« Galway, Ireland | Main | Galway Again »
September 04, 2004
Politics and Religion (New York)
I began writing this in New York and wanted to complete it. First let me preface how this started.
I was walking down Broadway at around 34st when I saw they were filming Hardball with Chris Matthews. That ended and Scarbarough Country started filming with Ron Reagan as the co-host. I was only about 10' from the stage with a small crowd of maybe 12 people. It was a normal talking heads show with little interesting as they dissected the RNC. Just before a commercial break they had Stephen Baldwin on for an impromptu interview. I have to say I was angered and inspired to write by his comments. He came on to say that he didn't have a political agenda, just that he was promoting faith based politics. He was going to vote for the candidate who's decisions were led by God and who would bring faith back into politics. Ron Reagan asked Stephen if it mattered which God. This threw the Baldwin off, something that I'm sure is not difficult, and he responded that there is only one true God, the one living God who is Jesus Christ. Stephen then lamented on how we were not even aloud to say the Pledge of Allegiance anymore. At this Ron said, "Yes we are, we can say it right now if you want." Stephen was again flustered at this and tried to correct himself saying we weren't aloud to say the pledge at 'government things'. Stephen wouldn't say who he was voting for and believed he was being clever when he said, "I'm voting for the candidate who believes in God the most. Now, is there someone you think of when I say that? Thats who I'm voting for." Scarbarough then told Stephen that Kerry also believes and God and attends mass every weekend. He then asked Stephen, "What would Kerry need to say to get your vote?" This completely threw Stephen off his guard and after stammering for a little he actually said, "you got me there!"
I don't even know where to begin with this, but let me begin in the middle. The issue of the problem with Stephen's claim as to why he is voting for Bush is problematic, but I want to deal with an issue of the separation of church and state that is not dealt with as much.
I am supposed to believe that God is guiding Bush's actions and I should trust his actions because I trust God. If God IS guiding Bush in his decisions, what if I disagree with a decision. I do not believe going into Iraq the way we did was right, but Bush only did what God told him to do. Does that mean I am not hearing God right?
God told Bush that gay's should not marry, but Cheney doesn't want a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. His daughter is a lesbian. Funny how circumstance changes our opinions. I am confident if Cheney's daughter had not been a lesbian, he would be for the amendment. So, in this instance, is God telling Cheney something different than he is telling Bush? The truth is, I've disagreed with many if not most of Bush's policy decisions. If I disagree, fundamentally, with the moral basis for many of Bush's decisions I have to ask myself which is more likely, that a) Bush has a tighter line with God than I, or b) Bush is using religion as a political tool. Which is more likely? Would political leaders really be so deceptive as to use something like religion as a wedge issue to gain votes? Would they be so duplicitous? If you answered no, you should take some more history lessons. The above issue underlines one of the main problems with believing we can use religion as a means of choosing a candidate. Even if you really wanted a president who represented your religion, there is no way of knowing whether he/she is genuine about it or even if they may be deluded about it. Too often I see people voting based on this issue without paying attention to the actual platform or policy of the official. How can the voter know the official is representing their beliefs and/or position if they do not go the further step of learning what further platform the official has besides being of religion X. What if their policy decisions differ from what the voter would want? How do they reconcile that with the belief that the official will make the right decisions because God made those decisions for them?
The second major problem in Stephen's philosophy, which is shared by a great many American's is if we should vote for Bush because he is a Christian president and we believe our government should be Christian, aren't we saying that the president of the US should push his religion, which would be the religion of the majority who voted for him? What escapes Stephen is the notion that the religion of the majority may change, meaning, a president who is pushing a different religion may get elected for the reasons he is arguing Bush should be elected. What if we had a surge of Islamic immigrants who turned out in record numbers to vote. Would it be ok for them to vote an Islamic President into office who promised to intertwine his Muslim beliefs into the fabric of government? I would imagine most people voting for Bush based on his Christianity would have a problem with that. Yet, this is a democracy and thats how things work. The alternative is to assume there are many religions on the US which should all be protected by our government. If we are to protect the religions rights of everyone in the country, the government should not push a particular religion, for all the reasons stated above.
There are those who read my blog who may disagree with me, which I respect. I think this argument gets confused too frequently. I have complete respect for those who believe religion should be an important part of everyday life. I respect people who are pro-life and have conservative views on religion and such. I am not even saying you shouldn't use religion to help you with your political ideals. More what I'm saying is that it is dangerou, personally and collectively, to vote for someone just because he/she says he/she is the same religion as you. For those of you that disagree, I really want to hear from you. I do not believe I have a monopoly on the truth and would like to hear your dissenting views... or if you agree and why. For those of you who insist we should still vote for the most Christian president I have only one question. Prove Bush is really Christian and furthermore that his decisions are really led by God. Prove it beyond him just saying it is so. Good luck with that.
I've decided to write what my political platform is, so you can vote for me. That will come in a subsequent post.
Posted by wonko at September 4, 2004 02:54 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.wayfargone.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/284
Comments
I first want to say that I think it is somewhat mean, to imply that Stephen Baldwin is stupid. I have noticed that quite frequently in your blogs as well as your regular coversations you tend to often associate stupidity to conservatives. I have no feelings about Mr. Baldwin either way so this is not some crazy fan trying to defend him, but rather an observer who thought it was important to point this out. Secondly, I think it is important t note that I have never heard Bush say that God told him to do anything. Rather he has made it known what his religiuos beliefs are and I would imagine as most people are he is guided by said beliefs. What is wrong with that? Do we expect the president to somehow separate himself from his own values and beliefs because he is president. Honestly I cannot think of one president who has been able to manage that.
I would also like to say so you know I am not just being difficult that I do agree it is silly, for lack of a better work to simply vote for someone because of their religion, Obviously if they are your religion, most likely their platform will be similar to yours, but it is certainly your job to investigate that further.
Posted by: talula at September 6, 2004 01:42 PM
I agree with talula, I also may agree it may not be the smartest voting decision based only on the fact that you may have the same religious convictions, but to call someone stupid is not I would think being opened minded, as you claim to be. I would expect the person I would vote for to have convictions, which may be based on his or her religion. We can not seperate one part of our life from another. I believe that our moral standards (what ever they might be) is reflected in every aspect of our lives. I too do not believe that our voting decisions should be based soley on a persons relious beliefs, or on one issue. I do believe we should vote for that person we feel has high moral standards combined with alot of other qualities. Right or wrong these are often going to be based on personal convicions that we have. That may be based on religion. The problem is who can we believe. That's the big question. We live in a wonderful society, some day we may have a Muslim Women for president, and at that time she may be the best person for the job.
Posted by: simonsays at September 7, 2004 10:07 AM
I don't recall wonko stating Mr. Baldwin was stupid, nor did he imply it. Wonko made references to the interview where Mr. Baldwin was 'flustered'. I think Mr. Baldwin is just uninformed. He obviously did not know Kerry was Catholic. That doesn't make him stupid, just uninformed. I do not understand why Mr. Baldwin was at the RNC or why he chose to do an interview if he wouldn't state who he was supporting. He obviously didn't do his homework or any research to support his statements/comments. This is the real problem in my opinion. The uninformed should not speak on issues if they are not qualified to do so.
I can't confirm that Bush never said God told him to do anything, but he did say that God wanted him to be president and to lead the nation. Or perhaps he did say it, just not in public:
Lastly, there is no room for religion in Government. Religion is a personal obligation and is so by choice. It should not be forced upon anyone's free will. And I do expect the President to separate his beliefs with how he governs this nation.
On a side note: Bush has said that he didn't expect Bin Laden to understand the joy of Hanukkah. I'm not sure Bush really does either, since he's a born again Christian. Nor do I think Bush understands the Muslim Religion. Who's to say anyone truly understands any Religion. I do understand that Religion is not for everyone.
Posted by: useEvil at September 7, 2004 12:40 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)