"He's a <insert ethnicity>." "No ma'am, he's a decent family man."

Much has been made of John McCain's response to one of his supporters at a political meeting, wherein he said, speaking of his opponent Barack Obama, "No ma'am, he's a decent family man, a citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with."

One may think that the woman must have slandered Obama in vile, reprehensible terms. She must have called him words so reprehensible that a vocal, unequivocal defense from even Obama's staunch political adversary was the only sensible response.

As it turns out, she had merely called Obama "an Arab".

One wonders if the response from McCain would have been as categorical, or its praise as unanimous and honorific, if the woman had used some other -- any other -- ethnic, racial or religious identifier instead of "Arab".

For example, let's try imagining these hypothetical exchanges.

"He's half-black." "No ma'am, he's a decent family man."
"He's half-white." "No ma'am, he's a decent family man."
"He's a self-professed Christian." "No ma'am, he's a decent family man."

Any of the above responses would be called out for what it is: a detestable, back-handed allegation that somehow men of mixed races, or Christians, are not decent family men.

In fact, such a response would be considered quite reprehensible, even though all three corresponding "He's a <insert label>" statements are factually correct, unlike the statement "He [Obama] is an Arab"!

We would be guilty of obtuseness if we did not see this for what it is: it is better to be any ethnicity or religion in contemporary America than to be merely accused of being Arab.

On Accusations of Religiosity

In a secular democracy, what's the proper response when a person aspiring for public office is asked a question about his religion? Or his parents' (or grandparents') religion? What if the questions are not asked directly, but insinuated? What if there are no questions of any kind; only provocative allegations spread insidiously?

These are delicate matters, but certainly worthy of investigation.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States is noticeably brief in the requirements it places on who can assume the Presidency of the United States: a natural born citizen of the United States 35 years or older, who's lived in the US for at least 14 years. Not even past felonies are mentioned as a reason for disbarment.

This minimalism is not by omission and certainly not by oversight. In the Federalist Paper no. 69, Alexander Hamilton contrasts to some length the "real characters of the proposed executive" with the traits of monarch (king) of England. One of the articles of contrast is: "The one has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction; the other is the supreme head and governor of the national church!" James Madison goes further and excludes religious faith as a merit for even an elector of federal representatives -- not an elected nor a public position in itself (Federalist Paper No. 57). It is clear the men who founded the republic had given consideration to religion as a metric for performing public duties, and deliberately excluded it.

Given this history, it is hoped that latter day aspirants would be as steadfast in resisting the adoption of religious faith as a partial test, nay, an eligibility requirement, for holding public office. Unfortunately, this is seldom the case in current day United States.

The proper response for a public official when asked about his (or her) faith could be something along the lines of "I'm a practicing Blogonian by faith, but this is neither a prerequisite nor relevant to the office I hold / intend to occupy." Or perhaps "I can understand your interest in my beliefs, but they are personal and I intend to keep them separate from my official duties." Innuendo is even less worthy of such platitudinous responses. If it deserves any, it need not be much more elaborate than "these insinuations are not only malicious, they're irrelevant."

But what if the insinuations are of the worst kind: about the alleged religious affiliation of the candidate's or public official's ancestors? Shouldn't the aggrieved politician feel the weight of law and decency on his (or her) side to such an overwhelming extent so as to denounce these allegations and reaffirm the irrelevance of one's religion (let alone that of one's forefathers) to one's desire or ability to serve the public?

I think this question, above all others in this post, is rhetorical.