Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Faith Of Our Fred.

Fred Thompson, the candidate the media loves to hate, is finally drawing some MSM attention...

...for his lack of god-bothering street cred. USA Today even reprinted an excerpt from a Pat Robertson email saying "He is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!" (To me, that's an endorsement, but I'm given to understand that some people actually take Rev. Pat seriously.) When badgered by a reporter recently about his religious beliefs, Fred replied:
"As far as faith is concerned, I have not made any secret as to where I am. I am a Christian... I have no apologies to make about my religion or my relationship to Jesus Christ or God."
...when what he should have said was "Well, Article Six of the Constitution clearly says 'no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.'" Of course, that doesn't seem to play well in Peoria these days...

11 comments:

Yu-Ain Gonnano said...

...when what he should have said was "Well, Article Six of the Constitution clearly says 'no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.'"

Considering his tone seemed rather "It's private and not a matter for the public", I kinda thought he did.

Stushie said...

For someone who claims to be a Christian and wants the religious vote, to then go on to say that he doesn't go to church, except when he visits momma, will kill his chances of being the chosen candidate.

Tam said...

I sometimes wish the evangelicals would go back to Jimmy Carter.

Reagan's election wasn't worth this.

Kevin said...

For someone who claims to be a Christian and wants the religious vote, to then go on to say that he doesn't go to church, except when he visits momma, will kill his chances of being the chosen candidate.

That's called "not pandering."

It's remarkably refreshing from a political candidate.

Sigivald said...

The Religious Tests clause means only that the State can't require you to affirm or deny a religious belief or doctrine.

As far as I know, the Founders never anyone to take it as "nobody shall consider a candidate's religious beliefs when deciding their vote"; if they had, one presumes Article VI would have been written in a way that states that, rather than not even implying it (given its context of the oaths of office for Congress and the various Officers of the union).

Caring about the religion of a candidate might be unwise, but it is by no means unconstitutional.

Joe said...

Fred has a bit of a problem, he neither sucks up nor does he lie. What do you do with a guy who just gives straight plain answers?

I think we might be well off to elect him president.

OA said...

Hell, I'm neither in Peoria nor particularly religious and it would have sounded like little more than weasel words to me. God forbid a politician actually answer a question for once.

Projecting one's lack of belief is just as bad as projecting one's beliefs.

Paul Simer said...

Sigivald wins the cookie!



Politicians are chosen based on all sorts of factors that may or may not be relevant, but certainly aren't codified.

For instance, some people wouldn't dream of voting for a presidential candidate that doesn't share their "Christian Conservative" views and lifestyle. Some folks, like Tamara apparently, refuse to consider voting for someone who doesn't ignore or at least trivialize faith when selling themselves to the public.

Neither is right or wrong, at least in a political sense. Just keep in mind that it can be just as foolish to ignore a candidate's other views just because they happened to (shock) answer a question about their faith as it is to dismiss out of hand a declared atheist or someone who gives pat, meaningless answers to such questions.

I've seen lots of the latter with family and friends, and an annoyingly large amount of the former right here on my favorite blog.

Steve Skubinna said...

I wish Fred has simply thrust his fist into the reporter's chest cavity and plucked out his heart.

Well, I'll probably still vote for him anyway.

LabRat said...

I don't really give a damn what faith or lack thereof a candidate is, but it gets really bloody annoying when candidates try to out-God one another- not because I'm concerned about being in the hands of the faithful, but because it's so often such transparent pandering that has nothing to do with their actual faith or lack thereof at all.

All the believers I've had the most respect and admiration for did NOT bandy their piety about, though they didn't keep it a secret either. They went around being honest, charitable, patient, and all the rest, trusting that that would speak more loudly than words. They were right, it did.

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full."
-Matthew 6:5

Some of these folks didn't read that bit.

Matt G said...

"To me, that's an endorsement, but I'm given to understand that some people actually take Rev. Pat seriously"

One wonders....