According to Robert S. McElvaine, emerging evidence suggests that Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin is a “religious extremist” who needs to answer some serious questions about the influence of her faith on her political decisions. In his editorial for Newsweek and the Washington Post titled “Palin Should Address Disturbing Religious Connections,” McElvaine presents a series of quotations and examples to characterize Palin’s religious views. Many of these ideas, such as Creationism, belief in the Second Coming of Christ, and Palin’s indication “that she sees the ‘War on Terror’ as a holy war”, are reasons for concern for many voters. For example, some fear that as a Creationist, Palin “discounts science” and thus insists that humans are not the cause of climate change. In addition, questions continue to circulate as more information surfaces about Palin’s association with various churches, such as the Wasilla Assembly of God Church, that “all believe in a literal translation of the Bible.”
Clearly McElvaine is biased: he believes Palin’s views are extreme, so he carefully includes quotes and information that portray her as a radical Christian who plans to push her religious agenda into politics. He cleverly associates her with Wasilla’s pastor Ed Kalnins in order to cast her in an even more extreme light. That being said, I do think McElvaine makes a legitimate point that the public needs more information from Sarah Palin about her religious beliefs. Without such information, many voters may be misled and will find it difficult to make an informed decision about Palin.
McElvaine compares Palin’s situation to that of John F. Kennedy in 1960 and urges her “to allow herself to be questioned” as Kennedy did at the Houston ministers meeting. Just as Palin today faces criticism, Kennedy, too, was a controversial nominee, in his case because he was a Catholic. However, as William Martin illustrates in his book With God On Our Side, “Kennedy had anticipated the anxieties his candidacy was sure to create and had addressed the issue head-on” (p. 49). Kennedy repeatedly openly discussed concerns relating to his Catholicism, concerns which “made him suspect in the eyes of many Protestants” (p. 47). Martin emphasizes the effectiveness of Kennedy's insistence that his religious beliefs would have no effect on his actions as president. Kennedy ultimately made history by winning the presidency, successfully convincing enough Americans that his Catholicism was not a danger.
Is it possible for Palin to do the same and assuage the fears of present-day voters? In 1960, people were wary of a Catholic president. Today, although it is nearly half a century later, American voters obviously still place religion among their top priorities in choosing a candidate. The difference now is that, unlike Kennedy, Palin has not openly answered questions relating to her faith. Is the criticism that she faces unfair and undue? Or are there legitimate concerns that need to be addressed? Should we really demand that Palin defend her religious beliefs, or is America finally ready to leave religion out of the picture entirely?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Claire, you do an excellent job of explaining McElvaine's article, and your questions are thought-provoking. Reading McElvaine's piece, I was reminded of an article our writing class read earlier this semester: "Context, You Say?" Stanley Kurtz, which explored the theological radicalism of Jeremiah Wright and its influence on Obama as a leader. By emphasizing some of the most radical tenets of theology that Palin has been associated with--pentacostalism, the quasi-theocraticl Constitution party, etc.--whether peripherally or not, McElvaine does paint a picture that, for many Americans, may seem extreme. However what I think keeps Palin from being "radical" is the fact that at a fundamental level, many Americans share her beliefs. To expose certain instances of theological radicalism avoids the fact that Palin's presence on the ticket mainly seems to seek to attract mainstream evangelicals, not radical evangelicals. And mainstream evangelicals, though by no means a majority in this country, are a powerful voting bloc. The distinction between religious fundamentalism and a more mainstream set of beliefs is an important one to make, and though I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, but I warrant the guess that she falls into the latter camp, and that when she has interjected faith into politics, she has done so with a mind for her audience and the voters she seeks to attract. Ultimately, though, I'm speculating--which means that Claire makes a critical point: Palin really hasn't done much to illuminate her stance on religion and politics. And for those Americans who aren't a part of mainstream or even radical evangelical faith, her silence may increase their perceptions of her faith as more and more radical every day.
Post a Comment