McCain: new banner-holder for the Christian Right?

Guest-blog by Josh Rubin

Whatever happened to the moderate John McCain who ran in the 1996 and 2000 elections?  By all accounts, he's dead (though, I must point out, Mandela isn't).

This was further cemented by an interview the aging Senator and Presidential hopeful gave to BeliefNet.com.  My favorite part?

But I think the number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the President of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?'"

If this is the number one issue, maybe we haven't progressed much since the Spanish Inquisition.

[I don't know how to embed movies, but you can see the whole thing here or read the transcript here]

Of course, Jews and Muslims alike have voiced their displeasure--so he apologized.

Comments

[Angrier and Angrier]

McCain really has gone off the rails this time around. And to think I supported him in 2000.

[Josh Rubin]

Though I have never actually supported him (or any other Republican that I can think of), he's definitely gone off the deep end. I hoped that he would be the Republican candidate in 2000 because he struck me as being much more moderate than Dubbya, so I would have been "more willing to live with him." But since then, and especially since 2004, he's been moving farther right, to a point that is just distasteful.

[dcl]

I have a question, and I know a fair number of people will get annoyed by it but it really is a serious question.

To my understanding the term, "Great Experiment" dates to the founding fathers and they used it to refer to our nation, the first in over a millennium at the time, to be governed by democratic principals--the "Great Experiment" is making the people sovereign and granting them agency over the direction of their nation and government.

The way I parse McCain's statement he is saying that democracy in this country some how emerged from the Judeo Christian tradition.

So the question is this, where does democracy come from in the Judeo Christian tradition?

My understanding is that originated, at least in the terms our founding fathers understood it, from the golden age of Athens and pre imperial Rome. In both case predating the religion of Christianity and existing during the time of kings in Israel in the case of Athens and after the sacking of Jerusalem in the case of Rome. In fact, if recollection serves, Rome was in control of Israel during the Republic and at that time the Jedeo part of the judeo Christian tradition was not exactly involved in government ultimately leading one Rabbi (admittedly during the time of the Caesars) to teach, "Render on to God that which is God's and render on to Caesars that which is Caesars'".

So, to reiterate, what on earth does the Judeo Christian tradition have to do with democracy and democratic principals? And more importantly, how does this statement not show McCain to be, well, completely nuts failing to understand the finer points of the philosophical underpinnings of this nation? And correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't such serious misunderstandings be cause for rather serious concern regarding the man's fitness to serve as a Senator, much less President? Hmm, I'm guessing this might be what Josh meant after all...

[Derek]

"Spanish Inquisition" is profoundly and ignorantly incorrect hyperbole.

[Drive-By Media]

The JudeoChristian tradition is incorporated into our very laws (common and statutory alike) and Constitution itself. To be completely ignorant of the religious influences shaping the Constitution at its time of creation is dumb, and to characterize McCain's statement as being in line with the "Spanish Inquisition" is completely ignorant.

Everyone knows there is a lot of posturing the primaries. Republican candidates try to appear more Republican than they are and Democratic candidates try to appear more Democratic than they are. It's called politicking.

[4-7]

I agree with Derek. There is nothing shameful about how the success of this freedom experiment in this country, as to anti-clerical experiments in other nations, is derived from a Judeo-Christian heritage and slow gestation that reaches back to both Christian and Hebraic origins. The shameful thing would be to ignore them as if these roots are irrelevant. Cut the root and the tree will wither. The hostility against the religiously-influenced aspect of our freedom tradition is one of the greatest threats to its continuance. Is this a defense to someone saying we need a "Christian" president ? No, and it's not so intended. Good luck responders.

[4-7]

I should add that it might not be correct to say "democracy" derives from the J-C tradition, but that the conception of freedom and (dareisay) federalism expressed in the constitution is derived from the pluralistic J-C roots that were exported from Christian Rome and the Byzantine Empire to Europe and best nurtured and presereved in England through Common Law and Magna Carta.

All men created equal, endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights - the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to property, the right to the pursuit of happiness. These blessings we enjoy primarily because of the political thought of the English Tradition, which was strongly influenced by the religious development of that nation.

Just get over it. It's just religion.

[Aaron]

The spectacle of John McCain over the last few years could make a cynic out of the most high-minded political idealist.

[dcl]

Drive-By Media and 4-7. Okay prove it, because I call bullshit EG Jefferson was a bloody close to being an atheist. Tom Pain was not exactly religious, nor was John Locke or John Adams. As opposed to the Church which was generally a totalitarian and controlling organization that lent its power and influence to kings. jeux opposed to the Athenian and Roman Republican traditions that were, you know, democratic and whose ideas overtime gave birth to the philosophical concepts to which you alluded. So I call bullshit, I've demonstrated some factual basses for my position I suggest you try that some time if I'm going to waist more time giving you a history education that you should have gotten in high school and college.

[4-7]

Well, who said the idea of authentic human freedom ORIGINATED with Jefferson. Wow your golden boy TJ and TP were deistic or atheistic. BIG whoop. If I recall TJ and TP were big supporters of Robespierre and the early attempts at revolution in France and umm, yeah. Well done guys.

I have the rest of the proof but I'm not showing it to you cause "prove it" is just so, un blogish. Prove your position. Haha. fun with games.

How's this for proof. Most free country in the West, most religious country in the West. The belief in God, Truth, and Justice as otherworldly persons or values is the glue, man.

Why does it bother you so ?

[4-7]

your church comment mirrors the hyperbole criticized earlier. OMG. Enough with the "oppressive church" image. It was what it was - it was the age and the political reality; if it was the dcl family mafia Constantine signed up for it would have been no different. It's not religion that makes for bad history, it's men. Stop using the hyperbole and Kevin Smith movies version of history to cloud your ability to recognize the contributions of Christianity to the libertarian or free republican ideals you enjoy today. It's not that hard. It doesn't mean you have to put in to the collection plate or get baptised in a river. Intellectual honesty friend. I can admit the church - effected by human beings- has screwed up in its history, but I'm not so dense as to deny the fruits of its powerful and hallowed intellectual tradition. Moderns and Post moderns would not have left the intellectual gave without the promethean gifts of their forebearers.

[4-7]

intellectual "cave", sorry.

[Derek]

There's a gulf between "Christianity" and "Judeo-Christian tradition." "Judeo-Christian tradition" does not refer to authoritarian regime structures (which is decidedly Roman Catholic Christian, anyway), but to a common moral beliefs embodied in the Ten Commandments, coupled with a belief in a divine Being. It is frequently intertwined with the "Greco-Roman heritage," a mode of philosophy and thought that embodies Western philosophy. Thus, while Thomas Paine is the sole individual who would deny a divine Being (despite the baseless allegations regarding Jefferson, Locke, and Adams), he (and they) still approached all legal arguments from a decidedly Western perspective, which includes the moral principles of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

That tradition informed the Founders in innumerable ways, from the natural law of the Declaration of Independence, to particular provisions of the Constitution (e.g., "Sundays excepted" in the 10 days in which a bill may be vetoed (which, I admit, may be more a principle of Federalism than Sabbath observance, which is a different discussion), capital treason requires "two witnesses"), to the overall structure of the federal government (e.g., the separation of powers is highly derivative of the spheres of authority derived from Protestant theology).

Whether or not the Founders were "Christians" is beside the point. Instead, they come from a distinctly Western perspective, which includes a Judeo-Christian tradition and a Greco-Roman heritage. Indeed, this Western tradition is in sharp contrast to today's youth, where one would be hard-pressed in contemporary schools to ascertain whether young children are raised in any particular tradition, or whether a tradition of post-modernism, relativism, etc. has dominated their worldview.

[jonesofthenile]

It's so weird to see how far McCain has traveled from his 2000 campaign to this one. What I can't understand is why he's looking to pander to a Christian right that is so clearly disjointed heading into 2008. Their organizing prowess is clearly suffering, as they've failed to unite behind one (or even several) of the candidates running for the GOP nomination for President.

[Joe Loy]

As Brendan noted in a previous post, the Christian Rightists ~ apparently Displeased with a crop of Republican infidels ;> consisting of a pro-death cross-dressing adulterer, a mercurial Loose Cannon on the Flightdeck, a mysterious Trophy-wived Thespian, and an heretical Cult-worshipping Flipflopper :} ~ are threatening to run their own candidate under a new-party banner.

Now I don't generally mix religion & politics but in This case here's my prayer:

O Lord, please make them Do it. Inspire & Guide them, strengthen them for the struggle, and let Thy rod & Thy staff lead them along the torturous path to Ballot Status in All the states. / Also You might mention the Deadlines to them if it isn't too much trouble. (That their success will guarantee the election of Hillary we could maybe just keep between us if You don't mind.) / Amen.

:)

[4-7]

Are we going to get any IT coverage of the Limbaugh debacle ?! I have been waiting for almost two days now to type about just how unbelievably stupid the prevailing Democratic establishment is and ask just why they Glory in Untruth with such delight. It's a wonder they don't put Mike Nifong on the 2008 ticket or that guy who gave Dan Rather the CBS memos or the guy who was the Iraqi information minister under Sadamm. Or for that matter the liar Joe Wilson. I mean, they just don't want to say it unless it's not true.