You'll Shoot Your Eye Out
The new-ish rightwing meme on Obama is that he attends a church . . . that is either racist ("black" values, on "Tucker" last week) or preaches black power. Now, these claims are silly, and I can't imagine that this story has legs. The real question is whether Republican operatives really want to put the religiosity of their own candidates into question. It's all well in good to claim "official religiosity," to stress the importance of one's Christian faith to one's moral purpose, whatever. But it's another thing to get into doctrine and specific teachings. For example, already-also-ran Sam Brownback converted from Protestant to radical Opus Dei Catholic, while a senator. Mitt Romney, beloved of the Cornerites, believes in a Golden Bible buried by Ancient Israelites on a hillside in Palmyra, New York, and unearthed by one Joseph Smith.
More significantly, I am curious how often Rudy goes to mass. My guess, not too often. Plus, weren't we just told, a few years ago, that Catholics shouldn't vote for pro-choice Catholics, and that, um, priests shouldn't administer communion to pro-choice politicians? (When was that? Not so long ago . . . but I just can't remember . . . .) I guess that doesn't apply, if the Republican party is desperate for a candidate.
posted by Number Three @ 6:36 AM
12 Comments:
#3,
Unfortunately the story of each candidate's religion is going to continue to be huge. And each party now will have to field candidates who roll out their holiness to one degree or another (gives new meaning to term holy rollers). We already saw this in the Congressional elections, even among the Democrats with candidates such as Harold Ford Jr., who was careful to mention God every other word to demonstrate his bona fides. To put it another way, even some democrats think we must resort to eye for eye, tooth for tooth politics in the field of religion.
Given that the Republican party gets at least 50% of its support from Christian fundamentalists who believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of Gawd, they may as well be called the Republican Hezbollah party. So, it is likely henceforth that anyone who wants to be the Republican nominee will have to at least fake being an Evangelical Christian (that's why McCain spoke at Falwell's Liberty Baptist), unless the religious half of the Republican party and the plutocrat half get tired of each other and one splinters off to form a third major party.
And any Democratic nominee who isn't a fundamentalist will called the anti-Christ by fundamentalists, as B.O. already has been.
In short, we are now reaping what the religious right has been sowing in the US since the 70s -- a melding of religion and politics. I don't see it going away anytime soon - in fact I think it's going to get much worse. If you haven't noticed, in recent years all the MSM outlets now pander to religious viewers and have hosts who address what essentially are theological questions in serious political fora.
Um, weren't we talking about B.O.? He, Paul, is not interested in getting the Republican nomination, so please put away Bob Jones paranoia for a minute. He is interested in get the D nomination and its religious litmus test, if anything, is much stricter.
So I watched Tavis Smiley's "annual" state of the black union gab fest on C-SPAN this weekend and noticed that one major topic of conversation was whether B.O. is black enough (or, it seems, at all). As the son of a white woman and African man who, it seems, grew up everywhere but in an American urban setting, there were questions to be asked.
What wasn't discussed, of course, was religion. Because there was no doubt about the importance of the Lord and Saviour to the lives of each and every person crammed in to that Hampton University gym (where, it should be noted, a young Curat dunked a couple of basketballs at an informal halftime dunk contest during his senior year all-star game. On Saturday, it went unremarked-upon).
The solemn event was ended with a full-on homily delivered by a southern (and extremely sweaty) minister, backed on stage by singers and testifiers and joined in song by every participant within camera shot including Mr. Smiley, M.E. Dyson and one Cornell West (though not the Rev. Jackson who, I assumed, skipped out as soon as he was off stage).
Any attempts by B.O. to shore up his Christian bona fides will be directly and wholly aimed at that crowd, sir, and not the bubba voters he won't be getting anyway.
So it's not "even among Democrats" as you suggest, but "especially among Democrats." Look out my friend - we're everywhere. We may even be someone you know.
I agree with curat lex that Democratic candidates' public displays of religiosity are aimed at a large number of Christians within the Democratic party. Most Democrats, like most Americans, profess to be Christians.
But, as Paul observes, there is a second audience, as well. No Democrat expects to win any substantial number of religious conservative votes, but Democratic candidates would dearly love to set the issue of their own religious orthodoxy aside. More than 95% of Americans believe in God. Most of those who don't go to church believe that they should. No Democratic politician wants to be seen as the candidate of secular unbelief. It's deadly, a guaranteed loser, politically toxic. But there are powerful elements within the Republican camp who would love to have Democrats be seen this way because it affords so much political advantage. Inasmuch as a substantial number of influential groups raise this issue in campaigns, Democrats want to try to put it to rest . . . so they try to defend themselves. They won't ever fully succeed, because most American seculars are, in fact, in the Democratic party. But this is also a reason why Democrats are getting progressively more vocal about their religious beliefs, compared to Democratic presidential candidates in the 1950s and 1960s.
Well, as I look over #3's post I took this sentence to be the focus of his musings: "The real question is whether Republican operatives really want to put the religiosity of their own candidates into question." Note the bold fonts, which to my mind were #3's way of highlighting what he was getting at. After mentioning B.O.'s religion as a set up, #3 actually then focused upon the religions of Brownback, Romney and Giuliani. So ¾ of his post was on the Republican party, and ¾ of his focus wasn't on Barak Obama. So #3's post was not just about B.O.'s religion, but about everyone's religion. But since #3 is here in the room, he can correct any misunderstanding either of us may have had on this point.
As for your point that it's "especially" among Democrats that religion is important, it certainly is important, but not as important as to GOP voters. The big difference, however, and it is a BIG qualitative difference, is that most religious people in the Democratic party aren't fundamentalists, and by fundamentalists I mean those who believe that the Bible is the unerring fundamentum of all truth. Of if they do think the Bible is the fundamentum, they choose to focus on the majority of the good book that deals with peace, justice and poverty (like most black churches).
Be that as it may, you notice what's happening here? Presidential politics in the US has now devolved into a contest over what kind of church or synagogue one attends and what theology one holds (especially one's view of the Bible). I can think of nothing worse in politics than fielding candidates based on theological litmus tests, including Democratic candidates, unless of course we're trying to emulate the Middle East where candidates are politically defined by their relationship to Islam and the Koran.
I don't mind people being religious in their private lives, but Christians of all people should know to vote for leaders who go into their closets to pray in secret rather than to vote for all the white-washed tombs of hypocrisy that we now see parading their religiosity on the TV, radio and internet. For a bit on the dangers of mixing politics and religion, pick up any history book or read a bit of Thomas Jefferson, or better yet just look at your own television every night on the evening news.
Paul, Although #3 got some nice zingers off in his piece, I'm sure that even he must know that religion isn't going to be an issue for any Republican candidates.
The reason why is that there aren't groups on the Democratic side who will raise the types of issues that #3 is mentioning. There is no equivalent of the religious right on the left -- religiously mobilized groups pushing a specific politico-religious agenda. If there were, they might be able to gin up some controversy along these lines. But there's not.
The leaders of the religious right will signal to key figures within the Republican party what they are willing to accept, and--if necessary--they'll convey that position to their rank and file. But they'll never open up the kind of doctrinal issues #3 is playing with here.
With respect to the Christian right's politics, Opus Dei is an ally, as are the Mormons. The latter groups might be going to hell, doctrinally speaking, but they are friends in political terms. The religious right will never permit doctrinal disputes to be publicly aired, because it destroys the ecumenism-of-the-right movement they've created.
Frances,
Hmm. Not sure how your're defining "issue" and also your time frame. I'm talking about right now during the nomination process, not at some future date. Right now, even if we define "issue" narrowly as only that which is discussed in open MSM news fora, religion for both Giuliani and Romney is already a big and open issue. In fact, I hear more MSM reports on whether Giuliani is electable by religious conservatives given his divorces..., and whether Romney is electable given that he's a Mormon more than any other narrative about the two. Maybe the Republicans, including the religious right, will eventually all step behind and support the nominee, but for now, religion is a big issue in deciding whom to nominate.
Paul, The media are discussing these matters (Giuiliani's social conservative bona fides, Romney's Mormonism), but you notice that key figures of the religious right won't comment on them. I'm sure it's being discussed in private among them, but this will not be a public spat. James Dobson is not going to be talking about Joseph Smith and the golden plates.
If either Giuiliani or Romney become the nominee, Democrats will be in no position to make an issue of these things. In other words, religion is unquestionably important here, but it's an issue on which Democrats are 100% on the defensive and unable to capitalize on. They'll never be able to make any hay out of Romney's unusual beliefs or Giuiliani's social liberalism.
Republicans own religion as a public issue. Whatever their religious conservatives will accept will not be effectively challenged anywhere else. And they will still be able to attack Barack Obama for his militant black church, Obama will still be on the defensive, and the Republican candidate (whomever it is) will not be.
Sorry Paul - I had been reading several posts in a row and the general feeling was that B.O. was the topic.
So I find myself disagreeing with Frances and agreeing with Paul (slightly) on one point: the public demonstrations of religion.
Frances, I actually don't think anywhere close to 95% of Americans believe in God nor do I think that most politicians, of either political stripe, do. I think regular people pretend to believe in God for several reasons but politicians pretend to believe in God just to get elected.
I've made this point before on this blog but I'll mention it again as an example. John Kerry doesn't believe in God. He says he goes to church to shore up the "aw, shucks" crowd while nodding and winking at the #3 crowd, who understand why he must pretend. But he doesn't actually believe in God (and certainly not Jesus). All politicians have to tithe, just like they have to shave their beard and quit smoking (B.O., I'm looking in your direction). It's just what has to be done.
Paul confuses this with the over-religiousity of American life. This sad parade of pretend-beliefs by politicians is shameful, for sure, and should be stopped. But it is not the same thing as displaying the Ten Commandments in courthouses or having a crucifix on public property. One should be roundly shouted down by all people of conscience, religious or secular; the other is completely inoffensive and perfectly acceptable except to busibody whiners.
Curat Lex, I suspect you're right that many politicians lie about their religious beliefs. But they do so with good reason. It is death to a politician's career to do otherwise. Check out these stats. The survey is a few years old, but a colleague who specializes in religion and politics has verified for me that the numbers haven't substantially changed. Here are a couple of highlights:
*"More than nine in 10 Americans—95 percent—told ABC News polltakers that they believe in God. A Gallup Organization survey for CNN and USA Today last December found much the same thing: Nearly nine in 10—86 percent—said they believed in God, while another 8 percent said they believe in some form of "Universal spirit or higher power."
*"What's more, belief in God may be getting stronger. In 1987, a Gallup poll found that 60 percent of those interviewed "completely agreed" with the statement, "I never doubt the existence of God." Last October, the proportion expressing a similarly strong belief in God had grown to 69 percent, according to a poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research."
Just one more follow up to curat lex: You may be right: Maybe Americans aren't sincere when they tell pollsters about their religious beliefs. I suspect some proportion isn't sincere. But the fact that Americans profess belief in God so overwhelmingly--almost UNIVERSALLY--means that unbelief in God is just outside the bounds of social propriety. Big majorities of Americans believe that it's not even possible to be moral without believing in God. People won't admit to unbelief, won't acknowlege doubts they have to others, and they surely don't want to hear it from politicians. Acknowledged atheism on the part of politicians would be totally unaccaptable in almost every part of the country and in both political parties.
Frances: I think that's so strange. I know (and you know) bunches of people who clearly don't believe in God; I would put the percentage at close to 50%. (I'm just thinking of the people who are in my office suite; of the seven people back here only the secretary and me clearly believe in God while three others conspicuously (that is, they've mentioned it more than once) don't and two others, I suspect, are at best agnostic on the subject. (Nice one, I know.))
It's so strange to me that so many people claim to believe in God when so many of them clearly don't.
(Or wouldn't if they took a moment to think about it.)
Aside from maybe admitting to racism, there is nothing less common than admitting that you don't believe in God. Strange
It's always worth remembering, curat lex, how unrepresentative of the population most of the people we know at work are. Only about 3% of Americans have a professional or doctorate degree; less than 12% have any postgraduate education whatsoever.
At the same time, there is very strong negative correlation between religiosity and educational attainment. So most of the unbelievers in the US are concentrated among the people in the education levels that you and I interact with.
Unbelief is especially prevalent at universities:
*Fewer than 10% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences believe in a God.
*Surveys have shown that 38% of natural scientists, 24% of doctors, and 31% of social scientists do not believe in God.
So to the extent that more than 3% of the people you know have a professional degree or more than 12% have a M.A., chances are that atheists will be overrepresented among the people you know (relative to their proportions in the population as a whole).
Post a Comment
<< Home