The God-O-Meter

As I was reading the news, I came across a statistical measure of each current and former 2008 Presidential candidate’s “religiosity”. It’s called the “God-o-meter”, take a look…

http://blog.beliefnet.com/godometer/

Apparently, each candidate is measured “scientifically”, and is given either a tally up or down for all their interactions with religious questions, events and public proclamations. So, for instance, if a candidate makes a politically incorrect joke focused on a specific religion, he or she drops a point in the 1-10 scale, 0 meaning the candidate is a secularist and 10 a theocrat. And so, with a highly covered, fast-paced election, the operators of the “God-o-meter” warn the viewers to check back frequently, as it regularly “scientifically” updates itself.

Personally, I’m a little discouraged. This is a perfect indictment of the apparent meaninglessness of religion, truth and even virtue in a progressively more post-modern society. In a culture where scientific analysis is the only method toward “truth”, social scientists have now moved their way into faith, thinking it something to be empirically examined. It seems common sense that there is more to to one’s faith than merely stating its importance and the effectiveness in which it is used as a political tool (this is how the “God-o-meter” rates the faith of each candidate). However, implicit to the operators’ understanding, nothing it seems is out of the reach of scientific research.

My problem with merely studying the “tangible manifestations” of one’s faith is that it seems to disregard its all-encompassing nature. Faith is not about randomly choosing a few morals and an understanding of some imperceptible deity, as this study seems to assume. But rather, it is not a point of view: it is life for the faithful. It is something that demands the entirety of the human person – every social interaction, personal thought, and one’s relationship with the world and justice. For nearly all major religions, faith is not a lifestyle that threatens other lifestyles, as it is seen in our culture today. Rather, it is life. So, to attempt to measure one’s faith by the effectiveness of words is merely an illusion. Faith is not solely expressed through one’s speeches or support to faith-based initiatives, but rather in the entirety of one’s life. To scientifically investigate one’s faith in this matter undoubtedly going to come up short, as it is impossible to measure completely. Sure, speeches may help demonstrate one’s faith, but never will they define him or her as a theocrat. Faith cannot be compartmentalized, as it is the wholeness of the person. So to study only one aspect and try to garner some conclusion as to how overtly religious a candidate is, seems a bit out of touch with reality.

"Unnatural and Unnecessary"

I have a few comments regarding the Leaving Religion at the Door video (posted on 2/19) and the Interfaith Aliiance video (posted on 2/28).

It seems that within these videos there remains an underlying fear that a politician who speaks as a person of faith and a follower of a particular religion immediately calls into question their ability to lead a religiously diverse nation (which also includes non-religious people). In the first video, one of the speakers specifically mentions her fear of religious discrimination and abuse of power. Another speaker says, "As a Baptist Preacher, Huckabee would obviously represent the Christian faith. But again, the bigger question is, would he make a good President? Because a President represents all Americans."

This sounds like exactly the kind of fear that JFK was trying to assuage in his 1960 speech. Now, I can understand the fear of discrimination stated by the Islamic woman, as we cannot deny that after 9/11 there were some pretty horrible practices of discrimination against followers of the Islamic faith (and people who looked Islamic, had Islamic names, etc.). However, I think some of this fear also comes from a misunderstanding of what it means to practice the Christian faith. As Yoder put it, to imitate Christ is to imitate his social and political instructions. In other words, to call oneself a Christian, one must be willing to love as Christ loved, to live as Christ lived, and to suffer as Christ suffered. Thus, to live out the Christian faith in the world is to be engaged in our social and political world. It is not about creating a Christian government in the sense that it would discriminate against non-believers. Rather, it is a focus on servant-leadership, on loving all of our neighbors, and seeking justice for all.

The rhetoric used in the second video downplays and mocks the focus on religion and faith during this election. It juxtaposes questions about the Bible with questions about the Constitution, as if the two documents are mutually exclusive and in battle. Or as if a person who believes in and reads the bible somehow has nothing to say about the Constitution. I personally found the video annoying in its oversimplification of the issue of faith and politics. While I do agree that some of the questions seem silly and inappropriate (what's the biggest sin you've ever committed?!?), at least we're finally talking about religion and politics. I completely agree with Joe Lieberman's preface to Richard Land's book as quoted in the first video:

"To try to demand that Americans divorce their deeply held faith convictions from their public policy views is both an unnatural and unnecessary act."

I would also like to think that by encouraging a humble and well-discerned approach to politics, that faithful people can make our country a better country. And it's not about injecting our faith into politics...it's about living our faith, which calls us to become politically engaged.

Pastor-in-Chief

I found this video today while looking around YouTube and I found it very interesting. Watch it and see what you think.

The Interfaith Alliance seems to be arguing that religion, especially in this election, has overstepped its boundaries. Has religion been “overused” or is it an important part of the election? Is it just an instrument for political gain or should it be revered as sacrosanct?

The “Top Two” clips showed both presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama making religious statements while on the campaign trail. Obama stated that he wished that the American people would help him to be “an instrument of God” to help “create a kingdom right here on earth”. These comments made me think of Yoder’s book, The Politics of Jesus. If the kingdom is not primarily heavenly, but rather social, political and temporal, can the kingdom of God be built within America? Or is this even a question that should be asked? Is American democracy any place for the establishment of the kingdom? Then, in the “Top One” clip, the Interfaith Alliance quoted Huckabee saying that it would be “easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the Word of the living God”. Haha, very true, but what are the implications of this statement? Is he ‘using’ religion or is he remarking on his belief?

It seems weird to me that the interviewers, like Tim Russert, would even ask questions such as, “What’s your favorite bible verse?” and “What’s your biggest sin?” As the video points out, are these questions relevant to their effectiveness as the Commander-in-chief?

Live...from New York...it's SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE!

Over the weekend, Governor Mike Huckabee made an appearance on Saturday Night Live, joking about his strong resolve to stay in the presidential race. Seth, the interviewer, tells him that it is a mathematical impossibility for him to win the nomination. Using his evangelical image, Huckabee kids, "Well, fortunately, Seth, I am not a math guy. I am more of a miracle guy. So at this point, I am going to focus on the miracle part." This is pretty funny, take a look!



Pop culture can sometimes be very helpful for presidential campaigns!

The political and the personal- one and the same?

So we have all heard about separation of church and state, and it is an issue whose validity is certainly up for debate. However, I think that there is another separation that is interesting to discuss in the realm of politics and that is the separation of one’s political and personal life. For as long as America has existed there has been an interesting mix between our presidents’ personal lives and how they conduct themselves in office. I think this issue is an interesting one- how much should/does it matter how our leaders conduct themselves in the private sphere. There are many examples of how the personal lives of our presidents have leaked into the public realm; perhaps the case that our generation most readily remembers is that of Bill Clinton’s impeachment. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” (read with a Bill Clintonesque accent) has become a joke in our culture, a funny reference to look back on. However, it was certainly a huge political dilemma when it all came to a head in the nineties. Should Bill Clinton have been impeached because of events that took place in his private life? Should he not be remembered more for his political ideas and actions than for those personal? The American people are privy to a lot of kn0wledge that is not available to the general public in other governments. But is there a place where we are told too much, should we be allowed to see every aspect of the life of our leader? I certainly do not claim to know the answer to these questions, but I think they are important ones and I think they follow us into this 2008 election.

There have been plenty of accusations made about all of the candidates leading up to this point but it seems that as the race gets tighter the accusations are getting dirtier and more frequent. Of course, there was the accusation that Senator Obama recently plagiarized Deval Patrick’s speech. Senator Clinton called Obama out regarding this issue, stating, “That’s not change we can believe in, that’s change we can Xerox,” despite accusations that have been made about Senator Clinton’s plagiarizing of speeches. But one story that seems to be getting a lot of news attention is the recent accusation that John McCain had a suspiciously close relationship with a female lobbyist which he used to get himself ahead during the election. There was a lot of speculation that the relationship was not only used for political reasons, but may even have turned intimate. The Time’s article caused a lot of buzz among the talking heads and warranted a response from McCain where he denied all the accusations claiming, “It’s not true.” This recent accusation is an interesting one because it involves both the political and the personal spheres for John McCain. Obviously, the claim that his personal relationship with this lobbyist was helping him get ahead in the election is a legitimate political concern. But what is more buzzworthy, the fact that he was getting ahead politically, or the possibility of an affair? From the perspective of the American people, I’m not sure. Unfortunately I think it is easier to get people to pay attention to a juicy scandal than an action that might actually make a difference. Also, it is clear that people are purposely looking for flaws in these candidates as the competition gets heated. That is quite likely what has happened with John McCain, if what he says is true and the accusations are false. But does this not say something about our political process that it is not enough to focus on what the candidates stand for politically? It seems that in order to advance above another candidate in this country you must find something corrupt in the other’s personal past and exploit it to try to win votes. What has happened to “He without sin shall cast the first stone?”

Another issue is of course at stake here and that is the issue of forgiveness and how much our political realm allows for it. As Christians we are called to forgive as Christ forgives, but are we only supposed to forgive certain people? Is it too much to ask for us to forgive those in a position of power? Now, I know that the cases that I have mentioned above warrant different levels of forgiveness. The fact is, President Clinton lied under oath about what he did, which is what lead to his impeachment, which is obviously a bit different then if he admitted to the charges and apologized right off the bat. Barack Obama has not admitted to plagiarism, but instead said that his close friendship with Deval resulted in Deval giving him a few ideas for his speech. John McCain has adamantly stated that he indeed did not do what he was accused of. Who should be forgiven, and is forgiveness welcome in American political life?

I think that this issue of the personal and the political has always pervaded the American lifestyle, however it is more pertinent now than it has ever been. With the technological advances of our time we can now get the news minutes after it has been released via our televisions, radios, podcasts, cell phones, laptop computers, you name it! And the news we are getting is even more chalk full of the personal lives of those in the public light. I think it is time we reevaluate how much of a person's life should serve as our entertainment and that the media and the American people in general should decide what is really important to look for in the next President of the United States.

While home for spring break I was watching my local news and watched a piece that was based off of this article and off of a study recently held by the pew forum.
It was very interesting to me that only 4% of Americans identify themselves as agnostic or atheist. Over half of Catholics under 30 in the United States are Hispanic and not necessarily citizens of the country. Ther article states that if it were not for immigrants the Catholic Church in America would most likely have the highest conversion rates (our of the Catholic Church).
The statistics from this study were in no way shocking to me, but they did raise one question in my mind concerning the upcoming presidential election. If immigrants, who, again, are not necessarily citizens, are making up a good portion of the Church in America then how many Catholics are actually voting in this country? It makes me wonder how much the Catholic voice is actually heard in this country.

"Cooperation with Evil"

Joe Feuerherd's opinion piece in Sunday's Washington Post attempts to tackle the question I brought to our first class. After reading the USCCB's "Faithful Citizenship" I asked: How much is our vote connected to our salvation? When the Bishops' document claims that we should vote with our conscience, but that some issues (namely abortion and other life issues) trump others, how do we balance all things at once? And if we do vote for a pro-choice candidate, are our souls destined for hell?

Feuerherd is openly critical of the Bishops' letter, but brings up some better-than-decent points, suggesting that to be pro-life means more than just the abortion issue. It means supporting an ethic of life in all arenas, including war and peace, the death penalty, poverty, health care, education and more.

the unfaithful faithful...

Wow, looks like change isn't only something in the election world today:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1716987,00.html


I'll comment on it later! :)

the immigration paradox

Posting for the week of Spring Break.

It is very intriguing to me that so many Americans treat illegal immigrants (and pretty much anyone coming in from Mexico and other Spanish-speaking countries) as somehow less than human. Is it the fact that we don't understand their language, and it makes us uncomfortable? Or the fact that many of these individuals have less money than the average American citizen? Or less education? Or are we simply selfish with our space, and don't want to be surrounded by anyone who isn't one of our own "kind" (whatever that may be)?

Perhaps it is more than that. America is known for its radical individualism, where it's each man for himself, where we ALL have the opportunity to make it, no matter one's race, creed, etc. Yesterday, watching the Oscars, many of the winners kept saying that if you have courage, you can achieve anything you want for yourself, to become the person that you are and that you can be.

It's the American Dream.

But if immigrants have the courage to make it, and they're working for it, why aren't we making it easier for them? Why are we asking that they be educated, or be able to fill out long forms in English -- basically, making them become more like us -- in order for them to be themselves, the individuals that they are and want to be?

It's a paradox, in order for immigrants to become U.S. citizens, achieving this goal they set for themselves as individuals in this individualistic country, they have to let go of some of who they are as people.