One debate question

2008 Presidential Race, Local, National, Politics 3 Minutes

Here’s one question from the CNN/YouTube debate. Somehow, the question never really got answered.

From the debate transcript, here are the answers:

EDWARDS: I think Reverend Longcrier asks a very important question, which is whether fundamentally — whether it’s right for any of our faith beliefs to be imposed on the American people when we’re president of the United States. I do not believe that’s right.

I feel enormous personal conflict about this issue. I want to end discrimination. I want to do some of the things that I just heard Bill Richardson talking about — standing up for equal rights, substantive rights, civil unions, the thing that Chris Dodd just talked about. But I think that’s something everybody on this stage will commit themselves to as president of the United States.

But I personally have been on a journey on this issue. I feel enormous conflict about it. As I think a lot of people know, Elizabeth spoke — my wife Elizabeth spoke out a few weeks ago, and she actually supports gay marriage. I do not. But this is a very, very difficult issue for me. And I recognize and have enormous respect for people who have a different view of it.

COOPER: I should also point out that the reverend is actually in the audience tonight. Where is he? Right over here.

Reverend, do you feel he answered your question?

(APPLAUSE)

QUESTION: This question was just a catalyst that promoted some other things that wrapped around that particular question, especially when it comes to fair housing practices. Also…

COOPER: Do you think he answered the question, though?

QUESTION: Not like I would like to have heard it…

(LAUGHTER)

COOPER: What did you not hear?

QUESTION: I didn’t quite get — some people were moving around, and I didn’t quite get all of his answer. I just heard…

COOPER: All right, there’s 30 seconds more. Why is it OK to quite religious beliefs when talking about why you don’t support something? That’s essentially what’s his question.

EDWARDS: It’s not. I mean, I’ve been asked a personal question which is, I think, what Reverend Longcrier is raising, and that personal question is, do I believe and do I personally support gay marriage?

The honest answer to that is I don’t. But I think it is absolutely wrong, as president of the United States, for me to have used that faith basis as a basis for denying anybody their rights, and I will not do that when I’m president of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Senator Obama, the laws banning interracial marriage in the United States were ruled unconstitutional in 1967. What is the difference between a ban on interracial marriage and a ban on gay marriage?

OBAMA: Well, I think that it is important to pick up on something that was said earlier by both Dennis and by Bill, and that is that we’ve got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law. And the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples.

Now, with respect to marriage, it’s my belief that it’s up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal.

Besides the candidates, I’d love to see Rev. Reggie Longcrier’s fellow pastors answer his question.

You can view all of the debate questions here.

Published

29 thoughts on “One debate question”

  1. We are dealing with a class of people (blacks) who are struggling, to this day, to garner true equality. Isn’t this struggle comparable to the struggle of homosexuals to also reach true equality.

    Exactly.

  2. “There’s at least two of you, right? There’s no freaking way the same person railing against ‘socialism’ is suggesting that it might somewhere be morally okay for a poor man with starving children to steal from a rich man who lives with excess.”

    I am merely asking an obvious question, in the Socratic Method, to get to the heart of the matter.

  3. it should be left up to each state to determine the question of marriage, leave it out of the fed. area or all hell will break lose.

  4. Ah. I don’t understand how the Socratic Method is going to help you prove your point, especially if I answer your question, “no, stealing is always wrong,” which I happen to agree with. There would be no way for either of us to prove that this belief is compelled by religion, and you would have to either take me at my word or disbelieve me.

    Likewise if I had answered the opposite, and you answered that the Bible says that stealing is categorically wrong, I would probably compel you to prove that it’s right, and the only rationalization you would be able to come up with to prove it would be to argue that we know it’s correct because it’s in the Bible, which is a circular argument and therefore unprovable. If there was anything outside organized religion that you could use to prove that the Bible was authorotative on matters of right and wrong, you would inadvertently disredit your earlier assertion that we only know right and wrong through religion because religion itself is validated by another source of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

    Seems like to Socratic method is not going to help us arrive at a conclusion. Let’s try a theological argument: according to the book of Genesis, mankind arrived at the knowledge of Good and Evil by disobeying God when Eve partook of the forbidden fruit and offered it to Adam, for which mankind was punished by expulsion from the Garden. The knowledge itself was forbade from us by God. It is therefore not through God but through Sin that we learn of Good and Evil.

    Discuss.

  5. “Stealing is always wrong.”

    OK. WHY is it wrong for a starving man to steal food from a rich man?

    (Let us gt through this first, shall we, and then tackle Original Sin?)

  6. Personally, I think the answer is two-fold. Number one, doing so might open the door to rationalizing other crimes against his neighbors in the community (stealing other things, selling drugs to kids, etc.). And in a broader sense, committing a bad act against the wealthy man denies the wealthy man (or anyone else in the starving man’s community) the opportunity to commit a good act towards the starving man, whether by feeding him, giving him money, helping him find a job, etc. My opinion is that for the sake of the social well-being of a community, nothing should be accomplished through crime that might also be accomplished through compassion.

  9. Terry,

    Factors to consider in determining whether a fundamental right exists under the EPC of the 14th Amendment:

    1. Immutable characteristic
    2. History of political persecution
    3. Secret handshake

    Dap beats whatever handshake homosexuals have. It’s not even close.

  10. Anonymous — your answer seems to indicate that you think the good of the community outwieghs the good of the individual. If then, there are ten people on an island, one of whom has much while the others have little, it is OK for them to forcibly take from the one who has much?

  11. I would disagree with your characterization of my answer, though it may perhaps be my fault for not explaining well enough. Each individual in a community has the power to make his community a better place or a worse place through his individual actions. If a man commits a crime against his neighbor, no matter how that crime is justified, the neighborhood reacts, even those not directly affected. We grow suspicious of people hanging around on our streets. We stop leaving our doors unlocked. We stop having faith in other people.

    On the other hand, good deeds can foster good-will within a community and make that community a stronger, better place to live. I think to the outpouring of charity and support in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The storm left us outraged by the incompetence of the response from our Federal government, but I think it also brought the American public together to show support for those afflicted and highlighted the good in folks. In short, while it challenged our faith in our political leaders, I think it should have helped restore a little faith in our fellow Americans.

    If we’re discussing the source of our knowledge of both Bad and Good with a capital G, the Agathos as Plato would describe it, let’s not confuse that with well-being, which I find to be the error in your more-recent example. If nine starving people killed one person for his bread, they might be better-off, but that doesn’t make them Good. Likewise, the community of an island populated by nine people who have much that would let a single man starve to death because no one would step forward and do something Good has much bigger things to worry about than whether or not someone is stealing bread.

  12. I did not say the nine killed the one, only that they took what was his by force (or the threat of force). Is that wrong of them, if the nine are hungry and the one has a lot of food?

    (We are not, at this point, dealing with crime. We are dealing with the act of stealing. You said stealing is always wrong. Thus, stealing must be wrong whether there is a law against it or not.)

  13. Do please stop focusing on the trivial in order to ignore the fact that I’ve answered the question in a way that you cannot extrapolate a positive reinforcment for your earlier assertion that religion is the only possible source of knowledge or right and wrong. I believe I have answered with exceeding clarity at this point: it’s Bad both because it victimizes another human being and establishes bad faith between two parties within a community. Moreover, the Bad precludes the possibility of the Good–in the case, a charitable act of kindness on behalf of the wealthy man towards those in need. Such an act would establish good faith between the two parties and strengthen the community.

    I must confess that I’m starting to wonder if the error in communication isn’t derived not from your misunderstanding of the concept of bad faith, but from a latent misunderstanding within yourself regarding the concept of good faith. The ultimate consequence of the Bad (moral, ethical, or religious) has always been that it precludes the possibility of the Good.

  14. The error in communication is that you refuse to answer the questions as stated. Let’s try again:

    If nine are hungry, and the tenth has much food, is it right for them to take food from him by force or the threat of force?

Comments are closed.