logic from the next senator of Ill.

"Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there?s not a liberal America and a conservative America?there?s the United States of America. There?s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there?s the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I?ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don?t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."

-Barack Obama
DNC Boston 2004

I see the next senator from Ill. part, but I'm missing the logic part.

I don't know, I guess you have to know logic to recognize it.

I'll believe that when I see it. From what I've seen, he's simply a black version of Slick Willie. He knows all the words to say, but I don't trust him.

I love how Obama and Kerry throw their religous beliefs around in an effort to pander to the thinning number of Christian Democrats. It's a statement of faith that should be commended when they do it, but Bush is trying to impose a Talibanesque theocracy on the nation when he mentions a personal belief and faith in God. Bush isn't the one pandering in churches and misquoting Scripture. But I guess it's ok when Democrats campaign on religion because we know they don't really mean it, right?

Democrats complain that Bush's faith influences his decisions, when Kerry drags out his Catholocism at every chance. Catholics are much more dogmatic than whatever denomination Bush belongs to, and I guarantee not one of you (with the exception of Jim, since he occasionally reads the newspaper) can tell me what denomination Bush is without doing an exhaustive Google search. But Bush is the religious zealot, right? How do you justify support for Kerry or Obama when they have been more open about their religion than Bush?

AYBABTU

Kerry has said that while his religion is important to him, it does not affect him in making decisions about policy. This can be evidenced by the fact that he is pro-choice (not to be confused with pro-abortion or anti-life).

I get it now. It's ok to have a meaningless faith that is only used when pandering, but not in applying to one's life and decisions.

Thanks for the clarification.

AYBABTU

I'd say it's more that it's okay to have faith when making decidions for your life, but when you're making decisions for a couple of hundred million people, it's innapropriate to push that faith on others.

How has Bush pushed that faith on anyone else?

AYBABTU

I used poor wording - not to push the faith, but to push the beliefs of that faith.

What are Bush's beliefs that he is trying to impose on the rest of us?

AYBABTU

Well, for one, he's trying to pass an amendment that will define marriage the same way his religion does.

The other main issue I can think of is the belief that abortion is wrong.

What policies has he affected with his beliefs on abortion? What changes have been made to Roe v Wade because Bush is a Christian?

And as I have explained in other threads, his support for a marriage amendment is not out of religion but out of checks and balances. He merely supports the constitutional authority of states and the soveriegnty of the people to make laws. The amendment would only uphold states' definition of marriage as chosen by the People, negating courts' efforts to legislate from the bench. That it happens to in some way coincide with his religious belief on the matter has nothing to do with it.

AYBABTU

It makes perfect since. You govern for the good of the people. You decide what is best for them not what is best to follow your faith.

I have to agree with Kerry a lot with that comment. If Bush had said it, I would still agree 100%.


"From what I've seen, he's simply a black version of Slick Willie. He knows all the words to say, but I don't trust him. "

Well you don't have any proof for this feeling.

-Seldon

Ok, I'll try this again.

Where has Bush let his faith determine policy rather than the nebulous "what is good for the people" that you imagine that Kerry said?

"Well you don't have any proof for this feeling."

What the hell?? How can one be expected to prove a gut-feeling about someone that is clearly an opinion? How would he "prove" that Obama is similar to Clinton?

I'm pedantic, but you go to an extreme to avoid issues.

AYBABTU

I go extremes to avoid an issue. Wow. I'm not going to get into that but I find is so ironic.

Anyway we are in a discussion and Jim is bashing Obama because of a feeling. If I had a similar feeling about Bush, you would both demand proof.

I never said Bush forces his religion on others. I have never said it. I did say that I agreed with Kerry's comment about not forcing his beliefs onto the nation. Never was Bush mentioned in a negative way in relation to faith in my posts.

-Seldon

You were very clearly making a contrast between Bush and Kerry by pointing out that Kerry has said he will govern according to "what is best" rather than according to his faith. By calling it out as a reason to support Kerry, is the implication not that Bush believes otherwise?

And speaking of logic, please define "logic" as it is expressed by Obama's remarks above. It strikes me as rhetoric much more than logic*.

*Note that this may require checking the definition of "logic"

AYBABTU

First off Rhett, I said one thing I agree with is that Kerry said it. I never said Bush did or did not do it, all I said was that he did not say it.
No matter who says it, I agree with it.

What is logical is a lot of people look at us during this time in an election year as blue states and red states. We are one nation.

-Seldon

Logical reasoning is defined by some sort of deduction. It would have been logical for him to cite that many people view the nation in terms of red states and blue states because the nation is polarized by Iraq, gay marriage, war on terror, economy, etc. What he said above is rhetoric, not logic.

AYBABTU

If logic is implied then it is logical. You understood the logic behind it as you stated in your previous post. It has logic in it.

-Seldon

Because I could get married in Alaska and the state of Indiana does not have to recongnize it if they want.

The thing is, the full faith and credit clause of the constitution says Indiana does. However, the DOMA says it doesn't.

It's not the call of the federal government, though - it's stated by the constitution. The constitution says that states need to recognize "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."