EDITORIAL Election year provides time to talk religion & politics_12604
Posted: 1/23/04
EDITORIAL:
Election year provides time to talk religion & politics
“Conventional wisdom” suggests people aren't supposed to discuss religion and politics in polite company. Of course, Baptists regularly break the first half of that admonition. Talking about religion–or, more precisely, faith–comes as naturally as discussing the weather, the latest ball game or the price of cattle for most Texas Baptists. But when the topics of religion and politics come up at the same time, the task of talking turns touchy. Taken together, religion and politics comprise a combustible mix.
So, strap on your earmuffs of righteousness, sisters and brothers; 2004 looks like an explosive year.
To begin with, the incumbent president has not been shy about discussing his faith since Jesus saved and sobered him years ago. One of the Democratic candidates has been comfortable talking about his beliefs since he was a boy growing up in a Jewish home. And another recently renounced his Yankee reticence in pursuit of the Bubba vote, figuring God-talk could unleash the Dixie electorate.
| Voters whose faith shapes their decisions should think about the religious and moral implications of all the candidates' positions. |
Pundits have pounced on religion-as-politics like moths flogging a brush-arbor lightbulb. Mostly, they look for the inconsistent or incorrect as signs of insincerity. For example, on “Meet the Press,” host Tim Russert traced Howard Dean's path from Catholic to Episcopal to Congregationalist churches as a symbol of proselytizing votes. On the other side of the aisle, Al Franken lashed Bush friend and Commerce Secretary Don Evans for forgetting significant Bible stories after stating he had studied Scripture seriously for two years. Most infamously, almost everyone with even rudimentary Bible knowledge chortled and/or snorted at Dean's claim that Job is his favorite book–in the New Testament.
Religion is not foreign to presidential politics. In 1960, Baptist Standard Editor E.S. James conducted a private interview with John Kennedy, seeking to ascertain if the Roman Catholic candidate's ultimate loyalty would rest with the pope. In 1976, the secular world learned the phrase “born again” from Baptist candidate Jimmy Carter. Four years later, Ronald Reagan told a gathering of religious conservatives, “I know you can't endorse me, but I endorse you.”
Religious rhetoric has prompted columnists and commentators to argue whether candidates' religious views should be aired. Some advocate a “naked public square”–turning the public spaces of society into religion-free zones, where matters of faith are out of bounds. Of course, they don't comprehend that issues of faith are crucial to millions of Americans. Other political insiders fear manipulation, worrying that candidates will misuse faith and mislead voters. While their concerns are well-founded, they need to trust the American public to weigh phoniness against sincerity.
Many voters want to hear how prospective presidents express their faith. Steven Waldman, editor of Beliefnet, a website that provides news and commentary on religious issues, states this case. “I viewed it favorably when the candidates started talking about their spiritual lives,” he told the Washington Post. “We can learn a lot about them by listening to them discuss their faith–where they draw their strength from, whether they are fatalistic or believe people can control world events, how they make sense of injustice in the world and what they value most.”
Well said. And while some commentators are willing to indulge the candidates' mistakes and meanderings–“They're politicians, not theologians”–voters should examine their theology and public religious practice as rigorously as we examine their economic theories and records of public service. Faith should not be exploited, and every American deserves some privacy. But a person who wants to be president and who claims faith is an important part of life should be held accountable for the stewardship and expression of that faith.
That accountability should be encompassing, not narrow. Since the embarrassing Clinton-Lewinski affair, Americans have tended to evaluate presidential morality in primarily one category–sex. That's part of it, but only a small part.
Voters whose faith shapes their decisions should think about the religious and moral implications of all the candidates' positions, regardless of party or office. Candidates love photo opportunities that demonstrate their compassion. But how about their policy positions? Do they alleviate suffering and promote justice? Do they champion the vulnerable and powerless? Are they willing to buck the trends within their own parties that will inflict harm or unfairly serve special interests?
If they claim to be people of faith, hold them to the highest standards of that faith. That's proper, even if it's not necessarily polite.
–Marv Knox
E-mail the editor at marvknox@baptiststandard.com