Statement 1: "His emotion was real; Clinton's was obviously faked."

Statement 2: "The prevailing sentiment was that she was more than likely faking it."

-----

There is a world of difference between these two sentences.

Well, yes, you're supposed to believe in a higher power to join the lodge - and technically I do, so... I did not lie when I took my oaths.

Fellow Brother, Christopher?

I suspect, based on your behavior, that you're not a Brother.

And yes, Ray is correct. 

Well, they weren't specific, and they don't ask for a specific belief.  The "G" stands for "Geometry", so...

Kind of wished you were a brother so we'd have some middle ground to come together on.

I guess the fact that we're both atheists is a start...

I have a pretty good explanation for my atheist "beliefs", but I don't want to derail the politics thread, nor start yet another religion thread - but the bottom line is, I don't feel I'm decieving my masonic oath with my personal belief system, and I feel honest about my beliefs, statements and actions.

Well, wait - wait, what support?  Tell me, in your own words, how he specifically supported him, and how it would reflect on his potential Presidency - personally, him being a member of his congregation doesn't mean anything about his character to me

In my own words, he supported him by staying a member of his congregation and defending his bigotry and hatred.  He supported him by allowing his children to grow up under the influence of his "mentor."  A man who should be "mentoring" no one.  If Obama is willing to let his children be corrupted by such vile preachings of hate then I'd don't even want to know what he'd be willing to let happen to this country.  That speaks volumes about his character.

The fact that so many Democrats ignore that boggles my mind.  It has nothing to do with religion.  It has to do with the message Rev. Wright spread in his congregation.  You could replace the church with any organization and if the head of the organization was spouting the same vile things that Rev. Wright did to the members of the organization I would feel the same way.

I confess I've only watched a few of the debates so far -- mostly I've read the transcripts or seen highlights on The Daily Show (which I consider just as valid a news source, if a little more obvious of humor, as FOX) -- but I wouldn't mind seeing a Town Hall style debate between the two big shot Dems. 

I also wouldn't mind seeing Obama be a little more aggressive with defending himself from Hillary's negative barage...

"In my own words, he supported him by staying a member of his congregation and defending his bigotry and hatred."

I agree, in principle. Well, of course I agree in principle. This is the basic argument we atheists use about holding religious people accountable for the stated principles of the faith they claim.

But it seems to me that the majority of christians in the US have decided that this argument holds no validity for them. That being (e.g) a catholic does not mean being required to defend catholic teachings (just an example, the same can be said for mormons, lutherans, baptists, moslems, jews, buddhists, hindus etc). That being the case, it should not be valid when used against Obama.

The argument must either be applied equally to all or applied to none.

If every politician sitting through a sermon had to get up afterwards and make public declarations if there was anything they disagreed with, they'd soon all be labelled atheist. Likewise if they just kept their mouth shut and left the church if they disagreed with the preacher.

Public displays of faith are not, in the end, about belief, or what is actually said in the church. It is about the social ritual of being seen to believe. It is far more becoming to worship at home, in your own living room, where no one else sees you, no one else knows you to worship, than it is to gather conspicuously in public so that the rest of your community can see for themselves that you are committed to the faith.

(I'm sorry, even though I'm an atheist, I sometimes get this brain burps where I think that Christians should actually follow christ's teachings.)

Again, that plucky Vonnegut:

How about Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes?

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth.

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. …

And so on.

Not exactly planks in a Republican platform. Not exactly Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney stuff.

For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes. But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course that’s Moses, not Jesus. I haven’t heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere.

“Blessed are the merciful” in a courtroom? “Blessed are the peacemakers” in the Pentagon? Give me a break!