2008 Talk About Pandering
posted by on April 14 at 11:42 AM
It’s always bugged me that presidential candidates feel the need to prove that their belief in the invisible (Christian) spirit in the sky is more sincere than the other guy’s. Why “faith” (as opposed to belief in freedom of religion) should be a requirement for the highest secular office in the land is beyond me. However sincere Obama’s or Clinton’s belief in God may be, I think it’s clear that both are both fundamentally secular people who play up their religious credentials when the audience dictates it—as they did at a “compassion forum” this weekend at Messiah College in Grantham, PA.
Their rhetorical backflips were painful to listen to.
Obama, on his statement that working-class people “cling to religion” in hard times: “I am a devout Christian, that I started my work working with churches in the shadow of steel plants that had closed on the south side of Chicago, that nobody in a presidential campaign on the Democratic side in recent memory has done more to reach out to the church and talk about, what are our obligations religiously, in terms of doing good works, and how does that inform our politics?
Clinton, on whether life begins at conception: “I believe that the potential for life begins at conception. I am a Methodist, as you know. My church has struggled with this issue. In fact, you can look at the Methodist Book of Discipline and see the contradiction and the challenge of trying to sort that very profound question out.”
Obama, asked a similar question: “This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it’s very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don’t presume to know the answer to that question. What I know, as I’ve said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we’re having these debates.”
Clinton, asked whether God wants her to be President (!!): “I wouldn’t presume to even imagine that God is going to tell me what I should do. I think that he has given me enough guidance, you know, through how I have been raised and how I have been, thankfully, given access to the Bible over so many years, commentary and the like. So I just get up and try to do the best I can.”
It’s not the candidates’ faith I have a problem with; it’s the fact that both Obama and Clinton lack the courage to stand up and say, “I believe in the freedom of every American to practice his or her faith, or not practice any faith at all, as they see fit. But faith is a private matter. My faith—as it should be—is between me and God.”
It’s 2008. Shouldn’t we be past forcing presidential candidates to play the religious Olympics?
"...and that's why Hillary deserves the Democratic nomination."
It was a church forum, of course they were going to get churchy questions.
But Obama -- who actually does attend a church regularly, unlike Clinton (or Bush for that matter; he never goes) -- DID gently make that exact same point, that his faith is mostly a question between him and his God. Obama isn't pandering at all; he's real. Clinton, on the other hand, is pandering in the worst way imaginable.
Maybe Hillary should stop trying to paint Obama (a regular church-goer, unlike her) as being anti-religion.
Hey, don't look at me.
ECB - As somone who has bristled at what i perceive as your stubborn and irrational support of Clinton, i must admit... this post is spot on and I hate the word "balanced", so i wont use it. I watched this discussion for about 5 minutes before i realized i was about to projectile vomit all over the TV screen. It will be a glorious day indeed, when politicians feel the need to pander to the rational secularists in the electorate at least as much as they pander to those blinded by the dillusions of religious faith. This was a sad moment for BOTH dem candidates last night.
Hey, don't ask us. We're the urban alternative newsweekly-reading latte liberal set, and they sure aren't going there to keep us happy.
Good post Erica. I agree.
Amen to that.
Politics is a popularity contest.
A lot of people are religious and want their elected leaders to share their beliefs.
Politics is a popularity contest.
What 6 said.
except of course the latte part. who the hell drinks that? black coffee 1 splenda.
More anti-religious bile from you guys. You really have no clue that there are people of faith in the Dem party. And those folks actually do good things for mankind. Continue to spew your hatred and see whether the Dems EVER get in the WH again.
We SHOULD be past the need for religious pandering, but then again we SHOULD also be past war and greed and hate. But we're not. Right now there are a lot of evangelicals who probably won't vote in November because they aren't happy with McCain. If the Democratic nominee were to come out and tell the truth, there will be a whole lot of evangelicals with a renewed reason to vote.
Agnosticism/Atheism is growing quite a bit in the US. Maybe in 30-50 years we'll have a president who can freely admit he/she doesn't believe.
uh I don't know who initiated the forum on CNN if it was the canditates or the church but I would probably say it was CNN.
I wonder whats next. Hey maybe slog.
And the question of where was McCain during this seems to have just faded away,
while MSNBC morning Joe reminds us he is a
running canditate with no need to prove his merit with religious folks. He is a republican why should he.
Thanks for letting us know that Joe.
We should be beyond forcing candidates to play the religious Olympics, but we're not, and as tsm @6 points out, perhaps we're not the right ones to pose that question to if you want the truth grounded in political reality.
Go to Christian Faith Center or Mars Hill this Sunday and ask the same question, and you'll see why any candidate serious about winning ends up playing the (Christian) "God Card". When mobilized, Christians vote in huge numbers, and most of them (even the more moderate ones) feel entitled to a Christian President. This is always going to be the case with religious majorities.
Credit where credits due, ECB is on the money here, I think.
Sorry to tell all the old hippy types in Seattle - half of America is very churchy
I am more spiritual than religion focused, but, I would never presume to make such snide and silly comments about people who believe
You make your choices, other folks make different choices, what is wrong with that? That yours and theirs don't match - oh my - must we have conformity among all the white people?
@ 5: Ditto.
This is far more interesting and better reasoned than ECB's usual polemics. Nice work.
I'M not forcing them to compete in the Christian Olympics. you must mean some other americans. i could give 2 shits.
@11: the phrase "people of faith" really annoys me. let's say i'm richard dawkins or some other enemy of monotheism. i would still have "faith" that things that are currently unproveable (string theory, the inherent superiority of my hometown professional sports franchise) are nonetheless true. i would be a "person of faith", even though my faith is not in the god of abraham.
so please stop using it.
Thanks to Karl Rove, politics and religion shall forever more be connected.
Seperation of church and state is no more.
"More anti-religious bile from you guys."
LOL you didn't even read the blog, if you did you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.
@17: Saying people have a right not to believe isn't the same as "making snide comments about religion."
Most of what people are saying here is that being a devout Christian should not be a requirement for being America's president. We're not a theocracy (officially) yet.
@19. No one has faith in String Theory. It is simply the current, most viable way of explaining quantum physics. Once a new theory is proven more viable, String Theory will fall by the wayside. Currently unprovable theories are still based on available data. Religion is based on entirely on faith. There is no reliable data to show an all-powerful being created the universe, so faith is required. There is a difference between faith and hypothesis.
I don't often agree with ECB, but I couldn't agree more on this particular issue
election season has always blurred separation - good photo ops - Hillary is the most religious of the lot, she just does not wear it on her pockets - I fear the fusion of the far right and churches less now than several years ago, the rhetoric has cooled
I guess I will just refer people to my comments in an earlier thread.
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/03/keeping_wright_alive#c978470
#11, you're an ignoramus. Reread the post, as you obviously missed the thesis. There is nothing anti-religious whatsoever in this post.
#23, String Theory was probably a bad example, but I would still call an atheist a person of faith. They have a belief in the non-existence of God and it isn't based on evidence any more than is a belief in the existence of God.
Erica -
Didn't I read you're from Texas? If so you should realize that no, we're not anywhere close to being done with that. A very significant number of people in this country won't even consider a candidate that isn't openly Christian.
Obama said the first part of what you wanted him to say, but he didn't say the second part. In today's political landscape you have to wear faith on your sleave. Obama did do something very darring which was to aknowledge all the athiests. I felt very warm when he said that in addition to being a christian nation america is also a nation of non-believers.
the born again pissing match and the udder douchedom that results ...
and to @11
"Judge not lest ye be judged ..." "Let he who hath not sinned cst the first stone".
"Give unto ceasar what is caesar's, give unto god what is god's."
and last but not least
"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."
This is coming from the aethiest.
I seriously can not read this post... it makes me cringe.
The whole I'm more Christian than you ... sounds so ... unChristian
My god can beat up your god.
Sin sux!
At least we are quite adept at hiding from public view the jackbooted thugs with the automatic weapons pointed at the candidates, compelling them to play in the religious Olympics.
Obama is turning himself into 'the next John Kerry' with every elitist and condescending daily utterance. I thought he was a lot smarter than that.
It boils my blood that they even had a "compassion forum" about faith instead of a science debate. Isn't there supposed to be a seperation of Church and State or did I wake up 400yrs in the past in some other dimension?
When the candidates were asked to do a science debate Obama flatly refused and Clinton said no comment.
I realize no one will probably read this far down in the comments, but I am SO happy someone finally called out Hillary for that "life begins at conception" bit. Seriously, she's been losing my respect throughout this campaign, but having worked at a Planned Parenthood and Hillary having been outspoken about pro-choice issues in the past, I could at least comfort myself with that.
But NOW?!? It's ON, Hillary -- you flip-flop on pro-choice issues and you're done in my book. And supporting dogma-based "science" which cannot be backed up is doing just that. That last shred of respect is GONE.
ECB, #12, and #23 are right.
P.S. Doesn't the "potential for human life" exist everytime a man and a woman do the do?
The only reason Hillary doesn't go to church regularly, is because she needs Sunday mornings to count all those hundred million dollars she and Bill have been pulling in the past 7 years.
It's really hard work!
I'm sure we can all sympathize with her on this burden. Don't we all have to sit down and count our millions on Sunday?
@40, I looked at the financial statements. In this day and age they aren't making THAT much money. Ever heard of that pseudo middle class in New York, having a million in assets comparatively speaking really does make you middle class.
I really couldn't give a shit about Hillary going to church every sunday.
But honestly, if you look at the history of the church, they've flip flopped on a number of occassions on when the momment of life begins. It's obviously when it's most politically convenient.
@#27: Atheists don't necessarily have "faith" that God doesn't exist. Even Richard Dawkins doesn't claim to know for certain that God doesn't exist -- he just sees no evidence of it and thinks it's extremely unlikely.
The existance of god is the desire for two things, maybe three things. Aesthetics of a world with god, the feeling of "connection" with a higher power (the maybe), and most importantly the desire to be in and accepted by the community.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).