March 5, 2014
Netanyahu's inaction to Obama's provocations sends powerful message
Kerry, after apparent criticism by Schumer, seeks to allay skepticism on diplomacy
How to ruin a perfectly good kid in 10 simple steps
2014 Oscars played it safe, but was faith lost in the shuffle?
Apple joins Hobby Lobby in touting corporate values beyond profit
March 3, 2014
Alina Dain Sharon: In the Hebrew calendar, a leap year has extra month, not day
Latest Obama appointment to prove Prez set on emasculating so-called Israel Lobby
Jewish World Review
Sept. 12, 2007
/ 29 Elul, 5767
The Almighty as non-candidate
Editor's note: Jewish law forbids writing out the Creator's name in full. The problem arises when folks PRINT out articles and discard them in, say, the trash. This, according to Jewish Law is disrespectful and forbidden. To solve this potential problem, believing Jews do not write out His name in full.
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | The field of presidential candidates is nearly complete. Only Newt Gingrich remains to decide or announce if he has decided whether he, too, will run for president. His decision is expected in November.
There is one person who is definitely not running, but may be invoked as the ultimate adviser. That would be G-d.
Writing in Time magazine, essayist Michael Kinsley raises some questions about presidential candidates who want G-d as their "running mate." Kinsley would like them to go beyond the superficial "G-d bless you and G-d bless America" benediction. He wants to know to what extent G-d and a candidate's understanding of Him might affect public policy should that person be elected.
Kinsley asserts that former New York Governor Mario Cuomo was unable to be a "good Catholic" and simultaneously a good governor of New York because he differed with his church's teachings on abortion, among other controversial social issues. He also says he thinks it impossible or at least very difficult for Mitt Romney to be president and a good Mormon for the same reason. "I want to know what G-d is telling them," writes Kinsley, "just as I would want to know what Karl Rove was telling them if they claimed him for an adviser. If religion is central to their lives and moral systems, then it cannot be the candidates' 'own private affair.'"
|FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER|
Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.
Fair enough. While the two "kingdoms" are separated and, some might argue, headed in different directions, it is perfectly proper for candidates to be asked whether G-d requires them to impose His will as they perceive it through legislation and judicial mandate. If not, why not? If one believes, for example, that G-d created life at conception, does that mean all life is sacred and deserves protection in law, or are certain lives, namely those created in difficult circumstances, such as the tiny number conceived through rape or incest, dispensable?
But this coin has a flip side. If Kinsley would require candidates who worship and claim to know G-d to come clean about any hidden agendas they might have, should not full disclosure also be required of those who practice a religion of political convenience and even the secularist and the practical atheist (which would include a non-theistic candidate as well as one who simply invokes G-d's name for political reasons, but doesn't seriously believe in Him)?
On what basis does the non-theistic and practical atheist make moral choices, which include going to war and capital punishment? One might answer, "the Constitution," but to many liberals the Constitution is a "living document" subject to constant interpretation, re-interpretation and revision to match "the times." So is it the times that shape such a presidential candidate, or something more permanent?
Democrats, most notably Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have invoked G-d and Scripture during their campaigns. But theirs is a selective reading. Their theology meshes with the political objectives of their party and personal ideology. They quote Scripture about caring for the poor and interpret that to mean higher taxes and bigger government. They ignore those passages that speak of the inner life.
Conservatives can also practice a theology of political convenience, cherry-picking those subjects that rally "the base" and tickle the ears of the church-going, while ignoring mandates that make them uncomfortable, such as opposing racial discrimination, injustice and poverty. They want lower taxes and smaller government but often are not willing to take up the slack and get their hands dirty to help the poor, unlike the One they claim to follow. Not always, but mostly.
While Kinsley asks some good questions, who among the journalists and talk show hosts has the background to ask them directly of the candidates? Those without theological training or experience in faith often find such questions embarrassing because they don't want to face ridicule from their mostly secular colleagues. But to hide these issues in the catacombs of journalism is a poor excuse. The questions should be asked of both the religious and the secular to help voters make up their minds which ones best adhere to Godly principles and to determine what standards govern the ones who do not.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Cal Thomas is the author of, among others, The Wit and Wisdom of Cal Thomas Comment by clicking here.
Cal Thomas Archives
© 2006, Tribune Media Services, Inc.