Matthews objected to religious questions at GOP debate, but not colleague Russert's religion question at Dem debate
SUMMARY: Discussing religious questions asked at the November 28 CNN/YouTube Republican
presidential debate, Chris Matthews said: "[T]hese questions are getting very
liturgical. How literal do you take the [Bible]? Where did Jesus stand on
capital punishment? ... Why are candidates for the presidency being asked
religious questions?" But Matthews voiced no objections over the September 26
Democratic debate, which was moderated by
Matthews' NBC colleague Tim Russert, who asked of the
candidates, "[W]hat is your favorite Bible verse?"
While interviewing Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) during the December 3 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews said of the November 28 CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate: "[T]hese questions are getting very liturgical. How literal do you take the [Bible]? Where did Jesus stand on capital punishment? I mean, this is beginning to look like what the Constitution calls a religious test and proscribes, bans, really, in Article 6 of the Constitution. Why are candidates for the presidency being asked religious questions?" Matthews' question echoed his November 29 interview with Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, during which Matthews asked, "Why are you Republican candidates submitting to religious vetting about your belief in the literal nature of the Bible? Why put up with those kind of questions?" Matthews further asserted, "[T]hese are religious test questions. They're not about public policy. They're not about what you believe the country should be about. They're what you believe about the Bible. They're particularly religious testing of you fellows. Why didn't somebody raise their hand last night and say, 'This is not what America is about'?" In contrast, during a discussion with his NBC colleague Tim Russert, the moderator of the September 26 Democratic debate, Matthews noted that Russert had asked the candidates "if they had a favorite biblical verse" but raised no objections to the question, simply describing the candidates' responses as "interesting." Moreover, though he did note on December 3 that at an MSNBC debate (on May 3), Republicans were asked about their beliefs regarding evolution, he did not mention Russert's September 26 question to the Democrats about their favorite Bible verse.
Indeed, during the September 26 MSNBC-sponsored debate, Russert asked the Democratic candidates, "Before we go, there's been a lot of discussion about the Democrats and the issue of faith and values. I want to ask you a simple question. ... [W]hat is your favorite Bible verse?" During his post-debate discussion with Russert, Matthews did not assert that the question was inappropriate, or that the candidates should have objected to it. Rather, he commented on the candidates' responses, saying, "I thought it was interesting that a couple of them didn't [have a favorite verse]. A couple of them went to prayer cards on St. Francis, and poor [New Mexico Gov. Bill] Richardson couldn't come up with any. ... I thought it was interesting they were all New Testament answers and they were all very positive, very liberal. I thought the Sermon on the Mount was an old Tip O'Neill favorite. I thought it was interesting that [Sen. Chris] Dodd [CT] said the Good Samaritan. I was very warmed by that."
From the December 3 edition of MSNBC's Hardball:
MATTHEWS: I want to ask you about Iowa for a second before we get back to New Hampshire. Let's take a look at the latest Des Moines Register poll out in Iowa, where they are having the first contest on the 3rd of January. Huckabee is leading the Republican pack out there right now. He's gone way up, a 17-point jump from October. Romney's slipped to second place. What's Huckabee's strength? Is he simply the guy who's willing to talk most about God, calling himself in paid advertising "the Christian leader"? I mean, I've never seen anything like this in America before, this flagrant out-Godding each other.
McCAIN: What I have found about Mike Huckabee, Chris, is that he's a very congenial, very decent guy. I've had the chance to get to know him. He and I did a 90-minute forum together on health care. And I've found him to be a pretty decent guy. And he's able to articulate. And frankly, you know, I think he's proving that debates matter. The line he had about Jesus had enough sense not to run for political office was an excellent line, you know, at the response to that question about whether --
MATTHEWS: Yes.
McCAIN: -- what would Jesus do on capital punishment. So I think he's come across on the debates as a very congenial, pleasant, very good, thoughtful guy, I think is probably what's had a lot of the impact.
MATTHEWS: I've never heard you run as anything but than a secular candidate. I know you're a Christian. I know you're a Baptist, a practicing Baptist. You go to church. And I never heard you use religion as a way to get ahead. Now, these questions that have been thrown at the candidates, especially in that CNN debate -- and I admit we asked the question way back when about evolution. But these questions are getting very liturgical. How literal do you take the Constitution [sic]? Where did Jesus stand on capital punishment? I mean, this is beginning to look like what the Constitution calls a religious test and proscribes, bans, really, in Article 6 of the Constitution. Why are candidates for the presidency being asked religious questions?
McCAIN: First of all, I'm sure you meant, "Do you take the Bible literally?" not the Constitution literally, but I know what you meant.
MATTHEWS: Well, I'm sorry. That is a different question. Maybe that's the right question to be asking, how much of a strict constructionist you are. But we're asking strict constructionist questions of the Scriptures.
From the November 29 edition of MSNBC's Hardball:
MATTHEWS: But right now, we go to the man with all the momentum, Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee. Governor, thank you for joining us. Let's take a look at a bit of last night, a question from one of the YouTubers and your response.
[begin video clip]
JOSEPH DEARING: Do you believe this book?
HUCKABEE: Sure, I believe the Bible is exactly what it is. It's the word of revelation to us from God himself.
[applause]
HUCKABEE: And the fact is that when people ask do we believe all of it, you either believe it or you don't believe it. But in the greater sense, I think what the question tried to make us feel like was that, well, if you believe the part that says, Go and pluck out your eye -- well, none of us believe that we ought to go pluck out our eye. That obviously is allegorical.
But the Bible has some messages that nobody really can confuse and really not left up to interpretation. Love your neighbor as yourself. Inasmuch as you've done it to the least of these brethren, you've done it unto me. Until we get those simple, real easy things right, I'm not sure we ought to spend a whole lot of time fighting over the other parts that are a little bit complicated.
[end video clip]
MATTHEWS: Governor, I think you, like a lot of conservatives, believe in the original purpose of the Constitution as written. It's our sort of secular bible. It says there should be no religious test ever required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Why are you Republican candidates submitting to religious vetting about your belief in the literal nature of the Bible? Why put up with those kind of questions?
HUCKABEE: Well, Chris, when guys like you quit asking it, we'll quit answering it. But the fact is, we get asked these questions in the debates, and if we evade them, if we act like we're not going to answer them, then we're going to get hammered for being unwilling to address the questions that are put to us. So that's why I keep answering them.
MATTHEWS: But these are religious test questions. They're not about public policy. They're not about what you believe the country should be about. They're what you believe about the Bible. They're particularly religious testing of you fellows. Why didn't somebody raise their hand last night and say, this is not what America is about. We should -- if there was a Jewish fellow up here, an Arab fellow up here, a non-believer, he'd have to say, "I don't believe in the Bible." Then where would we be? Some people some giving the correct answer, according to some, and others giving the incorrect answer.
From MSNBC's September 26 post-debate coverage:
MATTHEWS: I thought it was interesting, you asked them all if they had favorite biblical verse. I thought it was interesting that a couple of them didn't. A couple of them went to prayer cards on St. Francis, and poor Richardson couldn't come up with any. What was he talking -- he had something that had nothing to do with the Bible. I thought it was interesting they were all New Testament answers and they were all very positive, very liberal. I thought the Sermon on the Mount was an old Tip O'Neill favorite. I thought it was interesting that Dodd said the Good Samaritan. I was very warmed by that.
RUSSERT: How about Biden and the Pharisees?
MATTHEWS: What was he saying, was it the Pharisees sitting in the first row in the temple? Or what was he talking about.
RUSSERT: Oh sure, the money changers.
MATTHEWS: He was talking about the show-offs. I think he might have been talking about people who believed they were superior to the public and in the back row. In fact, whenever I go to church, I know you do too, you check and see who's sitting in the first row.
Matthews is dead-on here with his analysis of all these religion questions for these candidates, why?......perhaps this latest debate just tipped the scales for him and he figured enough is enough, who knows?
The point is he is right.
Whether his assessment of the GOP questions was accurate or not is irrelevant.
MMFA is right about his double standard. He did not have the same problems with those questions being asked of Dems.
And that of course is the point of this thread.
So Matthews should have held Russert to the same standard, he didn't, he should have.
But the larger and more important point is the one he is making, do you agree or disagree with him?
I for one agree with him. It doesn't discount MMFA's highlightling the double standard. Enough is enough . . . please tell that to the Christian right -- that have worked tirelessly to interject religion into politics. Can't blame this phenomenon on the media, godless liberals or MMFA.
Thanks, Tommy. We should start making a list of the many reasons to ignore misinformation (according to Tommy, of course).
Let me see if I'm following this one;
If the misinformation is about an important issue, we should focus on that bigger issue, and ignore the misinformation regarding that issue.
Would that mean that, conversely, we should be very concerned over misinformation on extremely trivial issues?
Just because you say it's the "larger, more important point", doesn't mean it is.
Again, the topic of this thread is the double standard Matthews shows in terms of religious questions and political parties. If you're a Republican, they're apparently objectionable, but not if you're a Democrat.
Why do you think that is? How about we discuss that instead?
No, the "larger point" is that many of you are so inextricably linked at the hip with your political party that you refuse to acknowledge anything beyond the media "injustices" done to the Democrats; that any meaningful discussion on far more important issues than bruised hardline Democratic egos gets lost and buried under the mountain of your Us vs Them mentality.
It is far more important to shoot arrows at the meanies in the media and concern yourselves with this stuff than address the larger point Matthews is making, the infiltration of all these religious questions posed at the candidates. Forget his point you say, let's fry him for not being 100% objective all the time - it's ridiculous.
This is one reason I am so far from being entrenched in the hip pocket of political parties and their sensitivites, I could care less. I am far more interested in the country as a whole than the health and vibrancy of one party, and the destruction of another.
Perhaps this is why I don't get all bent out of shape when either of them gets the needle or the shaft now and then, much as many of you seem to do all the time.
No, the "larger point" is that many of you are so inextricably linked at the hip with your political party that you refuse to acknowledge anything beyond the media "injustices" done to the Democrats
Correction: the above item is Tommy's newly crafted point, not "the larger point".
Thanks for making MY point.
I'm not a member the Democratic Party. Hope that does not inconvenience you.
Tommy, I can't speak for anybody else here, but I think most of the people here are very much past the separation of church and state issue.We get that, but if until the media gets it, is it not reasonable to point out when they're ignoring that principle to one sides advantage?
Geez, I guess accusing everybody else of blind partisanship is easier than catching up.
It’s absolutely reasonable to point that out, HBL. Matthews objected to religious questions at GOP debate after declaring that he got his cockles warmed by the Good Samaritan during Dem debate. A titillating and separate set of standards.
Highlighting misinformation aganst one party is hardly wishing "destruction" against the other, on the contrary, it is attempting to keep a level playing field for both, which is of course the essence of a healthy democracy.
And I said Matthews point, whether valid or not, wasn't applied to both parties, and was the point of the thread. You, for some reason, refuse to acknowledge or discuss that fact, and then say I wish for the destruction of a political party because I do? Your hyperbole is completely unnecessary.
I dare say that if he had been consistent with his criticism of religious questioning for both parties, there would have been more credibility to his remarks. I would like to know why he didn't have a problem with Dems being asked religious questions. As we all know, Republicans have tried to define themselves for years now as the party of God, and I think Matthews inconsistency with his problem with religious questions might have something to do with that false frame.
Refuse to acknowledge or discuss it? I most certainly did, read what I said Matthews' should have done. But unless one dumps all over these people and skews them up one side and down the other, then we aren't "acknowledging it", is that it?
Sorry, I agreed with your point but thought the larger one was far more important. But not to rabid partisans, whose only concern is playing political gotcha with the evil media misinformers.
I agreed with your point but thought the larger [*] one was far more important.
* I think you mean YOUR point is far more important. "The larger one" is just what you call it.
It's not my point at all, but rather the crux of this thread. If you can't figure out what that is, then never mind.
It's the crux of this thread that "many of you are so inextricably linked at the hip with your political party that you refuse to acknowledge anything beyond the media "injustices" done to the Democrats"?Again, I'm sorry to inform you that I am not a member of the Democratic Party. And YOUR "larger point" is YOURS, not mine.
That was in direct response to Watershed. The original point I was making was what Matthews was saying about all the religious questions.
But what he said about all the religious questions shed to light a glaring double standard, which I think is the larger point.
But the larger and more important point is the one he is making, do you agree or disagree with him?
Which point is that? That he thought it was “interesting” that Dems were asked if they had a favorite biblical verse? That he thought it was “interesting” that “a couple of them didn't”? That “poor Richardson couldn't come up with any”? That he “thought it was interesting they were all New Testament answers” and “very liberal”? That he “thought the Sermon on the Mount was an old Tip O'Neill favorite”? That he was “warmed by” Dodd’s “good Samaritan”?
I agree with him. Religion has no place in the discussion, but then it should also have no place in making public policy. It does, and that unfortnately makes it a legit debate issue. If these idiots (both sides, but the 'Pubs mainly) could sperately their religious zeal from their public duties, (IOW seperte church and state) then it wouldn't be an issue.
When a public official is elected in this country, they put their hand on the bible and swear to uphold the constitution. For more than a generation now, Republican's have acted like it's the other way aorund.
So I say - have at it. I want to make sure I vote against the religious nut.
It wasn't the same question.
Maybe Chris Matthews thinks it's OK to ask candidates for their favorite Bible verse, but not OK to ask if they believe every word of the Bible.
How is that any different?
Would you ask a Muslim (like the Representative from Minnisota) whether or not he had a favorite Bible Verse? And furthermore, how does that actually matter to running the country? Personally, yeah, I like to know their views on religion, so that I can determine whether or not they're going to put anybody else to a religious litmus test that's outlawed in the Constitution.
Furthermore, if the Bible comes into a susposed contradiction with the facts that he's given, which one will he choose? Will he force schools to teach Intelligent Design, because it's supposedly supported by the Bible? Will he outlaw the teaching of Evolution? How literally he takes the Bible comes directly into these issues. Because if he believes that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, in seven days, then why would he allow the children to be taught anything different?
That, or James chapter 2, which states (versus 14-19)...
What good is it my brothers if a man claims to have faith but no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but do nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, Faith, if it is not accompied by action, is dead. Some of you will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I'll show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God, that's good, even the demons know that and shudder.
How could Matthews possibly explain himself over this double standard? The answer is that he can't-- and he's not smart enough to realize that he has one. And he most certainly doesn't care.
you can't compare being asked your favorite bible verse with 'do you take the entire bible literally.' the first is like asking about a favorite shakespeare quote, the latter is a set up question much like 'how much have you been drinking?' or 'when did you last beat your wife?' the question was made so that they could portray the pubs in the light that they are percieved in by the left... as backward mythology-believing hicks. personally i'm glad the question was asked and huckabee gave a very good answer. the fact that mm is whining about the double standard is actually quite funny. maybe we should stick to weightier issues- like the candidates favorite beatles song...
Paleocon. careful with that "The Beatles are more important than Jesus" talk. Another guy tried that, and he's dead now.
actually it was 'more popular than Jesus', but good point... my tongue was in my cheek, but it's hard to convey sarcasm with the written.
I stand corrected, it was "more popular". My tongue was in the same place.No, my cheek, not yours, I want to get that straight.
Since Republican candidates bring up their faith constantly, it is right that they be asked about it. I would ask the same questions to the Democratic candidates who bring up their faith, like Obama and Hillary.
The most shameful thing is of course that in the year 2007, in America, candidates are running campaigns based on their religions. And that there are candidates for President of the United States who claim that they believe every word of the Bible. That's insane, scary, sad, and deeply tragic.
I suspect we're faced with another "do not speak ill of a fellow NBC'er" situation.
However, I disagree with Matthews that these questions shouldn't be asked of Republicans. Republicans have made religion as issue time and again, and I think they should be called on it -- particularly when their proposed policies conflict with the faith they flaunt.
Amen on both points.
First point - I think it's the same reason Tucker Carlson never won WPOTW on Olbermann.
And second point - ED ZACHARY! If they'd stop infecting their fanatacsim on the rest of us, then it wouldn't be an issue. But these guys just don't get the whole "seperation of church and state" thing. It's ridiculous.
"Why are candidates for the presidency being asked religious questions?"
A sage question from a man who uses a full segment of his show to ask if Clinton is a “She Devil?”As an Agnostic, everytime I read or hear about religion being interjected into politics, I shudder and wonder how long it is before I'm put against a wall, given a cigarette then shot for my lack of belief.
If you read up about how the military has become more and more infiltrated by vocal, fundamental christians in the last few years, you'd find that your fears aren't completely unfounded.
The defensive stance provided the republicans is another affirmation they are all godless corporatists. The democrats would have to pay for that kind of shill.
Tim Russert is a policy wonk par excellence. He can talk the details of any issue knowledgeably the way most of us talk about the weather or sports.
He needs to explain why he asked presidential candidates a stupid question about their favorite bible verse.