Do I really need to write this?

From the NYT Causus blog:

Mr. Romney’s main rival for the Christian conservative vote among the leading Republican contenders is Fred D. Thompson, who opposes a federal marriage amendment and believes instead that states should settle this issue themselves. It is a stance that has caused alarm among some Christian conservative leaders.

So to hear this guy tell it, as a conservative Christian my choices are between a guy that will vote and govern more or less like I would, but has a different religion, or a guy that has some pretty different views, but comes in something that resembles the same religious wrapper.  Now, the President's job is to govern, not preach.  Why is this choice difficult?  No seriously, why?

Speaking of which…

John McCain said:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Monday that questions over whether he identifies himself as a Baptist or an Episcopalian are not as important as his overarching faith. "The most important thing is that I am a Christian," the Arizona senator told reporters following two campaign stops in this early voting state.

Shot at Romney?  I'm gonna say, "No."  Given that there is confusion about what denomination McCain belongs to, based on comments he has made, I'm gonna guess he lacks the theological sophistication to even begin to imply anything about the "Are Mormon's Christians?" question.  Particularly in light of the Washington Times coverage of the issue:

"When I read that I said 'You gotta be kidding,' " said David Jeffers, a lay preacher and author of "Understanding Evangelicals: A Guide to Jesusland," who said by not being baptized by immersion, Mr. McCain is out of step with the church he attends in Arizona.

The comment does however express a lack of sophistication on the part of this candidate with regards to religion and politics.   Picking a specific religion as opposed to upholding the ideal of a public religion is problematic.

I must comment that in general, the coverage of religion is just becoming unseemly.

Here's evidence…

In Florida over the weekend, there was a "value voters" debate.

The biggest GOP names - Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain and Fred Thompson - sat out the Values Voter Presidential Debate, citing scheduling conflicts. That didn't stop questioners from addressing the front-runners who didn't attend.

 

Giuliani, Romney and McCain were all asked questions about abortion and gay rights. All, of course, went unanswered.

 

"They will regret the decision," said Jan Folger, president of Faith2Action and a member of the debate host committee. "Because they snubbed us, they will not win, because we will not follow their lead."

First of all, kudos to the Big Three and McCain for sitting this one out - particularly in light of that closing quote from Folger.  Methinks voters of this stripe have been reading their own press clippings a bit much.  I can guarantee you anyone that would say something that unclassy to the press in this situation would not give a Romney a second look simply because of his faith.  In sitting this out, the bigs are making clear what is, and what is not, legitimate political discourse in the realm of religion.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Recently:

• Stuff That Has Been Hanging Around
• Wrong-Headed Blogging
• Some Things Are A Little Hard To Swallow…
• Will Rudeness and Misunderstanding Rule Tonight?
• The Shoe Is On The Other Foot Now
• Things Get Complicated, And Yet . . .
• An Example of Inter-Religious Cooperation
• 2008: The Year of the “Biographical Candidate” and Religious Attacks
• Exploring the Line
• So Much for “Adieu”