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.
Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Arianna, you hit the ball out of the park with this one. McCain has become so desperate, that he is pandering endlessly and shamelessly, yet the mainstream press proclaims him "liberated" and much more energized on the road...I wouldn't call it that...I would call it being on the final legs to the loony bin. The man is a train wreck...let's not have him polluting the talking head shows with his cockamamie comments anymore, PLEASE!
Who EXACTLY supports this fool anymore?
If John McCain can no longer be an Episcopalian, maybe he should covert to the Buddhist philosophy. Then he would not go around singing "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran" to the tune of Barbara Anne. Instead, he would chant, "I love my fellow man!" In any event, he would be more Christian and more of a man for it. Plus, he cannot hold a tune anyway.
Sad thing is that John Mcain sounds like a lot of my conservative friends (who aren't running for office) when they try to defend the Conservative Christian position. It's o.k. for them to back track, but a viable candidate? Ooops, time for the Evangelicals to find a new camp.
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.
Chris said: (edited by me)
I find it odd that these justifications for voting (Hillary=woman, Barack=black)are generally acceptable but votes based on faith are not.
------
Uhhh....
if a woman votes for a woman, they share a gender.
If a black votes for a Barak, they share a Race.
If a "person of faith" (I assume in your world that's an evangelical Christian) votes for "a person of faith" they share the fact that they both cling to a similar *IDEALIZED FANTASY* about the end state of the world.... The nature of the source of all being, and an imagination of whatever occurs after you close your eyes here for the last time
The whole point of FAITH is that, you BELIEVE IN SOMETHING WHICH YOU CAN'T PROVE..... St Paul, right?
* Hillary can *prove* she's a woman
* Barak can *prove* he's black
* Christians can't PROVE they are right about what they BELIEVE (ie, imagine is true).... they may strongly believe that something is true (like, say.... Sadam has WMD's in Iraq, They are there for sure.... 100% and ready to kill us all)....
But, as the Entire Bush Administration repeatedly demonstrates .... BELIEF that something is true is NOT THE SAME THING AS *KNOWING* IT IS TRUE...... no matter how much you want it to be... it's NOT THE SAME
Do you see the difference? Lot's of People are dying right now --every day, and we are ready to go to war with Iran, because George Bush can't distinguish the difference between what he BELIEVES from FACTUAL REALITY... And because of that --he doesn't even look to see if he's right.... he doesn't KNOW
That's why called it's "Belief", and "Faith"... Not "Truth" or "Fact".... and they are key distinctions in human awareness.... that's why we have different names for them... and you can look them up in the dictionary if you are unsure on the meaning.
He didn't say any of those things. Whom are you debating--yourself?
"Chris:
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."
Of course I'm not Arianna, but who has decided that race and gender alone are justifications for voting for someone?
If it was the feminist vote, would it be that harpy Ann Coulter? She's a woman (I think).
Or how about Justice Thomas for president? Or that news commentator that was on MSNBC that ran in the last election?
Voting the way you describe would be sheer idiocy. I would have to vote for Pat Buchanan because he's Irish.
I don't think it is "acceptable" per se. It is less objectionable though. Voting for someone on gender or race is not a well reasoned position and I don't think many will claim it is. But, a vote based on gender or race carries a lot less agenda with it than a vote based on religion. If someone is voting based on gender or race then they are attempting to address issues of equality. If someone is voting based on religion then they are hoping to have those religious values be a guiding force in the government. Without going to ridiculous extremes I find it difficult to imagine a scenario where favoring equality for women or minorities leads the country down dangerous paths like war, preventing scientific research, or turning government programs over to religious organizations creating a de facto official religion. The only reason I find it difficult to imagine those things in regards to voting based on religion is because it's not called imagination when you are perceiving the reality that is directly before you.
As I see it, our Founders were of the opinion that God was the Universal Set of all Universal sets of Energies in the Universe and that the attribution of the masculine pronouns to that God were erroneous as it should probably be referred to as "It" to avoid controversy over its gender. That being said, they created the USA with the very intention of God being the one ruler of all mankind, meaning every nationality, every race, every religion and every person regardless of sexual affiliation or language. But God had to be interpreted and so did its rules. Enter man to screw things up because it is axiomatic that no two men of religion or politics can agree on every thing that has been propounded as'The Gospel' of any religion much less between religions or even between sects puporting to the same religion. Indeed, that is the very reason there are so many religions and spin-offs of them : Most of them were spun-off because of disagreements about God's Rules as Man has interpreted them.
If God, by my definition, is the Energy we receive and experience in our daily lives as pure, peaceful and for the benefit of Mankind then Man is creating such static as Bush, Cheney, McCain, Hillary, Reid, Pelosi et al, are manufacturing by the nanosecond to thwart Its Will for the Human Species. Our reception is universally poor and sporadic because such as they are intentionally befuddleing what is really a very simple message in the interest of their own self-righteousness and their deified Posterity. Neither is a valid recommendation in any church of which I have heard re: Going to Heaven. (Heaven being a good place in the religions of the world vis-a-vis Hell which is a bad place.But that is a subjective analysis that I repeat to clarify matters ~~~ a technique I learned from John Mc Cain !!!) McCain is a devout Capitalist and a devout Wishy-Washy which explains everything I or any other voter needs to know about him.
His behavior makes me want to barf.
Thanks for juxtaposing it to the courage of the monks of Burma/Myanmar. It only makes them shine more brightly.
Karen
The monks are pawns of big oil. Myanmar generals are charging Chevron too much for natural gas.
If there was no natural gas in Maynmar it would be ignored like dozens of other tyrannies.
Anyone want to send troops to save East Timor.
No oil, screw East Timor.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19940705.htm
An Island with no oil or natural gas is bleeding
As the saying goes, 'The Emperor Wore No Clothes' as does Senator McCain. At one time he was the youth's favorite politician. His war record was admirable, his charisma rated around B+, his speeches were inspirational but perhaps not electrifying but, non the less, he was the leading contender for the GOP nomination. Then came along a bush wacker from Texas unleashing one barrage of negative ads after another that culminated into a virtual paralysis for Senator McCain. As a soldier, he was given a powerful weapon but forgot how to use it. His response was lukewarm and he was unable to respond effectively and that indeciveness crystallized into an exodus by his followers and the Senator has been tumbling backwards ever since.
No doubt he was angry, awfully angry at the bush wacker but an end game was still possible and he missed his chance by not bolting the GOP and lobby for Kerry's running mate. Worse still, more of his minions abandoned him when he sat there and watched those vicious mendacity laden attacks against Kerry but said nothing. The circle is now complete and he truly believes that pandering to the religious right will lift him up. It won't happen, Senator!
Desperate times require desperate measures/actions and so the president tells US and given that MaCain is such a supporter and an examplary man who knows the thruth and have a monopoly on all the virtues of mankind, his doctrines must be infallible and therefore a paragon, a paradigm where they can't do no worng, nor is Bush or Lieberman for that matter.
The biggest christian value of the 21st century not only based on the scriptures but by direct mandate from heavens, "do on to them first" for theirs will be the kingdom in heaven and the rest of US will be left in eternal dammation.
Arianna,
It is this type of talk that reminds me of my own Catholic upbringing, and all that it entailed. It is a turnoff to me to make religion a part of the political agenda. Let's talk about real issues -- starting with -- Jesus was a Healer...would He have asked to see your insurance card FIRST before seeing Him to get cured if He roamed the Earth today? So..let's talk about the real issues here like the poll I saw today suggests...IRAQ and HEALTH CARE.
As far as McCain goes, I think his age is catching up to him and speaking of health care, he should see a doctor to see why he keeps losing his memory.
First off, much like the Constitution, he probably hasn't read the Bible from cover to cover either.
Second, the founding fathers were deists, which is about the farthest thing from evangelical you could be.
And lastly, I'll bet he doesn't include Catholics in that faith-based demographic.
In addition, where would all of the Christians be if it weren't for Jews? After all, wasn't Christ the king of them?
Founded by Christians, not founded on Christianity. Big difference. McCain and his ilk would do well to remember the words (paraphrased): Render unto God what is God's and to Caesar what is Caesar's.
Yes, CeeCee -
Jesus Christ's OWN argument for the separation of church and state.
I agree with Ariana except for one thing: the problem in Myanmar is NOT helped by religion, it is a product of religion to a large degree. The military dictatorship is ALSO Buddhist, albeit of a different variety of Buddhism.
Demanding democracy is not a function of the religiosity of the people - it's a function of the open-mindedness of the people and religion tends to make people less open-minded although some religions are less problematic in this aspect. Yes the Buddhist monks who are protesting represent a more modern and less dogmatic and superstititious brand of Buddhism, thank goodness. But democracy appeals to all those who seek human autonomy and individual rights - the values of humanism. The more humanistic (and less superstitious and less dogmatic) the religion (or non-religious philosophy), the better suited it is for supporting democracy and individual freedom.
Dogmatism and superstition, secular or religious, has no place in politics.
With regard to the above, I think they are people that the outside world is referring to as Buddhists. This term has a lot of connotations.
And it's not really different from priests and nuns marching in integration or peace marches.
Archbishop Tutu is a case in point.
McCain is correct when he says that the Constitution was founded on primarily on Christianity. One has to consider the fact that at that time the only citizens here were Western Europeans. All of who belonged to some Christian denomination. The majority came to America to escape religious persection. Due to the fact that most Western European Countries had a State Religion: England: Church of England, France: Roman Catholicism: German: Lutherism.
Consider the fact that at that time in history, the world was a much smaller place. When people traveled, it was always within a certain geographical area. They would travel to France, England, German, Holland,etc. Of course with the exeception of America.
Although, our Founding Fathers, knew or had heard of far off countries whose population were Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and Jews. Not having the resources that are available today, it's easy for one to truly know the reality and diversity of the world.
At that time,hey knowing or have heard of these foreign religions, comprehending the
likelihood that anyone aside from Christian Europeans would migrate to America.
McCain is probably right as far what the mindset of the authors of the Constitution was.
However, how they worded Article I, definitely establishes the fact that America was founding embracing all religions and beliefs without prejudice.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of.
great theme for Ariana to write on today about the danger of American politicians, like McCain running for president of the United States, to pander the favor of the "religious right" for political party gains. That's a very bad recipe indeed: mixing and blending religious/politics as one, when the US Constitution has made it very clear in the seperation of its power...and Article 1 states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of." Clear interpretation of the Founding Fathers of the new America meant was that eventhough the Founding Fathers were Christians from Europe, either by Protestant or Catholic faith, the new Americans were not going tp emphasize the Christian doctrine in a strictly fundamental way. The Holy Bible was respected as one 'good' book, but not the only 'book' to live by. Their intellectual curiosity of the sciences and arts were of great importance as well...and were regarded as such in equal terms of every day life, in spiritual, and on moral grounds.
And this is what Senator John McCain is missing in his pandering to the religious right, and trying to granish the Bush/Cheney political strong-hold of this voting block for himself. Hungry like a wolf, this is a sheep in wool's clothing!
Zaft,
You need to pick up a history book, and read it. In addition to the laughable parochialism of your message, you're making blanket generalizations about an era you obviously know nothing about. It sounds as though you got your history lessons from the same folks who insist our planet is only 4400 years old.
Now, about that comment "the only citizens here" uhm did you ever hear the term Native Americans? It doesn't mean Christian Eurpoeans.
If you're an example of the McCain mindset, the country is in dire straits. We already have one stupid doofus in the White House, the country won't survive another.
Gramma Rose
I find it very sad that there is a popular belief that this Nation was founded on Christianity. Some of our founding fathers were, indeed, Christians. However, the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution were rejections of religion based governance. A king is a king because he is ordained by God. Our ancestors were the first to quantify how ridiculous this is. So please, stop with the "founded as a Christian nation" crap. We allow for all religions, we don't require religion.
When you say "The monks are using religion to unite and inspire people against a brutal regime," I think you are misunderstanding the situation. Religion is part of the cultural fabric in Burma, and not restricted to Buddhism. The monks do not need to USE their religion in this way, they are simply making their stand and hoping, in their very typical way, to take the hits rather than the general population.
As of this moment it has not been very successful with the Monks either arrested (4000 or so have gone missing) or confined to their quarters. You quote Mydans, but again, he is applying US culture to something that is very different. Buddhism does not hold a "moral" authority, it is a personal journey. The Monks are not trying to convert or sell their religion, they, as a grouping, simply want a democracy.
Over in Europe we view the American predilections with Religion as very unsettling. And especially the way Christianity is the banner of most politicians. Certainly, your church attending percentage is way above ours, especially here in the UK. Whenever ANY politician comes up with some moral judgement, we have the fear that he feels that his or her god inspired them to say it. It is something that we have far less problem with over here.
Even Tony Blair, who was an admitted Christian, never put the word GOD into things where he felt the population would be made uncomfortable. And he was obviously embarrassed by Bush's openenly religious stance.
In the wider world, the US is always going to be on the back foot in foreign policy while others have the suspicion that they are just on some sort of Christian Mission.
Religion has no business in politics. Even Christ apparently said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar s ..." If your politicians, Democrats or Republicans don't remove their religious beliefs from the mix, it will continue to be a millstone that will harm any foreign policy.
Remember, the world believes there are two Zealots causing trouble - Islam and American Christendom.
Joss
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
