gotta have faith?
John Kerry gave a speech at Pepperdine about religion and his personal story of faith. This follows similar speeches by Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) and Robert P. Casey Jr., the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania.
Kerry says that he wishes he had given this speech before the 2004 elections, and I do to. Those of you who have ever heard me talk about the Democratic Party know that I think one of the major breakdowns of the Kerry campaign was the lack of open communication about issues like this. I think that this is something that the Democratic party as a whole struggles with. However, if you aren’t open about what you believe and how that fits in with your history as a politician, people are going to fill in the blanks for you. That solution never works out very well for the Democrats.
Some say that by addressing these issues, the Democratic Party runs the risk of alienating its liberal base. I think that American voters are, for the most part, smarter than people think. You have your groups and either end that won’t be persuaded either way – they will always vote straight ticket because that’s just what you do. You aren’t going to change the minds of voters like that. But the people who actually listen to campaign issues and the such are the people who are most likely to be persuaded. The people who consider themselves “moderate” (politically or religiously) and the voters who vote for people not party. These are the people who can understand that you can be a Christian and not be against abortion or gay marriage. These are the people who understand the fallacy of the pre-election Republican legislative agenda that caters itself to what they think that religious conservatives want. And the people that they are catering to aren’t “religious conservatives” they are conservative Christians.
In response to Kerry’s speech Tony Perkins, president of the Washington-based Family Research Council, said, “The pickle that some of these liberal policymakers find themselves in is, they know that faith is important to people, but when they get pinned down on their policy positions that are inconsistent with the tenets of their faith, they start hedging and talking about other factors in their decision."
I would like to clarify a something for Mr. Perkins. The beauty of the political science experiment known as the United States of America is that we don’t have an official religion. One of the benefits of this situation is that our legislation is not based on a person’s religious views or beliefs. I think that the alarm should sound and big red flashing light should go off for all of us when we see a politician legislating their personal religious beliefs to the citizens of this country. People like Mr. Perkins find this convenient now, because they believe that Christianity is still the dominant religion and therefore it should be socially acceptable to legislate your “religious” beliefs about gays and abortion to the entire nation. That’s not what politics is about. And that shouldn’t be what Christians are about. Shouldn’t “faithful Christianity” be about helping those less fortunate than ourselves and seeking equality for those who are put upon? I’m pretty sure that Jesus had something to say about that. Not to mention that legislation of beliefs that are essentially religious in nature violates freedom of religion for those in our nation who happen not to be Christian.
Attitudes about being conservative and Christian like the one Mr. Perkins displayed remind me of an article I read on CNN today about Turks trying to get the pope arrested. They said that by insulting Islam and Muhammad, that the pontiff violated their law that ensures freedom of religion and thought. Now, I don’t think the pope should have said what he did about Islam, but it seems to me that a law protecting freedom of religion and thought should, in fact, protect the pope from being arrested. Unless, of course, the law only protects freedom of a specific religion and thought. Which isn’t exactly freedom, now is it? I think that when we start legislating personal religious beliefs to the nation, instead of trying to figure out what is best for ALL of the citizens of America, we are relegating our freedom of religion amendment to only protecting the rights of some.
I am proud of John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Robert P. Casey, Jr. for expressing their beliefs. We need to start somewhere…and maybe this is it.
Kerry says that he wishes he had given this speech before the 2004 elections, and I do to. Those of you who have ever heard me talk about the Democratic Party know that I think one of the major breakdowns of the Kerry campaign was the lack of open communication about issues like this. I think that this is something that the Democratic party as a whole struggles with. However, if you aren’t open about what you believe and how that fits in with your history as a politician, people are going to fill in the blanks for you. That solution never works out very well for the Democrats.
Some say that by addressing these issues, the Democratic Party runs the risk of alienating its liberal base. I think that American voters are, for the most part, smarter than people think. You have your groups and either end that won’t be persuaded either way – they will always vote straight ticket because that’s just what you do. You aren’t going to change the minds of voters like that. But the people who actually listen to campaign issues and the such are the people who are most likely to be persuaded. The people who consider themselves “moderate” (politically or religiously) and the voters who vote for people not party. These are the people who can understand that you can be a Christian and not be against abortion or gay marriage. These are the people who understand the fallacy of the pre-election Republican legislative agenda that caters itself to what they think that religious conservatives want. And the people that they are catering to aren’t “religious conservatives” they are conservative Christians.
In response to Kerry’s speech Tony Perkins, president of the Washington-based Family Research Council, said, “The pickle that some of these liberal policymakers find themselves in is, they know that faith is important to people, but when they get pinned down on their policy positions that are inconsistent with the tenets of their faith, they start hedging and talking about other factors in their decision."
I would like to clarify a something for Mr. Perkins. The beauty of the political science experiment known as the United States of America is that we don’t have an official religion. One of the benefits of this situation is that our legislation is not based on a person’s religious views or beliefs. I think that the alarm should sound and big red flashing light should go off for all of us when we see a politician legislating their personal religious beliefs to the citizens of this country. People like Mr. Perkins find this convenient now, because they believe that Christianity is still the dominant religion and therefore it should be socially acceptable to legislate your “religious” beliefs about gays and abortion to the entire nation. That’s not what politics is about. And that shouldn’t be what Christians are about. Shouldn’t “faithful Christianity” be about helping those less fortunate than ourselves and seeking equality for those who are put upon? I’m pretty sure that Jesus had something to say about that. Not to mention that legislation of beliefs that are essentially religious in nature violates freedom of religion for those in our nation who happen not to be Christian.
Attitudes about being conservative and Christian like the one Mr. Perkins displayed remind me of an article I read on CNN today about Turks trying to get the pope arrested. They said that by insulting Islam and Muhammad, that the pontiff violated their law that ensures freedom of religion and thought. Now, I don’t think the pope should have said what he did about Islam, but it seems to me that a law protecting freedom of religion and thought should, in fact, protect the pope from being arrested. Unless, of course, the law only protects freedom of a specific religion and thought. Which isn’t exactly freedom, now is it? I think that when we start legislating personal religious beliefs to the nation, instead of trying to figure out what is best for ALL of the citizens of America, we are relegating our freedom of religion amendment to only protecting the rights of some.
I am proud of John Kerry, Barack Obama, and Robert P. Casey, Jr. for expressing their beliefs. We need to start somewhere…and maybe this is it.
posted by Jessica @ 9/19/2006
2 Comments:
At 11:28 AM,
Shayna Willis said…
Amen!
At 2:09 PM,
Josh Kellar said…
I agree. I certainly do not have a problem with people who vote along party lines. I do not have a problem with this as long as they understand the issues they are supporting. There probably si not a single politician that I agree with 100%. In the past this has kept me from voting. I think now I am looking at perspectives from a broader viewpoint and trying to base my decisions on a greater good rather than simply one particular issue.
~JK
Post a Comment
<< Home