In my latest for the Guardian, I take a look at the theocratic threat posed by Tim Pawlenty (“God’s in charge”), Mitt Romney and other potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Consider JFK’s inaugural:
“The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”
That seems to match up pretty closely to the quotation you pulled out from Pawlenty’s speech.
@Brian: What part of Pawlenty’s speech made you most think of JFK — Pawlenty’s Churchillian eloquence, or his generosity of spirit?
@Brian: There is no indication that JFK took his marching orders from the Pope or the Bible. In fact, he took great pains to separate himself from those entities, and he certainly presided as if religion effectively didn’t exist.
On the other hand, it’s hard to separate most of the GOP candidates from their religious beliefs. One would hope that this time around, Mr. Send All the Jobs the to China Undergarments would be a bit more forthcoming about how his “religion” informs his actions. However, I have to believe he will duck and cover, much like he has since Sky Blu called him out.
Your article on America’s Godly heritage is so blatantly false and just plain ignorant, it’s frightening it would make it through an editor into a mainstream publication. Our nation was most certainly founded on Judeo-Christian principles. If you read any actual history of the founding fathers written before the secular progressives took over the writing of textbooks, you would have no doubts about it. In fact, read “America’s God and Country” and it will dispel all doubts and falsehoods about our Christian heritage. And don’t worry, the Republicans don’t want to set up a theocracy. God is already in charge of it.
Belief in a God by all major participants in the national formation of the United States of America is clear, but they all had different opinions as to the details. They all probably assumed intelligent design
Education has expanded our reason. Perhaps we have expanded beyond our capacity to marvelously observe the complexity of this “accidental” universe. Collectivist systems have created a box to frustrate human achievement. Collectives should be voluntarily entered into and left the same way.
Politics today is divided between those who think the world will collapse if we humans do not get in charge versus those who trust a divine order of types and our job is to encourage non-destructive human growth and achievement and let God be God. Let humans build protective system for us but let every person freely choose what to do with in those systems; Maximum freedom, minimum limitations.
@Dan: Maybe it’s the fact that I’m sitting under a portrait of JFK and RFK or that I have a poster of the Inaugural Address on my wall, but my first reaction upon reading that quotation was to connect it to JFK. I didn’t see Pawlenty’s speech – I have better things to do than watch CPAC.
@Brian: Here’s how Ronald Reagan ended his speech following the explosion of the Challenger:
I thought it was beautiful then, and I still do. I’m not bothered by the expression of religious thoughts in public. Pawlenty, though, is using his own religious beliefs to attack anyone who doesn’t agree with him — to dismiss them as chablis-drinking, brie-eating elitists who hate America. I don’t recall Reagan ever doing that. I don’t even recall George W. Bush doing that.
I don’t sit around watching CPAC, either. Elitist that I am, I read Pawlenty’s “God’s in charge” quote in the New York Times, then tracked down his full speech on CSPAN.org.
“God is in charge.”
Then what do we need Mr. Pawlenty for?
@Mike: That’s true about JFK, but I think we have come a long way since then. No longer should a Catholic – or Mormon, or atheist, etc – have to fear that their religion would prevent them from getting a job (no matter what Martha Coakley says).
Personally, I’d like it a lot if a candidate started quoting John Paul the Great’s Laborem Exercens or especially Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, or Benedict’s Caritas in Veritae. I think there is a lot in there liberals would like. I certainly do.
We’ve already lost that vision at least once:
“I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”
George H. W. Bush
Someone should ask Pawlenty, Romney, Palin, et al if they agree with Bush, and whether they would support a constitutional amendment to that effect.
Dan, Reagan’s tribute to the Challenger astronauts was a quote from the last lines of Gillespie Magee’s poem “High Flight“.
@Steve: I knew they were quoted from something, because they were accompanied by quotation marks. Didn’t know from what.
It’s obvious that Pawlenty in particular is using religion the way Hilary Clinton used a Yankee cap in 2000.
@Joe: Not that Reagan was a slouch as a writer, but the reason his words were so movingly poetic is that they were written by a poet — John Gillespie Magee. Interesting story about the poem and Reagan’s happening upon it is to be found (along with the full, beautiful poem itself) at: http://www.qunl.com/rees0008.html
Great article, Dan. The infusion of religion into politics, where public policy is made based on based on religious ideolgy, is not what our country is based on. Ceremonial prayers at public events, including governmental events like Congress and the State of the union, are one thing, but making laws based on religious dogma is another. And surely, as Pawlenty did (his demeanor and his words don’t match, as you say, which is a whole other issue) putting down another’s beliefs and believing that one’s own religious beliefs are the “true” belief, can only lead to less understanding of and compassion for other people people. A brief glance of history at the “isms” the world has struggled with, will affirm how destructive self-righteousness is to the fabric of civil life.
Not only is the presidential race in 2012 at risk for religious infusion, I think these same forces are at play in governor’s races, like that of Charlie Baker in Massachusetts. Though it is too early to tell as to how Tea Party movement will fall–eg will it emerge as libertarian with regards to religious or will it also come under the umbrella of the religious right and its religious litmus test? What kind of pressure will be brought to bear on Mr. Baker and others like him who are known to be moderate in social issues?
@Brian: I won’t mind if they quote from any of those you named. I just don’t want them taking their marching orders from a those who claim to speak for a nonexistent entity.
@Dan: And I figured you knew. I just love the poem.
@Steve: No, as I said, I didn’t know where Reagan got it, so thank you for educating me.
@Sean: That’s pretty funny. (You’re making a joke, right? Because I don’t recall Clinton ever kneeling at the altar of Steinbrenner.)
“Tim Pawlenty trashed anyone…who attends chablis-drinking, brie-eating parties in S.F,” writes Dan.
Whereas, while in S.F., Senator Obama trashed those who cling to their bibles and own guns and (presumably) exhibit a fear of foreigners.
In liberal speak, the first paragraph constitutes hate speech, while the second demonstrates brilliant nuance and insight.
Hahahahaha.
Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is campaigning for the GOP nomination. He’s running as the more broadly acceptable Ron Paul-type libertarian. (Although he seems to campaign against the War on Drugs a lot more than Paul did.) But even without Ron Paul’s negatives, you have to wonder if today’s GOP will give the nomination to someone with a libertarian message.
@Mary: So voting to provide government funding for (or actually building) a soup kitchen or homeless shelter would be inappropriate if I voted for it because my Bible tells me that what I do for the least of His brothers I do for him? Isn’t that a religious dogma?
“Whereas, while in S.F., Senator Obama trashed those who cling to their bibles and own guns and (presumably) exhibit a fear of foreigners.”
You’d have to have a really thin skin to interpret Obama’s comments as “trashing” the people he was talking about.
In fact, the remarks in their entirety are a defense and an explanation of why some people might feel that way.
@BP: Not to mention that Obama had not intended those remarks for public consumption, and he later said it was the biggest mistake he made of the campaign. I think he even apologized, though I’m too lazy right now to look it up. Pawlenty, on the other hand, is quite proud of himself today.
“So voting to provide government funding for (or actually building) a soup kitchen or homeless shelter would be inappropriate if I voted for it because my Bible tells me that what I do for the least of His brothers I do for him?”
I’m gonna say yeah, because by that logic, the next thing you know you’ll be voting to ban the consumption of shellfish and the banishment of menstruating women.
And then, we’ll have more in common with the Islamic Republic of Iran than we’d ever care to admit.
Of course you’re right BP. I’m sure if you were accused of being xenophobic, said remark could not penetrate your thick skin.
Dan, exactly correct. The remarks were not for public consumption. You have made my point. He apologized because a quick poll said such remarks might hurt him in places where people bowl.
“Of course you’re right BP. I’m sure if you were accused of being xenophobic, said remark could not penetrate your thick skin.”
Sticks and stones, my friend.
Me?
I’d probably just turn the other cheek.
Here we go with the favorite progressive fantasy: The evangelic armies are massing for a crusade.
Dan, you really need to write this?
Oddly, you don’t seem to fear the Jihadis that much. Remember? Just a few days ago you wrote that Sarah Palin is stupid because she thinks that winning the war on terrorism is a good idea.
These fantasies of yours are part of the martyrdom mythology that progressives like to fashion for themselves. I worked in a dominantly gay shop in Manhattan throughout the 90s. The young gay men loved to fantasize that the evangelical armies were massing on the Jersey side of the Hudson and preparing to assault the gay fortress of Manhattan. It fed their cherished belief that they were oppressed victims.
They even made a movie about it: “V for Vendetta.”
Remember the great “oppression” of the Bush era that the Patriot Act was supposed to engender? Never happened. Not a single American was prosecuted for political activity or speech during the Bush ear.
This is preposterously silly, Dan. You’re fretting over evangelical terrorism, and you want to appease the Jihadis. The usual progressive martyrdom fantasies.
What’s the old saying: “The dark night of fascism is forever descending upon America, but it keeps landing in Europe.”
Remember? Just a few days ago you wrote that Sarah Palin is stupid because she thinks that winning the war on terrorism is a good idea.
Oh, yes, @Stephen, exactly what I wrote. Thank you for such a precise paraphrase. Far better than I could have done myself.
Glen: Your complaint about whether Obama should have made/should have been castigated for his comments misses the large point: He was, and is, right.
“Remember? Just a few days ago you wrote that Sarah Palin is stupid because she thinks that winning the war on terrorism is a good idea.”
You got a link for that? I must’ve missed it.
How do you distinguish, Dan, between your End of the World fantasy about global warming (aka climate change or global weirding) and Christian belief in God?
Christians aren’t forcing their belief down your throat.
You want to tax every individual and regulate every business on earth.
Who should we fear more?
“Not a single American was prosecuted for political activity or speech during the Bush ear.”
Excuse me?
good job Dan… here’s a recent story about an elected religious extremist, albeit on a local level: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/22/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6232759.shtml. Lovely…
and their new Governor Bob McDonnell is a graduate of Pat Robertson’s Regent University, a bastion of right-wing Christian ideology. After he got elected, Regent’s page had this quotation from Rev. Pat: “Our motto at Regent is ‘Christian Leadership to Change the World,’ and this is the way we do it”
I’m not a big Obama fan but, as an agnostic bordering on atheist, I appreciate his inclusion of “non-believers.”
I looked up the GWH Bush quote, and could not find an authoritative source, but one website actually quoted the conversation in which it took place. Can’t vouch for accuracy:
Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I’m pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I’m just not very high on atheists.
Note that nobody has ever suggested that Bush took any action to harm a single atheist. He simply stated his opinion.
I tend to share his opinion. You know: “Those who don’t believe in God will believe in anything.”
This blog is proof of that. Dan believes that his End of the World fantasy is scientific and he’s ready to confiscate your income and regulate your business.
And, I guarantee when the global warming fantasy fades out of existence, Dan will find a new End of the World fantasy to justify confiscating your income and regulating your business.
@Stephen: God bless you. If it weren’t for your contributions, I wouldn’t know what I think and what I really mean. Please, don’t ever stop.
@BP: My faith informs my worldview on just about every decision I make. That includes choosing not to shop in stores with unfair labor practices, protecting creation through anti-global warming measures and the like, and, yes, a preferential for the poor. Does that make me ineligible to hold elected office? Because that sounds an awful lot like a religious test to me.
@Brian: The Constitution says you may not be barred from seeking office because of your religious beliefs or lack thereof. This is frequently misinterpreted to mean that voters are somehow obliged to ignore religion. In fact, voters are perfectly free to vote for or against candidates based on their religious beliefs. And yes, I’m free to decide that I’m comfortable with your beliefs (I am) and appalled by those of someone who thinks God is going to build her a pipeline.
Re Palin, here’s Dan’s bit from his piece on condescending liberals:
But it was the idea that liberals hold Palin in contempt because she switched colleges a few times that had me in hysterics. The real problem is that none of those colleges taught her not to answer “we win, they lose” when asked about her approach to foreign policy.
Palin was clearly invoking Ronald Reagan here. She was recalling his comments about what the U.S. policy should be toward the Soviet Union.
So, yes, Dan, you did call Palin stupid for suggesting that the U.S. should win the war on terror.
Or, alternatively, Palin’s intellect is too subtle for you to grasp. Definite possibility.
And this bit is just too precious: “… God is going to build her a pipeline.” Her?
How long has it been since you were released from Rhetoric 101, Dan? College is over. You got the global warming hysteria from Rhetoric 101, too. Listen, I taught in an English department in a college years ago. The indoctrination hasn’t changed a bit.
Give it a few more years away from college, Dan, and you’ll develop some ideas of your own.
“My faith informs my worldview on just about every decision I make . . . Does that make me ineligible to hold elected office? Because that sounds an awful lot like a religious test to me.”
There already exists a religious test in this country, as no professed atheist has yet been elected to high office in this land.
And saying “My faith informs my worldview” is quite different than “my Bible tells me that . . .”
Because as I noted previously, your Bible also says lots of things that are frightening to many of us.
As one who prefers rational thought and logic and things that are provable, I would not vote for a politician who takes his marching orders from any religious text, be it the Bible or the Koran.
But, as Dan’s post points out, there is certainly nothing stopping those sorts of people from both running and getting elected to high office.
Hillary Clinton ran for the Senate she allowed herself to be photographed wearing a Yankee hat. It seemed insincere. She was seen as pandering to New Yorkers. Pawlenty also strikes me as insincere. But, let’s face it, Pawlenty is running for Vice President.
It’s useful to revisit this quote by Barry Goldwater:
When you say ‘radical right’ today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.”
“So, yes, Dan, you did call Palin stupid for suggesting that the U.S. should win the war on terror.”
No. He didn’t. And your own citation reveals that he did not.
I think “Orwellian” is a term often used to describe the way you are redefining words to mean what they do not.
@Stephen: You went to a public school, right? Socialized education. You went to a public university. More socialized education. You received unemployment benefits. You received medical insurance.
You talk the talk but you don’t walk the walk.
@Sean: Of course Hillary Clinton was pandering to New Yorkers. I guess we disagree as to whether Pawlenty is being insincere. And I find using religion as a prop much more offensive — and potentially dangerous — than pretending to like the Yankees, whom, let’s face it, are unlikable.
BP, your comment is so profoundly… I can’t even find the word for it.
Do you know how to read? I thought progressives were so condescending because of their incredible intellects. Reading comprehension seems, however, to be a persistent problem on this site.
When Palin answered “we win, they lose,” she meant that we should fight the war on terror for the sole purpose of winning it. Dan’s response is that he holds her in contempt for espousing such simplistic ideas. Palin was clearly, and consciously, invoking President Reagan when she spoke. Reagan said precisely the same thing about U.S. foreign policy in relation to the Soviet Union.
And, progressives, like Dan, called Reagan stupid for his “simplistic” thinking.
Please explain in detail, BP, how you read this in any other way.
BP, clear your mind a moment. Dan clearly and unequivocally, called Palin stupid for stating the purpose of the war on terror should be victory. There is no other way to read his comment.
Back to work, boys. I’ve got to make more money to pay taxes to Dan’s End of the World cause. You see, he doesn’t consider economic freedom to be one of the “real” freedoms.
And, progressives, like Dan, called Reagan stupid for his “simplistic” thinking.
@Stephen, I am learning new things about myself every day thanks to your unparalleled contributions. I would ask for a citation, but I know that you (to paraphrase something Bob Dylan told an interviewer in the mid-’60s) have moved beyond meaning, and are instead into pure sound.
Don’t ever change, OK?
Dan, Stephen has to change. The worldwide price of straw is skyrocketing due to his constructions.
Well, Dan, since I have lived in Woodstock for 30 years, I know a little bit about Dylan.
I’ve played with every original member of The Band, except for Robbie Robertson, and I’ve met Dylan on a couple of occasions.
So, instead of avoiding the question, perhaps you can answer a direct question.
Should the goal of U.S. foreign policy be to defeat the Jihadis?
If you agree with that statement, why is Palin stupid for saying so?
A more profound question might be: What in the world are your priorities? At this moment, Geert Wilders is on trial for making a movie that offended the Jihadis and their friends in the Dutch government. There’s a real threat to the freedom of every person in the West.
Evangelical Christians present absolutely no threat to your freedom. The Jihadis do.
Somehow, you never write about that. Wonder why? Oh, yes… people who speak out against the Jihadis have an unfortunate tendency to be blown to bits.
Expend your courage on the real threat, Dan.
In the not far off future, I foresee U.S. soldiers having to do what they did twice in the 20th century, which is to save Europe from its own stupidity.
@Stephen:“Evangelical Christians present absolutely no threat to your freedom.”
Depends on what you consider freedom. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, for example, blamed the 9/11 attacks on homosexuals, feminists, and the ACLU.
Our country is founded on the Constitution, not the bible. Wake up, son.
“BP, clear your mind a moment. Dan clearly and unequivocally, called Palin stupid for stating the purpose of the war on terror should be victory. There is no other way to read his comment.”
No. He didn’t.
When Palin answered “we win, they lose,” she meant that we should fight the war on terror for the sole purpose of winning it. Dan’s response is that he holds her in contempt for espousing such simplistic ideas.
He never called her stupid.
In fact, I suspect he believes her to be, in many ways, very smart indeed.
Depends on what you consider freedom. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, for example, blamed the 9/11 attacks on homosexuals, feminists, and the ACLU.
So, a few Christians said some stupid things.
This resulted in … what? Absolutely nothing.
I’m Catholic, but I’m pretty ecumenical. I attended a Baptist church for a few years because the music was great, and I liked playing in the church band. I sometimes go with my neighbors to a completely neutered Methodist church in Woodstock, because they’re old and they want some company.
I’ve never heard in any of these churches a call to harm homosexuals, feminists or the ACLU. In fact, I’ve never even heard a discussion about homosexuals, feminists or the ACLU.
The Jihadis murdered almost 3,000 Americans. Now, that’s a threat to freedom. Geert Wilders is on trial for daring to make a movie criticizing the Jihadis.
The founding document of our country specifically evokes the Deity:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
It’s been fun, boys. Gotta to back to work.
@Stephen — It is too simplistic to say that we need to defeat Jihadis. I used to think that way, but it is plainly obvious that this “war” would be endless. We need to do our diligence, but this “war” is sapping our military and distracting is. When Palin says “we win,” she can’t define victory, because we will never fully eliminate the “they” or the “lose” in “they lose.”
Obviously, Stephen Thomas has never been to, or heard of Georgeotwn, Delaware.
“It is too simplistic to say that we need to defeat Jihadis. I used to think that way, but it is plainly obvious that this “war” would be endless.”
When do we begin the “war on automobiles?” Tens of thousands killed senselessly every year, far more than are killed by Muslim extremists.
Or how about a “war on guns?” Tens of thousands of innocent civilians are gunned down every year throughout our country.
Yes, Virginia, there are far more things to be terrified of than Muslim extremists.
“Obviously, Stephen Thomas has never been to, or heard of Georgeotwn, Delaware.”
Or the State of Texas.
@Stephen: “So, a few Christians said some stupid things. This resulted in … what? Absolutely nothing.
Think again. Civil rights in this country are a sham. Homophobia is rampant — one need only look at your rantings to know that. Doctors who perform abortions are attacked, shot at, bombed, etc.
And from the Muslim POV, Christians have been murdering their sons and stealing their wealth for centuries.
To use a favorite “logic” of the gun-nut crowd, more people died from car accidents last year than were killed in 9/11. So maybe we should ban cars, not Jihadis.
And btw, my creator was my mom and dad.
Cool, we’re gonna get a Dylan anecdote!
Wait, what?
That’s it. I hope you have a good lawyer. I’m suing you for whiplash. See you in court, buddy.
@BP – My faith informs my world view. My Bible informs my faith. So do my religious leaders, who, I trust, are better informed than I am on these matters. Both the Pope and the Bible tell me to comfort the afflicted, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc. On Sunday my priest gave an excellent homily on freeing the oppressed. My point is that the two are not so easily separated.
I, too, like “rational thought and logic and things that are provable.” However, I understand the limits of these things. Prove to me that a mother loves her child. That this flower is beautiful. That there are such things as soul mates. Of course, none of these can be proved with science, but we all know them to be true, and not just in a truthiness kind of way. Logic has its limits.
“My faith informs my world view. My Bible informs my faith. So do my religious leaders, who, I trust, are better informed than I am on these matters.”
I might tell you that mine does as well, and that I agree with you.
But I won’t.
Because I have no interest in interjecting my own personal religious faith into a discussion about politics or the media.
See? It’s not hard at all.
@BP: Perhaps if some of our political or media or financial or [take your pick] leaders brought their faith with them into the Congress or board room or [take your pick] then we wouldn’t have as many of the scandals that we do today.
@Brian: You are confusing morals and ethics with faith. One does not necessarily follow the other. You can be moral, ethical and atheist.
@Stephen
Just 2 things. Your quote is from the Declaration of Independence, a magnificent piece of rhetorical and political acumen that, nevertheless, does not have the force of law. Only the Constitution governs law in this country, and it is not in the least theological. And your quote says “their Creator” but fails to identify which Deity that might be. Which is why we enjoy the right to worship any god from Ahriman to Zeus, or Reason, or evolution if we have a mind to.