Lots of stuff over the weekend about the intersection of faith and politics. Most importantly, the CT interview of David Gerson, someone this blog hopes to interview in the future. Then there is the absolutely bizarre mixing of scripture and politics this post links to. Then there is the big story that was about concerning the mega-church going “apolitical.”
It occurs to me in reading all this, there is a difference between ideas and power. The church, religion, comes with power. Government has power. The constitutional mandate against establishment and Jefferson’s appeal to separation, were about power – but it is not against ideas. Of recent years prohibitions against combined ecclesiastical and governmental power have been used as a means of crushing ideas. This idea may deserve further exploration on this blog. Lowell: Yes, it does!
Lowell: That same term appears in David Halberstam’s The Best and the Brightest; Halberstam used it to describe Vietnam. Still, I don’t recall seeing anyone complain about that. I even used the term myself, in the past, before someone kindly pointed out to me that it’s offensive to many. Frankly, I had no idea. I guess that makes me naive, but I think Romney and I have lots of distinguished company, as this etymological definition, and especially this Wikipedia entry, show. See for yourself– just Google “tar baby” and see how deep you have to dig to get any idea that the term is objectionable. I think this will go away, but it will be interesting to see if the news media allow it to. Update: Brandon Denning asks, at InstaPundit: “Can we save the public shaming for public officials who actually intend their comments to be offensive? Like, say, Mel Gibson?”
John adds: I guess this must be the circles you run in. Coming from the hyper-racially sensitive South and Midwest I’ve know this was a poor choice of words since elementary school. While I don’t think the Governor had any malicious or insulting intent here AT ALL, I do think he should have known better.
Yeah, but I bet he won’t turn one down either. Lowell: Huntsman’s political judgment seems a little off here. He’s getting nothing from this but a (new) reputation as an amibitious and scheming politician. Is that worth the “chit” he now has with McCain?
Romney takes a risk, by admitting to taking a risk.
Why the MSM loves McCain. Why he makes me shudder. There are just some people a man should not drink with.
I have no problem voting for a person who is not of my faith as long as he or she stands with me on the moral and social issues. (Massachusetts governor) Mitt Romney may be a candidate for president. He’s a Mormon. If he’s pro-life, pro-family, I don’t think he’ll have any problem getting the support of evangelical Christians.
Another corner of the Evangelical universe heard from, and one where I would have expected more difficulty than is apparent. And yet, the rumors persist – is it A) Pundits and wonks needing something to talk about; or B) that politically savvy Evangelicals know a pubicly bigoted stance when they see one and so save it for closed doors and smoke-filled rooms? Why does B) sound like conspiracy theory nonsense? – or does it?