bransplace.net

If we’re to believe it, the candidates are not only responsible for the things that they say and do; they’re also responsible for what their respective churches say and do. There’s more than enough ammunition for people who dislike the candidates in their own actions and comments without resorting to guilt by association, so isn’t it about time we start listening to them and not everyone else?

Politics is an American bloodsport, but only because the People allow it to be. We don’t want to pay any actual attention to what is being said by the candidates, we want an American Idol style play-off to see which one of them can stand the hammering the longest.

None of the candidates is clean. Each is dirty in their own way, but the politics of personal assassination has gone to a new level in this election. One of the most heinous examples of this is trying to link each candidate either positively or negatively to their respective faiths. Let’s look at some facts.

Senator McCain

So, the question is, should McCain be held to a standard as put forward by the Southern Baptists? Well, here are some of their positions:

“It is the duty and privilege of every follower of Christ and of every church of the Lord Jesus Christ to endeavor to make disciples of all nations.”

Is it then, President McCain’s duty, as a follower of this faith, to “endeavor to make disciples of all nations”? Does this include using the sword to do so?

“In the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography. We should work to provide for the orphaned, the needy, the abused, the aged, the helpless, and the sick. We should speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death.”

Well, it sounds to me like John McCain must be pro-life, anti-homosexual, anti-free speech and anti-death penalty. I wonder if that means that, as President, he will try and pass amendments to the Constitution pertaining to these issues?

“It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war.”

Oh, so John McCain must be against war. Well, that’s good.

“Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work.”

Well, that’s good too, as long as the civil government doesn’t do anything contrary to the revealed will of God.

And my favorite:

“A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.”

Okay, John McCain apparently thinks that women are submissive, yet equal. Hmmm, wonder where I’ve heard a phrase like that before?

The point is that Senator McCain doesn’t necessarily believe in any of those things and has shown in word and deed that he doesn’t. For instance, he feels that if we have to stay in Iraq for a hundred years, that would be fine with him as long as Americans aren’t being killed or wounded. He feels that war is necessary to meet the goals that he supports. However, his church doesn’t feel that way or so they profess.

How about the support of his church for the “rights of the unborn” or their pro-life position? Well, Senator McCain agrees with them, but he has certainly not always done so. From his current campaign web-site:

“John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.”

Of course, that’s not what he said in 1999, while still a member of his church:

“"I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary," McCain told the Chronicle in an article published Friday. "But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."” (italics and underline mine)

Senator McCain obviously, based on his words and deeds does not agree with his professed faith on every issue, yet other candidates are guilty by association regardless of their words and deeds.

Senator Obama

Senator Obama has been under attack basically since the beginning of his campaign for the outspoken viewpoints of his particular church. Here are some of their positions:

“Trinity United Church of Christ has been called by God to be a congregation that is not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ and that does not apologize for its African roots! As a congregation of baptized believers, we are called to be agents of liberation not only for the oppressed, but for all of God’s family. We, as a church family, acknowledge, that we will, building on this affirmation of "who we are" and "whose we are," call men, women, boys and girls to the liberating love of Jesus Christ, inviting them to become a part of the church universal, responding to Jesus’ command that we go into all the world and make disciples!”

Okay, that is certainly clear. They are true Christians who are not ashamed of their African roots. Of course, it sounds like they too are for making disciples. I wonder if they are willing to use the sword as well?

“We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.”

Sounds like they’re awfully proud of their roots. I wonder if they have any White members or if they’re excluded?

Now, there isn’t as much to go on here, except of course for this comment from the Reverend Wright in a sermon given in 2003:

“"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

Wow, that’s pretty inflammatory. I wonder if Senator Obama feels the same way?

How about this:
"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.”
More wow. Do you suppose Obama feels exactly the same way? I think it’s pretty clear that he does not. To tie Senator Obama to everything his church believes and does is just as wrong as attempting to tie Senator McCain to his church’s beliefs. Are they not free men? Are they not allowed to have minds and wills of their own?

I’m certainly not suggesting that organizations to which one belongs are not important. If either of them were a member of a group like the KKK or the Black Panthers, I think that would be pertinent. On the other hand, there are many, many reasons to go to church that don’t have anything to do with statements made either in writing or in speech. Many people go to church for the fellowship. Many others go because they enjoy the service itself and sleep through the sermon. Maybe they go because it’s closer to their home than a little bit “better” church farther away.

Clarity

Obviously, based on the comments of the two religious groups in question, there is plenty about which to be concerned depending on where you stand in the political spectrum. But, do the candidates support every position of their respective religious leaders? I doubt it strongly based on what they’ve said and done.

If we hold Senator Obama to the rhetoric of his pastor then we must hold Senator McCain to the stated goals and practices of his religious leaders. If so, which is more outrageous? The comments of one particular pastor of a church that has over 6,000 members and is loosely affiliated with the United Church of Christ or the expressed written guidelines of a church that claims over 16 million members? A church whose pastor expresses a concern over whether or not Blacks should bless America or damn it for its past racial inequities or a church that states emphatically that it is opposed to equal rights for homosexuals? A church whose pastor tells us that the hypocrisy of supporting states that support terror and then wonder why someone attacked us, or a church that states that women are to be submissive, yet equal?

I believe the issue here has to do with concern and confusion. People don’t know quite what to do with Senator Obama. His message of hope and forward thinking confuses those on both the political right and left that are members of the Old Guard. They don’t know quite how to attack him. The options are limited. His plans for the future are close enough to the Democratic mainstream that an attack on his plans hurts Senator Clinton. He doesn’t have the scandal ridden past of Senators McCain and Clinton, so in order to discredit him they or their surrogates, must go after the man and not the policies. But, in fact, the guy is so clean (for a politician) that they have to go after his associates and not him.

It’s guilt by association, which is just fine with Senator McCain. He can stand there as an EpiscoBaptist and say he’s against the dirty pool that has reared it’s ugly head in this campaign, while enjoying the benefits.

Perhaps we should think about whether or not we agree with every stated position of groups with which we are affiliated before we go after either Senator McCain or Senator Obama. I don’t agree with everything the Democratic Party stands for, but I’m still a Democrat. Does that make me guilty by association?

Something to think about.

Resources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ#Barack_Obama.27s_me...
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788
http://www.tucc.org/cfabs.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/m...
http://www.johnmccain.com/
http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#i
http://www.pluralism.org/research/profiles/display.php?profile=72216