CNN still promoting the notion that progressives don't vote their values and aren't "pro-family"
SUMMARY: Ed Henry and Jessica Yellin joined the growing list of CNN anchors and reporters who have embraced the lexicon of social conservatives, characterizing Christian conservative voters as "values voters" and equating an opposition to abortion rights with "family values." Henry suggested that support for reproductive choice is not a "family value" and that being pro-choice is inconsistent with being "pro-family," while Yellin suggested that those who are not "white evangelical voters" vote on something other than values.
On April 14 and 15, CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry and Capitol Hill correspondent Jessica Yellin joined the growing list of CNN anchors and reporters who have embraced the lexicon of social conservatives, characterizing Christian conservative voters as "values voters" and equating an opposition to abortion rights with "family values." On the April 15 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, while reporting on Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Washington, D.C., Henry asserted that President Bush won the Catholic vote in 2004 against Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) "[i]n large part because of stressing a lot of the family values kind of issues that Republicans like to stress -- abortion in particular." One day earlier, during a segment on the April 14 edition of The Situation Room discussing the April 13 Faith in Public Life Compassion Forum that featured Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, Yellin equated "values voters" with "white evangelicals," stating: "Both Obama and Clinton have spoken out about the need for Democrats to court values voters. But it looks like they have their work cut out for them. A CNN poll taken mid-March shows white evangelical voters prefer [Sen.] John McCain to either Democrat by more than 45 points."
By stating that opposition to "abortion" is a "family values kind[] of issue[] that Republicans like to stress," Henry suggested that support for reproductive choice is not a "family value" and that being pro-choice is inconsistent with being "pro-family." Similarly, by reporting on "the need for Democrats to court values voters" and subsequently citing a poll on "white evangelical voters," Yellin suggested that those who are not "white evangelical voters" vote on something other than values. As conservative columnist George F. Will stated in the October 7, 2007, edition of ABC's This Week, "[T]here's a vanity in this group right now -- they call themselves 'values voters.' I have news for them: 100 percent of the American electorate are 'values voters'; they vote their values. And this kind of semantic imperialism that they have when they say, 'We vote values' -- everyone else votes what?"
From the April 15 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BILL BENNETT (CNN contributor): Yeah, President Bush met with Pope Benedict before. He met with John Paul.
He seems to have a great comfort level with these popes, which is, of course, very reassuring to American Catholics. I know we don't want to get into politics here, but it was Catholic votes that helped George Bush a great deal in the last -- in his second term. I'm not suggesting his visits were politically motivated, but Catholics have felt a certain bond with George Bush on a number of issues.
WOLF BLITZER (anchor): Well, let's bring in our White House correspondent, Ed Henry, 'cause he's been looking at this and he's covered this president for a long time.
The president, no doubt, does feel very, very close to the Catholic Church, even though he's not a Catholic, as Bill Bennett points out. But he likes a lot of what the pope has to say.
HENRY: Absolutely. And the president did not win the Catholic vote in 2000 against Al Gore.
BENNETT: Right.
HENRY: He did win it, though, in 2004 over a Catholic, in John Kerry.
BENNETT: Right.
HENRY: In large part because of stressing a lot of the family values kind of issues that Republicans like to stress -- abortion in particular, he is in concert with the pope, obviously. But on the Iraq war, the Vatican has opposed that war.
From the April 14 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
[begin video clip]
YELLIN: The challenge for Democrats is to address faith without alienating secular voters. Religious leaders say one way is by defining issues like the environment and poverty as religious issues.
Faith leaders insist there are plenty of potential Democratic votes in their congregations.
ROLAND MARTIN (CNN contributor): There are a number of people of faith who have been turned off by the religious right, who have said they don't speak for me. Democrats cannot appear to be agnostic or appear to be atheist and ignore a huge amount of people.
[end video clip]
YELLIN: Both Obama and Clinton have spoken out about the need for Democrats to court values voters. But it looks like they have their work cut out for them. A CNN poll taken mid-March shows white evangelical voters prefer John McCain to either Democrat by more than 45 points. And McCain rarely talks about religion -- Wolf.
BLITZER: All right, Jessica, thanks.















Hmm...
"Democrats cannot appear to be agnostic or appear to be atheist and ignore a huge amount of people."
Call me crazy, but a Democrat can actually BE agnostic or atheist without ignoring me (a white evangelical democrat). I'm not voting for pastor here.
Yeah, but the corporate media treats you like a fool and speaks for you whenever they can, especially if it helps Republicans.
The scary reason--most younger people in emerging positions of leadership-- those born after about '65-- have no concept of the bad guys, or what's out there, or the possibilities of things. Many of them actually believe that Bill Clinton was a bad president, and that the 90's were bad times.
They believe these Republican lying points beacuse they grew up with them, the same way older people grew up with, say, Bob Dylan.
In other words, it's hopeless. They are diseased. They are rotten fruit, who are only going to wise up if something really really bad happens.
Moral Atheists
We have three grown daughters. They were raised in an environment free of religious dogma. As soon as they were capable of asking me "do you believe in God?" they learned our views.
Religion was not banned in our home - family and friends could offer grace if they wanted - and Bible stories, etc., were often discussed. Our daughters were always told that they could choose to follow any religion.
I challenge the atheists-can't-be-moral crowd to administer a morality test of their authoring to me, my wife or our daughters (as long as it is cleansed of all religious references) and see just how moral we are.
Maybe they could use The Jefferson Bible as a reference.
I won't hold my breath.
The atheists-can't-be-moral crowd is easily shaken. Just ask any one of them "what is it possible for a Christian to do that is impossible for an atheist" and they'll stare at you dumbly (or give you some unverifiable judgment day stuff).
The one answer you might get is "love your enemies". I would guess that there is a small but non-zero set of people from both Christians and atheists who practice that.
I have to agree with Ghandi. Most Christians these days don't behave in a Christ like manner. I'm very happy that we have two candidates for president who are still on their first marriage. That would exclude Gramps, of course, who apparently coveted another woman while married to his first wife. How come nobody talks about that as a Christian value? And why don't these "Christians" have any problem with bearing false witness?
"Most Christians these days don't behave in a Christ like manner. I'm very happy that we have two candidates for president who are still on their first marriage. That would exclude Gramps, of course, who apparently coveted another woman while married to his first wife."
That's really good. You are "happy" with 2 candidates who follow one religious creed (marraige is permanent), while demeaning another who doesn't follow a different religious creed (no coveting thy neighbor's wife). All the while ignoring another religious creed (do not lie) that one of the 2 you're "happy" with exhibits almost daily. Is that what you mean by most Christians don't behave Christ-like?
"And why don't these "Christians" have any problem with bearing false witness?"
I think many DO have a problem with that. Perhaps, that's why one of the candidates YOU are happy with is not the one for them. Perhaps they have a different moral compass than you do. Perhaps, just perhaps, some Christians have a problem with all our choices. When Jesus runs for president we won't have to worry about making a choice between a liar or a cheat, will we?
This post is very confusing. I think you are trying to give an assessment of Clinton and Obama? But the best (worst) statement:
"When Jesus runs for president we won't have to worry about making a choice between a liar or a cheat, will we?"
Frankly I don't envision Jesus doing that. You might instead have to rub two brain cells together and muster up the gumption to read and study. Turn off the radio and the t.v. and do the reading. Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" would be a good place to start.
"I think you are trying to give an assessment of Clinton and Obama?"
No, mary. I was talking about clinton and McCain. Obama has a problem with judgemental abilities, but that's not a moral problem.
"I challenge the atheists-can't-be-moral crowd to administer a morality test of their authoring to me, my wife or our daughters (as long as it is cleansed of all religious references) and see just how moral we are."
What's your view on treatment of homosexuals and the disabled? Moral comparison; some have claimed that homosexuality is evident in wildlife with several examples of it in animals that could show proof that homosexuality is a natural occuring event. The same people have not said anything about how wildlife often kill or abandon their own kind when too weak or lame to continue with the remainder of the group of animals. I think this is because there is a moral dilemna they cannot correlate and therefor don't mention it. Choosing instead to ignore wildlife examples in one case but demanding recognition of wildlife examples in another case.
Do you feel homosexuality is ok based on examples that homosexuality exsists in wildlife? Do you feel the disabled should be discarded from society because examples of this happen with wildlife?
That has to be one of the dumbest bits of logic I've seen in a long time (and that includes some of Tommy's circular posts).
You are comparing embedded physiological characteristics and chosen behaviors. The only way your idiotic example would make sense would be if the equal-rights-and-dignity-for-homosexuals crowd were making this argument: "because many animal populations have some homosexuals, we should have some, too. We want 10% of our population to become homosexual in order to emulate the animal world." Since nobody has ever made such an asinine argument, your example falls WAY short of making any kind of sense. Feel free to try again, though.
"You are comparing embedded physiological characteristics and chosen behaviors."
Ok, you got me there. Homosexuality is a "chosen" behavior. But the question asked was to give a 'morality' question that doesn't have religion in it. I asked if morals of an atheist would consider homosexuality moral and if an atheist would consider denying the disabled proper attention as being moral based on behavior in the wild.
So yes homosexuality is moral since it harms no one and abandoning the disabled is immoral because a choice was made not to do good.
The only thing too weak or too lame for me to help is your pathetic attempts to discriminate against homosexuals.
OK, clearly you still don't understand why your analogy sucks. Homosexuality is the embedded physiological characteristic and abandoning crippled members of the population is a chosen behavior. Maybe if those animals were in our position, not having to worry about being chased down by a pack of lions, they would also choose to care for their crippled. They would not, however, be able to choose not to be homosexual.
Your analogy is not just wrong, it actually proves the opposite point.
I think most liberals are off base on this. The correct response to homophobia is "who are you to tell me to stop", not "yeah I'm depraved but I can't help it".
Homosexuality is not proven to be genetic, and there is no reason to even enter that minefield. I didn't "choose" to hate spinach, but I doubt there's a spinach-hating gene.
I happen to think it's morally wrong for entirely religious reasons. Of course a country of religious freedom can't legislate anything for entirely religious reasons.
"Homosexuality is the embedded physiological characteristic and abandoning crippled members of the population is a chosen behavior."
No, homosexuality is a chosen behavio also. If it was imbedded, there would be examples of entire herds or packs that exhibit the behavior, not isolated cases. You will only see isolated examples of an individual animal staying with a crippled animal just like isolated examples of an individual animal exhibiting homosexuality. If one is chosen then both are chosen. If one is behavior, both are behavior. If both are behaviors there would be examples of that behavior in a species. Got one example of a species that does both and not one or the other?
And that could lead to the 'moral' question involved that the poster was asking about.
No, homosexuality is a chosen behavio also. If it was imbedded, there would be examples of entire herds or packs that exhibit the behavior, not isolated cases.
First of all, if you feel that sexual orientation is chosen, you probably have forced yourself into the one that you don't belong in.That is, if you describe yourself as heterosexual, but feel that you had to choose to be that, you're most likely homosexual.
Homosexuality is not a "behavior" so your idea that a characteristic must be commom to an entire group to qualify as embedded is ridiculous. To put this in terms you might understand, Albinos would be a lifestyle-choice minority group by your logic.
You will only see isolated examples of an individual animal staying with a crippled animal just like isolated examples of an individual animal exhibiting homosexuality.
Uhhh... you were trying to compare, morally, the animals that didn't stay with the weak animal to homosexuals.I won't add anything, since you've already out-debated yourself on this one.Nice job.
If one is chosen then both are chosen. If one is behavior, both are behavior.
Because....? This is one of the weakest attempts at even trying to pretend to be logical that I've ever seen in my life.If A=C, then B=C. why?
If both are behaviors there would be examples of that behavior in a species. Got one example of a species that does both and not one or the other?
Most species, I'd guess. I know homosexuality has been observed in chimpanzees , and the pack doesn't stay around when a lion gets one of them.
Excuse me if I misrepresented any of your points. There was so much wrong with it that it got a little confusing even responding in a coherent way.
Since you clearly have no background knowledge on human sexuality, biology, or animal behavior, I'm not going to waste my time trying to teach you. I will only leave you with two questions:
1. When did you choose to be heterosexual (assuming that you are). I'll also give you this tidbit to chew on: it is very likely that you are not 100% hetero, as a very small percentage is. Likely you, along with most of us, fall somewhere on the sliding scale between 100% hetero- and 100% homosexual
2. If your advanced theory of animal behavior and physiology is correct, then why do we have different eye color, skin color, height, foot size, etc.?
Actually Phil, I'd be happy if Christians followed even two of their own rules:
(1) the Golden Rule;
and
(2) Judge not lest ye be judged.
Food for thought...
"You cannot POSSIBLY show that homosexuality is a choice."
I just did.
"Your post doesnt have a point. At least not one in any way related to the question. It is obvious that morality is NOT dependent on religion."
I showed that choice and/or instinctive behavior can be related in moral aspects without using religion as a base for the 'morality conclusion'. Choice (or instinctive behavior) of the animal showing homosexual behavior and choice (or instinctive behavior) of the animal to abandon it's debilitated can be related to moral concepts of our own human refinement. Meaning I think it's immoral to abandon the debilitated but I do not need a religion for me to come to this conclusion. And you do not think homosexuality is immoral and you didn't need a religion to come to that conclusion (I assume).
Whether you agree with either moral conclusion is not of any concern to me or related to the question. While you are welcome to your opinion, I think if you're going to attempt to say I'm wrong you should show reason, not opinionated statements.
I don't follow the "atheists-can't-be-moral " belief (I'm sure they can be). There was an opportunity to answer the question being asked within the parameters that 'drafted' wanted; "morality test, their authoring, to me..., cleansed of all religious reference", which I did. Maybe he will rejoin the conversation before it's locked down and give us his opinion on whether my example is an acceptable answer to his question.
About homosexuality being a choice you say you did show it. No you didnt. You didnt even come CLOSE. Are you really claiming that because entire herds of animals arent homsexual that has some meaning about CHOICE? Are whole neighborhoods left handed? Does that mean left handedness is a choice? That wasnt even close to a logical argument much less proof of anything.
As to your second paragraph again no point related to the question he ASKED. Which is what I said. As well your THIRD attempt at a point also a miss since you again didnt asnwer HIS question or challenge really which WASNT can you give a moral test without bringing in religion. Rather it was '
"I challenge the atheists-can't-be-moral crowd to administer a morality test of their authoring to me, my wife or our daughters (as long as it is cleansed of all religious references) and see just how moral we are."'
The argument you made was one that supports his overall contention that Atheists CAN be moral. Since you said you disagree they cant that makes sense what I dont get is why you are arguing the point at ALL if you agree with him.
"what I dont get is why you are arguing the point at ALL if you agree with him."
Again... (wow this gets old with you)... Whether I agree with him or not was not the question. The question asked was for a 'morality test that doesn't use religion as it's base'. With the end result showing "how moral we are". He wasn't asking for approving or dissenting views.
"His CHALLENGE was to make such a test to HIS FAMILY and see how it fares."
Ok, everyone understands you cannot read. But, I'll point it out one more time; "to me, my wife or our daughters". Did you see that little word 'or'? To most people that gives you a choice. Apparently, your reading comprehensive ability thinks it is the word 'and'. I am still waiting to see if drafted (OR his family) ever responds to my example. I doubt they will. But it's obvious you know nothing of what you're talking about.
"So why did you CHANGE the question to tell him you agree?"
So, why do you change the subject? Are you performing the typical liberal action of changing subject when you lose another arguement? While it is annoying, my freinds get a big kick out of watching you do that over and over again.
While I understand the point you are trying to make, there is no way to grade your test.
Is it moral to kill a stray dog threatening your children, the sheep on your ranch, crapping in your yard? Is it moral to eat the dog you killed? Is it moral to eat dog meat in general? What if its imported from a country where it is legal to produce it? Is it moral to eat imported, canned, dog meat on a Sunday in Lent?
The correct answers depend on the morality of both the test "taker" and "grader". The "atheist can't be moral" crowd would argue that is why the Bible or religious tenets must be used as fixed reference point. That is of course hogwash and denies the fact that their standards are continuously shifting over time.
Of course the "moral" answer to all questions above is Yes :-)
This proves both evolution and Jesus' statement "The kingdom of heaven is within you." Without mystical experience and Self realization, people cling to dogmatic religion. I've met many an atheist who instead of preaching the 10 Commandments actually follow them, and a number of "Christians" who don't.
Of course the "values voters" theme is dog poo.
Really? As an atheist, I don't really give a crap about the first four. Not big on number 10 either. Who cares if I covet as long as I don't steal, kill, or bear false witness to otherwise obtain that which I covet. In fact, coveting - in advance of purchasing - is the great American way. I must buy what I desire, not solely what I need (i.e., spend that tax rebate check) as the patriotic thing to do in Bush's America. Further proof that GWB is the anti-christ. :-)
Ok, one vote of indifference to 1-4 and two in favor of "coveting" which is the same as non attachment. http://www.purifymind.com/NonAttach.htm
I was thinking more of the stealing, killing and adultery parts anyway.
t-bone: "Who cares if I covet as long as I don't steal, kill, or bear false witness to otherwise obtain that which I covet."
while: "I couldn't agree more about the coveting. Which would be healthier, to deny that you are having any natural feelings of desire, or to recognize them and deal with them."
That doesn't make sense. You consider sexual relations with another persons spouse acceptable even though emotional pain and suffering will occur to the children within the family of the one you're breaking up? Rationalizing it with your own personal desires as having priority over the well being of children being hurt by your choice? Is that the moral standard you think is superior?
I dont think the word covet means what you THINK it means, it DOESNT mean adultery.
Either that or you have mixed up the TENTH commandment thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife nor his manservant or anything that belongs to him and the seventh thou shalt not commit adultery.
"I dont think the word covet means what you THINK it means, it DOESNT mean adultery. "
Oh? Then what "emotion" was being discussed in that post, if not lust or desire?
"It is much healthier to recognize emotions and deal with them instead of beating yourself up over having feelings that are perfectly natural."
Sounds like he is saying it's healthier to have whatever sexual relations that you desire with whoever you desire instead of accepting that not all sexual relations are mentally/physically healthy. Using 'instinctive behavior' as the allowing rule for that moral decision. In essence jawill says rape is moral since it is only natural to have sexual desires and it is healthier to deal with them instead of fighting the urge to rape. And you are defending that belief. Is that another example of proper moral attitudes that you think Christians are supposed to follow?
Exactly, Solon. A personal example: My best friend has a huge (and I mean HUGE) flat screen television, mounted to a bracket on his wall. He bought it for the express purpose of playing Wii games in life-size.
After being at his house, I WANT THAT FLAT SCREEN. I want that flat screen so badly I almost can't stand it. So, to procure one, I can do one of two things: I can (1) steal it from my friend; or (2) go BUY one of my own;
or (3) realize that I really don't need it and move on with the more important things in life.
I'll choose option (3).
And see, Phil, I coveted my friend's big screen, put some thought into it - and wow, I beat COVETING!!! All on my own - and I didn't need Jeezus to do it.
I will repeat that you clearly do not know the definition of the word "desire". I'll give you a hint: it isn't an action word. Here is an example of an incorrect use of the word: "Bill sure got mad when he came home early from work and caught Fred in his bed desiring his wife."
Thanks for calling me a rapist sympathizer, though. I really set myself up for that one!
"Is it moral to kill a stray dog threatening your children, the sheep on your ranch, crapping in your yard?" + "Of course the "moral" answer to all questions above is Yes "
I understand how morals would cover the first one, harm is potential to you (your family). I kind of understand the second one, potential harm to your livestock. But, I don't understand why a dog pooping on your yard has the potential to harm anyone and therefor gives you moral rights to kill it? Does that mean the sanctity of the grass in your lawn has more moral rights than a living animal? Isn't a dog pooping on our lawn actually providing life producing foods for your lawn, but your morals allow you to kill what is providing life to others? Because...?
I'll just restate what I always say when this comes up: the party of TRUE family values is the Democratic party. They are the only ones who consistently argue for laws that will help families be families - paid sick leave, paid vacations, health care insurance, public education and so on. The Republican party equates "family values" with ONE thing - being anti abortion.
But they have done a splendid job to convince people that working for legislation that will help ALL families is not family friendly.
They have done an even more splendid job in hood winking the conservative evangelicals to keep voting for them even though their agenda is largely ignored once their candidate is elected.
you hit the nail on the head. the democrats ask for handouts from others and that makes them better on family values. great logic.
public education. what a success. look at detroit where 20% of kids graduate from high school. this great success tale is related in http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_baeo.htm
here in l.a. a new high school is being named for a woman who was head of the teachers' union. (she managed to kill herself while running across a busy street at night, late for a meeting) how sick is it to name a high school after one of the greatest enemies of schooling, the president of a teachers' union.
You do know you are an idiot dont you?
Addendum de dum dum.
You forgot shielding the populace from the dangers of gays and their personal/legal agenda to be treated like real and useful citizens. Family values always seems to be exclusive of non-hetrosexuals.
That's because they can't start families. Well, not in the regular way, at least. Disqualified!
As a non-reproducer myself, I wonder when my number's gonna come up on the non-person list.I need more gays as a buffer.Come on, Gay Mafia, start recruiting like you mean it.
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0101/shake.html
Of course I know the secret handsh .... I mean, what handshake?
Honestly, I never knew I was supposed to use my hand.
Got NR status myself, but there's plenty of other possible lines which could lead to nonperson status.
If parts of my personality were ever properly defined, my lack of rights would be impressed upon me shortly there after.
the rest consider "family values"; kinda makes my skin crawl. Like your style, Fawltylogic.
I actually wouldn't have a problem with it if they put just the word "values" in quotes; family "values" and "values" voters. So we know it's meant ironically.
And TV pundits would have to use air quotes.
"Dogma voters" is the more fitting label. "Values voters" is a label invented by people who like to think of themselves as championing good human values. What many of them are pushing actually is dogma. "Values" are "the principles that help you to decide what is right and wrong, and how to act in various situations." Cambridge Dictionary of American English. "Dogma" is "a fixed, esp. religious, belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts." Id.
The two, we can only hope, overlap to some extent, but they are hardly the same. Some of what religious fundamentalists hold up as values others find plainly wrongheaded and even immoral. Labels count. Those pushing the "values voters" label hope it will help them pass off their dogma as values. If they want to push their dogma, that's their right. But "dogma voters" they are, and that's what I'll call them.
Only someone incredibly stupid would buy the hivemind propaganda you shovel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society
."[10] The poverty rate for blacks fell from 55 percent in 1960 to 27 percent in 1968.[12]