Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Not Perfect. Not Complete. But Very, Very Good.
I’m not saying you should vote for him. And I can’t make you vote for him. But here’s why a lot of people will vote for him:
And I can’t say I mind.
Published in Elections, General, Religion & Philosophy
Very fair point.
Well, here it is again, the reason I’ll never vote for this guy. I spotted this in the tone of his reaction to the PP controversy and re abortion exceptions. This video confirms it. This isn’t just a privately religious man, it’s someone who can’t help but testify, a true believer with an agenda. He’s not just going through the motions for Iowa.
[Probably. He’s convincing, because he convinces himself. Catholic. Mormon. Baptist. Catholic. Pro-pathway. Pro-borders, etc.]
Here, Rubio started alright up to the first applause. That would have been the point to pivot into politics. He won’t try to impose his religion like … over in … where they will … if you don’t profess their faith, witness the events of …
That’s what someone on message does. He’s quick — he must have seen the other path, the chance to blast the Obama-allied Iranian theocracy, and the ISIS religious Nazi’s. But he didn’t. Fact is, this man is so emotional about his faith that he wanted to testify more. Or maybe the calculation was 4th place in Iowa just won’t do.
Seems to me Carter, Reagan, and G.W. Bush, all spoke freely about their faith, but with some circumspection and less edge. Reagan consistently called for God’s blessing. W gave his famous “Jesus” answer, and talked about how faith helped him beat booze. Religion had its place, an important one. I’m not objecting to that.
JFK’s tone nailed it in his Houston speech, a sharp rebuke to the Papist assumptions of anti-Catholics, while very reassuring to those of other faiths. All of the men who’ve been elected President since then have made it clear that in public life they were elected officials who happened to be believers, not the other way around.
Like most Republican candidates, Donald Trump yesterday nodded respectfully toward religious conservatives, during the run-up to Iowa. He’s a Presbyterian. End of sentence. Doesn’t milk it. They say ‘second’ Corinthians, not ‘two’? Whaddaya know? Next stop, New Hampshire.
The losers have been the candidates who had religious faith as their primary political calling card. Robertson. Bauer. Buchanan. Huckabee. Bachmann. Santorum.
Why? Maybe because there are many voters, more each generation, even within the Republican primary electorate in many states, who consider social issues political poison in national elections.
Rubio and Cruz have other political talents and deficits. The more they get all religious and talk about social issues, the more likely they’ll convince the pragmatists and the “secular voting bloc,” if any, that no way, no how should they top the ticket.
Sounds to me like you believe a sincerely devoutly religious person shouldn’t be president. You don’t think a devoutly religious person running for president when asked directly about how his faith influences him should talk about it in a sincere fashion. He should just acknowledge his religious affiliation and move on. That’s garbage.
The left brings up and runs on social issues all the time. The right has to have a response to those efforts to change our culture and impose their values through the use of the state. Believing that just shutting up about your beliefs about how people should live will stop the left from eroding the culture and eventually dictating rigid statism that abolishes our fundamental rights is nonsense.
Speech codes is a social issue, due process in cases of sexual assault is a social issue, the entire war on women agenda is a social issue, black lives matter is a social issue, wealth redistribution is a social issue, free association is a social issue, racial quotas is a social issue. The best bulwarks against the tyrannical impulses of the left on those matters are strong cultural institutions like churches and faith based communities which can offer non-governmental solutions. Once those disappear Katie bar the door, because sure as death and taxes the left will replace them with the religion of statism, and a morally unmoored, relativist secularist culture will lap it up like mother’s milk.
I have no idea how we expect people to be persuaded that non-governmental institutions like churches should be looked to to solve some of these problems if our leaders aren’t allowed to convincingly demonstrate their true belief in what they stand for.
Isn’t it wild that we’ve reached the point where openly stating you are basically smack dab in the middle of the mainstream majority seems boldly countercultural.
I’m struggling to understand your objection to Rubio’s religiosity, which, I should mention, I don’t share in any particular.
Is it that it will turn off some of the electorate? Or is it that it’s not appropriate for a candidate to explain what he believes?
I tend to support the notion that a candidate should be free to explain his religious beliefs, so long as he understands fully that others won’t and need not share them.
I’m not impressed by Trump’s professions of belief, which strike me as laughably insincere. Not knowing that it’s 2nd Corinthians, for example, reminds me of Obama’s “corpseman” blunder. How, I wonder, could a man of his age and experience not know the right way to say it?
I don’t like that 2nd thing. Seems unfair. I didn’t know there was a “right” way. I don’t even know how I would’ve said it prior. I certainly wouldn’t have noticed that he said it “wrong”.
Just to be clear, of course not. Surely you’re not saying Reagan and Bush were not sincerely religious? It’s a matter of tone, and inclusive public discourse. It’s just not polite to appear to evangelize while on duty as an elected official.
I refer only to issues like abortion rights, same sex marriage, and birth control in that context. You are correct literally, but you know that’s not what I meant.
And they’re wise to do so, because it’s just about all they’ve got left that the majority agrees with them on.
Because of a hanging clause, it almost sounds like you’re saying the religious right should impose their values via the state.
This is what we’re fighting in the Middle East, just a different religion. It’s what JFK promised he wouldn’t do, become a tool of a new incarnation of the Papal States.
Yes, individuals have the right to believe and advocate for morally based public policy — all religions equally so. Just imagine what an Islamist majority would consider moral, and ask yourself if the constitution should be reinforced to stand fast against religious majorities. We’d be begging for separation of Church and State.
The next generation here will be less bound by religious law. They routinely have sex before marriage, accept same sex relationships, and the smart ones will control when they’ll have children. The idea of any organized religious group impinging upon the fundamental freedoms of the individual will be politically anathema to them.
Religions will probably accommodate these beliefs, as we’re seeing already. That’s the world we’re inexorably moving toward. You can’t turn back the clock. I’ve seen over half a century of this trend now.
The battles over those social issues are over. Your side lost. I know it’s difficult to accept. The next issues involve how much control science will grant parents over their genetically modified progeny. Who knows? Abortion may become obsolete here, if America wins the race to advanced GMO kids. I’ll leave how that plays out to the science fiction writers, but reality may get there first.
Why do I persist commenting about these issues from the secular perspective? Well, we’re allies come election time, living in a bubble isn’t good for Republicans, and some of these changes are facilitated or imprinted upon the culture by our media, which is my specialization.
I also think that the Democrats are so extreme and self-destructive on economics, race, national security, etc. that we could have a massive exodus of political refugees joining us, just so long as we publicly de-brand ourselves from social conservatism — or at least stop making it a political requirement.
I am going to defend Donald Trump here. Please take note, because it might not happen again.
“Two Corinthians,” or “Two Samuel,” or so on, is a very common way of saying it… in the UK. I have never researched it and am simply going by what I’ve heard, but in fact it may be the standard way. Here’s a random example (found from a random Google search; haven’t listened to the sermon, but the reference is in the first couple seconds).
Donald Trump’s mother was born in Scotland. He’s presumably saying what he heard his mother say. Maybe that reveals he hasn’t been in church much for his own part… but we kind of knew that anyway. It might even be an accidental reversion to what he heard in childhood.
So, I defended Donald Trump. Now, on the Scottish socialized medicine thing…
I don’t care to watch the video, but I doubt very much that he did any evangelizing.
Christianity has a trend of resisting certain trends. Sometimes to the death.
Yes, Christians sometimes picked the wrong battles with the culture, and changed over time. Sometimes Christians gave in when they shouldn’t. Sometimes they gave a Christian veneer to differences that weren’t really about Christianity at all.
You’re not up against “religion.” You’re up against the plain teaching of Scripture, as universally understood by all who take that Scripture seriously. That is not going to change, not tomorrow, not anytime in the future.
Not everyone talks about the Bible very often. I’ve heard mention of “Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians”, but not the abbreviated form. (Not a big Paul fan here.)
We of Trump’s age have very different experiences. Me: Corinthian columns, sure, can pick ’em out easy; Corinthian Broadcasting, tons, even though they’re long gone; Corinthian College — is it still in business? Bible Corinthian? Nada, zilch; Rich Corinthian leather? Bingo! We all know that one.
Responses to your other comments are covered in the prior post.
I’m all for good storytelling in any medium. Each to their own. Bible verses are well suited to the age of Twitter. Smart of Trump to use one there. The kids at Liberty U. cheered. Always speak in the audience’s language.
I’ve caught Joel Osteen’s act on TV occasionally. Nice mix of Bible, humor, stories, and self-help. Huge audience in a sports arena. Not saying Christianity is circling the drain. Joel Osteen is an example of success. The Norman Vincent Peale of his time?
Bigger picture? In some historically significant faith communities, beautiful old places of worship are being re-purposed. In the 1950’s they boomed everywhere, even where Donald Trump grew up.
Correspondingly, organized religion’s doctrinal influence over human behavior and culture in this country has diminished significantly in my lifetime. New Age variety aside, perhaps, and imports, for better or whatever.
Thanks for your help Ed.
I agree with Majestyk. The atheist did sound pretty normal. That’s why I think he was a plant. There is nothing normal about a prosletysing atheist. To not have faith is one thing. To spend your time and money trying to destroy other peoples faith is another thing again.
Are you unfamiliar with “Dorothy Dixer?” In a parliamentary system a minister, who wants to boast about something, will get a friend to take the floor in question time to ask a question that will give him a chance to boast. It will also run out the clock. Such a question is called a Dorothy Dixer.
“When I drink my little wine — which is about the only wine I drink — and have my little cracker, I guess that is a form of asking for forgiveness, and I do that as often as possible because I feel cleansed,” -D.J. Trump
Thomas Aquinas, he is not.
I’m an army of one, Tom. ;)
I’m sure you know this but for those assembled here, Barry Lynn (let alone Michael Newdow) is way too confrontational for the vast, vast majority of atheists who merely want to… not go to church on Sundays.
Stylistically, (within the sphere of atheism) I’m much more of a fan of Michael Shermer, who is generally pretty libertarian in his politics, pro free markets and at least attempts to give a fair hearing to opposing viewpoints.
I don’t agree with the questioner’s comment re: millions – but I think his tone was entirely reflective of people that I know who would be similarly respectful and serious in such a setting.
Not all messages are meant for everybody, of course – and I agree completely with Rubio’s take re: the founding. His message was reasonably ecumenical and only the most rabidly (or politically motivated) person would view what he said as threatening.
Plenty of people aren’t going to vote for Rubio, left and right for a variety of reasons. This seems unlikely to influence those at the margin or to completely flip people who were previously for or against him to the opposite position.
But, what do I know? I can’t pick a winning candidate to save my life. :(
I can’t help it, but Trump reminds me of Biff Tannen in every little thing he does – from his mannerisms, to his penchant for put-downs to his wannabe mob-boss attitude. It’s a little spooky.
Of course I’m not. And don’t cally me Shirley.
This is nonsense. First, Reagan and Bush both did plenty of evangelization. Reagan campaigned on allowing open prayer in public schools for heaven’s sake. He also appeared with prominent evangelical leaders and other ministers during campaigns, including Jerry Falwell. He went on televangelists shows, like Jim Bakker’s. George HW Bush vacationed with Billy Graham during the 80 campaign! Your take on the open religiosity of past candidates is completely revisionist.
What’s more, politicians like any other Christian, have the right to discuss their religious beliefs whenever they want and a duty to do so from their faith. Theres nothing impolite about doing that if done respectfully–especially when asked point blank to speak about it! This standard you’ve invented has no basis in any commonly accepted standard of civil or political discourse. It’s merely your personal preference masquerading as some unwritten rule for society.
1/?
In fact, Rubio’s answer was far more respectful of other’s conscience than yours. He says you don’t have to believe as he does. He only explained what motivates him personally. You, on the other hand, are trying to tell him and any other religious candidate what they can and can’t say and judging their treatment of others. The self-righteousness here is all yours.
2/?
I know what you meant. You don’t understand what I mean, obviously. You think that the social issues that concern the right are losers, so we should hang them up. You’re wrong. Social issues are only lost when you give up. The abortion issue is a perfect example. Public opinion about the issue of abortion has steadily turned toward the right and we are at a point where it can be an effective issue to run on and win. That wouldn’t be the case if the right simply gave up on it.
Social issues are what define the culture and the culture is what defines our politics. When we cede our belief in what the culture should be and look like and simply play defense against the left’s vision for our culture,we are doomed to lose. Saying no to someone else’s vision is never enough to stop them. You have to offer your own counter vision.
3/?
Do we need to be smarter and better in the way we discuss our social issues? Yes. Has the left been successful in capitalizing on many of the mistakes the right has made in the way it argues for it’s social issues? Yes. But to me, that is precisely why Rubio is the best candidate for our side. He better than any other candidate addresses these sensitive issues in relatable, winsome tones, and constructs persuasive arguments that put the lie to the caricatures that the left paints of social conservatives.
4/?
FYI – Rubio will be on Fallon tonight with Sarah Silverman.
Really? You’re going with the, “If we’re not careful the Christians will turn us into an oppressive theocracy, just like the Jihadists!” argument? Not even militant atheists like Sam Harris or Bill Maher buy that silliness.
Separation of church and state is one thing. Separation of church and political conscience is something else. Rubio is clearly only speaking as to what his personal beliefs are and how that shapes his view of the world. There is nothing in any of the policies he’s run on that even hint he would try to turn the US into some sort of papal state (good lord, are we still listening to this idiotic boogey man scare tactic) or even require the belief in God at all. If you can name one policy advocated by Rubio that couldn’t be defended without believing in God, please show it to me.
5/?
But they will be perfectly comfortable impinging on the fundamental freedom of people to practice their religion and not be coerced by the state to violate their conscience. (See wedding cake makers and wedding photographers, Catholic charites being driven from the adoption industry which they once were prominent in, and soon the withdrawal of tax exempt status for churches who refuse to accept gay relationships as the equal of heterosexual ones)
6/?
A whole half century! Gee you’ve seen more than Methuselah! How much wiser you are than the thousands of years of accumulated wisdom of religions you scoff at!
Culture is not an inexorable march to a fixed set of beliefs. It is a compromise between varying beliefs about the nature of reality and how best to accomodate our lives and society to that reality. Hopefully the version of reality which is most true dominates. If not, the culture will die, just as those religions which have tried to accomodate modern views about the nature of mankind have been dying. Unfortunately for those religions, the nature of mankind has not changed in the last several thousand years, only our technology and our ability to use technology to delude ourselves about our fundamental nature has changed. But the truth will prevail as it always does, and those who stray farthest from it will get the biggest comeuppance when it does.
7/8
You may not believe in God, but the accumulated wisdom in the teachings and traditions of religious faith are what secular humanist values rest on, whether secular humanists wants to admit it or not. Right now secularists are busy living off of and depleting the deposits of wisdom that generations of Judeo/Christian believers stored in the repository of western culture and upon which western world dominance was built. Once that deposit has been bankrupted and western culture dies, secular humanism will either drop the humanism that was derived from religiously based morality that secularists steadily eroded on their inexorable march to – what exactly?–or they will be consumed by a very vibrant, militant, and truly inexorable counter world view. Hopefully a resurgent Christianity, but more likely Islamic fundamentalism.
8/8
That is a might broad definition of evangelization – one I’ve never heard of before.
Advocacy of school prayer, or school prayer freedom, is hardly a matter of evangelization. If a candidate has an altar call at his press conference, that would be evangelization.
You lost the abortion abolition issue in the 1970’s. Once “stare decisis” sets in, the Supreme Court is very reluctant to reverse itself. There are two conservative justices on the court right now who value the court’s popularity enough not to overturn Roe, and Justice Scalia is getting along in years. If public opinion is close, that’s another reason not to overturn. Here are the numbers. Gallup, 2015.
The good news is that almost everybody would like to see the number of abortions reduced. The “safe, legal, and rare” formulation is the one which will bring America together on the policy side. I want a President who will bring America together on social issues, i.e. one who doesn’t talk about them with the tone of an evangelist.
Reagan was a religious man, but a tolerant one. He signed the nation’s first pro-choice law as Governor, and appointed Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court after he became anti-abortion personally. And he was always careful about tone.
Rubio, Cruz, certainly Santorum, Huckabee, and Carson strike me as the candidates in this campaign who would let their personal faith sway their priorities as President the most. I know that’s what attracts some voters to them. The opposite also holds true in reverse on my side of those issues. We just talk about it less (because we’ve won and don’t need to raise the issue.) We are the silent majority overall.
I recall the religious right blocking Rudy Giuliani’s path to the Presidency. This year, if the aggressive social issue conservatives go down, it won’t be just independents and crossover Democrats who defeat them.
You need to read what I wrote more carefully. The principle advocated by President Kennedy protects us against the very real danger to the West posed by radical Islam.
In any of these various Church-State conflicts, please just use your imagination and substitute, say a majority Moslem community somewhere in Michigan, advocating for their kind of prayer in public schools, for instance. Just think about the idea, because all religions must be treated equally here.
Now, getting back to Rubio’s speech. After making his first statement on belief, he had set up a perfect opportunity to turn the issue to the war against Islamist Theocracies. It was a logical moment. He didn’t. I submit it was because (a) he got carried away with his testimony of faith; or (b) opportunistically decided that he had to lay it on thicker for those in Iowa who were leaning Cruz.
Rubio’s polls have not been good lately. Frankly, I hope they see that video in New Hampshire. Chris Christie and John Kasich need some of his share points badly.
Well that makes two of us.