McCain and the Monks of Myanmar: Two Very Different Ways of Mixing Religion and Politics

The blending of religion and politics is back in the headlines. Again. And the latest examples make it clear that combining these two isn't inherently good or inherently bad. It all depends on how it's done. And even more importantly, why it's done.

The extremes on this subject can be found in two recent stories: the protests being led by Buddhist monks in Myanmar, and John McCain's increasingly absurd pandering to the religious right.

Let's start with McCain. His latest panderfest came in an interview with Beliefnet that included the head-scratching claim that "the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation," prompting blogger Steve Benen to respond that McCain has "sworn to uphold the Constitution on more than a few occasions. One would like to think he's read it enough times to know this is nonsense."

McCain also delivered this gem: "I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles...personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith."

When the predictable uproar ensued, McCain responded with a clarification. Followed by another clarification to clarify his clearly not-clear-enough original clarification. (If nothing else, we can rest assured that a McCain White House would be second to none in clarifying things.)

This PR wreck is but the latest misguided attempt by the driver of the Straight Talk Express to win over faith-based voters. It's been a circuitous and confusing journey. Perhaps his spiritual GPS is on the fritz.

Like many a religious parable, the tale of McCain's evolving position on religion in politics goes way back. In February of 2000, in response to taped phone message by Pat Robertson sent to Michigan residents accusing a McCain aide of being anti-religious, McCain said: "The political tactics of division and slander are not our values. They are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country... Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance."

In the years since then -- and especially since he began running for the 2008 GOP nomination -- McCain has, to be generous, rethought his take on pandering quite a bit. To be sure, McCain is not alone in this: the current crop of Republican candidates is running toward the Almighty as fast as it's running away from African-Americans. But while he may be lagging in the polls, when it comes to Religious Panderfest '08, McCain has opened up a comfortable lead.

McCain's "conversion" on the religion-in-politics front has not been without a few moments of bewilderment -- not of the Mother-Teresa-questioning-her-faith kind, but rather of the hard-time-keeping-his-stories-straight kind.

In May, in the midst of a spring spent kissing various rings of those "agents of intolerance," McCain's campaign told the AP that he was an Episcopalian, while noting that his four younger children are Baptists and that he attends a Baptist church when at home in Arizona.

In June, McCain told the McClatchy Newspapers, that he found the Baptist church more fulfilling than the Episcopal church, but still considered himself Episcopalian.

Then, in September, when asked by an AP reporter about how his Episcopalian faith affects his political life, McCain replied: "It plays a role in my life. By the way, I'm not Episcopalian. I'm Baptist. Do I advertise my faith? Do I talk about it all the time? No." I guess it depends on what your definition of "all the time" is.

Of course, this being McCain, a clarification of the Episcopalian/Baptist flip-flop soon followed: "The most important thing is that I am a Christian, and I don't have anything else to say about the issue."

And he didn't. Until he spoke to Beliefnet shortly thereafter, misrepresenting the Constitution and casting aspersions on all future non-Christian presidential candidates.

None of which is to suggest that religion and matters of faith should have no role in politics. Contrast McCain's unseemly position shifting with the resolute actions of the Myanmar monks. Their growing protests were sparked by a rise in fuel prices but have since grown into a widespread uprising against the country's military dictatorship. As Seth Mydans notes in the New York Times, Myanmar has as many monks as it does soldiers, about 400,000 in each group. "The
military rules by force," Mydans writes, "but the monks retain ultimate moral authority."

The monks are using religion to unite and inspire people against a brutal regime; McCain is using it to divide people for transient political gain.

And McCain is not the only one wielding religion as a campaign weapon. I've been hearing whispers from a variety of political insiders that efforts are well underway in a number of GOP campaigns to use Mitt Romney's Mormonism to undermine his candidacy.

Of course, candidates and their campaigns are not wholly to blame here. This kind of ugly pandering wouldn't work if the electorate refused to allow it. Until then, we'll just have to be treated to the incessant, depressing and profoundly cynical spectacle of presidential candidates not talking about their religious views -- repeatedly and vociferously.

Comments

[godlessclif]

The war on Myanmar is about natural gas, not monks, religion, generals or democracy.

Haven't you guys figured The Empire out yet
with Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran as examples.

It is about fossil fuel shortages.

[outnow]

"We don't do Empire!"

- Richard B. Cheney

[nickyboy1]

Yes godless, you have it right - natural gas is it.

[rikia]

"Arrianna what are your thougths on those that say they will vote for Hillary becuase she is woman or that they will vote for Barack because he is a minority. I find it odd that these justifications for voting are generally acceptable but votes based on faith are not."

All of these justifications are lazy. When we take short cuts in choosing our leaders, we make it easy for them to use us as pawns.

How many well-meaning Americans voted for Bush because he is "pro-life", unaware that in doing so they would cause the death of thousands of young American soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraq civilians, including very young babies they were originally trying to protect?

How can we get people to understand the enormous importance of learning about our candidates and everything they stand for?

[godlessclif]

If you vote pro-fetus you are voting for the death of women by septicemia in many cases. In many cases women are burdened with unwanted children for life. In other cases women
who would rather not have children they cannot afford to support are first forced to carry them to term and then see them given to strangers.

Why would anyone who could ignore all that human suffering to save a lump of cells smaller than an appendix be worried about some stranger's child dying in war for ideology?

Ideology is clearly more important to them than any human suffering.

[gems]

Hey Arianna,
Well, is clear religion and politics don't mix. Mccain speaks with that soft spoken voice, to cover up the cold, manipulative person he really is.
Gemma

[avergejoe]

religion as a weapon?

BBC 10 April, 2001: Rabbi calls for annihilation of Arabs

Rabbi Yosef is known for his outspoken comments
The spiritual leader of Israel's ultra-orthodox Shas party, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, has provoked outrage with a sermon calling for the annihilation of Arabs.

"It is forbidden to be merciful to them. You must send missiles to them and annihilate them. They are evil and damnable," he was quoted as saying in a sermon delivered on Monday to mark the Jewish festival of Passover.

Rabbi Yosef is one of the most powerful religious figures in Israel, He is known for his outspoken comments and has in the past referred to the Arabs as "vipers".

Through his influence over Shas, Israel's third largest political party, he is also a significant political figure.

As founder and spiritual leader of the political party Shas, Rabbi Yosef is held in almost saintly regard by hundreds of thousands of Jews of Middle Eastern and North African origin.

The Palestinian Authority has condemned the sermon as racist and is calling on international organisations to treat the rabbi as a war criminal.

Rabbi Yosef said in his sermon that enemies have tried to hurt the Jewish people from the time of the exodus from Egypt to this day.

"The Lord shall return the Arabs' deeds on their own heads, waste their seed and exterminate them, devastate them and vanish them from this world," he said.

Palestinian cabinet minister Hassan Asfur urged international civil institutions and human rights organisations to consider Rabbi Yosef a war criminal in future.

The utterances were "a clear call for murder and a political an intellectual terrorism that will lead to military terrorism", he said in remarks reported on Palestinian radio.

He added that no punishment would come from Israel "because its political culture and action are in line with [the rabbi's] racist statements".

[notyourproblemYET]

Senator "Bomb bomb Iran" McCain .enough said,right?

[in4success]

not quite: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10052007/profile.html --- now: nuff said.

[hsalf]

Did McCain mention that most of the "Christian" religions settled what became the USA because they weren't really welcome where they came from?

[teymurphy]

Add to this the Bob Jones appearance. This not new and the "Straight taking express" is not worth much either.

[tandrmcdonald]

John McCain is so desperate to get the Republican nod he's not only carrying the water, he's dumping in the Kool-Aid, swilling it by the bucketful, and spewing it all over everyone within spitting distance. Whatever respect he earned as a war hero has been squandered with his poorly conceived plan to do anything it takes to be chosen as the Republicans' nominee.
His desperation is painful to watch.
Gramma Rose

[Stevelagain]

A few comments. The left clearly uses religion as a political rallying cry and a smear tool. Amazing that you would deny your OPPONENTS any use of their religion in politics.

And yet its ok for exotic (to you) religions to use religion in politics such as eastern religions, indians, muslims, arabs,etc. Just not American Christians your hated enemy.

Americas Christian heritage is well established, even if the left is trying to scratch it out of all the text books, tear it down from our public buildings, and smear it to death, and possibly take it out of our capital buildings, our currency,etc.

Obama can campaign with his pastor and you have no problem. Hillary can go to black churches, and that's all right. Kerry can stand up with black pastors and tell the faithful he stands with them. But it's forbidden for Republicans? Why? Oh, because the left doesn't really believe in religion they just use it to get poor, ignorant black people to vote the right way...but Republicans are forbidden because they believe it?

Well wake up. No need to try to divide the Republicans from conservative Christian America....they already did it themselves by ceasing to represent them.

Please. Enough with the religious hypocrisy, supporting it for the left and opposing it for the right.

[Publius99]

Surely the ultra "religious" give up their own faith to enter realms of political power. My poem from a recent dream, speculates "ON GODS AND GODDESSES GIVING UP"

When does a god give up on those who believe in Him? When those who worship Him no longer pray for rain? When those who believe in Him begin to pray for war? Pray for greed? Pray for the deaths of women and children? Pray for the death of the Old? Pray for unclear nuclear power? Pray that All is Mighty Mine? Exploding people?

When does a goddess give up on Her children?
When they sacrifice Her? When they worship Wealth, or lies, or Lords of Flies? Lay waste her fields and fruits, her waters, her air?

Where does a god go when He feels so depressed,
So down there"s no more Up to give?
How does a goddess feel when life runs out,
And there"s no more life to live?

Publius99
October 2, 2007
Chatsworth, CA

[srmorris]

What has happened to John McCain is tough to watch. Although I didn't agree with everything he said in the past, I admired his "straight talk". But his loss in 2000 seems to have broken something essential in him and now he is pandering towards the exact parts of the republican party which have attacked him in the past.

A very circuitous detour for the straight talk express.

[BRUMALIA]

Excellent post Arianna !!

[CarmanK]

John McCain has not recovered from the 2000 campaign. He won the race in New Hampshire. The people knew what they were doing. Unfortunately, he lost the rest to W. He cannot recoup all the years of immoral compromises that he endured from then til now. The Truth Express is damaged beyond repair. I really admired him until he lost his way.

[Zanti]

I've noticed the usual pattern in the responses to this post of starting out with a qualifier (such as "religious right") and then dropping that qualifier as quickly as possible, so that "religious right" becomes "Christian" or simply "religious." This way, what may (or may not) be true about religious-right views becomes true about all religious views. That's the con. Of course, nothing becomes literally, objectively true via sleight of hand.

In fact, I first noticed this tendency a few years ago in newspaper pieces and blog posts, right around the time when religion bashing was coming into vogue.

Then, of course, there are the blog posts and comments in which religion is condemned as evil and rotten in and or itself, sans any attempt at qualification. These mix in with the semi-qualified comments--to those not practiced in critical thinking, the blend is seamless. Apparently, a single weak, token effort at qualification is good enough for, oh, ten subsequent posts.

What I'm seeing is the scariest possible example of a logical fallacy that I call "A equals anything I want it to." It consists of starting with something that's known to be true and then insisting that B is true because, well, A is true. Even if B is an unsupported assertion. Logic by association!

For instance, we're always hearing that, since religion and science aren't the same thing, religion is therefore dangerous. Where, the logical brain asks, did the "therefore" come from? But should anyone dare to argue that B doesn't follow from A, he or she is lectured about the truth of A. The con being that, if one agrees with A, then one must agree with B.

It's a not very subtle switcheroo, but even the crudest deceptions can work if we're not on guard.

A=W(hatever I want it to) happens again and again in these threads. Look for it. Marvel at the frequency of this fallacy.

It's as if anything offered up on behalf of a proven assertion becomes true by association. Yet, it's we religious folk who believe in magic??

[Binx101]

First, thank you for you very cogent explanation of your observations. I find it near impossible to take issue with the central point you have made. Your assertions are not only very clear ... they require serious consideration.

I do though consider this 'religion bashing' by the Left as a counter measure to the 'religious' right which has become, in contradiction to its handle - viewed very much (by me) as secular humanists posing as prophets, whom Jesus speaks to with abundant frequency.

It has been my observation that most truly religious folks (not the religious political combine that engages in endorsing candidates or threatening them) don't generally come here. They're busy doing other meaningful things with their lives or interacting in a different way. If they do come here ... they would be noticed by a lack of vitriol in their writing, which is so common on these blogs as political bloodsport.

As for me, I'm thrilled to see you here - because if you keep writing and posing questions with your fine logic and excellent communication skills, you'll impart to many that post here an understanding of how foolish they sound and how insulting they can be by making general sweeping statements about subjects they know very little. And, to what extent they have become willing accomplices in a cause that may not actually be their own.

I do feel very strongly that this circular illogic was also inspired by Rightists posing as Christians. It is hard to understand how a Christian, could be a neo-conservative. An extremist movement that was clearly fashioned by notable non-Christian non-religious secularists with a eye on a single world authority. A most worldly and non-spiritual goal.

On the other hand - it is with incredible hubris that those that have no faith, or such a shallow understanding of Liberalism believe that atheists, deists, agnostics and secular humanists don't actually occupy the same side of the aisle with many religious. Or, that a lack of religion bonds the Left.

[Binx101]

One observation about John McCain. He needs no enemies - because he fights himself constantly. Never have I seen a man (other than my crazy Uncle Nunzio) contradict himself more. Perusing a week's worth of McCain news is like reading dialog for one of those movies, whereby the lead character is sharing his body with another entity - often my mind's eye sees Robin Williams in the comedy lead.

Now in Uncle Nunzio's defense, he is 89 and even early in my life, in the late 50's, he was ... unique. Somehow, it didn't seem unusual for him to walk into a room full of people adorned in shirt tails, and incredibly short neck-tie, garters and socks, spit shined shoes but without trousers. Albeit, his white a blue - button flied - boxer shorts were huge and very neatly pressed.

Perhaps that's why I don't feel the terrible animus to John McCain I could from an ideological standpoint. He may not make sense. In fact, his contradictions, clarifying reiterations and post production editing is dizzying; but, he is usually smiling - doesn't bite anyone and always has his pants where they belong. He's much more qualified to run for President than Uncle Nunzio.

However, Uncle Nunzio believes that John McCain should be President because he was a POW and served his country. If John McCain is counting on the crazy old man 'no-pants' vote, it's a lock.