I’m Harold Ford, and my church approves this message

September 16, 2006

[tag]Tennessee[/tag]’s Democratic Senate hopeful, [tag]Harold Ford[/tag], has closed the gap against Bob Corker (R) and, in some polls, actually taken the lead in the race to replace Sen. Bill Frist (R). Ford’s [tag]advertising[/tag], in particular, has been effective in garnering support for his campaign, but the Democrat seems to have pushed the envelope a bit with his latest spot.

With a stained-glass window behind him, candidate Harold Ford Jr. strolls through the Memphis church where he was baptized to tell voters this is the place where he learned right from wrong.

Using a [tag]church[/tag] [tag]sanctuary[/tag] as the backdrop in his newest campaign commercial, the Democrat running for the U.S. Senate has picked an unusual setting. One expert on religion and politics said it was the first political ad he’d heard of actually filmed inside a sanctuary.

I’ve been following these issues quite a bit for many years and I’m pretty confident it’s a first. Countless candidates have campaigned in churches, but filming a [tag]commercial[/tag] in one is almost certainly unprecedented.

The question then becomes whether this historic first is a problem or not. In the interests of intellectual honesty, I have to say, if this were a Republican, I’d vehemently criticize the politicization of religion.

The ad is in response to the Corker campaign’s latest commercial, which falsely accuses Ford of being weak on national security by misstating some of the congressman’s House votes. Ford is returning fire with his church ad, suggesting that unlike his opponent, he’s learned valuable lessons about honesty.

Gesturing to the pews behind him, Ford in the ad says, “Here, I learned the difference between right and wrong. And now, Mr. Corker’s doing wrong. First, spending millions telling untruths about his Republican opponents, both good men, and now me.” He goes on to tell viewers about his record on national security.

“I love it,” Maury Davis, pastor of Cornerstone Church in Madison, said of Ford’s use of a church as a backdrop. “I like that he brought church back into the political arena.”

He certainly did that, but it’s hard to understand why that’s a good thing. Corker’s campaign manager questioned the appropriateness of “bringing a film crew into a church sanctuary to make a commercial.” For anyone who takes the sanctity of a church seriously, it’s hard to disagree.

For believers, a church isn’t a campaign prop to be exploited in a commercial. For secularists, brining the “church back into the political arena” is the latest unfortunate blending of the church-state line, and Ford is supposed to know better.

Then again, there’s the more immediate, practical question to consider: given Tennessee’s cultural leanings, will Ford’s commercial be effective?

It may be effective, but I think it’s really offensive — and I don’t care if it’s a Democrat or Republican doing it. Democrats should be campaigning on a better basis than trying to convince others of their “religious morals” in a church.

We need to be able to show how freedom of religion (including “from” religion for those so inclined) allows Americans great freedom to worship or not as they please, not have religion forbidden OR shoved down our collective throats.

You’re right. Ford should know better. But I don’t see how Republicans can criticize him for it, since that’s THEIR thing. He’s just stolen their thunder.

I wonder if Bush’s IRS will investigate that church for crossing the line of supporting a political candidate and challenge its tax-exempt status in this case?

What a tangled web politics is.

  • In a perfect world, religion wouldn’t be politicized.

    But in the world we are stuck in, the Republicans have already co-opted religion imagery. And they’re probably kicking themselves right now – “Why didn’t WE think of this?”

    Will this become a Republican staple in the future?

  • Given Tennessee’s cultural traditions, Ford did exactly the right thing. He’s reminded all the “church ladies” – black and white – that they want someone who understands what he talks about in that ad to be in office. For Corker to attack him will make Corker look bad, even in the eyes of his Religious Right extremist supporters, and it armors Ford against attack from that quarter.

    You know, the truth is, most of us did learn our lessons in morality and What Is To Be Done going to church, at least as kids. The difference between us and the Religious Right is we also learned the church is supposed to be involved in moral decisions out in the real world, too., that the Gospel of Christ is the social gospel. I myself am not religious (in any organized way), but I have absolutely no problem with guys like Ford pointing out to people where it is they come from. He’s talking about the social gospel that led Martin Luther King, that energized the abolitionists, that energized nearly every real reform movement in American history.

    My problem with organized Christianity has always been the people who failed to understand the necessity of the social gospel.

    It’s the Religious Right that is the anomaly in America (at least outside the South, where the Southern Baptist Church was founded to defend slavery).

  • What a great issue to bring up, CB! This one has me thinking more than anything so far. I’m vehemently against mixing church and state (well actually I’m also vehemently again church itself) but I find my self searching my brain for some wiggle room since it’s OUR guy.

    It’s wrong, but it is biographical, but it’s wrong. It is something the Repugs have exploited and turn about is…, no it’s wrong. I condemn it but chuckle at the irony of it. It’s wrong wrong wrong, er, right?

  • The mix of religion and politics is important to a lot of people. It doesn’t interest me in the slightest, but I’m just one vote. I just hope Republicans don’t keep manipulating people with religion. Although that’s not going to happen.

    I think Democrats and Republicans can meet the needs and political interests of religious Americans without resorting to blatant religious appeals, but this is the position this country is in right now (no thanks to Republicans).

    As long as the message identifies with the American people as a whole, rather than divide us into tribal groups (following the Republican model), it’s all right.

  • Unfortunately, it is also an acknowledgement that religion and the evangelical vote are increasingly indispensable to American politics. George Bush and his handlers are slowly getting their way, in spite of a declining number of kickers and screamers, at turning the United States into a Christian theocracy.

    Personally, I believe if God is watching us all the time and is everywhere, why in hell should I get up early on Sunday morning and go sit on a hard seat with a bunch of other overdressed people, in common suffering, to talk with him? Is making people miserable part of the experience? I just can’t get exalted over it. Why can’t he talk over the saw while I’m cutting baseboard for the baby’s room?

    Future elections are likely going to be decided on a basis of who is the “churchiest”, not on who might be best at running the country, or the state, or the county. Welcome to All God, All The Time. By the time it takes a generation to get over Iraq and another one to get over Taking Back America For Jesus, I wonder what the place’ll look like?

  • Corker’s campaign manager questioned the appropriateness of “bringing a film crew into a church sanctuary to make a commercial.” For anyone who takes the sanctity of a church seriously, it’s hard to disagree.

    I’d be interested to hear Corker’s opinon re: Such stomach-churning circuses as the 700 Club, Pay The Lady and so forth. Keep grasping at straws buddy maybe you’ll find one that will hold you up.

    I have no problem with the message, which taken alone is a good one and an effective one. He has learned right from wrong (unlike Corker). He even gives a gentlemanly nod to his opponents (fellow victims of Corker). When is the last time any one from either party has been so courteous? So it was set inside a church, rather than outside? I can’t get upset over it after the RNC has pulled explotative stunts like saying Democrats want to ban Bibles and other crap. I’d like to think that if a Republican had run the exact same ad, I wouldn’t be bothered either. As jc says, I’m sure we’ll see copy-cats in the future. Whether they’ll be as straight forward, non-exploitative and non-devisive is another thing all together.

  • I think it all comes down to whether it’s real or posturing. If a person has religious convictions (of the tolerant, non-fanatical variety) and lives accordingly, I can at least respect his or her integrity. In that case, religion is part of who that person is, and I can make reasonable judgements based on their actions and beliefs. The problem is when someone professes a belief, but their words and deeds are contradictory. Good question.

  • I’m of a mixed mind here. Personally (and I’m a liberal Christian) I’m uncomfortable with the possible exploitation of Ford’s faith and with his crossing the separation of church & state line. OTOH, if he is being sincere, and if his morals are being questioned by his opponent, what is wrong with his saying I learned right from wrong at church? And he’s speaking only for himself, not proclaiming that everyone must go to his church or burn in hell.

    Since the R’s have coopted religion and have falsely accused the Dems of being anti-religion, some going so far to say that Dems are godless, I think it’s fine for Ford to make this kind of commercial. And if more and more Dems start acknowledging their faith, it takes the air right out of the R’s balloon (read lie).

    John Kerry did eventually talk about his faith during the 2004 presidential race, though he was reluctant to do so. A quote from one of the debates:

    “My faith affects everything that I do, in truth. There’s a great passage of the Bible that says, “What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead.”

    “And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people.

    “That’s why I fight against poverty. That’s why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth.

    “That’s why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith.”

    ~~~
    I’m mightily po’ed to be defined by the right – leftist (which I take to mean Communist), godless, hate my country, etc. – when I’m not any of those things.

    And Mark #7: you don’t need to be “overdressed”, “sit on a hard seat”, or be in “common suffering” to attend services. You wouldn’t be “miserable” at my church, in fact, you might even like it. But you can also talk with God while sawing baseboard for your baby’s room (congrats!).

  • Ford doesn’t cross the Church/State separation line since he isn’t lawmaking in this commercial. That is a moot point, and irrelevant to boot. He really is simply discussing his religious beliefs, which any politician can do without crossing any separation of Church and Stae, simply because what he is doing is Free Speech.

    This commerical is tacky in a Bushco way, with Ford framed in a church with the cross off his right shoulder at the end. But it is a political ad, and why do we care? Is he not supposed to address his beliefs or is he supposed to? He can’t win for losing, but as Democrats I don’t see how we can really criticize (critique maybe) his use of religion, since he is simply stating that his religious upbringing is what formed his basis for moral decision making. So what?

  • I have no problem with this commercial and in fact I think it is extraordinarily good strategy. That we wince from things like this speaks volumes to why we have lost so many elections in the past decade.

    This is not politicizing religion. This is Ford’s personal biography. And he is using it to defend his reputation for honesty, and doing so in a way that turns the “values” party on its head. Has Max Cleland run this exact same ad, he might still be in D.C. I tend to give slandered politicians a lot of leeway in what is appropriate in self-defense, but I’m not sure I see this as even being that close to the line.

    This is just a good, effective, reply-in-kind ad that strikes a chord with the intended audience. If his district is largely religious, how does it make sense to avoid religion in trying to speak to them?

  • I’m sad that our politics has come to this, where there probably won’t be any significant outcry against what Ford is doing. To me personally, it is a violation against the spirit if not the letter of church/state separation.

    But as a tactic, it’s brilliant. Whoever is advising Ford clearly gets that the Party of Dobson will never, ever, ever protest against the “politicization of religion.” And it probably will help him in TN, for the reasons noted above.

  • Like it or hate it – it steals a march on Bob Corker.

    It is no different that a Bush ad politicizing 9-11.

    Do you think the Repubs argue among themselves that an ad might go too far?

    It is a battle here in Tennessee. If this gets us more votes than it loses us, it is worth it.

  • For what it’s worth, I think Ford played this one perfectly. Identifying a sanctuary as “the place where I learned the difference between right and wrong”—when it’s coming from an individual who has kept his distance from the nauseoua moralizing—is not about morals; it’s about ethics.

    Harold Ford knows that the two are worlds apart; one can only guide the individual, while the other can be applied directly in the political arena. The Religious Reich knows this; they fear it; they hate it to its very core, because they’ve spent so many years trying to blur the distinction, and foist upon the People a false conncetivity between the two.

    Now, the Reich is faced with an individual who’s tugging away at the “quilt of darkness” that they’ve used for over a quarter-century. Their “secret” is being exposed to the “real” light of day, rather than the blinders of spotlights and soundbytes. People are going to start seeing that, unlike what they’re being peddled, their is a fundamental difference between “morals” (subjective) and “ethics” (objective).

    If Ford can ramp this up, and keep it going for the next 50-some days, he’ll blast “Bubba” Corker out of the political water on election day….

  • Sounds like an effective ad to me. Ford needs to do whatever he has to do to win this race. I’d much rather see one of our guys give the GOP a taste of their own medicine than see another Dem take the high road to Loserville.

    Besides, there’s a big difference between seperation of church and state and seperation of church and senator. It’s not wrong for a lawmaker’s religious convictions to inform his decision making, so long as his decisions respect all Americans’ rights.

    As a liberal Christian, what upsets me is not so much the cynical kabuki dance that is the relationship between the GOP and fundie charlatans like Dobson itself. Rather, what angers me is their ultimate shared goal: The complete fusion American Christianity and Corporate America.

    If Dem politicians can counter this by appealing to American Christians directly, thereby cutting out corrupt middlemen like Dobson, Wildmon, etc, then more power to them.

  • At first blush, the idea of filming a commercial in a church is kind of creepy. In comment #3, Davis X Machina raised the idea of a green screen. A simpler alternative is a built set. Those don’t seem offensive at all. From there, why not save the money and shoot it in an existing church? It’s a bit of pretzel logic, but the more I think it through, the less it bothers me.

    For years the repubs have been draping themselves in phony religion and raking in votes from it. This post makes me wonder if there is a long term advantage to Dems in using this sort of imagery across the country. The idea isn’t to mix religion and government, or to join the repubs in their taliban drive. Rather, help the repubs hit saturation point with religious demagoguery. There’s a point where no one will want to hear religion from a politician again. When we get back to that, our country will be much further ahead.

  • The Republicans politicized religion long ago and in much more poisonous and heinous ways than Harold Ford. And it’s not only in politics. The theocrats are creating a whole new generation of robotic child-warriors to ensure that the entire country is brought back to Bronze Age levels of thinkng in the coming years. Watch the movie “Jesus Camp” and you’ll see the unique form of child abuse these soulless bastards embrace so eagerly. Compared to them, Harold Ford has done nothing wrong whatsoever.

  • “The question then becomes whether this historic first is a problem or not. In the interests of intellectual honesty, I have to say, if this were a Republican, I’d vehemently criticize the politicization of religion.”

    I’ll throw in my vote that the idea of a Republican, and a bible belt Republican at that, accusing a Democrat of politicizing religion simply does not pass the laugh test. Republicans have certainly been happy enough to lay claim to the mantle of defenders of The Faith in recent campaigns. It’s also beyond obvious that there’s little correlation between Republican behaviour — at least at the national level — and Christian values or ethics (they also don’t care much about intellectual honesty). To my mind, that’s really a fight that a well funded and articulate Democratic candidate properly ought to be able to take on and win once in a while.

  • Touche.

    Ford did the kind of thing Rove has been doing to us: he attacked his opponent at their point of strength.

    Attacking the Repugs by calling them “un-Christian” is brilliant. Reclaiming religion is brilliant.

    Does anyone remember the *Reverend* Martin Luther King, Jr.?

    Religious folks used to be Democrats: dedicated to helping their brothers and sisters. The Repugs were (and still are) the godless profiteers.

    Anyone remember who our first Born-Again Christian President was? Hint: he was a peanut farmer too.

    Since Reagan, Repugs have stolen religion away from the Democrats. Time to take it back.

  • The sanctuary of a church is NOT the interior of the building. The “sanctuary” is confined to the chancel area – the space at the front where you find the pulpit, communion table, altar, etc. In the OT Temple of Jerusalem, (and in many Orthodox churches today) that area is referred to as the Holy of Holies.

    As all commentary here suggests the commercial was shot down in the pew area, then no harm, no foul. The repugs just gotta deal with it…thekeez

  • Just one further comment about my uneasiness regarding bringing religion into political campaigns. It’s divisive. In the best of worlds religion is a private matter.

    Would the Democrats unthinkingly set up a standard of “one must be openly religious” for candidates? What if an atheist wants to run for office? Will that individual’s secular ethics be respected as much as his/her opponent’s “religious ethics”?

    I think it’s a dangerous line to blur just to win elections. The wall of separation between church/state is one of the foundations of American Democracy, and it spooks me to see Democrats willing to use religion as a qualification for office.

    I’m not a dummy — in this case it’s a brilliant political tactic, but that doesn’t alleviate my uneasiness about the precedent being set for the party, at least up until now, that has generally respected that wall of separation. With Bush’s faith-based programs, we don’t need more erosion between church and state by the opposing party.

  • No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State.

    (Tennessee State Constitution)

  • I’ve never spent a day in any church in my life and I have no problem distinguishing between right and wrong or between that which can be considered moral or immoral. I’m sick to death of pious, pandering frauds, either in office or not, who use the trappings of organized religion to bolster their moral credibility, as if the church and its low-brow denizens are free of moral failings. Someone tell me where the priests that routinely buggered the anus of young boys learned the difference between “right and wrong”.

    CAN SOMEONE TELL ME THAT?? WAS IT IN A GODDAMNED CHURCH?? MAYBE THE NAZI POPE, HERR RATZINGER, CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

    I think Mr. Ford needs to read Article Six of the Constitution of the United States.

    • Comments are closed.