The Myth of the Modern Christian Candidate

by

by

Comments (1)

Comment Feed

While my background differs from yours*...

I certainly agree with your conclusion. However, as used in political campaign rhetoric the adjective "Christian" does not signify a religious affiliation (Once in an argument with a fundamentalist, he claimed while Judaism and Hinduism and Shinto etc. are religions Christianity is not because it is "The Truth"[TM] and I let him know what a ridiculous load that was...) but instead as a cultural marker and a "dog whistle" (cf, Ian Henry Lopez, Rick Perlstein, etc.) to the Religious Right that the candidate shares the brand they do. It is understood that in that context that single word implies that a candidate so described favors the government claiming title over lady parts, official repression of LGBTQs, intermingling of church and state - to the extent that prior to the Obama Administration, Air Force Academy cadets who adhered to official fundamentalism had carte blanche to harass cadets who were Jewish, secular, etc....) - the whole nine yards. The term is employed in short in an entirely different context than you have done. Of course, to those mired in fundamentalism, there's no difference between the two.

*Unlike you, I regard "politics" as the system by which we can do God's work, which in part consists of exposing the charlatans who exploit deity for their own personal gain. There is no other such system available. BTW, Perot was among the most expert charlatans to exploit the uninformed. He was a business insider who controlled former Texas Governors Bill Clements and Mark White (a Republican and a Democrat) like Frank Oz operates the puppet for his Muppet character Miss Piggy. Perot got rich on state contracts for computer systems to operate Texas' welfare and food stamp administration.

George Nixon Shuler more than 1 year ago