I am catholic and even I would like for private faith to be left out of the equation all together..but this is America..faith has always been so interwined with politics and I dont think that's going to change anytime soon

i think its great that this religious group has been able to see past the typical abortion, gay rights, and stem cell research issues that republicans have dangled over their heads for a generation now, to move toward the larger issues of spirituality/religion that actually ARE universal - like good will, humanitarianism, and protection of the environment. these are themes that we can all agree on - no matter what our beliefs. for that i congratulate them.

however, i still think religion has no place in politics. foreign policy, taxes, education, economic policy, etc. these are just a few things that a president's policies dictate that should NOT be guided by religious beliefs. in america we have religious freedom, and do not create policy based on any one god's plan/teachings. therefore, people who vote based on their religious views alone are abusing the process. it's like voting based on a candidate's favorite sports team, or his favorite ice cream flavor - it should have zero bearing on his policy. personally, if i was a religious person, and my pastor/priest/rabbi got up and endorsed a candidate, i'd get up and walk out.

Like Marni, I'm Catholic but would like private faith to be left out of the equation - but since it hasn't been, I have no problem with this group making its case.

"promoting life with dignity,"

whenever I hear that phrasing its usually in reference to abortion so I don't see how it applies here.

"if i was a religious person, and my pastor/priest/rabbi got up and endorsed a candidate, i'd get up and walk out."

i agree YY, there have been many churches who've come under fire for this and have been threatened to lose their tax exempt status... and i think they should!

I am tired of faith even being a factor in choosing politicians, one should have nothing to do with the other. Faith or lack of should be private.

haus i took that "life with dignity" thing to be more about preventing poverty.

I'm glad that if they were going to endorse that they endorsed my candidate, but I don't think faith leaders should get involved in politics.

I think its very interesting that this group decided to endorse Obama. I disagree with the above statement. If one is truely trying to live out their faith in all aspects of their life, you cannot separate faith from politics. Our constitution allows the two to co-exist. Its Freedom OF religion, not freedom from religion. The problem also is that the founding Fathers were dealing with mainly a Protestant - Catholic conflict. Now, in the 21st centura, these two religions are pretty similiar in terms of a voting record in the election. Most Catholics are staunch anti-abortionists, and most Protestants are Pro-NRA and anti-abortion. Although there are many more issues, these tend to take center stage. I am curious what the mission statement of this group is.

Roarman - I don't think you can separate the two...your missing what faith is - it is EVERYTHING and should be connected to every aspect of our life. The basic questions - where do we come from, where are we going, and how do we treat our brother...

tink08 - for me, it's freedom FROM religion as much as it is freedom OF religion. I am free to not practice any religion or align myself with any particular faith.

It's both, actually. Those who have no faith, are free to not practice any sort of faith (ie, sleep in on Sunday), and those who have faith are free to practice their faith, including the expression thereof.

I'm a "member" of the Matthew 25 Network and I think it's great that this organization exists. As yesteryear said, it's great to see a group like this talk about aspects of spirituality/religion that can be embraced by all people.

I've been hearing about this organization a lot over the last few months. Andrew Sullivan mentioned them in an article, if I'm remembering correctly. I've visited their site a couple of times.

Tink here is their Mission Statement:

" The Matthew 25 Network is a community of Christians – Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal, and Evangelical – inspired by the Gospel mandate to put our faith into action to care for our neighbor, especially the most vulnerable.

The election of our public officials, and the politics they stand for, are a reflection of our core values. We believe that those elected to public office carry an important trust, as their decisions have a profound impact on our nation and our world.

We believe that people of faith should actively participate in the political process as an important avenue for social change. We are called by our faith to engage in the world as it is, while we seek after and hope for God’s Kingdom.

Therefore, while no elected official will be without flaw, we come together as individuals to support candidates for public office who share the values of the Matthew 25 Network: promoting life with dignity, caring for the least of these, strengthening and supporting families, stewardship of God’s Creation, working for peace and justice at home and abroad, and promoting the common good.
http://www.matthew25.org/about.htm

For us Christians - Faith is a part of everything we do. I don't mind them advocating for a candidate - even if I think they're totally off their rockers on this choice.

I completely agree with you, UnDave - it's both! Freedom from as well as freedom of!

I agree with UnDave!

Well if you are religious of course that's going to color your political decisions. It's a value system just as much as anything else is. The problem I have with religion in politics is when it is the sole reason for making a certain decision or voting for someone. For example, being against gay marriage purely because the Bible says it's wrong. That's just not a good enough reason to me for that to be a law and I feel like that crosses the line into forcing your religion on everyone. If you are against it for other reasons, or at least can argue it in non religious terms I think that's different. There's a difference between your private beliefs about the way you want to live and the way you should be governing.

We could argue for hours on the whole merits of gay unions.

For those who aren't "religious", I have a question. What value system do you have? Where do you draw your internal line of what's right, and what's wrong?

dave thats a hard question to answer for a non-religious person. there is no set value system, guide book, or set of rules. its more intuitive than that. i'd say most people are born with a sense of right and wrong built in.

This is just Obama tying up some loose end points to finish it off.

UnDave: I certainly can't speak for anyone else, but I'll give you my perspective as someone who has no belief in the divine or any kind of higher power.

I determine my values based on what I think is fair and right for society as a whole. That means I try to be considerate of how my actions affect others, and try to make decisions that are not based on selfishness. I believe in working to improve society; even though I have a pretty low income and can't always contribute financially as much as I would like, I use the skills I have to benefit the causes that are most important to me. For example, I teach art workshops at a home for at-risk children, I design flyers for a local experimental concert series, I help coordinate Open Studios events in my neighborhood. I firmly believe that by contributing to education and enlightenment, I create a better life for myself and others around me.

In terms of "right and wrong," I think that line is pretty wiggly, and it certainly changes and shifts within me as I age and grow. Most importantly, I think each situation deserves careful consideration; I don't believe in having a mental right/wrong checklist.

Hope this is helpful - it's a little rambling, I know...but I definitely like having the discussion open!

I have no problem with a group of individuals like Matthew 25 endorsing a candidate. They have no power, just a perspective.
I am troubled though when leaders of a church or religion use their position to influence their members in a threatening way, especially when they base it on one issue rather than the entire scope of the teachings of their religion.

As I've said many times before, I dislike the fact that candidates for national office in this nation tend to have to prove their Christianity before being considered viable for the office. With that being said, however, I do appreciate the effort this group is making to counteract the notion that a vote for Obama is unchristian.

Dave, as a person who does identify with a religion, I'm uncomfortable with the values question. I don't think being a compassionate, altruistic, moral person - or however you define having values - requires that you believe in God.

Dave: I'm not religious, so I'm going to take a stab at answering your question.

I base my moral and ethical system on whether certain actions will harm others or not (physically, mentally, and/or emotionally), or take away what belongs to them (both material things and intangible things like their right to exist and make their own choices in peace). I consider actions that cause harm or that steal morally unacceptable. And I don't need a religious text or teacher to tell me that--it's just part of being a civil human being with empathy and compassion. People can have those things and live decent and moral lives without basing their morals on the teachings of any one religion.

I don't consider homosexuality immoral, for instance, because it neither inherently causes harm to others or takes anything away from others.

Thank you all for answering my question. I was truly curious. In my faith, we come from the standpoint that man is sinful (as in selfish), and it is that constant struggle that we humans face. Anyway, thanks for your comments.

I also believe in the internal struggle between one's own good and harmful impulses, I just don't call mankind "sinful," I suppose. "Selfish," yes.

Glad we can agree on something.

Yep!

"As I've said many times before, I dislike the fact that candidates for national office in this nation tend to have to prove their Christianity before being considered viable for the office. With that being said, however, I do appreciate the effort this group is making to counteract the notion that a vote for Obama is unchristian."

Totally agree, Jude.

"I don't consider homosexuality immoral, for instance, because it neither inherently causes harm to others or takes anything away from others."

Neither do I. They should have just as much rights to marry as we(as heterosexuals) do. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

""As I've said many times before, I dislike the fact that candidates for national office in this nation tend to have to prove their Christianity before being considered viable for the office. With that being said, however, I do appreciate the effort this group is making to counteract the notion that a vote for Obama is unchristian."

Totally agree, Jude."

Ditto

Wow I love how there was no bickering in this post. Awesome. Oh and Jude, you're so smart

Pssh. Thanks

I concur, milosmommy.

Smart is an understatement.

Sometimes you guys make my head so big I'm afraid I won't be able to fit through the door.

Bobblehead!