Gravel's answer was best, hands down.

I hate to say this, but I think Edwards hit it on the head.

Gravel's was the best. Obama was cunning. Edwards and Biden were sincere and realistic.

Kucinich made me laugh, but I think Gravel made the best use of his time.

I thought Biden and secondly Edwards summed up the most realistic reason people pray (if they do).

Coming from a non-praying Atheist, Gravel's comments struck me as a bit insulting towards people who do rely on prayer. Many people do abuse prayer and do talk about it incessantly, but some people believe in it and rely on it and do want a straight answer about it.

That being said, prayer is a personal issue, and it annoys me that it is so frequently brought up in political discussion. Obama's comment was by far the best in relating it to a political debate, in the sense of being most direct in answering the question, "How do your religious values affect your views of governance?" I may not agree that God exists, but god isn't the only source of compassion, love and morals. Obama did a great job of relating this question to what actually matters from politicians.

This was Zeus awful. Clinton really wimped out and was the worst. Edwards was almost as bad. These are intelligent people who try to appeal to the redneck vote.

People pray because they were taught to by their parents who were taught by theirs and so on.

Anyone who actually believes in this crap is a lunatic. I don' think any of them do.

Kucinich gave the best answer with his joke. Then he went to talk about spirituality in an original way, which in fact had nothing whatsoever to with the bible-thumpers' idea of spirituality.

One day I aspire to meet an atheist as smart as they hastily believe they are.

It seems I've met all the pseudo-intellects. (like the one above me.) They're funny to listen to, but only from time to time.

One day I aspire to meet a god groupie who has a brain.

Yes; and which group are you the "groupie" of?

From what I understand, atheism seems to be an unheard cry for moral autonomy; and the self-proclaimed intelligence, a cover for deeper insecurities.

Gravel & Kucinich were the best. Obama was OK. But Clinton, Edwards, and most of the rest gave perfunctory replies aimed at appealing to bible thumpers.

Hartman, thank you for sharing your expert psychiatric opinion.

Anyone who believes in Santa Claus--sorry, god--after the age of about 7 is a lunatic.

Gravel.

I think Gravel and Kucinich are the only candidates worth voting for, and who will actually change things rather than just move them around a little.

Jonathan Hartman, I would be happy to meet you any time you would like. You may not be meeting many smart atheists because you are not meeting many atheists.

I think that many atheists have a self-image of being smart because those who pride themselves on intelligence like to spend a lot of time thinking about things. If you spend enough time truly thinking about religious beliefs, rather than just trying to defend them, the inevitable conclusion is that they are strange, and extremely likely to be false.

A person who is not smart, or not introspective, will not reach that point. I believe several studies have been performed which link religiosity and IQ inversely, so I'm probably not too far off here.

Jonathan, for the comment above, that is completely untrue. It has nothing to do with morality, intelligence or insecurities. I am an atheist for many reasons, none of which are mentioned by you. I always found religion to be a ridiculous waste when i was younger and was never spiritual. I would read through the old testament and feel disgusted by the brutality and the racism and homophobia, and many of the most religious people I knew were terrible people with no morality. I never realized splitting from Judaism was possible until I grew older and gained more independence.

Religion has nothing to do with intelligence, it has to do with the environment your raised in. My parents gave me more intellectual breathing room then most children and I found for myself that religion is false. I've read all the arguments from both sides, and frankly there is no argument for any religion. If you would like me to elaborate on those arguments I'd be happy to, but I'm sure almost every other commenter has heard them a million times so I'll spare them.

Ugh, I really dislike Hillary. She comes across as being extremely machiavellian.

How important is the religious vote in America - can somebody quantify it for me?

I know it's the Republicans ticket, but looking at Bush's approval ratings now isn't it plausible that the religious group might pay less attention to whether the candidates are religious, tempted more by electing a competent and wise President?

How important is the religious vote in America - can somebody quantify it for me?

Very important. Even the majority of liberal democrats in the U.S. are religious. Polls indicate that an atheist would be hard pressed to win a presidential election.

However, liberals who are religious generally believe in a strict separation of church and state and believe that religion is a private matter, not a public matter.

...Is it me, or did it sound like Gravel is an atheist? "What I believe in is love... the American people have the power to change the government..." He didn't actually mention any god belief during his answer.

I really wish someone had said "these aren't acts of god, they're the mistakes of men," or something along those lines. I think Obama came the closest to this, but really I think that needs to be pointed out very strongly. No, hurricane Katrina wasn't created by man, but all of the problems that happened afterwards were created by bad foresight and poor planning, while the Iowa bridge collapsed because of bad design by the architect. Shouldn't we be focusing more on instilling better quality controls rather than praying to a god that nothing bad will happen?

Erp... I mean "Minnesota bridge."

some of the comments here seem to imply that faith is irrational (another issue altogether i think) and all those who have religious faith should just be written off.

I think it's unfair to discredit their answers just because they are intended to/happen to/sincerely appeal to Christians.

Because christians could use the same argument and condemn christian politicians who "water down" fundamental beliefs to appeal to atheists and thus, compromise their spiritual stance.

What a stupid and pointless question.

How about these candidates discuss policies and agenda that will benefit the American people.

Prayer won't do a fucking thing to accomplish that.

What a stupid and pointless question.

I'd like to second that. This country has lots of incredibly complex problems yet we will probably only discuss trite crap like this, or homos getting hitched, or the sanctity of the fetus, or other non-issues.

It's pathetic to see politicians bullied by the bible-thumping mob into claiming some sort of crackpot spirituality. If you are looking for a religious zealot, stay in church. We are supposed to be a secular nation, let's try to act like one for a single goddamn election cycle.

And yet each one will end big speeches with "God Bless America!" and go on to say in other arenas that god is on our side in wars and whatnot.

God Bless Hippocrites!

If Americans would stop lying about their 'church attendance' maybe the pressure would not be so great.

I liked bits of each, Obama sounded reasonable and sincere on the practical side of religion, but Richardson makes a nice point about religion being a private matter. I think it used to be this way in America more than today.

We can thank Falwell, the "Moral Majority", Karl Rove for igniting this base into politics, and others for this terrible change. They should all lose their tax exempt status these days.

Hilary didn't even address the question, passing over it with an anecdote as meaningless as prayer itself.

Dodd: "...and to assume his great plan. [...] We don't do anything without his approval." So he doesn't want to assume he great plan yet we do nothing without his approval. More unintelligible nonsense.

Edwards was at least realistic, but he too fell, like Hilary, into this nonsense notion that his god has wisdom and power.

Gravel is a Unitarian which possibly means he doesn't have to acknowledge Jesus as being anymore more than a man who shared slightly more moral teachings than that of most teachers of his day. This seems evident by the fact that he never mentioned prayer and that his views are based solely on the power of human love and courage. Gravel set the playing field for Obama's answer. Gravel provided Obama and Biden's answer without appealing to religious sociolect just to win the "red neck" vote. People can empower people to change and deal with problems presented to them.

The guy after Gravel dodged the question as well. Social justice of a Roman Catholic teaching? That's laughable and gut-wrenching.

Biden and Obama padded to Gravel's answer with religious fluff. You don't need prayer to get out of bed and take your kid to the doctor for a check up.

Kucinich proved the point that the audience--who are arguably more or less representative of the American national demographic--have lost reverence for religion. It has become a proverbial joke. God has become the hilarious senile grandfather who tells the same banal joke 23 times a day and who pisses himself when watching Oprah. His spirituality is fine; let him have it, even if it is unintelligible nonsense. At least he isn't claiming God is all powerful, all-wise, and unknowable but somehow gives us confirmation of our good deeds. His answer, too, was realistic.

I agree with the genuine feeling of the posters, even if they actually don't know they felt it: this question is irrelevant in a political forum. Your ethical soundness should be extracted from realpolitik, not empty language about hypotheticals.

Here Here! This country is fucking mad! We have a foreign policy that is bankrupting us and ruining other countries. We have an environment that is on the brink of no return. We have a fucked healthcare system... and people want to debate about the power of prayer?!?!?!?!?!

I wish one of those spineless twits would stand up and make that observation.

And this is supposed to be the godless party? that's kinda scary and does anybody else think hillary is a robot?

"...But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes, or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism." Senator Barry Goldwater in 1981

Goldwater is credited for founding the modern Conservative Movement. However, and perhaps most surprisingly, he was a separationist, and concerned about the hijacking of the Constitution by fanatics and charlatans such as those leading today's Religious Right. He would have found little grief in the recent death of Falwell. Certainly, he would have denounced and mocked the piety of all the 2008 Republican candidates.

Many of today's self-proclaimed young conservatives are too comfortable with the disintegration of the separation between church and state. Goldwater warned about the rise of our American Taliban, but it seems his arguments in this regard have been forgotten.

States have exclusive powers, such as the (controversial) right to take away a person's life, liberty, and property. What happens to a state when it becomes a church state? What happens to the religion?

The Republican Youtube debate is set for Sept 17th. Coincidentally, HBO will be featuring a documentary on Goldwater the following day.

Visitors to this should submit questions?

Ask the candidates why they've strayed so far from Goldwater's dream of Conservatism. Ask the candidates why they'e let the religious right take over the dialogue?

http://www.youtube.com/contest/RepublicanDebate

There's no hope!

Gravel stayed on topic, while Biden came close. I would've liked Obama's response had the question actually related to what he said. I didn't really notice anyone else.

Hey Mr. Hartman, If you are so smart you should know to not end a sentence with a preposition. "Yes; and which group are you the "groupie" of?"

Gravel didn't even answer the question.

eh. disgusting. screw em all.

speaking of which ... i saw Ray Comfort at the beach on Saturday afternoon. he was almost literally up on a soapbox (a very large video equipment case) ranting at the crowd passing by. he had a microphone set up for people to ask him questions. i didn't have the stomach for it. all i heard was one guy at the microphone saying "if what you believe is true, then yeah i'm goin to hell ..."

most incredibly, mr. comfort had a guy standing next to him in a full GORILLA SUIT. it was 90 degrees out, by the way. i was shirtless and i was hot as hell. for enquiring minds, no, kirk cameron was not present.

These kinds of questions are a great test of the candidate's power to bullshit. The person who doesn't answer the question best, wins.

Since Edwards answered honestly, he has demonstrated that he would make a lousy President.

Gravel gave the best answer.

On Gravel's Wikipedia page it says that his religion is Unitarianism. I don't know if it is true or not because no source is given.

Gravel is a Unitarian. He said so on an interview on Air America's religion show. He left the Catholic church and became a Humanist, in other words, he's probably an Atheist.

Obama is United Church of Christ which is basically being a Unitarian with the Jesus. Edwards is religious but he has no problem with Atheists, he hired some to work on his campaign and refused to fire them when the Christian Reich demanded they be fired.

Hillary belongs to the same cult as Sam Brownback. The latest issue of Mother Jones mentioned how she's a member of the theocratic D.C. cult called "The Fellowship".

Despite that I don't think any of the candidates would force their religion on other people, I can't say that about the Republican candidates. Guiliani wanted to pass a law that would make blasphemy a crime.

Doug: Guiliani wanted to pass a law that would make blasphemy a crime.

You wouldn't happen to have a source for that, would you? I would love to read up on that.

Mitch, how do you know Kirk wasn't in the gorilla suit?

Barack Obama gave the best answer because he answered the question the most directly. Edwards comes in second for chuckling to himself about the question and his competitors "truthy" answers. Kucinich comes in third for bringing levity to the series of somber reflections on multiple questions (not posed by the questioner).

Clinton, Biden, Richardson, and Gravel did not answer the question. Negative points to Clinton because she knows she didn't answer the question and gave a canned answer she's given 1000 times in the last 5 years. Richardson just isn't very bright so I'm not holding it against him.

As for Gravel, who would have thought he was a hippie? Not I.

A truly crappy question. Gravel handled it the best by far.

Max ("Religion has nothing to do with intelligence, it has to do with the environment you're raised in") needs to read up on twin and adoption studies. I used to attribute my atheism entirely to being raised by atheist parents; now I realize at least half is owing to those good atheist genes.

Gravel.

But, after watching it I was once again reminded that even if any of these people win the presidency we will be still governed by a religious asswipe.

There is no god. Seriously, Im a moron, and I understand this.

Correction on Katrina being a natural disaster: While the storm was natural, the destruction of New Orleans was man made. The flooding could have been prevented had the levees been shored properly and if the government had measures in place to address the wetland erosion that allowed the storm surge to reach the strength it did.

Can you imagine candidates in France or Germany being asked such a question? Poland maybe which is now run by religious wingnuts.

Voter/viewers would have been outraged by it.

Somewhere there must be a middle ground - a question about prayer is pretty ridiculous in this situation - plus from a theological perspective the prayer question was pretty pointless as well. But there must be a middle ground somewhere outside of the States where the atheist can lie down with the lamb. I love the many differing atheist arguments and voices and find them so agreeable. But I think the question of religion is more a question of human condition as that fantastic South Park episode where Cartman couldn't wait for a wii pointed out(he went to the future where atheists ruled and fought over definitions of logic). Religion is generally as awful as any other human institution and thats being nice - it also has the monopoly on whats right/wrong and worse who's worthless/worthy. But it's merely a tool in the hands of those in charge of the institutions. Atheism has to many fronts - its battling with Logic to fight the illogical which is stupid. Then religious people fight back with logic which makes them fools. Like the christians who have a God who is three but one - thats illogical at it's root - using the logic of Dawson (which is why he always appears to win arguments because of the widespread assumption that logic is the underlying way to win an argument amongst most people). Funnily enough religion is completely illogical and you all need to come to terms with that. If their God created logic then perhaps he is illogical - because if he made it he's certainly more than it (otherwise douglas is right with God disappearing in a puff of logic). My own position finds me despising religion perhaps as much as the atheist (or more so because of my own understanding of it) but my faith in a mysterious God who holds his own and argues beyond time leaves me unable to join the atheists. Logic is not the highest order - it's nearly humans highest one. So I enjoy the discussions here but the level which they are argued at times leaves me cringing - this blog could be so much more!

this isn't terribly important and it will not affect my vote at all, BUT: obama's cadence is slowly driving me up the wall. his abrupt and halting speech and head nodding is a bit more than i can stand. interestingly enough, his wife does it as well, though far more subtly.

ANYWAY, i don't know that kirk cameron wasn't in the gorilla suit. good point. :-\

Mike Gravel.

The tragedy of the US is that Kucinich would win if he didn't look so weird. I'd vote for him anyway, but then again I ain't from the US, I'm from prussia where we elect candidates based on their ability to not float.

No doubt about it... Gravel.

bernada - I don't know how the German electorate would feel about mixing religion with politics but everybody is automatically opted-in to paying a religious tax that goes to the church. Very few people bother to opt-out. Crazy.

My sixteen year old son died, and my wife got cancer -- so please vote for me!

I believe in love and virtue, and stuff -- please vote for me!

My wife and daughter is dead (but God sends no one a cross that he cannot bear ) -- so please vote for me!

Something, something, hurricane Katrina, and levies, and prayers and God, so -- please vote for me!

I love the fact that the Mormon candidate is the only one who feels compelled to quote biblical scriptures. It's like the voters are thinking "hey, this guy thinks Native American Indians descended from the ancient Hebrews, and that Jesus visited America, and that black people descended from Cain -- and that their skin is a direct result of sin -- OBVIOUSLY, THE MAN MUST BE INSANE -- right? But no. That's not the conclusion that they draw.

Their conclusion is: He believes in God. He must be a nice person.

Man... Sometimes, I wish I was a hypocrite.

GRAVEL

Gravel has the potential to be one of the greatest presidents the United States will ever know.

Please join Gravel's campaign. Support him and he'll continue to get his message out. Don't cave into the ["it's only Obama or Clinton"] mindset.

Vote for the one candidate who doesn't back down and stands for truth. Read about his legacy of waging a one-man filibuster to end the draft, releasing the Pentagon Papers, risking it all, and standing up for the people.

If you want true open-mindedness, love, honesty, patriotism (of US ideals), and liberal values... please vote your conscience... and please help get the word out.

Gravel 2008! http://www.gravel2008.us

wow have freakin' sad politics has become

wow how freakin' sad politics has become

Andy - Living in Berlin, I've never heard of anyone opting to pay the religious tax. Surely someone's paying it, but those few I know who have religions deny come taxtime.

Want my answer to that question?

"No, prayer does not affect disasters and whether or not they happen. Prayer is useful as a personal tool of comfort and guidance, but it should not be used in public policy making. We should look to our fellow man for support first."

Willey for President 2008.

Why do we allow only the delusional to run for president?

Basically they are admitting that praying is 'TALKING to YOURSELF'. No problem with that of course, but no deity is involved. Effectiveness of prayer is therefore not in the field of averting hurricanes, or regrowing limbs, bit in the field of personal convictions and actions.

Mokus, Guiliani implemented a "decency commission" to root out art that was considered anti-catholic in order to deny the museums funding.

http://www.observer.com/node/44105

It goes without saying that most of these canned responses make me cringe. However, I feel the need to defend prayer.

From time to time I find myself praying. I'm not sure who I'm praying to, but I don't think that part really matters. I find prayer can help clear my mind of undue burden, and help cheer me up when I'm feeling blue.

Even if prayer is nothing more than a pychotic coping mechanism, it still has value to some people. And I happen to think all people, even atheists, have a spiritual side. I think all people, especially the religious right, could use a lot more spiritual contemplation time in their daily routines.

My opinion. As Kurt Vonnegut might say, just another *

Great Link Doug! (even though the formatting in the link sucks)

Hillary and Barack came off as the most jesus dependant, which worried me, but every single one was trying to do a little political raindance to say "i'm religious! i'm religious! but not that kind, i'm the good kind of religious, the intellectual religious", and they all looked quite silly trying to do so.

I don't want to tread through 60 posts of comments, but I have one question: Why the fuck are they talking about God? Where are the issues?!

Gravel certainly had the best answer...and I skimmed some of the posts here...to the person who said Gravel would be one of the best presidents ever (and the same goes for Kucinich - whom I love) I think you're wrong. Gravel or Kucinich in the white house is fine, but they would be so ineffectual! Nothing would get done...you do still need those other chambers of government (no matter what the current administration leads us to believe). In that regard, even though she was terrible at this question, I am starting to come around to Clinton. I'm really hoping for a leader who can not just talk, but get things done.

The quality of the question determines the quality of the answer.

I guess Gravel and Kucinich didn't make me barf, and obama and edwards only made me urp a bit, the rest were pure puke.

"The guy after Gravel dodged the question as well. Social justice of a Roman Catholic teaching? That's laughable and gut-wrenching."

Weeellll actually no. Despite the institutional homophobia and mysogyny.

Catholics are actually right behind blacks as far as dependably liberal voting blocks go, largely because catholics have a very strong sense of charity and social services and making sure everyone gets through the day with a full stomach. It's a lot about standing up for (and next to) the little man.

note: I'm an atheist not catholic

Gravel's was PERFECT. Kucinich was next best.

Biden knocked it out of the park with Kucinich in close second.

i can't believe that these people who are running for president of the united states actually believe in prayer... now that i think about it, i don't. but the fact that they have to say they do makes me feel a little sick.

There's a term for that sickness you're feeling, Jeremy; Fundamentalism.

I agree that this is a pointless question for a presidential debate, and I firmly believe that atheists deserve far more respect than they're getting in society, but I wish to Nonexistent-God that you guys would get over your smug self-righteous arrogance.

Yes, most of the candidates believe in a higher power. No, that doesn't make them retarded and unqualified for high office. No, you aren't smarter than them, and frankly you sound like as big an asshole as Jerry Farwell on a double dose of his Asshole medication.

Both our politics and our society continue to nudge me closer and closer to expatriating. Grew up in the US, lived here my entire life. Really thinking about looking for jobs overseas when grad school is finished. Lot a great stuff in the US, but there is a whole lot more BS. I hear North Korea has open borders now. Maybe I'll check them out...

there's nothing more irrational than religious faith.

Listen to Gravel...to Kucinich.

Thank you for your amazing blog.

Couple of days ago, I wrote something about Praying and the senselessness of this megalomaniacal activity. It was painful enough to see the candidates being so naïve, or hypocritically playing it on TV!

But guess what?! at least, this crowd believes in evolution! At least, for the moment!

Thank you for your amazing blog.

Couple of days ago, I wrote something about Praying and the senselessness of this megalomaniacal activity. It was painful enough to see the candidates being so naïve, or hypocritically playing it on TV!

I admire Obama and Edwards, for having the courage of accepting the fact that you can not prevent hurricane by praying!!! but the very fact that you need courage to utter this obvious fact, just makes me want to puke!!!

But guess what?! at least, this crowd believes in evolution! At least, for the moment!

I read through roughly 60 responses and they all sound reasonable. Some good points about moral compasses and the actual decision to make the world a better place.

The person who won was no one. They should never have asked the question. I don't pay taxes so someone can tell me about their personal path. I wish one of them was pagan. The UU guy is the only one who comes close. If you believe in one god it seems you are better off then if you believe in many. And the "tolerance" and "privacy" of a personal preference is not afforded to all groups.

And I certainly don't think that that particular question should have ever been raised. Respect for other people's beliefs has been discarded. How about the question,"What would you do to re-institute the basic civil liberties forfeited in the passed 8 years??" Make them talk about a plan. Vague assurances don't impress me.

Thanks for sharing.

What was up with Dodd? I don't need permission fro God to do anything.

Edwards freaking nailed it. I'm an atheist and I appreciated his answer. In fact, it seems like the only way to justify a god who responds to prayer is to say that our prayers don't do anything to prevent bad things.

I'm sick and tired of Atheists being equated to intellectuals. I'm not an "intellectual", I don't pretend to be, nor do aspire to be anymore than I aspire to learn things that I have a personal interest in. I only know that atheism allows me to understand 90% of the world and frees me to imagine the other 10%, whereas religion obscures that same 90% and tells me what I must believe that other 10% should be.

I'm sick and tired of Atheists being equated to intellectuals. I'm not an "intellectual", I don't pretend to be, nor do aspire to be anymore than I aspire to learn things that I have a personal interest in. I only know that atheism allows me to understand 90% of the world and frees me to imagine the other 10%, whereas religion obscures that same 90% and tells me what I must believe that other 10% should be.

@jon:

The fact that athiests never rely on a thing called "faith" is why they are equated with intellectuals, whether or not they truely are. They are intellectual in comparison to someone who uses faith to describe their surroundings.

Yet another painful reminder that as much as I wish I would like to support the concept of a Hillary Clinton Presidency, I simply cannot embrace the factual reality of a Hillary Clinton Presidency. There are so many things I wish she could be as the front-runner candidate but I am disgusted with her legislative record, particularly in regards to the war, and hearing this BS pandering to the spiritual un-decided voters has driven yet another nail in her coffin for my vote. She is a loathesom choice for President and if she get the democratic nod, everybody better get used to 4-8 more years of a GOP whitehouse.

@Willey.

Atheists can have faith. They just don't have faith in a creature that no one can prove exists.

I do have to wonder why they are asked this question though? Is it like normal day to day life issues are no longer important?

Atheists can have faith.

I was going to disagree with you, but with how many 'athiests' believe in 'astrology' and such other new-age crap, i submit.

Can we have a new word then, something for those of us who are more than just non-theists, those of us who don't want anything to do with anything that has to do with 'magic'.

muggles?

the atheist's response was the best, IMO. Obama came off sounding the most "electable" (also, IMO).

Re: Willey: a word for someone that wants nothing whatsoever to do with magic: there are those who'd go for "Bright" http://www.the-brights.net/ but personally I prefer plain old "Skeptic" http://www.skeptic.com/

-- Furry cows moo and decompress.