Suppose John McCain were a member of Opus Dei. Or to push things a bit further, suppose he attended a schismatic Latin-Mass parish which had, among other things, bestowed an award on a Lefebvrite bishop given to anti-Semitic remarks. Do you think this would earn him media scrutiny, and make a difference in the Presidential race? Do you think it ought to? - Douthat-comma-Ross
To merely ask the question, in relation to the black church in America, suggests that all sides really do want the Obama message, to get past the racial divides.
Religion has become deeply politicized under GOP-style politics. Is there any question that McCain has "taken the pledge" with respect to the faith qualifications for his judicial appointments, in order to appease the demands of his party? Are we ready for an even more "Catholic Supreme Court" under him, crudely put? That we even have to think about such a question is an indication that the nexus of GOP-religion in politics goes well beyond race.
Put another way, "liberation theology" came out of a double standard, in a way (or the failing of whites to live up to a Christian standard). Now, it appears, with the younger generation, that it is being questioned as if it were a double standard itself (or the failure of blacks to live up to a Christian standard).The black church came out of white Christian moral failure. It's not clear exactly what Ross is questioning, since the confessional beliefs of the black church are hardly 'radical', in the way that Mormonism is comparatively so.
KNOCKING HEADS ON PURPOSE
Perhaps, I'm just wrong, that we're really just looking at a smug continuance of the racial divide (or cynically, those who would like to re-inforce a divide to their own ends).
I feel this way when people divorce the perspective from its historical and anthropomorphic roots, as others, no doubt, feel suspicious of writers (like me?) and find the whole concept fatuous, because they see no factual support in our supposedly post-racial society to support a continuance of that posture.
There is reason to believe that FIXed News is playing on the racial divides, rather than seeking to bridge them, by playing and re-playing clips that "shock" the sensibilities of some; because it's been a long, long time since fiery sermonizing was stock of the trade in consciousness raising in many quarters.
WHITHER RELIGION IN TODAY'S POST-REAGAN POLITICS?
Anyway, directly to Ross's question. We are certainly interested in a candidate's faith. We avoid extremes. We don't elect men of the cloth and we don't like atheists, much. Thanks to liberalism in America, there is a broad, gray area in between, to consider. We ultimately elect individuals based on cues about their relationship with their Church.
Romney, frankly, did fairly well acquitting himself as an electable Mormon, per se. It's just that no one ultimately believed the rest of him, right? Jack Kennedy was also elected as an individual. "W" on the other hand was not, right?
Accordingly, post Reagan, not all callings are equal. Religion has become deeply politicized under GOP-style politics. Is there any question that McCain has "taken the pledge" with respect to the faith qualifications for his judicial appointments, in order to appease the demands of his party? Are we ready for an even more "Catholic Supreme Court" under him, crudely put? That we even have to think about such a question is an indication that the nexus of GOP-religion in politics goes well beyond race.
Last, if Ross and Ezra want some other double standards they might consider how Bush staffed the WH with Liberty University / Regent University "Affirmative Action" candidates. Was Monica Goodling the most qualified candidate? Now, McCain is his own fish, but so far, he's been willing to flop on almost everything that his pond-mates want, right, including a vote against restricting the CIA ...
