Religion in Politics

Let me start out by saying that I don’t believe that separation of church and state exists, and it’s possible that it never has. Originally, separation of church and state was created for the benefit of the church. With a longstanding history in England dating back to the early Middle Ages of the King and his government having their hand in all of the church’s affairs and manipulating the church to get what they wanted, the united States’ forefathers wrote the language into the constitution to allow the church to be able to flourish without the hand of the government forcing them into anything. Since then however, it is my contention that the church has had an influence in politics, whether it was trying to or not.
In the beginning of our country’s history, the influence of the church was subtle. As early as 1815, there is evidence that Thomas Jefferson used religious principles to help in his judgment in making good laws for the United States. His quote as shown in class from a letter to P.H. Wendover read “Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted,” showing his faith in religion to help guide him in his writing of the Declaration of Independence. Today, it could be argued that religion is the driving force behind the stance of literally every politician in America on social policies. For the religious right, the relationship is easy to see. Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who was a Baptist Minister, has made no bones about his religious and moral objections to abortion, even likening it to slavery during the Civil War (http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Mike_Huckabee_Abortion.htm). Seeing the ties to Christianity and how they relate to stances on things like abortion and gay rights are easy to see. What can be confusing is how the stances of atheists on these issues relate to the topic of religion. While there is only one openly atheist congressman in the United States, House democrat Pete Stark, he has perhaps the most notoriously pro-choice stance in the House, even voting ‘no’ on the ban of partial-birth abortions (http://www.ontheissues.org/CA/Pete_Stark.htm). In addition, Stark is at the forefront of the gay rights movement in America, even going so far as to propose a bill that would cut off federal funding to any adoption agency that held a stance against same-sex couples adoptions (http://www.towleroad.com/2009/10/rep-pete-stark-introduces-antidiscrimination-adoption-bill.html). Although no politician would ever admit this, his radical views that are in staunch opposition to the religious right’s own radical views can reasonably be seen as directly influencd by religion, or in this case a lack-thereof. In addition, the fact that any politicians claiming to be Christians who share views similar to Stark’s are subjected to a constant barrage of questions inquiring as to the legitimacy of their faith and their justifications for voting against what Christianity views as a human right to life is further proof of religion’s influence on social views in the United States.
The reserve readings for this course on political rhetoric and religion give us clues on the influence of religion on politics and its rise in recent years. The Family Research Council, founded in 1983, is an organization that was founded on promoting marriage, the family, and the right to life as a national policy (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=ABOUT_FRC). A quick glance at this organization’s website swiftly expels any notion that this is purely a religious group, with videos showing members of Congress promoting their views and even their logo sporting the U.S. Capital Building. Their history shows that they have partnered with Focus on the Family on a number of issues, and even talk about James Dobson’s work with President Jimmy Carter as a starting point to their organization. Similarly, Dr. Dobson’s Focus on the Family website shows their commitment to social policies through links showing their views on issues like the right to life, definition of marriage, and even a Social Issues link defining views on things ranging from pornography, to gambling, even to abstinence and education. Indeed Dobson seems to be a critical figure in the religious right’s movement to get their voices heard in Washington. The Boston Globe’s article on Dobson as standing “in the vanguard of a crusade by evangelical Christians to place their agenda at the forefront of public debate over presidential and congressional elections, judicial appointments, gay marriage, and the ''life issues" of abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem-cell research” (https://ramct.colostate.edu/webct/urw/lc5116011.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct). Dobson even stepped down as board chairman of Focus on the Family earlier this year, with the intention to make his ‘crusade’ even more politically oriented (http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/27/dobson.steps.down/index.html).
On the other side of the coin, Jim Wallis heads the movement of religious progressives in the United States. In our class readings, an interview with Wallis revealed that he believes that the religious right defines moral values in only the most narrow terms, focusing on “wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage” (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/03/gods-politics-interview-jim-wallis). Wallis would like to see Christians focus more on issues like poverty. In another video interview we watched of Wallis in class, he really pushes the poverty issue, insisting time and time again that the Bible has literally hundreds of verses pertaining to this issue. He also argues in this written interview linked above that while he doesn’t agree with the zealots on the right, the left does not seem comfortable with the rhetoric of religion. Wallis and others claim that Catholics and other Christian denominations are not in the pocket of the religious right, but democrats seem to have no idea on how to reach that audience (https://ramct.colostate.edu/webct/urw/lc5116011.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct). The funny thing is he does not seem all that comfortable with religious rhetoric when pushed on the issue of abortion. In his TV interview, he avoids the question of abortion time and time again when posed by his interviewer (I would post the interview, but I don’t see it linked anywhere on our class page and unfortunately I would have no idea how to look it up, as I don’t know the network it was on or the interviewer). Wallis and other religious progressives such as the Sojourners hold other values as human rights, such as the right to health care and answers to poverty (http://www.sojo.net/).
Last but not least, it just wouldn’t be a blog without a little bit of my own opinion to finish it off. I think that it’s important to note that a very important piece of rhetoric used on both sides of this debate is a simple phrase; “Human Right.” I would just like to point out that in a literal sense this phrase does not mean anything. What one considers to be a ‘human right’ is completely subjective. In political rhetoric this phrase more than anything seems to be a ‘buzz word’ or ‘catch-phrase’ that politicians and pundits attach to an issue that they would like the people to believe that there is only one way to see the issue. I could say that ‘eating meat is a human right’ or that ‘having a front porch is a human right,’ but that doesn’t make it true (in fact it would be downright ridiculous). So I guess my point in this is to be careful as political ‘consumers’ what you believe when you hear someone thumping their views on a certain issue as a human right. Instead, ask whether or not it is good for the country and its people, and ignore the puffery that goes along with any issue.