And I didn’t either, when I first read the transcript of the debate. But some people did.
The debate took place in Nashville, which was called “The place where the Bible Belt has its buckle” by many Tennesseans. But not once, in the entire debate, did anyone – not John McCain, not Barack Obama, not Tom Brokaw, not any of the people in the audience – mention any of the following words:
And yet, Candidate McCain and Candidate Obama both somehow managed to talk about how they were going to take action on the economy, foreign affairs, terrorist, Israel, and even abstract moral duties of individuals and the nation as a whole. All without any reference whatsoever to religion. The answers to the various questions and statements of the candidates apply with equal validity to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Wiccans, new agers, pagans, and atheists and no one was excluded from participation in the debate or elevated to a superior plane on the basis of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof).
This is as it should be.
If you say so.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator . . .
I do say so. My point was that it was a good thing that a debate took place that did not make reference to religion or that implied that people who believe a certain way are somehow better than people who believe a different way. I confirm that sentiment.As for the Declaration of Independence, whatever relevance it has to this discussion, it does not read:”…that they are endowed by God…”Nor does it read:”…that they are endowed by Jehovah…”It does not specify who, or what, this “Creator” might be. Gee. Almost like it was intentionally left ambiguous.
i agree with your post completely, which makes it even more difficult for me to understand why you would vote for a mccain-palin ticket considering mccain’s kissing up to the religious right and palin’s well-documented ties to religious fundamentalism. i can understand why you might not not vote for obama, but a vote for mccain-palin seems to contradict your interest in separation of church and state among other things. And to think a mccain victory may very well usher in the ascension of palin to the presidency in 2012 or perhaps sooner. no thanks.http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/18/palin_iacc/index.html?source=newsletterhttp://www.thenation.com/doc/20081013/goldberghttp://www.religiousrightwatch.com/http://www.newsweek.com/id/157570
Gee. Almost like it was intentionally left ambiguous. Who know better, that was the way they spoke back then. Similar to a courtroom (-: Thomas, Doesn’t Obama give speeches inside a church? Oh wait I forgot, he’s a democrat …contradict your interest in separation of church and state among other things. also known as “The One”
zzi,i am opposed to politicians giving political speeches in churches. if obama did that, i think he was wrong to do so. by the way i’m independent and do not have blind loyalty to a party like many democrats and republicans do. but you miss the larger picture. the republicans are much more likely to legally tear down the separation between church and state established by the founders of our nation. if you want a theocracy, move to Iran. as for obama being “the one”, i think mccain admitted as much last night.
FYI Thomas, I’m likeliest right now to vote for Bob Barr.
it will be interesting to see how many votes barr gets. probably more than nader. i would have voted for nader if he had only continued to build up the 3rd party movement since 2000. he only looks like an opportunist now (like all other politicians).
Thomas, I’ll take you at your word that you didn’t know.No find me where it reads ” separation between church and state” in the constitution.