Hotline: Clinton, Edwards, Obama Join Pentecost '07 Forum

[MaineDem]

I have some very exciting news to share – presidential contenders Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama will be joining us at Pentecost 2007: Taking the Vision to the Streets, June 3-6 in Washington, D.C.!

Our nationally televised presidential candidates forum will be the first to focus exclusively on faith, values, and poverty. We'll be asking candidates the important questions – and you can be there in person.

Register for Pentecost today, and you'll be guaranteed a seat as Clinton, Edwards, and Obama discuss the issues that matter most to you.

...

Since candidates aren't doing bipartisan events at this point, we're planning to invite Republican candidates to a similar forum later this year. Don't miss this opportunity to be a part of history in the making, as we challenge presidential aspirants and other political leaders – Republicans and Democrats alike – to put poverty at the top of the national agenda.

I hope to see you there.

Blessings,

Jim Wallis

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html

I know this probably won't be a popular opinion here but I'm glad they're doing this. There are plenty of Democrats who believe in a faith. THis gives the candidates a change to address them. We blew it in '04.

[lyonn]

1. Well, ain't that Special! end of comment

[wyldwolf]

2. Excellent move.

[blm]

3. You mean the RNC had to commit election fraud to steal votes all over the country

because the Democratic party didn't talk enough about religious values the last 20 years?

[Warren Stupidity]

4. We did not blow it in 04.

And I am revolted by politicians who proudly wear their religion on their sleeves, bragging of their piety.

[MaineDem]

7. I agree with you. I don't like anyone wearing religion on their sleeves

But I don't think this is what they are doing here. It's addressing values. And people of faith owe more of their values to the Democratic Party than the GOP. We didn't get that point across to counter the Republican hype in '04.

Not everyone who talks about being religious really is. And many more people who don't talk about religion believe in it.

Our current President is a great example of the former.

[BonnieJW]

16. I agree completely.

2004 was stolen. bush is very "religious;" how many more like him could the world stand?

[mikelgb]

5. what abou the rest of the candidates?

so christians agree with media marginalization and catering to the richest of the candidates?

[MaineDem]

8. I'm concerned not all are included

I hope this means that these are just the first 3 to commit. I hope.

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. You have to have a cufoff point somewhere

Must they also include Randy Crow?

http://www.randycrow.com/

What about Michael Forrester?

http://forrester4president.com/home.htm

Or Karl Krueger?

http://krueger08.com/

[CRH]

35. If one must cut off over half of the field,

and this little forum is to have national coverage, wouldn't it be nice if the other five were given equal exposure through other means? Or, is this religious forum and by extension the media, again shaping the field, and creating religious/political talking points to the exclusion of less well funded opponents. Religious media darlings welcome, the rest are all what, vanity campaigns?

[MaineDem]

36. Biden, Dodd, Richardson, and Kucinich are Catholics

I would hope that wouldn't have anything to do with it.

[CRH]

40. When it comes to religious exclusion or persecution, one can never be sure. ...

The religious draw from inspirations I have yet to receive visions from, heathen that I am.

[mikelgb]

39. Yes, yes, yes

thank you for bringing these candidates to my attention.

Why do you think there should be a cutoff?

[Cameron27]

6. I don't want discussions about faith from our

candidates. Sorry, I just don't like this at all.

[wyldwolf]

10. Why? Faith was a Democratic hallmark for decades

[Cameron27]

13. I don't want to see each of them trying to

out do each other in their piousness. I'm expecting a lot of BS platitudes and sucking up.

[sandnsea]

9. We should have seen their churchifying

In order to launch an effective counter-campaign. It doesn't mean we need to out-church them. This is going to backfire because you can't out-crazy crazy.

Lying bastards who push a crazy theology to cover their corruption do not have a "side". They need to be exposed, not competed with.

[jefferson_dem]

11. Good move! Personal faith-based values and progressive politics can coexist...

I'm not about to cede the realm of faith and "moral values" to the freakshow on the right who use their sickening interpretations to divide, conquer, bludgeon, and proselytize.

[ellacott]

12. They certainly can co-exist

It appears that many are afraid or very repulsed by religion. That's unfortunate. This should not be open to everyone. That is not logical. If you don't share their faith why should you share the program?

How do people wear their faith on their sleeve?

[madfloridian]

14. Wallis said Howard Dean was the leader of the "secular fundamentalist" wing...

of the Democratic party.

Maybe we should have a debate and forum about that.

Wallis: Dean is the leader of the “secular fundamentalist wing of the Democratic Party.”

Secular fundamentalism is an ideological framework that stipulates a particular relationship between church and state, and to its adherents, justifies actions taken to enforce or institute that relationship. Specifically, the framework provides that for secular reasons religion should be excluded from political life. This means that the state should not act on religious reasons or enforce religious purposes. Further, religiously motivated persons and groups should not participate in political affairs unless they are prepared to set aside their religious convictions and rely on secular considerations.<2> In this way the state is to be secular in status and operation.

..."Wallis has labeled Howard Dean, chair of the Democratic National Committee, as leader of the “secular fundamentalist wing of the Democratic Party.”

He refers favorably to the Seamless Garment movement which was part of the Schiavo thing. It means religious folks get to decide when life begins and ends...

just like they did this last week with the 5 justices on the Supreme Court.

I am a part of the wing of the party that is tired of having someone else's religion shoved down my throat.

So let the debate begin. Let's talk about the rights of women that were taken away last week. Let's make the candidates and the moderator be honest about that decision. Who gets to decide that a woman's health is not as important as that of the fetus.

And let's leave religion out of our government. It is a personal thing, and Wallis often skirts the edges of judging others on the basis of their religion. I remember he responded to Atrios and Kos once when they blasted him, but it was still done in a patronizing way.

I was a Southern Baptist, and I am still a Christian. But it is no one else's business.

[MaineDem]

15. Wallis and Dean are friends. n/t

[madfloridian]

19. That does not matter to me at all.

Wallis is frequently judgmental of those who are not as religious as he thinks they should be.

I gave you the quotes. If Dean is forgiving, that is wonderful. I am not. My church called us unpatriotic.

I was raised in that church. They beat the drums for the war, and prayed for Bush. They called me unpatriotic.

[ellacott]

22. I'm sorry they said that to you

It's sad that people got it so twisted.

[madfloridian]

17. Who's the most religious....our new game.

Tired of it already.

Yes, I know the whole party is going for that vote. The vote of about 1/3 of the country.

Do they give a damn about the 1/3 or more of us who don't want religion taking over our politics?

No, they are more concerned about that 1/3 who still love George Little Boots Bush.

[ellacott]

18. Are you saying that the 1/3 is the religious vote

or the Bush vote?

[madfloridian]

20. How can you tell the difference?

I have no idea. I know that religion is more important than intelligence now in America. It is more important than truth, it is more important than honesty and integrity.

I don't like being judged.

[ellacott]

24. You most certainly can tell the difference

You will know them by their fruit. I don't like to be judged but I confront those that want to claim they are the party of God because they support Bush. I never supported Bush and will not let them put any condemnation on me.

That's why I feel it's good for Democrats to add their voices to this conversation. Every Christian doesn't support Bush.

[MaineDem]

21. I disagree with you

I don't think anyone wants religion taking over our politics.

It's all about values. And our core values are shared by many religious faiths.

We can have a discussion about values, never even mention religion, and convince many people who indicated they were "value voters" for Bush in 2004 that it's really the Democratic Party that shares those values.

[madfloridian]

23. Must I have Christian values....like loving Bush and war?

Like wanting to keep women under thumb? Like judging others?

[MaineDem]

25. Where did that come from?

How about the value of helping neighbors?

Or about making sure children don't go to bed hungry?

And that people are able to sleep with a roof over their heads?

Or getting help to the victims of Katrina?

Those are the values I'm talking about. If you've got an issue with your own religion that's a different story.

And I don't care if someone has Christian values or Wiccan values or Jewish values or whatever. It's not about religion as much as it is about beliefs. And I believe that's what Jim Wallis is saying. I heard him AND Howard Dean speak at the same event and they complimented each other with their ideas. As I said earlier, I don't think anyone wants our politics to be covered in any religion. That's what the other side does and it becomes hateful. But there are many many Democrats who believe in a faith of some sort. They think of themselves as religious. They may not show it outwardly and I think that's good. But our candidates addressing them can only be a good thing, as far as I'm concerned.

[madfloridian]

27. I have heard the word values until I am sick of it

I know all about values. So do all the rest of us. They now have Howard Dean, one of most moral men in the US...pumping up "values, values" stuff all the time. He was judged and put down for not being "religious" enough...and now he has to work 24/7 to prove it.

Shame on my country and my party for doing that. Shame on my party and my country for going along on an unjust war and then pretending not to know it was wrong.

I was raised with values. My parents were raised with values. My grandparents shared with us our rich family history dating back to ministers and circuit riders with Methodist and Baptist churches in the 17 and 1800s here. I raised my children with high moral values, both religious and even better...tolerance.

I am so tired of hearing about values when congress and the supreme court showed they valued everything but women's rights.

[MaineDem]

30. I seriously doubt anyone MADE Howard do anything. n/t

[madfloridian]

34. Doing it for the party's good.

That would be his style. His personal religion has been questioned, but he is the kind to put that aside. He is doing what is best for the party. He is sincere about it.

He's a better person than I am after the SC decision this week.

[Solon]

41. Why should they address them at all?

Isn't it enough to just cover HUMAN values, and not try to wrap them in the pages of the Bible? If appealing to ANY religion is necessary for any candidate to talk about human values, then count me out. And frankly, I don't care if it was in the name of the Goddess or the Christian God, and I say this as a Wiccan.

[madfloridian]

26. Jim Wallis on women's rights.....

"Former Nixon cohort, now Christian leader Chuck Colson mischaracterized him when he wrote that Wallis thinks “the religious left is more in tune with the Bible than are conservatives.” Not so, replied Wallis in an open letter this week to Colson “I challenge Democrats on abortion, and I challenge Republicans on war and poverty.”

Wallis has labeled Howard Dean, chair of the Democratic National Committee, as leader of the “secular fundamentalist wing of the Democratic Party.” Referring to the disastrous statement by Howard Dean that Job was his favorite New Testament book, Wallis exhorted “…the worst thing anyone can be is inauthentic when they talk about religion or faith.” (Note to Jim Wallis...how dare you call anyone inauthentic about religion...it is a personal thing.)

Jim Wallis threatens political party entrenchment by challenging Americans to rethink the connection between morality, biblical teachings and government policies. As he said in his reply to Chuck Colson, “My message to both liberals and conservatives is that protecting life is indeed a seamless garment. Protecting unborn life is important. Opposing unjust wars that take human life is important. And supporting anti-poverty programs…is important."

http://usliberals.about.com/od/faithinpubliclife/a/JimWallis1.htm

Not a good week for women, is it? Now we find our top candidates will be a forum for a movement whose leader is anti-choice.

But that's ok...only us secular fundamentalists here.

[MaineDem]

28. I agree with Wallis on this statement:

For the record, this 30-year preacher and activist has grave reservations about abortion. “It’s important for Democrats…to talk first about how they are going to be committed to really dramatically reducing unwanted pregnancies, not just retaining the legal option of abortion.”


Does this mean he's anti-choice? Most people want to reduce unwanted pregnancies and, by extension, reducing abortions.

[madfloridian]

29. You must not be aware of Seamless Garment.

I don't think it's my business to worry about what women do with their medical choices. The word limit was put in there to pacify the Christian right.

When you limit something, it is no longer a "right."

[CRH]

38. Good Post, it exposed the threat of religion approved politicians, ...

As the Democratic party continues to march right, now 'leading' politicians to get national coverage must pass a litmus test of acceptable religious values. And, who are the sponsors and what are their excepted values for the Democratic party? Humm, right to life transcends personal choice or health issues? There is an elepant slipping into our tent, does anyone else see it?

[madfloridian]

31. Whoever watches the debate...count the number of times they say "values".

Ok?

I feel like I have been drowning in a sea of "values" since 2004.

[frebrd]

33. Now I'm even more...

disgusted than I was before!

:puke:

[mtnsnake]

37. Faith should be private between the believer & whatever they believe in

It's amazing how openly religious some of them become when running for high public office.