A Religious Liberal Blog

This site hopefully can provide some vehicle by which I can comment, complain, and once in a while praise the state of religion in this country and around the world from a liberal protestant perspective.

Saturday, January 27, 2007

Edwards for President

Maybe. I'm still perusing my options as more candidates get into the race but I admit that John Edwards, more than any other candidate has perked my interest and raised issues that need to be addressed.

Edwards focus on poverty, first as director of the UNC's Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity, and now as presidential candidate is refreshing. I can't remember a time in my life when poverty has been put on the agenda by a presidential candidate.

And the clarity that he uses in speaking against the war sets him apart. His speech at Riverside Church, where he called on congress to deny funds for an escalation, stood in stark contrast to other candidates who are still searching for a position on Iraq.

Along with the use of torture, poverty and the war strike me as the key moral issues of today. How a candidate stands on them and if they are willing to challenge this administration on them ought to be key in deciding our next president.

7 Comments:

At 12:18 AM , Blogger DavidD said...

I liked seeing Edwards' emphasis on poverty as well. I volunteer with a charity that addresses many needs of the poor, a minority of them homeless. I'm skeptical that they can be helped by government money alone. To put it all on the government invites cuts like Medicaid suffers regularly. It is interesting to read about his "stepping stone" jobs, though, and housing vouchers. A big help would be something for all those people who aren't mentally or physically able to hold a job, but don't meet current definition of disabled. Maybe universal health care would help that, with documentation of disabilities, if not cures.

Still, who pays for all this? It remains religion's place to point out things like Matthew 25: 31-46 and say any poverty is not OK. With the sort of material, emotional, and spiritual deprivation I see, whatever charity there is now is not enough. As I said, I don't see government alone fixing that, but even talking about it would be the first time someone has been serious about it since the War on Poverty in the sixties.

 
At 2:58 PM , Blogger Christopher said...

Have you concidered Richardson, he's been nominated for the peace prize 4 times.
Peace,
Chris

 
At 8:25 PM , Anonymous Allen said...

I like Edwards also. His approach appeals to me, he appeals to the common man (and woman), the poor and needy.
Not to mention he has that charismatic appeal of hope that Clinton gave us back in the 90s.

 
At 8:14 PM , Anonymous Archana said...

I also like Richardson since he seems more experienced than Edwards. I also think that Edwards's isolationist stance is harmful to the US in the long-term. Obama also has a clear stance on Iraq.

 
At 10:03 PM , Blogger David-Constitutional America said...

First, I don't see poverty as a moral issue(Which is immoral, being financially secure or broke?)
I see this as an economic issue.

I can't believe the posts referring to the government fixing poverty as if it is a charity organization. I don't hear anyone offering a hand themselves. The Constitution does not provide for the aportionment of funds except for debts. Poverty is not a debt owed by the government.

Next, I suppose you would like anyone who will stand up and say,"Busch lied!" How about a president who wants growth and a strong economy so those in poverty can work and earn.

 
At 11:51 PM , Blogger Dwight said...

A few quick things

I'm open to other candidates as well, including Bill Richardson and Barack Obama.

I'm not sure how economics is not a moral issue. That's a huge chunk of human life not subject to moral guidance.

The issue is not of not working, most poor folks work, the problem is wages. And yes the constitution does provide congress a role in providing for the general welfare.

 
At 1:51 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hate to break the news to the "Religious Liberals" but the term is an OXYMORON! Edwards for example doesn't believe God even exists! Most liberals are only 1 step from being COMMUNISTS and we know they don't believe in GOD or religion and as we know religion was AGAINST THE LAW in the SOVIET UNION. The liberals running the show in the USA are SECULAR PROGRESSIVES. That's just another term for COMMUNIST. In other words they would not allow you the FREEDOM to WORSHIP! In fact the far left liberals would seperate church and state by outlawing religion. As we know Edwards had some Christian Hating bloggers on his payroll until they were shamed off it. I could cite many more examples of liberals undermining religion but it should be rather obvious. I suggest you do some research for yourself.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home