Comments on: The Press, Religion and Politics http://www.article6blog.com/2009/02/04/the-press-religion-and-politics/ "Religion, Politics, the Presidency: Commentary by a Mormon, an Evangelical, and an Orthodox Christian" Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:35:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: CarlH http://www.article6blog.com/2009/02/04/the-press-religion-and-politics/comment-page-1/#comment-12958 CarlH Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:39:18 +0000 http://www.article6blog.com/2009/02/04/the-press-religion-and-politics/#comment-12958 While I substantially agree with John's comments about the dangers inherent in a Sarah Palin movement based on religious identity, I'm not sure that Gilgoff's selective parsing of the supporters of the "Team Sarah" website is fair--and goes directly to the problem he seems to fret about in the second post about criticism of the media. Yes, he is factually correct that three of the top four groups (in terms of their own membership numbers) might be categorized as "faith-based" (but I don't know enough about Pro-Women, Pro-Life to know if it is exclusively religious, even if organizaed around a big issue for a lot of conservative faith-based voters), but the fourth--and second largest--is "Rush Limbaugh Fans for Palin." Moreover, there are six other groups large enough to appear on the home page (and more, I assume, but you have to register to find out who they are), none of which seem to be explicitly religious. More fundamentally, however, I find Gilgoff's comments about the appropriate level of focus on a candidate's religion to be more than a little disingenuous. He mouths the correct principle: <blockquote>If a candidate suggests that his or her religious faith helps define him or her, and it's obvious that the candidate's faith is central to his or her appeal, should the candidate be expected to answer questions about those religious beliefs, particularly as it relates to the candidate's positions on public policy?</blockquote> If only the media's focus on a candidate's religious beliefs were limited to those ways in which they relate to positions on public policy! Unfortunately, the treatment of Romney's Mormonism, and even Sarah Palin's Pentacostalism, in the last election cycle amply demonstrated that most journalists simply don't have a clue where that line is--and hectoring them about the problem only seems to embolden them in trying to silence, rather than listen to, their critics. While I substantially agree with John’s comments about the dangers inherent in a Sarah Palin movement based on religious identity, I’m not sure that Gilgoff’s selective parsing of the supporters of the “Team Sarah” website is fair–and goes directly to the problem he seems to fret about in the second post about criticism of the media. Yes, he is factually correct that three of the top four groups (in terms of their own membership numbers) might be categorized as “faith-based” (but I don’t know enough about Pro-Women, Pro-Life to know if it is exclusively religious, even if organizaed around a big issue for a lot of conservative faith-based voters), but the fourth–and second largest–is “Rush Limbaugh Fans for Palin.” Moreover, there are six other groups large enough to appear on the home page (and more, I assume, but you have to register to find out who they are), none of which seem to be explicitly religious.

More fundamentally, however, I find Gilgoff’s comments about the appropriate level of focus on a candidate’s religion to be more than a little disingenuous. He mouths the correct principle:

If a candidate suggests that his or her religious faith helps define him or her, and it’s obvious that the candidate’s faith is central to his or her appeal, should the candidate be expected to answer questions about those religious beliefs, particularly as it relates to the candidate’s positions on public policy?

If only the media’s focus on a candidate’s religious beliefs were limited to those ways in which they relate to positions on public policy! Unfortunately, the treatment of Romney’s Mormonism, and even Sarah Palin’s Pentacostalism, in the last election cycle amply demonstrated that most journalists simply don’t have a clue where that line is–and hectoring them about the problem only seems to embolden them in trying to silence, rather than listen to, their critics.

]]>