redblueamerica.com

Religion and politics should be kept separately in my opinion. However, in this case I think there is no problem here.
Wicharn - Social Bookmark

Nice article you described things very well.

regards,

Mick - Los Angeles Personal Injury Lawyer

I dont think it was such a mistake that we have to show in big way.Mistakes does happen with everybody.

regards,

Salon - Loan modification

Obama is a true gentleman he respects all religions and treat them equally.

regards,

sam - Los Angeles lawyer

obama is very spiritual person..and yes his idea is very good ..politicians and diplomats should refer spiritual nobles like bible and Geeta...as it makes them honest ...and put their thoughts in right path..great initiative from obama...

Regards:
replica handbags

Anyway, it appears that Obama's position is exactly where mine and many Republicans' is. So where are the protests from the gay left about Obama being against equal rights?
regards,
Iron - Tax Relief

Politics and religion can not mix but religion also consists political thoughts.One of my college teacher of 920-805 exam has good command on religion as well as politics where I was for 70-536 exam.Politics is a part of religion.What happened actually there is a huge gap between religious and political people with the passage of time.This gap should be ended.When I was in London for my 642-892 exam I have participated in many debates related to religion and politics.

Thanx for the updating! Good idea to get the update one, cous' it's more better then before..........
online games

I fully endorse this view. In progressive theology, as in constitutional law, it's all about those things I need to do.
regards,
no win no fee

I don't think Obama should be the one who has the chance of talking about such problems. Isn't he the one who needed the help of a Marriage Family Counselor? At least, this is what I've heard.

Bleeding Hearts but Tight Fists

By George F. Will
Thursday, March 27, 2008; Page A17 , Washington Post
Residents of Austin, home of Texas's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."
Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
• Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
• Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
• Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
• Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
• In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
• People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks's book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.
Reviewing Brooks's book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by the Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks's data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.
While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist . . . substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."
In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other people's money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

"Isn't this typical of anyone?"

Sometimes, but not always.

"The Right is just as guilty, if perhaps not more so."

You'll need to do better than that.

"The Bible is often quoted to justify condemning gay marriage, but then the passages about selling children into slavery or forbidding one to eat seafood are ignored."

There is the not-insignificant matter among Christians of the New Testament superseding the Old. Nevertheless, you don't find many contemporary Christians condoning slavery. As for gay marriage, let me refer you again to what Obama called an "obscure" passage in Romans -- which is in the New Testament, by the way. It condemns homosexuality and fornication, among other things.

You could turn around and say, well, Bible-believing Christians ignore the prohibitions against fornication and adultery all the time. Indeed they do. But that doesn't make it right.

"I think the biggest infractions are against the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" which has been used tirelessly to protect 64-cell zygotes (whose humanity is unclear) and yet has also been overlooked when it comes to the death penalty or the war."

The commandment, in fact, is "Thou shalt not murder." There is a long, complicated argument about war and capital punishment. Simply invoking the commandment isn't the first or last word.

"I find it ironic that the sanctity of life only applies to those yet unborn."

That's a generalization that doesn't withstand scrutiny. There are plenty of conservative Catholics, for example, who oppose the death penalty.

"But, I digress: Every side uses portions of the bible. The bible as a whole can be quite contradictory and there are various interpretations; to call out one side of the political spectrum for doing what every side does is poor form."

I disagree, naturally. If Obama -- or any candidate -- wants to use Holy Writ to advance a policy agenda, he'd better be ready for some push back.

There is a distinction, it seems to me, to be made between religion and public life and the strict separation between church and state that we enjoy here in the United States. Was it bad form for Washington to say, as he did in his farewell address, that "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them..."?

Why did we leave England? To exercise religion freely, certainly -- but not to purge every vestige of religion from the public sphere entirely.