RSS Feed
Who Can Play the Faith and Values Game?
In an interview to be aired next week on HDTV Michael Bloomberg has told Dan Rather that “nobody’s going to elect me president of the United States.” Only partial transcripts of the conversation are available, and it is hard to tell why the Mayor of New York came to this conclusion. It is also hard to tell whether the mayor actually believed this conclusion. But as far as conclusions taken out of context and made by PR-savvy politicians go, it strikes me as the right one.
This past Monday I suggested that Mr. Bloomberg--whose body of work in New York City over the past five years has not been unimpressive--might have a difficult time winning over conservative Christian voters. The mayor is affiliated with Reform Judaism--an affiliation whose depth and profundity some Jews have questioned. It was my contention that even if Bloomberg were deeply immersed in the teachings and values of Reform, those teachings and values might not go over well in the American heartland.
This begs the question: would any Jewish candidate, from any Jewish denomination do any better? A reader might conceivably respond: “No. The American electorate is simply not ready to place a Jew in the White House.” And if my imaginary interlocutor enjoys grand rhetorical gestures as much as I do, s/he might pile it on as follows: “Nor are the voters of this nation ready to extend this courtesy to a woman, a gay person, an African-American, or any other non-white, non-male, non-Christian citizen.”
As regards Jews, and strictly Jews, I do not share this opinion. For years I have been telling my undergraduates that Jews are different. By this I mean many things, some of them not exceedingly profound. But a central component of my argument is that Jews are very different from one another. In High Modernity there exists a beguiling (and, I insist, quite healthy) diversity that characterizes the Jewish people.
Take, for example, the difference between Michael Bloomberg and Joseph Lieberman. I will not engage in pointless discussions about who is the more authentic or representative member of the faith. What I will say is that Conservative Christians will be far more receptive to an orthodox Jewish candidate such as Lieberman, than one who comes out of the Reform tradition such as Bloomberg.
Think back to 2000. When the senator from Connecticut was selected as Al Gore’s running mate many feared that his candidacy would bring the anti-Semitic crackpots out of their fortified bunkers and remote mountain dwellings. Thankfully, this did not come to pass. As for God Talk, Lieberman performed swimmingly. He dropped Scripture bombs left and right. He invoked God on a quotidian basis. He questioned the idea of “freedom from religion.” He even publicly and gleefully cited the gospels, thus becoming the first orthodox Jew in recorded history to do so without a weapon pointed in his direction. It was liberals, Jewish and non-Jewish, who were exasperated by Lieberman, not Christians from Middle America.
My point is this: the Faith and Values game as currently played in American presidential politics is played by rules that favor (and were drafted by) Conservative Protestants. Candidates, however, from other religious traditions (e.g., Orthodox Judaism, traditional Catholicism) who share the latter’s skepticism toward secularism, modernity, and liberalism can score points when they reach into their own creedal beliefs on the campaign trail. Politicians from more secularized religions (e.g., liberal Catholics, Reform Jews, certain Mainline Protestants, atheists) perform under a handicap that ranges from mild to severe.
By Jacques Berlinerblau |
August 23, 2007; 9:34 AM ET
Share: Email a Friend | 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Michael Bloomberg and His God Problem |
Next: Responses to Readers' Comments
Posted by: koloko junior | April 25, 2008 4:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Re: SOK7 (24 August 2007) on Stalin and Hitler
Sam Harris covers Stalin and Hitler very well.
My below statement restricts itself to HITLER.
". . .And before you use the terrorists of 9/11 and their virgin prizes as a ‘representative’ sampling of the People of Faith, let me remind you of all the people who have died at the hands of people who believe in no God at all. You can start with Stalin and Hitler and work your way down the list from there. . ."
HITLER NOT A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A NON-BELIEVER.
Germany under Hitler was saturated with god and religious stuff - some old and some new.
I would remind those innocent of modern history that at least eight million Wehrmacht soldiers wore GOTT MIT UNS belt buckles in World War Two. All of their soldiers on all fronts had priests and ministers serving as cheerleaders for their troops. Not one German cleric, soldier, politician or concentration camp functionary was ever excommunicated by the One True Church for their murderous acts. The protestant churches did very little better in taking a stand against Hitler. Duh. Hitler frequently invoked "Die Vorsehung" (Providence) in his speechs. GOT MIT UNS?
Posted by: Gerhardt J. Steinke | August 30, 2007 4:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Many "cherished beliefs" deserve "belittling" and debunking. For example "faith-based" initiatives such as blowing up property and people. Sincerity of "cherished beliefs" is not an argument against challenging those claiming special insights into supposed "supernatural" explanations of natural events. EFFECTIVE belittling of pervasive superstitions is a consummation devoutly to be wished. Is an honest god the noblest work of man? Should pious folks be automatically immune from criticism?
Posted by: Gerhardt J. Steinke | August 30, 2007 3:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Anonymous,
What does science teach us about how to get along? Science talks about ‘survival of the fittest’. Science says that all life competes for space and food and shelter and that the Strong will kill or drive-off the weak, the sick, and the unlucky. To science, a dead baby is not a tragedy, it’s just a (necessary) part of the cycle. Life is an accident. Murder is justified. The world is a savage garden.
Is this the ‘rational’ foundation you want to build your life upon?
Religion, as a philosophy of life, says many things contrary to science. Most religions say that life is not an accident, it was either destined to be or intentionally planned. Most religions encourage people to help the sick, the weak, and others less fortunate than themselves. Life is sacred and the premature death of any person is something to be mourned, even for those who believe the dead will go to a better place.
So what is the greater ‘idiocy’: To choose a philosophy that cherishes life and calls it sacred or sharpen our spears in the savage garden? Is it more dangerous to believe that there is a presence wiser than we are… or do we assume that man is God by virtue of his place atop the food chain?
Even if you continue to reject God, I encourage you to find a spiritual foundation for your life. Science is a good way to under stand many things about the world, but it is a cruel, heartless faith.
And before you use the terrorists of 9/11 and their virgin prizes as a ‘representative’ sampling of the People of Faith, let me remind you of all the people who have died at the hands of people who believe in no God at all. You can start with Stalin and Hitler and work your way down the list from there.
Posted by: sok7 | August 24, 2007 11:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment
sok7:
"Dear Anonymous,
"The first part of everybody getting along is for some people to stop belittling other people’s most cherished beliefs. I see very little about the present that leads me to believe we are more wise in our choices than we were two or even ten generations ago. Science will not fix all the things that are wrong with the human heart".
I say;
How about the beliefs of the 9/11 religious wackos?
Should we be too polite to belittle their crazy belief in a god who hands out 72 virgins to good little muslim martyrs?
Your supernatural belief is no more rational than the muslim's supernatural belief,and equally unlikely.
My belief is that some religious nut is going to blow me up one of these days.
So yeah,I'm going to question the idiocy of those who are programed to believe in some supernatural fairy tail.You guys are dangerous.
BTW when you grow older and have heart problems,it's
the heart surgeon you're going to be depending on.
Your heart is not just a metaphor,its a real live organ that pumps blood, and works for a while and then one day it stops.And then you're dead.For ever.
Religious thinking is still stuck back 9 or 10 generations ago.Science moved on and keeps moving on.
If religion tried to move ahead,it would crumble.
Fear is the mother of all religions.Fear of death.
If there was no death,there would be no religions.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 24, 2007 12:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment
If the US is not ready to elect a Jewish President then I guess when Jesus returns as a short guy with rough hands in a dirty white robe, long hair and a hooked nose that he has not got a chance of persuading the Good People of America to vote for him. Pity.
Posted by: Robert James | August 23, 2007 11:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Because people like people who believe in God.
They see these people, no matter if they are PhDs or toothless, high school drop outs, as smart enough to know they are imperfect beings in need of forgiveness from a loving God. That makes religious people mature.
Posted by: PAPAGoRGIO | August 23, 2007 8:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Because democrats/liberals/secular progressives/modern progressives/moderates/hippies/socialists, have really come to a radically different religious tradition. They are moving away from Christinity pretty quickly and towards an earth-centered, science based tradition. They are big on reason, small on faith.
Posted by: PapaTonY | August 23, 2007 8:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
HeyYou - "Leave a Million Dollar Car in newly plowed field and in only a couple of years its worthless."
Huh?
Mr. Berlinblau - I like your posts. Good analysis. I believe there's also an urban/rural factor that comes into play here. It's closely tied to faith and values...but, not entirely synomynous.
Posted by: Seattle | August 23, 2007 6:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
SOK7, what will fix the human heart? You think evolution? Look around you. Leave a Million Dollar Car in newly plowed field and in only a couple of years its worthless. Mankind hasn't changed in 1000's of years. He is constantly BEING FILLED with unrighteousness. You die.
You said, "A man with solid values will do the right thing more times than not."
INteresting you left faith out of what you consider the measure of a man. The world DOES NOT have faith. It is a born again Christian thing.
Posted by: HeyYOU | August 23, 2007 6:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Anonymous,
The first part of everybody getting along is for some people to stop belittling other people’s most cherished beliefs. I see very little about the present that leads me to believe we are more wise in our choices than we were two or even ten generations ago. Science will not fix all the things that are wrong with the human heart.
Dear Jacques,
We will not be ready for a Jew in the White House until the right Jew comes along. Just as we were not ready for a Catholic in the White House until JFK came along and we were not ready for an actor-turned-President until Reagan. It takes many labels to come anywhere close to defining a Good Person, and even then the picture is incomplete. Perhaps that’s why I find your comment about Conservative Protestants so disappointing.
I know conservative Protestants who are in favor of federal money for stem cell research, just as I know conservative Protestants who teach evolution to their children. I know conservative Protestants who believe in a woman’s right to an abortion not because they think abortion is right, but because the think government has no business telling a person what to with their body – yes, telling government to “stay out of my business” is a form of conservatism too.
Stereotypes just piss me off. Mix stereotypes with politics and you have a fight, not a solution. Stereotypes are a way of “rallying the troops” against the enemy. It’s a tool for making people afraid of others who may or may not share all the same values that you do. There are liberals in congress who vote for things they don’t believe in just so they won’t be lumped in the same category as Bush, just as there are conservatives who vote for things they don’t like for fear of being labeled with the dreaded “L” word.
Faith and Values are not a game. There is no way you can ask a candidate for President how he will react in every single situation he his going to encounter. There will be surprises on the job. That’s why faith and values are important. A man with solid values will do the right thing more times than not. And nothing is more dangerous than a man with no values at all.
It used to be that you were expected to vote for the Democrats if you were a Democrat, even if you did not like their candidate. Same for the Republicans. Are voting for Faith and Values (i.e. voting your conscience) any worse than voting the straight party line?
Posted by: sok7 | August 23, 2007 5:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
If your a Muslim you can play the morals game but not the Faith game. If your a Mormon or Jehoxah Witness or a Catholic you can play the morals game but not the Faith game. If your a George W Bush you can play the morals game (notice how he always talks about how 'good' a certain person is) but in now way can he and his clan play the Faith game. Only a truely Born Again person can play the Faith and Morals game. Those two games seperate men and women. The Lord Jesus did not come to bring peace between men but a Sword. Only IN Christ is there Peace and Faith and Love and Hope. Outside Christ is where the vultures are.
Posted by: HeyYOU | August 23, 2007 4:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
“No. The American electorate is simply not ready to place a Jew in the White House.”
There is the case of "the smartest man in the whole vide vorld" Henry Kissinger but he wasn't qualified to be president because he was un-naturally born like Arnold Swartznager of Coulifornia.
Jews are all different from one another like all other groups of people. They have managed to maintain an identity, stay huddled together for a very long time but that is likely to end with global civil rights. Next step after reformed is what?
http://www.hoax-buster.org isn't a reformed Jew thing is it? Was that really God in the ball of fire, the being that Moses made the deal with? What does the evidence say? Maybe there are too many Jewish lawyers who look at evidence?
Bloomberg would get a lot of votes, maybe enough to beat either a conservative or liberal. The country is kinda fed up with both of groups. The simple question about Moses speaking to either God or Devil, unknown and unprovable which one with the obvious third option of hoax might help a bit too.
Posted by: BGone | August 23, 2007 1:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The world would be a better place if we threw away ancient books of superstitious claptrap,and concentrated on reality and what needs to be done to help 21st century people get along with each other.
Religion is a force for dividing people into opposing groups of different supernatural beliefs,
when as far as we know there is no supernatural world except in fairy stories.
To quote old books as a guide to how to live well in the 21st century,is beyond ridiculous.
Our feet are still firmly planted in the mud of the past,and we wonder why the only progress we make is scientific,while "personal beliefs" of magic and superstition prevent common sense from ever getting a toe-hold in our quest for harmony and world peace.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 23, 2007 12:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
I'am a student completing a master degree in american literature.but I 'am more concerned in the influence of christianity in african american novel so can jou give me some free materials in this sphere of knowlege.
NB write me back for your via email address