John Edwards, I'm not a Christian and my hands are dirty.

[EFerrari]

More dirty doing the work of social justice than yours will ever be.

Please don't insult me so badly that I can't vote for you if I need to.

[beam me up scottie]

1. uh oh

What did I miss, or don't I want to know?

[EFerrari]

3. I'm listening to him say, Christians will roll their sleeves up

and rebuild this country.

And you know, I LIKED this guy. And here he is, pandering to the lowest common denominator -- or, it seems so to me.


John, if you want votes, go where there are votes. Go for social justice and see what happens. We WANT to support you.

[JohnLocke]

6. I don't think that's what he meant to say.

I think he did mean that the Bush officials claim to be Christians but in fact stood idly by while New Orleans was being devastated, and did very little to help. He wasn't denigrating non-Christians at all; he was denigrating right-wing hypocrites.

P.S.--I'm Jewish. ;)

[EFerrari]

11. Lol.

It's just creepy, the way even this very attractive candidate is pandering to the right wing. :shrug:

[LittleClarkie]

150. Why would it be pandering to the right wing?

Much as they might want people to think it, they don't own religion, and expressing one's faith does not mean that one is "pandering."

[EFerrari]

157. I think that our personal beliefs have been appropriated in a

really creepy way by PR guys who then write for politicians.

They sure don't own religion or faith or trying to live a good life.

But, there's something about buzz words that keeps coming up -- even in the speech of someone like JE.

This is a mole hill of my making but, maybe, we could notice how casually people talk about issues that used to be reserved for close friends or family -- as if, there are no boundaries that are important. To my ear, any way.

/grammar

[Morgana LaFey]

165. leftwingers keep their religious and spiritual convictions mostly

to themselves, as it should be. ThAT's why it's "pandering" for Edwards to be flaunting his.

I'm with Sfexpat -- disgusting, and very disappointing.

[Kerrytravelers]

109. This is also my take. He was pointing out the hypocrisy.

I don't think the Edwards family is anti-non-Christians. I can understand your concern, though. I, too, would grow weary of this Christian-myrtar nonsense if I were a non-Christian and it was in my face 24-7. I am a Christian and I get sick of this myrter bullshit 24-7.

[EFerrari]

111. You are probably right and I was listening badly.

But it sure would be refreshing to listen to anyone make a public statement without religion in it. It's just creepy any more especially because you know some PR guy put it there.

I guess my discomfort is as much about packaging as it is about anything.

[blm]

113. "We are more than just Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims or atheists; we are human beings."

>>>>>>
The fourth and final example of where people of faith should accept a common challenge is perhaps the most difficult and essential of all:

rekindling a faith-based debate on the issues of war and peace. All our different faiths, whatever their philosophical differences, have a universal sense of values, ethics, and moral truths that honor and respect the dignity of all human beings. They all agree on a form of the Golden Rule and the Supreme importance of charity and compassion.

We are more than just Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims or atheists: we are human beings. We are more than the sum of our differences -- we share a moral obligation to treat one another with dignity and respect -- and the rest is commentary. Nowhere does this obligation arise more unavoidably than in when and how to resort to war.

Christians have long struggled to balance the legitimate need for self-defense with our highest ideals of justice and personal morality.

Saint Augustine laid the foundation for a compelling philosophical tradition considering how and when Christians should fight.

Augustine felt that wars of choice are generally unjust wars, that war -- the organized killing of human beings, of fathers, brothers, friends -- should always be a last resort, that war must always have a just cause, that those waging war need the right authority to do so, that a military response must be proportionate to the provocation, that a war must have a reasonable chance of achieving its goal and that war must discriminate between civilians and combatants.

In developing the doctrine of Just War, Augustine and his many successors viewed self-restraint in warfare as a religious obligation, not as a pious hope contingent on convincing one's adversaries to behave likewise.

Throughout the centuries there have been Christian political leaders who argued otherwise; who contended that observing Just War principles was weak, naïve, or even cowardly.

It's in Americas' interests to maintain our unquestionable moral authority -- and we risk losing it when leaders make excuses for the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo or when an Administration lobbies for torture.

For me, the just war criteria with respect to Iraq are very clear:

sometimes a President has to use force to fight an enemy bent on using weapons of mass destruction to slaughter innocents. But no President should ever go to war because they want to -- you go to war only because you have to.

The words "last resort" have to mean something .

In Iraq, those words were rendered hollow. It was wrong to prosecute the war without careful diplomacy that assembled a real coalition. Wrong to prosecute war without a plan to win the peace and avoid the chaos of looting in Baghdad and streets full of raw sewage. Wrong to prosecute a war without considering the violence it would unleash and what it would do to the lives of innocent people who would be in danger.

People of faith obviously don't have to agree with me about how we keep America safe, how we prevail over terrorists, or how we end our disastrous adventure in Iraq. But I do hope people of faith step up to the challenge of rejecting the idea that obedience to God somehow stops when the fighting starts. We need a revival of the debate over what constitutes Just Wars and how they must be conducted, and all people of faith, whatever their political allegiances, should participate in the debate.

>>>>>>

[Kerrytravelers]

136. Oh, I totally get your vibe. I probably wouldn't have said it as he did.

[beam me up scottie]

7. I try to tell myself they have to...

but that doesn't make it go down any easier.

[EFerrari]

14. I'm sorry to raise a ruckus but it's just so needless. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

18. Nah, I feel the same way.

You would think it would be okay to vent here, wouldn't you?

You vile christian basher, you!

[timtom]

58. Bad move!

There are some cartoons from the early 20th century depicting African-Americans in a very unflattering light. Many white people thought these cartoons (post cards, and the like) were hilarious.

And here you are on a very liberal website, practicing the very same sort of "broad brush" stereotyping that most of us find abhorrent.

Please check out the parameters of your conscience.

[beam me up scottie]

Oh brother, here we go. I'm persecuting the poor white straight christians again, how bigoted of me.

We live in a country where people are beaten to death because they're gay and yet that cartoon is what offends your delicate sensibilities.

Colour me shocked.



I'm pretty sure your horrified response is exactly what the artist had in mind when he drew the cartoon.


;)

[NoSheep]

123. LOL

I thought we were on a "very liberal" website! The mind reels, n'est pas?

[beam me up scottie]

168. I've been posting that toon on DU for a long time, and that's the first time I've seen that reaction

And the sublime irony of it was completely lost on our friend.

[Sapphire Blue]

82. As a Christian, I'd like to know just what kind of "broad brush" stereotyping you think this is.

I don't see whatever it is that you are apparently seeing. :shrug:

And just exactly how is this comparable to "cartoons from the early 20th century depicting African-Americans in a very unflattering light"? I really don't see that.

[BuyingThyme]

138. Huh?

[beam me up scottie]

170. That was my first reaction too.

[Bluebear]

160. True! 99% of Christian churches welcome gays, marry them, celebrate their love!

As such, this cartoon is VERY "broad brush", being that examples of anti-gay bigotry by the church are so very, very hard to find these days. :eyes:

[beam me up scottie]

169. ROFL!

[Matariki]

23. As another non-christian - I know exactly what you mean

I respect other people's religions, including Christians. But goddammit I wish they didn't act as if were the State Religion and sole arbiters of morality.

[EFerrari]

27. He's a good candidate and he doesn't need to do this.

Imho.

[ProfessorGAC]

76. Perhaps He Should Have Said "Real Christians"

That would have made the point that John Locke suggests he was trying to make. (And i agree with JL)

I think Edwards was taking a shot at the faux christianity of the folks that have wreaked havoc on the country, and suggesting "real" christians would rebuild it.

I think the use of the term "real" would have made that a better statement. Then it would even include non-christians who do selfless things.
The Professor

[Fovea]

41. Here is how I see it.

Right wing soi disant Christians have controlled the debate on how members of that faith should behave in the secular world.

I don't mind progressive christians organizing. They are the ones least likely to tolerate burning witches.

And I would feel the same way if a Wiccan Senator talked the same talk. We could rebuild this country, you know? And it would be a lot greener.

But I think Edwards walks the walk, despite his owning multiple homes.

[beam me up scottie]

43. I will not live to see a "Wiccan Senator".

Nevermind an atheist one.

Christians control more than just the debate.

[Fovea]

50. I understand

But I take as a sign of some local progress that I haven't been assaulted by a Christian with a baseball bat in some 20 years now.

[beam me up scottie]

51. Congratulations from a closet atheist who works in a "Christian Workplace".

You've come a long way, baby.

Not.

[Fovea]

162. Let me ask you a question

Do you currently own a gun?
It may very well come to that, so do you currently have a way to fight for
those you love?

I was fired from an Olathe Kansas software company when I declined to attend promise keepers meetings.
I have been assaulted on wiccan sacred ground by drunken 'Christian' teens with sticks and clubs.
I have had friends whose house was burned down by people from the Assembly of God church, the same town that Ashcroft is from.
The rhetoric has been really hot and intolerant in my neck of the woods since about 1978.

It is the Rev Niemuller pro blem, only first they came for me, a Witch.

So do you have a gun yet?
I recommend a colt replica 1851 army cap and ball.
Slow to reload, but you don't have to go through the normal
rectal probe to buy one, and the smoke is quite intimidating.
Also, in a pinch you can make your own ammo.

[beam me up scottie]

171. Not anymore.

But I plan on getting the hell out of Dodge this year if possible, and hopefully I won't need one.

I'm originally from Vermont and have never gotten past the culture shock.

It wasn't a Christian Workplace™ when I started working there, but this administration has really emboldened the Talibornagain.


I am so sorry that you had to endure that kind of abuse. Mob violence is beyond criminal and more people should be made aware of how enabling the dominionists contributes to it.


Thank you for the advice, I will remember it and give it serious consideration if I have to stay in Klan Kountry.

[laureloak]

53. Man, you're reading WAY to much into that. n/t

[shadowknows69]

55. Cool I'm a pagan

will I be paid to stay out of the way?


Oh wait, what's that burning smell?

[EFerrari]

105. Most of us who have worked with the public seem to be pagans.

lol

[WCGreen]

59. Well, he's jumped the shark in my book....

[Clark2008]

77. What amazes me is that more people haven't figured this out

about him a long time ago.

I knew it back in 2002.

[EFerrari]

122. I think we were being distracted watching Howard Dean being slimed.

There was a full plate, remember? :)

[JohnLocke]

2. I don't think he did...

[ShaneGR]

4. John Edwards bashing thread #9,491,526

I'm counting the 2004 primary threads. Don't worry, if you're so petty to bash him for helping poor people in a manner you don't like, no one needs your vote anyways.

[EFerrari]

5. You may be right.

lol

[LSK]

8. read into things much??

Sheesh, folks are so sensitive around here!

[EFerrari]

9. No, I don't. I listened to him call on Christians to rebuild this county.

Misread much?

[LSK]

10. and you interpretted that to mean that he hates non-christians??

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

15. No. And since when do candidates have to belong to a religion?

:shrug:

[LSK]

16. he does???

You sure you want to keep going with this???

:wtf:

[EFerrari]

19. I LIKED John Edwards. And, that is what I just heard him say.

:wtf:

This isn't something I'm just putting out there out of boredom. lol

[LSK]

21. like I said below, I need to re-watch his speech

I didnt catch any of this.

[EFerrari]

28. Okay.

[dddem]

70. perhaps you could (like I do), assume that he's directing

this particular message to those people who have been calling themselves Christians, yet spend their time sitting in judgement of others, instead of actually following the teachings of Jesus.
Truly, some of the most Christlike people I have known are not "Christians".
Peace.

[progressivebydesign]

129. Since when do candidates have to NOT belong to a religion? n/t

[EFerrari]

142. Well, there's that, too. As I said up thread, maybe this reaction

was just as much about packaging as it is about religiosity.

"Please try to appear genuine."

[JI7]

12. huh ??????

[EFerrari]

17. John Edwards said Christians will rebuild this country.

"huh" indeed.

[LSK]

20. i really need to re-watch his speech

I didnt have my religion radar on when I watched it the 1st time.

[EFerrari]

24. I hope it's my error. n/t

[JI7]

25. at first i thought JOHN EDWARDS had said "i'm not a christian

my hands are dirty".

but i guess you are referring to yourself in that and you are saying Edwards called on Christians to do something. do you have an exact text of it ?

i'm not a Christian either but i'm used to politicians doing these things since most people in this country are Christians.

[EFerrari]

33. I was listening to a speech he gave.

And thinking, this is the future unless we speak up.

This is the future: politicians calling on Christians to rebuild the country.

:wtf:

I will never sit still for that. Ever. John needs new speech writers because I don't want to believe he actually would say that.

[Mnemosyne]

166. Actually Beth, he writes most? of his own speeches. Saw him on some

unscripted tape recently and he just makes a few notes and speaks from there. Can't remember where I saw it or would post it.

:hi:

[Clark2008]

80. Correction: most people in this country SAY they are Christians,

but pitiful few act like it.

I think the OP's problem is that one doesn't have to be Christian, or say they're Christian, to help poor people.

[JohnLocke]

13. John Edwards on Faith and Religious Tolerance

"Well, my faith is enormously important to me personally. As I expect everyone's faith to be important to them personally. And I think it's—the separation of church and state is absolutely critical. We cannot have our government imposing one faith belief on its people. There are many faiths. All faiths in this country deserve exactly the same level of respect and to be treated with the same level of dignity. And I think the separation of church and state is enormously important to what we are as a nation."
----
"Well, as President of the United States, and for that matter for any publicly elected official, you're responsibility is to abide by and enforce the Constitution, and meet your constitutional duties. My personal faith guides and affects my personal decisions in my personal life. But as President of the United States I have a constitutional responsibility to all of the American people, which means, to all people of all faiths. So I think you have to be very, very careful to not let your own personal faith beliefs, particularly where they may differ with other faith beliefs, to influence national policy."
----
http://www.jregrassroots.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=4886

[beam me up scottie]

22. And where, in all that pandering, does he mention people of "no faith"?

:shrug:

[JohnLocke]

26. I think that yes, of course, Edwards as president would support their rights too.

Edwards has repeatedly stated that yes, his faith is important to him, and certinly plays a role in his concern for social justice issues. And Edwards has also said that as president he will uphold the Constitution that the current adminsitration has trampled on--the Constitution that protects our religious freedoms, our right to practice any faith we wish or to hold no faith at all.

Seriously, Edwards wasn't denigrating non-Christians. Not even remotely.

See http://www.masnet.org/takeaction.asp?id=1830.

[beam me up scottie]

31. It's called christian privilege.

I have no doubt that he understands and respects the first amendment, but I'm sick of the pandering.

[Matariki]

29. "There are many faiths" - like Protestant & Methodist & Baptist & Pentecostal &

of course the Anabaptists & Reformed churches. Oh and those catholics.


Heh - I'm just teasing, okay? :evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

32. You get it!

One mention of the A-word and he's toast.

[Fermezlabush]

119. Sorry, John to let you down in your expectations of me, but my "faith" is

nonexistent.
But then again, you let me down to in my expectation for a democrat to not sponsor a war resolution or a candidate I voted for to actually fight for my vote (his election victory) or at least get the word of the theft out.
So I guess we both disappoint eachother.

[Lex]

30. Maybe he was highlighting true compassionate Christians and not the

hypocritical ones sitting their asses in the White House and Congress and doing absolutely nothing. Or the ones bitching and moaning but not picking up a shovel or a hammer.

I don't think he was dissing others of other faiths.

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

34. Slippery slope.

I don't know what to think. I wish I had The Magistrate on tap.

When did religion become policy?

[beam me up scottie]

35. When the moral majority invented the "war" on christianity.

We kicked Jesus out of the schools, remember?

[EFerrari]

36. I guess there's something wrong with me.

Because I have this memory of when politicians ran on their thoughts about improving the country, not the bible.

And, I expected more from John than this. But, maybe I'm just out there.

[beam me up scottie]

37. Hey, I hear ya.

I'm from New England, nobody talks like that.

"My personal faith...blah blah blah..."

It's embarrassing.

[EFerrari]

39. When did talking religion become necessary?

When these criminals took power.

Their criminality has nothing to do with faith.

[Lex]

46. Kennedy and Clinton both spoke of their personal faith & beliefs

to a certain degree. I don't think it's new.

I think Edwards is probably trying to take the words "faith" and "religion" BACK from the hypocrites.

[hfojvt]

47. Yeah, Carter never mentioned it at all

and neither did Kennedy, or Eisenhauer, or Wilson, or Lincoln, or Jefferson.

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator ..."

Ooops.

"that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

How dare Lincoln bring religion out of the closet. That's just like an accursed Republican.

[eridani]

71. Didn't see any mention of Christianity in those quotes n/t

[hfojvt]

156. maybe because the post I replied to asked

"When did talking about religion become necessary?"

Should I dig more?

http://www.adherents.com/people/pl/Abraham_Lincoln.html

"Lincoln himself read the Bible throughout his life, quoted from it extensively... during his years as president he did regularly attend the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington. On the other hand, Lincoln never joined a church nor ever made a clear profession of standard Christian beliefs."

http://www.quotedb.com/authors/harry-truman

http://www.quotedb.com/category/christianity/author/theodore-roosevelt

[beam me up scottie]

54. See? Look at the shit you're getting. This is why they have to pander to the religionists.

Just look at what happens when you question the role of religion in politics.

On DU, no less.:mad:

[EFerrari]

106. Amazing.

[mondo joe]

108. The role of religion in politics merits questioning.

Putting words in others mouths is not, however, commendable.

[beam me up scottie]

172. Who commended anyone for "putting words in others mouths" ?

And now who's doing the same thing?

[PVnRT]

117. Only atheists can be TRUE liberals

:eyes:

[beam me up scottie]

173. Drat! You found me out-I'm with the EAC and we're taking over.You have 48 hours to leave my country

Only atheists can be TRUE liberals

Funny, I just reread my post and I don't see where I posted anything remotely resembling that.

Reading comprehension - Google it!

[PVnRT]

116. When was this?

Most politicians throughout history have cared more about staying in office and increasing their power. If it just so happens they "did the right thing," it was mostly coincidence. I find this reminiscing about Yon Good Olde Days when politicans were noble and selfless as amusing as the right-wingers whining about how the 1950's were just absolutely perfect.

[EFerrari]

120. So, I take it you disagree that there is a canned resort to religiosity

that has become so reflexive people barely hear it?

:)

[PVnRT]

126. It's a new power base

And politicians will exploit it. When the next power base comes along, politicians will exploit that one too. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

And my post had less to do with phantoms of fundamentalism in this case than with this idea that politicians used to be these noble, selfless people dedicated to the good of the people above all else.

[EFerrari]

128. Coming from a family full of politicians, I have to agree.

lol

[JohnLocke]

38. Here's the transcript; he said nothing of the kind!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/28/AR2006122800457_pf.html

[EFerrari]

40. And now I get to let his own words stand for themselves.

Please.

[beam me up scottie]

42. Like these words?

"Well, my faith is enormously important to me personally. As I expect everyone's faith to be important to them personally. And I think it's—the separation of church and state is absolutely critical. We cannot have our government imposing one faith belief on its people. There are many faiths. All faiths in this country deserve exactly the same level of respect and to be treated with the same level of dignity.

:banghead:

[JohnLocke]

45. Psst...did you miss the "the separation of church and state is absolutely critical" part?

"We cannot have our government imposing one faith belief on its people," etc.?

P.S.: No faith is, ipso facto, a faith.

:eyes:

Whatever.

[beam me up scottie]

52. No, I couldn't see past all those "faith"s.

But he's not pandering, no, not at all...


:eyes: back at ya

[progressivebydesign]

131. Dude, if you don't have a "faith" then he's not talking to you.

Do you expect him to say.. "faith" and "those without faith" in every sentence? You're pulling him apart word by word and it's BS. Only atheiests do not have a "faith", everything else does. If you don't have a faith, then this does not apply to you. How hard is that to figure out? Personally, I lean toward pagan, it's a faith.

[beam me up scottie]

167. Um, Dude, NO SHIT. That was my POINT. He's NOT talking to us.

As usual, we're being told not to be offended because he's only talking to the people in the front of the bus.

And, as usual, we're not even ON the fucking bus.

Oh, that's right, I forgot, it's a faith-based bus.

The only time people of "no faith" are ever addressed by presidential candidates and/or presidents is when they tell reporters that we shouldn't be considered citizens.



Politicians and voters from the left should be allowed to suck up to the fucking "moral" majority if they have to in order to win, but don't expect us to pucker up with you.

[beam me up scottie]

57. ipso facto, you're fulla crappo.

P.S.: No faith is, ipso facto, a faith.

The absence of something is not something.

[GirlinContempt]

98. Essentially as Atheists, we have faith

that we are right without proof.

[mondo joe]

99. Atheism is not a faith. It is the absence of theism.

You are in error.

[GirlinContempt]

104. It is not a *religion*

but faith has many meanings, and confidence or trust in something certainly fits. A true lack of thought or decision on the subject, faithlessness, is probably closer to agnosticism, not atheism.

[mondo joe]

107. What precisely do you think I have faith IN as an atheist?

I have no theism. I am an a-theist.

Or would absence of belief in invisible dragons in the garage be a faith?

[GirlinContempt]

179. theism does not mean faith.

Theism is a belief in god or gods. Faith is a belief. Without proof, I believe there is no god. Chalk it up to "logic" or "gut feeling" or whatever I want to, without that proof, it is faith that I am right. Faith does not just mean "Faith in god". That's why the "in God" has to be tacked on the end.

[beam me up scottie]

174. Don't speak for me.

It's arrogant and illiberal.

[GirlinContempt]

180. So, what? You have no faith in anything?

You're really a totally agnostic who never makes claims beyond what they can scientifically prove? Not if you identify as an atheist.
What's arrogant and illiberal, if you REALLY want to go there, is assuming that comments regarding linguistic context are somehow speaking for you. If you want to speak for yourself, learn the language.

[beam me up scottie]

181. Like faith that twits who tell others what they believe or don't are really ignorant hemorrhoids?

Was that language easy enough for you to understand or do you need it translated?

[GirlinContempt]

182. I don't understand why people are so offended by the idea of faith

human beings operate on it. I'm not telling you what you believe, BUT, if you identify as an atheist you're identifying YOURSELF as someone who believes there is no god/gods. That is FAITH by definition.
YOU are saying what you believe. If you don't understand that sometimes words can mean things other than what you're used to using them for, that's your problem.

Edit:

from random house:
a·the·ism /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

faith /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom
9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

[beam me up scottie]

183. That's not all you don't understand. The English language, for example...

If you don't understand that sometimes words can mean things other than what you're used to using them for, that's your problem.

You mean like the word "atheist" ?

How about hypocrite?

Are you familiar with that word?

'Cuz you should be.

Dictionary fundamentalists are so narrow minded.

[eridani]

72. You mean like baldness is a hair style? n/t

[Clark2008]

94. Pppppsssstttt

:spray:

You owe me a new keyboard. That was a good one. :thumbsup:

[progressivebydesign]

132. Man.. that's funny! n/t

[Triana]

88. ...

..."most of the good that's been done in New Orleans has been done by faith-based groups, charitable groups and volunteers, people who cared enough to come here and spend some time and actually do some work, get their hands dirty. Well, that's what we need to do again. It's what America needs to do again."

[KamaAina]

154. Thank you JohnLocke! Count the number of times the word "Christian" appears there.

Then multiply that by 82,637,341, and you get -- zero, because Edwards didn't utter the word "Christian" in the speech. "Faith", yes, twice -- both in the context of "faith-based groups", who are, in fact, doing most of the heavy lifting in terms of mucking out houses and the like, helping to fill the yawning void left by the inaction of Bush**, Heckuvajob Brownie, et al. It may surprise some of you to learn that at least one stalwart DUer has joined just such a faith-based group on the Gulf Coast, though she went to Mississippi rather than N.O.

edit: header spelling

[Lex]

44. I pulled up the transcript of his words & did a search on "Christian"

in his speech and it seems he didn't utter the word one time?

:shrug:

[Triana]

89. I did the same - it's not in there...

I searched on "dirty" and came up with:

..."most of the good that's been done in New Orleans has been done by faith-based groups, charitable groups and volunteers, people who cared enough to come here and spend some time and actually do some work, get their hands dirty. Well, that's what we need to do again. It's what America needs to do again."

[atre]

48. Ridiculous interpretation

This is the line to which sfexpat2000 is referring:

"You walk around in these neighborhoods and what you'll hear is most of the good that's been done in New Orleans has been done by faith-based groups, charitable groups and volunteers, people who cared enough to come here and spend some time and actually do some work, get their hands dirty. Well, that's what we need to do again. It's what America needs to do again."

The "and" between "charitable groups" and "volunteers" indicates that the conjunction is inclusive; it means more than "faith-based groups" are involved in the "good that's being done." Therefore, sfexpat2000 is apparently infuriated by the fact that Edwards dared include "faith-based groups" within the larger good-doing group which included non-faith-based groups. sfexpat2000 would've only been happy if Edwards had never mentioned that persons of faith have volunteered to improve the area - even though this fact is beyond dispute.

This place really borders on the absurd sometimes in its desire to purge religion, religious imagery, and - now - even religious references from the public discourse. Just as the religious need to learn to tolerate irreligion, so too the irreligious must learn to tolerate religion.

[EFerrari]

110. When did it become obligatory to stroke Christianity?

When?

And, no, my observation is not ridiculous. It's accurate and reflects the degradation of political discourse in what we refer to as our democracy.

[progressivebydesign]

133. Umm since when is Christianity the only faith?

You're grasping at straws if that was what you're getting all hot and bothered about. It's freaking TRUE that faith-based groups DID help in New Orleans! As did volunteer groups. Is he supposed to say nothing about them? I'm dumbfounded to see that this thread-from-hell started because of that paragraph which is TOTALLY benign, and FACT-based.

[EFerrari]

143. Okay: let's agree this is a thread from hell, first off.

Second, any help that got to the Gulf Coast should be honored -- especially since precious little has -- we can probably agree on that, too.

What we may not agree on is the by now nearly unnoticed piety that laces the speech of even our attractive sort of progressive candidates. And imloudbutho, that seems to me to be a problem.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

60. Ho hum.

Trash Edwards thread number god knows what. How original.

[beam me up scottie]

61. Maybe if you actually READ what the op said about him in the thread, you'd wake up.

What the hell is wrong with everybody?

It's like everything else sf ever posted doesn't mean diddly squat to the Edwards fan boys.

[cali]

64. I read the ENTIRE

thread, which completely debunked the OP's lazy few words. That you impart such wisdom to those few words is quite amusing. And for the record, I'm not on the bandwagon of any candidate. It's just too early for me.

[beam me up scottie]

65. Really? Then how did you miss the ones where she said she liked the guy and

hoped she was wrong?

[cali]

68. didn't miss them.

Just didn't give them the same weight as the lazy OP.

[beam me up scottie]

69. Oh well, as long as you were fair and balanced about it.

[Bluebear]

62. FWIW

"You walk around in these neighborhoods and what you'll hear is most of the good that's been done in New Orleans has been done by faith-based groups, charitable groups and volunteers, people who cared enough to come here and spend some time and actually do some work, get their hands dirty. Well, that's what we need to do again. It's what America needs to do again."

Well, personally I took it to mean that Bush and the government haven't done a goddamn thing, but faith-based groups AND charitable groups AND volunteers have. You know my hackles would be raised if a) I knew what a hackle was and b) if I thought Edwards was only Christians in doing good work down in the disaster zones. :hi:

[beam me up scottie]

63. Thanks, Bluebear.

Someone is still sane.

I was waiting for the next DIE YOU INFIDEL SCUM post from the fan club.

[Bluebear]

66. I actually look to see who is posting things

The OP is someone I think the world of, even if we heard the same thing two different ways in this instance :)

[beam me up scottie]

67. I think she would agree with you.

But she didn't get the chance before they pig-piled on her for bashing their boy.

[EFerrari]

75. I'm sorry I ever posted this damn thread.

[Neshanic]

79. Don't be sorry, the Edwards camp needs to hear this, so they can fine tune

their second rate bowl of Jello candidate...

[mondo joe]

83. I'm not in the Edwards camp, but I dislike people lying about what he said.

I never supported Edwards - except for the period in which he was the VP candidate in the general election.

I am furthermore an atheist. And I think faith based funding by the government is a sham.

But I very much dislike people lying about what he, or anyone, says.

[Neshanic]

85. Well, get the transcripts of his stump pandering yesterday,

[mondo joe]

86. It's already posted here. "Christians" doesn't even appear in the transcript.

[bobbolink]

92. So am I. Since Edwards is the ONLY one championing poor folk,

he will have my support, even if it offends your sensibilities regarding "faith".

If there had been a poverty priority among Dems, it wouldn't have come to this for me.

But, that ship sailed long ago---when Kucinich dropped poverty from his list of priorities, and his supporters couldn't give a shit.

There's been nobody else come along who gave a shit, either.

It's all WAR, all the time.

More people are dying of poverty in this country, than are dying from even that shitty war, but .... it matters not.

[EFerrari]

100. Is he prioritizing poverty or talking to megachurches?

Both, neither.
Yeah, this was a bad idea.

[bobbolink]

159. I don't know what your anger is, but poverty is my issue, period.

If "progressives" keep pushing away poverty, and shove me to "megachurches", then so be it.

I'm DONE with pretending that I'm being served by "progressives" and the Dem party.

[EFerrari]

164. We do what works, we agree on that.

:hug:

[Sapphire Blue]

101. I'm sorry that some people here can't seem to disagree w/CONTENT, but instead post personal attacks.

sfexpat2000, you are one of DU's very best. You have my respect, and the respect of many, many, many, other DUers!

You have my love, too ;)

:hug: :loveya: :hug:

:grouphug:

[mondo joe]

103. Where's the transcript of the content as described in the OP?

Anywhere?

[EFerrari]

112. I didn't mean to upset every awake DUer

Honest!

:hug:

[beam me up scottie]

176. SO am I, Sapphire Blue, so am I.

And I agree, DU would never be the same without sfexpat2000. :hug:

[dogday]

134. Boy, I have posted a few I felt that way about as well

Hang on, it's going to be a bumpy ride :hi:

[EFerrari]

140. This thread is classic DU. Look at all these great DUers

being nice to me when I should have known better several thousand posts ago.


:hi:

[Bluebear]

161. I just hope you saw my post #90

:hug:

[EFerrari]

163. Did. Thank you, Bluebear.

I was just washing my shoes up.

lol

[beam me up scottie]

177. I am too. I'm sorry that you were attacked for posting your opinion.

From calling you a mole to accusing you of lying, the responses on this thread have been quite enlightening.

And by enlightening, I mean presumptuous, arrogant and nauseating.


You're a treasure, sfexpat2000, don't ever change. :hug:

[mondo joe]

73. Please try to be more accurate. Edwards said nothing that implies that

only Christians have done such things.

[MindPilot]

74. I want to see that term "faith-based" retired from the lexicon.

Those of us with no faith bristle at it because it does connote a right-wing christian group proselytizing on the taxpayer's dime. And therein I think lies the problem with Edwards' comment.

Edit for accurate punctuation.

[Neshanic]

91. Thank you...we have a winner.

[EFerrari]

147. See, if you had posted the OP we could have saved the mods' time

and all this other stuff.

lol

[beam me up scottie]

175. POTD!

Thank you.

[Neshanic]

78. I heard the same thing you did, and threw up alittle in my mouth.

He really seems to be behind the curve. All that "faith based" crap he was spewing.

He did have a shovel though, he should hand them out to the crowds so we can shovel his crap speeches, and exploitationer camera quests to places like NO.

Look under Southern WASP in the dictionary...there is his picture

[zonkers]

81. self deleted until further notice.

[ray of light]

84. I don't get it. when did he say this? And what did he mean?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

87. Sorry. He does start with faith-based but then says charitable groups and volunteers.

So please don't put words in his mouth that weren't there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/28/AR2006122800457_pf.html

You walk around in these neighborhoods and what you'll hear is most of the good that's been done in New Orleans has been done by faith-based groups, charitable groups and volunteers, people who cared enough to come here and spend some time and actually do some work, get their hands dirty. Well, that's what we need to do again. It's what America needs to do again.

[Neshanic]

90. Sorry, I see "faith based" in that sentence. And also..

in context of what he said about not looking to the government for help.

Sorry, still not buying white rich wasp candidate with shovel, and a bad war vote to explain and carry around.

[MindPilot]

93. Yeah, the whole "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" thing rings a bit hollow

If the government agencies responsible had done everything possible to prevent and mitigate the damage and the catastrophe happened anyway, then grab-a-shovel-and-get-to-work would be an appropriate call to action. But as we all know it didn't happen that way.

I will pull the lever for whoever has a D after their name, but I for one have had quite enough governance from the south.

[EFerrari]

114. Remember autorank's thread yesterday on WH negligence?

No only didn't they respond, they withheld the knowledge that the levies were breached for a whole day.

[mondo joe]

95. WASP? Is this the part of the thread where we exclude people based on race

and religion?

[EFerrari]

96. You're reading a transcript and I was watching a performance.

:shrug:

I don't believe he meant to insult his whole nonChristian viewership. But, it's gotten so easy to use those terms as if we're all in the same club. This used to be a secular democracy.

[mondo joe]

97. Are you saying he used words other than in the transcript?

[countingbluecars]

102. I watched and listened,

and I was not insulted.

[EFerrari]

118. Apparently, you and just about everybody else.

:)

[Annces]

115. interesting post

I wonder if the democrats have done a huddle and said they need to tout the Christian thing too, to compete with the republicans.

[k_jerome]

121. then you shall, of course, not inherit the kingdom of heaven. nt.

[NoSheep]

124. It took me a while to realize that wasn't a quote from Edwards in the OP

I'm back on track again though ;) I don't think I was up on whatever he said but in context now I see. Also, I know he could never have said THAT so I was quite intrigued! I have really had it this holiday season so I'm with you here.

[EFerrari]

125. Oh, geeze. I should have just stayed with the War on Christmas.

:rofl:

[NoSheep]

146. Who exactly IS on first.

Seriously. He is.

[EFerrari]

151. Great. I probably just insulted the next president of the United States.

lol

lol

[NoSheep]

152. DU is like Whack-a Mole sometimes!

:yoiks:

[EFerrari]

153. Do you think I should apologize to the whole South now?

"I didn't like his looks. I didn't like his stinkin' looks."

Babe, "Crimes of the Heart"

[NoSheep]

155. HA! I just have to make sure:

Did you get that I misread the subject line of the OP? It was quite hilarious to think John Edwards said : "I'm not a Christian and my hands are dirty."

Also, do you thnk I'm the first to compare DU to Whack-A-Mole? I think it's a killer analogy! Or maybe it should be called "Whack-It! Ask questions later".

edited because I'm nuts!

[EFerrari]

158. "Whack it!"

:rofl:

And, omg, yes, omG, I didn't mean to put those words in his mouth.

:rofl:

[progressivebydesign]

127. I have no problem with what Edwards said, and I'm not Christian.

Is that today's game? Does that make you better than Chrstians that bash you for not being Christian? I love DU.. watching people attack Democratic Candidates because they don't say or do the things that you think they should say. The posts here attacking Edwards, when it's OBVIOUS what he meant, remind me of the right wingers who attacked Kerry for the botched joke.

Any excuse to attack Edwards or any other candidate that might actually have a chance. Wow.. it's starting early. Seems that the original poster has calmed down a bit after realizing it may have been misunderstood, but oh.. how the Edwards bashing continues.

Here's a guy with money, looks, a great family, and he's done so much good with all of that in his work to expose the poverty in America. He's a good man. I've been on DU since the beginning, and it shocks me how many haters we have here now. I'm far from Chistian, and the first to call bullshit on people shoving their religion down our throats, but that is NOT what Edwards is doing, and it's obvious he is NOT pandering by mentioning it. He's calling out the hypocrisy of the Bush bots.

[EFerrari]

130. I don't think I've actually attacked John Edwards but it's true

that this whole deal should have been relegated to a DU Drama Queen thread.

Mea culpa.

[Lex]

135. It's okay.

:hug:

One bonus is that it prompted me to go back and read the whole transcript and I'm glad I did.

[EFerrari]

141. "Baby, you're the greatest."

:)

[progressivebydesign]

137. For sure.. this thread was better than caffiene this morning.

I do enjoy these mondo, threads-from-hell (unless someone doesn't believe in Hell, then it would be a thread from an undisclosed-yet-warm-location). It's interesting to read them and watch them evolve (unless you don't believe in evolution, instead you watch it miraculously appear). It's like a giant salon discussion, without the food or drink.

[EFerrari]

139. LOL

:rofl:

[Neshanic]

144. Is your status as fave poster back now? This is what it is about...

"You walk around in these neighborhoods and what you'll hear is most of the good that's been done in New Orleans has been done by faith-based groups, charitable groups and volunteers, people who cared enough to come here and spend some time and actually do some work, get their hands dirty. Well, that's what we need to do again. It's what America needs to do again."

"MOST of the work has been done by faith based groups"

This little tidbit...

"Senator, what is your perception on President Bush’s `faith-based` initiatives?

I think that what the president is proposing is a mistake. For a variety of reasons I will just mention a couple. One is the elimination of laws against discrimination based on faith beliefs entirely from the system is a huge mistake. I mean, it creates a special category that allows people to discriminate based on religious beliefs. And I think that's a mistake we can't allow that to happen. In addition to that, those who receive service from `faith-based` groups and `faith-based` institutions shouldn't be required to abide by a particular faith in order to receive those services. Earlier in this discussion where we're talking about my involvement with Urban Ministries in Raleigh and we made it very clear that we reach out to all people who need help--all of the hungry, and of the homeless. And they’re not required to share our faith or to embrace a particular faith. They are all part of our family and we want to help them and provide the help that they need."

Interfaith Interview December 3, 2003,

Comments? questions? bucket?

Oh and added on edit...

Same-Sex Marriage: Edwards opposes same-sex marriage, but he does not think the Constitution should be amended to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

On 2/24/04 Edwards said in response to President Bush's proposed Constitutional amendment, "I am against the president's constitutional amendment on gay marriage...I don't personally support gay marriage myself. My position has always been that it's for the states to decide."

Yes, that answer, the one we all hear. Just so we have the record. By the way, as a fellow Methodist, I would like to know what are bad Bush faith based programs, and good faith based programs. Just so I know. I suppose the Methodists would never dream of doing what you said above, "to discriminate based on religious beliefs."

[EFerrari]

145. "What if I exchange all your furniture, give you a refund and shoot the salesman?"

More seriously, it's nearly impossible not to be aware of performance, as in, being in an audience, any more.

Oh, well.

[Neshanic]

148. Oh well is right...

[LittleClarkie]

149. It's a competition?

Meanwhile, I'm sure he didn't mean to offend.

[pitohui]

178. mods can this thread die already?

it has been established that john edwards did not insult anybody and the title is misleading and makes it sound like he said he was not a christian and that his hands were dirty -- he said nothing of the kind

[Superman Returns]

184. its amazing

that this thread based on an out of context misrepresentation can live a long life (with the mods just deleting my and Atre's defense of Edwards.) Yet my threads always get locked.

[beam me up scottie]

185. Oh, you poor poor oppressed dear.

:rofl:

Did it ever occur to you that if you stopped kicking this thread it would sink?

Did you pm skinner to complain about the mods yet?

[yardwork]

186. Locking

This thread is full of personal attacks.