I had a disturbing conversation with a regular guy this week. This was not a radical person, or an ignorant person, just a normal guy. He insisted that Barack Obama was a Muslim. Later that day he forwarded me an email he had received as proof. I was shocked to discover this regular guy was relying on a blatantly false email, not just "out of context" stuff, but also outright lies. It is almost pointless to discuss the motivation behind the million or so people who forward, read and believe these lies, or people at Palin rallies who shout "terrorist" or "treason" or "kill him" or make racial slurs. But I am interested in this fixation by many people on whether or not Obama is a Muslim. We have zero evidence he is, but who cares if he was?
I would agree that I am concerned about the "moral compass" of a candidate. I would agree that I am concerned about a candidate's passion and plan for social justice. I would also agree that a candidate's spiritual beliefs are a factor in those issues.
But NO religion, or religion at all for that matter, has a monopoly on social justice or morality. I can appreciate a candidate's spiritual beliefs, but I put more value on a candidate's consistent message and action in areas of social justice.
I would consider the way the candidate holds their beliefs in terms of ability to govern all people fairly, certainly, just as I would a Methodist or a Catholic or a non-practicing person. I just do not understand why I should reject a Muslim for President, simply because that person is a member of the Muslim faith.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
It is mind boggling how many people still believe what they read in a forwarded mass e-mail. I like this quote on the subject: "Assume all such messages are wrong, and you'll be right most of the time." http://www.factcheck.org/specialreports/that_chain_e-mail_your_friend_sent_to.html
In the 60s wasn't it a big deal that Kennedy was a Catholic? Also, with Lieberman wasn't it an issue that he was an orthodox Jew? Apparently some people believe that the United States of America should only be governed by protestant individuals.
The drumbeat of these individuals seems to be "I want a president with religious values, so long as those religious values are mine."
I read an interesting story on alternet.org about how difficult it is to change people's minds even when confronted w/ the truth.
And apparently it has been a problem for quite some time. A long time ago, Mark Twain told us: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
http://www.alternet.org/story/101973/why_it%27s_hard_to_change_people%27s_minds/
it would be better if I knew how to post a hyperlink.
This is Erick
I need to check my computer tomorrow at work, but there is a distinct possibility that I need to change my vote. I read the question differently than what was actually posted, such that it may affect what I answered.
Just as an FYI.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/campbell.brown.obama/index.html
She must have read your blog.
That's a toughy...
I think it's difficult to say that one's religious values are to be separated from the job they would do in office. My personal values regarding spirituality are the most important of my values (above political, social, or my intense feelings regarding breakfast cereal).
I don't think I would vote against a candidate simply because he/she was Muslim/Hindu/Wicken, but I do think the religious beliefs of a person are most likely to shape the lens with which they view the world.
There is also an interesting discussion here about what a political "representative" means. When I vote for my Missouri Rep from Boone County, shouldn't I be choosing someone who will most accurately reflect my thoughts, choices, and values as a representation of me when they vote? Isn't that the point of a Representative Democracy?
Maybe I feel differently the less "local" the politician is. I tend to lean more toward leadership skills when voting for President (b/c I'm not convinced their particular stance on an issue matters all that much), but when I vote more locally I often vote more on issues. Maybe it's because I feel the results of local politicians' decisions more personally.
Excellent question, David. This is a question I think we all need to give a lot of thought to. I would have to say that I would favor a Christian President over a Muslim one because I believe that right and wrong are determined by God not man (i.e. the ten commandments; the sermon on the mount). If the Christian God and the Muslim God are different, and I believe they are, then the one with the true God, who bases his morality on what the true God has revealed will have the best morality. Although Christianity and Islam have some morality in common, they also have vast differences in morality. Furthermore, I would prefer to have a President who is praying to the one true God before making decisions concerning the rulership of our nation. The difficulty I have is trusting what any candidate says when they make a statement about their religion. I have a common distrust for nearly all politicians, particularly of late. How do I know that for instance that George Bush is truly a Christian just because he claims to be. A candidate does not have to be a Muslim to be a liar. How do I know he isn't a closet Atheist or Branch Davidian for that matter, claiming to be a Christian because Christianity is good politics. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I cannot help but ask because politicians so often say or become whatever or whoever is necessary to get elected. You can take George Bush's name out and fill in the name of almost any recent president or candidate as far as I'm concerned. I am not accusing George Bush or any other president or candidate of lying. I am simply saying that since they are politicians we should be reticent to accept what they say at face value about their allegiances. If a President or Candidate claims to be a Christian and endorses morality contrary to the Scriptures or oppresses the poor or helpless, I refuse to accept his word that he is a Christian. However, unless I find some clear evidence of deception, I will have to vote on candidates according to their claims, observed public practice, social justice, and morality. As far as the accusations made against Obama, I agree that people need to stick with the facts and get their sources straight. They are making themselves look ignorant as well as whatever faction to which they hold allegiance, and they are being slanderous. Another question, I must consider further is what I would do if two immoral, greedy, socially unjust individuals are running for President. How far do we go with "choosing the greater of two evils." If two devils are running for President, I don't want to have any credit in electing either of them.
I really appreciate the comments and interest this post has generated. I have to admit I am quite disappointed that in the United States a person would be refused office because of his or her faith. So far in my poll, 28 out of 42 people voted "no" they would not vote for a Muslim candidate. It is hard for me to understand. Of the 28 "no" votes, Benjamin was the only person willing to explain why and I appreciate his openness.
In this "unlikely story that is America" most prejudices have eventually fallen into a minority view, it is my hope that eventually this religious prejudice will too.
I'm sure we'll have ample opportunity to discuss this again. Thanks again for the input and anyone else that wants to throw in their opinion I'm still listening.
Or, worse yet, an Athiest who doesn't see fit to keep his views in the closet! Quick, Pa, hide the children!
I think that your 28 to 14 is indicative of your readership, not the general population. Of the people that I associate with, I would say that is probably accurate, as well. I am glad that Ben was willing to voice his opinion on this. But that means you have to listen to mine.
I would be more willing to go along w/ Ben on his morality point, if indeed a cerain religion or sect had a corner on that market. I think that it is pretty safe to say that the proportion of fine, upstanding moral people to those of questionable character is roughly the same in any church, synogogue, temple, mosque or library at any given time. To call oneself "more moral" seems to be an oxymoron. Is the fact that we have 2 muslim congressman the reason for the recent economic crisis? Or as Fred Phelps would say, the reason why soldiers are dying is because we allow gays in the military? Or did each one of these events take place while many leaders knelt by the sides of their bed asking for direction? I think that it is anyone's right to vote for or against anyone they choose for any reason. But it seems to me that those of us who are called atheist are just as concerned (if not more) about the wellbeing of our fellow humans regardless of religion, place of birth, political persuasion, class, occupation, color, sex, sexuality, or any other label that one chooses to put on others or take on themselves.
When you can show me any one religion that has the moral highground, I will gulp the kool-aid, too.
You make a very good point, Seth. Obviously, a lot of men in public office, or who have been in public office, calling themselves Christians are not men of Christian morality. And honestly, I don't know who some of the so called Christian men who have led our nation of late are praying to. Christians have moral flaws and failings as much as anyone else, but I believe the morality the Bible teaches is the best. I will not deny, however, that there are Muslims, Atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. who have a more Biblical morality than many professed Christians, and perhaps in such a case, they would make better leaders for our nation. I say this just to clarify my position. Again, when it comes to morality, we have all failed. We all fall short. We need God's Word to reshape and redefine our thinking.
Post a Comment