First, full disclosure: I was raised as Catholic boy and spent four years in a seminary where I earned my masters in religion. Still, if I were running for president of these United States in this or any other year, I’d insist that my religion is my business and would refuse to get into a conversation about it no matter how much pundit and opposition pressure there was about how the voters need to know so they know my values. My stance would be quite simple: As a public office seeker, I place my highest value on the Constitution, especially the First Amendment separation of Church and State. As soon as a candidate for public office starts trafficking in his religious beliefs, he has crossed that clearly inviolable line. Period. End of Discussion.
Unfortunately, I’m not running, and everyone who is can’t tell the difference between running for president of our secular union and running for president of the Knights of Columbus. It has become part of the fabric of the campaign, and even the most suspiciously secular of the two-and-half remaining candidates cannot stress his Christianity enough. Literally. Even with his Christian church the 5000-kg elephant in the campaign, there are still legions of yahoos out there who insist that he separate himself from his Christian pastor while insisting that he’s really a Muslim. The reason you don’t want to get involved in talking religion in public, especially if you’re running for public office, is that when you do the Ship of State can become a Ship of Fools.
And John McCain may be Captain Fool. After making a show of seeking the endorsement of radical preacher John Hagee, McCain has had to repudiate as "crazy and unacceptable" Hagee’s statement on Hitler’s divine mission to hunt down Jews. (Hours later McCain had to repudiate the endorsement of another wingnut preacher.) McCain would like to think that, like Obama before him, he has put to rest his pastor problem. But both McCain and Obama, playing to the "values" crowd, are now stuck to their respective Reverend Tar Babies (and don’t think for a moment I don’t know that McCain also had to apologize for using the term tar baby—but more on political correctness in a moment, for now let me assure one and all that I’m using the term metaphorically here, and not as a racial slur). Their campaigns would like to think this situation neutralizes the damage for both of them, though it’s highly unlikely that we’ll ever hear the whole litany of Hagee and Parsley’s brain farts combined as many times as we heard "God damn America."
Yet McCain should be the one hopelessly lost in the briar patch, and he would be too if Americans took their religion as seriously as they pretend they do. In an interview last September McCain stated his own presidential preference this way: "I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles, personally, I prefer someone who has a grounding in my faith...."
Like his tar baby comment, McCain shortly had to back off of that statement because of political correctness. Aside from the cuff on the snout of his lapdog Lieberman, non-Christians were up in arms over it because of the implied exclusion. But as Michael Kinsley famously said, a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth. The truth is that McCain and the political party he now heads really do believe that only people of their faith should run the country, and they’ve effectively sold much of America on that most un-American notion. In the process they’ve managed to truncate the Christian message down to bumper sticker-sized jeremiads against abortion, homosexuality, and activist judges.
If religion generally, and Christianity in particular, are going to continue to impact our civic discussion, I think it’s time we settled just how grounded in faith our politics should be. If John McCain believes that the US was founded on Christian principles, then Tim Russert owes us at least one Sunday morning in his Assembled Church of GE, where he says to McCain, "Senator, I want to read to you a quote from the founder of your church in Luke 26, Jesus says..."
And up on the screen, we see these words:
6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
6:28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
6:29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other
"Now, that’s from Jesus Christ, Senator, the man who laid down the principles of your church in his famous sermon on the mount. How do you square those words with these words that you had to say about Senator Obama?"
To the monitor:
"It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world without enemies. But that's not the world in which we live, and until Senator Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe."
Then Russert asks: "Isn’t Senator Obama’s willingness to negotiate with our enemies much closer to the principles of your faith than your utter assholism about living in a world without enemies, Senator?"
I don’t mean to play the wiseguy secularist here. There’s much too much of that going around. Mocking people who believe in miracle cures and life after death is a fool’s game. The bible is full of contradictions and absurdities and the woods are full of hideous holy men. And we can watch this very important presidential campaign degenerate into Pin the Pastor on the Donkey. McCain has pretty much signaled he’s ready to go that route when, in repudiating Hagee, he went out of his way to say at least he hadn’t sat in his church for 20 years. He then described the white bread church he did attend. You can bet he was wishing that these were the good old days when all a candidate had to do to pass the country’s religious litmus test was a photo-op walking into his church. But McCain’s party killed that bit of nostalgia when they turned Christianity into Republican agitprop.
The media of course gave the last such hypocrite to come their way a pass when he piously declared Jesus the most important philosopher in his life after cackling how he’d denied clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. The media doesn’t take Christianity seriously either, except as it applies to voting blocs. But if they got wind that Obama or any candidate had declared Marx, or Nietzsche or Epicurus as the most important philosopher in his life, they’d be all over it. Russert would hold his (or her) feet to the fire, demanding an explanation for "Workers of the world unite."
Were it the same for: "Woe unto you that are rich for ye have received your consolation" (Luke 6:24).
What would Jesus do? Frankly, I’d rather our politicians and media thought and talked about what Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln would do. But starting with our beloved Jimmy Carter, they’ve managed to drag us to the doorstep of theocracy. So be it. But if we’re going to have to endure another six months of debating the influence of religion on our candidates’ lives, let’s make it substantive. And I don’t mean some values vanity vamping where they get to blink back the tears on camera as they recall how their faith got them through trying times. I mean this:
"Senator, Jesus says we should love our enemies. How will that affect your foreign policy?"
"Senator, Jesus says we should feed and clothe the poor. How will that affect your domestic policies?"
"Senator, the Ten Commandments say we should keep holy the Lord’s day. How will that affect your economic policies?"
"Senator, the Ten Commandments say Thou shalt not kill. How will that affect your duties as commander-in-chief?"
"Senator, the Ten Commandments say thou shalt not commit adultery...What? What’s that you say? You already did it? And how many years did you sit in that church of yours, Senator? God damn that faith of yours. And the faith of your fathers, Sir. God damn, I say.