Well done, Jimbo! And boy, nice "do," you looked sharp! My 84-years-old mother would say you "looked evangelical." To which I ask her, "did Jesus?" "did John the Baptist?" Keep up the great work!
Posted by: canucklehead | June 5, 2007 7:17 PM
I didn t get the watch the broadcast, but I did read the transcript. From my reading, it definitely appears like Edwards is the most comfortable talking about his faith. He even mentioned what he has faith in God and his Lord Jesus Christ. I was very impressed with the language he used to describe his faith (he actually described himself as a Christian as opposed to the other two who didn t mention have what is in which they faith). I was confused; however, by his answer to the question about creation vs. evolution. He said people and pastors who believe in creation aren t wrong, but that the theory that man descended from apes and the creation story in the Bible aren t mutually exclusive. Hmmm not so sure about that. You can t have it both ways. I wasn t as impressed with the other two candidates. Neither described their faith or even mentioned Jesus. I wasn t expecting Jesus is my favorite political philosopher stuff, but I was at least expecting something along the lines of how one s life has been changed by the sacrifice Jesus made. I came away feeling like Obama and Clinton were there because they would be conspicuous by their absence and they know that religious voters are electoral toss-ups right now. If you want a contrast, think about how Sam Brownback talks about his Christianity and how these two candidates discussed theirs. There s a serious difference. Interestingly enough, I actually think the major Republican candidates (Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Thompson) would all have an equally tough time sitting through this type of Q&A as Obama and Clinton did. None of them have made faith a major part of their campaign (which is fine with me) but it ll be interesting to see what they have to say should Wallis organize a Q&A like this for the Republicans. If I were them I wouldn t bother showing up if they aren t serious about their faith. Next time, it would also be nice if CNN got a moderator who was familiar with the Christian faith and more comfortable talking about it. O Brien seemed a little out of her league here.
Posted by: Ross | June 5, 2007 7:37 PM
I am so grateful that this forum took place. Sojourners faithful leadership is so important. Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Will | June 5, 2007 8:32 PM
This forum was a nice try by liberals to try to trick voters. People know liberals are in favor of abortion, which is the taking of a human life that was created in God's image. People know liberals are trying to change the definition of marriage and make everyone think that the gay lifestyle is condoned in the Bible. So to trick people, they try to say liberals have better morals on the war, the environment or poverty. But, when you examine the policies of liberals and conservatives, you see that conservative policies do more to protect our national and homeland security, protect the environment without the bashing of capitalism that the left engages in, and also conservative policies do more to help the poor. Just look at the tax cuts and the booming economy which has helped all Americans in all income brackets. The liberals answer is to raise taxes and spread misery equally.
Posted by: Nice try | June 5, 2007 9:21 PM
Nice try, Nice try. Fortunately, almost any person reading what you wrote can easily your political orientation. It does not advance the conversation.
Posted by: Lin | June 5, 2007 10:38 PM
"can easily see your political orientation" . . .
Posted by: Lin | June 5, 2007 10:39 PM
Hey Nice Try, did you used to go by the name, "Donny"? If not, your double is running around somewhere in the world.
Posted by: Sarasotakid | June 6, 2007 2:50 AM
I just watched the video and read the transcript of the first three Democratic candidates responses to questions. I think the idea of having Sojourners holding such an interview is both stimulating and a bit disturbing. Disturbing, because there is a fine line that is being walked concerning a Constitutional issue of candidates for office having to pass a religious test. The questions from the ministers were not sectarian, and as a progressive who falls mostly in the agnostic category when it comes to religious beliefs, I did not find them offensive. Solidad O Brian s questions, on the other hand, were designed quite obviously to create a newsworthy sensation. All she accomplished was to raise my partisan ire. She worked very hard to turn an enlightening event into a media event but was thwarted by each of the experienced, well-spoken candidates. This was very well done and thoughful event the Sojourners have presented, even with the limitations of O Brian and CNN. Congratulations. I hope Sojourners is planning a similar televised event for the Republican candidates.
Posted by: JT Caldwell | June 6, 2007 4:23 AM
What about the other democrats? Whoever has a enough cash gets an interview? Christianity in action.
Posted by: HASH(0x117ac0b8) | June 6, 2007 5:33 AM
When Sojouners PAC finally declares the version of the Humanist religion they actually represent, then maybe we could see what Liberals and Progressives actually believe in in plain words, other than the tearing down of every wall of morality still left. Feeding the poor to debauch them, is not in the New Testament. Actually just the opposite. Jim, You guys don't fool us. We hear the Shepherds voice; not yours, King Bera, Nero, Karl Marx or Charles Darwin.
Posted by: Donny | June 6, 2007 1:58 PM
"Solidad O Brian s questions, on the other hand, were designed quite obviously to create a newsworthy sensation." --This is very true. The question about whether Hillary's faith got her through her husband's infidelity was the major example. What is Hillary supposed to say to that? "No, my faith did not get me through it..." Yet her answer made its own AP story. Very much an example of how news is made by the people who report news. The Republican candidates would never agree to a debate held by Sojo for obvious reasons (just like the Democratic candidates would never agree to a debate held by the Heritage Foundation).
Posted by: jesse | June 6, 2007 3:21 PM
Even though am not an U.S. Citizen and I live in Central America, I had the opportunity to watch the debate on CNN international. As a suggestion instead of Soledad asking the questions they should have members that were present in the forum (Wallis, Mclaren, and others in the audience). She asked too many irrelevant questions that had nothing to do with the purpose and mission of the forum. One more item, 1 hour was too short, 2 should have been better.
Posted by: Felicia Abril | June 7, 2007 8:04 PM
It was a very good program. I would like to see more like these.
The hour following the sojo program had Paula Zahn interviewing the other Democratic candidates who were all Catholic and they had some very interesting answers to some of the same questions.>
Posted by: Maurice Nickerson | June 7, 2007 10:55 PM
When do we get to see the rest of the candidates answer these questions? I plan on supporting Dennis Kucinich and it would have been nice to see him and *all* the candidates at this event, not just the media-chosen "front runners". Since I won't be supporting these particular candidates, I don't really care what they think about "faith". It's unfair to exclude some candidates because the media has crowned them "front runners". You are adding to the problem with our political process.
We need a choice. I do not need the media to choose the most popular candidates for me. We should be making that decision, not you, not the media, not those already in power, not those with the most money.
These 3 are not my "front-runners".
Posted by: Shelly Thomas | June 8, 2007 7:40 AM
To "Nice Try" and "Ross":
Let's put aside our blinders and express exactly what it is that you think that you as a Christian have gotten out of the current administration?? Please be specific. Isn't everyone entitled to his or her religious beliefs or are they discounted by those who think they are conservative?
Posted by: Delta Mike | June 8, 2007 11:56 AM
Jim - in response to your first question (on the video clip anyway) to Senator Edwards, he responded: "...I have commtted to an agenda of eliminating poverty over the next 30 years..."
1) how does that response square w/ the words of Jesus that we will have the poor with us always?
2) isn't that the very type of political rhetoric that politicians are (in)famous for and contributes to much of the cynicism that we see and hear today?
Posted by: canucklehead | June 8, 2007 12:28 PM
Hello everyone, being a Canadian, I watched the Highlights of the Forum AND read the transcript and all.
Indeed, the answers of no candidate was without flaws on all fronts. However, I believe it did allow further insight into their own faith and how it'd influence their politics. Of course, there was little mention of how exactly it influenced their individual lives. But then again, this forum wasn't meant to be a personality contest, but rather, a forum to get the Democrats talking about the relationship between faith and politics.
As for someone's earlier comments that Liberals who are Christian just want to tear down morality, I believe that this is an overgeneralization that's become a self-fulfilling prophecy: if all Liberals who profess the Christian Faith are seen as ungodly, then only those who have no problem being seen that way will speak, making it more likely that the original self-fulfilling prophecy comes true!
Indeed, it's only fair that the Republicians have a similar forum of their own as well! As for some people who were upset by the fact that not all Democrats participated, I have to say two things: 1. Due to time constraints, not everyone COULD participate (without making a 3-5 hour special!) and 2. Not all Christians are Democrats and not all of them are comfortable with discussing how their faith does and would shape their politics.
Last, prior to the 2006 Canadian Federal Election, the magazine "Christianity Today" interviewed the 3 main political party leaders to ask them their views about the relationship between one's Faith and politics: making for an interesting read.
So ya, even though some may claim that Sojourners is too liberal, I think the real problem is that too many American churches (and some Canadian ones) are divided along political lines, as opposed to constructive disagreement based on the Bible!
Posted by: Jordan Lester | June 8, 2007 10:46 PM
QXRBfI A number of universities have awarded her honorary degrees, and she earned a prestigious job on the staff of Detroit congressman John Conyers. In 1988 Roxanne Brown noted: "Thirty-two years after she attracted international attention for sparking the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Mrs. Parks's ardent devotion to human rights still burns brightly, like a well-tended torch that ignites her spirit and calls her to service whenever she is needed."
Posted by: Elizabeth Talor | July 24, 2007 3:10 PM
ROCKVILLE, Md., July 14, 2008--Genentech, Inc. up on healthcare professionals of blasts of disparate cases of microangiopathic hemolytic anemia (MAHA) in patients with concrete utmors receiving Avastin in parathesis with sunitinib malate. Avastin is not approved for use in solution with sunitinib malate and this solution is not recommended. Twenty-five patients were enrolled in a time I dispense-escalation examination combining Avastin and sunitinib malate. The eaxmination consisted of
3 cohorts using a unwavering dosage of Avastin at 10mg/kg/IV every 2 weeks and escalating portions of sunitinib that listd 25, 37.5, and 50 mg orally always affirmed in a 4 weeks on/ 2 weeks off schddule. Five of 12 patients at the highest sunitinib dispense plane exhibited laboratory findings consonant with MAHA. Two of these cases were considered austere with show of thrombocytopenia, anemia, reticulocytosis, reductions in serum haptoglobin, schistocytes on tangential taint,
demure increases in serum creatinine knock downs, and austere hypertension, reversible rear leukoencephalopathy syndrome, and proteinuria. The ifndings in these two cases were reversible within three weeks upon discontinuation of both drugs without additional interventions. Healthcare professionals should clock in cases of MAHA or any fooling adverse events suspected to be associated with the use of Avastin.
Copyright (c) 2006 Beliefnet, Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this site is subject to Terms
of Service and to our
Privacy Policy.
Constructed by Beliefnet.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Well done, Jimbo! And boy, nice "do," you looked sharp!
My 84-years-old mother would say you "looked evangelical." To which I ask her, "did Jesus?" "did John the Baptist?" Keep up the great work!
Posted by: canucklehead | June 5, 2007 7:17 PM
I didn t get the watch the broadcast, but I did read the transcript. From my reading, it definitely appears like Edwards is the most comfortable talking about his faith. He even mentioned what he has faith in God and his Lord Jesus Christ. I was very impressed with the language he used to describe his faith (he actually described himself as a Christian as opposed to the other two who didn t mention have what is in which they faith). I was confused; however, by his answer to the question about creation vs. evolution. He said people and pastors who believe in creation aren t wrong, but that the theory that man descended from apes and the creation story in the Bible aren t mutually exclusive. Hmmm not so sure about that. You can t have it both ways. I wasn t as impressed with the other two candidates. Neither described their faith or even mentioned Jesus. I wasn t expecting Jesus is my favorite political philosopher stuff, but I was at least expecting something along the lines of how one s life has been changed by the sacrifice Jesus made. I came away feeling like Obama and Clinton were there because they would be conspicuous by their absence and they know that religious voters are electoral toss-ups right now. If you want a contrast, think about how Sam Brownback talks about his Christianity and how these two candidates discussed theirs. There s a serious difference. Interestingly enough, I actually think the major Republican candidates (Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Thompson) would all have an equally tough time sitting through this type of Q&A as Obama and Clinton did. None of them have made faith a major part of their campaign (which is fine with me) but it ll be interesting to see what they have to say should Wallis organize a Q&A like this for the Republicans. If I were them I wouldn t bother showing up if they aren t serious about their faith.
Next time, it would also be nice if CNN got a moderator who was familiar with the Christian faith and more comfortable talking about it. O Brien seemed a little out of her league here.
Posted by: Ross | June 5, 2007 7:37 PM
I am so grateful that this forum took place. Sojourners faithful leadership is so important. Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Will | June 5, 2007 8:32 PM
This forum was a nice try by liberals to try to trick voters. People know liberals are in favor of abortion, which is the taking of a human life that was created in God's image. People know liberals are trying to change the definition of marriage and make everyone think that the gay lifestyle is condoned in the Bible. So to trick people, they try to say liberals have better morals on the war, the environment or poverty. But, when you examine the policies of liberals and conservatives, you see that conservative policies do more to protect our national and homeland security, protect the environment without the bashing of capitalism that the left engages in, and also conservative policies do more to help the poor. Just look at the tax cuts and the booming economy which has helped all Americans in all income brackets. The liberals answer is to raise taxes and spread misery equally.
Posted by: Nice try | June 5, 2007 9:21 PM
Nice try, Nice try. Fortunately, almost any person reading what you wrote can easily your political orientation. It does not advance the conversation.
Posted by: Lin | June 5, 2007 10:38 PM
"can easily see your political orientation" . . .
Posted by: Lin | June 5, 2007 10:39 PM
Hey Nice Try, did you used to go by the name, "Donny"? If not, your double is running around somewhere in the world.
Posted by: Sarasotakid | June 6, 2007 2:50 AM
I just watched the video and read the transcript of the first three Democratic candidates responses to questions. I think the idea of having Sojourners holding such an interview is both stimulating and a bit disturbing.
Disturbing, because there is a fine line that is being walked concerning a Constitutional issue of candidates for office having to pass a religious test. The questions from the ministers were not sectarian, and as a progressive who falls mostly in the agnostic category when it comes to religious beliefs, I did not find them offensive.
Solidad O Brian s questions, on the other hand, were designed quite obviously to create a newsworthy sensation. All she accomplished was to raise my partisan ire. She worked very hard to turn an enlightening event into a media event but was thwarted by each of the experienced, well-spoken candidates.
This was very well done and thoughful event the Sojourners have presented, even with the limitations of O Brian and CNN. Congratulations. I hope Sojourners is planning a similar televised event for the Republican candidates.
Posted by: JT Caldwell | June 6, 2007 4:23 AM
What about the other democrats? Whoever has a enough cash gets an interview? Christianity in action.
Posted by: HASH(0x117ac0b8) | June 6, 2007 5:33 AM
When Sojouners PAC finally declares the version of the Humanist religion they actually represent, then maybe we could see what Liberals and Progressives actually believe in in plain words, other than the tearing down of every wall of morality still left.
Feeding the poor to debauch them, is not in the New Testament. Actually just the opposite. Jim, You guys don't fool us. We hear the Shepherds voice; not yours, King Bera, Nero, Karl Marx or Charles Darwin.
Posted by: Donny | June 6, 2007 1:58 PM
"Solidad O Brian s questions, on the other hand, were designed quite obviously to create a newsworthy sensation." --This is very true. The question about whether Hillary's faith got her through her husband's infidelity was the major example. What is Hillary supposed to say to that? "No, my faith did not get me through it..." Yet her answer made its own AP story. Very much an example of how news is made by the people who report news.
The Republican candidates would never agree to a debate held by Sojo for obvious reasons (just like the Democratic candidates would never agree to a debate held by the Heritage Foundation).
Posted by: jesse | June 6, 2007 3:21 PM
Even though am not an U.S. Citizen and I live in Central America, I had the opportunity to watch the debate on CNN international. As a suggestion instead of Soledad asking the questions they should have members that were present in the forum (Wallis, Mclaren, and others in the audience). She asked too many irrelevant questions that had nothing to do with the purpose and mission of the forum. One more item, 1 hour was too short, 2 should have been better.
Posted by: Felicia Abril | June 7, 2007 8:04 PM
It was a very good program. I would like to see more like these.
The hour following the sojo program had Paula Zahn interviewing the other Democratic candidates who were all Catholic and they had some very interesting answers to some of the same questions.>
Posted by: Maurice Nickerson | June 7, 2007 10:55 PM
When do we get to see the rest of the candidates answer these questions? I plan on supporting Dennis Kucinich and it would have been nice to see him and *all* the candidates at this event, not just the media-chosen "front runners". Since I won't be supporting these particular candidates, I don't really care what they think about "faith". It's unfair to exclude some candidates because the media has crowned them "front runners". You are adding to the problem with our political process.
We need a choice. I do not need the media to choose the most popular candidates for me. We should be making that decision, not you, not the media, not those already in power, not those with the most money.
These 3 are not my "front-runners".
Posted by: Shelly Thomas | June 8, 2007 7:40 AM
To "Nice Try" and "Ross":
Let's put aside our blinders and express exactly what it is that you think that you as a Christian have gotten out of the current administration?? Please be specific. Isn't everyone entitled to his or her religious beliefs or are they discounted by those who think they are conservative?
Posted by: Delta Mike | June 8, 2007 11:56 AM
Jim - in response to your first question (on the video clip anyway) to Senator Edwards, he responded: "...I have commtted to an agenda of eliminating poverty over the next 30 years..."
1) how does that response square w/ the words of Jesus that we will have the poor with us always?
2) isn't that the very type of political rhetoric that politicians are (in)famous for and contributes to much of the cynicism that we see and hear today?
Posted by: canucklehead | June 8, 2007 12:28 PM
Hello everyone, being a Canadian, I watched the Highlights of the Forum AND read the transcript and all.
Indeed, the answers of no candidate was without flaws on all fronts. However, I believe it did allow further insight into their own faith and how it'd influence their politics. Of course, there was little mention of how exactly it influenced their individual lives. But then again, this forum wasn't meant to be a personality contest, but rather, a forum to get the Democrats talking about the relationship between faith and politics.
As for someone's earlier comments that Liberals who are Christian just want to tear down morality, I believe that this is an overgeneralization that's become a self-fulfilling prophecy: if all Liberals who profess the Christian Faith are seen as ungodly, then only those who have no problem being seen that way will speak, making it more likely that the original self-fulfilling prophecy comes true!
Indeed, it's only fair that the Republicians have a similar forum of their own as well! As for some people who were upset by the fact that not all Democrats participated, I have to say two things: 1. Due to time constraints, not everyone COULD participate (without making a 3-5 hour special!) and 2. Not all Christians are Democrats and not all of them are comfortable with discussing how their faith does and would shape their politics.
Last, prior to the 2006 Canadian Federal Election, the magazine "Christianity Today" interviewed the 3 main political party leaders to ask them their views about the relationship between one's Faith and politics: making for an interesting read.
So ya, even though some may claim that Sojourners is too liberal, I think the real problem is that too many American churches (and some Canadian ones) are divided along political lines, as opposed to constructive disagreement based on the Bible!
Posted by: Jordan Lester | June 8, 2007 10:46 PM
QXRBfI A number of universities have awarded her honorary degrees, and she earned a prestigious job on the staff of Detroit congressman John Conyers. In 1988 Roxanne Brown noted: "Thirty-two years after she attracted international attention for sparking the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Mrs. Parks's ardent devotion to human rights still burns brightly, like a well-tended torch that ignites her spirit and calls her to service whenever she is needed."
Posted by: Elizabeth Talor | July 24, 2007 3:10 PM
ROCKVILLE, Md., July 14, 2008--Genentech, Inc. up on healthcare professionals of blasts of disparate cases of microangiopathic hemolytic anemia (MAHA) in patients with concrete utmors receiving Avastin in parathesis with sunitinib malate. Avastin is not approved for use in solution with sunitinib malate and this solution is not recommended. Twenty-five patients were enrolled in a time I dispense-escalation examination combining Avastin and sunitinib malate. The eaxmination consisted of
3 cohorts using a unwavering dosage of Avastin at 10mg/kg/IV every 2 weeks and escalating portions of sunitinib that listd 25, 37.5, and 50 mg orally always affirmed in a 4 weeks on/ 2 weeks off schddule. Five of 12 patients at the highest sunitinib dispense plane exhibited laboratory findings consonant with MAHA. Two of these cases were considered austere with show of thrombocytopenia, anemia, reticulocytosis, reductions in serum haptoglobin, schistocytes on tangential taint,
demure increases in serum creatinine knock downs, and austere hypertension, reversible rear leukoencephalopathy syndrome, and proteinuria. The ifndings in these two cases were reversible within three weeks upon discontinuation of both drugs without additional interventions. Healthcare professionals should clock in cases of MAHA or any fooling adverse events suspected to be associated with the use of Avastin.
Posted by: Votofreelty | July 23, 2008 4:03 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?