Fish Piper

A report by Geoffrey Wheatcroft in today’s SMH, reprinted from The Guardian talks about the ‘resurgence of religion’ in American politics. I’ve not read such ridiculous reporting for some time. Read the full article, or stay tuned for illustrative portions with comment below.

Before we get into this, note that this is not a political post. It’s about rubbish journalism, the insidious kind that uses religion as a scare tactic in place of decent analysis.

From ‘The Return of Hell and Damnation‘, SMH 23/10/08:

Of all the dramatic changes witnessed since 1945 - the economic miracle in postwar western Europe, the collapse of Communism and now the latest boom and bust - none was more unforeseen than the resurgence of religion.

A new “revolt of Islam” was quite unexpected 50 years ago when secular Arab nationalism seemed the rising force and when, for that matter, secular Israelis didn’t guess that “religious Zionists” would one day make the running in their country.

Off to a good start. Radical Islamism or Zionism is much more frightening and attention-grabbing than Christians running for office in the USA.

The Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, has tried to negatively associate his Democrat opponent, Barack Obama, with Jeremiah Wright, his fire-eating radical former pastor, but less attention has been paid to McCain’s running-mate, Sarah Palin, being a member of the Assembly Church of God in Wasilla, Alaska, and to her pastor, Ed Kalnins.

Perhaps that has less to do with religion and more to do with politics and smear. Perhaps.

When the former US secretary of state Colin Powell endorsed Obama on Sunday, he said Palin was not yet ready to be president. He might have added her religious opinions raised questions about her fitness for high office.

But he didn’t. No, don’t let that stop you - go right ahead! Let’s raise questions about all the candidates!

Religion may now be the largest gulf between Europe and the US. Mitt Romney, the Mormon who ran for the Republican nomination, spoke of the empty cathedrals of Europe, and the former British prime minister Tony Blair was the oddity among European politicians in his public protestations of faith.

Could demographics be illustrative at all? Europe is full of empty churches, and has few (professing) Christian politicians; America has a sizeable Christian population and a number of professing Christian politicians.

Just saying.

See if you can spot the slide in logic in the following section.

In 1960, religion did become a factor, and earlier this year [Mitt] Romney [a Mormon] invoked the memory of John F. Kennedy to suggest his own eccentric faith should not be held against him. That was not comparing like with like. Kennedy was the first Catholic elected president, and in a famous speech to Protestant pastors in Texas he upheld the the separation of church and state.

But he was only insisting that a Catholic man could be as good an American as anyone (something the Bible belt was far from conceding when Al Smith, another Irish Catholic, was running for president only 32 years earlier). What Kennedy did not say was that his career was inspired by a devotion to Our Lady and the Sacred Heart. If he had, apart from the fact that anyone who knew him would have found it hard to keep a straight face, he would have lost the election.

Half a century later, a complete change. Palin’s convention speech was held for a time to be the height of feisty wit; but much more revealing is what she and her pastor have said about “the end of days”, an idea in which millions of American evangelical Christians sincerely believe.

Ok, slow down. The logic of this section seems to be this: JKF claimed just to be an American running for President who happened to be a Catholic. Mitt Romney says he’s an American running for President who happens to be a Mormon. JFK didn’t tell everybody his political career was a religious conviction. We can see everything is different just by looking at the faith convictions of Palin and her pastor.

See the slide? Romney, by implication, bases his career on his (wacky! Mormon!) religious conviction. “See? Everything is different! You can tell Romney is different to JFK, just look at Palin!”

His website mentions almost nothing about religion at all; his biography is completely silent. His speech (read the full transcript here) draws the same connections to Kennedy, insisting he is comparing like with like, not a reversal. He too insists that his church would not influence his policy should he be elected. He too upholds the separation of church and state, but speaks against this separation being inseparably and irreducibly understood as atheistic secularism..

Notice also the way that Palin’s public life (her convention speech) and her personal faith (her church involvement) bear no relation to each other in that last sentence? “Well of course her private life must be suspect!”

Concerning the (radical Zionist) convictions of her pastor:

As one of his flock, Palin presumably believes this too.

Hurrah! More conjecture! She can’t be fit to be VP!

McCain disowned John Hagee, a Texan preacher with a huge following, militantly hostile to Catholicism and Islam, who believes “Hitler was a hunter” sent by God to drive the Jews to Israel.

Even assuming McCain does not become president, sceptics might stop and think about where the fulfilment of prophecies could lead us.

So McCain disowns a militant preacher… and then what? These final two paragraphs simply don’t make sense. Am I meant to be worried about McCain’s religious convictions or not? If he doesn’t get in, who am I concerned about? Don’t end the article there! You can’t leave me hanging like this!

Either Wheatcroft is a hack, or the SMH editor has done a terrible job. In either case: amateur hour.