GOD AND THE DEMOCRATS | THE STRANGER

[Ediacara]

GOD AND THE DEMOCRATS
Which Candidate Really Has a Religion Problem?
by Sandeep Kaushik

Let me tell you the story of a wide-eyed boy who loved God. He was a child born to privilege and packed off to boarding school, where he curbed his loneliness by drawing comfort and sustenance from his church. As an 11-year-old, he wrote letters to his sister reminding her to say her prayers. He eagerly participated in the Sunday rituals of his Christian faith. He helped the men who ministered to his flock with their pastoral duties, and his devotion to them was so great that he briefly considered joining the clergy. Instead, he grew up to be a successful politician who ran for president.

His name is John Forbes Kerry.

The people who claim to know about these sorts of things keep telling us that Kerry is the presidential candidate with a religion problem. New York Times columnist David Brooks recently wrote a column pointing out that while Bill Clinton "exudes religiosity," a Time magazine poll revealed that only 7 percent of Americans consider Kerry a man "of strong religious faith," which Brooks wrote is "mind-boggling" and "a catastrophic number." Steven Waldman made a similar argument in Slate, pointing out that most Democrats are religious even if they don't attend church as much as Republicans, and that Kerry's reluctance to talk about religion is out of step with this. He asked (rhetorically): "Will Kerry's Democrats act like the Party of Secularists even if they aren't?"

There's some truth to the Brooks/Waldman critique of Kerry. Most American voters are religious, of course, and Kerry probably would benefit politically from some sort of soft-focus effort that better explained how his religious convictions buttress his policy views. But it is also worth asking how comfortable voters are with the Bush approach of mixing rigid Christian precepts with government policy in a pluralistic and diverse society, or alternately, with politicians using religion as a political prop to sway the minds of wavering voters.

More at the Stranger

[myopic4141]

1. Religion vs Faith

While Bush may be considered a religious person, he is not a person of faith. Instead, he has replaced his less socially accepted drinking (and possible drug) crutch with a more acceptable religion crutch to deal with the demons that plague him. If Bush were a person of faith, then there would be at minimum an attempt to adhere to the tenets of the religion; however, the "end justifies the means" mind set that permeates all that Bush does indicates that there is not even a minimal attempt at adherence. While an argument may be made that his actions could be classified under "sometimes one needs to use the Devil's tool to beat the Devil", that argument only enhances the position of no faith in God's tools for it there was faith, God's tools would be used instead. Doug Wead understates Bush's calculation of faith.
This is an aspect I have noticed of late driving all those who vocally claim their religious depth. They like to call themselves people of faith; but, I have yet to see an actual demonstration of that faith. It would appear that the louder they express their disdain of those who practice a more quiet relationship with God, the less they appear to have the faith they express in themselves (perhaps the noise is to cover their own lack of faith). Too many seem to place vocalness over action when determining depth of faith when action says more than noise which is what the vocalness mostly amounts to. We only have to look at the tenet adherence of Clinton bashers to see the disparity between loudness to adherence.
Secularism comes in two forms. One is simply disregarding religion and the other rejecting religion outright. Disregarding is more of interest than rejecting for the cause can be misinterpreted. One can disregard religion either by rejection of religion altogether or treating all religions as equal. It is the latter secularism that defines the Democrat Party; but, no one seems to stand up and say it. Instead, the secularism is classified as rejection by the loud punditry and everyone allows that to stand. Those asking the question concerning secularism in the Democrat Party should be forced to define the cause of that secularism. Accusation of intolerance has a tendency to mute the loud voices.

[DaveSZ]

2. Bush is a Faux Christian

Tax cuts for the wealthy and preemptive war?

Jesus was the polar opposite of that.