talk about supposed Democratic “plants”; it drawn attention away from how pathetic their candidates are. Proof of this is the fact that no one is talking about the actual questions these presumed “plants” asked; the fact that they are Democrats apparently is enough to ignore the candidates’ pathetic answers.
Michele Malkin is an idiot, but she’s a useful idiot. Best to keep that in mind as campaign season rolls along…
There are powerful Christian Right groups with large bank accounts and significant political clout. They want to impose fundamental Christian values on all Americans through government which is a total disregard of the first amendment. The bible questions and bible quizzes of the presidential candidates is a reflection of the influence of Christian Right in politics.
These religious questions degrade the first amendment and separation of Church and State. It is unconstitutional to require a religious test of anyone running for public office. These bible questions seem to be dangerously close to a religious test.
**Article six of the constitution.
**
I agree that the concept of separation between religion and the state protects religious freedom. People have the right to worship and believe freely. There have been many presidents with strong faith, but questions about private religious beliefs were not posed to presidential candidates in a debate as a litmus test nor were the beliefs preached from a podium. I was amazed at the number of Republican candidates who wanted to make overturning Roe V Wade a number one priority, another movement rooted in religious ideology.
Kennedy made it a point in a speech to the Ministerial Association of Houston to emphasize the irrelevance of his religion concerning office not reinforcing the supremacy of his religion.
The slipper slope I was referring to was the idea of Christian supremacy backfiring on republicans. I believe and hope Americans don’t want religion or Christian beliefs in a political debate when far more crucial issues are facing this country.
It may be so that the 21st Century BSG is the most compelling television currently being offered. But if it is, then it’s a shame that the producers chose to name it after a misbegotten Punch and Judy show that will forever be associated with chimpanzees wearing monkey robot suits, and generic stormtrooper-types dressed up as chrome-plated Rock-'Em Sock-'Em Robots.
Wouldn’t you prefer the president to start civil wars and massacres of civilians over there rather than over here?
I am neither agreeing or disagreeing with your post, but wouldn’t one have to have an original world view with some conviction and then later change it in a trade for power or money to become a “sell out”?
As has already been explained, the idea of outlawing a religious test is aimed at the government. The people can and will choose candidates for whatever asinine reason they wish. For many, if all the candidates have equally good hair and broad shoulders they may turn to religion for guidance.
This may come as a shock to you, but the United States is a little religious. And this whole religious/political meshing thing started quite awhile back. Before TV, even.
As for abortion, although religion is often at the root of anti-abortion sentiment it is possible for an atheist to be against abortion. It doesn’t even matter if it was completely religious. If all the voters want to know the stance of the candidates on the resurrection of Jesus Christ that should be aired and detailed in all media as that is an important issue which should be covered.
This is funny, since JFK was the only Roman Catholic ever to be elected as POTUS because historically most U.S. voters just don’t like the idea (and even for the standard of most U.S. elections I might put elected in scare quotes).
You’re in the wrong country then. Besides, what could be more crucial to the deeply devout than religious issues? Eternity is forever.
The whole Catholic thing nicely segues into my hope for the next president. I make my selection not because I think any of our offerings from above will change or affect anything, just that I think it will lead to my my maximum entertainment. Allow me to yet again quote IOZ:
Back on Rommel and the Confederate flag, I was thinking at the time I watched his comments on it, including the scowling facial expressions and lecturing tone, that this could actually hurt him in South Carolina.
I’m not falling for anything. I’m just not leaving baseless assertions out there unchallenged.
When they pass a law requiring candidates to be Christian, that will be unconstitutional. That simply isn’t going to happen. Of course, if you think it will, I’ll be happy to place a wager with you. How much would you like to be?
I simply don’t know why you can’t understand that a restraint on government action is not a restraint on the people. It’s the exact opposite.
Now this is the kind of relevant question that the candidates should be answering. 
**John Mace, **
There doesn’t have to be a law requiring candidates to be Christian when debates are used for bible quizzes to emphasize Judeo-Christian beliefs. There is a way to degrade the constitution without amending it. Bible quizzes belong in church not in a presidential debate, and it is certainly not a liberating force to push the limits of the constitution and abandon the principles that guide the way our government works. I never asserted the biblical questions were unconstitutional. Rather, I stated the questions pushed the limits of the constitution.
Okay, people have the right to know a candidate’s religious belief, sleeping habits, preference for diamonds or pearls, and favorite breakfast cereal. This maybe interesting and somewhat insightful, but it has nothing to do with presidential leadership or policy.
When an internationally broadcast presidential debate has a moderator who requests candidates to recite their favorite bible verse or a YouTube video clip questions the candidates’ literal belief in the bible, it verges on religious testing. It contradicts the spirit of the constitution and promotes Judeo-Christian beliefs. There weren’t any questions concerning favorite quotes from the Book of Moran, Koran, or The Dhammapada.
It really doesn’t matter if these questions came from average voters; this was a presidential debate not a town hall meeting or a stop along the campaign trail. CNN had full control over the questions presented. Moderators of high stakes debates should ask the important questions that directly impact American lives not grill candidates on Christian beliefs or biblical knowledge.
Religion has no place in politics. It compromises the integrity of religious freedom and government.
Maybe you adhere to the Addington /Cheney interpretation of constitutional law.
I couldn’t agree more. So in fact, the best response to the question would have been along the lines of ‘I have personal views but these have nothing to do with presidential leadership or policy’. I wonder why none of them felt confident in saying that.