It’s hard to decide which is more outragous: one of the many idiotic statements by US presidential hopeful John McCain, the typically narrowminded slant of the mainstream media report on his comments, or the pathetic clarification offered by McCain’s camp.
In a Saturday interview on Beliefnet, McCain said that “since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles, personally, I prefer someone who has a grounding in my faith” to be elected president. While he has a right to his personal preferences, it is stunning that an alleged leader of the Republican Party can be so vocally unaware of the founding principles of the country he would lead.
McCain further demonstrated Bushian comprehension of the American Constitution, stating “I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation“. Thus, McCain dismissed the hard-fought efforts of the Framers to separate church and state.
Digging a deeper hole, McCain attempted to explain himself on Sunday, by declaring “What I do mean to say is the United States of America was founded on the values of Judeo-Christian values, which were translated by our founding fathers which is basically the rights of human dignity and human rights.” Not content to merely diminish the memory of the founders of the country and ignore the constitutional fabric of the nation, with his explanation McCain simultaneously insulted all other faith groups as well as millions of atheists and secularists by implying that the “rights of human dignity” are unique to “Judeo-Christian values”, and turning a blind eye to the long history of ignoring such rights. One need look no further than the religious right’s disproportionate support of a brutal occupation of Iraq that is destroying the human rights and dignity of millions.
The term Judeo-Christian is a common rhetorical device used by American politicians. Normally, they conduct their Christian-pandering outside of the media spotlight. When their statements come to the attention of the public, fear of offending the strong Jewish voting block invariably results in public prostrating to the “Judeo” prefix in the hope that Jewish voters are no brighter than Christian evangelicals when it comes to recognizing political pandering.
As is common with mainstream media, CNN’s reporting on McCain’s remarks focused entirely on the context of possible insult to Muslims and Jews, thus carrying on the MSM tradition of ignoring the approximately 4 billion members of the human population (60%), that are neither Christian, Muslim, nor Jewish.
And in case there were any doubt about McCain and his handlers, the final clarification was provided by his communication director, Jill Hazelbaker, who said the following:
“In the interview he … observed that the values protected by the Constitution, by which he meant values such as respect for human life and dignity, are rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. That is all he intended to say to the question, America is a Christian nation, and it is hardly a controversial claim.”
Hazelbaker confirmed McCain’s mistaken notion that values protected by the Constitution are unique to “Judeo-Christian tradition”.
Even more appalling is her affirmation of McCain’s statement that “America is a Christian nation”, and that it “is not controversial”. In addition to laying bare an ignorance of history and 218 years of Constitutional law, it is a statement that is highly offensive to non-Christian citizens who like to believe they are equally American. One presumes that the statement “America is a white nation” would never be uttered by a presidential candidate, much less defended.
11 Comments
October 2, 2007 at 5:36 am
This is a terrific post, gorn. It articulates exactly what I feel each time I hear someone espouse these views expressed by McCain.
October 2, 2007 at 6:26 am
If the U.S. were a Christian nation, affordable health care would be a protected human right, not a partisan debate.
October 2, 2007 at 6:37 am
So much for Gandhi’s efforts and ultimate sacrifice. They don’t count because he wasn’t jew nor christian.
October 2, 2007 at 6:38 am
Oh, and don’t forget the actual struggle of the Myanmar BUDDHISTS monks.
In short, McCain is a loser idiot. Or an idiot loser.
October 2, 2007 at 6:39 am
Or, the chinese students deffending their rights against tanks.
October 2, 2007 at 7:54 am
Or, the chinese students deffending their rights against tanks.
Led by a Uyghur muslim, no less…
October 2, 2007 at 8:58 am
Great post, Gorn. All I can ever summon up is a link or two; I appreciate the effort you’ve put into writing this. And the pun? Yeeeeesh. I love it.
October 2, 2007 at 9:47 am
Our Xian foreign policy:
Do unto others before they might have some capability of doing anything to Israel.
October 2, 2007 at 10:16 am
McCain’s clarifications following his initial remarks went on like:
Question: It doesn’t seem like a Muslim candidate would do very well, according to that standard.
MCCAIN: 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.*
*McCain contacted Beliefnet after the interview to clarify his remarks: “I would vote for a Muslim if he or she was the candidate best able to lead the country and defend our political values.”
If he had tried one more time, he would have ‘clarified’ himself into a complete circle and out of his initial statement.
October 2, 2007 at 10:35 am
MCCAIN: I admire the Islam.
But does he use The Google?
October 2, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Toasterhead: “If the U.S. were a Christian nation, affordable health care would be a protected human right, not a partisan debate.”
I know what you were getting at here, but the way you worded it suggests the same notion that a “Christian nation” would offer superior human rights compared to a secular state.
I think what you meant to say was something like: “If human rights and dignity are a bedrock value of Christianity as McCain claims, then a country dominated by Christians ought to feature affordable quality health care for its citizens.”
Instead, the Christian religious right is more likely to vote against meaningful health care reform while those icky Democrats and atheists are more likely to be in favor of reform.