RSS Feed
Couples Counseling for McCain and Evangelicals
I must assume that Senator John McCain’s recent declaration, “I’m not Episcopalian, I’m Baptist,” was carefully scripted. After all, a presidential candidate who casually mentions that his religious affiliation is different from what nearly everyone in the country believed it to be is inviting scrutiny. Journalists, one would surmise, might want to look into that.
As far as Faith and Values gamesmanship goes, the McCain people played it well. To begin with, his claim is plausible. Had he said something to the effect of “I’m not Episcopalian, I’m Wiccan,” he would have been instantly discredited (and for reasons having absolutely nothing to do with longstanding anti-Wiccan prejudices).
Which brings me to another important point about McCain’s “slip”: it was provable.
His handlers surely knew that reporters would reach for their cellphones with dispatch and start making not-so-discrete inquiries. And then the happy story would proceed to tell itself. The senator’s wife and two of their children, America would learn, are Baptists. His attendance at a Baptist Church in Phoenix, the nation would soon understand, has been solid. Better yet, the pastor over there thinks he’s a good guy too! All of this information, incidentally, has been in the public record for years. So a commendation for Effective News Cycle Manipulation goes to Team McCain.
The Senator’s “candid” assertion also made sound electoral sense. Baptists represent an immense voting block, one that he will need to galvanize come primary time in South Carolina (where he made his statement and where there are a lot of Baptists). Moreover, McCain’s denominational off-roading, his shift from a Mainline Protestant denomination to an Evangelical one, neatly realigns his faith with his politics. His positions on the issues are far more in line with the beliefs of the latter than with those of the former.
I, for one, am not the least bit surprised that the Senator decided to publicize his embrace of Baptism. (Nor am I particularly interested in discerning whether it was genuine and heartfelt). I am surprised--puzzled actually--as to why he has to work so hard to secure the support of Baptists and conservative White Evangelicals in general.
In terms of things that many of them crave--overturning Roe v. Wade, restrictions on Gay marriage, alternatives to evolutionary theory in the curriculum, vigilance on Islamic radicalism, school vouchers, and so much more--McCain delivers like no other first-tier Republican. Even if he were Wiccan, Evangelicals would have to put aside their revulsion for skyclad pagans and consider his candidacy very seriously.
Yet the straight-talking war hero has always had tense and unstable relations with Conservative Christian powerbrokers. I will explore the reasons for this in my next post. But let me presently note that McCain and White Evangelicals need something on the order of couples counseling. For when the good senator confides that he is a Baptist, White Evangelicals should “hear him saying” that he really needs them. If they could just look into themselves, if they could just let go of all that anger and suspicion, they would soon realize that they really need him as well.
By Jacques Berlinerblau |
September 25, 2007; 7:50 AM ET
Share: Email a Friend | 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: An Atheist for President? |
Next: John McCain's New Religious Voice
Posted by: Rev. Landon | February 26, 2008 6:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Christians had better get a reality check if they don't want to see a Democrat in the White House come 2009. I sympathize with the convictions of most Christian conservatives even if I don't follow them strictly myself. Nothing could be more disastrous for this nation than, as Dan wrote, one of "the spineless, nutty-liberal Democrats now running for President" getting elected. Unfortunately, the demographic has shifted to the left and it's going to keep getting harder for conservatives to be elected. So while Christians may long for the overturn of Roe v. Wade, they better ask themselves: What is worse, Roe v. Wade or letting the Democrats destroy the economy with tax increases and hand our country over to the terrorists with their defeatist, anti-military lunacy? This is why I'm supporting Guiliani; not because I think he's perfect but because he's the only Republican socially liberal enough to draw enough middle of the road Democratic votes to defeat whichever Socialist the Democrats nominate. To those conservatives who declare they'd never vote for him because of his stance on abortion, or his divorces, etc, I say you'd better wake up and decide whether you want there to be anything left to vote for at all in 2012.
Posted by: alan | September 26, 2007 6:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"White Evangelicals need something" and "White Evangelicals should"
The large Christian Evangelical voting block is Black, White, Yellow, and Brown. Berlinerblau has never actually looked inside a church.
Hey Jacques- GLUG GLUG
(Cue sound of toilet flushing)
Posted by: Anonymous | September 26, 2007 3:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Frederick:
Are you angry?
I can't tell.
Posted by: Russell D. | September 26, 2007 2:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Berlinerblau's little treatise is offensive.
More than offensive. The snotty, superior glib bit on whether "White Evangelicals" (WHITE EVANGELICALS!!!) need marriage councelling is a last straw.
He INSTRUCTS that if they'd just LOOK INSIDE THEMSLEVES... and "get rid of all the anger and suspicion..."
He muses on whether McCain is 'plausible' in his religious convictions!
He ADVISES the temper and convictions of the 'conservative Christian powerbrokers..." and smirks at it.
He is unbearable.
What is the Post thinking?
Posted by: Frederick | September 26, 2007 2:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Berlinerblau, the great and surpassing
thinker on religion...must be making a bigger pont here than mere protestant/exchanging identity.
He who tried to slip by the fact that his various positions as a 'professor' are in matters Jewish--untill specifically called on it.
So again, what's the point of this McCain non story?
Posted by: Fanuel | September 26, 2007 11:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
McCain now admits that he made a mistake back in 2000 when he opted for the while supremacy vote in South Carolina during the primary election. It didn't help. The southern Republicans were not fooled. An honest approach still might not have won, but it would at least have been honest. The fatal flaw in McCain's approach for 2007 is that he really does want more war in Iraq and vicinity spite of the obvious futility of more war. Whether or not he and the religious right need each other is irrelevant. What is relevant is that McCain is (to use a canine phrase) barking up the wrong tree. My impression is that the majority of the voters are looking for a way out, not a way farther in to a failed policy.
Posted by: David | September 26, 2007 11:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Wow! There sure is a ton of hand wringing among Republics on who is going to have the honor of losing in a landslide to whoever the Democrats nominate.
Posted by: Mr Mark | September 26, 2007 10:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
McCain is irrelevant...you might as well write about Ross Perot or Dukakis. He got shot down and therefore calls himself a war hero. Kind of like the captain of the Titanic running for head of the navy....geeezzz. He should save his money , get his face fixed and retire.
Posted by: Vic | September 26, 2007 10:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Gosh the whole religion and politics thing is played so candidly cynical. In effect the hidden text by politicians is, "Okay, lets feed some pablum to Pavlov's Christian dogs," or, "Let's tell them what they want to hear and boom, got that voting block locked up."
Too bad most journalists follow that line in their own lock step instead of exploring why there is an unquestioned assumption that we Christian Americans are such an unthinking breed. Perhaps there is evidence to show that we are--so why not be even more candid about that, too? Why not articles titled, "America's Christians, the New Political Automatons?" And if the evidence isn't there, then how about, "Why We Assume America's Christians Are Automatons, and How We're Wrong About That?"
Sick set of assumptions make me want to puke, and nice Christian girls don't often say that, eh?
Posted by: Lindsay Howerton | September 26, 2007 10:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Pope: Sunday Worship a "Necessity" For All
September 17, 2007 | From theTrumpet.com
Pope Benedict XVI says your life depends upon worshiping on Sunday.
"Sine dominico non possumus!" "Without Sunday [worship] we cannot live!" Pope Benedict xvi declared during a mass on September 9 at St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna.
Speaking on the final day of his three-day visit to Austria, the German pope voiced a strong call for Christians to revive Sunday keeping as an all-important religious practice.
"Give the soul its Sunday, give Sunday its soul," he chanted before a rain-soaked crowd of 40,000.
Benedict said that Sunday, which he stated has its origin as "the day of the dawning of creation," was "also the church's weekly feast of creation."
Warning against the evils of allowing Sunday to become just a part of the weekend, the pope said people needed to have a spiritual focus during the first day of the week, or else leisure time would just become wasted time.
Sunday worship, he warned, was not just a "precept" to be casually adhered to, but a "necessity" for all people.
In the opening greeting, the archbishop of Vienna said a movement in Austria had been initiated to protect "Sunday from tendencies to empty [it] of its meaning."
In Austria, most businesses are restricted from operating on Sunday. However, some business groups are pressuring the government to be allowed to open, a move Roman Catholic groups vehemently oppose.
During Benedict's trip to Austria, he called for Europe to look to its Christian roots, to trust in God and to defend traditional values.
The pope has been very vocal about Europe's Christian-or Catholic-roots, and is pushing to have them included in the European Constitution. Although laws concerning Sunday worship are currently determined by individual nations, look for the European Union to eventually gain jurisdiction over the work week-which is one big reason the Catholic Church is so intimately involved with the evolution of the EU. For more on the Catholic Church and Europe, read "The Pope Trumpets Sunday" by the Trumpet's editor in chief. .
-----------------------
"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come (the return of Christ), except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exaltheth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2 Thessalonians 2:3,4
"If protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church."--Albert Smith, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the cardinal in a letter of Feb. 10, 1920.
Does the Papacy acknowledge changing the seventh-day Sabbath? It does. The Catechismus Romanus was commanded by the Council of Trent and published by the Vatican Press, by order of Pope Pius V, in 1566. This catechism for the priests says: "It pleased the church of God, that the religious celebration of the Sabbath day should be transferred to 'the Lord's day.'--Catechism of the Council of Trent (Donovan's translation, 1867), part 3, chap. 4, p. 345. The same, in slightly different wording is in the McHugh and Callan translation (1937 ed.), p. 402. "Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays? "Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church."--Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (1833 approbation), p. 58. (Same statement in Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. by Daniel Ferris {1916 ed.}, p. 67.) "Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? "Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority." Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism (3d ed.), p. 174. "The Catholic Church,...by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."--The Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893. "Question: Is Saturday the 7th day according to the Bible & the Ten Commandments? Answer: I answer yes. "Question: Is Sunday the first day of the week & did the Church change the 7th day--Saturday--for Sunday, the 1st day: Answer: "I answer yes." "Question: Did Christ change the day? Answer: I answer no! Faithfully yours, "J. Card. Gibbons"--Gibbons autograph letter.
"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for the doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:9
Receiving the mark of the beast or the seal of God in the mind or the hand is not a literal "mark" to be put on our foreheads or our hand but it is our consent to whom we will obey. "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey? Romans 6:16
Posted by: Anonymous | September 26, 2007 10:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
BRCD12,
Thanks!
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | September 26, 2007 9:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Senator McCain's campaign for the Presidency reminds me of his seven-year imprisonment and torture by the North VietNamese, in which the man never compromised with his torturers, never traded propaganda statements for an early release, stuck by his life principles, and grew spiritually into a better and stronger man.
You can't really stop a man like that. No sane person would bet against McCain being President in 2008.
Posted by: DaTourist | September 26, 2007 9:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Why do evangelicals need McCain? You said that he represents the only top tier Republican candidate who is in line with their beliefs - HELLO, ever hear of Senator Fred Thompson, you know, the conservative who didn't have to change his beliefs because he already had them? The guy who's running a close second to Rudy in all the polls (except the ones that only poll likely republican primary voters - he leads in all those)
Why do so many media organizations seem hell bent on ignoring Fred as much as possible?
I can understand the bias at Fox News. The guy who runs the place was Rudy's mayoral campaign manager, but it's still childish to ignore a leading candidate in the false hope that he'll go away.
Evangelicals don't like or trust McCain because of Campaign Finance Reform. people don't like having their free speech restricted, no matter how well intentioned the effort was.
Posted by: Ben | September 26, 2007 8:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Why do evangelicals need McCain? You said that he represents the only top tier Republican candidate who is in line with their beliefs - HELLO, ever hear of Senator Fred Thompson, you know, the conservative who didn't have to change his beliefs because he already had them? The guy who's running a close second to Rudy in all the polls (except the ones that only poll likely republican primary voters - he leads in all those)
Why do so many media organizations seem hell bent on ignoring Fred as much as possible?
I can understand the bias at Fox News. The guy who runs the place was Rudy's mayoral campaign manager, but it's still childish to ignore a leading candidate in the false hope that he'll go away.
Evangelicals don't like or trust McCain because of Campaign Finance Reform. people don't like having their free speech restricted, no matter how well intentioned the effort was.
Posted by: Ben | September 26, 2007 8:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
We Christians are tired of the theocratic approach of pandering politicians. Right-wing politicians have brought us close to fascism and almost ruined our country. Strict separation of church and state will save our demcracy AND our churches. Read the NEW Testament. Real Christians do not kill for their country and they do not worship mammon. They promote idolatry.
Posted by: HP | September 26, 2007 7:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Your writing about McCain and support of his Baptist affiliation only supports my recent change of belief that the more religion becomes involved in politics the dirtier and more distrustful it becomes.
I would suggest that your time (and churchgoers money) would be much better spent helping those in the community that need help. It looks like you would have learned your lesson after supporting George Bush and the embarrassment that he has caused for religious groups.
Your article has been successful in one regard. I have now decided to write McCain off my list of candidates.
Posted by: R. Bedwell | September 26, 2007 6:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Not according to James Dobson, who has just proclaimed that the anointed will be Newt!
Posted by: melior | September 26, 2007 4:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Replying to Anonymous’ Betrand Russell quote:
You quoted:
“Religion is based,I think,primarily and mainly upon fear…… Fear is the basis of the whole thing-fear of the mysterious,fear of defeat,fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty,
and therefore it is no wonder if religion and cruelty have gone hand in hand…. Science can teach us,and I think our own hearts can teach us,no longer to look around for imaginary supports,no longer to invent allies in the sky,but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in,instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it."
As much as I would love to jump on the “Science-is-My-Savior” bandwagon, the history of science is riddled with skeleton-filled closets:
-Human Freezing Experiments
-Human Malaria Experiments
-Mustard Gas Experiments
-Sulfonamide Experiments
-Sea Water Experiments
-Sterilization Experiments
-Typhus Experiments
-Poison Experiments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation
Ancient examples by a corrupt regime you say? How about forced Anthrax Vaccinations with unproven pharmaceuticals during the Gulf War resulting in medical complications for 1000’s of returning US soldiers? Or harvesting of human embryo stem cells for research? (As if those are the only viable kinds!!!)
Your misguided & overly-simplistic conclusions about Religion ignore the true cause of human misery and oppression……HUMANS! Whether a wooden club or a national system of beliefs, we use whatever tools we can to subjugate our fellow man. True Religion tames the savage beast in us and propels us toward genuine compassion for our fellow man rather than domination.
Wake up and smell the candles: Religion is not the problem. Our greed and ambition is.
Posted by: Vast Right Wing Conspiracy | September 26, 2007 12:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment
RE: Bill
The argument is not in favor of a State-Sponsored religion or which is better, Atheistic China or Uber-Fundamentalist Iran, but rather, why the religious Intolerance in a religiously tolerant nation?
Posted by: Vast Right Wing Conspiracy | September 26, 2007 12:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
So, vast right wing conspiracy, just which religion do you support for the official US religion?
Posted by: Bill | September 25, 2007 11:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Replying to C.T. Nicholas:
You wrote, "...Will the day ever come when a politician can admit that he/she doesn't believe there's a god?
Ihope I live long enough to see such a day."
Considering America was founded by Religious Pilgrims and Puritans; it's Constitution grounded upon Biblical precepts; & it's Founding Fathers were Believers (or at least subscribed to the notion of a Higher Being), is it no surprise that many of us cannot accept nor relate to, an Agnostic Candidate?
On behalf of our dead Christian/Deist ancestors, I humbly apologize for attempting to politically shove our Judeo-Christian values down your throat. (Hey, Good news though...Sweden is still accepting immigrants. =)
Posted by: Vast Right Wing Conspiracy | September 25, 2007 11:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Bertrand Russell
Fear,the Foundation of Religion
Religion is based,I think,primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes.
Fear is the basis of the whole thing-fear of the mysterious,fear of defeat,fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty,
and therefore it is no wonder if religion and cruelty have gone hand in hand.It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things,and a little to master them by help of science,
which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion,against the churches,and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us,and I think our own hearts can teach us,no longer to look around for imaginary supports,no longer to invent allies in the sky,but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in,instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.
Why I Am Not A Christian,pp22.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 25, 2007 10:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I just had a revelation. Maybe the Republicans refuse to stand up to the neocons because they think it will help ensure that they will inherit the earth.
Posted by: Stephen Boyington | September 25, 2007 10:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
McCain joined with the agents of intolerance, the phony, war mongering Pharasees like Falwell and Dobson. That alone eliminates him from any list of possible candidates. I've have enough of the cult level religion in this country to last me a lifetime.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 25, 2007 9:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Norrie Hoyt - great one liner! You should be writing for Leno and Letterman.
Posted by: brcd12 | September 25, 2007 9:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mcinsane is no different than some other politicians that will stoop so low as to use religion to try to gain votes.What we dont need is another religious cult leader like bush for our next president.
Posted by: sharon | September 25, 2007 8:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
John McCain will sell his soul to any Satan in order to become the next President. Witness his approach to his recent vote against the DC voting rights bill. Hiding behind the fake smokescreen of "constitutional issues," he not only slapped the citizens of DC and moreover its very soldiers that fight for democracy in the Middle East, he now prevents the people of Utah its rightful extra seat AFTER he gets endorsed by the Utah governor. SHAME on you, John McCain!!!
Posted by: John | September 25, 2007 8:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
There may have been a strategic reason for the timing of McCain's disclosure that he is now a Baptist and no longer an Episcopal. But to most evangelical voters, this is a non-issue. We simply don't care what the hierarchy of a denomination believes, we care what the candidate believes. The United Methodist Church is at least as liberal as the Episcopal Church, but GWB is a Methodist and that was OK with christian voters. You've made too much of the change itself, though there may be something to the timing of the disclosure
Posted by: andrew | September 25, 2007 8:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
McCain is my Senator, as I live in Arizona. I don't care what he calls himself in terms of his religious affilation. He got my (Democratic) vote once when he genuinely seemed to be his own person. Never again.
Painting himself as a religious evangelical is part of just pandering to groups he thinks might get him elected. And no insult intended here to Baptists, Episcopalians, or any other religious denomination.
Posted by: Pam | September 25, 2007 7:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
McCain is my Senator, as I live in Arizona. I don't care what he calls himself in terms of his religious affilation. He got my (Democratic) vote once when he genuinely seemed to be his own person. Never again.
Painting himself as a religious evangelical is part of just pandering to groups he thinks might get him elected. And no insult intended here to Baptists, Episcopalians, or any other religious denomination.
Posted by: Pam | September 25, 2007 7:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Many independents have already reached the conclusion that John McCain would sell his soul in order to win the White House. Cozying up to the same bible-thumping folks that stabbed him in the back in South Carolina in 2000, and then kissing Jerry Falwell's ring at Liberty University in Virginia. Is it any surprise that he would sell out his own faith?
Posted by: D.Fout | September 25, 2007 7:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Senator McCain is my preferred candidate in 2008 as long as he's in the race. He has been for a long time. I even donated $100 to his campaign. Not that I have anything against Guiliani, Thompson or Romney. Not at all. Any of them are infinitely preferable to any of the spineless, nutty-liberal Democrats now running for President. (Hillary Clinton = "moderate"? Please.) But I'm afraid that John may have permanently screwed himself by backing the recent attempt at immigration reform that was eventually killed. That's what has him down in the polls. In his zeal to reach consensus on this difficult issue, he forgot that it's the Republican base that controls the primaries. If you tick them off too badly, you're dead meat. Advocating a path to citizenship for the illegals already in the country BEFORE the boarder with Mexico has been truly secured was a guaranteed way to do that. The groundswell of conservative protest that ultimately killed the bill really left McCain in a bad position. That, more than any other single reason, is why he's running 4th right now. I hope he can rally and win the nomination, but the odds against him at this point are formidable.
Posted by: Dan | September 25, 2007 6:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I can see either Romney or McCain as viable and electable candidates over the foreordained Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Forget Giuliani. America's not ready for the spectacle of two New York candidates, although Hillary's family life would neutralize Rudy's family handicap. Still, you don't have much to choose from, if you're not from New York.
Okay, Romney's led by example, standing up to the Massachusetts GayLiberal Goliath as a Little David, challenging them with his sling every step of the way to hold a democratic referendum on gay marriage. The Roman Catholic Cardinal allied himself with Romney. So, we know that Romney will have many more Christian allies as US President in the Culture Way with the GayLiberal Way of Life.
Now, McCain has led by example, too, and McCain has no peers for walking his patriotism in the bamboo cages of the Hanoi Hilton. And, like the Pharisee Saul, McCain appears to have seen the light on the road to Damascus, leaving behind the gay Episcopalians for the company of Baptists.
Will it be Romney? Or McCain? I believe God will choose His man!
Posted by: DaTourist | September 25, 2007 6:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Of all the candidates, Republican and Democrat, McCain is the one who has suffered the most persecution for his faith in God and country!
Seven years in the belly of the North VietNamese beast! The Hanoi Hilton! Constant physcial and psychological torture!
Yet McCain kept the faith, and came out of that lions' den as strong as Daniel!
McCain needs to testify about this! God has given him the stump! Find your tongue of fire, John McCain!
Posted by: DaTourist | September 25, 2007 5:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Has John McCain really written a book called "Character is Destiny"? Has he ever read the book written by himself?
Posted by: detector | September 25, 2007 5:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It's true that McCain needs evangelical Christians, and it's true that evangelical Christians need McCain.
But, for evangelical Christians, our relations with McCain have been like the old blues song, "Reaching for someone, and not finding anyone there..."
Here's some advice for McCain! Baptists will never vote enthusiastically for a Lukewarm Man!
Posted by: DaTourist | September 25, 2007 5:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Is there no alternative to McCain for the Christian right and Southern Baptists?
Well, of course, there's Romney, who can speak our language better than McCain, so well that we almost forget he's a Mormon. But Mormons are like us, not like Episcopalians.
We like McCain, too, but McCain doesn't understand that we don't take orders from bishops and admirals, and his Episcopalian temperament needs to become more Baptist.
The jury's still out. McCain? Or Romney?
Posted by: DaTourist | September 25, 2007 5:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
McCain is trying to reassure his neocon support base that he, too, is a gay-bashing, intolerant Christian extremist who wants the US to remain a theocracy.
Posted by: Roy | September 25, 2007 3:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Johnnie you were so beautiful ?/!" What happened to the McCain we once knew, loved and respected; the straight talking guy who could be counted on to always speak truth to power? It just seems that after his last presidential bid in New Hampshire that he just collapsed and threw in the towel, deciding that it was more important to make deals with the devil (or devils since in politics there is a lot of them) and get ugly but get elected, then to stay beautiful and true.....
Posted by: Birddog | September 25, 2007 3:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
McCain is political scrap; anything he does at this point looks a bit like a fish flipping around the dock.
Posted by: Mobedda | September 25, 2007 3:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ONLY if he were wiccan, would **I** vote for him.
Posted by: Hadriana | September 25, 2007 3:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This is more about lazy reporting than it is about any 'convenient conversion' of McCain. McCain's campaign bios going all the way back to 2000 have clearly said that he attends a Baptist church and that during his imprisonment in Vietnam, he performed Scripture readings and sermonettes for his fellow prisoners, presumably on request.
McCain's 'disclosure' on the stump of going to a Baptist church was only a real 'disclosure' to folks who hadn't done their homework, which of course, is most people. That these folks then turned around and started saying that McCain must be pandering for the evangelical vote just because their own grasp of the facts was decidedly incomplete reveals much about the unfounded presumptions people are working with when doing their analysis.
For the record, I'm not a McCain booster and am inclined to support another candidate. But going after a guy based on faulty presumptions and incomplete information only results in convenient myth making. The fact that such a phenomenon is an epidemic today doesn't excuse it.
Posted by: Jason | September 25, 2007 2:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It amazes me that those who preach tolerance are also the ones who tend to paint all Christians as extremist nut cases. I'm with you Nicole, I vote based on the record of the individual and how they align with my priorities, which is what everyone else does if they are honest about it. I refuse to even be labeled with a party name, because I want to feel free to vote for the best person for the job, regardless of the party affiliation.
As for McCain, there was a time years ago when I thought he had promise. Now, I don't really see myself voting for him, but then, I can't say that I have found anyone that I really would be excited to vote for yet!
Posted by: Nanette | September 25, 2007 2:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Straight-talking" my butt! McCain was been tied at the hip to BushCo and now he is trying to distance himself from the fiasco and tragedy he supported every step of the way. Nice try but really pathetic execution.
Posted by: ted | September 25, 2007 2:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
McCain's surprising conversion to the Baptists will be nothing more than a footnote to a 2008 presidential campaign that has itself been a footnote for months.
Posted by: Mr Mark | September 25, 2007 1:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"...as long as he has found out that Jesus Christ is Lord and has accepted Him as his personal savior " + "WHO CARES!"
hah! Your statement marks you as somebody WHO CARES. This is why mccain is pandering to you and your type ... unfortunately for your type perhaps (and fortunate for the rest of us) ... your day has come and gone. Your ability to force your faithism on the rest of us has peaked with the last election. We can see the results of faith-based leadership on a secular nation, and frankly we don't want it anymore.
And this is where mccain's judgment fails, as I've already said. We can't expect you to see anything beyond your programming, but we can and must expect more from someone attempting to become the leader of our entire nation.
Posted by: K | September 25, 2007 11:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
There is a lot to be said for keeping religion out of politics,if for no other reason than politicians just use religion to get votes.
I think that any agnostic politician would lie about his agnosticism just to stay in the game;and others will change religions for the same reason.
Will the day ever come when a politician can admit that he/she doesn't believe there's a god?
Ihope I live long enough to see such a day.
Posted by: C.T.Nicholas | September 25, 2007 10:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Let's get something straight here. There is nothing "heavenly" about what evangelicals want to do as it relates to political power and government rule. They want to use the State to force upon society their own peculiar religious beliefs. They do not care whether a majority of Americans have a more tolerant approach on questions concerning abortion, homosexuality, prayer in the schools and gun control. Their sole objective is to use the State to enforce a mandated approach that comports absolutely with their world view. And that includes the silly, Messianic Bush notion of using our military on foolish crusades to bring the rest of the world into compliance with a Judaeo-Christian culture of morality. Thus, John McCain's swaggering imitation of George W. Bush in his jingoist posturing appeals to them even if his views on other matters do not.
Posted by: Gary Jackson | September 25, 2007 10:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"But let me presently note that McCain and White Evangelicals need something on the order of couples counseling."
My understanding is that couples counseling doesn't work very well when one partner is afflicted with certifiable lunacy and the other is erratic, inconsistent, and trusted by no one.
Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | September 25, 2007 9:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
This isn't McCain's enlightened new appeal, it's not a case of "I've always been here, where were you?" ... no, this is the last gasping pander of a desperate old man who sees his life's dream going down the toilet. That same toilet bush flushed him down in South Carolina back in 2000, that same toilet bush is swimming in now.
You know, Ronald Reagan was a very sad figure in the last part of his life, alzheimer's stole his mind, his "self". There was nothing anybody could do.
I'm sorry mccain, you don't even have alzheimer's to blame for your loss of self. A lifetime of ambition being petered away pandering to the whackos who won bush the last election ... your judgment is very much in question if you think this is the way to win the presidency.
I would be kinder by far for all of us, and you as well, if you would just zip up your pants and take your well-earned retirement.
Posted by: K | September 25, 2007 9:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
I've known a number of Wiccans, and few are skyclad. Whether this is because being skyclad is an option they don't endorse, or because they have better taste, I have no idea.