Posted by Siamang on: 10.01.2007 /
Presidential candidate Senator John McCain was asked by BeliefNet
if a Muslim would be a good candidate for President. He answered:
I don’t think that’s a question that should even come up. If America is, as we profess, a nation of tolerance and pluralism, where our differences strengthen us, then we have to accept that people of differing spiritual beliefs can come together. It doesn’t matter if they’re Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or of any other faith, or indeed people who follow no faith tradition. The important part of the equation is that America has this great history of leading the way toward tolerance and diversity… and that’s something very much to be admired.
And further, I think it’s time we got beyond this stage in the national dialogue. We’ve been having this same argument from the era of John F. Kennedy and from even before that. And it’s way beyond the point where the American public needs to grow up and learn that this kind of religious popularity contest, which is what it is, has no place in the politics of a mature democracy.
Oh crap. That’s NOT what he answered. What he answered was this:
“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?’
“I admire the Islam. There’s a lot of good principles in it. I think one of the great tragedies of the 21st century is that these forces of evil have perverted what’s basically an honorable religion. But, no, I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles…. personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith. But that doesn’t mean that I’m sure that someone who is Muslim would not make a good president. I don’t say that we would rule out under any circumstances someone of a different faith. I just would–I just feel that that’s an important part of our qualifications to lead.”
That doesn’t mean that ALL muslims are bad… just, hey, why risk it when there are so many qualified Christians?!?
Good to know he “admires the Islam”. I’m sure some of his best friends are the Islam, he just wouldn’t want one running the country.
He’s since made a clarifying statement that I don’t think in any way apologizes or backs away from what he said earlier:
“I would vote for a Muslim if he or she was the candidate best able to lead the country and defend our political values.”
Which seems to be artfully vague, if he counts among the political values to be upheld the idea that “the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation”. No Muslim would be able to pass that test. You might as well say “I would vote for a woman as long as she upheld the idea of male superiority.”
-Siamang
Comment by: Mike O
1This is what we call here in Minnesota the “non-apology apology”
Sort of like “I’m sorry if you took it that way” or “I’m sorry your butt’s so big.”
Comment by: Mike O
2It’s insights like this that I’ll never get in church. You’re right.
All things being equal (which is a very important clause!), I would prefer a Christian because I am a Christian. Who wouldn’t prefer a likeminded candidate? Do democrats give equal consideration to republicans? Or vice versa? I doubt it, because there are basic differences in views that would tend to color our perception of the actual man/woman. For example, if you tell me someone is a republican and nothing else, I’ll be predisposed to agree with them because I am a republican. Now, once I get some more information, I do have a brain and wouldn’t just swallow wholesale everything they say. But the predisposition would be there.
If he’s predisposed to prefer a Christian candidate (as I would be), so be it. But methinks he could have handled that better.
Comment by: Karen
3Ick - what’s that stench? Oh, I know. I just got a whiff of desperation.
This is the guy who called Falwell an agent of intolerance? I’m seriously in danger of losing any respect I had for the man. Geez.
Or my favorite: “Sorry if your feelings were hurt.” In other words, I’m not apologizing because you’re at fault for being overly sensitive.
Comment by: Stephan
4I’m relieved that I don’t have to change my plans not to vote for him.
Of the Republicans running I would call him one of the least bad, but that’s not saying much. I really don’t see much that I like about any of them. And that’s coming from a former staunch Republican.
Comment by: Karen
5What’s really interesting, for us political wonks anyway, is that the religious right really doesn’t have an acceptable, highly popular candidate at this point. Romney’s a Mormon, Giuliani’s pro-choice, Thompson’s unmotivated and ill-informed and Huckabee is trailing. And it’s only a year before the election - that’s amazing.
I just read today that Dobson and Perkins were at a conference last weekend talking about running a third-party candidate if Giuliani is the Republican nominee. Of course that will shred the Republican vote probably even more so than Nader did to Gore. Talk about a major turnaround from a few years ago, when they seemed to think they had the century all sewn up!
I would gloat, but that wouldn’t be very humanist of me. :-)
Comment by: Siamang
6As an atheist who’s never (to my knowlege) had the option of an atheist candidate, I can say I have no problem pulling the lever for the (Christian) candidate who nevertheless I think is the best person running. So we have different ways of expressing our beliefs on one day of the week.
I once voted for McCain. Sadly, I don’t recognize today what I once saw in the man.
Comment by: Mike O
7I didn’t mean to say if there was a Christian, I would vote for them. On the contrary, I tend to vote for people who are *not* single issue candidates, even if I agree. For example, if someone were running *because* they were pro-life, *for* the pro-life agenda, that would actually be a negative in my mind - and I’m pro-life. My predisposition would be that that person would be unbalanced in their judgement and unless there were some other redeeming qualities to go along with it, they wouldn’t get my vote just because they’re pro-life.
And I wouldn’t vote for a Christian just because “we need more Christians in leadership.” I think we do (you’ll disagree - that’s fine), but they must be a worthy candidate, and way too many unworthy candidates get on ballots simply becasue they support an agenda. Even mine.
Sorry if I rambled.
Comment by: Richard Wade
8Focusing on the “Christian nation” remark by McCain and ignoring his hasty qualifiers soon thereafter, Pat Robertson said that that kind of statement would get John McCain elected President.
Dream on Pat. Why this guy thinks that presenting himself as the clone of the worst president in history is a good campaign strategy is beyond comprehension.
Comment by: Siamang
9I’m thinking Pat’s planning on another electoral miracle like 2000… some divine– or perhaps judicial– intervention.
Comment by: Mike O
10It would have to be divine - I don’t think there are more than 20 or 30 mortals that would vote for him.
Comment by: Mike O
11Or did you mean divine intervention for McCain?