"Obama, meanwhile, can’t win. Some of the same religious bigots who called him a closet Muslim and conflated him with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are gleefully damning him for his association with the Christian Wright."
This blatant political slant undermines what Williams had originally attempted to disguise as a logical and practical argument against religion’s role in politics. Williams himself declares that “faith is not a legitimate political issue,” but he contradicts himself when he complains of the perceived unfair treatment of Obama. If he truly believes that religion and religious associations should play no role in politics, shouldn’t it please Mr. Williams that McCain “has largely gotten a pass” when it comes to his relationship with the Rev. John Hagee? Isn’t his outrage less about the role religion has played in the election thus far and more about the role religion has played against Obama?
Mr. Williams, you may claim to consider faith itself an illegitimate political issue, but don’t the American people deserve to know as much as possible about the man or woman who wants to serve them and protect their interests? The company candidates choose to keep directly reflects on their values and we ought to consider all of that company carefully, regardless of whether a person holds a religious title or not. As indicated by the 2004 presidential election polls, “values voters” comprise a significant portion of the electorate. Americans seek to elect people like themselves—meaning that they elect candidates who share their values. Like it or not, practicing a particular faith connotes certain values and often provides a quick and easy way to assess a candidate’s values. Of course, in no way do I consider this a foolproof method of determining a person’s character as one can always find people who say one thing and do another. Thus, I would prefer that voters meticulously examine candidates’ voting records when trying to determine if those candidates share their values, but how many Americans take the time to familiarize themselves with the voting records of their representatives beyond the controversial votes the media publicizes?
Williams raises the question of “whether the public wants to know as much about a candidate’s faith as is being revealed.” The Framers founded this country on the basis that “We the People” would guide our government, and it follows logically that that principle would extend to our elected officials in government. If “We the People” didn’t want to know about a particular candidate’s faith, Mr. Williams, “We” wouldn’t keep asking.
Posts
6 comments:
I think the point Mr. Williams is trying to make is that "We" aren't asking the questions, the media does this. We simply watch, and digest. You mention, "Thus, I would prefer that voters meticulously examine candidates’ voting records when trying to determine if those candidates share their values, but how many Americans take the time to familiarize themselves with the voting records of their representatives beyond the controversial votes the media publicizes?" Your quite correct, We don't have the time, however, the media does and it is wasting its time on religion rather than meticulous examination, as you put it. Frankly, its embarrassing to be the only Western Democracy that focusing so much on religion.
I disagree with Williams’ assessment that politics and religion must be separated at all costs. Religion should never be imposed by a government, however, it is undeniable that religious values have shaped the development of our country and will continue to do so. Williams argues that evoking religion is merely a façade used by candidates to gain votes, but does not address the counterargument that religion is innately related with moral values. Certainly this test for candidates is not infallible, as not all religious people are moral and not all moral people are religious. At the same time, for a distant political candidate relying on the people for support, it is a pragmatic way to communicate personal beliefs. Williams disapproves of this practice, but offers no reason why it is any worse than other platforms adopted by political parties. Furthermore, he implies that religious presidents, namely Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush, are inferior to others without substantiating his claim in any way. The lack of acknowledgement which Williams gives to dissenting opinions only undermines his own credibility and argument.
While a candidate’s beliefs may affect their policies, they are not being asked to head a church, they are being asked to head a country that has separation of church and state. Yes, the American people keep asking about the candidates’ religious beliefs, and some are very concerned about them, are they really that important? I think the article makes a good point, “If a politician is moral, ethical, competent and wise, why should we care whether he's got religion or not?” A candidate may have opposing views with the public in one area, but my have the best policies for the country. It would be “cleaner” to leave a candidate’s personal religious choices out of their campaign and politics, but it does have great importance to certain groups of people. So there is the lingering question of how could politicians leave religion out of politics?
I think it is important to remember the point of this article, which is Michael Paul Williams being tired of the medias focus on specific obvious integrations of religion and politics. The media does pay very close attention to everything in the life of the politicians including religious alliances and viewpoints but the question I pose is why wouldn’t they? I am just as exhausted with the emphasis placed on these things as Mr. Williams is but he is wrong in questioning the American publics desire to know about these religious correlations. If the public didn’t want to know, they wouldn’t watch and read about it. The media is simply reporting what is of interest to the public in an attempt to receive high ratings. Therefore, these types of stories will continue to garner attention of the media until the American public no longer cares.
With all do respect Elizabeth, your allegiances are also very clear in your writing. That is one of its main purposes and when passion is involved, it is naive to believe that any person could be unbiased.
Many people have responded to your idea of “We the people” and our ability to ask questions. Who is this “We”? I do not believe it is the media as many of my colleagues have claimed. But “We the people” to me, means all people of all religious backgrounds, and when “We the people” are asking questions based solely on the Christian faith, some of the “We”s get left behind.
Furthermore, you put forth “values voters” comprise a significant portion of the electorate. Americans seek to elect people like themselves—meaning that they elect candidates who share their values. Like it or not, practicing a particular faith connotes certain values and often provides a quick and easy way to assess a candidate’s values.” That is perhaps Mr. William’s biggest problem- the American public uses religious affiliation as a “quick and easy way to assess a candidate’s values”. We don’t exactly have a strong diversity in the religious affiliations of our politics and in truth, many are uneducated about any other belief systems than Christian. What we do not understand, we cannot fairly evaluate and therefore religious discrimination is institutionalized.
Perhaps the problem is McCain’s free card and Obama’s jail pass because equality does not exist. One victory does not overrule a failure and any religious premise for election in someone who believes as Mr. Williams, is a failure.
Noam Chomsky has made it devastatingly clear that 'what' the media reports in no way represents what the American public wants to know. It's quite commonsensical really, just follow the money. Who pays the bills of our privately controlled media?--Advertisers, and this is who controls the content, not the consumers. The only media that is vaguely controlled by the public is NPR. We are not controlling the media, in fact, the US has the least amount of publicly controlled media in the Western World, this is why we are getting religion rammed down our throats, not because a majority actually cares. People watch because there is no competition, as there is in other democratic nations who have direct access to foreign media, therefore causing competition amongst their own. For example whats on CNN's headlines today-- Why smokers shouldn't get plastic surgery...and a story about a 12 year old autistic boy. As for Fox News there covering the intensely debated political question on every American's mind--If you put lipstick on a pig, is it still a pig?
Post a Comment