Posted by Damozel | First, a question: Why did the representative of a church—and one
specific sort of Christian church at that—moderate a debate between
political candidates for the highest office in the land? What on earth
is the underlying message of holding such a forum, if not to establish
that the American people hold in common a particular set of
religious/ethical beliefs which ought to be reflected in the president?
As a religious person—a Christian, in fact, though of the left-tilting variety—I am extremely worried about the implications and assumptions underlying the whole ridiculous discussion. And I am afraid that I did find it ridiculous.
Nor do I care who “won” or “lost”—as though anyone other than God is qualified to answer that question. Nor do I care about the “Cone of Silence” or whether it was all fair and balanced or only as fair and balanced as Fox News. I think the whole discussion—given that it was moderated by a man who clearly has his own ideas about what the “right” answers ought to have been—was entirely inappropriate. I am appalled to see that it’s being taken so seriously in the media.
The Democratic Party should be neutral on hazy questions of faith and morality, and should focus instead on solving the problems of ordinary people whose lives are increasingly controlled by factors far outside their ability to influence directly, starting with their own government. It should make a policy of refraining from making laws designed to resolve questions which can’t be answered or which adopt a moral stance based on one particular religion’s or denominations notions of what they owe to God.
As far as I am concerned, this was yet another instance of Obama trying to reach a segment of the population that a Democrat shouldn’t be trying to recruit—or rather, shouldn’t be trying to recruit by this means.
Obama should focus on showing evangelicals of small or limited means how little affiliation with the Republican Party serves their secular interests. If they still choose to vote on values, then let them do so. If their values are the same as the ones that McCain now professes, he can have them. They belong on his side of the fence, not mine.
Christians of different denominations all have their own ideas about what Christ requires of us. I resent having Warren presented by implication as representative since he certainly doesn’t represent me or my views. While both of us base our views on the Gospels, I think Christ sets out Christian priorities fairly clearly, and I infer that Warren and his ilk see them differently from the way I do. Yet I am as sure I am right about what Christ meant by what he said and by what he required of Christians as Rick Warren is.
As are people of other religions or no religion. My husband, an atheist (like many or most English people), listened with dismay to the whole discussion which struck him as not only irrational but entirely irrelevant to the question of which candidate ought to be elected president.
Actually, it struck me the same way. Whose world view do you prefer? Bill Kristol, predictably and hilariously, prefers McCain’s. So what? Sally Quinn prefers McCain’s as well, but thinks Obama’s more accurately mirrors reality. Again, so what? Rick Warren wonders, perhaps is dubious, whether Obama’s views will appeal to the sort of Christians Rick Warren represents. I don’t care. None of those people is an authority for me.
At the end of the day, we’re always going to be stuck with a choice between two faulty human beings and two incomplete and faulty world-views. I don’t particularly need to know which one’s is closer to my own—I need to know that the candidate understands the constitution and the law of the land, the limits on executive power, and the obligations as well as the powers of the president.
Unlike JFK, I believe that it is entirely appropriate to ask what my country can do for me—I already do what I can for it. So I am going to choose the candidate whose stated objectives best serve my own individual interests as I perceive them. Some people think it’s important to put the character of the candidate before the candidate’s effectiveness at getting things done. I am not one of them. Between Jimmy Carter and LBJ, I prefer LBJ. That old rascal made a difference. He got things done. Carter, who might well be the better Christian—I don’t know— didn’t.
What I want is for Rick Warren, the religious PAC that has endorsed Obama, and all representatives of all religions to keep their church out of my state. I don’t make them go to my church or live according to my beliefs; and I don’t want to be forced to live according to theirs.
I mean, look at this—-the Catholic league is demanding that bloggers who offend Catholics be “nixed” from credentialed blogs for the Convention. I hope the Obama campaign doesn’t roll over, though I wouldn’t put it past them.
“The list of credentialed blogs include radical sites like The Daily Kos. Worse are blogs that feature anti-Catholic and obscene material. The two most offensive are Bitch Ph.D. and Towleroad. (Catholic League)
I can see where the content described might be offensive to them. I just don’t think that churches should be permitted to censor political discussion, issue demands for the suppression of content that by their standards is “offensive,” or decide who may, and may not participate in a political discussion.
I mean, suppose someone else—a non-Catholic, say, or even an atheist—likes those very well-known and popular blogs, reads them regularly, and respects and trusts the writers? It strikes me that one reason to keep churches out of politics is exactly their propensity to draw lines on what is and is not acceptable conduct/content for others.
But while they are obviously free to dictate to their members what is or is not correct to express or read, they now seem to think they have the right to dictate to the rest of us.
Remember the first amendment?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Obviously the founders saw a relationship between these issues. We’re seeing right now why. And as Christopher Hitchens is fond of repeating, "Mr. Jefferson, build up that wall!" In a broad sense, this gesture raises first amendment concerns---not because bloggers have any first amendment right to "credentials" or because for the DNC to take them away would be state action in this context---but because this gesture reflects the will of certain religious organizations to interfere with political discourse and their increasing sense that it is right and appropriate for them to do so.
I want churches to get out of the presidential election. Why are we actively seeking their participation and allowing them to hijack the discussion?
I most especially want each candidate to stop trying to prove he is a better Christian and start proving he would make a better president. I don’t want to know how McCain and Obama define evil; I want to know how they intend to protect and and uphold the Bill of Rights and that all the rest of that document Bush referred to as that ‘g*d*m piece of paper.”
I don’t want to know how they define “rich” or poor; I want to know how their plans for the economy, tax policy, the environment, and the mortgage crisis is going to affect me and other members of my immediate community.
I’d love a forum where the candidates would have to address specific hypotheticals based on actual cases and nothing else.
“Here’s Jim M., an employee who used to work at a textile mill that’s now moved to the far East. He has lost health care insurance as well as his job. He’s now working part time at a convenience store while he looks for another job. The trouble is, he’s done one job—operating a power loom—his whole life long. He and his wife and three children have had to move in with his mother, who has only her social security check. They lost their home due to the mortgage crisis. Explain exactly how your platform will benefit poor old Jim.”
Certainly Obama should consider this. It might get even some of those social conservatives to think twice about what they need from the president (as opposed to their minister).
But Saddleback? Like so much else of what passes in this election cycle for “discussion of issues,” this was merely one more distraction in the “bread and circuses” displays offered to the body politic by the media and the political establishment.
CROSS-POSTED AT THE MODERATE VOICE
See Memeorandum on the Catholic League's Push for Dems to "Nix" "Offensive" Bloggers
RECENT POSTINGS
Major Progress on Stem-Cell Research
Quit Making the Dogs Dance and Just Announce the Running Mate
WMD Liveblogs the Democratic Convention! PreConvention Planning (with Video!)
Maureen Dowd, Stop Making Sense, Sort Of!: Dowd on the Georgia Conflict
Warning Flags: Joe Biden as Obama's Running Mate?
New York Times: Is Jon Stewart the Most Trusted Man in America?
Comments