Compare and contrast

• Barack Obama on Religion

• John McCain talks to Beliefnet.com

If these were presentations by seminary students in the Faith and Politics class I used to T.A., then one of these would get an A and the other a charitable C-.

Obama offers a concise, clear and confident description of why the separation of church and state is necessary to protect both the church and the state. He has clearly thought this through. He knows what he thinks and believes and he presents a compelling, persuasive case for why others ought to agree with him.

McCain is anything but concise, clear or confident. He does not seem to know what he thinks or believes, or at best he is unable to articulate whatever that might be. He does not seem to have thought this through.

I appreciate McCain's attempt to speak with candor here -- it's immensely preferable to, say, George W. Bush's recitation of poll-tested, rehearsed platitudes crafted for maximum appeal to "values voters." But it is impossible to speak with candor if you don't already know what it is you believe. McCain appears in this interview to be nervously hoping that he'll stumble across what he actually thinks and believes if he just keeps talking, but he never quite gets there.

My point here is not that I agree with Sen. Obama and disagree with Sen. McCain. I do agree with Obama, but McCain never quite manages to say anything coherent enough for us to agree or disagree with him. Nor is it clear, watching that interview, that he even agrees with everything he's hearing himself say.

Much will be made in this election of the question of "experience." Obama has yet to serve one full term in the Senate, while McCain is serving his fifth term in that body. Yet somehow in all those years in office, McCain hasn't found the time to think through something as fundamental as what he believes about the separation of church and state -- Item No. 1 in the Bill of Rights. So who's really more "experienced"?

Comments

[Froborr]

Yet somehow in all those years in office, McCain hasn't found the time to think through something as fundamental as what he believes about the separation of church and state -- Item No. 1 in the Bill of Rights. So who's really more "experienced"?

YES.

Also, woo, first commenter!

[PurpleGirl]

McCain was stumbling so badly; he must have had some time to prepare and think about his remarks but he didn't and it showed. And he is so wrong about so much. I especially dislike the term "Judeo-Christian" because there are many points of faith where the two religions are not congruent and do not mirror each other. I was talking back to him (with emphasis) as the clip played.

[Lila]

Good God, can't we for once have a President who's capable of uttering a coherent sentence?

[Jeff]

Open Source Religion??

"Yes, you may touch my icon of religiousosity!"

(Obama is going to CREAM Gramps McCain. The gap in Kentucky is down to 12%. Diebold won't be able to touch him.)

(Call your senators -- urge a NO vote on the up-coming FISA bill. Do it NOW!)

[Armando]

A rare comment from me, but I had to comment on this remark:

"My point here is not that I agree with Sen. Obama and disagree with Sen. McCain. I do agree with Obama, but McCain never quite manages to say anything coherent enough for us to agree or disagree with him. Nor is it clear, watching that interview, that he even agrees with everything he's hearing himself say."

I think this holds true of every public utterance I've heard from John McCain since he became the presumptive Republican nominee for the presidency, regardless of the topic. He seems to backtrack on positions or merely stumble through speeches hoping that he'll find some point that either sounds honest or that, at least, someone, somewhere will like and, therefore, get him a vote. Meanwhile, Obama seems to be among the best orators we've had running for office in a very, very long time. Experience or not, the most apparently experienced candidate speaks like he's way over his head while the "rookie" speaks as though he's had years of experience not just in government but in life.

[Selcaby]

Wow. Can I move to the U.S. and become a citizen in time for November so I can vote for Obama?

There were some cuts in both those videos, but in Obama's nothing seemed to be missed out - maybe just pauses. (Try listening to some of Tony Blair's speeches and you appreciate the need for that sort of thing.) With McCain's there seemed to be more cuts and I really couldn't tell whether those were just pauses too or whether someone had gone through with a pair of electronic scissors to make him sound worse.

[Froborr]

Good God, can't we for once have a President who's capable of uttering a coherent sentence?

I honestly don't recall that being a problem with Bush Sr or Clinton. I'm not quite old enough to remember any Reagan speeches, but from what I understand his problem wasn't incoherence so much as it was making stuff up.

I especially dislike the term "Judeo-Christian" because there are many points of faith where the two religions are not congruent and do not mirror each other. I was talking back to him (with emphasis) as the clip played.

Judeo-Muslim makes more sense than Judeo-Christian, but they're both pretty farfetched. Christianity is a faith-based religion, while Judaism is much more about behavior. Christianity has a strong focus on eschatology (afterlife and end of the world), about which Judaism cares basically not at all. Christianity is big on proselytization; Judaism forbids it. And so on...

[PurpleGirl]

Exactly Froborr. I cringe whenever I hear/read "Judeo-Christian".

[Cowboy Diva]

Froborr: Christianity has a strong focus on eschatology....Christianity is big on proselytization.

Christianity in general, or just evangelical christianity?

[Reynard]

Maybe it's not the *quantity* of experiences in terms of questions pertaining to Religion that differentiates them, but the *quality* of those experiences...

[Spherical Time]

I think the implication of experience in this sense does not correlate to having thought about deeply held convictions.

Which is unfortunate, because it should.

[Drak Pope]

Christianity is a proselytizing religion, like Islam and unlike Judaism. Maybe we should say Islama-Christianity instead.

[B-W]

Whether the word is actually accurate or not, I should note that most Christians (even "evangelical" ones) would cringe at being accused of being big on "proselytization." Even if the meaning of the word is more or less the same as "evangelism," the connotations are very different.

[Drak Pope]

Whether the word is actually accurate or not, I should note that most Christians (even "evangelical" ones) would cringe at being accused of being big on "proselytization." Even if the meaning of the word is more or less the same as "evangelism," the connotations are very different.

It is? How? I mean, they literally mean the same thing, right? And when I was taught comparitive religion, the words 'evangelize' and 'proselytize' were interchangeable.

Or is it one of those silly things like how Jack Chick considers Real True Christianity to be a 'faith' while Phony Catholic Christianity to be a 'religion'.

[Lee Ratner]

I think Judaism only forbid seeking converts because doing so was a very good way for a lot of Jews to die. Many scholars believe that during the time before the Great Jewish Revolt, Jews actively sought converts.

Barack Obama's speech only increased the respect I have for him. If he is elected, he will be the first openly intellectual president since Woodrow Wilson.

[Salamanda]

*grins at Fred* I was wondering if we were going to hear anything from you about Obama's speech. I was really impressed, and found myself saying, "EXACTLY!" quite a bit.

[Pseudowolf]

Nor is it clear, watching that interview, that he even agrees with everything he's hearing himself say.

I think that's exactly the problem. During this campaign we've seen McCain change nearly every stance he previously held that wasn't in line with the GOP's party line. I don't think he *does* believe what he's saying. He's been given talking points by his handlers which have been written and reviewed by the party "bosses" and he's just reciting them. But he doesn't actually agree with them and doesn't know how to fake sincerity. And so he comes out stumbling over his words and rambling on and on as he repeats and re-repeats all of the "views" he supposedly holds dear.

I liked pre-nomination McCain, but he lost my vote once it was clear he let the GOP leaders give him a nice, freshly-washed brain.

[Pope Easier Rhino I]

Lest we forget, and paint a nice glaze over history as we seem to have been able to do with Reagan, Bush the Elder was widely regarded as a flailing moron during his time as Vice President. People used to make jokes about how he only selected Quayle to be his running mate to make himself look smarter. I'm not saying these impressions were justified, but now everyone seems to look back on Bush the Elder through the lens of "elder statesman" rather than remembering what people, including a lot of Republicans, thought of him at the time. Lyndon Johnson famously compared Bush the Elder to chicken salad, but I shall remain pure of mind, heart, and deed and not quote him for those members of the audience who are impressionable.

People remember Reagan as an excellent orator for two reasons. One, he was an actor, so he must have been able to give a speech, right? Two, he never had anything much to say. How hard is it to deliver, "There you go again," for two hours? Off the cuff, on the other hand, he was a truly amusing speaker, mostly because his answers tended to have something of the peripatetic quality about them, which led to some verbal missteps, as I believe they call screw-ups in that particular neck of the woods. But he could tell a joke, his timing was excellent, I'll give him that.

As far as "experience," since when does experience have anything to do with being able to answer fundamental questions? I'm not arguing for or against McCain, simply against the argument that this has anything to do with experience. McCain could be the most experienced Senator in the universe and never given any thought to anything other than his lunch order that day. Experience requires showing up. It is a remarkably poor judge of quality, in my humble.

[Abelardus]

Many scholars believe that during the time before the Great Jewish Revolt, Jews actively sought converts.

John Hyrcanus of the Maccabeean dynasty is best remembered for allegedly forcing conversion on the Idumeans.

[Hawker Hurricane]

A comment on experience...

"By the time Mozart was my age, he'd been dead for 11 years." - Tom Lehrer

[TransDutch]

Judaism doesn't encourage proselytizing, but it doesn't prohibit it either. There is no commandment against it in the Torah, and there is a commandment against adding commandments to what's already there.

However, when nations declared conversion to Judaism as punishable by death, proselytizing ended. When the laws were lifted, the practice wasn't revived. Here's a good article on it. (from Beliefnet.com)

I cringe at Judeo-Christian, but not because the two religions are so different. There is enough common ground where the term *can* be legitimately used. But more often than not the person using the term wants to put the Lord's Prayer back in the public schools, or the equivalent. Those who seem to use the term most often either don't mean it, and are using it to deceive, or they haven't thought through what the term means.

[Robb]

I liked pre-nomination McCain, but he lost my vote once it was clear he let the GOP leaders give him a nice, freshly-washed brain.

Amen to that - the guy has waffled so hard in the past few months he's well earned most of the attacks he's getting. Normally, I'm really hesitant to join bandwagon blanket attacks, and I've bristled at the lack of nuance that phrases like "McSame" and "3rd Bush Term" have, but this type of thing is pathetic, and typical of McCain now that he's trying to be the Republican every-candidate.

I'm reminded of the boggart, who is easily defeated when confronted with multiple subjects - it doesn't know who to be, so it fails at everything. McCain in Neville's gran's dress would probably be hilarious, though...

[Drak Pope]

I'm not saying these impressions were justified, but now everyone seems to look back on Bush the Elder through the lens of "elder statesman" rather than remembering what people, including a lot of Republicans, thought of him at the time.

Be reasonable. Bush I might not have been the best statesman whoever reigned, but after eight years of his kid I don't remember what was so bad about his Presidency, or Reagan's Presidency either, for that matter. I honestly can't see how anyone could criticize the Reagan or the first Bush administration. The mantra I keep hearing goes along the lines of, "Yeah, I didn't like President H.W. Bush that much, but at least he didn't do THAT!" with "that" being substituted for one of the myriad disasters that the current government has been blamed for inflicting on the world.

[Lauren]

John Hyrcanus of the Maccabeean dynasty is best remembered for allegedly forcing conversion on the Idumeans

And this has been your nearly-useless fact of the day....

[Donalbain]

Seriously? Nobody has mentioned McCain's outright lie at the very top of the interview? "The Constitution established America as a Christian country". I am being generous calling it a lie, since the only alternative is that McCain is too stupid to have actually read the constitution of the country he wants to be president of.

[Cactus Wren]

McCain attributes "In God we trust" to "the Founding Fathers"?

[cjmr's husband]

I don't remember what was so bad about his Presidency, or Reagan's Presidency

It helps to track back some of the causes to the current unpleasantness. Y'see, during Reagan's presidency, there was this huge war between the Most Evil Country In The World (they had taken our people hostage!) and their lesser-known neighbor, who only differed by one letter.

Everyone tended to get the two countries confused, most notably President Reagan, who, in a brilliant tactical decision *armed both sides*.

That much is historical fact; how much Bush The Smarter was involved in Iran-Contra was carefully hidden, but given that Reagan's brain had died in office, it's not likely that Bush's claims to be "out of the loop" are 100% truthful.

[Chris Koeberle]

I'd imagine experience as a Con Law professor counts more than experience as a senator when it comes to articulating viewpoints on the separation of church and state. (And pardon the nitpick, but that phrase does not appear in the Constitution. It's a good description of how the First Amendment is applied, but not a good description of the First Amendment's text by any means.) I'm beginning to feel that when people talk about Obama's experience, they're really just criticizing him for not being sufficiently embedded in the political machine. Experience is just being used as a keyword, there, I'm thinking.

[Alex]

Okay, Reagan could tell a joke. Aside from that, he was generally a stumbling speaker. The SNL skit with Robin Williams as Reagan was not far off the mark. ("One-Adam Twelve"!) And Mondale ran rings around Reagan in their first debate, although the media didn't see it that way.

In Haynes Johnson's SLEEPWALKING THROUGH HISTORY, Johnson recounts how Reagan's "image" guy* told him that he saw Reagan cry hundreds of times in public, but not once in private.

(* His name eludes me after all these years.)

Although Geraldine Ferraro is rightly in disgrace now, Mondale's choice of her as his running mate in 1984 was historic at the time. She wiped the floor with Bush Sr. in their debate. And George and Barbara showed themselves to be the petty foul-mouthed creatures they are in their comments to the press the next day. Of course, the media (except for Sam Donaldson) claimed Bush the victor.

Abelardus: John Hyrcanus of the Maccabeean dynasty is best remembered for allegedly forcing conversion on the Idumeans

Lauren: And this has been your nearly-useless fact of the day....

No, actually, that's one I can, in fact, use! So if nobody else wants it.... [looks around, picks up fact, scurries back to corner clutching it]

[dash]

Rats! Me at 9:29 a.m. I appear to have offended the Great God Typepad, who now refuses to believe in me.

However, since I'm double-posting anyway: after you've played the Obama segment, notice below in the similar segments that YouTube offers a bit from Bill Maher's Real Time with Christopher Hitchens and Dan Savage (inter alia). At about 2:13 he starts to summarize Hagee's end-time beliefs, including the Russo-Arab attack on Israel. Worth a grin or two, as Maher tends to be.

[Richard Hershberger]

Regarding the Reagan administration, it set (or at least advanced) several patterns which the younger Bush administration has taken to extremes: fiscal irresponsibility on a grand scale and an ideology of executive right to disregard the rule of law are two obvious examples. To some extent the implications were hidden by a generally strong economy, the fall of the Soviet Union, and Reagan's personal affability. Reagan also did not surround himself quite as aggressively with incompetents as would the younger Bush. So while he had his body count (remember the Marines in Beirut?) it was nothing like what the younger Bush has managed to pile up.

As for the elder Bush, he came from the old moneyed social elite class that took political leadership as some combination of duty and birthright. I think he personally is on the right side of "average" in intelligence and ability, but well within one standard deviation. To his credit, he was able and willing to do simple arithmetic and to follow the implications of the result: hence his raising of taxes, which arguably cost him reelection. Can you imagine his son doing such a thing?

[kodiak]

Is the whole Obama speech/sermon (I don't know where it's being given, loks like it could be church-y to me) available. I'd love to listen to it all!

[Blackadder]

Barring an unusual disaster, it looks like Obama in November. McCain has more waffles than IHOP and frankly doesn't even seem to be in 100% possession of his faculties (such as they are) anymore.

[Cowboy Diva]

...who now refuses to believe in me.

That's okay, Dash. We don't believe in you either.

[B-W]

Whether the word is actually accurate or not, I should note that most Christians (even "evangelical" ones) would cringe at being accused of being big on "proselytization." Even if the meaning of the word is more or less the same as "evangelism," the connotations are very different.

It is? How? I mean, they literally mean the same thing, right? And when I was taught comparitive religion, the words 'evangelize' and 'proselytize' were interchangeable.

Or is it one of those silly things like how Jack Chick considers Real True Christianity to be a 'faith' while Phony Catholic Christianity to be a 'religion'.

I'll leave it to others to determine how "silly" it is, but within the evangelical subculture, to "proselytize" is often considered a heavy-handed, possibly even "forced" conversion, whereas to "evangelize" is considered to simply "tell the good news," arguably with the hope of a conversion, but without the "pressure" connotation in any event.

I'll certainly concede that it often doesn't work out that way in practice, but that wasn't my point.

[B-W]

Sorry about the HTML error above (I dearly wish I could edit comments!). Here is the same reply again, with that fixed (hopefully). If Fred is able to delete the above, I'd appreciate it.

Whether the word is actually accurate or not, I should note that most Christians (even "evangelical" ones) would cringe at being accused of being big on "proselytization." Even if the meaning of the word is more or less the same as "evangelism," the connotations are very different.

It is? How? I mean, they literally mean the same thing, right? And when I was taught comparitive religion, the words 'evangelize' and 'proselytize' were interchangeable.

Or is it one of those silly things like how Jack Chick considers Real True Christianity to be a 'faith' while Phony Catholic Christianity to be a 'religion'.

I'll leave it to others to determine how "silly" it is, but within the evangelical subculture, to "proselytize" is often considered a heavy-handed, possibly even "forced" conversion, whereas to "evangelize" is considered to simply "tell the good news," arguably with the hope of a conversion, but without the "pressure" connotation in any event.

I'll certainly concede that it often doesn't work out that way in practice, but that wasn't my point.

[B-W]

AAARGH!

(Although I'm certain I closed the bold that time, so I don't know what's wrong....)

[McJulie]

It's breathtaking and a little scary to hear a politician express exactly what I personally think about religion in a pluralistic society, and to hear it worded so concisely and eloquently.

It's sad and dispiriting to hear a politician ramble through a collection of talking points and buzzwords designed to placate a certain demographic. He hits all the points: founding fathers, check. Uniquely designated, check. Christian nation, check.

I also hear another underlying message: if you are an evangelical Christian, Obama is telling you to grow up, while McCain is patting you on the head.

I hope there are plenty of evangelicals out there who are ready for the "grow up" message but I despair of how many of them do just want to be patted on the head.

[Robb]

I Smite thee, O Bold!

Side note (literally) - I'm still seeing that campaign ad for John McCain on the sidebar, in the adspace. It's there almost every other time I view this site.

[Robb]

Die, bold!

[Robb]

There we are!

Yep another refresh, and there it is again: "One Man has the Experience. One Man has the Courage. One Man is showing a picture of himself over 30 years ago to possibly, hopefully distract you from his age." I'm thinkin' Fred needs to have a little chat with "the Google".

[Thalia]

Wow, there he goes saying things I want people to say. He thinks I'm showing my bitterness if I "cling to my gun" or my "religion," and he doesn't seem to know my religion exists, but he keeps saying more things I agree with than any of those other guys. And it's the first time I can use "agree" about a politician who wasn't a local for a long time.

[Amaryllis]

Die, bold!

in an election thread... *snicker*

[Steve]

If you look up the word "pander" in the dictionary, there will be a link to this John McCain video.

[Muse of Ire]

McCain: "I prefer someone who has a solid grounding in my faith."

Well, Senator, that's your right, and you and everyone has the right to vote in accordance with that principle if you want to. And if you were elected, you would have the right to try and develop policy based on the principles of your faith. But that doesn't alleviate you of the responsibility, as Obama so clearly put it, of trying to convince me of the merits of that policy in terms that make sense to me. You can't just expect me to accept what you're trying to do because "that's what the Bible says" or, worse yet, "that's what my pastor says the Bible says."

[Froborr]

Let's not forget that the Reagan administration also slashed public services and lowered taxes on the rich, which had the combined effect of greatly accelerating the growing inequality of wealth that began in the early 70s.

They also instituted a policy of replacing most federal employees with private contractors, which created the illusion of shrinking the size of agencies, but actually increased the cost of government and the amount of bureaucracy (since you have to deal with the federal bureaucracy AND the bureaucracies of the companies providing the contractors).

Here's an example of the cost increase: I make about 30% more as a contractor than I would as a fed. I don't know exactly what my employer charges the government, but I do know that such companies typically charge about 2.5 times what they pay the employee (the 2 goes to paying for benefits and other overhead, the .5 to profit). So, basically, I cost the taxpayers 3.25 times what a federal employee would to do the same job.

Also, apologies about the word "proselytize". I've always taken "evangelize" to mean "Protestant Christian proselytizing, especially by evangelical Christians," and "proselytize" to mean "What missionaries do." And yes, non-evangelical Christians proselytize: I've encountered or heard about proselytizing Catholics, Mormons, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and Jehovah's Witnesses, in addition to evangelicals.

Anyway, I was actually trying to *avoid* offense by using a non-religion-specific word instead of the Christian-associated "evangelize." I had no idea some people found "proselytize" offensive, and I apologize.

[Froborr]

And yes, non-evangelical Christians proselytize: I've encountered or heard about proselytizing Catholics, Mormons, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and Jehovah's Witnesses, in addition to evangelicals.

Oh, and Armenian Orthodox, Jews for Jesus*, and Nestorian Christian. In fact, I'm hard-pressed to think of any Christian demonination which *doesn't* proselytize. Do Quakers? I don't know about Quakers.

And yes, I'm aware Ancient Judaism proselytized. Modern Judaism does not. Modern Judaism also doesn't sacrifice heifers at the Temple. Anyway, proselytization may not be specifically forbidden in the Torah or Talmud, but ask pretty much any Jew and they'll tell you, Jews don't proselytize. Not every aspect of religion is written down; some appears in practice.

*Yes, I am aware that there exists some debate over whether Mormons and Jews for Jesus are Christians. I would say that Mormons are because (1) they say they are, and (2) they don't appear to be trying to trick people into believing they're Christians for proselytization purposes -- they seem to genuinely believe they're Christians. Jews for Jesus are Christians despite saying they're Jewish because they are trying to trick people into believing they're Jews for proselytization purposes.

[Dash]

Thalia: He thinks I'm showing my bitterness if I "cling to my gun" or my "religion," and he doesn't seem to know my religion exists, but he keeps saying more things I agree with than any of those other guys.

I'd like to make a distinction between two different claims. The first is a claim that one response to finding oneself in a situation in which one is "playing by the rules," but in which things aren't working out the way one is told they're supposed to, is to cling to something that provides identity. That is, I think, why he used the phrase "cling to" instead of, e.g. "become interested in" or "get involved with."

Religion can support or provide a sense of identity and a way of making sense of the world, and membership in a group, like the NRA can also serve as a form of self-definition--heck, Michael Moore does that when he points out that he's a lifetime NRA member.

The second is a claim that everyone who practices a religion or owns or uses guns is doing so for precisely that reason and no other.

The original context, I think, provides evidence that Obama's statement belonged in the former category. I've never heard anything from him that suggests the latter, and, as he is himself a practicing Christian, I'd be surprised if he believed that.

[Jeff]

In fact, I'm hard-pressed to think of any Christian demonination which *doesn't* proselytize.

I don't think Christian Scientists do (good argument in that the CS Monitor is one of the most respected newspapers around). They are somewhat "fringe Christianity" groups, in that many Christians don't consider them "really Christian" (just like Mormons), but still.