LDS, Christians, and Politics

[evmori]

"he thought that there might just be a sort of Christianity test, now, that candidates think they must pass. "

 

Christianity test? What the heck does that mean?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

A blessed Christmas to all

[packsaddle]

Brent, our senior patrol leader was overheard last week lecturing the boys about the candidates. He explained that Hillary and Obama were communists. Then he quickly followed up saying the Republicans were just as bad, just in different ways. Heh, heh, we leaders all just shook our heads.

 

Ed, the words were his. But I have heard (and I am sure you must have as well) persons say things along the lines of, "...he's a Baptist minister, that's all I need to know to vote for him."

However, I interpret the 'test' to be one in which a candidate feels that he or she must provide sufficient evidence of his or her Christianity that voters who are devoutly religious will, at least, not reject him or her for religious reasons. Or better yet, that those voters will seriously consider him or her as a candidate because of their demonstrated Christianity.

 

If this is, in fact, something that is influencing our political process, candidates of faiths that are not at least related to the majority Christian faiths probably 'need not apply'. Under what conditions, for example, could a Wiccan stand a chance for the Presidency?

One way to judge the degree to which this might be happening might be to ask oneself if you could seriously consider a candidate whose faith is strongly different from yours or perhaps opposed by it. As long as one's decision regarding any candidate is influenced to any extent by knowledge of the candidate's religion, then what is the difference between that effect and such a test?

[BrentAllen]

I think the term communist is a little strong. Socialist is more like it. And I would agree with him about the Republicans. No, I haven't changed my spots - I'm still a conservative Republican; I'm just not real happy with any of the choices. Where are the Ronald Reagans and Theodore Roosevelts when you need them?

[evmori]

I dunno pack! There is no "test" to be a Christian. It's all about faith.

[Gold Winger]

" Where are the Ronald Reagans and Theodore Roosevelts when you need them? "

 

They've both been on postage stamp which is a strong indication that they are dead and consequently inelligible to hold office.

 

 

[Beavah]

As long as one's decision regarding any candidate is influenced to any extent by knowledge of the candidate's religion, then what is the difference between that effect and such a test?

 

Yah, like Ed says, there's no test for religiosity.

 

But the thing is, if yeh believe in democracy, you let people choose their candidates based on whatever test they wish. Some make da test environmental policy. Some fiscal policy. Some good looks. Some because da person is a fellow Latino. Some because da person was a successful businessman. Some because the guy hunts, or jogs. Some 'cause the name sounds familiar. Some might even flip a coin.

 

That's freedom. That's democracy. My question is why some folk get so prejudiced about religious folk that that test is somehow a bit worse than any other test based on da person's background or choices.

 

Beavah

[packsaddle]

It's an interesting question: how WOULD Teddy Roosevelt fare in today's political process?

 

Beavah, the question is about whether or not a faith test exists in today's political environment. The concern is whether it goes beyond being an issue and becomes a qualification for being a viable candidate. You seem to say yes, and then equate the test to any other issue. But your characterization of it as somehow being worse than other issues tests is interesting. Do you think it is 'worse'? In what way? On the assumption that some kind of faith test exists in the minds of some candidates, when they respond to it they must think it is a good thing to do...or at least somehow advantageous.

 

I agree with you about the Democratic process. I have advocated this often...that the people be allowed to elect the best or the worst that they choose to. I don't necesarily see this is somehow bad, though, and I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If you or the majority of people want to elect a sort of theocracy to lead the government, go for it.

Me, I am confident that, short of divine intervention, the Darwinian processes exacted by the marketplace would provide any needed corrections given sufficient time.

[Lisabob]

If you or the majority of people want to elect a sort of theocracy to lead the government, go for it.

 

Of course there's that business about Tyranny of the Majority to consider too.

[Beavah]

The concern is whether it goes beyond being an issue and becomes a qualification for being a viable candidate. You seem to say yes, and then equate the test to any other issue.

 

Yah, exactly.

 

For some small subset of voters, religiosity may be a qualification on which they'll base their vote. For others, it might be one factor in a candidate's background that makes 'em lean toward that candidate.

 

So what?

 

For other subsets of voters, overt religiosity is a negative, or even a test for who not to vote for. And there's all kinds of other "tests" people apply. Just da way it is.

 

What I can't figure out, packsaddle, is why you or anyone else seems to make an "issue" of religious faith and its relation to politics, but not all the other questions of candidate background and choice that people use as "tests." I personally don't see any difference, other than that some people want to make a special issue about religion, because da press finds it juicier or somethin'. Would we be commentin' about a Huckabee advertisement where he calls himself a "conservative leader"?

 

Yah, perhaps da press is the issue, eh? In a Republican field distinguished by its boredom and shallow positions, maybe Romney's underwear is the only issue they can find to distinguish between candidates that has any market appeal. Pretty tellin' commentary on the Republican candidates, ain't it.

 

Beavah

 

[scoutldr]

The ones that scare me are the "voters" who enter the voting booth and are seeing the names for the first time. Ever listen to Hannity's "man on the street" interviews? Scary.

[packsaddle]

Scoutldr, it may be scary but that was what I meant about market corrections. If we collectively make the wrong decisions for whatever reasons, we will be 'selected' against (in the Darwinian sense) and outcompeted by superior competitors. Now that may be a rough consequence for our children but that's reality. This country is a continuous uncontrolled experiment and the outcome is forever in doubt. Which why I so enjoy informing complacent persons that 'security' is an illusion...is and always has been.

 

Beavah, if you will please read the Krauthammer opinion piece your question regarding the origin of the 'religion in politics' issue will be answered. In essence, Huckabee is the one who has raised the question by his own 'playing' of the religion card in order to best Romney. Romney knows his faith is a potential issue so he delivered the 'Kennedy' speech. And Huckabee took advantage of the same vulnerability and successfully contrasted his Christianity with Romney's faith. Huckabee's claim to be 'conservative' is not the origin. His claim to be Christian in contrast to being Mormon is. Whether or not this IS a special issue is a good question but that question has been called by people who can hardly be considered anything but 'conservative'. At least I think most people consider Krauthammer to be conservative, I could be wrong. I am merely interested in the answer.

[Gonzo1]

Even more scary is that young people actually think Leno and Letterman are telling the truth when they crack jokes.

 

 

[eolesen]

This is shaping up to be one of the wierdest election cycles in history.

 

You've got a subset of people who are voting for Hillary simply because it's time we have a woman president.

 

You've got another subset of people backing Obama simply because it's time we have a black president.

 

If Romney or Huckabee were a black woman, it would be even more interesting, but since they're not, they have to make some sort of ruckus just to get attention, and religion seems to be the only real differentiator... Heaven forbid they actually start discussing their stance on important things like.... oh, never mind... we don't elect people based on issues anymore. We just vote against the guy/gal we don't like.

[Beavah]

Yah, packsaddle, it's just not interestin', eh? I don't buy da news media blather about "playing cards." Huckabee plays the religion card, Obama plays the race card yada yada blah blah blah we have to fill air time despite bein' air heads, yack yack yack.

 

Of course there's a subset of voters who are more comfortable with Huckabee's folksy Christian Minister schtick, and at least it's genuine, eh? Da guy really thinks that way in part. And when we hit the western states that elect folks like Orrin Hatch and such, we'll find a subset of voters who are more comfortable with pullin' da lever for a fellow Mormon. And yeh can't be mayor of Detroit unless you're black, or (until recently) mayor of Boston unless you're Irish.

 

Happily, da nation is bigger than Iowa or Utah or Detroit or Boston. So on a bigger stage, such litmus tests become just a factor that some consider, and others un-consider, and others ignore.

 

Can't see where it's a deal, let alone a big deal, in anything other than a really boring news cycle.

 

Me personally, I can't vote for Romney because I think he'd sell his soul and every policy to get elected and stay in power. Da man runs before each prevailin' wind, navigatin' by poll numbers. Mayhap that's why Huckabee is lookin' more attractive to folks in Iowa, eh? Ain't the fact he's a Christian so much as he looks more honest.

 

Beavah

 

[SSScout]

Been busy with my Meetings Christmas pageant... live sheep.

 

Pack:

Say, if there is a Christianity test, what's a passing grade and, by the way, who does the final grading? Can I register for pass/fail? Is there a CURVE or PERCENTILE CUT?

 

Can you 'audit' the course? Can one 'opt out'?

 

I always tell my kids EVERYTHING is a test. Lots of popquizzes along the way...Just not everybody passes. Read the homework and take notes during the lectures. AND ask the Instructor questions when they occur to you (some pupils call this prayer). You might not get another chance.

 

Extra credit?