Fianna Fail harness the Power of Prayer

recedite

Yep, the bigwigs are currently holed up in Donegal, desperately trying to get their man elected, while fending off the IMF Grim Reaper, and O'Cuiv had this to say; PRAY

http://www.highlandradio.com/2010/11/20/minister-urges-public-to-pray-things-do-not-get-worse/

btard

Will God give us a better deal than the IMF though?

Coriolanus

btard wrote: »

Will God give us a better deal than the IMF though?

Should do, the bible forbids earning interest after all.

recedite

Hmmmm... The IMF do not require us to worship them AFAIK.
If we factor in the loss of productivity associated with all that time spent on our knees, which would be associated with any Divine Bailout, then the 3- 5% interest payable to the IMF may not be so bad.

PeterIanStaker

Proves that FF and Catholicism are inextricably linked, and that this country would be better off without both.

amacachi

Just listen to the interviews on the BBC from America with people saying they've prayed that God will guide their hand in the voting booth, I'm guessing because knowing things is bad. :pac: Also I'd love to see what percentage of the votes just go 1, 2, 3 etc. in each constituency.

Galvasean

Ah sweet prayer, it truly is the kitchen sink of politics.

panda100

amacachi wrote: »

Just listen to the interviews on the BBC from America with people saying they've prayed that God will guide their hand in the voting booth, I'm guessing because knowing things is bad. :pac: Also I'd love to see what percentage of the votes just go 1, 2, 3 etc. in each constituency.

I never understand how Jesus/God can guide their hands to vote for the most intollerant,bigotted people who care for nothing but money.

The sooner FF go the better.My one fear is FG are even more religious ignoramuses then the current shower, aligning themselves with the Christian Democrats in the EU parliament.

eblistic

panda100 wrote: »

My one fear is FG are even more religious ignoramuses then the current shower, aligning themselves with the Christian Democrats in the EU parliament.

Is it my imagination or didn't they once actively identify as a Christian Democratic party here, going as far as to say it on their website? They don't seem to mention it openly any more though.

Genghiz Cohen

Kinda reminds me of the saying: "There are no atheists in foxholes."

gbee

You can never trust a man who publicly says he prays ....

I'll mention one notable recent incumbent who actually said he 'spoke to God' W Bush immediate past president/USA.

Nevyn

Oh I will pray all right, for the lot of them to get piles and never have a restfull nights sleep for the rest of thier current incarnations and that they come back as slugs.

irishh_bob

amacachi wrote: »

Just listen to the interviews on the BBC from America with people saying they've prayed that God will guide their hand in the voting booth, I'm guessing because knowing things is bad. :pac: Also I'd love to see what percentage of the votes just go 1, 2, 3 etc. in each constituency.

fox news once ran a ticker along the bottom of the screen

WOULD JESUS VOTE REPUBLICAN

The Mad Hatter

On the other hand, this has the potential to be their most successful policy to date.

recedite

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

On the other hand, this has the potential to be their most successful policy to date.

"First, do no harm.." - Hippocrates

Mark Hamill

panda100 wrote: »

I never understand how Jesus/God can guide their hands to vote for the most intollerant,bigotted people who care for nothing but money.

Really? The god of the christain bible? The god who hates gays, who sees women as less than men and who just wants everyone to fall to their knees and worship him?

PDN

gbee wrote: »

You can never trust a man who publicly says he prays ....

I'll mention one notable recent incumbent who actually said he 'spoke to God' W Bush immediate past president/USA.

And Barack Obama.

And Nelson Mandela.

And Bill Clinton.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

And Barack Obama.

I reckon he pretends.

And Nelson Mandela.

I read long walk to freedom and I don't recall too many references to prayer.

And Bill Clinton.

Same as Obama.

It would be interesting to see some European references.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I reckon he pretends.

I read long walk to freedom and I don't recall too many references to prayer.


Same as Obama.

It would be interesting to see some European references.

I love the reasoning here:

Bush? Bad man, therefore must really pray to God.

Clinton & Obama. Good men, therefore must be only pretending to pray.

Life must be so easy when you reduce everything to such a simple way of classifying good people (those who must therefore share your ideology) and bad people (those who must therefore share the ideology of the horrible Christians).

gbee

PDN wrote: »

Life must be so easy when you reduce everything to such a simple way of classifying good people (those who must therefore share your ideology) and bad people (those who must therefore share the ideology of the horrible Christians).

I dunno, I think you've taken a prejudiced slant here, a curve ball maybe going out of bounds.

PDN

gbee wrote: »

I dunno, I think you've taken a prejudiced slant here, a curve ball maybe going out of bounds.

Yes, I'm so prejudiced that I believe that there are good and bad people who pray, and good and bad people who don't pray. How awful of me.

Dades

It's not about bad men v good men, it's about respect and ultimately wishful thinking.

Bush has little or no respect amongst most here, for many reasons including his very public relationship with his God.

However some people here have more respect for Clinton and Obama for whatever reason (achievements, intelligence, eloquence, brass balls or whatever) so it's hard for an atheist to picture them on their knees praying to what appears to us to be a blinding obvious human construct, backed by a ridiculous mythical story.

I understand the issues with this thinking from an objective pov, but I can't help thinking the same thing.

PDN

Dades wrote: »

I understand the issues with this thinking from an objective pov, but I can't help thinking the same thing.

That's OK. We can't all be objective.

gbee

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I'm so prejudiced that I believe that there are good and bad people who pray, and good and bad people who don't pray. How awful of me.

maybe I read too much into your reply then, this reply would not elicit a response.

PDN

gbee wrote: »

maybe I read too much into your reply then, this reply would not elicit a response.

No, not if it were made by anyone other than the moderator of the Christianity Forum.

darjeeling

PDN wrote: »

That's OK. We can't all be objective.

We can afford to approve of dissembling politicians when they're safely the other side of the Atlantic; they're no longer in fashion here.

Anyway, for me, Bush's religion has nothing to do with why I think he was a disaster. It was more about his squandering eight years, countless lives and trillions of dollars pissed into the sand in pursuit of neo-con pipeline dreams, whilst failing to do anything whatsoever about the real problems of the world.

gbee

darjeeling wrote: »

Anyway, for me, Bush's religion has nothing to do with why I think he was a disaster. .

But he did use his religion to his advantage, a lot of Americans are honest trusting people ~ he fed off that as cynically as any professional preacher would.

darjeeling

gbee wrote: »

But he did use his religion to his advantage, a lot of Americans are honest trusting people ~ he fed off that as cynically as any professional preacher would.

I'd agree that the Republicans under Karl Rove courted the evangelical vote to get Bush elected, and then largely failed to deliver what the evangelicals were expecting.

I also suspect that many of the neo-cons directing US policy were religious for appearances sake only. After all, half of them were so-called Straussians (disciples of political philosopher Leo Strauss), accused of a belief in spreading noble lies for the public good. I have the feeling that Bush himself, though, was genuine in his faith, for what it's worth.

.

Handsome Bob

PDN wrote: »

I love the reasoning here:

Bush? Bad man, therefore must really pray to God.

Clinton & Obama. Good men, therefore must be only pretending to pray.

Life must be so easy when you reduce everything to such a simple way of classifying good people (those who must therefore share your ideology) and bad people (those who must therefore share the ideology of the horrible Christians).

Aye, it really is a simplistic attitude. If someone doesn't fall into a nice tidy stereotype then surely they're faking.

eblistic

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Aye, it really is a simplistic attitude. If someone doesn't fall into a nice tidy stereotype then surely they're faking.

Regardless of who is or isn't faking, isn't it fair to say that not having strong faith credentials has been considered political suicide in the US for some time? It seems likely that if a president was disinclined to talk to the imaginary one he'd probably keep it to himself and go along with the charade.

Handsome Bob

I don't really buy that argument because it is the nature of politics, especially in the US, to mud sling. Indeed, political campaigns can be won and lost through smear campaigns.

If it comes out that someone is pretending to be religious it would be a death blow to their political career in America.

In sum, there's no point in faking as you'll be found out inevitably.

eblistic

LZ5by5 wrote: »

In sum, there's no point in faking as you'll be found out inevitably.

How? Is there a test?

Galvasean

LZ5by5 wrote: »

In sum, there's no point in faking as you'll be found out inevitably.

I don't know about that. It is definately in one's best interest to be religious if one is running for office in America. There is no chance an open atheist would get elected as president in the US - absolutely no way.
As for being found out inevitably, it wouldn't behard to fake being a theist. Heck, I bet I could start an account on boards that professes to believe in God and nobody would find out.

The Mad Hatter

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I don't really buy that argument because it is the nature of politics, especially in the US, to mud sling. Indeed, political campaigns can be won and lost through smear campaigns.

If it comes out that someone is pretending to be religious it would be a death blow to their political career in America.

In sum, there's no point in faking as you'll be found out inevitably.

Have you read Barack Obama's autobiography? When he worked in Chicago, the communities were all organised into churches. None of the churches would have anything to do with him until he joined one of them.

recedite

PDN wrote: »

I love the reasoning here:

Bush? Bad man, therefore must really pray to God.

Clinton & Obama. Good men, therefore must be only pretending to pray.

Maybe its more because "the bad man" is Republican, but the other two are Democrats, that the praying seems less sincere.

Consider this wiki quote;
"If morality is the answer to the question 'how ought we to live' at the individual level, politics can be seen as addressing the same question at the social level. It is therefore unsurprising that evidence has been found of a relationship between attitudes in morality and politics. Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham have studied the differences between liberals and conservatives, in this regard.[24][25][26] Haidt found that Americans who identified as liberals tended to value care and fairness higher than loyalty, respect and purity. Self-identified conservative Americans valued care and fairness less and the remaining three values more. Both groups gave care the highest over-all weighting, but conservatives valued fairness the lowest, whereas liberals valued purity the lowest."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality




And I came to this conclusion in post#58 of a discussion with Christians on the moral of the Adam and Eve story;

The snake in this story always tells the truth, yet he is pilloried because he is disloyal to his master. The fact that his master is lying is not considered to be any excuse for the disloyalty. It's exactly the kind of morality that armies have always tried to drill into their soldiers. Blind obedience is required. Knowledge of right and wrong is not. Thinking is not to be encouraged

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056082470

Would you agree then PDN, that there is this moral deficit in both Republicans and Christians?

mikhail

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Have you read Barack Obama's autobiography? When he worked in Chicago, the communities were all organised into churches. None of the churches would have anything to do with him until he joined one of them.

I've read The Audacity of Hope, and the way he speaks of how he selected a church struck me as utterly unconvincing in terms of religious belief. He was irreligious (I recall no specifics beyond that) until it was politically convenient for him to find God, I have no trouble believing he is publicly religious for the sake of his career and that he would not have been elected if he was publicly atheist - if nothing else, the Democrats wouldn't have selected him.

PDN

recedite wrote: »

Maybe its more because "the bad man" is Republican, but the other two are Democrats, that the praying seems less sincere.

Yet Democrat candidates tend to do much more campaigning in religious settings and use more overtly religious language than do Republican candidates. (Usually ignored in British media because the context is black churches, and the lazy stereotype is of white Christian Republicans).

And I came to this conclusion in post#58 of a discussion with Christians on the moral of the Adam and Eve story;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056082470

Sorry, I'm not sure what your erroneous views on that topic have to do with politics?

Would you agree then PDN, that there is this moral deficit in both Republicans and Christians?

I would agree that there is a moral deficit in all human beings.

randypriest

"Is there anything to be said for saying another Mass?"

The Mad Hatter

mikhail wrote: »

I've read The Audacity of Hope, and the way he speaks of how he selected a church struck me as utterly unconvincing in terms of religious belief. He was irreligious (I recall no specifics beyond that) until it was politically convenient for him to find God, I have no trouble believing he is publicly religious for the sake of his career and that he would not have been elected if he was publicly atheist - if nothing else, the Democrats wouldn't have selected him.

He tells a similar story in Dreams of my Father. Certainly there's no talk of the clouds parting and the Truth being revealed to him.

mikhail

I'm curious, by the way, as to whether Clinton has said something to similarly give at least one poster above the idea that he's not religious?

PDN

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

He tells a similar story in Dreams of my Father. Certainly there's no talk of the clouds parting and the Truth being revealed to him.

Few, if any of the posters in the Christianity Forum talk of the clouds parting and the Truth being revealed to them. In fact their stories often sound like the kind of process described by Obama:

So one Sunday, I put on one of the few clean jackets I had, and went over to Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street on the South Side of Chicago. And I heard Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright deliver a sermon called “The Audacity of Hope.” And during the course of that sermon, he introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, He would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in Him. And in time, I came to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world and in my own life.

It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn’t fall out in church, as folks sometimes do. The questions I had didn’t magically disappear. The skeptical bent of my mind didn’t suddenly vanish. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth and carrying out His works.

PDN

mikhail wrote: »

I'm curious, by the way, as to whether Clinton has said something to similarly give at least one poster above the idea that he's not religious?

Clinton: I'll never forget the conversation in 1993 with the then president of the Southern Baptist Convention, a man I like very much and whose sermons I still watch on TV when I get a chance. He's a great pastor but he belongs to the `values voter' crowd. He looked at me and said, "I just want an answer, not a political answer. A straight yes and no answer. Do you believe the Bible is literally true or not." I said, "Pastor, I think it is completely true. But I don't think you or I or anyone else on earth is smart enough to understand it."

amacachi

PDN wrote: »

Clinton: I'll never forget the conversation in 1993 with the then president of the Southern Baptist Convention, a man I like very much and whose sermons I still watch on TV when I get a chance. He's a great pastor but he belongs to the `values voter' crowd. He looked at me and said, "I just want an answer, not a political answer. A straight yes and no answer. Do you believe the Bible is literally true or not." I said, "Pastor, I think it is completely true. But I don't think you or I or anyone else on earth is smart enough to understand it."

I don't understand it but it's completely true, nice.

aidan24326

amacachi wrote: »

I don't understand it but it's completely true, nice.

He was probably just saying what a big precentage of his elctorate want to hear. It's not possible to get elected president in America without making at least some of the right sort of noises with respect to religion. It is of course possible that he is religious and really does think the bible is literally true, but being a politician (a.k.a a liar) it's difficult to know.

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

Yet Democrat candidates tend to do much more campaigning in religious settings

Simply, they need to.

and use more overtly religious language than do Republican candidates.

Can't agree at all there.

PDN

aidan24326 wrote: »

He was probably just saying what a big precentage of his elctorate want to hear. It's not possible to get elected president in America without making at least some of the right sort of noises with respect to religion. It is of course possible that he is religious and really does think the bible is literally true, but being a politician (a.k.a a liar) it's difficult to know.

Except he wasn't saying it to get elected. Those words from Clinton come from a sermon he preached at the Riverside Church in 2004 - 4 years after he left office. (Bill Clinton preaching in a church - now that's an image that doesn't fit in with RTE's and BBc's stereotypes).

Galvasean wrote:

Can't agree at all there

Why not?

Jimmy Carter was much more open about his born-again Christianity (as an evangelical Southern Baptist) than Ronald Reagan ever was (Reagan belonged to the much more liberal and less fundamentalist Belair Presbyterian Church). I see Carter's books on religion still on sale in Christian bookshops - but nothing comparable for Reagan.

Bill Clinton spoke more about his faith (also as a Southern Baptist) than did either of the Bushes (H was an Episcopalian and W was a Methodist - both denominations in the US are considerably more liberal and less fundamentalist than the Southern Baptists.)

As for Obama, informed observers on both sides of the fence ignore the lazy stereotypes and recognize that Obamas speaks more openly about his faith than any modern US President http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23510.html

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Jimmy Carter was much more open about his born-again Christianity (as an evangelical Southern Baptist) than Ronald Reagan ever was (Reagan belonged to the much more liberal and less fundamentalist Belair Presbyterian Church). I see Carter's books on religion still on sale in Christian bookshops

But not in Southern Baptist Convention-controlled bookshops, presumably

Since Carter resigned, it seems in considerable disgust, from the SBC following the latter's religious claims that women were secondary to men, were responsible for "original sin", were not capable of performing a wide range of religious duties and that Carter's support for gay rights was "in direct conflict with the beliefs of Southern Baptists" (see here).

In a strongly-worded article published in July 2009, Carter condemned, by implication, the SBC's increasingly fundamentalist line, from which the following is taken:

Jimmy Carter wrote:

The truth is that male religious leaders have had - and still have - an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions - all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views.

.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

But not in Southern Baptist Convention-controlled bookshops, presumably

Since Carter resigned, it seems in considerable disgust, from the SBC following the latter's religious claims that women were secondary to men, were responsible for "original sin", were not capable of performing a wide range of religious duties and that Carter's support for gay rights was "in direct conflict with the beliefs of Southern Baptists" (see here).

In a strongly-worded article published in July 2009, Carter condemned, by implication, the SBC's increasingly fundamentalist line, from which the following is taken:

.

Thank you for posting that. I think that rather demonstrates that Carter was one of the US politicians who was genuine in his faith and did not adopt religion as a ploy to get elected.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

Thank you for posting that. I think that rather demonstrates that Carter was one of the US politicians who was genuine in his faith and did not adopt religion as a ploy to get elected.

Or MAYBE that was just his way of getting out of the church once he no longer needed to pretend he believed. :pac:

nozzferrahhtoo

Consider the data we have:

1) According to statistics a large majority of Irish people claim to be religious and subscribe to religions that are based on an interventionalist god. The adherents of these religions are urged to, and often claim to, pray.
2) We are a selfish species and we can assume therefore that a significant percentage of such petitions to gods are already based on asking for improvements on a personal and societal level. People likely pray for more money, less taxes, a successful career and a strong country all the time. “God and County” indeed.

So a safe assumption is that people are already, and have been for some time, praying for the economy on a personal and national level. Yet look at where we are.

Might it not be worth suggesting therefore that people STOP praying given not only the lack of results but the negative results? Results which were perfectly paralleled in a controlled study of prayer for illness where the group being prayed for actually did worse than the group prayed for in terms of recovery.

Seems to me that if this entity exists, which thankfully there is zilch evidence being offered to me to suggest it is, then attracting it’s attention by this magical wireless interface called prayer is in fact the WRONG thing to do.

Not to mention of course the fact that people wasting good time on their knees talking to themselves in their bedrooms is gonna do squat to help anyone.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I think that rather demonstrates that Carter [...] did not adopt religion as a ploy to get elected.

No doubt because, back in the 1970's, religion and politics were far more separate than they are now and as a Democrat, Carter could safely remain a member of the SBC.

Though, as time passed and leading fundamentalists realized the motivating power of religious ideology and the large number of self-disenfranchized religious believers, they aligned themselves with the Republican Party to the extent that the SBC's leaders publicly endorsed the presidential ambitions of such intellectual luminaries as Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Pat Robertson.