My goal is to encourage the media to break
through the barriers that seem to shield a candidate's right to
advertise his or her faith from the public's right to know just more
precisely what that faith teaches, and how much those teachings might
shape a candidate's decisions and public policy.
This is serious business — the most serious. We've had nearly seven
years of experience with what happens when we fail to nail down just
what a candidate really means when he or she claims they are “a person
of faith.” We have a guy in the White House today who repeatedly evoked
the name of God and Jesus during his campaign, assuring us that he had
been “saved,” and was, therefore, a certified “person of faith," —
pronouncements that went unexplored and unchallenged.
What we discovered, too late, was that for once young George wasn't
lying. Among the things Bush had “faith” in was that his decisions were
endorsed from on-high — by no less than God Himself. He also believes
that creation had more to do with “intelligent design,” than natural
evolutionary processes, and that bundles of cells moments after
fertilization are itty-bitty people.
All the warnings were there, but weren't pursued. And so it came to
pass that George's faith blessed an illegal and un-winnable war in
which hundreds of thousands of “full-term humans” have been — and are
still being — killed.
He appointed others who shared his “faith” to government posts, and
they acted on their faith too. These appointees of faith today shun
real science when it collides with their faith and instead provide aid
and comfort to practitioners of faith-based un-science, who proceeded
to cripple potentially life-saving stem cell research, all in the name
of “life.”
So we learned, the hard way, that there can be seerious consequences
for failing to parse details out of otherwise bland-sounding claims of
"faith."
The cost we've paid, and will pay for decades to come, for the media's
failure to press George on his faith has cost Americans, and the world,
more than can now be calculated. Only history may be able to weigh the
cost of Bush's arrogant, ignorant, numskull faith-based polices.
Nevertheless, here we go again. There's already a baker's dozen of
candidates, from both parties, out on the hustings, advertising
themselves as “persons of faith.” Of course there are two
possibilities with each; they are simply lying to attract “voters of
faith,” or they're telling the truth — like George.
The media's first job should be to sort out which is which.
If the candidate is claiming "faith" just to herd some of the religious
flock into their coral, then they're a liar, and we've had quite enough
of that kind of leadership already too, thank you very much.
If they're telling the god's-honest truth, and really are a “person of
faith,” then the media's work should really begin. Reporters should
treat claims of faith with the same scrutiny as they treat claims of
fiscal responsibility and personal morality — with due diligence. That
means plumbing the depths of a candidate's advertised faith. Just what
is it that that candidate has faith in? What are the central tenants
of that faith? How do those tenants shape the candidate's private and
public life, how they conduct their business, form their decisions,
shape their view of life and the world around them?
Inquiring minds should want to know.
But we haven't wanted to know in the past, and we've paid a horrific
price for that lapse of democratic responsibility. Why? Because we
continue to consider probing a person's faith as impolite, even
intolerant.
That's provides a free-bee to candidates. It allows candidates to
advertise “faith” as a reason we should vote for them, unchallenged,
unexplored. Their faith, these candidates assure us, is one of the
personal and professional assets we should consider in voting for them
— yet we cannot allowed to inspect this asset, weigh it or even judge
its sanity — or lack thereof.
This is how we end up with people in the Oval Office who believe in
some pretty strange things — really believe in them. Take Mit Romney
for example. Romney is a Mormon, and by all accounts a devout Mormon.
Now, remember that college student who asked candidate Bill Clinton
whether he wore “boxers or briefs?” Well she might drop her jaw if
she'd asked Romney the same question. If Romney wins in 2008 America
will have the distinction of being the only nation with a leader who
believes he's wearing magic underwear.
The
temple garment ... is a set of sacred underclothing worn by adult male and female
Latter Day Saints
...Those who wear the garment consider them sacred and may be offended
by public discussion of the garments. Anti-Mormon activists have
publicly displayed or defaced temple garments to show their opposition
to the LDS Church.... It is worn, in part, to remind adherents that
they have made special oaths and covenants to God. .. The garment and
the covenants made in conjunction with it are believed to be a
spiritual "shield and protection" against the powers of evil, and
sometimes against physical harm.
(More on that here.)
So there's that.. but holy undies are the tip of the iceberg of Mormon beliefs. (Plenty more questions
here)
Romney wasn't the only presidential candidate twirling prayer beads at
the Religious Broadcasters Convention. Straight-talker-crooked-walker,
John McCain was there too. He
tried to out-person-of-faith Romney by coming out four-square against
abortion. Why? Because, he explained, he's “a person of faith” —
specifically their faith — the Christian fundamentalist faith. And he
wants their vote.
As a foreign policy expert, McCain
must know that most of those at that convention also believe that
Armageddon — the “End Days” — can arrive only once all-out war consumes
the Middle East and all “unsaved” Jews are massacred - among other
things:
Although there are many variations in perspective among religious
believers, a few specific events which are commonly held by many of dispensationalist inclination have been attributed to Bible passages:
- The revival of Israel as a nation, (last generation before Christ): Parable of the fig tree, Matt.24:32, Mark 13:28, Luke 21:29
- A strong and united European state (United States of Europe), (revived Roman Empire): Daniel 2
- Various tribulation events: Matt.24:4, Mark13:5, Luke21:5
- War
in Iraq -> Jeremiah 50 "Concerning Babylon, A nation from the north
will capture her" — It is important to note that Iraq has been
conquered several times by Ottoman Turks, British, Persians, Greeks,
Arabs, etc. (although maybe only captured specifically and not
conquered by the British, there is a distinct difference) (More)
Do McCain and/or Romney share that particular bit of “faith “ with
them? Do they consider such a belief to be reasonable, even sane? Or
don't they?
Who knows. Maybe one or both men share such beliefs. We don't know. We
can't know because, while the media has no problem turning a
candidate's personal finances and even sex lives inside out, reporters
can't seem to bring themselves to give a candidate's stated “faith,”
the same level of inquiry.
Reporters demand to know what a candidate's position is on tax cuts,
but show no curiosity about what a candidate's advertised faith leads
him or her to believe on pressing issues that could get us all killed
if they get it wrong — like global warming. The Christian right is full
of folks
who believe
God will bring mankind's reign on earth to an end in His own good time
and in His own way. And, if global warming is His way, so be it. If a
candidate for our nation's highest office is of that “faith,” might we
not want to know that before we vote?
I have made no
secret of the fact that I am a hardcore secularist. So that's my
“faith,” and I am happy to answer anyone's probing questions about what
I believe and don't believe. For example, I don't believe Noah got one
of every kind of animal on earth aboard a boat he built in his
backyard. And frankly it makes me more than a little nervous when I
realize we currently have a President (with access to nuclear weapons)
who believes that literally happened just as the Bible says.
Am I wrong to worry about that degree of reality disconnect at the very top of my government?
When George W. Bush was asked if he ever sought his father's advice, he
responded, “No, I consult a higher source.” You know Who he was
referring to. Unfortunately that “higher source,” gave us Iraq and has
saddled our federal judiciary with hundreds of faith-based-friendly
judges. Person of faith, George W. Bush has perverted taxpayer funded,
secular, family planning programs and organizations. He and his persons
of faith appointees have morphed them into faith-based —
nearlyTalibanish — instruments to deny women control over their own
reproductive prerogatives. And, since George's “higher source” has
assures him America is No. 1with the Big Guy, George treats the rest
of the world with dismissive contempt.
Have we not learned anything from all that?
When Joe Biden mispoke a few weeks ago, describing Barack Obama as
“clean,” reporters beat that horse to death. Why? Because, they
reminded us, “words matter.” Well, if words matter so much, shouldn't
faith matter even more?
What I am suggesting here is that the media not allow candidates a free
pass any longer on blanket claims of “faith.” Precisely what are the
driving tenants of the faith they claim? And how much of it does the
candidate believe is literal .. I mean really believe? Then ask the
candidate to explain how he/she would handle the contradictions and
tensions between what their stated faith holds true, and their duties
as a secular leader.
It amazes me that this discussion has not already begun. After all,
it's not like we don't know where the road that mixes religion and
politics leads. We are entangled in a part of the world — the Middle
East — almost entirely run by “men of faith.” And look where it's
gotten them. One would think just watching the evening news would be
enough to sober up right wing Christians who believe that the cure for
all that ails America is to elect more “leaders of faith.”
I say all this “faith-branding” among candidates is serious business
and we better start treating it as such. It has already reshaped public
policy and will continue to do so in ways we cannot control or predict
until we stop pussyfooting around and get to what's really going on
between the ears of candidates who to be “persons of faith.” And that's
not going to happen until the media begins treating pronouncements of
faith with the same level of suspicion and curiosity as they treat a
candidate's secular claims and positions.
If the media began doing that tomorrow, I predict it would quickly yield two postive results in matter of days:
First it would flush out the intellectual lightweights — and the
wingnuts, like George — running for office. Because such folk really
can't tell the difference between the real and the metaphysical, or
care to. Instead they wear blind faith as a badge of honor, no matter
how absurd their beliefs might be. They are easy pickings for reports
who simply have to pose the questions. They'll gush out the answers in
all their nonsensical glory. After that, voters can decide if, for
example, they want to turn the keys of the country over to someone that
believes the universe is only
6000 years old, mankind and
dinosaurs co-existed and
burning bushes can talk — or not.
Then, within a week of the media asking for more information about the
candidate's advertised faith, serious candidates in the race would
drop the “I'm-a-person-of-faith-too,” gambit like a hot potato.
Then we can around to finally picking among candidates willing and
capable of ruling what's becoming a very complicated and increasingly
deadly earthly realm.
Ponder This
Via Eric Martin, one of McClatchy's Iraqi bloggers wonders if the Bush administration has asked itself this question:
If the war started between U.S. and Iran, on which side the Iraqi government will be?
(Full Post)
Writings 
At the 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
