This message was self-deleted by its author

[liberalnarb]

This message was self-deleted by its author (liberalnarb) on Tue Nov 22, 2016, 06:23 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[RussBLib]

1. nobody reads the Bible more than Donald Trump

...or so he said a little while back.

Trump is going to fling all sorts of crazy shit at Hillary, but I have a feeling that the religion angle just isn't going to work.

It's rather grating to me too to hear all the talk about "faith." I have no problem with people expressing a feeling that there is something out there larger than themselves, but to profess fealty to imaginary beings is counterproductive and embarrassing. The deference paid to those imaginary beings is astonishing.

[AlbertCat]

16. Trump is going to fling all sorts of crazy shit at Hillary

Did he say his "read the Bible" thing before or after Hillary (laughingly) claimed the Bible was her favorite book?

[Warpy]

2. I would love a return to a moderately respectful press

that would leave personal life including religion out of it and write about people running for office in terms of qualification and policy. There's plenty to vilify or laud in both those areas depending on the editorial viewpoint of the paper or broadcast medium.

That doesn't sell tabloids and tabloids are all we have left.

[Tobin S.]

3. They always make an issue out of this every presidential election.

In the first debate we will hear a question to this effect, "What is your religion?" Every presidential candidate is going to say they have some sort of faith because so many people think it's important. We've probably already had an atheist or an agnostic president, but they couldn't say that they were because they would have probably instantly lost the election.

Hillary will say that she's a Christian and so will Trump just like every other presidential nominee has since the inception of this country. I don't think we will see that change in our lifetimes.

[rusty quoin]

4. I've been offended for decades.

And the dumbest claim has come forth, that Trump is religious.

The thing about that side, is that they will believe anything, and their people in power will say anything, to stay in power.

[ffr]

5. His counter attack to hide his tax return stance

that she went after him the other day about.

The best defense is a good offense. And the M$M is siding with him to keep his poll numbers competitive. They have a very real vested interest in keeping people watching.

[Cassiopeia]

6. They have 168 hours of television to fill.

Granted, a massive portion goes to advertising, but they need to add some filler that keeps people tuned into that advertising.

The real worry is how they cover Trump. If he tanks too fast they risk a change, or even worsre, they lose the horse race altogether and Hillary starts to run away with it.

The people might tune into reruns of magnum pi instead. That can't happen.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

7. This "beholden to" meme is really a manifestation of sexism

Jack Kennedy wasn't "beholden to" the Catholic church in the 1960s. Now she's supposed to be beholden to some other random religion?

It's plainly clear that far too people think women simply must be followers, rather than leaders. So they keep looking for who or what is supposed to "control" her.

How about this? Friends with many, will talk to all, beholden to none.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Craig234]

10. I don't think it's sexism

I think there is some real sexism, and some invented, inflated, everything looks like sexism.

It's not new than any candidate where there might be an attack over their religion - Kenned and Al Smith before as Catholics when there was a lot of prejudice, Romney and Mormon, Obama and insinuations he's Muslim - they've been made.

As prejudices change, attacks change - John Kerry wasn't attacked for Catholicism.

This is just another throw mud at the wall and see what stick typical campaign attack, not sexism.

Unfortunately I think I'll have a lot more times to say that if I keep trying to distinguish the real and not real sexism.

[Goblinmonger]

15. Granted, the 1960 election was 6 years before my birth,

but his Catholicism was a HUGE issue in the 1960 election. So huge, that Kennedy sent out a negative Catholic flier so that it would look like Nixon did and piss off the Catholics.

So, I don't think this is sexism but just more bullshit about how important religion is in order to be president. Which sucks a lot, but still the world we live in.

[AlbertCat]

17. far too people think women simply must be followers,

Well, she herself said the Bible was her favorite book.

So she's one of those for too many herself.

[davidthegnome]

8. Reminds me of the Obama/Romney race.

A lot of people bashed him for being a Mormon. While I don't entirely disagree with mocking most organized religion, I found myself in the uncomfortable position of defending Mittens. What mattered, I told my facebook friends and some people here at DU... what mattered, was not his religion, nor how he practiced it in private, what mattered was what he could do for his Country. There were plenty of damn good reasons not to vote for the man - but I did not (and do not) think that him being a Mormon was one of them.

I really don't give a shit about what religion our political leaders follow. It's not my business.

As for the media? They are doing this for the ratings - anything Trump... and now, anything Clinton/Trump is going to be in the spin cycle. Trump has been a gold mine for them - but they (the main stream, at least) have utterly proven that they do not give a damn about neutrality, about being "fair and balanced" or about anything, really, other than ratings. I suppose this has been the case for some time, but it's still damned despicable and disappointing.

This is the kind of main stream "journalism" we have had for some time - and will likely get worse in the near future.

[Craig234]

11. My view on candidates and religion

1. The leading danger with religion is tribalism. The asking for votes because you're 'one of us' and the demonizing of the opponent as 'not one of us'.

Do you really think Sunnis and Shias are at that much of odds because of some religious difference over a relationship hundreds of years ago? Tribalism is behind the conflict.

When England had civil war after civil war with the Catholics and Protestants each trying to get power and ripe out the other, was it about the religious differences? Of course not. It was tribalism.

There's a natural pressure for people to group for their group's benefit at the expense of others; it's why our principles have a lot of 'one for all, all for one' type messages "liberty, and justice, for all".

2. The personal side of religion is not a campaign issue, and should be left out, just as the founding fathers said there will be no religious test for office.

However, there can be more to religion. Candidates can be affected on morality and policy in ways that will affect the public, and that is a campaign issue.

The problem is, our society appears unable to have a responsible discussion about it. "President Obama, how do you reconcile your church's opposition to capital punishment with your support for it" isn't what's asked. "Are you a Muslim" is.

3. In theory, a church's doctrines can be relevant - but in practice they rarely are. If there was a church that called for something outrageous, it'd be appropriate to ask a candidate in it their position.

Come to think of it, there is one example - evangelical candidates and the fundamentalist efforts to pass 'kill the gays' in Uganda.

4. The issue is when religion is simply used as an attack - appealing to the tribalism mentioned before. Trying to use it as a smear, making baseless insinuations not about policy but appealing to voter prejudice for political benefit.

It's not that hard to say this is wrong and that is right on the issue, but it gets harder when we look at how the issue can really come into play.

When John Kennedy ran, there was a lot of anti-Catholic bigotry - but there was also a lot of opposition to the bigotry.

The Kennedy campaign decided to do a dirty trick. They created phony mailers attacking Catholics and Kennedy, and mailed them to Catholic households, to get those voters to be offended and support Kennedy.

One argument for that is, 'why should only the bigots help the other side, and we don't counter that by getting out more votes on our side?'

Then, if I asked, if the election of Kennedy depended on the dirty trick, with all the harm Nixon would do, then is it ok? It gets harder, weighing one wrong versus harm. Nixon's harms could easily have gone as far as nuclear war, which Kennedy narrowly avoided.

There isn't a great policy to address this. It comes down to hoping not too many voters vote badly over the topic. That the appeals on principle do better than the appeals to tribalism - though the evidence seems to suggest tribalism does well.

[ReRe]

9. It'll pass...

... so you won't have to feel pissed too long. They just had a big Evangelical meeting with Trump today in NYC, so there's the media frame. Personally, I don't care for politicians who wear their religion on their sleeves. If they proselytize, they loose my vote.

[Cassiopeia]

12. Period.

We need logic, not faith.

[ReRe]

13. That's right...

If one has a problem and you want to solve it, you'd best get your thinking hat on and find an earthly, logical solution.
Because if you depend only on the Man upstairs, your problem won't be solved anytime soon.

[Cassiopeia]

14. And problems can be made so much worse when little voices in your head say

bomb the fuck out of those people.

[PassingFair]

18. I think it will only get worse.

They will try to out god each other.

[ReRe]

22. Idiots, both sides. eom

[Freelancer]

19. Trump certainly worships God's tax exempt status

Trump's probably surprised Gideon didn't write a follow-up book. it would have been YUUGE.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Religion was an issue in the last primary.

I wouldn't read too much into it.
Remember this?

http://www.trbimg.com/img-4f95ba83/turbine/la-na-tt-evangelical-voters-20120417-001/600

[Curmudgeoness]

21. Welcome to the club.

Sadly, I do think about religion often, since it comes up almost daily in one form or the other. So I am often pissed.

I am more pissed that every candidate has to be religious, and profess their love for god (the Christian one, to be exact). But that is where we are right now. We have to keep fighting the hold that religion and the followers have on our society.

[onager]

23. It's beautiful when religion bites them in the butt...

California District 46 (Orange County), 1996 - Republican "B-1" Bob Dornan came up with a great idea for winning over Hispanic Catholics. He printed up campaign flyers with the Virgin of Guadalupe on the cover...and gory alleged abortion photos inside. Voters were outraged and went for his opponent, Loretta Sanchez.

California District 24 (Santa Barbara), 1998 - a "safe" GOP seat, voting Republican for FIFTY YEARS - since 1948. But this was the heyday of Newt Gingrich and the Contract On America. Democrat Lois Capps' opponent blasted her as, among other things, a "baby-killer." But Capps had worked as a school nurse for years. Everybody knew her. She had taken care of many voters when they were kids, and were now taking care of their kids in school. Even Republican voters were disgusted at the slimy personal attacks and the GOP lost the seat.