In “Homeland,” Showtime’s excellent Emmy-winning drama starring Claire Danes, a G.I. named Nick Brody imprisoned for years returns to the states a hero, and, secretly, a converted Muslim and terrorist. By Season Two, which premiered last night, Brody has risen to be a member of Congress, where he is working from the inside to benefit the interests of his captors. He has kept his conversion to Islam secret from everyone but his teenage daughter Dana, who accidentally caught him praying to Mecca in the basement in the first season.
Now Brody’s name is being floated as a possible running mate for the current Vice President, who is a presumptive presidential nominee. The Veep tells Congressman Brody that if there are skeletons in his closet that his researchers wouldn’t have found—I’m pretty sure being a secret terrorist would qualify—Brody needs to air them. Brody says there aren’t any. We know better.
Meanwhile, at Sidwell Friends, the tony Quaker private school in D.C. that all the pols send their kids to, Dana is fuming because she has to listen to the Vice-President’s obnoxious son go on about how “Muslims aren’t like us” and “don’t respect human life.” Dana, having been admonished for insulting him, blurts out, “Well, my father’s a Muslim!” in class. Dana’s subsequent position is that she was joking to make a point. At home, however, her outburst causes a domestic crisis, as her mother feels that Brody has been lying to her, which he has.
I’ll leave Rep. Brody out of this ethical dilemma, as he is suffering from an Islamic strain of the Stockholm Syndrome, but what about the family? From their perspective, which is that they don’t suspect for a second that Brody is a traitor, what is their ethical obligation should he announce that the Vice President is going to choose him as a running mate, and that he expects them to keep his secret?
His argument, of course, is that his religion shouldn’t and doesn’t matter. It is true that the “public would want to know,” and also that the public would probably not feel very comfy electing a Muslim these days to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, fair or not. The family knows he is a good man (they think) and like the idea of being Second Family; there is no reason to sink his career and their aspirations to celebrity by allowing irrational bigotry to take hold. Is there?
That’s not the whole truth, however. Brody has lied to the Vice President and to his constituents, and they do have a right to know that. In my view, both wife and daughter have an ethical duty as citizens to tell husband and father that if he accepts the nomination, they will be forced to expose him. They should also tell him that he needs to resign from Congress, or, if he’s willing, tell the public about his deception and ask for their forgiveness. I think, in short, that this is a John Edwards situation.
Is that what you would do, in their place?
And my favorite hypothetical of them all, that I refuse to believe wasn’t lurking in the minds of the writers:
Michelle discovers Barack praying to Mecca in the basement.
Tomorrow.
What would be her ethical duty?
Ethics Alarms 
Is a person’s religion a public or private thing? The public would want to know lots of thing that it shouldnt necessarily be privy to. If Brody’s wife knows that he likes being spanked, and have candle wax dripped over him in bed, does she have an obligation to expose it? What if the public really, really would love to have that information, and that knowledge would affect how they would vote if such information became known?
In what ways are religious beliefs germane to a person’s public policy? And if it is, can the public policy positions be discovered another way? Or are we using the person’s religious beliefs as shorthand for the person’s public policy beliefs without bothering to actually discover if it’s true?
Good questions all. In Brody’s case, the combination of his religion and the circumstances by which he came to it changes the equation, don’t you think? And as I stated, isn’t honesty part of the equation now? If religion doesn’t matter, then why lie about it? Honesty DOES matter.
I was thinking more in general terms about religious beliefs, rather than this narrow, unrealistic situation, but if Brody’s family believes that he is some sort of Manchurian candidate, then I think his wife has some obligation to disclose, because the harm to the country outweighs his right to privacy. But that is a separate issue from his religious beliefs. If he came back from his ordeal and was a super-duper evangelical, when he wasn’t particularly religious before, we probably wouldn’t think that unusual. So it isn’t the switch of religion, but the particular religion in this case that would botther many. Otherwise why would the “Obama is a secret Muslim” thing disturb so many people?
If religion doesn’t matter, then why lie about it?
Religion *shouldn’t* matter. That would be the difference. But to many bigots, it does. That is why some may choose to keep their beliefs (or non-beliefs) private.
Private is one thing, deception is another. We don’t condone political lies because the voters won’t like the truth. I want to know if a candiate will raise my taxes, and the fact that he thinks I won’t like the answer unreasonably doesn’t justify his lying, does it?
I’d say a long-time prisoner of war who comes back with the religion of those he was imprisoned by raises legitimate worries, not just ones based on bigotry. You wouldn’t?
Private is one thing, deception is another.
I guess I have a problem with the question being asked in the first place. If a politician is being asked about consensual, legal bedroom behavior, and the only purpose is to find out what he likes, does the politician have an obligation to be forthright? Do people with that knowledge have an obligation to tell? I guess I see religious beliefs closer to the bedroom side of the spectrum than the tax question, which is direct public policy.
I’d say a long-time prisoner of war who comes back with the religion of those he was imprisoned by raises legitimate worries, not just ones based on bigotry. You wouldn’t?
As I’ve said, if you believe that the guy is a manchurian candidate, people should evey right to investigate further. Religious beliefs, in and of themselves, I don’t think would be a great indicator. So, no, for the Homeland example, I don’t think the wife has an obligation to tell about his religion, but she would have an obligation if she had some indication that he was a terrorist. Michelle Obama has no obligation to tell anyone if Barack Obama is Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, or anything else.
Religion bears on belief systems, and is 100% per cent legit. If character matters, and it does, then so does religion. If a religion teaches that women are second class citizens, or the gays are sinners, or that blacks or inferior, I want to know if a candidate is devout, or holds those view. That’s why Rev. Wright’s Black Liberation Theology was relevant to Obama, if he was a member of that church. It is in no way equivalent to sexual habits.
I agree on the Obama hypo, but only because she’s his wife. I believe, however, that for Mrs. Edwards to aid and abet her husband’s fraud—the fraud being his character— on the country and his party was despicable.
I think the Edwards thing is interesting. I don’t believe that it was Elizabeth Edwards obligation to disclose her husband’s despicable behavior. That fault lies entirely on him. It was also the Dmocratic party’s obligation to throughly vet him, and in this case, the facts were well known in many circles at the time, which is why he was never a candidate for VP for Obama, nor was he even picked for the Cabinet. Did Elizabeth cross the line into uholding actual, legal fraud? Maybe, if she facilitated money laundering, but that is a different case.
Now if it were just about Edward’s cheating on his wife, and nothing more, would Elizabeth Edwards have a duty to disclose her knowledge of the adultery? I still say she would not. Sexual discretion has not been shown to an indicator of what makes a good president. Some of our best Presidents have been notorious cheaters (Jefferson, FDR, Eisenhower), some bad have also been cheaters (Harding, G HW Bush), so it doesn’t seem like information a voter needs to know to judge future job performance, nor public policy positions. So in the end, adultery, in and out itself, seems mostly like irrelevant information.
Religion bears on belief systems, and is 100% per cent legit. If character matters, and it does, then so does religion. If a religion teaches that women are second class citizens, or the gays are sinners, or that blacks or inferior, I want to know if a candidate is devout, or holds those view.
If there is a public policy position a candidate holds, such as the belief that gays are sinners, and should be eradicated, then there are easier and better wasys to find that out, rather than asking about religion. There are many ways to get to -X -stance in public policy. If we automatically assume that a Baptists hates gays, and should be asked about them, aren’t we also giving a free pass to the atheirst, who might also hate gays, but for non-religious reasons? So it is much better to examine their public policy stances, rather than trying to use a candidate’s religion as a proxy for that.
If there is a public policy position a candidate holds, such as the belief that gays are sinners, and should be eradicated, then there are easier and better wasys to find that out, rather than asking about religion. There are many ways to get to -X -stance in public policy. If we automatically assume that a Baptists hates gays, and should be asked about them, aren’t we also giving a free pass to the atheirst, who might also hate gays, but for non-religious reasons? So it is much better to examine their public policy stances, rather than trying to use a candidate’s religion as a proxy for that.
So much stupid packed into one paragraph. If it’s dogma for baptists to hate gays, then we absolutely should assume such of a baptist. This can be repudiated by the person, but it’s on them to do so. There’s absolutely no reason we shouldn’t use the shortcuts that candidates have self-defined for us. We still should be drilling down to their words and actions, but why give up a useful starting point? Atheists wouldn’t get a pass, we just don’t have a suite of beliefs as a starting point.
Religion *shouldn’t* matter. That would be the difference. But to many bigots, it does. That is why some may choose to keep their beliefs (or non-beliefs) private.
Bull. If religious beliefs are used to inform actions, then religiously beliefs absolutely do matter.
Sorry if it was anyone but his family yes they should say something but family should always stick by family unless they are breaking the law. Period.
And if they know that he is a converted potential terrorist, I assume that changes your answer, right?
yes absolutely.
I don’t agree. You can stick by someone while still informing the populace about them.
I have no problem with that if he is breaking the law but otherwise you dont air your family’s laundry in public. At least not in my family.
I don’t see what the law has to do with it. I do agree that the ethical duties to family are greater than those to community or country, but I don’t believe that they are in a different realm of ethics. It would require a larger good for the populace to cause a harm to a family member or confidant than the good necessary to cause an equal harm to a stranger or bare acquaintance, but those levels are there.
Flat out refusing to talk about your family unless it’s illegal seems very cultlike to me.
Its not cult like , its called loyalty. The whole concept that I would someone would even think of betraying their family members trust like that is beyond me.
No, loyalty is weighting family above other people in the calculus. Removing them completely is cultlike.
I have loyalty to my neighborhood, my town, my alma mater, my high school, my summer camps, and multiple other groups, but the level of loyalty varies, and it would be inappropriate for me to treat them all the same way I treat my immediate family.
You and I are splitting hairs. I dont remove them completely I just have a higher bar then you when it comes to what I will share and what I wont.
Really? I haven’t said what my bar is, and you’re couching it in absolute terms.
I assumed you had no bar as you would share your families private information with the public.
The bar is the relative good and harm. In the right circumstance, I would definitely share private family information. Depending on the information, the bar might be damn high, but it exists. You are implying that there is no reason you would share private family information.
This is an interesting question because while it opens the door for all the “Obama=Secret Muslim” angles his political opponents and bigots like to play, it also drags out into the daylight the whole reason behind this particular character’s reasons for converting to Islam in the first place.
I watched it for the first time tonight – it was very riveting, but I believe the main character’s conversion is completely far-fetched and highly improbable.
That being said, It kind of reminds me of Kevin Coster in “Dances with Wolves” – “Ya turned Injun, didn’t ya?” paradox. In retrospect, looking back on that movie and the times it represents, the white man turned out to be the big jackass – American Exceptionalism. One hundred forty years in the future, it’s easy to see that.
But not so much today…. very few Americans see our country as “Villians” – but in many ways, we are. There’s a myriad of examples of why the people of Islam generally hate “us” – I rather think they are hostile to our leadership and MIComplex than the American people – but those in power cloak themselves in “All of us” instead of just the Leadership Oligarchy .01%. That fact is never mentioned in the Black vs White, Us vs. Them MSMedia horse race. Good for ratings.
If I were in that guy’s shoes, however, I would never convert to any religion, ala Dances with Wolves… and especially Islam – but I don’t begrudge anyone for their beliefs, as long as they do no harm to others. And that can’t be said for fundamentalist of any stripe – Muslim, Christian of Jewish.
Yeah, well, season 1 was pretty great and you can’t discount that entire season because you didn’t watch it and just played catch up in the first 5 minutes’ “Previously on Homeland” recap.
I agree with you Tim.. like I said, I missed the whole first season, and there has to be pretty good reason why it won however many Emmy’s it did. Plus I love Claire Danes, and I can’t believe Damian Lewis is a Brit – he fooled me all throughout Band of Brothers, in which he was flippin’ brilliant. He does a great ‘Merican accent..!
Other great accents from foreign actors: Hugh Laurie’s Dr. House (on House) and Dominic West’s Detective McNulty (on The Wire). The latter even had a scene where the character spoke in the native Irish brogue and got lambasted by his coworkers for the horrible accent. Just another reason The Wire is one of the best TV series of all time.
Bob Hoskins in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” still wins my vote as the best American accent by a Brit ever. Laurie’s mighty impressive though.
Sorry none of them touch John Mahoney from Frasier.
Character matters, so religion matters. If a politician claims to be a devout Catholic, but is in favor of broad abortion rights, gay marriage, authority of the pope, etc in a liberal district with a large Catholic population, I would not trust that candidate. This is obviously a candidate who will do or say anything to get elected. A truly devout person cannot support a religion when they disagree with essential tenets of the faith.
Because of this, the essential tenets of a religion and how it is practiced is relevant. The current presidential election has a good example. I am surprised that there is not more questioning of Mitt Romney’s faith. I’m not talking about the ‘magic underwear’ or the ‘getting your own planet’ thing. I am talking about loyalties. As J. Michael Straczynski put it in ‘Crusade’, “Who do you serve, and who do you trust?”. In the LDS church, the 12 prophets and the president of the LDS church relay the word of God directly to their members who must follow them and are not allowed to question them. Who will Mitt Romney serve, the American People, or the president of the LDS church? If the interests of both are in conflict, which side will he choose? A Mormon would not see a problem with it because they could not see an instance where the two would be in conflict. They don’t view it as Romney being beholden to the LDS president, but only to God (through the LDS president). As a non-Mormon, I disagree.
Doesn’t that problem hold for, well, nearly all religious people? Anybody that relies on a priest or reverend or {insert religious title here} to determine what God wants is beholden to someone outside of the chain of command for a President.
And that’s a real problem Mittens has right now – because who is he beholden to actually except himself? I think he thinks he is appointed by God and the Mormon church to be president, so what he says, what promises he makes, no mater how contradictory, don’t matter.
I know for a fact Mitt is not beholden to the people of this country, let alone this country at all – like oil barons, they look upon the oil under all our feet as “Theirs”. Same goes for Twitt and the rest of his ilk who look upon the people of this country as Sheep to be sheared and the businesses of this country as opportunites to hollow out and exploit for their own profit.
Mitt’s actions are just as explainable by naked ambition as by belief in divine providence. Mittens and Twitt also don’t add anything to the conversation. Now, if you punned on something he actually did that was relevant (like if mitten was the word for flopping sandals instead of flipflops), then that could be useful. As it is, they’re just invective.
Don’t forget about sincerity. Romney, unlike almost all presidentials candidates, appears to be pretty psychologically healthy.
True, Romney could be deluded into being sincere in all of his contrary positions
I haven’t watched it, and I don’t plan to do so for a couple of reasons.
1. I’m sick of production companies hiring Brits to play Americans on TV when there are plenty of Americans who could play that role. Plus its almost impossible to get hired as an American actor in Britain due to their laws. That’s why there are so many Brits in Band of Brothers.
2. He is way too old for the part.
3. Can someone at least TRY to read the uniform and hair regulations when making a TV show about a Marine? Please is to much to add that you read the regs and say “Oh his hair is way too damn long and he is wearing the uniform wrong”
If he lies to his wife about this, and lies to the potential Presidential candidate as well, then we have a problem. If he doesn’t think religion matters, and presumably no on else should either, why hide something so huge from his life partner and his potential running mate? BECAUSE HE IS ALSO A TERRORIST now, and disclosure of his religious conversion may cause some extra investigation into him, his experiences, and his behaviors.
If my husband held something that huge back from me, I would wonder (1) what does our lifetime commitment really mean to you? And (2) WHY are you hiding it? What’s behind the secrecy? I’d leave him, and then watch and see if I would need to come forward with this knowledge, kept secret even from me upon his return.
If I’m being harsh in the Stephane Cutter thread, it might be because I see comments like this from you, and know what you can do. I’m considerably harder on smart people than dumb people. Here I see clear, concise, valid logic, with a take that noone had yet mentioned, and I hadn’t even considered. Hiding the religion was a breach of familial responsibility. This isn’t simply exposing a family secret you were openly entrusted with; by keeping the religion secret, familial ethical obligations have already been breached. This information is outside of the familial duty.