When I was a young boy, and attended Sunday School at a Methodist Church, it was suggested that should I have an opportunity to do so, I should prefer Methodists over, for example, Baptists as employees. I was told by others, more or perhaps less in jest, that Methods were Baptists who had learned how to read, that Episcopalians were Methodists who had learned to write, and that Roman Catholics were Episcopalians who could deal with Latin. That was back in the early 1950s, and I rather hope that things have changed for the better. In any event, I am confident that Baptists and Methodists now read and write almost as well as Episcopalians, as a group, and that Roman Catholics no longer need to be able to deal with Latin.* I am hopeful, but less confident, that these matters little affect political decisions these days.
But what about substantive differences outside the mainstream Christian and Jewish (Hasidic, Orthodox, Conservative and Reform) religions? How about Unitarians (who are not, by any definition of which I am aware "Christians," since they reject the doctrine of the Trinity and some are, gasp, Agnostics) and Mormons, considered heretical by many, if not most, Christian denominations? These differences appear to be problematical. And, I submit, they are relevant in the political process, however we might wish it were otherwise. True, Thomas Jefferson has been characterized, and even characterized himself, as essentially Unitarian, and Mormons have held high office, frequently elected office. Can we as voters consider these things? Of course we can. We can consider whatever we wish to consider, including a candidate's hairstyle, facial features, age, sex, religion, race and anything else. Despite our traditional freedoms of religion, we are also free to vote for or against someone on account of his religious views. Do we? I think it happens quite often. Should we? That is a different question.
I suppose we should, if the matter is very important to us and if we think, or even feel, that it makes a significant difference in the extent to which we trust a candidate to shape Government in accordance with our desires. To vote for a candidate whom one simply does not trust, for whatever reason, visceral or otherwise, is unlikely; nor is it particularly praiseworthy.
I do not like thee, Doctor Fell.
The reason why I cannot tell.
But this I know and know full well,
I do not like thee, Doctor Fell.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Baronius
You just can't walk past the pot, can you, Dan? You've got to keep stirring it.
2 - Dr Dreadful
Well, for goodness' sake, Baronius, we've got to have something to talk about on here besides Sarah Palin and that moose...
I have to say that Dan's opening paragraph is so eminently quotable that, with his blessing, I may put it on my own blog!
3 - Silas Kain
There's the problem. We don't have enough well bred folks in the red states. Sorry, couldn't resist. I am intrigued however that you view Marxism as a religion. I look at it more as a belief system. Kind of like the three major religions without the collection basket.
4 - Baritone
Dan,
I think we passed by this issue on another thread as regards how a particular president can affect the legal statuse of abortion. Generally, your position is likely true.
However, in the instance of the next resident of the WH, he may have a good deal to say about abortion vis a vis probable Supreme Court appointments. McCain has specifically stated that if given the opportunity, he would install conservative justices, and would actively pursue the overturning of Roe v Wade. There are but two impediments to his realizing success in this regard.
Number 1: I suppose it's possible that the court will remain as it is over the next four years. But Stevens, Ginsberg and Kennedy may all bail in that time. Even if they don't, the current court is already tilted at a socially conservative angle.
Number 2: A heavily Democratic Congress could make it difficult for McCain to appoint ultra-conservative justices. But the Dems have shown virtually no backbone in resisting Bush, even now when he is at his weakest. It may be a stretch to imagine that they would have the spine to take on the "Maverick."
As we move forward, new revelations keep showing up regarding Gov. Palin. Thus far nothing, in and of itself, has proven to be particular damaging, but in time they may have a cumulative effect, much as the various Obama revelations have had. The last day or two, the media has been focusing on Palin's religious beliefs. She was raised in the Pentecostal Church of God, a strongly fundamentalist sect which now embraces the coming rapture. Many of their parishoners periodically speak in "tongues." There is no evidence I know of that Palin has done so.
Palin left that particular church a few years ago, adopting a less "out there" church. Whether that move was done for political reasons is anybody's guess.
I do believe that a candidate's particular beliefs should be open to scrutiny in so far as there are those amongst many fundies who are bent upon the creation of a christian theocracy in this country. This movement may not have the legs it had even a couple of years ago, but to believe that they have given up their quest, or that they are not a force to be considered, is patently foolish.
In my 60 plus years, the only presidential candidate I knew of for whom religion became an issue was John Kennedy, until the 2nd Clinton term when his unsavory personal conduct brought the fundies out of the wood work. They proceeded to propel that great BAC (Born Again Christian) GW Bush into the WH.
The fundies had been more or less pushed out of a central role in the McCain campaign until the powers that be began to read the handwriting on the wall. The McCain people realized that they will need every vote they can muster. The choice of Palin has apparently served to bring the fundies back into the fold. Hallelujah!
B
5 - Silas Kain
Bar, do you think there's a remote possibility that if McCain is elected he will return to his original maverick style? I want to believe that he's developed this "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" attitude just to get elected. And then once he's in, he'll turn the screws on every last one of the fundies that screwed him in 2000 down in South Carolina and across the anti_Bible Belt. That's one of the few things which could sway my vote to his side. I love the original John McCain of the Reagan era and would welcome his return.
6 - Cannonshop
Well, Silas, look at it this way- he's got a better chance of going back to Maverick after November, than his opponent (and let's face facts here, third parties just aren't organized enough to win statewide, much less National, elections with any consistency-we're stuck with two parties for the time being.) who is a product of the Chicago Machine through-and-through.
And Marxism requires no less ungrounded faith than belief in God,Allah, Odin, or Zeus-and it has its own version of the Collection plate, but instead of a tenth, it takes everything and gives you back what the Committee decides you need.
7 - Arch Conservative
What is "well bred" a euphimism for?
8 - Andy Marsh
Not redneck...
9 - Ruvy
Just a picky point for you to consider, Dan.
Goldwater was not Jewish, though he was proud of his Jewish grandfather (or was it great-grandfather?). The man embodied something that Jews round the world would do well to emulate - a straight shooting honesty. He was honest enough and humble enough a man to have served as kohén gadól High Priest of a Third Temple; but unfortunately for us Jews, he was not Jewish.
I got my first understanding of the difference between character and political platforms in the race of 1964. Johnson embodied most of what I believed in - but he was not a man i would have followed - even to the toilet. But Goldwater? Him I would have followed to hell and back. Of course, 13 year olds don't have the vote in America....
Keep stirring the pot. One day, you may get pumpkin soup.
10 - Arch Conservative
Not redneck...
Ok. Bit's blatantly obvious as used in this article and the ensuing posts that it is a euphimism for something and I'm just cruious about it.
11 - Andy Marsh
That's the only thing I could come up with...I mean, I understand well buttered, but...well bred...
I could have just said...not me!
Maybe it's the same as cosmopolitan?
Do you know which fork is for which course? Do you know when to curtsy? How about which glass is for wine, champagne, water?
I guess if you eat off paper plates, drink your beer from a can or a bottle as opposed to a pilsner glass or whatever then you're NOT well bred. Hell, drinking beer might just disqualify you right off the bat!
12 - troll
Silas - it can be argued that bound as it is to faith in 'historical necessity' a concept that without some obtuse mental gymnastics is of a supernatural force Marxism is indeed religious in nature as in: "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power"
13 - Daniel Miller
Ruvy,
I was wrong, and you are correct that Goldwater was not Jewish. I understand that his paternal grandparents were Jewish and I assume therefore that his father was Jewish as well. His mother was Episcopalian and therefore, since the Jewish line of descent is through the mother, he was not Jewish. He was raised as an Episcopalian, but referred to himself as "half Jewish." Whatever he was, I liked him a whole lot, and when he made what was to us a surprise appearance to speak at a history class I was taking (taught by John Blum, a "liberal" historian but a damn objective one in most cases), he was given a standing ovation by the two hundred or so people in the class. I believe that I voted for him, but it was a long time ago.
Thanks for the correction, Ruvy. As to the Pumpkin soup, I don't understand the reference. We have a very obese cat named Pumpkin, but I never liked the vegetable variety; even at Thanksgiving, I don't eat Pumpkin pie.
Dan(Miller)
14 - Arch Conservative
No Andy I think "well bred" really means "unprogressive."
15 - Joanne Huspek
I'm still shaking my head in amazement that there are any well bred people left...
16 - Andy Marsh
Is unprogressive like unliberal?
17 - Daniel Miller
Well bred is probably an anachronism, meaning having or displaying good breeding; being refined. I must confess that I used the phrase rather tongue-in-cheek, which a well bred person might well avoid doing. Emily Post might pout about it. Only Zeus knows what Queen Victoria might have done.
Dan(Miller)
18 - Andy Marsh
Yeah, I looked it up. I figure I was pretty well bred, you know...don't talk with you mouth full, don't interrupt the adults when they're talking, please and thank you, how to hold a knife and fork, asking her if she wants top or bottom...all that good stuff. I just gave it all a "burial at sea" on one of my 7 month deployments...except for that last one...hehehehe
19 - Clavos
Strange, Dan(Miller), that you should have a somewhat cavalier attitude toward the concept of good breeding, when you yourself have repeatedly embodied most of its better qualities on these pages.
Clav(os)
20 - Andy Marsh
He is very well behaved isn't he???
21 - Clavos
Polite, too.
Bet he knows exactly which is the right fork...
22 - Dr Dreadful
Curious that the subject of rednecks should come up. Just been reading an article on the BBC website which offers a strikingly different perspective on the species and particularly their potential impact on the election.
Fascinating stuff and well-written (for a redneck!).
23 - troll
(more importantly he's knowledgeable and less myopic than your average bear)
24 - Andy Marsh
I heard a new term a week or so ago. A friend pointed out to me that being a yankee I'm not qualified to be a redneck as the term really refers to someone of southern heritage. he said there's a term from CT...Swamp Yankee that fits me better....
Although when I pointed out to my wife that I couldn't be a redneck because I wasn't FROM the south she said....South Jersey! I'm really from central Jersey though...I grew up a couple of miles north of the Pine Barrens! She's a New Yawker and she tawks funny...
25 - Dr Dreadful
Over here in California we use a term taken from the radio alphabet: Whiskey Tango.
You can figure it out...!