In my latest for the Guardian, I observe that John McCain, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have all paid dearly for the sin of inflicting religion upon the voters. Could we be witnessing the beginning of the end when it comes to political pandering on matters of faith?
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hopefully.
One can only hope. The day that presidential candidates stop trying to appeal to invisible sky fairies will be one for celebration
Wishful thinking, however, my guess is that Mitt Romney will find himself a heartbeat away from the presidency as Veep for a 72 yr old president. UGHHHHHHH!
For one, the recent McCain flap with the two ministers feels media manufactured. I cannot wait when we stop looking for stories in minor players. For one, I want to have detailed stories in the real people that are running the candidates instead of bit players that are supporting them. Oh…I am supportive of religion. Too bad it is usually poor covered. It would be as if a sports reporter covered the paint of the “Green Monster” instead of the game.
DK – I found the snarky tone of your column incredibly offensive – very surprising from you. If you wonder what could cause offense, tell me in what universe you would permit yourself to refer to any of Obama’s interesting adherents as members of a bestiary.I am a pre-Reagan Republican, a Goldwater rather than social conservative. While I welcome the support of religious people, I am uncomfortable with religious issues as the subject of legislation, even as I am uncomfortable with the banning of religion from the public square. The Establishment Clause has two parts – no establishment, but also no suppression.We have never had a completely secular President, regardless of party. In politics, plain vanilla Protestants like myself generally respected a sort of full faith and credit clause with other denominations. Kennedy brought Roman Catholics to the table as well, as did Lieberman and Romney for their faiths. Over 80% of the people in this country ascribe to one faith or another – why, then, is it so reprehensible that a candidate would speak of their faith in the same way they might speak of being married or single, or any other personal feature?
PP: Do I need to remind you that in the “bestiary” sentence I was referring specifically to a minister who called Hitler an agent of God and another who said the United States had been created in part to destroy Islam? Please, Peter, don’t take me out of context.