Why The Religious Get A Chance To Ask Questions Too
August 17th 2008 22:24
Yesterday, because I couldn’t stomach seeing Michael Phelps face on my screen for very much longer, I happened to switch over to cable news in time to catch the U.S. Presidential Faith-Off live from the Saddleback Church in California. I had only heard about the forum through Time Magazine earlier in the week and so I decided to stick with it and see what the two had to say. To me, the Faith-Off wasn’t so much about religion as it was about the way the two candidates handled themselves. But as I watched on, I began to realise something. This forum wasn’t really about religion at all. This forum was about something very near and dear to my heart: common decency.
In the hands of another religious figure this whole thing may have disintegrated into a sickening display of pandering to the Evangelical community by two candidates whose credentials frankly scare the bejesus out of the Religious Right. At times, it did come dangerously close to validating my fears. I don’t necessarily want to sit through two hours of Barack and John playing to the crowd and quoting gospel. Going in, my barometer for a candidate’s success was going to be which steered away from doing the easy thing the most. That would have been a tough race to call. As it went on though, I realised that the premise of my whole view of the forum was completely skewed. I had expected a love-in for the Evangelicals. I had predicted it to be some kind of way for the candidates to make good with the differences they have with the religious community and allay concerns. But that’s not the way Pastor Rick Warren ran his ship, to his credit. Of course there were religious overtones throughout the whole proceedings, but what it came down to transcended faith. What it came down to was morals, ethics and common decency.
I know a lot of you out there in the internet world have slammed the Faith-Off. Separation of church and state. Pandering to the Religious Right. Not focussed on the important issues. But I tend to disagree. By voting for a President, you aren’t just getting their 2008 platform. You’re signing up to have them make decisions for you for four to eight years. You are kidding yourself if you think that you can make a decision solely on the political positions they put forward today. That has a lot to do with it. But it also has to do with them as a person. It has to do with hypotheticals. It has to do with who they are as person. During the 2000 election campaign how likely did it seem that terrorists with box cutters would hijack planes and fly them into buildings? The morals and ethics of the candidate have a lot to do with helping voters understand how they might react when the unimaginable happens. That is what the Faith-Off tried to achieve, although its success depends on who you ask.
Religion was brought up again and again as the premise of questions. That’s true. It’s also a subject that has been brought up repeatedly throughout the campaign in less appropriate settings like rallies and town hall meetings. Whether the secularists like it or not, the US is one of the most actively religious nations in the world. Religion is a more important factor in US than it is in almost any other democratic nation. It would be self-denial to cling to the Constitution and say it shouldn’t be so. I am a realist and I’ll say that Constitution or no, the Church and the State have always had some overlap in the US political scene. We can either pretend it doesn’t have it or embrace it and bring it out in the open. I’m always for the latter.
Now, earlier I said that my original premise for watching the debate on religious lines was flawed. That’s true. The questions may have been predicated on the Judeo-Christian line of thought but the themes were universal. The nature of evil, the candidate’s moral failings, the most influential people in their lives, their opinions on hot-button political issues like gay marriage and abortion… This is all stuff that isn’t just important to the religious sectors of the community, but to the voting public as a whole. It may have been the most honest, non-PC discussion in US politics in living memory. It was two guys not trying to attack each other. It was two guys talking about what they think and what makes them tick. Just because it was in a religious setting and being asked by a religious minister doesn’t take away from that. The tone of debate stayed above religious extremism and instead reflected the thoughts most people have about the two men. It was more Barbara Walters interview than Charlie Gibson debate, but it still gave us insight to the two men from whom the next leader of the free world will be picked.
I say to those who make a noise about the debate destroying the boundaries of Church and State that their Constitution also gives people freedom of speech, and freedom to ask questions. Even the religious. Let democracy take it’s course.
In the hands of another religious figure this whole thing may have disintegrated into a sickening display of pandering to the Evangelical community by two candidates whose credentials frankly scare the bejesus out of the Religious Right. At times, it did come dangerously close to validating my fears. I don’t necessarily want to sit through two hours of Barack and John playing to the crowd and quoting gospel. Going in, my barometer for a candidate’s success was going to be which steered away from doing the easy thing the most. That would have been a tough race to call. As it went on though, I realised that the premise of my whole view of the forum was completely skewed. I had expected a love-in for the Evangelicals. I had predicted it to be some kind of way for the candidates to make good with the differences they have with the religious community and allay concerns. But that’s not the way Pastor Rick Warren ran his ship, to his credit. Of course there were religious overtones throughout the whole proceedings, but what it came down to transcended faith. What it came down to was morals, ethics and common decency.
I know a lot of you out there in the internet world have slammed the Faith-Off. Separation of church and state. Pandering to the Religious Right. Not focussed on the important issues. But I tend to disagree. By voting for a President, you aren’t just getting their 2008 platform. You’re signing up to have them make decisions for you for four to eight years. You are kidding yourself if you think that you can make a decision solely on the political positions they put forward today. That has a lot to do with it. But it also has to do with them as a person. It has to do with hypotheticals. It has to do with who they are as person. During the 2000 election campaign how likely did it seem that terrorists with box cutters would hijack planes and fly them into buildings? The morals and ethics of the candidate have a lot to do with helping voters understand how they might react when the unimaginable happens. That is what the Faith-Off tried to achieve, although its success depends on who you ask.
Religion was brought up again and again as the premise of questions. That’s true. It’s also a subject that has been brought up repeatedly throughout the campaign in less appropriate settings like rallies and town hall meetings. Whether the secularists like it or not, the US is one of the most actively religious nations in the world. Religion is a more important factor in US than it is in almost any other democratic nation. It would be self-denial to cling to the Constitution and say it shouldn’t be so. I am a realist and I’ll say that Constitution or no, the Church and the State have always had some overlap in the US political scene. We can either pretend it doesn’t have it or embrace it and bring it out in the open. I’m always for the latter.
Now, earlier I said that my original premise for watching the debate on religious lines was flawed. That’s true. The questions may have been predicated on the Judeo-Christian line of thought but the themes were universal. The nature of evil, the candidate’s moral failings, the most influential people in their lives, their opinions on hot-button political issues like gay marriage and abortion… This is all stuff that isn’t just important to the religious sectors of the community, but to the voting public as a whole. It may have been the most honest, non-PC discussion in US politics in living memory. It was two guys not trying to attack each other. It was two guys talking about what they think and what makes them tick. Just because it was in a religious setting and being asked by a religious minister doesn’t take away from that. The tone of debate stayed above religious extremism and instead reflected the thoughts most people have about the two men. It was more Barbara Walters interview than Charlie Gibson debate, but it still gave us insight to the two men from whom the next leader of the free world will be picked.
I say to those who make a noise about the debate destroying the boundaries of Church and State that their Constitution also gives people freedom of speech, and freedom to ask questions. Even the religious. Let democracy take it’s course.
| 51 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Well done.
Comment by Paul Bleakley
Agent Politics
I just don't like to see things get slammed by reactionaries who shoot first, ask questions later when it comes to judging these kind of things as "unacceptable".
It absolutely annoys the crap out of me.