In a year in which one state or another could tip the election, every demographic can play the spoiler, and the religious center is no exception.
Candidates have already seen the danger of being associated with the religious fringe. Obama has famously rejected his far-left former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and he’s veering right while courting evangelicals, the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter to dare go there. Meanwhile, McCain has distanced himself from far-right televangelist John Hagee, who had endorsed him. He’s also moving ahead without the blessing of James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family and an influential leader of the religious right.
So why the shift away from the poles? I raised this issue with my parishioner George Barker, a Virginia state senator and Presbyterian elder. He told me that “while many voters want a candidate with religious convictions and core values, most Americans do not want leaders whose absolutist beliefs diminish openness to others’ views.”
He’s right. Indeed, Americans want to hear religious talk from their candidates, because faith provides a window on personal values and integrity. But voters don’t want someone with an extreme religious position. After all, the American president has to represent people of all faiths ”” or of no faith.
From the article:
[blockquote]Co-sponsoring this event is a multidenominational religious group called Faith in Public Life, whose Jewish, Muslim and Christian leaders will be helping Warren devise his questions to the candidates.[/blockquote]
Faith in Public Life may be “multidenominational,” but that doesn’t mean it is multi-perspective. It is a straight-line left-wing “social justice” outfit, whose board of directors is led by the Director of Advocacy and Witness for the Unitarian Church and includes lots of the kinds of folks you’d expect, including the president of the UCC’s Chicago Seminary, Susan Thistlethwaite. The idea that these people are “helping Warren devise the questions” that will be asked at his forum turns it into a joke. It will be a partisan event in which Obama will get softballs and McCain will get grilled. Why someone like Rick Warren is sponsoring this is beyond me, but it says all I need to know about him (as if there weren’t lots of other reasons to ignore his recent forays into public policy, like his fawning trip to see Bashir Assad).
While some race to the religious center, may we put on Christ and run the race that St. Paul tells us is our proper duty.
Amen, Alice!
I understand that a US President must fairly represent all people who make up the American electorate, which hold to such a wide range of religious and moral persuasions. Still, I think Christs admonition to let your “yes” be “yes” and your “no” be “no” must hold sway, even here. Trying to be slick, with the idea that you’re going to please everybody will only result in a trail of conflicting statements which will just have to be clarified later, and ultimately, be impossible to harmonize. May as well decide to be true to what you actually believe and stick with it. You’ll make enemies, sure, but you’re going to make enemies anyway; it wont help your cause to be seen as a hypocrite as you try in vain to please everybody-certainly not in this information age, where every inconsistency will be exposed under a glaring spotlight on the news and countless Internet sites.
GSP98,
‘let your yes be yes and no be no’? It makes no sense how you are using it. And it is only the ‘liberal’s’ that have private interpretations?
#1, on the other hand, since I seem to recall press reports of Rick Warren dropping by a CANA church in the spring for worship while in DC, I am not unhopeful that he will be able to discern good input from bad.
Adhunt, it shouldn’t be that tough to understand what I meant. For example-if candidate ‘A’ is ardently pro-life and really believes that abortion is murder, then he should say so, and should also state that if elected, he will do everything possible within the law to see to it that it ends, or at least, is curtailed. Don’t hem and haw and try to play both sides of the fence. If a candidate really believes in a woman’s “right to choose”, then he should say that he will do everything he can to preserve that “right”-just cut the crap about “weeelll, I AM against it personally, but I don’t want to impose my personal views on everyone else…”.
There. Does that help?
I get what you were trying to do, that is to back up your own interpretation of political conversation by using Scripture. It’s just that not only do I agree with the ‘hole up with only like minded people’ idea in this pluralistic society; I object to using Scripture out of context in order to bolster your own opinion. We have enough unitarians doing it, we need not resort to the same tactics.
If that’s what you THOUGHT, then you thought incorrectly. When Christ was speaking about letting your yes be yes and your no be no, His thrust was that you shouldn’t rely on having to make oaths in order to maintain a life of integrity; rather, have such integrity and consistency in your own life that it becomes a perpetual oath in itself. And this same idea is what I conveyed when I said the following: “May as well decide to be true to what you actually believe and stick with it.” That was NOT inconsistent with the spirit of what Christ was attempting to convey in Matthew 5:33-37.
[blockquote] just cut the crap about “weeelll, I AM against it personally, but I don’t want to impose my personal views on everyone else…â€. [/blockquote]
But a lot of people believe that “crap” surely if that is what they believe, that is what they should say. I’m Pro-life, and I say so, but I have many friends who hold the belief that they feel abortion is wrong, but that it should not be legislated.
Well Jason, you have something of a point there. My reaction as far as that particular line of reasoning largely comes from an experience that I had many years ago.
A democratic congressman, who shall remain nameless, declared himself in no uncertain terms as being pro life, right up until-and I truly believe this-that he realized that he would not be able to be re-elected to congress as a pro-life democrat. Just two weeks before his turnaround on the issue of abortion, I attended a local “town meeting” held by this man (I lived in his district) during his first term, where the issue of abortion was pretty strenuously debated for awhile. One of the things that this fairly newly minted congressman said was “I’m pro life, and you’ll never get me to change my mind.” Two weeks later, he did, using the ‘ol “I don’t agree with abortion myself, but I don’t think that I can impose my personal views on everyone else.” What happened? I think he got a good taste of the good life as a US Congressman, and decided that he didn’t want to risk losing it-for anything.
I know I’ll be accused of parsing this mans thoughts and motives; I understand that, and so be it. I sincerely believe that was the only explanation.
Beyond that, however, I also believe that many who have run for public office use that line so voters will think “well yeah; in his heart he’s really pro-life, so I guess he’s a kindred soul-he just doesn’t want to legislate his belief for everyone else” (as if that’s not what congressmen do for a living).
One more thing; if a candidate publicly states that he personally is opposed to abortion because he thinks abortion destroys innocent human life, but they take a pass on seeking to prevent the same-then what matter of importance can they truly be trusted with, if the taking of human life apparently isn’t worth taking a stand for? Saving the snail darter, perhaps? I just have a hard time with the idea that someone has thought through the abortion issue, concludes that its murder, but doesn’t think its should be legislated against.
GSP98,
It would appear that I may have misinterpreted you, if I did I am sorry. Although I still do not see much ‘courting’ on Obama’s side. When grilled by leading Evangelical leaders (including even Franklin Grahm) Obama stood by his personal testimony but also said that “He is not in a place to judge” salvation for others. That seems pretty honest. And he has always been very forthright on his position on abortion, Iraq, etc…
#12, Apology accepted, and I guess I should have been clearer in my first post. Perhaps the most revealing quote from the article was this one: “In a country where 96% of Americans believe in God or a higher power, and 70% feel that it is important that the president has strong religious beliefs.” But that begs the question-how can a candidate truly have strong religious beliefs if he is always trying to find-and gain the favor of-the mushy middle? And if he really and truly does have strong religious beliefs, would much of this same group of voters then decide that this candidate-the one who they SAY they want to have “strong religious beliefs”- is one of those “extremists”?
Its like I said before-and I think this is particularly true if a candidate is a truly regenerate, solid Christian-you may as well stick to your guns on the important moral issues. One need not be unpleasantly strident or combative about it; why not take cues from Peter and Paul, who counseled displaying consistent Christian behaviour towards nonbelievers, and demonstrating a “conscience void of offence towards God & man” ?
In my first post, I mentioned that there is little room to hide blatant flip-flopping in this day and age, so you might as well hold to your integrity. That would be an appeal to pragmatism.
But on a spiritual note, isn’t God unchanging? Might He still be the One Whose eyes “run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him”?
And if a Christian candidate decides to forgo pragmatic politics and instead strive to please God, might God “make all his enemies be at peace with him?” Striving to hold to such a simple, godly battle plan would sure be a heck of a lot simpler than trying to walk the kind of tightrope that many pundits seem to be suggesting. And even if you lose, you’ve established yourself as a godly man of integrity, which would make you an appealing candidate somewhere down the line [maybe you weren’t meant to grab the brass ring on the first try?].
GSP98.
I understand. I have very little respect for that kind of politician.