Politicians Can't Serve Two Masters
I see precious little evidence that any of the candidate's declarations of
faith - all of them claim to be Christians - have a direct impact on their
policies. John McCain's commendable renunciations of the use of torture (at
least until a recent Senate vote on the issue) appear to derive from his own
experiences as a prisoner of war, not necessarily from his religious
commitments. Hillary Clinton, to my knowledge, has not explicitly linked her
health-care proposals to the New Testament mandate to care for "the least of
these." Barack Obama wants to restore a sense of decency to foreign policy
and thereby to redeem America's standing in the eyes of the world, but I see
little evidence that this is motivated strictly - or even primarily - by
Christian values. Jesus told his followers to "welcome the stranger," but I
see little resonance of that sentiment in Mike Huckabee's immigration
proposals.
This should come as little surprise. In researching the American presidency
over the past half century for "God in the White House," I found only one
president in that span of time who actually sought consistently to govern
according to the religious principles he articulated in his campaign for the
White House: Jimmy Carter.
There's little evidence, for example, to suggest that John F. Kennedy, the
nation's first (and still the only) Roman Catholic to serve as president,
inflected his faith into his administration's policies. Ronald Reagan
insisted that abortion was the defining moral issue of his time, and he
campaigned twice for the presidency promising to outlaw it. Yet, as even his
supporters now acknowledge, he made no serious effort to outlaw abortion
(and he mentioned the issue not even once in his autobiography of over seven
hundred pages).
Billy Graham detected vast reservoirs of faith and piety in his friend
Richard Nixon, who hosted worship services in the White House. Probity,
however, is not the first word that comes to mind in recalling the Nixon
administration. And Bill Clinton's many critics are justified in pointing
out the disjunction between his professions of faith and his conduct in the
Oval Office.
Carter, the only exception to this litany, proves the rule. The former
governor of Georgia ran for office promising a government as "good and
decent as the American people" and pledging never to "knowingly lie." After
he sought actually to govern according to his moral principles - revising
the Panama Canal treaties, calling attention to human rights abuses
throughout the world, seeking peace in the Middle East - the American people
denied him a second term.
So where does that leave us, the voters? If we persist in vetting a
candidate's faith, we should (at the very least) pay attention to the
answers. Suppose that, eight years ago, when George W. Bush declared on the
eve of the Iowa precinct caucuses that Jesus was his favorite philosopher,
someone had asked a follow-up question. "Mr. Bush, Jesus, your favorite
philosopher, invited his followers to love their enemies and to turn the
other cheek. How will that guide your foreign policy, especially in the
event, say, of an attack on the United States?"
Or: "Governor Bush, your favorite philosopher expressed concern for the
tiniest sparrow. How will that sentiment be reflected in your
administration's environmental policies?" Or: "Jesus called his followers to
care for 'the least of these.' How does that teaching inform your views on
tax policy or welfare reform?"
Just a thought.
By
Randall Balmer
|
February 22, 2008; 10:28 AM ET
Share This:
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Faith in the Public Arena |
Next: Base Public Policy on Shared Values, Not Religion
Posted by: Mary | February 24, 2008 6:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thank-you for your thoughtful questions. I too am far more concerned with how a politician's vote reflects "loving your enemies" or "caring for the least of these". Might the least of these be the 47 million Americans without health insurance AND also include caring for undcocumented workers? Does "love you neighbor as thyself" stop at our borders? What IS the character of our country as reflected in our domestic and foreign policy. I call for less fervor and more focus on the "common good" and
justice for all.
Posted by: Mary | February 24, 2008 6:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Nutcases are out in full.
Posted by: Jim M | February 23, 2008 8:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
JJ,
Debbie Schlussel is a right wing nut job who also said the following:
"Right-wing pundit Debbie Schlussel on Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL): So, even if he identifies strongly as a Christian ... is a man who Muslims think is a Muslim, who feels some sort of psychological need to prove himself to his absent Muslim father, and who is now moving in the direction of his father's heritage, a man we want as President when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam? Where will his loyalties be?" "
See: http://mediamatters.org/items/200612220013
None of that crap is true!
Posted by: Gaby | February 22, 2008 2:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
U.S. President Bush and the NAACP
During the 2000 U.S. presidential campaign, the NAACP's National Voter Fund ran a television ad against then Texas Governor and Republican Party nominee George W. Bush.
The ad featured the daughter of James Byrd, a black man dragged to death by three white men in a pickup truck, blaming Bush for refusing her pleas for a hate-crime law when he was Texas governor.
The ad also depicted a truck with chains dragging behind it, and was criticized by some for trying to connect Bush with the lynching.
In 2004, President George W. Bush (2001—) became the first sitting U.S. president since Herbert Hoover (1929–1933) not to address the NAACP when he declined an invitation to speak.[6] The White House originally said the president had a scheduling conflict with the NAACP convention,[7] slated for July 10-15, 2004. On July 10, 2004, however, Bush's spokesperson said that Bush had declined the invitation to speak to the NAACP because of harsh statements about him by its leaders.[7] In an interview, Bush said, "I would describe my relationship with the current leadership as basically nonexistent. You've heard the rhetoric and the names they've called me."[7] Bush also mentioned his admiration for some members of the NAACP and said he would seek to work with them "in other ways."[7]
On July 20, 2006, after having declined the civil rights group's invitations for five years, Bush addressed the NAACP convention, making a bid for increasing support at the polls for Republicans by African Americans, in the midst of a heated midterm election.[8]
--- Shame Shame NAACP for conspiring with OPRAH's "The-Secret" ARMY!
NAACP and Tax Exempt Status
The Internal Revenue Service informed the NAACP in October 2004 that it was undertaking an investigation into its tax-exempt status based on Julian Bond's speech at its 2004 Convention in which he criticized President George W. Bush as well as other political figures.[9][10] In general, the US Internal Revenue Code prohibits those organizations granted tax-exempt status from "directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office."[11] The NAACP has denounced the investigation as retaliation for its involvement in increasing the number of African Americans who vote.[9][12] In September 2006, the investigation concluded with the IRS finding "that the remarks did not violate the group's tax-exempt status."[13]
---
Separatism & Segregation
In an interview on NBC's Meet the Press, Louis Farrakhan was asked by Tim Russert to explain the Nation of Islam's view on separation:
"Tim Russert: Once a week, on the back page [of your newspaper] is The Muslim Program, "What the Muslims Want," [written in 1965]. The first is in terms of territory, "Since we cannot get along with them in peace and equality, we believe our contributions to this land and the suffering forced upon us by white America justifies our demand for complete separation in a state or territory of our own." Is that your view in 1997, a separate state for Black Americans?"
"Minister Louis Farrakhan: First, the program starts with number one. That is number four. The first part of that program is that we want freedom, a full and complete freedom. The second is, we want justice. We want equal justice under the law, and we want justice applied equally to all, regardless of race or class or color. And the third is that we want equality. We want equal membership in society with the best in civilized society. If we can get that within the political, economic, social system of America, there's no need for point number four. But if we cannot get along in peace after giving America 400 years of our service and sweat and labor, then, of course, separation would be the solution to our race problem." [7]
---
February 5, 2008 – Syndicated columnist Debbie Schlussel broke a story on January 30, on Senator Barack Obama’s close ties with the Nation of Islam (NOI), headed by black racist and anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan.
Schlussel interviewed a former Obama insider on the condition of anonymity and learned that contrary to Obama’s recent statements distancing himself from Farrakhan and his anti-Jewish views, the Senator actually has staff members who are NOI members.
According to Schlussel, “… a former Obama insider says that Obama’s sudden aversion to NOI and Farrakhan is belied by the fact that Obama employed and continues to employ several Farrakhan acolytes in high positions on his Illinois and U.S. Senate campaign and office staffs.”
SHAMe SHAMe stupid Whit Woman!
Posted by: Senator Barack Obama’s Nation Of Islam Connection Exposed! | February 22, 2008 1:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You nailed it. Politicians can't serve two masters so they go with the one that gets them elected. Then they can server themselves.
God involved? But of course, God helps those who help themselves -to all they can get their hands on. And when they get caught...they "stonewall it."
http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is the template for politicians going back over three thousand years. The big money comes to those who sell their souls to Lucifer and thereby get the job of leading the multitudes to hell.
If we hurry Obama will get elected before we get to hell and he gets shut out -no place to lead all the Devil worshipers -already there. Maybe we should skip the preliminaries and just crown him?
Posted by: BGone | February 22, 2008 1:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Vote:
A*C*T*i*O*N!
Vote:
E*X*P*E*R*i*E*N*C*E!
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
Better a HILLARY than BORACK!!!!!
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}
http://USA/US/USA/USA/USA/USA
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
STOP THE WAR STOP THE WAR!!
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
Better a CLINTON than OBAMA!!!!!!!
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:........_________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton vote APOCALYPTIC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton ACTION/EXPERiENCE:
--
iMAGINE: Adding an additional 10 or 12 STATES to our current 50 STATES!
Yes, ALL of MEXiCO & CUBA!
Also iMAGiNE:
101 U.S.A. STATES all-the-way to PANAMA, where ironically John McCain was Born!??
Posted by: Anonymous | February 22, 2008 12:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.











Thank-you for your thoughtful questions. I too am far more concerned with how a politician's vote reflects "loving your enemies" or "caring for the least of these". Might the least of these be the 47 million Americans without health insurance AND also include caring for undcocumented workers? Does "love you neighbor as thyself" stop at our borders? What IS the character of our country as reflected in our domestic and foreign policy. I call for less fervor and more focus on the "common good" and
justice for all.