McCain or Obama?

[David]

Nope, it was Jefferson. BTW he didn't free them upon death, he freed them because he was a Republican/Democrat (that party later split into the Republican and Democrat parties, the main party they opposed was the Federalist party.) and that party opposed slavery and too much government. Here check it out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson.

From that article:

Jefferson owned many slaves over his lifetime. Some find it baffling that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves yet was outspoken in saying that slavery was immoral and it should be abolished. Biographers point out that Jefferson was deeply in debt and had encumbered his slaves by notes and mortgages; he chose not to free them until he finally was debt-free, which he never was.
[...]
The downturn in land prices after 1819 pushed Jefferson further into debt. Jefferson finally emancipated his five most trusted slaves; the others were sold after his death to pay his debts.

From the Wikipedia article on George Washington:

Washington was the only prominent, slaveholding Founding Father who succeeded in emancipating his slaves. His actions were influenced by his close relationship with the Marquis de La Fayette. He did not free his slaves in his lifetime, however, but included a provision in his will to free his slaves upon the death of his wife. At the time of his death, there were 317 slaves at Mount Vernon – 123 owned by Washington, 154 "dower slaves," and 40 rented from a neighbor.[57]
Martha Washington bequeathed the one slave she owned outright – Elisha – to her grandson George Washington Parke Custis. Following her death in 1802, the dower slaves were inherited by her grandchildren.

The "dower slaves" were from Martha's previous husband.

 

[tonykattvc]

Times up, its Jennifer Granholm. Stupid lying textbook.

 

[Urwumpe]

Quick, who's the governer of Michigan?!
I'm rooting for Obama. I think all of the muslim rumours about him are just because he's black. Besides, i don't want another Bush.

No, it is mostly because his name is "Barack Hussein Obama".

Barack is the name of his father, comes from the modern Arab language and means "he who is blessed". "Hussein" is famous among Muslims, but is also pretty common in Africa among non-Muslims - it is derived from the word "Hasan", which means just good looking.

But actually, he is Christian. Maybe even more than McCain. And sure closer to the canon of the Book as Palin...

 

[GregBurch]

But actually, he is Christian. Maybe even more than McCain. And sure closer to the canon of the Book as Palin...

You clearly know a lot about Obama's religious sentiments. What is the source of that knowledge?

 

[fort]

What is faith ?

 

[Ghostrider]

What is faith ?

Dunno but she's hot.

 

[Omhra]

You clearly know a lot about Obama's religious sentiments. What is the source of that knowledge?

His words and actions? :dry:

 

[Urwumpe]

His words and actions? :dry:

Actually the primary source about his personal life are the documentaries in German media about both candidates. Which, while biased towards Obama, are generally fair enough to McCain, by writing a lot more about McCains biography (Is that a wonder? This man is almost as old as my city!) than about Obama's.

 

[GregBurch]

Actually the primary source about his personal life are the documentaries in German media about both candidates. Which, while biased towards Obama, are generally fair enough to McCain, by writing a lot more about McCains biography (Is that a wonder? This man is almost as old as my city!) than about Obama's.

So -- going back to the matter at hand, Obama's religious sentiments -- did these documentaries discuss the material in his biography that might reveal what his religious orientation is?

 

[fort]

Religious "orientation": what does this means ?

What is faith ?

 

[GregBurch]

Religious "orientation": what does this means ?

What is faith ?

If you're asking me, you'll get a harsh answer, since I'm one of those obnoxious militant atheists. To me, faith is simply the process that leads to the acceptance of a proposition that is not supported by evidence.

But religious people act as if they know what "faith" means, and they say it is a virtue. (To me, it is a vice.)

I could say, "what are Obama's religious beliefs?" How's that?

 

[fort]

"...since I'm one of those obnoxious militant atheists".

I believe that I knew it having read it here on the forum a few times ago. As I also wrote here on the forum I am a atheist. I believe that I believe that I am a atheist to be righter.

But if (...if I retain this definition ):

"...faith is simply the process that leads to the acceptance of a proposition that is not supported by evidence."

...does this proposal differs from :

"...(religious) beliefs" ?

In other words :

What this faith, this religious orientation, those beliefs, and relating to B Obama, are, to which one we do not manage to give a content ?

 

[GregBurch]

"...since I'm one of those obnoxious militant atheists".

I believe that I knew it having read it here on the forum a few times ago. As I also wrote here on the forum I am a atheist. I believe that I believe that I am a atheist to be righter.

But if (...if I retain this definition ):

"...faith is simply the process that leads to the acceptance of a proposition that is not supported by evidence."

...does this proposal differs from :

"...(religious) beliefs" ?

In other words :

What this faith, this religious orientation, those beliefs, and relating to B Obama, are, to which one we do not manage to give a content ?

I'm not sure I'm understanding you, but I think you're asking what meaning a question about Obama's religious beliefs can have to someone who has no religious beliefs.

If that's your question, then the answer is that, in America, politicians have to say that they are religious, and that religion has an influence on their political policies. You simply can't get elected to public office (outside of a few far-left enclaves like San Francisco and similar places) if you don't say these things. So the content of a political figure's religious beliefs end up being a relevant issue in American politics, whether you like it or not. It's just part of the political landscape here.

 

[fort]

GregBurch,

"...but I think you're asking what meaning a question about Obama's religious beliefs can have to someone who has no religious beliefs...".

No, no. I will not say this. It's another question. No, please reread my comment. I'm asking you: "What is faith?".

And your "answer",through the question relating to B Obama, is: the faith, it's the beliefs (read again your definition of the faith).

I know well that a dictionary is a universe closed in which all the terms return the ones to the others but if one defines a word via an other word to which one gives the same meaning, one does not advance. Or it is shown, at the very least, that to give a definition to this word raises of a quite difficult exercise.

In fact, if faith returns to beliefs and beliefs to faith, and only that, what is the meaning of : "what are Obama's religious beliefs ?"

 

[GregBurch]

GregBurch,

"...but I think you're asking what meaning a question about Obama's religious beliefs can have to someone who has no religious beliefs...".

No, no. I will not say this. It's another question. No, please reread my comment. I'm asking you: "What is faith?".

And your "answer",through the question relating to B Obama, is: the faith, it's the beliefs (read again your definition of the faith).

I know well that a dictionary is a universe closed in which all the terms return the ones to the others but if one defines a word via an other word to which one gives the same meaning, one does not advance. Or it is shown, at the very least, that to give a definition to this word raises of a quite difficult exercise.

In fact, if faith returns to beliefs and beliefs to faith, and only that, what is the meaning of : "what are Obama's religious beliefs ?"

I wish I could offer a better answer. Either the politicians who say they have religious beliefs really do believe there is a supernatural superbeing who defines morality through its commands and occasionally intervenes in the natural and human world, or they don't really believe these things, and just say they do to get elected.

My point, to be very obvious about what was probably obvious to those who have been following the election, is that the kind of things an honest, objective biographer of a political figure would look to to try to determine what that person's religious beliefs are aren't looked at in the case of Obama, but very much are in the case of Sarah Palin.

I know we have a language barrier here, and I apologize for the complexity of the grammar in what I've written above. As they say, if I had more time, I would have written you a shorter letter.

 

[tblaxland]

If that's your question, then the answer is that, in America, politicians have to say that they are religious, and that religion has an influence on their political policies. You simply can't get elected to public office (outside of a few far-left enclaves like San Francisco and similar places) if you don't say these things. So the content of a political figure's religious beliefs end up being a relevant issue in American politics, whether you like it or not. It's just part of the political landscape here.

I am glad to say that this is not as big an issue here and you can go a fair way as an atheist, most famously demonstrated by Bill Hayden who was, among other things, a Federal Treasurer, Foreign Minister, Opposition Leader and Governor-General. I doubt that his lack of religion would have been an obstacle to his getting elected Prime Minister either, if it weren't for former Prime Minister Bob Hawke (who himself was agnostic).

 

[FlyingSinger]

My point, to be very obvious about what was probably obvious to those who have been following the election, is that the kind of things an honest, objective biographer of a political figure would look to to try to determine what that person's religious beliefs are aren't looked at in the case of Obama, but very much are in the case of Sarah Palin.

What are some of those things an honest, objective biographer would look at to determine what a person's religious beliefs are? Childhood experiences? Membership records in churches (or mosques)? Eyewitness statements of people who saw him believing in something? Can you actually see someone believing in something?

I'm an atheist myself (I've rejected both Catholicism and Judaism - long story) and I wish that American politics didn't require politicians to pay lip service to their "faith." Those with "true faith" are certainly scarier than those who merely toe the line in this regard since they may see themselves as answering to a "higher power" that doesn't actually exist (or exists only in their minds). I really don't care what church they attend or what they ostensibly "believe" as long as they check that stuff at the door when it comes time to make decisions and take actions in their positions of power. I expect them to fully honor the separation of church and state.

I've read Obama's books, and he pays the required lip service to religious faith, and maybe he has true feelings of faith, deriving comfort from it or whatever. To me it's all delusion, but much as alcohol is the socially accepted intoxicant, religion is a socially accepted delusion. I don't know what Obama truly believes "in his heart" when it comes to religion, but it seems to be pretty well established that he has defined himself as a Christian for many years, and has operated as such - active in a church and all that. He does seem to accept that other faiths are equally as valid as Christianity, something many "strong Christians" would probably not accept (the one true faith and all that). I see this as a major nod to reality (most of the world's people are not Christian) and a plus.

I guess the point of the smear campaign that Obama is "really a Muslim" is twofold. One is to try to make him seem scary and "other" and un-American, and since Muslims are the enemy of choice in modern America, and since Obama had some Muslim connections in his family and in his youth, he must be a Muslim - time to be very afraid. The other point is that if he's really a Muslim, he must have a secret hidden Muslim agenda, and once in office he will sell out America or Israel or do whatever bad stuff his secret Muslim handlers want him to do. Like the Manchurian Candidate. Is this it? Will he do this through executive orders or secret CIA operations, or will the Democratic majority of Congress convert en mass to Islam and back up President Obama in his nefarious acts? How is this "he's secretly a Muslim" thing actually supposed to work when he gets into office?

Or does it really come down come to, hey, let's get serious, the dude's black?

 

[tblaxland]

I expect them to fully honor the separation of church and state.

The focus on religion in US politics baffles me given your country requires such separation.

An interesting aside, it seems that such separation is not so much required by the US Constitution as I first thought. According to this article, it is more required by Supreme Court precedence than anything else. The article goes on to highlight how section 116 of the Australian Constitution (similar wording to the First Amendment) has been interpreted quite differently in Australia by the High Court.

 

[GregBurch]

What are some of those things an honest, objective biographer would look at to determine what a person's religious beliefs are? Childhood experiences? Membership records in churches (or mosques)? Eyewitness statements of people who saw him believing in something? Can you actually see someone believing in something?

I'm an atheist myself (I've rejected both Catholicism and Judaism - long story) and I wish that American politics didn't require politicians to pay lip service to their "faith." Those with "true faith" are certainly scarier than those who merely toe the line in this regard since they may see themselves as answering to a "higher power" that doesn't actually exist (or exists only in their minds). I really don't care what church they attend or what they ostensibly "believe" as long as they check that stuff at the door when it comes time to make decisions and take actions in their positions of power. I expect them to fully honor the separation of church and state.

I've read Obama's books, and he pays the required lip service to religious faith, and maybe he has true feelings of faith, deriving comfort from it or whatever. To me it's all delusion, but much as alcohol is the socially accepted intoxicant, religion is a socially accepted delusion. I don't know what Obama truly believes "in his heart" when it comes to religion, but it seems to be pretty well established that he has defined himself as a Christian for many years, and has operated as such - active in a church and all that. He does seem to accept that other faiths are equally as valid as Christianity, something many "strong Christians" would probably not accept (the one true faith and all that). I see this as a major nod to reality (most of the world's people are not Christian) and a plus.

I guess the point of the smear campaign that Obama is "really a Muslim" is twofold. One is to try to make him seem scary and "other" and un-American, and since Muslims are the enemy of choice in modern America, and since Obama had some Muslim connections in his family and in his youth, he must be a Muslim - time to be very afraid. The other point is that if he's really a Muslim, he must have a secret hidden Muslim agenda, and once in office he will sell out America or Israel or do whatever bad stuff his secret Muslim handlers want him to do. Like the Manchurian Candidate. Is this it? Will he do this through executive orders or secret CIA operations, or will the Democratic majority of Congress convert en mass to Islam and back up President Obama in his nefarious acts? How is this "he's secretly a Muslim" thing actually supposed to work when he gets into office?

Or does it really come down come to, hey, let's get serious, the dude's black?

You know, I've always appreciated your blogging and, especially, your enthusiasm for my addons, but that last comment is so insulting that, well, once again, in order to continue as a member of this community, I have to swallow a gallon of gall. OPPOSING BARAK OBAMA'S CANDIDACY IS NOT PER SE RACIST.

Now, to answer your question about what an honest, objective biographer of Obama would look to to try to find out what his actual views on the world are -- you'd look to who he spent substantial amounts of time with, who he SAID were influential on his life, what ideas he was exposed to and seemed to embrace for substantial parts of his life.

To be clear, I absolutely, positively do not conclude from my own study of the man's biography that he "is a Muslim." But what I do know is that TWO YEARS AGO, I began studying the Trinity United Methodist Church in Chicago. I did this because TWO YEARS AGO I concluded that Barak Obama had a good chance of being elected president, and at that time he was saying that this church had a big influence on him, and that its pastor was his "spiritual mentor." No one I know would say such a thing unless the person to whom they were referring had had some substantial influence on their life in some way.

It took a HUGE effort from completely outside the mainstream media to get some attention onto Obama's church and its pastor. When that happened, Obama had a problem -- a serious problem. This was because the vast majority of people in the United States, when exposed to even a superficial fraction of the ideas at the very heart of Obama's pastor's world view, were deeply offended. It is impossible not to find that ideology racist and extremely left-wing, because it is, when judged by the standard of the values of the vast majority of people in the U.S.

I'll be happy to substantiate every word of the above paragraph, but I'm willing to bet that I don't have to, because any informed observer of the political and cultural scene in the U.S. knows this to be true.

So what happened when the spotlight was finally forced onto Jeremiah Wright and "black liberation theology"? Obama at first said he wouldn't repudiate his "spiritual mentor" -- he could "no more do that than repudiate a member of his family." But then, with GREAT EFFORT, the media was FORCED to look more deeply into the content of Wright's thinking and what lay behind it. Bang! Obama tossed Wright under the bus, saying he didn't know about what Wright was saying.

This is patently absurd and any rational person, if they REALLY THINK ABOUT IT will know it's absurd. Of course Obama knew what Wright stood for.

So -- did Obama agree with Wright or not? Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and say he secretly reserved judgment on the things Wright said and stood for. Why, then, would he attend the church for twenty years, and call Wright his "spiritual mentor"? The natural explanation is that Trinity United was the most politically influential church among left-wing actors in Chicago. The natural explanation -- if you want to think well of Obama -- is that he didn't REALLY believe these things, but simply "went along to get along." Which means that, until THIS YEAR, something Obama said was a crucial part of his life and character really wasn't. It can't be both -- either he believed or he didn't, and if he didn't, then ... well ...

Which then leads us to other questions of honest biography. Obama is a young man. His political career only began 15 years ago or so. To the millions of young people who will be voting for him, that seems like an eternity ago, but to people my age -- and yours, it doesn't. An honest political biiographer of Obama would look at where Obama stood politically such a short time ago. And if they did, they would at least consider the knd of material discussed here:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTc3NzZkZDYxODZiZjE2OTg5YWRmNDkzM2U0YTIwZGQ=&w=MA==

Now, I can see the eyes rolling as I write these words. "National Review??!!?? That's a right-wing magazine!" Of course it is -- do you think you'll read this kind of thing in the New York Times? The question is, will you read it? I read the NYT. How else would I know what the left is thinking and saying?

I know this is all moot -- it doesn't matter. At this point, opposition to Obama is simply the death-twitch of a corpse. But perhaps someone who would want to just pause for a moment to check the path they're on would take just a few mometts to ask -- why are the details of Sarah Palin's religious biography so crucial in determining her suitability as a candidate, but even talking about the EXACT SAME KIND OF MATERIAL about Obama is a "racist smear."?

 

[Urwumpe]

Just to shorten the discussion a bit, as the rest gets filtered by my brain as "Too long to read".

why are the details of Sarah Palin's religious biography so crucial in dwetermining her suitability as a candidate, but even talking about the EXACT SAME KIND OF MATERIAL about Obama is a "racist smear."?

Because Palin fails to offer anything else? Her political offers are quickly summarized as "I am a woman, I am a hockey mom, I am from Alaska, I am Christian, I am against abortion, I am against sexual education in schools, I am something new and not tainted by the old school of Washington DC".

So, as most of her political ideas are dominated by personality, any criticism on her plans are of course personal. And honestly: If you saw her SNL performance (I just saw it this morning), there is not really much inspiring personality left. And she sure does not look like a back-room diplomat like Cheney.

Does Obama's biography so far have any things in it, you should not know if you read his own books? Sure not. He was always very honest about his past and thus makes it hard for people to suddenly play shocked about the details.

And also: Does his biography have any surprises for a democratic candidate? What your source considers far-left, BTW, would be plain socialdemocratic in Germany. The group is not even militant. Do you in the USA have any kind of impression, how a far-left group looks like? The far-left candidate for President of Germany, Sodann, advocates throwing finance managers in jail. Now, that is far-left! And you can be sure, such radical words make him still attractive here.

But in reality, he can talk like that because he has not even a slim chance to become president. Most politicians of the German equivalent of the electoral college will decide between Horst Köhler, the current conservative president and Anette Shavan, the socialdemocratic candidate. With Horst Köhler being very likely to get a second term, as he did so far a great job as president, even with his close relations to the high finance. He was for some time even the worst enemy of his own party. He considered himself even more than former presidents, the president of all Germans, and neutral in daily party politics - with the result that he applied even higher standards on the laws advocated by his own party.

But that is the thing, that is also expected from both McCain and Obama. Be the president of all US citizens, not only those who elected him.