God's Politics

God's Politics


Video: Candidates Forum – Full Content

posted by God's Politics

+ Click here for full streaming video of our June 4 presidential candidates forum on faith, values, and poverty



Advertisement
Comments read comments(13)
post a comment
RJ Plummer

posted June 12, 2007 at 2:48 pm


I wish the time per candidate were longer. I’m sure tha candidates would have been willing to go longer and the show could have shown the first 15 minutes or highlights and the reast on the web.
15 minutes per candidate wasn’t really enough to get them off their scripted answers.
I was disappointed that there were no non-Christian questioners.
But for all that, it was definitely worthwhile watching and insightful



report abuse
 

charles robson

posted June 12, 2007 at 5:58 pm


I am curious why Dodd, Biden, Kucinich and Richardson were not invited to your forum. Perhaps it is because they are all Roman Catholics ? Even if it is not true, you certainly leave your organization wide open for that criticism.



report abuse
 

Pat McCullough

posted June 12, 2007 at 7:44 pm


Hi God’s Politics bloggers,
I am a student at Fuller Seminary, an intern with Bread for the World, and an Anabaptist Christian. I greatly appreciate your hosting of this event and I am so glad that you have shared the video from it here (I don’t get cable).
I would, however, like to second the concern of Charles Robson. I know that your press release indicated that you were interested in talking with the “leading candidates” (“We are excited that the leading candidates will be meeting with faithful voters . . .”). I think any accusation that Catholics were intentionally set aside is too harsh considering Sojourners’ own associate editor, Rose Marie Berger, is a Catholic; not to mention that one of the panelists from this discussion is a Catholic. Nevertheless, it will look that way to many.
I can understand the concern to keep the conversation from becoming too crowded, but I think it is too early to base the conversation on “front runners” (faith is not about front runners anyway!). I, for one, believe that Bill Richardson is the most qualified candidate of the bunch and we need to talk about him a lot more.
Jim Wallis has said that this is the beginning of the conversation. I hope that the rest of the conversation includes the rest of the candidates! With that in mind, I think it would be appropriate for you to point to some video coverage of the CNN interviews of the other democratic candidates.
Thank you,
Pat McCullough
http://pgmccullough.blogspot.com/



report abuse
 

Richard Beach

posted June 13, 2007 at 12:53 am


I was really struck by the utter lack of faith values as evidenced by a careful watching of the faith forum. Specifically, I found the following values put forward by these candidates to be somewhat disturbing:
1. Support for stealing – Ms. Clinton said that the “free market is not working” and that to implement her policy “something has to be taken away from some people.”
2. Support for homosexuality – Mr. Edwards said that his own moral compass will not be used in determining social policy.
3. America is bad? – Mr. Obama reserved his harshest words for his own country as if there were no enemy to found. He seemed to want to link all of America to the scandalous deeds committed by a few bad apples at Abu Ghraib.
4. Support for abortion – It’s the biggest plank in the Democratic platform. Abortion is the ultimate poverty. If you support abortion, you cannot be in right relationship to God.
5. Deception – All of these candidates sound a lot different when they are talking to a Hollywood audience. I wonder why?
I wasn’t convinced. They seemed a little phony to me. I did not see anyone that I would call a “values” candidate. (Not that I expect any better from the Republican side.)



report abuse
 

Steve-a-Reno

posted June 13, 2007 at 10:04 am


Mr. Beach, since you mentioned abortion, and we would both like to see fewer abortions, I suppose you are really more upset with the Republicans than these three candidates. In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court re-affirmed abortion as legal and that is the last time they considered it. The Supreme Court was then and still is run by majority Republican appointed Justices. Yes, the Republican party has a plank opposed to abortion. But, they have been in charge of everything for many years (prior to November ’06) and did not make progress. Broken promises to us? Many would argue Republicans changed the conditions in America to increase the likelihood of a woman choosing abortion (more poverty).
Also, don’t forget the Democratic Party has an active Democrats for Life contingent. Funny you did not mention that!



report abuse
 

curiouser and curiouser

posted June 13, 2007 at 11:18 am


I, otoh, am disturbed that this event took place at all.
Doesn’t ANYONE remember that “there shall be no religious test” to hold public ofice?
This forum was, imo, un-Constitutional, forcing candidates to profess faith (or should that be ‘faithiness’?).
See what the RRR has done to America?



report abuse
 

Tamara

posted June 13, 2007 at 9:19 pm


will you be posting the interviews with the republicans soon? any chance of seeing the CNN interviews with the other democrat candidates?



report abuse
 

Steve-a-Reno

posted June 14, 2007 at 5:49 pm


Mr. Curious poster; It was not a test. I repeat no test was given. No one required them to appear. Discussing matters of faith is not a test!



report abuse
 

Kevin

posted July 19, 2007 at 5:04 pm


Regarding religious tests -
The historian Frank Lambert discusses this issue in his book The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America.
The election of 1800 (Jefferson vs. Hamilton) was pivotal here. It’s true that there was a constitutional ban on religious tests – meaning that there could be “no state protection of a specific creed.” But the Federalists (supporting Hamilton) argued that *voters* should impose their own religious test in the public sphere. Lambert argues that Jefferson supported this idea, even though he advocated a strict separation of church and state. In other words, as Lambert says “those wishing to make religion an issue must make their case in the free marketplace of ideas… outside the jurisdiction of the government.”
If Lambert’s perspective is correct, then this CNN forum is exactly what Jefferson (aka Mr. “Wall of Separation”) would endorse – a *public* discussion of religious issues among candidates and voters. An unconstitutional religious test would be one in which *by law* only candidates of certain religious persuasions could become president. That is far from the case here.



report abuse
 

acts1336

posted August 2, 2007 at 1:01 pm


God help us.



report abuse
 

Alan

posted August 23, 2008 at 11:55 pm


Nice writing. You are on my RSS reader now so I can read more from you down the road.



report abuse
 

Optoreapary

posted September 3, 2008 at 9:59 pm


i don`t understand, but TY
.



report abuse
 

PhilosophyMan

posted October 23, 2008 at 12:37 am


Hello. I’m new here but I realy want to ask you…
We’ve all gone through this phase in life, sometimes more often than others. But haven’t you ever asked yourself, “Why am I on this earth”? What am I here for? Exactly just what is your purpose in life?
P.S. Sorry If wrong section!



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting God's Politics. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:14:07am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Why I Work for Immigration Reform (by Patty Kupfer)
When I tell people that I work on immigration reform, they usually laugh or say, "way to pick an easy topic." Everyday it feels like there is more fear, more hate. Raids are picking up in Nevada, California, and New York. A number of senators who supported comprehensive reform only a few months ago

posted 12:30:52pm Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Audio: Jim Wallis on "Value Voters" on The Tavis Smiley Show
Last week Jim was on The Tavis Smiley Show and talked about how the changing political landscape will affect the upcoming '08 election. Jim and Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state, debated and discussed both the impact of "value voters" on the election and what those values entail. + Down

posted 10:11:56am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Verse of the Day: 'peace to the far and the near'
I have seen their ways, but I will heal them; I will lead them and repay them with comfort, creating for their mourners the fruit of the lips. Peace, peace, to the far and the near, says the Lord; and I will heal them. But the wicked are like the tossing sea that cannot keep still; its waters toss u

posted 9:35:01am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Daily News Digest (by Duane Shank)
the latest news on Mideast, Iran, Romney-Religious right, Blog action day, Turkey, SCHIP, Iran, Aids-Africa, India, Budget, Brownback-slavery apology, Canada, and selected op-eds. Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail » Blog action day. Thousands of bloggers unite in blitz of green

posted 9:31:25am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.