Skip to content

Let’s Question The Presidential Candidates’ Religious Convictions

August 28, 2011

The reason we ask questions about religion when it comes to presidential candidates is, as Bill Keller writes,  not to belittle their faith, but to better understand how their convictions will be used when in the Oval Office.

Keller writes a brilliant piece in the New York Times today (which WP will not allow me to link to.)

It matters to me whether a president respects serious science and verifiable history — in short, belongs to what an official in a previous administration once scornfully described as “the reality-based community.”I do care if religious doctrine becomes an excuse to exclude my fellow citizens from the rights and protections our country promises.

And I care a lot if a candidate is going to be a Trojan horse for a sect that believes it has divine instructions on how we should be governed.

There is a lot to understand from these candidates, and it would be refreshing if they were not ashamed or embarrassed about their views to open up and explain them.

From Ryan Lizza’s enlightening profile in The New Yorker, I learned that Michele Bachmann’s influences include spiritual and political mentors who preach the literal “inerrancy” of the Bible, who warn Christians to be suspicious of ideas that come from non-Christians, who believe homosexuality is an “abomination,” who portray the pre-Civil War South as a pretty nice place for slaves and who advocate “Dominionism,” the view that Christians and only Christians should preside over earthly institutions.

From reporting in The Texas Observer and The Texas Monthly, I learned about the Dominionist supporters of Rick Perry, including a number of evangelists to whom Perry gave leading roles in his huge public prayer service, called the Response, early this month.

Neither Bachmann nor Perry has, as far as I know, pledged allegiance to the Dominionists. Possibly they overlooked those passages in the books and sermons of their spiritual comrades. My informed Texan friends tell me Perry’s relationship with the religious fringe is pragmatic, that it is more likely he is riding the movement than it is riding him. But as we have seen with the Tea Party (another political movement Perry hopped aboard in its early days), the support of a constituent group doesn’t come without strings.

In any case, let’s ask. In the last presidential campaign, Candidate Obama was pressed to distance himself from his pastor, who carried racial bitterness to extremes, and Candidate McCain was forced to reject the endorsement of a preacher who offended Catholics and Jews. I don’t see why Perry and Bachmann should be exempt from similar questioning.

  1. August 30, 2011 4:53 PM

    There was plenty of coverage by the Times and other media to that topic, Ferrell. The difference is now it is the others turn to answer some questions……And after Bachmann’s off-the-wall comment this weekend those answers are wanted and needed by the public more than ever.

  2. August 30, 2011 2:07 PM

    Why wasn’t Bill Keller and the New York Times Concerned With Religion and Politics When Obama Was in Reverend Wright’s Church?

  3. August 29, 2011 12:31 PM

    Agree….it was a great article.

  4. Alinka permalink
    August 29, 2011 12:26 PM

    nice review by Mark Taibbi in Rolling Stone magazine

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: