Don't Marginalize Religion

Friday, July 18, 2014

Don't Marginalize Religion

Imagine an editorial page where inquiring into the first assumptions of our senatorial candidates receives respectful treatment as a relevant subject deserving of readers' interest, public discovery and careful scrutiny. "Majority view" Christianity and the controversies it wrestles with and answers ought not be marginalized or proscribed by editorial boards (How We See It, July 15) nor relegated to the religion page. Bemoaning inquiry into Tom Cotton's and Mark Pryor's most fundamental and informed religious convictions is a relevant example of the kind flippancy religion often experiences in the media. This newspaper, apparently, views as unfair and unseemly candid questions that probe into the candidates' deepest convictions. Elsewhere, inquiry and scrutiny of, let's say, Supreme Court candidates respects the concept that people's most elemental persuasions will guide and inform their judgments. Ditto for our senatorial candidates.

Can scrutiny of candidates' first assumptions, religious and otherwise, help readers and voters to be better informed about what choices candidates will be most likely make in office? Some of us think so. Candidates' religious thought and anti-religious thought, the full spectrum, does and should inform the public about how they will align themselves and represent their constituents. In retrospect, what difference has the politic media practice of feeding the public with carefully scripted and generic religious inanities and photo ops done to improve public discourse or inform citizens on voting issues? What most people care most about is their religion or anti-religion. I hope readers can, somehow, recognize how religion is mostly evaded or treated as less serious than supposedly more serious political subjects. Representative democracy must include religion or it will fail to represent the people.

At least some of the degenerative confusion and polarization in our public discourse is caused by the practiced adroit pretenses of our candidates playing along with the media conducting the music. There are good reasons for public distrust of the media and government. Public cynicism with the democratic process aided by our media's contributions is towing our public discourse toward further flippancy. "Lord help us?"

Even such common honesty as remains to us is under duress. Or did the newspaper really mean to ask for the Lord's help? Religion is a dangerous subject.

Tim Kautzer

Fayetteville

Commentary on 07/21/2014