Too much prudishness?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Xeney : One Thread

I rather enjoyed one of today's Salon articles, The New Sanctimony, despite a little too much rambling about the 60's, which you'll sometimes get from writers who came of age then. All four candidates from the two major parties are extremely religious, and are making their faith an issue in the election. It's been pointed out that when JFK was nominated, he acknowledged his Catholicism but was careful to point out that it was part of his private life, not his presidency; in recent years, but never so much as in this election, the trend has been to make it clear that the candidates' faith drives their public lives.

Does this raise warning flags for you? Is the American political scene indeed becoming sanctimonious to the point of absurdity? Or do you view this as a positive change?

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

Answers

Well, the big shift has been from electing people based on whether or not they can do the job, to electing them based on the kind of people they are. Now that Clinton's rubbed everybody's nose in the fact that we can't even get that right, everybody's falling back to the trenches and trying to find some common ground.

Ever see Contact? Same idea.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000


It's interesting how the two major parties are playing religion. When the Republicans mention it, they are "pawns of the religious right". When the Democrats talk about their faith, they are just good solid (read: non-Clinton) honest folk.

One thing that having Leiberman on the ticket might accomplish---I think we'll be forced to reexamine how the line has blurred on the separation of church and state. For example, when First Lady Tipper lights the White House Christmas tree, will Second Lady Hadassah (sp?) light the White House Menorah? Posting the Ten Commandments, prayer in school or before football games or senate committee meetings---these were the kinds of things that are currently seen as "reinforcing values". But it seems to run counter to the Founding Fathers' separation intentions. Do "values" always have to be "religious (Christian) values"?

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000


Susan - Baptist Bill & Episocopalian Hillary have had a White House menorah for the last seven years. What I think would be interesting, if Gore/Leiberman were elected (gag) would be whether or not we'd get lovely video every fall of Al & Tipper heading over to the backyard of the VP residence to dine in Joe & Haddasah's sukkah. I imagine we wouldn't.

But on point -- I think that the interest in the spiritual lives of candidates and their willingness to be open in discussing their religious beliefs is a reflection that there is a large and, perhaps even growing segment of our nation for whom religion is an important part of *everyday* life, and a touchstone in regard to all that they do. That encompasses a lot of people of a variety of faiths -- in trying to present themselves as people with a similar regard to their spiritual convictions, the candidates are merely trying to show their common ground with the religiously devoted folks across the country. In some cases, it's working, in others it isn't.

But I don't think that it is in any measure sanctimonious nor prudish, as the subject and initial question would suggest. It's good to know, though, that the old stereotypes of religious people still apply!

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000


Dreama, did you read the Salon article? The "sanctimony" aspect isn't something I'd really thought much about before; I have concerns about chuch/state separation under either of the two potential administrations, but that's a different argument. I'm more curious at the moment what people think of the ideas put forth in that article.

I don't believe religious people must be prudish or sanctimonious; the article's argument is that in this (and to a lesser extent, recent) elections, religion, sanctimony and prudishness go hand-in-hand in the politicians.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000


Moderation questions? read the FAQ