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.
Jan 12, 2012 at 5:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
*I do NOT agree with his Libertarian stance*
OF COURSE you don't agree with his 'libertarian stance'--you don't believe in liberty, period. You're a statist who believes in ever-expanding government powerful enough to force people to do what the party in charge wants them to do.
Jan 11, 2012 at 10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Magical fearful imaginary world? Wow, that must have been pretty hard to think up. Everyone knows that Unions have been supporting evil and underhandedness for years. Thanks for your support!
Jan 11, 2012 at 8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
The Satan Candidate! Reality is better than your magical fearful imaginary world.
Jan 11, 2012 at 8:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
John, you may have questions about who the "Jesus" candidate is, but there is no question who the "Satan" Candidates are.
Obama. Baldwin. Who else John, who else clearly is the Satan candidate? Will you address that too?
Jan 10, 2012 at 9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
I have decide to post this message every time the Gazette posts one of J.Eyester's blogs.
Gazette, Please discontinue this blog.
Hopefully others will do the same.
Jan 10, 2012 at 8:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
It's heartening to see that Eyster doesn't want his special brand of religiosity personified in the form of a U.S. president.
And I say religiosity because whether he wants to admit it or not his support of a terrorist element that wants to annihilate Israel certainly stems from that religiosity, as well as from the depts of his core.
Jan 10, 2012 at 3:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
That's a rather long winded rant over a candidate who essentially has no real shot. Just because a bunch of bible thumpers, and pig farmers in Iowa, showed up in a ultra small minority (roughly 120,000 votes cast in a state of 3 million, makes it all of 4% sample of voters) does not mean this guy is going any place. He will be destroyed in New Hampshire today, and he's not even on the ballot in many states. Plus he has hardly any $$ backing him. The fix is all in for Mittens. All the $$$, and GOP power brokers, are full throttle behind this DUD. Once the Bush clan, and all of the FL GOP establishment, throws the kitchen sink behind him in in Florida. Mittens will then be well on his way to winning the nomination, and getting SMASHED by Obama, in a race that won't even be close.
Jan 9, 2012 at 3:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
graygost - yes - I think that is the honest way to make your decisions.
Jan 9, 2012 at 2:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
To get back to John's question, I'd have to say I agree with Starr's thoughts about the Contitution; that there should be no religious test imposed on who can run for president. On the other hand, when a voter steps into a voting booth, I feel they can consider anything they want in casting for a candidate. The two things mentioned about supporting the Constitution would allow me to vote for "any" candidate; it is my own personal prefferences which allow me to vote for "a" candidate. Tags placed on candidates such as Rep, Dem, christian, atheist, mormon, jewish,black,white,progressive,conservative,pro-choice, pro-life,etc. may seem stupid or bigoted to others(depending on which side of an issue they are on) but no one should say I can't consider that issue in casting my ballot. Isn't that what a democracy is about?
Jan 9, 2012 at 1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
winterstinks said, "You BETTER keep God in this country or it's going to go down the tubes."
-
You aren't going to try to keep her here against her will, are you?
Jan 9, 2012 at 1:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
You BETTER keep God in this country or it's going to go down the tubes. Owama has already started that. Wake up.
Jan 9, 2012 at 1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eyster, You are a sad person. A democrat sheep.
Jan 9, 2012 at 12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eyster...you're a firestarter.
Jan 9, 2012 at 11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Why do candidates feel compelled to wear their their religious beliefs on their sleeves? In Santorum's case, should we not be able to know his religious beliefs through his actions and positions that are supposedly based on ALL of what Jesus taught? I think that is a better indicator of a candidate's character than what he says in a debate or a speech. I question the sincerity of any candidate feels compelled to use their religion as a political brand....or a political weapon. On the other hand, a candidate should not be ashamed of his religious beliefs.
Jan 9, 2012 at 11:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
snirt, I challenge you to find out what the separation really means, what it's INTENDED meaning was, and then clarify your comment.
Jan 9, 2012 at 11:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Starr's op-ed is typically disingenuous. A religious person wondering out loud if they could support a candidate of a different religion than his own. And then, of course, in a very insincere manner he mentions Jefferson hoping the reader infers that Starr would actually consider voting for a deist or atheist. I would be more comfortable voting for a non-believer/atheist than voting for a religious person and hoping they are able to keep their religious views from leaching through into policy making and legislation. But long since the days of Jefferson, America has become too collectively delusional about an omnipotent sky God to elect a non-believer. John, why would you be SHOCKED by the Jesus candidate comment from Santorum? Anyone following politics as closely as you do shouldn't be surprised by any of these candidates anointing themselves -- particularly Santorum.
Jan 9, 2012 at 10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Interesting blog today. Kenneth Starr is someone I respect deeply and have done since he was president of Pepperdine University.
-
John, lumping Newt Gingrich's "pious" comment in with Rick Santorum's "Jesus" comment is comparing apples to oranges. While Santorum was clearing talking about religion, Newt was referring to Romney's continued self-righteous assertion that he is a Washington outsider, and as such, the only candidate worthy of the Republican vote. Newt's point was, but for failed campaigns, Romney would have been just as much an insider as the rest of the pack, and therefore to drop the "piety." That is hardly the same thing as Santorum's comment.
Jan 9, 2012 at 9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
No to Santorum.
Jesus will not save him.
Jan 9, 2012 at 9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
CP - great comment! I fully agree.
Jan 9, 2012 at 9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
The faith tradition of a candidate is way down my list, especially since religion has not been a factor while governing by any President in my lifetime. Ken Starr points to Jefferson and Lincoln as examples, but in more recent times JFK was a Catholic and Richard Nixon was a Quaker.
When voters go to the polls in November, and even to the polls in the various primaries, religion will not be on the agenda.
To quote the 1992 campaign slogan of Bill Clinton, "It's the economy, stupid"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_...
Jan 9, 2012 at 9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gazette: Please continue Mr. Eyster's blog.
He does a service for the readers. He gets people to think, for those who ACTUALLY READ his articles before commenting.
This is suppose to be a democracy where everyone can express their viewpoints and then discuss their reason WHY they believe what they do.
If you are that upset with Mr. Eyster for his articles, then maybe you should not read ANY of his article. If you do comment, you PROBABLY should read the article COMPLETELY.
Thank you, Mr. Eyster.
Jan 9, 2012 at 9:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
John your inconsistency in positions are alarming. You state "I have been alarmed by Santorum’s move" in drawing in politics and religion when ~1 month ago you also stated "I hope our CONGRESS...awaken today with a HEALTHY CHRISTMAS SPIRIT and take action to serve WE THE PEOPLE of the USA! [wanting them to increase taxes]" What is a bad thing for one is okay for you.
Jan 9, 2012 at 8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
A fundamentalist Christian theocracy with biblical law is a far more scary and realistic possibility than the Sharia law conspiracy theory so often cited by far right-wing kooks like Rick Santorum.
Jan 9, 2012 at 8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
And once again we are graced with more "pious baloney" from the "I am better than Jesus candidate".
I have decide to post this message every time the Gazette posts one of J.Eyester's blogs.
Gazette, Please discontinue this blog.
Hopefully others will do the same.
Jan 9, 2012 at 8:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
For you, "916WI" and other readers, you will gain the information you wish about LLOYD BENSEN, US Vice-presidential candidate in 1988 via Wikiedia - that URL, for your convenience, is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Bents.... Here we go... John W. Eyster
Jan 9, 2012 at 8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mormon V Christian - both just a delusion. My vote goes to the Thor candidate, just as real as the other two myths, but he has a hammer.
Jan 9, 2012 at 8:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
DISappointed to note that your comment, "RetiredAirForce" was clearly posted without reading the very significant and articulate analysis with perceptive brief for our US CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE & VALUES by an outstanding GOP lawyer, Ken Starr! NO condrumun whatsoever for me having read that column. I urge YOU and other readers to read Starr's column and then comment, please. THANKS! Here we go... John W. Eyster
Jan 9, 2012 at 7:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Interesting conundrum for you John. You declare shock over a person declaring a phrase Jesus candidate (the real comment was much longer) yet point to an article, that you agree with, asking if a person could vote for a Mormon.
Jan 9, 2012 at 7:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Who is Lloyd Bentenson?? As a political science teacher, I'm sure you can educate me on this....
Jan 9, 2012 at 7:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Merry Christmas !
Jan 9, 2012 at 7:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Religion is one of the last things I consider when voting, and the strong religious belief of a candidate is usually a negative. I prefer well educated candidates who have a plan going forward that makes the most sense and helps the most people.
That's why I feel it was such a shame we lost a U.S.Senator who was a Rhodes Scholar and replaced him with a tea party yes man who isn't very bright or thoughtful and is usually an obstructionist.
Jan 9, 2012 at 6:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
I vote for the constitution and the separation of church and state.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.