With the presidential campaigns in full swing it is clear that there are very thin lines as to what can be crossed and what cannot. This time it was Barack Obama’s turn to cross the line when he commented on Palin’s five children, including her pregnant teenage daughter. It seemed that Obama was aiming this at the lack of her religious beliefs and the scrutiny she is under due to her religious affiliations. Obama was reported saying, “But don't give people some sort of religious litmus test because I don't want somebody to question my faith and I'm certainly not going to question somebody else's.”
The idea that Palin compared herself to a pit bull with the exception of lipstick really does cause us to sit back and look at this Presidential candidate and wonder where she is coming from in any and all aspects. Running mate, John McCain, commented that Barack Obama was out of line by saying, "You can put lipstick on a pig…it's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still going to stink after eight years." This article is clearly showing that no matter how hard we try to keep religion and politics separate, it will always come together. A simple comment about lipstick has caused numerous questions to be raised. Politicians will be petty and fight to bring up any cause that will hinder their opponent.
At this stage of the campaign, religion has been a huge factor. Not only has Barack Obama’s religion been questioned, but now Sarah Palin is being torn apart over her affiliation with a nondenominational church in Alaska. For the remainder of the campaign the religious beliefs of the candidates will continue to be a hot spot in the news and debates yet to come. Although we try to distinguish between religion and politics, there is a constant discourse that will always make it a deciding factor. No matter how “tolerable” our society is or becomes there will never be a time that a politician will not be judges in one form or another based on their religion.
In my opinion, Sarah Palin is being torn apart for her religion and every other move she makes simply because she is unknown. The fact that she belongs to a nondenominational church is underlying knowledge that goes along with the fact that she is the woman in the campaign now. Within the next month, I believe that there will finally have to be an open discussion on religion to ease the mind of our society. It seems that there are fewer people voting for their candidate solely on their views, but their background including religion.\
To read this article visit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/09/AR2008090902802.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Your last sentence, “there seems to be fewer people voting for their candidate solely on their views, but their background including religion” is something I have to disagree with. Obviously our religious practices and beliefs are important to our everyday lives, however I do not feel that they will be the deciding factor in this upcoming election. I feel that our country is more spilt down party lines, which categorically speaking, does not even mean they are voting solely on their own political views. I like to think the same way as Madison when he wrote To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia: A Memorial and Remonstrance., “Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us” (30-31). As I mentioned before, while our religious beliefs and practices are important to our everyday lives, I do not feel that they are, or should be our deciding factor. There are more pertinent issues that need addressed in our society and I think that the majority of citizens find that recognizable.
Post a Comment