Leaps of Faith

by Libby Sternberg

Over at a New York Times blog, Bill Keller has decided to write about faith.

Scratch that, not faith in general. He's interested in what role religious faith plays in the lives of the presidential candidates.

Nope, scratch that again. He's interested in faith's role in the lives of Republican presidential candidates.

As numerous commentators have pointed out elsewhere (including in the comments section of the blog post itself), Mr. Keller and many in the media were not at all interested in exploring faith's role -- in particular, the role of the candidate's church -- when Senator Barack Obama was seeking the presidency. They only seem interested in it when they're not too keen on the party of the candidates.

Bill Keller believes in...?

Nonetheless, are Mr. Keller's questions out of line? No, not at all! I've come to the conclusion that the more we know about a president's past, including his or her beliefs and how they might have evolved over time, the better able we are to predict what a candidate will be like as a leader. 

Forget listening to candidates' promises. I know it will shock you, but candidates often, well, fudge the truth to get people to like them and vote for them. Yes, I know -- it's disappointing. But it happens.

Candidates also have no crystal balls that will show them precisely what challenges they'll confront in office, challenges that might cause them to rethink a previously stated position or promise. Didn't FDR promise, after all, to keep the country out of foreign wars?

No, the best way to vet candidates, I've decided, is to dig into their characters and what they've said and done in the past. Looking at their religious beliefs is part of that.

The problem with religious belief, though, is that it is intensely personal and often complex. Even for the outwardly ardently religious,  internal debates probably rage about God's mercy and justice, especially when sorrow afflicts one's life.

Listen to any minister's Sunday sermon in any church in America on any weekend in the year, and you hear those complicated issues discussed -- by people who make a living in the church, by people whose faith, one would assume, is secure.  Yet many of them might be hard-pressed to give simple answers to some of the snarky --yes, snarky -- questions Mr. Keller poses.

But wouldn't it be wonderful to have a real and thorough discussion on issues such as faith/Constitution conflicts or the legal ramifications of the Establishment versus the Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment, or whether the search for the "missing link" in evolution theory means the theory is flawed, or whether "Dominionism" as a tenet of any faith (not just Christian faith) is a threat to religious freedom?

Let's put it all on the table. Let's have a real rumble over these issues -- including all candidates, the incumbent among them.

But you know what? I'm guessing that Mr. Keller isn't really all that interested in that discussion. I'm guessing that Mr. Keller wants the candidates' thoughts -- wait, the Republican candidates' thoughts -- on his questions not so much because he's really curious about the answers as he's anticipating writing his response to the answers. My guess is that his response will begin with a strongly implied "Aha!" followed by a "now we know so-and-so is...." (insert synonyms for knuckle-dragging cretin here).

The media's role, say some wags, is to "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted." I actually like to think of their role as afflicting the powerful -- no matter who the powerful are, what party they belong to, what business or nonprofit they run.

Mr. Keller's questions indicate he's only interested in afflicting Republicans. As to those whose political views align with his -- including those at the peak of power --he's willing to make a leap of faith.

Twelve Grafs, One "Sorry"

by Libby Sternberg

New York Times columnist Joe Nocera recently called the Tea Party "terrorists" in a column. If the definition of news is any story with a "man bites dog" template, the Nocera name-calling surely doesn't qualify. He was one among many using words like "terrorist" for those whose opinions he didn't share.

Nonetheless, it's noteworthy when people who are paid to give thoughtful opinions end up being, well, thoughtless, so his name-calling column garnered attention.

It wasn't the kind of attention a commentator likes, however, since it focused on style and not substance.

Not to worry -- in his August 5 column, he apologized and said he won't do it again.

But you have to search for those golden words of regret. On second thought, don't bother. Here's the Cliff Notes version of the 12 paragraphs of his column:

Grafs 1 through 4: a summary of Nocera's working-class roots
Grafs 5 and 6: how awful the financial crisis is and how angry it makes people, including himself
Graf 7: how he hates incivility; the money quote -- "I apologize" (that's it in its entirety)
Graf 8 through 11: how awful the economy is and how awful Republicans are for doing things he doesn't like
Graf 12: he promises not to call anyone names again.

I'm sure conservatives weren't holding their breath for an apology, but his column hardly qualifies as one anyway. In it, he seemed to me akin to a child who, when caught with his hands in the cookie jar, says he's sorry but, gosh, darn it, he was so hungry because the dinner you cooked was awful to begin with.

There's something a little, oh, insincere, about the apology in that case. It sounds more like an excuse than a real declaration of contrition.

So, while I, as a conservative, would be happy to accept Nocera's apology for labeling folks terrorists, who, like me, believe the Republicans, while not perfect, are on the right track, I can't grant him absolution.

His confession was too small, too obscured, and too inauthentic.