Live Q&As

We agree about the dangers of the "God's endorsement game".  It is not only a problematic, and potentially dangerous, use of public faith, but it borders on idolatry -- making God quite small by shrinking an infinite being to the size of a finite platform.  That said, I find another part of what you wrote to be disturbing.

While President Obama spent years in the pews of a church lead by a pastor who said some prety terrible things, I don't think that people can be measured only by the worst of what they say, and I certainly don't think that all congregants should be measured only based on the preachers in front of whom they sit.  Do you?

And on the Mitt Romney front, you claim that Mormonism "engender well-derserved suspicion" sounds like little more than rank bigotry.  What is that claim based on? 

There is no doubt that the LDS church can be quite opaque about Temple rituals, but if we limit our judgement to what we know and not what we might like to know more about, then quite to the contrary of your claim, it is a faith about which is members have much to be proud both in terms of it's success at nurtuing community and in terms of global humanitarian service.

NOt sure what you mean by no chords being struck.  Seems to me that the Democratic platform which removed the only remaining use of the word God struck a pretty powerful chord -- one of rejection!  Not that is wasn't consistant with their trend, having gone from 7 to 4 to 1 to none over the past number of platforms.

That is a powerful trend which may be bad for Democrats themselves as it fails to reflect where the vast majortiy of  Americans are on the issue of belief.  We are largely a nation which believes in God, and when you add language of "higher power", the number tops 90%! 

Certainly the Republicans were and are much more comfortable with God talk and while they often use it ways that are overly narrow as far as I can tell, they at least speak with a sensitivity to people's need for and belief in the transcendant as understood by those three letters: G, O, D.

Three intersting and separate points.

Regarding the notion that "God" and "Jerusalem" were put back in to reach out to conservative Christians who see the GOP as getting too extreme, I think you might be engaging in wishful thinking.  While there is some evidence among some young Evangelical Christians that they combine their faith with a more liberal politics than their parents, the number is pretty small.  I think they put the language back in because they realized that in taking it out, it was the platform committee that had become extreme, to use your word.

On the limitations of God language, you are technically correct, but practically not.  In fact, God language is suffieciently broad that people can understand it in multiple and competing ways, and actually all be correct.  It's kind of like God it/her/him self!

And your asserrtion about the the dangers of equating any sectarian concept with nationalism is so important and true, that it cannot be reapeted enough.  Thank you for doing so.  We can however, remain cogninzant of that challenge and still allow the faiths we follow to be a part of the politcs we practice -- as long as none is ever exclusive and all are welcome.

I think we agree, but am not sure, so let me see if I understand your point.

Do you object to people using God language when they don't really mean it but hope to mollify those who do?  then we DO agree.  If however you object to the fact that some people find it easier to follow a person of faith (or of no faith, for that matter) then we may or may not agree.

For me, it's a functionality deal.  If the faith, or no-faith, followed by a politician helps them to pursue the goals and policies which I believe are good for the community, then I want to hear about them.  If their faith compells them to pursue policies which would impose their faith on others, then not only do I not want to hear about their faith, I want them out of politcs!  How's that?

Bottom line, neither faith nor faithlessness should be dirty words in politics, and too often each of them is.  THAT is something which should concern all of us who care about freedom of thought and expression.

You are cetainly correct that we ought not directly equate a party platform with its presidential candidate, but we should pay attention to the document as an indicator of where each party's idealogues are pushing their party, their candidate and the the nation, if the win.

If the President has performed as you would have hoped, then by all means, you should vote for him again.  I am curious about that as a basis for your support though given that PResident Obama gave himself an "incomplete" and it hard for me to imagine that was what you were hoping for.

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of good arguments to support the President getting another term, but having met our greatest hopes and expectations just doesn't seem like one of them, to me at least.

Your anger is showing, and it's kind of a shame because it obscures an important insight sandwiched betwen the hostility.

The reason that God language -- be it its presence or its absence -- matters is the same reason any language or item in a platfor matters: it reflects the goals, values and direction in which the party wants to take the nation.  Whether one believes in God or not, for a party which celebrates how in touch it is with the "average American", taking out all mentions of God is actually pretty out of touch!

You are certainly correct that the larger issue is on of values and ethics, and they can be rooted ion any number of God-centered faiths and also in systems which posit no God at all.  That is the powerful and valuable insight which gets lost when you say things like there is not mention of ethics and values in the paltforms, which is simply not true.

Finally, you assumption that Jerusalem is simply a "Jewish issue" is minimally false and borders on hostile to Jews.  The issue of Jersalem is important, whatever decision is made, because Israel remains the best ally the US has in the region, not to mention the culture of freedom and openess which most closely reseembles our own.  There is plenty of room to acknowledge both dispute about what the future should bring in order for peace to be achieved while recognizing current reality.

When it get to that level, we agree!  But of course what counts as reasonable and what we think of a common sense is not uniform by any means.  If it were, we would not have so many fights!

In fact, our sense of reason and CS is informed by many things, including the tradtions which animate our lives --  faith tradtions, familiy tradtions, national tradtions, etc.  It seems to me to make the most sense to acknowledge that fact, appreciate that we don't all have the same understanding of such things and try and learn from others on the assumption that no one system, tradition or party is ever 100% right OR 100% wrong.

First, let's get the fact right.  The language was never "God-fearing", it was "God-given", and referred to the talents which people have and should make the best use of.

Second, the use of faith is actually equally problematic in that it was always reduced to nothing more than a specific way to achieve a set of social goals which Democrats want to achieve any way.  In other words, there was, and still is not, any reference to faith as either an independant value/variable in people lives, nor any recognition of the transcendant aspects of faith which are cursial to so many Americans. 

You have identified the failing perfectly.  Diversity, neutrality, and many other sacred concepts when it comes to the healthy use of religion in public life are NOT the same as hostility, but that is something too many people fail to grasp, especially among Democrats.  But to maintain balance, too many believers fail to appreciate that authentic faith in God comes in as many shapes and sizes as there are believers, something not well understood by a disproportionate number of Republicans!  Oh well, we have work to do on both sides.

Based on your writing, I think it fair to assume you are more than smart enough to know that is NOT what I meant at all, but don't worry, I don't get easily bothered and will clarify it anyway.

By taking out the last reference to God, I think that the Democratic platform Committee reflected an extreme view, not held by most Democrats, and demonstrated a lack of awareness regarding what most American believe.  You are certainly correct about the freedom to have no religion in our politcs, and as I wrote earlier, I find it sad that athiest is still a politcal "dirty word" for most Americans.  That said, politics is about people and most people in this country are people of faith, so if you want their vote, why not speak their language?

You are correct about it being a broad we.  I meant both "we" Americans and "we" humans.  My point is that whatever beliefs we hold most dear and/or sacred, I know of no system which is always right, all of the time.  In fact, it is the belief that one's system is that proves deadly in both politcs and religion.

We can and must take strong positions about those issues that are dear to us, but when they push out everybody else, we come to no good, no matter how much good we set out to do.

Hope that helps

I genuinely appreciate your concern, and actually hesitated to write that part of my answer, so although we are formally concluded, I want to respond.

You can and question anything you like, and although you may be surprised by this, we agree that too often questions of Israel are silenced, and it's especially unfair when the Jew-hatred card is the only reason.  What provoked that response from me was your narrowing Israel to a "Jewish issue".  In fact, the security of Israel is a US national security issue which matters to far more people than there are Jews in the entire United States.

I encourage you to raise any questions and concerns you have, and certainly agree that one can object to plenty that Israel does and still be both supportive of Jews and even of Israel itself.  When one makes relgious and ethnic presumptions however, they are treading in dangerous territory which trades on hostility to the group in question as a way to avoid more substantive critique.  It's an important issue about which I hope you will think.