The religious belief of the candidates running for president has become one of the most important issues in this year's campaign. From Mitt's Mormonism to Giuliani's Catholicism and Hillary's prayers to Obama's many paths to the same place, each of the major candidates has had to decide how to present their faith to the public.
Some have decried this public discussion as irrational and applauded Mayor Giuliani for refusing to answer questions about his Catholicism because he considers it to be his personal affair. Last week, Mr. Giuliani said "My religious affiliation, my religious practices and the degree to which I am a good or not so good Catholic, I prefer to leave to the priests. That would be a much better way to discuss it. That's a personal discussion and they have a much better sense of how good a Catholic I am or how bad a Catholic I am."
Richard Cohen, of the Washington Post, is cheered by Giuliani's refusal to discuss his religion and compares it to Kennedy's famous declaration that he was not the Catholic presidential candidate but the Democratic presidential candidate who happened to be Catholic.
Richard Cohen, however, is wrong. It is true that we should not have a religious test for political office in our country. As long as a candidate's personal beliefs are moral they should not be disqualified for office. However, religion is extremely powerful in informing the worldview and guiding the actions of many religious people.
The president of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief and the head of our state, not a robotic policy-maker. We need a leader who has the character to respond to emergencies like September 11th with courage and clear vision.
Religion is relevant to choosing among candidates for public office for two reasons:
First, religious belief often dictates a candidate's policy positions. The most obvious example is abortion. If your religion leads you to believe that life begins at conception then it is very likely that you will advocate a complete prohibition of abortion as murder. Scientists cannot tell us when life begins, so it is left to our consciences and personal beliefs to decide this critical conceptual question.
Second, a person's religious life can provide insight into that person's character. If a politician has not kept sacred promises made as part of his or her religion, how likely is it that that same politician will keep campaign promises made to the American public?
Religious questions can be bigoted and insensitive. But understanding a candidate's religious beliefs is crucial to understanding the policies that candidate will advocate and the type of leader the candidate will be.
Is there anything more wonderful than watching four confused, talentless people judge rodeo roping, beat boxing, magic, and singing acts? If there is, I haven't thought of it yet. I was forced to watch this NBC masterpiece every Tuesday and for weeks I was tortured. Then I realized what a good thing I had going, and it became my guilty pleasure.
If you're unfamiliar with the format of the show, let me bring you up to speed. Jerry Springer is the emcee. Right there, you've got the blueprint for a fantastic television program. I never caught Jerry's talkshow, but now I'm embarassed to have missed out on one of America's best entertainers. I'm not sure why I'm so drawn to him. It is indisputable that despite the show's title he has no talent whatsoever. Each night there are ten acts and he interviews each one after they've performed. Invariably, his question is some variation on, "So . . . what's going through your mind right now?" He doesn't even try to disguise the fact that he only has one question. His alternate questions range from, "So . . . what's going on in your heart right now?" to "So . . . how do you feel right now." This last week, one of the producers almost ruined the show by trying to get him to ask different questions, but, luckily, Jerry was so incoherent asking them, he went back to, "You're here, in front of all these people, and the judges say what they just said. So . . . how does that make you feel." Phew. Dude, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Next, we turn to judges Sharon Osbourne and Piers Morgan. Sharon appears to have gotten fed up with her braindead rock star husband and decided to sexually harass young men on national television. Every contestant under 50 who does not have a marked beer belly gets a suggestive comment from Sharon that is something like, "You can do magic for me anytime." Classic. Does anything say family television programming like old women asking to squeeze contestants' "tushies?" The answer is no.
According to America's website, Piers used to be the editor of the London Daily Mirror. Which is a good thing, because there are loads of journalistic acts on the show and what would we do without a former newspaper editor to judge them? Piers' niche on the show is disliking EVERYTHING. Each of the "judges" on the show has a buzzer that they can use to show their disapproval for an act during the performance. In past episodes, Piers has used his buzzer and explained, "I wanted to see how you would react." Piers also feels a dreadful amount of responsibility for giving away $1 million dollars through the show and takes it upon himself to screen out the unworthy.
"The show can't be too bad," you're thinking about now. "I might even tune in to see what it's all about." Stop thinking that right now. You might tune in? That's not good enough. You have to watch this show because I haven't even gotten to the best part of the show: The Hoff.
David Hasslehoff likes to be referred to as "The Hoff" these days. He is the third judge on America's, but he is the show's true genius. You might be wondering, "Didn't David - I mean, The Hoff - have a show about a robotic car in the 80's and didn't he peak on a 90's show about lifeguards running around a beach?" True. But did you also know that The Hoff is one of the BIGGEST music stars in Germany? With credentials like that, you've got to give it to him. He is qualified to judge the talent of would-be American stars. Sadly, The Hoff can't be bothered to pay attention to the acts' performances. His commentary on each act is always something generic that could have been applied to any act that has ever performed since the dawn of entertainment. For example, he frequently says something to the effect of "You said you were going to step it up, and YOU DID. That was AWESOME. You are what this show is all about." Thanks The Hoff. When he bothers to say something that is specific to the person performing, it comes out even more mangled. During the last episode a dude who earned a living by playing the guitar and singing on a cruise ship performed a country song. The Hoff's commentary was, "You . . . work on a cruise ship. And you just sang." Thanks The Hoff. We were a little confused about that, but we appreciate that clarification. The Hoff is at least a 23 on the unintentional comedy scale. Truly epic.
And that is why you HAVE to watch America's Got Talent. The Hoff, Jerry, Sharon, and Piers are like the fantastic four of family entertainment. They are the perfect team because their entertainment powers are perfectly complimentary. Piers has super sarcasm. Sharon has super sexual frustration. Jerry is exceptionally confused. And The Hoff, well, he's The Hoff.
Sadly, words can only convey a small part of this cultural masterpiece. You have to watch it to truly appreciate it. So tune in, Tuesdays 8/7 central on NBC.
Half a year before the first caucus or primary, the presidential race seems like a football game. Sure, it’s fun to check the average poll numbers on Real Clear Politics’ homepage. “Oooh. Guiliani’s lead is down to 6.7%. But Romney is leading in Iowa and New Hampshire.” Exciting stuff. Following the race makes the summer go by more quickly when there’s no basketball or football on T.V. I even enjoyed the CNN Democratic YouTube debate immensely. Did you ever think you would see serious presidential contenders responding to a question on global warming from a snowman?
But even YouTube did little to force the candidates to articulate their policy positions in concrete terms. Obama is for change. Clinton is experienced. Fascinating. I was actually impressed by the speaking skills of both leading Democratic presidential candidates. But don’t you need more than a slick podium persona to be elected the chief executive of the United States of America? Why don’t we demand more than bumper sticker policy statements from people who want to be our leaders?
Sadly, you have to go to the second tier of candidates and beyond to get clear policy statements supported by any semblance of conviction. So far, the most exciting second-tier GOP candidate has been Ron Paul. With “arguably the most loyal Internet following of all of the 2008 candidates,” Paul seems to have sparked the imaginations of at least some of those already following the presidential debate. Paul advocates a very limited government. He feels so strongly about that position that neither he nor any of his children have accepted federally subsidized loans for their college educations. Paul has never voted for a pay increase for Congress, and refuses to participate in the Congressional pension plan (to the dismay of his wife) because he thinks it is too advantageous and too much of a burden for tax payers. Ron Paul has a very poor chance of getting the Republican nomination, but at least he doesn’t seem to be treating the campaign like a football game.
Some have decried this public discussion as irrational and applauded Mayor Giuliani for refusing to answer questions about his Catholicism because he considers it to be his personal affair. Last week, Mr. Giuliani said "My religious affiliation, my religious practices and the degree to which I am a good or not so good Catholic, I prefer to leave to the priests. That would be a much better way to discuss it. That's a personal discussion and they have a much better sense of how good a Catholic I am or how bad a Catholic I am."
