If a president categorizes himself in a certain affiliation of faith, that is all well and good as long as it does not come in bias with policymaking that has dangerous backlashing consequences.
Seeing oneself as ordained by God is quite another matter, it feels reminiscent of "divine right"; however, democracy has become the happy limit of that absolute power. At least some of the more self-righteous presidents never came to including "divine right" in his agenda in order to have the public bow down or anything similar. I do hope that the "message" the candidates have believed was from God to run for president was just an allusion to it in expressing a metaphor for wanting "peace on earth" during their presidency. A vain hope? Probably, yet I want things to get better like everyone else who cares about the presidency. If there is no hope, well this post sums it up: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/what-if-the-2012-election-doesnt-change-anything/2011/10/11/gIQAcV5icL_blog.html
It would be a more rational thought to gently put their religious affiliation in the presidential statistics into the election and not bring it out to the media to allow them to push for such religious fervor into voters' decisions. But then again, this is hardly original but unnecessary in the ideal world of voting in general. Is there not to be a separation of religion and state?
I acknowledge I may have not been the first one to ask this question nor will be the last, but the country will more or less not let any dividing comments between candidates concerning religion slide. In that case, I think it is important to recognize that a substantial amount of voters are frustrated with the way the candidates are handling themselves and do not attempt to make any excuses for any sign of any candidate wholeheartily blaming or basing their campaign upon someone else, even if it is God.
I also acknowledge that not all voters are completely swayed by religious hype that the media has exaggerated or emphasized. For such situations, I think the best route would be exhibited in this particular post by a writer from The Corner http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/280100/perrys-pastor-problem-andrew-stuttaford
Although, it may not be just be the media and probably the candidates' own campaigns are behind such claims of God's choice on their run for the presidency. It is even stated here that in an interview with the candidate Rick Perry's wife, Anita Perry, she says "So much of [the Perry campaign's defensiveness] is, I think they look at him, because of his faith", but of course this would clash with the other Republican candidates who think they are called to the presidency running because of God, as addressed and taken out of the context of this post by the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/is-letting-perry-be-perry-such-a-good-idea/2011/03/29/gIQAtqzphL_blog.html.
1 comment:
Anyone who believes in God believes that his or her faith can make a difference. Everyone has the right to pick their own religion and profess their faith. However, religion does not guarantee presidency. It is an obvious political strategy for candidates to say that they are chosen by God to change the country or make the economy move. Who wouldn’t be enticed by the idea of having some kind of savior supported by God? It attracts attention and believers of the same faith. On the other hand, this could also have a negative effect. If you choose a religion, the candidate might unintentionally exclude other religion. Moreover, people will constantly scrutinize the candidate’s actions for any violation of the religion’s rules. His plans might be limited to his/her beliefs and impede progression and sight for a different perspective. Candidates are exploiting their faith, which show their insincerity and selfishness. They could still exercise their religions once they become president or while running, but they shouldn’t over emphasize or over sell it.
Post a Comment