|
I'm looking around and seeing a lot of trash talking. Clinton supporters attack Obama for his pastor's blowups, Obama supporters counter about Clinton's Senate prayer club including Santorum and Brownback, and on, and on. And there are some people here who just rabidly hate any mention of religion by a politician.
People: you can't throw a rock in American politics or culture without hitting a somebody who has strange and sometimes completely irrational religious views. The fact that one candidate or another can be associated with somebody whose views you don't agree with means very little. If they agreed with that person, that would mean something, but chances are that they don't. You can accuse someone of "secretly" agreeing all you want, but the reality is that a candidate can only be judged on what they actually do and believe. You can't tar them for their associations with people you consider quacks, whether they're due to politics or personal acquaintence.
I know some people who are wonderfully nice folks personally, but believe some of the most bizarre crap you'd ever imagine. That doesn't mean I'll refuse to associate with them, only that I try to forgive them their foibles and not get into arguments over religion.
Nor is it impossible to find common ground and issues, even moral or religious issues, with people who you radically oppose on other topics. Someone who you virulently disagree with on issues like abortion or homosexuality might have an equal fervor for campaigning against poverty, or supporting civil liberties.
In short, it is radically unfair to characterize a candidate based solely on who they associate with instead of what they actually embrace. And while it there are some people whose wrongness is so pervasive as to make their isolation an attractive idea, it's often more productive in the long term to engage them and, even if they're unsalvageable, offer an alternative to those who might otherwise be swayed to that sort of belief, in the absence of an opposing voice.
Going further, there's a certain contingent here that loudly and angrily disapproves any time any politician talks about religion. To be clear, I understand entirely where you're coming from. Being both a big fan of Thomas Jefferson and a semi-Quaker, I firmly believe in the privacy of religion, and that it does not belong on the public stage.
But at the same time, I'm a realist, and I know that religion isn't going to leave politics entirely, even if it should. Knowing that a candidate has beliefs is as important to some people as getting out of Iraq is to us, and not all of those people are the nutcases or fundamentalists that some people here would make them out to be. Until an athieist has a fair chance of being elected President, we purists are going to have to tolerate the fact that we are a nation where there are many religious people who desire some similar belief out of their leaders.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
