Matthew Dowd

I continue to admire Matthew Dowd's ability to sift through all of the smoke and mirrors and "tools" and find meaning. Faith and politics should not be too separate things and as a society we should not be fearful to make that claim. Faith should direct politics. In the end it is not how much money you have nor the accolades and accomplishments you can boast; the measure of a meaningful life is the way you made people feel. Did you celebrate the individual authenticity and beauty in everyone you met? Did you treat them with gentleness and love and respect and not judgment? If you did then you followed the faith and love in your own heart and soul.
The hard part in politics is finding someone with deep faith combined with the strong, smart and practical core it takes to make things happen in a diverse representative democracy. Did someone say Dowd 2010?? I unfortunately have a feeling he is too smart for that.

There are so many refreshing and powerful statements in this piece I had to read it a few times just to let them soak in. I agree with Mr. Dowd. I think more often than not, faith is what guides our pen in the poll booth. Even further, it is what motivates us to get in the car and drive to the polling booth. So Dowd in 2010, huh? He has my vote.

Sorry, talk of "faith" from a man who helped sell George Bush, Iraq, torture rings hollow, to speak charitably. Though I have fallen away from the Catholic Church, they did have one thing right. There are some sins, Mr Dowd, for which the appropriate penance is not gauzy, maudlin public musings on vague notions of "faith", but rather sackcloth, ashes, and most pertinent here: Silence.

Mr. Dowd opens by noting that he prefers seeking forgiveness, rather than permission.

After reading this frightfully narrow-minded and misleading attempt at framing "Faith" as a political commodity, it is my hope that he obtains neither.

ABC, giving a soapboax to someone so commpromised is a terrible way to earn one's entertainment dollars.

.

How about a national religion? Many born again types would love that.

Oh, Matt, welcome to the ranks. We're the people who were right all along, who spoke out against the war, against the politicization of faith (BTW Lynn sure sounds like a sockpuppet to me), against torture and shredding the Constitution, while you were helping Bush conceal his true agenda. You're disillusioned now that people have woken up to reality? Sorry, you go to the back of the line. Hey ABC, why don't you hire someone who gets it right once in a while?

I'm with Jim on this: the people who sold us George W. Bush have a LOT of forgiveness to request!

As for Governor Romney: I thought his speech was a disgrace.

According to a 2006 Harris poll of U.S. adults:

• 11% are “not sure whether or not there is a God”
• 6% are “somewhat certain that there is no God”
• 6% are “absolutely certain” that God does not exist

That is 23% of American adults (not 10%) -- and it corresponds to somewhat more than 50,000,000 Americans.

Many of these Americans have looked in their hearts -- looked hard -- and not heard God’s voice speaking to them, even in the quietest moments. Others find the sacred books of hundreds (or thousands) of years ago incompatible with what they have learned about the universe through science. Others are alienated by the ignorant and bullheaded certainty of the religious leaders they have heard in the public square. Still others are simply not sure.

But virtually all of them are good citizens, good Americans. They contribute to their communities. They teach their children values. They are honorable people. They do not become serial killers or child molesters because they cannot truthfully say they are people of faith.

There is no place for these fifty million citizens in Mitt Romney’s America. Mitt Romney stands before us and says that “freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.” They do not. If that were true, the nations of Western Europe – with their cathedrals, “so grand... so empty” – would be tyrannies. As would Canada, where only 30% of citizens say religion is very important in their lives. As would Japan, where only 12% do. Mr. Romney knows his claim is demonstrably false, and chooses to lie.

For tens of millions of Americans, liberty includes the right to stand outside of Mr. Romney’s “symphony of faith,” respect its players and singers – and expect equal respect from them in return.

When John F. Kennedy spoke about religion in 1960, he said, “I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end — where all men and all churches are treated as equal — where every man has the same right to attend or NOT to attend the church of his choice.”

Even the aforementioned George W. Bush, who is second to no man in his readiness to publicly and loudly announce his faith, said this last year: “The United States of America must never lose sight of this beautiful principle: You can worship or not worship and you’re equally American. You’re equally American if you’re a Christian, Jew or Muslim, atheist, agnostic. We must never lose sight of that. That’s what distinguishes us from the Taliban.”

George W. Bush, uncharacteristically, said it perfectly. That is precisely what distinguishes us from the Taliban. John F. Kennedy, too, had it right. Mitt Romney has it wrong, and knows better, but prefers the worst sort of pandering to any form of courage.

Mega churches are jut big arenas for snake oil preachers who are multi-millionares. Driving around in luxury cars,living in muti-million dollar mansions,ski lodges in Vail,isn't the lifesyle that Jesus would condone,especially for so called men of the church. Mega churches are mega phony! They should not be tax exempt either.

If faith is so important to American Politics, then why is it so forbidden to ask specific questions about a candidates faith?

Yesterday, Mitt Romney, although claiming to be unwilling to "discuss theology", made sure to say that he "believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God", in order to pander to the most bigoted of Americans. If that's not a theological statement, then what is? And why can I not also ask him if he believes that a woman can only go to heaven if her husband takes her there (a Mormom belief) or why the Mormon church did not ordain a person of color until 1978?

This notion that our Founding Fathers somehow thought public displays of faith and a leader governing "from values informed by faith" was just A-OK is so much bull.

And Mr Dowd, your column is also so much bull. There is nothing "Christian" about torture, lying, rendition. And there is certainly nothing "Christian" about the behavior of George Bush and the Republican Party in the last 7 years.

If you want to say something about religious tolerance, you might want to write a column about the fact that an atheist could never be elected to national office or even a cabinet position. But a man who believes Jesus Christ will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, IN KANSAS, is just perfectly sane. "Presidential" in fact.

Middle? Please. This is laughable (as usualy, ABC).

The BALD truth is that while it is common to appeal to voters' religion-based fears, there is now a religious requirement for public office in the United States. And that 90% figure? You can say that same thing about gambling, in its many forms; ie., by a very large margin US voters gamble, whether the lottery, bingo games or the office pool. It makes it no more relevant in choosing representatives for government and perhaps might even be Constitutionally preferred, since there isn't a GD amendment against using gambling as a test for a candidate.

Mr Dowd, please get out of any forum in which you are perceived to be 'middle' or a 'journalist.' We've got Joe Klein to kick around, after all.

(and yes, you may bring George S. with you, his appointment was just as absurd.)

Thanks, uh, that was great.

Do I leave the money on the dresser?

So, this is where one of the jumping rats landed. Let's hope all of the salesmen of our disastrous president do so well. God forbid these people are held accountable for the hatred, death and destruction they have made a part of all of our lives. Thanks, ABC.

This opening column is ominous. Proclamations like this:

More than 90 percent of American voters believe in God.

Equals this:
People rely on their spiritual foundation in decisions they make every day –- decisions ranging from whether they should change jobs, to the right medicine for their parents, to whether they should stay in a relationship, or to how one should treat the environment.
In truth, for the average voter, Faith is often a more important factor than any economic calculus.

Where is the proof of this? Their religion dictates their job over financial considerations? That sounds ridiculous. Your own job choices anecdotally indicate the improbability of that statement.

And this is just farce:

And the high importance that voters place on authenticity when choosing candidate has its roots in an individual voter’s spiritual underpinnings.

If this were true why would primary voters pick Bush over McCain? Or Reagan over Carter or Clinton over Dole. These candidates were not more authentic they created the perception they were more authentic.

I hope this election finally marginalizes this snakehandling nonsense.

Huzzah to all the other non-sock-puppet commenters heaping scorn on this ill-conceived and ill-intentioned screed. ABC, please note that this is the first and last time I'll stop by to read anything posted by this charlatan. And I came only to help bury Mr. Dowd, not praise him.

Puhleeze, this article makes me gag! Not unlike a flip-flopping wacky guy from Massachusetts.

Give me an atheist for president. Someone who doesn't believe that this world and life is just a stepping stone to a place where angels strum on harps or virgins are on standby to fulfill our afterlife sexual needs.

Give me someone who thinks this is the one shot he or she has to get it right, the one chance we all have to do right by others and the earth, and they'll have my vote.

But that probably won't happen in a world where Romney's horribly intolerant speech is seen as tolerant and where a hypocritical political hack who helped lead us into the most disgraceful episode in our nation's history is given a soapbox from which to croak his musings on goodness and faith.

Finally, someone with the courage to talk about faith and American politics, because if there's anything that we haven't tried over the last two (three?) decades, it's pandering to "people of faith".

At this point, I think it's pretty clear the Bush presidency has done much to destroy faith in America, by most measures, and I think it'll be a long time before the majority of people trust any national candidate who makes his faith so central. Part of the reason this happened was you, Mr. Dowd. You provided the flowery language Mr. Bush used time and time again to sell us on half-baked ideas and outright disasters, and there's only so long people can tolerate that dissonance before they start to wonder if anyone really means it, or if 95% of "faith this, God that" politicians are using religion as a way to hustle and excuse, too. Better to rebuild faith in America by taking it private.

The percentage of the population that are people of "faith", believing in something that can not be proven, is actually higher that Mr. Dowd's 90's once one includes the athiests, the faith of those that believe in the unproveable concept that there is no God, and whose creed is the "secular" society is best when there is no public evidence or discussion of religion, and when the airways are full of those that mock the religious as "crazy". All the candidates in both parties seem religious to some extent - from Hillary shunning publicity for her weekly bible study meetings and Mitt being an officer of his church, to those that attend regulary, to those that attend rarely, all seem respectful of the religious, and that includes those whose religion is athieism.

Mr. Dowd:

I present two quotations that can guide you through what is obviously a difficult time:

The first:
"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.

"But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."

The second:
"How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do"

I always get a good laugh at those who run around trying to downplay the differences between religions and up-play the importance of "faith". I'm so sure a Muslim or Buddhist candidate would have a real solid shot at winning the hearts and minds of fundamentalist Christian voters as long as he or she simply emphasized their "faith".

Here's how this ponzi scheme works. Pie-eyed pundits such as yourself spend the election cycle validating the opinion that it's so very important that a candidate talk about their religion. Right wingers then attack the religion of the Democratic candidate as somehow phony (see: Obama, Barack) while liberals do not criticize the hateful elements of right wing "religious" indoctrination (anti-gay, intolerant of other religions, etc.) for fear of being construed as "negative". If any liberals do bring those issues up, pundits such as yourself jump on the Democratic candidates and demand that they distance themselves from such negativity.

Heads Dems lose, tails Republicans win.

Please sell this tripe someplace else.