Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has been questioned so much about his Mormon faith -- 46 percent of those polled by Gallup in March had a negative opinion of the religion -- that he has taken to emphasizing that he is running for a secular office.Faith has become so entrenched in the political race that the lines are not even blurred anymore. They have merged into one.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Romney Backpedals
From CNN:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Tony: the good part of this is that people are discussing faith and what Christianity is and what it isn't. How it affects the elections is yet to be known.
I do find it rather in line with what the democrats said would happen after the 2004 election. They, having realized the reason so many people voted because of the marriage/amendment arguements, vowed they needed to introduce more faith and religion into their campaigns come '08. They haven't disappointed us with that. Even Hillary has a new-found faith that gets her through her trials and tribulations.
Talk is cheap though. And faith in God is yet to be noted among many as far as I can read the reports. Huckabee appears to be the only true faith-walking candidate as far as I can tell. Do you see it another way? selahV
It does stimulate conversations about faith, no doubt. Edwards appeals to his Southern Baptist heritage and Obama is UCC. He has made no qualms about how faith affects his decisions.
I think these things will affect the elections; they certainly did in 00 and 04. As far as Huckabee, I like him, but I am not so sure he is an electable candidate. Right now the GOP really doesn't have a contender, IMO.
How do we see their faith? Do we see it in Bush?
Streak,
I'm not quite sure I am following the thought of your questions.
I mean, we hope we can see their faith and how it bears on policy decisions, whether good or bad. I guess as a follow-up to your point, how important is it for faith (or lack of it?) to be exercised in public and/or civic leadership?
Bush has made it, though inadequately, that faith should be an important part of civic leadership; though on many points it has been demonstrably bad.
(BTW, I think you might find this interesting. I was at my folks' house and I came across some old newspapers my dad had saved. The headlines were from September of 91 and the Gulf War. The headline was that Iraq was torturing and "coercively interrogating" American POW's. That was news and it wasn't the other way around.)
Tony,
Perhaps I was unclear. I was mostly responding to my friends who have told me that Bush is a good Christian. I follow up and ask how they know that, and they lack an answer beyond the idea that Bush has said he is one. I would humbly suggest that our democracy might be better off if we voted for people because of their competence rather than opened ourselves up to voting for flimflam artists posing as good Christians. Tom Delay and GWB come to mind.
Streak,
I would humbly say...I think you are right. We need to vote for competence. I read a great op-ed while at my folks the past two days in their local paper about voting competence over faith. If I find it on the net I'll post it.
I do think that a man or woman can be a Christian and successfully serve in public office and make the two intermix well. I'll be pleased to see it happen.
I agree, Tony. and I think that many good Christians have served in office. But the most vocal about their "faith" have tended to be the Tom Delay's ("let them see Jesus through my mugshot") or Bush's famous "Jesus is my favorite philosopher. Now, when do we start bombing and torturing." (Not an actual quote, of course. :) )
Let's bring on the competent--Christian and unbeliever alike.
Who do you like in the 08 race so far?
I've already mentioned this to Tony in email, but since you asked publicly, I'll weigh in, Streak.
I'm leaning heavily toward Ron Paul in '08. I don't know his views on the environment, but so far, his views on international policy, torture, and government in general line up with where I'm at.
Interesting. Paul's take on torture and international relations are interesting and more in line with my own as well, but his take on government is essentially that private enterprise can do anything better than government. I think that private enterprise can do many things well, but am not completely convinced that it is the answer to everything.
Point well taken, Streak. Unfortunately, every other candidate, as far as I can tell, believes that government must do everything! ;)
Streak,
I am not yet sold on any of the GOP frontrunners. I like Paul but I am not convinced he is electable. His positions on torture, the war, and foreign policy stand up to scrutiny. What I do like about Paul is that homosexuality and abortion are not his primary talking points (nor creation). The 08 election may need to be like the mid-terms; a vote for accountability.
However, though I typically vote Republican, Obama and Edwards both carry a lot of appeal. Given the current admin, I am voting competence.
Steve,
Thanks for weighing in. You're always welcome here!
Steve, I take your point, but I think that republicans have really damanged our political dialogue with the whole "government and taxes are our enemies." Government cannot do everything, that is clear, nor should it. But there are many things that government can do well, especially good government. The name Republic comes from the latin "res publica" or "for the public good." That sense has been lost, I fear.
I wish we could emulate the Canadians who it has been said "don't love government, but they don't hate it either."
Tony,
I like both Obama and Edwards too. We shall see if either one can get past Hilary, who I really don't like. I want to like her. I liked her husband as president (despite all his problems), would like a woman president, and appreciate that she is smart and capable. I just don't like her.
Oh well.
Post a Comment