7 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
mygif

The comments to that are killing me. All of the people complaining about him “pandering” to the GLBT community with the speech- yeah, because if you want to pander to the gay community, the place to do it is a black church in the deep South, where you call out those in your audience for falling short of the church’s leader’s ideals.

–d

ReplyReply
mygif

Despite whatever qualms I may have with him…he is a fantastic speaker. I can’t help but want imagine the way Obama would have presented this, not to mention the reaction.

ReplyReply
mygif
Joe Helfrich said on January 21st, 2008 at 12:23 pm

He’s a magnificient orator, and this will likely go down as his “Sister Souljah” speech.

Sadly, he had to make it because an event earlier this year featured a fundamentalist christian preacher and singer who’s one of those “ex-gay” organization people.

He’s a magnificent orator, and will make a wonderful rallying point. I just don’t think he’s got the policy or experience to actually get things done. Plus, his praise of Reagan in the last week and his effort to out-do the Clintons on “reaching out to the other side” scares me silly.

Personally, I’m tired of trying to compromise with people so far to the right that even if we could get them to compromise fairly (and we can’t) the positions we’d end up in would be actively counter to our long term goals.

Obama would make a great vice president. But I’m for showing people what Democratic leadership, and partisanship, really means. Edwards for President, Dodd for Majority Leader, Obey for Speaker.

ReplyReply
mygif

scripture, scripture, scripture… blah, blah, blah.

Every religious terrorist/zealot/apologist/preacher uses the exact same technique when they try to defend a political position with religion:

1. Take what one wants from the holy book
2. Ignore the rest until needed
3. Denounce any opponents for not interpreting the holy book the same way
4. Chalk up any inconsistencies to religious faith

Spiritual conjecture has no place in social or political application. Period. What we need is a candidate who understands that. This is why, whether he gets the nomination or not, I am voting for Dennis Kucinich.

ReplyReply
mygif

Zenrage:

So to you, there’s no difference between using a well-know religious story to frame a point and using a religious text to claim absolute, objective authority with no room for debate?

Must suck that Dennis is such a huge fan of the Sermon on the Mount…

ReplyReply
mygif

There is video of the entire speech here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kf0x_TpDris

ReplyReply
mygif

I didn’t say Dennis was perfect, but he’s the best of the lot and he sure as shit wont kowtow to the religious wrong.

And no, there is no difference between using spiritual conjecture to frame a point or to claim objective morality. Since religious faith can neither be quantified nor qualified, the mainstream theist only serves to enable the religious extremist by accepting, establishing, maintaining and spreading the social dependency on religious faith and all things faithful to religion.

Religion doesn’t promote ethical behavior. If anything, the automatic pseudo-validation of “my god said so” only encourages that unethical behavior be done in the name of whatever religion’s invisible sky genie.

ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please Note: Comment moderation may be active so there is no need to resubmit your comments