Religion and Politics
Remember the days when one wasn’t supposed to discuss Religion and Politics in polite society? Just like announcing how much you paid for something, it was considered tacky. I sorta miss those days. But, since the 1980s, not only has a person’s spiritual beliefs spilled into every social setting known to man, it has shaped our politics, and politicians, into something I’m increasingly uncomfortable with.
First, let me say, that this post is not intended to bash anyone’s faith. Quite the contrary. The intent of this post is to ask why people of faith aren’t outraged with the way politics, and politicians, pimp their faith in order to generate votes. Think there’s a Roe vs. Wade litmus test? Well, that test pales in comparison compared to the “Do you believe in God”, “How important is faith in your life”, “Do you attend church” tests applied to modern day politics.
And there’s the rub. These questions have nothing to do with faith, and everything to do with getting elected. The fact that this I’m more devout than my opponent game is played on both sides of the aisle offers little comfort. It also cheapens religion, which, I always believed, should be above politics – And I’m agnostic! But perhaps it’s my lack of belief that allows me to watch what’s happening with a clinical eye.
And it’s ironic that the truly “devout” Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc. I have encountered in my life never discuss their beliefs. They don’t wear their religion with the ease of a campaign button – easily put on and removed as the situation warrants. They live it. These are not people who’s first instinct is to condemn, but rather to understand. These are people who would never cast the first stone, let alone the second. And, these are the people I try to remember when politicians and activists hijack religion in the name of their political agenda.
You want to call yourself Pro-Life? Fine, but I expect you to be pro all life. I expect you to fight against the death penalty and war with the same vigor you fight against Planned Parenthood. I also expect your concern for the fetus to extend to the child. And if this isn’t possible, then I question whether your devotion is to God or a political agenda.
Against Gay Marriage? Well… first, you’d better not be divorced. Second, are you fighting for a Constitutional Amendment banning divorce? If not, why not? I mean… if this is really about the sanctity of marriage shouldn’t you be doing everything in your power to keep marriage, well, sacred?
Against welfare? Consider most of the poor lazy bums who simply won’t work? Believe in the old Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps adage? Do these sentiments really jive with your religion’s teachings? Funny, but I seem to recall that this group figures quite prominently in all religions. In fact, if memory serves me, Jesus spent most of his time talking about and helping those less fortunate.
My point boils down to hypocrisy. I don’t even blink anymore when a religious “leader” or a “family values” politician gets caught in a compromising situation, especially since they’ll repent within a year and get re-reborn. It’s like magic. What ever happened to shame and living the rest of your life in quiet repentance? This is a classic case of ego. It’s as if these leaders believe they’re entitled to the “get out of jail free” card (they deny others) because they’re important and desperately needed. Do as I say, not as I do… because there are dire consequences for you and a profitable resurrection for me.
I want politics out of religion, and religion out of politics. I want opening prayers out of political events, and I want political advertising out of the pulpit. Guess that sounds extreme, but I think when we mix religion and politics both sides lose their souls.
I have never been more proud of Delaware than I was when religion did not become a factor in our recent Governors race.
so u saw a youtube of Bill O’rielly didn’t you?
well said and no curse words too, amazing
The irony of it all is what gets me. Most people want rational, thoughtful, decision-makers in charge. But it seems that a major factor in choosing these leaders requires a deliberate suspension of those same, er, umm…beliefs.
Pandora, I feel that religion in politics is here to stay, afterall it is part of the Radical Right three-legged stool.
Religion in Politics as used by the Radical Right is used solely to stir up fear and prejudice among the American populous. Look at Sara Palin and others (Delaware Politics is a good example) as they look to redo the Radical Right party. They’re going back to their roots of voodoo economics, Jesus and fear of the bogeyman (whether it be Islam, African-Americans or Immigrants).
Agreed, VC. I think “honest” religion is in way over its head – one could say they’ve found themselves in a pit of vipers. Of course, you could also say that politicians have found themselves being fed to the lions.
When I was growing up religion would have been insulted to be viewed as a political tool, and politicians would have never run on the God platform.
Religion and politics need a divorce.
Truly a keeper post Pandora! Well done.
I disagree, P. There’s no such thing as an honest religion. To be honest would entail admitting that your shit most likely doesn’t exist (based on what we know now). This would make it, obviously, a self-defeating prophecy.
Thanks, Joanne!
Nemski, I can barely visit Delaware Politics anymore… unless Dave or Smitty are writing. I’m also having trouble with Leo over at DWA. Truth is, Frank, David A., and Leo aren’t open to debate. They’re all about preaching, converting and condemning. Funny, now that I think about it, maybe it was all the nonsense they were spewing which led to this post.
My problem isn’t with what they believe, it’s what they insist I believe. That’s where the trouble starts.
I agree; certitude without substantiation is the major problem.
Excellent post. I grew up in the Bible Belt so I’m quite cynical about religion and politics. The loudest voices proclaiming their holiness or godliness were the ones who were doing something crazy in their private life (it was almost always having an affair or embezzling or both).
But one other thing about growing up in the Bible Belt was being exposed to different evangelical religions. They are not all the same, and some are not similar at all. So, when I discuss church/state with one of the people who want to bind church and state more tightly I always ask them, “OK, which religion?” Since the highest plurality is Roman Catholicism, I ask if they’re ok with that. They usually aren’t. Usually they only want the state religion to be their particular religion. Sometimes it opens their eyes a bit, I hope.
“Remember the days when one wasn’t supposed to discuss Religion and Politics in polite society?”
No, I don’t, mostly because there never were any. See the election of 1796 if you don’t believe me.
“You want to call yourself Pro-Life? Fine, but I expect you to be pro all life. I expect you to fight against the death penalty and war with the same vigor you fight against Planned Parenthood.”
Why? Abortion has killed in the neighborhood of 50 million Americans. How many people did we execute last year? We’re allowed to prioritize.
“Do these sentiments really jive with your religion’s teachings? Funny, but I seem to recall that this group figures quite prominently in all religions. In fact, if memory serves me, Jesus spent most of his time talking about and helping those less fortunate.”
Indeed, but we believe it is the place of religion or other civic organizations to handle charity, not the government.
“Religion in Politics as used by the Radical Right is used solely to stir up fear and prejudice among the American populous.”
Right, that’s why obama quotes from the Bible…
Nice of you to comment, Tom, since I had you in mind when I wrote this post.
Prioritizing death? What? Not enough time in your day?
Oh, and I love this line, “Indeed, but we believe it is the place of religion or other civic organizations to handle charity, not the government.”
I call bullshit!
Hey, but it’s okay for the government to peek into people’s bedrooms, oversee their doctor/patient relationship, and dictate who they can marry. Do you not see your hypocrisy? I can assure you… everyone else does.
People quote Aesop all the time too. But that doesn’t mean that a crow actually dropped pebbles in a jar….
…and you’re points are all conjecture and hyperbole….but keep on keeping on….”believing”, that is.
But since you have all certainty in your religion…meaning what your god wants and insight into things “unseen”, etc… can you tell me how aliens really look like? Romulans? Or more like Klingons?
I believe Klingons. So it must be so….
Believe in what you want to believe in….care factor is about a D-minus. But once you begin to impose your hooey onto the public sphere, all bets are off.
And not to nitpick (but really yes, to nitpick), don’t you have to be born (read: once alive) to be considered American?
Relying on charity is why so many people died of malnutrition during the Great Depression until welfare, social security, and medicare were created. Another “devout” Christian stands up for malnutrition (I bet he thinks its God’s Will).
Should charity have paid for polio vaccinations, Tom, or is it OK that the Government played a role in eradicating it? Or are we all now suffering due to the sin of killing millions of God’s polio viruses?
Tom thinks that “promote the general Welfare”, means the welfare of rich people and corporations.
(BTW – so does Dave Burris.)
“Hey, but it’s okay for the government to peek into people’s bedrooms,”
When does the government peek into people’s bedrooms?
” oversee their doctor/patient relationship,”
When does the government oversee people’s doctor/patient relationship?
“and dictate who they can marry.”
Its perfectly reasonable for a government to do that. Well, maybe if you think a man should be able to marry his two daughters it isn’t but the rest of the world has no problem with the government setting the boundaries of marriage.
“But since you have all certainty in your religion…meaning what your god wants and insight into things “unseen”, etc… can you tell me how aliens really look like? Romulans? Or more like Klingons?”
Honest to God, I have no idea where you are going with that.
“Relying on charity is why so many people died of malnutrition during the Great Depression until welfare, social security, and medicare were created.”
It was a little more complex than that.
“Should charity have paid for polio vaccinations, Tom, or is it OK that the Government played a role in eradicating it?”
If they could have, I think it would have been better. Polio was a challenge unsuited for the private sector so it was necessary for the government to step in. Often times we interject the government where it is not needed, where ends are already being met and I think that is a less effective remedy and one that make us marginally less free.
“Or are we all now suffering due to the sin of killing millions of God’s polio viruses?”
Again, not really sure where that one is going.
“Tom thinks that “promote the general Welfare”, means the welfare of rich people and corporations. ”
weak
Weak? You dared to write that after such nonsense answers.
Bedrooms = limiting birth control
Doctor’s offices – abortion
Marriage = gay marriage
But you knew this, Tom. You just didn’t answer the points.
I noticed you also skipped the point of prioritizing death. Hmmm….
tom’s one of those catholics that doesn’t believe in abortion but is ok with war and the death penalty. pay him no mind
I think they call them hypocrites
“But you knew this, Tom. You just didn’t answer the points.”
I answered the questions you put before me.
Do I believe that abortion is murder, and as such does the government have a duty to prevent it? Yes. I bear no shame or reluctance in answering a direct question like that but if you want to veil the issue as “doctor-patient confidentially” what obligation do I have to play your game?
Per prioritizing death – we (by that I mean pro-lifers) has a rather limited lobbying capability. We do speak out against the current excessive use of the death penalty but shouldn’t we use what limited legislative power we have to focus on the greater evil?
like I said, a hypocrite
“tom’s one of those catholics that doesn’t believe in abortion but is ok with war and the death penalty. pay him no mind”
And your the fellow that attempts to lecture others regarding Catholicism while not knowing its doctrine.
hyp⋅o⋅crite Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
not lecture…point out my friend…
I know what a “just war” is.
And I know that now that there isn’t WMD’s what flimsy arguement there was to launch a pre-emptive war is completely gone.
as you were hypocrite
I think you shall be called murder-man.
All life is not equal.
Pretty sweet to be a moral authority aint it?
Wow! Must be nice to play God with other people’s lives. Abortion? All hands, and money, on deck. War and the death penalty… not so much.
I’m with DV on this. Hypocrite.
Whatever you want to call it, read up on a subject before you try to participate in a discussion on it. Particularly if you are going to continue to do so with your abhorrently patronizing attitude.
“All life is not equal.”
If you say so.
“Wow! Must be nice to play God with other people’s lives. Abortion? All hands, and money, on deck. War and the death penalty… not so much.”
It is a little more complex than that.
Just as long as those we execute are black, the Radical Right is fine with that.
As long as our war is killing Muslims, the Radical Right is fine with that.
Oh, and a huge pile of BULLSHIT about a man marrying his daughters. We’re talking about homosexual marriage.
I love it when the good and evil crowd suddenly plays the complexity card.
Whatever you want to call it, read up on a subject before you try to participate in a discussion on it. Particularly if you are going to continue to do so with your abhorrently patronizing attitude.
I’m not the one playing god and deciding which life is more valuable than others murder-man
“Just as long as those we execute are black, the Radical Right is fine with that.”
No, I’m not alright with that at all, I think its quiet terrible and that the government should stop doing that.
“As long as our war is killing Muslims, the Radical Right is fine with that.”
No.
“Oh, and a huge pile of BULLSHIT about a man marrying his daughters. We’re talking about homosexual marriage.”
Oh! We’re talking about homosexual marriage now? You said “dictate who they can marry” and that means anything. If you want to narrow it to homosexual marriage we can talk about that too.
would you like to have a discussion on what your church consider’s a Just War?
have at it my friend I’ve done my reading on it.
“I love it when the good and evil crowd suddenly plays the complexity card.”
Good and evil is pretty simple, you’re ability to do anything about it is complex.
“I’m not the one playing god and deciding which life is more valuable than others murder-man”
Don’t you advocate a withdraw from Iraq?
Interesting, Tom. Weren’t you the one that didn’t know the main theme of Ecclesiastes?
The bible is very clear that all life is not equal. Joshua committed genocide based on celestial fiat. Slavery was supported in the epistles of Paul.
The more you comment the more I’m assured that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
I think perhaps apologies are in order. I am rereading this and I am having trouble following who is arguing what. Did DV say “all life is not equal” ironically? Did Tom agree to the paradox in jest? Oh, fuck it, who cares about this fairy tale horse shit.
This is exactly why religion poisons everything.
oh snap!
Good and evil is pretty simple
now that’s funny. Black and White world eh tom?
I join this post a bit late but I always enjoy a discussion on religion when the author doesn’t want religion anywhere.
Full disclosure, I am pro life and do not support the death penalty. Like Pres. elect Obama I do not support Gay Marriage and I am not divorced. I think you get the intent.
Religion to most people is not a soapbox but a core belief which reflects personal values. You can’t divorce your values from your politics.
I can’t wait for the discussion to turn to the real joke of the year. A Presidential election on “change” when all the Cabinet members are the same old suspects from past years. The best choice is Gen Jones for National Security. The rest are yawners.
2008 GOP platform for the state of Texas.
Homosexuality – We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and
leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been
ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an
acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are
opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between
persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits.
We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values
Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution
to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.
There is zero risk of transmission of sexually communicable disease in monogamous relationships, hetero or homo.
Homosexuality tears at the fabric of society. Wow, now there’s a big statement. Why are some so afraid of homos?
Meatball, your wrong. If monogamy isn’t established until after a dalliance with casualality, you do risk transmission to the partner. Sorry, no do-overs.
Once again I am late to the thread, but I was behind my crony desk at my crony job. This crony don’t blog on state time. The great irony about the Christian Right and our touting ourselves as a Christian Nation is that most of us would not elect Jesus as dog-catcher. The Right began to desert Mike Huckabee when he explained that he commuted the sentences of convicted rapists and murderers because he believes in redemption (a Christian concept) and that we have a moral responsibility (as a Christian country) to educate the children of illegal immigrants. The modern President who most closely tried to follow Jesus’ teachings was Jimmy Carter, and he was ridiculed by the Right for appearing soft. Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, but he spoke again and again about “sharing the wealth.” Ooops. He preached humility, not relentless jingoism. I could go on and on, one of my favorite topics, but I have to get a good night’s sleep so I can get up early and feed at the trough. Right, Dave?
Honesty has a certain cleansing effect, doesn’t it?
OK, that’s scary. Where are you? Lighten up. I have.
So, are all of you who are pro-choice also for the death penalty and the war? If not, aren’t YOU hypocrites? I mean, if you’re pro-death, you have to be 100% pro-death all the time, right?
And Lee Ann, Jesus didn’t call for the government to redistribute the wealth. He called for individuals (specifically, the rich) to share their wealth. If people exercise their free will not to do that, then it is between themselves and God. That’s not the same as the government taking your money to give to somebody else. I think the Bible has another section on that: in the 10 Commandments.
Umm…no, Sharon. We care about already living beings.
Wasn’t there something else in the bible? Something about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven?
http://bible.cc/matthew/19-24.htm
Funny, how tax breaks for the rich and corporations – which, btw, are redistributions of wealth – are A-okay with conservatives, but feeding the poor… not so much.
And Lee Ann is correct. The religious right would be the first group condemning Jesus – calling him soft on crime, saying he has a glass jaw, I mean cheek, etc.
“I mean cheek”–funny Pandora!!!