Skip to main content

View Diary: An Illegal Interview on CNN? (39 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sorry Mr. Clarkson.... (6+ / 0-)

    No one forced these candidates to respond.  It is they who deserve the blame not the Interfaith Alliance.  

    During an early debate, it was Mike Gravel who was the only one to answer appropriately when the eight or so candidates all expansively recounted their religiosity, as he said:

    It seems to me that those who pray the most are the most willing to go to war and kill people.

    Only when (and if) we get a serious candidate who is willing to expend political capital keeping religion out of politics will be reverse the Christianization of America that occurred under this administration.

    •  we have a common responsibility (8+ / 0-)

      to not violate the civil rights of people.

      CNN put on a shameful display and our candidates also set a bad example. All three remaining presidential candidates have done a fair amount of pander dancing. It goes with the territory. But there are lines, and they have been crossed.

      •  Atheists are marginalized... (6+ / 0-)

        to the greatest degree in my memory.  Or maybe with Dkos I just pay more attention.

        It is like the Marinos, the covert Jews during the Spanish Inquisition.  They must have played the game of being Christians to have survived.

        Now atheists can live, but they cannot really be sincere, or they have no political viability.  Even the Pledge of Allegiance, actually without the "under god" is an affront to independent thinking.

        Their is a court decision from 1943 that says the pledge can not be imposed, yet every city council begins with it.  Not to participate makes that the issue, and nothing else matters.

        You may have caught the recced diary about the Illinois Democratic representative who excoriated, and tried to remove a witness at a hearing because of his atheism.

        I've heard no demands that she apologize from the party, the state or our candidates.

        •  We are. One thing that (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Frederick Clarkson, arodb

          I very much try not to do is evangelize my position.  It is a matter of faith, so to speak, and your position is as valid to you as mine is to me.  That is what really ticks me off about the evangelical folks, they do not respect my views.  I am just wrong, in their view.  I guess that I would feel differently if I heard voices in my mind on a daily basis.  Warmest regards, Doc.

          Sometimes I feel like Robert Louis Stevenson created me. -6.25, -6.05

          by Translator on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:17:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Maranos (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          not Marinos.  Peace.

        •  well, I wrote about that atheist (0+ / 0-)

          and called for apologies. The legislator did, in fact apologize and the apology was accepted. I agree that the Party and others should have joined in the call for an apology. Olberman made the legislator his worst person, and he was far from alone in condemning her attrocious behavior.

          Look, the Interfaith Alliance and Americans United are seriously supportive of the rights of atheists. Whats more, some of the leading atheist organizations in America are organizational supporters of First Freedom First. The ten questions are intended to draw out a debate about the rights of individual conscience, both relgious and non-religious; and the separation of church and state.

          Best to know and appreciate your allies, arodb.

      •  Being in politics does curtail civil rights.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        burrow owl

        The fourth amendment right to privacy is curtailed by financial disclosure laws.

        Any entity can ask any question they wish, and only the candidate can set limits, if he/she so choses.

        And even freedom of speech, the most basic right, is limited in my state.  A majority of any elected body my not discuss any issue that may come before their body, unless it is at a meeting open to the public.

        I actually challenged the over-the-top disclosure law of NY State, where the info, actually only goes to the party leaders, not the public.

        I lost on a technicality.  
        I agree with the goal of the diary, but the focus must on the political candidate to make a change, not to rely on the fine print of the law.

    •  That's not how it works. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mataliandy, dc 20005

      No one forced these candidates to respond.

      That's why you can't ask the question. Otherwise you create a situation where there aren't fair hiring practices because you favor individuals that are willing to respond.

      But this isn't a hiring situation, so technically it doesn't apply. The interviewer isn't authorized to make a hiring decision.

      I would agree with Clarkson simply as a matter of respect and common sense, however. The same reasons why it is illegal to ask such questions in an interview is why we shouldn't ask them in a debate. But here are some of the off-limit topics:

      National origin
      Marital/family status

      We've already blown through a few of these, and probably a few more before we're done.

      -6.00, -7.03
      Obama '08

      by johnsonwax on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:03:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (128)
  • Community (64)
  • Elections (24)
  • Environment (23)
  • Media (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Culture (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Law (21)
  • Science (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Labor (18)
  • Economy (17)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • Ireland (16)
  • Hillary Clinton (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Rescued (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site