Ignoring religion among Democrats (again)

January 16, 2008 By

obama, edwards and clintonDid you notice? Once again, there wasn’t a single serious reference to religion or faith in MSNBC’s Democratic debate the other night. There was hardly anything said about God, church, or “belief” and not a word was said about prayer.

This was supposed to be the year when the religious left would let its voice be heard. However, it appears that Tim Russert and Brian Williams didn’t get the memo.

I am less inclined to questions about where a person attends church and whether or not that person prays before making major decisions. How a candidate’s faith informs their policies isn’t a bad question though. I was even less inclined, and enraged by the question from Brian Williams about the ridiculous rumors that shall not be repeated here of Senator Barack Obama not being the Christian he claims to be. There are so much better things to talk about and raising that question again and again just re-enforces the problem.

A question on the subject of faith based initiatives would have been most appropriate. This was a major part of President Bush’s domestic agenda. Do we just assume that is off the table for a potential Democratic president? With the leading Democratic field of candidates agreeing on so many basic policy issues, this would have been a great question to explore the candidate’s underlying governing philosophy. We also could have discovered their views on the proper role of the church in government affairs.

Both Obama and Clinton managed to mention their faith. In Obama’s case, it was in response to the question from Williams about the pointless and baseless rumors about his faith. In Clinton’s case, she mentioned her church and makes a Bible reference in response to a question to all of the candidates about their greatest weakness:

CLINTON: That’s what I’ve done for 35 years. It is really my life’s work. It is something that comes out of my own experience, both in my family and in my church that, you know, I’ve been blessed. I think to whom much is given, much is expected.

So I have tried to create opportunities, both on an individual basis, intervening to help people who have no where else to turn, to be their champion. And then to make those changes. And I think I can deliver change. I think I understand how to make it possible for more people to live up to their God-given potential.

After listing a bunch of positives about herself, Clinton said that her greatest weakness is her impatience. Impressive admission, yes?

In regards to “to whom much is given, much is expected,” can we say now that Clinton is engaging in religious code language that needs interpretation? I don’t think so. The Luke 12:48 reference is common enough and makes a lot of sense to those unfamiliar with the passage.

However, I wish Russert or Williams had followed up on this and asked her how this church of hers has played an important part in her life’s work. How would the church affect her presidency? I mean Clinton was the one who brought it up.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Journalism, Politics, Religion
  • http://thereach.blogspot.com Reacher

    My concern with people like Williams continually bringing up the ridiculous religious charges against Obama is the latent persuasion effects. A fairly strong argument has been made that when person hear something like that, no matter how outrageous, over time they forget the source, but remember the content. In fact, in some cases a person is apt to think, “I must have read that in a newspaper or seen it on the news [like, ahem, Brian Williams on MSNBC], so it must have some validity.” This “sleeper effect” is the persuasion theory vicious negative campaigning is built on, and obviously suggests some restraint be exercised by journalists.

  • Jerry

    her greatest weakness is her impatience. Impressive admission, yes?

    Yes, it proved she’s memorized the book about how to interview for a job since “greatest weakness” is one of those stock questions.

    I do agree about ‘faith-based’ initiatives. It’s a perfect question to ask. Since Huckabee has said he wants to amend the US constitution to embody Christian doctrine (I’ll avoid the “T-word”), it would have been a softball question to ask the candidates what they thought of the idea.

    But, of course, debates are not about finding out what the candidates really believe but from the network perspective an opportunity to sell soap and beer and from the candidates perspective a chance to sell themselves.

  • Jerry

    After my last statement, I remembered the League of Women Voters stopping sponsoring debates many moons ago (1988). Things have not improved since then.:

    “It has become clear to us that the candidates’ organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions,” Neuman said. “The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.”

    http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=7777

  • Asinus Gravis

    I agree that asking about “faith-based initiatives” would be a good idea–for a variety of reasons, including one’s willingness to throw money into programs with no demonstrable success record and no interest in finding out whether they are successful or not.

    You seemed to contradict yourself in (1) early on claiming to have “not found [in the debate] any serious mention of faith or religion,” and (2) then later on alluding to Obama’s invited comment about the outlandish claim about him being a Muslim.

    Obama’s comment about being a Christian certainly counts, in my book, as a “serious mention of faith or religion.” There may be some who think it is inconsequential whether he is a Muslim or a Christian, but I would not expect a journalist to be among that small group.

  • Dale

    I think to whom much is given, much is expected.

    Well she could be talking about religion, but really I think it’s a signal to the hidden nest of Bolsheviks in the Democratic Party that she’s going to declare a dictatorship of the proletariat and seize from the bourgeois the means of production. To whom much is given, much is expected–See?

    You know, they can’t admit what they’re going to do when they get power, so they all talk in code.

  • http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2677 dpulliam

    Asinus Gravis, you raise a good point I was hoping to make clear in my post. The question to Obama that elicited the response about his faith was out of bounds in the first place. That doesn’t qualify as a serious mention of faith or religion in my book. As far as the Muslim/Christian thing being inconsequential or not, I agree it would be consequential, if it were an issue. The fact is, it is not an issue. So journalists should drop it.

  • Clark

    to whom much is given, much is expected.

    is recognizable more as a line from the SpiderMan movie to most voters than a verse from Luke. Based on previous evidence from Hillary,this type of verbage IS code for wealth redistribution and “leveling the playing field” among the candidates on the Democratic side of the aisle.
    The Hillary interview from New Hampshire was truly one of the most genuine moments I’ve ever seen from Hillary, for once she seemed vulnerable and REAL. Some claim this was orchastrated and it served its purpose. I don’t think so. But this may be her way of combating the other candidates snarky comments about needing strength(read: not a woman) in the White House by pushing the point that if elected she will deliver.

  • Christopher W. Chase

    Since I was following the GOP election results from Michigan, I tuned into the debate just long enough to watch Brian Williams waste valuable debate time on that question. Rarely does anything a journalist say on TV make me want to reach into the screen and throttle him or her, but that came very, very close :)

  • Pingback: Waz ap!? (01/17) « UNA IDEA, NOS LLEVA A OTRA…

  • Annie Turner

    There has to be Religion mixed with Politics especially in these days because with the Enemies of the USA we need all the help we can get. We need to use our Faith in the positive power not always doing want the other guy does. Two wrongs don’t make a right. We can fright voilence with non-violence if we just sit back & pray about it with a positive thought. Voilence is only the last measure look where it got us so far in the Middle-East.

  • Pingback: Electioneering and religious affiliation: A string of random notes « Suburban Messiah