Faith and politics

German man’s bacon, lettuce,
and tomato sandwich sets off
bomb alarm at airport.

I watched the Presidential Forum in Orange County in front of an audience of Evangelicals. They kept advertising that Obama and McCain would appear on the same stage for the first time. They did, for about 30 seconds, just long enough to shake hands. Pastor whats-his-name started the proceedings by announcing that he (they) believed in the separation of church and state, but not in the separation of faith and politics (whatever you can make out of that). Obama was interviewed for an hour, followed by a similar interview with McCain. They were both asked the same questions (more or less). It was a fascinating contrast. Both of them were said to have done well, but most who commented seemed to believe that McCain did weller (gooder, you know, better). Given the audience perhaps he did. John King started the CNN commentary by reporting on the number of times each of them said God and Jesus, I guess a most revealing clue as to what it was all about. The two candidates could not have been more different. Obama approached the general questions seriously and tried to give thoughtful answers to what were complicated subjects. This was described by some of the MSM as an academic or intellectual discussion, such as college sophomores might have had (so much for thoughtful answers). Obama was thoughtful, humble, and serious and tried to give serious answers. He was not campaigning. Not so McCain, who was allowed to turn his session into little more than another campaign appearance. There seemed to be no thought behind his answers which appeared to come right out of the Brafia list of acceptable answers. When asked which of the current Supreme Court Justices he might have voted against, Obama answered Clarence Thomas, and explained that he didn’t think Thomas had the legal mind or background to be on the Court. McCain, ever pandering, blurted out all four of the Justices that might be considered in any way liberal. And he made it clear what kind of Justices he would appoint (guess). McCain must have just volunteered this as I don’t recall that Obama was asked such a question. When Obama was asked about his pro-choice stand on abortion he explained thoughtfully that while he wasn’t in favor of abortions he knew that women approached this difficult choice very seriously and in consultation with their husbands, pastors, and etc. Not so McCain, who replied by citing his 25 year pro-life position. When asked when life began he said “at conception” (he didn’t even have to consult the play book). When asked about the existence of evil, and what one might do about it, Obama said we had to confront it, and pointed out that sometimes when we thought we were doing good we might in fact be doing evil. There would be no confrontation of this difficult question for McCain who said immediately what we should attack it (apparently he knows it when he sees it). When asked about who might be considered rich, Obama again replied thoughtfully and said probably people who made more than $250,000 a year (putting them in the top 4 or 5 percent of the population). He indicated he would tax the wealthy and give tax breaks to those below that level. McCain gave an answer so frivolous (and so directed to his sympathetic audience) as to make you wonder if he had any mind at all. His idea is simply that everyone should just make more money so we would all be rich, and implied that no one should be taxed at all. Interestingly, neither candidate was asked about the national debt or the war expenses, etc. Much to everyone’s apparent surprise, McCain seemed to be in his element. He was relaxed and had an anecdote for virtually every situation. Obama was not asked about the Russian/Georgian situation but McCain was allowed to bring it up. Predictably he gave a comment that was at best the grossest of oversimplifications and at worst an all out lie when he attributed the problem to Russian aggression (it was Georgian aggression prompted by the U.S. that actually started the unpleasant business). Of course no one questioned this (as usual). Although both candidates might be said to have done well (depending upon your point of view, I rather doubt that either one of them gained much of an advantage – if, that is, you do not lose sight of the fact that it was an Evangelical audience. It is hard to say just how most independents might think about it. To me, it was pretty clear-cut. McCain just recited the party line at every turn, had absolutely no doubt about the rightness of his positions, and gave a pretty good imitation of his idol, Theodore Roosevelt (although McCain version of “speak softly and carry a big stick” seems to omit the speak softly part). It was, to me, another example of the anti-intellectualism that is slowly destroying American culture. If you attempt to give an honest, thoughtful answer, you are immediately considered weak or sophomoric. If, on the other hand, you speak loudly and with apparent authority, you don’t have to worry about thoughtfulness. Just be dogmatic and cocksure enough and there is no trouble too awful not to stumble into. Just witness the witless jerks that have brought us to where we are at the moment. The very idea that Presidential candidates should have to pander to a bunch of members of the various Churches of the Altogether Bonkers strikes me as absurd, people who don’t believe in evolution, or even in science are supposed to determine who should be President of the United States in the 21st century? Is it any wonder we are increasingly on our way to the back of the bus?

LKBIQ:
Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good.
H. L. Mencken