I usually like Beliefnet.com, but I don't like this: The God-o-Meter, which runs on Beliefnet. The God-o-Meter basically tracks how religious various presidential candidates are, ranking them in oddly contrived categories from 'Secularist' to 'Theocrat' and posting articles about the candidates' religious outreach efforts.
The God-o-Meter is obviously a small symptom of a more serious disease: Our country is obsessed with how religious our politicians are. Any one who had the unfortunate privilege of watching the Compassion Forum, knows this all too well. At the Compassion Forum, Hilary and Barack sparred over who had talked to God the most times, who could say Christ more, who was the saved-est, etc. It was an unfortunate event, because it had less to do with their political merits than there appeals to popular religious sentiment.
The problem with this preoccupation is that there is simply no hard-and-fast correlation between being a religious person and being a good leader. Otherwise put, a secularist might be more Christ-like than a self-proclaimed devout Christian. Afterall, Minister Jim Haggard fucked boy prostitutes and free based meth, while Warren Buffet is one of the world's biggest philanthropists and is an atheist/agnostic.
Also, does all this scrutinizing of our leaders' religious beliefs really leave any room open for religious minorities? I don't think so. What would Joe Lieberman talk about at the Compassion Forum - how he doesn't believe in Christ but sure likes Passover? I'm sure that would bode well.
I definitely have an affinity for religious folk in some contexts. For example, I'd like a wife who will encourage our child to have a bar/bar mitzvah. But as far as my president, boss, mailman, or illegal lumber dealer goes, i just want them to be good at their job.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
'zeik,
I like my candidates religious, and not just a wee little bit religious (ala John Kerry), but with supersized American religious values (like, well like, W).
Shoutout to zionism here -- I have a paranoia that the US will stop wanting to front the sometimes insanely high costs (actual and in foreign relations) of intense support for Israel. I like my religious candidates because they are not about to strip the holy land of wealth to appease the infidels. I'm saying this in a half-serious tone, but the question to me is not the level of support in good times its also when Israel does something that generates criticism. I worry a secularly minded politician will weigh costs and benefits do a little political calculation and make a decision (possibly a politicians compromise), where a religious politician is more unwaivering in her support.
My more general feeling is that I judge on personal character, and I usually trust a religious politician a lot more than I trust a secular politician. A few weeks ago I had a discussion with a friend about child-care and how many yuppy families choose to have Hispanic catholic nannies (this is not because they are the only supplier). These jobs require trusting someone intensely for domestic affairs (small kids, your home) when you are not there to watch them. I feel like faith demonstrates a few important characteristics (1) regard for your moral self, (2) the ability to suffer hedonistic pleasure for abstract and distant goods, (3) religious virtues like temperance, humility, patience, diligence, chastity.
Your point is that religious folks are sometimes full of shit (inauthentic in their adherence to their adherence to the tenants of their religion). Secular folks are virtuous too (like Warren Buffet). Also that religiousness is an absurd thing to have a politicians pissing contest over.* Both are good points, but I'd still rather hand the keys over to someone who I think inflates their religiousness to make a populist appeal than to a secular politician. Basically because I think faith leads people even in very difficult situations to make virtuous choices (give up everything knowing that they will get it back) while atheism leaves open the question of whether the person will resign themselves to the situation.
Couple of asides here: Warren Buffet did not give much away for most of his life and he argued that he could produce more common-good by reinvesting his money than by giving it away, I think the actual quote close to "if I had given money away when I had $15million, I never would have built $50billion to give away", I find this argument fascinating -- I think he's right. Religious people do tend to give more (even to secular charities) http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447051.html/
*see also http://dananau.com/wabe/humor/monkgloats.pdf
Also, I love that you argue "what about religious minorities." Takes me back.
-FreeMealsInThePrytaneum
My biggest qualm with the previous poster is when he/she says:
"I feel like faith demonstrates a few important characteristics...religious virtues like temperance, humility, patience, diligence, chastity."
I have never understood why these virtues are inherently religious. Just because they were recorded early on in concert with religious texts doesn't mean that religion was responsible for creating these values. If anything, it may have "popularized" them (and I use the term loosely.) The assumption that only someone with religion(used too often interchangeably with 'faith' which is a different animal entirely) can practice these virtues in their everyday life makes me crazy. As someone who remains on the fence about what religion, if any, I agree with most doctrine of (and who generally spurns organized religion anyway for its 'all or nothing' attitude) I still can place value on acting responsibly and morally with out a specific religion's compass to guide me.
I definitely agree with zeik's position that I'd like my politicians without religion. I don't want foreign policy to have to defer to religious considerations (i.e. zionism et al even though I was born Jewish), and I think my secular politicians will consult their moral compass AND logic when making crucial decisions.
PS: i totally <3 warren buffet!
Thank you for your comments. I think something that that the first comment misses is that people who call themselves religious do not necessarily adhere to "religious values," like say, humility, temperance, etc., more than someone who is not religious. There are good religious people and bad religious people and, in all likelihood, the percentage of good religious people and good secular people are pretty similar.
To the second poster, I don't necessarily favor secular politicians. Rather, I take a pragmatic approach: if religion makes a politician a better politician, then I'm glad they're religious. If being secular makes a politician a better politician, then I'm glad they're secular.
Thanks again for commenting, and keep reading!
"Also, I love that you argue 'what about religious minorities.' Takes me back." -FreeMealsInThePrytaneum
I'm not sure what this means (If the author could elaborate, I'd appreciate it.)
I think this is a big problem for us. For some reason, "really Christian" has become nearly inextricably linked with "good President". This is not only bad for seperation of church and state (which the founders of our country, who were very Christian, saw as a necessity to a truly free country), but it is also completely silencing the religious minorities, which is completely contrary to our nation's core values. (After all, our Bill of Rights is ALL about protecting minorities/minority opinions.)
I think the whole Barack "Hussein" Obama "smear campaign" exposed how bad this problem has gotten. Not only is it absurd that a man who has spent most of his life as a devout Christian was accused of being Muslim - as though he was attending church on the south side of Chicago for decades in an effort to fool us all into electing him so he could overthrow America. But, what's WORSE about the whole situation was that the "debate" on the issue made it seem bad to be Muslim. Among other things, our obsession with Christianity being the only good religion has caused the rampant anti-Islamic prejudice that many Americans have.
As a devout Christian, I am yearning for the day when a candidate can stand up and say "My religion isn't an issue. Let's talk about something that is important."
The religious minorities argument is one I'm familiar with 'Zeik making from college.
FreeMealsInThePrytaneum is how I identify myself online. Its a reference to Plato's Apology that strikes my fancy. Its a bit too long, and FMITP ain't great, but once you fall in love...
Ginger, I'm not sure if it bothers me if Americans don't want a Muslim president. I hope you don't mind elaborating on why this is a big problem. Putting aside for a minute the question of Barack Obama's faith, its important to me that candidate share my values. Do they view the world as I do, will they be able to make the right choices when they're faced with a tough or unpopular decision?
I feel like religious values are a much better way for me to get at this than secular viewpoint. I don't really mean professed beliefs, I don't care that much if someone exaggerates or misrepresents their beliefs to make a populist appeal. I know a lot of kids who grew up in Jewish households that were not observant -- they are still identifiably Jewish. W grew up in a wealthy texas oil family, and despite his long stints in New England prep schools and ivy league, his handlers have been successful in promoting his "texas gent" image because there is truth to it; there's also truth to his prep school image, but this is downplayed. Religion is the same thing for me. Someone who went to catholic school (even a jew who went to catholic school) has some influence in her. I feel like this is pretty well agreed. I don't see it as nutso to ask how a stint in a muslim school influenced Barack.
I'd prefer a bit less religious rhetoric, but to me it seems far from an encroachment on the establishment clause to advertise that you have a similar religious world view as your constituents. If constituents keep demanding Christian-raised candidates, does that undermine the spirit of the establishment clause?
I think I can pretty well sum up my feelings, by saying that religion is a "deeper" personal attribute than secular views. That a lot of people feel this way, and that I'm not bothered if people want to vote for candidates who belong to religions with similar teachings/worldviews to their own.
-FreeMealsInThePrytaneum
Post a Comment