Religion as a Political Tactic
Today I finally got around to catching up on some of the articles on religion and politics that have been emailed back and forth at RFP (see here and here).
Both of the articles that I read focused on the importance to much of the American public that their elected officials be religious people or at least people with strong values that are compatible with the faith of their constituents. The articles mentioned that prior to the current presidential campaign, few Democrats were comfortable talking about their faith or religion in the public sphere, and the "religious talk" was therefore prevalent only on the right side of the aisle. Gearing up for the 2008 election, however, Democratic candidates have begun to realize that they cannot win an election if religion is off the table. They have decided to speak about religion at their campaign stops, emphasize their belief in God and their "religious values", and prove that they are just as "faithful" as their Republican counterparts.
While the tone of the articles was along the lines of "finally the Democrats are moving in the right direction, and maybe now they even have a chance to win!" I was somewhat troubled by the image that these articles portrayed. First of all, I got the feeling that the Democrats are now scrambling to take up an angle that just might give them an edge, and while they might actually believe what they are saying, they aren't saying it only because it is such a part of who they are that it can't be hidden. For these candidates, religion is just another political tactic, a strategy that will help them "convert" more and more voters. I wonder if these voters remember what these same politicians were saying a few years ago, emphasizing the separation of church and state and criticizing Republicans whose faith played such a strong role in their political decision-making. Working at Religions for Peace, I am a witness day in and day out to all the good things that religious traditions emphasize, and all the good things that religious communities can work together to accomplish. It seems contradictory to the faiths that these politicians profess when they use religion to achieve nothing more than a check by their name on a ballot.
The other thing that troubled me about these articles was not what they contained, but what they left out. In talking about conversing in the language of religion and courting prominent religious leaders and organizations, the religion was Christianity. There was little if any mention of engagement with Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, or any other kind of religious leader. The emphasis was on values - but it was understood that this meant Christian values. For some, being Christian was not enough - the candidate had to be a specific Christian denomination. What was implied is that a Jew or Muslim or Buddhist or Sikh does not have the right values to be President of the United States. I would imagine that in their opinion, an athiest doesn't have any values at all. All in all I sensed intolerance, an unwillingness to believe that people of a different tradition or background can be good, moral people.
I am greatly troubled by the actions of these politicians, but I am equally troubled by the attitudes of so many American citizens. Our Constitution prohibits the use of religious tests as qualifications for public office, but it cannot eliminate a religious litmus test at the ballot box by the voters themselves. Only education, conversation, understanding, and acceptance can do that.
Both of the articles that I read focused on the importance to much of the American public that their elected officials be religious people or at least people with strong values that are compatible with the faith of their constituents. The articles mentioned that prior to the current presidential campaign, few Democrats were comfortable talking about their faith or religion in the public sphere, and the "religious talk" was therefore prevalent only on the right side of the aisle. Gearing up for the 2008 election, however, Democratic candidates have begun to realize that they cannot win an election if religion is off the table. They have decided to speak about religion at their campaign stops, emphasize their belief in God and their "religious values", and prove that they are just as "faithful" as their Republican counterparts.
While the tone of the articles was along the lines of "finally the Democrats are moving in the right direction, and maybe now they even have a chance to win!" I was somewhat troubled by the image that these articles portrayed. First of all, I got the feeling that the Democrats are now scrambling to take up an angle that just might give them an edge, and while they might actually believe what they are saying, they aren't saying it only because it is such a part of who they are that it can't be hidden. For these candidates, religion is just another political tactic, a strategy that will help them "convert" more and more voters. I wonder if these voters remember what these same politicians were saying a few years ago, emphasizing the separation of church and state and criticizing Republicans whose faith played such a strong role in their political decision-making. Working at Religions for Peace, I am a witness day in and day out to all the good things that religious traditions emphasize, and all the good things that religious communities can work together to accomplish. It seems contradictory to the faiths that these politicians profess when they use religion to achieve nothing more than a check by their name on a ballot.
The other thing that troubled me about these articles was not what they contained, but what they left out. In talking about conversing in the language of religion and courting prominent religious leaders and organizations, the religion was Christianity. There was little if any mention of engagement with Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, or any other kind of religious leader. The emphasis was on values - but it was understood that this meant Christian values. For some, being Christian was not enough - the candidate had to be a specific Christian denomination. What was implied is that a Jew or Muslim or Buddhist or Sikh does not have the right values to be President of the United States. I would imagine that in their opinion, an athiest doesn't have any values at all. All in all I sensed intolerance, an unwillingness to believe that people of a different tradition or background can be good, moral people.
I am greatly troubled by the actions of these politicians, but I am equally troubled by the attitudes of so many American citizens. Our Constitution prohibits the use of religious tests as qualifications for public office, but it cannot eliminate a religious litmus test at the ballot box by the voters themselves. Only education, conversation, understanding, and acceptance can do that.
posted by Sarah Moskow @ 3:45 PM
2 Comments:
At 10:27 AM,
Anonymous said…
While I do believe that Democrats can also be religious, it is not what defines them. I am very skeptical of their calculating approach. As a Catholic, I believe politicians should be open to all religions that do not preach hatred toward others. When the Democrats in the past made it seem that President Bush was insane for having strong faith, it made me upset because to his credit, he simply doesn't make decisions based on popularity contests. I find Clinton, probably, the most calculating as she has stated that religion has no place in public or anywhere else. As a taxpayer and as a parent whose children attend a religious school, it was troubling. I do not wish to impose my faith on others and I have close friends of all faiths - so I understand fairness - but in the past, it appears the Democrats have not cared for anyone with any semblance of a religious point of view.
At 2:12 PM,
Lura said…
I am so troubled about the "religious right"...because I believe they are the "religious wrong." I have faced ridicule because I am listed on the voting record as a Democrat, and my friends work at the voting place. The truth is that I am an Independent...as is my husband, because here in NC to vote in the primary, you are either democrat or republican. He signed as a Republican.
I, too, am afraid that too much religious talk among the Demo candidates will look too fake.
Our country was founded on religious freedom, so why are the Republicans seeming to move toward just one religion. I believe I am a very devout Christian. My mother always taught me to do as Jesue would do, and she was always mentioning the book, In His Steps.
I cannot understand the mentality of my Christian friends when they swallow teachings from the big name evangelists and other ministers who preach such narrow-mindness. I believe in the 2 commandments that Jesus gave us--to love our God with all our heart, and to love our neighbor as ourself. If we do that, we don't have to worry about hanging the 10 Commandments on our walls and buildings, but do not live up to them. So, please spread the word to all the people, the 13th Chapter of lst Corinthians is what we should be living by.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home