Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[Cole Burns]

I'm placing the blame more on the grassroots smear campaign that was in effect back when McCain was considered dead in the water during the primary season.

My Conspiracy Calculator says that Hillary Rodham was deeply involved in that.

[maddash]

I respect McCain greatly for standing up to the fear driven rhetoric.

[/youtube]

Yes, it is good that he reminded them that Obama is human and capable of procreation.

I'm no McCain apologist, and it's clear to me that he flamed the rhetoric early on, but I also don't think his attempt to "tone down the rhetoric" should be so easily discounted either. IMO, this is not an "easy" stand for McCain to take - especially when it goes against his current campaign strategy and hurts his chances at rallying the GOP base.

Like clement pointed to, his conscious is getting the better of him.

I don't check this thread much anymore...so I'm just dropping in really. Just read through the AP reporting on this thing over the weekend and feel like it's really irresponsible on their part. First, they put up headlines about "Hate at McCain rallies," as if he's the source of the "hatred." Then, when you read the article, you don't find anything these people (generally) say that is beyond what you would find on Liberal sites or at Obama rallies. Somehow, a republican saying that a democrat is bad is hate speech, but a democrat saying a republican is bad is just common sense.

Things like "Palin is dumb," "McCain is old and jittery," or "Republicans are just for the rich" are thrown out there with little to no qualifying. For instance:

"Palin is just a dumb hick"
"Really? Why do you say so?"
"Didn't you see Tina Fey play her on SNL? She played her as a dumb hick. And, she shoots wolves from helicopters."

There's a double standard here. And it bleeds through especially vivid in these articles. McCain calls for civility at his rallies, says that rationality will prove that his opponent is a good guy and that we should relax. Therefore, he's lost control of his campaign or sold his soul to Carl Rove. But then, Obama blasts McCain and insinuates that he is unfit to lead, can't send email, may be brain damaged due to being a POW and it flies right under the radar.

Balance, my friends. Balance. There is hate on both sides and we all need to calm down and relax.

For instance, shame on John Lewis.

No doubt that there's a fringe element on both sides. No doubt both sides have engaged in personal character attacks.

But let's be perfectly honest here - which candidate has had supporters yell "terrorist" and "kill him" at their rallies? Whether or not the "kill him" was directed at Ayers or Obama doesn't make a big difference to me, it's dangerous speech and it's moved beyond coming from just a fringe element. Which candidate do people think is an Arab/Muslim (as if that's a bad thing) and is being introduced as Barack "Hussein" Obama? Which candidate was said to be "palling around with terrorists"?

I think the fact that the McCain campaign has engaged in dangerous rhetoric it undeniable. McCain called for civility the other day and was booed. He was booed because the people at these rallies want him increase the kind of dangerous rhetoric he tried to tone down, they're asking him why he's not going on the attack, they're asking him to take off the gloves - that's where he's lost control. These people are no longer fringe, they're a significant base of McCain supporters that believe in one or any of these falsehoods: that Obama is a danger to the US because he's Muslim, because he's a Marxist, because he's anti-American, because he associates with terrorists... They want McCain to tell people that Obama is a danger to the US, and not just because the issues he stands for. They want McCain, at the next debate, to engage in dangerous fear based attacks. And in many ways, a group of McCain's own advisers want him to do something to that effect as well.

Sure, the Obama campaign has tried to make people think McCain is erratic and unstable, they've engaged in what you could call "hateful" character attacks (like the email thing you brought up), but I don't see any example of the Obama campaign engaging in the kind of dangerous rhetoric the McCain camp has. I'm not saying the Obama campaign and their supporters are squeaky clean at all, but IMO there's no comparison between the two as far as these kind of attacks go.

[EastonBlues22]

Ok, this thread is in danger of going of in a big tangent... but unless you're talking about an agnostic religion, how is this possible in respect to most religions? Most forms of Christianity, for example, are based on an absolute truth. To them, not only is the experience of God universal, but God itself is universal - God is not abstract. Because of the universality of God, for them, it has to be objectively knowable to everyone regardless of culture, experiance, etc. Whether you chose to believe it or not is up to you - the "experience of God" can certainly include atheism - but most Christians "know" God as an absolute truth. It seems like you're describing relativism above, how is relativism compatible with the absolute truth of God?

Again, this is moot if you're talking about an agnostic theist. But then I'd argue that the vast majority of those who practice a particular religion are not agnostic.

I was talking simply about the human experience of spirituality in general, not necessarily about the tenets of any specific faith. Let me clarify myself first, and then I will discuss the point you have made. Earlier I said this:

While the experience of beauty is universal, the abstract nature of the subject inevitably dictates that what is known and understood to be beautiful by one person is NOT knowable and understandable to all others.

What I should have said is that the subjective/abstract nature of the subject means that it will not be known or understood by all others. I did not mean to imply that that the potential for knowing or understanding might not ever exist at all.

Anyway, I understand that what I'm saying sounds relativistic (because it certainly is), but my central point isn't about as much about "truth" as it is about the shared human experience and respect. For the sake of this conversation, we'll say that one or several "absolute truths" lies at the backbone for every personal belief system (whether organized or not). These absolute truths are most often universal in nature, but they don't have to be.

The universal aspect of spirituality is that so many humans over the course of time have chosen to place their "personal faith" in one of these sets of belief systems (whether an established organized one or a personal one). Only 8% of the world's population is both non-religious and non-theistic even now. This is a very curious phenomena, considering that we are logically thinking creatures and there is no incontrovertible "proof" out there to support any such conclusions regardless of whatever beliefs are held...yet, by and large, an overwhelming majority of us latch onto one set of abstract universal principles or another and hold them in our lives to be absolute truths.

Of course, how we experience this relatively universal human phenomena is a very subjective thing. A great many people have chosen to place their faith/express their spirituality within the contexts of one of the major organized world religions. In doing so, they have come to know and embrace in a subjective personal manner whatever abstract (non-quantifiable) "absolute truths" are involved. What's more, there is often evidence that these abstract absolute truths have been personally integrated into one's life through the quantifiable changes in daily actions, etc. (I am, of course, talking about active believers and not just those who pay lip service to their faith).

We naturally assume (or are even actively taught in many organized religions) that what we know and hold to be universal/true is knowable and understandable to all. On a theoretical philosophical level, this isn't anything new. It's possible for anyone to believe in Christianity, just like it's possible for someone else to see beauty in the same things I see it in. Even if you don't see it now, it's certainly possible that you might at some point in the future under the right set of circumstances. Anything that I hold to be a universal or absolute truth has the potential to be adopted by anyone else, as long as the option is presented to them at some point from either an internal or external source. To simply assume that anyone is incapable of knowing the abstract things that I know, or of feeling even the abstract things that I feel, is an act of intellectual exclusion.

Up until this point, we're fine. Humans tend to place their personal faith in abstract absolute truths (often ones universal in nature). The adoption of these absolute truths often leads to quantifiable changes in behavior. Anything that is known by someone has the theoretical potential to be known by another, but due to the abstract nature of the subject it often won't be. Or, even if it is, it often won't be to the same degree or in the same manner. Certainly it should never be expected to be.

And, finally, there's the rub. It's only when one person’s (or group's) absolute truth is extended to all others and those others are expected to know and understand (and thus to exhibit similar quantifiable changes in behavior) that it becomes a social problem. At this point it becomes a philosophical statement of exclusion. Unfortunately, those who do not endorse the absolute truth of another are usually either pitied or attacked.

One's set of personal beliefs can be literally anything (universalist, objectivist, absolutist, monist, etc.), but that doesn't mean one shouldn't respect the right of others to hold differing beliefs...even if you know them to be completely and utterly wrong. If one's personal beliefs motivate one to disagree, work for social reform, etc....well, it's quite possible to do those things while still demonstrating respect for others and the society that one lives in. For Christians specifically, one might point to the life of Jesus as an example. He dedicated three years (and ultimately gave his life) to religious and social reform, but he did it while treating others with respect and while obeying the laws of the society that he lived in.

[clement]

It's interesting though, in places like Malaysia and Indonesia, you have actual laws that apply only to Muslims, but that non-Muslims do not have to abide by. I wish you could do that in the U.S. sometimes. Just not allow registered Christians to have abortions or marry someone of the same sex.

This made me chuckle...but wouldn't this be a form of religious segregation and possible persecution?

Oh absolutely. I was joking when I said I wish we had that. And in those countries (especially Malaysia) there are all kinds of rules and policies that favor the Muslim majority. But the key point in those places is that if you are born a Muslim, you are pretty much required to live your life like a Muslim. You can convert to another religion privately, but you can't actually change your status on your identity card, for example.

But at least in most Muslim nations (with very few exceptions) if you are born a non-Muslim, you are not required to become or live your life like a Muslim. Of course laws in those countries are informed by Muslim teachings, just like laws in this country are informed by Biblical teachings.

One of the unfortunate developments in the Iraq War is that religious minorities like Christians are being more persecuted and are in greater danger now than they were under Saddam Hussein's rule. Saddam largely allowed religious freedom as long as that freedom didn't try to cross over into political activity. Tarik Aziz, who was basically the second-in-command in Iraq for more than 20 years, was a practicing Catholic.

* edit: I should clarify. I'm not suggesting that religious minorities (and even the relgious majority) were not persecuted in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. In particular, Kurds and Shiites were persecuted. I was just wanting to comment about what is happening to Christians in the country. Perhaps under Saddam, Christians weren't a threat to him so he didn't concern himself so much with them. But he obviously was very ruthless with other non-Sunni Muslim groups.

[sighyoung]

There's a double standard here. And it bleeds through especially vivid in these articles. McCain calls for civility at his rallies, says that rationality will prove that his opponent is a good guy and that we should relax. Therefore, he's lost control of his campaign or sold his soul to Carl Rove. But then, Obama blasts McCain and insinuates that he is unfit to lead, can't send email, may be brain damaged due to being a POW and it flies right under the radar.

Balance, my friends. Balance. There is hate on both sides and we all need to calm down and relax.

Actually, Cole, I think you're referring to two unrelated issues, one of which concerns a double standard, and the other concerns fears people have about racial progress in America.

As for the first, I was referring to one specific moment in the campaign, but I am happy to condemn the abundant character assassination and innuendo during the election season. My silences don't mean that I condone them. They really reflect my lack of time, and lack of awareness of all aspects of the campaign.

But I think you're missing one key point--people's concerns about how far racial relations have come, and fears that somebody will try to do something crazy. This isn't a double standard, but a genuine concern. If you believe the fear is unfounded--fine. But I think you have to acknowledge or address it, and not simply dismiss it.

Accordingly, I don't believe John Lewis is purposely demagoguing this, because I think he saw first-hand more crap during the Civil Rights movement than you or I could ever imagine, and those experiences shape his perceptions. I'll admit my reactions and fears are based on my own experiences, too, such as realizing when I was four that Martin Luther King was assassinated, and thinking for weeks that someone would shoot me, too, because I was black.

Irrational, yes. But that's how deep this goes. Many people have legitimate fears here, and aren't simply trying to let one side get away with something.

But thank you for a thought-provoking post.

[PujolJunkie]

There is a difference between concluding that Sarah Palin is dumb based on her television appearances (Not Tina Fey's), and concluding that Barack Obama is "dangerous" because of a bunch of long-disproven facts about him that you got in an chain letter email from your aunt. That said, if someone at an Obama rally stood up and chastised Obama for not calling Palin a bimbo, he'd be out of line and I would expect Obama to say so.

I tend to agree that John Lewis is out of line. The case is being made that the radicals at McCain rallies are simply connecting the dots that the McCain campaign (Specifically Palin) drew for them, but I think that case is being overstated. As long as McCain is making an effort to kill this sentiment I'm placing the blame more on the grassroots smear campaign that was in effect back when McCain was considered dead in the water during the primary season.

I actually disagree here. The constant allusions have been made to Obama being exotic and odd. "WHO IS BARACK OBAMA?! FIGURE IT OUT YOURSELF "

[PujolJunkie]

A minister delivering the invocation at John McCain’s rally in Davenport, Iowa Saturday told the crowd non-Christian religions around the world were praying for Barack Obama to win the U.S. presidential election.

“There are millions of people around this world praying to their god—whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah—that his opponent wins, for a variety of reasons. And Lord, I pray that you will guard your own reputation, because they’re going to think that their God is bigger than you, if that happens,” said Arnold Conrad, the former pastor of Grace Evangelical Free Church in Davenport.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... obama-win/

[BW23]

Spoken by someone who has never studied Christianity in any depth whatsoever.

And yeah, you are anti-Christian. You can't say what I just quoted without being so.

Some day you may want to actually try arguing your beliefs instead of just vaguely insinuating that those who disagree with you are ignorant and then pretending to be above any actual discourse on the subject. Maybe this pattern has worked for you in the past, but it's not working for you anywhere in this thread.

Let me stress again, though, that it is a mistake to dismiss any body of knowledge simply because it has an experiential (and thus subjective) component.

I'm not doing any such thing. Deductive reasoning requires experience, and I reject scientific concepts that invalidate human experience (Eg, Boltzmann brains) every bit as readily as I reject religion.

As for your earlier paragraph that deals with metaphysics and qualia, there are physicalists arguing that they are not at odds with a physicalist view of the world, but the relevant point for this thread was just made by maddash.

I'll talk about my beliefs on anything with someone that is open to a discussion. I haven't seen many here willing to do that.

[Arthur Dent]

“There are millions of people around this world praying to their god—whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah

This made me lol.

[Cole Burns]

Actually, Cole, I think you're referring to two unrelated issues, one of which concerns a double standard, and the other concerns fears people have about racial progress in America.

As for the first, I was referring to one specific moment in the campaign, but I am happy to condemn the abundant character assassination and innuendo during the election season. My silences don't mean that I condone them. They really reflect my lack of time, and lack of awareness of all aspects of the campaign.

But I think you're missing one key point--people's concerns about how far racial relations have come, and fears that somebody will try to do something crazy. This isn't a double standard, but a genuine concern. If you believe the fear is unfounded--fine. But I think you have to acknowledge or address it, and not simply dismiss it.

Accordingly, I don't believe John Lewis is purposely demagoguing this, because I think he saw first-hand more crap during the Civil Rights movement than you or I could ever imagine, and those experiences shape his perceptions. I'll admit my reactions and fears are based on my own experiences, too, such as realizing when I was four that Martin Luther King was assassinated, and thinking for weeks that someone would shoot me, too, because I was black.

Irrational, yes. But that's how deep this goes. Many people have legitimate fears here, and aren't simply trying to let one side get away with something.

Hmmm... Good stuff.

It's been hard this political season. Very hard. On one hand I'm embracing the history of "The First Black Man to be Chosen by His Party." I think this is a huge (HUGE) step forward in race relations in this country. At the same time, I struggle to stay objective (and I think most Amercians are struggling, whether they believe they are or not). I want to look at Barack as a candidate and weigh his merit as a candidate without taking into account his race. But when I do, I step over the nuances that you describe. For instance, does Bill Clinton referring to Barack as "boy" really mean what we all think it means? Is it just a turn of phrase? Is it like putting lipstick on a pig? (can of worms...)

I grew up after the Civil Rights movement and couldn't understand (still don't) why people are treated different because of the color of their skin. I taught myself to be color blind, without prejudice. Sometimes I relate to people (even watching on TV, etc) without realizing they are black or otherwise. My pastor is Egyptian, and I have to remind myself all the time that he is Egyptian and not "white." I take for granted that he faces racial tension, probably on a daily basis, being of mid-eastern descent in a place like Tulsa, OK.

Irrationality aside, you grew up and you deal with [stuff] everyday that I don't have to deal with. Just getting on an elevator is probably a different experience for you than it is for me. If Barack looses that will be very difficult for African-America. And that speaks of just how far we've come...maybe not far enough?

I've heard a lot of people on the Civil Rights side of things tell me that I shouldn't ignore the fact that they are black (or otherwise) and that I need to recognize them as such. I always thought it was the other way around. Maybe I'm starting to see where they are coming from. Real history will be made when a white candidate and a black candidate can be in the same election and no one talks about race because it's a non-issue (a NON-ISSUE) because no one looks with prejudice on the color of skin. Imagine that, it's easy if you try.

Hmmm... Very hard indeed.

But thank you for a thought-provoking post.

Thank you, sir.