Maybe it was just camera angles, but I didn’t see anyone under 50 in that sample audience. Also, as someone in the newspaper business I understand the problem with focus groups and test audiences. Such groups often have a tendancy to a) say what they think others in the group want to hear and b) feed off each other. In other words, while they might say they like Romney now, that really doesn’t have anything to do with the ballot they might cast in the privacy of a voting booth.
All that being said, what I find alarming about this and stuff I’m hearing from the Democratic debate is the continuing desire of many voters to find a politician who sounds like a good moral compass. That hasn’t worked out so well for the past 8 years — not because George Bush doesn’t have any morals, but more likely because the political process doesn’t leave much room for such things in a pure and personal form. It isn’t about what you truly believe, it is more about what you can convincingly sound like you believe. The latter may be even better because it can then be used as capital that can be traded in the political marketplace. People in my family voted for our current president because he seemed the most moral choice, but that hasn’t prevented people in his administration from lying, cheating, stealing and committing a host of other “sins.”
Also, morals in America are frequently export commodities: more about laws to be passed to govern your conduct, then things I believe that govern mine. Jesus encountered the same thing.
Luke 11:46 - Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.”
Mat 23:23 - “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices–mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law–justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practised the latter, without neglecting the former.”
Maybe we need a moral leader. But it might be better to have one who is just and merciful and faithful. Is there is much room in American politics for those qualities and how do you fit them into a sound bite?
What bothered me was how easy it was for Romney to send his ratings among that audience off the chart by simply saying a few key words about Jesus and God.
I’d like a President with character (a person of integrity etc) but in my experience saying key words doesn’t prove someone has character.
it might be better to have one who is just and merciful and faithful.
- I would prefer that to someone who happens to agree with me on specific issues. Who knows if I am always right anyway? But I could trust the judgment of someone who is just and merciful and faithful (and I wouldn’t necessarily interpret ‘faithful’ in religous terms - faithful to other people is good enough for me)
Some good thoughts above but I can’t help but think about how the increase in support when he mentioned believing the Bible, and believing in creation, in contrast to what most posted on here regarding creation being taught to children. I think most posters on this site are out of touch with mainstream America. Most people don’t believe in evolution becuase it is a faith with very little to back up it’s claims. Christianity on the other hand, with it’s creation story, is solid. Therefore most people would rather have a person that can see the solidity of the creation story and the holes in evolution, because most people already do.
Therefore most people would rather have a person that can see the solidity of the creation story and the holes in evolution, because most people already do.
I would rather have a person who rules with humility and loves his neighbor as himself. I would rather have someone who values rather than exploits creation. I would rather have someone who feeds the poor, cares for the sick and shows mercy to all. Not sure any politician can fill that bill. But I’m really not sure what role evolution vs. creationism has in the presidential race. The election is for a president, not a pastor.
I think most posters on this site are out of touch with mainstream America. Most people don’t believe in evolution becuase it is a faith with very little to back up it’s claims.
It’s very dangerous to paint the posters on this site with a broad brush. It’s sort of saying “you people.”
Evolution is not a faith. Evolution is a scientific theory.
Not to mention that mainstream America is sometimes very, very wrong.
Yes it was a broad statement about posters and mainstream and really not important. If you dont’ want a pastor David,as a president why are you saying you want a savior to feed the poor, etc.? If evolution is a scientific theory, where’s the test? All scientific tests should be testable, even theoretically testable. No test can be done on evolution.
And what do you mean by “values rather than exploits creation?” Everything we use is either farmed or mined, including the computer you are using. Do you drive a car and burn gas? Use electricity that is made from buring coal? Do you exploit creation or value it?
Yes it was a broad statement about posters and mainstream and really not important. If you dont’ want a pastor David,as a president why are you saying you want a savior to feed the poor, etc.?
I was attempting to describe the things Jesus told his followers to do in the world when I mentioned feeding the poor, etc. I don’t want a savior to feed the poor, according to Jesus that is my job. As for presidents vs. pastors, a president — so we are told — should put his own people ahead of all others. A pastor who does that isn’t modeling Jesus.
If evolution is a scientific theory, where’s the test? All scientific tests should be testable, even theoretically testable. No test can be done on evolution.
Have you read anything written in the past 10 years from a scientist who believes in evolution? There is quite a bit of testing, especially on the genetic level, that has quite a bit to do with proving the theory of evolution. Even if you don’t believe in evolution, you do your arguments a great disservice if you don’t make them informed.
Just as an aside: What’s the proof of strict creationism? I am interested in something that is scientifically testable.
And what do you mean by “values rather than exploits creation?” Everything we use is either farmed or mined, including the computer you are using. Do you drive a car and burn gas? Use electricity that is made from buring coal? Do you exploit creation or value it?
As an American I have to regretfully say that much of my life is based on exploiting creation. I, like many other Americans, consume a disparate amount compared to the rest of the world. I couldn’t commute to work, as just one example, if I did not. I try to make myself aware of what unchecked consumerism is doing to this country and this world; and I try to do what I can to reduce what I use and what I waste. On a very low level that is “valuing” creation.
Exploiting creation is the belief that it doesn’t matter what people do to the world. It was put here for us to use as we see fit. It that causes hunger, pollution, ecological disaster — so what. In Christian circles this is often referred to as Dominion Theology. God gave us dominion over the earth and that is carte blanche to crap on creation. I have heard reasoning like that quite a bit in the past six years.
Comment by: David H
1Maybe it was just camera angles, but I didn’t see anyone under 50 in that sample audience. Also, as someone in the newspaper business I understand the problem with focus groups and test audiences. Such groups often have a tendancy to a) say what they think others in the group want to hear and b) feed off each other. In other words, while they might say they like Romney now, that really doesn’t have anything to do with the ballot they might cast in the privacy of a voting booth.
All that being said, what I find alarming about this and stuff I’m hearing from the Democratic debate is the continuing desire of many voters to find a politician who sounds like a good moral compass. That hasn’t worked out so well for the past 8 years — not because George Bush doesn’t have any morals, but more likely because the political process doesn’t leave much room for such things in a pure and personal form. It isn’t about what you truly believe, it is more about what you can convincingly sound like you believe. The latter may be even better because it can then be used as capital that can be traded in the political marketplace. People in my family voted for our current president because he seemed the most moral choice, but that hasn’t prevented people in his administration from lying, cheating, stealing and committing a host of other “sins.”
Also, morals in America are frequently export commodities: more about laws to be passed to govern your conduct, then things I believe that govern mine. Jesus encountered the same thing.
Luke 11:46 - Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.”
Mat 23:23 - “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices–mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law–justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practised the latter, without neglecting the former.”
Maybe we need a moral leader. But it might be better to have one who is just and merciful and faithful. Is there is much room in American politics for those qualities and how do you fit them into a sound bite?
Comment by: Helen
2Thanks for your comment, David.
What bothered me was how easy it was for Romney to send his ratings among that audience off the chart by simply saying a few key words about Jesus and God.
I’d like a President with character (a person of integrity etc) but in my experience saying key words doesn’t prove someone has character.
- I would prefer that to someone who happens to agree with me on specific issues. Who knows if I am always right anyway? But I could trust the judgment of someone who is just and merciful and faithful (and I wouldn’t necessarily interpret ‘faithful’ in religous terms - faithful to other people is good enough for me)
Comment by: David H
3If you can’t be faithful to other people then you can’t really be faithful to anything.
Comment by: Helen
4Exactly.
Comment by: Clay
5Some good thoughts above but I can’t help but think about how the increase in support when he mentioned believing the Bible, and believing in creation, in contrast to what most posted on here regarding creation being taught to children. I think most posters on this site are out of touch with mainstream America. Most people don’t believe in evolution becuase it is a faith with very little to back up it’s claims. Christianity on the other hand, with it’s creation story, is solid. Therefore most people would rather have a person that can see the solidity of the creation story and the holes in evolution, because most people already do.
Comment by: David H
6I would rather have a person who rules with humility and loves his neighbor as himself. I would rather have someone who values rather than exploits creation. I would rather have someone who feeds the poor, cares for the sick and shows mercy to all. Not sure any politician can fill that bill. But I’m really not sure what role evolution vs. creationism has in the presidential race. The election is for a president, not a pastor.
Comment by: Doreen A Mannion
7Clay wrote
It’s very dangerous to paint the posters on this site with a broad brush. It’s sort of saying “you people.”
Evolution is not a faith. Evolution is a scientific theory.
Not to mention that mainstream America is sometimes very, very wrong.
Comment by: David H
8The great thing about living in the US is that you are never wrong if you are in the electoral majority.
Comment by: Clay
9Yes it was a broad statement about posters and mainstream and really not important. If you dont’ want a pastor David,as a president why are you saying you want a savior to feed the poor, etc.? If evolution is a scientific theory, where’s the test? All scientific tests should be testable, even theoretically testable. No test can be done on evolution.
And what do you mean by “values rather than exploits creation?” Everything we use is either farmed or mined, including the computer you are using. Do you drive a car and burn gas? Use electricity that is made from buring coal? Do you exploit creation or value it?
Comment by: David H
10I was attempting to describe the things Jesus told his followers to do in the world when I mentioned feeding the poor, etc. I don’t want a savior to feed the poor, according to Jesus that is my job. As for presidents vs. pastors, a president — so we are told — should put his own people ahead of all others. A pastor who does that isn’t modeling Jesus.
Have you read anything written in the past 10 years from a scientist who believes in evolution? There is quite a bit of testing, especially on the genetic level, that has quite a bit to do with proving the theory of evolution. Even if you don’t believe in evolution, you do your arguments a great disservice if you don’t make them informed.
Just as an aside: What’s the proof of strict creationism? I am interested in something that is scientifically testable.
As an American I have to regretfully say that much of my life is based on exploiting creation. I, like many other Americans, consume a disparate amount compared to the rest of the world. I couldn’t commute to work, as just one example, if I did not. I try to make myself aware of what unchecked consumerism is doing to this country and this world; and I try to do what I can to reduce what I use and what I waste. On a very low level that is “valuing” creation.
Exploiting creation is the belief that it doesn’t matter what people do to the world. It was put here for us to use as we see fit. It that causes hunger, pollution, ecological disaster — so what. In Christian circles this is often referred to as Dominion Theology. God gave us dominion over the earth and that is carte blanche to crap on creation. I have heard reasoning like that quite a bit in the past six years.