Bill Keller has questions for Republican candidates. Stanley Kurtz has some for Barack Obama:
1. You note in Dreams from My Father that you attended socialist conferences in New York when you lived there in the mid-1980′s. Archival evidence indicates that you attended the New York Socialist Scholars Conferences of 1983, 1984, and possibly 1985. Please confirm which socialist conferences you attended, and indicate whether you were present at, or were aware of, the talks by James Cone, the founder of Black Liberation Theology, and other Black Liberation Theologians at those conferences.
2. Your longtime religious and political mentor, Jeremiah Wright, was the most prominent colleague and follower of James Cone in Chicago. Archival research indicates that Cone and Wright worked closely together at the Black Theology Project (BTP), and that and that both visited Cuba at the head of BTP delegations. Wright has bragged about his trips to Cuba and has made evident his support, and the support of the Black Theology Project, for the Cuban regime — treating Cuba as a political model to be drawn on by Americans. Were you aware of Wright’s trips to Cuba and his support for the Cuban regime? What role, if any, did Wright’s hard-left views and ties to Cone’s liberation theology play in your choice of Wright as your pastor?
3. Research indicates that you have read James Cone’s theological work, and archival records show that your first important political job in Chicago, with Project Vote, was undertaken in partnership with another liberation theologian, Wright ally, and prominent Cone follower, Yvonne Delk. How, if at all, did liberation theology, and its associated political practice, help shape your political development?
4. Archival records indicate that many of your key community-organizing mentors and colleagues were part of the Midwest Academy network. Your position as a board member at Public Allies (before your wife took over the Chicago chapter) meant that you yourself were part of the Midwest Academy network — at a fairly high level. You also directed a great deal of funding to the Midwest Academy from your position as a board member at the Woods Fund. Archival and other documentary evidence indicates that the Midwest Academy’s leadership pioneered in synthesizing community organizing, socialist strategies, religious activism, and electoral politics. What, precisely, was your relationship with the Midwest Academy? Were you aware of the socialist convictions of the Midwest Academy’s leadership? You’ve said that community organizing gave you the best education of your life. How, if at all, has the Midwest Academy vision of a synthesis between community organizing, religious activism, and democratic socialism shaped your political development? Describe the continuing coordination between your White House and grass-roots groups tied to the Midwest Academy network.
5. Two of your key organizing mentors, Greg Galluzzo and Mary Gonzales, founded a group called UNO of Chicago, which you worked with closely during your early organizing years. Your other key organizing mentor, Gerald Kellman, worked with UNO just before hiring you. He specialized in linking community organizations to churches. UNO of Chicago engaged in deeply controversial Alinskyite confrontation tactics, including aggressive moves to seize control of churches against the wishes of their priests. What, precisely, was your relationship with UNO of Chicago? Were you aware of UNO’s controversial techniques for taking control of churches, as your memoir seems to indicate you were? What do you think of these tactics? How has your view on that issue affected your years of subsequent support for the work of Galluzzo, Gonzales, and Kellman?
6. Reverend Wright has said that he sees no real separation between religion and political activism. Your community organizing mentors and colleagues at the Midwest Academy and UNO of Chicago also seem to have treated religion as an occasion for hard-left political activism. Your extensive foundation work was largely devoted to funding community organizing ventures — often religious in character, but always sharply left-leaning. Is your longstanding record of delivering financial support to both the religious and secular hard-left compatible with your claim to be a pragmatic, post-ideological problem-solver? Has your public self-presentation been influenced by the fact that your organizing mentors habitually disguised their own hard-left political convictions by claiming to be pragmatic, post-ideological problem-solvers?
Don’t expect any of these to be asked at his next press conference.
And then, there’s this (emphasis added):
Article VI:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
There’s a huge difference between a religious test being “required” and voters being interested in knowing whether a candidate’s religious views will shape his policy stances. Just like religious right nutjobs can vote for someone because they want them to bring God to Washington, I have every right to vote against someone if that is what they will do. And if a candidate evades questions about their religion, I have every right to assume the worst and vote for someone who is openly more secular-minded.
Assuming that an atheist was running for office and actually wanted to win, they’d have the choice of either evading religious questions or lying about them (there might be some places in the US where an openly atheist person could win an election, but there aren’t many of them).
The NYT columnist is seeking answers from Republicans on religious questions but not from Obama. While not an official government religious test, it’s a Press sanctioned one. It’s just another example of liberal media bias.
And wappledoo, leftwing nutjobs have been forcing their socialist and environmentalist religious views down everyone’s throat for a long, long time.
I’m Christian, but there are circumstances where I could see voting for an avowed atheist. Most politicians, IMO, are functionally atheist anyway (or worship themselves). They’d have to have an established track record of favorable policies towards me and mine on issues I consider existential, but that’s honestly true whatever religion they profess or don’t profess.
“There’s a huge difference between a religious test being “required” and voters being interested in knowing whether a candidate’s religious views will shape his policy stances.”
That is the question that could be asked but not a bunch of theological questions about the bible and their beliefs.
The Theocracy fear mongering is a little over the top in my opinion.
@ wappledoo I could not care less about any candidate’s religious views unless they sought to impose them on their national policies, so no GAIA Earth worshiping secular religion that bankrupts me and the nation via Cap & Trade, no AGW warmist secular cult that does the same, no belief in world government that abrogates 2nd Amendment Rights in the US.. You get the drift.
I recall reading a TIME magazine article about Obamas religion prior to the 2008 election. I was raised Mormon and had some exposure to Liberation theology discussions within Mormon circles, and also came across Black liberation theology materials during college. After reading the article, I saw a stealth theocrat in Obama, and was amazed no one was calling him out on it. I’ve since concluded that in general, US voters are just not intellectually versed or prepared to see how much of Obamas actions fit within a Liberation theology framework. We have a Theocrat in power folks. Only most folks don’t have any idea how to tie the two together.
Keller didn’t ask Mitt Romney if he thinks Mike Huckabee is a Christian.
The truth is that neither thinks the other is a Christian – assuming Huck is a Trinitarian and Mitt really believes Joe the Prophet. Trinitarians say Jesus is an eternal being – God. Mormons (among others) say Jesus is a created being. Two sects that have such radically differing definitions of Christ cannot logically regard each other as Christian, any more than Ted Turner and Ollie North can agree on the definition of “un-American.”
During the 2008 election I envisioned how Mitt should address the question. He should have acknowledged that each regards the other as not-Christian, and that it shouldn’t be a big political deal because a) Mormons and Trinitarians don’t run to the government to settle their doctrinal differences, and b) voting should be based on “thou shalt not steal” – vote for the candidate who will steal the least.
Unfortunately, Romney is too much of a coward to express such candor, and RomneyCare undermines his ability to claim that he is the least thievish of the candidates.
So if I were running for president, here is how I would answer Keller’s questions. Tell me if you find my answers as frightening as he apparently does.
1. Is it fair to question presidential candidates about details of their faith?
Yes.
2. Is it fair to question candidates about controversial remarks made by their pastors, mentors, close associates or thinkers whose books they recommend?
Yes.
3. (a) Do you agree with those religious leaders who say that America is a “Christian nation” or “Judeo-Christian nation?”
Yes, although I may differ with them on how I would define that term.
(b) What does that mean in practice?
America was founded on Christian principles, mainly by Christians, and its institutions historically have been friendly to Christian practice. To this day it is mainly populated with people who profess to be Christian. None of this implies, however, that one must be a Christian to fully participate in our society and our government. Freedom of religion is one of our founders’ core principles.
4. If you encounter a conflict between your faith and the Constitution and laws of the United States, how would you resolve it? Has that happened, in your experience?
I see no conflict between the moral law of God and the Constitution of the United States. I would strive to fulfill both to the best of my ability. However, I could never violate my conscience, even if a law demanded it.
5. (a) Would you have any hesitation about appointing a Muslim to the federal bench? (b) What about an atheist?
Only if they appeared likely to use their position to advance their religious beliefs.
6. Are Mormons Christians, in your view? Should the fact that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons influence how we think of them as candidates?
Mormon teaching is incompatible with core Christian doctrines. You can’t be both a Mormon and a Christian. And yes, people are free to form their opinions of political candidates based on their religious convictions, as you are clearly doing.
7. What do you think of the evangelical Christian movement known as Dominionism and the idea that Christians, and only Christians, should hold dominion over the secular institutions of the earth?
I’m not familiar with the term Dominionism but I certainly do not agree that any religious test should be applied to those who hold public office.
8. (a) What is your attitude toward the theory of evolution?
As a Christian, I do not require a naturalistic theory of origin, and I do not find the theory of evolution persuasive. In particular, the mathematical probabilities of developing complex life forms via random mutation have not been adequately calculated and warrant further exploration.
(b) Do you believe it should be taught in public schools?
Yes, but an honest assessment of the questions and difficulties should be straightforwardly presented. In addition, since this question is fundamental to people’s worldviews (both theist and atheist), evolution should be presented in that context. To pretend there is no controversy does a disservice to all.
9. Do you believe it is proper for teachers to lead students in prayer in public schools?
That question should be decided at the local level, but in no case should anyone, teacher or student, be required to participate or made to feel unwelcome if they do not.
My answer to 8(b) is “Whatever the parents want.” In my earliest bloggiing days I addressed the issue, and offered that government control over the flow of information is always a bad idea, whether the medium is the press or the schools.
I’m still waiting for the Bill-and-Ted-attempt-to-make-a-real-life-Pokemon theory of the origins of the platypus to catch on.
Alan K. Henderson Said…
Trinitarians say Jesus is an eternal being – God. Mormons (among others) say Jesus is a created being. Two sects that have such radically differing definitions of Christ cannot logically regard each other as Christian
Lots of Christians think that the requirement to be a Christian is to except Jesus as Lord and Savior and to try to live the way He taught. By that standard Trinitarians, Mormons, Baptists and even Catholics are all Christians. Now they do not all think that the others will go to heaven but many will accept that the others are at least nominally Christians.
Uh, the Baptist and Catholic faiths are Trinitarian. And Mormons don’t accept Jesus as Lord – “Lord” as used in that context is a title exclusive to God.
Whether Jesus is God or a mere prophet makes a big difference in defining the basic relationship between Jesus and his followers.
If two faiths have salvation concepts diametrically opposed to one another, then the statement “both accept Jesus as Savior” is false. Unless he engages in Hegelian doublethink, Jesus cannot agree with both.
Then there’s the question of personality. The Book of Mormon (I’ve read the whole thing) says scarcely anything about Jesus, so I can’t say how much the Jesus of Mormonism has in common with that of Trinitarians (or of Jehovah’s Witnesses). I think it’s safe to say that Isa (the Muslim version) has a personality radically different than any Western concept of Jesus.
For what it’s worth, please know there are some inaccurate characterizations of Mormonism in this thread. As just one example, to claim that the Book of Mormon “says scarcely anything about Jesus” is to demonstrate that one is not familiar with the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon references Jesus more than any other concept, and more often per page than the Bible.
While it’s been 30 years since I read the book (a more recent read than Dune by 5 years), I should be able to recall major themes. The Nephites crossing the Atlantic in the spherical boat, their waxing and waning fidelity to God, the recurring heresy of “priestcraft,” the major battle in upstate New York – and in the middle of it all Jesus’ visit to the New World.
By “scarcely anything about Jesus” I mean that I don’t remember the Book of Mormon doing much to describe Jesus.
Fortunately there are Internet outlines of the BoM that can help me find the section dealing with Jesus’ visit (3 Nephi 9-19). Prior to the visit, Jesus’ voice is heard throughout the land, listing off various cities that were destroyed for their iniquities. Then Jesus shows up in person, delivers a long oratory (much of it a restatement of the Sermon on the Mount to a new crowd), heals the sick, institutes the sacrament of communion, appoints 12 disciples, and leaves.
In themselves, those chapters don’t tell us much about Jesus. That’s not a criticism, it’s just a fact. BoM purports to be another testament of Jesus, so it doesn’t have to do what is already accomplished in the Gospels. Of course, LDS claims that the Bible is riddled with serious mistranslations, so the Bible is rooted in the pronouncements of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and not vice versa.