So they both participated in a religious debate with the author of ‘The Purpose Driven Life’ at some church called Saddlebags or something similar. What exactly makes that ok?
Did we NOT just reform Iraq’s government because it was based on religion? Do we NOT have seperation of church and state? We’re throwing out our OWN RULES and showing our utter hypocrisy. Both McCain and Obama showed how they really don’t understand our government by appearing in the debate.
America no longer even keeps its own values straight. Maybe that’s why our citizens no longer do either. I don’t know, but it was terribly irresponsible and an anti-patriotic sentiment for the church to even SUGGEST hosting, let alone go through with it…and grand finale…for the candidates to PARTICIPATE. All around bad behavior. Mike Gravel really still does have my heart <3
PS- Don Werner of Northfield has to be one of the most ignorant neo-conservative religious right members that I have ever heard. If anyone reads the Northfield News, you know you can count on him to be there to not only screw up American politics, but also the religion he claims to be a part of. Two for two Don, keep ‘er up!
Paul,
It seems the greatest problem in Iraq is that those of one set of belief systems are unwilling to sit at the table with a group that holds differing views. In a representative government, shouldn’t the candidates engage conversation with and solicit feedback from differing population groups if they are to represent them as an elected official?
This was not the state imposing their views on the church and forcing them to comply, nor was this the church imposing their views on the government and forcing them to comply. It was an exchange of information and little more. Each candidate was afforded the opportunity to express their views on issues that were relevant to a particular segment of our country. Much the same way the candidates meet with union officials, CEO’s, education leaders, and representatives from all sorts of “special interest” groups.
What a president believes about certain things will affect their policy decisions and in turn effect what different people care about it. All Americans ought to be informed on what the candidates’ views are. Isn’t that the whole idea of representative government?
Here’s something to consider. Would it be a greater violation of church and state for the candidates to say “we won’t talk to you or answer questions about what concerns you because of your beliefs?”
Technically you’re right about exchanging views and how it’s relevant to voter interests. In a perfect country this would’ve just been seen as good campaigning. In our country however we’ve made it an unfortunately high priority about a candidate’s faith. It’s become a hoop to jump through to get a position in office. I’m not sure if you’ve seen the video of Mitt Romney walking through a local cafe greeting people. He gets to this old man who won’t even look at him and says “I’m not shaking your hand because you’re a mormon.”. Romney of course has to smile and move on, but that’s a pretty sad reminder of our religious state. Even with Christianity being our majority religion, people still don’t accept others who are different from them. Not that acceptance was big in the Bible (wait, it was). So then that example is one of many that points out how religion could be that much more effective if people understood it and actually followed it instead of just exalting the word ‘Christianity’ and nothing else.
I’d be much more satisfied if it was an interview done with religious leaders from all over the country to address spiritual matters. I’d be intrigued and genuinely find that a must-watch. What I saw however was (or rather heard since I listened from MPR) was political questions intermingled with things like ‘How do you express your faith in Jesus Christ?’. Now if that question doesn’t say “religious favoritism” I’m not sure what will. Where does that put Jewish people? American Jews are just as much citizens as American Christians. Yet they don’t have a Jewish candidate running in one of the two main parties for President. This may be satisfying the majority, but that’s not justification for alienating a minority. And especially when in the majority it’s easy to forget that. So I hope you would not demean other people who do not share your beliefs.
I agree, the question about “what does a personal relationship with Jesus Christ look like to you?” was not in order and it made me uncomfortable. I suspect it was asked because both have made their faith in such public knowledge, so they felt it was fair game to ask. If one proclaims so, they should probably explain what it means at some point. Honestly, I doubt the sincerity of either of them. Too much of politics is positioning and saying what folks want to hear. I agree too that peoples of all faiths (including the faith of non-faith) make up America and are to be represented and governed. We did have a Jewish American in the last presidential election, we do have a Muslim Congressmen here in Minnesota, and there are scores of elected officials of “no faith,” all of which represents or multi-faith culture and population. I have no problem that others have different faith beliefs. I don’t demean them, though I may disagree with them on certain issues. I disagree with others that share the same faith I do, there’s no reason to be demeaning. I am truly grateful that anyone can run for elected positions in our country and equally grateful that we all get the choice to vote. It’s really a thing of beauty at the heart. The upside of some of the biblical principles that are country was founded on is that it makes room for these freedoms and does not insist that we are a one faith nation or people. I’m grateful our country was founded in such a way.
I do think we have to be careful of trying to eliminate all belief and faith influences from our leaders. I don’t think it would be possible, but if it were, we would need to be prepared to give up some of the freedoms that we now enjoy that were derived from those faith influences. We would need to be willing to embrace a “nature driven” culture, like the rest of the natural world. For example, we seek to preserve animal rights to live as wild, killing and domineering one another as nature sees fit, the whole circle of life thing. No animal is ever held on trial in the wild for wronging another animal, it’s just the order of nature, survival of the fittest, and it’s accepted and we seek to preserve it. However, we don’t apply the same logic to mankind. If faith systems and the moral implications of those faith systems are removed, then we are we left only with the natural order, which operates on the basis of the strong overtaking the weak for survival, and that would be the way it is. Yet somehow we know that there should be care for the poor and justice for the oppressed, even when there would no longer be any logical rationale for it. Something tells us humans are held to a different standard and their is intrinsic value in all, just because they are human.
To seek to eliminate all faith from politics, and yet keep hold of the freedoms that the moral implications that those faith inputs have established, would mean using God for our own selfish advantages. It doesn’t seem we can have it both ways.