"If Obama can show himself to be a person of faith, it also helps him combat the idea that he's an elitist, that he's not a mainstream American. Because if he shows that he prays and he's a churchgoing guy and he's a religious guy, that's a very mainstream characteristic"

This is the part MMFA should have highlighted.  How ridiculous. So by showing politicians attending church every Sunday and shaking their minister's hand for a photo op after services somehow means they are "churchgoing"?  Why of course, nobody would even imagine that it just might be campaign strategy.  

Tommy, rest assured that if Obama does that, the conservative press will readily point out that he's just doing it as a campaign stunt.

Let's just say that seeing candidates enter or exit church services smiling and waving to nearby cameras does not, nor has it ever, impressed me.  It's fine, it's their business, good for them. I just have no desire to see it, it is NONE of my business.

Why is it that the presidents who've most relied on the churchgoers votes are the ones who seem to go to church the least?

Reagan comes to mind. And I may have missed it but I don't see young George getting his picture taken coming out of church each week.

And I may have missed it but I don't see young George getting his picture taken coming out of church each week.

That's because George is nursing a hangover from Saturday nught every Sunday morning.  If you think that clown stiopped drinking when he said he did, I know a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in purchasing......

If you think that clown stiopped drinking when he said he did...

I've had my doubts, too, Writer. I'll bet Laura Bush could tell some stories...

She's over at the Mayflower Hotel chain-smoking on the balcony, so I bet her stories are out of date.

i never bought the choked on a pretzel story.  he passes out, hits his head and the dog wakes him up.  they have buttons all through the living quarters of the white house.  if you're choking, you go push one of those. 

He does look pretty rough these days, maybe a 7 year hangover.

Remember the prtetzel?  How he "fell asleep" watching (I believe) the Super Bowl? 

"Fell asleep."  Riiiiight.

Remember the prtetzel?  How he "fell asleep" watching (I believe) the Super Bowl? 

"Fell asleep."  Riiiiight.

How many people do YOU know who ever fell asleep during the Super Bowl?

Because the funny-mentalists don't really care how oftern you go church, as long as you buy into their same silly medieval superstitions regarding gays, evolution and school prayer, and appoint radically facist judges who toe the same line and will work to outlaw abortion.  They don't care about the MAN HIMSELF as long as he panderd to their facsist world views.

The utlimate "just plain folks" / elitist collision:  W. Bush - From an old east coast money family raised neck deep in west texas oil. 

 Yea we the people have already experienced this elite pandering to the common man in extreme form.  George W. Bush whose pre presidential fame primarily landed on his lap due to his noble birth, yet he struts around like his only car - a pick up truck - is mostly rust.

Of course our political discourse relies mostly on sterotypes and sound bites.  Therefor Bush's drawl, extreme faith and hostility to intellectual complexity is a quaint reflection on his sincerety and connection to the people. 

Obama's "problem" is that he does not play the stereotypical role he is supposed to play as a "liberal of color".  Therefore it seems that whenever he does not "play the role", his actions are suspect to some observers

The George Mason University study says it all...

Most reports from the elite corporate media (ABC, NBC, CBS evening news) were neutral.  But the stories where opinions were expressed:  72% of opinion stories about Obama were negative, while only 57% of opinion stories about Grandpah were negative.

Obama is getting beat up in the supposedly liberal MSM.  You can imagine what's happening on the corporate cable channels like Fock News.

No sane person would say Obama has not received positive press during his campaign. Perhaps some is due to the usual left-leaning media, and  the novelty of having a Chrisitian black man with a Muslim Kenyan father applying  for the job of representing all citizens in a faullty nation he thinks needs to be total changed (his wife loudly agrees) No, sirree, Bob.   Now, just how is he going to improve it? He's not saying too much, and he often changes what he said the week before. Actually he is not running for president, he is running for the inauguration. Its a show.

No sane person would say Obama has not received negative press during his campaign. Perhaps some is due to the usual right-wing squawk box (FNC), and  the novelty of having a septuagenarian with a hot temper applying  for the job of representing all citizens in a perfect nation he thinks is going down the correct path.  No, sirree, Bob.   Now, just how is he going to keep this war going for 100 years? He's not saying too much, and he often changes what he said depending on the crowd he is addressing. Actually he is not running for president, he is running for war hero, symbol of freedom. Its a show.

Kyle--I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that.

It's "ironic", in rightwing narrative lexicon, because ONLY rightwingers have that vital connection to GOD, and all others are posers. It's the "Republicans are moral, Godly, and decent" versus Democrats who are Godless Commies myth, and the so-called "mainstream media" is only too happy to perpetuate this myth any way possible.

What might be a real irony is that rightwingers like Tommy support Republicans who wear their religion and "born again" status on their campaigning sleeves.

Hey Tex, I think it would be better to take Tommy at his word here.  He says that the way a candidate expresses his religion is "NONE of my business," and I believe he's being honest about it.  If you can find an example to the contrary, then by all means show us, but I can't remember one offhand; I don't think he's been very vociferous on the more religious threads.

Because if he shows that he prays and he's a churchgoing guy and he's a religious guy, that's a very mainstream characteristic"

Exactly what neighborhood do these people live in? 

"Because if he shows that he prays and he's a churchgoing guy and he's a religious guy, that's a very mainstream characteristic"

By who's standard is this? Mara Liasson? Steve Waldman? NPR?

I take this to be an affront, if not an outright disrespect to me and people like me that are agnostic (like me), athestic, or of another religion that is not Christianity!

Who the hell do these people think they are allowed to make this claim on what is 'mainstream' or not?

No one 'knows' what mainstream truely is! This is coming from NPR.... the public fricken airwaves??

I will be formally sending in a well written protest demanding an apology for this to NPR!

In the United States, Christianity is a mainstream concept whether you like it or not.

In the United States, Christianity is a mainstream concept whether you like it or not.

In the United States, Christianity became mainstream WHEN Republicans realized there was money and voting power in Evangelicals and MADE Christianity a test for one's fitness for public office

That is such BS. Christianity has been around a lot longer than the Republican party. 

That is such BS. Christianity has been around a lot longer than the Republican party. 

Oh yea...? How long has Christianity been the political machine it's become in America?

That is such BS. Christianity has been around a lot longer than the Republican party

Let me be a little clearer.

Christianity in politics did not become a requirement in judging one's for fitness for public office UNTIL Republicans realized the money and voter power of Evangelicals.

THAT is not BS!

Your reply is the real BS. The poster did not claim Republican party existed longer than Christianity. 

And Bruce, this is what you said: Christianity became mainstream

I'm a little mystified by the controversy here.

Christianity is mainstream.  It is the belief system of the vast majority of Americans.  It's not that Christianity "became" mainstream because of politics, it's that politicians kiss up to religious elements because Christianity is mainstream.

This is really nothing to complain to NPR about, or to anyone else.  And I'm saying this as an atheist.  If we can't recognize Christianity as "mainstream", then the word has no meaning whatsoever. 

But whcih Christianity is mainstream in the US?  With the various protestant denominations split twelve different ways to Sunday and the Catholic Church, it's hard to pin down a "mainstream" Christian faith.  After agreement on Christ's birth, death, and ressurection, there's s great deal of difference over forms of worship and scriptural interpretation and emphasis.  Is it good enough to just be Christian?  To just go to church?  The Reverend Wright episode sure showed that it ain't -- that wasn't the correct church, apparently. 

I think for the purposes here we're talking collectively.   But yes, within the Christian community there is its own culture, so certain faiths are judged differently, and there's another sense of what's "mainstream" or not on that level.

I did not say that.  I said Christianity is mainstream.  Good grief. 

In the United States, Christianity became mainstream WHEN Republicans realized there was money and voting power in Evangelicals and MADE Christianity a test for one's fitness for public office

But only a particular BRAND of Christianity.  There are manu evangelicals out there who don't even consider Catholice to be Christians - they think the Catholic Church is a cult - they think the same thing about the Mormans.

In the United States, Christianity is a mainstream concept whether you like it or not.

Your reply begs the Captain's question...what is mainstream? And what is ironic about a liberal Democrat showcasing his faith? Although there are many people who hold organized religion in disdain, myself included, does Liasson actually believe that all liberal Democrats are non-religious. What she is engaging in is stereotyping. Would it be ironic if Barack Obama couldn't dance?

I'm sure I couldn't define mainstream to everyones satisfaction, but when 75% of Americans identify themselves as Christian, that's mainstream by any reasonable definition.

The majority of Americans are white. Does that mean only white people are mainstream?

Doesn't the term "mainstream" generally refer to ideas, beliefs and attitudes rather than race?

Brabantio, sometimes I wonder why I bother coming here if these are the responses I get.

This shouldn't be a point of contention so thanks for telling it like it is.

No problem at all.  I just don't see what's offensive about any of this.  Being an atheist means being in a minority, it means that I surely won't see an atheist as President in my lifetime.  I'm not going to adjust my view of the universe based on what others think any more than I'm going to stock up on Elvis albums just because he's an American icon.  So I don't understand how I'm being slighted by the simple observation that most people have beliefs that differ from mine.  That's a reality that should be reflected in political analysis, since getting elected is all about appealing to as many people as possible.

BRABANTIO,

 You're absolutely right. In the reality of politics, you must "showcase" your faith no matter what side of the aisle you're on. It's easier for a nonbeliever to accept a believer than it is for a believer to accept a nonbeliever.

In closing, I am of the opinion that Liasson knows not of which she speaks.

Brab,

Your explanation of Christianity being "mainstream" in America is superb. I for one appreciate your ability to look past your own beliefs and recognize the obvious. Quite frankly, I learned from your post, I appreciate that as well.

Thanks!

Being an atheist means being in a minority, it means that I surely won't see an atheist as President in my lifetime. - Brabantio

It means that we won't see an admitted atheist as President.  I wouldn't be the least surprised if we've already had a few personally atheistic Presidents from both Dem and Rep, lib and con.

I'm confident that there are more of us out there than the surveys indicate.  There are a lot of people who profess a belief in magical superbeings who, if they actually came face-to-face with one, would react with "Well I'll be.  He/she/it really does exist."

Except that he/she/it doesn't.

Doesn't the term "mainstream" generally refer to ideas, beliefs and attitudes rather than race?

And anyone can associate ideas, beliefs and values to a particular race. "Mainstream" can mean just about whatever the speaker wants...that's the point.

I tend to believe that their is a collective agreement on the meaning of "mainstream" in America. Would you agree that "mainstream" describes a popular trend, line of thought, or activity? As Brab described, he knows he is in the minority as an atheist. Would atheism be considered "mainstream" because as you state ""Mainstream" can mean just about whatever the speaker wants?"

What I mean is that "mainstream" is a term of convenience that can be used whichever way one wants. When Republicans use it to describe the media it's a pejorative term, yet when used to describe Christianity it's a good thing that means "we're normal; you're not".  

You're eliminating the ability to speak about popular opinion entirely, you realize.  If a Christian criticizes me because he's "mainstream" and I'm not, I'll laugh in his face.  If a political analyst or pundit describes Christianity as mainstream, that doesn't say anything about anyone being better than anyone else, it's purely about demographics.  There's a huge difference there.  By your logic, no matter what term is used you can say it's about who's "normal" and who isn't, and so this sort of thing can never be discussed at all.

In this instance, yes...if Christians aregue their religion reflects the"mainstream" value system of thought and deeds, the insinuation is that they are normal and others are not. Sorry...that's reality. 

This whole thing started because Capt. Foster had a fit about someone using the term "mainstream" about a group that doesn't include him.  That usage was about demographics, it's not judgmental as to who is "normal" or who isn't.  So Bruce pointing out that Christianity is actually "mainstream" isn't about judging anyone either, it's just showing that Capt's complaint is not valid.  Nobody is using it as some sort of insult here.

"What I mean is that "mainstream" is a term of convenience that can be used whichever way one wants"

So if an atheist describes atheism as being "mainstream" it's not only convenient but an accurate use of the word "mainstream" as it is defined?

No..."mainstream" carries the connotation that something is the dominant item of thought or being. Atheism is not mainstream by any definition of the word except perhaps in an atheistic enclave. What I am saying is that people apply whatever ancillary meanings to the word they want. "Mainstream Media", for example, has been turned into a buzz word by the right to mena something bad. IMO, whenever anyone on the right refers to something "mainstream' in a positive context, and which applies to them, they mean they are the normal ones and everyone else is wrong. Remember the "Silent Majority"...?

No..."mainstream" carries the connotation that something is the dominant item of thought or being. Atheism is not mainstream by any definition of the word except perhaps in an atheistic enclave. What I am saying is that people apply whatever ancillary meanings to the word they want. "Mainstream Media", for example, has been turned into a buzz word by the right to mena something bad. IMO, whenever anyone on the right refers to something "mainstream' in a positive context, and which applies to them, they mean they are the normal ones and everyone else is wrong. Remember the "Silent Majority"...?

I don't think the word "mainstream" carries any kind of connotation, it is rather an apt description of accepted prevelant trends, actions, etc. To accept your point that  ""mainstream" is a fluid term that can mean anything or take on any connotation the speaker or listener wants." we would have to accept the notion that even though 75% of Americans consider themselves Christian, Christianity is only considered "mainstream" because whoever says so, is simply implying it as such. I cannot accept that because "mainstream" has a definition and since we know most Americans identify themselvs as Christian, Christianity in America is considered "mainstream" as "mainstream" is defined. Anti-semitism was "mainstream" in Nazi Germany, not because it was implied as such, but because the majority of German citizens bought the propaganda of Goebbels and Hitler and therefore held anti-semitic beliefs. Your point of applying an ancillary context does not, IMO, change the definition of "mainstream."   Applying an ancillary context certainly allows the speaker to apply a negative or positive connotation to what is already generally accepted or known to be true.

But that's not the case here, as far as I see.  When it's being attributed to something inappropriately, then that should be criticized, but this seems to be valid usage.  The idea that the word "mainstream" is meaningless because someone might connect certain ideas and attitudes to race seems rather odd.

You could make the same argument for just about anything, because you can always abuse terminology.  People could dishonestly claim something is offensive, but if Savage comes out and calls Obama a "dirty n*****", that's genuinely unacceptable.  It doesn't really matter that the term can be abused when it's actually being used correctly.

IMO the term "mainstream" is abused by the right wing...why is that so difficult to understand? Mianstream media is bad; mainstream Christianity means "we're normal and you're not." If you interpret that differently you've made my point that "mainstream" is a fluid term that can mean anything or take on any connotation the speaker or listener wants.

And, BTW...the right wing has a proven track record of taking words or phrases and re-defining them to suit their agenda. What does the word "values" mean in the political arena? Christianity...particularly the evangelical variety. I'm having a hard time comprehending how these concepts are so difficult for some here to grasp...

What's difficult to understand is the basis for attributing some motive to Bruce's words.  If there's a legitimate way to use this word ever, then someone has to tell me how Bruce somehow deviated from that.  He's a Republican, therefore he's using it as a bludgeon against non-Christians, or what?

Anything that's subjective can be evaluated, by definition.  Some usage is more appropriate than others, of course.  That doesn't mean that a subjective term can't ever be used, which seems to be the argument as it now stands. 

The right wing has a well-documented history of taking even the most innocuous words or phrases and turning them into buzz words that either demonize everyone else or flatter themselves. Democrats don't have "values"...only Republicans do, for example. If anyone on the right refers to any aspect of his existence as "mainstream" there is some word play going on, IMO...

I'm not denying that this is done generally.  I'm talking about this specific post and thread.  Either there's some evidence that Bruce is abusing the term, or you're suggesting that he must be doing so just because he's conservative.  Otherwise there should be no complaint about what he said.

I'm not denying that this is done generally. 

I'm glad you understand my point in that regard...

"When it's being attributed to something inappropriately, then that should be criticized, but this seems to be valid usage."

I have no idea how the above quote would lead you to believe that point was ever in contention.   Yes, words are used inappropriately, and that should be criticized.

As I said, that does not seem to be the case here.  I could have said the exact same thing in response to Capt. Foster, and then there would be no discussion about how the right wing twists words to their own purposes.

There are known knowns, and there are known unknowns (how does that go?)

My assumption was that Christianity as a mainstream concept was a known known.

My bad.  I'm still right, but I shouldn't have assumed agreement on that point.

For a lifelong professional radio talker, her comment is hollow, lacking in intelligence, muddled and easily interpreted in many ways. In other words the opposite of good journalism; which memory serves is who , what, where and when. This endless "commentary" and opining on the fly to fill airtime really chaps my hide.

In the United States, Christianity is a mainstream concept whether you like it or not.

Christianity may be mainstream, but fundamentalist evangelical "Christianity" (such as that practiced by Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Gary Bauer, John Hagee, Joel Osteen, Rod Parsley, etc) is considered "lunatic fringe" by many.  Including myself.

Which is why I placed the word Christianity in quotes in the last partagraph.  I do not consider any of those fundamentalist evangelicals to be true Christians because they are corrupting Jesus' message of love and peace and using it as a weapon of hate.  And that is why I believe that if there is a hell, Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy are down there right now waiting for the others to show up.

What is ironic is how a person can be a commentator for National Public Radio and Fox News all at the same time!!!

I don't understand how she can be so split in her political ideals.  The same goes for Juan Williams!

They both need to pick a side and STAY THERE!!!!!!!!!!

All you have to do is think back on how the funding for public TV and radio was yanked by the republicans during their days in power. The reps wanted to destroy these media completely, under the guise of controlling the federal budget and the free-market concept. They were stopped ... barely.

Think back: the public media, in the good old days, didn't have to run weekly fund drives and daily pleas to their audience to be written into their wills. Also, although its against the public media charters, public TV now runs commercial ads, before and after their shows (they still run their shows uninterrupted however).

NPR and Public Television are like Fox now.

 -- Liasson did not explain what she thought was "ironic" about such an action. -- Chrissy Schwen

Which begs the classic question...If you don't understand what Liasson is talking about...why write the article? 

Because any reasonable interpretation of her words propagates an unfair generalization about liberals, and therefore qualifies as conservative misinformation?   Maybe?

"Which begs the classic question...If you don't understand what Liasson is talking about...why write the article?" - Wesley

Perhaps, Wesley, you would be so kind as to highlight where Crissy Schwen pointed out they did not comprehend Liasson's use of "ironic".

If you are not able to do that to our satisfaction, well, I guess it begs the classic question...   Wesley, if you do not understand the purpose of using English phrasing, why are you attempting to use English in your posting?

Liasson's use of the word "ironic" shows as much understanding of the concept as your misuse of the phrase "begs the question" does. Now all you have to do is misuse the word "literally" and we'll have the trifecta of most mangled words and phrases in the English language.

Clams, I used to get pretty naggy about that one (begging the question), here and in real life. It is one of the most abused terms out there. I'd slacked off a little, maybe giving it up as one of those things where words end up meaning what the majority misunderstand them to mean.I haven't posted a link to the definition in months.

You've inspired me to keep up the fight. I'm literally on fire about the issue again.

I typically don't use the phrase because I'd probably use it incorrectly too.  However, in this case, doesn't Wes use it correctly?  MMFA assumes that Liasson used "ironic" to refer to Dems shying away from religious issues . . . .  But mmfa only assumes to know what she meant by "ironic."  Doesn't it "beg the question" to know what she actually meant by "ironic"?  Isn't that the "question" to which Wes refers?   

Whether the usage of that phrase is correct or not, any interpretation of what she said leads to a negative generalization about liberals.  It's not really much of an "assumption" if there's no viable alternative.

I agree with you . . .I'm only checking to see whether I understand the proper use of that phrase

"MMFA assumes that Liasson used "ironic" to refer to Dems shying away from religious issues . . . .  But mmfa only assumes to know what she meant by "ironic."  Doesn't it "beg the question" to know what she actually meant by "ironic"?"

I thought that the premise of your question relied on the "assumption" angle here.  If there's no viable alternative to interpreting it as insulting, then it's not "begging the question" to "know what she actually meant". 

I was referring to Wes comment. I really didn't mean much by mine at all. I don't see any other alternative explanation for what Liasson meant either.  If I interpreted Wes comment correctly though, I think his use of the phrase "beg the question" is okay. . . . in that mmfa assumes (according to Wes) what it can't or hasn't proved . .. . 

Essentially I was posting aimlessly.

the reason the "ironic" part needs an explanation is that all candidates for office wear their religion on their sleeve, liberal, conservative and anywhere in between.  maybe on a local level like city council you can find places where few people care, but just announce you're an atheist or agnostic and see how far you get on any statewide or national office.

Which begs the classic question...If you don't understand what Liasson is talking about...why write the article? 

There's a lot in this world that YOU don't understand, Wesley - yet you continue to post here.....

Irony?  Only if you are a graduate of the Alanis Morissette School of Political Punditry.  

When did they stop teaching these things in high school anyway? 

About the same time they stopped teaching the proper use of the apostrophe and ceased bothering with spelling altogether.  You know, I recently heard a good word to describe something that's not really "ironic", but might be thought to be so by Ms. Morissette - "Alanic". 

Ha-ha, NUMEROUS INSTANCES huh????  Nice bait and switch.  Liasson specifically said "showcasing faith", not values.  The link had  numerous instances (OK six but who's counting :) ) of statements of liberals supporting values.

By that MMfA means TWO instances according to the link.  One by Hillary (who would say anything to get elected) and the other by the now radioactive Johnny "I am the son of a mill wuukaa" Edwards: 

My relationship with the Lord and my relationship with my family is everything to me. ... [My faith] informs everything I do, not just my politics."

I guess his faith told him to cheat on his dying wife?  

It is telling that MMfA can't even dig up decent comments on a major liberal player advocating thier faith.  Again, nice two step!  

Talk about bait and switch. The two links that MMFA provided weren't meant to show examples of "decent comments on a major liberal player advocating thier[sic] faith," as you claim. MMFA clearly explains that those two links show, "the media advancing the false notion that Democratic candidates shy away from discussions of religious faith."

C Casino posted:

The two links that MMFA provided weren't meant to show examples of "decent comments on a major liberal player advocating thier[sic] faith," as you claim. MMFA clearly explains that those two links show, "the media advancing the false notion that Democratic candidates shy away from discussions of religious faith.

Wrong.  Go back and read the links.  MMfA clearly states "numerous instances" of liberals making statements of faith.  MMfA clearly then shows"numerous instances" of MORAL statements, but not FAITH statements.  Get it?  Hence the old bait and switch. 

Media Matters for America has documented numerous instances of the media advancing the false notion that Democratic candidates shy away from discussions of religious faith.

There are two weak one's as I pointed out.  If there are really "numerous instances" then why put a quote from the recent scandal ridden Johhny "mill wuurka" Edwards?  

I'll give you hills as I'm sure you could mine just about any quote from a clinton...triagulation if you recall! 

you can't read.  there are numerous references to faith and god in those examples. 

Yeah, I think you just provided conclusive evidence that you can't read.

Maybe that's because most of us follow Jesus's admonition to pray in secret, and "not in the street, that they may be seen of men. I say to you: They have their reward."

 

I couldn't agree more.  I wish the political scene would heed that advise.  

i really hope you're not going to claim that it's only liberals who are guilty of proclaiming their "faith" and then fooling around?  newt gingrich and his "successor" bob livingston ring any bells? 

I guess his faith told him to cheat on his dying wife?  Hog-p, Edwards' wife has an incurable cancer.  She's getting treatments and is so far maintaining her health.  Not only is your "gottcha" statement offensive, it's ignorant.

I guess his faith told him to cheat on his dying wife?  

Like Gramps McCain's faith told HIM to divorce his disabled, disfigured first wife and take up with much younger (and richer) Cindy Lou?

What, does he express his faith like this:

Blessed are the poor in spirit,
      for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
 Blessed are those who mourn,
      for they will be comforted.
 Blessed are the meek,
      for they will inherit the earth.
 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
      for they will be filled.
 Blessed are the merciful,
      for they will be shown mercy.
 Blessed are the pure in heart,
      for they will see God.
 Blessed are the peacemakers,
      for they will be called sons of God.
 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
      for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

 Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 

 And: 

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,  

naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'

Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?  

When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?  

When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'

And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'

I may no longer be a religious man but l do believe that this is far more important than the 10 commandments. You don't have to be a person of faith to see how this is a better way to be regarded as a decent human being.

there you go with all that liberal stuff.  in his "lying liars" book, al franken had a chapter called "supply side jesus".  let's just say that jesus regarded a balanced portfolio as the ultimate goal. 

I'd trade 100 religious men for one who followed the sermon on the mount.

Mary, I couldn't agree more.

Hallelujah!

Thanks for posting those words, UK. I'm not religious in the least, but that is still moving to me. It's a shame I meet so many people with Jesus stickers all over their bumpers who treat those sentiments as quaint and outdated.

Thanks for the reminder, UK.

We tend to forget that all of Christian thought is summed up in the Sermon on the Mount.

I agree with you, Mary, Colonel and Unitarian. The right seems obsessed with the Bible's fire and brimstone at the same time they find work arounds for the Beatitudes.

I know more religious non-believers who live their lives according to this Sermon but not many religious followers who do. Why is that?

I'd like to thank you for posting that too, UK.  That was one of the readings that we selected when I got married the first time back in 1974.  The marriage didn't last, but those words are timeless.

Contrast the words of Ted Haggard, "These [Colorado Springs] Christian ministries and these [Colorado Springs] military installations work together hand in glove," with those of nun Ardeth Platte "We are simply following the non-violent Jesus."

What has become mainstream is not Christianity, but some bastardized form of if,, Americanism if you will.

http://snipurl.com/3fb8z

Technically, irony means "the outcome is the opposite of expectations," so she's right -- as long as people expect that liberals are activist atheists, a religious Dem is an irony. 

As long as people expect that, which is the unfair generalization in question.  Accepting her premise means pushing the notion that "liberal Democrat" is synonymous with "atheist".

It is ironic that so many republicans and pundits think that democrats are godless...

To bad religions turn into human organisations.

Think a thread way back split that 75% of the population a few ways. 30% are evangelical which used to be the backbone of the theocratic powers. Many of them are coming to disaprove of the politicism of their church.

As many as 10% percent of the evangelicals remain strong supporter of  the theocratic dream.

Who do you think has more faith in the ideals and the future of America: The Unitarian Universalists upon whom the right-wing kooks open fire? Or the self-righteous neo-cons who trash our Constitution and send our brave troops off to die under false pretenses?

We aren't the ones who have to ask ourselves "Whom would Jesus bomb?" or "Whom would Jesus torture?" Somehow, I bet Ms. Liasson forgot to ask Gary Bauer those questions.

 

Well, maybe  but according to the bible "god" had his people kill every man woman and child in one chapter.  Then because his people "didn't" do that, he punished his people....

 

So I would guess that the christians of the bible DO believe in what you suggest. 

Liasson consistently shows her conservative bias. So do the commentators and "reporters" on NPR in general.

UK thanks for your post.  That is soo beautiful and those words expressed is what keeps me fighting against all these "phonies" that can quote scripture chapter and verse about why we need to bash this or that but never seem to remember the words you quoted.  Can anyone point me to the actual chapter and verse those words were taken from in the bible?  I'd greatly appreciate it.

I think part of the reason that "liberal Democrats" who are religious, do not wear their faith on their sleeve is that they consider it a personal matter, not something that you waive like a banner.

I must be missing something..."national political correspondent Mara Liasson" on NPR's Morning Edition. Is that like being a large goldfish in a small pond? Or a small goldfish in a small pond?

I always think about the ancient prayer, "If God be with us, who can be against us?", whenever the discussion of religious practice is raised during a campaign.  The point of the prayer for me is that both sides in any campaign, be it a battle or an election, like to think that God is lending support.  I have no doubt that both Obama and McCain observe God in their own way and pray at least occasionally for blessings.  They both have professed to their religious beliefs many times.  But this is no litmus test for me, a true atheist.  But just because I don't believe should mean nothing to anyone who does.  I accept their pity, prayer, judgment, acceptance or whatever and I give back my due respect.  Perhaps, voters could take this off the table and just show a little respect.  For once, I agree with Tommy, some things are personal and I know that religious advocates have no corner on morality.  We have everything from the divorce rate, racism and church pedophilia to the Chrusades and the Salem Witch Trials to prove that fact.

those damn right-wingers on npr, don't they care about separation of church and state?  faith should not even be mentioned by anyone who has contact with the government!

It is ironic.  I thought liberal Democrats are too enlightened to believe in that silly superstitious religious stuff.