So, I'm watching the compassion debate the other night, which I found quite fascinating, considering that I was expecting a bit more compassion from the commentators as much as from the candidates (which, of course, did not happen!)
It strikes me, as the Pope comes to the United States for the first time, that voters really care about all this values mumbo-jumbo. The truth is that none of the three candidates, Democrat or Republican, will repeal Roe v. Wade on his or her own, or really deal with any of these "pro-life" issues considering that we are in a war that McCain could see lasting 100 years!
Both candidates are wearing their faith on their sleeves, much to the detriment of Obama, but, strangely, McCain is not. I honestly don't know what religion he is, and I'm kind of curious to know, just for my own knowledge, but oh well.
It really seems like some moot points were made in the last debate, and I consider myself a fairly religious/spiritual person who cares about values in the larger scheme of things. I wonder if these debates are more for the gratification of a media that enjoys turning politics into a game and an audience that goes along with whatever the media wants them to believe.
posted by Anonymous | 3:52 PM
10 Comments:
As we've discussed the strengths and weaknesses of debates in class, I think it's obvious most debates are for the media. Some of the downfalls for debates are the emphasis on strategy, winning, and avoiding gaffes. All of these elements are directed at the media and how candidates are perceived through the media.
When I watched the debate I agree that the media was trying to add in things that did not matter in the least as to what each candidate would do if they were elected president. I liked how Obama talked down the media and made it clear that some of the questions being asked by the moderator were irrelevant, and I found it really interesting when Hillary would jump on the media band wagon in order to make these issues seem more important.
It's amazing how the media has such an impact on the way candidates are perceived. The only issue that really scares me is are people who are not watching debates only trusting the media for their so-called "facts"? Even though Obama talked down to the media, could that negatively impact him in the long run?
I think that it is a good thing that the candidates do not use their religion as an excuse to exercise any sort of change in government. Roe vs. Wade was something legally decided upon, whether or not the president is Christian should not affect the way in which the government works. I personally don't care if the president is Catholic, Muslim, an Atheist, Jewish, etc. because all that should matter is how well they can lead the country. This isn't personal, it's politics.
I guess I have been oblivious to the role of the Pope in our recent American politics talk, which is shocking since I live off CNN and Fox News. So I commend you, Mary, for bringing this topic into my view. I found Arielle's comment to coincide with the belief of my own.
I agree that it shouldn't matter what religion you are if you want to be President. This country is a melting-pot of religions and it should not matter if one person, the prez, happens to be of a certain faith. He (or she) is just one person, in a democratic country. If he was a dictator though...that would be a different story.
John McCain
Age: Old
Religion: Anglican/Episcopalian
Political Party: Republican (aka The Good Guys)
Will he push for Roe v. Wade to be overturned: No chance, remember he isn't truly a conservative
Didn't JFK run over this issue of religion during his campaign? His speech is still discussed today. Debates are in the same way, except current. The media is known for their overemphasis on gaffes and Obama talking down to the media might have a negative effect on him.
Mary, you rightly comment on the agenda setting power of the media as you close your blog. Having not initially considered the religious practices and beliefs and candidates until recently (read:when you brought it up) I find myself examining how often I have heard of these issues in passing from the mass media. While the religious affiliation of any candidate does not matter to me in the long run, we once again see the media finding an issue where there is no issue to be had. If we are truly a country founded in part on the ideal of religious freedom, then I would hope that political candidates are themselves free to keep private their own religious beliefs if they so desire.
1) Most pro-lifers have come to the realization that roe v. wade will not be overturned, they strive to weaken it.
2) It was decided upon and approached as a matter of public health, not a moral issue.
3) We have the separation of Church and State for a reason, and I undoubtedly believe that it will remain intact.
Religion is a factor to consider when deciding on a candidate. But I also think that it is weighted differently for each individual person. Some people believe that it is extremely important while others may not. I'm not saying that religion equates with a candidates ability to use humor in their campaign...but i sort of am. It is a quality that makes them appealing, it identifies that they have some morals and are not a heathen. But to question the actual religion of a person is unwarranted. I think that was established after JFK.
Post a Comment
<< Home