Terry McAuliffe's Conversation with Virginians

Causes and candidates supported by Heidi Li

« "Official ceremony" but with authenticity: warm friendship and real respect from Vice President Biden, two generations of maternal kvelling, acknowledgment of life's complexities by Secretary of State Clinton | Main | Updates from 51 Percent »

February 05, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Ouch, Heidi! This post gave me a headache because it is so layered and intellectual that I actual had to study rather than read it. What a brilliant mind you possess and I love it when you challenge readers like me to hop aboard the educational platform or get left behind.


“No matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate,” Mr. Obama told an audience...

Most harm done to humanity was done in the name of religion by religious leaders driven by inflated hunger for more power. They have not, do not and will not generally act for the greater good than a secular Government. Instead they try to suppress individual emancipation, discriminate those who do not follow their "guidance", create fear of hell and damnation, all designed to give them more power. There are exceptions, of course, usually individuals dedicated to humanitarian causes, not churches in general who do not usually serve spiritual practisis but rather hypocrisy. (one has only to look at the Pope's recent actions)

Barack Obama is fishing for more votes here, not facilitating lifting up those who have fallen hard. Discusting hypocrisy, apalling way to spend Government funds, borrowed from China.


“No matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate,” Mr. Obama

Interesting quote, Mirlo. While I do not believe Obama's former church's "central tenet" is hate. It was the hate spewed by Wright that I objected to much more than the lack of patriotism.

From Heidi Li's post:

"Wholly apart from questions related to the constitutionality of the expanded office and its powers, this inversion must be noted on grounds of its illiberalism. What the expanded office does is to advantage certain groups - faith-based ones - not on grounds of the likelihood of their contributing to efficient wealth production, but on the grounds that the President believes they are "good" and will do "good":....."

I would like to see this whole effort challenged on the basis of constitutionality.

While we are allowing the president to act in this manner, does Congress still have the authority over the amount budgeted? That may be the only way to control this potential perversion of good economic practices. If churches don't have the means to do their "good works," then they need to rethink their own economics.


My concern is not with doing good, religions and spirituality, but with the institutions that "market" religions, it's leaders who, within their empires, are not bound by the constitution, but can freely interpret the scriptures, create dogmas, define sins and set rules, all to enhance their power, resulting in more suppression and discrimination.

Look at the hypocrisy of Obama's quote "there is a force for good greater than Government". It insinuates doing more good than *he* can do, but taking credit for it, while it is only a scheme to fish votes at the cost of taxpayers.

I think the constitution is only relevant to Mr. Obama when it suits his purpose, at this point I have little hope that he lets himself be stopped by constitutional challenges.


purplefinn, I wanted to make a clear distinction between religions and churches, because I question the central tenet of many religious Institutions. Empowering these Institutions is, as Heidi points out, a further step away from liberalism towards more discrimination, opression and promotion of sheepish behaviour (followers are rather sheepish, aren't they?)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Creative Commons License