Posted by Siamang on: 11.05.2007 /
Beliefnet and Time Magazine have partnered to bring us the “God-o-meter”. The God-o-meter is a cute way of tracking the God talk of each candidate.
Two reactions. One is that the Democrats appear to be just as God-talky as the Republicans… some even moreso, which is weird when one of the Republicans is a Baptist minister!
The other is that the 11-point scale goes from “Secularist” to “Theocrat”. Excuse me for a moment of non-parity. Wouldn’t a rating of zero mean that the candidate advocated complete neutrality on the question of religion?
Isn’t it skewing the discussion when they call “government neutrality to religious beliefs” the polar opposite to theocracy? Would a truer meter go the other way to -10, which would signify advocating a state-mandated abolition of religion, a la certain communist states?
(Not that I would be happy to see anyone fall into negative territory. But then again, I’m not happy to see so many people so close to the positive absolute as well.)
-Siamang
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Eliza
1 11/5/07 8:17 AM | Comment Link |Interesting. Good observations, Siamang, about the assumptions it promotes.
Can’t help but note that the 2 Democrats lowest on the scoreboard are the 2 I haven’t heard of. They may not be as well-known because they don’t speak about religion, or perhaps they don’t feel they have to speak about religion because they’re not front-runners….who knows.
Anyone here know whether there’s a campaign among liberals to promote Ron Paul as Republican candidate? (Presumably thinking he couldn’t win the general election -?) I’ve seen a suspiciously high number of “Ron Paul for President” bumperstickers & signs around (liberal) Seattle, and the Northern Sun catalog that just came in the mail offers that bumpersticker for sale (among their liberal-messaged stickers). Seems odd…
Comment by: cautious
2 11/5/07 2:52 PM | Comment Link |I really liked Gravel’s answer to the faith question at the Iowa debates. He’s spiritual but he’s a UU, which…well ok it’s the only kind of spiritual I in any way would promote, so maybe I’m just biased.
Dodd on the other hand, he just seems to find the matter of talking about faith publicly to be not at all his style.
Um, Ron Paul appeals to conservatives who consider themselves to be too cool to be Republican. These people, like Ron Paul does, sometimes stick the name “Libertarian” on their viewpoint. Which is pretty much a lie, since, in all reality, a libertarian would want government and law to stay away from a woman’s uterus, which Ron seems to not agree with.
Comment by: Mike O
3 11/6/07 10:10 AM | Comment Link |I don’t get your point. It seems like they’re measuring how much religious-speak they have, in which case 0 would be “none,” right? You can’t talk about religion less than 0.
Comment by: cautious
4 11/6/07 10:47 PM | Comment Link |Well you can talk about religion in a positive way or in a negative way. Richard Dawkins talks about religion quite a lot but not at all in glowing terms. Thus he would be on the “negative” slider of the scale. As opposed to all politicians (in this country) (who have a job) who are, basically, forced to say good things about religion, even if they personally dont care.
Comment by: Mike O
5 11/7/07 11:21 AM | Comment Link |I was thinking about this on the way to work today. I, an avowed Christian, would put no stock - almost negative stock - in the God-o-meter. Politicians will say whatever will garner them votes. I’m not saying they “lie,” per se, but people who talk religiously don’t impress me. I’d vote for or against them based on their track record, not the words they say.
I could even vote for an atheist if I thought he/she would advance the ideals I value (which tend to lean towards the conservative, obviously).