Kerry's speech on faith at Pepperdine University (from KG blog)

[Mass]

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=4212

Thank you. It’s wonderful to be here. For some time, I have looked forward to this opportunity to come here to talk about my faith, and the role of faith in public life. And I’m very grateful to Pepperdine—an institution explicitly founded to shine the light of God’s truth through the service of its graduates—for giving me this opportunity.

There will always be those bent on corrupting our political discourse, particularly where religion is involved. But I learned how important it is to make certain people have a deeper understanding of the values that shape me and the faith that sustains me. Despite this New Englanders’ past reticence of talking publicly about my faith, I learned that if I didn’t fill in the picture myself, others would draw the caricature for me. I will never let that happen again—and neither should you, because no matter your party, your ideology, or your faith, we are all done a disservice when the debate is reduced to ugly and untrue caricatures....


I believe these questions can be gathered around four issues where people of faith from every background can work together with other people of good will towards public policies that contribute to the common good.

The first and perhaps most obvious common challenge is to take practical steps to address global issues of poverty, disease, and despair.
...


A second common challenge arises from the deep concern virtually all people of faith are enjoined to maintain toward sustaining and protecting God’s first creation. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians 10:20 says, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything on it.” The Prophet Isaiah (66:2) says, “has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into being?”
...

A third area where we can find common ground is on one of the most emotional cultural issues of all: abortion. Obviously the issue of abortion has been enormously divisive, but there is also no denying there is common ground. There are 1.3 million abortions each year in America. Everyone can agree that that is too many and on a shared goal of reducing the need for abortion in the first place. And I believe our first step is to unite and accept the responsibility of making abortion rare by focusing on prevention and by supporting pregnant women and new parents.

...



The fourth and final example of where people of faith should accept a common challenge is perhaps the most difficult and essential of all: rekindling a faith-based debate on the issues of war and peace. All our different faiths, whatever their philosophical differences, have a universal sense of values, ethics, and moral truths that honor and respect the dignity of all human beings. They all agree on a form of the Golden Rule and the Supreme importance of charity and compassion.

...

As an atheist, I am not the target of this speech, but it seems to me that this is what a speech like that should be: no pandering, no bemoaning of other Democrats. Just say what you have to say, state your values (and those are values I can share).

Once again, Kerry is ahead of other Democrats on this subject.

[Mass]

1. Unfortunately, AP seems to be determined taking what Kerry said out of

context. Who will be surprised by that.

http://www.forbes.com/business/manufacturing/feeds/ap/2006/09/18/ap3025926.html

Kerry Speaks About Faith, 'Godly Tasks'
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD , 09.18.2006, 06:41 PM



Democratic Sen. John Kerry on Monday urged people of faith to work cooperatively on problems such as poverty, global warming and reducing the number of abortions - "godly tasks" that transcend the nation's culture wars.

In a speech laced with anecdotes of his own journey of faith, Kerry, a Roman Catholic, told students in a speech at Pepperdine University that "we can take up God's work as our own.
...
"Even as a supporter of Roe v. Wade, I am compelled to acknowledge that the language both sides use on this subject can be unfortunately misleading and unconstructive. ... Everyone is worse off for it," the Massachusetts senator said.

The 2004 Democratic nominee is a potential candidate for the party nod in the next presidential election.

Kerry's remarks were among his most extensive ever on religion. He alluded to the 2004 election, saying his past reticence to openly discuss his faith allowed others to "draw the caricature for me. I will never let that happen again."
...

Associated Press Writer Will Lester in Washington contributed to this report.



Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

[blm]

2. I'm an atheist who is never offended by faith of others until it's used

to beat at entire groups of humanity.

I loathe that any politician should even HAVE to talk about faith, at all. And I just know they're all going to be stuck doing it when they are invited to speak at religion based schools and church gatherings.

Kerry avoided this for years, to his credit, and I am disappointed he feels events compel him to speak on it at this time.

[Mass]

3. Oh, I would prefer it too, but ...

you may want to read the speech, if you did not.

I have read so many speeches where Democratic politicians wanted to tell religious-based groups about how they were right and Democrats should change the way they speak to reach them.

Kerry here does the opposite. He tells them Christians should have a progressive agenda if they are Christians.

If Democrats have to do that, I prefer they do it this way. I was surprised because I groaned when I read the title, then I read the speech and I was not disturbed. It was a personnal message and then the political message.

[blm]

4. I plan to, as soon as little blm goes to bed.

I'm on hit a post here and there mode till 8.

[karynnj]

9. I disagree

I loved the article in the windsurfing magazine where he spoke of what he got out of that - the near meditation and the ability to clear his mind and focus more clearly. I love that he speaks of what he gained being on a swiftboat trying to do his job and survive. In so many Senate speeches he mentions how having been a prosecutor informed his choice on legislation.

His religion obviously is extremely important to him. I found his description of when religion was important to him very interesting and it rang true. (I wonder if the time he speaks of when religion again became more important to him is the time that Blum (or one of the other investigators spoke of when he spoke of Kerry being focused in spite of having no support (and much flack) from his Senate peers, not enough money to afford appartments, and a difficult personal life. If so, that may explain part of what gave him the emotional support to continue.

I also think of seeing Kerry outside Faneuil Hall going over to speak with the Ethiopeans. His demeanor was very respectful and gracious - he obviously does see himself as a public servant. This is not the image the RW wants people to have of him. Knowing that he had another event in Western Massachusetts in a few hours, it did take something to do do what he did.

What this says to me is that part of what makes Kerry the unique leader we admire is what he got from his religion. Tay Tay said in early 2005 that Kerry was a private person who might have to show more of himself if he ran again. This is an intensely personal statement.

I am a religious enough person that I converted from Catholism to Judaism. I really like this statement and hope that people in the religious community at least appreciate it as an honest statement.

[wisteria]

19. As a Christian, of course, I am not offended by it at all.

I understand your discomfort with him addressing and discussing faiths. However, a majority of Americans believe in God and participate in some form of religion. Because faith plays such a large role in and affects the lives of so many Americans,I can't see how he can avoid not speaking about it and the role it plays in his life. People take comfort in knowing their leaders share something as intimate as a belief in God with them. It's just the way we are. Personally, I think this was a good nondenominational speech that touches on the many ways faith and religion can help us to become more respectful of man and nature. it is leaps and bounds above the speech Obama gave which criticized Democrats for being afraid to bring up and talk more about religion.

[ProSense]

5. This is exactly the issue:

common ground. The last snip in the OP sums it up well.

The flame of intolerance is being fanned by people who claim God as their own, and declare the rest of us sinners.

One only need look at the today's news to realize that something has gone drastically wrong!

A question for Bush/GOP/RW/Neocons: Where are the Islamic fascists on this chart?

[Democrafty]

6. I thought the speech was awesome.

I, too, sort of flinched at the title, but I was really moved by the honesty and intelligence behind what he was saying.

This is true Christianity, unlike the "God wants me to be President" crap that has really given people of faith a bad reputation.

[blm]

7. You're right - this speech is great even to these nonreligious ears. I was

more like a Kucinich Catholic for so long, and I always understood Kerry to be that type of Catholic, too.

Kerry really did a great job here in saying everything that young, rightleaning religious voters need to hear.

[TayTay]

8. Oh my God. John Kerry gave that speech?

The Senator from Massachusetts gave that speech?

Ahm, oh my God.

Ahm, wow!

Oh my! Oh my, my, my. KG and Yvonne, what was that like?

My Senator gave that speech, right? Really? Oh my.

:wow: :wow: :wow:

I think I will reserve comment on this for a bit. (Yes, I liked it, but, ahm, I have never heard a politician give a speech like that, ever. Ahm, Toto, we're not in Boston anymore. I need a little time to think about that. Wow! )

[ProSense]

14. Well I

read it again. Kerry gave a speech that defines our time. Integrating his personal journey makes it evident that this wasn't just a political speech, it was a speech to define who he his, what he is fighting for and his vision of how the two correlate. This is a great speech, better than great!

:wow:

[karynnj]

17. It really is a great very very personal speech

that the Massachusetts people here have spoken so often of how he is a person who has kept a lot private makes this even more incredible.

I think I will no longer say something is the speech of his life because it's embarrassing to say the same thing about another speech in less than a week.

[beachmom]

10. This is my favorite part of the speech (apart from his personal

journey -- that was a gift he decided to share with us. He didn't have to):

The fourth and final example of where people of faith should accept a common challenge is perhaps the most difficult and essential of all: rekindling a faith-based debate on the issues of war and peace. All our different faiths, whatever their philosophical differences, have a universal sense of values, ethics, and moral truths that honor and respect the dignity of all human beings. They all agree on a form of the Golden Rule and the Supreme importance of charity and compassion.

We are more than just Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims or atheists: we are human beings. We are more than the sum of our differences — we share a moral obligation to treat one another with dignity and respect—and the rest is commentary. Nowhere does this obligation arise more unavoidably than in when and how to resort to war.

Christians have long struggled to balance the legitimate need for self-defense with our highest ideals of justice and personal morality. Saint Augustine laid the foundation for a compelling philosophical tradition considering how and when Christians should fight.

Augustine felt that wars of choice are generally unjust wars, that war—the organized killing of human beings, of fathers, brothers, friends—should always be a last resort, that war must always have a just cause, that those waging war need the right authority to do so, that a military response must be proportionate to the provocation, that a war must have a reasonable chance of achieving its goal and that war must discriminate between civilians and combatants.

In developing the doctrine of Just War, Augustine and his many successors viewed self-restraint in warfare as a religious obligation, not as a pious hope contingent on convincing one’s adversaries to behave likewise. Throughout the centuries there have been Christian political leaders who argued otherwise; who contended that observing Just War principles was weak, naïve, or even cowardly.

It’s in Americas’ interests to maintain our unquestionable moral authority — and we risk losing it when leaders make excuses for the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo or when an Administration lobbies for torture.

For me, the just war criteria with respect to Iraq are very clear: sometimes a President has to use force to fight an enemy bent on using weapons of mass destruction to slaughter innocents. But no President should ever go to war because they want to—you go to war only because you have to. The words “last resort” have to mean something .

In Iraq, those words were rendered hollow. It was wrong to prosecute the war without careful diplomacy that assembled a real coalition. Wrong to prosecute war without a plan to win the peace and avoid the chaos of looting in Baghdad and streets full of raw sewage. Wrong to prosecute a war without considering the violence it would unleash and what it would do to the lives of innocent people who would be in danger.

People of faith obviously don’t have to agree with me about how we keep America safe, how we prevail over terrorists, or how we end our disastrous adventure in Iraq. But I do hope people of faith step up to the challenge of rejecting the idea that obedience to God somehow stops when the fighting starts. We need a revival of the debate over what constitutes Just Wars and how they must be conducted, and all people of faith, whatever their political allegiances, should participate in the debate.

[karynnj]

12. I loved that part too

both for what it said and because it contained things he has always said now framed in this spiritual framework. How many of these words has he said since 2002:

"For me, the just war criteria with respect to Iraq are very clear: sometimes a President has to use force to fight an enemy bent on using weapons of mass destruction to slaughter innocents. But no President should ever go to war because they want to—you go to war only because you have to. The words “last resort” have to mean something .

In Iraq, those words were rendered hollow. It was wrong to prosecute the war without careful diplomacy that assembled a real coalition. Wrong to prosecute war without a plan to win the peace and avoid the chaos of looting in Baghdad and streets full of raw sewage. Wrong to prosecute a war without considering the violence it would unleash and what it would do to the lives of innocent people who would be in danger."

In 2004, I thought he was speaking of "just war" in several comments. His comments on taking care of those in need sound extremely like what I heard when we took our middle daughter to a Jesuit college and they explained the Jesuit concept of Social justice.

I am amazed, but not surprised that he could articulate such a detailed intellectual spiritual framework. In some ways it isn't suprising. Even in 1971, he used many words and phrases that come from a religious moral background. The seriousness does make the Tay Tay's point that the use of the word "immoral" is important, you can't go back from it - there are some who could use the word casually or for effect, Kerry is not among them.

[TayTay]

16. That is a Rubicon, you can't uncross it Karyn

Especially not for someone who comes from the background John Kerry comes from, especially not when he started calling this war 'immoral' in Faneuil Hall and after an evocation to that part of the history of Mass. We have lots of history here and several traditions. One is very, very serious stuff and once you pledge to a cause, you don't go back. Period. That line has been crossed and cannot be uncrossed.

It's all of this:

This hall and this Commonwealth have always been at the forefront of seeking out and living out the truth in the conduct of public life. Here Massachusetts defined human rights by adopting our own Bill of Rights; here we took a stand against slavery, for women’s suffrage and civil rights for all Americans. The bedrock of America’s greatest advances—the foundation of what we know today are defining values—was formed not by cheering on things as they were, but by taking them on and demanding change.

And here and now we must insist again that fidelity, honor, and love of country demand untrammeled debate and open dissent. At no time is that truer than in the midst of a war rooted in deceit and justified by continuing deception. For what is at stake here is nothing less than life itself. As the statesman Edmund Burke once said: “A conscientious man should be cautious how he dealt in blood.”

That is very, very serious stuff and you don't invoke that tradition and that level of commitment unless you mean it completely. Wow!

That speech today sounds so different, and yet, so familiar. Hmmmmmm. Wow! So, there are deep floorboards under that commitment above and a whole finished-off basement and people can come in, at select times, and look around. Well, gee, for such a private person, I wonder how long it took to craft that speech. And it seemed personal and, oh my. I wonder if Senator Kerry intended on delivering this away from home. I wonder if he could have delivered it at home. It is different, and yet it has echoes of very familiar stuff. Wow!

[karynnj]

20. Really interesting question - could he deliver it at home?

In a way, delivering it at home would make it even more intense - and this is as intensely personal as you can get.

This also does explain why - deeply crushed as he has been at times by circumstances - he has always been able to compose himself and say what needs to be said by some one - it really is his deep faith and his family that let him be the strong person he is. I didn't think that there was anything that could make me more certain that he was the man who could heal this country, but this did. Not because he is religious but because he cares enough for this country that he is willing to share this very hard won faith with others.

[TayTay]

22. Faith in something is what is left when all else is stripped away

This goes beyond a particular religion or no religion at all. Inner morality, what we do when we are all alone in front of just the mirror of our own souls, is who we are as people. It is the answer to what is left when all else is stripped away. I have known people who were destroyed by looking too deeply into their own souls and could never reconcile what they found. I have known people who were like poured steel after it, stronger than they themselves ever thought possible. Good and easy times don't produce this. Challenge does as does deep adversity. It is almost beyond commenting on.

(Okay, now who's the reticent New Englander? I can't talk about some of the things Sen. Kerry does in this speech. Sigh! It's too personal. Oh my. Did you know that when a very prominent and old New England museum recently renovated, they had no problem getting donors to cough up money. However, they had a great deal of trouble finding someone to name the museum's new buildings after, as all the New England donors preferred to remain anonymous. One does not go about making pronouncements on one's attitude toward goodness and faith. And we rarely but rarely ever talk about this type of thing. It's too personal. (Sex is easier to talk about.) I would find it intensely difficult to talk about this in public and I'm just a 'plain as dirt' ordinary. I can't imagine how this speech came to be. But I would bet lots of money on who wrote it all. Wow! I wonder if the Senators staff was surprised by the intensity of this.)

I would dearly like to see this speech given somewhere in New England. Some of it, oddly enough, reminds me of Thoreau. Yet, it is not merely contemplative like Thoreau, but completes the circle. Last year, I saw Senator Kerry talk about moral obligations to go out and make this a better country. Well, this certainly fills in what he meant.

Ahm, back in March I criticized the speech that Senator Kerry gave in Nashua when he talked of religion. I thought it awkward. Ahm, I think that's been, ahm, fixed. Ahm, wow! Gee, I want to vote for someone like that, someone truly interesting and full of surprises. Wow!

[karynnj]

24. And you already voted for him 14 times!

[Mass]

25. I agree. The Nashua speech did not seem natural. This one does sincere.

largely because of the intended audience. If he were to give the same speech at a political rallye, it would seem out of place, but he can still convey exactly the same values in a more secular way.

[ProSense]

15. This is a speech

to pass around. It must be widely read!

[Mass]

11. Unbelievable - The text of the speech is on washingtonpost.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091801046.html

They generally ignore Kerry big time and today, they post his speech in whole.

[karynnj]

13. Wow.

[ProSense]

18. Wow!

This was a great speech!

[Democrafty]

21. Excellent!

Thanks for the link - WaPo uses technorati, so we can help spread this around by blogging it.

[ProSense]

23. Is this posted in

GD-P?

[YvonneCa]

26. Just got home...

...after the most AMAZING day, ever. (Thank you, KG!) That speech was stunning. The atmosphere in the hall was very serious...it almost felt like being in a church or cathedral and hearing words so profound, that it's all you can do to take them in.

I'm still pretty overwhelmed by the day...and tired (the day started at 3:30 a.m.) I promised KG I'd post my thoughts tomorrow.


Amazing, AMAZING DAY !:patriot:

[blm]

55. What was the audience's reaction?

.

[Mass]

27. And of course, lousy Globe reporting. Why do they have to focus on

abortion, and why do they review Kerry's position in 04 as if it was different from today and earlier.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/09/18/kerry_talks_about_faith_abortion/?p1=MEWell_Pos4

[StoryTeller]

28. Incredible.

Wow. That's just amazing. The whole speech--it resonated with me. I know some of you that are not Christians were probably cringing, and I can understand why. Honestly, as impressive as the speech was, and as staunch a Christian as I am, I couldn't help but hear a little voice in the back of my head saying, "Yeah, but you heard similar things about Bush pre-2000 and you were dumb enough to believe it and look where THAT got you."

For me, it's like I really, really WANT to believe that Kerry is being authentic, but I wanted to believe that about Bush back then, too. I remember being at my former church and hearing my pastor and guest speakers who had met with Bush insist radiantly that "this guy is for real" in terms of his claims of faith. It sounded SO good. And it proved to be so much BS.

I got burned badly by Bush and all the hoopla about his faith. And I'm a pretty trusting individual, until someone proves false. Then it's really hard for me to trust again. Especially if you burn me about what is most precious to me--my faith. Bush took something that is more personal to me than sex, more intense than any emotion, more real to me than life itself, and he manipulated and distorted it and used it for an agenda so horrible and ugly and terrible that I can cry just thinking about it. It feels incredibly personal, especially when people now judge me and my faith on the basis of what he and his supporters have said and done. It's a really deep wound.

So when I read this speech of Kerry's, you can't imagine how badly I want it to be true. How very, very much I would love to have a public figure "redeem" my beloved faith in the eyes of the world. Show them all what real Christianity is supposed to look like in all its love, service, and self-sacrifice. In all its peace and the power that comes from utter selflessness and complete trust in the sovereign wisdom of God. (No pressure, Mr. Kerry...) ;)

And to refuse to trust Kerry's statements because of previous experience with Bush is SO unfair! It's what I hate when people do it to me. So I owe it to him to take his words at face value, especially when I see evidence of his actions matching his words. But it's not easy when I still feel so wounded by past experiences.

However, I am determined to honor Kerry with my trust, especially when he had the nerve and courage to present such a personal account of his faith. I hardly ever discuss the depths of my spiritual journey like that either. I really admire him for doing so.

I can understand why some people feel uncomfortable with it. It IS very personal. Tay Tay and I both have expressed that it's easier to talk about our sex lives than it is to get that open about our faith. But I think it's important for public figures to at least on occasion have these discussions because faith (unlike one's sex life) can't help but affect the way you live your life and the decisions you make--if it's for real. I'm not saying politicians should go around saying "God" this and "God" that like SOME people I could mention. But if there was a Muslim who was in office or running for office, I would definitely want to know what their faith meant to them, and how it plays out in their life. Same for any other faith. Same for an atheist. I want to understand what motivates a prospective leader and what they base their decisions on before I put them in a position of leading me anywhere! And if their faith is authentic and genuine and leads them to make good, wise, compassionate decisions, I can accept it even if the doctrine is different from my own beliefs.

I just don't like it when religion is used to manipulate or control--no matter which religion it is. But then, I'm not real big on manipulation of any sort, religious or otherwise.

Anyway, sorry for the long, rambling post. That speech really touched me. And that scared me because I have a million reasons not to let any politician move me like that. But honesty like that deserves an honest, and appreciative response.

[karynnj]

29. Your comments are amazing

I was hoping you would post something because from earlier posts I could see that your own faith is a huge part of who you are. I can understand the hesitancy to trust that it's for real.

I liked that there were times that things he said here matched 100% what he said in completely secular comments. I have sent the link to someone close to me who is religious because we had spoken of religion and war - and I loved his comments.

[beachmom]

31. Actions, my dear friend

Kerry said himself that faith without works is nothing. Watch his actions in the Senate, around the country, and his policy speeches. Do they uphold what he said in the speech? I think his actions back up every word he uttered, and they will continue to do so. I'm not talking 100% perfection here -- he is human after all -- but, the majority of the time, his work is in line with his values. With Bush, his personal life, public life, and his career before politics showed he was only a pretender. In fact, the only time he used faith for a "good" was to give up drinking -- that is praiseworthy but hardly was an act to uphold the teachings in the Bible, like ending poverty.

Kerry has always quietly tried to do good works in public life that adhere with his faith. I just don't see him changing, even if he decided to reveal to us all his own spiritual journey.


Faith is a good thing, but reason is how you will trust yourself here, Story Teller. You need to use reason, logic, facts, etc. in order to trust someone -- it's empirical, it's measureable, it's accountable. I do think Kerry will measure up to that test.

[StoryTeller]

33. I agree

His actions, from what I have seen and heard, DO line up with what he said in his speech--word for word. I find that sort of evidence of integrity really, really amazing in a politician. And refreshing. It's a first for me.

I've always been a bit (or a lot) cynical about our elected officials. It took a lot of convincing by people I trusted before I thought Bush was for real about his faith--which made reality even harder because it shook my trust in people I knew, not just this political figure. My fault totally for not checking it out for myself, for not taking the time to do my own research about the person I was voting for. That's a lesson I learned the hard way, and I won't be making that mistake ever again if I can help it.

And I've done enough of that with Kerry that I can say that I've found his actions line up time and again with his expressions of faith. It's just that in my experience this is so rare, I can hardly believe it! Isn't that sad?

So I'm not saying I don't trust him. I definitely DO. I guess I'm just so used to getting disillusioned by elected officials that I have to consciously override that in order to trust. It's quite the new experience for me. And probably good for my personal character development. :)

[beachmom]

35. I really hope you can meet JK one day and tell him for yourself

Your story is a compelling one -- from voting for Bush in 2000, and believing him, to finding out that it was all a lie, and voting for Kerry in 2004, and remaining a supporter even after the election. I think he would be very interested in your story. It would give him insights he wouldn't otherwise get.

[StoryTeller]

37. Good idea...

GV is trying to recruit me to come for the Birthday Party. I don't think I will be able to afford it this year. But I was just sitting here thinking maybe I should at minimum send him a letter basically recapping my thoughts I shared here. I should try to be more succinct, probably. :blush: But I would love to let him know I deeply appreciated what he had to say.

[beachmom]

38. Sometimes there are cheap plane tickets . . .

I'm also contemplating going -- the issue for me is more logistics. My hubby might have to take work off to care for the kids, if I go. I don't think you should rule it out. It would be wonderful to meet you -- I would love to compare notes of the whole SAHM thing and being a Kerry supporter in a sea of red. Just think about it.

[StoryTeller]

39. Ooohhh, you make it SO tempting!

It would be so much fun. Okay, I'll monitor airfare prices, if someone will give me exact dates. No promises, but...yeah, that would be all sorts of fun. *sigh* Get me some more editing clients, and I'm there. :)

[TayTay]

40. Storyteller, I cannot tell you how familiar yet how special

that speech is. I am afraid that I will, once again, come across as provincial or as claiming some sort of odd specialness for my home state that it is not my intention to do. In all honesty, Senator Kerry actually sounds more like a Massachusetts or Boston pol in his speeches this year.

I have commented several times on how Kerry is using the word 'immoral' in his speeches about Iraq and about how this country was taken to war and how it conducted that war. This is highly significant to me. Morality and immorality are terms of the highest importance in public discussions and are not terms that are bandied about just because you feel like adding some drama to a speech. That is serious business. These terms get applied to political things maybe once or twice in a lifetime. (Once invoked, you don't get a do-over, you don't get to take them back.) Something that is immoral is beyond compromise. You can't bargain it away, you can't hedge it around the edges and you can't turn around and say that you didn't mean it later on. If something is immoral then it is to be fought as a cause, both political and personal in nature.

I heard that in earlier speeches this year at Faneuil Hall. That was a place where slavery was declared immoral. (Period. We go to war to end it. That is what Boston decided to do. Period, end of discussion, it's immoral, you can't have something be immoral and then say, oh well, so what. It doesn't work that way.) Women's Rights and the Right to Vote were moral causes, as was Civil Rights in the 1960's. (Thousands of Massachusetts residents descended on the South to March for Civil Rights. This is part of the reason people dislike Massachusetts, I mean let's get real about it. People do not like being preached to. Yet it is a huge part of the history and political heritage of this State. We 'do' moral causes because they involve issues of the soul and the conscience. That is a integral part of the actions of people in the Commonwealth. It goes way back to the original settlement of this State. And it generates it's own opposing history where those who fall short of their own moral reach are excoriated for doing so and make themselves open to severe and painful parody.)

This speech by the good Senator fills in the gaps on what we have been hearing since the Katrina speech one year ago today. The immorality of the actions this Administration are not immoral because John Kerry says they are; they are immoral because they fly in the face of discussions on poverty, on just war, on personal responsibility and so forth that have been at the center of the American experience. This speech informs you of what underlies the other speeches. It would be rather easy for Sen. Kerry to sit back and be an 'elder Statesman' of the Democratic Party at this point and he could be a 'wise man' for the TV cameras for the rest of his life. (As well as enjoy a Senate seat for life. He has earned it and there is no one in the Commonwealth who could run against him and take the seat. It's his seat for as long as he wants it.) But, this speech tells you that the moral call is the deeper call to be answered. You don't sit back and become a spectator to current events because the events are too awful to let stand. Wow, that is something to think about, as are the passages in this speech that talk about all the things that moral people have to think about in te world and reconcile to their own personal beliefs.

That's why this speech sounds both different and familiar to me. The call to take action because we need to be a moral nation is familiar to me. (And annoying to lots of people who dislike Massachusetts and find some of it's people sanctimonious and self-righteous.) This is not without risk, but oh my, is this amazing to hear in this so cynical age. I can't imagine anyone else giving this speech. I wish there was video of the Pepperdine speech. I would like to see Sen. Kerry give it and see his expressions as he does so. It must have been something to watch.

[kerrygoddess]

30. Thanks for posting Mass!

It was great to meet YvonneCA and we had quite an interesting time. The speech itself was overwhelming. I know I get teary eyed a few times and so did YvonneCa. There's so much to say about it, but I need to absorb, because it resonated very deeply with me.

I'm a new agey sort of person, not religious, but very spiritual and this speech hit home as to why I am doing this. I'm going to write up a post about it and it should be up tomorrow - hopefully in the morning.

Pepperdine tends to lean Republican, the speech was well received by all.

Finally also inspiring was the 200 or so Young Dems packed into the room after the speech for a reception with JK. As he entered the room, the played "It's a Beautiful Day," and those kids went wild! John Kerry... rockstar in Malibu. Got to love it!

Honestly, the notion on the blogosphere that is perpetuated in places like FDL is bunch a bull shit. I talked to college students and others today that all said, "run, John run."

[europegirl4jfk]

32. I couldn't stop crying after reading this speech

I have to confess that I was reluctant to read it because I was afraid that I wouldn't like it. I was raised as a German Lutheran Protestant but I lost my faith more and more over the years over all the evil and abuse of faith that is happening in the world. People like Bush and Bin Laden made me think that the world would be better without religions that can be used to fanaticize and brainwash the masses, to generate hatred and war.

Then I read Kerry's speech last night and couldn't stop crying. I think if someone could give me my faith back it's people like him. He shows us what religion really means: a call to service for the greater good of mankind. Kerry's faith isn't aggressive against others (hi doesn't want to force people to believe what he believes) but it's in a positive way aggressive against himself (it pushed him to serve and share his values with others). He certainly is one of the most tolerant people who never would discriminate people with other believes. He lives his faith through the work he is doing and this is much more an example and much more inspiring than all the empty words of the hypocrite so called religious leaders. It makes me think of St. Francis of Assisi and how close he came to be branded as a heretic by the Church. By the way, that's what happened to Kerry when the now-pope and then-cardinal Ratzinger ordered the Communion ban on Kerry because he supports legal abortion. I still have a lot of trouble with the "institution" Church, be it Catholic or Protestant of whatever, but people living and breathing their faith like John Kerry does it are a great inspiration and give us hope.

[beachmom]

34. EuropeGirl -- you say so eloquently what I was thinking last night

When those towers came crashing down on 9/11, my faith went with it. If you read the prayers in the hijacker's suitcases, they seemed like normal prayers -- AND YET -- they were twisted to justify mass murder. From that moment forward, I resolved that I wanted nothing to do with God anymore -- because God makes you murder people and justify it with hocus pocus that can't be disproved. The rise of the religious right and George Bush's "God wanted me in the WH so that I could invade Iraq" in my own country only solidified my deep distrust of God. I decided Reason will rule my world, because at least it could be tested.

But Kerry's speech gives me hope that I don't have to be so rigid and suspicious. He said Vietnam shattered his views and he spent 12 years in the wilderness; but, later on, he was able to renew his faith and have it guide him again. So perhaps 9/11 is my Vietnam, and in time, my world can come back together again, and I can once again believe. His message was one of hope for those of us who found our world shattered by religious fundamentalist extremism. They STOLE God from us, and JK is saying we can have Him back.

[StoryTeller]

36. I love this, Beachmom...

So perhaps 9/11 is my Vietnam, and in time, my world can come back together again, and I can once again believe. His message was one of hope for those of us who found our world shattered by religious fundamentalist extremism. They STOLE God from us, and JK is saying we can have Him back.

I don't know if this will make ANY sense to anyone, but your comment right there does more to help me believe that JK's faith is for real than even seeing the correlation between his words and his actions. Real faith--at least from my own experience with faith in Jesus--inspires hope in other people and offers restoration of what has been stolen from us. It's a life-giving, healing process, and I think we've all been surrounded for so long by a perversion of faith that only offers death and fear, that even just one genuine expression of life-giving faith from someone in a leadership position is bound to have a deep impact on us.

I hope that even for people who chose a different faith or no faith at all, that seeing something genuine and life-giving will be healing for them, too. I know we've all been negatively impacted by the various ways the power-hungry of different religions have used and perverted their faiths. JK inspires me to strive to live out my faith with integrity, in the hopes that my expression of faith will be life-giving and healing to others as well.

[beachmom]

61. Thanks for what you said, Story Teller. It means a lot to me. n/t

[Island Blue]

41. A couple of thoughts.

First off, to me there were echos of Jimmy Carter in this speech. While they come from vastly different backgrounds, I think that they both view their faith as a call to serve their fellow man. This differs greatly from many prominent (and vocal) "Christians" today (George Bush) who seem to view their faith as a call to manipulate others in order to serve themselves.

I liked this speech. I am usually squeamish about the topic, but I totally appreciate what he's saying here. (Just like I do when I hear Jimmy Carter talk about his faith - it seems natural and right because he not only talks the talk, but also walks the walk.)

I don't think JK could have given this speech on the campaign trail in '04. I think he would have (wrongly) been called phony while * was being held up as a model Christian.

[ginnyinWI]

42. MSNBC has a positive article up related to this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14903635/

Yesterday, a new group called Red Letter Christians, named for the colored type that highlights the words of Jesus in popular editions of the Bible, called for Christians to “vote their values” by considering the war in Iraq, torture, environmental degradation and helping the poor to be vital religious issues.

“We believe in a Jesus who said ‘Blessed are the peacemakers,’ “ said the Rev. Tony Campolo, a founder of the group, which says it is forming a grass-roots network of 7,000 clergy members.

Voter summit
Meanwhile, conservative advocacy groups are planning a four-day “Values Voter Summit,” starting Friday, that is expected to draw 1,500 religious and political leaders to Washington. The goal of the conference is to “bring back to the forefront the issues that motivated and drove values voters to the polls in 2004 — protecting human life, defending traditional marriage and preserving our religious liberties,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Washington-based Family Research Council.

Kerry’s speech “almost sounds like a speech that I might give,” Perkins said. “It sounds good.” But he added, “The pickle that some of these liberal policymakers find themselves in is, they know that faith is important to people, but when they get pinned down on their policy positions that are inconsistent with the tenets of their faith, they start hedging and talking about other factors in their decision.”

[StoryTeller]

43. What's this "pickle" nonsense???

Is that Perkins guy trying to insinuate that Kerry's policy is inconsistent with his faith? Good grief. Could people please listen to or READ the speech before having the nerve to comment on it? If he had done so, he would have seen that Kerry lays out very clearly how his policies are influenced by his faith.

Of course, this is the president of the Family Research Council. I should not be shocked.

Pickle, indeed. Grr...

[ginnyinWI]

44. yeah I could mention a few "pickles" the right wing is into--

such as conducting wars of aggression, encouraging torture of detainees, condoning graft, lying, etc, etc. when NONE of this is what Jesus would do!

[WildEyedLiberal]

45. Tony Perkins' "beliefs" obviously include torture, war, and hatred

Let's see, what do rightwingers believe in again?

- torture

- war, regardless of whether there's justification for it or not. It's fun to kill and maim people

- hatred of gays

- persecution of the poor and sick through immoral economic practices

- hatred of women who don't "know their place"

This is the ideology that Tony Perkins ardently defends under the banner of "Christian faith."

I think Tony Perkins will be surprised when he dies and gets a one-way ticket south. I know it's not my place to make those judgments but I can't help but think that if there is a hell, today's rightwingers are the type of human scum it was made for.

By the way, StoryTeller, your comments in this thread are superb. This speech touched me deeply and went right to the core of why I love John Kerry so much. I am sure my faith is not as strong as yours - I've been too disillusioned with religion in BushAmerica and, as a Catholic, it seems like I can't even go to Mass anymore without having anti-gay or anti-abortion rightwing crap thrown in my face, so I just don't go. But Kerry's speech really reached out to me and made me remember why I was ever religious in the first place. That is the model of Christianity that I wish to follow and which has been utterly absent from public life since the advent of the cruel, wicked religious right and their perversions of faith.

[StoryTeller]

47. Thanks, WEL

By the way, StoryTeller, your comments in this thread are superb.

:hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug:

By the way, I can understand your disillusionment. My husband and I had the lovely experience of being kicked out of our church leadership position for insisting on my right to just co-lead a Bible study with him. (They decided to take a dim view of women in ministry.) I've lost several of my church friends because of my belief in gender equality, because of my "liberal" views, etc. This same church fired my mother from her 15-year position as their bookstore manager for an unspecified reason--which we strongly suspect was related to either her age or her gender. I grew up at this church. I gave it years and years of my dedication, energy, and love. I watched it become a sick parody of Christian love. I've seen it become so proud of its position and influence in our community that it forgot its first call is to be the "least" servant of all. It's a heartbreaking, horrible experience. And the worst is that this isn't uncommon. (Good news is we then found a terrific church that is not like that. It's not like any church I've ever seen, and we LOVE it.)

I think the reason none of this has destroyed my faith is that, ironically, the very same church (previous pastor, which makes a big difference) taught me that no matter how humans behave, God is where I put my trust. So no matter which humans are the ones screwing up, it doesn't touch my faith. Even if it's the Church behaving abominably.

It's nice having an anchor like that in my life. I hope that you can find such an anchor sometime, too--religious or not. I have a feeling that we all will need something to anchor us in the years ahead. :)

[WildEyedLiberal]

60. What a horrible experience

How sad for you to see something you had trusted and loved turn to such wickedness. I'm glad you found a good church finally.

I guess my problem isn't with God, it's with organized religion. It's pretty clear to me that Jesus hates their type - he reserved his strongest condemnation for hypocrites and false prophets, and they fit the description to a T. When I want some grim satisfaction, I read back through the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says something to the effect of "not everyone who calls out Lord, Lord will gain heaven, but only those who do the work of my Father." They can say "Lord, Lord" all they want, but HE isn't fooled.

I just find most organized religions to be corrupt and immoral - as evidenced by your horror story with your old church. That kind of shit makes me want to wash my hands of religion entirely. But there are, of course, good churches out there that are genuine about doing good works and finding faith and peace, and I am glad you found one.

You should post here more often, StoryTeller. Your posts are so well-written and intelligent, and contain a lot of insight.

[StoryTeller]

62. Thanks, WEL

I know it's easy to get really pissed off about "organized" religion. The word itself is indicative of the problem--Christianity isn't supposed to be an "organization." It's supposed to be an "organism"--meaning individuals working together in community, serving and loving each other the way Jesus did. And too many churches run like corporations. It's no wonder eventually they start acting like it.

But as we both know--there are precious, wonderful churches out there that really are followers of Jesus in the truest sense. And if you ever want to come visit Omaha, I'll introduce you to my church and give you some hope about Christianity. (As well as have a lot of fun!) :)

And thank you for the encouragement to post more often. You all make me feel so welcome. I really like it here. :)

[karynnj]

46. From other things he's said, does he have the intellect, compassion

or love that would be needed to write that speech. In an odd way - it is praise. Those of here have no doubt that this is John Kerry. That he would "give" this speech and says it sounds good is amazing.

[beachmom]

48. Hey everybody rate the story up! It only has two stars right now.

I really liked this part of the story at the end:

‘The problem of evil’

In yesterday’s speech, Kerry said he was “born, baptized and raised a Catholic.” In Vietnam, he said, “my relationship with God was a dependent one—a ‘God, get me through this and I’ll be good’ relationship.” As he became disillusioned with the war, he said, he struggled with “the problem of evil, the difficulty of explaining why terrible and senseless events are part of God’s plan.”

“For 12 years I wandered in the wilderness, went through a divorce and struggled with questions about my direction. Then suddenly and movingly, I had a revelation about the connection between the work I was doing as a public servant and my formative teachings,” he said.

Kerry did not describe the revelation in the speech. But in a telephone interview afterward, he said it occurred in 1987 or 1988 after a friend, whom he declined to name, died of cancer.

“I have a very vivid image of the loss of that friend and of his words about why he had to die, how it was part of God’s purpose. And out of that came a sense of acceptance,” he said.

It was “a stark awakening about how you reconcile some of these difficulties I had about . . . the suffering, about the problem of evil,” Kerry added. “I understood that to be part of the test of faith.”

[karynnj]

49. I don't know if it's my Catholic childhood,

but I love his description of 'God, get me through this and I’ll be good’ relationship. The context of Vietnam makes it more drastic - it was not about doing well on a test.

[politicasista]

50. But, but, but (sarcasm warning!)

Kerry is selling out. He is pandering to the religious right. I won't vote for him, I will work against him. :sarcasm: :sarcasm:



I am Christian woman. I don't see anything wrong with this speech. Some non Christians may feel uneasy with it, but I appreciate him being open and taking about his religion.


:patriot:

[karynnj]

51. I'm Jewish and love it

In my case I converted from Catholicism. If I had priests when I was a kid speaking like Kerry, I would be a good practicing Catholic.

[beachmom]

53. Okay -- thanks -- I was a wee bit confused for a split second

I didn't realize that you converted. I also was brought up Catholic but now go to a Unity church (despite my crisis in faith, I do want my kids brought up with religion, so I go every Sunday so they can go to church).

[karynnj]

58. That's why when first on DU, I never

commented on religion - for fear I would sound like I was lying.

[beachmom]

52. That guy on KG's blog struck me as a plant

Like from one of the other candidates' camps. I am definitely getting tin foil hat disease -- about forces in the Party who don't want JK as our nominee. They KNOW he's doing better work than they are, so all they can do is get "momentum" in the blogosphere that nobody wants him. Well, forget it -- we're digging in, and prepared to fight for the ideals JK sets forward.

[wisteria]

54. Exactly! You sense it too? I thought it was only me. n/t

[Mass]

56. He is a serial Kerry basher and he did not read the speech.

If he had, he would have realized that Kerry proposed exactly what he is asking him to propose.

[politicasista]

59. He is

a Gore, Feingold supporter cause they stand on principle.

[Mass]

57. The speech is not offensive in the context in which he said it.

I would be bothered if he made this speech as a regular stump speech.

However, he could easily transform it in a values speech that could be addressed in a more secular settings. Actually, I would like to see him do that. What he is presenting here is a large progressive agenda, and whether you come to it because of your religion or otherwise does not matter.

[karynnj]

63. Comments from a college student at a Catholic College

(This is a student who is extremely interested in religion. I sent her the speech and asked for comments, which she wrote in her statistics class. She likes studying religion much more than statistics.)

It was very interesting to read this, so thank you for sharing it with me. The glimpse into his own life was intriguing, but I think what interested me more were his reflections on his actual beliefs. A lot of people know he was an altar boy, but he has always been vague on exactly what his own beliefs are.

I can definitely tell that his Jesuit friends have had some influence on him! However, what one must keep in mind is that what he is articulating is really a center-right (though you know I hate using political terms for this) New England, Jesuity stance on faith and its relation to politics. This at first seemed surprising as one would generally think of him as more liberal than his religious milieu, but in fact on further reflection it is appropriate. Kerry is not a radical-- he is no more a Dorothy Day Catholic (and definitely not a liberation theology Catholic) than he was a Maoist liberal in the 60s. He is not trying to create "a new society in the shell of the old" (as Dorothy Day was fond of quoting the IWW platform), but instead make the current society as just, fair, and compassionate as possible. He is not attacking head-on the (allegedly) inherently corrupt roots of our social and political structures, but instead arguing that faith must organize and mitigate our behavior within this society.

Interestingly, Kerry fits in better with a post-Constantinian Christianity than pre-, which I find reflected most obviously in his admiration for Augustine's "just war" theory, which, though, as he notes, was MUCH more stringent than the world's current views on war, was in actuality a Christian innovation, because for the first three centuries of Christianity it was assumed that no Christian could shed blood, and that Christian soldiers either had to leave the army or find some role in the army that involved not killing others. St. Martin of Torres (the patron of Sint Maarten/St. Martin!) was a soldier who converted to Christianity and hence defected from the military. Augustine, however, was writing soon after the Empire had been converted to Christianity, and a new synthesis between state and Church needed to be created (articulated most clearly in his monumental work, The City of God).

In any case, the "just war" theory in Augustine's thought was a revision of the older Christian doctrine of complete non-violence. It is a rejection of radicalism (meaning, to get at the root, or radix) in favor of a more conciliatory, open view of the world and its functioning. There is room for both approaches in Christianity. On the one hand, Christianity is by nature revolutionary and counter-cultural and this must not be compromised, but on the other hand it is an incarnational (en-fleshed) faith, worked out in time and in the world created by God, so simple rejection of the world and the current order has within itself the temptation towards a Manichean dualism (i.e. God is good, the world is bad; Christians are good, the rulers of countries are bad). Both approaches have their place, but the question is where you place your emphasis.

Kerry clearly (whether he is aware of it or not) is on the side of the Christian collaborationists with the world, like Augustine. (This is not a negative judgment on my part! I have great admiration for Augustine). This puts him generally in the Catholic mainstream. Holy Cross teachers on ethics and social policy definitely veer towards the left, siding with a more radical approach to social policy which finds its traditional basis in the early Christian witness which worked in opposition to the Roman Empire (though this rarely took the form of actual vocal protest, but instead was illustrated in experiential witness-- 'martyrdom' means 'witness' in Greek-- of a better way of life, a different kind of radically loving and egalitarian community).

Anyway, that's a kind of irrelevant rant. Moving back to the speech, I found his use of Scripture interesting and more specifically his views on the use of Scripture in liturgy and faith. His comments on Vatican II are really where you can see his Jesuit friends' influence. One of the main fruits of Vatican II was a complete rediscovery of Scripture, which, when you get down to it, is really a rediscovery of the non-Western roots of the faith-- it is the revelation that God is not best spoken of in Greek philosophical terms but in the Semitic tangles and folds of a God who speaks out of a cloud of darkness. The God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam comes out of a tribal, desert experience that relies less on disengaged reasoning than on personal and communal relationships. And the God who speaks is not a philosophical category; He is a God who lives and breathes in history, who calls for devotion and radical transformation of both individual persons and the social structures in which they live.

It is the rediscovery of the Scriptures after Vatican II that also, as Kerry correctly notes, allowed Catholicism to dramatically re-assert at its heart the centrality of Jesus. This I thought was the most interesting out of all his comments, because a) it hits the nail right on the head, and b) it is not a PC statement at all, though it comes out of his quote-on-quote "liberal" faith experience. For Catholic Christians, it must always be remembered that the Church's social teaching is not primarily a set of moral dictums or the wisdom accrued by 2,000 years of political experience. It comes directly out of the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the face and voice of that desert God who is not an answer to a metaphysical dilemma but a speaker who demands.
<snip>
For example, this is especially obvious in the book I am reading right now, by Gustavo Gutiérrez, who was the liberation theologian in the Church per se. He is insistent on the centrality of Jesus in the heart of the Church's life, in the world and in history. The reason liberation theology can exist is that Vatican II helped shape the conception and experience of a God who cannot be taken out of any part of life, including politics and social reform, and especially this "underside" of history, sometimes forgotten by political analysts, which consists of those effectively made "non-persons" by our current system's ignorance of and apathy towards them. A philosopher might say that God has nothing to say on politics, that religion should stay out of our political decisions, but Scripture says differently-- God decidedly takes sides. God chooses the poor, the stranger, the widow, the orphan, the defenseless, and the outcast, and to be like God we must choose them as well. (This is not to recommend any one way of dealing with these problems politically, but it does mean that we have to have this as our emphasis).

It's not strange that in referring to the "example of Jesus" Kerry focuses on Jesus's committment to love and service, alluding to his siding with the poor, healing of the sick, comforting the afflicted, feeding the hungry, etc. This is not a surprise since that is Kerry's own faith experience as an American politician attempting to be like Jesus. The wonderful thing about a living Church is that there are infinite perspectives in the gospels to live out, infinite ways of knowing and following Jesus. However, I think that his speech might have benefited from a longer explanation of the passage he chose, Mark 10, where James and John ask Jesus if they might sit at his right hand when he enters into glory. The passage is characteristic of Mark and I was happy to see that Kerry mentioned its place within the gospel and not just as an isolated story. Mark is the earliest of the gospels in the canon, written (compiled from other sources) probably around 60-70 CE. It is also the gospel that is the most centered on the cross, on Jesus's mission as focused around his execution and death.

In the gospel, the passage Kerry chose comes directly after Jesus's third prediction of his death and resurrection (the gospel writer uses this as a literary device to continually reassert the centrality of Jesus's death in his mission; it's like a constant big flashing neon sign, "THE POINT OF EVERYTHING YOU ARE READING IS THIS"). Immediately following the passage he chose, Jesus and the disciples enter Jerusalem for the last week before Jesus's death. So this passage is sandwiched between a prediction of the cross and the entry into Jerusalem, the moment when the disciples shall be most tempted to see Jesus's mission as temporal and worldly.

The point of the passage is not just to show that Jesus wants us to serve other people, but that "the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and give his life as a ransom for many". It is precisely this that is "the cup that drinks" and "the baptism with which is baptized" in which the disciples must share. Jesus is not asking the disciples to remember to be nice. He is telling the disciples that instead of sitting on the left and right of a powerful ruler, they will have to fail in their mission, be tortured, and die out of love, not for themselves, but for others. God is not impartial to the world's suffering, but chooses to enter into it by sending the Anointed, the "very image of God's brightness", the one who "contains within himself the absolute fullness of divinity", to live the life of the disenfranchised, oppressed, and forgotten. The reason that Christianity is radical is not because it says we should all be nice to each other. The reason it is radical is because it says that the God of Israel is a God who loves passionately enough to completely self-identify with the ones who suffer most, and by living in that suffering, God transforms it. It is this experience that formed the early Jesus movement.

<snip>

It is this that is the central message of Catholic social teaching, and Kerry does seem to get at the heart of that, although he does focus more on Jesus's works in life than on his love expressed in death and resurrection. But that is completely legitimate and an approach also very popular after Vatican II-- and it must be remembered also that every moment and aspect of Jesus's life proclaims God's love in the same way that his death did. However, it must be remembered that everything in the gospels was written in light of the death/resurrection experience, so nothing in the gospels can be separated from that. They were written by a community who were living out that faith in the Son of God dying and rising again.

I liked how Kerry quoted the questions presented by the Catholic bishops. I think that took a bit of honesty that I did not expect from him (to be frank), because in quoting the questions he does rather obviously make reference to the fact that he is *not* 'orthodox' on a few Catholic teachings (i.e. abortion and gay rights). His quoting of the questions which alluded to abortion and gay marriage were well-appreciated (although of course he would argue that he is better responding to these issues than the other side, etc.) It is also a nice reminder of the consistently-ignored Catholic bishops' plea for social justice and equality. We always hear about bishops against abortion and gay rights, but it is almost always ignored by the media that the US Catholic bishops regularly put out statements on the immorality of our current economy.

Anyway, Kerry is not a theologian (though he clearly has some theologian friends), and this is not meant to be a critique of his statement. However I hope I have helped explain his comments in light of current Catholic social teaching and historical approach to faith. Thanks again for sharing the speech-- it sounds like he'd quite enjoy coming to a Holy Cross Mass, if he could stand the more radical professors coming over and challenging his politics. :)

Sorry this was long! Also feel free to share any part of this with any of your Democratic friends. And I'd like to also hear your thoughts (in more depth) on the speech.

[TayTay]

64. Wow! Karyn, that young person is 'wicked smaht'

That was a wonderful analysis. (I really like the Jesuits, btw. When I worked at Boston College, long ago, there was a JEsuit there who had been a Chaplain in Vietnam. I had the best 'faith' discussions of my life talking to this guy with my feet up and a glass of wine on the table. LOL!)

This will take some pondering time. Commend this 'young person' and thank them, please, for the wonderful and insightful and informative post.

[karynnj]

65. She really really likes the Jesuits too

and the school. I hesitated to post it because it was so long and there were only a few places where I could make cuts without distorting things. There were lots of things that I hadn't thought of that she got. None of us here were surprised at the stark honesty of including abortion and gay rights. I think she may be more impressed by the Senator she got sick of someone in her family raving about in 2004.

[WildEyedLiberal]

66. Wow, I totally disagree

It's obvious she put a lot of time and thought into that reply, and it's very thoroughly argued, but I think she missed the boat completely.

There's nothing "center-right" about that speech, politically or theologically speaking. I don't have any idea where she gets that he's for maintaining the status quo and what all the comments like "he's no liberation theologist" have to do with anything. I think it's obvious when he talks about the solutions to the problems we face that there DOES need to be a radical overhaul in the way our society behaves. He mentioned, regarding AIDS, that it is our moral obligation to bring our life-saving Western drugs to Africa and that it's immoral to deny them access to those drugs because they are poor and cannot afford them. That's hardly an affirmation of the laissez-faire status quo; it's an open rejection of it. Just because he's not a communist doesn't mean that he doesn't see that we need to radically reform our society. I don't know why her "radical professors" would challenge his politics - are they literally Marxist? If not, there's really nothing for them to challenge.

What I took from his speech was a strong moral exhortation to care for the poor and the weak of our society and to steward the earth. Those ideas are the backbone of what it means to be a liberal. Your friend is clearly intelligent and that's why her misinterpretation of the speech is even more puzzling. Did she even read the same speech I did?

[karynnj]

67. The difference is that she is using terms that have

different meanings in the context used. She actually wrote this up very quickly during a college class. She was very impressed with the speech - and there was no criticism implied. (In fact, that comment was likely intended because during 2004 - she wondered why - because of abortion and gay rights he hadn't simply decided to be Episcopalian and avoid a lot of the grief he got - this is essentially conceding that he is very much a mainstream Catholic for the milieu of Boston area MA - of which her knowledge is mainly a Jesuit college. In terms of religion, she would place herself to his right.

She comments that she doesn't like the use of left/right here. In this context is has to do with religious orthodoxy. Liberation theologists are primarily in Central America and they are mostly Marxist. The point she was making is that he is in the center right of JESUITY NEW ENGLAND Catholicism. This is well to the left of much of America.

I think you would agree with how she explains that:
"He is not trying to create "a new society in the shell of the old" (as Dorothy Day was fond of quoting the IWW platform), but instead make the current society as just, fair, and compassionate as possible. He is not attacking head-on the (allegedly) inherently corrupt roots of our social and political structures, but instead arguing that faith must organize and mitigate our behavior within this society. "

This is true - Kerry has always worked to make the existing system better. She is definitely not saying he is for the status quo.

As to the professors, she wasn't saying all of them - she was saying the more radical ones. I assume that would be the case at most colleges - and there, they would likely also tell him they've voted for him for years.

[beachmom]

68. I took the center-right comment to not be political but within

all the different philosophical branches of the Catholic Church. Kerry is, in fact, a moderate in a larger global political context. He was a moderate among radicals in the VVAW. He always felt we should work within the system -- persuade Congress, participate in political activism, run for office. He has never called for a radical realignment in our society; instead, he wanted to see a shift in consciousness for our country as one citizen of many in the world. He wants to work within the U.N. and our allies more, and reach across the abyss to our greatest enemies like Iran and North Korea to see if there is a way out of the hostile relationships. But he is no pacifist and in foreign policy, I see a tendency for realism.

He is a liberal within our political system, but I find him quite moderating. Call me crazy, but saying torture is immoral is not a radical position, at least it used to not be.

[Mass]

70. You're right, he is a realist, but being a realist does not make him

center right. He is definitively a liberal for this country (and there are not that many people who belong to the left of liberal: a few social-democrats, a few greens).

But you are right, he is a realist and prefers to reach for what is possible than to dream "the impossible dream". I think that this is what makes him so accessible to so many people.

[WildEyedLiberal]

72. I don't really agree

Theologically, this speech is pretty left-leaning, even within Catholicism. Basically, what Karynnj's friend, and you, seem to be saying is that Kerry is a moderate - at least in a global or theological sense - because he's not a Marxist. I reject that either/or proposition.

I DO think he's calling for a radical realignment of our society, because let's face it, Western capitalism is NOT about elevating the poor and the weak. It's about profit, period, and since there's no profit to be made in giving away otherwise lucrative AIDS drugs to Africa, it is not being done. That's not a radical lefty sentiment, it's just the nature of capitalism. I realize he's not saying to get rid of capitalism - and I wouldn't say that either - but he's clearly saying that something about our system is broken and it's our moral duty to fix it. He repeatedly talked about how wrong it is that so many people live in poverty, and that we need to do something about it. He didn't elaborate much on the specificity of what exactly we need to do, but what he did say is that it's morally wrong to deny AIDS drugs to Africans because they cannot afford them. Now, if that's not an economically left-leaning thing to say, I don't know what is. True believers in capitalism are always harping on finding a "market based solution" to third world poverty - Kerry doesn't do that in this speech. He openly states that poverty is a moral failure of our society and that it is immoral to put a price on life, so to speak. That's, wow, very left.

I think a lot of people have this idea that you're either a radical Marxist revolutionary or a moderate, and I just don't think that's the case. I think it's a false choice to say he's either for the existing "system" -albeit with tweaks - or some kind of Marxism. What I took from his speech is that he is saying that we must be brave enough to imagine a new system - a new future - in which we have the moral courage to care for the least among us and make our decisions based on how they impact everyone, not just a select privileged few.

[karynnj]

75. She was not speaking of politics

She was speaking of religion. Kerry is a liberal or at least a moderate liberal politically.

She also said Center right of Jesuity New England Catholics. She is speaking of religious orthodoxy - not politics or economics.

[WildEyedLiberal]

76. Sorry for the confusion

I was responding more to beachmom's post - in which she discussed his moderation. Kerry is definitely a realist, but I don't think that's necessarily because he doesn't advocate any radical ideas in this speech. He just knows that you have to have a way to make your ideas work in the real world, which is different from being a moderate because he rejects radical ideas in principle.

Check your pm.

[TayTay]

79. I completely agree.

Your friends post puts Sen. Kerry's comments into the context of religious history and the various interpretations and philosophical differences that the long history of Catholicism has endured. Her astute and very learned comments infer the work of a great many scholars of Christian history and why the early Church changed as Christianity became the dominant religion in Europe. I thought it was an excellent piece.

This was not a political comment by your friend. It was a statement that placed the Senator's comment within the tapestry of Christian interpretation and showed what seems to be influencing his thoughts and what parts of his theology most seem to influence his thinking and acting. It is possible to use the words liberal and moderate without the political meaning they have within current American political circles. (They are more timeless concepts and, as the post went to extraordinary lengths to show, are not subject to a reading of 'this is good and this is bad.' They are completely allowed religious viewpoints and show a vibrancy of thought not a narrow definition of what is and is not allowed.)

Did you ever see this program on PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/ It's available at a lot of libraries and the DVD is out in bookstores as well. It might give some context to the remarks that were made and give some background to what the 'Jesus movement' was and what the early interpretations of Christianity and Christ were. It is informative to this discussion, and to this post which had zero intention of placing Kerry's remarks within secular politics and instead sought to explore his remarks through a prism of historical interpretations of Christian thought, doctrine, philosophy and dogma.

[karynnj]

82. Wow -

I wish I could have written this because it is exactly what the intent was. What I see I should have done is to preface her comments with some frame of what she was writing about. This 18 year old and I had many many discussion on religion and politics. In writing this, there were many things that did not need to be said, as we know each other well and I should have expalined that. At a young age, this person sought to learn extensively about religion. Politically, she is liberal.

One observation from it is that it really really impressed a person who has seriously studied Christianity. This may be someone closer to the target audience he was aiming for. (Much closer than Kelvin :) )
(

[TayTay]

84. Your 18 year old friend is quite someone

That person has an amazing grasp of Christian history and a remarkable talent for analyzing arguments and placing them in a real historical context that is just wonderful. I think your friend, at 18 years old, is a treasure, and shows an extreme talent that at the very least, borders on genius in their ability to quickly grasp complex issues. Wow, I am the one who is impressed.

[beachmom]

77. To me he is quite moderate, when I look at his proposals

and compare it to, say Germany. The main thing he's talked about is universal health insurance. This would help everyone, not just the poor, but he is NOT proposing the tax rate go to 50%, and offer the generous welfare common all over Europe. I am opposed to taking things that far (they have an entire class of people in mostly east Germany now that will forever be on welfare and never get a job), and so is Kerry.

I think his radicalism is his reaction to Bush. He minces no words as to the immorality of the Bush administration and what conservatism has done to this country. But he's not going to make America socialist (I'm talking about the European system, not Marxism), and frankly, we wouldn't want to become socialist. He just wants to do some things, like providing healthcare, that will take some of the burden off the poor. You look at the conservative Christian Democrat Angela Merkel, and on many economic policies I don't see her as much to the right of Kerry, and the CDU, although "conservative", are very in favor of the welfare system.

But perhaps, I shall be proven wrong as Kerry fleshes out more of his vision for America.

[Mass]

78. You cannot compare to Germany (or France for the matter).

There is not a politician in this country who would be to the left of the SPD or the PS. Even liberal heroes like Kucinich or Conyers would seem moderate compared to them. So, Kerry is definitively a liberal for this country and that is all that matters. (dont be afraid of the word liberal). There is NO WAY to know where he would have ended if he had grown in a different country.

For the rest, I would disagree with your assessment of the social-democracy and all it brought to Europe that this country does not have (I am talking about a protection network for those who need it, a protection network that is seen as something due and not charity). The comparison with East Germany is a poor one: the German RIGHT made a strategic error for political reasons when they decided to integrate Eastern Germany so quickly and the country is paying the consequences, but this is the fault of the CDU, not the SPD or the Green. BTW, the US people are paying about as much taxes as in Europe. They pay it differently, that is all: they pay services that are unavailable to the poorest rather than paying taxes. It is a choice.

[beachmom]

80. Look, I lived there, and I don't see WHY I can't compare

there and here. And, I don't WANT all the programs they have there -- there is so much pessimism there that I don't see here, and a lot of it is DUE to the welfare system. And they have way higher unemployment there than we do (even figuring in that we calculate unemployment differently). I don't think America should be made in Europe's image -- the Germans were whining because the gov. (Schroeder's) made them pay 10 Euros a quarter if they visited a doctor. Sorry, no sympathy from me with their total sense of entitlement. Healthcare costs are up everywhere, yet they complain by such a tiny increase.

Agreed Kohl screwed up big time in the early '90s, but since Schroeder ruled for so long, he needs to take a share in the blame, too. He deserved to be kicked out because he PROMISED unemployment would go down and it went up instead. In Germany, the people do not vote based on a prom king contest, and they do hold their government accountable. Angela Merkel is alright -- plus she obviously is icked out by Bush and said point blank that Guantanamo needs to be closed. I know you could come up with things that she's done that are unprogressive, but people are happy with her there, at least the people I know.

Germany is superior to America in many ways, I would concur -- the big one is universal health coverage. And that's why I am a big supporter of John Kerry -- he has the best plan around. But if you're talking wholesale welfare down to free spa visits (yes, my mother in law went on a 30 day spa in the Schwarzwald after stomach cancer and another one 2 years later all paid for by the government), I am against it.

[Mass]

81. OK, we disagree. Sorry if I offended you.

[beachmom]

83. Sorry if that post was too strong.

We agree on FAR more than not agree. You didn't offend me at all; I was just debating. Peace, and on to the next topic . . .

[karynnj]

73. I should have edited that

Center/Right Jesuity New England is to the left of most of this country. It also refered to a measure where orthodoxy is (right) or liberal interpretations is (left). This was most definately not a critisism.

Please check your inbox

[Mass]

74. I dont want to intervene in a theological debate, but, from all I know,

it would seem to me that Kerry is more on the side of liberal interpretation than of the side of orthodoxy. The church he goes to was referenced during the campaign to be a liberal church.

Of course, I may be totally wrong because I dont know that much about this subject.

[Mass]

69. I understood the speech like you and I prefer to stay there.

This way, this is something that everybody can relate, whatever their religious beliefs.

I continue to think that your religious views should have nothing to do with politics. What I want to hear is the candidates' values, wherever they come from.

This is not a criticism. It is just that each time a politician says something like "We have a wonderful god in our blue states", they defacto reject a significant part of the country.

The good thing is that Kerry did not do that. He did not try to push his belief in God on all his supporters. He said his beliefs and talk about how his values linked to his beliefs. But the limit is very thin and can be too easily passed.

[beachmom]

71. That's what was so great about the speech

Unlike most "religious" speeches from politicians, his was personal in tone, and his ideas that grew out of his faith. But it is his path only. He doesn't act like anyone else is like him nor does he want to start a movement. It was about his faith and the philosphy that came out of it. I was inspired by his speech, not necessarily by his particular faith, but rather that you can find your own brand of faith and use it to inform your entire life. And you can even spend 12 years in the wilderness and still go back.