Religious nut? |
There’s something about the combination of politics and
religion, that often seems to bring out the worst in people. Just about any
time a political candidate begins to talk about his faith, it seems, he is
immediately treated with ridicule and suspicion. This seems particularly peculiar,
in a country where (depending on who you ask) roughly 84% of us profess to be
Christians, and upwards of 90% overall say they believe in God.
Consider the example of candidate John F. Kennedy. As a
consequence of his Catholic faith, he was scorned in the press. Many feared
that he might become a puppet of Rome, spreading Catholic ideology everywhere. Could
he set aside his religious beliefs, long enough to make sound decisions as
president?
For all we know, his Democratic opponents Adlai Stevenson and Hubert Humphrey -- or his general election opponent Richard Nixon -- just might have been twice as dogmatic and dangerous in their beliefs. But the voters couldn't judge them by that standard, because the candidates didn't talk about it.
For all we know, his Democratic opponents Adlai Stevenson and Hubert Humphrey -- or his general election opponent Richard Nixon -- just might have been twice as dogmatic and dangerous in their beliefs. But the voters couldn't judge them by that standard, because the candidates didn't talk about it.
In a speech to the Houston Ministerial Association, he
attempted to put his Protestant brethren at ease:
While
the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here
tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical
issues to face in the 1960 election: the spread of Communist influence, until
it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida; the humiliating treatment of
our president and vice president by those who no longer respect our power; the
hungry children I saw in West Virginia; the old people who cannot pay their
doctor bills; the families forced to give up their farms; an America with too
many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space. These
are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not
religious issues — for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no
religious barriers.
As a man of faith, I couldn’t agree more. And yet with every
presidential campaign of recent years, it seems improper for a candidate to be
too religious. Or not religious enough. Surely, when we choose the next person
to lead the free world, personal character is important. I want to know
something about the candidate’s personal life, family, education, and so on. Put
all of these ingredients into a big pot and stir, and you’ll have a composite
measure of his/her personal character. These are important matters. But how
much prying is too much?
I remember the campaign of 2008, where candidate Mitt Romney’s
Mormon faith became a bone of contention for many. I saw a press conference
where Romney was ambushed with questions about his religion: “Do you believe in
polygamy? Do you have the special underwear? Do you believe that men can become
gods?”
He didn’t miss a beat: “There are people in the church whose
job it is to teach and answer these questions. I’m running for president today.”
Perfect.
In a recent debate, it was Michele Bachmann’s turn. She has
made no secret of her Christian beliefs, that the Bible is the guide for her
life, and that she should (and does) submit to the divinely-ordained authority
of her husband. Which incited one reporter to ask, “Does this mean that you
will consult your husband before you make any big decisions as president?”
Right-wing losers? |
Bravo.
This seems like a good time to cite a classic quote from the esteemed Senator Arnold Vinnick (R-CA). Oh, the name doesn’t ring a bell?
In the final season of the NBC drama The West Wing, the young, handsome Democratic congressman Matthew
Santos (Jimmy Smits) ran for president against the seasoned old Vinnick (Alan
Alda). Santos was well known for his faith and family values, while Vinnick –
despite decades in public life – kept his beliefs to himself. When pressed by
reporters as to whether he would accept an invitation to a Christian revival
meeting, he stumbled, trying desperately to find the "right" answer, and finally replied:
“Look, guys. When you create a religious test for public
office, you’re asking to be lied to.”
Bingo.
The thing is, everyone (including all of the current candidates) believes in something that informs their moral choices. Everyone. It might be Jesus, or Moses, or Zeus, or some abstract impersonal supreme deity, or the Moon God, or the voices in their head, or the cause-and-effect laws of the universe; we're all guided by something outside of ourselves that we consider authoritative. Any candidate who reveals the details of their
beliefs, is only inviting an argument. Which only gets them labeled as a
fanatic. Which only ruins their chances of getting elected.
Which, I suppose, is the reason why most candidates don’t
discuss their religion in the first place. The political landscape is strewn with
the bones and carcasses of would-be senators and governors and presidents who proudly
preached a politically incorrect orthodoxy. They should have known better.
Candidate Kennedy ended his address with these timeless
words:
If I should lose [the
election] on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate,
satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election
is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being
president on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will
be the loser…
But if, on
the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of
mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the presidency — practically
identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress.
For without reservation, I can "solemnly swear that I will faithfully
execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of
my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so help me God.
Incidentally, I find it interesting that this kind of assault only happens to white guys. When Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (that is, men who actually hold themselves out as ministers of the Gospel) sought public office, I don't recall anyone asking about their beliefs, much less arguing with it. Barack Obama spent 20 years sitting at the feet of a preacher who loudly proclaimed his hatred of white folks, yet insisted that he knew nothing about it. Somehow, it seems, people of color are exempt from such scrutiny.
We love to vote for candidates who profess strong morals and family values. We love it when they trot out the wife and kids at every photo-op. We salivate when we watch them attend church and volunteer at the parish bake sale. We're mightily impressed when they receive an endorsement from the exalted Pastor So-And-So. All the right moves.
But if they should ever suggest that they desire to actually practice what they preach? Anathema! We'd rather have a godless hypocrite instead. God help us all.
Obama wasn't scrutinized for his relationship with that pastor? That was big news for weeks.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your overall point but would suggest that fair debate, when it comes to political office, should determine a person's sanity and their groundedness. Those who profess religions that a majority of people would describe as extreme or crazy might not be appropriate candidates to lead that majority.
People should have a chance to prove their sanity and their soundness of judgment without regard to religious belief. Yes. However, when people profess to be guided by those beliefs and those beliefs are extremist, certain questions become inevitable, don't they?
-eric
Yes, it was news. But to me it seems dishonest that Mr. O. denied knowing about Wright's caucasian-phobic tendencies. Would any white candidate get off so easy?
ReplyDeleteAs for extremist views? Just vote for someone else.