“I will rise into the air and you will see God embrace me…”

When Rick Perry officially launches his presidential campaign this weekend, he will not be the only Republican candidate to carry the banner of Christian piety…Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty discovered his inner Honest Abe at the Faith and Freedom Conference in June. Heedless of the risks to his campaign, Honest Tim read from the Bible and thundered to the mostly evangelical audience, “We need to be a nation that turns toward God, not away from God!”

Another presidential candidate, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, refers to God so frequently in the context of her political ambitions that you would think He was her running mate. At the Faith and Freedom Conference, she treated the audience to a prayer of her own design: “Lord, we know there are things we have done in our nation that have not been pleasing in your sight,” she sorrowfully intoned, “Lord, we ask your forgiveness for that…”

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich may not be able to boast about Christian values in his personal life, but he has vowed to defend his grandchildren from the imminent threat of “a secular atheist country” or, somewhat inconsistently, political domination by radical Islamists. Gingrich has also promised to resist the fearsome “homosexual agenda” on the grounds that he supports “pro-classical Christianity,” a hitherto-undiscovered Christian sect that may be imaginary.

Donald Trump, whose campaign ended before it began, still found time to gallantly sputter, “I believe in God. I am Christian. I think the Bible is certainly, it is THE book.” In case people missed the point, he added, “I’m a Protestant. I’m a Presbyterian. And you know I’ve had a good relationship with the church over the years. I think religion is a wonderful thing. I think my religion is a wonderful religion.”

Even libertarian Ron Paul, who long resisted injecting faith into politics, has waxed Lincolnesque this season. “We have had the Constitution stolen right before our eyes,” he drawled urgently, “This is now about whether or not we have the right to worship freely.” He later explained, “Congress should never prohibit the expression of your Christian faith in a public place…”

On Saturday, August 13, Republican insiders in Iowa will vote in the Ames Straw Poll. Although the poll is non-binding, it hints at the candidates most likely to do well in the Iowa caucus…

Indeed, the political compensation for public displays of faith is so precious that it makes me wonder whether the candidates’ zealous efforts to to prove their piety as they race for the Republican nomination might be called calculating or opportunistic. Some might even suggest unchristian.

When will the members of this holy crusade change the name of their wholly-owned political party? The Republican Christian Party? Or – better yet – the American Christian Party since they claim to speak for all Christians, all Americans?




  1. ECA says:

    I would rather a Buddhist..

  2. Animby says:

    #104 msb: you, sir, are an ignorant Canuck. If you’re going to quote the Constitution, please read it. NOwhere, does that document say what you quote. Separation of church and state is an interpretation of what they wrote. What they actually said is the state will not establish an [official] religion which, of course, was a kick to the Church of England. Now, why don’t you climb back into your igloo and chew some seal blubber?

  3. MikeN says:

    I’m curious how many times this blog complained when Democratic politicians campaign in church.

  4. bobbo, the pragmatic libertarian Existential Anti-Theist says:

    #103–nextlie==how can you say I am amoral and quote my morality as proof? Like most religious suboptimals, you don’t make any sense at all.

    Logically, since you worship an all knowing god who love’s us all but who has some very specific rules for us to all follow and who will punish or reward us according to his will now and in the afterlife, you complaint really should be that my morality is IMMORAL.

    Imagine leaving other people alone? No god would put up with that and neither do the flock.

    Tell us nextlie: whats amoral about leaving other people alone? MORALITY is about leading by example. don’t like drugs: then don’t do them. don’t like abortion: then have the kiddie. don’t like gays: don’t sleep with men. don’t like prostitution: then develop a few good hobbies.

    Easy Peasy. But the Religious are not Moral. They want to FORCE THEIR VALUES ON OTHERS who disagree.

    Tell us nextlie: whats amoral about leaving other people alone?

  5. MikeN says:

    Don’t like slavery, don’t have one.

  6. Mr. Fusion says:

    #80, Lyin’ Mike,

    Bush without a brain.

    An excellent oxymoron.

  7. Buzz Mega says:

    How many votes did Rick Parry get?

  8. Sea Lawyer says:

    Since religious people are so eager to be with their god, I wish they would just quit with all the talk and go meet him.

  9. Glenn E. says:

    I’ve noticed over the years, that somehow political Christianity has become mostly taking Israeli’s side, against the rest of the world. At least that’s where the most money gets spent. Reversing a few laws about gay marriages, and such, cost very little. Sending billions of aid to keep a non-self-supporting nation, going. And committing military resources to squelch opposition to it. IS far more costly. The politicians that claim that they are in office because their religion is the one true faith. And they turn around and say they support Israeli’s right to exist in Jordan, because apparently they are the one true faith ALSO. Demonstrates that these politicians are a load of two faced liars. Who justify whatever it is that they’re lobbied the most to do, by labeling it as something righteous. Even if it conflicts with any definition of separate believe systems. It all falls under, “God told me to do this.” Tons of campaign dollars, not withstanding.

  10. Guyver says:

    104, MSBPodcast,

    For the strick constitutionalists out there, may I say that “The Separation of Church and State” pretty much says it all.

    It was to not have a “Church of the United States” much like how England at the time had a “Church of England”. No more, no less.

    The separation was to limit Government’s influence onto people’s religious choice. Not whether constituents could instill religious values onto government.

    Anyone who wants to turn this into a two-way street simply wants to ignore the history or are victims of a government-run education system.

  11. Chi Milan says:

    Let me spell out the twenty-fif-th word once again: B-R-I-B-E–R-Y.maple story guide


4

Bad Behavior has blocked 6321 access attempts in the last 7 days.