![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Blah blah blah.
Sep. 12th, 2008 08:58 amOkay, I honestly wasn't going to post anything political today, but then I saw this article about Sarah Palin's interview on ABC last night, and this bit in particular:
Interestingly, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis earlier told radio host Hugh Hewitt that the media's coverage of Palin amounts to an "attack on Christianity" itself.
Um, whut? Is this serious? Criticizing McCain's VP choice because it was clearly a political selection rather than a logical one; because she has the wrong ethos and temperament to be mayor of a town of 5,000, let alone Vice President (or, all-too-conceivably, President) of the nation; because she doesn't just disrespect the separation of Church and State, she'd like to trample it into the ground.. calling her out on any of that means one is either sexist or attacking Christianity?
The point Davis was really trying to make is that religion, as a personal thing, should not be made an issue when looking at the candidates, but the media is making it one and is doing so in a way that often derides the faith of some of these people. That's fair enough in theory. But you know what? It isn't the media's fault if the candidates themselves are the ones bringing their religion into the public arena, like in the furor over abortion, like in the desire to legislate abstinence-only sex education, like in the move to mandate the teaching of creationism and other pseudo-science in public schools, like when a candidate for national office speaks before an audience and says that our soldiers are in Iraq "on a task from God."
Don't worry, one of these days I'll get the memo and stop longing for things to Just Make Sense.
Interestingly, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis earlier told radio host Hugh Hewitt that the media's coverage of Palin amounts to an "attack on Christianity" itself.
Um, whut? Is this serious? Criticizing McCain's VP choice because it was clearly a political selection rather than a logical one; because she has the wrong ethos and temperament to be mayor of a town of 5,000, let alone Vice President (or, all-too-conceivably, President) of the nation; because she doesn't just disrespect the separation of Church and State, she'd like to trample it into the ground.. calling her out on any of that means one is either sexist or attacking Christianity?
The point Davis was really trying to make is that religion, as a personal thing, should not be made an issue when looking at the candidates, but the media is making it one and is doing so in a way that often derides the faith of some of these people. That's fair enough in theory. But you know what? It isn't the media's fault if the candidates themselves are the ones bringing their religion into the public arena, like in the furor over abortion, like in the desire to legislate abstinence-only sex education, like in the move to mandate the teaching of creationism and other pseudo-science in public schools, like when a candidate for national office speaks before an audience and says that our soldiers are in Iraq "on a task from God."
Don't worry, one of these days I'll get the memo and stop longing for things to Just Make Sense.
