1. Americans generally support some kind of separation of church and state, but we do not want to divorce personal faith from politics. (Rogers noted that Article VI of the U.S. Constitution mandates that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States," but this does not mean that citizens should not consider issues of faith when they enter the voting booth.)
2. The Republicans aren't the only ones who connect faith and politics.
3. Christians who are conservative in their politics and theology are not the dominant force in politics any more.
4. The challenge that John F. Kennedy faced related to his Catholicism in the 1960s has not gone away, and candidates who are the first in their faith tradition (Mitt Romney in this election cycle) continue to face added scrutiny.
5. The media are not going to ignore religious leaders who campaigns seek out for advice.
6. A candidate's house of worship can become a target for the media. (Rogers asserts that a candidate's house of worship should be a zone of non-interference - a place where the candidate can be challenged and refreshed spiritually without being held responsible for everything his/her pastor says.)
7. When it comes to religion, journalists often go for the sensational rather than substance. (Recalling the moment when debate moderator George Stephanopolus asked the Democratic candidates whether they thought prayer could have prevented the Minnesota bridge collapse, Roger observed that a more appropriate question would have been to ask the candidates what they would do to rebuild America's crumbling infrastructure.)
In conclusion, Rogers reminded us of the words of the late Representative Barbara Jordan, who offered this sage advice to those who speak in the public square: “You would do well to pursue your causes with vigor, while remembering that you are a servant of God, not a spokesperson for God — a servant of God, not a spokesperson for God — and remembering that God might well choose to bless an opposing point of view for reasons that have not been revealed to you.”
No comments:
Post a Comment