Character Counts, Religious or Not

Logical and rational. It does not take a belief in a God or an adherence to any particular religion to be of good character. Compassion, decency, integrity and honesty are found in the religious and the non-religious - as are deviant and antisocial behaviors that harm other people. Religion is private life oriented and is a personal experience and, as such, is a subjective experience. It has no place in public policy which should create a objective foundation upon which those of differing faith systems can safely live their lives and experience their subjective realities to their best happiness. In that vein, it is not a religious affiliation that makes a person of good or poor character, but the actions, choices and words of the person and public policy should not be based on any one faith system. At least not in the tradition of this country which calls itself home to people of many different personal experiences and beliefs. A code that maintains safety and social order for those who walk this land is necessary. Beyond that, it's personal. And no man bound to live by the subjective, personal beliefs of another is free.

Sigh. The elite bishop would issue his heavenly pronouncements from a perch of omniscience. We humble minions should therefore bow to his broad condemnations as gospel. But he fails to articulate his real agenda, as with most mainstream, liberal Episcopals: the Bible isn't all it's cracked up to be; Christ couldn't have been the result of virgin birth, which insults the intellectual mind; and resurrection is so far beyond the realm of scientific understanding and must therefore the soft landing spot for ... really stupid people. Christians. Oh, wait, aren't Episcopals ... never mind. And of course the big bang (no longer capitalized in scientific circles since it's been laughed out of the laboratory) never addressed it's own Creator ... Interesting how all the Bill Maher fans ("religous people: change or die" ... like there's an alternative to death. Oh yeah, Eternal Life, but that's another story ...) are jumping for joy at the Bishop's pontificating - gee, it sure would be great to have them in charge, because history is replete with fine examples of athiests with good character ...
Obama's character was forged by those he hung around over the past 20-30 years, fine examples of tolerance and positive vision like Wright, Ayers, Fannie Mae CEOs ... vote for him at your grandchildren's peril -

Going to church does not make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.

I agree totally. There is a vast difference between faith and religiosity, just as there is a vast difference between the Old and new Covenant. The only similarity is that God remained the same. God beathes Spirit on ALL flesh - women, gays and house pets - not just on people in pulpits or political office.

Bishop Spong argues for voting on the basis of character and says that religion is not the key. If this is so the key question for all of us who want Presidential candidates with strong and good characters is the extent to which our current political system, which has degenerated to the politics of celebrity dominated by the media and an absurd system of nominating by primaries, renders the election of such persons virtually impossible. I for one suspect that if the current system gives us the type of candidate whose character can be known in advance it is largely by accident.
A second key question is "What shapes character and how can we use those forces in the political system? I would like to see a real discussion on that point.

I agree about character rather than religious beliefs. If a person is petty and vindictive (as in punishing and firing those who disagree), I see that as a sign of a questionable character. So I am not impressed with the character of Palin from what I can see. Also it is very clear she has ambitions to be president - which is fine in and of itself. But to have those ambitions for the right reasons, to do a good job and lead this country in the right directions, rather than simply to gain personal power, you have to do your homework and learn what it takes to be a good president. She does not appear to want to do that, she just wants to jump in regardless of whether she knows what to do. Also signs to me of a lack of good character.

Obama appears to be a man of good character. Biden, I don't know him as well but he seems honest and hard-working too. McCain, in some ways he has a good character, in some ways definitely not.

On balance I see Obama and Biden as having better character and better ability than McCain/Palin.

Sarah Palin DID NOT try to have specific books banned from the Wasilla Library, but she DID ask the librarian about the possibility of removing books. After the librarian refused to consider doing such a thing she was FIRED.

She only got her job back after residents of Wasilla protested.

Sarah Palin is a BULLY with lipstick and a DOG of a human being.

Of course character counts. And religion tends more often than not to corrupt character.

VICTORIA-
As always Bishop Sprong- you bridge the divide-
If I actually did have the opprtunity to ask question of the candidates- I would surely not waste it on a religious one.

PALAMAS - you stated-

"Palin has explicitly said that she doesn't support teaching "creation science" in public schools,..."

No, she hasn't. Now read this carefully- as it is misleading on purpose-

Here are direct quotes out of the mouth of Sarah Palin in RECENT interviews.

(1) _______________________________________
Source: 2008 Fox News interview on "Hannity & Colmes" Sep 17, 2008

Q: Did you ONLY want to teach creationism in school and not evolution?

A: No. In fact, growing up in a school teacher's house with a science teacher as a dad, you know, I have great respect for science being taught in our science classes and evolution to be taught in our science classes.
________________________________________

OK? Got that? SHE DOESN'T MENTION HER STANCE ON CREATIONISM.

(2)
Source: Boston Globe, "A valentine to evangelical base", p. A12 Aug 30, 2008

"Teach creationism alongside evolution in schools

Earlier this year, she told the Anchorage Daily News that schools should not fear TEACHING CREATIONISM alongside evolution. "TEACH BOTH. You know, don't be afraid of information.... Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I AM A PROPONENT OF TEACHING BOTH. And you know, I say this too as a daughter of a science teacher."
_________________________________________

(3)
Source: New York Times, pp. A1 & A10, "An Outsider Who Charms" Aug 29, 2008

Supports teaching intelligent design in public schools
Palin is a conservative Protestant and has also been a member since 2006 of Feminists for Life, an anti-abortion group. SHE HAS SUPPORTED THE TEACHING OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, alongside evolution.
__________________________________________
SARAH PALIN ON EDUCATION
* Never tried to ban books in the Wasilla Library. (Sep 2008)
*Science teacher as dad; believes in teaching evolution. (Sep 2008)
*TEACH CREATIONISM alongside evolution in schools. (Aug 2008)
*SUPPORTS TEACHING INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. (Aug 2008)
____________________________________________

THIS IS THE OFFICAL SITE OF SARAH PALIN'S STANCE ON ISSUES
http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm

All of the quotes are direct, and posted By Sarah Palin regarding her own position.

Click on the 24 full quotes at the top under Education banner.

She absolutely DOES support teaching creationism in public schools.

Irischermann says: "That’s the main problem I have with Republican voters is they generally vote for a candidate based on the *perception* of his/her personality (“toughness,” “faith” and “straight-talk”) as opposed to their character (record, values and ideals). Bush was reelected because he talked tough about keeping us safe from the bad guys and how he’s gonna get those terrorists and that other guy…their leader…what’s his name…."

Which is, of course, Irischermann's perception.

I think Bush was elected (twice) because the alternatives were clearly worse. And in this election, they all stink loudly: Obama the Socialist or McCain the BCRA Maverick. This is a choice?

Bishop Spong,

I am an atheist and a Jew, hard to imagine, if you're unfamiliar with the various Juduaisms, I know. No matter what I do or think theism just doesn't work for me. Judaism is sufficiently plural that it allows for those like me, sufficiently historical, material, ethical to engage my thinking and imagination.

Although I've explored other religions, a couple in depth, others superficially, I've never been tempted to convert, but if I were looking for a change, I would probably look again at your religion, since in essay after essay, you astonish me with your lucidity, your clarity, and decency.

I guess Bishop Spong could have also commented on all the other presidents, and those who have ever run for president, and vice president, but many of them are now gone.

I get his point, however. Perhaps he would do better at The Huffington Post.

To Palamas:

I too am glad Bishop Spong isn't running for anything, since he seems to be a decent man, and as such would probably not fare well in politics.

Yes, Palin has denied supporting 'creation science' but she has also come out in favor of 'intelligent design' and also claimed that humans 'walked with dinosaurs'. Technically you are correct, and technically you are also rude and off topic.

The bishop's position is that a person's character is often not reflective of what they appear to profess. For instance, an athiest can risk his life to save a drowning swimmer, whether or not you think he has a moral reason of his own to do so. Conversely, during the inquisition priests tortured people in order to 'save their souls'. What the good bishop speaks of, that you do not seem to understand, you demonstrate by your own invective.

Generally, people have forgotten we’re supposed to be voting on ideals and values, not zingers and image, or even what the naysayers and pundits consider “experienced” vs. “inexperienced.” The people can be sometimes fooled by propaganda if it’s their faces enough.

That’s the main problem I have with Republican voters is they generally vote for a candidate based on the *perception* of his/her personality (“toughness,” “faith” and “straight-talk”) as opposed to their character (record, values and ideals). Bush was reelected because he talked tough about keeping us safe from the bad guys and how he’s gonna get those terrorists and that other guy…their leader…what’s his name….

This president represents what is wrong with government: more expansion and more control. Our president is supposed to be a leader, a motivator, someone who inspires us to do our best. Instead we have a thief, a liar, someone who only looks out for number one. Bush elected twice because of his personality, not his character, and we all suffered for it. Now, people wish to elect McCain and Palin for the same reason: perception of personality.

As Americans, we're supposed to deliberate peacefully with each other, both citizen and politician alike. Avoiding such debate is to undermine a major part of the American process. The fact that McCain is shielding the media from most of the interviews Palin has, the fact McCain can only offer snarky comments and zingers in his speeches, the fact both keep spewing the same ol' GOP rhetoric instead of presenting an actual plan for anything, tells me how ill-prepared they really are to be in the White House.

"I fear zealots of any stripe"

Me too. They scare me because they too often travel a path of death and evil.

It is evil to kill in the name of God.

As an atheist I rarely agree with reverends, but I do agree with Bishop Spong's excellent post.
We need more religious leaders to speak out against religion in politics. There are too many religions nowadays for any one to claim to be the right one. They are all misguided in my view, and too easy for the ambitious and corrupt politician to 'use' for his own ends.
Keep religions in the church, the temple, the synagogue and the mosque.
I pray for the day when religion is seen for the sham it is. I won't live long enough, but it is inevitable given the continued quest for scientific knowledge and intellectual understanding of life, existence and the cosmos.

Bishop Spong writes:

"I regard Sarah Palin's support of "Creation Science" being taught in public school to be primarily a manifestation of ignorance, not religion, and I do not want ignorance in any national office."

Then it's a good thing that Bishop Spong isn't running for anything. Palin has explicitly said that she doesn't support teaching "creation science" in public schools, and for Spong to continue to peddle this urban legend is a demonstration of his own, intensely partisan ignorance.