• 
• CLASS
• JOBS
• AUTO
• HOMES

No to Jesus Candidate. What do YOU think?

No to Jesus Candidate. What do YOU think?

I was shocked by Rick Santorum’s assertion about a “Jesus candidate." What about US citizens of various world religions? What about US citizens, like me, who claim the identity “Christian,” but do NOT agree with the imposition of religion as the key identity for a US Presidential candidate? What do YOU think?

When I heard Rick Santorum’s assertion about a “Jesus candidate," I immediately thought of the very incisive response by US Vice-president candidate Lloyd Bentsen to GOP US Vice-president candidate Dan Quayle’s assertion that he had as much experience in the US Congress as former US President John F. Kennedy when he ran for US President, “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.” You can use this link if you want to see it, Lloyd Bentenson responds to Dan Quayle, “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”

I thought, “Senator, you’re no Jesus!” What do YOU think?

Since hearing Santorum’s assertion, I have been reading with interest and concern the various responses. I empathize with the responses reported by Joshua Hersh on the Huff Post Politics, “Rick Santorum Slammed By Jewish Groups For ‘Jesus Candidate’ Remarks.”

What about US citizens of various world religions? What about US citizens, like me, who claim the identity “Christian,” but do NOT agree with the imposition of religion as the key identity for a US Presidential candidate? What do YOU think?

And then when I heard Newt Gingrich’s admonition to Romney to “drop the pious baloney” yesterday, I wondered why he attacked only Romney? Why not Santorum? Why not Perry?

The ONLY GOP CANDIATE whom I would except from the “pious baloney” charge would be RON PAUL. I do NOT agree with his Libertarian stance, but I do RESPECT his long-standing political stance which has integrity and candor. Do YOU?

If you want to see Gingrich’s attack on Romney, use this link: “Gingrich tells Romney to ‘drop the pious baloney’.”

In the context of this on-going GOP campaign for a US Presidential candidate, I read Ken Starr’s OpEd column in yesterday’s Washington Post with much appreciation and agreement. I urge you to read it, “Can I vote for a Mormon?”

Ken Starr has outstanding credentials and credibility with the GOP community based on his work as a lawyer, including the long, in-depth investigation of US President Bill Clinton.

If you want to review Ken Starr's biography, the Wikipedia article will inform you. "Ken Starr." Ken Starr is NOW president of Baylor University in Waco, TX.

He brings into focus the US CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE re. candidates for office. I agree with Ken Starr. After you read his column, I will be interested in YOUR comment. Do YOU agree with Ken Starr on the US Constitution?

Referring to the question being asked by some US citizens, “Can I vote for a Mormon?” Starr acknowledges that it is a VERY important question in our constitutional democracy. He proceeds to deftly analyze the US Constitutional principle and our constitutional traditions, including the “traditions of welcoming religious forbearance.” AMEN & AMEN!

He argues, “To support this proposition, I return to the founding of our constitutional republic — boasting as we rightly do the oldest Constitution in the history of the planet. Only 27 amendments have been ratified to that basic document over our 222 years as a representative democracy. In fashioning this remarkably enduring document, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia made it absolutely clear that no religious test should ever be imposed to hold office. The Founders also made clear that religious dissenters (such as the Quakers) should not be compelled to take an oath if doing so would be a violation of conscience. Building on those twin pillars of tolerance, the Supreme Court at its finest moments has likewise vigorously defended the right of all persons to participate in the democratic process, including holding office, without the burden of religious tests or qualifications.”

Read and consider carefully Starr’s incisive review of the “essential questions” for all office seekers regardless of their faith journey or history, “The first is: Does the candidate subscribe completely to our constitutional structure, including freedom of conscience for persons of all faiths — or no faith? A second question for the thoughtful voter is related to and flows from the first: Will the candidate subscribe, without any “mental hesitation or purpose of evasion,” to the oath to protect and defend America’s Constitution? If the answers to those closely connected questions are yes, then voters should proceed to cast their ballot on the basis of the candidate’s qualifications, platform and policy positions — not the candidate’s membership (or lack thereof) in a particular faith community.”

Be sure to review with Starr the recent experience dealing in a HEALTHY WAY with what he identifies as “great cultural chasm between Catholics and Protestants was politically overcome with the election of John F. Kennedy. Similarly, then-Vice President Al Gore’s choice of Sen. Joe Lieberman, a practicing Jew, as his running mate in 2000 signaled the welcoming openness of America’s democratic experience to individuals who did not share the Christian faith but were honorable statesmen of steely commitment to America’s constitutional principles.” I agree! Do YOU?

I have been alarmed by Santorum’s move as characterized by Dan Gilgoff and Eric Marrapodi in their CNN Belief Blog last Saturday, 1/7/2012, “Reversing JFK: Santorum’s bid to marry faith and politics.” I believe that Kennedy represented in a very functional and healthy way “the American principle” vis-à-vis faith/religion and politics. Do YOU?

Starr has my vote with his conclusion, “Citizens as voters do well when they pause to reflect on our nation’s history and traditions. If an unbeliever such as Jefferson or non-churchman like Lincoln can serve brilliantly as president, then America should stand — in an intolerant world characterized all too frequently by religious persecution — as a stirring example of welcoming hospitality for highly qualified men and women of good will seeking the nation’s highest office. Life experience, personal qualities and policy views are the pivotal points to guide Americans as they go to the polls in 2012.” What is YOUR vote?

Here we go…

Mr. E.

John Eyster lives in the Edgerton area. He is an adjunct professor of political science at UW-Waukesha and an advocate for democracy/civics education in Wisconsin high schools. John is a community blogger and is not a part of The Gazette staff. His opinion is not necessarily that of the The Gazette staff or management.