Blog Against Theocracy

March 22, 2008

batlogo.jpg“Only 56% of voting-age U.S. residents took part in the 2004 Presidential election, and that was 12 million more than in 2000. That means a little less than half of us couldn’t have cared less. And that was after the first four years. Bush received the most individual votes ever cast. His stand on terrorism and moral values won him the election, carried in on the shoulders of the fundamental Christians. Sticking to the questions is great in theory, but it doesn’t appear that the majority is asking? Prior to the last two elections I would have told you that a candidate’s religious beliefs made no difference to me. But if a candidate in the coming election feels they need to pander to the fundamentalist voters, I want to know about it. They obviously don’t have my best interest at heart.”

That was my response to a post last December, entitled I’m a Believer and You’re Not. Romney was the center of debate at that time and place, and Huckabee was being given a pass. Betty asked why we don’t “stick to questions about things that will show the candidates’ attitudes about the job to which they’re aspiring? What are their qualifications in foreign relations, domestic issues, economics…”

A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. Romney and Huckabee are both history, but the prominence of religion in government and in this election remains an issue. As long as the two are so tightly intertwined, it should. The days of taking things on face value are long gone and questions need to be asked. How will you safeguard the separation of church and state? How will you provide for the general well-being of ALL people? Is my right to religious freedom as sacred as yours? The answers probably won’t come freely and in some cases, honestly. Although for some they are painfully obvious, you have to dig for others. Thanks to the vast body of resources we have at our fingertips, I am better informed as a 52 year old participant in the democratic process than I have ever been. We all need to be. There’s too much at stake.


3 Responses to “Blog Against Theocracy”

  1. Willowtree Says:

    You probably already know this, but the term Fundamentalist was first coined in America. However, when Fundamentalist Islamic groups became the prime candidate for villain status (to replace the Ruskies), the fundamentalists in America changed their name to Evangelists.

    Whether Christian or Islamic, a fundamentalists by definition have little regard for humanity, and thanks to Dubya they have a much wider reach into government than is healthy. This has to change.

  2. Betty Says:

    I think we need to stop all the discussion about everyone’s religion, and get on with the election. All the stories about Barack Obama’s minister are nothing but a thinly-veiled attempt to call Barack a non-Christian, when you get right down to it. I don’t understand how anyone can expect him to denounce his lifelong ties to his church, the church his family has attended, because of the ugly remarks of a minister who obviously is caught in a time warp. If I denounced everyone who had wrong-headed attitudes and refused to have anything to do with them ever again, I would be pretty lonely, because everyone says things at one time or another that seem unwise or just plain wrong. I am not responsible for setting them right – it probably can’t be done, anyway, so I just accept them for who they are and go on with my life.

  3. gawilli Says:

    Well said, WT.

    I actually think Obama has been relatively transparent about his faith. While reading his book I visited the website of Trinity Church and am not the least bit surprised to hear the text of the sermons of Pastor Wright that have been played and replayed on the news and in the blogosphere. Our pastor has taught us that you have to experience things through the lens of the teller, understanding their audience and their history. With that in mind, it does not shake me like it did some. I found it (the media attention) more as an attempt to question Obama’s patriotism than his faith, as he has made his religious beliefs fairly clear. His response, with a focus on race, was succinct. I would have been disappointed had it been anything more, or less.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: